It’s make or break!

I regret that I am unable to support your campaign and I'd like to explain why. As a local authority representative who has been involved in two of the MCZ development process I am concerned that the process has given too much weight to the conservation interests in the sea and not enough to the wider economic (particularly fishing) interests. The so-called stakeholder engagement has been flawed and the proposed MCZs don't have sufficient local backing. Rather than encouraging interest in conservation of our seas, the process has been divisive and one-sided. Our fisherman could be a huge asset in marine conservation (I've already seen some really good work with local shell-fisheries) - but this process has turned many of them against it. Rather than asking the Minister to ensure the MCZs go forward I believe we should be asking for a rigorous Impact Assessment to be undertaken to ensure a balanced approach is taken.

Tuesday 8th November 2011
by

As a longstanding UK diver who has seen the areas I dive being progressively degraded, I've been watching the MCZ projects with great anticipation, and I was delighted to see a map with 127 sites coming out of the stakeholder projects with the interests of all sea users being represented. We desperately need to manage our seas better, with a proper network of protected sites, to the long term benefit of everyone. I'm deeply concerned at the prospect that the government may be disregarding all the work and money that went into creating this network of suggested sites and may only put a few sites forward to the next stage. A few sites don't make a network and we need a network!

Wednesday 9th November 2011
by Millie

I fully support the principle of marine conservation zones; the more, the better. At the weekend, looking out to see, I could see 25 fishing vessels dredging scallops. This is a common site from November, onwards, each year. When you look at the scars left behind from scallop dredging, year-on-year, you have to wonder what will be left to sustain the balance of the marine environment. We have holiday accommodation overlooking Cardigan Bay. Amongst the most common reasons our visitors state as the attraction to the area is the opportunity to see wildlife. They are thrilled when they see some of the dolphins for which Cardigan Bay is renowned. If the sea bed is denuded on a regular basis, I wounder for how much longer Cardigan Bay will be known for its wildlife?

Wednesday 9th November 2011
by Paul Edwards

as we are approaching december we are again going to see all the beaches here on the cumbrian coast covered in nets catching anything that swims or crawls by,also the inshore trawlers are going to be up and down close in to the shore when are defra going to act on these insane practices,i fish from a very small boat purely for pleasure and everything caught is usually returned soon there will be no fish at all to catch for anybody iff this mass slaughter continues.

Wednesday 9th November 2011
by rod harper

Thanks for your comments so far, it's good to hear thoughts on this issue.

Wednesday 9th November 2011
by Joan

Having been involved as a conservation representative in the Net Gain Marine Conservation Zone project for the past two years I feel confident to say a considerable amount of effort has gone into identifying the MCZ locations. It's not always been an easy process but common ground has been found between stakeholders from all backgrounds with all kinds of interests in the sea and a good level of support has been achieved. We now have the legislation in place to actually protect our marine environment so lets make the most of that and ensure we achieve an ecologically coherent network of Marine Protected Areas before it's too late. The 127 Marine Conservation Zones will take us that bit closer to protecting our marine wildlife, from the rare and threatened to the everyday. I've sent my letter to Richard Benyon, I hope others will too..... http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/saveourmczs

Wednesday 9th November 2011
by Kirsten Smith

I am a supporter of marine conservation, and from my knowledge zones are important. However your blog is very wordy and not easy to understand unless you are very committed leaves most of us unsure of what we can do. You are doing great work, but please make it understandable accross all ranges of audiences to ensure the biggest level of support. :-)

Wednesday 9th November 2011
by Abi

Thank you both for your support and commitment to ensure our seas receive the protection they need. Please ensure all your friends, family and colleagues sign our Petition Fish campaign. We are also asking that you email or write to the Minster, today, urging him to ensure that Defra does not reduce the number of Marine Conservation Zones going forward for consultation in 2012. You can use our suggested letter adding your thoughts to it, or write your own. All the links you need are above.

Thursday 10th November 2011
by Joan

I'm more than happy to support conservation, but conservation is also about getting the balance right with humans too. A study of what is proposed in Cumbria, to my mind doesn't achieve that. If you like Kitesurfing, Windsurfing, Swimming or just having fun on our beaches, then according to current Cumbrian recommendations, on large parts of the Cumbrian coastline - "Non-motorised boating, Other recreational pursuits" would be classed as "potentially disturbing". These activities would then be "Subject to management" - whatever that means. In other words your personal freedom to enjoy the beaches and sea could be restricted as a way of ensuring "blanket coverage" of any possible conservation issues. I do not think this is the right approach. I think that a risk assesment of species and habitats under threat should be produced and then activities that impact significantly on that habitat or species, should be considered for management. It has to be specific and address specific issues, otherwise it's just red tape that will achieve nothing but reduce freedom and annoy people. Martin Campbell www.CumbriaLive.tv

Friday 11th November 2011
by Martin Campbell

The comments made by the local authority representative on 8th November strike to the heart of the faults in the process used to create SACs and MCZs. The consultation that led to the revision of the proposed SAC to be located between Start Point and Plymouth in Devon, emphasises how the process can be unduly influenced by sections of the group consulted. For example in the Report of the 2010 consultation on 2 marine Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) in English waters Lune Deep pSAC Prawle Point to Start Point pSAC, (http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/2-marine-sacs-consultation-report_tcm6-27670.pdf) 54% of the unique responses came from the ‘conservation/information’ set of stakeholders whilst only 19% originated from ‘commercial fishermen’. The important point here is the imbalance in what is at stake for these two groups of people. For fishers, their livelihoods depend on the positioning of SACs. Fishing is a way of life for inshore fishers that has been practiced by them and their families for generations. At worst they might have to give up this way of life and find an alternative source of income. For the conservationists, their livelihoods will be unaffected by the enclosure of certain areas of the coastal sea. Someone working for a conservation charity or NGO will be buying their fish from the supermarket as usual after SACs have been created. Their income is independent of the closures they are working so hard for. A further consideration is that the professional conservationists are working fulltime on the issues. Fishermen have to answer the questions in their spare time after a very demanding day at sea. They are also mostly practical people whose natural habitat is the sea rather than the office. For these reasons, the consultation process is flawed. Politicians can use the process of consultation to defend themselves against accusations of undemocratic decision-making. If people later complain that a decision they took is flawed they can just point to the consultations carried out and argue that the decision was based on a democratic process. As I hope to have demonstrated the population consulted is often self-selected and does not adequately represent the people whose lives will be changed by the decisions taken. And please note, I am not arguing against the need for SACs, just the process used to bring them about.

Saturday 12th November 2011
by Paul Hart

Given that Defra’s own Guidance (MCZ Guidance Note 1) asked the MCZ projects to base recommendations on ‘best available evidence’, MCS feel strongly that Defra has an obligation to put forward for the public consultation all 127 sites proposed by the extensive and thorough stakeholder-led regional processes which we were involved in. Last week MCS wrote to the Marine Minister Richard Benyon, MP to voice our concern that the Government appears to be undermining its own MCZ process by misinterpreting the report of the Science Advisory Panel. For the Minister to say that the SAP advised only 23 sites have sufficient scientific evidence to support their designation as he did in a Parliamentary Group last week is incorrect. We understand the SAPs report and MCZ project reports focussed heavily on peer reviewed literature which may be part of the problem as in doing so they took no account of other valid surveys the projects used including those by Government agencies. We think in most instances this could be resolved by the projects ensuring that in each of their site reports all the data sets that have been drawn from to produce the base maps are listed. The UK’s marine biodiversity is in decline and Government must act now if we are to have a network of habitats worth saving and in order that we can achieve an Ecologically Coherent Network as required by 2012.

Monday 14th November 2011
by Melissa Moore

It’s a shame really that many of the comments posted over the last few days have all been about process. The regional Marine Conservation Zone projects involved an enormous amount of consultation and gave many the opportunity to comment and amend the size and location of zones, in order to avoid any conservation measures which may affect their own activities at sea. Indeed, as a conservationist I felt outnumbered by the hoards of other stakeholders that wanted their say. So perhaps as Mr Benyon often says, if we all feel that our views have not been taken seriously then perhaps we did actually find the middle ground. One thing’s for certain, we all need better protection for our marine environment. The 127 Marine Conservation Zones is one important step towards achieving this. These zones have been identified through a consensus process so as not to create hardship to significant numbers of sea users. The government will eventually have to establish an ecologically coherent network of Marine Protected Areas. The question you might want to ask yourselves is, would you prefer these 127 zones or a new set imposed top down?

Monday 14th November 2011
by Joan

The issue of fishermen's livelihoods is certainly germane to the future protection of our seas - but it is not central to it. Adequate protection of the resource is central to a healthy, thriving marine environment - and we must never forget that what we now have (and fish in) is a pale shadow of its former health and fecundity. The nation has committed - through the Marine and Coastal Access Act - to follow the lead given on land 50 years ago. This requires the establishment of a network of the 'best bits' still available to us after centuries of exploitation. Getting that network right requires input from a whole range of people. First amongst those will be those whose working lives have given them a knowledge of the marine environment - which bits matter most, what conditions they need to thrive, how to find them - that sort of thing. It is hardly surprising - and indeed proper - that 54% of responses should come from this sector. Calling them 'conservationists' can't hide the value of their knowledge. They have nothing to gain personally. They are working on behalf of everyone who benefits from a healthy marine environment - and that includes fishermen. In the short term, the necessary reduction in fishing effort will impact on fishermen, and society should address the issue. In the long term, fishing will benefit by becoming sustainable and more productive. Jonathan Porritt puts the challenge being addressed very well: 'The single most important precept behind the very idea of sustainability - that we have to learn to prosper within nature's limits, not beyond them - is still set aside by almost all and sundry as an irritating irrelevance'. The network of marine protected areas will be the cornerstone of sustainable future exploitation of our seas. Society has in the past sanctioned over-exploitation. Now it wishes that to change and work within 'nature's limits'. Those fishing now deserve our sympathy, our support in adjusting to a new approach, even it might be argued some compensation for what they have lost. But their vested interest must not be allowed to outweigh the common good.

Monday 14th November 2011
by Paul Gompertz

I want to express my concern at the proposed drastic reduction in protected sites following the changed requirements for evidence for each site. This devalues the substantial work done so far and compounds the problems. There is already a serious evidence bias created by the demand from fisheries that their information on the location and nature of fisheries being withheld from the process of selecting sites, and that will now be magnified. The sites with most evidence of special character will often, as on land, be those that show least ecological benefit from protection, because they are sites that are hard to exploit. Similarly the sites most degraded by intensive exploitation will be among those most likely to be excluded by a high a bar on ‘evidence’ although they would actually show the highest response to protection and give the highest benefit to fisheries by acting as reservoirs for regeneration or stabilisation of stocks. Evidence was collected from stakeholders during the process run by Finding Sanctuary etc. and we stakeholders were encouraged to spend time putting together evidence that is now dismissed out of hand by JNCC – on mobile species etc. As stakeholders we were told clearly this was a bottom-up process and we had to make compromises and arrive at consensus. Now we have JNCC/Defra, on high, unpicking the process after it has finished, and throwing out most of the sites chosen with little regard for the consensus or the compromises. Reactionaries among fisheries here in Cornwall are delighted by the news, which is not a good sign - they have a lamentable history of opposing many measures that would have been of real value to them and others. This is a great pity as other voices in fisheries had shown clear signs of moving on from those old attitudes, and would be undermined by this massive back-tracking. I urge the Government to treat the stakeholder process with respect; acknowledge the effort put into it; accept the sites proposed, and move on to making them productive.

Tuesday 15th November 2011
by Nick Tregenza

Well the long awaited Ministerial statement on Marine Conservation Zones has finally been published. While there are many things to welcome in the statement, such as DEFRAs commitment to consult on all 127 recommended Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) in English Waters. The question remains - why the delay? Why do we need more information when DEFRA guidance said ‘best available’? Just how many Marine Conservation Zones will actually be designated and by when? I would suggest the statement says a lot but promises little. However I do welcome the statement by Peter Ryder the Chair of the Science Advisory Panel which appeared on the Defra website today -

“A huge amount of skilful, constructive work has gone into preparing the Regional Project Final Recommendations and we express our huge admiration for the efforts of all concerned. We are content that, if the recommended network of MCZs is implemented in full, ecological coherence can be achieved. However, deficiencies and uncertainties exist that carry risks and these need to be addressed before the Final Recommendations go out to Consultation.”

Do keep posting your comments.
 

Tuesday 15th November 2011
by Joan

The headline of Paul Gompertz's article in the Guardian yesterday (15th Nov) summed up the position perfectly: 'We must suffer short-term economic pain to make our seas sustainable.' Marine protected areas are frankly the only viable solution to ocean healing and to see the UK take an international lead in this area would be very welcome. Furthermore, it takes us a step closer to satisfying our international legal obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment; if other States fail in this obligation, this is no excuse for us to renege. We all have empathy with the British fishing industry and the families it supports. Equally, we are a nation built on many traditions and to see further pressures placed on British fishermen is not an easy pill to swallow. However, I see this largely as a consequence of us surrendering our fishing rights to and a failed fisheries policy under the EU, not least as a direct consequence of overcapacity. There are many aspects of ocean management that we could have implemented in hindsight. But as we know hindsight is an exact science. It is time to give greater weight to 'best scientific advice.' Science is not perfect and never will be but it is the best tool we have to make informed decisions. Clearly policy makers have a wealth of interests to balance but science needs to be given greater weight in final deliberations and there is strong scientific support for MCZs. While not wishing to undermine any stakeholder and the herculean efforts made to get this far, if the Minister fails to give proper consideration to the recommended MCZs then a judicial review process needs to be considered. The stakes are too high to be left to the whims of policymakers. We now have an opportunity to make a difference for current and future generations as embodied in the principle of sustainable development.

Wednesday 16th November 2011
by Chris Brown