Managing competition for marine space using the tools of planning Professor Angela D. Hull School of the Built Environment Heriot-Watt University Riccarton Edinburgh EH13 4AS Tel: O131 451 4407 Email: email@example.com Managing competition for marine space using the tools of planning Abstract This article engages with the new and complex problem of managing the competition for marine space and the institutional work of establishing a set of governance structures to converge with existing terrestrial and marine multi-level institutions with their overlapping spatial and sector based priorities. The structures being put in place are designed to anticipate potential conflicts amongst marine users whilst ensuring that the assets owned in common can be sustained for future generations. The article draws on the substantial body of work on the efficacy of terrestrial planning and governance tools and the international literature on marine management, and provides both new empirical material from interviews with key actors and textual analysis of the concepts in use as the governments in the United Kingdom interpret the EU’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive to balance the conservation and sustainable use of marine resources. Specifically this article reviews the progress towards the spatial management of marine resources and finds there has been considerable collaboration to share datasets and to scope the possible conflicts in marine planning zones but that, in most cases, the difficult work of sharing understanding of these conflicts and partnership working to find resolutions has yet to start. Introduction New structures are being put in place to coordinate the planning of marine activities. There are several drivers behind this process. Firstly, the European Parliament adopted an Integrated Maritime Policy (European Parliament, 2007) in 2007 and then issued a Roadmap for Maritime Spatial Planning (European Commission, 2008) in 2008 to ensure a common approach to maritime economic development amongst Member States. Secondly, the EU issued the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) (European Parliament, 2008), which sets a timetable for Member States to achieve and maintain “good environmental status” of EU marine waters by 2020. Thirdly, the growing demands of the “wet” renewables industry for seabed rights and coastal connections have added pressure to an already dynamic, three-dimensional space. In response to these industry pressures and legal requirements, Member States are testing out new management structures to comply with the European Union’s aim to promote the sustainable management of marine and coastal areas and the conservation of marine ecosystems. 1 This paper compares the emerging forms of marine governance in the United Kingdom using a sociological institutionalist approach to develop an understanding of the policy drivers and distribution of power embedded in the agenda setting, design of new institutions and decision making procedures (Vigar et al, 2000). Data have principally been sourced from policy documents, from a stakeholder workshop held in Inverness in February 2011 (Johnson et al, 2011) and eleven interviews carried out in a 14 month period starting from the end of 2009. Rhetorical analysis is employed to tease out the policy intent, the assumptions concerning priorities, the importance of different forms of knowledge and conceptions of what good governance of marine space might mean. The findings are compared with published research in other national contexts. The paper is structured in the following way: Following this introduction, the first section summarises the claims for space by different marine uses and introduces some of the key stakeholders in marine planning, and the second section uses the policy documentation to examine the emerging principles and structures of marine governance in the United Kingdom. Specific attention is given in the second section to governance interventions at the different spatial levels in Scottish marine planning to allow representation of the mainly Scottish interviews that have been undertaken. Where Scottish practice diverges from the rest of the UK this is noted. The third section focuses on the work the marine spatial plan (MSP) purports to achieve and the principles and criteria proposed to resolve place-based conflicts drawing on the work of the pilot MSPs. The final sections discuss the key findings that have emerged from the research on how the institutional structures are being shaped, the data requirements, and the engagement and building of trust. Competition for marine space The interactions between marine users are becoming more complex as the marine renewable industry prepares for commercial project development of wave and tidal stream machines as well as offshore windfarms. The MSFD and the UK Government’s Marine Policy Statement (HM Government, 2011) refer to the increasing demand for use of the seas and the need to manage these competing demands taking an “eco-system based approach”. As an example of the scale of the claims for space and the possible conflicts of interest, Table 1 shows 30 marine users or sectors identified as having a claim on Scottish marine space. Since the prime policy focus in Scotland is to achieve “sustainable economic growth” (The Scottish Government, 2010) data have been collected to show each sector’s value to the Scottish 2 economy, where possible, using direct turnover, gross value added and infrastructure replacement cost in 2007-08. The data are incomplete and mainly based on estimated economic benefits. (Forum for Renewable Development in Scotland, 2009; Osborne, 2010; Saunders et al, 2010). Renewable Energy is expected to grow in value to the Scottish economy as companies take up the substantial government subsidies for marine renewables. INSERT TABLE 1 HERE Many of the sectors in Table 1 already have established rights of use or exploitation of the marine environment set within existing agreements. For example, specific agreements cover commercial fisheries (EU Common Fisheries Policy), navigational channels and routes for shipping (International Maritime Organisation (IMO)), and nature conservation interests (EU Natura 2000 strategy, EU Birds & Habitats Directives, UK legislation) In addition, several sectors such as Aggregates, Aquaculture, Energy developments, Oil and Gas, and Telecommunication cables are regulated through specific UK legislation. There are also ownership rights and authoritative rights to issue licences or to restrict activities. In the UK the Crown Estate Commissioners own the seabed out to the 12 nautical mile (nm) territorial limit and hold the development rights of 80% of the seabed (territorial waters and the UK Continental Shelf). The Crown Estate also own around half the UK foreshore between the high (HWM) and low water mark (LWM. The remaining seabed and coastal areas are under the authority of the UK and Scottish Governments. The other major player is the Ministry of Defence with the power to regulate sea areas and restrict their use either temporarily or permanently by making byelaws under nineteenth century legislation and the Land Powers Defence Act 1958. INSERT TABLE 1 HERE The table shows that the marine governance task is complex one involving multiple institutions and stakeholders. The task of developing a common agenda amongst these competing interests in a democratic society involves a huge collaborative effort. Several deficiencies in the existing sector management frameworks are noted in the literature and the interviews: o They consider activities in “isolation” (Halpern et al, 2008). 3 o Often they are “piecemeal” or on a small spatial scale covering either individual species or habitats (Scott, 2010; Hull, 2010). o Management practices are difficult to enforce because of a lack of defined ownership rights and/or lack of compensation procedures and/ or hidden or complex licensing systems (DEFRA, 2011a; Hull, 2010). o They address the near shore zone (within the 3nm covered by the Water Framework Directivei) but not the offshore zone (interview) . o The dominance of the mental concept of the “open sea” (interview). The pertinent question is whether a spatial, or multi-sector, management approach to the marine space can deliver a more comprehensive and coordinated management plan that anticipates and resolves conflicts amongst the many potential users of the sea-space according to the principles of securing “sustainable economic growth” and “good environmental status” of national, and European, territorial waters. Governance tools for Marine Planning Governance tools encompass legal rules and responsibilities, financial tools, decision making structures and processes, agreed benchmarks and criteria, and guidance. According to Vigar et al (2000) effective governance requires (i) clarity about legal responsibilities and required outcomes; (ii) financial resources aligned with policy goals; (iii) wide participation of stakeholders to give the decision making process authority. Ostrom & Ahn’s (2003) research identifies that decision making structures allocate roles and authority to certain stakeholders. Governance tools, therefore, can be used to cajole as well as to advantage stakeholders. The MSFD provides clarity to Member States in terms of timeframe and objectives. By 2020, they should have Marine Strategies and other management measures in place to achieve good environmental status in the marine environment. This should include: o by 2012 an assessment of the state of territorial waters including the characterisation of what “good environmental status” (GES) means and setting targets to achieve this; o by 2014 the development of monitoring programmes to assess progress towards GES; and o by 2016 the implementation of programmes developed to achieve GES by 2020. 4 The MSFD identified broad descriptors of GES for Member States to use as a basis for their more detailed characterisation of GES (HM Governments, 2011: 17). These are listed below in Table 2. INSERT TABLE 2 HERE Member States are implementing the MSFD by establishing an institutional architecture which includes the following governance tools (European Commission, 2005): o national legislation on marine spatial planning requiring collaboration by key government agencies o establishment of a dedicated responsible organisation o joint agreements on marine objectives with neighbouring governments o a plan-making process o a system and process of marine spatial management o implementation, monitoring and data collection activities Member States that already have the capability to comprehensively manage their marine space, or have few maritime obligations, are using their existing structures to implement the MSFD (European Commission, 2008). Table 3 shows how complex the vertical nested structure for marine governance has become. The UK marine governance framework sits within existing international and EU legal directives that set the broad scope of the marine planning agenda by steering attention to certain forms of knowledge and institution. National level actors then interpret and re-interpret the agenda placing particular emphasis on some aspects through setting new requirements within national priorities and through defined action programmes. The UK Government has enacted the UK Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to ensure common principles for marine spatial planning among the devolved governments of the UK. Whilst Table 3 shows these include the creation of marine plans and powers to designate zones for rare, threatened and representative habitats and species, Scotland has a separate marine management organisation and is setting out its own approach to the streamlining of licence requirements for marine development, and the “modernisation” of enforcement powers. The Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 is nested within, and integrated with, the UK Marine 5 and Coastal Access Act 2009. Up to 12 nm (the inshore region) Scotland has a legally separate responsibility for marine management, although this does not include powers over navigation, oil or gas, reserved for the UK government. Marine planning in Scotland has to deliver the UK Marine Policy Statement (HM Governments, 2011). In exchange, Scotland has executive responsibility for marine planning, including wave and wind power, for fishing and for marine conservation, from 12 out to 200 nm (the offshore region) abiding with international and EU laws (See Table 3). INSERT TABLE 3 HERE Dominant in the UK governance structure are the two marine management organisations, both of which have taken over the existing Marine and Fisheries responsibilities. The Marine Management Organisation set up in 2010 in England and Wales is a stand alone public body responsible for producing the regional marine spatial plans, the lowest level of nested planmaking proposed. Marine regions for planning purposes have been identified for England and Wales, and for Scotland. In contrast, Marine Scotland was established in April 2009 as a Scottish Government directorate and has published a National Marine Plan (2011) consultation document (The Scottish Government, 2011a), as part of the process of gaining consensus on the National Marine Objectives. In Scotland, regional marine spatial management will be presided over by Marine Planning Partnerships composed of a Board appointed by the Scottish Government. On behalf of Marine Scotland, they will oversee the production of the regional marine spatial plans, which will deliver the national priorities for marine space whilst being attuned to the management of specific local issues. Parallel with the development of these governance processes has been the scientific assessment of the state of the territorial waters required by 2012 MSFD timeline led by the Joint Nature Conservation Committeeii (JNCC) and devolved government environmental agencies. The prime work here has been the characterisation of “good environmental status” and agreeing guidelines for the selection of marine protected areas. Known as marine conservations zones (MCZ) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland proposals for a further 127 MCZs have been identified for consideration by the JNCC and the UK government through a regional process of discussion organised through 4 MCZ projectsiii covering the England and Wales inshore and offshore areas (DEFRA, 2011b). This has been an expert-led process working with representatives of sea user and interest groups from 6 2009 to 2011. Currently there is an impasse with the JNCC-appointed Scientific Advisory Panel, and several user groupsiv, questioning the scientific evidence base for these recommendations (DEFRA, 2011b; Kelly, 2012; Plymouth Herald, 2012). The government minister for the environment stated that “It is important that we get this right. It is vital that we have an adequate evidence base for every site if we are to create successful wellmanaged MCZs. An adequately robust evidence base will be essential when we come to implement management measures” (DEFRA, 2011b). A similar process has been carried out in Scotland through a partnership of government bodies (Marine Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage, Historic Scotland) in collaboration with Marine Scotland Science and the UK Joint Nature Conservation Committee. The work has focused mainly on specifying new nature marine conservation areas (MCAs) but also identifying demonstration and research, and historic, marine conservation areas for consideration by the Scottish Government. Proposals supported by Scottish Ministers are subject to a 12 week consultation period. Interestingly, the Scottish legislation encourages third parties, and community groups, to submit proposals for MCAs too. Engagement has mainly been organised by Marine Scotland, focussing in 2011 on collecting data, raising awareness and consulting on the processes for selecting MCAs (Marine Scotland, 2011). Since the marine planning structures are still evolving it is not clear which of the marine objectives will be given primacy e.g. facilitating new development; securing eco-system based management; protecting interests of established rights of exploitation; etc. Central to the effectiveness of regional marine plans will be clear and consistent principles on both process and substantive outcomes that define the sustainability principles and how to measure “good environmental status”. Research by ABP MER (2010) identified four different marine management outcome models which embody different concepts of partnership. In Figure 1 below Model 1 is a ‘top-down’ single marine management plan whilst Model 2 presents a set of nested marine plans that can incorporate local objectives. Models 3 and 4 build on this local dialogue (and consensus) to establish marine activity zones to manage competing activities, which includes in Model 4 the active management of protected areas within the marine planmaking and spatial management processes rather than being a separate government process. The Scottish Government have piloted Models 3 and 4 to test out different management strategies in the Shetlands and the Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters through non-statutory marine spatial plans. Institutional tools have allowed an integrated approach to develop in 7 Orkney and Shetland where legislation dating from 1974 has given the local authorities works licensing powers extending over inshore waters allowing them to integrate the landward and seaward connections between activities such as fish farming. The strengths and weaknesses of this bottom-up approach are discussed later in this article. INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE Marine spatial management decision support tools Marine spatial planning across Europe is using and adapting existing terrestrial planning tools and sustainable development concepts to inform the dimensions/ scope of the conceptualisation of the “sustainable use of the sea”. The terrestrial planning tools include: o data collection and studies with stakeholders o mapping and protection of resources (e.g. Natura 2000 sites; marine nature reserves; priority marine features) o site planning and long term management plans o production of a spatial plan with indicative or prescriptive “use-class” allocations o registrations, permits, licences and seasonal closures and their monitoring o industry Codes of Practice o mitigation measures, compensation and incentives As mentioned earlier, sustainable development in UK policy has a strong economic development focus and, thus, when applied to marine space government policy aims to facilitate sustainable economic development, a low carbon economy, a sustainable marine environment, and the sustainable use of marine resources (HM Governments, 2011: 3). The next section will examine how these tools are being used in the UK case study to establish shared meanings of the key marine management concepts and inform government policies. This section undertakes a textual analysis of how two concepts given prominence in the MSFD – “good environmental status” and “ecosystem based management” – are being translated into UK policy. Good environmental status GES is the benchmark for the “sustainable use of the sea” since the maintenance of GES of the marine seas is essential for many economic activities as well as for marine ecology as characterised in Table 2 above. European coastal nations have already collaborated on establishing a network of marine protected areas in areas beyond their 8 national jurisdictions through the OSPAR Conventionv (Ardron, 2008; Molenaar and Oude Elferinck, 2009). As part of the delivery of the MSFD, the UK government has been collecting evidence from scientists on the priority marine features (species and habitats) that could form a network of ecologically coherent marine protected areas in UK waters. The network will consist of the Natura 2000 sites, designated under the EU Birds and Habitats Directives (2009/147/EC; 92/43/EEC respectively), new designations under the Marine Act 2009 and other designated sites (e.g. Ramsar sites and Sites of Special Scientific Interest in estuarine and coastal waters). These designations currently cover just over 3% of UK waters (HM Governments, 2011). Several problems have been identified in using zoning as a tool to protect mobile species such as seabirds, fish and marine mammals (Agardy et al, 2011; Ban et al, 2010; Scott, 2010; Solandt, 2010). Table 4 lists the problems noted in the academic literature. INSERT TABLE 4 GES will be achieved through the integrated management of a connected network of marine protected areas which will be agreed following the process of engagement with scientists and sea user groups. This process has relied on existing science and data to secure species and habitat protection (HM Government, 2012; Gormley et al, forthcoming). The connectivity of MPAs, particularly between coastal and offshore locations, is crucial to maintaining populations of mobile species. Under the EU’s Water Framework Directive (WFD), Member States have to achieve “good ecological status”, or the potential for this, in estuaries and coastal waters by 2015. This requirement covers the biological quality elements of benthic invertebrates, macroalgae, angiosperms, phytoplankton and transitional water fish (HM Governments, 2011:17). The Marine Policy Statement only applies to GES issues not covered by WFD such as the impacts of marine noise and litter and specific environmental protection and improvement measures. The recent MPA consultation document (HM Government, 2012) considers that biodiversity and sea-floor integrity GES will be achieved through the other 9 descriptors (Table 2) or by adherence to existing targets set under pre-existing legislation. Ecosystem based management The MSFD and the Marine Policy Statement endorse an “ecosystem (based) approach” to marine management. The 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity promoted this integrated 9 approach to managing the various human activities which impact on ecological ecosystems (Flannery and Ó Cinnéide, 2012). It provides a framework for assessing biodiversity and ecosystem services, ensuring the maintenance and restoration of this suite of benefits, and is indispensable for delivering the MSFD requirement to achieve or maintain GES of all marine areas by 2020. The UK Marine Policy Statement published in 2011 translates the MSFD’s intentions for ecosystem-based management as ensuring that the “collective pressure of human activities [..] does not compromise the capacity of marine ecosystems to respond to human-induced changes; and that enables the sustainable use of marine goods and services” (HM Governments, 2011:4). In line with this interpretation, 21 aspirational high level marine objectives or outcomes (HLMO) are presented containing environmental, social, economic and governance objectives. GES is promoted by the three environmental objectives and two complementary governance objectives. These are: o ‘Biodiversity is protected, conserved and where appropriate recovered and loss has been halted (HLMO 11) o Healthy marine and coastal habitats occur across their natural range and are able to support, strong and biodiverse biological communities and the functioning of healthy, resilient and adaptive marine ecosystems (HLMO 12) o Our oceans support viable populations of representative, rare, vulnerable , and valued species (HLMO 13) o The use of the marine environment is spatially planned and based on an ecosystem approach which takes account of climate change and recognizes the protection needs of individual historic assets. (HLMO 18)’ o The precautionary principle is applied consistently in accordance with the UK Government and Devolved Administrations’ sustainable development policy. (HLMO 21) (HM Government, 2011: 11-12). The scientific process organised by the JNCC will establish ‘bottom line’ targets and measures for marine plan authorities to implement to ensure that human activities do not further deplete and damage ecological ecosystems. Marine plan authorities ‘should be mindful that […..] the UK aims to ensure: o A halting and, if possible, a reversal of biodiversity loss with species and habitats operating as a part of healthy, functioning ecosystems; and 10 o The general acceptance of biodiversity’s essential role in enhancing the quality of life, with its conservation becoming a natural consideration in all relevant public, private and nongovernmental decisions and policies’ (HM Governments, 2011: 18). The Marine Management Organisation in England and Marine Scotland have since their establishment been focused on collecting data on the socio-economic interests and marine features in their jurisdictions. They are tasked with taking a “precautionary and risk-based approach” to addressing the impacts of climate change and to the impacts of human activities on other valued interests, including ecological ecosystems and other legitimate uses of the sea (HM Government, 2011). In the absence of scientific data on marine ecology and ecosystem security, the UK governments have accepted a pragmatic approach of “adaptive management” working with volunteers from the fishing and renewable energy industries to understand marine stressors and to adapt management approaches accordingly. This is reported as leading to confusion over who will develop and regulate the spatial management measures and how co-location of uses will be determined (Marsden, 2011. Scottish interviews highlight the importance of a “deploy and monitor” approach to the development of marine renewables so that the quantification of human impacts can be shared. The UK Marine Policy Statement sets clear priorities for, and expectations of, marine plan authorities. The main priorities are (ibid: 11-12): o Achieving a sustainable marine economy o Ensuring a strong, healthy and just society o Living within environmental limits o Promoting good governance o Using sound science responsibly There are 149 statements that refer to factors that should be taken into account in the process of decision-making (‘should have regard to’; ‘should consider’; ‘should take account of’) or stakeholders who should be consulted (‘should engage with/ consult’). Certain ‘should achieve’ statements identify the HM Governments’ outcome priorities for the development of the marine environment. These are listed in the left hand column of Table 5. The table also shows how these priorities are reflected in the consultation draft marine plans for Scotland and the Shetlands, which are discussed in the next section. The 11 priorities are not ranked in anyway and are presented in the order in which they appear in the Marine Policy Statement. The MPS has a presumption in favour of sustainable development in the marine environment through the promotion of economic growth and renewable energy, which maintains the supply of marine aggregates, and protects the interests of the Ministry of Defence, designated heritage interests, water quality and nature conservation interests and where growth is shared with coastal communities. There are also certain interests the Marine Policy Statement seeks to protect from the impacts from other human activities. These include: o ‘As a general principle, development should aim to avoid harm to marine ecology, biodiversity and geological conservation interests [...], including through location, mitigation and consideration of reasonable alternatives. Where significant harm cannot be avoided, then appropriate compensatory measures should be sought. Additional requirements apply in relation to developments affecting Natura 2000 sites.’ (ibid:18) o ‘Marine plan authorities [...] should [...] seek to minimise any negative impacts on shipping activity, freedom of navigation and navigational safety ‘ (ibid: 37) o ‘A marine licence or other regulatory approval to dredge should only be issued if the decision maker is content that the proposed dredging is environmentally acceptable.’ (ibid: 39) o Applications to dispose of wastes [...] should not be accepted for disposal where appropriate opportunities exist to re-use, recycle or treat the waste.’ (ibid:40). Marine Spatial Planning in Scotland Marine spatial plans in Scotland must be consistent with the Marine Policy Statement, so the interesting question is how these principles are being incorporated into Scottish Government documents such as the pre-consultation draft National Marine Plan which was published in 2011. There is a ‘presumption of use’ of marine space in Scotland’s National Marine Plan, which was strongly argued for by the marine renewables industry (Forum for Renewable Energy in Scotland, 2009). The draft plan aims to deliver the Scottish Government’s Economic Strategy objectives to make Scotland ‘Wealthier and Fairer’ and ‘Greener’. There are targets for economic growth and sustainability: o To raise the GDP growth rate to the UK level by 2011 and to match the GDP growth rate of the small independent EU countries by 2017 12 o To reduce emissions over the period to 2011 and to reduce emissions by 80 percent by 2050. The national marine spatial plan scopes the challenges and objectives for each of the sectors presented to provide clarity on what the national objectives are for these sectors. It also reflects on the demands placed by human activities on the marine environment and sets objectives for reducing negative impacts. This provides some clarity on marine nature conservation interests and potential conflicts amongst activities. The Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 requires marine plans to include specific objectives for the contribution of MPAs to the protection and enhancement of the marine environment (HM Government, 2011:7). This is not developed in the draft plan (See Table 4). Since the style of the draft plan is aspatial and structured around sharing information on each economic sector, through providing objectives and targets, it is difficult to perceive what the national policies are and how these would be cascaded down to regional plans. Whilst the environmental impacts of each sector are identified in general terms, no understanding of the connectivity of ecosystems is shown. It is fundamentally an economic report on the opportunities for sustainable marine industry growth. INSERT TABLE 5 HERE These issues, however, have been addressed in five non-statutory regional marine spatial planning pilots, funded by the Scottish Government, in the Shetlands, the Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters, the Berwickshire Coast, the Clyde and the Sound of Mull (Flannery and Ó Cinnéide, 2012). The aim of these pilots, established in 2006, was to test and trial different approaches to marine management and to share any data and stakeholder engagement concerns. All besides the Berwickshire Coast initiative, which focused solely on the fishing industry, produced a marine spatial plan framework in 2009 which publicised the location of marine activities and the distribution of planning constraints and assets worthy of protection (Ironside Farrar, 2010). The Scottish Government has also funded the Scottish Coastal Forum to undertake stakeholder engagement on the criteria to use to define the Scottish marine regions (The Scottish Government, 2011b). The pilot projects were important as a forum to raise issues of concern for local stakeholders who attended meetings and to bring together existing data from several organisations into one accessible publication (Johnson et al, interviews). They each provide an atlas of data 13 and inform marine developers of the existing and new regulations they need to adhere to. For example, the Shetlands draft MSP published in 2010 seeks to: o Develop local management policies for specific sectors and activities; o Identify potential areas of conflict and resolve conflict; o Provide a framework for the granting of development consent; o Identify areas of sea for potential activity/development; o Identify areas and actions needed for conserving biodiversity (Scottish Sustainable Marine Environment Initiative, 2010: 8) Clear objectives are given such as “to enable the long-term protection and use of the marine environment” (ibid: 11) and these are followed through the whole document (Table 4). Clear policies are presented to address the priorities in the Marine Policy Statement as well as local issues of aquaculture development, oil extraction, marine recreation and tourist development, placement of new telecommunications cables and pipelines. These are justified against the knowledge of how current activities and sectors currently spatially interact and their impacts on environmental interests. For example: “Marine developers must consider their wider impacts on the environment, and this will be implemented by screening applications to determine whether they have suitable site restoration proposals: this could include plans for habitat restoration by, for example, promoting community involvement through schools and volunteer groups. Other considerations that could be included is the creation of compensatory areas i.e. habitat banking/ creation. Developers must also show to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that plans include the removal of redundant plant and equipment and the assurance that any deposits of waste are agreed at the application stage.” (ibid:19) The pilot MSPs are, therefore, an important first stage of information provision to gain consensus on the benefits of marine management. The Shetlands, and the Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters, initiatives have progressed further following the end of funding in 2010, publishing second stage documents showing how the different sea users may impact on each other using impact matrices. For example, the Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters identifies the knowledge gaps identifying specific research projects. Specific attention has 14 been given to mapping inshore fishing with locally based fishermen (The Scottish Government, 2012). Discussion The governance literature argues that effective governance requires clear responsibilities for action, certainty about the rules of the game, and sufficient knowledge and resources (e.g. skills, finance) to deliver agreed programmes of action. The first of these is nearly in place in UK marine planning, whilst the second awaits more definition on the political process of mediating between competing priorities, and the ecological data, according to scientists and environmental impact assessors, is woefully inadequate (interview data). Each of these issues will be examined in turn. Institutions for marine governance The findings show that considerable effort has been expended to deliver on the MSFD requirements with two new marine management organisations allocated defined joint responsibilities in collaboration with existing statutory nature conservation bodies to advise the UK governments and to facilitate the making of regional marine plans. The approach in the UK was criticised by several interviewees as highly centralised, up to the beginning of 2011, with little discussion and prior debate with local coastal partnerships. Similar findings have been reported by Stanovic and Barker (2008) and Johnson et al (2011). Interviewees in Scotland also perceived that Marine Scotland had been too preoccupied with reacting to the steady release of renewable energy leases and licences by the Crown Estate and that the licensing system had been shaped by developers’ needs. One interviewee perceived that this was a “catch up” process by the government and that the two planning permit processes (Crown Estate; Marine Scotland) had made it difficult to move away from sector planning to an integrated approach to marine planning. Another interviewee considered that the timescale for the delivery of marine spatial plans appears slow given the quickening developer interest in marine space incentivised by government grants and favourable policies. Another issue not specifically explored in this research, although identified in the literature, is the integration of potentially conflicting policy objectives (Suárez de Vivero, and Rodríguez Mateos, 2012). The EU Marine Strategy Directive will have the task of integrating the EU Integrated Maritime Strategy (economic development), the EU Common Agricultural Policy, 15 and the EU Water Framework Directive (ecology). The documentary review suggests that the marine spatial planning process in the UK is actively addressing both socio-economic and eco-system management (Tym and Partners, 2011).However, it is still uncertain how these issues will be integrated into detailed policies. The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI,2010:1) whilst commenting on the good intentions of the MCZ process in England and Wales argue that separate institutional approaches for the coastal, inshore and offshore are unlikely to create a coherent network of protection for ecosystems , or support integration and connectivity and “will lead to unnecessary duplication and waste of effort”. Although the boundaries are not yet clearly identified, the Scottish Government has chosen to work with 10 coastal/inshore zones reflecting roughly similar Scottish Environment Protection Agencyvi and Inshore Fisheries Region limits with one offshore zone (12nm- 200nm limits). Both marine management organisations, bestowed authority in the new system, need to develop close interaction with other regulators and national interest groups, involved in the production of marine plans, who are waiting for advice and specific interaction to scope and understand the tasks required of them (interview data). In Scotland, there are debates on how the Scottish marine regions will manage their regions working with local planning authorities, and where the regional marine zones will finish and terrestrial planning start (interview data). Local authorities will need to play a key role in identifying the opportunities to integrate marine and terrestrial plan production and participation. There have been calls in the UK from the renewable energy industry for more guidance to be given to local authorities to reduce the regulatory uncertainty and to speed up the permit process for land-based energy infrastructure (Planning, 2012). Dealing with conflicts So far spatial planning for the marine space in the UK has been a high level process discussing broad brush issues and providing strategic guidance for the marine regions. Although, detailed action planning and implementation has been carried out by the Crown Estate the criteria used are shrouded in secrecy due to the confidentiality statements developers must sign. It is easier to get consensus on a strategic plan when scientists and government agencies discuss the issues in a rational way divorced from conflicting values which arise when details are discussed and when decision outcomes will favour one group against another (Backer and Frais, 2012; Flannery and Ó Cinnéide, 2012). In the ‘pilot’ Bothnia Plan water companies, fisheries trusts and land managers were not involved (Backer 16 and Frais, 2012). In the UK process, fishermen and coastal partnerships have felt bypassed by the consultation exercises (Johnson et al, 2011; interview data). Territorial planning shows that there is tendency to leave out social groups from consultation exercises unless they are already known to the regulators. Local issues, practices and cultures are important to acknowledge and can be difficult to incorporate midway through the process (Soma and Vatn, 2009). The community participation literature reveals that the sensitivities of different stakeholders need some consideration at an early stage and engagement needs to be tailored to the needs of different socio-economic groups so that trust and the full participation of all stakeholders is captured (Hull, 2006; Te Brömmelstroet and Bertolini, 2008; Flannery and Ó Cinnéide, 2012). Early and continuous engagement can lead to joint learning amongst participants when information is shared and explored together to develop understanding. This specifically works well to address conflicts and devise solutions early on in the process of engagement (Te Brömmelstroet and Bertolini, 2008; Pound, 2010). The UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) used real life scenarios and case studies with stakeholders to identify and to understand the different types of issues that might arise in the planning and licensing of scallop fishing (DEFRA, 2011a). Gilliland and Laffoley (2008) recommend that conflicts are identified and ways of resolving them are openly addressed using a “goals achievement matrix” with relevant stakeholders. All these examples of how to successfully acknowledge and address conflict state that consensus building requires skilled facilitators and specialist (independent) input to design the process. There are several broad interest groups that should be involved in these processes: 1. Local coastal residents; landowners and seabed owners; developers with an interest in coastal sites; local networks, coastal partnerships and interest groups; 2. Commercial and recreational marine users; 3. Regulators/ and statutory bodies: Local authorities; Port and Harbour Authorities; Government departments responsible for regulating or managing marine and or coastal activities, including regulators such as Trinity House, Ministry of Defence, etc. 4. National and regional interest groups: National Trust, National Farmers Union, representative bodies for tourism bodies, sea fisheries, nature conservation, archaeology etc. and 5. Scientists, consultants and educators. 17 Knowledge and resources It is not clear from this research whether the marine management organisations or the regional marine partnerships will have the tools and knowledge to understand how to balance the conservation and the sustainable use of marine resources. The question is how will we know that social and economic demands for marine space are consistent with the ecological functions of that space? There is little information on the distribution of ecologically important areas or the potential climate change impacts in the long term from coastline changes due to sea-level rise and/ or managed coastal realignment. Data insufficiency is delaying guidance on the bottom-line targets for GES (interview data) and the support for further MCZs. The same issues were encountered in the Bothnia Plan, where detailed analysis was hampered by lack of data – particularly on wildlife and living organisms – which was restricted to analysis of fishing caught or station based sampling of species (Backer and Frais, 2012). How should the regional marine planning process take into account these future ‘potentially unpredictable’ issues’? The UK Government’s view is that existing science and data is sufficient to make policy decisions (HM Governments, 2012), which appears to contradict the Environment Minister’s statement of November 2011 regarding the MCZ process (DEFRA, 2011b). This does suggest that the lessons on MCZs have still to be learnt (See Table 4). The likely outcome from the 4 MCZ projects in England and Wales is that support has been garnered from sea users for another 20-30 MCZ designations by 2013. The delay in the timetable to identify a network of ecologically coherent marine protected areas will allow more data to be collected, but also demonstrates the unwillingness of the UK Government to implement the precautionary principle to ensure that the delay does not “seriously hamper the recovery of vulnerable ecosystems and …. expose them to further damage” (The Wildlife Trusts, 2012). Despite the additional funds committed by DEFRA to checking the evidence base for further MCZ proposals and to carry out seabed and habitat monitoring, there is still a real danger that new scientific knowledge on issues of connectivity and marine and ecosystem interactions will not be harnessed in time to secure the protection that some species and habitats may require under climate change scenarios (Gormley et al, forthcoming). 18 There is also the issue of whether the marine regional partnerships and local authorities have the resources, skills and knowledge to understand the cumulative impacts of ecological and human ecosystem interactions. The two Scottish pilot MSPs that have developed clear guidance to developers through policies and an accessible data depository are the two authorities that have existing local decision making powers for the management of their inshore zones. They have built up considerable expertise in marine and coastal interactions and produced ambitious draft MSPs which aim to influence marine planning regimes and as well as the organisational strategies of regulatory bodies and developers. Specific additional funding would allow these draft plans to develop further, using their matrices of user conflicts to identify a system of zoning to govern the application of detailed policies for defined areas. Management policies might be developed in terms of setting input/ output capacity limits (viz. fishing activity, vessel size and gear type; allowable catches, gravel extraction), and could include spatial measures to steer potentially damaging developments and activities away from particularly sensitive features of the marine environment (ABP, 2010). Belgium has been a frontrunner in terms of planning the conflicting uses in its spatially restricted North Sea jurisdiction taking an incremental approach since 2003 (Douvere et al, 2007; Douvere, 2008). The Belgian North Sea master plan acknowledges the importance of sand and gravel extraction, the fishing industry including aquaculture, and offshore wind farms to the Belgian economy. The plan seeks to control the conflicts through designated priority areas for these uses, and using control zones to allow multi-uses to co-exist operating a sequential rotation process to reduce or spread the pressure, for example, of sand and gravel extraction on spawning fisheries periods. This has involved a highly technical approach to demonstrate the suitability of marine space for different uses drawing on “geophysical, hydrological, bathymetric, chemical and other considerations concerning ecological damage” (Douvere et al, 2007: 186). UK marine spatial planning has the same long term aim of halting biodiversity loss and ensuring that “conservation becomes a natural consideration in all relevant” societal decisions (HM Governments, 2011:18) achieved through the co-existence of multiple uses wherever possible and reducing real and potential conflicts. The task is much harder due to the longer coastline and the low percentage (3%) of territorial waters protected through the 19 Natura 2000 programme. In contrast, 45% of the German sea is protected by a network of flora and fauna protection sites and special protected areas (Federal Ministry for Environmental Protection, 2011). The marine plan for the North Sea German Exclusive Economic Zone determines that windfarms are not acceptable in Natura sites and, for other uses, a pre-investigation has to be carried out to determine whether major impacts on these protected sites are probable. If this is not the case, and adverse impacts can be negated, development can be allowed. Spatial planning cultures are different in these examples, with the German Federal Government along one end of the spectrum laying down statutory expectations for the permanent protection of the marine nature and biodiversity as well as the sparing use of its resources at the outset, whilst the UK Governments, at the other end, taking a much more incremental partnership approach with heavy reliance on the collaboration with key national public, private and non-governmental bodies. It is important for the UK that the next stage is characterised by proactive spatial planning at the national and regional levels so that knowledge of the potential conflicts are understood and agreed mitigation measures are in place. The British approach to “adaptive management” must show that it can be a robust spatial planning tool to deliver the “healthy functioning ecosystems” and the “biologically diverse seas” required by the MSFD. References: ABP Marine Environmental Research (2010) Achieving natural heritage objectives in Scotland through a system of marine spatial planning, Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 340. Agardy, T. di Sciara, G.N. & Christie, P. (2011) Mind the Gap: Addressing the shortcomings of marine protected areas through large-scale marine spatial planning, Marine Policy, 35, pp. 226-232. Ardron, J.A. (2008) Three initial OSPAR tests of ecological coherence: heuristics in a datalimited situation, ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65 (8), pp.1527-1533. Backer, H. & Frias, M. (Eds) (2012) Planning the Bothnian sea – key findings of the Plan Bothnia project (Turku, Finepress). 20 Ban, N.C. Alidina, H.,M. & Ardron, J.A, (2010) Cumulative impact mapping: Advances, relevance and limitations to marine management and conservation using Canada’s Pacific Waters as a case study, Marine Policy, 34,pp. 876-886. DEFRA (2011a) Consultation on the evidence base for a proposed new English Scallop Order, [Online] Accessed on 24/10/11 from www.defra.gov.uk/environment/marine DEFRA (2011b) Written Ministerial Statement on Marine Conservation Zones, 15th November 2011,[Online] Accessed on 6th July 2012 from http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2011/11/15/wms-marine-conservation-zones/ Douvere, F., (2008) The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing ecosystembased sea use management, Marine Policy, 32, pp. 762-771. Douvere F. Maes F. Vanhulle A. & Schrijvers J. (2007) The role of marine spatial planning in sea use management: The Belgian Case, Marine Policy, 31, pp. 182-191. European Commission (2008) Roadmap for Maritime Spatial Planning: achieving common principles in the EU, (COM/ 2008/ 791). European Commission (2005) Thematic Strategy on the protection and conservation of the marine environment. (COM/2005/504) European Parliament (2008) Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Directive 2008/56 EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy. European Parliament (2007) An integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union, (COM/ 2007/ 575). Flannery, W. & Ó Cinnéide,M. (2012) A roadmap for marine spatial planning: A critical examination of the European Commission's guiding principles based on their application in the Clyde MSP Pilot Project, Marine Policy, 36(1),pp. 265-271. Forum for Renewable Energy Development in Scotland (2009) Marine Energy Road Map, (Edinburgh, FREDs Marine Energy Group). German Federal Ministry for Environmental Protection (2011) The implementation status of Natura 2000 in Germany/ Zum Stand der Umsetzung von Natura 2000 in Deutschland [Online], Accessed on 25 June 2012 from: http://www.bfn.de/0316_gebiete.html Gilliland, P.M. & Laffoley, D. (2008) Key elements and steps in the process of developing ecosystem-based marine spatial planning, Marine Policy, 32, pp. 787-796. Gormley, K.S.G. Hull, A.D. Porter, J.S. Bell, M.C. & Sanderson, W.G. Species distribution modelling: A tool to assess “Habitat Loss” and “Good Environmental Status” of Modiolus 21 Modiolus reef biodiversity under a climate change scenario as part of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Marine Ecology ProgressSeries, forthcoming. Halpern, B.S. McLeod, K.L. Rosenberg, A.A. & Crowder, L.B. (2008) Managing for Cumulative Impacts in ecosystem-based management through ocean zoning, Ocean and Coastal Management, 51, pp. 203-211. HM Government (2012) Marine Strategy Framework Directive consultation UK Initial Assessment and Proposals for Good Environmental Status, consultation document, (London, DEFRA). HM Government, Northern Ireland Executive, Scottish Government, Welsh Assembly Government (2011) UK Marine Policy Statement (London, The Stationery Office). Ironside Farrar (2010) Strategic Environmental Assessment. Environmental Report, A Marine Spatial Plan for the Shetlands, Scottish Sustainable Marine Environment Initiative Shetland Local Steering Group, Hull, A.D. (2006) ‘Structures for communication and interpretation in Neighbourhood Regeneration: mainstreaming the Housing Action Trust philosophy’, Urban Studies, 43 (12), pp. 2317-2350. Hull, S. (2010) Key Themes in Marine Planning and Management, presentation to Marine Planning: Developing Best Practice in Marine Management, 1st July 2010 London. Johnson, K. Kerr, S. Side, J. & Jackson, A. (2011) Wave and Tidal Energy in the Pentland Firthstakeholders who needs them? Report of the SRDG/MESMA Stakeholder Workshop 9th February 2011, Centre for Health Science, Inverness. JNCC (2012) Mapping OSPAR priority habitats [Online]: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1583 Accessed: 20th January 2012. Kelly, A. (2012) Campaigners to ‘fight on’ to throw out Blakeney Marshes marine conservation zone plan, Eastern Daily Press, Friday July 20th, 2012, [Online]: http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/campaigners_to_fight_on_to_throw_out_blakeney_marshe s_marine_conservation_zone_plan_1_1453823 Accessed 6th August 2012. Marine Energy Group (2012) Marine Energy Action Plan [Online] Accessed 8th August 2012 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0039/00395516.pdf Marine Scotland (2011) Marine Protected Areas in Scotland’s Seas. Guidelines on the selection of MPAs and the development of the MPA network (Edinburgh, Marine Scotland). Marsden, J. (2011) ) Progress towards an MPA network in English Waters, presentation to the Coastal Futures 2010 Review and Future Trends, January 2011, University of London. 22 Molenaar, E.J. & Oude Elferinck,E.G. (2009) Marine protected areas in areas beyond national jurisdiction The pioneering efforts under the OSPAR Convention, Utrecht Law Review, 5 (1), pp. 5-20. Osborne, M., (2010) Data Management and GIS, presentation to the Marine Planning: Developing Best Practice in Marine Management, 1st July 2010 London. Ostrom, E. & Ahn, T.K.(2003) Foundations of Social Capital, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing. Plymouth Herald (2012) Marine reserves cut back, july 23rd 2012, [Online]: Accessed from http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/Marine-reserves-cut/story-16581313-detail/story.html Pound, D. (2010) Stakeholder participation –lessons, presentation to the Coastal Futures 2010 Review and Future Trends, 20-21st January 2010, University of London. Roger Tym and Partners & OCSI (2011) The East Marine Plan area: maximising the socioeconomic benefits of marine planning (Newcastle upon Tyne, Marine Management Organisation). RTPI (2010) Response to DEFRA Consultation paper: Consultation on Marine Plan Areas within the English Inshore and the English Offshore Marine Areas, [Online]: Accessed 18/10/11 www.rtpi.org.uk Saunders, J. Tinch, R. & Hull, S. (2010) Valuing the Marine Estate and UK Seas. An Ecosystem services framework (London, The Crown Estate). Scott, B. (2010) Potential for Large Scale Ecological Marine Experiments: MPAs as a focal point for MASTS JRTs interaction and interconnection (Aberdeen, University of Aberdeen). Scottish Sustainable Marine Environment Initiative (2010) A Marine Spatial Plan for the Shetland Islands. Shetland Plan Part One: Policy Framework, Consultative Draft – 3rd edition (Scalloway, Shetland, NAFC Marine Centre). Solandt, J-L. (2010) Current management of MPAs, prognosis for future UK MPAs, presentation to ‘Marine Planning: Developing Best Practice in Marine Management, 1st July 2010 London. Soma, K. & Vatn, A. (2009) Local democracy implications for coastal zone management – A case study in Southern Norway, Land Use Policy, 26, pp. 755-762. Stojanovic, T. & Barker, N. (2008) Improving governance through local Coastal Partnerships in the UK. Geographical Journal, 174 (4), pp. 344-360. Suárez de Vivero, J.L. & Rodríguez Mateos , J.C. (2012) The Spanish approach to marine spatial planning. Marine Strategy Framework Directive vs. EU Integrated Maritime Policy, Marine Policy, 36(1), pp. 18-27. 23 Te Brömmelstroet, M. & Bertolini, L. (2008) Developing land use and transport Planning Support Systems: Meaningful information through a dialogue between modelers and planners, Transport Policy, pp. 251-259. The Scottish Government (2012) Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters: Scotmap, accessed on 6th August 2012 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/marineenergy/wave/rlg/pentlandorkney/ The Scottish Government (2011a) Scotland: National Marine Plan. Pre-consultation draft (Edinburgh, Scottish Government). The Scottish Government (2011b) Analysis of responses to the public consultation on Scottish marine regions - defining their boundaries (Edinburgh, Scottish Government). The Scottish Government (2010) Scottish Planning Policy (Edinburgh, Scottish Government). The Wildlife Trusts (2012) Marine Conservation Zones at risk, Accessed on 6th August http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/mczs Vigar, G. Healey, P. Hull, A.D. and Davoudi, S. (2000) Planning, Governance and Spatial Strategy in Britain, An Institutionalist Analysis (London, Macmillan). 24 Table 1: Claims for space by marine sectors Space claims ranked by estimated market value Other user claims: market and intrinsic values unknown Oil and Gas Aquariums/ sale of marine pets Coastal Tourism (including wildlife viewing) Biofuels Marine Transport Carbon Capture and Storage Telecommunications cabling Fertiliser/ Feed Commercial Fisheries and Freshwater Fisheries Inspiration/ Art Marine Aggregates Marine Dredging and Disposal Aquaculture Marine Historic Environment Protection Naval Defence Marine Nature Conservation Research/ education Medicines Coastal Defence Nature Watching Water Abstraction/ Cooling water Ornamental materials (shells) Property Pipelines (other than oil and gas) Renewable Energy Spiritual/ cultural wellbeing Salt extraction Waste Disposal Recreation/ Sport (including fishing and diving) Waste Water Source: Market value data from Saunders et al (2010); and SG (2010) 25 Table 2: Characterisation of Good Environmental Status 1 2 Biological diversity is maintained The quality and occurrence of habitats and the distribution and abundance of species are in line with prevailing physiographic, geographic and climatic conditions 3 Non-indigenous species introduced by human activities are at levels that do not adversely alter the ecosystems 4 Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological limits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock 5 All elements of the marine food web, to the extent that they are known, occur at normal abundance and diversity levels capable of ensuring the long-term abundance of the species and the retention of their full reproductive capacity 6 Human-induced eutrophication is minimised, especially the adverse effects thereof, such as losses in biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, harmful algae blooms and oxygen deficiency in bottom waters 7 Permanent alteration of hydrographical conditions does not adversely affect marine ecosystems 8 Sea floor integrity is at a level that ensures that the structure and functions of the ecosystem are safeguarded and benthic ecosystems, in particular, are not adversely affected 9 Concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to pollution effects 10 Properties and quantities of marine litter do not cause harm to the coastal and marine environment 11 Introduction of energy, including underwater noise, is at levels that do not adversely affect the marine environment Source: European Parliament (2008) 26 Table 3: Nested scales of Marine Governance in the UK Governance scale International Governance tool Agreements/ obligations European Union Legislation Monitoring Framework Policy advice National Designations Legislation Policy agreements Retained and new powers Marine Plan authorities Marine Plan Regions Regional marine plan England, Wales and Northern Scotland Ireland United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea IMO Maritime safety and prevention of pollution Safety of Life at Sea Convention The OSPAR Convention on NE Atlantic water quality measures; Priority Habitats Convention on Biological Diversity Convention on the Conservation of Salmon in North Atlantic Ocean Marine Strategy Framework Directive 2008 EU Directives : Habitats; Birds; Shellfish: Environmental Impact; Strategic Environmental Impact; Flood Risk; Water Framework, etc. Regulation on Alien Species; Common Fisheries Policy Regulations 2012 MSFD: Good Environmental Status indicators WFD : Good Ecological Status indicators European Strategy for Marine and Maritime Research (2008) Exclusive Economic Zone Exclusive Economic Zone UK Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 Marine Strategy Regulations 2000 Ministry of Defence bye-laws UK Our Seas- A Shared Resource: High Level Marine Objectives 2009 UK Marine Science Strategy 2010 UK Marine Policy Statement 2011 Planning Act 2008 Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 National Policy Statement for National Planning Framework Energy (E&W) SG Marine Energy Policy Statement Strategic Energy Framework (NI) UK Navigation; UK Oil & Gas; Marine planning and conservation Marine Conservation Zones in powers; Designation of Marine England and Wales Protected Areas, and Historic Marine Protected Areas Marine Management Marine Scotland (MS) working with Organisation (MMO) working the 12 Inshore Fisheries Groups with the 10 Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authorities Statement of Public National Marine Plan Participation 2011 7 Marine regions; 4 have 10 Inshore zones and one offshore separate inshore and offshore zone (12nm-200nm) zones MMO prepares 11 Regional Marine Planning Partnerships will marine plans oversee the production of Regional marine plans Source: Author’s own 27 Figure 1. Spatial management model types Source: ABP (2010:38) 28 Table 4: Problems associated with using zoning as a tool to protect mobile species o Insufficient involvement of stakeholders in defining habitats for breeding and nursery areas or in identifying their conservation objectives; o Little importance given to protecting the critical habitats for feeding, including the 1st and 2nd marine trophic levels (plankton, zooplankton); o Lack of understanding of how the structure of the water column (stratified, mixed, frontal) defines habitats; o Poorly designed conservation areas due to small spatial scale, focus on individual species, and failure to anticipate unintended consequences (displacement effects) of management practices allowing many of the stressors to continue within their boundaries; o Failure to integrate the planning of protected areas with the management of other marine space uses and thus little understanding of the anthropogenic stressors; o Management structures and processes that give inadequate consideration or resources to effective tools for monitoring, surveillance and enforcement. Source: Agardy et al (2011); Ban et al (2010); Scott (2010); Solandt (2010). 29 Table 5: The interpretation of Marine Policy Statement priorities in Scotland UK Marine Policy Statement 2011: The marine plan /authority should: SG National Marine Plan 2011 MSP Shetlands Policy Framework 2010 Ensure [...] that marine planning contributes to securing sustainable economic growth both in regeneration areas and areas [of] strong local economies. Through well placed and well designed development Marine Plans should promote economic growth and sustain local jobs. (16) Contribute to vibrant coastal communities, particularly in remote areas, which will include consideration of cultural heritage, seascape and local environmental quality.(16) New development should not cause a water body or adjacent water bodies to deteriorate in status, nor prevent the achievement of established objectives set out in any River Basin Management Plan (17) Ensure that appropriate weight is attached to designated sites; to protected species respecting the carrying capacity of the environment; to habitats and other species of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity; and to geological interests within the wider environment. (18) Ensure that development does not result in a significant adverse effect on the conservation of habitats or the populations of species of conservation concern and that wildlife species and habitats enjoying statutory protection are protected from the adverse effects of development in accordance with applicable legislation. (19) Adopt a general presumption in favour of the conservation of designated heritage assets within an appropriate setting. The more significant the asset, the greater should be the presumption in favour of its conservation. (22) Marine activities should not prejudice the interest of defence and national security and the MoD should be consulted accordingly.(28) Develop Carbon Capture and Storage; increase sustainable production of freshwater fish, finfish and shellfish cultivation to provide secure employment and economic activity Ensure continued access to the marine and coastal resource for leisure and recreational use. Developments should not result in a deterioration of the ecological status of any water to which the Water Framework Directive applies. Development should aim to avoid harm to marine ecology, biodiversity and geological conservation through location, mitigation and consideration of reasonable alternatives. To protect marine nature conservation and where appropriate recovery Development proposals will not normally be permitted if it obstructs important fishing activities. Importance defined by local fishermen based on frequency of use and productivity Take full account of the individual and cumulative effects of marine infrastructure on both marine and land based MoD interests. (29) Take account of and identify areas of potential for the deployment of different renewable energy technologies. Measures should be taken to prevent, mitigate, and where that is not possible compensate, for any potential negative impacts in line with legislative requirements (33) As a minimum make provision within Marine Plans for a level of supply of marine sand and gravel that ensures that marine aggregates [...] contribute to the overarching Government objective of securing an adequate and continuing supply to the UK market for various uses. (38) Development should take account of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets. Continue to support the seas delivering military and security objectives, maintaining freedom of movement for the navy and other sea users Maintain MOD exclusive use of areas during particular times of the year, and MOD agreement with fisheries. Develop renewable energy resources to deliver economic growth and climate change objectives. Minimise the impact of aggregate extraction on the marine environment and ensure the future sustainability of the physical and biological resource. Encouragement given to proposals that promote the culture of maritime enterprise and community aspirations Should take account of water resource issues such as water quality, marine litter and the introduction of non-native species European designations protected unless no other alternative locations and overriding public interest for development. Protection commensurate according to level of importance If likely to decrease the value of a site of natural heritage importance a management plan to minimise potential damage and to provide for the enhancement of habitat features must be prepared. Presumption in favour of preserving archaeological features unless a marine engineer’s report claims structures unsafe. Navigation Channels and Port Areas are safeguarded Not specifically addressed Encouraged where they take account of wider impacts and impacts on other marine activities, have appropriate monitoring programme, restoration and maintenance proposals Not normally permitted unless no other alternatives available i The Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament) commits EU member states to achieve agreed improved standards of water quality in river basins through river basin management planning by 2015. The WFD includes marine waters up to three nautical miles from the shore in Scotland. ii JNCC is the UK Government’s statutory advisor on national and international wildlife and conservation issues. It works with other statutory government funded agencies for nature conservation: Natural England, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Countryside Council of Wales. iii See http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/ The four projects are called Balanced Seas, Finding Sanctuary, Irish Sea Conservation Zones, and Net Gain. iv Sea users have identified gaps and limitations in the scientific evidence base for new MCZs. In addition to proposing new MCZs the four MCZ projects were asked to recommend several reference areas (RAs) where “all extraction, deposition or human-derived disturbance is removed or prevented” (DEFRA, 2011b). The projects were asked to propose at least one RA for each of the habitats and species being protected by the proposed MCZs. v The OSPAR Convention was signed in 1992 by the European Commission and 15 European nations to protect the marine environment of the NE Atlantic Ocean. It mainly focuses on pollution and the quality of marine waters. vi The Scottish Environment Protection Agency is the Scottish Government’s statutory advisor on environmental pollution and water quality.