Latest Newsletter

Click to view our 'Guide to British Marine Animals'

Documents marked need
Adobe Reader to view. In the unlikely event that it is not on your computer, it is available free of charge from:-

This page is validated to XHTML 1.0

This page is validated to CSS

Latest News Archive 2005

 Radioactivity   MA Marine Aggregates   ML Marine Legislation   BW Bathing Water   MR Marine Reserves   RE Renewable Energy   OA Ocean Acidification   PO Pollution   FI Fisheries   GW Global Warming   CE Coastal Erosion

Mutual cooperation but different fact marketing?

Jerry Berne of Sustainable Coastlines (USA) sends us information that you may wish to peruse, followed by his comments.

www.mms.gov/international/uk.htm demonstrates a link in the US to UK dredging programs. Whilst is does not say that much, here is an extract of the main information within it.

"The UK is participating with the Marine Technology Directorate and the Petroleum Science and Technology Institute on offshore safety research. These research groups are industry-funded and based in the UK.

"The UK participates with MMS, Australia, and Canada in the International Regulators Forum.

"The International Activities Program is participating in a multi-year study of the fate and effects of sediment plumes from sand and gravel dredging in the English Channel. The study is being done by Coastline Surveys, Ltd., a UK marine consultant, along with Hydraulics Research, another consultant, and three major UK dredging firms - ARC Marine, United Marine Aggregates, and South Coast shipping."

Jerry Berne adds his comment: -
"I think it somewhat special that the good old environmentally sensitive UK government's Environment Agency is actually covering up the damage that Offshore Aggregate Dredging is doing while here in the US, our own mining agency MMS (Minerals Management Service) is admitting to it. This seems to be a reversal in what one might have imagined, given the Iraq war intelligence cover-up." Here is a listing site of MMS studies as compiled by Barry Drucker.

Another report of interest not on the above page can be found here.

Changing Currents

Between 1984 and 1990, following intensive offshore aggregate dredging, a huge increase in erosion lowered Hemsby Beach to destroy the dune frontage and 98 coastal bungalows. But for the past four years little has disappeared, as the focus then went 2 kilometres to the north at Winterton-on-Sea.

Now , 1 -2 Km to the south of Hemsby is losing it's dune face at an alarming rate whilst the erosion at Winterton has much reduced.

Here is Mike King's December 2005 photograph of the dune front at Scratby, behind which are many houses.

Campaigners 'pushing back' defence plan

from the Eastern Daily Press of 13th December 2005 by Richard Batson

Coastal campaigners feel they are turning the tide against plans to abandon sea defences along Norfolk's holiday shores.

A string of seaside communities have been up in arms after a new Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) suggested abandoning all but a handful of major resorts to the mercy of the waves. Even established holiday villages like Overstrand and Mundesley faced losing the defences installed in Victorian times, under the controversial blueprint, which advocates a more natural "managed retreat".

But campaigners in North Norfolk say adding human and social costs to the bare property values in a funding formula changes the picture - and justifies spending cash on defences. And they add that the proposed shoreline plan also has to be looked at again because it breaks the Government's own policies encouraging sustainability.

District council deputy leader Clive Stockton said the SMP's figures reckoned that every £1 spent on sea defences saved only 60p worth of property - making it unjustifiable. But the council had redone the sums, adding on costs to the economy such as tourism, roads, farming and heritage. It then looked at intangible elements, including health and community togetherness. Combined, they brought the figure up to £16 worth of benefit for every £1 spent, making defences justifiable.

"We know it is a best-case scenario, but it takes account of social justice as well as technical matters, and the difference is staggering," said Mr Stockton.

The SMP covers a stretch from Kelling to Lowestoft, and even its basic figures say £250m worth of property would be lost in the next 100 years under managed retreat. Only built-up resorts like Sheringham, Cromer and Yarmouth would continue to be protected, while the holiday village area of Bacton, Walcott and Ostend faced the biggest loss, totalling £65m.

But Mr Stockton said the SMP's idea of protecting some places and abandoning others drove a coach and horses through the Government's own UK Sustainable Development Strategy. "It leaves a series of promontories and bays, which are not sustainable. The erosion rate at Happisburgh has increased 10 times to 10 metres a year - because we are currently between two defended areas," added Mr Stockton, who owns a pub in the village.

The SMP is still under review by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, which was analysing feedback from the public consultation. Results were due back in October but may be taking longer than expected because 2600 letters of objection flooded in from East Anglia.

It left North Norfolk "in limbo", added Mr Stockton, but a study was also being carried out looking at some of the "nitty gritty" social issues in the communities affected.

There were signs that the Government was listening to the points raised by North Norfolk because a review of an overall coastal strategy called Making Space for Water was now looking at social justice and wider costs - thanks to public pressure which was "making a difference".

He is due to visit a national strategy meeting in February.

Latest Aggregate Take Levels - 4th December 2005

These figures indicate that level landed, not that extracted. The total amount taken from the sea bed would have been 53.7 million metric tonnes of which 32.2 metric tonnes would have been washed overboard in the screening process. Only 40% of the aggregate now being taken off East Anglia is commercially viable for constructional purposes.

New Zealand Protest at Offshore Dredging - 25th November 2005

New Zealand's NZ TV's "Close Up: The Threat of Sand Mining" is to be seen at http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411365/631880 It provides a video film of the rising protest against offshore dredging at New Plymouth, Auckland, Kaipara Harbour down to Tarnaki on North Island.

The situation there is identical to our own, with similar exploitation, similar excuses and similar denial of the consequences by those charged with the protection of the environment. Those aware of the consequences have formed an effective protest group, as shown on the film.

MARINET TUC Resolution - 15th November 2005

Following Pat Gowen's talks on the threat to the marine environment given to local TUC Branches earlier this year, a resolution on the environment (in general) including the damaging environmental impacts resulting from Offshore Aggregate Dredging was formulated with East Anglia's regional Trades Council at Ipswich and finally passed at the National Trades Councils meeting in Liverpool.

The resolution placed to the National TUC Meeting at Liverpool was moved by Messrs. Mackay and Canham, both delegates from Ipswich, who overcame the initial opposition from the Executive Committee, finally to result in only two delegates voting against it.

A reprint of the full text (below) will now be printed as National Trades Council policy as of 2005.

Note: This does not mean that it is now full TUC policy yet, but it is an important step in changing it .i.e. the vote in favour has to be responded to in a positive rather than a negative attitude).

Resolution passed at Trades Council Conference in Liverpool on Environment & prolog.

Environmental issues have increasingly come to the top of the political agenda. The tragic loss of life that took place in this year's Indian Ocean tsunami highlights the fact that life is always subject to physical and astrophysical forces beyond our control. In this case, what is under our control was the international response time, co-ordination or lack of it with sufficient standing resources both human and material that could be said to have been exposed as inadequate.

Also, the increasingly dire warnings aired during the recent meeting at Exeter of an international grouping of scientists on climate change with its many headline-grabbing eruptions of potential irreversible changes. Their warnings and predictions centre on the effects which human activities are having on the balances and loops within the overall biosphere and the necessity of changing our priorities and altering our behaviour through attempting to moderate these irreversible trends by changing our present ways i.e. set in motion active decisions which can have beneficial outcomes.

It's in this regard that the short termism of marine dredging which has been encouraged around our coastlines should be addressed as part of a re-evaluation - a National/European environmental audit to include alternative sources of energy generation, conservation and aggregates. Coastal erosion, fish stock breeding ground destruction and the ever-present fears of sea level rise should be enough to show that this practice is having a damaging effect both human and marine.

The resolution calls for action at a national level to: -

1. Promote and enhance the United Nation institutions with sufficient co-coordinated resources i.e. a standing facility to have more efficient response time to emergencies/disasters which will undoubtedly be the order for the future.
2. Promote the concept of an environmental audit which will outlaw certain activities which do not support the trends necessary to develop a sustainable economic as part of promoting a more interdependent attitude towards the human factor impacting the earth's biosphere: for example restrictions on military aircraft and the search for alternatives to the present pollution of commercial air travel technology.
3. Secure the suspension and eventual closure of marine dredging as an industrial activity that can only aggravate present negative trends.
4. Promote within the international sphere an international economics which has its cornerstone the relief of poverty and the transfer of sufficient and 'cutting edge/ by pass' technical resources so that countries can achieve social development without environmental devastation.
5. To promote through educational means the gathering of forces necessary for the development of a global consciousness: 'The earth's our home and it's up to us to look after it'

Flawed Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) studies on dredging impact - 6th November 2005

In addition to that we already have within Briefing Paper No.1 and in the listing of scientific papers from around the world on this website, a new paper further evidences that we have long found, that much of the research on the damage resulting from offshore aggregate dredging (or, as these reports usually show, the non-effects) are produced by those profiting from this practice.

The situation we have in the UK appears the same in the USA as shown by the paper 'Flawed studies assess dredge-and-fill programs to protect coastlines' published in the October 2005 issue of BioScience, the monthly journal of the American Institute of Biological Sciences, appears to show.

Marine scientists Charles H. Peterson of the University of North Carolina and Melanie J. Bishop, now of the University of Technology in Sydney, Australia, have reported that, despite expensive, multidecadal monitoring, the majority of studies of the ecological impacts of beach nourishment are scientifically inadequate and suffer from critical flaws, improper analyses, and unjustified interpretations.

Peterson and Bishop point out how the activity can bury shallow reefs and degrade other beach habitats, depressing nesting in sea turtles and reducing the densities of prey for shorebirds, fishes, and crabs, and that the US Army Corps of Engineers and state permitting agencies, which oversee most of the monitoring studies, do not have expertise adequate to assess them.

Peterson and Bishop conclude that reform of agency practices is urgently needed as evidence of the cumulative risk of severe ecological impacts grows. Their survey discovered that monitoring is typically conducted by project promoters with no independent peer review. See also www.aibs.org

Whilst dredging for beach restoration in the USA is seen to have such adverse impact, this must be quite small when compared to the far greater effect in the UK where massive commercial quantities of aggregate have been dredged over many years.

Pat Gowen, 6th November 2005

Welsh coast under threat by dredging - 4th November 2005

From 'icNorthWales' 3rd November 2005

Britain's first Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty could be destroyed by sand dredging. The Gower coast, near Swansea, got its protected status 49 years ago.

But yesterday Tory AM Alun Cairns said dredging could blight the area which has 27 sites of special scientific interest. More than one million tonnes of sand were dredged in the past 40 years. Mr Cairns said that equated to an area the size of a football field 100 metres deep.
"There is little wonder then that the potential loss of sand is so alarming," he said. "If sand dredging continues this very beautiful and heavily protected area could be destroyed for ever."

A public inquiry will hear an application to dredge Helwick Bank, 2.5km off Worms Head on Gower. "At long last the campaign by the thousands of people in Gower has had some impact," Mr Cairns said.

East Coast DIY Shoreline Defences terminated - 2nd November 2005

Coastal defence crusader and ex-Royal Navy Engineer Peter Boggis of Eastern Bavents in Suffolk has lost the latest battle in the fight protect his home and those of sixteen neighbours from the sea. He was importing many thousands of tons of inert clay soil and builders rubble to front the rapidly eroding cliff protecting the housing, some of which are now only 8 metres from the edge.

Despite the past two years of ongoing support by Waveney District Council, his efforts to build a soft sea defence using his own money and expertise have now been refused permission to continue by the Environment Agency. The EA stated that they, long opposed to his protective measures, have now used the recent changes in waste management rules to stop the protection. They said that they would continue to inspect the site and that Peter Boggis would be prosecuted under the Environmental Protection Act if he carried on with the work.

Environmental Lawyer Peter Scott points out, "Provided the material imported and the type of sources from which it is to be taken is specified in contract for the purposes of the works described, the material will not become waste. We have a particular form of contract for such situations, which was confirmed by the Environment Agency as not only correct, but useful in relation to the avoidance of use of exempt waste sites to receive material which need not be characterised as waste."

In respect of the EA's latest move, Peter Boggis said "It ensures the continued destruction of the coastline of Britain regardless of the damage to human habitat and people's lives. While this decision does not technically prevent me from carrying on, it does make it too expensive to do so. The project is 75% complete, but it is not finished and it is exposed. And with the changes to the groynes at Southwold over the winter, we expect erosion to be bad this winter."

It almost beggars belief that the authorities responsible for the protection of our coastline and environment are not only failing to do so, nor are they opposing offshore aggregate dredging, the main cause of the beach stripping and consequent erosion, but instead are actively engaged in stopping any person who voluntarily does it for them. The only benefit from their promoting the continued erosion is to the dredging companies, the Crown Estate and the government, all of whom who will gain more income from the new supply of cliff released material.

Pat Gowen - 2nd November 2005

European Marine Framework Directive - 30th October 2005

The European Commission has just proposed the strategy to more effectively protect the marine environment across Europe, with the aim of achieving good environmental status of the EU's marine waters by 2021. It will constitute the environmental pillar of the future maritime policy the European Commission is working on, and is designed to achieve the full economic potential of oceans and seas in harmony with the marine environment.

Each Member State will draw up a programme of cost-effective measures. Impact assessments, including detailed cost-benefit analysis of the measures proposed, will be required prior to the introduction of any new measure. Where it would be impossible for a Member State to achieve the level of ambition of the environmental targets set, special areas and situations will be identified in order to devise specific measures tailored to their particular contexts.

The detail and a number of documents relating to the implementation of the strategy are available by going to http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/water/marine.htm

Welsh sand dredging plan goes to inquiry - 24th October 2005

Full story on www.newswales.co.uk/?section=Environment&F=1&id=8233

Proposals to dredge sand at Helwick Bank, off Worms Head on the Gower Peninsula, some 2.5km from the nearest coast, for a period of 15 years, are to be the be subject to a public inquiry, it was announced today by the Minister for Environment, Planning and Countryside Carwyn Jones. The Minister decided that, because of a number of outstanding objections to the application to dredge 300,000 tonnes of sand a year, it is appropriate for the Planning Inspectorate for Wales to hold an inquiry.

Carwyn Jones said: "We have already been out to consultation on proposals from Llanelli Sand Dredging Ltd to dredge from Helwick Bank, and have considered responses from many organisations and individuals both in favour and against the application."

Sadly, the Minister seems totally unaware of the findings of the truly independant experts and is oblivious of the evidence of the link between dredging and erosion, as he added,
"Although independent studies do not support claims that dredging harms our beaches, there is great concern among Gower residents and visitors about the potential impact on coastal beaches. Our policy on dredging in the Bristol Channel and Severn Estuary takes a precautionary approach. While there is no evidence of a link between dredging and beach erosion, I believe that moving dredging further offshore and to the outer channel areas better fits our policy on sustainable development.

"It is vital to the Welsh economy that the construction industry has an adequate supply of minerals. It is unlikely in the foreseeable future that the marine-dredged sand could be replaced to any great degree from other sources. We will, however, continue working with the industry to encourage efficient and appropriate use of dredged aggregates."

Llanelli Sand Dredging Ltd applied to extract 4.5 million tonnes at a rate of 300,000 tonnes per year for 15 years. (Rising by 50,000 a year over three years, from an initial 150,000). This would be taken in 2-3 dredging campaigns per year, each of 7-11 weeks duration. Dredging on the Bank started in the 1950s, although initially only in small amounts. About 740,000 tonnes were removed up to 1990. Dredging started again in 1993, with some half million cubic metres taken until 2002.

The proposal lies within the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries SAC and will need Appropriate Assessment under the spirit of the Habitats Directive. Following the three phases of public consultation, in spring 2003, 2004 and 2005, there are still concerns raised by a number of bodies. The main objections are from some local authorities and members of the public who believe that there are changes to the beaches as a consequence of dredging.

The Planning Inspectorate will follow the spirit of planning procedure rules. They aim to commence the hearing or inquiry within 22 weeks of the notification.

Government Policy Reviews - 23rd October 2005

The UK Government has commissioned a number of reviews looking at various aspects of management of the UK's seas and coasts. Supported by WWF UK, the Marine and Coastal Environment (MACE) Group, Cardiff University is undertaking an evaluation of these reviews in order to inform discussion on the future of UK marine policy and, in particular, the possible content of the UK Marine Bill.

Key Government reviews being evaluated

• Safeguarding Our Seas: A strategy for the conservation and sustainable development of our marine environment (First Marine Stewardship Report Defra, May 2002) www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/marine/uk/stewardship/
• Seas of Change: The Government's consultation paper to help deliver our vision for the marine environment (Defra, November 2002) www.defra.gov.uk/environment/consult/seas/index.htm
• Marine Nature Conservation and Sustainable Development: The Irish Sea Pilot. Report to Defra by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC, January 2004) www.jncc.gov.uk/page-2767
• The Government's response to its Seas of Change consultation to help deliver our vision for the marine environment (Defra, March 2004) www.defra.gov.uk/environment/consult/seas/gov_response.htm
• The Marine Environment: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee Sixth Report of Session 2003-04 (EFRA, March 2004)
• Review of Marine Fisheries and Environmental Enforcement (Defra, March 2004) www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/fish-env/
• Net Benefits: a sustainable and profitable future for UK fishing (Prime Minister's Strategy Unit, March 2004) www.strategy.gov.uk/downloads/su/fish/index.htm
• Marine Environment: Government's reply to the Committee's report. Tenth Report of Session 2003-04 (EFRA, June 2004)
• Review of Marine Nature Conservation. Working Group report to Government (Defra, July 2004) www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/ewd/rmnc/
• Turning the Tide: Addressing the impact of fisheries on the marine environment (Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, December 2004) www.rcep.org.uk/fishreport.htm
• Charting Progress: An integrated assessment of the state of UK seas (Defra, March 2005) www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/marine/uk/stateofsea/
• The Future for UK Fishing: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee Sixth Report of Session 2004-05 (EFRA, March 2005)

Project objectives

• To assess alignment and conflict between recommendations in the reviews
• To consider how Government should take the reviews' recommendations forward, in particular in relation to marine spatial planning, nature conservation, species protection and fisheries management
• To consider how a 'Duty of Care' placed on authorities through a Marine Bill could facilitate the implementation and enforcement of current legislation
• To assess how WWF's draft Marine Act could enable implementation of the recommendations
• To consider how changes in governance could help take the recommendations forward

Contact details
Dr Hance Smith
Marine & Coastal Environment Group
Cardiff University
Tel: 02920-874830
Email: SmithHD@Cardiff.ac.uk

UK study on seabed smothering from dredging - 17th October 2005

A paper that gives an insight into the damage created by dredging, specifically the settlement of suspended sediments over the seabed, impacting the animals and plants that live on and within can be read in full by going to www.ukmarinesac.org.uk/activities/ports/ph5_2_6.htm

The paper stressed how animals with delicate feeding or breathing apparatus, such as shellfish, can be intolerant to increased siltation, resulting in reduced growth or fatality (ABP Research R707 1997). Maerl beds (calcified seaweed) are reported to be sensitive to smothering due to channel dredging (Birkett et al 1998). In important spawning or nursery areas for fish and other marine animals, dredging can result in smothering eggs and larvae. Shellfish are particularly susceptible during spring when spatfall occurs. When smothering of intertidal areas occurs, there may be subsequent effects on the availability of animals and plants in bird/fish feeding areas.

The treatise points out how the blanketing or smothering of benthic animals and plants may also cause stress and reduced rates of growth or reproduction, and how in the worse cases the effects may be fatal (Bray, Bates & Land 1997). It further relates how sediments are distributed more widely within the estuary or coastal area and may settle over adjacent subtidal or intertidal habitats some distance from the dredged area.

The paper points out that the sensitivity of marine animals and plants to siltation varies greatly and discusses how in areas with high natural loads of suspended sediments, the relatively small increase in siltation away from the immediate dredging area are generally considered unlikely to have any additional adverse effects on benthic populations.

It concluded that the effects of siltation from capital dredging as in Morecambe Bay that some smothering of benthic animals was inevitable. However, given that this particular area is subjected to regular maintenance dredging of navigation channels and berths, and that the adjacent subtidal and intertidal areas appear to be productive, it is was thought unlikely that the additional effects from the proposed dredging programme will have anything more than temporary and fairly localised impacts (ABP Research R707 1997).

Post-dredge surveys of the deepened navigation channel to the Port of Londonderry, Lough Foyle, which is in close proximity to important commercial shell fisheries, indicated that with appropriate care, substantial dredging works could be undertaken with no adverse effects on shell or other fisheries (Bates 1996).

Also see www.ukmarinesac.org.uk/index.htm

Update on the Bathing Waters Directive - 14th October 2005

It was reported on Wednesday 12th October that after many years of contention, the last hurdle is now in sight for the new European Bathing Waters Directive. All EU States appear to have finally reached a political agreement which they will have to adopt within the next few weeks.

Each member state will now be expected to incorporate the new rules into their own national laws within two years. The status of the water quality will now be divided into three categories -- "excellent", "good" and "sufficient", with all EU governments having to ensure that all bathing waters achieve at least the "sufficient" status by the end of the 2015 bathing season.

Although in some ways, reducing as it does the risk of infection to swimmers from 12 to 15% down to between 7.5 and 8 percent, the new Directive shows some degree of improvement, it falls far short of that hoped and worked for by MARINET and the North Sea Action Group, who hoped to see that enteroviruses and salmonella testing was carried out and properly reported. Further, that the classification applied to all forms of water immersion sports and all waters where recreation took place, not just a few designated resorts. We still feel that a risk of infection of 7.5 - 8% is grossly excessive.

Where the original 76/160/EEC Bathing Waters Directive contained 19 pollutants, including the dangerous enterovirus and salmonella pathogens, now only the investigation of two indicator microbiological bacterial are called for, i.e. E.coli (Escheria Coli) and gastro-intestinal enterococci.

It will be interesting to see if the UK government and the Environment Agency, having been instrumental in weakening what could and should have been a major move in protecting public health instead of water companies profits, now make an honest and meaningful attempt to abide by the rulings of the new Directive.

Pat Gowen, 14th October 2005

The New Orleans Disaster - 14th October 2005

The disastrous flooding and loss of life at New Orleans was clearly foreseen by Jerry Byrne of Sustainable Shorelines, who, long before the tragic event was addressing the concern in communications with Barry S. Drucker, Physical Scientist and Oceanographer of the MMS-Leasing Division Marine Minerals Branch.

It was pointed out that at a time of sea rise and worsening and more frequent hurricanes due to the US's failure to take action on Global Warming, offshore dredging was ongoing, whilst the funding required for refurbishing the levee (sea wall) was being taken to prosecute George Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Barry Drucker wrote in reference to critical beach draw down due to offshore dredging: -
"Some of this shift is definitely due to the realization that exploiting too much of deposit in close proximity to the beach can actually have a devastating effect on the shoreline and subsequent increases in erosion".

On 12th April 2005, six months before the inundation, Jerry Byrne, Head of Sustainable Shorelines replied : -
"The myriad forces you mentioned are not just happening off Louisiana. This is why it is impossible to completely model these with computers and wave tables. As such, we should be employing those methods which have strong, long-term empirical evidence as well as research and monitoring. To save Louisiana we are going to need all our resources. To ignore one of the most promising options and to maintain comfortably known, but counterproductive, methods has to raise question as to the true purposes of those making these decisions".

Doesn't this all sound rather close to home? In 1938 and again in 1953, much life and livelihood were lost in East Anglia when the sea broke through the dune defence system. The governments of the day had ignored repeated warnings of the consequences that would surely follow.

Now we have the same happening again. Our sea defence budget cut due to Blair's war funding demands, the protecting dunes, cliffs and beaches allowed to be eroded and undermined by a rising and more turbulent sea whilst at the same time offshore aggregate dredging continues unabated.

Just how does one get the self-blinded to see?

Pat Gowen, 14th October 2005

Where do our cliffs go ? - 13th October 2005

It has long been assumed that 90% of the sand on beaches emanated mainly from sediment coming from the rivers, the rest from rain. But new empirical research suggests that we could finally help to resolve the true source of our beach sand (and shingle?) by the use of "sand fingerprinting" techniques.

Two new research projects by scientists at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) used a portable laser imaging system to prove that erosion of the sea cliffs from the 80 km of coast between Dana Point and La Jolla were the primary source of the deposits on the areas beaches.

UCSD engineering professor Scott Ashford said "It's telling us that we don't understand the beach system as well as we think." He showed that erosion of sea cliffs is responsible for an annual inflow of 80,000 to 100,000 cubic yards, or 67 percent, based on current estimates of total sediment input. A separate UCSD graduate project using so-called "sand fingerprinting" techniques found similar results. The papers on the discovery were presented on Wednesday 12th October 2005 at a meeting of the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, and looked at six years of imaging data.

If we could now lay the ghost of the claims made that sand deposits are stable and do not move from the shoreline to offshore to fill the created voids, by determining the true source and the final destination of the sand by such 'fingerprinting', it could take us a long way in conclusively proving the reasons for the loss of our coastal beaches and cliffs, and the prime source of the sand landed by the dredgers.

Pat Gowen, 13th October 2005

Happisburgh Presentation in Integrated Coastal Zone Management - 10th October 2005

The recent speech and accompanying slides given by Malcolm Kerby, coordinator of the Happisburgh Coastal Concern Action Group (CCAG) at the Edinburgh Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) of 22nd September '05 is to be found by going to their website www.happisburgh.org.uk/content/Malcolm_Kerby_CCAG  It gives the point of view of those losing their living and housing without compensation when due to dredging and global warming induced erosion, and the impact of the Shoreline Management Plan.

Being at least as important as the scientific reasoning, the emotive and moral aspects from those afflicted is well worth understanding, and is well put over in the presentation.

Marine Conservation Society concerns on dredging - 10th October 2005

Points of concern made by the Marine Conservation Society on offshore aggregate dredging can be seen by viewing the following WORD document from their website.

An update on the East Coast Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) - 8th October 2005

Those of you who regularly peruse the Happisburgh Coastal Concern Action Group (CCAG) website www.happisburgh.org.uk will have read that Professor Tim O'Riordan of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia, together with his Research Associate Jessica Milligan, who headed the meetings on the Shoreline Management Plan, met many residents of Happisburgh and surrounding communities on 4th October to discuss concerns with them.

Enthusiasm for the plan as given was not high among the coastal residents, evidenced by the fact that of the 2,430 who responded to consultation on the plan 2,420 (99.6%) firmly objected, i.e.only ten people, 0.6%, were in approval.

Prof. O'Riordan explained that his work was part of a year long study, partly funded by North Norfolk District Council as a result of the responses to the SMP public-consultation exercise earlier in the year. He said that the challenge was to develop ways to manage coastlines in the face of changing coastal processes, while addressing the impact on coastal communities. What was happening at Happisburgh and along the North Norfolk Coast could be repeated around the country's shores.

At the end of the meeting, Prof. O'Riordan said that he felt humbled by what he had heard, and than now he had met some of the peoples concerned, seen the look on their faces and in their eyes first hand, that he had more of an appreciation of what the issues mean to residents. He appealed for as many people as possible to write down how the proposed changes in coastal management affect their lives, saying that this evidence would have a very real impact on future plans. Thus your views and concerns would be welcome by the professor, by either sending them to him at t.oriordan@uea.ac.uk , copy to Jessica at j.milligan@uea.ac.uk, or by post to them at the Tyndall Centre at the University of East Anglia.

Our own points will include the facts in our response to the SMP, that the basic cause of the erosion, viz offshore aggregate dredging must cease, otherwise it will be seen that the coastline loss suffered will merely be producing more aggregate for inflating the coffers of the dredgers, the Crown Estate and the government. Further that compensation must be given to those who lose their habitation or living as a result, and that protection of village communities and wildlife areas is at least as important as the protection funded for major profitable private industries such as the nuclear power stations, the gas and oil concerns, etc.

But please be sure to use this opportunity to provide feedback so that an equitable and fair strategy may yet result. Go to read www.marinet.org.uk/mad/smp.html if you wish to use any of the points made in our MARINET thoughts on the issue.

Pat Gowen, 8th October 2005

Europe's Cod and Eels Doomed if Overfishing Continues - 12th June 2005

Overfishing is just one of the problems associated with this loss. The basic problem is that we are losing the coastal habitats needed to give birth to these and other species including important bottom of the feed chain species.

We are losing our coastlines and the coastal resources these sustain. Most of this is directly related to man's activities including overdevelopment, often seen (as in the recent report on the Mediterranean) as the major culprit in habitat loss. Yet, development does not cause the erosion of the shoreline and coastal sealife habitats. Only when we attempt to protect such development with counterproductive methods as beach nourishment or traditionally engineered erosion "protection" structures, does development directly cause coastline loss. It is what we do in the water, mainly navigational dredging and offshore aggregate mining (for beach nourishment and some of the aggregate which go into those coastal concrete structures), that is directly responsible for the loss of much of our coastlines. This loss included coastal wetlands, estuaries, and river systems. As salt water is push further upstream by deeply dredged channels and shorelines erode inward, already scarce coastal fresh water systems face salt water intrusion.

The 2004's Eurosion report bluntly stated the effects of dredging processes on our shorelines. To date, however, I have seen little EU support for curtailing the numerous channel/harbour and aggregate mining dredging projects or advocating for more environmentally sound and sustainable options to beach nourishment and shoreline hardening.

From Jerry Berne, Sustainable Shorelines, Inc. (www.sustainableshorelines.org) responding to the 7th July Reuters report 'Europe's Cod and Eels Doomed if Overfishing Continues' by Michael Sissenwine (michael.sissenwine@noaa.gov)

The mechanism of dredging induced shoreline erosion - 11th June 2005

This link serves an interesting conference paper given at Delft University 20-21 February 2003. The treatise also gives graphical and mathematical models on the erosive impact of offshore aggregate dredging in France.

Although France dredges but a fraction of that of the UK, the paper is still relative. It mainly discusses the wave climate rather than the sediment drift seizure and the recapture from the shoreline, and appears biased toward consideration of the principles put forward as a means of permitting the continuity of the exploitation. It points out the scarcity of knowledge of the long term effects, but offers no realistic solution to our problem.

A Fresh Look at the East Coast Shoreline Management Plan - 10th June 2005

The massive rejection by the 2,500 people who responded to the draft North Norfolk Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) based on non-compensated 'Managed Retreat' and the non-recognition of the major impact of offshore aggregate dredging has resulted in the realisation to take a completely fresh look at the situation. Had it had gone through the SMP would have condemned thousands of homes and acres of the land between Kelling and Lowestoft Ness to the sea without addressing the main cause of the shoreline collapse.

A year long new consultation with seaside communities will commence next month, as North Norfolk District councillors voted on 9th June to invest in a more "community-sensitive" coastal strategy in a bid to find a "fairer" solution to long-term coastline changes on the Sheringham to Winterton stretch. A new study will be conducted by University of East Anglia's (UEA) Professor Tim O'Riordan, involving a series of public workshops and organisations including DEFRA, the EA, English Nature and the National Trust.

NNDC chief executive Philip Burton said of the plan, which was due for publication in September "We already know what it is likely to contain and that it is unacceptable to the authority. We will go back to the drawing board. We cannot just accept the current position, we have to find a way forward." He added that the £20,000 contribution towards the UEA Tyndall Centre study represented "good value" and would buy the council more time while the issues of compensation for home-owners and the impact of offshore dredging were debated. But Mundesley member Sue Willis said she was concerned that Prof O'Riordan had been raving about managed retreat only a year ago and had now made a complete U-turn. "An academic that changes his mind greatly bothers me. If this exercise produces what it says it will, who is bound to listen to it? What difference will it make? And will it cause more problems than it solves?"

Deputy NNDC leader Clive Stockton said the current situation was "nonsense, crazy and unjust", but the new study was the "best way" to find a solution to coastal- management problems. "We are in a position where the existing SMP is unworkable and the proposed one is unachievable. "As far as I am aware, this is the only way forward at the moment and we could gain a lot from this."

Ongoing Erosion on East Coast- 29th May 2005

We are continuing to lose our eastern shoreline at a great and ever escalating rate. The latest losses include Caister-on-Sea, Newport, Scratby and California in Norfolk, where much dune, beach and sandcliff has been lost in the past two months. Felixstowe in southern Suffolk has lost some two metres of beach sand and beach access is now impossible.

Whilst a part of this is due to the increase in north and north-easterly eroding winds that have come about as Global Warming increases its effect, just as predicted, by far the greatest cause is ongoing dredging.

The latest victim is on the south coast. Rother District Council have stated that it cannot afford work needed to protect up to 200 homes at Fairlight Cove, near Hastings in East Sussex, from falling into the sea due to the ongoing erosion. Where prior to dredging there was 100 metres clear gap between the house frontages and the sea cliff, houses have now gone.

Dredging Application at Severn Sands - 8th April 2005

Crossavon Ltd (Severn Sands) already extract 150,000 tonnes/yr from the Bedwyn, Charston & Dunn Sands, with permit up to 2013. Their current application for a further area and much higher extraction - 400,000 t/yr from North Middlegrounds must be rejected for wildlife reasons.

The inner Severn Estuary is an international RAMSAR site and designated European site (Special Protection Area) for birdlife. Studies undertaken at Cardiff University show high levels of toxic metals in species that feed on the mudflats. The Estuary is also nominated for shad and lamprey species (Alosa alosa, Allosa fallax; Lampetra fluviatilis; Petromyzon marinus). These species are listed Annex II species for the Habitats Directive Art.12 so must be given protection.

Dredging directly damages potential feeding and spawning grounds. It also mobilises sediments accumulated through the early industrial period when levels of metals were very high. The fine material that dredging returns to the water then become a source of toxic metals in the food chain.

The Western Bristol Channel is an alternative source for a limited period. The Welsh Assembly policy is to stop dredging at the Nash and Helwick banks because of beach erosion, and to search for alternatives in the lower estuary. The deeper water and longer distances for dredgers will raise costs - companies like Crossavon have to accept this.

Max Wallis, spokesperson for the Barry & Vale group said: "Friends of the Earth maintain that dredging should therefore be phased out from the whole Inner Estuary, and existing licences be reviewed. Certainly no new areas there can be permitted for extraction as Crossavon Ltd seek."

UK gets final warning over wastewater - 7th February 2005

The European Commission has just issued the United Kingdom with a final warning due to its failure to apply the demanded regulations on sewage treatment.

The European 1991 Urban Waste Water Directive (UWWD) long fought for by MARINET and the North Sea Action Group, demands that all sewerage and wastewater from areas with populations of greater than 15,000 undergoes primary (solids and sludge removal) and secondary treatment (aeration) and in environmentally sensitive areas such as shellfisheries and bathing waters, tertiary (e.g. UV irradiation and/or phosphate removal) before being discharged into rivers, estuaries or the sea.

It was supposed to have been complied with by 31st December 2000, but still in 2005 fourteen UK locations still fail to provide legally demanded facilities. "By not fully complying with this EU law, the UK is not delivering the level of protection against pollution from waste water that it signed up to and that British citizens deserve," commented Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas. "I intend to give priority to ensuring that Member States live up to their commitments."

MARINET and the NSAG researched the status of Britain's sewage outfalls after nineteen months and formally reported the UK breaches to DG-XI (the EU department dealing with the environment law) on 17th August 2001. NSAG's earlier formal complaint on the UK Government failing to meet the 1975 76/160/EEC Bathing Water Directive eventually resulted in a fine of £87,000 per day in the case of the Blackpool area alone. The UK now has until 31st December 2005 to ensure full treatment of all outfalls from populations of >10,000. Progress toward compliance will be followed with interest.

Pat Gowen