Consultation outcome

Summary of responses

Updated 9 December 2023

Introduction and context

This document summarises the public consultation on the principles of marine net gain (MNG) which was launched in June 2022 and ran for 14 weeks (including a 2-week extension).

The first section of the consultation defined MNG. It sought respondents’ views on:

• whether MNG should measure impacts on habitats and species
• any extra environmental benefits and services that should be included in MNG assessments
• whether MNG should discount potentially positive incidental effects from assessments
• whether a contributions-style approach should be prioritised

The second section focused on the scope of MNG, where it will apply and what it will apply to. We asked for respondents’ views on:

• whether MNG should be a mandatory requirement
• the proposed list of consenting and licensing regimes for MNG
• any activities or sectors that shouldn’t be covered by MNG

The third and fourth parts of the consultation focused on potential interventions for MNG and presented seven questions to respondents. These questions covered:

• pressure reduction measures
• the principle of taking both a site-level and strategic approach to MNG
• types of site-based interventions
• types of strategic interventions
• whether access to strategic interventions should be conditional
• whether MNG interventions should be restricted to the locality of the development

Lastly, the fifth part of the consultation discussed MNG and additionality in marine protected areas (MPAs). Additionality is a principle seeking a real increase in value that would have not occurred in the absence of the intervention. It defined the current principle of additionality and the proposed reinterpretation of this principle under MNG. Respondents’ views were sought on whether the enhancement of designated features within statutory MPAs should be allowed in the marine environment.

Respondents

A total of 92 responses were received during the consultation period. 58 were received via CitizenSpace and 34 were submitted via email. Some additional emails were received which included duplication of CitizenSpace responses.

This response draws on analysis of the consultation responses completed by Defra.

We are grateful to everyone who took the time to share their experience, views and suggestions. The response that follows highlights the main issues raised but is not an exhaustive commentary on every response. All responses will be considered in the development of policy and the forthcoming government response.

Five additional responses were submitted after the closure of the consultation. These responses are not included in the summary but will be taken into consideration during policy development.

Breakdown of respondents

There was a wide sectoral distribution of respondents. The largest respondent group was industry containing representatives from, but not restricted to, the offshore wind, energy, ports and fishing industry. Other large groups included arm’s length bodies (ALBs) or government agencies and environmental consultancy groups.

Table 1: Breakdown of respondents in principles of marine net gain consultation by reported or assigned type of organisation.

Sector	Number of responses
Academic	4
Arms-length body/government agency	10
Archaeological group	6
Community group	8
Environmental non-governmental organisation (eNGO)	8
Environmental consultants	10
Industry	32
Individual	6
Other	1
Parish council or local government	7

A full list of organisations which responded to the consultation, and gave their consent for their responses to be shared, can be found in Annex A.

Section 1: Defining marine net gain

Principle 1: Marine net gain will measure impacts on habitats and species.

Questions 1 & 1a: Do you agree that marine net gain should assess impacts on species as well as habitats? (yes/no) Please explain your answer.

Figure 1: Proportion of total responses to Question 1 by sector and answer indicated

Sector	Yes	No	Total
Academics	4%	0%	4%
ALB/government agency	13%	0	13%
Archaeological group	0	0	0
Community group	9%	0	9%
eNGO	9%	0	9%
Environmental consultancy	12%	1%	13%
Individual	8%	0	8%
Industry	25%	9%	34%
Other organisation	1%	0	1%
Parish council and local government	8%	0	8%

76 respondents answered this question. 89% answered ‘yes’, agreeing that marine net gain should assess impacts on species as well as habitats. ‘Yes’ responses were seen across the sectors.

The main reason for agreement provided by respondents was the need to take a whole ecosystem approach within the marine environment to ensure impacts on both habitats and species are properly reflected. Additionally, ‘yes’ respondents often referred to the unique dynamics of the marine environment highlighting that, unlike on land, habitats do not make good proxies for species in the marine environment due to high levels of species mobility.

There was also agreement to the inclusion of ‘off-site’ impacts, beyond the site boundary of a development, from many respondents who highlighted that this “will be an important factor to ensure success.” It is worth noting, however, that some respondents did recognise that this may be difficult to implement in practice.

Other reasons for agreement with Questions 1 and 1a were:

• better alignment with UK Marine Strategy
• ensuring the protection of species

A significant number of respondents used this question to make recommendations. These included:

• the need to increase and improve the evidence base and monitoring of marine species to better understand the impact of developments
• that natural capital services and ecosystem functions should be included within MNG impact assessments

11% of respondents answered ‘no’ to Question 1. As can be seen in figure 2, most of these responses came from industry. One of the most common concerns raised by ‘no’ respondents focused on the feasibility of implementing MNG that assessed impacts on both habitats and species. Industry representatives highlighted that “species will also be facing other impacts (such as climate change) making any assessment of them extremely challenging.” This was supported by other respondents who suggested that the inclusion of impacts on species “could add further layers of complexity to what is already likely to be a difficult process.”

Other reasons for disagreement with Questions 1 and 1a included:

• the risk of double counting impacts due to the dependency of species on habitats
• additional delays that could be introduced to the consenting process
• the lack of guarantee that species-targeted interventions will lead to recovery

One common theme among several ‘yes’ and ‘no’ respondents was the emphasis that, if MNG assesses impacts on species as well as habitats, care must be taken to ensure differentiation between temporary and permanent impacts.

Principle 2: Marine net gain will seek to incorporate environmental benefits underpinned by biodiversity.

The consultation did not include any questions under principle 2.

Principle 3: Marine net gain will take a ‘nature first’ approach whilst recognising wider environmental benefits.

Question 2: Do you agree that marine net gain interventions should be assessed with reference to environmental benefits that biodiversity enhancement can yield? (yes/no)

82 respondents answered Question 2. 71% answered ‘yes’ and agreed that marine net gain interventions should be assessed with reference to environmental benefits that biodiversity enhancement can yield. Many of these respondents suggested that environmental benefits should be included because this is consistent with a nature first approach.

22% of respondents disagreed with Question 2. The majority of ‘no’ responses came from the industry and environmental consultancy sectors. Reasons for disagreement included:

• the nature first principle isn’t strong enough
• biodiversity should not be designed out
• wider environmental net gain benefits should not be substituted for biodiversity net gain

7% of respondents to Question 2 provided neither a yes nor a no answer and instead provided a mixed response.

Mixed responses, in addition to concerns raised by ‘yes’ and ‘no’ respondents, focused on the following statement from the consultation: “the positive benefits of low carbon power generation and the socioeconomic benefits of marine development would therefore not be considered as (positive) impacts when assessing the residual impact of a project.”

Several respondents recommended that wider social benefits should also be considered for MNG assessments. Archaeological groups suggested that the definition of the marine and aquatic environment from the Fisheries Act 2020 should be used in MNG to ensure that underwater cultural heritage (UCH) is considered within MNG. They also emphasised that UCH is also included in marine environment definitions in legislation such as the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (MaCAA) and the 25 Year Environment Plan (25YEP). Other respondents endorsed a similar view, suggesting that the benefits and services arising from the marine historic environment should be recognised in the principles and implementation of MNG. However, others recommended that a stronger evidence base was needed here alongside consideration of how wider social benefits can be measured.

Another theme emerging from Question 2 focused on low carbon power. Several respondents from industry and environmental consultancy sectors raised concerns that low carbon power was not being considered as a positive impact. They emphasised that accounting for environmental benefits outside of biodiversity would help contribute to the overall gain of the environment.

Question 2a: Please explain which extra environmental benefits and services should be included within marine net gain assessment.

A wide range of extra environmental benefits and services was recommended for inclusion within marine net gain assessments. We have grouped respondents’ suggestions into 3 broad environmental themes and provided example suggestions from each theme:

• Sustainable fishing practices, for example fisheries production, impact on commercial fishing, fish recovery areas, tackling and preventing invasive non-native species (INNS). These were suggested by fisheries representative and individuals.
• Climate change control practices, for example blue carbon habitats, carbon sequestration and carbon storage, pollution regulation, flood control and coastal defences and climate control (water availability and food sequestration).
• Habitat benefits, for example habitat creation and restoration, stabilisation and retaining sediment, connectivity between MPAs.

Non-environmental benefits that have been suggested for inclusion within the MNG assessment include:

• wider social benefits include societal, and cultural wellbeing, education and scientific opportunities, sustainable recreation and tourism activities, underwater cultural heritage (UCH)
• low carbon power/renewable energy, for example offshore wind farms, tidal range power

Principle 4: Marine net gain assessments will not include potentially incidental impacts whose benefits are subject to significant uncertainty.

Questions 3 and 3a: Do you agree with our proposal to discount potentially positive incidental effects, whose benefits are subject to significant uncertainty, from marine net gain assessments? (yes/no) Please explain your answer.

Figure 2: Proportion of total responses to Question 3 by sector and answered indicated

Sector	Yes	No	Uncertain	Total
Academics	4%	0%	0%	4%
ALB/government agency	11%	0%	1%	12%
Archaeological group	0%	7%	0%	7%
Community group	8%	1%	0%	9%
eNGO	6%	1%	0%	7%
Environmental consultancy	6%	4%	2%	12%
Individual	6%	1%	0%	7%
Industry	6%	26%	2%	34%
Other organisation	1%	0%	0%	1%
Parish council and local government	5%	1%	0%	6%

84 respondents answered Questions 3 and 3a. Responses to this question were mixed with 52% answering ‘yes’, 42% answering ‘no’ and 6% providing an uncertain response. Figure 3 demonstrates the breakdown of responses among sectors.

Of those that answered ‘yes’ to Question 3, many respondents suggested that more research is required to understand the benefits of positive incidental effects before they could be considered for inclusion in MNG assessments. Additionally, some referenced the uncertainty surrounding the outcome of positive incidental effects and the risk of reputational damage for the MNG approach.

However, multiple respondents who answered ‘yes’ to this question, also included caveats and further comments in their responses including:

• discounting positive incidental effects will need to be kept under review as more data becomes available
• the benefits from positive incidental effects need to be continually monitored
• there needs to be a clear definition for ‘positive incidental effects’ and ‘significant uncertainty’
• the risk of invasive species using artificial reefs needs to be explored and monitored
• agreement with discounting positive incidental effects is dependent on the time frame for which MNG will apply
• the inclusion of positive incidental effects could disincentivise developers to reduce damage - more must be done to encourage developers to enhance existing habitats

A wide variety of reasons was given for disagreement with Question 3, with the majority coming from industry and archaeological groups. One respondent stated “it is a well-established fact that UCH on the seabed, such as wrecks, forms artificial reefs and improves the biodiversity of an area.” This response was endorsed by several other archaeological groups. Others suggested that discounting positive incidental effects could “undermine” attempts to introduce nature-inclusive design into developments and lead to these measures being discounted.

Other reasons for disagreement with Question 3 included:

• marine aggregates should be included in the scope of MNG as the removal of marine sand and gravel can result in habitats that are more attractive to recolonising species
• there is sufficient evidence that artificial reefs should be included in the scope of MNG
• positive incidental effects should be included with a factor taking account of the level of uncertainty surrounding them
• the discounting of positive incidental effects is a missed opportunity for delivering environmental net gain (ENG)

Principle 5: Marine net gain requirements will be proportionate and appropriate to the scale and type of development.

Question 4: Do you agree that we should prioritise a contributions-style approach, whilst still exploring a metric-style approach? (yes/no) Please specify and explain your answer.

Figure 3: Proportion of total responses to Question 4 by sector and answer indicated

Sector	Yes	No	Uncertain	Total
Academics	1%	1%	1%	3%
ALB/Government Agency	7%	1%	5%	13%
Community Group	5%	4%	0%	9%
eNGO	5%	0%	3%	8%
Environmental Consultancy	7%	5%	3%	15%
Individual	5%	0%	1%	6%
Industry	15%	19%	1%	35%
Other Organisation	1%	0%	0%	1%
Parish Council/Local Government	4%	3%	0%	7%

74 respondents answered Question 4. Answers were mixed with 51% agreeing with a contributions-style approach, 34% disagreeing with a contributions-style approach and 15% providing a mixed response.

Much of the support for prioritising a contributions-style approach focused on the speed at which this can be set up and the need to get MNG working as soon as possible, whilst also developing a more sophisticated metric-style approach in parallel.

However, concerns were also raised about a contributions-style approach, both by respondents who agreed and disagreed with Question 4. The most common concern raised centred on the potential unintended consequences of a contributions-style approach. One offshore wind developer highlighted that this approach “is not linked to the level of impact” and could “negatively impact R&D (research and development) and any deployment of emerging technologies for mitigation.” Other respondents raised concerns with the “intention to use either 1% of CAPEX (capital expenditure) or £20k per MW (megawatt) as the basis of the contribution to MNG” as, again, this does not link the development to its level of impact.

Other concerns raised about the contributions-style approach included the:

• level of monitoring that would be required
• view of contributions-style approach as an environmental tax
• risk of a contributions-style approach delaying the delivery of a metric

Several respondents provided recommendations in their responses to Question 4. Many of these focused on a need for more information surrounding both approaches to better understand how they could work in practice. One respondent raised the issue that “the structure of a contributions-based model will require consultation and engagement given the complexities of impact pathways and methods.” Like the concerns raised above, several respondents recommended a need to clarify how a contributions-style approach would be linked to a project’s impact.

Question 4a: Are there other approaches to measuring impacts that we should explore? Please specify and explain your answer.

54 respondents answered Question 4a.

A wide variety of approaches to measuring impacts was suggested. The most common centred on the need to consider the cumulative impacts of both developments and external pressures, instead of thinking of individual impacts in isolation. Industry representatives suggested that providing “information on the cumulative and in-combination impacts that affect a given region” could be particularly helpful.

Other suggested approaches to measuring impacts included:

• measuring plume impacts
• assessing heritage and historical impacts
• measuring impact on natural capital services
• measuring economic and social impacts
• consideration of pressures associated with developments
• assessing the temporal and spatial scale of the impacts from developments

Some respondents made suggestions on how impacts could be measured. For example: the use of acoustic sensors to determine anthropogenic impacts, the creation of a habitats’ resilience metric, the use of satellite data, and creating an ocean health index.

Alongside suggesting approaches, many respondents also gave recommendations about how impacts should be measured in MNG. These were:

• ground truthing all measures for assessing impacts and ensuring MNG is underpinned by robust scientific evidence
• use of established impact assessments, for example environmental impact assessments (EIAs) instead of the creation of new measures
• developing alternative approaches to measuring impacts with industry
• keeping any assessment methods simple and easy to implement, including the potential for simplified assessments for smaller developments
• improve understanding of the external pressures that impact the marine environment
• ensure sufficient monitoring of impacts is in place
• adaption of the biodiversity metric, which is being updated by Natural England for terrestrial and intertidal biodiversity net gain, to suit habitats and species
• any developed approaches should be flexible to allow additional approaches to be incorporated later if needed

Several respondents raised concerns about impacts assessment measures. Examples of these included:

• “one size does not fit all” when it comes to the impact of development, and this must be considered when determining approaches
• concerns about introducing new assessment approaches which could add further complexity to the consenting process
• the need for a clear distinction between MNG and strategic compensation measures

Section 2: Scope of marine net gain

Principle 6: Marine net gain will be a mandatory requirement. It will apply to all marine development, subject to any minimal thresholds and other exemptions.

Question 5: Do you agree that marine net gain should be a mandatory requirement for new development activities within the marine environment? (yes/no)

79 respondents answered this question, with 81% of them agreeing that MNG should be a mandatory requirement for new development activities within the marine environment. 14% of respondents selected ‘no’ in response to Question 5. Most of these responses came from industry. 5% of respondents gave a mixed response.

Question 6: If you answered yes to question 5, do you agree with the list of consenting and licensing regimes that marine net gain requirements should be introduced within? Are there any others we should consider?

77 respondents provided an answer for this question, more than the 64 respondents who answered ‘yes’ to Question 5.

This question required a free-text response and, therefore, it was not possible to objectively capture the exact number of respondents who did and did not agree with the list of consenting and licensing regimes. The figures presented only include respondents who explicitly expressed agreement or disagreement in their answer.

26 respondents expressed agreement with the current list of consenting and licensing regimes. Only 2 respondents expressed disagreement.

Several respondents suggested additional activities and developments that should be included in the scope of MNG. These included fisheries, dredging, terrestrial developments impacting the marine environment, ports and shipping, and small-scale developments with cumulative impacts. The inclusion of fisheries was the most frequently discussed activity (18% of respondents) and was included in responses from a range of organisations.

Activities and developments that should be excluded from MNG were also suggested. These included operational and maintenance activities, dredging, scientific research activities, and activities for meeting statutory functions.

Additional acts and regulations that should be included in the list of consenting and licensing regimes were suggested, including:

• Marine Works Regulations 2007
• The Energy Act 2016
• The Transport and Works Act 1992
• The Harbours Act 1964
• The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017

A recurring recommendation in answers to Question 6 involved the interaction between the intertidal zone and MNG. Several respondents raised concerns around the administrative boundary at the low water mark meaning the intertidal zone falls under biodiversity net gain (BNG). Some respondents including provided support for the intertidal zone being included within MNG.

Lastly, responses to Question 6 highlighted some remaining questions and areas of uncertainty surrounding the scope of MNG. Common themes included:

• the need for a clearer definition of ‘new development’
• further information on reasons for MNG exemptions

Question 7: Are there activities and/or sectors that are regulated by these regimes which should not be covered by net gain requirements?

72 respondents answered Question 7. Of these, 44 answered ‘yes’ (61%), 27 answered ‘no’ (38%) and 1 respondent gave a mixed response.

Question 7a: If yes, please explain your answer, including any relevant de minimis thresholds for each activity or regime

From the 44 respondents who answered ‘yes’ to Question 7, a wide range of activities and sectors were suggested that should not be covered by net gain requirements.

Recommendations for activities and/or sectors that are regulated by the list of consenting and licensing regimes which should not be covered by MNG included:

• sustainable commercial fishing
• seabed sampling – due to its limited impact
• maintenance dredging for ports and harbours
• maintenance activities, for example cable repairs
• marine surveys and research projects
• recreational activities
• marine archaeological and scientific activities
• burials at sea
• projects that create biodiversity gains or aim to improve restoration techniques
• compensation measures under Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)
• small-scale developments
• decommissioning (under the Petroleum Act 2008)

Suggestions for de minimis thresholds were:

• spatial thresholds for projects similar to the BNG approach
• exclusion of all activities that are exempt or self-service under MaCAA
• there should be no de minimis threshold for developments in biogenic or vegetated habitats
• activities that qualify for the MMO self-service (band 1) threshold for a marine licence

Section 3: Defining interventions

Principle 7: Marine net gain will incentivise both active interventions and appropriate pressure reduction measures.

Question 8: Which types of pressure reduction measures can be delivered by industry through marine net gain? Please give examples where possible.

Figure 4: Proportion of all suggested pressure reduction measures by category

Pressure reduction measures	Percentage
Funding for pressure reduction measures	6%
Industry pressure reduction measures	11%
Restoration measures	11%
Fishing pressure reduction measures	35%
Other environmental measures	38%

69 respondents answered this question.

A wide range of pressure reduction measures was suggested in Question 8 which can be grouped into 5 broad categories. Figure 4 demonstrates that ‘other environmental measures’ was the most frequently suggested type of pressure reduction (38%), closely followed by ‘fishing pressure reduction measures’ (35% of total suggestions). Examples of specific suggestions within each group:

• other environmental measures, for example removal of marine litter, water and air quality improvements, spill prevention, supporting reductions in anthropogenic noise
• fishing pressure reduction measures, for example encouraging the adoption of sustainable fishing practices, removal of derelict fishing gear, introduction of no-anchor zones, methods to reduce unwanted bycatch
• restoration measures, for example rewilding measures, island creation, seagrass replanting
• industry pressure reduction measures, for example banning the export of aggregates, removal of abandoned assets, traffic management schemes, reducing agricultural run-off
• funding for pressure reduction measures, for example funding to eradicate INNS, contributions to decommissioning infrastructure, investment in advanced mooring systems (AMS), buyout of fishing licenses

Several respondents raised concerns about the inclusion of pressure reduction measures in MNG. Many of these centred on the polluter pays principle and emphasised that the inclusion of pressure reduction measures in MNG seemed in direct contrast with this.

Additional concerns were:

• the risk of pressure reduction measures becoming the way government delivers its regulatory obligations
• MNG could be used to manage the pressures of other industries
• industry may struggle to deliver pressure reduction measures without support from government

Lastly, some respondents gave recommendations for how pressure reduction measures should be implemented in MNG. Examples include:

• pressure reduction must be government led
• measures must be closely monitored for effectiveness
• knowledge gaps must be filled to improve our knowledge of external pressures
• the scope of MNG and strategic compensation needs defining
• it must be clarified who is responsible for the success of pressure reduction measures
• developers should contribute to a fund for pressure reduction measures

Question 9: Are there any other types of intervention that should be encouraged, including innovative emerging techniques?

Figure 5: Proportion of all suggested interventions by category

Suggested interventions	Percentage
Restoration interventions	37%
Knowledge and research interventions	23%
Infrastructure interventions	19%
Funding interventions	15%
Other interventions	6%

52 respondents answered Question 9. The low rate of response to this question is unsurprising given that many respondents had already suggested intervention types in previous and subsequent questions.

Interventions suggested by respondents fell into several broad themes. As demonstrated in figure 5, the most popular intervention suggestions were restorative (37%) although some raised concerns about the success of more novel methods. Examples of suggestions within each intervention category are:

• restoration interventions, for example seagrass replanting, native oyster restoration, kelp forest restoration
• knowledge and research interventions, for example no notice monitoring, use of satellite data for habitat mapping, artificial reefs research
• infrastructure interventions, for example marine transmission energy corridors, use of biotiles and reef blocks, artificial island creation
• funding interventions, for example funding for resources in areas of high tourism and wildlife disturbance, support for at risk coastal communities
• other interventions, for example fishing interventions, beneficial use of dredging, reductions in marine sewage

Some responses included additional commentary beyond types of interventions that could be used in MNG.

Multiple respondents proposed support for the use of novel and innovative techniques with one energy provider stating that “Proposals for marine net gain should provide maximum flexibility for developers to utilise innovative technologies and designs.”

Respondents, including industry representatives, highlighted their work investigating potential MNG interventions. One commented that “The strategic targets task and finish group will be considering this exact question over the coming months. The interventions identified will be shared widely with stakeholders… with the hopes it will feed into the development of future marine net gain policy.”

Section 4: Taking a strategic approach

Principle 8: Marine net gain will incentivise the delivery of strategic interventions in addition to meaningful site-based interventions.

Questions 10 and 10a: Do you agree with the principle of taking both a site-level and a strategic approach to marine net gain as set out above? (yes/no) Please explain your answer.

77 respondents answered Question 10. 95% answered ‘yes’ to this question, with the most common reason for agreement focusing on the importance of having both site-level and strategic options so that MNG is flexible and ensures the greatest benefit to the environment can be achieved. 15% of ‘yes’ respondents also highlighted that site-level or strategic approaches should be selected dependent on the project and its impacts, allowing selection on a case-by-case basis.

Whilst many respondents agreed with the principle of taking both a site-level and strategic approach, several highlighted the benefits a strategic approach can provide. For example, one organisation recommended that strategic approaches are more suitable for smaller developments to avoid ‘piecemeal interventions.’ Similarly, some respondents agreed with Question 10 but recommended the prioritisation of site-based interventions due to the need to protect and benefit the area local to the damage. However, several also noted that there may be limited opportunities to deliver MNG on-site.

Several respondents also recommended that a coordinated approach would be needed to guide strategic MNG. Recommendations included:

• mechanisms must guard against developers opting for projects that are cheaper to deliver
• guidance must be provided on how to decide on an on-site or strategic approach
• marine spatial planning should guide strategic MNG

Only a small number of respondents disagreed with Question 10. The most common reason for disagreement was the risk of decoupling the location from the intervention and the subsequent impacts this could have on ecological networks, local communities and stakeholders. Additionally, some ‘yes’ respondents raised general concerns including:

• strategic net gain allows for significant negative impacts on-site
• strategic approach risks abuse of the offsetting scheme
• developers should not be required to take both a strategic and site-level approach

Question 11: What types of site-based interventions should be incentivised through marine net gain?

62 respondents answered this question. Respondents provided a range of suggestions that fall into several broad themes, outlined below. A more complete list of suggested site-based interventions can be found in Annex B.

There was broad support for interventions that restore and enhance the marine environment, viewing ecosystems holistically. Interventions included:

• introducing protected wildlife corridors
• restoring existing habitats
• reducing fishing activities
• using existing mitigations to avoid potential damage of new interventions

A recurring suggestion from several respondents, focused on interventions needing to be ‘specific to the site.’

Many respondents provided specific ideas for site-based interventions including:

• creating or restoring habitats, for example salt marshes, seagrass, kelp
• coastal habitat restoration
• ensuring biogenic and scour protection
• managing sediment
• replicating the biodiversity metric’s strategic significance multiplier on-site (as applied for biodiversity net gain)
• introducing biophilic design as industry standard
• closing areas of seabed to specific fisheries
• removing litter and other deposits

16% of respondents felt that interventions should either be delivered or designed in collaboration with other industry stakeholders, for example local communities, fisheries and eNGOs.

Lastly, a small number of respondents recommended that, to be successful in achieving MNG, site-based interventions should be aligned with future fisheries management plans, the marine policy statement and plans, and any other statutory requirements.

Question 12: What types of strategic interventions could be incentivised through marine net gain?

79 respondents answered Question 12. Responses were wide ranging and varied in their specificity. A more complete list of suggested strategic interventions can be found in Annex C. The most frequently suggested interventions were fisheries-related (raised by 20% of respondents). For example, several suggested the removal of trawling pressures as a strategic intervention. Other fisheries-related interventions that were mentioned were:

• incentivising sustainable fishing
• noise reduction strategies
• improving fish spawning habitats

Several respondents provided a wider response, recommending broad types of strategic interventions which could be incentivised such as ecosystems-based interventions, incentivising nature-based solutions, and the nature first approach.

Other suggested types of strategic interventions included:

• establish new MPAs
• protection, monitoring and enforcement of highly protected marine areas (HPMAs)
• new no-take zones (NTZs)
• large scale litter debris removal
• pilot projects, for example wave energy generation
• identification of priority species for recovery
• tacking and preventing INNS
• wreck stabilisation
• marine education campaigns
• creating corridors of connectivity between MPAs
• nature inclusive design structure

Question 13: Should accessing strategic interventions be conditional in some cases? (yes/no)

Figure 6: Proportion of total responses to Question 13 by sector and answer indicated

Sector	Yes	No	Uncertain	Total
Academics	5%	0%	0%	5%
ALB/government agency	11%	0%	0%	11%
Community group	8%	0%	2%	10%
eNGO	6%	2%	2%	10%
Environmental consultancy	6%	5%	2%	13%
Individual	3%	3%	0%	6%
Industry	15%	18%	6%	39%
Other organisation	0%	0%	2%	2%
Parish council and local government	3%	2%	2%	7%

65 respondents answered this question. Of those who responded, 57% answered ‘yes’, 29% answered ‘no’ and 14% gave a mixed response.

Question 13a: If yes, which site-based features should be considered priorities (‘prescribed features’) ahead of strategic interventions? Please explain your answer.

Of those that responded ‘yes’ to Question 13, many expressed a preference for site-level interventions to protect species and habitats. Others supported the use of both site-level and strategic interventions but suggested they should be selected dependent on which scale delivers the greatest environmental gains.

Specific suggestions for site-based features that should be considered priorities ahead of strategic intervention included:

• rare, threatened or irreplaceable features
• habitats, species and geomorphological landforms that support wider environmental improvement
• the list of features of conservation importance (for example as outlined in the ecological network guidance 2016)

Many of the other answers to Question 13a involved much broader suggestions for how strategic interventions should be used in MNG. These are summarised:

• prioritisation and clear narrative over the use of the mitigation hierarchy
• MNG needs to protect nature and key marine ecosystems. It must be enforced in a way that deters developers from selecting the easiest interventions
• interventions which are in closer proximity to the development should be prioritised
• cumulative impacts and pressures from all marine industries need to be considered within MNG
• the mitigation hierarchy must be prioritised within MNG
• more evidence is needed on the effectiveness of site-based interventions before these can be prioritised
• more evidence is required on the impact of various interventions on prescribed features
• other industries negatively impacted by strategic interventions should be compensated

• developers should be provided with examples of:

  • which habitats and species are important
  • the adverse development effects that negatively impact biodiversity
• industries request guidance of what is considered ‘high’ or ‘low’ value features to prioritise protection

Additionally, a small number of respondents did raise concerns about the additional delays that could be introduced while implementing MNG interventions.

Questions 14 and 14a: Do you agree that marine net gain interventions should not initially be restricted to the ‘locality’ of the main development? (yes/no) Please explain your answer.

66 respondents answered Question 14. Of those that responded, 70% answered ‘yes’ and 30% answered ‘no’.

The most common theme (mentioned by 32 respondents) to emerge from this question was to encourage interventions in areas that would deliver the most environmental benefit, rather than arbitrary locations. Reasons for this included:

• strategic interventions could benefit the wider area in a way site-based cannot
• strategic interventions could be better for the efficiency of interventions

Building on this, many respondents suggested that flexibility was needed in designing and selecting interventions. Some of the reasons given for this were:

• heritage assets may require bespoke interventions
• the nature of the locality may limit the number of options for intervention
• the way ‘locality’ is defined could determine how beneficial a local intervention is
• off-site measures could offer greater environmental benefits

Some respondents also agreed with Question 14 due to the unique nature of the marine environment, suggesting that the connectivity of the marine environment and the mobility of species means that, in some cases, it may be beneficial for interventions to be carried out offsite.

24 respondents (36%) expressed that interventions should be delivered in the locality of the development as a priority but several also acknowledged that if this were not possible then gains could be delivered strategically elsewhere.

Reasons given by respondents who answered ‘no’ to Question 14 included:

• local areas affected by developments should see the benefits of MNG
• allowing off-site interventions prevents innovation of on-site developments
• further displacement to fisheries will occur if off-site interventions are permitted
• off-site interventions should not be pursued just because they are easier

Lastly, several respondents identified areas where further work is required or the government should play a role in ensuring MNG is effectively delivered. Their recommendations included:

• ensuring transparency in contribution-approach funding
• taking a coherent approach to strategic measures at a regional scale
• use of a MNG hierarchy, similar to the proposed compensation hierarchy, to help determine appropriate geographical locations for interventions
• local communities and regional delivery groups should be involved in delivering interventions
• the strategic net gain system should be based on science and evidence

Section 5: Marine net gain and additionality in marine protected areas

Principle 9: Marine net gain will allow for improvements to designated and non-designated features of Marine Protected Areas to qualify as net gain interventions

Questions 15 and 15a: Do you agree that the enhancement of designated features within statutory MPAs should be allowed in the marine environment as defined above? (yes/no) Please provide evidence to support your view.

70 respondents answered Question 15. Most respondents (81%) agreed that the enhancement of designated features within statutory MPAs should be allowed in the marine environment.

The most common reason given for agreement was that a significant proportion of the UK marine environment is designated as MPAs. This suggested that, if MPAs were not included within MNG, there would be fewer opportunities to implement interventions. Several respondents emphasised the benefit MNG could have on MPAs if the enhancement of designated features were to be included. For example, “MNG could be used as a tool to provide funding to go above and beyond basic protection measures.” Other reasons for agreement also included the opportunity to incentivise local interventions through the inclusion of MPAs in MNG.

10% of respondents disagreed with Question 15. Disagreement came from a variety of sectors including individuals, local government and eNGOs. The most common reason for disagreement, and a concern raised by some who agreed with Question 15, focused on the additionality principle. Many respondents raised a point that government already has an obligation to ensure the maintenance of MPAs and MNG should not replace this.

Other reasons for disagreement with Question 15 included:

• concerns about the suitability of MPAs for MNG
• concerns around whether the inclusion of MPAs in MNG would inhibit the ability of developers to deliver compensation under HRA
• enhancement of MPAs is not a priority for wider MNG
• concerns that the inclusion of MPAs could cause the financial responsibility of ensuring MPAs meet their conservation objectives to fall on developers

9% of answers to Question 15 were a mixed response. These responses tended to combine agreement that MNG interventions would be easier to implement if MPAs were included with many of the concerns mentioned above.

Several respondents suggested that there needs to be an aligned approach between MNG, BNG and MPAs for the marine environment and the intertidal zone. Respondents also suggested that MNG could include a list of irreplaceable habitats, mirroring the BNG approach.

Lastly, whilst the consultation focused on the principles of MNG, respondents used Question 15 to make recommendations for how MNG could be implemented in MPAs. These included:

• using HPMAs as a pilot activity for MNG
• limiting the types of MNG interventions that can take place in MPAs
• using existing MPA monitoring schemes to support MNG

Annex A: Organisation respondents

ABPmer

APEM Ltd

Associated British Ports

Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers

Atkins Ltd

Berwickshire & Northumberland Marine Nature Partnership

British Hydropower Association

British Marine

British Marine Aggregate Producers Association

Canal & River Trust

Carbon Kapture Ltd

Cet Law

Coastal Partners

Eastern England Fish Producers Organisation

EDF

Energy UK

Environment Agency

European Subsea Cables Association

Falmouth Harbour Commissioners

Finance Earth

Future Fisheries Alliance

Gosport Borough Council

Hampshire County Council

Historic England

Honor Frost Foundation

Ipswich Authority

Joe’s Blooms

Joint Nature Conservation Committee

Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee

Marine Conservation Society

Marine Management Organisation

Maritime Archaeology Sea Trust

Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service

National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisation

National Grid

National Infrastructure Planning Association

Natural England

Natural Resources Wales

North Yorkshire County Council

Northumberland IFCA

Office for Environmental Protection

Offshore Energies UK

Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning

Offshore Wind Industry Council

Ørsted

Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind

Peel Ports

Port of London Authority

REACT

Renewable UK

RESCUE

Reynolds International Ltd

Royal Haskoning

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

RWE

Scottish Power Renewables

Seabed User and Development Group

Seal Research Trust

Sid Valley Biodiversity Group

Solent Forum

South East Nature Partnership

SP & D Gathergood

SSE

Suffolk County Council

Sussex Nature Partnership

The British Sub Aqua Club

The Crown Estate

The Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership

The Heritage Alliance

The Wildlife Trusts

Total Energies

Trinity House

UK Centre for Seabed Mapping

UK Environment Law Association

UK Major Ports Group

University of Oxford

University of Plymouth

University of Portsmouth

University of Sussex

West Wittering Parish Council

Wildlife and Countryside Link

WSP

Yorkshire Marine Nature Partnership

Annex B: List of suggested site-based interventions

Site based interventions suggested by respondents in answers to Question 11 of the consultation on the principles of MNG:

• introducing protected wildlife corridors
• interventions to reduce environmental burden on an area
• restoring existing habitats and species
• achieving favourable condition status in MPAs
• reducing fishing activities
• conserving species and promoting biodiversity recovery
• restoring habitats while developing the site
• creating or restoring the habitats of salt marshes, seagrass or kelp
• increasing the likelihood of marine organism settlement
• island restoration and biosecurity
• coastal habitat restoration
• installing artificial reefs
• ensuring biogenic and scour protection
• managing sediment for habitat restoration or carbon sequestration
• co-location of aquaculture and gear types
• introducing biophilic design as the industry standard
• modifying the foundations of turbines
• closing the seabed to specific fisheries
• blue carbon capture
• acoustic fish deterrents
• ensuring sites require minimal future maintenance
• removing litter and other deposits
• removing manmade features or structures

Annex C: List of suggested strategic interventions

Strategic interventions suggested by respondents in answers to Question 12 of the consultation on the principles of MNG:

• large scale restoration projects of habitats
• kelp restoration
• seagrass restoration
• oyster reef restoration
• removal of trawling/fishing pressures
• improvement of fish spawning habitats
• reduction of unwanted bycatch
• prey fish management
• new no-take zones (NTZs)
• establishing new and improving management of existing MPAs
• protection, monitoring and enforcement of HPMAs
• create buffer zones
• establish marine protection zones (MPZs)
• large scale litter debris removal from sites
• pilot projects, for example wave energy generation
• tackling and preventing INNS

Glossary and definitions

ALB: Arm’s length body.

Artificial reefs: Artificial structures which resemble/display features of natural reefs.

Assessment framework: Tool for calculating the residual impacts of a project and valuing proposed interventions. Used to demonstrate whether proposals achieve an overall gain. The Biodiversity Net Gain metric acts as the assessment framework for terrestrial BNG.

BNG: Biodiversity net gain.

Compensation: Compensatory measures as required under applicable legislation, to offset the negative environmental impacts of developments. Compensatory measures include relevant compensation under the Habitats Regulations and measures of equivalent environmental benefit (MEEB) under MaCAA.

eNGO: Environmental non-government organisation.

Environmental impact assessment (EIA): Evaluating the likely environmental impacts of a proposed project or development, considering impacts, both beneficial and adverse in accordance with applicable regulations.

Environmental net gain (ENG): Improving all aspects of environmental quality through a scheme or project. Achieving environmental net gain means achieving biodiversity net gain first, and going further to achieve net increases in the capacity of affected natural capital to deliver ecosystem services.

HPMAs: Highly protected marine areas.

INNS: Invasive non-native species.

Intertidal zone: The area that falls between mean high water springs and the low water mark.

Low water mark (LWM): The height of water levels reached by seawater at lowest tide.

MaCAA: Marine and Coastal access Act 2009.

Mean high water springs (MHWS): The average throughout the year, of two successive high waters, during a 24-hour period in each month when the tidal range is at its greatest.

MEEB: Measures of equivalent environmental benefit.

MNG: Marine net gain.

MPA: Marine protected area.

Natural capital: The elements of nature that directly or indirectly produce value to people, including ecosystems, species, freshwater, land, minerals, the air and oceans, as well as natural processes and functions.

Nature inclusive design: Approaches to, or features of, infrastructure design that can increase habitats or help support species.

Net gain: An approach to development that aims to leave the natural environment in a measurably better state than beforehand.

Offsetting: The creation or enhancement of a habitat to compensate for loss or degradation elsewhere.

Polluter pays principle: Those who cause pollution or damage to the environment should be responsible for mitigation or compensation.

UCH: Underwater cultural heritage.

25YEP: 25 Year Environment Plan.