Cod stocks have improved in the North Sea, but are still below sustainable levels.
Photograph: Alamy

“Some green campaigners were cautious, saying a full recovery could still take many years. Paul de Zylva of Friends of the Earth said: “We would expect some recovery of cod stocks because of the closure of the North Sea cod fisheries. But this does not mean stocks have recovered to high enough levels. We’re in this near extinction mess – and the North Sea cod fisheries were closed – precisely because industrial commercial fishing has stripped fish stock to the bone. The UK used to be self-sufficient in fish for all 12 months of the year. Now we’re using our own fish stocks for just six months.”

He said taking species off the danger list too soon would just repeat the cycle of overfishing. “It’s pointless to declare that cod and other species are recovering if they are still far from being at safe levels where adult fish reproduce, their offspring survive and overall levels are sustained.”

The brighter prospect for cod comes in Project Inshore, a survey of 450 of the UK’s inshore fishing grounds carried out by the MSC and other fishing organisations, with government backing.

The organisation said: “Cod stocks in the North Sea – often perceived as a species to avoid – continue to show a strong recovery and are now close to a level where they could meet the MSC standard. The report shows that strong management measures have made a positive impact and that – once stocks have reached the required levels – all other areas of the fisheries are ready to enter an MSC full assessment.”

Marinet observes: The key phrase in the Marine Stewardship Council’s report is “once stocks have reached required levels”. What exactly are the “required levels”?

The reality is that the North Sea cod stock has been on the brink of commercial extinction (the spawning stock has shrunk to a level where there were fears that the stock could no longer regenerate itself). Hence the fishery was closed.

Does “required level” mean that the stock is now back at a level where it can replenish itself but only to a stock level which is actually abysmally small in historical terms, and certainly unable to meet the UK’s food security needs? Or, does “required level” mean a level that is ecologically and historically referenced so as to rebuild the stock to the point that can once again meet the needs of food security, and thus assure the UK fishing industry that it has a genuinely sustainable stock to fish?

Marinet suspects that it is the former of these two definitions. This is certainly the experience documented by Charles Clover in his book The End of The Line where, time and again, fisheries which have been over-fished are allowed to recover then, when a point of “recovery” has been reached, fishing recommences only to once again create the downward spiral towards commercial extinction.

The Marine Stewardship Council needs to define its terms when making such statements. And the UK Government and the UK fishing industry need to ensure that the MSC does. Otherwise, we are in danger of being hoodwinked all over again.

Published 6th June 2013 | POST notes POST PN 435
Authors: Jonathan Wentworth
Topic: BiodiversityBiological diversity in an environment as indicated by numbers of different species of plants and animals., Electricity, Environmental protection
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/POST-PN-435

Note to Illustration: The ecological effects of intensive fishing. From left to right, fishing effort increases over time. As a result, large predatory fish become depleted and fishers are forced to target new species. Consequently, the marine ecosystem becomes progressively more damaged and biodiversityBiological diversity in an environment as indicated by numbers of different species of plants and animals. is reduced. In this unnaturally predator-free environment, the ecosystem can become dominated by highly valuable shellfish, or by harmful algal blooms, highly invasive gelatinous planktonPlankton is a generic term for a wide variety of the smallest yet most important organisms form that drift in our oceans. They can exist in larger forms of more than 20cm as the larval forms of jellyfish, squid, starfish, sea urchins, etc. and can be algae, bacterial or even viral down to as small as 0.2µm. They are nutrient and light dependent, and form the essential foodchain baseline for larger dependent aquatic lifeforms. Fish species rely on the density and distribution of zooplanktonZooplankton form the group of tiny animals such as minuscule jellyfish and rotifers present in the marine environment. They are a major source of food for those higher up the food chain, and their numbers relate directly as a good indicator to the nutrient enrichment of the sea of the area. Note: phytoplankton are microscopic plants, and zooplankton are microscopic animals. to coincide with first-feeding larvae for good survival of their larvae, which can otherwise starve. Man-made impacts such as dredging, dams on rivers, waste dumping, etc can severely affect zooplanktonZooplankton form the group of tiny animals such as minuscule jellyfish and rotifers present in the marine environment. They are a major source of food for those higher up the food chain, and their numbers relate directly as a good indicator to the nutrient enrichment of the sea of the area. Note: phytoplankton are microscopic plants, and zooplankton are microscopic animals. density and distribution, which can in turn strongly affect larval survival and thus breeding success and stock strength of fish species and the entire ecosystem. They also form the essential basis of CO2 take up in our seas ecosystem, hence Global Warming. and jellyfish. Illustration and text: University of York.

“The paper highlights the issue close to home, with the dramatic shift of species landed in the Clyde changing from one dominated by finfish such as cod and haddock, to nephrops prawns; now contributing up to 84% of the current landed weight. The ability to reverse this shift may prove difficult owing to a range of factors such as declines in important nursery habitat and planktonicFree-floating, drifting. prey for fish species as well as high levels of juvenile by-catch. Great concern for the sustainability of nephrops stocks is also documented due to the high risk of infection by parasites, which may be enhanced by the lack of predators and greater number of smaller-bodied individuals (found to be more susceptible to disease) in regularly fished areas.

Illustration: A huge catch of young scallops in New Zealand. This fishery was highly productive in the 1980s and 90s, but has now completely collapsed. (Photo credit: Peter Duncan).

“With few species left to target and recent assessments suggesting that the Firth of Clyde nephrops stock may already be exploited above the Maximum Sustainable and Economic Yield, if the nephrops population were to collapse the social and economic consequences for Clyde fishermen (and in turn coastal communities) would be severe.

“The paper therefore outlines the requirement to implement management regimes that will promote the recovery of diverse ocean ecosystems. This includes a combined approach to fisheries management including fishing effort and gear control as well as establishing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) to ensure fisheries sustainability and resilience in the future.

* Howarth, L.M., Roberts, C. M., Thurstan, R.H., Stewart, B. D. (2013). The unintended consequences of simplifying the sea: making the case for complexity. Fish and Fisheries, 2013.

MEDASSET’s lobbying and campaigning was instrumental in establishing the Zakynthos National Marine Park in 1999. Since its constitution, the organisation remains the only one working exclusively on sea turtle conservation throughout the Mediterranean. Core funding by its founder enabled it to pursue monitoring, research, conservation and education projects in European, Near Eastern and North African countries around the Mediterranean basin. These activities have been fully backed by key international environmental intergovernmental organizations and conventions and further supported by sponsors and fund raising. By surveying almost 8,000 km of Mediterranean coastline, identifying new nesting sites and confirming the absence of turtles in key areas, MEDASSET has made a major contribution to the legal framework that protects sea turtles and their habitats in Greece, Egypt and Albania, and provided invaluable information in support of coastal habitat management plans and sustainable use of the Mediterranean coastal zone.

With only 300-500 green turtles remaining in the Mediterranean, this species has been MEDASSET’s research and conservation priority since 1989. It has been MEDASSET’s enthusiasm, persistence, imaginative and original approach, hard work, lobbying and campaigning that sets it apart as a unique organisation. It is with pride and joy that we celebrate our 25th Anniversary.

Lily Venizelos
MEDASSET Founder

A local fishermen flotilla accompanies the Arctic Sunrise on its arrival in Denia, Spain.
Greenpeace is on a European journey in support of sustainable fishing, to meet with local representatives from the growing movement and to support the reform of the European Common Fisheries Policy. Source: Greenpeace

Commenting on the outcome of the meeting, Greenpeace EU fisheries policy director Saskia Richartz said: “The brakes are on so tight that it’s taken months of intense talks for ministers to move just a fraction. The deal submitted today still lacks the determination needed to turn things around for Europe’s fish stocks and fishing communities, but it just about keeps the door open for final negotiations with the European Parliament. Only leadership from the parliament, which has great political and public support behind it, can now steer the reform safely home.”

Main opposition to reform came from Spain, France, Portugal, Greece and Belgium. These countries in particular objected to a target date for the recovery of Europe’s overfished stocks and insisted for loopholes to be worked into a partial ban on discards. The German minister repeatedly pushed for a better deal, while Sweden was the only country to refuse to sign up to the Council position because of a lack of ambition.

The European Parliament and its negotiator, centre-left MEP Ulrike Rodust, will need to decide whether to continue negotiations on the basis of the Council’s position. Unless ministers are willing to compromise, negotiations will be thrown off course and threaten the chances of reforming fisheries rules in 2013.

In a vote in February, the Parliament overwhelmingly supported an overhaul of the rules which have led to decades of overfishing and a decline of the European fishing industry ^[1]. On the other hand, EU ministers – in particular from large fishing nations – have resisted reforms ^[2].

Greenpeace supports a target for fish stock recovery by 2020, a trimming of the fishing fleet to sustainable levels, financial penalties for countries that fail to implement the rules, and a strict ban on the wasteful practice of discarding unwanted fish.

^[1] According to the European Commission, around two thirds of European fish stocks are currently fished beyond sustainable levels (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52012DC0278:EN:NOT), while one third of European fishing jobs have been lost in the last decade (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SPLIT_SEC:2011:0891%2851%29:FIN:EN:PDF).

^[2] Joint NGO statement, Fisheries Council: threat of collapse hangs over fisheries reform: www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/2013/threat-of-collapse-hangs-over-fisheries-reform
www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/2013/Council-tables-weak-deal-on-EU-fisheries-reform

Marinet observes:
We are developing a new campaign action in relation to the EU Common Fisheries Policy. This action concerns EU Fishing Subsidies.

Subsidies from the EU Commission (tax payer) to the EU fleet are in the region 1 billion Euros annually, and when nationally-sourced subsidies are included (i.e. subsidies for fuel, thus enabling vessels to stay at sea longer) the annual subsidy to the EU fleet as a whole is over 3 billion Euros.

Fishing subsidies are therefore a significant factor in keeping fishing vessels at sea, and many fishing vessels would be uneconomic without them. The system of subsidies is therefore artificially maintaining the level of fishing (over-fishing) which is placing severe pressure on fish stocks and causing them to decline. They have been central to the extraction-based management practices and philosophy that have characterised the Common Fisheries Policy.

The CFP reform process that has been the subject of such intense negotiation and debate in recent months appears likely to deliver some changes – a measure of control (not elimination) over discards, a referencing of fishing levels to a complicated definition of the “maximum sustainable yield” which a stock can deliver each year, and some decentralisation of fishing management to regional areas – but the reform process has, in Marinet’s view, essentially failed.

It has failed because there is still no recognition that stocks are so low that we have lost fish “food security” (EU stocks can now only feed us for six months of the year), and therefore stocks need to be rebuilt in order to re-establish food “security” – which, at a basic minimum, means that stocks have to double in size before this basic minimum is met.

It has failed because there is still no recognition that stocks can only be rebuilt to such a target level (double in size) – and preferably beyond such a target level – if we take action to protect fish spawning and nursery grounds from all fishing with fishermen and their vessels being employed – using money from the fishing subsidy system – as the managers of these closed areas, thus giving fishermen financial security both in the short term whilst key fishing areas are closed and stocks grow again in size, and also in the long term from abundant fish in the sea with doubled/trebled stock levels, thus giving the industry a huge and vastly improved economic dividend.

And most fundamentally, the reform process has failed because it has not moved away from the old extraction-based management principles, and it has not taken the opportunity that the CFP reform negotiations have offered to put the industry on a new, forward looking set of conservation-based principles.

Whilst this outcome may appear depressing for all those who share our vision of genuine CFP reform – and there are many fishermen who share this vision too – the struggle is not yet wholly lost. The old, extraction-based system of management is essentially bankrupt in financial terms. The vessels that put to sea and over-exploit fish stocks can only do so because of the substantial financial subsidies which they receive from the EU and their national government. Without these subsidies, these vessels would be uneconomic and unable to finance their activities. In short, they would cease to go to sea, and over-fishing would cease likewise.

Therefore if the system of financial subsidies can be reformed, hope remains. And it so happens that between June and December of this year the European Parliament, Commission and Council of Fisheries Ministers will be reviewing the whole system of subsidies and the Regulations (EC 1198/2006 and EC 498/2007) which validate them. Consequently, if these Regulations can be reformed – converted to conservation-based management principles rather than extraction-based principles – then genuine reform of EU fishing practices can still be achieved.

As a result, Marinet is launching a new dimension of our CFP reform work in order to achieve this specific result.

We cannot achieve this alone. We need the voice of reason to prevail and, most specifically, we need your active support to advance and articulate this voice of reason. Let us explain what we are doing right now, and the destination we hope to arrive at.

Right now, we are producing a short film for YouTube which explains the problem of fishing subsidies to the ordinary person (the tax payer – the public as a whole who are paying for the subsidy system) and how subsidies need to shift from extraction-based to conservation-based principles. And, linked to this film and this simple explanation of the issue will be a Petition addressed to Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission and all the Fisheries Ministers on the EU Council of Ministers. This Petition urges them to reform the Regulations and Fishing Subsidies. The Petition is addressed to people not just in the UK but across Europe, and we are aiming for at least 1 million signatures. We are not aiming any lower, only higher. This is the scale of the impact we must make, and this is why we will need your active support to distribute and disseminate this film and its Petition .

If you can help in the distribution of this film and Petition, please contact us (www.marinet.org.uk/contacts.html)

In addition, we have written to Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, to take up the whole question of how the system of EU Fishing Subsidies operates. The subsidies system in its present form has been operating since 2007 and, it so happens, the EU decided in 2007 to cease to compile information itself on how subsidies are spent (who receives what, why and when) and to delegate this collection of information to individual Member governments who are then, in turn, meant to send it to the Commission.

In reality, each Member country operates a data system that is different so that there is no cohesion in the data that is compiled and, in addition, some countries have failed to report to the Commission the annual data they are meant to be collecting, with the result that there is no comprehensive central data base on how fishing subsidies are being spent. In essence, the system is operating with a huge transparency deficit and is, effectively, unaudited. This appalling state of affairs is the subject of our letter with its series of 8 questions to President Barroso.

Further, we have sent this same letter to all EU Fisheries Ministers, and have asked them whether they find this state of affairs acceptable, and we have asked them how they intend to reform the subsidies system.

The subsidy system must change and, if it does, the Common Fisheries Policy also changes.

Power is in your hands. We can succeed, so please contact us and we will keep you fully informed as this campaign develops. Act now, and thus convert your power for change into actual change.

Mike Pages aerial photo showing the vacated plots at Happisburgh’s Manor Caravan Park

As the main focus has been on the recent Winterton to Hopton mass erosion, we haven’t had much mention of stricken Happisburgh lately. That has a double whammy, inasmuch as not only do they continue to suffer erosion of the beach sand allowing the waves to reach the cliff base, but also ‘slippery’ cliffs. The cliff there is mainly composed of clay and shale pushed up by the glaciers in the ice age, once firm land. When the glaciers ceased to venture beyond that part of North Norfolk, their melt deposited the high ground material around Kelling and at the cliffs. The water run-off from the roads and properties served to seep into the clay of the cliffs, promoting their slippage.

Manor Caravan Park, Happisburgh. Site warden, Elwyn Bowler. PHOTO: ANTONY KELLY

Five metres more of cliff face has slid down in the past three months, now leaving the caravan park very vulnerable. People are moving their caravans inland before the plots they are located on disappear over the edge. Twelve caravans have been moved already. The entire site could be lost to the sea by 2025. The economic impact is severe now.

North Norfolk District Council have offered up to €200,000 euros (circa £160,000) of Pathfinder scheme cash to help the caravan site relocate.

Cromer Crab Cancer Paguris

Starring the famous Cromer Crab Cancer Paguris, the story of the fishing industry in north Norfolk from Domesday to the present day is featured in a new DVD release. It uses historic photos, animations, interviews and archive footage to update a book first printed 25 years ago. The final sequence using a waterproof camera gives a crab’s eye view of being hauled up in a pot.

Fisherman Willie Cox mending pots

Entitled ‘Crabs and Shannocks, The Longshore Fishermen of North Norfolk’ , narrated by Eddie Anderson, is in the shops of North Norfolk priced £12.95. It can also be ordered from the Poppyland website www.poppyland.co.uk which also features more details and a trailer.

Many elasmobranchs (sharks, rays and skates) are highly vulnerable to over-fishing, but a new paper in the open access journal PLOS ONE shows that small areas of the seabed that experience below-average fishing intensity can sustain greater populations of these species.

One of the team with a skate – showing its size. © Luke Aston

The study reveals that such refuge areas in the Celtic Sea support at least ten species of elasmobranch, including the rare blue skate (Dipturus flossada) and related flapper skate (Dipturus intermedia). Dipturus was previously considered to represent a single species (D. batis), but made the news in 2009 when a case of misidentification was revealed (BBC news: Science/Nature). Both species are now listed as critically endangered but populations of the flapper skate, which can grow up to 2.5 metres in length, are considered to be under greatest threat from extinction. European Union regulations mandate that fishermen throw back any flapper skate but its slow growth and reproduction mean that even very low levels of fishing mortality are now unsustainable for this species.

Scientists from Queen’s University Belfast, Bangor University and the Irish Marine Institute carried out the study. Lead researcher Dr. Samuel Shephard suggests “the discovery of a Celtic Sea stronghold for flapper skate provides a remarkable opportunity to help save a species on the verge of extinction”. Professor Michel Kaiser, Chair in Marine Conservation at Bangor University added “some have previously argued that areas of little interest to the fishing industry are not worthy of conservation, however this study clearly overturns that perception and highlights just how important some of these areas are”.

Importantly, the fishing industry has reacted positively to the ‘win-win’ situation that areas of little commercial interest have potential as important marine reserves. Professor Dave Reid presented the information to industry leaders, and this has led to the inclusion of these areas in proposed management plans for elasmobranchs in the Irish and Celtic Seas. Eibhlín O’Sullivan, CEO of the Irish South & West Fishermen’s Organisation responded “The Irish Fishing Industry has been working with the Marine Institute for the past 18 months on developing a management plan for Skates and Rays. This new research adds valuable information for the identification of potential seasonally closed areas”. Professor Reid noted “this is a great model for collaboration on conservation between the fishing industry and scientists”.

“Finally, with shale gas extraction on the agenda in the UK, there will be opportunities in water management and wastewater treatment”

We couldn’t have better put it ourselves. However, let’s see what the seismologists have to say.

“The Council endgame focused on two items which the Parliament, under enormous lobbying pressure from the green NGOs, had picked out as signifiers for the depth of the reform: BiomassThe amount of living matter. This is therefore a different measure to numbers of organisms. So, for example, there is much more biomass in 1 elephant than there is in 1000 fleas and there may be more biomass in 100 large cod than you would find in 150 small (because of over fishing) cod. Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) and rules to cover exemptions from the discard ban (de minimis). There was also a struggle over the provisions permitting the content of important decisions to be made at regional seas level.

Regionalisation
“The key to the whole CFP reform lies with the shift from a top-down, centralised approach to regional decision-making, although it would be difficult to discern this from a media which has been primarily focussed on the discards issue. A shift to a decentralised and therefore more flexible and adaptable management regime is the prize now within our grasp. Much remains to be done to bring regional decisions into effect but the Council has paved the way for what may turn out to be a revolutionary change.

“The Commissioner conceded at the beginning of the Council that the Commission’s lawyers’ version of decentralisation where the Commission itself would receive additional delegated powers would not fly. The main model of regionalisation within the CFP will be that of member state cooperation at regional seas level described in the Council’s previous General Approach.

BiomassThe amount of living matter. This is therefore a different measure to numbers of organisms. So, for example, there is much more biomass in 1 elephant than there is in 1000 fleas and there may be more biomass in 100 large cod than you would find in 150 small (because of over fishing) cod. MSY
“This arcane issue became a problem for the Council when the Parliament insisted that it was not sufficient to bring fishing pressure (fishing mortality) down to levels consistent with rebuilding fish stocks to maximum sustainable yield; it would be necessary to require binding targets with timetables to ensure that MSY levels were reached.

“This is tantamount to telling nature to conform to the EU’s wishes, as many non-human factors can and do affect recruitment. The Council has quite rightly rejected this as based on biological illiteracy and has replaced it with some aspirational words. Of course, the purpose of reducing fishing mortality is to build fish stocks but the type of binding requirements wished for by the Parliament are exactly the kind of rigidity that caused so much difficulty in the EU Cod Management Plan.

Discards Ban
“It has been clear for some time that the Commission, Parliament and Council want a landings obligation, broadly similar to that operated by Norway that would lead in due course to the elimination of discards in EU fisheries. The issue for the Council was to create sufficient flexibilities to allow this to happen across a wide range of fisheries. Issues such as quota uplift, the removal of CFP rules that currently generate discards, year-end quota flexibility and counting minor species against principal quotas to remove choke stocks, all appeared to be uncontroversial.

“Heat was generated between the Council and the Parliament and within the Council itself on the issue of the de minimis – the amount of fish that fleets could continue to discard. Bearing in mind that even Norway (which first applied a landings obligation to cod in 1987 and has much simpler fisheries than the EU, with fewer species) still discards significant tonnages. The issue here is how to create a pragmatic approach that secures a dramatic reduction in discards without ham-stringing the fishing industry with unworkable rules. Time will tell whether the Council have got the balance right. Essentially, the de minimis will only come into effect if all the other discard reduction initiatives within a multi-annual management plan, or a discard plan have failed and oversight of the conditions in these circumstances have been handed to the Commission.

Conclusion
“If the reform package follows the lines agreed by the Council there will still be rigidities and perverse outcomes within the CFP. However the agreement, particularly with regionalisation, has built in both a safety net and means to improve the management regime over the next few years. A more adaptable CFP should mean a better CFP. Time will tell.

Marinet observes: It is not clear from the NFFO press release whether the Federation believes in the restoration of fish stocks to levels that can once again guarantee food security (the ability to meet, from our seas, all our needs for fish for the full 12 months of the year). Without this objective enshrined and committed to as a cardinal principle, neither the reformed Common Fisheries Policy nor the UK/EU fishing industry has a genuinely sustainable future. And that affects us, the public, directly because without adequate fish stocks and a fishing industry that is genuinely viable, then we will end up with no wild fish on our plates in a very short period of time – and certainly before we next have a chance to get reform of the CFP right in another ten years time (i.e. 2020) ! So these are serious matters, and we invite the NFFO to be entirely clear about them. The NFFO also needs to make clear whether it genuinely believes in a conservation-based reform of the CFP, so that fishing levels and fishing management policies are determined by what is needed to restore food security, and thus rebuild the industry in a manner that assures it of a prosperous future.

This means that the NFFO has to acknowledge whether it agrees that EU fishing subsidies, currently more than 1 billion Euros a year for the European fleet as a whole, must shift from their current focus on maintaining/expanding the fishing capacity of the fleet to a new conservation-based focus where, amongst other matters, spawning and nursery grounds are protected by means of closed areas with fishermen themselves and their vessels being employed (paid for by the subsidy fund) to patrol, manage and rebuild the stocks and thus, ultimately, rebuild the capacity of the fleet to fish and harvest sustainably. And, by this means, once again deliver food security.

Where the NFFO’s statement of belief is clearer is on the question of “regionalisation”. That is to say, the returning of management decisions to the regional level. In other words, giving UK fishermen more say in deciding when, where and how to fish – provided of course that scientific advice on fish stocks levels and safe levels of fishing is observed and recognised as being of paramount importance.

We wonder how far the NFFO’s thinking has actually gone on this question of “regionalisation” and the return of decision-making powers to the regional level? If renegotiation of the UK’s position within the EU is on the agenda – as many people and UK politicians argue – does this mean that we actually repatriate the management of fish stocks in UK seas (out to 200 nautical miles) wholly to the UK? Is this part of what renegotiation of the EU treaties means? And, is this something the NFFO would favour?

Perhaps the time has come to start addressing this question, and to begin a serious discussion of the issues.

Fleets would still be able to discard 5% of their catch under the council of ministers’ plans.
Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

They agreed to ban the wasteful practice of discarding healthy fish at sea, but most of the ban will be phased in from 2015 instead of this year as had been proposed, and there are significant caveats for some species. Fish quotas will be based on scientific advice on what is the “maximum sustainable yield” for each stock, but there is no date on when stock levels must be restored, to the deep disappointment of greens for whom this was a central issue. Key aspects of the management of stocks will be devolved to member states instead of decided centrally in Brussels.

But details of the deal are still sketchy immediately following the meeting as the full results of the negotiations had not yet been officially released. The ministers’ meeting is also not the final stage of the process – their document will be discussed by the European parliament and commission before the end deal is reached, which could take months.

Maria Damanaki, the EU fisheries commissioner, said: “[This is] a good step forward. We need a fast deal and this can give the opportunity to the commission to focus on issues relating to the implementation. We need to solve the practicalities and at the same time we need to help our fishermen to adjust to the new situation, because this is a radical change for the way we fish. We have to give all possible support to our fisheries sector and our administrations. We have positive news this morning and I hope that in the coming weeks we can work we can work together with the parliament and the council to facilitate the procedure to come to a deal.”

Fleets would still be able to discard 5% of their catch under the council of ministers’ plans, because ministers argued that some inadvertent catch was unavoidable, and there are exemptions covering some species, such as sea bass, and mixed fisheries, where several species inhabit the same area. The 5% level was regarded by many as the best that could be done – some member states wanted a discard rate of 10%, which greens rejected as too high. Sweden was unhappy about the compromise, however, having pushed for a zero limit.

However, the compromise means that those member states which were trying to scupper the ban altogether have effectively been thwarted.

The European Parliament and Commission will now use the draft document from the council of ministers to come up with a further compromise position which will be thrashed out in the coming months.

“We are hoping to see something stronger than what was produced last night. We welcome it but it has not gone far enough. We think there can still be more ambition – that is possible in the next round of negotiations and a proper compromise can be achieved,” said Ian Campbell, senior associate of the Pew Trusts Environment Programme.

Under the text agreed, if it is passed by the parliament, a ban on discards of pelagicLiving in the mid or surface water levels of the sea fish such as mackerel and herring would come into force in 2015, and for other fisheries from 2016. Some had been hoping that a ban on mackerel and herring discards could be brought in at the end of this year.

There was also disappointment at the lack of a firm date for moving to a scientifically set maximum sustainable yield for fish quotas, which would be based on the need to restore stocks. A date of 2020 for a legally binding requirement to this effect had been proposed.

Richard Benyon, UK fisheries minister, said: “This package of reforms fulfils our promise to make discards a thing of the past and ensure sustainable fishing for future generations. The next step is for the European parliament to agree these reforms which are set to bring about real benefits for our fishermen and the marine environment for years to come. We have worked hard on these negotiations, and I hope that parliament supports our agreement and brings negotiations to a swift conclusion. The wait is nearly over.”

Saskia Richartz, fisheries policy adviser at Greenpeace, said that with a 5% discard rate allowed and with exemptions in some cases the restrictions on discards could not be regarded as an outright ban. “This has pushed the door open enough to a better agreement – it is not a failure, but it depends on finding common ground on the detail, and that remains a challenge for the coming weeks,” she said. “This is ultimately a decision for the parliament, to see how far they compromise or stick to their position.”

She said EU citizens should write to their MEPs as soon as possible on the issue to urge them to go for a strong deal to protect Europe’s dwindling fish stocks, emphasising a deadline for stock recovery. “The message of reform must be sent to the parliament. We are now in the end game and the next few weeks will be critical,” she said.

Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, the chef who has spearheaded a campaign to ban discards, told the Guardian: “It’s been a long grind to get to this point, but the news this morning is broadly good. There will be a discards ban – and that is a vindication of the huge public support for our Fish Fight campaign to end this disgraceful waste of good fish. It’s a credit to our fisheries minister Richard Benyon that he and his allies managed to largely restrict attempts by the French and Spanish to water down the ban and create easy loopholes for their fishermen. There’s still scope to improve on the details of the ban in the final negotiations with MEPs, who are rightly pushing for even tougher measures against discards. We’d really like to see that happen. It’s also great news that the revised CFP will commit to ending overfishing and restoring fish stocks – but we still need to see hard dates to make that sticks, and that it applies across all fisheries. If we get that in the next few weeks then we should see the signing of a new CFP that can finally put European fishing on a sustainable track.”

The exhaustive process of fisheries reform – the biggest shake-up of fishing in the EU for four decades – has taken more than two years of close negotiations

Marinet observes: We welcome the changes that have been advanced by Fisheries Ministers, the Commission and the European Parliament to the Common Fisheries Policy, but the reality is that they simply do not go far enough in order to address the problem.

So, stay engaged with and committed to the real campaign to secure CFP reform. And, tell EU politicians and Fisheries Ministers that they still have to deliver. If you do not, do not be surprised if there are no wild fish to buy for your meal in 2020. The future lies with you, act today.

Some of Australia’s environmental jewels such as the Great Barrier Reef are at risk from climate change.
Photographer: Queensland Tourism/AP

WWF Australia, the Australian Marine Conservation Society and Greenpeace are all engaged in campaigns to “save the reef” from the ravages of climate change and the construction of multi-billion dollar port facilities to ship coal and gas around the world. Greenpeace describes it as “one of the biggest environmental battles in our nation’s history” and is pushing a campaign of peaceful civil disobedience.

Next month in Cambodia, the World Heritage Committee will consider a “draft decision” to place the reef on its “danger list” in 2014 unless the State and Federal Governments can give some firm guarantees.

Chief among these requests is that no more developments are approved along the Queensland coast that would “impact individually or cumulatively” on the reef’s remarkable natural heritage. This pressure comes too late for work at Gladstone harbour, where 16 million cubic metres of sea floor have already been dredged in a project that will eventually remove 26 million cubic metres to serve the Liquefied Natural Gas plant being built on Curtis Island.

Australia’s eastern coastline, where a mining boom is underway Photograph: Guardian
Click for larger image

This plant will have the capacity to export about 20 million tonnes of LNG a year and will use gas taken from the drilling and fracking of coal seams in rural Queensland.

Put this together with the planned rapid expansion of Australia’s already world leading coal export trade and you can see why environmental groups are worried.

Ocean acidification and warming ocean temperatures, linked to increasing greenhouse gas emissions from burning all that coal and gas, are not friends of the reef. Neither are murky waters or increased nutrient levels when water runs off from farms.

Being hit by coal ships doesn’t help either (the grounding of the Shen Neng in April 2010 damaged or destroyed 115,000 square metres of Douglas ShoalA sandbank or sandbar that makes the water shallow reef, gouging a channel three kilometres/1.8 miles long). Australia has told the UN committee there are currently 43 other projects being assessed for their impact on the reef. A

Greenpeace report “Boom Goes the Reef” says if all coal projects in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area were to go ahead, this would see exports rise from 156 million tonnes in 2011 to 944 million tonnes by the end of the decade.

The reef has been a World Heritage site since 1981 but the prospect of being added to the committee’s “danger list” – which currently numbers 38 properties – is an embarrassment. For example, Australia would join the Democratic Republic of Congo, where all five of the country’s World Heritage “properties” are on the danger list thanks mainly to armed conflict.

The Belize section of the world’s second longest barrier reef system – the Mesoamerican Reef – is also on the list because of developments along the coastline and the destruction of vital mangrove habitats. Rainforests in Indonesia’s Sumatra are also on the danger list, thanks to poachers, road building and illegal logging. But in reality, the Great Barrier Reef is already in “danger” whether or not it ever does appear on a UN list.

A study led by the Australian Institute of Marine Science last year found that between 1985 and 2012, the reef had lost half of its coral cover. Two thirds of the loss had occurred since 1998. The major culprits, the study said, were attacks by Crown of Thorns starfish, destruction from cyclones and coral bleaching. The authors wrote: “The future of the GBR therefore depends on decisive action. Although world governments continue to debate the need to cap greenhouse gas emissions, reducing the local and regional pressures is one way to strengthen the natural resilience of ecosystems.”

Coral bleaching is a stress reaction caused by temperature extremes when the colour-giving algae separate from the coral skeleton. Corals can recover, but it can take many years. In short, warmer sea temperatures increase the chances of coral bleaching.

According to data from Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, in recent decades sea surface temperatures around the reef show a marked warming trend over summer months when bleaching can occur.

Click for larger image

Graph showing sea surface temperatures in Australia’s coral sea Summer sea surface temperatures around the Great Barrier reef show a rising trend

Another study published in the journal Nature Climate Change found if greenhouse gas emissions continued on the current business-as-usual track then by the year 2040 corals in northern parts of the reef would be bleaching every year. Corals at the reef’s southern end would succumb to annual bleaching by 2055, the study said. An ongoing experiment being carried out on the University of Queensland’s research station on the reef at Heron Island is also producing some alarming preliminary findings. Researchers have re-created reef ecosystems in tanks – complete with corals, sediments, rocks, fish, crabs and plants – and then subjected them to the kinds of temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations expected near the end of this century. The lead researcher Associate Professor Sophie Dove describes what she is witnessing as the “slippery slope to slime”.

The mining industry’s Queensland Resources Council has dismissed the concerns and says the reef can co-exist with industry, which it claims is working hard to keep impacts down. QRC says people should focus on activities “that actually impact on the reef rather than populist or emotive reaction”. Yet the science suggests it is the activities of the fossil fuel industries in Australia and elsewhere that pose the greatest risk to the reef’s future as a global natural wonder.

That’s no joke.

Beach rubbish
Rubbish from smoking soared in 2012, with cigarette butts doubling and litter including lighters and packets increasing by 90%.
Photograph: Craig Yates/Alamy

Almost two-thirds (65%) of the total litter recorded was made of plastic, with unidentified scraps of plastic topping the table for the most commonly found litter. On average, 75 drink bottles were found for every thousand yards of beaches surveyed. The MCS said it was concerned that so much rubbish was plastic and would be unlikely to break down.

The conservation charity also warned the findings showed decades of anti-litter campaigning needed to be reinvigorated for a new generation.

The rise in smoking-related litter could be the result of more people smoking outside as a result of the smoking ban and dropping their butts rather than putting them in ashtrays, the MCS added. Overall, litter levels were at their highest level since 2008, the figures reveal. Lauren Eyles, MCS Beachwatch officer, said: “Despite last summer being seen as a washout by many with heavy rain in many places, it appears those people that did visit our beaches left behind a lot of personal litter – sweet wrappers, ice cream wrappers and plastic drinks bottles failed to find their way into rubbish bins and ended up being dropped and left behind. This year’s figures point to people becoming less bothered about littering.” She said: “We must hammer home the message that litter is completely unacceptable in the 21st century.”

The number of items of rubbish found per kilometre (0.6 miles) increased from 1,741 pieces of litter in 2011 to just over 2,000 pieces in 2012, the annual report shows. Volunteers surveyed 90km (56 miles) on 240 beaches and collected almost 1,800 bags of rubbish during the September 2012 weekend.

With four-fifths of the rubbish coming from land-based sources, the MCS said that is where the focus needed to be to reduce marine and beach litter. After pieces of plastic, the most commonly found items were crisp, lolly and sweet wrappers, little bits of string and cord, caps and lids, polystyrene pieces and drinks bottles. The other items making up the top 10 litter list were fishing netting, cigarette stubs, glass pieces and fishing line from anglers.

The part of the UK with the most litter per kilometre was Northern Ireland. In England, the most littered beaches were found in the south west. The north west was the only area where litter decreased, falling by 60% per kilometre.

Richard Benyon said he was optimistic that the reforms would be successful.
Photograph: Maurice Mcdonald/PA

In an interview with the Guardian, he listed three main goals for the UK – to ensure that a new proposal for fishing to be carried on strictly within a “maximum sustainable yield” that would be legally binding; a ban on the discarding of edible fish at sea, and a devolution of key aspects of managing fishing quota to member states, instead of being controlled entirely from Brussels. This week’s tense meeting, which follows more than two years of negotiations over the management of the EU’s dwindling fish stocks, will not reach a conclusion until late on Tuesday night or some time on Wednesday morning, the European Commission warned. Once a common position has been agreed, more talks will follow next week to finalise further details.

Benyon acknowledged that there were “forces [that want] to scupper this deal”, but said the UK would refuse to do a deal “that goes against our principles”.

While a discards ban is likely to come into force in some form, some member states want fishermen to have much more leeway in how much of their catch they are allowed to throw away as being unavoidable. The UK wants no more than 5% of any catch to be allowed to be discarded under any circumstances, but other countries have suggested as much as doubling this.

But Benyon warned that governments must work closely with fishermen in order to make the reforms work. “We are working closely with the fishing industry to do [the reforms] in a practical way,” he said. “I do not want to transfer a problem that happens at sea to landfill.” He said that co-operation with fishing fleets was already bearing fruit. “Great work has been done on a dramatic reduction in discards of white fish,” he said. “Much has come from incentivising, working with fishermen.”

Although some large fishing interests, particularly in Spain and France, have been starkly opposed to any deal on discards and a legally binding maximum sustainable yield, Benyon emphasised that many fishermen had been supportive. “It would be entirely wrong if people thought the ban was in the teeth of opposition of the industry – though some are very concerned about the practicalities [such as] having to bring back fish having maybe been gone for days.” He said: “In fairness to them, they are raising concerns in a way that accepts this is going to happen and to make it work.” The Minister has seen for himself what discarding means in practice – he went to sea with a trawler, and saw whiting being discarded in the North Sea.

He credits campaigners with helping to ensure there was support for a discards ban. “I would never have been able to get agreement on radical reform agenda without all the NGOs on this. [This is] a revolution on how to manage our seas.”

Some countries are also reluctant to allow the “maximum sustainable yield” – a scientific measure that would ensure that quotas were set at a level where the stocks could restore themselves naturally – to be made legally binding, as the UK and most northern European countries want. Scientific research will need to be brought to bear as fisheries management develops. Benyon noted the effects of climate change: “The seas are changing – cod are moving further north, other fish are in greater abundance, mackerel are moving.”

On “regionalisation”, which would allow some aspects of fisheries management – such as net size and the level of quota given to smaller and larger boats – to be decided by member states, there is broader agreement. Benyon described the current situation in which fishermen in Ullapool were having their net size decided in Brussels. “How bonkers is that?” he asked.

A key aspect would be ensuring that the regulations are applied fairly across the whole of the EU’s fisheries. “[Previous] proposals would have had some trawlers fishing some waters but not having to abide by some of the rules. The ridiculous concept of the common fisheries policy is that [it] tries to manage waters from the Arctic to the southern Mediterranean. You can’t have a system that applies to all ecosystems but you can have common principles you can make in law.”

These meetings are the culmination of more than two years of wrangling. The decisive starting point came early in 2011 when the European Fisheries Commissioner, Maria Damanaki, publicly disclosed her key aim of ending the wasteful practice of discards. This proposal had itself followed years of work behind the scenes by the Commission, but when the proposals began to be publicly debated there were strong voices of opposition from some quarters.

The Commission’s proposals were narrowly passed by member state fisheries ministers, though they were nearly scuppered at several points. Then they received strong support in a vote in the European Parliament. Now, the final stages of the process will provide the last chance for opponents of the reforms to derail the proposals. It will then take further work to put the finishing touches on the reforms, before they can come into force.

Commissioner Damanaki said: “Substantial progress has been made in the negotiations between the European parliament and the council [of ministers] on the Commission’s proposal for a reformed common fisheries policy. The EU is on the doorstep of a historical deal that would put fish stocks on the road to recovery, eliminate the wasteful practice of discarding and ensure that decisions are taken as close as possible to fishermen. “It is the responsibility of all institutions not to jeopardise a final deal because of disagreements over a few percentage points [in terms of amount of inadvertent catch that can be discarded]; one or two years [between the proposed introduction of a ban]; detailed technical rules or institutional power struggle. It is now time for both the European parliament and the council to make that extra final step towards each other that is necessary to come to a final agreement that will launch a new era of healthy fish stocks, viable fishing industries and more and better paid jobs for fishermen.”

While green campaigners have warned that the battle is far from over, and that the opponents of the reforms could yet gain the upper hand in the final hours, Benyon said he was optimistic that the reforms would be successful. “I do not see this is some great giant gulf [among member states over the issues],” he said. “There could be blocking minority against reform… but I do not think they will find the opportunity to scupper the deal.”

But he admitted compromises might be needed: “I might have to make a decision that will not particularly please me or many people who write to me or campaign to me… [but] I am determined that any agreement will not go against our principles.”

“On 24th April 2013 a packed meeting at Hemsby (Norfolk) village hall on the severe erosion of Hemsby beach and sand dune this winter was told that the proposed DIY scheme was the only option to save the high tides breaking through next winter.

“The recent extreme loss of beach sand (a stepped drop of 10 to 15 feet) and loss of up to 40 feet of the last remaining sand dune, the only protection left for the beach community and the above valleys means that; many homes, holiday properties and the Newport to Hemsby and Hemsby to Winterton (area of natural beauty) valleys, are now in critical danger of being lost.

“The DIY scheme is being organised by Lorna Bevan-Thompson at the Lacon Arms Hemsby and they are asking for donations and volunteers to help to build DIY defences. This scheme which is supported by Great Yarmouth Borough Council obtained approval of G.Watling, Norwich (the beach land owner), the borough engineer and local councillors and obtained unanimous approval at this meeting with no objections and is now being presented for planning approval. The meeting was attended by Pat Gowen and Mike King for MARINET.

“The DIY sea defence scheme is to build 1,031 concrete blocks; volunteers would build one or two of the two cubic meters four tonne blocks per day and place them in front of what is left of the remaining marram grass sand dunes from Newport Fisherman’s Cottages to Long Beach Hemsby. Donations for this DIY save Hemsby scheme can be sent to or further information obtained from: Lorna Bevan–Thompson, The Lacon Arms, Sea View Road, Hemsby, Norfolk NR29 4JG  Tel 01493-733281 — Cheques made to Save Hemsby Coastline. Information can also be obtained from their web site: www.savehemsbycoastline.co.uk

“Further to my previous letter to them I have also sent a follow-up letter to Natural England asking for their support for the Hemsby DIY Sea defence scheme as it will also protect the Hemsby to Winterton valley an area of natural beauty – copy of this letter below.

Copy of letter to Natural England.
This letter can also be viewed as a PDF file to give clearer viewing.

SeaOrbiter is a project of the “Floating oceanographic laboratory” organisation. It is headed by French architect Jacques Rougerie, oceanographer Jacques Piccard and astronaut Jean-Loup Chretien. The construction of the Oceanographic Laboratory started in 2011. The cost is expected to be around $52.7 million.

The laboratory is semi-submersible ocean going craft and weighs 1000 tons. It has a total height of 51 meters with 31 meters below sea level.

It is designed to float vertically and drift with the ocean currents but has two small propellers allowing it to modify its trajectory and manoeuvre in confined waters. Underwater robots can be sent from the laboratory to explore the seabed. The hull is made of an alloy comprising aluminium and magnesium is five times thicker than that of a conventional vessel.

Its vertical alignment in the sea will leave a small part visible above the surface with much larger accommodation and laboratories below the sea’s surface. Some levels will have a cabin pressure equal to the external water pressure allowing divers to live for extended periods at depth and make frequent excursions.

Mike Page’s aerial picture of rock piling at Hopton

In the hope of securing the cliffs at Hopton-on-Sea a second shipment of Norwegian rocks is being placed in front of 200m of the cliff to strengthen areas where the revetment’s sheet piling has failed. Each rock weighs in at between three and six tonnes. In all there will be a total of 9,000 tonnes of rock placed, a further increase from the original 5,000 tonnes planned.

The scheme involving four wagons, six dumper trucks, seven 360 degree excavator machines with grabs and 20 workmen is being funded by at least £300,000 from Bourne Leisure, the operators of Hopton Holiday Village, and £200,000 from Great Yarmouth Borough Council. But this was part allocation for the original 5,000 tonnes of rock earlier thought to be needed. More funding may now be needed to increase to 9,000 tonnes.

Hemsby beach has been subject to intermittent erosion ever since large scale offshore dredging has been ongoing since the 1970′s at the rate of over 10,000,000 metric tonnes of take every year. Over seventy bungalows have already been lost along with 150 metres of fronting dune over the last 20 years. Prior to dredging, the beach and dunes were accreting. The rate of erosion varies, but this past year has seen a huge increase, alerting the concern of the many that have bungalows or businesses now seriously threatened. Some fifty bungalows are currently within 8 metres of the sea with a third of them only 4 metres from the dune edge.

Update on the beach and cliff erosion at Hemsby. April 2013 Picture: James Bass

As well as the fears of residents, business owners such as the local pub, restaurant, food outlets and shops are equally concerned that the erosion will ruin Hemsby’s £80m tourist economy. Jack Bensly, chairman of the Borough Community Coastal Group, said there are 18,000 tourist beds in Hemsby and hence money spent on sea defences would be money well spent

The Shoreline Management Plan (SMPShoreline Management Plan) from Winterton to Scratby, prepared by authorities that claim the responsibility for managing flooding and erosion at the coast, including the Environment Agency, DEFRA and local councils earlier had dictated a policy of ‘Hold the Line’ that was later changed to ‘No active intervention’ (NAI) which means ignoring and accepting the erosion loss, e.g. do nothing to stop the loss by a denial to defend or protect in any way.

After considerable public reaction a slight improvement resulted when the status was more recently changed to a new officially adopted ‘Managed Realignment’ (MR) which does allow a degree of protection if approved by the authorities, but not the means to fund it. This means that in order to provide defences most of the money looks like it has to be found by those who so vitally need them.

Hemsby is in an unusual situation, as the beach and dunes are owned by the Geoffrey Watling Trust, who collect a high annual rental for the ground that the bungalows, shops and local businesses occupy, although the businesses and bungalows themselves are privately owned. Natural England (then English Nature) withdrew the SSSISite of special scientific interest status from the dunes and Great Winterton Valley and moved their boundary one mile north when a car park was built in the Great Winterton Valley so destroying the rare species habitat, this being the very reason it was made an SSSISite of special scientific interest in the first place. Great Yarmouth Borough Council are the council to which all bungalow and business owners pay Council Tax. Each of these authorities have been passing the buck up to now by claiming that the conservation of the area and flood defences are not their responsibility.

Assistance from the government appears to be very unlikely as although in the run-up to Autumn Statement in December last year the Treasury announced an extra £120 million of flood defence spending to boost economic growth and protect more homes, there was no mention of any flood defence spending in the recent budget whatsoever. Thus it is very doubtful that coastal flooding and erosion will get any of the allocation of the extra £18 billion announced for the next Parliament, this despite the £2 billion that they have received as income from The Crown Estate licensing and by VAT on the sale of the dredged aggregate removed from the seabed offshore to Great Yarmouth alone over the past twenty years.

Local councils are hard strapped for funding and simply do not have the resources required to enact a comprehensive sea defence strategy anyway, so we now are left with a 1.6 kilometre stretch of highly venerable coastline from where the defences cease after Caister-on-Sea to the south and Winterton-on-Sea to the north where they recommence. Only natural dune has protected this section up to now, and 94% of it has been destroyed over the past twenty years. What was once a quadruple dune system became one third of the last remaining one following the storm in April this year.

It would need £10m to complete a fully comprehensive plan to establish a long lasting and full means of defence, so a stop gap plan considered affordable has been placed which has been costed to come to £128,000 over the three to four years the project will take to complete.

To try to establish rationality, Hemsby Parish Council, at the behest of the many concerned, called a meeting on 25th April at the local village hall to discuss the viability and acceptability of an affordable stop gap defence system. All concerned residents and stakeholders were invited. The landowner was represented, as was the Great Yarmouth borough engineer responsible for coastal protection, the borough and parish councillors and the newly founded Save Hemsby Shoreline Group.

The basis of funding and the exact work needed to be done to provide a viable and affordable beach and dune defensive has yet to be finally approved by the authorities, but so far appears optimistic and ongoing. It was outlined and approved at the 25th April at the village hall meeting of over 200 people who voted 100% unanimously to accept and fully back it. Thus, the stop gap plan, already agreed by the residents and businesses, now awaits ratification by the Parish Council, Great Yarmouth Borough Council and the EA/MFA/DEFRA, etc. for action to commence.

Funding

The landowners Geoffrey Watling Limited have agreed to contribute by offering the fund £10,260 made up from the ground rent of nineteen of the most threatened habitations at £540 each and also supply a person for the some of the labour involved for up to four weeks. Great Yarmouth Borough Council is attempting to provide £15,000, with a probability of a £20,000 loan to come from Hemsby Parish Council. The additional labour needed will come from volunteers.

The remainder of the £51,550 required for the envisaged project would have to be found from other sources, e.g. individuals contributions. Already £4,061 has been donated to the fund organised by Lorna Bevan-Thomson, owner of the Lacon’s Arms pub, who has masterminded the campaign and pre-organised the consultation with all involved. She has set up a defence fund, for which contributions would be gratefully accepted. It could be in the form of £124 to buy a complete block or even a part of one, by providing practical aid in their manufacture and placement or in whatever form and amount donors wish to give. If you wish to support please send your donation of your own chosen sum to Barclays Bank ‘Save Hemsby Coastline’ account No.23898857 Sort code 20-53 06, or to Lorna at The Lacons Arms, Hemsby, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk.

The methodology

To soften the impact of the eroding waves and so minimise the erosion it is envisaged that 1.26m x 1.26m x 1.26 metre concrete blocks (2 cubic metres) costing £124 each weighing in at 4 tonnes each will be placed in line along the clay base of the beach fronting the dunes.1031 blocks in all will be needed, running all the way from Newport cottages to the Winterton Long Beach boundary, a stretch spanning 1.6 km. Volunteers would complete the lion’s share of the work relying on spare cement and donations to create the concrete blocks. The project, which could span several seasons dependent on authority backing, income from donations and labour availability is due to begin in a few week’s time when the sea has calmed and the beach given a chance to partially replenish. The work could span several seasons.

Whilst this method is in part experimental, and won’t quite come up to Winterton’s concrete block defence, it appears viable. At Winterton the council fully covered the cost for placing the huge WW-II tank-traps (toppled freely onto the beach by the collapse of the dune itself. (See toward the end of the Marinet article ‘Why Canute Failed’) Engineers have calculated that blocks of the size and weight proposed will remain stable and the best that can be afforded under the restricted funding available.

So, if anybody feels generous and/or would like to spend some time on the beach this summer, the opportunity is here

Regular reports telling of progress will be placed on our website as the work gets underway.