Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The Marine Bill: An Overview and Some Thoughts

  • Published:
Liverpool Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper examines the Marine and Coastal Access Bill as it was tabled on 8th December 2008. It explores the failure of the Bill to include marine protection of over 3,000,000 km2 of the waters associated with overseas territories and Crown dependencies. It explains the necessity for close liaison with the European Commission and with the devolved administrations in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, where responsibility for marine governance is not clear cut. It expresses some disappointment in the failure of the Bill to cover questions of ownership of marine resources in particular the right to fish, which remains held under ancient and flawed common law rules. The paper then investigates the content of the Bill, looking at the role and functions of the Marine Management Organisation including licensing of fishing vessels, wind farm consenting/creation of safety zones, consents under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, research, advice, assistance, training, and prosecutions. The Bill also establishes a framework for marine planning with potential for the creation of marine plans and marine policy statements covering the waters of England and Wales to the edge of the UK Exclusive Economic Zone. Such plans and statements will have persuasive effects on the organisations involved in marine management, but will not be completely binding. The Bill creates powers to licence numerous activities and if necessary delegate licensing function to the bodies such as the Marine Management Organisation. It also established new powers for the creation of Marine Conservation Zones. The paper explores the narrow purposes for which these Marine Conservation Zones and created, and contrasts these unfavourably with the draft Scottish Marine Bill, which permits Marine Conservation Zones for such purposes as community interest. The paper also acknowledges that no target has been set for the creation of Marine Conservation Zones, and raises some concerns over whether Marine Conservation Zones contain severe enough penalties, particularly in respect of commercial fishing where there is a specific exemption for fisheries damage. The paper explores the function of the new Inshore Fisheries Authorities which will replace existing Sea Fisheries Committees, but raises concerns that the new organisations will still remain vulnerable to conflicts of interests because of their membership.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.rspb.org.uk/supporting/campaigns/sealife/index.asp. Accessed 14th August 2009.

  2. For instance see: Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2004), or Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit (2004), or European Commission (2001).

  3. Appleby (2008).

  4. See the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  5. The writer is indebted to Matthew Boyer of Matthew Boyer Solicitors for this observation.

  6. Gifford (1996, p. 20).

  7. Black-Clawson International Limited v Papierwerke Waldhoff-Aschaffenberg AG [1975] AC 591, HL at 647.

  8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_Economic_Zone. Accessed 5th April 2009.

  9. Ibid.

  10. R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Quark Fishing Limited [2005] UKHL 57 at 37.

  11. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/conservation/4128073/George-W-Bush-moves-to-protect-ocean-reefs-fish-and-volanoes.html. Accessed 3rd April 2009.

  12. For some entertaining discussion of the cohesion of the European Union see Ferguson (2004, p. 237 et seq.).

  13. See for instance the infamous Factortame II case on competition, the R v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Greenpeace No.2 [2000] Env LR 221 and the Waddenzee case C127/02 on the Habitats Directive.

  14. A 9 EU Regulation 2371/02.

  15. A 176 Consolidated EU Treaties.

  16. Hardin (1968).

  17. Aristotle trans. Kraut R. (1998, p. 42).

  18. Marston (1991).

  19. See the www.thecrownestate.co.uk/. Accessed 3rd April 2009.

  20. See Marston (1991).

  21. As to some of the effects of Crown ownership see Appleby (2007).

  22. See above.

  23. See Appleby (2005).

  24. Murphy v Ryan (1873) 11 M. 309.

  25. See for instance Roberts (2007).

  26. http://www.newsguardian.co.uk/latest-news/Region-welcomes-marine-management-organisation.4974373.jp. Accessed 4th April 2009.

  27. Cl.4 Draft Marine and Coastal Access Bill.

  28. Cl.12.

  29. Cl.9.

  30. Cl.23.

  31. Cl.24.

  32. Cl.95.

  33. Cl.53.

  34. Cl.125.

  35. See for instance see for instance cl. 33(1) where ‘Scottish areas’ are excluded from the powers to transferred to the MMO to establish safety zones around wind farms.

  36. Cl.3.

  37. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldselect/ldconst/68/3110508.htm. Accessed 4th April 2009.

  38. Schedule 1.

  39. See for instance the Irish Sea pilot project JNCC (2004).

  40. Stewart P interviewed by Community of Arran Seabed Trust (2007).

  41. Cl.42.

  42. Cl.49.

  43. Cl.42(1).

  44. Cl.43.

  45. Cl.47.

  46. Cl.48.

  47. Cl.49.

  48. Cl.49(2).

  49. This includes a statement of public participation see para 5 Schedule 6.

  50. Para 10 Schedule 6.

  51. Cl.56.

  52. Cl.57.

  53. s78 Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

  54. Cl.56(3).

  55. 63.

  56. Cl.71 onwards.

  57. Cl.95.

  58. Cl.87 onwards.

  59. Cl.113.

  60. Cl.114.

  61. Scottish Government (2008, p. 63).

  62. Cl.116.

  63. Cl.114(2).

  64. Appleby (2008).

  65. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2004, p.254)

  66. s36(6) Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  67. For a fuller discussion see Jones (1999).

  68. Cl.121(2).

  69. Cl.122(1).

  70. Cl.122(2).

  71. Cl.122(7).

  72. See for instance Byelaw 17 The licensing of cockle gathering in the Burry Inlet South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee http://www.swsfc.org.uk/home.htm. Accessed 4th April 2009.

  73. See Symes and Boyes (2005, p. 58).

  74. Cl.124(2).

  75. Cl.125.

  76. Cl.136.

  77. Cl.137(2).

  78. http://www.nwnwsfc.org/. Accessed 5th April 2009.

  79. Cl.146.

  80. Cl.147.

  81. Cl.145.

  82. Cl.149.

  83. s5A Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966.

  84. Cl.147(1).

  85. Cl.147(2).

  86. See Eagle (2004).

  87. s11(1) Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966.

  88. Cl.159(3).

  89. Cl.153.

  90. DEFRA (2009).

References

  • Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit. 2004. Net benefits: A sustainable and profitable future for UK fishing. Cabinet Office.

  • Scottish Government. 2008. Sustainable Seas for all—A consultation on Scotland’s first. Marine Bill Scottish Government.

  • Appleby, T. 2005. The public right to fish—Is it fit for purpose? Journal of Water Law 16(1): 201–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appleby, T. 2007. Damage by fishing in the UK’s Lyme Bay—A problem of regulation or ownership. Journal of Water Law 18(2): 39–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appleby T. 2008. Report into the establishment of marine protected areas in UK waters under existing legislation http://www.ukmpas.org/pdf/appleby.pdf. Accessed 3rd April 2009.

  • Aristotle trans, Kraut R. 1998. Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Community of Arran Seabed Trust. 2007. Caught in time DVD Community of Arran Seabed Trust.

  • DEFRA. 2009. http://www.defra.gov.uk/marine/pdf/legislation/protect-marine-env-leaflet.pdf. Accessed 4th April 2009.

  • Eagle J. 2004. Democracy in natural resources: British and American approaches to public participation in fishery management. The British Council.

  • European Commission. 2001. Green paper—The future of the common fisheries policy. European Commission 2001.

  • Ferguson N. 2004. Colossus the rise and fall of the American empire Penguin.

  • Gifford, D. 1996. How to understand an Act of Parliament. London: Routledge.

  • Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243–1248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joint Nature Conservation Committee. 2004. A report on the Irish Sea pilot final report, JNCC.

  • Jones, P. 1999. Marine nature reserves in Britain: Past lesson, current status and future issues, Marine Policy 23:4–5, 375–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marston, G. 1991. The Crown Estate’s seabed—A valuable prerogative. Cambridge Law Journal 50: 384, 385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, C. 2007. The unnatural history of the sea. London: Island Press.

  • Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. 2004. Turning the tide—addressing the impact of fisheries on the marine environment. HMSO.

  • Symes, D., and Boyes, S. 2005. Review of management regimes and relevant legislation in UK waters. Hull: University of Hull.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tom Appleby.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Appleby, T. The Marine Bill: An Overview and Some Thoughts. Liverpool Law Rev 30, 101–113 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-009-9058-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-009-9058-9

Keywords

Navigation