BSAC

Response of the British Sub Aqua Club to the Marine Bill consultation document of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - June 2006.
The British Sub Aqua Club is the governing body for recreational scuba diving and snorkelling in the United Kingdom. The other recreational diving organisations will be making their own response to the document. Our response should be considered in the context of an activity in which most members dive in the shallow coastal zone, no deeper than 50 metres, with a small but significant minority diving in deeper water to around 130 metres.

The British Sub Aqua Club welcomes the opportunity to respond to this document. Our desire as an organisation is to see that the current state of our seas, and in particular its biodiversity and cultural heritage, is preserved for future generations. The setting up of marine protected areas is essential to achieve this. Voluntary codes have historically been of limited value and fragile marine eco systems are currently unprotected. We would wish to raise awareness of the ways in which the recreational diver contributes to and benefits from the marine environment. We would also like to reinforce the concept of multiple use of a "public space". We also note that increasing commercial use of the public space may make it more likely that the voice of the recreational diver may not be heard. We are part of a strong and growing tourism and culture industry.
As recreational divers we are very aware of the need to be involved in nature conservation, and often see for ourselves on the seabed the unrealised impact of other activities that those who can only go on the water cannot see. Any marine bill would need to ensure continued access for recreational divers as they can play an important role in information gathering activities.
We have only responded to those questions that we consider to have a possible impact on the activities of recreational divers.

Planning
It is appropriate for the UK Government to consider creating a new system of marine spatial planning, in which the needs of all users are recognised. It is essential that recreational users are not lost in the planning, as large commercial ventures may hide the impact on the smaller organisations and activities.
It would be beneficial for the Government to consider statutory provision of implementing marine spatial planning, provided that all sectors are involved in the development process.
Marine spatial planning should be a focus for information collation and planning. Such information collection and planning should have an inclusive element taking into account the smaller interest groups as stated earlier in your document.
We would wish to support Marine Spatial Planning with a clear acceptance of the importance of the views of the recreational diving industry, and statutory rights of representation at the planning stage.
An eco system based approach to marine spatial planning is essential to ensure sustainable use of marine resources. We welcome the key principles, especially transparency and accountability.
We would not welcome any increase in any regulatory burden on diving activities (there are currently very few.)
The marine intertidal zone should on principle be included in the geographical application of marine spatial planning. Recreational divers are users of this zone, and have great interest in the environment and the cultural material found here. Recreational divers with a particular interest in archaeology and foreshore archaeology are aware of the need to conserve this source of information about our maritime cultural heritage. The intertidal zone is an extremely interesting area for the study of marine biology.
The recreational users of the sea may be involved in disparate activities, but together make up a substantial body of people with a significant financial input into local communities. As a group they should not be overlooked.
The policy framework should be developed further with specific consultation with recreational users, who might be asked to form a sub group. There is likely to be the need for such a forum. We might suggest for example the diving organisations, the recreational fishing group, boat charter skippers, the RYA, avocational archaeological groups and others could form such a sub group.
The creation of a Marine Management Organisation (MMO) would be the best way forward. This should ensure co-ordination between government departments and should take account of all stakeholders interests not just those of the commercial sector.
The system of marine spatial planning must be flexible, sustainable and afford protection of fragile eco systems, both explored and unexplored.
We would wish to endorse the idea of a requirement to look at marine spatial planning at a sub-regional or local level. The coastal zone is of particular interest to recreational divers, and planning in this area may well have a significant impact on the use of the resource. Local knowledge of the area may be pertinent to a properly developed plan and recreational divers will be a very useful source of information to these sub regional and local plans.
We would like to suggest that wrecks are not merely heritage resources, but are habitats for a substantial range of marine creatures and that the biodiversity of wrecks should also include sessile material and marine animals that are not fish or mammals.
The dumping of dredged material can have a detrimental effect on marine life, visibility in the water, and potentially, diver safety. It would be useful to consider the impact of dredging and deposition of that material when developing marine spatial plans.
Recreational divers could have a substantial part to play in recording coastal zone information. Some of our members are concerned that disclosure can mean loss of access. This concern would need to be addressed to get the wholehearted cooperation of the recreational divers. Divers may well have a role to play in filling in some of the gaps in the data identified by any marine spatial planning in local areas.
Sensitivity maps would be useful in that they could show areas at risk from specific activities. We would ask that sensitivity maps should be assessed for sensitivity to specific activities, e.g. fishing damage. Diving should not be excluded as it can be done in a non-invasive manner.
SEAs would seem to be essential if a fully integrated planning system is to be developed.
It is essential for a local planning consultation exercise to be established. The initial consultees should be the lead bodies or governing bodies for the smaller recreational groups, the governing body could then liaise with their local groups as required.
The governing bodies of the recreational activities could be well placed to promulgate the planning activity. With many small interest groups it can be more difficult for nationally orientated planning authorities to ensure transparency, especially if there is a conflict with �commercial in confidence' issues. The best safeguard is to involve the governing body in the consultation and planning process.
A scrutiny process would be very useful. For planning activities in the coastal zone and offshore waters up to 100m deep it would be beneficial to include representation from the diving organisations.
The implementation, monitoring and review of plans should involve the consultees.

Licensing
The licensing in this section is that which applies to large commercial ventures. The recreational diving community would need to be reassured that any new licensing requirements would not affect their access to the underwater environment without very good reason and in full consultation with the recreational diving groups.
Section j refers to the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973, The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 and the Protection of Military remains Act 1986. There are licensing regimes attached to these Acts of Parliament. We would wish to reinforce the principle that recreational divers have an important part to play in the curation of such sites, and licensing to exclude diver access should only be undertaken in rare circumstances. Normally diver activity should be encouraged to allow monitoring of a site and the reporting of any gratuitous damage.

Improving marine nature conservation
Our main area of interest here is the coastal zone as this is the area most often visited by recreational divers. We support the commitment to ensure marine eco systems are healthy, functioning, and resilient and support biodiversity throughout the marine environment. We would wish to support the principles behind the Marine Protected Area Mechanism. We would like to see more protection of vulnerable underwater habitats by the designation of nationally important sites and the setting up of highly protected marine reserves where no damaging activity whatsoever is allowed, particularly damaging extractive industries (e.g. dredging and scallop dredging). We would also support species protection measures to protect rare and vulnerable species from harmful activities.
A new mechanism for the designation of protected areas should be introduced into the Marine Bill. It may well be beneficial for the new mechanism to complement existing legislation.
However we would like to reiterate the importance of allowing non-invasive access to such sites for recreational divers, exclusion being the very rare exception (and with consultation).
In principle we would wish to support protection measures being used to protect interests other than those for which a site is primarily designated.
It is important that boundaries can be revisited, the current climate change, and the concept of non-intended consequences should encourage such revisiting. Recreational divers in the coastal zone could be a useful resource in the monitoring and reporting of such changes.
We would support the need to have different levels of objectives. A tiered approach to designation of marine nature conservation sites would be appropriate, providing adequate consultation for designation is undertaken from all stakeholders. A flexible site mechanism would have our support.
Site protection is key particularly for highly protected marine reserves, and direct site protection mechanisms would be appropriate in these areas.
It would be advantageous to introduce a requirement for a site survey and assessment, and for a specific activity assessment to complement this. Again in the coastal zone we would ask for recreational diver involvement and transparency of criteria.
We are concerned about the statement that divers cause disturbance to marine wildlife. We strongly disagree with this statement and promote environmentally aware diving. Such statements should be validated by properly authenticated, quantified research findings and should not be accepted without a proper evidence base. We would be very concerned that byelaws may be imposed as a result of descriptive, unsubstantiated statements. We are also concerned that in a consultation document such as this a very rare mention of "diver" appears in a negative context.
The concept of controls concerning indiscriminate use would need to be very clear and the possible consequences of the power of anecdotal evidence unsupported by scientifically rigorous evidence. We would not support any further controls on recreational diving without exceptional reason and consultation. Divers have a important role to play in data gathering and education of the wider public, in relation to the underwater marine environment.
The Government needs to ensure that when an enforcement regime is necessary it should be properly funded in such a way as prevent the law being brought into disrepute through flagrant breaches which cannot subsequently be followed up.

Marine Management Organisation
We support the establishment of a marine management organisation responsible for marine spatial planning and an integrated licensing regime.
We agree that the role of English Heritage in Marine historic advice should not change.
There are many examples of conflicts between different marine activities that can be observed by divers in the underwater environment, e.g. the damage caused by accidental impact of trawling on ship wrecks, the impact of scallop dredging and marine litter on the seabed.
Our main concern is that recreational divers may suffer from an undeserved reputation for damaging the habitats and wrecks that they visit. Recreational divers are generally a force for good, and should be seen as such. We have the ability to see underwater in some areas and circumstances what is really happening in a way not possible for those who cannot be there. We should be welcomed as people who want to maintain the environment that gives up so much pleasure and excitement. Vilification as an easy option should be actively discouraged. The Marine Bill should safeguard our presence in the sea.
The input of volunteer recreational divers in information gathering in the marine environment is freely available, when managed and collated properly.
The establishment of highly protected marine reserves is like to have a significant positive impact on diving tourism.
The current interest in artificial reef sites, and the sinking of the Scylla in Whitesand Bay near Plymouth would indicate that there is an economic opportunity in recreational diving and its associated industries that has a positive impact on local economies. Extensive marine biodiversity attracts divers, and money follows the divers. The establishment of highly protected marine reserves is like to have a significant positive impact on diving tourism.
There could be significant benefits to business and others in improving the state of marine biodiversity in marine protected areas, the establishment of highly protected marine reserves is like to have a significant positive impact on diving tourism.
There could be significant costs to local economies if diving was excluded from marine reserves.
Voluntary marine protected areas that are currently in existence are ignored by some marine industries.
Divers are a responsible group. We would expect to see divers conforming to all reasonable requirements of the voluntary measures. They already do in the voluntary marine reserves that exist at present. They would however need to be reassured that such measures were in the best interests of the habitat, and that exclusion if used at all would be thoroughly examined, fully consulted about, and used very rarely. If they were used to monitor and record what is happening in the areas then full cooperation would be the norm.

Monday, June 26, 2006