Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I welcome to the meeting the representatives from the Marine Task Force (NIMTF). We have with us Mr Robert Walsh from the Northern Ireland Marine Task Force; Dr Jade Berman, coastal adviser for the National Trust; and Dr Mathieu Lundy, head of marine recovery at Ulster Wildlife. When you are comfortable and ready, you can brief the Committee and then take a few questions. Thank you.

Mr Robert Walsh (Northern Ireland Marine Task Force): No problem. Thank you, Chair and Committee members, for the opportunity to present our insights. I will briefly explain what the Northern Ireland Marine Task Force is, for those who are unfamiliar, and then outline the state of nature and the overview of policy developments that require marine licences, which my colleagues will then explain in further detail.

The Northern Ireland Marine Task Force is a coalition of 12 environmental NGOs working to develop marine environmental policies across Northern Ireland. Established in 2007, we ensure, through our marine vision, healthy, productive and resilient seas for Northern Ireland. Our remit covers Lough Foyle round to Carlingford lough. Through Northern Ireland Environment Link (NIEL), we represent Northern Ireland at a UK level at Environment Links UK. For marine licensing, the most relevant themes of our marine vision are sustainable development at sea and the recovering biodiversity.

Before we assess the impacts of marine licensing on the marine environment, it is important that the Committee understand the current state of nature in Northern Ireland and its relation to the rest of the UK. As of a report from 2021, we are the twelfth-worst of 240 regions in the world for biodiversity loss, whilst the 2023 'State of Nature' report highlighted the fact that 12% of species were assessed with the threat of extinction across both terrestrial and marine habitats. The report also highlighted the fact that the number of birds of conservation concern on Ireland's red list has tripled from 18 to 54 species since 1999. At the UK level, a recent review of the UK marine strategy shows that we have increased the number of indicators that are failing to achieve good environmental status from 11 to 13 out of 15 indicators. That demonstrates the poor elements of ocean health. According to the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) review 'Drivers and Pressures Affecting the UK Marine Environment', declines in nature have been attributed to poor governance, missed timelines, climate change, unsustainable activities and other associated cumulative pressures, such as water pollution. Those must be addressed.

With the return of the Executive, we have seen marine conservation policies progress, including the marine protected areas (MPAs) strategy review, the elasmobranch conservation strategy and the seabird conservation strategy and action plan. There are also additional, industry-related developments, such as the offshore renewable energy action plan, through the Offshore Renewable Energy Emergency Forum (OREEF), the fisheries management plans, through established working groups, and the offshore MPA management plans, through Co-FISH.

The developing policy areas are flagship initiatives for our region, but the processes underpinning delivery need to be agreed and understood. You will be aware that there have been nature restoration targets and ambitions set through last year's environmental improvement plan and core targets set through the Programme for Government (PFG), which relies on the delivery of the aforementioned marine conservation policies, such as the newly finalised blue-carbon action plan, which was co-designed with the MPAs strategy still in development.

The blue-carbon action plan outlines areas in which delivery partners are capable of progressing policy objectives through their projects, which my colleagues, Dr Mathieu Lundy from Ulster Wildlife and Dr Jade Berman from the National Trust, will go on to explain. Marine licensing offers opportunities and challenges to active marine conservation and coastal management.

Dr Mathieu Lundy (Ulster Wildlife): As Robert has outlined, we are in a busy policy space, with a lot of strategies emerging from the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and other Departments. Marine nature recovery is a public good. The restoration of salt marshes, seagrass meadows and native oyster reefs is essential for reversing the decades of habitat loss in UK waters. Those habitats deliver critical ecosystem services, such as carbon sequestration, water quality improvement and biodiversity support, and they directly support DAERA policy objectives and wider environmental targets. We have seen a significant salt marsh loss. Around 85% of salt marshes have been lost in the past century. More than 90% of seagrass meadows have been lost since the 1930s. There has been around a 90% decline in native oyster reefs, so they are effectively extinct in the UK.

With the new policy landscape, we now require on-the-ground delivery. We are entering a policy landscape that is shaped by emerging and established strategies, and delivering on those strategies will require physical habitat restoration and cross-cutting action. That demands engagement across Departments and will therefore require marine licensing. Restoration must be delivered at pace and at scale in order to implement successfully the existing strategies, into which a lot of work has gone to deliver them in the past number of years. The restoration projects are pioneering, unchartered and novel, and we do not know the process by which to get them on the ground. They are the first of their kind, so we do not have an established blueprint. The regulatory pathway is often unclear, particularly on whether marine licensing is required, exempt or subject to additional permissions, so it demands iterative and cross-sectoral collaboration.

We have had constructive engagement with and support from DAERA and are committed to enabling delivery, despite the complexity. The approval phase, however, remains resource-intensive, and the processes can be lengthy and unpredictable. Introducing additional complexity or, indeed, additional resource requirements at the approval stage risks delaying or preventing restoration, owing to capacity constraints. Conservation organisations are working not for profit but for the public benefit in order to deliver ecosystem services, such as water quality and nutrient management, yet we face the same regulatory processes as commercial sectors. Most of our work is funded through short-term grants and fixed annual budgets, and the consent and approval costs and timescales are unpredictable. Any deviations from funding applications may make the grants ineligible and come at a cost to our organisations, thus creating planning and delivery risks for time-sensitive restoration projects.

Marine recovery is embedded in current DAERA policy. There are strategies in place, and we are now in the delivery phase. Strategies are often led by third-party organisations, such as by the members of the Northern Ireland Marine Task Force. Where the actions that require marine licensing are part of a wider strategic delivery, the consenting framework should be considered strategically to ensure effective implementation. We would like the Department to co-design a dedicated, streamlined pathway for recovery and natural restoration to ensure that those pioneering projects are delivered at scale, at pace and for the public benefit.

Dr Jade Berman (National Trust): For context, I will give you a few examples of National Trust work. The National Trust manages 22% of the coast of Northern Ireland and one third of Strangford lough. We carried out the first managed coastal realignment work in Northern Ireland back in 2009 at Anne's Point on Strangford lough in partnership with DFI Rivers and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA). We recently aligned the site again with support from the marine environment and fisheries fund blue-carbon strand. We have commissioned, thanks to the DAERA environment fund further work on mapping salt marshes and other blue-carbon habitats around Northern Ireland, identifying potential areas for restoration and blue-carbon capture. That aligns with the goals of the DAERA's recent blue-carbon action plan through the co-development process by working with us and other stakeholders.

The Northern Ireland Coastal and Marine Forum also brings together the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, the Minister for Infrastructure, the chief executives of the coastal councils and the director of the National Trust. The development of the coastal observatory platform supported the first baseline survey of the whole coast of Northern Ireland. We are, however, still behind the rest of the UK in developing shoreline management plans or an equivalent process. Despite the warnings of enhanced future coastal erosion rates and sea-level rise, recent severe environmental ocean events impact not just on nature but on infrastructure and economic and other assets.

The coastal monitoring and adaptation planning (CMAP) project, on which Ulster University leads, has 19 partners, including the associate partners, and is funded by PEACE PLUS. CMAP will increase the evidence base and also pilot coastal adaptation plans and toolkits that are co-developed with local communities and decision makers. Those will support future decision-making about our coast for people and nature. In order to take the right action, however, we need the support from marine licensing to ensure that the right activities happen in the right place.

There is a need for the Department to be able to recoup the cost of service delivery under its responsibilities for managing public money. We also recognise, however, that marine restoration projects often try out new methodologies, and the expense, if government is to charge by the hour, can be significant. Currently, the flat fee relates to the cost of carrying out the works. There is a risk that works, including nature-based solutions, will be dropped from other developments as costs increase.

I have an example here from the National Trust in England of where the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) undertook a consultation that proposed that its marine licensing fees would go up from £122 an hour to £155 an hour for marine licensing. We have a salt marsh restoration project over there, on Northey Island in Essex, and, currently, with those sorts of per hour fees, we have spent over £55,000 on marine licensing fees alone to carry out a restoration project. That is a significant proportion of the cost of the project, and it means that we can do less.

We recognise that marine licensing fees are necessary, but they should be reduced where there is a positive environmental impact. There is a need for blue-carbon and other nature-based solutions for future marine and coastal management projects. It is vital that carrying out public good above the statutory minimum not be penalised by costing more in licence fees to do. There are exemptions in the South, under the Maritime Area Usage (Licence Fees) Regulations 2023. There has also been discussion in Scotland about exemptions for restoration projects and in England with English Heritage. Things are moving in that direction.

To summarise, licensing for marine nature recovery and restoration must be reformed and tailored specifically to marine nature recovery and be better aligned with the funding process. For example, the time taken to process marine licences should not prohibit participation in short-term funding cycles. Marine nature recovery and restoration should be recognised within the licensing system by developing a separate class of licences for marine recovery and restoration projects. That includes having a dedicated outward-facing administrative team. Increasing that regulatory flexibility would also enable conservation projects to trial approaches and monitor impacts and interactions with other species and habitats, thus enabling a greater number of candidate sites to be available, particularly for active restoration activities.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you very much.

Dr Berman: No worries.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): We appreciate that. I find your work absolutely fascinating, as you know, and thanks for your hospitality a number of months ago, which was on my birthday, if I remember correctly. There was no cake, however, so you missed a trick there. [Laughter.]

Thank you so much.

If you do not mind, questions today will be focused on clause 16. That is the clause in the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill that we have been tasked with bringing some clarity to. Members should try to keep their questions to that clause and not stray too far from it. I genuinely believe that there is a lot in what you have said that is of huge value.

You highlighted opportunities, such as exemptions for restoration. Did you engage as a collective with the Department on those opportunities? Did you submit anything to the consultation that might assist us as we consider the clause?

Dr Berman: Yes, we submitted a response to the marine licensing consultation and attended some of the consultation workshops that there were on the marine licensing process.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Did you submit anything on clause 16, specifically on what we are doing in and around the levying of fees?

Dr Berman: To be more specific, we submitted a response to DAERA when it had its consultation back in May.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Can you share that with the Committee?

Dr Berman: Yes, that is no problem. We can share it with you.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you very much. That would be really useful.

Mr McAleer: In your presentation, you referred to habitat loss, the water quality and seagrass meadows disappearing. Do you believe that clause 16 will help reverse that situation and help you to do the work that you do?

Dr Lundy: It will potentially provide flexibility for there to be more streamlined licensing in order to allow those projects to happen in a timely manner. We often do our work using short-term, annual funding. If there are agreed frameworks, known strategies and pre-approvals, where those support DAERA policy, and if those flexibilities and categories of licensing are there, we can plan much more effectively the restoration work that we do. We are doing work on the ground, or, rather, on the seabed, that will require marine licensing, so it is about making sure that that can happen with urgency and in a timely fashion.

Mr McAleer: Rather than being funded year-on-year, if you were to have multi-annual funding, would that let you plan ahead and thus adopt a longer-term strategy?

Dr Berman: It would have to be somewhat specific. For example, we have not been able to apply to the blue-carbon fund because of its short-term nature. For Ulster Wildlife and us, the funding schedule means that the licence would not be through in time to carry out the work. We therefore cannot spend the money to do good, and that becomes a hindrance when it comes to accessing that sort of support.

Mr Walsh: A lot of the restoration projects last for more than a year, as I am sure that you understand.

Mr Blair: Thanks to all of you for your ongoing work and for your presentation today. The Chair has already covered some of the implications of clause 16, given the powers and proposals that may flow from it, if you will pardon the pun. Can you give any examples of frameworks in which you are already involved with the Department? I know that there are some, because we have heard about them already. Have you already tried to use those frameworks to overcome the funding problem? If there has not been an opportunity to do so yet, might there be opportunities in the near future to try to use them?

Dr Lundy: A very effective framework that is in place in the Department at the moment is the pre-application discussion, whereby there is a process of understanding whether the scope of the work is exempt or requires marine licensing. We get quite an expedited response to that and therefore know how to proceed. We have been through a number of pre-application discussions to determine the scale of work that would be exempt or that would require marine licensing. That then allows us to form a concrete plan.

Mr Blair: There therefore may still be an opportunity to make progress on the exemptions that are required in the interests of protection and restoration?

Dr Berman: I would think so, yes, because at the moment, it goes through as a commercial licence. It therefore has to go through all the processes as a commercial licence rather than as a different type of project. For example, for dredging, up to 10,000 tons is the minimum level. If we are doing a small community project, such as the one that we have done in Cushendun to remove some of the sand, which was 2,000 tons, from the boat launch ramp for the community, that comes in as a larger project. At the moment, with the new fees that have just come in, without the additional fees on top from what will be section 16, about £9,000 would have to be put aside for that community benefit before even considering the additional costs on top, such as costs from speaking to people and the hourly costs. I have examples from the MMO about its costs. I do not know what costs are being discussed, because, at the moment, it is just about the ability to have costs. That is causing issues, however. That sort of shift may also cause issues with developments going ahead without their going for licensing. If you are not careful, you may end up with more enforcement issues.

Mr Blair: The Chair secured agreement from you that we will see some of your responses. That could be helpful in keeping us briefed. Community-related projects, such as the one that you mentioned in Cushendun, will be crucial for local communities not only to use facilities and access areas, and, for that matter, nature, but to protect nature.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): You were not here for the previous session, but we had the Department in, and we were talking about the Marine Licensing (Exempted Activities) Order (Northern Ireland) 2011 rather than about clause 16 of the Bill. The 2011 order is about the potential for exemptions for not specifically nature-based restoration but community activity. It was about horses on the beach at Donaghadee and that type of stuff. There is a lot of stuff that can be good, so we need to keep our eyes open to ensure that we are not stopping or inhibiting good practice. We should encourage it. It does not make a whole lot of sense to have to have £9,500 of unrecoverables in order to do some good.

No other members have questions to ask. Well done. They must like you a lot. [Laughter.]

Thank you so much for your time.

Mr Walsh: Thank you so much.