Policy paper

Government response to the Highly Protected Marine Areas (HPMAs) review

Published 8 June 2021

Applies to England

In June 2019, the Secretary of State commissioned former Environment and Fisheries Minister Richard Benyon to undertake an independent review to examine whether and how the strongest protections for areas of sea, known as Highly Protected Marine Areas (HPMAs), could be introduced.

The Benyon Review into HPMAs, published in June 2020, concluded that HPMAs are an essential component of the MPA network, and government should introduce them into Secretary of State waters. The review concluded that HPMAs would complement the existing MPA network, enabling greater recovery of the marine ecosystem and enhancing the government’s commitment to a national ‘Blue Belt’ of marine protection.

Government response

The government welcomes the report and accepts the central recommendation that we should take forward some pilot sites. We will be introducing HPMAs into English inshore and offshore waters.

Read the government response to the Benyon Review written ministerial statement.

Response to each recommendation:

Recommendation 1

HPMAs should be defined as areas of the sea that allow the protection and recovery of marine ecosystems. They prohibit extractive, destructive and depositional uses and allow only non damaging levels of other activities.

Government response

We agree that the purpose of HPMAs is for the protection and recovery of marine ecosystems and will complement the terrestrial nature recovery network. To achieve this purpose, HPMAs are defined as:

Areas of the sea that allow the protection and recovery of marine ecosystems by prohibiting extractive, destructive and depositional uses and allowing only non-damaging levels of other activities to the extent permitted by international law.

Defining non-damaging levels is complex and will likely be species, habitat and site specific.

Recommendation 2

Government should introduce HPMAs in conjunction with the existing MPA network. In many instances, sections of existing MPAs can be upgraded to HPMAs.

Government response

We agree that HPMAs must work with the existing MPA network. Whether it is more appropriate to designate a section of an existing MPA, or the whole site, as an HPMA will depend on the need to maintain the ecological integrity of existing MPA features, and social and economic effects.

Recommendation 3

Government must set conservation objectives for HPMAs that allow full recovery of the marine environment and its ecological processes.

Government response

We will set conservation objectives that maximise potential for recovery and apply these to all habitats and species within the HPMA and the supporting processes.

Recommendation 4

Government must take a ‘whole site approach’ to HPMAs to conserve all habitats and species within the site boundary. This includes mobile and migratory species that visit or pass through the site.

Government response

HPMAs will take a ‘whole site approach’, conserving all species and habitats within the HPMA boundary and associated processes. This includes the water column. A whole site approach will maximise potential for ecosystem recovery.

Recommendation 5

Government and others should use HPMAs as an opportunity to increase public awareness of, and engagement with, the marine environment.

Government response

We agree that HPMAs should be used to increase engagement with the marine environment and this is in line with the government’s goal to enhance engagement with the natural environment set out in the 25 Year Environment Plan.

Recommendation 6

Government and local authorities should seek to maximise the direct and indirect social, economic and cultural benefits of HPMA designation.

Government response

We recognise the value of maximising the non-environmental benefits of HPMAs, though ensuring social and economic benefits should not prevent achievement of ecological goals. Social and economic benefits will also be gained from achieving the ecological goals.

Recommendation 7

Government should acknowledge displacement in its decision making during HPMA designation. It should put strategies in place to support marine uses and avoid creating new problems from moving pressures to other parts of the marine environment.

Government response

Stakeholders from multiple sectors have raised displacement from MPAs, HPMAs and offshore wind as a key concern and we will undertake further research to increase our understanding of displacement where necessary. We will consider the potential social, economic, and environmental impact of displacement from HPMA designation. Cumulative and in combination effects, including displacement, are part of current marine plans. We will be considering if the current provisions are adequate as part of the work for the next generation of marine plans.

Recommendation 8

Government should plan the sustainable and equitable use of the marine environment. This includes ensuring that Marine Plans are sufficiently spatially prescriptive to address competing demands on space, alongside the need to allow nature to recover.

Government response

We agree it is vital that the whole ocean be sustainably managed, to allow both the marine environment and sustainable marine economies to thrive. Ongoing monitoring of the effectiveness of all marine plans, alongside the statutory reporting to Parliament no less than every 3 years following adoption, enables government to understand whether a particular marine plan is able to address and balance competing demands in the marine area. Defra and the MMO, along with stakeholders, are starting a process to define what the future of marine planning and the next generation of marine plans look like.

In addition to marine plans, the Fisheries Act 2020 requires government to develop and publish a Joint Fisheries Statement setting out how its policies including Fisheries Management Plans (FMPs) will achieve the fisheries objectives. FMPs will focus on managing fishing activity within sustainable limits. These plans can include strategies to manage fishing activity to protect species, habitats, and ecosystem functioning. They could list spatial measures that help protect stocks or important areas for fish, such as nursery areas. MPAs (and therefore HPMAs) could offer such spatial protection where relevant.

Recommendation 9

Government should adopt the principles of transparency and early, continuous engagement with a range of stakeholders in HPMA site consideration.

Government response

We agree that transparency and early, continuous engagement is essential and have already been applying this principle in developing this response through stakeholder meetings. This is consistent with the current approach taken when designating and managing MPAs and we will continue to involve stakeholders as government implements the recommendations.

Recommendation 10

Government should use ‘best available evidence’ to designate HPMAs and should not use a lack of perfect evidence as a reason to delay HPMA designation.

Government response

We agree that a lack of perfect evidence should not preclude designation and we want to identify and designate HPMAs as soon as possible. We would look to follow a similar approach to evidence standards in MCZ designations to ensure we can identify sites that maximise the benefits of HPMAs whilst balancing any impacts.

Recommendation 11

Government must introduce and manage HPMAs using quick and pragmatic legislative approaches.

Government response

We agree that the approach should be pragmatic but above all it needs to be robust and appropriate. We intend to use powers under the Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009) to designate HPMAs.

Recommendation 12

Government should identify sites for HPMA designation using the principles of ecological importance; naturalness, sensitivity and potential to recover, and ecosystem services. Social and economic principles are a secondary filter.

Government response

We will use ecological criteria to ensure that we are designating HPMAs with ecological value that can deliver the protection and recovery we seek. Social and economic criteria will then be used to help us understand and minimise the impacts on sea users. Defra will consider the social and economic impact of HPMA site designation on all sectors before any decision to designate a site is made. All those affected by any designation will have the chance to share their views before a designation is made.

Recommendation 13

HPMAs should be located within existing MPAs as the existing site will act as a buffer zone to the HPMA. However, in the future alternative locations could be considered, such as co location with existing and emerging marine industries.

Government response

We do not agree that HPMAs should only be within existing MPAs. We will also consider designating HPMAs outside the current MPA network where levels of evidence are of a sufficient standard to justify their designation. Some areas outside the network may offer an opportunity to understand the recovery of more degraded ecosystems.

We will consider opportunities for co-location in the future, including with offshore wind. Critically, co-location would be dependent on the type of industry and whether activities associated with it were compatible with achieving the objectives of HPMAs.

Recommendation 14

In identifying HPMAs, government should consider blue carbon habitats to improve the climate resilience of the seas.

Government response

We agree that marine nature-based solutions, such as the protection of blue carbon habitats in HPMAs, play a role in climate change adaptation, resilience and mitigation. More broadly, ecological recovery within HPMAs will increase the resilience of the marine environment to climate change and enable it to adapt to climate change impacts. HPMAs could provide a valuable role in understanding management and recovery of blue carbon habitats.

Recommendation 15

Government should adopt co management principles where possible, to agree effective management in partnership with sea users.

Government response

Management of each industry is the legal responsibility of the relevant regulators. Regulators do and will continue to work and collaborate with sea users in developing sector plans and wider marine spatial plans. Regulators are keen to hear sea users’ views and view evidence they may have to help inform decisions. These inputs will inform the management of sites, to achieve the conservation objectives.

Recommendation 16

Government must issue guidance on permitted activities within HPMAs, underpinned by a simple categorisation approach aligned to International Union for Conservation of Nature categories.

Government response

In view of stakeholders’ requests for guidance, we will be asking the relevant nature conservation bodies, with input from regulators, to provide guidance on allowable activities for marine users. This may be required at a site level. We will ask conservation bodies to consider a categorisation approach.

Recommendation 17

Management bodies will need to set out clearly their enforcement responsibilities which will be critical to HPMA success and required by legislation; they should also develop, where possible, voluntary approaches and codes of conduct with stakeholder user groups (particularly for low impact activities).

Government response

We agree that there must be clarity on roles and responsibilities for enforcing and managing HPMAs and we will set this out clearly. Existing competent authorities would have responsibility for delivering management measures and ensuring compliance in line with their remit, supported by scientific advice from the relevant statutory nature conservation body. As for existing MPAs, HPMA management measures could be broad ranging and may include voluntary approaches.

Recommendation 18

To increase compliance and reduce enforcement demands, government and marine managers should engage with stakeholders early and regularly, on all aspects of the HPMA process.

Government response

We recognise that enforcement measures are more effective with good stakeholder buy-in and we are committed to transparency and ongoing and regular stakeholder engagement throughout the process of HPMA identification and designation.

Recommendation 19

Technological advancements, including vessel monitoring, should be used to ease the burden of enforcement and monitoring of HPMAs.

Government response

The government supports the use of technology as part of the management for HPMAs. However traditional enforcement methods such as physical inspections and observations by surveillance assets using trained enforcement officers from the Marine Management Organisation and Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities will continue to be one of the main tools whilst technological options including Vessel Monitoring Systems and Remote Electronic Monitoring are explored.

Recommendation 20

To establish comparative baselines, the monitoring and evaluation of biological, social and economic processes and effects of HPMAs must begin before designation and continue long term.

Government response

We acknowledge the need for robust evaluation, monitoring and assessment of HPMAs. This work will include gathering baseline data to enable future evaluation of the impact of HPMAs measures.

Recommendation 21

Sufficient funding is required for the designation, management, monitoring and enforcement of HPMAs. Government must make available resources proportionate to the scale of any designated HPMA.

Government response

We will seek funding as part of our wider delivery of marine conservation and management. We will explore and look to develop partnerships for funding and welcome engagement and input from the wider stakeholder community to support us with this.

Recommendation 22

In the longer term, government should reconsider existing marine governance to ensure current structures do not hinder the introduction of HPMAs.

Government response

Existing governance structures are beyond the scope of government’s response to the Review.

Recommendation 23

Supporting evidence for identifying pilot HPMAs should be taken from a wide a range of sources including statutory bodies, academia, environmental NGOs and industry.

Government response

We agree that evidence drawn from a wide range of sources will enable us to better understand social and economic implications, identify additional ecological information, and to make best use of important local knowledge. All evidence used will be quality assured to ensure only accurate information is used. This is consistent with our current approach for MPAs.

Recommendation 24

Government could use the list of sites recommended to the Review as a starting point in any future HPMA process.

Government response

We note the list of sites as a starting point to inform further discussion on HPMAs but it is possible that not all initial sites or future HPMAs will come from this list. In identifying HPMAs we will not be including routine defence exercise areas, and the selection of sites will give careful consideration to the ability of an activity or sector to adapt to the location of a HPMA.

Recommendation 25

Five pilot sites are the bare minimum and to cover different environments and activities, the number of pilot sites should have sufficient geographic spread to cover nearshore, inshore and offshore areas and different regional seas.

Government response

We will consider designating five sites as part of our consultation process. The number and type of activities varies enormously between inshore and offshore sites and we intend to identify sites in both of these areas. There needs to be a balance between the differences across these sites, for example the habitat and historic use of the site, and the ability to be able to effectively evaluate them to inform future decisions.

Actions

Defra will begin introducing HPMAs by identifying a number of locations within English waters to pilot our approach, using powers under the Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009). We will identify sites based on ecological, social and economic criteria, to select sites that provide the maximum biodiversity benefits while seeking to minimise impacts on sea users.

The pilot HPMA sites may be inside or outside of the existing MPA network, and in inshore or offshore areas, recognising that HPMAs must be in the locations best able to deliver protection and recovery.

The government recognises that the strict protections implied by HPMAs will cause some concerns with other sea users. In particular, the fishing industry will be concerned about further displacement from fishing grounds when they are already being excluded from some areas ear-marked for offshore wind energy development.

We will consider the potential social, economic, and environmental impact of displacement from site designation. In identifying HPMAs we will give careful consideration to the ability of an activity or sector to adapt to the location of a HPMA.

We will continue to work with recreational fishers to explore opportunities for recreational or low impact zones around HPMAs.

Defra will shortly set out how we will work with stakeholders, the governance and management of sites and how we will monitor and evaluate sites.

Following the publication of the government response, Defra will:

• work with our Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (Natural England and JNCC) and Cefas to agree ecological criteria to support site identification
• invite stakeholders to suggest sites that meet these criteria for consideration
• identify a shortlist of locations based on ecological, social and economic criteria during 2021
• consult on the shortlisted sites
• designate a number of sites in 2022

Who we will work with

Scientists

We will be working with scientific and evidence specialists in our SNCBs (Natural England and JNCC), Marine Management Organisation and Cefas to develop and assess ecological, social and economic criteria that will be used for site selection. This will help identify which sites have the most potential as HPMAs and will minimise social and economic impacts. We will work with them to design a programme to monitor and evaluate the effects of HPMAs including ecological monitoring of site recovery, effects on businesses and on communities.

Regulators

We will work with the Marine Management Organisation, Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities and other regulators to understand impacts and management implications and put in place management measures.

Other government departments (OGDs)

We will be engaging with OGDs to ensure that HPMAs will not have an adverse impact on other critical policy areas.

Sea users

We will be working with sea users (including fishers, marine industry and recreational users) to understand their views in relation to the potential HPMAs, in order to minimise impacts and maximise benefits upon them, inviting them to propose sites that meet the selection criteria.

Non-governmental organisations

We will be working with NGOs to understand their views and the evidence they hold on potential HPMA locations, inviting them to propose sites that meet the selection criteria.

Local communities

We will conduct site-specific engagement with local stakeholders (including the Local Government Association Coastal Special Interest Group) to help us identify HPMAs with the greatest chance of success.

Members of the public

A public consultation will be held. All those interested in and/or affected by any designation will have the chance to share their views before a designation is made.

Background

Our Marine Protected Area (MPA) network covers 40% of English waters within 178 sites. MPAs protect some of the best examples of our marine biodiversity by protecting specific habitats or species while allowing sustainable economic and recreational marine activities to continue.

The MPA network supports our 25 Year Environment Plan and is designed to protect and enhance rare, threatened and representative habitats and species.

By setting aside some areas of sea with high levels of protection, HPMAs will allow nature to recover to a more natural state, allowing the ecosystem to thrive in the absence of damaging activities. HPMAs have a critical role in ocean recovery, including through the protection of blue carbon habitats, and will contribute to the government’s vision for ‘clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse ocean and seas’.