Oral evidence: Marine Protected Areas, HC 914
Oral evidence, 5 March 2014.
Witness
James Cross, Chief Executive Officer, Marine Management Organisation, gave evidence.
Chair
A warm welcome, Mr Cross, to this session of the Environmental Audit Committee looking at marine protection areas. Our first question for you is coming from Peter Aldous.
Peter Aldous
Good afternoon, Mr Cross. Last year you explained to the Science and Technology Committee that you would “engage in a full consultation exercise and a full engagement exercise” before working out how to manage each of the MCZs. How has that process gone, the first tranche?
James Cross
That process has not yet begun in the way that I was describing. Our ambition is that all of England’s marine protected areas—the European marine sites and tranche 1 of the marine conservation zones—will each have a fairly detailed control plan, a management measure. It is during the process of creating that control plan that the details and being in full engagement with industry, with the stakeholders, will begin. Our ambition is that all of those marine protected areas, that is the 88 European marine sites and the 27 tranche 1 MCZ sites, will have a control plan in place and executed by 2016.
Peter Aldous
Are you as far forward today as you hoped to be when you made that comment to the Science and Technology Committee?
James Cross
Yes. We are on track. We have already produced a strategic overview of the 88 European marine sites. That is published. It outlines for each of the 88 sites the conservation objectives, a broad description of the activities in place and a broad assessment of the level of risk in place, irrespective of whether or not necessarily the control authority is singularly the MMO. We are doing a rapid piece of assessment on the tranche 1 MCZ designations, pulling together the intelligence that we have. The plan is that over the next eight to 10 weeks—very nearly there—these two intelligence pieces will be brought together and we will start moving towards a narrative of singular MPA management of strategic control. That is phase 1 and that is pretty much on track. That is available on our website. The public can use that and that is being used as a working management tool. I guess maybe 12 weeks or so after that we will move into the realms of what we call a strategic control plan. For each of our activities, marine conservation in particular, we will set out in broad terms our control measures and our control plans and the broad strategy for enforcing, managing and creating compliance in the MPAs. Following on from that, each of the MPA sites will have its own bespoke control plan.
Peter Aldous
Is this work going as you anticipated? Are you learning lessons as you go along?
James Cross
We are. As I said at the last Select Committee, one of the benefits of the phased approach is that it does allow you to move into live operations, reflect and refine. One of the pieces of feedback we are hearing loud and clear is that there is a grain of interest in what those management controls would look like and how they would feel. We recognise that. DEFRA and the MMO have had conversations about how we can create a little bit more insight. The difficulty is that being overly descriptive at the beginning of the process does not lend itself to creativity and innovation in how you put together the control and management options. For example, in one of the European marine sites off the Humber in Humberside, the conservation objectives there, which are largely being controlled by the local IFCA, lend themselves very well to a local bylaw and that would have been very easy to describe. But one of the interesting features was that the local seal colony was being disturbed by tourism. Visitors were going along to the site; the seals had pups and people were quite literally climbing over a fence and taking pictures and causing the pups to be abandoned, so we had a high pup mortality rate. What turned out to be the best control solution—because we are always interested in creating a culture of compliance rather than just straight enforcement—was working with the local wildlife trust and the local IFCA on a series of voluntary measures; an excellent example of persuasion and education that negated the need for regulation. That brought about a high level of compliance. Even within the same European marine site we have voluntary measures for some activities and bylaws for others. It would be a shame to lose that innovation.
Peter Aldous
Moving forward to the second tranche of MCZs, what changes do you think you will be making to your consultation and engagement?
James Cross
Our approach over the next two years will be as already set out, to really engage. Frequently, as part of our delivery plans, we reflect and adapt our work and practices based on the feedback and the lessons learned. I do not quite know what those lessons will be just yet, but standardly we build into the process an opportunity to learn and reflect. The MCZ designation will allow us to do that in tranche 2 and tranche 3.
Dr Offord
I understand your organisation very much favours a voluntary approach to management of marine protected areas, but what powers do you have to impose sanctions upon those who do not comply or where the voluntary approach breaks down?
James Cross
It is not necessarily that we prefer voluntary measures per se. What I am always interested in is how do we change behaviour and achieve complibance. Voluntary is often a useful tool in that, but we want to judge each issue on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes voluntary works; sometimes voluntary is not the right course of action. In the four bylaws we have recently brought in to protect our high-risk European marine sites, for example, we found voluntary was not really a viable solution so we moved towards bylaws. In terms of controls, for marine work—port development and renewable energy—we are the licensing consent body for marine waters. In essence we give permission to do work that is not ordinarily allowed, so we have a good control process in place there. For the regulation of fisheries activity, zero to six nautical miles is primarily the responsibility of the 10 IFCA authorities, so they have the ability to create a bylaw to manage fishery activities. We also have the ability to create bylaws in the zero-to-six nautical mile area but primarily that is the role of the IFCAs. For six to 12 nautical miles, again we have the ability to create a bylaw and manage. For 12 to 200 nautical miles, DEFRA are using the common fisheries policy in the European framework to create the regulatory framework to enforce activity.
Dr Offord
You mentioned bylaws then. Did you always intend to introduce bylaws ever since you gained the powers or was it something you did in response to conditions of a voluntary nature, that you did not consider they would work?
James Cross
Yes. One of the few luxuries we have is that we are able to look at each of these sites and judge each one on a case-by-case basis. We do not move straight to bylaws. Equally, we do not start straight away on voluntary measures. We do have a look and make an assessment. For example, in the Solent European marine sites the local IFCA, trying to address a conservation objective, put in place a voluntary measure. Shortly afterwards they got in touch with us to say that the voluntary measure was not working and could they move to an emergency bylaw. We have the ability to put an emergency bylaw in place quite quickly, which we did. That bylaw is in the process of being picked up again by the IFCA. It is a fluid environment. The risk analysis changes. The activity changes frequently. The rationale is to keep a constant level of surveillance and analyse the level of risk, engage with the local stakeholders and respond flexibly accordingly.
Dr Offord
What would you say is the cost difference between a voluntary approach and the bylaw approach? Which is more economic?
James Cross
I think, frankly, a bylaw is cheaper but I do not think it is as good value for money and I do not think it necessarily creates compliance. I think persuasion, education and consultation really create a shift in mindset. In driving to the station this morning, I put on my seatbelt, not necessarily because I was fearful of the law but because I was persuaded by those key messages, and that is always what we are interested in doing when it comes to our regulatory duties. There is definitely a heavy investment needed. We have done some really innovative work down in Lyme Bay in partnership with DEFRA, the local IFCAs and the community, genuinely innovative stuff, and again the prime investment needed to create that was quite heavy. It needed a certain degree of vision from the stakeholders and the players involved. But what we have there is genuinely value for money in terms of achieving a culture of compliance.
Dr Offord
My final question is about some of the areas that you are responsible for that are often fished by European vessels. How do you ensure their compliance under any voluntary agreement that exists?
James Cross
Voluntary agreement is possibly less suited to that kind of environment. In looking at how we would try to create control in the European marine sites, we have created four bylaws. In those four bylaws, the vulnerable habitat is reef and the fishing activity is trawling and they occur in areas that are fished by our customers from outside the UK. Again, we created the bylaw. We worked in partnership with DEFRA and the Commission. We went over to France and Belgium and engaged with the local community and stakeholders there. The infrastructure in place is pretty mature so we have a good understanding of where the vessels are. In broad terms, voluntary is really dependent on a good cohesive community and that is more difficult to achieve the further away from land you go.
Mark Lazarowicz
As far as we know, the Government has provided no information about what it expects the management measures for MCZs to be. Is that understanding correct, that there has been nothing published? If that is correct, have you been given any indication of the management measures that they would expect for MCZs?
James Cross
Certainly in some of the material I have read and have been involved in there has been a broad description of what the management measures could be, whether they be a bylaw, voluntary measures, or what is termed as zonal management. A key piece of feedback that I have had is that there is an appetite for more, and it is something I think we are going to be able to do as DEFRA moves through the tranche 2 and tranche 3 designations. But as I say, that level of upfront description could fetter creative and innovative solutions to create a culture of compliance.
Mark Lazarowicz
So you do not think it is a problem that the Government has not been more specific at this stage?
James Cross
I sympathise—
Mark Lazarowicz
With the Government or the people who are complaining?
James Cross
With the people who have offered the feedback that they would like more. I genuinely recognise that and therefore I think there is something more we can do next time. For tranche 2 and tranche 3 I think we can give a greater sense of colour as to what management might look like by use of case studies and practical examples. What happened during the earlier tranches was that there was a factual description of the tools that could be used. My own view is that I would worry about going too far because it lends itself to lazy regulatory narrative rather than working genuinely hard and engaging with the communities and the stakeholders to come up with something that is right for that site.
Mark Lazarowicz
So if the picture is that you, the industries and other users are waiting for the Government to lay down something, that is the wrong picture, is it? Is it as much in your area that we should look for eco-management proposals to come forward?
James Cross
Yes, it is. The Marine Management Organisation, the 10 IFCAs, local authorities and, if we drift towards SSSI sites, the Environment Agency and Natural England, all have the ability to create management measures. It is very much for the regulators to perhaps be a bit more descriptive in some of the things we could use. But as I said earlier, our ambition between now and 2016 is for each of the 88 European marine sites and 27 marine conservation zones to put out an extensive description of the control and management plans they will be using, following genuinely meaningful engagement and consultation.
Mark Lazarowicz
Are we then looking to your organisation and IFCAs to be the place where measures are generated?
James Cross
Yes. My organisation creates the management measures in some areas of the sea. In broad terms, if it is a fisheries-related bylaw, the 10 IFCAs would be responsible for creating that bylaw and that management measure between the coast and out to six nautical miles. If it is between six nautical miles and 12 nautical miles, it is exclusively the Marine Management Organisation. If it is for recreational activity between zero and 12, it is usually the Marine Management Organisation or it could be the local authority. If it is 12 nautical miles to 200 nautical miles, then we are in the realms of DEFRA working in partnership with other member states and in partnership with the Commission.
Mark Lazarowicz
We were told by DEFRA that you are operating a risk prioritisation matrix for the management of the zones. Is there enough evidence to do that prioritisation? What I am getting at is that it seems to be something of a circular process, that you cannot bring forward measures until you have more evidence and more consultation, but until someone brings forward some measures one will not know what kind of evidence you need to look for and what type of measures are required. I am unclear as to how all this is moving forward.
James Cross
This is a published document and it is a tool that is used. We have taken already each of those 88 European marine sites and in about 10 to 12 weeks or so we will be feeding into that the marine conservation zone sites. What we are doing is describing each and every one of those sites in broad terms and we are using that to prioritise the sequencing of creating those control plans. We are confident that we have enough sites and data in place to do that. So the 27 MCZ sites have gone forward for consultation where, based on our preliminary examinations, we have enough to work with. My requirements are slightly different, slightly unsophisticated, insomuch as I just need to know what it is that needs to be protected, where it is and to make sure that it is there. Once I have those three things I have enough to work with. To answer your question, we have enough to work with to start to create the control plans. The reality is that I could move very quickly to create a control plan—I could put it in place genuinely within a matter of weeks—but I worry that it would not create a culture of compliance or that level of buy-in, and that is what I am interested in achieving. There is a lot of value in the engagement, dialogue, understanding and persuasion with those involved.
Dr Whitehead
According to your corporate plan, you have £13 million allocated in 2012-2013 for protecting the environment, which will fall to £7.8 million by 2015-2016. How are you going to be able to monitor, manage and enforce compliance on the basis of that sort of trajectory as far as funding is concerned?
James Cross
The MMO were vested in 2010 with a total organisational grant‑in‑aid of £32 million. The Government gave a very clear steer that there would be pressure on public sector finances and an equally clear steer that the requirement in terms of marine conservation would increase. We have been working under that clear steer for quite some time and that has allowed us to innovate and change our approach. Our finances for the organisation next year will be at £22 million, so over the four-year period we will have moved from £32 million grant-in-aid down to £22 million. Our headcount is about 250 people. Moving into next year, our headcount will be about 310 people. What we have done is genuinely focused on better commercial acumen, being creative, being innovative, sweating some genuine efficiencies out of our organisation. Although we have reduced our funding envelope, we have not cut. We have really sweated a lot of the contracts. We have looked at who we buy our goods and services from and where we are based. In terms of some of the surface drops in budget, they are primarily from the costs of goods and services from the Royal Navy, aerial surveillance providers, IT providers. I have increased by just over 45% the size of the team that creates the bylaws and the control plans and the engagement and I have set aside for the next two years a flexible surveillance pot—helicopters, aeroplanes and boats—which is equivalent to about 25% of the entire Royal Navy budget. So we are pretty well resourced.
Dr Whitehead
One of the most remarkable things you have done, you might say, is that although the budget is going down for the protection of the environment by about £5 million, the number of staff engaged in environmental protection is going down by two. Is that because the cupboard has been raided elsewhere or is that because the efficiencies have been so good that the staffing numbers can be maintained without anybody having to pay the penalty elsewhere? Has that gone down in proportion to everything else or has that been protected at the expense of other areas?
James Cross
No, it has not. Across the whole organisation, at the same time as my budget from DEFRA has dropped from £32 million to £22 million, my headcount has gone up over the same period from 250 people to about 310 people. It is a good case of having a team that can run a business well. If I come back to our work in Lyme Bay, back in 2010, which was when the Marine Management Organisation first joined the party, we could see there was a sense within DEFRA, the Marine Management Organisation, the IFCAs, and certainly within the community, that the old ways of working were just not sustainable. The old mindset of parking a boat and a member of staff and a set of binoculars over and above each and every site was not going to give us a good return for our investment. So way back in 2010 we started to trial new platforms, new IT infrastructure, and it has really started to pay dividends. I come back to this notion of genuine innovation and engagement with the people who know how to create compliance. It has allowed us to keep what is important, which is our people.
Dr Whitehead
In moving forward to the second tranche, by that period you will have a huge area of sea to oversee, won’t you, with basically those resources? Is that something you are happy with or do you think other factors might come into consideration?
James Cross
One of the premises behind the creation of the Marine Management Organisation was that there is an untapped synergy—an awful word, I am sorry—between different aspects of marine activity and regulation that, before our creation, lived with the different Government Departments of fisheries management, marine conservation, renewable energy, ports or development, for argument’s sake. Pulling them all together enables us to genuinely sweat some efficiency. The same technologies, platforms and staff are deployed to manage fisheries management as we use to deploy and manage a marine conservation zone and to facilitate EMFF structural funding in future years. We have integrated our work and practices and there is more we can do. I think there are another three years left ahead of us before we get true integration, but that is how we do it. Again, based on the current set of numbers around European marine sites and tranches 1, 2 and 3 of MCZ designation, we are appropriately resourced. It is not without risks but in broad terms we are there.
Mrs Spelman
James, well done, you are the embodiment of doing more with less, I think, which is what you were hired to do. But equally there were concerns about this huge increase in your workload with the creation of these zones. It is very front-loaded in its activity, after which it stabilises. In your corporate plan, strategic outcome two concerns marine environmental protection but we could not find any targets or performance indicators attached to that. How do you know how well you are doing against your own overarching objectives?
James Cross
Under strategic outcome two—2.1 A2—we have a key performance indicator, which possibly could be clearer. Our broad measure talks about taking all of the marine protected areas and looking at them and giving them a risk assessment: how at risk are these conservation objectives from activity based on the intelligence, based on sightings from the public and the target we have set? The target we are held to account by is that as each year moves on we are going to reduce the number of high-risk sites. So that is the overarching objective. There is a myriad of sets of management information that sit underneath that. But we report publicly annually in our report on that target, and of course into the DEFRA governance network on a quarterly basis as well. There is a heavy level of interest in that. At the beginning of this financial year, there were 20 high-risk sites. The current position is that we have brought that down to eight over this year and we expect to bring that down a little further by the end of the financial year. So, some good traction, and that is year 1 operations as well. It is the first year we have been measuring that.
Mrs Spelman
The sponsoring department is subject to quarterly reviews as well. Could I ask you one other question that came up earlier and I would be interested to take your view on it? The previous group of panellists observed that marine conservation organisations and marine planning organisations are separate and different, which for them as stakeholders creates challenges because there is more than one player in this field. Do you have views about the interaction between those different bodies in the same space?
James Cross
I do. Our business model in the Marine Management Organisation is that we have a culture of stripping out duplication; if it is done somewhere else, do not redo it. Natural England and JNCC, for instance, are statutorily obliged to provide advice to us. So as an organisational model it stops duplication—we do maintain a challenge role—and it focuses the mind and allows us to stop creeping into areas where there are bodies of expertise. The reality is that you could always cut things differently and you could reorganise things. Those are decisions for people above my pay grade. But I think the evidence is there that it is working. Things can always be improved and there is always further improvement to be made and we will try to seize those, but I am fairly relaxed about how things are working at the moment. We get a good service from the statutory nature providers.
Mrs Spelman
That is good. Thank you.
Chair
While we are talking about finance, can I ask a couple more questions? You seem very sanguine about the adequacy of your future budget but if you did find that there was effectively a shortfall and you were not able to do what you hope to be able to do, would you consider charging users of MCZs to enable you to finance enforcement or the other things that you do?
James Cross
Yes. Ever increasingly we are looking at ways to shift the burden of our operations away from the general taxpayer to the people who benefit. We have had really good experience of doing that in the marine consents arm of the business. These are developers—ports developers for example, or renewable energy—who, when I met with them way back in 2010, said they were happy to pay but wanted a very good level of service. Over the last couple of years we have put in place a model whereby that group of my customer base does pay. They pay on a full cost recovery basis and we are fully open and transparent in terms of service standards. Just as an interesting aside, what we are seeing over that side of the business is a step change in performance. When we were vested, the baseline of the key performance indicators that the industry were interested in is an adjudication within 13 weeks so, when they put an application in, there would be a decision yes or no within 13 weeks. In the last two years of operation before we were created they got that 60% of the time and we are currently running on 89% of the time. It is a good step change in performance. Culturally we are in that space but we would have to really think through the rationale and the methodology. There is not a plan in place to follow that notion through but conceptually it is something that we are not necessarily against.
Chair
Apart from the users, with a falling DEFRA budget is it likely that you will have to charge more for your enforcement work in the future?
James Cross
I am hesitating because we have finished it just two weeks ago, but I think the charging we have already put in place gets us into a balanced position. As it stands now, based on the financial settlement over the next two years and based on the ask from Government, there are no significant shifts beyond where we already are. But I think the direction of travel is to explore any and all opportunities to recover costs.
Chair
Thank you. I think that brings us to the end of the session, unless there are any members who have a further question. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Cross, for your evidence, which I am sure will inform our report. Oral evidence: Marine Protected Areas, HC 914 17