I hate to end the week on a sour note, but yesterday's announcement about Marine Conservation Zones was hugely disappointing.
For over a decade, many NGOs and hundreds of thousands of people supported the campaign to get comprehensive legislation for the marine environment. This ultimately received cross-party support and led to the passing of the Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009).
Our expectation was that this would lead to the establishment of an ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas. Yet, of 127 sites proposed for protection, only ‘up to’ 31 are recommended for designation in 2013, and there appears to be no clear commitment to any further rounds of designation.
Less than half of the 57 sites identified by the Government’s own advisors as being at high risk are to be progressed, the others in many cases being excluded on the basis that the economic implications of designation are perceived to outweigh the conservation benefits. Many of these sites may therefore be lost. This news needs to be looked at alongside our inability to establish a network of marine protected areas of European importance (under the Birds and Habitats Directives).
We, and no doubt those that supported the marine campaign, feel let down by yesterday's announcement.
I understand Mr Benyon's desire to get this right, but seabirds and other marine wildlife are in trouble. As I have written previously here, here and here, they need something more than is currently being offered. And arugably, developers at sea need these sites identified fast to help provide provide certainty about the most appropriate sites for development.
The coalition Government’s commitment to achieve a ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas now looks undeliverable. We will examine the consultation in detail, including the lamentable attention given to the protection of seabirds and other ‘mobile species’.
What do you think of government's announcement about marine conservation zones?
It would be great to hear your views.
Hi Martin; re Coalition they did nt mean a word of anything they said re "green" did they ? If one takes this in context with the privatisation of schools and the NHS where they broke with clear promises and manifesto commitments then perhaps people will make up their own minds as to the cynical "coup" that has occurred.
My response is to call for the means testing of all subsidies to landowners and compulsory environmental standards on farms. I have asked RSPB to publish a county map of CAP recipients focusing on the 2100 who receive over 100 grand and two thirds of the CAP budget , but it seems that it is too busy to do so; so I have gone to the Guardian and Daily Mirror. Frankly I am not content that RSPB is pulling its weight here with all its staff re agriculture policy; nice noises do not cut ice, Sir. You are ALL far better paid than I am.
I would particularly refer you to the fact that the NFU has stated re nicotinoid pesticides " It is very well known that the current pesticide risk assessment systems were not developed to assess systemic pesticides" Guardian 13 Dec MP's say regulators turning Blind Eye.
When I accused you months ago of "Kicking this Tin down the Road"; you said there was no evidence; well that statement from the NFU (Jesus Wept) is ample enough evidence to call for a ban under the Precautionary Principle until due assessments have been made ?
Peter Plover