Is the UK finally getting serious on marine protection?

Posted by Willie - 19 November 2009 at 12:04pm - Comments

As you probably know by now, marine reserves have a huge role to play in ensuring a future for our oceans, which is why we fish-huggers campaign so vehemently for them.

The scientists tell us that between 20 and 50 per cent of the seas need to be set aside as fully protected, no-take zones – off-limits to all damaging and destructive activity. That means no mineral extraction, dredging, dumping or fishing.

Getting progress on marine reserves is a bit like juggling with Slinkys – it's one of those issues where the politics seems to agree with you, but just manages to deliver precious little. Our politicians all say the right thing when it comes to protecting areas of our seas, there are international commitments, and deadlines for creating protected areas, and there is a huge public demand for doing so. Even the fishing industry is not 'in theory' opposed to them.

So why then, are the worlds oceans still unprotected? Why is less than one measly percent of our oceans protected? In the UK we have up until now fared even worse, with just a tiny no-take zone around the island of Lundy and another in a bay on the island of Arran to our credit. (The latter of those took the dedication and hard work of a group of local community volunteers almost a generation to achieve, and just last week there were complaints in the Scottish parliament that it was still not being protected from damaging activity like scallop dredging.)

The problem, it seems, is political will. In Europe, things are complicated because of access by fishing vessels from other member states, meaning that protecting your own sea bed is a bit tricky. You basically have to get Europe to agree not to fish there. At least that's how our politicians interpret the way it has to work. We take a different view, and think that healthy fisheries can and must only exist in healthy ecosystems – so the priority should be protecting that ocean environment (which, under EU law, is down to each country).

But just last week saw a quiet milestone in the passing of the UK Marine Bill into law – this piece of legislation has long been touted as the panacea to all our troubles when it comes to protecting Britain's seas. So it has a lot to live up to. A crucial part of the Marine Bill is the creation of new 'marine conservation zones', which can range from fully-protected areas to areas with just some sorts of protection.

This is in addition to the obligation that the UK already has to protect species and areas of 'European' interest under the EU Habitats Directive. Confusing, isn't it? In fact there are almost as many names for protected areas at sea as there are people to ask. Marine parks, marine protected areas, nationally important areas, special areas of conservation etc.

The real concern here is that without the political will these will either not happen or not happen effectively. Unless there are enough areas truly are fully protected then the benefits to our oceans, their wildlife, and fish stocks will be minimal.

So we now wait with baited breath to see just what the new Marine Act will deliver. It's fair to say we have been sceptical, as there has been a real struggle to get the acknowledgement that fully protected areas at sea are even desirable from the UK government. But I am willing to be pleasantly surprised.

Meanwhile, in the other hemisphere, some undoubtedly good news on marine protection comes from the CCAMLR meeting in Hobart.

Last Tuesday the Foreign Office announced the creation of the South Orkneys Marine Protected Area. Covering a large area of the Southern Ocean in the British Antarctic Territory, it will be the world's first 'high seas' reserve - off-limits to all types of fishing and dumping.

The new MPA will be over 90,000km2 when it comes into force in May 2010. To put that in perspective, it's four times the size of Wales but just 0.4 per cent of the entire Southern Ocean.

And there is more potential good news. The FCO simultaneously announced two new consultations. The first will look into providing enhanced environmental protection for Antarctica, while the second could see the British Indian Ocean territory known as the Chagos Archipelago become one of the world's largest marine reserves.

Dr Charles Sheppard, BIOT's scientific adviser explained why:

"Very few areas of the world's oceans are in a condition remotely like their natural condition: Chagos is one of them, and if made a refuge for species and habitats it can provide a guide to many other conservation efforts around the world."

This is great news, but these are still a mere drop in the ocean against what is needed.

Take action

Watch these brilliant Stephen Appleby animations, sign up to our marine reserves petition, then forward it on to your friends!

Article tagged as: EU, habitats, lundy, marine bill, marine reserves, oceans, southern ocean

Comments Commenting is now closed

I agree with your post. Condition of marine life is tough right now. There are many strange organism floats deep in the ocean and even scientist could not give name in it. Its very amazing that it has just appear these days. What idea wanna give this to people? I think, its the time to show and love nature. Make it again alive inspite of those who wanna distract it in the name of money. Its very tragic to think that we are the main cause of its degradation. Lets act like loving nature.

By LohanP - 23 November 2009 at 11:29am

Namely, and with specific regard to the Chagos islands, we need to be VERY careful that an MPA around Chagos could not be used by the government as a further excuse to halt the resettlement of the Chagos islands by their indigenous inhabitants - the Chagossians. The Chagossians were expelled from their homeland by the UK and US governments in the 1960s and 1970s and have been fighting for the right of return ever since. The government has given all manner of reasons to justify blocking their return, none of which really stand up to scrutiny. It would be ironic for the government to use an MPA in this way - they have steadfastly kept the British Indian Ocean Territory, which the Chagos islands are governed as, completely free of all environmental (and human rights, and arms control) legislation for decades now - but I would not put it past them.

I would implore Greenpeace to research fully the history of the Chagos islands. I'm confident that you will agree that the best way for the environment to be protected there - MPA or not - would be for the Chagossians themselves to be allowed to return and work as custodians of what is a very beautiful - indeed, uniquely beautiful - marine environment.

I'd also encourage you to find out more about the UK Chagos Support Association, which campaigns on these issues.

By peterharris - 1 December 2009 at 4:17pm

I agree fully with Peter Harris.

Further, I would beseech Greenpeace to ponder on the fact that the proposed marine park in the Chagos Archipelago would “conveniently” exclude the area around Diego Garcia where the US has its military naval base – and where several oil spills have happened (“Diego Garcia – A Legal Black Hole” by Peter Sand), notwithstanding the probability of nuclear waste presence. Mr. Miliband must understand that you cannot create such mathematical boundaries in the sea, like a fence around an area according to his agenda and a marine park adjoining!

Talking about agenda, it was perhaps a clever move to shift to the marine park plan and draw a consultation paper on the latter without the knowledge of Mauritius while in the middle of bilateral negotiations with Mauritius about the Chagos issue. ( Mauritius has solidly anchored legal claims on the Chagos Archipelago. Seychelles has already managed to draw its 3 islands out of the so called BIOT.) Any hurdles to such an endearing plan would make Mauritius look bad, would it not? But I hope it was not clever enough to fool anyone.

By Sarojini - 12 December 2009 at 7:39am

A no-catch reserve is based on temperate marine environmental management, where the ecosystem is much less complex, there are less species with fewer links between them, and where the vast majority of economic activity is linked to large scale fishing. Cod fishing is one example. Tropical marine envts are more complex, meaning scientists don't fully understand them and can't monitor them fully - folk knowledge has an important role to play in filling the gap here. Management of crab fishing in Brazil is one good example. Also the economic activity is a mixture of large scale destructive fishing and traditional artesanal fishing. The former endangers the envt, whilst the latter, when properly managed, doesn't, and it has a role in monitoring the ecosystem, as well as underpinning the society and economy of many people.

In Brazil there are at least 10 marine extractivist reserves where destructive fishing is banned and local populations have the right to carry out their traditional livelihoods and the help monitor activities. They support thousands of communities, with cultures not unlike the Chagos islanders, along the coast, who carry on their traditional activities and culture. Capacity building and training supports the commuity with these activities.

I suggest that Greenpeace carries on campaigning on the issue but does some research into what happens in Brazil and further builds its solidarity with the Chagos movement.

By HelenK - 3 February 2010 at 6:10pm

I too welcome Greenpeace's involvement but strongly believe that Greenpeace should also take on board the views of the Chagossian people.

The Mauritian based Chagossian leader, Olivier Bancoult, has at a press conference on 10 February expressed its opposition to the UK govt MPA initiative in its present shape.

He considers it as a last minute move to counter the Chagos Refugees Group (CRG) forthcoming case lodged against the UK govt at the European Court of Human Rights, for violation of the Chagossian people's human rights, more particularly their fundamental right of return to their native land.

The CRG leader has denounced the glaring contradiction between the UK govt's sudden desire to make the Chagos a world protected marine park and its complicity with the US to consolidate the nuclear military base on Diego Garcia, the main island of the Chagos archipelago.

Excluding the native population from the maintenance and preservation of their homeland environment is yet another incoherence in the "no catch, no local people involvement" in the proposed marine park project.

Olivier Bancoult concluded with an appeal to the whole world to support the Chagossian people's stand for this global ecological initiative to be undertaken with their full participation and also that of Mauritius which claims sovereignty rights over the Chagos.

Greenpeace will, I'm sure, be sensitive to this appeal.

By Vinesh Y Hookoomsing - 12 February 2010 at 11:28am

By LohanP - 23 November 2009 at 11:29am

I agree that the Marine Act could prove to be a welcome step in the right direction with regards to protecting the environment, but there are some potential problems with the implementation of the legislation that your article does not discuss. Namely, and with specific regard to the Chagos islands, we need to be VERY careful that an MPA around Chagos could not be used by the government as a further excuse to halt the resettlement of the Chagos islands by their indigenous inhabitants - the Chagossians. The Chagossians were expelled from their homeland by the UK and US governments in the 1960s and 1970s and have been fighting for the right of return ever since. The government has given all manner of reasons to justify blocking their return, none of which really stand up to scrutiny. It would be ironic for the government to use an MPA in this way - they have steadfastly kept the British Indian Ocean Territory, which the Chagos islands are governed as, completely free of all environmental (and human rights, and arms control) legislation for decades now - but I would not put it past them. I would implore Greenpeace to research fully the history of the Chagos islands. I'm confident that you will agree that the best way for the environment to be protected there - MPA or not - would be for the Chagossians themselves to be allowed to return and work as custodians of what is a very beautiful - indeed, uniquely beautiful - marine environment. I'd also encourage you to find out more about the UK Chagos Support Association, which campaigns on these issues.

By peterharris - 1 December 2009 at 4:17pm

I agree fully with Peter Harris. Further, I would beseech Greenpeace to ponder on the fact that the proposed marine park in the Chagos Archipelago would “conveniently” exclude the area around Diego Garcia where the US has its military naval base – and where several oil spills have happened (“Diego Garcia – A Legal Black Hole” by Peter Sand), notwithstanding the probability of nuclear waste presence. Mr. Miliband must understand that you cannot create such mathematical boundaries in the sea, like a fence around an area according to his agenda and a marine park adjoining! Talking about agenda, it was perhaps a clever move to shift to the marine park plan and draw a consultation paper on the latter without the knowledge of Mauritius while in the middle of bilateral negotiations with Mauritius about the Chagos issue. ( Mauritius has solidly anchored legal claims on the Chagos Archipelago. Seychelles has already managed to draw its 3 islands out of the so called BIOT.) Any hurdles to such an endearing plan would make Mauritius look bad, would it not? But I hope it was not clever enough to fool anyone.

By Sarojini - 12 December 2009 at 7:39am

I think it's great that Greenpeace are leading on this issue, but I agree with comments above that GP needs to make sure it doesn't do a disservice to the Chagos islanders, who have had their human rights abused for the last 40 years since being expelled from their homelands, losing their livelihoods and the glue of their culture (fishing and smallscale farming). There is a tried and tested third option whcih is a Community Based Marine Reserve, and which is developed on a large scale in Brazil, where it benefits both local traditional populations and preserves the environment. This model would make room for the return of the islands inhabitants and value their culture. A no-catch reserve is based on temperate marine environmental management, where the ecosystem is much less complex, there are less species with fewer links between them, and where the vast majority of economic activity is linked to large scale fishing. Cod fishing is one example. Tropical marine envts are more complex, meaning scientists don't fully understand them and can't monitor them fully - folk knowledge has an important role to play in filling the gap here. Management of crab fishing in Brazil is one good example. Also the economic activity is a mixture of large scale destructive fishing and traditional artesanal fishing. The former endangers the envt, whilst the latter, when properly managed, doesn't, and it has a role in monitoring the ecosystem, as well as underpinning the society and economy of many people. In Brazil there are at least 10 marine extractivist reserves where destructive fishing is banned and local populations have the right to carry out their traditional livelihoods and the help monitor activities. They support thousands of communities, with cultures not unlike the Chagos islanders, along the coast, who carry on their traditional activities and culture. Capacity building and training supports the commuity with these activities. I suggest that Greenpeace carries on campaigning on the issue but does some research into what happens in Brazil and further builds its solidarity with the Chagos movement.

By HelenK - 3 February 2010 at 6:10pm

I too welcome Greenpeace's involvement but strongly believe that Greenpeace should also take on board the views of the Chagossian people. The Mauritian based Chagossian leader, Olivier Bancoult, has at a press conference on 10 February expressed its opposition to the UK govt MPA initiative in its present shape. He considers it as a last minute move to counter the Chagos Refugees Group (CRG) forthcoming case lodged against the UK govt at the European Court of Human Rights, for violation of the Chagossian people's human rights, more particularly their fundamental right of return to their native land. The CRG leader has denounced the glaring contradiction between the UK govt's sudden desire to make the Chagos a world protected marine park and its complicity with the US to consolidate the nuclear military base on Diego Garcia, the main island of the Chagos archipelago. Excluding the native population from the maintenance and preservation of their homeland environment is yet another incoherence in the "no catch, no local people involvement" in the proposed marine park project. Olivier Bancoult concluded with an appeal to the whole world to support the Chagossian people's stand for this global ecological initiative to be undertaken with their full participation and also that of Mauritius which claims sovereignty rights over the Chagos. Greenpeace will, I'm sure, be sensitive to this appeal.

By Vinesh Y Hookoomsing - 12 February 2010 at 11:28am

By nigelbiggs - 13 September 2010 at 6:39pm