The Ocean is in crisis. Coral reefs are bleaching, seagrass meadows are vanishing, mangroves are being cleared, and biodiversity is plummeting. Scientists estimate we’ve already lost up to 50% of global saltmarshes, 35% of mangroves, and 20% of seagrasses. Yet alongside this sobering decline, momentum for marine restoration has never
Dr Richard Unsworth, Chief Scientific Officer at Project Seagrass, along with 35 other leading scientists from across the UK, responds to proposals from the UK government to make licensing for marine restoration more complex and costly. Dear Rt Hon Steve Reed OBE MP and team, This letter sets out our
The Ocean is in crisis. Coral reefs are bleaching, seagrass meadows are vanishing, mangroves are being cleared, and biodiversity is plummeting. Scientists estimate we’ve already lost up to 50% of global saltmarshes, 35% of mangroves, and 20% of seagrasses. Yet alongside this sobering decline, momentum for marine restoration has never been greater. The United Nations’ Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2030) and the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework both set ambitious targets: restoring 30% of degraded ecosystems, including those underwater, by 2030. So the question is: if the will, the science, and the funding are building, what’s holding us back? According to a team of 25 scientists and practitioners from 18 countries, one of the biggest obstacles isn’t just the technical challenge of restoration itself, it’s the licensing and regulation systems designed to govern it. In their recent paper, Rethinking Marine Restoration Permitting to Urgently Advance Efforts, they argue that outdated, overly complex permitting processes are unintentionally slowing down the very projects needed to restore the oceans. Marine Restoration Is Still Young Unlike reforestation on land, which has centuries of trial and error behind it, marine restoration is still in its infancy. Early projects in kelp, oysters, and seagrass go back decades, but systematic science-based restoration is relatively new. Failures are common, often because methods are untested or ecological dynamics are poorly understood. But those failures are not a reason to stop—they are opportunities to learn. Unfortunately, knowledge sharing is patchy, with unsuccessful projects often going unreported. This means mistakes are repeated instead of avoided. When Regulation Backfires No one disputes that regulations are essential to protect fragile ecosystems. But the paper highlights a paradox: the very laws meant to safeguard marine environments can also block or delay restoration. Permitting processes are frequently designed for terrestrial development projects, not marine habitat recovery. This mismatch means approvals are expensive, slow, and sometimes impossible to obtain. For instance, restoration within marine protected areas is often heavily restricted, even when the activity would clearly benefit the marine ecosystems and its biodiversity. The result? Practitioners may choose suboptimal sites just to avoid regulatory headaches, or abandon projects altogether. In some cases, frustrated groups even take matters into their own hands through “covert restoration,” risking legal trouble to get reefs or seagrasses replanted. Why “Business as Usual” Won’t Work Complicating matters further is climate change. Even if the world manages to stay under the 1.5°C target of the Paris Agreement, marine ecosystems face enormous risks. Marine heatwaves, shifting species ranges, and rising seas mean that simply recreating past habitats is no longer realistic. Instead, the authors argue for a forward-looking approach: restoration must aim to create resilient ecosystems for the future, not replicas of the past. That may involve controversial tools like assisted gene flow, assisted migration, or even repurposing invasive species to provide ecological functions. While these approaches raise ethical questions, the authors stress that clinging to outdated baselines is more dangerous than carefully exploring new ones. The Case for Innovation “Sandpits” One of the paper’s most intriguing proposals is the creation of innovation sandpits, dedicated spaces where scientists and practitioners can test new restoration methods under flexible permitting conditions. The idea is to encourage creativity and experimentation, similar to the culture of innovation that drove the U.S. “moonshot” program. Such sandpits could allow restoration at meaningful scales, where failures are expected but also monitored and shared, building collective knowledge. Crucially, this would need to be done with free, prior, and informed consent from local communities, ensuring equity and transparency. Scaling Up Takes Time Another bottleneck is time. Most restoration permits are short-term, three to five years at most. But successful marine recovery often requires decades of continuous effort. Seagrass meadows, oyster reefs, and mangrove forests don’t mature overnight. Short permits create interruptions, forcing projects to restart and making funding insecure. For large-scale recovery, licensing must align with ecological realities: long-term horizons, continuity, and scale. Small, scattered projects will never be enough. Strategic national and international coordination is needed to identify suitable areas, streamline approvals, and pool resources. Equity and Responsibility The paper also highlights the importance of equity. Restoration is not just about biodiversity; it directly impacts the people who live alongside these ecosystems. Indigenous communities, local fishers, and coastal residents must have a say in how projects are planned and implemented. Otherwise, well-meaning initiatives could unintentionally restrict access to resources or sideline traditional knowledge. The authors emphasise that urgency must not become an excuse for ignoring equity. Social inclusion, fairness, and justice are essential for lasting success. Six Steps Toward Better Restoration Licensing The authors conclude with a six-point agenda for change: Embrace novelty: Use innovative tools (genetics, assisted migration, new technologies) to prepare for future conditions, not past baselines. Establish sandpits: Create safe zones for testing and scaling new methods. Strategic restoration zones: Designate areas where permits are streamlined and projects are protected from future disturbance. Transparent reporting: Mandate open sharing of successes and failures, so the whole field can learn. Streamlined, long-term permits: Align licensing with ecological timescales and assume restoration is a positive activity by default. Remove fees, add incentives: Instead of charging for permits, reward landowners and stakeholders who enable restoration. Looking Ahead Marine restoration has the potential to be a cornerstone of the “blue revolution” needed to sustain life on Earth. But to succeed, governments, regulators, scientists, and communities must rethink how we design the systems that enable it. As the authors argue, the goal is not deregulation, but smarter, more adaptive regulation. The ocean is changing rapidly, and restoration must change with it. By fostering innovation, embracing uncertainty, and prioritising resilience and equity, we can give our seas a fighting chance.
Dr Richard Unsworth, Chief Scientific Officer at Project Seagrass, along with 35 other leading scientists from across the UK, responds to proposals from the UK government to make licensing for marine restoration more complex and costly. Dear Rt Hon Steve Reed OBE MP and team, This letter sets out our response as leading scientists, practitioners, and NGOs to the DEFRA consultation “Marine licences: changes to fees, exemptions and self-service licences”. We believe the proposed increases in fees and restrictions for marine licences will seriously undermine restoration efforts, making an already difficult activity even more challenging and, in many cases, unviable. The current licensing system for marine restoration is already unjust and fundamentally at odds with the UK Government’s national and international commitments. To introduce additional fees, administrative burdens, and restrictions at this time is, quite frankly, perverse. We specifically oppose: Any increase in fees for marine restoration licences. The urgent need is to remove fees entirely, not add to them. Further restrictions and additional charges on marine restoration projects larger than 5 hectares (we need marine restoration exemptions from this). Evidence clearly shows that scaling up restoration delivers greater resilience and enhanced ecosystem service (natural capital) benefits compared with small, fragmented projects. We specifically request: Practitioners need DEFRA to create a simplified, consistent, cost-free, and science-based licensing system for marine and coastal conservation. Currently, licensing is one of the most significant barriers to restoring the health of the UK’s seas. We see these proposed changes under the consultation as a missed opportunity to create such a system. The urgency could not be greater. Our climate and natural systems are breaking down, and the ocean is in crisis. In each of the last three summers (2023–2025), UK seas have endured unprecedented marine heatwaves. Never before has there been such a critical need for healthy coastal ecosystems that can bolster resilience, buffer climate impacts, and support food security. Yet our habitats have been decimated and continue to decline with DEFRA’s own assessment concluding that the UK marine environment is failing on 13 out of 15 indicators. Marine restoration is not optional; it is essential for our collective future. Restoring and conserving ocean habitats is also a legal obligation. The UK is a signatory to the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and, under the Environment Act 2021, has binding targets for nature recovery. These commitments require all public bodies, including seabed owners to conserve and enhance biodiversity. The UK has already missed the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, largely due to regulatory barriers of the very kind now being proposed. Repeating these mistakes would be indefensible. The benefits of a streamlined licensing system are profound. It would enhance our capacity to tackle the climate and biodiversity crises, strengthen coastal resilience, and improve national food security. International examples demonstrate that simplified frameworks accelerate recovery and generate long-term ecological and social benefits. At conferences such as ReMeMaRe, UKSS, and the Seascape Conference, frustration with England’s current licensing regime has been a recurring theme. The system is widely regarded as unpredictable, inconsistent, costly, and burdensome, treating restoration projects as if they damage rather than enhance the marine environment. This not only delays urgent work but risks deterring vital investment in ocean recovery. The state of our marine environment illustrates the scale of the problem: estuaries are degraded, mudflats retreating, saltmarshes fragmented, and most seagrass meadows lost. Remaining habitats are scarce and highly vulnerable to climate change. Immediate reform is essential. Wales and Scotland are already moving in the right direction. Dialogue and regulatory reforms are creating enabling environments for restoration. England must now do the same. Without urgent change, regulation will remain a barrier to the large-scale environmental renewal that is desperately needed. We no longer have healthy ecosystems to use as restoration baselines. Historic habitats such as oyster reefs have vanished, while global heating accelerates ecological change. Restoration must therefore look forward, building climate-resilient ecosystems that reflect future needs rather than only past states. To do so, we need a legal and regulatory framework that supports ambition. The Kunming–Montreal Framework and the Environment Act 2021 require bold action, but these targets cannot be met without enabling legislation. In addition to the consequences of further restrictions on marine restoration for biodiversity, we also believe these restrictions place further restrictions upon our ability to reach Net Zero, and therefore see this as an issue not only for DEFRA but also for DESNZ. We therefore call on the Government to act swiftly to reform the licensing system for marine and coastal restoration. This is a practical and achievable step that would deliver immediate benefits for biodiversity, climate resilience, and food security. As scientists and practitioners at the forefront of UK marine research and restoration, we would welcome the opportunity to meet with you and your team to discuss solutions and pathways for progress. Yours sincerely, Dr Richard Unsworth FRSB, FHEA Associate Professor (Swansea University), Chief Scientific Officer (Project Seagrass) Signed on behalf of the following: Prof Martin J Attrill, Professor of Marine Ecology, University of Plymouth Dr Dan Barrios-O’Neill, Head of Marine Conservation, Cornwall Wildlife Trust Prof Michael Chadwick, King’s College London Sarah Chatfield, Nature Recovery Partnership Manager, Chichester Harbour Conservancy Dr Leanne Cullen-Unsworth, Chief Executive, Project Seagrass Dr Aline da Silva Cerqueira, Sussex Bay & King’s College London Dr Tim Ferrero, Senior Specialist – Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust Zia Fikardos, Marine Policy Officer, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) Angus Garbutt, Principal Scientist, UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology Chris Graham, Head of Ocean Regeneration, Marine Conservation Society Tom Godfrey, Founder, Earth Change Dr Ian Hendy, Coastal Ecologist, Senior Lecturer, University of Portsmouth Chloë James, Seagrass Project Officer, Cornwall Wildlife Trust Prof Chris Laing, University of Exeter Dr Sally Little, Nottingham Trent University Louise MacCallum, Solent Seascape Project Manager, Blue Marine Foundation Niall McGrath, CEO, Robocean Ltd. Anouska Mendzil, Senior Science Officer, Project Seagrass & Swansea University Nigel Mortimer, Estuaries Officer, South Devon National Landscape Estuaries Partnership Dr Simon J. Pittman, School of Geography
