5 Oct Draft UK Marine Policy Statement – Does it do the job?
The UK Government and the Devolved Administrations have jointly consulted on the draft UK Marine Policy Statement (MPS) and various associated documents. It is a huge piece of work with the documents running to well over 200 pages. The MPS is an umbrella paper that sets the framework for marine planning, licensing and other related marine activities and the management of those activities. It builds on a pre-consultation exercise earlier in 2010. Marine Plans and licensing decisions and other marine related authorisations by public bodies are expected to conform to the MPS. If they do not the reasons must be stated.
The draft MPS has three main chapters: the first describes the relationship between the MPS and broader related activities and considerations such as cross border working; the second chapter sets the context including the previously agreed vision and high level objectives, the approach to be adopted when preparing marine plans and key considerations to be taken into account; and the third chapter sets out the policy objectives.
The MPS can be reviewed and updated. There is not a fixed period for doing so. The Secretary of State, in conjunction with the devolved administrations, decides when this happens. Any of the devolved administrations can decide to opt out of the MPS at any time, though in doing so they weaken their existing marine plans.
The draft MPS lists a number of principles which decisions makers will be obliged to take into account. They range from the obvious, such as the decision process will need to be in accordance with UK and EC laws, to the more loosely defined requirement to take into account the benefits of good design. On the latter, it is not hard to image the room for debate at some future date about the meaning of such a principle and the circumstances in which it is intended to apply. By and large the principles are expressed in neutral terms, which is to be welcomed. So, for example, the application of a risked based approach and the need to mitigate any negative impacts will apply equally to commercial, social and environmental uses.
Each Marine Plan will have to be accompanied by a sustainability appraisal, which will include a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and a Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA). The Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, in turn, requires that an environmental report has to be prepared on the likely significant environmental effects. In most cases (and possibly all) there will also be the need for an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Directive.
The draft MPS lists what are described as "some key considerations" (recognising that there may be others as well, especially where the different UK Administrations may have different polices and processes) when marine plans are prepared. There is to be a presumption in favour of sustained development and the draft MPS acknowledges the important economic and social benefits that are and can be derived from marine activities. Alongside this there is also the need to protect and maintain a healthy marine ecosystem. The draft MPS spells out the main requirements of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, which culminate in the statutory requirement to achieve "good environmental status" by 2010. Similar requirements apply under the Water Framework Directive in the case of estuaries and coastal waters, though those deadlines are upon us.
The draft MPS states that, as a general principle, any development should aim to avoid harm to marine ecology, biodiversity and geological conservation interests. Other factors to be taken into account are noise pollution, the need to protect and conserve marine heritage assets, the likely and potential effects of climate change, coastal change and flooding, the impact on air quality of any development, the effects of development on the seascape, and the need to ensure that the water quality requirements of the Water Framework Directive can be met.
Marine plans should align with and contribute to the delivery of the objectives in Chapter 3 of the MPS. These revolved around the previously agreed and published high level marine objectives. In brief:
- Achieving the UK's marine environmental goals, including any specific to each of the four Administrations.
- Not prejudicing the interests of defence or national security.
-Achieving a secure, sustainable and affordable supply of energy, including maximising economic development of the UK's oil and gas resources and development of renewable energy sources. The draft MPS envisages substantial infrastructure development.
- Supporting the development and deployment of carbon capture and storage.
- Enabling Ports and shipping continue to play their essential part in the UK's economy.
- Making provision for the extraction and transportation of marine aggregates in line with the levels of need. The draft MPS points out the importance of marine aggregates to the UK's economy.
- Permitting dredging and disposal in accordance with international, EC and UK legislation.
- Facilitating telecommunication and power cabling. The planned diversification of the UK's energy generation and sourcing will require a new and more extensive cable network.
- Meeting the UK's fisheries objectives in accordance with the policies of the four UK Administrations and the requirements of the CFP. There is a specific requirement that marine plans should take into account the displacement effect on fishing activity of any development and that decision makers should seek to encourage opportunities for co-existence between fishing and other activities.
- Encouraging the development of efficient, competitive and sustainable aquaculture industries. The draft MPS states that marine plans should seek to embrace the significant opportunities for co-existence of aquaculture and other marine activities.
- Supporting infrastructure developments that contribute to social and economic growth, whilst ensuring that waste water treatment and disposal objectives can be met.
- Recognising the contribution that tourism can make to the national and local economies.
The draft MPS tip toes around relative priorities; the trade-offs between these different objectives. This should not be a surprise. Where there is potential conflict over use, UK Government and devolved administrations would clearly prefer that to be resolved when marine plans are prepared. The caution of the draft MPS in providing only the broadest guidance is characterised by the sentence "It [the MPS] identifies those activities to which a degree of priority is expected to be given in marine planning, but does not state which activities should be prioritised over any others." This may be fine as a means of reaching broad consensus (and the challenge of arriving at a document that the four UK Administrations, a variety of powerful UK government departments and the main lobby groups can sign up to should not be under-estimated), but side stepping awkward issues now could cause problems down the road at the marine planning and consenting stages.
The strongest hint (though not stated) of relative importance is the weight given to the descriptions of the different marine objectives. It is evident that other marine activities will not be permitted to disrupt defence or national security. Energy generation and security also receive major billing, as does environmental protection. Ports and shipping, marine aggregates, and dredging and disposal appear to be rate important but slightly second rung. In tone, fisheries is positioned as something that needs to fit around other activities. The real curiosity is tourism which, both literally and in terms of content within the draft MPS, appears at the bottom of the bill. This may simply reflect the lack of a strong sponsor within government and the diverse nature of the industry. In a way this could be a test of how much the MPS actually matters. Regionally and locally, tourism is likely to figure high on the agenda.
The main consultation document dwells a great deal on process. Couple this with a door step of supporting documents and it is apparent that one of the main risks ahead for marine planning is that it will become a minefield of bureaucratic process. The consultation documentation is substantial and often repetitious, serving to narrow the potential readership and external involvement considerably. It is obvious that huge effort has gone into developing the draft MPS and the other consultation documents. Some of this is format driven (e.g. the need to satisfy EU and UK government reporting requirements) and is probably as much cause for frustration for the authors as the reader. This tsunami of paper is unfortunate given the importance of the subject and the potential impact on industry, business, communities and the marine environment. Those with a direct or sectoral interest may be tempted to read only those sections that appear to be of immediate interest. But, for those so tempted be warned the MPS has to be read as a whole if its full sense and import is to be understood.