This letter was written by Chair of Marinet David Levy in response to the article in the Guardian newspaper 'British seas: More fish, cleaner and greater biodiversity,' says Defra and DEFRA's press release accompanying the publication of 'Charting Progress 2 - The Scientific Report by DEFRA on the State of UK Territorial Seas'

Under the watchful gaze of Sir Isaac Newton and Sir Christopher Wren, DEFRA used the auspicious venue of the Royal Society to deliver Charting Progress 2 (CP2), their scientific report on the State of UK Territorial Seas. It was a venue chosen to deliver two things of note. Firstly that this report has scientific validity and is fit for purpose, and secondly that you would be intimidated to find fault with its contents.

As an interested NGO, I was prepared to approve the work done and join the throng of back slappers in congratulating DEFRA on a fine piece of work. The however the fact is that I did not find it fit for purpose, and I have a suspicion that it will turn out to be another UK smoke and mirror ploy when deadlines elapse and we have failed to deliver on our European obligations in the time period we have been allowed.

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) requires that we establish Good Environmental Status (GES) for our seas by 2020, with fish stocks in a sustainable position and so able to support growth in their numbers and thus feed our people.

Surely, it is essential that Charting Progress 2 records the baseline for MSFD indicators (e.g. commercial fish stocks, marine food webs). Without these baselines how can we establish progress towards good environmental status? The timeline is shrinking towards 2020 and, likewise, a willingness in government to report the truth.

We appear to have run away from the task and are currently hiding behind documentation which is claiming that facts on fish stocks don't exist, when indeed they do. The omission of the reality of the fish stocks within CP2 coloured literally the various maps provided within this report, and revealed a startling contrast between the maps and the socio-economic maps of the Productive Seas which basically show “all ahead”  for British Industry. This is a fraudulent distortion of the reality.

Government's role is to lead, and they have been slow to realise that industry believes in partnership: symbiotic relationships that could have delivered for the marine ecosystem all the advantages of working together. For example, joint sea shipping lanes and marine conservation zones (MCZs),  windfarms and MCZs,  oil and gas pipelines and MCZs,  and communications infrastructure on the seabed and MCZs.

Why has government not identified the standards, and helped to create these partnerships to achieve these standards?  It is difficult to understand why government refuse to be honest and explore these opportunities. I really believe industries are ready and willing to assist in this task, and that they have stepped up to the mark.

Government responding in this way would protect our marine ecosystem, and provide our conservation efforts with a substantial network of MCZs and corridors for habitats and fish stocks with little interference, except for service personnel undertaking activities for those industries. Importantly, it would formalise an initial network of MCZs which the government’s regional MCZ identification groups could develop.

MCZ identification groups are top heavy, loaded with industries’ representatives and with few conservationists. Moreover, they have been guided to identify zones where MCZ interference would not be welcome, and are not responding as originally tasked to identify the scientific criteria for where MCZs should be created. A back to front exercise overseen by government's DEFRA.

Finally I would point to the role of NGOs and scientists maintaining integrity and independence from government. This means that they should not be locked into roles where their obedience to government overrides their will and better judgement. It is essential that their decision-making is independent from this system.