NWWAC and NSAC slam MMO’s UK MPA consultation, questioning the scientific integrity, and rejecting blanket bans, flawed data and discriminatory impacts on fleets
The North Western Waters Advisory Council (NWWAC) and the North Sea Advisory Council (NSAC) have delivered a joint response to the UK government’s Stage 3 consultation on Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), issued on 25 September.
Their submission attacks the Marine Management Organisation’s (MMO) process as scientifically weak, economically reckless and discriminatory towards European fleets.
Question 1: Are the Designated Features Properly Identified?
The councils argued the MMO’s characterisation of habitats and species was riddled with shortcomings. They highlighted that many assessments relied on outdated surveys, some dating back to 2014, and that habitat coverage percentages were missing or replaced with proxy advice from unrelated sites. “Extrapolations or estimates cannot replace robust, site-specific assessments,” the councils said, calling for new surveys at sites such as Greater Haig Fras and Margate and Long Sands.
Question 2: Is the Fishing Activity Data Reliable?
Their answer was a blunt no. The councils said the MMO used “spatially inadequate” data, particularly for vessels under 12 metres, failed to capture EU vessels, and ignored seasonal activity. They stressed that more accurate data is already available under the UK–EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement but was not used. Producer organisations, they noted, are willing to supply missing detail if the MMO engages with them.
Question 3: Do You Agree with the Proposed Management Measures?
The councils flatly rejected the MMO’s reliance on blanket bans, describing its binary approach as “disproportionate and methodologically flawed.” Instead, they advocated for adaptive measures such as seasonal closures, gear modifications, spatial quotas, biennial reviews, and two-year transition periods before bans. They also called for cross-border coordination on shared sites like Bassurelle Sandbank.
Question 4: What Would the Impact Be on Your Fleets?
The councils estimated that 87 Spanish, 160 French, 120 Irish, 55 Belgian and 85 Dutch vessels using bottom gears would be “severely impacted.” For the French fleet alone, activity in the affected sites generates €9.5 million in annual revenues. They recommended economic analysis at port level, assessments of redeployment costs and job losses, and territorial compensation such as reopening less sensitive areas.
Question 5: What About UK Vessels and Supply Chains?
Here too, the councils accused the MMO of underestimating the consequences. They said impacts on British fleets, especially under-12 metre coastal boats, were ignored due to weak data. They warned that displacement into smaller areas would intensify fishing effort, fuel gear conflicts and create safety hazards, with knock-on effects for ports and supply chains.
Question 6: What About Non-UK Fleets?
The councils said the MMO’s approach was “highly discriminatory” to EU vessels, citing the absence of consultation with EU Member States, disregard for historical rights under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, and lack of proper economic analysis. They demanded thorough consultation, impact studies at national level, and harmonised cross-border management.
Question 7: Are There Other Impacts?
Yes, the councils said, and they are serious. They listed environmental risks from displaced effort, socio-economic harm to coastal communities, regulatory risks of setting a flawed precedent, and even maritime safety threats in crowded sea lanes such as the Eastern Channel. They warned that without proper evaluation and mitigation, the MMO’s measures will be seen as illegitimate and damaging.
Conclusion
The joint response leaves little doubt about the advisory councils’ position: the MMO’s plans are based on unreliable science, incomplete data and blunt management tools. If implemented, they warned, the proposals will inflict disproportionate harm on both EU and UK fleets, undermine coastal communities, and risk worsening EU–UK relations.
