The UK government’s response to the Environmental Audit Committee’s report, ‘Governing the marine environment,’ has been published. The report contained 16 recommendations across four main areas: marine governance and stakeholder engagement, marine planning, marine protection and recovery, and international marine treaties.

Responding to the Committee report, the UK Government stated that their ‘policy is not to introduce whole-site bans on bottom-towed fishing gear in MPAs. Our approach is to only restrict fishing which is assessed as damaging to the specific protected features in each MPA, based on advice from the Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee). Sometimes management measures will involve a ban across the whole site, where the features to be protected cover the whole site, and in other cases they will not.

Defra is working to ensure damaging practices do not occur within our MPAs where they could harm protected habitats and species, but blanket bans are disproportionate and not in line with legislation.’

Writing in response, the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee,  Toby Perkins, MP, welcomed the Government’s decision to launch a consultation on proposals to ban bottom trawling in further MPAs; however, he also noted that ‘Michelle Willis, CEO of the Marine Management Organisation (MMO), advised the Committee that Stage 3 of the fishing management measures, which covers the areas in the consultation, “will rebalance” the feature specific approach of some MPAs as they revisit some MPAs to make them “less feature specific and more encompassing” based on the evidence collated and analysed by the MMO. We look forward to the outcome of the consultation and the Government’s subsequent decision. We reiterate our recommendation to completely ban bottom trawling within offshore MPA boundaries and ask the Government to clarify how it intends to ensure that a feature-specific approach does not undermine the integrity of MPAs.’

In May 2025, the environmental group Oceana UK said that the feature-led approach fragments habitats and limits their ability to recover. Citing the example of Lyme Bay in England, Oceana claims that full-site protection was significantly more effective and more cost-efficient to enforce than feature-based restrictions.

Summary of the key points from the government’s response:

• Marine Governance: The government disagreed that a single department should have sole decision-making power for the marine environment. They agreed on the need for better stakeholder engagement but rejected the idea of a new, comprehensive framework.
• Marine Planning: The government disagreed with the recommendation to update the 2011 Marine Policy Statement by January 2026, stating that it would be too resource-intensive.
• International Treaties: The response highlighted the government’s commitment to international agreements such as the Global Oceans/High Seas Treaty, but disagreed with the timeline set out in the Committee’s report.
• Funding: The government confirmed continued funding for marine conservation in Overseas Territories through programmes such as Darwin Plus.
• Highly Protected Marine Areas (HPMAs): The government disagreed with the recommendation to expand the HPMA network to cover 10% of UK waters by 2030 and to set specific targets for HPMA coverage.
• Bottom Trawling and Seabed-Damaging Activities: The government partially agreed with the recommendation to ban seabed-damaging practices, such as bottom trawling, within offshore MPAs. However, they state that a “blanket ban” is a disproportionate measure. Instead, their approach is to restrict fishing activities that are specifically assessed as damaging to the protected features of each MPA.