Newsletter - January'10

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
Items older than 12 months can be found in the Archive section

 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

Seagulls and animals become radioactive at Sellafield

Latest figures published on radioactivity in food and the environment

Public consultation on new nuclear power station at Bradwell, Essex

10 new nuclear power stations proposed around English and Welsh coasts

MA Vulnerability of Sizewell

FI Fears that new nuclear power station will destroy oyster fishery

Latest News items older than 12 months can be found in the Archive

IUCN says marine reserves are essential for the survival of the planet and humankind

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (www.iucn.org) has produced a statement dated 1st February 2010 which states clearly why we have to establish marine protected areas (marine reserves) on a widespread basis throughout the world's seas and oceans if life as we know it, both terrestrial and marine, is to survive. We provide here the text of that statement.

"Oceans cover more than 70% of our planet. They include some of the most fragile ecosystems and species on Earth, but are continuously abused. More than 60% of the human population now lives on or near a coastline and 80% of tourism is concentrated in coastal areas. Exploited by over-fishing and subjected to pollution and oil and gas extraction, marine resources have been seriously affected in many regions.

"One of the most effective means for protecting marine and coastal biodiversity is through the establishment and proper management of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).

"IUCN's definition of a Marine Protected Area is: "Any area of intertidal or sub-tidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment," (Kelleher, 1999). Marine Protected Areas cover many different types of protection. Some are "no-take zones" that are essential to enable fish stocks to recover while others allow multiple use of their resources.

"MPAs protect key ecosystems such as coral reefs. Not only do they act as safe breeding grounds for fish, they also generate tourism, which in turn brings jobs. Unfortunately, most tourism revenues are held by big companies with little benefit going to the local population. Creating more Community Managed MPAs would enhance the flow of benefits to local people.

"More than 90% of the world's carbon dioxide is stored in the oceans, and they remove 30% of the carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere. MPAs, which often encompass 'barrier' ecosystems such as coral reefs or mangroves, can also reduce the impact of damage from natural disasters such as hurricanes. Waves are slowed by the reefs while mangroves are effective windbreaks that reduce soil erosion. Examining the destruction caused by the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, there was ample evidence that in areas with healthy coastal ecosystems such as mangroves, the human population was protected and the impact of the disaster reduced. Mangroves also absorb pollutants and act as a natural water filter, preventing many pollutants from reaching the sea.

"Close to 25% of fishing in developing countries is carried out near a coral reef and more than 70% of the world's fisheries are in danger. Studies have shown that the knock-on effect of "no take" marine protected areas, not only doubles the amount of fish but also their size in a very short period of time. MPAs including in the High Seas, are key to replenishing biodiversity and nourishing the growing human population. They also serve as nurseries for key threatened species including whales and turtles whilst protecting a variety of marine ecosystems and the rich biodiversity they sustain.

"But despite the important role of MPAs for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development, only 1% of the ocean is protected. The goal of the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development and of the Convention on Biological Diversity of establishing a global, representative system of MPAs by 2012 is far from being met. Protected Area managers face a wide range of challenges, from lack of governmental funding and support, to antagonism from local communities. With good communication and awareness programmes, this trend could be reversed. Involving the local population in the protection of marine protected areas would help generate sustainable livelihoods through revenue from fishing and tourism.

"An effective MPA system is needed to ensure that the oceans recuperate, continue to store carbon dioxide, that fish stocks recover and that coastlines are protected from harsh climatic conditions. It is no longer a technical question but a matter of survival for the planet and humankind."

Source: IUCN, 1st February 2010

EU supports ban on trade in Atlantic bluefin tuna

The 27 EU members announced on 10th March 2010 that they would vote to list Atlantic bluefin tuna on Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), joining a growing list of supporting countries, including the United States of America.

"WWF welcomes the EU announcement, which will give this devastated species the possibility to recover," said Dr Sergi Tudela, Head of Fisheries at WWF Mediterranean. "Other governments must back the ban when they meet for CITES later this week."

"The EU is a major trade and development partner in many key regions of the world, and some countries may have been hanging back on Atlantic bluefin tuna to see what the Europeans would decide to do," Tudela said.

"With the two largest holders of bluefin tuna fishing quota on either side of the Atlantic — the U.S. and EU — now supporting the trade ban, other countries should follow suit," Dr Tudela said. "Our only remaining concern is that we do not understand the continuing need on the part of the EU for conditions to be attached to the Appendix I listing. WWF believes this trade ban should be implemented immediately, without conditions or delay. The EU must now push for widespread support of this proposal during the CITES meeting."

The proposal to list Atlantic bluefin tuna on CITES Appendix I was submitted by the Principality of Monaco in October. Atlantic bluefin tuna is at serious risk of commercial extinction because of decades of unsustainable and illegal fishing in the Mediterranean Sea, driven by demand from Japan's luxury seafood markets.

The eligibility of Atlantic bluefin tuna for the CITES Appendix I listing proposal is backed by independent experts including a United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization panel, and the scientific committee of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), the regional fisheries management organization in charge of this fishery.

The 15th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES CoP 15) will take place March 13-25 in Doha, Qatar. The Convention is an international agreement between governments that aims to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival in the wild.

Source: WWF News release, 10th March 2010

MARINET observes: As welcome as this ban is, it is a sad indictment on the EU Common Fisheries Policy and European Governments that they are only prepared to act with any serious resolve to protect a commercial fishery (bluefin tuna in this instance, but the same is true of all other commercial fish species in the NE Atlantic) when it reaches the point of extinction. The time has come for a fundamental Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy based on the adoption by all governments of the strong version of the ecosystem-based approach to marine management for our seas (for the definition of the "strong version", see www.marinet.org.uk/eatmm/definition.pdf) along with the adoption of a new default position by all governments whereby all extractive activity, including fishing, is prohibited in the seas of the NE Atlantic unless that activity can demonstrate that it is capable of contributing to the restoration of the health of the marine ecosystem (as defined in the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, see www.marinet.org.uk/marinebill/euframeworkdirective.pdf) or will cause no adverse impact to the marine ecosystem. In short, the Common Fisheries Policy must be reformed to be subordinate to the requirements of EU law and be obligated to actively implement the legal requirements of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and associated legislation.

Obituary — Blaise McArdle of Sand-RX

Jerry Berne of Sustainable Coastlnes, our fellow group in the USA, writes to tell us the sad news that Blaise McArdle died this past December.

Blaise was a great fighter for holding our coastlines and did much research into the sound scientific methodology of accomplishing this, coming up with his very own 'Sand-Rx' treatment that can be seen on our web site here by visiting our treatise on coastal defences entitled 'Why Canute Failed at www.marinet.org.uk/coastaldefences/canute.html

Blaise offered to come to Britain to treat any given kilometre of one of our eroding beaches for free in order to prove the efficacy, but sadly his offer was never taken up. It's too late now. He was in the middle of a French beach reclamation using his 'Sand-RX' when he died, so was probably unable to see this project to a successful conclusion.

The loss of such knowledge and expertise is a sad blow for those who are fighting to hold our shorelines.

Humber Estuary & Coast — Another Independent report

A previously undiscovered November 1994 study entitled 'Humber Estuary & Coast' has just been found by our Dr. Harry Buckland. This work was commissioned by the Environment Sub-Committee of Humberside County Council and prepared by the Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies at the University of Hull. It can be read in full at www.hull.ac.uk/coastalobs/media/pdf/humberestuary&coast.pdf

Whilst being of particular interest to those directly concerned with the rapid erosion along the Holderness Coast, from Flamborough Head to Skegness. it also shows how the wider coastline right down to North East Norfolk and beyond is effected.

Here follows a short extract from the 47 page report:

"The Bridlington beaches are, however, merely the shoreward extremity of the vast deposit of the Smithic Sand stretching far out into the Bay — on stormy days the waves can be seen breaking on this sand bank a mile out from the shore. Without the Smithic Sand, Bridlington's beaches would disappear with disastrous results both for tourism and the fishing industry — the sand being an important nursery and feeding ground for several fish species. Any attempts to remove the sand, as valuable aggregates for example, should be considered extremely carefully before any irrevocable decisions are reached".

Is catching wild fish more humane than farming fish?

The author of the book "Eating Animals", Jonathan Safran Foer, asks the question whether catching wild fish is more humane than farming fish in an article for The Guardian, 23rd February 2010. He states:

"So are wild-caught fish a more humane alternative? They certainly have better lives before they are caught, since they do not live in cramped, filthy enclosures. That is a difference that matters. But consider the most common ways of catching wild tuna, shrimp and salmon. Three methods are dominant: longline fishing, trawling and the use of purse seines.

"A longline looks something like a telephone line running through the water suspended by buoys rather than poles. At periodic intervals along this main line, smaller "branch" lines are strung — each branch line bristling with hooks. Now picture not just one of these multihook longlines, but dozens or hundreds deployed one after the other by a single boat. And, of course, there is not one boat deploying longlines, but dozens, hundreds, or even thousands in the largest commercial fleets.

"Longlines today can reach 75 miles — that's enough line to cross the Channel more than three times. And longlines don't kill just their "target species", but 145 others as well. One study found that roughly 4.5 million sea animals are killed by longline fishing every year, including roughly 3.3 million sharks, 1 million marlins, 60,000 sea turtles, 75,000 albatross and 20,000 dolphins and whales.

"Even longlines, though, don't produce the immense bycatch associated with trawling. The most common type of modern shrimp trawler sweeps an area roughly 25 to 30 metres wide. The trawl is pulled along the ocean bottom for several hours, sweeping shrimp (and everything else) into the far end of a funnel-shaped net. Trawling is the marine equivalent of clear-cutting rain forest. Whatever they target, trawlers sweep up fish, sharks, rays, crabs, squid, scallops — typically about 100 different fish and other species. Virtually all die. The least efficient operations throw more than 98%, dead, back into the ocean. There is something quite sinister about this scorched-earth style of "harvesting" sea animals.

"Modern fishing techniques are destroying the ecosystems that sustain more complex vertebrates (such as salmon and tuna), leaving in their wake only the few species that can survive on plants and plankton, if that. As we gobble up the most desired fish, which are usually top-of-the-food-chain carnivores such as tuna and salmon, we eliminate predators and cause a short-lived boom of the species one notch lower on the food chain. We then fish that species into oblivion and move an order lower. The generational speed of the process makes it hard to see the changes (do you know what fish your grandparents ate?), and the fact that catches themselves don't decline in volume gives a deceptive impression of sustainability.

"Trawling and longline fishing aren't only ecologically worrisome; they are also cruel. In trawlers, hundreds of different species are crushed together, gashed on corals, bashed on rocks — for hours — then hauled from the water, causing painful decompression (this sometimes causes the animals' eyes to pop out or their internal organs to come out of their mouths). On longlines, too, the deaths animals face are generally slow. Some are simply held there and die only when removed from the lines. Some die from the injury caused by the hook in their mouths or by trying to get away. Some are unable to escape attack by predators.

"Purse seines are the main technology used for catching tuna. A net wall is deployed around a school of target fish, and once the school is encircled, the bottom of the net is pulled together as if the fishers were tugging on a giant purse string. The trapped target fish and any other creatures in the vicinity are then winched together and hauled on to the deck. Fish tangled in the net may be slowly pulled apart in the process. Most of these sea animals, though, die on the ship, where they will slowly suffocate or have their gills cut while conscious. In some cases, the fish are tossed on to ice, which can actually prolong their deaths.

"Does all this matter enough that we should change what we eat? What conclusion would most selective omnivores reach if attached to each salmon they ate was a label noting that 2.5ft-long farmed salmon spend their lives in the equivalent of a bathtub of water and that the animals' eyes bleed from the intensity of the pollution? What if the label mentioned the explosions of parasite populations, increases in diseases, degraded genetics and new antibiotic-resistant diseases that result from fish farming?

"Although one can realistically expect that at least some percentage of cows and pigs are slaughtered with speed and care, no fish gets a good death. Not a single one. You never have to wonder if the fish on your plate had to suffer. It did."

MARINET observes: The above are not the views of MARINET, but of Jonathan Safran Foer. These views, and their proselytising approach, are recorded in Mr. Foer's recent book "Eating Animals" , published by Hamish Hamilton.

Source: The Guardian, 23rd February 2010

Does fish farming make sense?

The author, Jonathan Safran Foer, offers the following thoughts in an article in The Guardian, 23rd February 2010, on fish farming following on from his recently published book "Eating Animals".

"Factory-farmed chickens, turkeys and cattle all suffer in fundamentally similar ways. So, it turns out, do fish. We tend not to think of fish and land animals in the same way, but "aquaculture" — the intensive rearing of sea animals in confinement — is essentially under-water factory farming.

"The Handbook of Salmon Farming, an industry how-to book, details six "key stressors in the aquaculture environment": "water quality", "crowding", "handling", "disturbance", "nutrition" and "hierarchy". To translate into plain language, those six sources of suffering for salmon are: water so fouled that it makes it hard to breathe; crowding so intense that animals begin to cannibalise one another; handling so invasive that physiological measures of stress are evident a day later; disturbance by farmworkers and wild animals; nutritional deficiencies that weaken the immune system; and the inability to form a stable social hierarchy, resulting in more cannibalisation. These problems are typical. The handbook calls them "integral components of fish farming".

"A major source of suffering for salmon and other farmed fish is the abundant presence of sea lice, which thrive in the filthy water. These lice create open lesions and sometimes eat down to the bones on a fish's face — a phenomenon known as the "death crown" in the industry. A single salmon farm generates swarming clouds of sea lice in numbers 30,000 times higher than naturally occur.

"The fish that survive these conditions (a 10% to 30% death rate is seen as good by many in the salmon industry) are likely to be starved for seven to 10 days to diminish their bodily waste during transport to slaughter then killed by having their gills sliced before being tossed into a tank of water to bleed to death. Often the fish will be slaughtered while conscious, and convulse in pain as they die. In other cases, they may be stunned, but current stunning methods are unreliable."

Scott Landsburgh, chief executive of the Scottish Salmon Producers' Organisation (SSPO), responded to Jonathan Safran Foer in an article of his own in The Guardian on 2nd March 2010. He stated:

"Jonathan Safran Foer's opinions on the salmon industry are misguided." he states.

"I am chief executive of the SSPO which represents 95% of Scottish farmed salmon production and it is recognised as a leader in animal welfare best practice. Last month the RSPCA reported that Scottish farmed salmon was top of its Freedom Food charts, with an impressive 60% of production participating in its stringent animal welfare scheme which includes standards for husbandry, stocking density and harvesting.

"Of the 532 million farm animals that are reared under the RSPCA scheme, some 440 million are Scottish farmed salmon. More broadly, salmon farming is one of the most highly regulated sectors of the food industry, complying with national and international legislation as well as with retailer standards and the independently audited Code of Good Practice for Scottish Finfish Aquaculture.

"Contrary to Foer's claims that "salmon spend their lives in the equivalent of a bathtub of water", the average underwater pen is, by volume, the size of two Olympic swimming pools — meaning that fish have ample room to swim freely. As salmon only occupy a maximum of 2% of the space available in the pen, the remaining 98% of water is available for swimming. Therefore it is simply not true to imply that salmon are somehow packed into a confined space and constricted in their movements.

"Foer describes the marine environment in which salmon are grown as "filthy water" and goes on to suggest that "animals' eyes bleed from the intensity of the pollution". These statements are nonsense. Excellent water quality is essential to grow quality salmon. The clean, clear coastal waters on the west coast and islands of Scotland, with excellent tidal flows, are ideal growing conditions.

"It is in the farmers' interests to respect and safeguard the quality of the marine environment on which the fish depend. Furthermore, the release into the water of anything produced as a result of fish farming activity must be permitted by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.

"The health of the marine environment and the welfare of the animals in the farmers' care are crucial to the production of a healthy, high quality product which has made the industry one of the foremost food sectors in the UK today. This iconic Scottish industry produces high quality food products — the result of painstaking development and improvement over more than three decades.

"It concerns me that an American author of fiction purports to write a factual account of a major, successful food industry with little regard for the implications of his lack of research."

MARINET observes: Whilst there is clearly an important issue about the standards to which farm fish are reared (e.g. pen size, water quality, disease control and so forth), there is a wider issue.

Fish are being farmed largely because wild populations have collapsed. They have collapsed primarily due to over-fishing of the wild populations, salmon included.

These fishing practices not only over-fish the target species but also do so to a degree where the species is unable to breed productively and thus replace itself. In the case of some species, adult fish are being caught before they are barely sexually mature whilst, at the same time, the entire older population of that species is caught and marketed. The reality that faces these fish is analogous to the human population being culled at the age of ten, and then expecting the survival of the human population to be dependent upon the sexual behaviour of ten year olds.

In addition, some fishing practices, notably trawling, damage the seabed and severely disrupt the whole marine ecosytem and food chain.

More importantly still, fish farming does have an enormous impact on wild marine populations of fish. Salmon, to take the example being examined here, are carnivores. They live by eating other fish. They therefore need to be fed, and to do this fish farms have to rely on the capture of fish protein from the wild oceans. This fish protein consists of fishmeal and fish oil which are obtained by grinding up herring, mackerel and sardines caught from the wild ocean. Thus to grow a salmon in a fish farm requires three to four pounds of smaller fish to produce one pound of a larger one, thus effectively robbing Peter to pay Paul. Consequently, although the salmon may be farmed, the farmed salmon is still placing substantial fishing pressure on the wild oceans.

It is therefore essential to remember that salmon in fish farms need to be fed wild fish; and, how this wild fish protein is captured remains a crucial question. At present, farmed salmon are dependent on the same fishing practices that are currently causing the major slide towards a collapse in global commercial fish populations.

It is these fishing practices that have to change. If they do not, there will be little to feed the farmed fish — and without food for the farmed fish, there will be no fish farms.

Sources: The Guardian, Jonathan Safran Foer: the truth about fish farming — 23rd February 2010
Our salmon are not 'factory-farmed'. We're a leader in animal welfare — 2nd March 2010

UK 1, MARINET & Environment 0

UK polluters won a round, but not the war on 18th December 2009, when the EU Court came a decision on the UK meeting the requirements of the EC Urban WasteWater Directive, 91/271/EEC. (See earlier mention of this on our website at www.marinet.org.uk/ukbw/uwwd.html and www.marinet.org.uk/archive/archivelatestnews2005.html#ugf and other previous news by a Google Search.)

European court dismisses Commission's water pollution case against the UK

The European Court of Justice has thrown out the European Commission's case against the UK for failing to fulfil its duties under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive.

The long-running case had two components. First, the Commission claimed the UK had failed to identify several bodies of water as sensitive to pollution.

Second, it claimed that the UK had failed to meet stringent treatment standards for discharges into those bodies and into two water bodies in Northern Ireland - Lough Neagh and the Upper and Lower Lough Erne.

The court judged that the first complaint "must be rejected in its entirety". It is thought this will save £5-6 billion that would otherwise have to be spent.

On the second complaint, the court said the UK had failed in some of its obligations by not stringently treating discharges from Craigavon and Magherafelt in Northern Ireland. "As to the remainder, the second complaint must be rejected as partly inadmissible and partly unfounded," it judged.

A spokesperson for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: "We are pleased with this decision. Water quality in England and Wales is better than at any time since the industrial revolution and we are still working on improvements."

Rapid ocean acidification raises new concerns

Ocean acidification could be rising at the fastest rate for tens of millions of years, Britain's Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) reported on Monday. The warning follows the publication of a study in Nature Geoscience at the weekend.

Comparing current conditions with the greenhouse gas event of 55 million years ago, known as the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM), scientists at the University of Bristol found "a geologically unprecedented rate of acidification". A UN report published in December last year raised similar concerns.

During the PETM, high temperatures and CO₂ levels of carbon dioxide appeared within a few thousand years and subsided after several hundred thousand. "The change observed today is occurring at the scale of hundreds of years — and this might be too much for marine life to handle," Andy Ridgwell told NERC.

Further NERC comment on this matter can be seen at http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=664.

Source: ENDS Europe, 15 February 2010

MARINET appeals to Minister over East Anglian marine aggregate dredging

The marine aggregate dredging companies with licences off the East Anglian coast are currently undertaking, at the behest of the UK Government, a Regional Environmental Assessment of the impact of the extraction licences upon the coastline and the ecology of the sea.

The first stage of the Regional Environmental Assessment (REA) is to draw up a Scoping Report which defines what scientific studies are required.

MARINET has informed the consultants undertaking the REA that the Scoping Report needs to include a historical study of the change in beach profiles along the coast up until the present day related to the date when licences were first granted (1960s), a tracer study to determine whether material on the beaches is being eroded and ending up at the dredging sites, a study to establish whether there is any correlation between offshore aggregate dredging and the disappearance of the offshore sandbank at Scroby Sands which used to be permanently above high water and measure 1 mile long and one-quarter mile wide (supporting marram grass sand dunes, breeding terns and seals) but which now lies permanently below high water mark, and a study to determine whether the wave model which calculates the erosive force on the coast of the offshore wave regime has been formulated using the correct meteorological data.

The Scoping Report has decided not to include any of the above issues identified by MARINET. An appeal has been made by MARINET to the consultants against this decision, but the appeal has been turned down.

Following the recent debate in the Houses of Parliament on offshore aggregate extraction, see www.marinet.org.uk/latestnews.html#cotw, it has been stated by the Minister of State at Defra who is responsible for the licensing regime that no further consideration can be given to MARINET's claims that aggregate dredging is causing coastal erosion in East Anglia and damaging the marine environment until " new scientific evidence" is available to support these assertions.

MARINET has now written to the Minister, Huw Irranca-Davies MP, to point out to him that the very scientific study his Department of State has commissioned — the East Anglian REA — is failing to include the key scientific studies which might provide this scientific evidence. Accordingly, MARINET has requested the Minister it "call in" the REA and to amend its Scoping Report so that these studies are included. The text of the MARINET letter to the Minister can be seen at www.marinet.org.uk/mad/objection.html#rea with the date of 1st February 2010.

Quite simply, the industry cannot have it both ways — claim that the scientific evidence does not exist and then block the scientific studies which would establish whether the evidence does or does not really exist.

Tyne contaminated dredge disposal trial the subject of a Defra report.

Defra has produced a report, titled The First UK Offshore Contaminated Dredge Material Capping Trial, which records the outcome to date of the controversial trial to dispose of contaminated dredge material taken from disused docks in the Port of Tyne and dumped at a seabed site in the outer estuary near Souter Point.

This controversial project, involving highly contaminated dredged material, was to be made safe at the offshore site by a process of capping. In other words, once the dredged material had been dumped on the seabed, it was to be capped with clean silt and sand in order to prevent its dispersal by currents and storms into the wider marine environment. If such dispersion were to occur, the polluting effect would be considerable.

The ability to create a cap of sufficient thickness at the disposal site proved far more complicated than anticipated, and the full nature of the whole project can be read in the Defra Report, available here as a pdf file.

The significance of this project lies in the fact that other Port Authorities around the UK have similar disposal problems with contaminated silt in disused docks and, if the docks are to be redeveloped, this contaminated material requires a disposal site. The Port of Tyne project has been designed to test the proposition that such contaminated material can be safely disposed at an offshore seabed location.

Seagulls and animals become radioactive at Sellafield

The Times reports, 25th February 2010, that the Sellafield nuclear plant is Western Europe's most heavily contaminated industrial site, and is facing an unexpected environmental challenge.

The 262-hectare (645 acres) plant in West Cumbria is being overrun by seagulls, mice and stray cats, and managers are battling to contain the problem. Things have become so serious that a cull of seabirds is being considered. There are concerns that some have been swimming in open ponds containing plutonium and radioactive waste, some of which date back to Britain's atomic weapons programme of the 1950s and 1960s.

"It's a coastal site so there are thousands of seagulls around," said Martin Forwood, of Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment (www.corecumbria.co.uk). "They fly in and float around on the open waste ponds and act as a gateway to poison the wider area."

Ali McKibbin, media relations manager at the plant, confirmed that 350 animal carcasses were being stored in an industrial freezer on the site, mostly birds but also some small mammals.

Under Environment Agency rules, any animal that dies within the perimeter fence must be treated as nuclear waste, because it may have been exposed to radiation. The carcasses could not be allowed to decay naturally, Ms McKibbin said, because they were considered "putrescent" nuclear waste, and so were kept frozen until they could be disposed of in a special landfill facility on the site.

One of the open-waste storage ponds contains significant quantities of plutonium. About 30 new carcasses are collected every month. One source said that bird-control was subcontracted to a company called Avian, which employs two full-time staff at the site to control numbers and deter birds from nesting in and fouling buildings. "It's a big contract — egg-pricking, pigeon trapping, nest disposal — the lot," said the source, who works for a rival pest control company in the North of England.

Ms McKibbin added that discussions were under way about an intensive culling programme. Drugged bait would probably be the method, although she emphasised that no final decision had yet been taken. The seagull problem was "under control", there was no danger to the public and any methods used to control bird numbers would be humane, she said.

The sprawling site, which contains hundreds of buildings — many of which are scheduled for demolition — lies along coastline bordering the Lake District National Park. As well as birds, various other animals are frequently found on site. "It is a large industrial site so there are quite a number of stray cats," Ms McKibbin said. A company called Mitie won a contract in 2006 to supply Sellafield with services including pest control. Mitie employs 450 staff at the site, although few of these are involved in pest control.

Ms Mckibbin said: "A professional pest control organisation is employed to manage the number of gulls. All activities are done under licence in a safe and humane manner that causes the gulls minimum distress and suffering."

The site, which used to be known as Windscale, is where Britain developed the technology to build the atomic bomb and is the location of the world's first civil nuclear power station. Britain's high-level nuclear waste is stored at the site, which is owned by the Government through the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.

Source: Times Online 25th February 2010

Scientists trying to invent a means of listening more carefully to marine mammals

The increasing exploitation of the oceans for power generation, shipping and mineral extraction is bad news for wildlife. Human offshore activity can cause underwater noise that affects marine mammals such as seals, whales, and dolphins, as well as disturbing the fish that they feed upon.

In order to protect sea life, many offshore regions have laws that require dedicated visual observers to watch for marine life and signal when human activities, such as exploration, construction or offshore power generation, should be slowed down or even stopped in order to avoid disturbing it. This is costly for the companies involved, and doesn't work well in poor weather or at night. The answer may be to listen more carefully to the local wildlife.

Scientists now want to use passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) systems to listen for these vocalisations, and so ensure the creatures' safety while also eliminating unnecessary delays to sea-borne work.

For the full story, visit the article published in The Institution of Engineering and Technology Magazine, 8th August 2009
http://kn.theiet.org/magazine/issues/0914/passive-acoustic-monitoring-0914.cfm.

'Wave glider' can collect key scientific facts about the oceans

Known as Wave Gliders, a new piece of technology in the shape of a platform can travel around the oceans collecting scientific data.

The Wave Glider can travel long distances, hold itself in one place like a buoy, and patrol areas and collect information without ever needing to refuel. This means it can travel to a distant area, collect data, and return for maintenance without ever requiring a ship to leave port.

The Liquid Robotics Wave Glider is a configurable platform designed to support a wide variety of sensor payloads. It can keep station or travel from point to point. Data is transmitted to shore via satellite, and its continuous presence at a location means data can be delivered as it is collected. Payload power is provided by two solar panels, lithium-ion batteries and a charging optimisation system.

A unique two-part architecture and wing system directly converts wave motion into thrust allowing the Wave Glider to travel long distances, hold station, and patrol vast areas without ever needing to refuel.

There are many areas where it could be used because this is a surface vehicle that can station-keep. It harnesses the wave energy and it can operate in a small watch circle, so it is suitable to replace a buoy out in the middle of an ocean.

"This is a pretty compelling technology," says Justin Manley of Liquid Robotics. "I wish I could say that I invented it. I didn't, but I'm proud to say that I think I can advance it into new applications."

"The world has also been talking about fleets of unmanned vehicles that will work together — a network of robots for a while now. Obviously, any undersea component is going to need a surface element to reach satellites for communication and the connection to the Internet that we all rely on. Because the Wave Glider has essentially an infinite endurance, I think this could become the equivalent of a cellular phone tower in the ocean for underwater vehicles."

Justin Manley adds: "A major science question with ocean acidification has to do with the flux of carbon dioxide between the atmosphere and the ocean. The way to start learning about this is if we could acquire lots of measurements of carbon dioxide levels just above and below the water surface over large areas. This is the platform that will enable that type of scientific programme."

Source: The Institution of Engineering and Technology Magazine, 8th August 2009
http://kn.theiet.org/magazine/issues/0914/the-final-frontier-0914.cfm.

Subsea 'cat's eyes' could save dolphins' lives

Whales and dolphins might avoid being inadvertently trapped in fishing nets if a marker developed for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) can win commercial backing. Marine scientists estimate that nearly a thousand dolphins, porpoises and whales die every day as a result of being caught unintentionally by fishing equipment.

Scientists at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) have completed sea trials of the device, which can be used to identify the location of high-value underwater objects such as oil field equipment and cables to sonar systems. It could also be detected by creatures, such as dolphins, that use sonar to navigate.

Described as a nautical version of 'cat's eye' road markings, the spherical units, in which an elastomer core is surrounded by a rigid shell of glass-reinforced plastic or steel, reflect tuned sonar signals at specific frequencies depending on their composition. DSTL says the units could be attached to fishing nets so that whales and dolphins picking up the signal could avoid the area.

Unlike existing location devices used by oil and cable companies that continually pulse a signal, this is a passive system that only returns a signal when an attempt is made to identify it. And because it doesn't require a battery, DSTL says maintenance costs are significantly reduced.

Historically, passive devices have relied on chlorofluorocarbons housed in metal discs. The DSTL system's physical properties mean it doesn't need the potentially harmful chemicals.

Subsea Asset Location Technologies, a company set up to commercialise the technology, is seeking venture capital funding to complete the development phase and bring a product to market.

"This is another example of DSTL technology being directed outside its original military application and making a difference to industry," said the laboratory's head of technology transfer, David Harris.

Source: The Institution of Engineering and Technology Magazine, 12th April 2008
http://kn.theiet.org/magazine/issues/0806/news.cfm.

Marine & Fisheries Agency (MFA) British Marine Aggregate Producers Association (BMAPA) Support

The MFA website content seen under 'Marine Environment' leaves us with little doubt of its full support of the dredging industry. The exploitation of the environment obviously takes full priority over and above concern for our sea, seabed and coastal environment in their eyes. See more at www.marinet.org.uk/mad/mfabmapa.html.

'Ideas for protecting Norfolk and Suffolk's coastline'

That's the title of an item by Hayley Mace that appeared in The Lowestoft Journal of 23rd February '10, which can be read in full on their web page at here.

But inspection reveals that it's not really protection at all, merely that East of England Minister Barbara Follett voiced the governments £5m funded 'Pathfinder' programme at a 22nd February '10 meeting of coastal councillors and 'environmental experts' at the second Coastal Initiative Conference, dealing mainly with the reimbursement compensation opportunities available to those who abandon their homes and businesses.

Hopton Residents battling for sea-defence cash

A 'Google Search' for 'Hopton' on this website will reveal our earlier input of the rapid erosion threatening housing and infrastructure at Hopton, just south of Great Yarmouth. This continues to escalate, now six times that wrongly earlier predicted by the 'experts' because they did not take the impact from offshore dredging into account. Now the residents are up in arms fighting the demands of the Shoreline Management Plan which did not provide for defences by recommending ".

The full article entitled "Hopton group fights for sea defence cash" is from the Great Yarmouth Mercury.

The Last of the Many

Just one fishing trawler of an original one thousand now remains based at Great Yarmouth. The last herring drifters left in the 1970s and by the 1980s only about 20 fishing boats remained in Yarmouth.

And now just one fishing trawler, the 'Eventide', is now to be seen going out from Great Yarmouth, where in the 1900's there were over one thousand boats catching over 2,000 million fish in just one season. A combination of pollution, dredging and overfishing and catch limitation quotas have wreaked havoc on the once thriving industry.

'Great Yarmouth's sole fishing trawler' written by Anthoy Carroll in the Eastern Daily Press of 24th February 2010 tells the story.

'Clouds get in the way'

The fog surrounding Scroby Sands windfarm

An interesting local micro climate phenomena around the Scroby Sands windfarm was captured by local aerial photographer Mike Page from his Cessna-150 aircraft, showing the mist created by the 40 metre blades set above the 60 metre high turbines so giving low level clouds around them.

No doubt the change of dew point between frontal and rear air pressures coupled with the mixing of the damp warmer air near sea level with the upper colder and drier air produced the visible evidence of the 'fog' around the turbines whilst at the same the sky beyond and the coastline itself remained perfectly clear.

But an interesting consideration is that this provides visible evidence that the interception of the wind over such a wide area must be taking a degree of energy from the wind that would otherwise add to eroding wave heights at the shoreline. This indicates a further potential environmental advantage of wind farm installations in that they may be helping to slow down the rate of loss of our disappearing coastline.

Pollution creating acid oceans

For the full story see the Guardian of the 17th February 2010

The world's oceans are becoming acidic at a faster rate than at any time in the last 65 million years, threatening marine life and food supplies across the globe, according to a new study.

Researchers from the University of Bristol looked at how levels of acid in the ocean have changed over history.

They found that as ocean acidification accelerated it caused mass extinctions at the bottom of the food chain that could threaten whole ecosystems in the future.

The rapid acidification today is being caused by the massive amount of carbon dioxide being pumped out by cars and factories every year, which is absorbed by the water. Since the industrial revolution acidity in the seas have increased by 30 per cent.

The last time such a fast change occurred is thought to be 65 million years ago, when some natural event caused ocean acidification and the dinosaurs died out.

The study looked at sediments from around 55 million years ago, when temperature rose by up to 6C and acidification was occurring at a similar rate as today.

British native oysters threatened by an underwater snail

Native oysters, considered to be one of the finest delicacies produced in Britain, are under threat from a vicious underwater snail called a tingle.

Stocks of the oysters have fallen to dangerously low levels around the Solent, an area that used to provide about half of all of Britain's home-grown oysters.

Fisherman and some shellfish experts have blamed the tingle, a tiny sea snail or whelk that bores a hole into the oysters and sucks out the flesh. They have given warning that the pests could spread from the Solent to Essex, or Cornwall, the two main oyster growing areas in Britain.

At its peak 20 years ago, the oyster winter season in the Solent was worth £2 million a year when about 160 boats collectively hauled in more than 1,500 tonnes — about half the British catch. But now fewer than ten boats trawl the oyster beds and the Solent produces no more than about 5 per cent of natives, according to the Shellfish Association of Great Britain. Terry Lankford, a shellfish merchant based in Hythe, said he was convinced the tingle was responsible for killing the oysters. "The industry will collapse unless we make some changes immediately. There will always be some oysters there, but it will become economically unviable for the fishermen to work" he said.

The length of the regulated oyster season was cut this winter from 11 weeks to just five, starting on November 2 and finishing on December 4. David Jarrard, assistant director of the Shellfish Association of Great Britain, said: "At the moment the tingle is a localised problem around the Solent, but all stocks could be affected if it spread down the south coast or around to Essex."

Other oyster experts pointed out that over-fishing and dredging of the seabed was equally to blame for the troubles of the industry.

Source: The Daily Telegraph 28th January 2010

Most seafood ecolabelling schemes are deficient says WWF

In a new report commissioned by WWF the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) comes out on top, but the report reveals poor performance among other assessed seafood ecolabelling schemes and calls for improvements across the board to strengthen their effectiveness.

Accenture's non-profit practice, Accenture Development Partnerships (ADP) compared and ranked seven fishery certification schemes that use ecolabels on seafood products against a set of WWF criteria that focus on the schemes' effectiveness in addressing the health of fisheries and oceans.

The MSC is ranked the highest in the ADP report, Assessment of On-Pack, Wild-Capture Seafood Sustainability Certification Programmes and Seafood Ecolabels, with a score of just over 95 percent compliance to the assessment's criteria requirements.

The report finds that except for the MSC, the other assessed schemes — Naturland, Friend of the Sea, Krav, AIDCP, Mel-Japan and Southern Rocklobster — do not evaluate fisheries across all criteria to the extent required to support sustainable fishing and healthy oceans.

"The findings of this assessment reveal serious inadequacies in a number of ecolabels and cast doubt on their overall contribution to effective fisheries management and sustainability." said Miguel Jorge, Director of WWF International's Marine Programme. While the assessment shows the MSC comes out best in class using the most rigorous programme out there, it is not perfect. Improvements are needed across the board to ensure all seafood ecolabels deliver on their promise."

The assessment points to significant differences in transparency, information availability, structure and accuracy of claims made by each scheme. Aside from the MSC, all other schemes assessed have substantial shortcomings in the area of transparency and information provision.

"The growth of seafood ecolabels over the last ten years attests to the strong demand from consumers and seafood companies who want seafood from better fisheries." added Jorge, WWF Director. "But with the proliferation of ecolabels and the variability of these schemes there is a real risk of confusion, or worse still a lack of confidence in seafood ecolabelling among buyers and consumers."

Source: WWF 19th January 2010

New UK licensing round for oil and gas exploration breaks acreage record

A Press Release from the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has announced that a new round of offshore licensing will give a further boost to the UK's offshore oil and gas industries. For the first time since 1998, this round also offers blocks in all areas of the UK seas for new licensing.

The blocks offered include a number relinquished under the Government and industry's 'Fallow Initiative', which stimulates activity on blocks where there had been no significant activity for three years. The DECC Minister, Lord Hunt, said: "This record-breaking 26th Round includes areas of the Continental Shelf not as yet explored, and will provide a new boost to activity in the basin. The round will help to secure the future of the UK's oil and gas industry which still provides three quarters of our energy needs and some 350,000 jobs. Estimates suggest there are still around 20 billion barrels of oil equivalent, or possibly more, to be produced, and this latest licensing round will help ensure we realise this potential. As we make the transition to a low carbon future, we must ensure we have secure energy supplies by making the best use of our indigenous energy resources in a safe and environmentally sound way."

14 blocks that were classified as "fallow" in 2009 have either been fully, or partly, relinquished in time to be on offer in this round. In addition, the majority of areas licensed in the 1st Round in 1964 that have not been allowed extensions have been relinquished and are included for offer in the 26th Round.

The Government has also introduced a new Frontier licence with an extended nine year exploration term for the West of Scotland area, which aims to encourage oil and gas exploration in an area in which geological data is as yet scant. In deciding which areas to offer for licensing, DECC conducted a thorough Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of UK waters. DECC has accepted the SEA's recommendations that licensing may proceed subject to some areas being withheld from licensing for the moment due to lack of information.

Before any licence awards are made, an environmental assessment under the Habitats Directive will be carried out.

Source: DECC 27th January 2010

Fishermen and Natural England in talks over conservation off Dorset coast

Natural England has held the meeting in Lyme Regis to consult on plans to designate certain areas in Lyme Bay as Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) to protect rare habitats and species.

Some fishermen boycotted what they said was a 'pointless' meeting because they believed the decision had already been made. But other worried sea users were eager to find out how the move might affect them.

Natural England's marine advisor Louisa Knights said: "It's an opportunity for all the stakeholders to see the proposals and ask questions. It's not a done deal, this is a consultation and that is one of the reasons we are having the meeting, to encourage people to feed into the consultation. But it's their decision if they don't want to come."

Harry May, who operates two deep sea and mackerel fishing boats out of Lyme, said: "I'm interested to see what's going on and if the plans affect me. I don't think they will, but you never know quite what the powers that be have plans for a few years down the line. They might bring in rules that will stop my kind of fishing, but I don't think they will at the moment."

The plans come just over a year after the Government closed around 60 square miles of the bay to scallop dredging and trawling, and it is those fishermen who it is feared will suffer the most. But Natural England said introducing the SACs would help repair the reefs damaged by trawling and dredging.

Static fisherman Angus Walker believes it is too early to tell if the original closure in 2008 has had any impact. "I had hoped what they had implemented to start with would remain until they had time to make a proper assessment if it was working," he said. "It's probably going to give us more sleepless nights."

Martyn White, from Seaton, is backing the proposals. He said: "I would like to see the fish numbers back to how it was 30 or 40 years ago. I wouldn't want to see the fishermen going out of business, especially the local guys, but I think it has been handled very carefully and with them in mind as well."

A retired static fisherman, who did not wish to be named, is eager to see the seabed in better condition but said imposing more restrictions would cause problems between fishermen. He said: "It will increase the amount of towed activity outside the box because they will all try and fish as close to the box as they can. The moment any static boys move outside the box they are at risk. You will get conflict between the towed gear and static boys."

Source: Bridport News 28th January 2010

Measures to protect the oceans from the dumping of rubbish have failed

Thousands of tons of rubbish are thrown into the sea each year, endangering humans and wildlife. The news service, Spiegel Online, reports that it has obtained a classified German government report which indicates that efforts by the United Nations and the European Union to clean up our oceans have failed entirely.

Since the world's oceans are so massive, few people seem to have a problem with dumping waste into them. But plastics degrade at very a slow rate, and huge amounts of them are sloshing around in our oceans. Wildlife consumes small pieces causing many of them to die, since the plastics are full of poisons. And, as experts warn, we've reached a point where it's even getting dangerous for humans to consume seafood.

Given these conditions, the international community has been pushing for four decades for massive bureaucratic efforts aimed at clearing the oceans of waste. In 1973, the United Nations sponsored a pact for protecting the oceans from dumping. Additional provisions have been added to the so-called Marpol Convention — short for "marine pollution" — on six different occasions. And nine years ago, the European Union put directives on the books that forbid any dumping of maritime waste into the ocean while in ports.

According to a classified German government strategy paper, if you add up all the good such measures have done, you still end up with zero. In fact, according to the confidential paper, international efforts aimed at protecting the oceans have failed across the board. Our oceans have devolved into vast garbage dumps.

Even strict laws have yet to do anything to help the oceans, the paper states. Take the case of the North and Baltic seas. Although dumping into them has been illegal since 1988, the amount of waste found in these seas has still "not improved." The German government also estimates that, each year, 20,000 tons of waste finds its way into the North Sea alone, primarily from ships and the fishing industry. The paper concludes that all related international agreements have been "unsuccessful".

Source: Speigel Online

Norway signs up to North Sea offshore supergrid

Norway is to participate in a joint initiative between nine EU countries on developing an offshore energy grid in the North Sea region. The initiative's idea is to link up wind farms in the region to address problems such as intermittence.

The Norwegians bring to the project a great potential for wind power, said Norwegian energy minister Terje Riis-Johansen. This potential is largely unexploited to date. Norway also has extensive experience in offshore construction.

Signatories to the North Sea declaration are Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK. A strategic plan will be agreed at a high level meeting to be held in the second half of 2010. The goal of the cooperation is to coordinate the development of an offshore grid in the North Sea and connecting it with installations on the mainland. There are plans to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the continuing work on this initiative later in 2010.

Source: ENDS Europe 8th February 2010

New moves to ban oil transfers off the east coast

New legislation could soon be put in place to ban the controversial transfer of oil between ships anchored off the east coast.

For the last year, the sea between Lowestoft and Southwold has become a favoured site for tankers bringing oil from Russia to transfer their cargo to larger vessels, with up to 50 boats being moored offshore at a time.

Now the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) has launched a six-week consultation on proposals to regulate the practice, which had raised concerns that any accident could lead to oil pollution ruining the region's coastline as the sea off north Suffolk is the only place in British waters where the transfers are still allowed.

Full article at EDP 10th February 2010

Fishermen's Response to pSPA

A well worded response to the Outer Thames (OT) Potential Special Protection Area (pSPA) Consultation by Fisherman Chris Wightman acting on behalf of the Anglian Fishermen's Association can be seen here.

European Justice and Dredging

Although the emphasis is on port dredging, the following European Court of Justice ruling on the application of The European Habitats Directive could have a decisive bearing on aggregate dredging and its impact of our offshore and coastal areas.

From 'Sand and Gravel News' of January 18th 2010 under 'Environmental Issues' comes this news that the European Court of Justice has upheld the thrust of an environmental directive aimed at conserving natural habitats across Europe.

The EU Habitats Directive, a conservation framework, includes the Natura 2000 network of protected sites. For the network, member states submit sites to the European Commission for conservation consideration. The port city of Papenburg feared that the environmental initiative might affect the Meyer-Werft, a shipyard on the Ems River in Lower Saxony. Despite having approved dredging there in 1994, Germany in 2006 submitted downriver areas for consideration under the Habitats Directive. Meyer-Werft specialises in building cruise liners, and the river must be specially dredged every time a deep ship navigates from the shipyard to the North Sea.

Papenburg sought to prevent the German government from agreeing to the European Union's placement of the area in the protected sites network, or an exemption to the requirement for an environmental assessment at the site if it did make the network.

The German court asked the European Union's high court to clarify when a member state may refuse to agree to a draft list of protected sites, and if pending Ems River dredging should be subject to an environmental assessment. The Court of Justice ruled that conservation objectives must direct the treatment of a proposed site; member states may only refuse their inclusion based on environmental grounds, and not for economic, social or regional reasons.

If the pending dredging, though approved before the EU directive, is distinct from other dredging projects on the river, it must undergo environmental review, the Court of Justice ruled, as that would likely affect the environment.

If the upcoming work is part of regular maintenance for the purpose of navigability, it could be considered a single project. If such a project was federally authorised before passage of the EU directive, no assessment would be required.

Any project proposed at a place on the list of protected sites must not cause harm to the natural habitats there. Once a site is listed, ecological risks must be assessed and avoided, the court concluded.

UK government to invest £22m in new marine energy technologies

Marine energy will be ready for mass scale deployment and an important new commercial UK industry by 2020 said the Carbon Trust as it announced that the six most promising technologies that will receive new funding to speed up the deployment of full scale prototypes of their leading designs.

The Carbon Trust announced that the six most promising technologies will be supported with £22m of new funding. Designed and managed by the Carbon Trust, the Marine Renewable Proving Fund (MRPF) uses new funding from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). The MRPF marks a new level of commitment to developing wave and tidal technologies by helping the UK's most promising technologies to progress towards early stage deployment and accelerating the first commercial projects in UK waters.

The Carbon Trust has selected Atlantis Resources, Aquamarine Power, Hammerfest Strom UK, Marine Current Turbines, Pelamis Wave Power and Voith Hydro to receive support. Set against a shortage of funding in the sector, the new finance will bridge a funding-gap that was stifling progress, creating more certainly around the technical performance of each technology which will trigger increased confidence in the sector.

Tom Delay, chief executive of the Carbon Trust, said: "The UK must urgently diversify, decarbonise and secure its energy sources and marine energy could over time provide up to 20% of the UK's electricity. Generating electricity from the UK's powerful wave and tidal resource not only plays a crucial role in meeting our climate change targets but also presents a significant economic opportunity for the UK. Wave alone presents a £2 billion economic opportunity for the UK. The demonstration of full scale devices at sea is central to realising the full potential of marine energy and getting the first commercial projects in the water is critical to 'de-risk' the technology and attract the necessary private sector investment. This is the start of major new industry that will generate jobs and wealth across the UK."

Carbon Trust analysis shows that 25% of the world's wave and tidal technologies are being developed in the UK. Marine energy is an emerging industry with massive growth potential and each successful technology is competing for a stake in what will be a major growth industry. All of the devices receiving MRPF funding will be deployed in UK waters, which will stimulate supply chain opportunities associated with construction and deployment of these technologies. Over 75% of the funding released through the MRPF will go to the UK supply chain.

Source: The Carbon Trust, 2nd February 2010

URGENT — The Chagos Marine Reserve

Since last November, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has been running a consultation on a proposal to set up a marine reserve around the Chagos Islands. You can see the full document here.

The consultation is due to close on 12th February 2010.

Greenpeace and others are organising an on-line petition to persuade the FCO to set up a reserve. Instead of responding to the FCO consultation, you can go directly to http://protectchagos.org and simply sign up there. This petition has an endorsement from Professor Callum Roberts.

Two recent news stories add background to the issues. The Guardian on 27th January gives a gallery of images, and includes a piece by Tony Juniper, where he says "Protecting the Chagos archipelago is a rare opportunity for the UK to create a conservation area as important as the Galapagos islands or Great Barrier Reef". The story also makes clear that the consultation process has excluded the inhabitants of Diego Garcia, evicted by the British to make way for a US air base years ago.

However, The Times in an article on the 22nd January adds another twist, by pointing out that "A company belonging to the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser is opposing plans to create the world's biggest marine reserve. His company holds a government contract to manage fishing in the area, which would be banned if the reserve were created."

Murky waters.

Major Norfolk Landowner concerns on our Coastline

David Horton-Fawkes, estates director at Holkham. Photo: Ian Burt

Directors David Horton-Fawkes and Mark Little of the 6,100 hectare Holkham Estate in North Norfolk are expressing their 'real concerns' over the Shoreline Management Plan due to the serious impact that this would have on farmland and freshwater habitats of the protected Holkham National Nature Reserve.

They state in a letter that protection of farmland should be a higher priority, while assumptions relating to tidal effects should be revisited, writing "We have real concerns that a number of the parameters within which the SMP has been based are flawed. In particular, we are concerned that long-term records of marshland accretion and the impact of tidal forces in the area have been misinterpreted. Local knowledge indicates that some of the assumptions made will not be realised in practice."

The Holkham Estate letter says: "We are of the view that insufficient weight has been applied to the protection of agricultural land, with loss of such areas being disregarded within the cost/benefit analysis. This is particularly short-sighted in view of the future need for increased food supply and the associated food security issues" also pointing out that there is no indication as to what compensation would be available if the proposals become policy'

Source: Eastern Daily Press 21st January '10 article by Chris Hill entitled 'Concern at threat to Norfolk coast'.

Water Companies face Legal Challenge over CSOs

Water companies have been accused of demanding a "licence to pollute" in a row over the control of sewage outfall systems. Campaigners are incensed that the wealthy firms are trying to wriggle out of Government orders to monitor thousands of overflow pipes that can be used as emergency outlets.

Six of the biggest water boards are launching a legal appeal against the Environment Agency which imposed restrictions on 4,193 overflows around Britain. The judicial hearing, which starts in Cardiff on 19th January 2010, is seen as a crucial test of will with ecologists and pressure groups concerned that the Agency will be outgunned by the water companies' financial firepower.

"What they are asking for is, effectively, a licence to pollute," said Thomas Bell, of the Marine Conservation Society, which has campaigned to clear up pollution from the outlets. These outlets are known as Combined Sewer Overflows, designed as a fail-safe when sewers flood. The conditions imposed were reasonable and for the water companies to appeal them en masse is ridiculous. They claim they are low-risk so if that is true they should have no problem with them being regulated. They are supposed to be used only in emergency conditions when the sewers are flooded but we are becoming increasingly concerned that they are being used as a regular means of sewage disposal.

Britain has a network of 22,000 CSOs providing relief to the nation's largely Victorian sewer system and the Environment Agency regulates the number of times they can be used, see MARINET report www.marinet.org.uk/ukbw/whitburncso.html.

The water industry has spent £2.5billion over the past 20 years rebuilding the most polluting overflows and water quality in rivers and coasts has improved. But campaigners believe that rogue CSOs still pose a threat to marine life and swimmers.

Source: Sunday Express. 17th January 2010.

France and United States sign joint marine partnership

On 17th November 2009, the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) signed a partnership agreement with its newest international partner, France's Agence des aires marine protégées (AAMP).

The US and France have the two largest Exclusive Economic Zones in the world, and cooperation between the two nations on MPA work is a natural link and will yield significant marine resource protection in American and French waters around the world.

The agreement was signed by ONMS and AAMP representatives on Moorea Island at the recent Pacific Marine Managed Areas Conference.

The signing was celebrated with chants in Hawaiian and Tahitian, as well as an exchange of traditional Polynesian gifts between the ONMS's Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument and representatives from various French Polynesian MPAs.

"We have enjoyed working with NOAA sanctuaries for a year now," said Christophe LeFebvre, AAMP's Coordinator for European and International Affairs, "and we are confident that the experience and capacity of the sanctuary program will help our MPA Agency achieve its ambitious goals."

"AAMP has been such a pleasure to work with," stated Elizabeth Moore, ONMS's Chief of Staff for International Activities. "They have demonstrated tremendous knowledge, enthusiasm, and professionalism, and we are very much looking forward to working together in the coming years."

The agreement provides for a five-year program of work between ONMS and AAMP, focusing on exchanges of experience and expertise in various realms of MPA designation and management, as well as partnering on major MPA projects.

The US will support France in its organization of the Second International Marine Mammal Protected Area Conference (Guadaloupe, 2011) and the Third International Marine Protected Area Congress (Marseilles, 2013); ONMS organized the prior of each of these meetings in 2009 and have happily and confidently passed the torch to AAMP.

Separate projects will also be developed for the Pacific and Caribbean regions within the next year. Pacific projects are already being discussed and will include a series of exchanges between the Monument, Fagatele Bay NMS, Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale NMS, and their partners, and their French Polynesian counterparts, focusing on traditional Polynesian culture and management methods, MPA experiences, and World Heritage co-operation. The first exchange is tentatively scheduled for summer of 2010 between Hawaii and the Marquesas.

Source: US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) website.

MARINET observes: This exceptional and most encouraging act of international co-operation leads us to the question, will Britain join forces with Commonwealth countries to do the same? If Britain were to combine with Commonwealth countries, we could create the largest managed area of seas in the world, with enormous potential for restoring health and well-being back to our oceans. The chart below gives a glimpse of the scale of this joint British and Commonwealth enterprise:

The question is : Will the British Government and The Commonwealth Office take the initiative? Indeed, is this on the agenda for the UK Parliamentary election in 2010?

Burial at sea can create new reefs, suggests Dorset diver

An artificial reef made of concrete "bereavement balls" containing the cremated remains of the dead could bring new life to the Channel and help to revive an industry in decline. A 200m reef is planned for the Dorset coast, where the diving industry has slumped in the past few years. The intention is to build a structure that would provide a permanent memorial to the dead as well as a breeding ground for marine life that would attract divers back to the area.

The project has won the backing of the Environment Agency, which has pledged £10,000 towards the cost of a survey of 1 sq km of seabed off Ringstead Bay, between Weymouth and Lulworth Cove. The Crown Estate, which owns the seabed, has also given approval in principle, provided that a public body can be persuaded to take statutory responsibility for the project.

A non-profit company has been set up by local businesses. The project co-ordinator, Neville Copperthwaite, said that the Dorset dive industry had been hit by a "double whammy". Divers have been lured away by competition from the Scylla, a former warship scuttled near Plymouth, and put off by the closure, on safety grounds, of a Second World War wreck that was one of the area's most popular dive sites.

Mr Copperthwaite said: "In 2003 there were 24 dive charter boats operating in the area. Today there are just six. There used to be five or six dive shops. Now there is one. Divers have been attracted to the Scylla like iron filings to a magnet. The closure of the wreck of HMS Hood on safety grounds has not helped either. Hardly anyone one noticed what was going on because all the attention and funding has been focused on the 2012 Olympic sailing events, which will be taking place nearby."

The scheme will initially be aimed at the families of dead fishermen, divers and other seafarers. It would give them an appropriate send-off and a permanent underwater grave. The basketball-sized "bereavement balls", which are more of a dome shape, would be hollow and have a plaque with the name of the person whose remains they contain.

They would provide a home for lobsters, fish and other marine creatures, allowing new life to grow. Initial work on the reef is being funded by local businesses who have set up a company, Wreck to Reef, but ultimately it will be paid for by the families of the bereaved. Wreck to Reef has yet to reveal the likely cost of being buried at sea.

Mr Copperthwaite said: "A lot of people have their ashes scattered at sea but using this method they would always be in the same place so relatives can have somewhere to visit and pay their respects. We have been talking to staff at the Weymouth crematorium about how to market the project sensitively. We want to make sure that whatever we do it will be done with dignity. We have approached various undertakers and have received quite an enthusiastic response. Dorset is a seafaring county and scattering ashes at sea is very popular. The reef balls are made out of concrete, which will either be mixed with the ashes or a container holding the remains will be stored inside the ball. The ball will be lowered into the water and a diver will then place it on the bottom in order to build up the reef. The water there is 20m deep and it will take thousands of reef balls to build it up."

Members of Dorset County Council are being asked to decide next month whether the local authority will be the reef's statutory leaseholder. So far 22 business that will benefit from the reef, such as diving schools, hotels and restaurants, have signed up to the project and provided £25,000 for initial survey work. Southern Sea Fisheries has promised 6,000 baby lobsters in the hope that the reef will prove a vital restocking ground and support the commercial fishing industry. Derek Sargent, a member of the Weymouth Lifeboat crew, said: "It would be a nice resting place for the deceased and the families could remember where they put their loved ones."

The reef, which will be a mile out to sea, will be the first of its kind in Britain, although similar structures have been popular off the East Coast of America for the past 30 years.

Source: The Times, 19th January 2010.

Coral Reefs can recover from Climate Change damage if protected by marine reserves

A study by the University of Exeter provides the first evidence that coral reefs can recover from the devastating effects of climate change. The research shows for the first time that coral reefs located in marine reserves can recover from the impacts of global warming.

Scientists and environmentalists have warned that coral reefs may not be able to recover from the damage caused by climate change and that these unique environments could soon be lost forever. Now, this research adds weight to the argument that reducing levels of fishing is a viable way of protecting the world's most delicate aquatic ecosystems.

Increases in ocean surface water temperatures subject coral reefs to stresses that lead quickly to mass bleaching. The problem is intensified by ocean acidification, which is also caused by increased CO₂. This decreases the ability of corals to produce calcium carbonate (chalk), which is the material that reefs are made of.

Approximately 2% of the world's coral reefs are located within marine reserves, areas of the sea that are protected against potentially-damaging human activity, like dredging and fishing. The researchers conducted surveys of ten sites inside and outside marine reserves of the Bahamas over 2.5 years. These reefs have been severely damaged by bleaching and then by hurricane Frances in the summer of 2004. At the beginning of the study, the reefs had an average of 7% coral cover. By the end of the project, coral cover in marine protected areas had increased by an average of 19%, while reefs in non-reserve sites showed no recovery.

Professor Peter Mumby of the University of Exeter said: "Coral reefs are the largest living structures on Earth and are home to the highest biodiversity on the planet. As a result of climate change, the environment that has enabled coral reefs to thrive for hundreds of thousands of years is changing too quickly for reefs to adapt. In order to protect reefs in the long-term we need radical action to reduce CO2 emissions. However, our research shows that local action to reduce the effects of fishing can contribute meaningfully to the fate of reefs. The reserve allowed the number of parrotfishes to increase and because parrotfish eat seaweeds, the corals could grow freely without being swamped by weeds. As a result, reefs inside the park were showing recovery whereas those with more seaweed were not. This sort of evidence may help persuade governments to reduce the fishing of key herbivores like parrotfishes and help reefs cope with the inevitable threats posed by climate change".

Professor Mumby's research was funded by National Environment Research Council (NERC) and the Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation.

Reef facts

• A coral reef is made up of thin layers of calcium carbonate (limestone) secreted over thousands of years by billions of tiny soft bodied animals called coral polyps.
• Coral reefs are the world's most diverse marine ecosystems and are home to twenty-five percent of known marine species, including 4,000 species of fish, 700 species of coral and thousands of other plants and animals.
• Coral reefs have been on the planet for over 400 million years.
• The largest coral reef is the Great Barrier Reef, which stretches along the northeast coast of Australia, from the northern tip of Queensland, to just north of Bundaberg. At 2,300km long, it is the largest natural feature on Earth.
• Coral reefs occupy less than one quarter of one percent of the Earth's marine environment, yet they are home to more than a quarter of all known fish species.
• As well as supporting huge tourist industries, coral reefs protect shorelines from erosion and storm damage.

To download high quality reef videos by Professor Peter Mumby: www.refvid.org.

The Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation is dedicated to conservation and restoration of living oceans and pledges to champion their preservation through research, education and a commitment to Science Without Borders®.

Source: Exeter University website, Monday 11th January 2010

Norfolk fishermen boycott coast meeting

Fishermen are becoming progressively more angry as their living is being taken away from them by the unopposed destruction of the marine environment due to aggregate dredging and the imposition of exclusion zones caused by windfarm installations, cable routing and other impediments, this on top of fish quotas considered unnecessary.

As a result they are boycotting meetings planned by the government's 'Net Gain' and Natural England consulting those impacted by the marine conservation zones planned in and around The Wash, the first meeting of which was held at King's Lynn Town Hall on 18th January. This event followed the collapse of prosecutions said to cost a million pounds of taxpayers money made against two King's Lynn skippers, Lee Lake and Gregory Campbell, who were accused of dredging cockles on a sandbank closed to fishing.

The full story by Chris Bishop may be seen by visiting the EDP24 website.

It is difficult to envisage the vital mutual cooperation of the fishermen in establishing sustainable fishing and conserving the marine environment unless the vested authorities take into account and begin to understand the needs and livelihoods of the small dependent fishermen instead of just representing the vested interests of those huge commercial concerns that cause the main damage.

The emotive side of erosion

A rather sad and moving film of the heatbreaking social impact of the continuing erosion at Happisburgh can be seen by visiting: www.metacafe.com/watch/bg-141741/cliffhanger

Billion Pound Sea Wall for Norfolk?

An ambitious idea for an enormous 27 mile long offshore protective sea wall enclosure extending from Great Yarmouth has been proposed by Mike Evans, Chairman of the Royal Yachting Association and current President of the Norfolk and Suffolk Boating Association, who also represents private boat owners on the Broads Authority.

The proposition is claimed to protect The Broads and low laying inland villages and communities, provide fresh water for irrigation and prevent salination of the inland waterways, create jobs and provide windfarm emplacement and further protect our shoreline, beaches and sand cliffs from further erosion. It is not unprecedented as major projects such as Holland's Flevoland was reclaimed from the sea together with the Dutch freshwater Islemeer, a 400-plus square mile shallow lake in the central Netherlands, both of which were once the saline inland Zuiderzee.

But The Netherlands has a very different attitude towards such forward planning, whilst in the UK the defeatist principle embodied by 'Managed Retreat' and permitting the continuity of offshore dredging is in vogue. Indeed it is this, as well as Britain's serious economic situation that may defeat the proposed project. The needed support and financial backing for such a strategy is highly unlikely in the UK's current economic climate and the continued government policy of aiding and backing continued erosion under the dictates of the 'Managed Retreat' and 'Shoreline Management Plan' policies are set in concrete at this time. Sadly, we do not live in Holland or coastal Europe with their progressive positive and protective policies, but suffer a negative and defeatist attitude from all the myopic bodies that have power over our disappearing coastline.

Furthermore, sea rise alone is a relatively minor component in the threat to our coastline, Broads and inland villages. We have a far greater and more meaningful threat, that of erosion due to huge seabed mining offshore. We currently have sea-level rise of 3.2mm per annum, this added to by 2mm of sinkage annually, giving an equivalent of a sea rise of 5.2mm per year. One would thus have expected an effective sea rise of (3.2 + 2) x 35 = 182mm, i.e. 18.2 cm over 35 the years since 1972 when east coast dredging began in earnest. This level could be slightly increased due to the degraded climate that is producing more erosive waves due to more frequent stronger and longer lasting northerly winds. On an average 1 in 20 beach slope the 35 year 18.2cm sea rise would have produced a sea incursion of the mean high tide mark of 18.2 cm x 20 = 3.64 metres, perhaps allowing that little more for the worsening climatic conditions of global warming. In fact the mean rate of approach has been between six and twenty times this, now with far deeper water offshore and waves right to the sea wall and dune front at many points along much of the East Anglian coastline.

So it is not so much that the sea has risen but that the beaches have dropped, so permitting the sea over them giving a far nearer mean tide mark. This has been brought about directly by the impact of government backed offshore aggregate dredging, as is given on this website under 'Marine Aggregate Dredging' to be found at www.marinet.org.uk/mad/madbrief.html and our treatise on Coastal Defences 'Why Canute Failed' to be seen by going to www.marinet.org.uk/coastaldefences/canute.html.

Between three and five metres of sand and shingle have been stripped from a massive area of the sea bed off the greater Great Yarmouth area. This correlates with the exposure and fracture of the Scroby Wind Turbine power feed cables, once trenched and covered three metres deep in the seabed, which were left exposed and dangling two metres above it following nearby seabed mining. Such underminement, as already evidenced by the base scour of the Winterton to Happisburgh concrete sea wall and the loss of our beaches, dunes and sand cliffs along the vast majority of the East Anglian coastline would undoubtedly come about to an even greater extent seriously undermining any wall built in even closer proximity to the dredging sites.

Thus, whilst we might well approve of the brave concept, we must fear that in practical terms there will be found not only little support but much opposition. The rewards to be gained by the dredging companies, the Crown Estate and the Treasury by the continuing release of aggregate supply from our beaches, dunes and sand cliffs act as a distinct impediment to any plan that prevents their demise.

The original 12th January '10 press article on the subject entitled "Could £1bn sea wall plan be the salvation of Norfolk?" can be read on the EDP24 website and you can take part in a web poll by going to the Anglia Afloat website by logging on to www.angliaafloat.co.uk.

Oilrigs should be used for homes in areas at risk of flooding, report says

Decommissioned North Sea oil platforms should be towed to the waterfronts of coastal cities at risk of flooding and converted into homes, shops and universities protected from rising sea levels, a study recommends.

Britain should not retreat from the waves but embrace them, adapting to climate change and consequent flooding by building new communities, either on stilts or floating platforms.

A team of senior architects, engineers and civil servants, appointed by the Royal Institute of British Architects and Institution of Civil Engineers, considered the options for responding to a 6ft 6in (2m) rise in sea levels by the end of the century.

Read the full article at The Times, 15th January 2010

More sea-derived energy — 'Neptune Proteus NP1000'

From 'The Engineer' of 11th January '10 comes this story by Siobham Wagner entitled 'Humber rides the Wave' of a demonstration of a new tidal-energy machine called 'Neptune Proteus NP1000' soon to be deployed in the Humber Estuary.

Proteus is a moored device built with a square-turbine cross section designed to work in shallow waters. It has patented flow-control shutters to maximise the area of water hitting the turbines, thus increasing torque and power output, designed to function efficiently, generating 30% more electricity per unit channel than circular turbines, generating at least 1,000MW total.

Latest figures published on radioactivity in food and the environment

The latest in the annual series of reports, Radioactivity in Food and the Environment for 2008 (RIFE-14), has been published by the UK government monitoring agencies. The monitoring assesses the exposure to the UK public from natural and man-made sources of radioactivity, and assesses levels experienced both in the environment generally and in food. The man-made sources of radioactivity include those resulting from discharges from nuclear installations (e.g. nuclear power stations and defence establishments) and the fall-out from Chernobyl.

For example, if one were to catch and eat seafood in the Morecambe Bay area (Heysham) throughout the year (2008), it is estimated by RIFE-14 that a person would experience an annual dose of radioactivity amounting to 0.042 mSv (milli-Sieverts), with 0.013 mSv of that dose arising from the seafood and 0.029 mSv arising from being in the intertidal area and handling fishing gear (e.g. 0.013 + 0.029 = 0.042 mSv). The annual dose limit of exposure for a member of the public (fisherman) is 1 mSv. This annual dose limit is set by the International Commission on Radiological Protection, www.icrp.org.

RIFE-14 reports that if a person were to eat 1 kilogramme of cockles picked during 2008 from Morecambe Bay (Flookburgh), then that 1 kilogramme of cockles would contain the following radioactivity (Note: 1 Becquerel is one radioactive disintegration/emission per second emitted from a radioactive element/radionuclide).

RIFE-14 monitors food in the marine, coastal and terrestrial environment, covering food from both the sea and farms. RIFE-14 also records the impact and presence of the fall-out from Chernobyl.

Public consultation on new nuclear power station at Bradwell, Essex

The Dept. for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has recently held a public consultation, involving a public meeting, at Maldon in Essex in order to consider the proposed new nuclear power station at Bradwell, sited on the coast of the Blackwater estuary, Essex. The full transcript of this public meeting, covering both the issues raised by the audience and the replies by DECC officers, may be read here as a pdf file, and it is still possible for the public to contribute to this public consultation by writing to energynpsconsultation@opm.co.uk

Points of note made at the public meeting are:

1. The existing nuclear power station at Bradwell, now out of commission, produced 240 megawatts of electricity. The new nuclear power station will produce (depending on final design) between 1 and 1.6 gigawatts. In other words, it will be between four and six times larger.
2. In order to cool the new nuclear power station, it will have to take in around six million tonnes of water from the estuary every day and then discharge it back again into the estuary. It is known that this process of taking in cooling water from the estuary kills all the marine life drawn into the power station with the water i.e larvae of marine creatures, fish and shellfish eggs, zooplankton (microscopic animals), phytoplankton (microscopic plants) and so forth. At a rate of six million tonnes of water per day, this means that all the water in the estuary will go through the nuclear plant within the space of about 10 days. This is likely to have a profound effect on marine life in the estuary, and other creatures (wild birds) who live on this marine life and food chain.
3. The nuclear waste (spent fuel rods) from the new power station will be stored at the new power station. It is estimated that they could be stored there for up to 160 years as the whole national question of what to do with nuclear waste remains unresolved and, even if it is resolved in the near future, there is a large backlog of waste currently being stored at the existing nuclear power stations which would take priority in the transfer to a national waste respository.
4. A principal radioactive discharge from Bradwell into the environment (into the waters of the estuary) is in the form of Tritium which is an isotope of hydrogen (³H). Bradwell is an old Magnox type reactor which ceased electricity production in 2002. However, it still makes discharges of Tritium (a beta emitting radionuclide) into the waters of the estuary. In 2008 Bradwell discharged 20,000,000,000 Becquerels of Tritium (i.e 20 billion Bq or 20 GigaBecquerels) or into the estuary [Note: 1 Becquerel of radioactivity is one radioactive disintegration/emission of the isotope per second]. By comparison, a Magnox nuclear power station still producing electricity, such as Dungeness A, discharged to sea 90,000,000,000 Becquerels of Tritium in 2008 (source RIFE, 2008).

For further details about the campaign against a new nuclear power station at Bradwell, contact Mid Essex FOE (www.foe.co.uk/groups/midessex).

Lundy Island is first MCZ under new Marine Act

It has been announced by Natural England that Lundy Island, one of England's most spectacular marine habitats, has become England's first Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ).

The new Lundy Marine Conservation Zone will cover the same area as the former Marine Nature Reserve (and is being created by the automatic legal transition from MNR to MCZ). A timetable for developing conservation objectives, and for carrying out public consultation on them, is currently under consideration by the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). The existing management of the island's waters, including the No Take Zone, will remain in place unchanged.

The seas around Lundy are home to an impressive range of wildlife, such as grey seals, red band fish, crawfish and at least eight species of coral (which include pink sea fans, red sea fingers and sunset cup corals). Lundy is also the only place in the UK where five cup corals exist together. Its importance was recognised by its designation as a Marine Nature Reserve in 1986 and it was also designated as a Special Area of Conservation in 2000 in recognition of the significance of its special habitats, which include reefs, sea caves and sandbanks.

Lundy's designation accompanies a much wider project to identify and designate new MCZs elsewhere. Through an ambitious, nationwide initiative, the MCZ Project is inviting people who use and value the sea to recommend the locations of future MCZs. No other country in the world has attempted to engage so many people in developing plans for marine protection on such a large scale before.

There are currently four independent, stakeholder-led MCZ Projects — Balanced Seas (south-east), Finding Sanctuary (south-west), Irish Sea Conservation Zones (Irish Sea) and Net Gain (North Sea). Each regional project has a stakeholder group made up of representatives of sea users and interest groups, which will submit its recommendations for MCZs to Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) by June 2011. On receipt of these recommendations and any further advice provided by Natural England and JNCC, DEFRA will draft designation orders, and carry out a formal public consultation in early 2012. The aim is for DEFRA to complete the MCZ designations by December 2012.

Source: Natural England, 12th January 2010

10 new nuclear power stations proposed around English and Welsh coasts

The Government has approved 10 sites in England and Wales for new nuclear power stations, most of them on locations where there are already nuclear plants. In Scotland, where there are already two plants, the Scottish Government is saying that no new nuclear plants are needed.

The 10 sites deemed suitable for future nuclear plants are: Bradwell in Essex, Braystones, Kirksanton and Sellafield in Cumbria, Hartlepool in Cleveland, Heysham in Lancashire, Hinkley Point in Somerset, Oldbury in Gloucestershire, Sizewell in Suffolk and Wylfa in North Wales. The sites at Braystones and Kirksanton in Cumbria are in the locations where no nuclear plants exist at present.

These 10 new sites will now be considered for planning permission by the new national Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). It is expected that the IPC will consider some of these planning applications within the next twelve months so that the first new nuclear power stations can become operational from 2018 onwards.

Source: BBC News 9th November 2009

MARINET makes submission to EU Fisheries Reform public consultation

The EU has commenced a process which will lead to reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Up until now, the CFP has been determined by the Council of Ministers, with MEPs and the Parliament having no say in the matter. However, following the passing of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament is now a party in constitutional terms to the formulation of the Common Fisheries Policy. This means there there is now a wider democratic input, and the new Common Fisheries Policy will have to reflect the wishes of the European Parliament.

MARINET's submission to the European Commission has spelt out the issues very clearly, and has expressed concern that at present the Green Paper on CFP Reform appears neither to recognise fully the primacy of law over policy, nor the essential need for the reformed CFP to be firmly grounded in the ecosystem-based approach. Until both of these matters are fully incorporated into the CFP, any attempt at reform will fail and the serious decline in European commercial fish stocks (over 80% of commercial fish stocks are being overfished beyond their maximum sustainable yield, and 30% of these stocks are beyond their safe biological limit and thus in danger of permanent, irreversible collapse) will, disturbingly, remain unaddressed. The MARINET submission may be seen at www.marinet.org.uk/rocfp/greenpapersubmission.html.

Starfish and other marine animals are a major absorber of CO₂

Scientists publishing in ScienceDaily, 9th January 2010 believe that the impact on levels of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere by the decaying remains of a group of marine creatures that includes starfish and sea urchins has been significantly underestimated.

"Climate models must take this carbon sink into account," says Mario Lebrato, lead author of the study.

Globally, the seabed habitats occupy more than 300 million million square metres, from the intertidal flats and pools to the mightiest deep-sea trenches at 11,000 metres. The benthos — the animals living on and in the sediments — populate this vast ecosystem.

Calcifying organisms incorporate carbon directly from the seawater into their skeletons in the form of inorganic minerals such as calcium carbonate. This means that their bodies contain a substantial amount of inorganic carbon. When they die and sink, some of the inorganic carbon is remineralised, and much of it becomes buried in sediments, where it remains locked up indefinitely.

Lebrato and his colleagues provide the first estimation of the contributions of starfish, sea urchins, brittle stars, sea cucumbers and sea lilies — all kinds of echinoderm — to the calcium carbonate budget at the seabed. They estimate that the global production from all echinoderms is over a tenth (0.1) of a gigatonne of carbon per year — that is, more than a hundred thousand million kilograms.

This is less than the total biological production in the main water column, or pelagic zone, which scientists believe to be between around 0.6 and 1.8 gigatonnes of carbon per year. But echinoderms apparently deliver more carbon to the sediments than do forams, for example. These microscopic animals live in vast numbers in the oceans and are traditionally regarded along with coccolithophores (single-celled marine plants surrounded by calcium carbonate plates) as one of the biggest contributors to the flux of calcium carbonate from the sunlit surface waters to the ocean's interior — the so-called 'biological carbon pump'.

"Our research highlights the poor understanding of large-scale carbon processes associated with calcifying animals such as echinoderms and tackles some of the uncertainties in the oceanic calcium carbonate budget," says Lebrato: "The realisation that these creatures represent such a significant part of the ocean carbon sink needs to be taken into account in computer models of the biological pump and its effect on global climate."

There is a worry that ocean acidification due to increased carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels could reduce the amount of calcium carbonate incorporated into the skeletons of echinoderms and other calcifying organisms.

However, different echinoderm species respond to ocean acidification in different ways, and the effects of rising temperatures can be as significant as those of rising carbon dioxide. How this will affect the global carbon sink remains to be established.

Lebrato concludes: "The scientific community needs to reconsider the role of benthic processes in the marine calcium carbonate cycle. This is a crucial but understudied compartment of the global marine carbon cycle, which has been of key importance throughout Earth history and it is still at present."

The work was done by Mario Lebrato when he was at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton (NOCS) and affiliated with the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and Earth Science (SOES); he is now at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Science in Germany.

The joint authors are: Mario Lebrato (NOCS/SOES), Debora Iglesias-Rodríguez (NOCS/SOES), Richard Feely (Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle), Dana Greeley (NOCS/SOES), Daniel Jones (NOCS), Nadia Suarez-Bosche (NOCS/SOES), Richard Lampitt (NOCS), Joan Cartes (Institut de Ciències del Mar de Barcelona), Darryl Green (NOCS) and Belinda Alker (NOCS).

Source: ScienceDaily, 9th January 2010.

Mega-windfarm coming to offshore Norfolk

Approval is imminent for a £100 billion investment into third-generation windfarms that will include 1,000 turbines to be placed by Scottish Power and Sweden's state-owned Vattenfall 15 miles off the Norfolk coast. But construction of the massive project may not start until 2018.

The wider story is told by Stephen Pullinger in the Eastern Daily Press of 5th January '10 in an article entitled 'Off-shore wind farm plan heralded as green power step change'.

Marine Conservation Society launches voting campaign for MCZs

The Marine Conservation Society (MCS) has launched a new campaign on their website which seeks to ask the public to identify and vote for those sites which merit marine protected area (MPA) status.

MCS has identified 73 sites around the coasts of the UK, mostly in inshore waters, which they believe merit conservation protection. The public can view these sites, and their particular conservation merits, by visiting www.yourseasyourvoice.com. The public are also asked to identify sites that are not listed by MCS.

The sites are organised by region (North East England, South East England, Southern England, Channel Isles, South West England, Wales, North West England & Isle of Man, Northern Ireland, West Scotland, East Scotland), and may be viewed overall on a UK map.

For further details, contact MCS www.mcsuk.org.

New Briefing Note on Ocean uptake of CO₂

The UK Marine Climate Change Impacts Partnership (MCCIP) has produced a Briefing Paper which covers all the issues relating to the uptake of CO₂ by the oceans, and assesses the current state of scientific knowledge.

It is estimated that the oceans remove about a quarter of the atmospheric CO₂ emissions due to human activities. However there is some doubt as to whether the oceans will continue to possess this removal capacity as sea temperatures rise due to global warming. Also of concern is the increased acidification of the oceans due to the increased levels of CO₂ that are being absorbed. It is feared that increased acidity will impact on those creatures, many of which are very small and at the base of the marine food chain, which possess calcium carbonate shells. These shells are at risk of being dissolved by increased seawater acidity.

Source: www.mccip.org.uk/news/MCCIP_BriefingNote-Ocean_uptake_of_CO2.pdf

London Array offshore windfarm to start construction in early 2011

Partners in the London Array offshore windfarm, Thames estuary, have signed contracts worth almost €2bn to cover the first phase of construction. Work to install the first 630 megawatts of generating capacity is scheduled to start in early 2011.

A contract worth around €1bn was signed in May 2009 and will see Siemens Wind Power supply 175 turbines. In December 2009 a further five contracts were awarded for the construction of undersea foundations, offshore substations and transmission cables.

If approved, a second phase of the project will add more capacity to bring the total to 1 gigawatt (GW), according to project partners DONG Energy, E.ON and Masdar. This would make the London Array the world's largest offshore wind farm.

Meanwhile British energy regulator Ofgem has announced a shortlist of six firms vying for contracts to connect nine other planned offshore wind farms to the mainland. The contracts are worth over €1bn. The winners will be announced in May 2010.

Source : ENDS Europe, 14 December 2009.

New Marine SACs and SPAs announced by Natural England and JNCC

In connection with a public consultation lasting until 26th February 2010, Natural England, in conjunction with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) and the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW), has announced that a new raft of marine Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas for wild birds (SPAs) are to be created under the Natura 2000 Habitats Regulations (EU Habitats Directive).

10 new marine SACs and 2 new marine SPAs are to be created.

There are currently 81 SACs with marine components, covering 2% of the UK sea area. A list of the SACs and their qualifying marine features is available, see www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4658. 76 of these SACs are in inshore waters, 5 are in offshore waters. There are four marine habitats and four marine species present in UK waters offshore from the coast for which the European Commission has stated that SACs may be designated.

The marine habitats are:

• Sandbanks which are slightly covered by seawater all the time.
• Reefs
• Submarine structures made by leaking gases.
• Submerged or partially submerged sea caves.

The marine species are:

• Grey seal (Halichoerus grypus)
• Common seal (Phoca vitulina)
• Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)
• Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)

The 5 existing offshore marine SACs are:

• Braemar Pockmarks, North Sea (Submarine structures made by leaking gases)
• Scanner Pockmark, North Sea (Submarine structures made by leaking gases)
• Haig Fras, South West seas (Bedrock reef)
• Stanton Banks, West Scotland (Bedrock reef)
• Darwin Mounds, North Scotland (Reef)

The 12 new proposed marine SACs and SPAs are:

• Inner Dowsing, Race Bank and North Ridge, inshore and offshore waters of southern North Sea (Sandbanks which are slightly covered by seawater all the time)
• Haisborough, Hammond and Winterton, inshore and offshore waters of southern North Sea (Sandbanks which are slightly covered by seawater all the time)
• Margate and Long Sands, Thames Estuary (Sandbanks which are slightly covered by seawater all the time)
• Bassurelle Sandbank, offshore waters of Dover Strait (Sandbanks which are slightly covered by seawater all the time)
• Poole Bay to Lyme Bay Reefs, Dorset and Devon coast (Reefs)
• Prawle Point to Plymouth Sound and Eddystone, Devon coast (Reefs)
• Lizard Point, Cornwall (Reefs)
• Lands End and Cape Bank, Cornwall (Reefs)
• Shell Flat and Lune Deep, Morecambe Bay (Reefs and Sandbanks which are slightly covered by seawater all the time)
• North West Rockall Bank, off North West Scotland (Reefs and Harbour porpoise)
• Liverpool Bay (SPA)
• Outer Thames Estuary (SPA)

The offshore marine SACs are being identified by the UK Government in conjunction with their legal commitment under the OSPAR Convention (www.ospar.org) to create an ecologically coherent network of marine reserves by 2010. For the exact location of the existing and proposed UK marine SACs, see www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1455.

Full details about the existing and proposed new marine SACs (both inshore and offshore) and the proposed new SPAs can be obtained by visiting Natural England and Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

MARINET welcomes these new additions to the UK marine SAC and SPA network, both inshore and offshore. They are an essential improvement on the marine conservation network. However, these new and existing sites are entirely linked to the European Habitats Directive (four types of habitat: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by seawater all the time; Reefs; Submarine structures made by leaking gases; Submerged or partially submerged sea caves ) and take no account of the vast number of other types of marine habitat that exist, all of which are important and many of which are being severely damaged.

Therefore MARINET observes that it cannot be said by the UK Government that these new and existing marine SAC sites are representative of the marine ecosystem as a whole — a key characteristic required by the OSPAR Convention comittment to create an ecologically coherent network of marine reserves by 2010. In addition, it is not clear either how these new and existing marine SAC reserves are linked to each other in any coherent ecological manner to sustain the four different marine ecosystems which they are protecting.

Further, MARINET observes that none of these marine SACs are focused on fish species and commercial fish stocks which are under very severe pressure in all UK seas. MARINET observes that a network of marine SACs which takes no account of fish species and fish stocks — a key, dominant feature of the whole marine ecosystem — simply cannot be said to comply with the UK Government's OSPAR Convention commitment to create an ecologically coherent network of marine reserves by 2010.

Thus, whilst MARINET welcomes these new SACs and SPAs, it advises that we must be under no illusion as to the serious shortcomings that these actions represent when considering the urgent need to be creating and ecologically coherent network of marine reserves in order to protect the marine ecosystem as a whole throughout UK seas. These recently announced actions to create new SACs and SPAs fall woefully short of the real action which is required. Over 80% of European commercial fish stocks are being overfished at the present time, and 30% beyond their safe biological limit (see CFP Reform Green Paper).

These actions on SACs and SPAs will do little to address this urgent crisis.

Vulnerability of Sizewell

Despite our earlier warnings, the risk of erosion is now heightened at the Suffolk Sizewell nuclear power station plant as the government has given permission for further aggregate dredging offshore. See items on this concern at www.marinet.org.uk/mad.html.

It needs to be asked if the authorities are aware of Chapter 22 of Agenda 21 from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, adopted in 1992, a binding legal agreement which reaffirms the paramount importance of the safe and environmentally sound management of radioactive waste. This is a relevant Joint Convention legal document regarding consultation on Nuclear Power Stations and Justification. (see #32 of the DECC Document "The arrangements for the management and disposal of waste from new nuclear power stations: a summary of evidence" November 2009)

Section (c) states:
(that states should) "Not promote or allow the storage or disposal of high-level, intermediate-level and low-level radioactive wastes near the marine environment unless they determine that scientific evidence, consistent with the applicable internationally agreed principles and guidelines, shows that such storage or disposal poses no unacceptable risk to people and the marine environment or does not interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea, making, in the process of consideration, appropriate use of the concept of the precautionary approach".

A link to the Chapter in Agenda 21can be seen by visiting www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_22.shtml.

Correspondence with Anne McIntosh

MARINET wrote to Anne McIntosh, who has been Shadow Minister for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs since 8th September 2009, to express our concern of the ongoing impasse regarding continuing Offshore Aggregate Dredging. She in turn wrote to Huw Irranca Davies who is the existing Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in DEFRA.

The Ministers reply to her consisted of the usual output as regards dredging as seen earlier on our website, so a follow-up was sent to Anne McIntosh to cover our response to the content, some quotes and points of which our members might find useful when dealing with the matter.

The correspondence can be seen at www.marinet.org.uk/mad/annemcintosh09dec.html

Threatened Coast Dweller refuses 'handout'

A brave 65 year old lady who's three bedroom bungalow is now only a few metres from the eroding cliff face at Happisburgh has stated emphatically that she will refuse to vacate her home and will not take the thousands of pounds compensation offered to have it compulsory demolished.

She feels that it would be totally immoral of her to take any money at all, and says "I am worried that while the compensation issue is being fought, the idea of preserving the coastline, which I think is very important, is being lost."

The whole story by Ed Foss can be seen in the Eastern Daily Press of the 8th December '09 with the title 'I won't take erosion payout for my home'.

Starfish Deaths

Mass grave: More than 10,000 starfish died after a storm washed them onto Norfolk's Holkham beach

In the first few days of December '09 many tens of thousands of starfish, some alive, many damaged, but mostly dead, along with much shellfish debris, were washed up along a wide stretch of the north and north-west Norfolk coastline. The strong southerly gales had brought about a shorebound undertow bringing the corpses in to litter the beaches.

The knowledgeable mussel fishermen of the area were quick to blame Offshore Aggregate Dredging, whilst others blame the mussel fishermen themselves for scraping the seabed for mussels.

An Anglia TV video showing the carnage strewn along on just one Norfolk beach can be seen by going to: www.itv.com/anglia/starfishgraveyard15831 … whilst The Daily Mail reports the issue here.

Fuel from the seabed

Possible undersea coal burning scheme off Norfolk to provide synthetic gas fuel.

Rohan Courtney, who is Chairman of 'Clean Coal', a British-American company with a degree of expertise in Clean Coal Technology (CCT) and Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) speaks of plans to reintroduce that methodology by gently burning coal deposits under the seabed of North and North-East Norfolk and other UK coastal areas to produce a synthetic fuel gas that could be scrubbed and piped to customers. They are later seeking to develop other projects in Europe, Asia and North America.
The UCG system involves pumping a mixture of water and either air or oxygen into a coal seam, which is then ignited and gently burned to produce diesel fuel that can be used for transport, heating, aircraft fuels, fuel for power stations and even the basis for plastics and fertilizers. The technique was first invented by a canny Scotsman in Durham over one-hundred years ago. It was employed in the USSR in the 1970's, but has never been developed or used since until now, apart from in Australia. But now advances in drilling technology, depletion of coal and oil resources and rising gas and oil prices have brought about a revival here in the UK

The Government estimates that there are 50 billion tonnes of un-mineable coal reserves off and onshore, and that the five mentioned sites could provide one billion tonnes, enough to provide 5% of the nation's energy needs. The result is that undersea coal seams in offshore areas between Overstrand and Happisburgh (near Cromer), off Grimsby, Sunderland, Swansea and Dumfriesshire in Scotland will be initially explored using seismic survey techniques by the Clean Coal company to see if they are commercially viable, with the results known in about one years time from now. The site off Cromer is one of the five that have just been given licences for test drilling commencing in 2010, along with a prior public meeting to explain the project.

More information is to be found by going to www.cleancoalucg.com

In order to prepare a dossier for consultation at the coming public meeting, which Pat Gowen will attend o.b.o. MARINET and the NSAG, your comments, ideas, backing or criticisms of the plan are invited. Please send by e-mail to pat@marinet.co.uk or to pat.gowen@ntlworld.com.

Sea Drop?

BBC News Online's correspondent Damian Carrington reports a US geologist as stating that Global warming can lead to a dramatic fall in sea level:

This suggestion is the very opposite of the generally expected effect of rising temperature. And while he says that this is unlikely to happen in the near future, Dr John Bratton of the US Geological Survey says the process behind it could offset the sea level rises which are predicted to flood so many low-lying areas of the world. It could also explain mysterious plunges in sea level in warmer periods in the Earth's geological past.

The sea level drops could be caused by the melting of clathrates. These are sea-floor crystals of water ice and gases such as methane. When the crystals melt, the gas bubbles away to the surface and other gases trapped in the ocean sediments below could also be released. In the worst circumstances, the 'hole' left behind could result in a sea level drop of 25 metres but Dr Bratton told BBC News Online that his more conservative estimates suggest a drop of up to 1.5m.

"Any temperature rise will start to melt clathrate," he says. "The apparent massive hydrate melting about 60 million years ago was triggered by an increase in bottom water temperatures of about four degrees centigrade. Therefore, it appears that the process could get going with an increase of even one or two degrees, especially in the polar regions where gas hydrate is abundant". He reports that such is quite possible. but any actual drop in sea level would be countered by the simultaneous melting of the Earth's polar ice caps. The rising temperatures would also cause ocean waters to expand. Dr Bratton goes on to say that the predicted drop resulting from clathrate melting "is of the same order of magnitude as those associated with thermal expansion of the oceans, melting of non-polar ice and melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet."

If correct, this could be good news for threatened coastal areas, but, Dr Bratton warns that the release of methane, a greenhouse gas, to the atmosphere could itself have a significant effect in driving further climate warming. When asked if this is a worry, Dr Bratton says: "Yes, definitely, although not everyone agrees the effect would be that significant relative to anthropogenic forcing by carbon dioxide emissions. Almost everyone agrees that hydrates melt when climate warms. The debate is now about whether hydrates may actually drive natural climate warming or whether they just go along for the ride."

Dr Bratton's research is published in the journal Geology, so should not automatically be taken as being part of the conspiracy to dismiss global warming and attempting to debunk the results of reputable climatologists world-wide.

The full BBC report may be seen here.

Concern grows over oil storage tankers in UK coastal waters

Concern is growing over the number of oil tankers moored offshore. These tankers, which are essentially acting as offshore storage tanks, are being used in a monetary game of speculation involving the future selling price of oil in the UK. Concern arises out of the fear that these storage tankers could either come to grief in bad weather or, in the case of those tankers moored off the Suffolk coast where ship to ship transfer of oil is permitted, the possibility of an accident that leads to oil pollution of the coast.

We record below the news item printed in the Daily Mail in November and covered also by the online news service Sea Rates www.searates.com/news/4885.

"More than 50 oil tankers are anchored off Britain — pieces in a game in which the only winners are market speculators. The losers are the millions of British motorists paying over the odds for their petrol and diesel. After yesterday's report in the Daily Mail on how several so-called 'oil shark' tankers were moored near the Devon coast, dozens more vessels were revealed to be loitering off-shore.

"Some are carrying aircraft fuel or fuel for homes. Others are empty, waiting to be restocked before setting off around the globe. But according to industry experts, a significant number are 'oil sharks' — tankers that have been cynically told to wait for crude prices to be driven up before they unload their cargo. With values soaring on the international markets, fuel made from their oil is unlikely to appear on a petrol station forecourt any day soon.

"Paul Watters of the AA said: 'Tankers are off the UK coast and also off the U.S. They are acting as storage tanks. As always, motorists are the victims in this. They are at the end of the food chain.'

"The Daily Mail has learnt that 54 tankers are anchored around the British Isles. Six are off the Essex and Kent coasts, five are moored in Lyme Bay, while four are lurking next to the Isle of Wight. But the biggest fleet — around 30 ships — lies around ten miles from Southwold, Suffolk in the only waters around the UK where ship-to-ship transfers of oil are allowed. They come from as far afield as Malaysia, Liberia and Singapore — and include 1,000ft vessels capable of carrying more than 300,000 tons of oil.

"Southwold Tory councillor Simon Tobin said: 'There have been ship-to-ship transfers of oil going on off the coast here for around 15 years. But there began to be a huge increase in the number of these tankers around seven months ago. We are massively concerned. These tankers are treating the coast like a car park while they wait for the right time to take their oil to shore. There is nothing to stop them staying here as long as they like. There might be a catastrophic oil spillage which could ruin our beautiful coastline.'

"Small tankers bringing oil from Russia often use the spot to transfer their cargo to larger vessels. Others drop anchor there while waiting for business because it is cheaper than tying up in a port. The price of a barrel of oil has risen from $40 to $80 over the last year. It is expected to soar even further over the next few months as the world eases its way out of recession and demand rises.

"The supply of oil is strictly controlled by producers and owners — to ensure that prices remain as high as possible. In the course of its journey from wells to the refineries, a barrel of oil may be bought and sold by different traders many times on the international markets.

Source: Daily Mail 20 November 2009, and Sea Rates www.searates.com/news/4885.

Comment on the Westminster Offshore Dredging Debate

The much heralded Parliamentary debate on Offshore Dredging (see 'Graham Stuart MP has HoC debate on off-shore dredging' in our Latest News at www.marinet.org.uk/latestnews.html#gsmh) duly took place from 1.29 - 2.00 pm on Tuesday 1st December '09 at Westminster Hall. It was responded to by the DEFRA Minister, Huw Irranca-Davies and was attended by Great Yarmouth MP Tony Wright, but surprisingly not by Lowestoft's Bob Blizzard, North Norfolk's Norman Lamb, Suffolk Coastal's John Gummer, nor a number of other coastal constituency MPs who could and should have involved themselves in this major threat to the inhabitants they are supposed to represent.

MARINET was mentioned and quoted eight times in the space of 29 minutes (without the prefix of an explicative at that) which must be an all time record. It was further claimed by the Minister that he had "met MARINET representatives regularly about a range of issues" — yet the two requests by Pat Gowen to meet that Minister were both declined.

The entire half-hour transcription is to be found under 'Offshore Dredging' in the House of Commons Official Report Vol.501 No.8 on page 103, this some half way down the pages that may be read by going to www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/chan8.pdf.

Some comments produced in the debate leap out, such as:

"We do not contest the fact that poorly managed aggregate extraction from the marine environment could cause a range of physical impacts, which may ultimately contribute to coastal erosion. That is why all marine mineral dredging applications are required to assess by way of a coastal impact study the physical effects of the proposed operation and its implications for erosion"

… which coupled to a following statement…

"Modelling and field studies on the impact of individual offshore dredging licences, and their cumulative impacts, have concluded that UK offshore dredging has not contributed to coastal erosion."

… can be seen as an admittance that, despite the vital need of this measure already expressed by a number of astute scientific bodies, no empirical research has ever been put in place to back up the assumed simulative computer modelling by those performing the studies on behalf of and rewarded by the dredging companies.

To conclude that UK offshore dredging has not contributed to coastal erosion is purely an over-optimistic assumptive hope. To prove or disprove this hypothetical claim we would need see the institution of post dredging studies, because several years can result before beach draw down results, as to seen in the 'Correlations of Offshore Dredging levels with Coastal Losses' graph at the end of our briefing on this topic at www.marinet.org.uk/mad/madbrief.html.

Furthermore we would need the backing evidence of practical findings such as tracking the transport of labelled sand and gravel from the shoreline, beaches, dunes and sand cliffs to the dredged areas, which have never been attempted by those determining the post-dredging erosive impact, apart from the study instituted by Blackpool Council, who discovered that the sand being lost to their beach was going into the holds of the dredgers. (See AODA Report at www.marinet.org.uk/mad/objection/reapat1aoda.pdf)

These questions are currently not being considered by the MAREA study, despite our repeated requests that they be so.

And one other point — it was openly admitted that they take no heed of distance from the shoreline nor of the water of depth when granting licences. But we know from previous research that even at the current depth and beyond there is still considerable sediment movement, especially off the East Anglian coast where the tides are so strong, and even greater in surges. Many items lost on the beach have much later been trawled up by fishermen around the dredging areas.

Unless they have repealed Isaac Newton's Laws of gravity, the government Minister should recognise that we are fully aware (as given in the 'Sandpit Report' see www.marinet.org.uk/mad/sandpit.html) that any mobile material migrates from a high point to a lower, the lower points in this case being the evacuated pits left following dredging. These evacuated sea bed areas exist over vast areas off our coastlines. They are between three and five metres deep, but slowly filling.

The basic report on the replies and comments given by Huw Irranca-Davies would be 'Could do better' — much better in fact.

Norfolk and Suffolk Local Authorities Secure nearly 50% of National Fund Allocated to Manage Coastal Erosion

East Anglian local authorities North Norfolk, Waveney & Great Yarmouth have been awarded a total of £5m of a national fund of £11m allocated to address the penalties imposed upon those living by the coastline from accelerated erosion.
North Norfolk has been given £3m, Waveney £1.5m and Great Yarmouth £296.500, these authorities now have 18 months to spend these grants in this pilot study project.
The money will be used for compensation for people in selected areas who lose their homes to coastal erosion, or for government purchase and lease back options for threatened homes, relocating communities and coastal defence measures.
The selected Authorities will act as pathfinders for the UK government to test a range of measures and feed back lessons learnt to the government.

This is the first positive move by the Environment Agency/Government towards recognition of the problem created by accelerated coastal erosion along the Norfolk and Suffolk coastline since the introduction of the do nothing Shoreline Management Plan (SMP 3b) in 2005.
Although I (as many others) have campaigned that the EA/Government should provide adequate sea defences for all at risk areas instead of compensation, by introducing this part compensation and other measures pathfinder study grant they (the government) are finally admitting that we have a problem and it is great news that our three local authorities (North Norfolk, Waveney & Great Yarmouth) have been selected to receive a significant portion of these pathfinder grants.

It is morally correct that the government should compensate people who lose their homes if they do not provide or do not allow them to provide sea defences, and this is an encouraging first move by the government (their admission finally that we have a problem and that there must be a cause) — but we need to point out:
Although we are thankful for these pathfinder study grants and the governments final recognition of this problem we still need SMP3b amended from its policy of no active intervention or managed retreat for the majority of areas to a policy of full sea defence protection for all at risk areas.

We also recommend that these grants are spent on actual sea defence projects — not frittered away (as previous grants) on further reports by "so called experts" who are only lining their own pockets.

We also suggest that part of each Authority's grant should provide for an independent study (which is not part funded by the offshore dredging companies) on the affects of Offshore Aggregate dredging along the adjacent coastlines — as historic events, studies and evidence point to the removal of seabed material over large areas being the major contributory cause of our accelerated coastal erosion.

Mike King — Marinet Great Yarmouth and coastal home owner

Ocean acidification rates pose disaster for marine life, major study shows

Report launched from leading marine scientists at Copenhagen summit shows seas absorbing dangerous levels of CO₂

The world's oceans are becoming acidic at a faster rate than at any time in the last 55m years, threatening disaster for marine life and food supplies across the globe, delegates at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen have been warned.

A report by more than 100 of Europe's leading marine scientists, released at the climate talks this morning, states that the seas are absorbing dangerous levels of carbon dioxide as a direct result of human activity. This is already affecting marine species, for example by interfering with whale navigation and depleting planktonic species at the base of the food chain.

Ocean acidification — the facts says that acidity in the seas has increased 30% since the start of the industrial revolution. Many of the effects of this acidification are already irreversible and are expected to accelerate, according to the scientists.

The study, which is a massive review of existing scientific studies, warns that if CO₂ emissions continue unchecked many key parts of the marine environment — particularly coral reefs and the algae and plankton which are essential for fish such as herring and salmon — will be "severely affected" by 2050, leading to the extinction of some species.

The full article can be read at The Guardian 10th December 2009

IUCN urges politicians to recognise the importance of oceans in climate change

Failure to recognize the ocean in climate change discussions will have profound consequences for humanity, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in a report published 10th November 2009 and titled The Ocean and Climate Change — Tools and Guidelines for Action

The report has been published to help decision-makers understand the importance of the ocean in the global climate debate, and provides a comprehensive view of the mitigation and adaptation strategies available, as well as a clear set of action recommendations.

"Maintaining biodiversity and restoring degraded ecosystems are cost-effective strategies for disaster risk reduction and will help poor communities adapt to climate change while ensuring the continued provision of vital services," says Dorothée Herr, lead author of the report and IUCN's Global Marine Program Officer.

The ocean is the earth's most significant global heat buffer, and absorbs up to one third of the CO₂ released by human activities. The ocean covers over seventy percent of our planet's surface yet much less than one percent of the ocean is effectively protected. Marine ecosystems such as salt marshes, coral reefs and mangroves are among the most vulnerable to climate change, with millions of people relying on them for food, protection, tourism and development.

The report urges global leaders to significantly reduce CO₂ emissions and to set reduction targets based on the latest science on ocean acidification and marine ecosystems. The report welcomes the development of sustainable marine renewable energy sources and promotes the use of coastal ecosystems as natural carbon sinks. The report however also carries an important warning to world leaders:

"We should explore all possible ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," says Carl Gustaf Lundin, Head of IUCN Global Marine Programme. "But proposed actions such as ocean fertilization to increase carbon capture and storage need to be approached with caution as the possible impacts on the atmosphere and marine biodiversity may be severe and have not been fully evaluated."

The full report is available here.

Coastal carbon sinks disappearing faster than the Amazon rainforest

Coastal areas in the form of salt marshes, mangrove swamps, kelp forests and eelgrass beds are vital providers of "carbon sinks", and yet it is reported that worldwide these habitats are currently shrinking faster than the Amazon rainforest.

In a report published on 17th November 2009 by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), scientists have sounded the alarm over the threats faced by coastal marine ecosystems — such as tidal salt marshes, seagrass meadows, kelp forests and mangroves — which are key tools in combating climate change. Part-funded by Natural England, the Lighthouse Foundation and the UNEP, the IUCN report 'The Management of Natural Coastal Carbon Sinks' looks at a range of global options for carbon management around the world's coastlines.

Dr Helen Phillips, Chief Executive of Natural England, said: "The role of forests and peatlands in helping to prevent carbon entering the atmosphere is widely recognised, but it is crucial not to overlook our coastal habitats, which can have just as much impact in helping limit climate change. Many of these coastal habitats, like tidal salt marshes, are under significant threat from development and rising sea levels, and urgent action is needed to prevent further damage to their essential carbon storage role. Natural England welcomes this compelling and timely research from the IUCN, which provides vital information on how these coastal carbon sinks work and why it is so important to preserve them."

The report highlights the wide-ranging benefits that coastal habitats provide and also the increasing threats that they face. For example, the loss of two-thirds of seagrass meadows and 50 per cent of mangrove forests due to human activities has severely threatened their carbon storage capacity and is comparable to the annual decline in the Amazon forests.

Natural England's Professor Dan Laffoley, lead author of the report and also Marine Vice-Chair of IUCN's World Commission on Protected Areas, said: "Over the past two years we have worked with a range of leading scientists to document the carbon management potential of particular marine ecosystems and understand how they can be successfully managed. Until now, surprisingly little attention has been paid to the ocean and its habitats, despite the fact that they form a critical part of the carbon cycle and one of the largest sinks of carbon on the planet. We cannot afford to ignore their potential."

The report is titled "The Management of Natural Coastal Carbon Sinks", is edited by Dan Laffoley and Gabriel Grimsditch, and is viewable here.

Appointments made to the independent Science Advisory Panel for the selection of MCZs

In order to assist in the selection of the the Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) which will be created as a result of the new Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, the selection procedure will be superintended and guided by a panel of experts — the Science Advisory Panel. The appointments to this Panel were announced by Natural England on 1st December.

The News Release from Natural England states:

"One of the first steps the Government has taken under the Marine and Coastal Access Act is the creation of an independent Science Advisory Panel to assist the work to select Marine Conservation Zones.

"Dr Peter Ryder has been appointed as Chairman, and he is joined by a panel of world-leading marine experts. A physicist who has worked primarily in the fields of operational meteorology, and oceanography, Dr Ryder is a former Deputy Chief Executive and Director of Operations of the Met Office, where he spent most of his career. He has extensive experience in chairing executive and advisory committees.

"Dr Ryder said "I am delighted to have been appointed as chairman of this Panel by the Secretary of State, Hilary Benn, and I am strongly motivated to make a success of our collective efforts. We are privileged to be able to help construct and promote strong scientific foundations for an effective network of Marine Protected Areas."

"James Marsden, Director Marine for Natural England, said: "Today's appointment is excellent news and means that work can now begin in earnest to develop proposals for Marine Conservation Zones, which will contribute to an ecologically coherent network of Marine Protected Areas in English waters. The Science Advisory Panel's shared knowledge and expertise is formidable and will ensure that this ambitious, stakeholder-led process is informed by the best available evidence and meets key scientific criteria."

"Four regional projects led by local people with an interest in the use of our seas have been set up to select potential MCZ sites. Finding Sanctuary in the South West was the first of the regional projects to be established.

"The Marine Conservation Zone Science Advisory Panel is an independent body which has been established to support the four regional projects in the MCZ selection process by offering objective scientific assessment of site proposals, and independent advice to Ministers. Panel members have been drawn from a diverse range of marine scientific disciplines in order to ensure a balanced and comprehensive skill set.

The Panel members are:

Professor Juliet Brodie (Natural History Museum, London)
Professor Brodie is a marine algae specialist, and she has extensive knowledge of the taxonomy, distribution and importance of algae and the activities which impact upon it. She has over 25 years experience as a marine scientist, and her work has included the identification of sites of importance for seaweed and other algae.

Professor Michael Elliott (University of Hull)
Specialising in estuary and coastal science and management, Professor Elliott has worked for 35 years as a marine scientist. He has been involved in many initiatives in the marine field both in the UK and elsewhere during this time, providing advice to many organisations, agencies and government departments, particularly regarding the environmental effects of coastal and estuarine activities and the management of those impacts.

Dr. Jason Hall-Spencer (University of Plymouth)
Dr Hall-Spencer is a lecturer in marine biology at the University of Plymouth, with a strong track record in providing input to the selection of MPAs, particularly in areas beyond 12 nautical miles from the coast. He also has personal experience of working on fishing vessels throughout Europe and a history of working within coastal communities.

Dr. Keith Hiscock (Marine Biological Association, Plymouth)
Four decades of marine biological survey and of using science to support conservation have given Dr Hiscock a wealth of knowledge relevant to the work of the SAP. After leading programmes within the nature conservation agencies, he established the Marine Life Information Network at the Marine Biological Association in 1998 and is now an Associate Fellow there.

Professor Michel Kaiser (University of Bangor)
Professor Kaiser has undertaken world-leading research to understand human impacts on the marine environment and the consequences of different management strategies. He has focussed on sustainable fisheries and aquaculture issues, and has held a number of influential positions, including chair of Defra's Marine Fisheries Stakeholder Forum.

Professor Callum Roberts (University of York)
Professor Roberts is well-recognised as one of the key scientific contributors to the film The End of the Line. He has extensive experience in the science and establishment of MPAs and networks around the world. He is author of The Unnatural History of the Sea, an account of the effects of 1000 years of fishing and hunting on marine life. He currently lectures at the University of York.

Dr. Beth Scott (University of Aberdeen)
Dr. Scott's academic career as a marine ecologist includes several years working onboard fishing vessels in Alaskan waters. Her research focuses on functional linkages between bio-physical oceanographic processes, flexible life history traits and population dynamics of fish and seabird species. Her work is helping to identify critical marine habitats where predators and prey species interact.

Professor Graham Underwood (University of Essex)
Professor Underwood has research experience across a range of disciplines within the marine area, and he specialises in estuarine and coastal systems, especially the ecology and functioning of mudflats, sandflats and salt marshes. He is also a regular contributor to BBC Radio 4's environment programme Home Planet.

Source: Natural England News release, 1st December 2009.

Graham Stuart MP has HoC debate on off-shore dredging

MP for Beverley and Holderness, Graham Stuart, was granted an adjournment debate in the House of Commons on 1st December calling for the Government to consider commissioning a study of the potential impacts of off-shore dredging on the Holderness coast.

He said that he has constituents convinced that the rate of erosion along the Holderness coast is made worse by the dredging of gravel from areas out to sea. He said "The experts I have spoken to suggest that there is no evidence for this. They also emphasise that each dredging application needs to be looked at on its merits. I hope the Government will agree with me that it is important to ensure that any impacts from dredging are understood and that any public fears are allayed."

Fears that new nuclear power station will destroy oyster fishery

There is concern, expressed in the Colchester Daily Gazette that a new nuclear power station at Bradwell, in the Blackwater Estuary, Essex, could destroy parts of Colchester's native oyster fishery which has been renowned since Roman times.

This concern is based on the practice of nuclear power stations releasing large quantities of warmed "cooling water" into the estuary which alters the aquatic ecology, making it inhospitable to oysters; and, the fact that this scenario did actually occur with the old nuclear power station at Bradwell (now closed), with the oyster fishery only recovering once the discharges of water from the nuclear power station had ceased. In the case of the new nuclear power station it is said that 72,000 cubic litres of water will be pumped in and out of the Blackwater Estuary every second, more than twice the volume of the old Bradwell nuclear power station.

We reproduce the full report from the Daily Gazette below:

"Fears have been raised that Colchester's world-famous oyster beds could be decimated if a new nuclear power station is built at Bradwell. Last month, the Government earmarked Bradwell as one of 11 potential sites for a new nuclear power station.
"To cool the new generation of stations, 72,000 cubic litres of water would be pumped in and out of the Blackwater Estuary every second — more than twice the volume needed at the old Bradwell power station. And campaigners believe the warm water pumped back could wipe out some sections of Colchester's native oysters, beloved since Roman times.
"Alan Bird, a Mersea oyster fisherman for 45 years, said the shore and seabeds along the Bradwell coast became barren in the late Sixties, more than a decade after the original nuclear station opened. But within a few months of the nuclear facility being decommissioned in 2002, the coastline began to regenerate.

"I have major concerns about a new power station that will pump much more volume than the old one," Mr Bird said. "I would say a year after it closed, we could see the beginnings of new life, and now we have a nice population along that shore. The suction pipe is going to suck in so much oyster larvae, I have grave doubts for the fishery."
"Prof Graham Underwood, professor of ecology at Essex University, said native oysters, such as the famous Colchester variety, would be particularly affected by changes in the estuary's environment. He said research was inconclusive, but the onus was on those bidding to open another nuclear plant to prove their case. "It's up to the developers to show there will be no impact, not for the people who live around there to prove against them. The people of both sides of Mersea have invested many, many years of building these fisheries up and establishing them. In the absence of good studies it's just not known what the impact would be."
"The Government's Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science is set to commission research on the effects new water intake pipes would have on oyster stock.
"Concerns about the future of oysters was one issue raised at a meeting of Colchester Council's strategic overview and scrutiny panel. A group tasked with looking into the potential effects of a new station at Bradwell on the borough found the economic benefits of more jobs would be minimal.
"Other worries raised included the potential effects of climate change, how residents on an island would be evacuated if there was a disaster, and research suggesting young children living near power stations may be more susceptible to leukaemia."

Source: Colchester Daily Gazette, 7th May 2009

Highly Protected marine reserves are absent from the UK Marine Bill

MARINET has campaigned and lobbied throughout the parliamentary passage of the Marine and Coastal Access Act for the inclusion of highly protected marine reserves (HPMRs) within the text of the legislation, but the UK Government has failed to deliver this important marine management tool which is widely recognised by marine experts and scientists worldwide as one of the most important features of the ecosystem-based approach to marine management.

MARINET has written a report on the parliamentary campaign, and this may now be accessed on MARINET's marine reserves webpage at www.marinet.org.uk/mreserves/hpmr.html.

Scottish Green Party contests the shooting of seals

It is reported by BBC News, 2nd December 2009, that the Scottish Parliament has been debating the shooting of pregnant seals in Scottish waters, with particular reference to the welfare of the young of those female seals have pupped and in the context of the Scottish version of the Marine Bill which is passing through the Scottish Parliament at the present time.

"There is no evidence pregnant seals are being shot in large numbers, according to the Scottish Government.

"Green MSP Robin Harper had tabled an amendment to the new Marine (Scotland) Bill seeking a ban on shooting the mammals during breeding seasons. The animals can be killed on licence if deemed to be a threat to a fish farm by eating the stock, or damaging nets. Environment Secretary Richard Lochhead said he a duty to protect businesses and seals. Mr Harper withdrew the amendment at the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee stage of the Bill's passage through the Scottish Parliament. Mr Lochhead said if breeding seals were being targeted then he would bring in restrictions.

"Current rules allow the mammals to be shot by licensed individuals to stop damage to fish farm cages. The Greens' call for killings only to happen outside the breeding season had been backed by naturalist Terry Nutkins and Queen guitarist Brian May.

"Earlier, Mr Harper said the new bill could potentially be one of the parliament's "finest hours", but would need to include rigorous protection for wildlife. He said: "It can no longer be acceptable to shoot seals that are nurturing their young. It is wrong to kill nursing mammals, leaving the pups to try to survive alone when they are vulnerable and defenceless."

"John Hermse, of Mallaig and North-West Fishermen's Association, said seals could "devastate" some fish catches but added that his organisation was not seeking a cull. He said: "We don't need them culled, although we would like to see seal management. What we would like is management through contraceptive darts which are freely available nowadays and a modern way of managing seal numbers."

"Last year, Mr Harper claimed an emergency ban on the shooting of common seals was needed to halt an "alarming" drop in their population. At the time he said studies had revealed between 3,000 and 5,000 of the seals were shot each year. He called for the Scottish Government to ban the practice and bolster seal protection in its new Bill. The Government said it believed fewer than 1,000 seals were shot annually.

"Meanwhile, the Greens also asked for a marine litter strategy to be drawn up in an effort to tackle the amount of rubbish ending up in the sea, on the seabed and along coastlines. The Scottish Green Party said the waste was a risk to the environment and navigational safety."

Source: BBC Online News, 2nd December 2009.

DEFRA's Compensation to erosion impacted communities

DEFRA have just awarded £4.8m to help offset the financial losses imposed upon those threatened with loss of their properties due to erosion in Norfolk and Suffolk from a total sum of £11m. North Norfolk has been given £3m, Waveney £1.5m and Great Yarmouth £296,500. After those sums granted to North Norfolk and Waveney, the next largest handout was East Riding in Yorkshire for whom £1.2m was made available.

The money is intended to go towards a number of central themes, which include purchasing a small number of cliff top homes immediately threatened, then demolishing them, offering a 'purchase and lease back' option to owners of another set of homes not so immediately vulnerable, to tidying up those areas that have become derelict because of erosion, to business investment retention on the coast and to the relocation of threatened businesses and retention or replacement of vulnerable infrastructure.

Whilst this new measure may help placate many of those previously facing loss of their homes, no mention is made of any alteration of the government's defeatist 'Managed Retreat' policy nor of any attempt to terminate the impact of offshore dredging which is the main cause of the problem.

The fully detailed story can be seen by reading the Eastern Daily Press articles 'Millions awarded to coastal communities' and 'Multi-million pound drive to fight coastal erosion' by Ed Foss.

Update on coastal protection

Steve Hayman, East Anglian EA Coastal Engineer, reports that the sea defence works at Felixstowe were completed in October with the pipeline now moved to Jaywick, where work had been started with beach recharge and breakwater construction, due to be completed by the end of December.

Eccles to Winterton rock delivery and beach recharge works were also due to be completed by the end December, whilst the contract for sea defence works at Bawdsey, Suffolk, involving the installation of rock had been finalised.

For 2009 the annual campaign for the Lincolnshire coast with a requirement for 200,000 cubic metres of rock was planned to commence in April.

Gravel Seeding Sea Bed Restoration?

The DEFRA website should soon show the full details of a now completed project that could point the way to restoring sites devastated of bed life due to aggregate dredging. Simply, The purpose of the project was to set up a field trial to investigate the potential for gravel seeding as a means of restoring sediment composition in areas where dredging has resulted in an overburden of fine sediments.

Specific objectives were to determine whether:

1. it is practically feasible to perform gravel seeding at a relinquished aggregate extraction site,
2. whether the technique results in sediments more physically similar to that of non-impacted gravelly habitats in the wider environment, … and
3. whether the technique results in the return of more gravelly fauna.

Zone 2, within aggregate extraction Area 408 (offshore Humber), was chosen as the experimental site as there was some evidence for persistence of sand which may have resulted from screening operations at this site. Two 4000 tonne cargoes were dredged, using a commercial suction hopper trailer dredger, from within an active zone of Area 408 and deposited within the 'treatment' box.

Prior to deposition, a baseline survey using a combination of acoustic tools and grab sampling was undertaken. This survey was followed up, post deposition by a further three surveys.

Results showed that a commercial dredger, typical of those operating at extraction Area 408, could be used to undertake gravel seeding. Results also indicated that the technique was successful in increasing the proportion of gravel exposed at the seabed surface. The increase in gravel led to the establishment of a faunal community more similar to that of local gravel dominated reference sites. Although results suggest gravel seeding could be used for restoration, further work is required to assess the long-term success of the technique.

Dredging Areas Update

The minutes of the most recent East Coast Dredging / Fishing Liasion Committee Meeting show that Laura Tolhurst produced information on the status of the current main dredging areas, advising that :-

(1) Dredging Sites:-

• Area 202 - Pre-application advice sought, MFA awaiting payment of fee and scoping pack
• Area 447 - dredging commenced on 30th April
• Area 401/2 off the Norfolk Coast (Hanson) — Sab Spin report submitted and exclusion zones agreed in line with GV
• Area 254 Cross sands (UMD) — 5 yr review submitted in line with GV
• Area 480 East of Humber (Hanson) — Dredging permission granted 12 May. No update
• Area 481 Inner Dowsing — Permission due to be granted shortly
• Area 466 and 485 Dogger Bank (Cemex) — Applications about to move to final stage, possible issues with SAC designation. No change
• Area 484 and 483 Humber DEME (submitted as Dredging International) — Application on hold. No change
• Area 452 Shipwash Gabbard (Cemex) — Application planned 2011. No update
• Area 448 and 449 New Sand Hole and Humber Estuary (Cemex) — Anticipate moving into final stage winter 2008
• Area 400 North Dowsing (Hanson) — On hold. No change
• Area 439 Inner Dowsing mk2 (Hanson) — Application planned but not begunArea 430 East of Southwold (UMD- CEMEX) — Pre-application advice sought, fee received. Draft ES received, meeting to be held to discuss

(2) Prospecting sites:-

Prospecting licences have been issued for Area 498 North Inner Gabbard (BrittaniaWolker), Area 504 North Falls (Hanson) and Area 501 North Falls East (WGL), which for the latter CE WGL has begun a six week consultation exercise from 15th April.

EU backs CO₂ storage change to OSPAR treaty

Member states of the European Union will shortly endorse amendments to the OSPAR Convention on the Protection of the North East Atlantic Ocean which are designed to legalise the undersea geological storage of carbon dioxide.

These changes reflect an agreement reached in 2007 by the 15 European countries who are party to the OSPAR Convention plus the EU. The text, based on a European Commission proposal, is expected to be be rubber-stamped by Justice Ministers. It will be ratified by OSPAR signatories in September 2010.

The text of the decision by the Council of the European Union may be seen here.

Scientists say Arctic sea-ice melt and sea levels rises are accelerating beyond forecasts

A collection of international scientists have written a report in advance of the Copenhagen Conference on climate change which asserts that global warming trends and effects are accelerating beyond recent forecasts and expectations. In the Press Release on the report, it is stated:

"Global ice-sheets are melting at an increased rate; Arctic sea-ice is disappearing much faster than recently projected, and future sea-level rise is now expected to be much higher than previously forecast, according to a new global scientific synthesis prepared by some of the world's top climate scientists.

"In a special report called 'The Copenhagen Diagnosis', the 26 researchers, most of whom are authors of published IPCC reports, conclude that several important aspects of climate change are occurring at the high end or even beyond the expectations of only a few years ago.

"The report also notes that global warming continues to track early IPCC projections based on greenhouse gas increases. Without significant mitigation, the report says global mean warming could reach as high as 7 degrees Celsius by 2100.

"The Copenhagen Diagnosis, which was a year in the making, documents the key findings in climate change science since the publication of the landmark Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report in 2007.

"The new evidence to have emerged includes:

• Satellite and direct measurements now demonstrate that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass and contributing to sea level rise at an increasing rate.
• Arctic sea-ice has melted far beyond the expectations of climate models. For example, the area of summer sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40% greater than the average projection from the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
• Sea level has risen more than 5 centimetres over the past 15 years, about 80% higher than IPCC projections from 2001. Accounting for ice-sheets and glaciers, global sea-level rise may exceed 1 metre by 2100, with a rise of up to 2 metres considered an upper limit by this time. This is much higher than previously projected by the IPCC. Furthermore, beyond 2100, sea level rise of several metres must be expected over the next few centuries.
• In 2008 carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels were ∼40% higher than those in 1990. Even if emissions do not grow beyond today's levels, within just 20 years the world will have used up the allowable emissions to have a reasonable chance of limiting warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius.

"The report concludes that global emissions must peak then decline rapidly within the next five to ten years for the world to have a reasonable chance of avoiding the very worst impacts of climate change.

"To stabilise climate, global emissions of carbon dioxide and other long-lived greenhouse gases need to reach near-zero well within this century, the report states."

The full report is available at www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/download/default.html.

'Cliffhanger' — the ethical and social impact of erosion

'Cliffhanger — A Story of Coastal Erosion', a very moving film of the appalling impact of offshore dredging and managed retreat imposed upon a rural coastal community can be seen here.

Lowestoft's disappearing beaches

Lowestoft, like it's neighbouring resorts, is now rapidly losing its famous holiday beaches. They may well disappear completely this coming Winter, and may well not restore afterwards. However, they will not be replenished by Waveney District Council despite many concerned complaints. The Council spokesman is quoted as saying "The council does not plan to undertake works, or replenish the beach, however monitoring will continue and management measures will be reviewed.

Perhaps this result could be seen as poetic justice, as Waveney District Council is the only local Council who has not once objected to the granting of offshore aggregate dredging licences. That lack of awareness allowing the loss of their holiday beaches could cost them dearly in tourist income, upon which the local economy is highly dependent.

Instead of preventative or curative action they have issued a warning to the public advising them not to attempt to enter large parts of the beach that have now been closed on grounds of public safety.

Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for Norfolk?

Although somewhat speculative, some thought is now being given to establishing three marine conservation areas offshore to Norfolk and Suffolk, these forming part of the twelve currently being considered for the whole of the UK. Such areas must be identified to meet the requirements of two major European directives seeking to provide a network of protected areas for threatened wildlife and habitats.

The East Anglian offshore areas being considered comprise the Inner Dowsing, Race Bank and North Ridge area of the Outer Wash, selected as possible Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) in order to protect biodiversity, as this area is renowned for its sandbanks and Ross Worm reefs. Off north-east Norfolk, the Happisburgh, Hammod and Winterton sandbanks could gain the same protection whilst areas off Great Yarmouth's down to the south could become part of an Outer Thames Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA).

Whilst the Wildlife Trusts welcomed the proposals, Natural England and the JNCC pointed out that they 'are mindful that the sites could impact on marine industries like fishing, wind farms, sand and gravel extraction and the oil and gas industries'.

Feedback over the next three months ahead of the proposals will be submitted to government, after which Ministers will consider the plans and decide which recommendations to submit to the European Commission in August 2010 for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network.

Details of the proposals can be viewed on Natural England's website at www.naturalengland.org.uk whilst formal comment can be made by sending an e-mail to natura2000.consultation@naturalengland.org.uk.

NGOs claim marine conservation zones will protect and save Britain's marine wildlife

In an article in The Observer 8th November 2009 several marine NGO state their belief that the forthcoming passage of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill into law will result in protection and a rebuilding of populations of many of Britain's marine species currently under threat from a variety of activities, including fishing.

In the article Joan Edwards, Head of Marine Policy at The Wildlife Trusts, is quoted: "The Marine and Coastal Access Bill, if effectively implemented, will provide the chance to conserve the thousands of species which inhabit UK waters."

MARINET is less certain. This is because the key instrument for protecting species and habitats, and for rebuilding commercial fish stocks and damaged marine ecosystems, is missing from the Act. This instrument is highly protected marine areas where the primary purpose is to protect the marine ecosystem as a whole within a reserve's boundaries. This marine management instrument is widely used by other maritime countries around the world in order to protect and rebuild marine biodiversity, and its use has been recommended to the UK Government by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in their 25th report. The UK Government says it believes in the use of highly protected areas, but has failed to include this marine management instrument in the text of the new law.

MARINET, working with Katy Clark, MP for North Ayrshire and Arran, tabled an amendment to the Report Stage of the Marine Bill and Coastal Access Bill in the House of Commons on 26th October 2009. This amendment sought to make the protection of the marine ecosystem as a whole a ground for designating a marine conservation zone (MCZ), in addition to the reasons of protecting marine flora and fauna, marine habitats or types of marine habitat, and features of geological or geomorphological interest which are already cited by the Government as grounds for designating a MCZ.

Despite a filibuster, the amendment was debated and voted upon. The Conservative and Liberal Democrat front benches decided to support the amendment, as did a number of Labour backbench MPs. This compelled the Government to use its Whip in order to refuse the amendment by 158 to 246 votes. A tactical victory for the Government (who say that, in fact, they do believe in highly protected MCZs, whilst excluding them from the Act), but a resounding moral victory for all the MPs and campaigners throughout the country who believe that highly protected marine reserves are essential.

Therefore, MARINET observes, the campaign for highly protected marine reserves continues and the task now will be to hold the Government to "its belief in highly protected MCZs" as the network of MCZs in UK seas is identified over the next two years.

The full text of the Hansard report of the House of Commons Report Stage on 26th October 2009 can be viewed here.

Hull University Report opposing Offshore Aggregate Dredging

Fearing similar results to those wreaked upon our East Anglian seabed and coastline by offshore aggregate dredging, 'Filey Against Dredging' commissioned a report, at a cost said to be £20,000, by the Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies at the University of Hull on the consequences and likely outcome of a licence being granted to dredge offshore to Filey.

The December 1991 report was financed by Filey Town Council, added to by voluntary donations from local businesses, organisations and individuals and was supported by the World Wide Fund for Nature UK. It was compiled by the IECS members Dr. M. Elliott, Dr. N. V. Jones, Dr. D. S. Lewis, Dr. J. S. Pethick and Mr. D. G. Symes, with the technical assistance of M. P. Atkinson, C. R. Brickle, N. D. Cutts, S. C. Jacques, D. A. Meakin, B. J. Murphy and C. M. Stapleton and with additional information supplied by Dr. B. Denness, Bureau of Applied Sciences, Isle of Wight, and Dr. J. Hardisty, Unico GeoSystems Ltd., University of Hull with the help of Professor S. J. Lockwood.

Thus the result, the 'Filey Bay Environmental Statement' (© Copyright Filey Against Dredging — all rights reserved) was an independent report from then expert coastal geomorphologists, fishery experts, etc. uncompromised by being dependent upon funding from those dredging organisations who identify, appoint and pay those they select to perform the Environmental Impact Assessments that are accepted by the licensing bodies without any second opinion being permitted.

It is a very long and detailed comprehensive report containing much valuable well researched information, which has a powerful message for those who unhesitatingly accept the assurances constantly given by those supporting the continuity of the exploitation of our offshore seabed.

It serves as an example to local councils faced with similar threats, by showing that the costs of a truly independent assessment are possible, and that the cost involved would undoubtedly be far less than that of the consequences of not doing so.

The report is to be found by visiting www.filey.org.uk/fbes.pdf.

Wish you were here?… preserving America's Beaches

A coastal conference brought leading experts together for the betterment of America's beaches, when coastal experts from around the U.S. gathered to advance the cause of preserving America's shorelines at the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association's (ASBPA) National Coastal Conference on St. Pete Beach at Fort Myers, Florida.

The conference, entitled "Integrating Coastal Science and Policy," was held Oct. 14-16th '09 at the Tradewinds Islands Grande Resort on St. Pete Beach, attended by many delegates over a wide area. The programme included educating attendees on current coastal issues facing the nation, and included a half-day guided field trip with participants travelling by coach and boat for a tour of Treasure Island and Long Key (St. Pete Beach), both segments of the Pinellas County federal shore protection project.

For more information visit www.asbpa.org/conferences/conf_fall_09.htm

New Hope for Norfolk's marine habitat?

The article 'New legal protection for the region's coastline' by Ed Foss in the EDP tells how the marine conservation areas content of the Marine Bill appears to have been widely welcomed by Norfolk Wildlife Trust after ten years of campaigning, both by them and many other conservation organisations, not least MARINET.

Wildlife heads hailed a new dawn of legal protection for the region's "magnificent" marine species and habitats, which up to now have been poorly safeguarded. Norfolk Wildlife Trust Director Brendan Joyce said "Our seas are home to over 44,000 different animals and plants, many of which are declining, and yet until now there has been little protection for marine habitats and species. In Norfolk, coastal waters are important for much wildlife, including common scoters and red-throated divers in winter time. Norfolk's marine wildlife is magnificent, but for most marine species living just offshore, there has been both a lack of public awareness and little protection for even endangered species".

Unmanaged Retreat

The loss of the nudist beach at Corton was described in December 2008 in our Latest News section under 'Nudists Feeling the Pinch'. Since then the sea wall has collapsed, and in mid-October '09 Waveney District Council had to take steps to prevent people from walking on the cliff top above the failure site due to the danger of cliff face collapse.

The full story of the latest happening can be seen under 'Sea wall collapses near Lowestoft', an item in the 20th October '09 Eastern Evening News written by Hayley Mace.

Threat of another oil spill off East Anglia

The prospect of another huge oil spill decimating the Suffolk, Essex and Norfolk coastline due to many massive oil tankers 'parked' off the north Suffolk coast serially transferring Russian oil to maintain the price, raised fear of another catastrophe (see www.marinet.org.uk/regional/stst.html )
In the Eastern Daily Press of 17th November '09 Stephen Pullinger wrote "Ship-to-ship oil transfers off Suffolk set to be banned".
His article reads:

Ship-to-ship oil transfers off the north Suffolk coast, which have raised fears of pollution, could be banned before Christmas. Suffolk Coastal MP John Gummer, who has championed a local campaign to stop the practice, said he had received a personal commitment from secretary of state for transport Lord Adonis that the government would move fast to use its powers to stop transfers in UK waters.

The sea between Lowestoft and Southwold has become a favoured place for small tankers bringing oil from Russia to transfer their cargo to larger vessels unable to negotiate the Baltic Sea. In recent months, more than 30 tankers at a time have been anchored off the Suffolk coast. While local businesses such as hotels, bed and breakfasts, shops and taxis have welcomed the increase in trade from crew members coming ashore, an environmental lobby spearheaded by Mr Gummer and Waveney MP Bob Blizzard has highlighted the potential risks.

Mr Gummer said: "If you want to unload oil in a port, you have to observe proper environmental practices, and yet out to sea, where it is potentially much rougher and a far less safe environment, there are not the same rules. There is a real possibility of pollution along a stretch of coast, which includes Southwold and Aldeburgh, where a lot of people make their living from tourism." He acknowledged the boost to the local economy but said that would be the case if they came into port to transfer oil in a regulated way. Mr Gummer said he hoped the ban in oil transfers would also help to reduce the number of ships using the area as a parking place as even cleaning out tanks and cleaning decks posed a risk of pollution.

A spokesman for the Department for Transport said: "Ship-to-ship transfer operations have been common in UK waters for many years, with an excellent safety record both in terms of potential accidents and the impact on the environment. But, we have long said we are keen to ensure such operations are man-aged appropriately, which is why the Maritime and Coastguard Agency consulted on proposals last summer to regulate this practice. These proposals are under consideration."

A Flood Barrier for Great Yarmouth?

Yarmouth flood barrier plans back on the agenda

Anthony Carroll writes in the Eastern Daily Press of 18th November '09 that the Environment Agency are reconsidering establishing a multi-million pound barrier across the River Yare to protect Great Yarmouth and the adjacent low laying areas, and to prevent the environmental destruction of the Norfolk Broads and its villages. (And any Norfolkian will readily tell you that this is far more important than Westminster)

For his full story see 'Yarmouth flood barrier plan 'back on the agenda'.

Lord Smith's Olive Branch of Compensation

The item "Hope of compensation over threatened coastal homes" written by Anthony Carroll in the Eastern Daily Press of 9th November tells how Lord Smith, Chairman of the Environment Agency, has proposed that those losing their homes due to the dictates of 'Managed Retreat' be offered compensation for their loss, by the provision of funding from the local Council to purchase and then lease back up to 250 homes that are likely to fall into the sea over the next 20 years due to failure to protect.

The government's Coastal Change Policy had earlier suggested that home owners should receive up to £6,000 if they lose their homes because sea defences are given up, but under Lord Smith's new suggestion councils would buy properties at their original pre-blight value and then lease them back to the owners until such time as they became uninhabitable.

This new proclamation has been welcomed in comments from one North Norfolk coastal campaigner who was "absolutely delighted" hailing it as "the biggest step forward in ten year's" further commenting "this clearly has the stamp of social justice on it and is very welcome indeed".

But MARINET has other ideas and fears a hidden agenda, Pat Gowen commenting:

Whilst Lord Smith's proposition may appear as good news to those threatened with the loss of their homes due to historical government dictate and myopia, it is decidedly not so for the local economy and the environment as a whole. Lord Smith estimated that between 200 and 250 properties were likely to fall into the sea in Norfolk, Suffolk and Lincolnshire in the next 20 years, whilst in fact over 2,000 properties are at risk.

Where initially the government's Coastal Change Policy suggested that homeowners should receive up to £6,000 should they lose their homes when sea defences were abandoned, under Lord Smith's new proposal local councils would purchase these properties at their original pre-blighted value to then lease them back to the owners until the time came when they become uninhabitable. But thus the area's population would probably still have to pay any such compensation through the wider area poll tax.

This approach is not good news for the environment and the overall local economy, as tourist income derived from beaches, amenity value, infrastructure and businesses in coastal and low laying inland resorts will continue to be lost to due to the crumbling cliffs and dunes, the undermined sea defences, the disappearing beaches and the encroaching sea. Furthermore, what's left of the fishing industry would continue to decline. What is even more, the move may be seen as divisive, as it would undoubtedly marginalise the support of many thousands prior supporting the preservation and conservation of our overall coastal environment and its income once their personal impact appears to be part-relieved.

The approach needed is not to deal with a small part of the results of the ongoing situation but to stop the escalating erosion at source, by addressing the cause of sea rise, by outlawing offshore aggregate dredging and by the provision of adequate defences, and to levy the cost of these measures to those who have profited by them.

'Managed Retreat' needs to become 'Managed Defence' and 'Making Room for Water' should become 'Making No Room for Exploitation'.

Research fish catch programme terminated in Lowestoft

An important research programme that up to now has allowed a group of Lowestoft fishermen to land fish above their quotas has been scrapped. To date just ten boats from the port have been taking part in an environmentally responsible fishing programme launched last year by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

The scheme, which involved 31 under-10m fishing boats from Lowestoft, Hartlepool and the Thames Estuary, has been providing data about fish stocks off the east coast since August last year. Participants were allowed to land everything they caught above their quotas on specifically allocated days to allow scientists to discover more about the numbers and types of fish living in the North Sea. But in early November the fishermen involved in the scheme were contacted by DEFRA who said that the project had been closed because of the large amounts of fish being landed.

The fishermen considered the closure as a "really frustrating situation" because the programme was created to give a proper picture of stocks in the sea, when last year was an exceptional year for cod, and the catch rate in the Lowestoft area was particularly high. They stated that this past year was quite different because of the warmer summer, and it is those cycles (which take about five years to come round) that this study was supposed to provide meaningful evidence to the scientists. The fishermen thus wondered just how this termination was supposed to show DEFRA how much fish there is to catch when DEFRA stopped the project so abruptly. Their boats are now restricted to their normal quota of 500kg of cod per month. Since it costs around £300 a day to run a boat and the cod fetches about £2 per kilogram, this sudden closure has angered them.

A DEFRA spokesman said "that they had taken the decision to close the Environmentally Responsible Fishing (ERF) programme after the latest analysis of catch data showed higher levels of catch than anticipated. The ERF findings will be a key element of the evidence base for the Sustainable Access to Inshore Fisheries (SAIF) project."

UK South West fishermen angry over new EU fishing proposals

The following item appeared in the Western Morning News, 17th October 2009. MARINET observes that the EU Common Fisheries Policy is currently being considered for reform, and many of the issues featured in this article clearly need to be resolved. If people have proposals for reform, they should be submitted to the European Commission by 31st December 2009 see, http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/reform
The Western Morning News reports:

The Westcountry fishing industry could be devastated by strict new EU fishing quotas which Brussels wants to impose on the region to give endangered fish stocks a chance to recover. Industry insiders warned the European Commission's ruling could send fish prices soaring and raised fears the move could simply lead to increasing numbers of endangered fish being dumped overboard. There are also fears more fish could be imported as restaurants and suppliers turn to overseas markets to keep costs down — adding a further blow to the region's already struggling fishing industry.

Conservation measures for desperately depleted cod have not delivered the promised revival of supplies — partly because of continued over-fishing exceeding agreed quota limits. Now EU Fisheries Commissioner Joe Borg is recommending cuts of up to 25 per cent in permitted catches for cod and other main species next year. Last night, members of the fishing community and business chiefs united in their condemnation of the ruling, which they warned could send shockwaves to those livelihoods and businesses which depend on the fishing industry. The proposal by Mr Borg to cut permitted catches for some species of fish is the latest blow to the Westcountry's fishing trade.

Tim Jones, chairman of the Devon and Cornwall Business Council, told the Western Morning News the ruling was a major blow to the region. "Cornwall and Devon have built up a niche market around specialist fish and that market is price-sensitive. This quota will have an enormous impact on the fishing community and those who rely upon it. We are facing devastating consequences, and yet again, European legislation does not take into account the impact of fishing generally on the community."

Although the EU's figures are provisional and will not be decided until December, those within the industry fear they are "over-cautious" and are based on "out-of-date and inaccurate science". Fishermen have been told for years they must endure short-term sacrifices to allow main fish stocks to recover and secure the fishing industry's long-term future. But yesterday's proposals acknowledge that stocks are still in dire straits, with fleets accused of prolonging the agony by exceeding annual catch quotas and delaying the time when fish are plentiful once more.

Paul Trebilcock, chief executive of Cornish Fish Producers Organisation, stressed the Commission's proposed quota was still up for negotiation. "This can cause unnecessary alarm, but yes, the quota could have an impact on fish prices. I suspect that they may be being over-cautious, and we will work with them to negotiate. I think we know the direction we want to go in and there are discussions to be had yet."

Former fisherman Mick Mahon, who fished waters around the globe, said a one-year quota never had an impact on the amount of fish caught. Mr Mahon, from Praa Sands in Cornwall, added: "A reduction in the quota will mean one thing — more fish being dumped. And the price of fish may not increase either. Fish is traded worldwide now so it may mean more is imported."

Jim Portus, chief executive of South West Fish Producers agreed. "Some of the fish stocks would not rise an awful lot. In fact, there would be zero change in some." But Brixham-based Mr Portus, who is also chairman of the UK Association of Fish Producers, criticised the science behind the Commission's projections. The science is out of date, dangerous and very sketchy. The problem is that the information does not get used immediately — instead, it may have an impact on fish stocks in the years ahead." He added that the European Commission had published the information earlier than usual to ensure that there was the "widest possible debate" about the proposals.

A Government spokesman said the latest proposals — published ahead of the annual quota-fixing negotiations between EU fisheries ministers in December — would be considered carefully in the coming weeks. "The scientific prognosis for most stocks is not encouraging, with many in a worse state than last year."

Meanwhile, Padstow-based seafood chef Rick Stein has reportedly vowed to go on using endangered species of fish in his restaurants despite warnings of over-fishing. He has reportedly questioned whether the fish stocks situation is really as bad as the Government and marine conservationists are saying.

Legal Clout for the Environment

In The Times of 26th September columnist Simon Barnes reports how ClientEarth, a small charity group of lawyers are taking on a Goliath by using the Aarhus Convention to challenge the EU, because it does not allow environmental groups to bring cases to the European Court of Justice. They took on the UK in Geneva this week, using the Port of Tyne case heralded by Bob Latimer as an illustration.

To see the whole report please see 'This time the lawyers have my support… because they are working on the right side in the Port of Tyne case' here on the Times website.

Escalating South West Coast Erosion

174 miles (280km) of Britain's south west coastline is now critically threatened by escalating erosion, including Studland Beach in Dorset, South Milton Sands and Godrevy in Devon and St Michael's Mount and Cotehele Quay in Cornwall.

The BBC reports the concern of the National Trust, which owns 35% of the coastline, in its 'Shifting Shores' report. Yet amazingly the NT continues to state that 'little can be done' and that 'nature should take its course'! To the best of our knowledge they have never opposed offshore dredging.

The full reports can be seen under 'Beach fears over coastal erosion# at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7799234.stm and under 'Trust's fear over coastal erosion' at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/7665333.stm

EA Announces Flood Protection Plans

The 'Engineer on Line' published on 10th November 2009 reported that The Environment Agency has announced plans to increase flood protection to 200,000 homes and businesses in England and Wales by 2015. Under the heading "The Agency to increase flood protection" the news reported from the EA annual conference in London the corporate strategy for increasing flood protection to 200,000 homes and businesses in England and Wales by 2015, due to more properties facing an increasing risk of coastal erosion and flooding from rivers and the sea due to climate change and population growth.

Robert Runcie, Environment Agency director of flooding and coastal-erosion risk management said:that the number of properties in England and Wales at significant risk of flooding could increase from 570,000 in 2009 to over 900,000 by 2035 at current levels of flood-defence investment. Since 2007, the Environment Agency has completed 102 flood-defence schemes protecting over 63,000 additional homes in England and Wales. Earlier this year, construction started on a £50m defence project to protect 16,000 properties in Nottingham and work has recently begun on the final stage of a £29m scheme in Weston-Super-Mare to protect 4500 homes and businesses from the risk of coastal flooding. Work is also well underway at Dymchurch, Kent, where a £60m scheme is increasing protection to 2,471 residential properties and 7,672 hectares of agricultural land.

The Environment Agency is already planning to manage a predicted 1m rise in sea levels. The Thames Barrier and its associated schemes, which protect 1.25m people across the capital, will need to be upgraded or replaced by 2070 to cope with the effects of climate change. By 2115, a predicted 10 per cent increase in wave heights and wind speeds will increase the threat from coastal surges.

Peter Boggis battles on… Pat Gowen's thoughts about the issue

There can be only one reasonable assumption as to why Natural England are so dedicated on using public money to promote, aid and abet the erosion of our coastline when it could and should be used for its protection. The only logical explanation is that further supplies of aggregate will become available for dredging and so benefit The Crown Estate, the governments aims and ambitions of 'Managed Retreat', the Treasury VAT take, and the pockets of the dredging industry shareholders. The fossils they claim to protect will be lost if erosion continues, but preserved if it is stabilsed, which practice they should be upholding.

A series of new media items are now avaliable on Peter Boggis's continuing and relentless struggle. There's 'Anger over state of stretch of north Suffolk coastline' describing the appearance of the cliff base, to be seen on the Eastern Daily Press website

… and there's 'Retired engineer vows to continue sea defence battle' that may be seen by by visiting here:

… and …

'Cliff erosion row misery for retired engineer' to be found by going here:

… and finally there's an excellent BBC-TV video to be seen on the topic by visiting here.

Conference highlights the importance of Marine Spatial Planning

We provide below the text of a report prepared by Lesley Hampshire, Isle of Wight FOE and Marinet member, on the C-Scope (Combining Sea and Coastal Planning in Europe) conference in Dorset on 19-20th October 2009. Marine Spatial Planning is an essential part of the Ecosystem approach to marine management and will establish the priorities between different conservation, social and economic uses of the sea in local areas, and is a main feature of the UK Marine Bill, shortly to receive Royal Assent. Marine Spatial Planning is akin to the current system town and country planning on land, and will be administered in the UK by the Marine Management Organisation, shortly to be established in Newcastle.

The full set of papers presented at the C-Scope conference may be viewed at their website www.dorsetforyou.com/C-SCOPE_MSP_Conference. We would particularly draw your attention to the following C-Scope conference papers:

• Kate Thomson : The Firth of Clyde Marine Spatial Plan
• Mick Bishop : Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
• Lorraine Gray : A Marine Spatial Plan for the Shetland Islands

Also, The Firth of Clyde Marine Spatial Plan (MSP) has been developed by the Scottish Government as a pilot MSP project, and therefore how marine spatial plans may actually function can be seen from this specific example. In order to view this work, visit www.clydeforum.com/ssmei

Lesley Hampshire's Report on Marine Spatial Planning Conference, 19-20 October 2009:

"I attended this conference on the Isle of Portland, Dorset to represent Isle of Wight FOE (IWFoE). The aim of the gathering was to build on existing knowledge by bringing together international, national and local speakers to explore the theory, practice and future of Marine Spatial Planning. The 120 or so delegates represented such organisations as the Environment Agency, Natural England, The National Trust, WWF, English Heritage, The Crown Estate, Defra, and the EU together with government officials from the Isle of Man, Scotland and Wales. Local councils, businesses, sailing associations, fishermen, port authorities, diving clubs, universities (and of course IWFoE) also sent representatives so the gathering was truly diverse. Presentations were (sensibly) limited to 20 minutes which gave a large number of speakers the chance to contribute and we learnt about projects in places as varied as Belgium, the Shetland Isles, the Baltic and the Great Barrier Reef as well as those nearer home. On day 2 there were also workshop sessions on such topics as 'Indicators and their use for Marine Spatial Planning at the local level.'

"With its wealth of natural resources, the UK coast is under continuous and increasing pressure. Many activities such as fishing, dredging, shipping, tourism and marine energy are competing for the same space but until recently, planning and management at the coast has been complex and disjointed. The new Marine and Coastal Access Bill is currently going through its final stages in Parliament and by this means the government hopes to simplify the process with a more integrated approach. One of the ways to achieve this is through a process known as Marine Spatial Planning. It is a system that has been 'borrowed' and adapted from proven land-based planning techniques and is a way of managing, protecting and regulating the marine environment, taking into account the many users and uses of the coast.

"The conference was hosted by the Dorset Coast Forum (DCF), and C-SCOPE (Combining Sea and Coastal Planning in Europe). These two organisations joined forces and secured a European grant worth €1.8 million, part of which is being used to pilot a Marine Spatial Plan for a section of the Dorset coast. The area chosen covers approximately 1000 square kilometres of coastal waters between Durlston Head and Portland Bill, out to 12 nautical miles. It was selected because it includes the waters where the 2012 Olympic sailing events will be held. Also it includes a variety of coastline types and has a wide range of uses. The most important thing about the project is that it will be driven by local users of the coast and over the next three years there will be workshops, meetings and coastal 'surgeries' to ensure that everyone who wants to get involved can do so. Information on the Marine Management Area (MMA) will be accessible through touch-screen Coastal Explorer Access Points. The planning tool will contain all the information layers of the Geographic Information System (GIS) map which covers not only details of how, when and where different sectors (e.g. tourism, shipping, fishing) use the area but also detailed seabed survey data and international, national and local policies that apply within the MMA. This all-encompassing approach should simplify the making of future marine planning decisions. There is a great deal that we on the Isle of Wight can learn from this project and I'm grateful to have been given the opportunity to attend the conference."

The vital rôle of Ocean Floor flora

The Times on Line of October 14th reports how Marine plant life, though covering less than 1 per cent of the world's seabed, holds the secret to the prevention of global warming. The item details how the now rapidly disappearing salt marshes and seagrass beds lock away well over half of all carbon to be buried in the ocean floor.

Yet another good reason to outlaw Offshore Aggregate Dredging, now to abate Global Warming.

For the full report go to 'Marine plant life holds the secret to preventing global warming' here.

Offshore Windfarms at Docking Shoal and The Race Bank

It would appear that the truly massive £725m 270Mw Centrica (parent company of British Gas) Offshore Windfarm at Docking Shoal and The Race Bank, off the Lincolnshire/Norfolk Coast, is to go ahead, with construction beginning in 2010.

MARINET earlier questioned this proposal, on grounds of the disturbance and distribution of potentially smothering silt when channelling in the seabed cables, on the likely low frequency vibration impact and the likelihood of any induced disturbing electromagnetic effects from the power lines, etc.

The Race Bank has already been impacted by the decimation of the crab stocks brought about by ongoing offshore aggregate dredging. The licence to permit this was strongly objected to by CEEFAS, MARINET, the NSAG and the fishermen but nevertheless the operation was given the go-ahead.

On the windfarm proposal, Pat Gowen) o.b.o. MARINET wrote on 18th September '09 to Jennifer Wilson, Environmental Officer and Kathy Wood of AMEC saying:

"I regret that my huge and varied workload has prevented me from taking the amount of time really needed to go further into investigations of my concerns with the establishment of the Docking Shoal and Race Bank Offshore Wind Farms.

"As you are well aware, my main concerns addressed to you were/are of the potential impact upon the crab population, on the degree of siltation smothering of the surrounding sea and downtide seabed and its flora/fauna brought about in the course of excavating the channels for the windfarm to shore power lines, and on the potential electromagnetic field impact upon fish navigation.

"Whilst it is apparent that more work needs to be done on these issues, it is also obvious from the literature that you have kindly supplied to me on that research already performed, that established and that intended, that these factors are being taken seriously into account. I am happy that you are now fully aware of these potential impacts and that such work to fully evaluate will be undertaken.

"Such covers my remit. I will be content if the outcome of these studies conclusively proves that any impact from any or all of the above concerns is benign, and thus should not need bother you further on this issue. However, it would reassure me if you were able to inform me of the outcome of the investigations.

"I rest my case. Thank you again for your thorough communications on this matter".

They replied, writing:

"On behalf of Kathy Wood, thank you for your email of the 18th September, regarding the proposed Docking Shoal and Race Bank Offshore Wind Farms. We're pleased to read that you are happy with Centrica's awareness of the issues you have raised, and I can assure you that the potential impacts on the flora and fauna of the region, including the crab populations, will continue to be a priority for Centrica as the projects progress.

"With regards to the outcomes of investigations into the potential impacts of offshore wind farms on the environment, we will be happy to inform you of significant further information in this area as it becomes available in the future. In the meantime, we would direct you to the COWRIE website (www.offshorewind.co.uk/Pages/COWRIE), where details of new research can be found, and the Centrica website (www.centricaenergy.com/renewables), which contains the latest information regarding the two projects, including the recently submitted Supplementary Environmental Information.

"Thank you again for your interest in the proposed Docking Shoal and Race Bank Offshore Wind Farm projects, and if you have any further queries in the future, please do not hesitate to contact myself or Kathy"

The relative documents can be seen by visiting: www.offshorewindfarms.co.uk/Pages/Search_Results/?SearchTerm=emf and www.berr.gov.uk/files/file43528.pdf

Protecting the West African Coastline from Erosion

The United Nations News Service explains how the precious West African Coastline (Mauritania, Senegal, Gambia, Guinea Bissau, and the Cape Verde Islands) currently suffering serious erosion due to the combination of sand extraction and climate change, needs to be protected by national and regional pilot projects schemes and ICZMs with funding from UNDP/GEF.

For the full story please visit the ACCC website

The ongoing battle in the north-east

Here follows a series of items from the press showing how Bob Latimer's tenacity and stickability in long opposing and addressing the bathing water quality of his local beach and the toxic sludge dumped to sea near Whitburn is gaining ground.
It gives an excellent example that tenacity is effective, and that despite the tortuous odds, one should never give up.

The picture on the left taken by Bob Latimer, shows condoms, sanitary towels, tampons and faeces being placed to the sea at at Whitburn South in Sunderland

From Home News North East of September 13th 2009, an article by Mike Kelly:

Storm clouds over North East's dirty sea water

Bathing water was described as "excellent" despite hundreds of items of sewage being found on the beach the same day, it has been revealed. Resident Bob Latimer has council documents that said on August 1, 2008, there was so much waste it was "not able to estimate" the amount. Yet the Environment Agency had labelled the bathing water at Whitburn South in Sunderland as "excellent".

Mr Latimer has several other council papers which reveal the same EA description on and around dates when sewage debris had been found.

Whitburn South — or Roker — is one of five UK beaches at the centre of a European Commission legal challenge about the treatment and discharge of sewage in this country.

An EA spokesman said sewage debris does not necessarily affect the bathing quality of water. "Bathing water quality at beaches is judged by bacteria levels. Bacteria die off rapidly when exposed to the elements, whereas sewage litter — largely plastic items flushed by householders — can be washed around the coast for decades before landing on a beach."

Concerns about possible health risks on beaches including some in the North were raised on Monday's BBC Panorama programme which detailed how after years of improvement, bathing water quality had began to deteriorate in the last couple of years.

Last year saw a 23 per cent decline in recommended North beaches in the Good Beach Guide. Meanwhile, the number attaining the minimum European "mandatory" standard was 38pc in 2008, compared to just 12pc in 2006, with the rest gaining the higher "guideline" standard.

According to the Marine Conservation Society which publishes the Good Beach Guide, people bathing at "mandatory" level beaches run the risk of being hit by diseases like the stomach bug, gastroenteritis, with one in seven bathes. A spokesman said: "That figure is according to the World Health Organisation."

An EA spokesman said: "UK bathing water quality has improved dramatically over the last 20 years. We have worked with the water industry to invest over £8billion to improve sewage treatment and reduce sewage overflow."

A spokesman for Northumbrian Water, which supplies the region's water and treats waste water, said: "We have made huge strides and brought vast improvement to bathing waters and the environment. We're not complacent and will continue to bring further improvement in the future."

= = = = = = = = = =

From Mike Kelly's report in the Sunday Sun of 13th September 2009:

What lurks in our waves?

FEARS were expressed last week about the potential health hazards on North beaches. So how safe are our waters? On August 1, 2008, the water quality of the sea at Whitburn South beach in Sunderland was given an "excellent" grade by the Environment Agency. Yet on that day a Sunderland City Council report said there was so much sewage on the very same beach it could not be counted.

Local campaigner, Bob Latimer, said: "In other reports they've counted up to 8000 items at Hendon. So you just can guess at the amount they must have found." There have been other occasions when this has happened, too, but the EA claimed there is no contradiction.

A spokesman said: "Bathing water quality at Roker (Whitburn South) and Seaburn (Whitburn North) beaches is judged by bacteria levels. Bacteria die off rapidly when exposed to the elements, whereas sewage litter — largely plastic items flushed by householders — can be washed around for decades before landing on a beach."

It's safe to assume Bob isn't on the Christmas card list of Northumbrian Water Ltd, which is responsible for the region's water. Likewise the EA which sets the guidelines within which Northumbrian Water operates.

Since a storm water pumping station was built near his home in Whitburn, Sunderland, Bob has highlighted what he sees as overuse of combined sewer outlets which pump storm water and sewage into rivers and sea during heavy rainfall. It is supposed to be a last resort — if it did not happen there is the risk of the effluent washing back into people's homes — yet Bob and the group Surfers Against Sewage allege: "Whitburn is used so regularly that some see it as part of the sewage treatment process instead of a last resort." Northumbrian Water and the Environment Agency vehemently deny this.

The situation was highlighted last Monday on the BBC's Panorama programme which painted a grim picture of the nation's beaches. While accepting several factors had contributed to the worsening of bathing water quality in the last couple of years, including run-off from a variety of sources including agricultural land, it seemed to lay most of the blame at the feet of the CSOs.

Emotive pictures of raw sewage running onto beaches were broadcast. Yet still Blue Flags saying it was safe to bathe there were flown. And most people don't know what has been washed onto the beach as there are no apparent publics warnings when the CSOs have discharged.

The statistics are concerning, too. In May the North East Good Beach Guide was published and saw a 23 per cent decline in recommended beaches. Last year there were no failures in County Durham, Tyne and Wear or Northumberland. This year beaches at Seaham Hall in County Durham, Whitburn North in Wearside and Seaton Sluice and Spittal near Berwick, Northumberland, all failed water tests.

More worrying still is the fact that of the 776 UK beaches tested, 43% reached the minimum European quality standard. The figure for the North East is 38%. According to the Marine Conservation Society, that means people have a one-in-seven chance of getting gastroenteritis when they go into the sea or onto our beaches. Thomas Bell of the MCS which publishes the Good Beach Guide said: "That figure is according to the World Health organisation."

Andy Cummins, born in Tynemouth, North Tyneside, is spokesman for the Surfers Against Sewage group. He said over recent months numerous surfers had filled in questionnaires on its website relating to health problems suffered after they surfed off UK beaches including some in the North. Andy said he could not give personal details of those who were struck down as the questionnaire was confidential. He added: "We've been seeing CSOs discharge 10 or 20 times in the bathing season. When this happens people need to be made aware."

There are 20,000 CSOs in the UK, 1470 of which are in the region.

According to Alistair Baker, PR and communications manager of Northumbrian Water, their use is policed by the EA which in turn sets the operating standard by EU guidelines. He said: "During the period 2005 to 2010 we will have invested £85 million to upgrade and screen 481 CSOs. Since 1995 we have spent £750 million on investment to clean up the coastal waters."

What isn't in doubt on all sides is that since the 1990s the quality of bathing water has improved massively. In 1998 no beaches met the guideline standard while in 2006 87.9pc of them did. That figure dipped to 61.8pc last year, the reason being the poor weather.

Climate change is creating a wetter environment meaning CSOs are operating more often while it also adds to the run off from agricultural land. There are many other contributing factors, down to the non-permeable flagstones used on home driveways which are generating concentrated masses of water which are affecting the country's drainage system.

The problem stems from the Victorian sewage system which is the basis of the network which combines sewage and surface water.

The EA spokesman commented: "We want to see the separation of sewage and surface water in future developments, rather than combined sewer overflows, and we are working with farmers to prevent chemicals and manure from running off their land and into the sea.

"Bathing water samples are collected by us at every one of our 495 designated bathing waters once a week — 20 times during the bathing season. They are then tested at our accredited laboratory within 24 hours and we give the information to councils and local organisations on a weekly basis."

= = = = = = = = = =

Campaigner's bid to take polluters to court, 2nd October 2009.

A CLEAN-UP campaigner is taking on the Government over toxic sludge dumped off the coast at Whitburn. Bob Latimer is part of a legal battle about people's rights to raise allegations of environmental damage in court which has now reached the United Nations (UN). The businessman and former engineer, from Bents Road, claims that financial risks prevent anyone taking legal action over green issues.

UN officials in Geneva, Switzerland, have started hearing evidence in the case, which could have wider ramifications if Mr Latimer and the Marine Conservation Society (MCS) win. "It will give people the chance to take on big corporations in court and keep them in check," he said.

The case claims that Mr Latimer and the MCS have been prevented from challenging an alleged breach of environmental laws relating to a Port of Tyne Authority project. It was given a licence to dump thousands of tonnes of waste dredged from the Tyne's dock areas contaminated with toxic substances such as arsenic and mercury from the shipbuilding industry under the sea off Souter Point. The waste was capped by sand and silt, but campaigners say that because of the wave energy of the North Sea, there is a "grave environmental threat of the toxic substances escaping into the marine environment outside the dispersal site".

Their legal case is that alleged breaches of environmental laws and a perceived lack of an adequate environmental impact assessment cannot be challenged in court because of "unreasonable" financial risks.

Mr Latimer and the MCS are being represented in court by a team of activist lawyers from ClientEarth. They are arguing that the UK has breached the Aarhaus Convention, an international agreement it ratified in 1998 and which says individuals should not be prevented from taking environmental cases to court due to cost.

James Thornton, of ClientEarth, said: "Not only is it prohibitively expensive to bring cases in the UK, the financial risk of losing a court challenge and having to pay the opposition's legal expenses can amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds.

"Until the UK makes the legal system accessible and fair from a financial perspective, citizens and many organisations are in effect denied their right to raise legitimate environmental concerns in court."

A decision by the UN is expected within three months.

The Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs has previously said that a licence was given to the Port of Tyne for dredged waste disposal after a detailed environmental impact assessment, and consultations were conducted with organisations including the Environment Agency and English Nature.

= = = = = = = = = =

Finally, an item by Tim Booler published in the Sunderland Echo on Thursday 1st October 2009:

Clean-up legal battle reaches United Nations

A clean-up campaigner is taking on the Government over toxic sludge dumped off the coast at Whitburn. Bob Latimer is part of a legal battle about people's rights to challenge allegations of environmental damage in court which has reached the United Nations (UN). The businessman and former engineer, from Bents Road, claims that financial risks prevent anyone taking legal action over green issues.

UN officials in Geneva, Switzerland, have started hearing evidence in the case, which could have wider ramifications if Mr Latimer and the Marine Conservation Society (MCS), win. "It will give people the chance to take on big corporations in court and keep them in check," he said.

The case claims that Mr Latimer and the MCS have been prevented from challenging an alleged breach of environmental laws relating to a Port of Tyne Authority project.

It was given a licence to dump thousands of tonnes of waste dredged from the Tyne's dock areas "contaminated with toxic substances such as arsenic and mercury from the shipbuilding industry" under the sea off Souter Point. The waste was capped by sand and silt, but campaigners say that because of the wave energy of the North Sea, there is a "grave environmental threat of the toxic substances escaping into the marine environment outside the dispersal site".

The legal battle is that alleged breaches of environmental laws, and a perceived lack of an adequate environmental impact assessment, cannot be challenged in court because of "unreasonable" financial risks.

Mr Latimer and the MCS are being represented in court by a team activist lawyers from ClientEarth. They are arguing that the UK has breached the Aarhaus Convention, an international agreement it ratified in 1998 and says individuals should not be prevented from taking environmental cases to court due to cost.

James Thornton, of ClientEarth, said: "Not only is it prohibitively expensive to bring cases in the UK, the financial risk of losing a court challenge and having to pay the opposition's legal expenses can amount to £100,000s. Until the UK makes the legal system accessible and fair from a financial perspective, citizens and many organisations are in effect denied their right to raise legitimate environmental concerns in court."

A decision by the UN is expected within three months.

The Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs has previously said that a licence was given to the Port of Tyne dredged waste disposal after a detailed environmental impact assessment and consultation with organisations including the Environment Agency and English Nature.

Activists fight to save 'people's law on the environment'

Up to now there has been a major impediment to those suffering from environmental damage who cannot afford to mount a legal case. The system was highly assistive to the well heeled exploiters who benefit, but extremely restrictive to those who do not, so preventing a fair decision. Now some hope is in sight, as seen in the following item from The Ecologist of 23rd September 2009.

Ruling would allow NGOs and individuals to challenge environmental damage in courts without prohibitive financial risks

A team of activist lawyers are to start a legal challenge to get UK courts to accept Aarhus Convention on access to justice. In a case being heard by the UN in Geneva tomorrow, lawyers from ClientEarth will argue that bad environmental decisions are not being challenged because of the unreasonable financial risks of bringing a case to court.

Under the Aarhus Convention, ratified both in the EU and UK in 1998, NGO's and individuals should not be denied because of the prohibitive costs of bringing cases.

Recently, the Marine Conservation Society was unable to mount a legal challenge against allegations of toxic waste dumping near the Port of Tyne, Newcastle, because of fears over the potentially crippling costs of losing the case.

'Not only is it prohibitively expensive to bring cases in the UK,' said ClientEarth CEO James Thornton, 'the financial risk of losing a court challenge and having to pay the opposition's legal expenses can amount to £100,000s. Until the UK makes the legal system accessible and fair from a financial perspective, citizens and many organisations are in effect denied their right to raise legitimate environmental concerns in court.'

A decision on ClientEarth's case is expected within three months.

EC to take the UK to Court over Waste Water Directive 91/271/EEC

In no small part due to the perseverance and tenacity of Bob Latimer in dealing with the appalling sewage outfall at his Whitburn locale, the European Commission issued the following Press Release at 11 am on Thursday 8th October.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION PRESS RELEASE — 8 Storey's Gate, London SW1P 3AT — http://ec.europa.eu/uk

European Commission takes UK to European Court of Justice over waste water collection systems

The European Commission has today decided to take the United Kingdom to the European Court of Justice over non-compliance with EU environment legislation. The Commission is concerned that the urban waste water collecting systems and treatment facilities in London and Whitburn in North East England are inadequate and a threat to human health.

European Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said: "More attention needs to be paid to upgrading collecting systems to ensure full compliance with EU legislation on waste water treatment. Such investment will bring enormous benefits in terms of improving the quality of the environment."The Commission is taking action because it believes that the waste water collecting systems in London and Whitburn are being allowed to spill untreated waste waters from storm water overflows (known as 'combined sewer overflows' in the UK) too frequently and in excessive quantities. The Commission is also concerned that treatment capacity for the waste waters collected in London is in need of improvement. These shortcomings amount to an infringement of the 1991 EU directive on urban waste water treatment.

The directive required EU member states to put in place adequate waste water collecting systems and treatment facilities for large towns and cities by the end of 2000. The waste waters collected are required to undergo appropriate treatment before they are released. The directive provides that collecting systems and treatment plants may be allowed to spill waste water in certain situations such as emergency shutdowns or unusually heavy rainfall, but the spills being authorised in these two cases are excessive and go beyond what the legislation provides for.

Untreated waste water can be a serious threat to human health, since untreated waste water can carry harmful bacteria and viruses into waters used for bathing or other related forms of recreation. Untreated waste water also contains nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous, which can damage the marine environment by promoting excessive growth of algae that chokes off other life.

Legal Process

Article 226 of the Treaty gives the Commission powers to take legal action against a member state that is not respecting its obligations.

If the Commission considers that there may be such an infringement of EU law that warrants the opening of an infringement procedure, it addresses a "letter of formal notice" (first written warning) to the member state concerned, requesting it to submit its observations within a specified period, usually within two months.

In the light of the reply or absence of a reply from the member state concerned, the Commission may decide to address a "reasoned opinion" (final written warning) to the member state. This clearly and definitively sets out the reasons why it considers there to have been an infringement of EU law and calls upon the member state to comply within a specified period, normally two months.

If the member state fails to comply with the Reasoned Opinion, the Commission may decide to bring the case before the European Court of Justice. Where the Court of Justice finds that the Treaty has been infringed, the offending member state is required to take the measures necessary to conform.

Article 228 of the EU Treaty gives the Commission power to act against a member state that does not comply with a previous judgement of the European Court of Justice. The article also allows the Commission to ask the Court to impose a financial penalty on the member state concerned.

For current statistics on infringements in general, see: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/implementation_en.htm
For more information, please contact the London press office on 020 7973 1971.

To see the history of Britain's failure to meet the Waste Water rulings do a Google Search on the MARINET website using the key words 'Waste Water'.

Coastal access plan 'a waste of cash'

From the Eastern Daily Press of 28th October '09, journalist Ed Foss comes the CLA's comments on that part of the Marine Bill dealing with Coastal Access.

A country lobby group has said the government could save the public purse tens of millions of pounds by scrapping “unnecessary and unwarranted” proposals for a statutory right of access to the English coast. The Country Land and Business Association (CLA) said the relevant part of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, which started its final passage through parliament on Monday, would be far more costly than it needed to be. The CLA urged MPs to take the opportunity to save nearly £50m by scrapping the contentious coastal access section in order to ensure the rest of the bill can be implemented.

“Access to the coast — where it doesn't already exist — can be better provided using existing legislation such as the Highways Act and for a far more modest sum,” said Rob Wise, coastal access adviser for the CLA eastern region. “Our arithmetic shows the government can deliver a better outcome for less than £1m, yet the cost, as it stands, will be almost £50m. We are in the middle of the deepest and longest recession since records began. How can ministers seriously justify spending on what is no more than political posturing?”

The CLA said the government's own figures proved that only 8% of the English coast is genuinely inaccessible. Over 84% already has access.

“Creating a new public footpath using the Highways Act costs about £2 per metre which means that providing access to the 8pc of the coast where access doesn't exist could be done for around £700,000,” said Mr Wise. “The grandiose scheme the government is proposing simply isn't necessary — it could better and more cheaply meet the needs of the public by using existing legislation.”

Atlantic cod stocks still collapsed or near collapse

The following article appeared in the Huffington Post, 16th October 2009:

BRUSSELS — Cod is slipping closer to disappearing from key European fishing grounds, officials warned Friday, saying that only steep catch cuts will prevent the disappearance of a species prized for centuries for its flaky white flesh.

The European Union's executive body called for sharp cuts in the amount of cod fisherman can catch next year — up to 25 percent in some areas. The European Commission said recent studies showed cod catches in some areas are far outstripping the rate of reproduction.

Scientists estimated that in the 1970s there were more than 250,000 tons of cod in fishing grounds in the North Sea, eastern English Channel and Scandinavia's Skagerrak strait. In recent years, however, stocks have dropped to 50,000 tons.

"We are not that far away from a situation of complete collapse," said Jose Rodriguez, a marine biologist with the environmental group Oceana. He and other environmentalists said pressure from the fishing industry had kept quotas at levels too high to sustain a viable populations around Europe, while lack of enforcement meant illegal fishing made the problem worse.

The European Commission said Friday it would seek in 2010 to cut the catch in some fishing grounds around Britain, France, Spain and much of Scandinavia from 5,700 tons to 4,250 tons.

In the Mediterranean, bluefin tuna has been overfished for years to satisfy increasing world demand for sushi and sashimi. The tuna population is now a fraction of what it was a few decades ago, but the EU's Mediterranean nations last month refused to impose even a temporary ban. Oceana estimated that illegal fishing doubled the amount of tuna caught.

Meanwhile Cod, which once sustained vibrant fishing communities from Portugal to Britain to Canada, is increasingly consumed by the ton as salt cod and fish-and-chips. "People don't ask for fish and chips, they ask for cod and chips," said Mike Guo, a manager at Great Fish and Chips in Essex, England. "It's a traditional dish."

The depletion of the species has caused the decay and disappearance of hundreds of fishing villages on both sides of the Atlantic.

Overfishing off Canada's maritime provinces exhausted the world's richest cod grounds and forced the government to impose a fishing moratorium. The collapse wiped out more than 42,000 jobs, and 18 years later the fish have still not returned. "It was devastating," said Tom Hedderson, minister of fisheries in Newfoundland. "This affected whole communities… all up and down the coast here in Newfoundland and Labrador."

He welcomed the EU call to cut catches by 25 percent, but suggested more drastic cuts may be needed. Some Canadian scientists believe the collapse of cod stocks off Newfoundland and Nova Scotia changed the marine ecosystem so dramatically that it may be impossible for cod to recover. Off Newfoundland alone, cod stocks once exceeded more than 400,000 tons but now scale only 5,500 tons, Hedderson said.

There are signs of recovery of Atlantic cod off New England, however, after years of conservation efforts. And international regulators have reopened some areas off Canada for limited fishing, Canada's Fisheries and Oceans Department spokesman Scott Cantin said.

The fishing industry in Europe, however, is in decline. The number of vessels in the 15 nations that were part of the EU in 1995 has dropped from 104,000 then to 81,000 in 2006. In Britain, employment in the fishing sector sank from 21,600 in 1990 to 16,100 in 2006.

The EU Commission's demand for cod cuts will be discussed by the bloc's 27-member states in a Dec. 14-15 meeting, when the fishing quotas for 2010 will be finalized. "The scientific prognosis for most stocks is not encouraging, with many in a worse state than last year," Britain's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said Friday. "This, combined with the difficult economic climate, will mean that the negotiations will be even more challenging this time around." Keeping fishermen in port with excessive quotas will add to their economic woes, said Bertie Armstrong of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation.

Norway and the EU jointly oversee cod stocks in North Sea, with each party regulating the stocks in its waters. Norway and the EU will begin annual negotiations on cod stock management in November. Ann Kristin Westberg, deputy director-general of Norway's Fishery Ministry, said her country was unlikely to accept a 25 percent quota. "We probably want to have it lower," she said. "We would like to point out that stock the EU are involved in managing are in terrible shape."

The cod harvest from the Georges Bank and Gulf of Maine fishing grounds, the two primary New England fishing grounds, in 2007 totalled 3,868 metric tons, the biggest catch since 2003 but far under the landings of the 1980s when fishermen often caught more than 20,000 tons annually. "The Gulf of Maine stock is responding to the recovery plan, and the Georges Bank stock is recovering but not as much," said Teri Frady of NOAA's Northeast Fisheries Science Centre in Woods Hole, Massachusetts.

Associated Press writers Clarke Canfield in Portland, Maine, Rob Gillies in Toronto, Karl Ritter in Stockholm and Rachel Leamon and Maresa Patience in London contributed to this report.

Film of Strangford Lough tidal power generator

James May, the BBC broadcaster, has made a short item about the Strangford Lough tidal power electricity generator. The film gives good pictures of the generator in situ in the Lough. The item is on You Tube at www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLzxsWxIquw&NR=1.

Scallop dredging in Cardigan Bay to be banned

It is reported (George Monbiot, The Guardian, 9th October 2009) that scallop fishing in Cardigan Bay is to be banned. Most of Cardigan Bay is a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) under EU law but, until now, this conservation designation has not prevented scallop dredging which, many argue, inflicts damage upon the marine ecosystem out of all proportion to the value of the scallop fishery.

The ban has been issued by the local Sea Fisheries Committee following an ecological survey by Lancaster University, but the fear is that the scallop dredgers will now simply move to another part of the UK. It is alleged that the scallop fishers were only dredging Cardigan Bay because of an earlier ban on their fishing practices in Lyme Bay, Dorset.

MARINET's view is that all this underlines the necessity for a strong Marine and Coastal Access Act, which is shortly to complete its final stages in Parliament. At present the legislation is weak, and does not contain highly protected marine reserves which could protect fisheries. Nor does it seek to establish a management regime for our marine ecosystem where fisheries and marine conservation are seen as equal partners with common, indivisible goals.

Without a Marine Act that unites fisherman and conservationists, and enables conservation and economic uses of the sea to work in partnership, the problem exemplified by Lyme Bay and Cardigan Bay will remain unresolved, will continue to be replicated, and a huge opportunity to bring our fish stocks and marine ecosystem back into health will have been lost.

Read the full article on the MARINET website www.marinet.org.uk/mreserves/cardiganbay.html.

Erosion threatens Norfolk coastguard station

From the Eastern Daily Press of 9th October 2009

Coastguards at an erosion-hit north Norfolk village are looking for a new home, as the cliffs edge closer to their front door.

Happisburgh has had a coastguard station for more than a century and its current headquarters at the end of Beach Road dates back to 1994. But the lifeboat station next door closed in the winter 2002 after its ramp was swept away in a fierce storm and has relocated a mile down the coast at Cart Gap.

Now the coastguards are looking to follow suit as the waves slowly eat away at the cliffs, which are now less than 10 metres away.

Arctic Ocean acid 'will dissolve shells of sea creatures within 10 years'

By Matthew Moore from the Telegraph 4th October '09

Waters around the North Pole are absorbing carbon dioxide at such a rate that they will soon start dissolving the shells of living sea creatures.

The potentially disastrous consequences for the food chain have been highlighted by Professor Jean-Pierre Gattuso of the National Centre for Scientific Research in France. His team of oceanographers have produced startling predictions about the acidity of the Arctic Ocean after research carried out on the Svalbard archipelago, a group of islands half way between Norway and the North Pole, revealed that the problem is more advanced than scientists thought.

Their forecasts suggest that by 2018, 10 per cent of the ocean will be corrosively acidic, rising to 50 per cent in 2050. By 2100 the entire Arctic Ocean will be inhospitable to shellfish, they predict.

"This is extremely worrying," Prof Gattuso told the Oceans of Tomorrow conference in Barcelona. "We knew that the seas were getting more acidic and this would disrupt the ability of shellfish — like mussels — to grow their shells. But now we realise the situation is much worse."

One of the most vulnerable creatures is likely to be the mollusc Limacina helicina, which seabirds, whales and several species of fish rely on for food.

The process of acidification — by which carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere as pollution is absorbed by water and converted into carbonic acid — is taking places in seas and oceans across the world. But the prognosis is particularly bleak in the polar regions because the gas is more soluble in cold water than hot water.

"Over the whole planet, there will be a threefold increase in the average acidity of the oceans, which is unprecedented during the past 20 million years," Prof Gattuso said "That level of acidification will cause immense damage to the ecosystem and the food chain, particularly in the Arctic."

Prof Gattuso told the conference that hi-tech proposals for limiting the extent of climate change would have no affect on reducing the acidity of the oceans, and urged immediate action to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

"Scientists have proposed all sorts of geo-engineering solutions to global warming. For instance, they have proposed spraying the upper atmosphere with aerosol particles that would reduce sunlight reaching the Earth, mitigating the warming caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide," he said. "But these ideas miss the point. They will still allow carbon dioxide emissions to continue to increase — and thus the oceans to become more and more acidic. "There is only one way to stop the devastation the oceans are now facing and that is to limit carbon-dioxide emissions as a matter of urgency."

The increasing acidity of the Arctic Ocean may have a direct impact on the marine life of the British Isles, as the Lophelia pertusa coral responsible for creating reefs off the coast of Scotland is killed off.

Wave power sets back Wave Trident Power tests

The power of the sea has dictated a postponement of the Trident generator off the coast of Southwold, North Suffolk. Sarah Brealy relates the full story in the Eastern Daily Press of 21st September '09 under "Wave power setback as giant machine capsizes"

A pioneering plan to create power from the waves suffered a major setback last night when the machine capsized off the north Suffolk coast. The seabed off Southwold was being used to test a new way of harnessing power from the waves which could ultimately generate electricity on a large scale. But as the experimental wave generator, weighing 80 tonnes, was being towed into position on a floating pontoon yesterday, the pontoon capsized. Local shipping had to be warned as the 18 metre (59ft) high generator was floating loose and drifting with the tide.

It was later connected to one of the tugs which had been towing the pontoon and towed to a safe location at Dunwich Bay, near the beach, where it was out of the way of shipping.

The drama unfolded at 12.30pm as it was being towed into position by two tugs. For reasons which are still not clear, the pontoon capsized, dumping its expensive cargo into the sea. None of the crew were hurt. It was not clear whether the machine itself was badly damaged or whether it will be able to be salvaged and put up as planned. The wave energy machine was being put in place five miles off Southwold for a year-long sea trial, which was intended to gather detailed information on how the machine performed. It is planned as the forerunner to full-size wave farms which could power 60,000 homes.

Mario Siano, watch manager at Yarmouth Coastguard, said: "We are pleased to say there were no injuries sustained to any of the crew on board. There were no pollutants on board. The tugs remain on scene until a salvage operation is put into place. All appropriate authorities have been informed and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency counter-pollution officer is aware and is monitoring the situation."

Southend-based Trident Energy and their wave energy plans were featured in Leonardo Di Caprio's eco-documentary, The 11th Hour, and were described last year by energy and climate change minister Lord Hunt as "a very exciting project by Trident".

When the test model was unveiled in Lowestoft earlier this year, company founder Hugh-Peter Kelly said: "It's our aim to crack wave energy… We want to prove to the world that this works, and that Trident can produce grid-ready AC electricity."

The machine's inventors say its strength is in its simplicity. No hydraulic equipment or air compression is needed and there are few moving parts. The machine stands on a giant pair of legs, supported by submerged pontoons anchored to the sea bed, to hold it above the waves. The framework for the machine has been built by Lowestoft marine engineers Small and Co.

Special floats move up and down with the waves to drive generators, which convert the motion into electricity. Special sensors to detect stormy conditions pull the floats up automatically and protect them from serious damage until the danger has passed.

If they don't, we can…

Here's an item by Hayley Mace that appeared in the East Anglian Daily Times of 18th September '09, a good example of self-sufficiency in the face of official denial.

DIY flood defences for the Blyth Estuary

Campaigners fighting to protect a north Suffolk estuary are preparing to spend up to eight years repairing damaged river banks themselves now that plans for DIY flood defences have been given the green light.

The Environment Agency announced in 2007 that it could no longer justify large-scale investment to repair the defences around the Blyth Estuary, near Southwold, in the face of predicted rising sea levels. It proposed a strategy of managed retreat, which would see the existing walls protecting land around Southwold, Walberswick, Reydon and Blythburgh, maintained for a maximum of 20 years, but with some sections allowed to breach much sooner. Now the Blyth Estuary Group, which has been campaigning against the Environment Agency's proposals, has been given the permission to take on the task and rebuild the mud walls themselves so that the flood defences will last for at least a few more decades.

The plans, which were approved by Suffolk Coastal and Waveney District Councils on Wednesday, involve an 8km stretch of river banks right around the estuary.

Sue Allen, chairman of the Blyth Estuary Group, said that allowing landowners and locals to repair and maintain the river banks will help to secure the estuary for future generations. She said: "This is a truly unique application. It is an innovative and nationally important test case, and an excellent example of Suffolk's communities working together. The Blyth Estuary Group is working towards the next 30 or 40 years. Each generation should be able to make its own decision about the future of the estuary and whether it is viable, which at the moment it is."

The project, which could take between five and eight years to complete, will see all the river banks raised to 2.7m high to protect the surrounding area, including the A12 Lowestoft to Ipswich road, dozens of homes, Southwold harbour and acres of farmland and protected wildlife habitat. An access track will be built across the marshes using waste soil from building sites so that clay from the marshes can then be used to bolster the defences. The work will be carried out in four phases, starting with Tinkers and Delacroix Marshes near Walberswick and then moving round to Robinsons Marsh and Reydon Marshes to finish at the Southwold town marshes.

UN take a stand on the Marine Environment

Marguerite kindly sent us in this item from the UN News Service

UN OFFICIALS PUSH FOR CREATION OF MONITORING SYSTEM FOR MARINE ENVIRONMENT

Significant gaps exist in the understanding and management of the complex processes and trends at work in the world's oceans and seas, which cover 70 per cent of the Earth's surface, warned senior United Nations officials today as they urged governments to approve expert recommendations establishing a system that plugs the holes.

At the opening of a week-long governmental session tasked with considering proposals for the creation of a mechanism that monitors oceans and seas worldwide, Deputy Secretary-General Asha-Rose Migiro www.un.org/apps/dsg/dsgstats.asp?nid=178 called for "a continuous, comprehensive and integrated review of the problems facing the marine environment, including socio-economic aspects."

UN Environment Programme

(www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=594ArticleID=6291&l=en UNEP)
Executive Director Achim Steiner said that declining fish stocks and land-based sources of pollution are some of the persistent challenges facing the marine environment, while the emergence of 'dead zones' and the impacts of climate change — including acidification — are among the more rapidly emerging challenges.

"A systematic assessment process is long overdue," said Mr. Steiner. "This meeting in New York represents a tremendous opportunity for governments to put the best marine science at their service in order to make the best management choices over the coming years and decades."

If the General Assembly's special working group, meeting from 31 August to 4 September, reaches agreement, the first globally integrated UN-backed assessment of the oceans could be delivered by 2014, according to a joint news release issued by UNEP and the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=29008&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html UNESCO).

UNESCO Director-General Koïchiro Matsuura underscored concerns in the Assessment of Assessments report — the first-ever comprehensive overview of scientific marine assessments — which also considers socio-economic issues.

"The report is a clear signal that the world needs a more inclusive approach on its oceans and resources," said Mr. Matsuura, adding that it "provides a framework and options for how this can be done."

UNEP and UNESCO noted that despite the central role oceans play in the economic, environmental and social affairs of the world's 6.7 billion people, not enough is known about their processes from the global climate system, the water cycle and circulation of nutrients, to changes affecting marine habitats.

The clearing of mangroves and coastal wetlands, the over-exploitation of fish stocks and rising tides of pollution are affecting the marine environment's ability to sustain livelihoods and life itself, while climbing concentrations of greenhouse gases — equal to a third or more of annual carbon dioxide emissions — are being absorbed, as well as untold amounts of heavy metals, triggering mounting concern over the marine food chain.

To deal with this situation, improved monitoring and observation practices, regular assessments to provide a deeper understanding of the status and trends of environmental changes, and the know-how and ability to prevent, mitigate and adapt to these changes are urgently required, said the agencies.

This week's meeting of the Working Group will consider the establishment of a management oversight body, a new expert group, and secretariat support mechanisms, which could cost between $4 million and $5.6 million a year.

Aug 31 2009 3:10PM

For more details go to UN News Centre at www.un.org/news

Sewage Pollution in the North-East

Bob Latimer, our man in Whitburn in the North-east, has relentlessly been fighting out a prolonged involving the EA, the local Council and the EC regarding the dreadful level of sewage pollution at his local beach. Here are two (similar) items from the press describing the current situation.

Storm clouds over North East's dirty sea water

September 13th 2009 by Mike Kelly, Sunday Sun

Some of the horrific amounts of rubbish, top, found in our seas, and below, fast flowing waters due to flooding

BATHING water was described as "excellent" despite hundreds of items of sewage being found on the beach the same day, it has been revealed.

Resident Bob Latimer has council documents that said on August 1, 2008, there was so much waste it was "not able to estimate" the amount. Yet the Environment Agency had labelled the bathing water at Whitburn South in Sunderland as "excellent". Mr Latimer has several other council papers which reveal the same EA description on and around dates when sewage debris had been found. Whitburn South — or Roker — is one of five UK beaches at the centre of a European Commission legal challenge about the treatment and discharge of sewage in this country.

An EA spokesman said sewage debris does not necessarily affect the bathing quality of water. "Bathing water quality at beaches is judged by bacteria levels. "Bacteria die off rapidly when exposed to the elements, whereas sewage litter — largely plastic items flushed by householders — can be washed around the coast for decades before landing on a beach."

Concerns about possible health risks on beaches including some in the North were raised on Monday's BBC Panorama programme which detailed how after years of improvement, bathing water quality had began to deteriorate in the last couple of years.

Last year saw a 23 per cent decline in recommended North beaches in the Good Beach Guide. Meanwhile, the number attaining the minimum European "mandatory" standard was 38pc in 2008, compared to just 12pc in 2006, with the rest gaining the higher "guideline" standard.

According to the Marine Conservation Society which publishes the Good Beach Guide, people bathing at "mandatory" level beaches run the risk of being hit by diseases like the stomach bug, gastroenteritis, with one in seven bathes. A spokesman said: "That figure is according to the World Health Organisation."

An EA spokesman said: "UK bathing water quality has improved dramatically over the last 20 years. We have worked with the water industry to invest over £8billion to improve sewage treatment and reduce sewage overflow." A spokesman for Northumbrian Water, which supplies the region's water and treats waste water, said: "We have made huge strides and brought vast improvement to bathing waters and the environment. We're not complacent and will continue to bring further improvement in the future."

What lurks in our waves?

Sep 13 2009 Sunday Sun

FEARS were expressed last week about the potential health hazards on North beaches. So how safe are our waters? Mike Kelly reports.

ON August 1, 2008, the water quality of the sea at Whitburn South beach in Sunderland was given an "excellent" grade by the Environment Agency. Yet on that day a Sunderland City Council report said there was so much sewage on the very same beach it could not be counted. Local campaigner, Bob Latimer, said: "In other reports they've counted up to 8000 items at Hendon. So you just can guess at the amount they must have found." There have been other occasions when this has happened, too, but the EA claimed there is no contradiction.

A spokesman said: "Bathing water quality at Roker (Whitburn South) and Seaburn (Whitburn North) beaches is judged by bacteria levels. Bacteria die off rapidly when exposed to the elements, whereas sewage litter — largely plastic items flushed by householders — can be washed around for decades before landing on a beach."

It's safe to assume Bob isn't on the Christmas card list of Northumbrian Water Ltd, which is responsible for the region's water. Likewise the EA which sets the guidelines within which Northumbrian Water operates.

Since a storm water pumping station was built near his home in Whitburn, Sunderland, Bob has highlighted what he sees as overuse of combined sewer outlets which pump storm water and sewage into rivers and sea during heavy rainfall. It is supposed to be a last resort — if it did not happen there is the risk of the effluent washing back into people's homes — yet Bob and the group Surfers Against Sewage allege: "Whitburn is used so regularly that some see it as part of the sewage treatment process instead of a last resort."

Northumbrian Water and the Environment Agency vehemently deny this.

The situation was highlighted last Monday on the BBC's Panorama programme which painted a grim picture of the nation's beaches. While accepting several factors had contributed to the worsening of bathing water quality in the last couple of years, including run-off from a variety of sources including agricultural land, it seemed to lay most of the blame at the feet of the CSOs. Emotive pictures of raw sewage running onto beaches were broadcast. Yet still Blue Flags saying it was safe to bathe there were flown. And most people don't know what has been washed onto the beach as there are no apparent publics warnings when the CSOs have discharged.

The statistics are concerning, too. In May the North East Good Beach Guide was published and saw a 23 per cent decline in recommended beaches. Last year there were no failures in County Durham, Tyne and Wear or Northumberland. This year beaches at Seaham Hall in County Durham, Whitburn North in Wearside and Seaton Sluice and Spittal near Berwick, Northumberland, all failed water tests. More worrying still is the fact that of the 776 UK beaches tested, 43pc reached the minimum European quality standard. The figure for the North East is 38pc. According to the Marine Conservation Society, that means people have a one-in-seven chance of getting gastroenteritis when they go into the sea or onto our beaches.

Thomas Bell of the MCS which publishes the Good Beach Guide said: "That figure is according to the World Health organisation."

Andy Cummins, born in Tynemouth, North Tyneside, is spokesman for the Surfers Against Sewage group. He said over recent months numerous surfers had filled in questionnaires on its website relating to health problems suffered after they surfed off UK beaches including some in the North. Andy said he could not give personal details of those who were struck down as the questionnaire was confidential. He added: "We've been seeing CSOs discharge 10 or 20 times in the bathing season. When this happens people need to be made aware."

There are 20,000 CSOs in the UK, 1470 of which are in the region. According to Alistair Baker, PR and communications manager of Northumbrian Water, their use is policed by the EA which in turn sets the operating standard by EU guidelines. He said: "During the period 2005 to 2010 we will have invested £85 million to upgrade and screen 481 CSOs. Since 1995 we have spent £750 million on investment to clean up the coastal waters."

What isn't in doubt on all sides is that since the 1990s the quality of bathing water has improved massively. In 1998 no beaches met the guideline standard while in 2006 87.9pc of them did. That figure dipped to 61.8pc last year, the reason being the poor weather. Climate change is creating a wetter environment meaning CSOs are operating more often while it also adds to the run off from agricultural land. There are many other contributing factors, down to the non-permeable flagstones used on home driveways which are generating concentrated masses of water which are affecting the country's drainage system.

The problem stems from the Victorian sewage system which is the basis of the network which combines sewage and surface water. The EA spokesman commented: "We want to see the separation of sewage and surface water in future developments, rather than combined sewer overflows, and we are working with farmers to prevent chemicals and manure from running off their land and into the sea. "Bathing water samples are collected by us at every one of our 495 designated bathing waters once a week — 20 times during the bathing season. They are then tested at our accredited laboratory within 24 hours and we give the information to councils and local organisations on a weekly basis."

Latest Newsletter on the Kelling to Lowestoft Shoreline Management Plan

This can be viewed as a PDF here.

Thoughts on the latest Shoreline Management Plan

Dr. Harry Buckland of Grimsby, one of our most active Coastal Group members gives his thoughts on the latest modifications to the Shoreline Management Plan, which notes some interesting comparators.

I am glad to note that the Environment Agency has agreed to maintain the current sea defence standard north of Great Yarmouth for the next 50 years, although this number compares unfavourably with the Netherlands standard of 1:1000 years. The Grimsby and Ancholme Catchments Flood Management Plan (June 2006) considered a 1:100 standard 'appropriate'. Now there is a suggestion that this standard should be reduced to 1:50 i.e. within the lifetime of the average house. I am trying, so far without success, to discover where, how and by whom such fundamental standards affecting 500,000 homes from the Humber to the Hamble are arrived at and whether there is a statutory right of appeal.

25 square miles of the Broads were threatened which at a land price of £6000 per acre equates to £96 million capital loss, to say nothing of the ongoing economic benefits of some of the most productive farming land in Britain. Somewhere I have read that tourist income from the Norfolk Broads accounts for one third of North Norfolk District Councils revenue.

Comparable figures for housing land are — Netherlands €3,500, UK €14,500. The Netherlands GDP per capita is €52,000, the UK €43,000.

Perhaps two years ago when the Broads were threatened with reversion to saltmarsh I wrote to the Chief Executive of Great Yarmouth Borough Council asking whether plans existed to put the A47 and its accompanying railway line on stilts. My letter was never acknowledged but I note that the Joint Working Group of GYBC, NNDC and Waveney and Suffolk Coast is looking at the long term outlook for the next 100 years. Assuming they accept that sea levels will rise by 1 metre in that time presumably they are investigating the feasibility and costs of re-locating the port of Yarmouth upstream perhaps in Norwich, as was done by King John when he created the port of Kingston-upon Hull a thousand years ago.

The Manchester Ship Canal completed in 1894 cost £1.22 billion at today's prices. It is 36 miles long and was 7 years in construction. The distance from Norwich to Yarmouth is 20 miles.

Sarah Nason's paper 'Uneconomic Sea Defences' was fundamentally flawed in that it used Average Annual Damage insurance figures which completely failed to take account of the total loss of property and land allowed to revert to saltmarsh. Hopefully the next EA assessment will be rather more sophisticated and do something to repair the damaged confidence of householders and businesses.

Dr H M Buckland, 18 Augusta Close, Grimsby, NE Lincs, DN34 4TQ — 14/9/2009

DEFRA's Coastal Erosion plans upset Norfolk Councillors

The following article from The Great Yarmouth Mercury of 8th September 2009 tells of the disatisfaction of North Norfolk District Councils cabinet members with the governments latest proposals that fail to address the issue of losses due to their plans to abandon much of Norfolk to the sea.

Coastal erosion plans slammed

Government proposals to support communities threatened by coastal erosion were slammed as "derisory" yesterday, as councillors agreed to launch a bid for more financial help.

At a North Norfolk District Council meeting, cabinet members were asked for their views on Defra's Coastal Change Policy which aims to address some of the issues faced by businesses and homeowners left to deal with a changing coastline.

The council has long been lobbying for a fair deal for people affected by changes to the way the coast is defended and councillors agreed the policy was a step in the right direction. But head of coastal strategy Frew said it fell far short of what was needed. "It goes along way to what we want but it doesn't go far enough," he said. "The financial support the government is proposing to give homeowners who lose their homes as a result of a change of government policy is — I think you could use the word derisory in this instance — a total of £4,000 or £5,000."

Councillor Peter Moore said the support suggested by the policy would barely touch the surface. He said: "The amount of money that's being talked of seems to me to be worse than derisory. It doesn't even cover the estate agent fees for their next house."

At the same meeting, councillors were also asked to back a bid for a share of £11m of government funding which NNDC could use to help communities adapt to changes brought on by the threat of coastal erosion.

The Coastal Change Fund hopes to support innovative projects helping places where sea defences have been deemed unjustifiable by the government to tackle issues such as a loss of investment, blight and harm to the environment. Councillors agreed to submit a bid, which will ask for a total of more than £2.5m for a range of projects. The proposals include a scheme where the council could buy properties at risk and lease them. Further funds will also be asked for to finance the "rolling back" of businesses, community facilities and dwellings in threatened areas.

Hilary Nelson, NNDC's portfolio holder for tourism, said the bid would help to show communities that the council was not going to let them "fall into the sea".

Cash hope for erosion hit communities

Here's an item by Richard Batson on DEFRA's proposals that appeared in the Eastern Daily Press on 14th August '09.

Cash hope for erosion hit communities

Erosion hit communities in north Norfolk could be helped by a share of an £11m government pot to help them adapt to their changing coastline. The district council, whose experts are already in the forefront of formulating national policy, is seeking to table "pathfinder" bids for cash to support innovative projects helping places where sea defences cannot be justified.

Pathfinder projects are expected to develop imaginative local solutions to issues such as loss of investment and confidence, blight and harm to the environmental. Measures could include taking a different approach to development control, giving councils the power to buy at-risk properties and lease them back to residents, giving people practical help if they lose their homes, and maintaining infrastructure that is vital for businesses and householders.

Clive Stockton, the council's cabinet member for coastal strategy, said: "This initiative represents a step change in government policy towards coastal management, recognising for the first time the plight of coastal communities and their need for support in confronting the changes which they face." The council will also continue to campaign for long-term solutions by responding to an ongoing consultation about its coastal change policy.

The council was working closely with the Happisburgh-based Coastal Concern Action Group. It was anxious to ensure it had the support of coastal communities, and that its projects responded appropriately to local needs. It was also keen to find partners to deliver the projects if the funding bid was successful. Mr Stockton, who also sits on the Local Government Association's national coastal special interest group, urged the public to respond, saying: "What happens to our coast, and to the communities on it, affects the livelihood of the whole district."

The government consultation runs until 25th September '09. Documents can be found on the government's website: www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/coastal-change

EU Commission says it will act on UK sewage pollution

In a BBC TV Panorama programme, broadcast 7th September 2009, it is reported that the European Commission will be taking action under the Bathing Water Directive, 76/160/EC, over what is believed to be illegal amounts of sewage present in the sea at Torbay and other UK resorts.

The European Commission believes that combined sewer overflows (CSOs) [see MARINET Briefing on CSOs www.marinet.org.uk/ukbw/whitburncso.html] spill so much untreated sewage into the sea that they are breaking EU law.

CSOs are an overflow system which prevents the sewage works being flooded, and the sewage from backing up into domestic properties when excessive water enters the foul water sewer system following heavy rainfall. There are more than 20,000 CSOs around the UK, all owned and operated by UK water companies.

The European Commission has started legal action against the UK over CSOs at Torbay, Whitburn, London, Kilbarchan in Scotland and the Burry Inlet in Wales.

The Environment Agency (EA) stated in the BBC Panorama programme that without CSOs, sewage would back up into people's homes. MARINET observes that whilst CSOs are necessary as an emergency facility, the real issue is the construction of storm sewage storage capacity at sewage works. If this storage capacity existed throughout the UK (and it does exist in areas where the water companies have invested properly) then the frequent use of CSOs would be unnecessary. However there has been a conspicuous failure by the water companies to build this storm storage capacity throughout the UK, and a failure by the regulator (Environment Agency) to protect the environment and enforce the building of this capacity.

In the Panorama programme Thomas Bell, Marine Conservation Society, said that in some parts of the UK, CSOs were spilling far too much and not just after heavy rainfall. "We do know that on some beaches, these CSOs are discharging all the time, up to hundreds of times a year," he said. "It's more than possible that we've built ourselves a system in this country where they're being used as a means of regular sewage disposal." Commenting upon this, Miranda Kavanagh, Director of Evidence at the Environment Agency, said: "The alternative is to have sewage backing up into people's homes and up the street. It's a matter, for us, of balancing risks to public health against risk to the environment and trying to find a balance between those two things. It's not a black-and-white situation."

According to a calculation by the Marine Conservation Society (MCS) and reported in the Panorama programme, of all the beaches tested for water quality in the UK, 43% give rise to at least a one in 20 chance of getting gastroenteritis after a swim. This relates to water quality meeting the Guideline Standard of the Bathing Water Directive. If water meets this Guideline Standard, it is referred to by UK authorities as "excellent". The odds referred to here are derived from World Health Organisation figures.

For bathing water that just passes the minimum legal standard of the Bathing Water Directive, the odds of falling ill can be as high as one in seven.

MARINET observes that, in reality, the sampling undertaken by UK authorities to assess water quality against the minimum legal standard of the Bathing Water Directive does not, in most instances, sample for salmonella and enteroviruses (both mandatory parameters stipulated in the Bathing Water Directive). Therefore actual compliance of UK bathing waters with the mandatory minimum standard of the Directive is largely unknown, see the 2008 monitoring results (www.marinet.org.uk/ukbw/gbeachg.html).

This failure to monitor for salmonella and enteroviruses is, in the opinion of MARINET, very serious. This type of monitoring — for salmonella and enteroviruses — is sampling for actual pathogens in the bathing water, and not just "indicators" of the possible presence of these pathogens. The kinds of pathogens that can be present in bathing water as a result of the presence of sewage are recorded on the MARINET website (www.marinet.org.uk/ukbw/pressrelease0407.html).

In the Panorama programme Thomas Bell, coastal pollution officer for the MCS and editor of the Good Beach Guide, said the latest available figures reveal a decline in bathing water quality over the past three years, with the number of beaches in the guide recommended as 'excellent' down by almost 17% over 2008. The drop represents the biggest year-on-year fall in the Good Beach Guide's 22-year history.

Andy Cummins, Surfers Against Sewage, said in the Panorama programme: "We've had people call us from Wales, from Scotland, from the north-east and from the south-west telling us about how they've contracted illnesses after rain, how they've noticed raw sewage and sewerage related debris in the sea. It's filthy, you are surfing in a sewer."

Responding to this in the Panorama programme, the Environment Agency's Ms Kavanagh said CSO sewage spills that are not deemed to be a risk to bathing water do not need to be reported. The EA grants consent for limited spills when necessary. Spills directly onto designated beaches are limited to three times a year, but those upriver, which flow onto nearby beaches, are given more leeway. "If it is within consented limits and has no impact on the bathing water quality then unless we have particular concerns that would not necessarily be something that would come to our attention."

Commenting on this assertion by the EA, Thomas Bell of the Marine Conservation Society said the bigger concern is that the general water quality testing system approved by the EA does not take the impact of CSOs into account. "There is no — at the moment — testing regime in place to monitor on a systematic basis for discharge from those pipes."

For most people on a day out at the seaside steering clear of a nearby CSO would be a priority, and the Environment Agency recommends that people avoid bathing for 24 hours in the vicinity of a CSO after heavy rain. According to the Marine Conservation Society's Good Beach Guide, 45% of the 1,134 beaches which the Guide records have a CSO close enough to affect them.

MARINET, who has long tried to bring these facts to public attention, welcomes the BBC Panorama report. However MARINET notes that it was broadcast at the end of the summer sea bathing season, and not at the beginning.

Sources:
BBC News, 7th September 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8241035.stm
BBC Panorama, 7th September 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_8236000/8236995.stm

The Threat to Norfolk and its Churches

David Keller of BBC Norfolk tells of the coming catastrophe for Norfolk should no effective action be taken to prevent erosion and its causes:

At least six villages wiped off the map, hundreds of people turned out of their homes and some of the Broads' best freshwater lakes swamped by seawater. Thousands of acres of agricultural land turned into mudflats, the loss of bird species such as bitterns, cranes and marsh harriers and the extinction of traditional crafts such as reed cutting.

Read the full article on our website at www.marinet.org.uk/coastaldefences/churches.html

A New Threat from Coastal Erosion

Increasing erosion and the failure to protect our coastline threatens a new hazard in the form of potential hazardous waste from former industrial and domestic landfill sites situated along the UK coastline. Sam Bond wrote on the August 21st '09 Edie Net Website the following 'Crumbling Coastline threatens landfill spills'.

Coastal rubbish tips that long since covered over and abandoned could cause a fresh headache as erosion threatens to open them up and wash the waste into the sea. Predicted impacts of climate change resulting in changing weather patterns and sea level rise put an ever-increasing pressure on the UK coastline to support flood and erosion management.

This possible increased level of coastal erosion places risk of wash-out of potential hazardous waste from former industrial and domestic landfill sites situated along the coastline in the UK.

Research and information broker CIRIA is now planning to develop guidance for those responsible for managing these time-bombs. "Completed landfill sites may have had very little monitoring undertaken to assess the potential for pollution incidents, so very little may be known about their likely risk to the environment or human health," said a statement from CIRIA. "Identifying the most important closed landfill sites can be particularly difficult due to limited data available on waste types and quantities deposited and also the type and extent of environmental monitoring already undertaken. It is more than likely that upon further investigations additional landfill sites posing a risk to the maritime environment and human health due to erosion will be identified."

"Also, considering the preparation of a second round of Shoreline Management Plans in progress in England and Wales a number of new sites may emerge as potential problem areas, especially in the medium to longer term."

It guidance plans to look at engineering solutions, the potential environmental impacts and how legislation will shape the response of those tasks with dealing with the problem.

Mock 'Trees' along the North Sea Coast?

A novel Idea to abate Sea Rise appeared in the 27th August '09 'Eastern Evening News' entitled 'Artificial trees could save planet'

Norwich-based scientists have given the thumbs up to new engineering technology which could see forests of artificial trees sprout up along motorways or off the North Sea coast to help cut greenhouse gas emissions. A team from the University of East Anglia's school of Environmental Sciences has run the rule over research by the Institute of Mechanical Engineers looking at the possibilities of 'geo-engineering' to help in the battle against climate change.

Researchers highlighted three types of technology which could help remove carbon and store it. Top of that list was the artificial trees idea followed by using containers of algae reactors on buildings to soak up the carbon from the air during photosynthesis. The third proposal involved reflecting sunlight back into space, possibly using reflective roofs.

According to the report a forest of 100,000 trees, each costing around £15,000, would be enough to soak up the UK's transport pollution. A prototype 'tree' the size of a shipping container has already been developed and the report suggests that the North Sea could be a good place to locate any 'forests'.

Nem Vaughan, a researcher at the University of East Anglia's school of environmental sciences, who evaluated the proposals, said the idea was to look at how existing technology could be adapted to help find a solution to the greenhouse gas problem. "The artificial trees idea came out as the front runner," she said. "If they were put in the North Sea you could have wind turbines to power them by placing them you could link them to the carbon capture and storage part."

This year the UEA established a new geo-engineering assessment and research initiative (GEAR) as part of an offshoot of its world-renowned Tyndall Centre to study new climate change cutting concepts. But Dr Vaughan said there is still work to be done on the science and the side effects, and the technology would only work alongside mitigation measures to cut emissions in the first place. "They are not a solution in themselves to the problem and it's very important that we mitigate the transition to low carbon as soon as possible," she added.

Dr Tim Fox, the report's lead author said the findings were exciting innovative and novel and could help inspire a generation of young engineers. "For the first time we really examine some of the practical initiatives we could adopt to essentially clean up the mess we have made," he said. "Geo-engineering may give us those extra few years to transition to a low carbon world and prevent any one of the future climate change scenarios we all fear."

Further Dredging off Southwold

The Lowestoft Journal of 26th August '09 produced the following item entitled 'Campaigners voice fears over dredging'

Campaigners have urged a council to reconsider scientific evidence before backing plans for dredging off the Suffolk coast.

United Marine Dredging and Cemex UK Marine applied to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) last year for permission to continue dredging an area about 20 miles off Southwold, where they have operated for 12 years. Now Suffolk County Council's officers have recommended that the authority backs the renewal application because they do not think that continued dredging will have a significant impact on the area. Currently 14 licences are being dredged between Caister and Lowestoft, from four miles out to about 20 miles offshore, providing about eight million tonnes of raw construction material every year.

The county council's development control committee will discuss its response to a consultation about the Southwold application at a meeting on September 3. A report to the meeting said that an environmental statement compiled by the applicants shows that there is no link between aggregate dredging and adverse effects on coastal erosion or fish stocks. However coastal campaigners have already lodged a formal objection to the renewal application because they believe dredging can speed up erosion and damage fish stocks.

Pat Gowen from Marinet, part of Friends of the Earth, said: "There is scientific evidence which recognises the damage done by dredging, and the council should take that on board. We have several grounds for objecting, as we think the further removal of aggregate offshore will increase the slope of the beaches, leading to greater gravitational run-off of sand and deeper water leans bigger waves, which lead to more erosion."

The council's recommendation also specifies that a programme of coastal impact assessments must be carried out to monitor any effects on the local coastline. The Anglian Offshore Dredging Association, which represents five of the UK's largest dredging companies, is already undertaking a 12-month study to look at the effects of dredging on fishing and erosion around the Norfolk and Suffolk coast.

A final decision on the renewal application will be made by the Marine and Fisheries Agency at a later date.

Worldwatch report claims the ecosystem approach grants "freedom for our seas"

In a report published in late 2007 by the Worldwatch Institute, titled Worldwatch Report 174, Oceans in Peril : Protecting Marine Biodiversity, the use of the ecosystem-based approach to marine management is identified as the key, central change that must occur worldwide at government level if our management of the seas is to restore heavily depleted fish stocks and marine biodiversity.

The ecosystems of our seas must be managed in terms of the limits of the resources which they can provide, and not simply concentrate on single species, and it is essential the Report asserts that the precautionary approach, in conjunction with marine reserves, is employed as the basis of the management system. In other words, the Report asserts " current presumptions that favour freedom to fish and freedom of the seas will need to be replaced with the new concept of freedom for the seas."

Further details about this Worldwatch report and how to obtain it may be seen on our website at www.marinet.org.uk/eatmm/oceansinperil.html.

OSPAR prepares for Ministerial Conference in 2010

The Oslo Paris Convention (www.ospar.org) of countries bordering the N. E. Atlantic has been in existence for 10 years. The OSPAR Convention is charged with a responsibility to promote protection of the N. E Atlantic, and it will shortly be producing its Quality Status Report (QSR 2010) which records the condition of marine life and the ecosystem in these seas, and the changes that have taken place over the past 10 years.

The 2010 Quality Status Report will provide the background to an OSPAR Ministerial Conference in Bergen, Norway, in September 2010 at which the Ministers from the OSPAR countries will agree the new policy base for OSPAR's work over the next ten years until 2020.

Central to this Bergen Conference and OSPAR's new policy base will be the adoption of the ecosystem-based approach to marine management. This requires the marine management decisions of member governments to not just respond adaptively to marine problems, but also to develop as a management regime which actually promotes the integrity of the marine ecosystem, thereby rebuilding and maintaining good levels marine biodiversity. Central to this ecosystem-based approach is a suite of management tools, which include the extensive use of marine reserves and the precautionary principle.

MARINET is a member of the OSPAR Committee which is developing this new management approach, and MARINET has helped define the nature and practice of the ecosystem-based approach to marine management for OSPAR, see www.marinet.org.uk/eatmm/definition.pdf.

Natural England and JNCC launch Regional MCZ Stakeholder Projects

With the imminent passage of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill into law, and thus the establishment of powers for Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) to establish a network of marine conservation zones (MCZs) in our seas out to 200 nautical miles, Natural England and JNCC are establishing Regional Stakeholder Groups who will advise NE and JNCC as to where these MCZs should be located and the nature of the protection within each of the individual MCZs. In England regional MCZ project groups have been established for the Irish Sea, South West Seas, the Eastern Channel, and the North Sea. In Scotland, this process is being undertaken by the Scottish Parliament under delegated powers, and in the case of Welsh inshore waters (i.e. out to 12 nautical miles) by the Welsh Assembly.

Crucial to this process will be the membership of these regional MCZ project groups, and MARINET has applied to be a member of each regional project, and will be training its members to be involved with these regional projects.

Equally important will be the basis on which the marine conservation zones (MCZs) are selected. Natural England and JNCC will be producing guidance for the regional project groups, and MARINET has just re-issued its own statement of the key principles involved in this most important matter, see MARINET's Guide to the Ecosystem-based Approach in the Selection and Management of Marine Reserves at www.marinet.org.uk/eatmm/ecosystem.html.

Islay to be entirely powered by tides

ScottishPower is planning to build 10MW of tidal power to provide electricity for the isle of Islay's 3,500 inhabitants and the island's famous distilleries.

Read the full article in the Guardian of the 25th August '09

Our Declining Marine Species

It's not just fish stocks declining in our North Sea, but many other creatures too. Four years ago your author would push a shrimp net for just ten minutes to catch a couple of pints of brown shrimp (Crangon crangon or Crangon vulgaris) for tea. This year saw just three shrimps caught in two 30 minute sessions of hard net pushing.

Anglers along the beach who would once catch six to ten fish in a few hours of fishing are now getting nothing in ten hours of trying. Now we see that other species are declining rapidly. An article by Anthony Carroll in the Eastern Daily Press of 28th August tells of the demise of Cuttlefish.
(See our Illustrated Guide to Marine Animals www.marinet.org.uk/mreserves/marineanimals.html)

Fears over future of sea creature sparks major survey

They are elusive alien-like creatures that dart through the waters off the Norfolk coast. And now colourful cuttlefish are the subject of a major hunt by a concerned marine group, which fears they may be declining in number. But as divers from Norfolk Seaquest carry out their first cuttlefish survey along the Norfolk shoreline they face a challenge — trying to spot the chameleon-like cuttlefish.

Seaquest volunteers are trying to find proof of any dwindling population in the squid-like creatures, which can change their skin colour to blend into the background. The hunt was set up after group members noticed that the number of cuttlefish and their remains found over the last 15 year had fallen. If numbers have declined it could mean that other aquatic species are also declining in numbers.

So far divers have found a pair of cuttlefish off West Runton and members have discovered several washed-up cuttlebones, including one on Cley beach. Seaquest co-ordinator Helen Nott said:

"Over the last 15 years there seems to have been a decline in the number of cuttlefish found in The Wash and the north Norfolk coast. "At Heacham, beach cuttlebones used to be commonly found washed up 15 years ago, indicating a healthy population off the coast. Over the years hardly any have been found there. We are hoping there is not a downward trend in their numbers. They are part of the North Sea's ecosystem and if they are disappearing then it could be the same with other life. Cuttlefish are very good at camouflage, but they are not too hard to find if they are near the surface."

Seaquest hopes that families can join in the survey by recording any cuttlebones they find on the county's beaches. Last year the group carried out a comprehensive survey of pipefish numbers.

Darren Gook, senior aquarist at Yarmouth's Sea Life Centre, welcomed the survey. He said: "Cuttlefish are quite elusive with their camouflage and they jet away if you stumble upon them. It will be nice to get a baseline survey of their numbers."

For more information on the cuttlefish survey or to send in any evidence, email norfolkseaquest@yahoo.co.uk or visit www.norfolkseaquest.co.uk

Substantial rise in CO₂ emissions by shipping

The European Federation for Transport and the Environment (British member: Environment Transport Association) has stated that in the period between 1990 and 2007 the European CO₂ releases from shipping rose by 60%. Also, the Federation states that aviation emissions more than doubled during this same period of 1990 to 2007.

The Federation states that in the EU transport sector overall, carbon emissions rose by more than 35% between 1990 and 2007. Interestingly, whilst aviation and shipping emissions rose as described above, the emissions from other elements in the transport sector decreased by 8.9%.

Shipping and aviation activities accounted for 24% of EU transport emissions in 2007. Transport's share of total EU emissions has risen from 3.8% in 1990 to 6.9% in 2007, according to the Federation. Emissions from shipping grew by 0.9% in 2007, compared with 2.8% for aviation.

According to the Federation, carbon dioxide emissions from the EU transport sector are underestimated in official reporting because data submitted to the UN under the Kyoto Protocol does not include international aviation and shipping. The Federation's full report may be viewed at www.transportenvironment.org/Publications/prep_hand_out/lid:545

"Aviation and shipping are the fastest growing sectors in terms of transport emissions in Europe, so if you leave them out it hides the true extent of the overall growth," the Federation's Director Jos Dings told ENDS.

Source : Environmental News and Data Service (ENDS), 17th August 2009.

Très Bon

French PM gives the thumbs up to the Marine Reserves Campaign

Mr Sarkozy has made a personal statement which commits France to setting up a network of Highly Protected Marine Reserves on the lines of the MARINET recommendations to our own government. In addition, he has also recognised his duty to act beyond the limits of European waters and include those parts of the sea in the control of French overseas territories. If this same principle were to be adopted in the UK, over three million square kilometres would be included in the scope of protection, in addition to the 0.75m square kilometres of the UK Exclusive Economic Zone in the scope of the Marine Bill.

He also binds his government to a timetable.

His speech, delivered on 16 July 2009, can be seen in full at www.ambafrance-uk.org/President-Sarkozy-on-France-s.html

The whole speech is of great interest to marine conservation campaigners, but the key extract says:-

France's maritime policy — Speech by Nicolas Sarkozy, President of the Republic
Le Havre, 16 July 2009

FRENCH MARITIME AREA/FISHERY RESERVES/MARINE DIVERSITY

"I want to take up the compromise which emerged from the Grenelle Maritime Forum. France today protects less than 1% of her maritime area. By 2012 I'm determined that 10% of it will be protected, and, by 2020, 20% of the 11 million km² of sea under France's sovereignty will have to be included. And I expect half this area to consist of fishery reserves and boxes, to be designated with the assistance of fishermen, scientists and local stakeholders. It's here that marine biodiversity will be preserved. It's here that we will be able to recover the resources which will in future enable fishing to go on for ever in our country.

"So, in 2020, the network of maritime areas will protect over 2 million km² of oceans and seas under French sovereignty. This network will extend both the length of the coasts of metropolitan France, particularly in the Mediterranean, and of Overseas France: from the French West Indies to New Caledonia and Polynesia. This maritime network will complement the green and blue belts created by the Grenelle Environment Forum on land, without forgetting the "navy blue belt" so dear to Isabelle Autissier [French round-the-world sailor]. What we're going to do in pursuit of this goal of maritime protection, no other State in the world has ever done. The example France is going to set will pave the way for an unprecedented effort to preserve the oceans, recover fish stocks and safeguard all those who depend every day on the fertility of the seas for their livelihood.

PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE/"SEA ORBITER"

"During the Grenelle Maritime Forum, requests were made every day for moratoria, in the name of the precautionary principle. Admittedly, we still know too little and are too ill-informed about the life concealed beneath the world's oceans. It's also true that evidence of an exhaustion of the natural marine reserves is piling up. Finally, it's true that threats to the existence of some species like bluefin tuna can no longer be ignored. In this instance, the precautionary principle dictates that we very swiftly beef up our scientific knowledge of the sea bed, exploration of the marine worlds, stocks assessment and understanding of the ecosystems. The precautionary principle dictates too that we substantially increase our scientific expertise on the state of natural marine resources. We will, I most solemnly pledge here, commit the necessary funding. I am keen to see our country return to a great oceanographic policy, drawing, of course, on the network of French expertise in the marine sciences, without ever neglecting such new initiatives as, for example, the building of the "Sea Orbiter" international [floating] oceanic station."

MARINET member contributes to Big Issue article on UK Marine Bill

The Big Issue in the North published in its edition at the end of July an article about the troubled state of UK seas and the need for the UK Marine Bill to seriously address these matters. This article can be seen here at www.marinet.org.uk/mreserves/bigissue.html.

The article cites evidence from Natural England that at least 70% of UK fish stocks have declined in reproductive capacity and that whereas in 1998 UK vessels landed £137 million of cod and haddock, this fell to just £70 million in 2002.

The Living Seas report by the Wildlife Trusts is also cited in the Big Issue article. This report states that basking sharks have declined by 95% and the once ubiquitous common skate is on the verge of extinction. The report also observes that dolphins, whales and seals have all suffered in recent years and that fish stocks have collapsed. "The marine environment — our life support system — is on its knees" the Wildlife Trusts report states.

Abigail Herron, a member of MARINET and Manchester FOE, is a diver and has first-hand experience of how marine wildlife has declined near Anglesey. "The waters around Anglesey" she says "are very rich in biodiversity and you used to find a lot of dogfish there, but you just don't see them anymore."

MARINET believes that the only way to reverse this decline in marine biodiversity, which is not just due to over-fishing but also pollution, development and, increasingly, climate change is to establish a widespread and extensive network of marine reserves throughout UK seas out 200 nautical miles where all damaging human activities are forbidden. This way the marine ecosystem as a whole can be protected, and be allowed to heal and recover. MARINET is proposing an amendment to the Report Stage of the Marine Bill in the House of Commons which will allow for precisely this. The amendment will mean that marine reserves can be created not just to protect habitats, species and geomorphological features (as the current draft of the Marine Bill proposes), but that marine reserves can also be created in areas to protect "the marine ecosystem as a whole". This is the key phrase and concept that will ensure that the UK Marine Bill can deliver on its political promises. At present, this phrase and concept is absent from the legislation.

Political Matters

As you will be well aware from the wide national publicity given to the issue, the recent by-election in Norwich North resulted in the loss of our great supporter and MP Dr. Ian Gibson. The refusal of the New Labour kangaroo Court to hear his evidence, in singling him out, and their not permitting an appeal resulted in his deselection and self-resignation.

Ian, though not a coastal constituency MP, was instrumental in placing many Parliamentary Questions and providing Ministerial approaches for us on offshore dredging, coastal defence, the Shoreline Management Plan on and Managed Retreat. This support might well have been a major factor in his deselection. He was undoubtedly a thorn in the side of the autocratic government because of this and the support that he gave to other constituency issues rather than how ordered to do so by the current undemocratic system.

The Kangaroo Court of three identified by ex-DEFRA Minister Nick Brown, the Chief Whip and New Labour Party General Secretary Ray Collins and could hardly have been less unbiased. For instance, Nick Brown himself voted strongly against a transparent Parliament and an investigation into the Iraq War, strongly for introducing ID cards, for introducing foundation hospitals, for introducing student top-up fees, for Labour's anti-terrorism laws, for the Iraq war and for replacing Trident. He is a strong supporter of offshore industry. But Ian voted exactly opposite on all these. Other MPs, particularly those on the Cabinet who attracted more opprobrium, over expenses or other misbehaviour, were not so victimised.

But in the resulting Norwich North by election the Green Party with candidate Dr. Rupert Read doubled their vote in a less-than-50% poll to come only just behind the imposed New Labour candidate, sadly with insufficient votes to win the seat. Rupert is a great supporter of our cause. You may wish to read some of his pennings on marine environmental issues, as:

• http://rupertsread.blogspot.com/2008/09/climate-warning-bells-for-east-anglia.html
• http://rupertsread.blogspot.com/2008/09/new-dredging-threat-to-our-coastline.html
• www.norwichgreenparty.org/default.aspx?
• www.norwichgreenparty.org/news/050404.html

We have reason to hope that he may become the Norwich North MP at the forthcoming election.

Regards,   Pat

Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy : EU consultation

The European Commission has launched a wide-ranging debate on the way that EU fisheries are managed via the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The aim is to gather views from all those with an interest in the future of Europe's fisheries: fishermen, fish processors, retailers, environmentalists, consumers, taxpayers — in fact, the European Commission claims "every EU citizen". That includes you!

To enable this consultation to take place, the European Commission has issued an Green Paper on CFP Reform, and is asking for comments to be submitted between now and the end of December. You can obtain a copy of the Green Paper and the consultation form by visiting http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/reform

MARINET will be engaging with this CFP Reform process, and is particularly interested in seeing that policies are established which enable "no-take" marine reserves to be established in the spawning and nursery areas of commercial fish species, and that the requirement of the EU's Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) that "populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological limits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock" is adhered to. To see the MSFD on the MARINET website, visit www.marinet.org.uk/marinebill/euframeworkdirective.pdf

The EU's CFP Reform Green Paper notes that currently 88% of commercial fish stocks in seas covered by the CFP are being fished beyond their "maximum sustainable yield". The impact of this level of fishing on the marine ecosystem as a whole is considerable, and MARINET believes that the CFP must adopt an "ecosystem-based approach" to the management of fish stocks. This means that the needs of the marine ecosystem itself must become paramount, rather than fishing quotas. Unless this change in management philosophy occurs European commercial fish stocks will collapse into extinction, as has befallen the largest cod fishery in the North Atlantic located off Newfoundland, Canada, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_cod

Double Dutch Dikes

The Dutch have long shown Britain how to defend their land from the sea and are now coming up with further innovative methods from which the UK could learn if only the will and sanity were there. Could the recent use of double dikes in Holland be an idea to help save our disappearing coast? Read our full article at www.marinet.org.uk/coastaldefences/dutchdikes.html

The MFA advises that it is not a member of the Regulator Advisory Group for REAs

The Marine and Fisheries Agency advises that it is not a member of the Regulator Advisory Group for REAs involving Marine Minerals — Correspondence between MARINET & the MFA, and a copy of the "Terms of Reference for Regional Environmental assessments involving the extraction of Marine Minerals" can be viewed at www.marinet.org.uk/mad/marea.html.

UK government publishes newsletter on EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) is a very important item of marine legislation emanating from the EU.It will require all European seas to attain "good environmental status" by 2020. Thus the UK Government is obligated to deliver this for our seas.

It will mean that our seas will, for example, have to meet the following standards by 2020:

• All fish and shellfish populations must be within safe biological limits.
• We must maintain the biological biodiversity of marine species and habitats.
• Contaminants released to sea must be limited so that they do not cause pollution.
• Marine food chains must be at normal abundance and diversity.

Defra has now published the first in a series of newsletters advising people about the MSFD and what it means and how it will be implemented. If you would like to receive copies of this newsletter, visit here for details.

Government publishes terms of reference for E. Anglian aggregate dredging REA

The Marine and Fisheries Agency, which determines offshore aggregate dredging licences and is shortly to become part of the overarching planning and licensing agency known as the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) under the UK Marine and Coastal Access Bill, has advised MARINET that it is not part of the Regulatory Advisory Group which is overseeing the Marine Aggregate Regional Environmental Assessment (MAREA) which is being undertaken voluntarily by the Anglian Offshore Dredging Association (AODA) of marine aggregate companies, see for further details see www.marinet.org.uk/mad/marea.html.

The Regulatory Advisory Group for this East Anglian offshore aggregate dredging REA consists of the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Natural England, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) and English Heritage.

With the support of Defra, the Crown Estate, and the British Marine Aggregate Producers Association, these Regulatory Advisory Group members (i.e. Cefas, NE, JNCC and English Heritage) have published a document in March 2008 which provides the terms of reference for Regional Environmental Assessments involving Marine Minerals.

This document which provides these terms of reference may be seen as a PDF file on the CEFAS website as a pdf file.

Is the East Anglian offshore aggregate dredging REA a genuine study of the facts?

The East Anglian Association of offshore aggregate dredging companies (AODA) is undertaking as a voluntary action, supported by the UK Government, a Regional Environmental Assessment (MAREA) of the East Anglian marine aggregate dredging licences (see: www.thecrownestate.co.uk/active_dredge_chart_east_jan09-4.pdf)

This REA has been out to public consultation over its Scoping Report (i.e. the issues which the REA should or should not consider), and MARINET members have made several submissions to the REA's consultant (Emu Ltd) at the Scoping Report stage, see www.marinet.org.uk/mad/objection.html#rea.

When the Scoping Report was published in February 2009, MARINET's concerns were not included in the future programme of study under the REA. These concerns involve the need for the REA to study the movement of sand from the beaches to the offshore dredging sites, and the movement of sand in the opposite direction, in order to establish whether there is a link between the dredging sites and coastal erosion. The aggregate companies claim there is no link, but without a scientific study of this matter using tracer studies (marked particles whose movement can be traced) this claim by the aggregate companies remains unsubstantiated. The REA is refusing at present to undertake such a tracer study and to review evidence on this matter assembled by an EU scientific study (known as the "Sandpit Study"). Also, MARINET believes that the wave regime model used by the aggregate companies to determine the impact of waves breaking on the shore and its link to coastal erosion (the wave regime can be affected by offshore aggregate dredging) is out of date and deficient. MARINET wants the REA to undertake a new calculation of the wave regime. So far, the REA is refusing to do so.

MARINET has expressed its concerns about the failure of the REA Scoping Report to include these issues in the forthcoming work of the Regional Environmental Assessment (REA). If the REA does not include these matters, MARINET believes the REA will be seriously deficient. This is a significant matter because the REA will be used by the aggregate companies as a scientific basis to support future marine aggregate dredging licence applications.

In correspondence MARINET has requested to the aggregate dredging companies' consultant that the Scoping Report is amended and includes a tracer study and a new wave regime model, and MARINET has advised the Government (Marine and Fisheries Agency who issues marine aggregate dredging licences) of this request. The consultant said in February that it is in receipt of MARINET's requests but could not determine them until the aggregate dredging companies determined Phase 2 of the MAREA contract i.e. which consultant would be given the money to perform the actual REA.

Phase 2 of the REA contract was decided in June. It has been awarded to the same consultant who performed the Scoping Study for the REA (i.e. Phase 1). This consultant is Emu Ltd. MARINET has now written to this consultant to ask whether the concerns which MARINET raised at the beginning of the year about the inadequacies in the Scoping Report will be addressed.

MARINET is awaiting this reply and the response of the Marine and Fisheries Agency. The East Anglian Marine Aggregate Regional Environmental Assessment (MAREA) will determine the impact of marine aggregate dredging on the East Anglian coast and offshore seas since licences were first issued in the late 1960s, and thus whether it is safe to continue to operate these licences and to issue new ones. This safety can only be determined if the REA is based on sound science. MARINET is currently wondering and asking whether this will be so.

Access to the Coast

Access to our coastline is becoming a grave problem, not without its dangers. Where beaches have been drawn down by sand-stripping the sea at high tide now surges at the base of tall unscalable sand cliffs threatening inescapable drowning when the tide comes in, whilst what is left of many peoples private gardens now forms a further dangerous impediment to access. Many a route, footpath and ramp to the beach and sea is no longer navigable. Where there was once a gentle and full means of perambulation, this has been terminated by erosion and incursion of the sea.
Along some parts of the East Anglian coastline the ruins of eroded buildings and World War II defences form dangerous obstacles, and beaches have disappeared. especially at high tide. Others have had their sand stripped to leave mud and clay marl. At some the loss of sand cohesivity has brought about quicksands from which many people have had to be rescued in the past few months. In other words, much of that path which ran along the East Anglian Coast has been lost already.
The coastal path has been a major part of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, much vaunted by Government, yet much of this path that has prior existed along the East Anglian coast for many years has already disappeared due to coastal erosion caused in large part by aggregate dredging.
Natural England seem to have little idea of this, and have blithely gone ahead with their wish see a right of way created around England's entire coastline, with little awareness of the consequences or the difficulties and dangers presented. The Marine and Coastal Access Bill now forms a part of National Policy to be enacted later this year. It is demanding a route which is being progressively denied because of the actions and inactions of these government bodies themselves.
Although statutory bodies, not once have the Environment Agency or Natural England objected to licensing further areas for offshore aggregate dredging. Both are in full approval of the Managed Retreat a.k.a. Making Room for Water policy that will cause a further reduction of coastal access.
The issue has been part presented as an item by Victoria Leggett in the Eastern Daily Press of 31st July '09.

Fears over access to Coastal Areas

Nearly a third of the coastline in the east of England has no legal access for the public, according to a report released today - but it is unlikely to lead to sunbathers being barred from beautiful beaches.

Natural England has drawn up a map which reveals 32%, or 169 miles, of the east coast has "no legally secure path" on which visitors can access it. The region has the fourth-highest level of access in the UK, which overall has almost 1,000 miles lacking official right of ways.

That can mean:
Right of way is based on a de facto or informal agreement with a landowner. Only permissive access is available — 10-year agreements where farmers and landowners receive payment in return for allowing access to the public. There is no public access at all. This may be because of the presence of a nature reserve or due to the impact of coastal erosion and high tides.

The majority of those areas are in Norfolk and north Suffolk — the map appears to show nearly half of Norfolk lacking legal paths — with large stretches between King's Lynn and Hunstanton, and Sheringham and Caister.

Abi Townsend, regional recreation and access officer for Natural England, said that while the findings did not mean beachgoers were trespassing every time they headed out to build a sandcastle, access was sometimes unofficial. But she admitted, in reality, that landowners who had given de facto access were unlikely to change their minds.

Last night a spokesman from the Country Land and Business Association (CLA) said the map painted an unfair picture by not explaining the reasons why legal access was not available. She added: "It seems very hard on landowners who have provided permissive access that it is assumed they wouldn't go on providing that."

The map has been drawn up by Natural England as part of its research for the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, set to go through parliament later this year, which would see a right of way created around England's entire coastline. The legislation, which is expected to take around 10 years to implement fully, would also allow the paths to move inland where the coastline is vulnerable to erosion.

The bill is supported by the Ramblers walking group, but the CLA is concerned about the effect the legislation will have on the rights of private land owners and businesses.
Miss Townsend said the process of creating the pathway would involve full consultation and there would also be a right to appeal.

[Link to Natural England's website where full details and maps can be seen.]

MARINET comments on monitoring of East Channel aggregate dredging sites

The East Channel Association (ECA), composed of the aggregate dredging companies which hold licences in the East Channel, held a meeting of the East Channel Environmental Network (ECEN) on 16th July 2009 in London. The ECEN is made up of persons, organisations and government agencies who are interested in the progress and outcome of the 5 year monitoring programme required by the Government (Marine and Fisheries Agency) in order to determine whether the environmental impact of the new aggregate dredging licences in the East Channel is acceptable or not. If the impact is not acceptable, the licences may be revised or withdrawn.

The reports issued by the ECA on the monitoring progress may be viewed on their website www.eastchannel.info.

MARINET welcomes this monitoring programme and the professional nature with which it is being undertaken. The monitoring programme is recording a host of scientific data about the East Channel offshore region. This data has hitherto simply not existed.

MARINET believes that the monitoring programme can be further consolidated in its value by considering the following aspects, and has recommended as such to the ECA:

1. Present level of dredging activity in the East Channel area is 23% of what the licences permit. Current impact assessment is based on this level of extraction. Therefore projected impact needs to be scaled up to the full permissible level of extraction i.e. to 100%.
2. The effect of the discharge back to sea of unwanted dredged material (silt and unsuitably sized sand and gravel) needs to be further analysed. In the case of the silt (mud-like material), its chemical toxicity needs to be analysed for it is known that historic toxic material discharged to sea tends to be re-concentrated in silt, and therefore the impact of the re-suspension of silt on marine life needs to be closely examined.
3. The East Channel region is an important herring fishing ground and an important spawning and nursery area for herring. If herring spawning and nursery sites are lost due to dredging activity, the importance of the loss of these sites relative to the size and extent of other herring spawning and nursery sites in the East Channel area needs to be established.
4. The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Natural England (NE) and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) are providing independent verification of the monitoring procedures. It is important that Cefas, NE and JNCC provide annually a public report on their verification procedures and findings.
5. Reference sites (where no dredging takes place) have been established next to the dredging sites. It is important that the similarity between the dredging sites and these reference sites, both physically and in terms of biodiversity, is made evident so that the monitoring of change in the area overall due to dredging can be clearly assessed.
6. The reference sites should be considered as candidates for Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) as part of the UK Government's network of MCZs to be established following Royal Assent for the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, expected before the end of 2009.

MARINET has advised the ECA of how it believes the monitoring programme can be strengthened, and this full text of this advice may be viewed at www.marinet.org.uk/mad/objection/eec-stephen4eca.pdf

Cycling the North Sea

In May this year Dutchmen Jos Wassink (50) and Koos Termorshuizen (54) mounted their fully packed bicycles for a three-month tour around the North Sea. The 6,328 kilometre long tour, counter clockwise around the North Sea by the nearest routes to the shoreline took them to many countries to visit seriously eroded and damaged sections of the coastline, declined fisheries as well as offshore windfarms, CO₂ sequestration projects, test locations for coastal defence and fishery projects.

Jos Wassink is a science writer, with more than a decade of experience producing for public television and radio. Last year he published the book Energierevolutie (Energy revolution) on sustainable energy projects in the Netherlands. Koos Termorshuizen is an economist and a independent market researcher. Apart from that, he is also a hobby photographer. Daily they reported to the Dutch newspaper 'De Pers', Radio Netherlands World Service and VROM.nl, the magazine of the Dutch Ministry of the Environment.

On route, the met with marine biologists, wind turbine constructors, fish farmers, energy pioneers, civil engineers and many people living and working by the coast. They took photographs and made Interviews with them on the problems encountered and discussed their views to help reveal what a more sustainable future could like if the will were there.

In mid July for two days Jos and Koos were the guests of MARINET's Pat and Norma Gowen at their bungalow at Hemsby close to the North Sea when they were taken by their hosts to see the Scroby offshore wind farm, to visit rapidly eroding Happisburgh, Winterton and Hemsby, the experimental rock reefs at Sea Palling, the sub-sea levels at Eccles, Horsey, Waxham and the low laying Brograve Levels,to the wind pumps ('windmills') long introduced by the Dutch and the vulnerable parts of the Norfolk Broads threatened with loss due to the dictates of the managed retreat policy and continuing offshore aggregate dredging. This came as rather a shock to them, coming from a country where protection of the coastline and marine eco-system is paramount, as their ancestors came to Norfolk to show us how to save the land from the sea. Their website at www.northseacycling.com is well worth a visit, as it contains much of direct relevance to the North Sea coast and marine environment, and gives the daily 'blogs'.

Their specific write up of their visit to Hemsby and those areas outlined in the paragraph above can be seen on our website at www.marinet.org.uk/coastaldefences/cycling.html

Fish stocks recover as conservation measures take effect

Global efforts to combat overfishing are starting to turn the tide to allow some fish stocks to recover, new analysis shows. Research from an international team of scientists shows that a handful of major fisheries across the world have managed to reduce the rate at which fish are exploited.

The experts say their study offers hope that overfishing can be brought under control, but they warn that fishermen in Ireland and the North Sea are still catching too many fish to allow stocks to recover. Some 63% of assessed fish stocks worldwide still require rebuilding, the scientists report.

Read the full article at The Guardian 30th July 2009

It ain't just England destroying their coastal environment and marine eco-system

From 'The Sur in English' comes this story of exploitive sand dredging in southern Spain, entitled ' Greenpeace highlights impact of Calahonda sand extraction. Greenpeace highlights impact of Calahonda sand extraction'

The Calahonda seabed is an area of great biodiversity. The ecological association Greenpeace has underlined the threats posed to the Calahonda seabed by sand extraction projects in its annual report 'Destruction at all costs.' The coast is the zone of maximum confluence between the Mediterranean sea and the Atlantic ocean, and as such is an area of great biodiversity, named 'the richest sea in Europe' by the Department of Zoology of the University of Malaga (UMA).

According to Greenpeace, this space between Cabopino and Calaburra, which is protected as a place of communal interest, is being hounded, not only by urbanisation and coastal pollution, but also by the proposed future dredging of 135 hectares of seafloor sand in the name of beach regeneration. The study of environmental impact carried out by the UMA disagrees, but the Environment Ministry has not yet ruled out this zone.

'The Mijas coast has an indeterminate biological worth. It is unique in its variety of exotic African, European, Mediterranean and Atlantic species, indeed it could be said that this stretch of 3,000 hectares six kilometres long is the only tropical coast in Europe,' points out the UMA.

Greenpeace also highlights the dressing down which the Spanish government received due to carrying out sand extractions in underwater seabeds, destroying plant species which are protected at a European level. The group also criticises future plans for the desalination of at least three kilometres of the Calahondan coast, which it classifies as a 'threat'.

New rules for coastal erosion-hit areas

From the North Norfolk News of 20th July by Ian Clarke

Campaigners have given a cautious welcome to government plans to relax rules allowing more developments in areas of East Anglia at risk of coastal erosion. The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) is considering removing the blanket ban on building in under-threat areas to boost local economies. While development such as housing will still be forbidden, temporary schemes which could boost tourism and recreation could be allowed under the proposed changes. In areas at risk in the short term, within the next 20 years, only development directly linked to the coast will be allowed - such as beach huts or holiday caravan and camping sites. In less vulnerable areas, where the risk of erosion is 50 to 100 years away, a wider range of development such as hotels, shops and leisure activities linked to the coast would be considered.

The North Norfolk coast could be among the areas which could benefit most and the district's MP and a leading coastal campaigner said the proposals were a positive step. But they urged ministers to ensure communities should be able to "move inland" and remain viable and sustainable.

North Norfolk MP Norman Lamb said: "It is essential that the starting point is that we want to protect communities that are threatened by coastal erosion and we will fight to do that. Where it becomes impossible, and genuinely impossible, then we have to find the mechanism to allow the community to grow inland." He said relaxed planning rules were "an important part" of the overall strategy for coastal areas — but he added that compensation had to be guaranteed for people who lose their homes.

Malcolm Kerby, co-ordinator of Coastal Concern Action Group, said the government had to allow "roll back" for communities to move inland and allow land which normally be considered for development to be built on. He added that coastal planning had to be "more flexible."

North Norfolk District Council recently produced new guidelines recognising that more needs to be done to help communities adapt to coastal change. A spokesman said: "There is still along way to go as far as fully recognising the real impact that coastal change has on communities."

Making yesterday's announcement, planning minister John Healey said: "What we're hearing from coastal communities is that right now temporary development that would be beneficial to the area's economy and tourist industry is unable to go ahead. It's really important for local businesses that they can keep going at this time of economic difficulties. That's why we're proposing to change the planning rules to allow safe time-limited development such as beach huts, car-parks and cafes to be built in coastal areas if there's an economic benefit."

The Whitehall announcement came as the Environment Agency yesterday launched its consultation on the North Norfolk Shoreline Management Plan, which covers an area from Old Hunstanton to Kelling Hard. The full document can be seen at local council offices and online by following the links from www.environment-agency.gov.uk.

There will be public drop-in sessions at The Maltings in Staithe Street, Wells, on Thursday September 10, 2-7pm, Brancaster Staithe Village Hall, on Friday September 11, 2-7pm and Saturday September 12, 9.30am-1.30pm.

Termination of Flood Warning Sirens

Amazingly, those in control of flood sirens along the Norfolk coast, including the Environment Agency and the Police, have arrived at a conclusion that the sirens sounded to warn coastal dwellers of an impending flood tidal surge should be abandoned as a telephone warning coupled with a local radio announcement would be more efficacious and (of course) far cheaper.
Perhaps they may be oblivious to the fact that in the 1953 the storm blew down most of the 'phone lines, and those few remaining were blocked with calls from and to concerned relatives. The power lines came down to, and underground mains supplies were salinated and absent, so radio and TV would not provide the information needed. But of course, uninformed 'experts' all know best.

The latest story on these vital sirens comes from Ed Foss in the Eastern Daily Press of 21st July '09.

Campaigners in fresh bid to save flood sirens

Flood sirens campaigners have urged a stay of execution of nine months to a year ahead of yet another key meeting on Monday. Members of Norfolk County Council's cabinet are expected to set a time frame for the possible passing of the sirens from their control to the hands of town and parish councils. An initial 'switch off' date of the end of this month has already been called into question because it doesn't give the parishes the time to make decisions about whether they want to commit to the financial and practical obligations associated with the sirens. It is understood the cabinet, which meets at 9am on Monday at County Hall, will discuss an extension of 12 weeks, but campaigners want this extended.

Paul Morse, who leads the Lib Dem group at the county council, said nine months to a year was necessary. "There is still a great deal of work which needs to be done on this matter," said Mr Morse. "We need to know what the cost would be of replacing the sirens with modern units and what the recent suggestion of using the Sustainable Communities Act to help the parishes really means. People don't trust the alterative Environment Agency floodline warnings direct system — I know that is true because my division was the only one directly affected by the flooding of November 2007 and people have told me often enough. The detail must be considered, rushing will not help - and all this in the context of a council with lots of new members, many of whom were not even aware of what happened at Walcott more than a year and a half ago."

Mr Morse repeated his concern that the Conservatives' June 4 county council elections manifesto committed them to "fight Environment Agency plans to shut down the flood sirens", but that did not appear to be happening.

Wells flood warden and newly elected Lib Dem county councillor Marie Strong said: "They must extend the time on this, I say it needs to be another year to deal with everything from health and safety, risk assessments and the key matter of the Sustainable Communities Act." She also said the Environment Agency needed to be "challenged" to prove the floodline warnings direct system was "infallible", which she and others have long argued it is not.

The idea of using the Sustainable Communities Act was put forward at a recent Fire and Community Protection panel meeting, where Tony Tomkinson, county councillor for Clavering, said it might even be able to compel the Environment Agency and police to use the sirens.

Saving Southwold

The Eastern Daily Press published on 23rd July '09 the following article by David Bale entitled "Rescue plan for Southwold harbour wall"

An historic harbour wall that is in poor condition and has been slowly crumbling into the sea is set to get a rescue package. Waveney District Councillors are being urged next week to adopt a policy to save Southwold Harbour North Quay Wall from further collapse.

Harbour users and council officers have already agreed urgent action needs to be taken to prevent the structure from becoming even more precarious but concerns were raised over where the money to fund the repairs would come from. That could be solved if councillors agree next week to use the £50,000 budget previously allocated to the Blyth Lower Estuary study — which campaigners say has already been done.

The recommendation before councillors at a cabinet meeting on Tuesday is to extend a previous contract with consultant HR Wallingford to fund two studies. One is an options appraisal study leading to a recommendation for a major scheme to stabilise the Harbour North wall; the second is a dredging viability assessment to advise on the viability of diverting the existing navigation channel away from the wall failure zone. Councillors are also urged to take a 'Reactive — Do Minimum' approach to manage the risk of wall failure prior to the implementation of the major repair works anticipated.

The recommendations were yesterday welcomed by Sue Allen, chairman of the Blyth Estuary Group based in Southwold, who said: "One of the aims of the group has always been to ensure the future of the harbour wall, so I will be urging councillors to go with the recommendations at next week's meeting. It's also better to spend the money on repairs to the wall rather than on the Blyth Lower Estuary study, which has virtually been done already."

The council is obligated as landowner and harbour authority to appropriately manage the risk of collapse at the wall, and Colin Law, deputy leader and portfolio holder for customer access, said: "We are exploring all the options at the moment, so until we have decided on the best way forward it's hard to discuss it. We have to consider both short-term and long-term measures. What we don't want to do is to have a short-term fix that does not prove to be cost-effective in the long-term."

As reported in the EDP earlier this month, the future management of the wall is looking more certain after a loan was secured to help set up an ownership trust. The harbour has been the subject of an ownership dispute for years and last year Waveney District Council, which has run the facility since the 1970s, agreed to start the process to get it signed back over to the town. The Southwold Harbour Lands Trust has been set up to take over the management of the site and nearby car park and campsite when they are handed back to the town next year. The harbour, which lies at the mouth of the Blyth estuary, is part of a system of walls which protect businesses, farmland and homes in Southwold, Walberswick, Reydon and Blythburgh from flooding.

The Environment Agency (EA) plans to stop maintaining defences around the estuary over the next 20 years because it cannot afford the estimated £35m needed to repair them.

Coastal protection plans for north Suffolk coast revealed

From the Eastern Daily Press of the 30th June

Conservationists and erosion experts will today unveil their visions of how the north Suffolk coastline might change over the next 100 years. Protecting popular beaches in Southwold and shoring up defences around Lowestoft harbour are among the proposals being put forward in the new shoreline management plan (SMP) for the coast from Lowestoft down to Felixstowe. The scheme has taken more than two years to create and is available for public consultation from today.

The SMP looks at the risks of erosion and flooding along the coast and also considers where defences need to be strengthened or where erosion should be allowed to continue over the next 100 years. The plan involves protecting Lowestoft Ness and the harbour around Lake Lothing, and continuing with existing defences along the resort's South Beach to keep the sand and sediment in place.

In Pakefield, the plan for managed retreat — allowing for controlled erosion — will help to maintain some sediment in front of the cliffs. Further south in Kessingland, the existing flood defence along the levels would be moved back to ensure that the A12 Lowestoft to Ipswich road is protected from flooding. Eroding cliffs between Kessingland and Southwold would help to maintain the beach at the popular seaside resort, but could increase the risks for the village of Covehithe, which is on top of the sandy cliff north of Southwold. Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils, and the Environment Agency, have worked together to come up with the plan, which will now undergo three months of public consultation so that coastal communities can have their say.

Greg Guthrie, who has helped to draw up the consultation document for consultants Royal Haskoning, said: "We have to work hard to create a balance between maintaining things where we can to support the overall economic welfare of the region and protecting the communities, landscape and nature along the coast. This is a fascinating stretch of coast and we're sure we have come up with something which works for as many people as possible."

The SMP documents are available at www.suffolksmp2.org.uk and there is an online questionnaire for people to give comments. The consultation closes on September 30th.

Blyth Estuary Group DIY on Sea Defences

If those responsible fail to meet expectations levied upon them, then 'Do It Yourself'. That's the latest move by the Blyth Estuary Group, as reported in the Lowestoft Journal of 19th June '09.as:

Campaigners plan to repair flood walls

Campaigners battling to save flood defences protecting land around a north Suffolk estuary are putting the finishing touches to plans which could see them repairing and rebuilding the walls themselves.

The Environment Agency announced in September 2007 that it could no longer justify large-scale investment to repair the defences around the Blyth Estuary, near Southwold, in the face of rising sea levels. It proposed a strategy of managed retreat, which would see the existing walls protecting land around Walberswick, Southwold, Reydon and Blythburgh, maintained for a maximum of 20 years but with some sections allowed to breach much sooner.

Now the Blyth Estuary Group, which has been campaigning against the proposals ever since they were first put forward, is hoping to take on the task and rebuild the mud walls themselves so that they will last for at least a few more decades. The proposals, being submitted to Suffolk Coastal District Council through Walberswick Parish Council, involve building an access track across the marsh using waste soil from building sites so that clay from the marshes can then be put in place to bolster the defences.

Blyth Estuary group member Richard Steward, who has been drawing up the plans, said that the scheme would see about thirteen and a half thousand truck loads of soil put in place over the next six years. The finished walls would be about 12m wide and stretch about 8km right round the estuary. Mr Steward said: "It has taken us three years to get to this point and to really understand the processes at work in the estuary. We will build the wall so that it is the same height as the salting on the other side, near the river. We believe we can defend and protect these walls and we will do this with waste soil. The charges we get for disposing of the soil will help to fund the work. We will then use the marsh clay to build up the walls again." He added: "Men with spades have dug and protected not only the Blyth Estuary, but also the Deben, the Alde and large parts of the Broads, for hundreds of years. This will happen. We will defend the estuary. Every generation has to stand up and get on with the job in hand, that's all we can do."

Sue Allen, chairman of the Blyth Estuary Group, said: "It is nice to see things finally moving forward. This shows good community working as the local councils have put money forward to help pay for the application."

A spokesman for the Environment Agency said: "We have been working with the group very closely on this and giving them as much advice as we can. When the application is registered, we will then comment on it as we would consult on any other application."

Government's Tiny Shift to 'Compensation'

The government have grugingly made a very slight move thinking that they might be pacifying those losing all through failure to protect from erosion under 'Managed Retreat' and ongoing dredging. But it is not compensation, only assisting demolition and clearance apparently'. The North Norfolk News of 17th June '09 carried the following article.

More aid for coastal erosion victims

The government this week announced a raft of new ideas to help people who lose their homes to coastal erosion - but local campaigners say it still falls short of the full compensation package needed.

Launching a three-month consultation into coastal change policy, Defra officials said they would create a new pot of £11m to help investigate how to address change. Councils could bid to become coastal change "pathfinders" and obtain some of the money. The consultation will also discuss providing cash to meet certain costs of demolition and moving house for those faced with losing their homes to erosion. But the suggested figures look to be limited to a maximum of £1,000 to cover removals and redirection of post, and up to £5,000 to cover knocking down the threatened property.

The scheme would not extend to covering the value of homes, even if they had been previously defended and were now subject to damaged or removed sea defences. The documents make mention of the possibility of fuller compensation for people losing their homes and businesses — but this is not Defra's "preferred option".

Malcolm Kerby, co-ordinator of the Happisburgh-based Coastal Concern Action Group (CCAG), said the consultation was a significant step forward and a clear acknowledgement from the government of the problems that existed. He added: "It doesn't go far enough by any means, but at least the government has recognised there is a hole in the system that people are dropping through; they cannot deny that exists any more."

North Norfolk MP Norman Lamb said: "If you are on the front line of this and you are told all you will get is the cost of demolition - which in north Norfolk is already paid for by the local authority - plus a little money to help you move house, it is insulting. This falls fatally short of what should happen, which is adequate compensation for the loss of a home if it has been previously defended and is no longer defended following a change in policy."

To take part in the consultation process visit www.defra.gov.uk

UK Bathing Waters : 2009 compliance (from last years analyses)

MARINET have published the performance of bathing waters throughout the United Kingdom in 2008 against the mandatory and guideline standards of the EU Bathing Water Directive, 76/160/EEC. These performance figures have been prepared by MARINET, based on data supplied by the Environment Agencies of the UK constituent countries and the Dept of Environment for Northern Ireland.

Read the full results here at www.marinet.org.uk/ukbw/gbeachg.html

Threat to Coral

The Eastern Daily Press of 10th June '09 published the following report retailed by Tara Greaves

Norfolk scientists reveal coral threat

A disturbing report by East Anglian researchers reveals that coral reefs throughout the Caribbean have been comprehensively "flattened" in the last 40 years, which has serious implications for biodiversity and coastal defences.

It was already known that coral cover in the Caribbean is in decline but the study, by scientists at the University of East Anglia, is the first large-scale work to show exactly what this means for the architecture of the region's reefs.

Published online today by the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, the researchers found that the vast majority of reefs have lost their complex structure and become significantly flatter and more uniform. The most complex reefs have been virtually wiped out.

The researchers, working with colleagues at Simon Fraser University in Canada, analysed changes in the structure of reefs using 500 surveys across 200 reefs conducted between 1969 and 2008. They found that 75pc of the reefs are now largely flat, compared with 20pc in the 1970s.

Lead researcher Lorenzo Alvarez-Filip, of the UEA's School of Biological Sciences, said: "For many organisms, the complex structure of reefs provides refuge from predators. This drastic loss of architectural complexity is clearly driving substantial declines in biodiversity, which will in turn affect coastal fishing communities. The loss of structure also vastly reduces the Caribbean's natural coastal defences, significantly increasing the risk of coastal erosion and flooding."

Reversing the decline now poses a major challenge for scientists and policy-makers concerned with maintaining reef ecosystems and the security and wellbeing of Caribbean coastal communities.

UK Government says NO to highly protected marine reserves in UK Marine Bill

Despite detailed and extensive debate during April and May of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill in the House of Lords, both during its Committee and Report Stage, the Government has resisted all arguments and attempts to have highly protected marine reserves (known in the Bill as marine conservation zones or MCZs) incorporated into the text of the legislation.

The Government says that it believes in highly protected marine reserves, and indeed expects these reserves to be created, but insists that such a proscriptive act is unnecessary and would encumber the legislation without good purpose.

This is not the view of MARINET (www.marinet.org.uk/marinebill/30percent09feb.pdf), nor indeed of the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament (click here) when they considered the draft legislation last summer.

MARINET believes that if a specific power to create highly protected marine reserves is not written into the Bill, then there will be a retreat from this commitment by future Governments as economic and social interests argue that such a restrictive provision (no extractive activity) would prejudice their freedom. Thus, the conservation of the sea, its habitats and biodiversity, will continue to remain subordinate to economic and social interests (e.g. fishing, mineral extraction and other commercial activities).

An amendment to include highly protected marine reserves was tabled at the Report Stage in the House of Lords on 12th May 2009 (click here) by the Liberal Democrats with Crossbench support, but it was not supported by the Conservatives who, like the Government, argued that to write the provision for highly protected MCZs into the Bill was "unnecessary". Thus the amendment failed to secure enough support and was not pressed to a vote by the Liberal Democrats.

MARINET has argued for five key amendments (www.marinet.org.uk/marinebill/amendments09apr.pdf) to the Marine Bill. These are:

1. The need for highly protected marine reserves to be written into the legislation.
2. The need for the selection of marine reserves (marine conservation zones) to be based primarily on scientific criteria, with social and economic factors taking a subordinate role in this process. At present the legislation does not specify the primacy of scientific criteria in the selection process, and the Government and the other political parties have refused to support this amendment.
3. The legislation recognises that marine reserves will need to constitute a network, but the legislation does not specify that this network should be "ecologically coherent" so an amendment to this effect is required. This amendment has been supported by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords, and the Government has been forced to concede that an amendment is required. This amendment will be tabled (precise wording presently unknown) at the Third Reading of the Bill in the House of Lords on 8th June. (see Hansard amendment debate)
4. The marine reserves network must be sufficiently large in order to ensure that UK seas are managed sustainably (i.e. there is a balance between conservation, social and economic interests). The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution recommended in 2004 (www.rcep.org.uk/fisheries/Chapter8.pdf) that at least 30% of UK seas should become highly protected marine reserves, but MARINET has found that no political party in the present UK Parliament will support this recommendation. MARINET has therefore had to desist from advocating this specific objective, and instead has argued that the Bill should be amended so "that the network [of marine reserves] is sufficiently extensive to enable economic and social uses of the sea to be environmentally sustainable". No political group in the House of Lords has supported this amendment.
5. The marine reserves network should be established in an initial ecologically coherent form by the 2012. Currently the legislation gives not date by which the network of marine reserves should be established, so MARINET has asked for the Bill to include this amendment which corresponds with the UK legal commits under OSPAR (www.ospar.org) and the World Summit on Sustainable Development (www.un.org/events/wssd). The Government said it will meet its international legal obligations, but wanted no dates to be included in the legislation. No other political party in the House of Lords felt compelled to table this amendment. Thus the date for the ecologically coherent network of marine reserves, either in an initial or a comprehensive form, remains undefined by the Marine Bill.

The other key purpose MARINET has argued the Marine Bill must serve is to rebuild our commercial fish stocks. At present, 88% of commercial fish stocks in EU seas are being exploited beyond their maximum sustainable yield and 30% are being exploited beyond their safe biological limit. These are the latest figure from the European Commission (see http://ec.europa.eu:80/fisheries/reform). This over-exploitation of our fisheries makes new management practices both essential and urgent, but the UK Government insists that the UK Marine Bill is not the place to address this issue. It argues that such reform can only come from the European Commission via the Common Fisheries Policy. However, as MARINET has pointed out to the UK Government, powers to prohibit fishing in spawning, nursery and other key marine areas of biodiversity already exist under the CFP (see www.marinet.org.uk/marinebill/eu2371.pdf). Moreover the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive which is now operative gives the UK conservation powers to recommend the cessation of fishing in areas of UK seas out to 200 nautical miles when conservation imperatives require. Such imperatives are defined in the Direcive as the maintenance of commercial fish stocks in a sound condition along with marine food chains (see, Annex 1 of the MSFD, www.marinet.org.uk/marinebill/euframeworkdirective.pdf).

MARINET has explained these facts to the UK Government and the political parties in the House of Lords during their consideration of the Marine Bill (www.marinet.org.uk/marinebill/legalpowers09feb.pdf). However, at the present time, no politician in the UK Parliament is prepared to act on this matter and no political party believes that the UK Marine Bill should address this issue.

It is MARINET's view that the UK Marine Bill can and must address the issue of the sustainability and re-building of the commercial fish stocks in UK seas, and that the UK Parliament has the necessary sovereign powers to do this in the UK Marine Bill.

MARINET presents evidence that offshore dredging will cause beach erosion

In a detailed study and report on the background literature and scientific studies from around the world MARINET presents evidence to the Anglian Offshore Dredging Association (AODA) that the dredging of sand and gravel from the seabed does cause coastal erosion.

This erosion involves the drawing down from beaches of their sand (known as "beach draw-down")

The forces causing this are two fold.

Firstly the depressions in the offshore seabed (pits caused due to the excavation of the seabed for its sand and gravel) result in a greater depth of water offshore and thus in larger waves and an intensified wave regime arriving on the beaches, and these more powerful waves cause greater erosion.

Secondly, the sand eroded by these larger waves and the intensified wave regime is drawn out to sea and eventually to the excavated areas.

The MARINET report also notes that beach replenishment (the practice whereby eroded beaches have their sand replaced by the aggregate dredging companies with sand excavated from offshore) is a pointless and futile exercise because the sand that is naturally on beaches is comprised mainly of grains of heavier minerals and the sand excavated from the sea bed comprises mainly grains of lighter minerals which are more easily eroded by wave action.

The remedy to beach erosion is therefore not beach replenishment, but rather preventing erosion in the first place. As offshore aggregate dredging is a primary cause of beach erosion, it makes sense to curtail this activity in areas where beach erosion is occurring.

The full MARINET report is here — www.marinet.org.uk/mad/earod09may.html.

Marine Reserves EDM approaches the "top ten"

The Early Day Motion in the House of Commons, EDM 337, is approaching the list of the "top ten" most signed EDMs in this session of Parliament out of over 1600 motions currently tabled. An Early Day Motion is tabled by Members of Parliament as an expression of opinion and as an indication of policy for future legislation.

EDM 337 has the support of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat front benches and a significant number of Labour back bench MPs and calls for highly protected marine reserves, chosen on the basis of scientific criteria, to be a part of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill currently before Parliament. Highly protected marine reserves are areas of the sea where no extractive activity takes place (including fishing) in order to protect and allow the marine ecosystem to recover, and have been recommended by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in 2004. The Royal Commission considered the impact of fishing on our seas and how fish stocks, which are under severe stress due to over fishing, can be sensibly managed and helped to recover. At present time, the Government has decided not to include highly protected marine reserves in the Marine Bill.

MARINET is campaigning for the inclusion of highly protected marine reserves, and is seeking the amendment of the Bill in the House of Lords at the present time, and its amendment again when it comes before the House of Commons in June.

EDM 337 is a very important tool in securing the amendment of the Marine Bill in the House of Commons. If enough MPs sign the EDM, the Government can be persuaded of the necessity and good sense in amending the Bill.

You can see whether your constituency MP has signed EDM 337 by visiting here.

If your MP has not signed, you can obtain a draft letter asking for your MP to sign by visiting www.marinereserves.org.uk. MARINET believes that without highly protected marine reserves in the Marine Bill, the legislation will fail in its purpose to rebuild the health of our seas and their fish stocks. Therefore your action and the vote of your MP in this matter does count. Ask them to sign EDM 337, and to vote for this amendment of the Marine Bill.

The Day that Norfolk Shuddered

Last year the Eastern Daily Press revealed that conservation bosses were considering a radical plan to surrender a huge area of the Broads to the sea, prompting a public outcry and a vociferous campaign. Now Natural England has dropped the controversial proposals from its final report. At least six villages would have been wiped off the map, hundreds of people turned out of their homes, and thousands of acres of farmland and some of Norfolk's top wildlife sites lost to the sea.

A leaked draft report listed four possible courses of action in the Upper Thurne basin, including allowing the sea to breach defences between Horsey and Winterton, flooding 25 square miles (6,500 hectares) of the Broads as far inland as Stalham and Potter Heigham.

This devastating scenario came not from the pages of a lurid novel, but a report by the government's own conservation advisers, Natural England, as part off their plans for dealing with erosion and sea rise under the Managed Retreat. Not surprisingly, the news sparked fear, alarm, despondency, disbelief and anger in coastal communities, and although Natural England attempted to explain it as simply one of a number of scenarios in a draft report never intended for public consumption, subsequent official announcements only reinforced the impression that it was being given serious consideration.

Soon after the news broke, a campaign to fight the proposals swung into action. Hundreds of people attended public meetings and thousands signed petitions. MPs joined the battle, the issue was debated in parliament and the then flood minister Phil Woolas visited the coast last July, stating: "The scenario put forward by Natural England is not the flood defence policy of the government. I cannot see a situation where any elected government would allow the Norfolk Broads to flood."

But now it appears that Natural England have had their knuckles rapped and that following a much needed degree of consultation will belatedly publish the re-written final version of its Broads report, one of four dealing with different areas of the country. This mentions the need to consider "communities and their livelihoods — a concern totally absent from the draft document — and talks of the need for "a socially just approach" which, in this context, means compensation for anyone that loses their property to the sea.

The full reports can be read in the pages of the Eastern Daily Press of 31st March '09 in an article by Jon Welch entitled 'Flooding proposal sparked a major outcry' and 'Norfolk flood plans dramatically dropped'.

A further report on the issue of compensation is to be seen under 'Compensation hope for erosion-threatened homes', a further Eastern Daily Press article written by Richard Batson on 30th March '09.

Visualising the Dredged Volume

Our members and readers often say that they have great difficulty in imagining what the huge volume of sand and aggregate taken from the designated offshore dredging sites looks like. Indeed, the process is not quite so simple as it would first appear. But thankfully it all rounds up quite nicely once the basic sums are done.

Firstly,to clarify 'tons' and 'tonnes'. In Europe and the English-speaking countries that are now predominantly metric, the spelling tonne, that which the take is usually expressed in, is widespread. This is now generally true in Britain, however, the ton used prior to metrication was the 'long ton' of 2240 pounds (approximately 1016 kilograms) This is so close to the tonne that most draw little distinction and continue to use the old spelling 'ton'. But do note that in United States the metric ton is little used. There the name 'ton' almost invariably refers to a short ton of 2000 lb which is about 907 kg. Anyway, we can round up a 'tonne' to a 'ton' for simplicity.

A tonne or metric ton, also referred to as a metric tonne is a measurement of mass equal to 1,000 kilograms or 2204.6226 pounds to be precise. So one tonne is equivalent to 1,000,000 grams which rounds up to 2205 lbs. But sometimes shipping and industry use tons. But as aforesaid, this can be rounded up without losing accuracy.

Next, according to moisture content and stone to sand ratio, there's usually between 1.6 and 1.9 metric tonnes weight for each cubic metre of aggregate. But that related to uses a dry weight ratio of 1.72:1. Therefore, a typical take of say 24.3 million tons would give 24.3 divided by 1.72 = 13.95 million cubic metres. That's as near as dammit to 14 million cubic yards. This is best visualised by theoretically placing it on top of a town of known area. (Don't try this in practice unless you can chose Westminster).

Just divide the square area of say Buryingem-on-Sea into the cubic amount, be it metres or yards, and it will come out as to how deep the covering sand and gravel would be. A small graphic sketch showing the average roof height and/or that of the tallest building, say the church, then placing the level of dredged aggregate on top makes for an impressive picture that gets the story over in fully understandable but frighteningly visual terms. (Dare I say it 'speaks volumes ?) It could also be used to determine by what level the seabed would have been dropped to by extraction from any given surface area.

If we have a graphics expert out there it would be really appreciated if they could do such a diagram using 'Paint' or the like, or a scanned hand drawn picture, please send me a copy for our website, as we know there are many more than you out there wondering just how it would appear.

Pat Gowen, 3rd May '09

Public Consultation on Environment Agency Strategy Plans!

Residents of erosion stricken towns along the Yorkshire coast, Ravenscar, Robin Hood's Bay, Whitby Abbey, etc. are being invited to a public display on the strategy proposed by Environment Agency and will be invited to ask questions on it at the meeting to be held between 5pm and 7pm on Thursday, 7th May, at Fylingdales Village Hall in Robin Hood's Bay. All are invited to attend.

This is very good news that local knowledge is being sought, as up to now there has been widespread criticism that the issue of the risks to homes from the sea is far too dependent on armchair reports by consultants who have prior demonstrated a poor awareness and understanding of the situation. But now Scarborough Council's head of technical services, John Riby, underlined that they would be looking very much to local people to help provide solutions, saying:

"The council is leading on this, assisted by specialist consultants and would like to encourage as many local people and residents of the areas to get involved. They can attend the public meeting and contribute any local knowledge and views that may be useful in the development of the strategy. "We need to fully understand the characteristics of the area covered by this strategy in order to promote the right solutions for coastal management"

The full report is in given in an article by Mark Branegan in the Yorkshire Post of 23rd April 2009.

Seabed Recovery following Dredging

You will recall that the spokesman for BMAPA originally denied any damaging impact to the sea bed as a result of dredging. Following our provision of evidence disproving this claim in our objections to licence applications, this was later amended by a claim that full recovery resulted within a year of the termination of dredging operations.

A year later, following the findings published by CEFAS and HR Wallingford that no recovery was evident even after three years (see "Assessment of the rehabilitation of the seabed following marine aggregate dredging" at www.marinet.org.uk/mad/scientificstudies.html#cfn) BMAPA amended the claimed recovery period to be within 'two to three years' (see the interview with their spokesman Dr. Andrew Bellamy on our MARINET video film).

But we know that this myth has long been disputed by fisherman, who have discovered from first hand knowledge and practical experience that dredged out areas do not recover even after eighteen years. (See the findings by Rodney and Graham Burns of the Aldeburgh Fishing Guild under 'The Losses Account' in our Briefing Paper No.1 on this website and also on our MARINET video film).

Now some good news is at hand with possible remediation in sight as it was announced that CEFAS are instituting an experimental project that might just bring about recovery to dredged out areas.

This encouraging move was revealed at the the April 2009 meeting of the East Coast Dredging Liaison Committee which is made up of representatives from the MFA, The Crown Estate, Hanson Aggregates Marine Ltd, Westminster Gravels Ltd, BMAPA, ERM Cemex, UK Marine Ltd, United Marine Dredging, Britannia Aggregates Ltd, Southend Fishermen's Association, Environment Agency, DEME Building Materials, VDL Sea Aggregates and Kent and Essex SFC NFFO. (MARINET has been excluded from this committee)

The purpose of the experimental project is to set up a field trial to investigate the potential for gravel seeding as a means of restoring sediment composition in areas where dredging has resulted in an overburden of fine sediments. Specific objectives are to determine whether:

1. … it is practically feasible to perform gravel seeding' at a relinquished aggregate extraction site, and …
2. … whether the technique results in sediments more physically similar to that of non-impacted gravelly habitats in the wider environment, and …
3. … whether the technique results in the return of more gravelly fauna.

An initial attempt took place in Zone 2 within aggregate extraction Area 408 (offshore to the Humber) this chosen as the experimental site as there was some evidence for persistence of sand which may have resulted from screening operations at this site. Two 4000 tonne cargoes were dredged, using a commercial suction hopper trailer dredger, from within an active zone of Area 408 and deposited within the treatment box.

Prior to deposition, a baseline survey, using a combination of acoustic tools and grab sampling was undertaken. This survey was followed up, post deposition, by a further three surveys. Results showed that a commercial dredger, typical of those operating at extraction Area 408, could be used to undertake gravel seeding. Results also indicated that the technique was successful in increasing the proportion of gravel exposed at the seabed surface. The increase in gravel led to the establishment of a faunal community more similar to that of local gravel dominated reference sites. Although results suggest gravel seeding could be used for restoration, further work is required to assess the long-term success of the technique".

Wave energy machine approaching completion at Lowestoft

The giant Trident wave energy machine invented by Hugh-Peter Kelly, intended for placement five miles off Southwold on the Suffolk Coast in June, is rapidly approaching completion at the Small and Co boatyard at Lowestoft. Here the machine's pioneers, Trident Energy, are proudly showing off the fruits of their labours by offering invited guests the opportunity to scale the 16 metre high machine for a demonstration.

Trident Energy patented system for converting sea wave energy directly into electricity at Small & Co dock in Lowestoft.

The mechanism is simply a straight up-and-down motion of the floats in the waves. The smallest motion will create electricity and it will work in the most modest of wave conditions. Special sensors to detect stormy conditions will pull the floats up automatically and protect them from serious damage until the danger has passed.

The current test model could provide enough energy to power about 700 homes, larger wave farms based upon it could provide power for between 60,000 and 70,000 homes in the future.

The full details may be seen in the Eastern Daily Press 24th April article 'Wave energy machine's finishing touches' by Alasdair McGregor.

Coastal Erosion could cost billions

Climatologists working for the Association of British Insurers have predicted that the cost of coastal flooding in Suffolk and north Essex could run into billions of pounds. They are basing their predictions on that sea levels on the east coast could rise by 40cms (15.75 inches) during the next 40 years and that the financial impact on Lowestoft alone would be £550 million from over 17,500 homes and commercial properties at risk of flooding.

Even if a tidal surge came about even today 3,900 homes and commercial properties valued at £550million would be at risk, and that this figure does not take into account the impact this would have on tourism in the region and the disruption to transport and roads. But by 2050 an 830% increase would result.

Although the association only examined the impact of flooding in the Lowestoft region, they report impact further down the coast would be similar, especially in those areas already at risk. They said that the majority of flooding by 2050 will be around north Essex, north Norfolk and parts of Suffolk, but that an additional 130,000 homes from Hull to London on the east coast are at risk. Nationally the Association of British Insurers predict homes at risk of coastal flooding could soar by 40 percent.

They have published a series of measures they would like to see included in the Government's final Flood and Water Management Bill to ensure that flood insurance remains widely available to more than two million homeowners and businesses in areas that are known to be at risk. Insurers have pledged to continue to provide cover to existing customers whose properties are at risk of flooding until 2013, as long as adequate flood management is in place, and have called on the Government to set targets and give the Environment Agency a statutory duty to reduce flood risk. But the Environment Agency claim that this is unachievable and say that it is not possible to protect everyone everywhere at all times from the risk of flooding.

The details can be found from the story 'Coastal Erosion could cost billions' by Kate McGrath in the East Anglian Daily Times of 1st May.

Denuded Beach

You will have seen in our latest news the items entitled 'Nudists Feeling the Pinch' and 'Nudists no longer beached' telling how since dredging began the original 34 metre wide nudist beach at Corton in Suffolk had been reduced to just 7 metres, and how Waveney District Council felt that the 80% loss of area no longer allows sufficient spacing between the public and those wearing just a smile, so were considering closure.

That day has come, as the Council, following a three month consultation, have just given the stark news that they have axed and redesignated Corton as from November 1st this year. However, Waveney District Council has undertaken to explore potential alternative sites which are suitable for naturists but which are not currently affected by the erosion issues we have in Corton. We just hope they can find one!

The full story can be read under 'Council axes nudist beach' by Emily Dennis in the Eastern Daily Press of 27th April.

Severn Tidal Power Consultation

The government is consulting not about a final decision, but over which projects should be taken forward on the shortlist for further study — or which ones should be added. Marinet supports much opinion and local people in large majority who want the "megabarrage" dropped from the shortlist.

Read the full article and responses from LibDems, Plaid Cymru and Green World Trust here at www.marinet.org.uk/refts/severnconsult09apr.html.

New tidal turbine - CORMAT

A unique tidal power machine being developed at Strathclyde University. Such underwater turbines are envisaged for tethering to the seabed around the west and north coasts. With the right incentives 2000 of these turbines in a series of large tidal turbine farms could be in operation around the Scottish coast by the 2020s, researchers argue, replacing power from Hunterston and Torness nuclear plants.

Full article in Sunday Herald, 19 April 2009

Tidal power is the holy grail of renewable energy research because it offers potentially huge amounts of energy in a very predictable pattern. Because of the time lag in tides around the coast it could also supply constant power.

A team of engineers led by Cameron Johnstone from Strathclyde University's Energy Systems Research Unit has come up with a new machine which they believe could tap serious amounts of tidal energy within a few years. Looking a little like an aircraft engine with two propellers, the device uses the movement of the tides to turn turbines and generate electricity. It has two rotors designed to spin in opposite directions, giving it enough stability to operate in deep waters.

Unlike previous first-generation tidal machines, it will not be fixed to the seabed on a tower like a wind turbine, but moored by a cable. This will enable the device to move with the flow of the tide, like a kite on a windy day. The device has been christened Cormat, for Contra Rotating Marine Technology. It has already been successfully tested in the sea off Islay, and industrial backing is now being sought for a £1.6 million, 500-kilowatt commercial demonstration.

According to Johnstone, Cormat could be deployed in underwater farms off the Mull of Kintyre, in the sound of Islay, near Skye and in the Pentland Firth. "You could see tidal energy come up to complement and then potentially replace the nuclear power stations," he told the Sunday Herald. "This second generation turbine marks a new threshold in tidal energy technology, and could allow us to extract more energy from the sea than ever before." If the 500-kilowatt demonstration works, one megawatt machines with 14-metre rotors could start generating electricity under the sea soon after 2013, Johnstone said.

Johnstone said that he had already had "substantial interest" from private companies in the power, engineering and investment sectors. His design would cost at least 50% less than first generation tidal machines, he argued, because it was relatively simple and didn't require fixed foundations. "The need to develop advanced technologies to power homes and businesses has never been more apparent," he declared: "Scotland's vast natural resources mean we are well-placed to develop and test cleaner and greener systems that can help tackle climate change, as well as increasing sustainable economic growth."

The Scottish government praised Cormat as an exciting project that helped demonstrate the nation's "world-leading strengths in harnessing the vast clean, green renewable energy potential off our shores". Scotland had a quarter of all Europe's tidal resource, said a spokesman for the energy minister, Jim Mather: "Scotland simply doesn't want or need dangerous and unnecessary new nuclear power stations, with soaring decommissioning costs and the unresolved problem of storage of radioactive waste that burdens future generations for thousands of years," the spokesman added. "Renewable technologies including wind, water, biomass, wave and tidal, backed up by clean thermal baseload, can meet our energy needs many times over."

The industry body, Scottish Renewables, pointed out that the predicable nature of tidal energy had big advantages for the electricity grid. "Tidal will become a vital component in Scotland's mix of renewable technologies," said the organisation's marine officer, Morna Cannon. "Currently the sector requires a degree of public funding to help it get on its feet. The level of the renewables obligation funding is crucial, although there are strong views that additional funding is necessary."

Download a short video of Cormat in action here (2.2MB wmv).

Portuguese wave energy project halted by "credit crunch"

The world's first commercial wave energy project is on the brink of collapse after its main backer went into administration, casting doubt over the future of a project that has already been dogged by technical problems.

The Aguçadoura project was a joint venture between Edinburgh-based Pelamis Wave Power, Australian energy developer Babcock & Brown, Energias de Portugal (EdP) and Portuguese electrical engineering firm Efacec. But Australian-listed investment specialist Babcock and Brown, a majority investor in the £7m project, which as part of a consortium with EdP and Efacec holds a 77 per cent stake, was placed into voluntary administration last week, casting doubt over the future of the scheme.

The consortium successfully installed three of Pelamis' snake-like wave generators three miles off the north coast of Portugal last autumn, hailing the project as the first commercial wave energy project to provide power to the grid.

But in mid-November, all three generators were removed from the water because of leaks in the buoyancy tanks. Further technical problems have followed and cannot be repaired until a new backer is found to replace Babcock and Brown. The units are currently sitting idle in Leixões harbour.

Max Carcas, spokesman for Pelamis, told the Guardian newspaper that the technical problems were not serious and would be relatively easy to fix once an investor is found. "In a project of this nature, the world's first wave energy plant, it's inevitable that there will be niggles and issues to tackle," he said. "We have had nothing that isn't expected." However, he admitted the project was currently "in a state of limbo" while the company seeks to raise fresh financing.

Despite the setback, Pelamis' technology is continuing to attract interest from customers. Last month, energy firm E.ON placed an order with the company for its next generation of converters, known as the P-2. The P2, which is 180m long, 50m longer than the devices in Portugal, will be installed at the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney and will be fully operational by 2010.

E.ON told the Guardian that despite the problems with the Portugal project, the Orkney installation was likely to go ahead.

Source: BusinessGreen, 20 Mar 2009

Overfishing to wipe out bluefin tuna

Overfishing will wipe out the breeding population of Atlantic bluefin tuna, one of the ocean's largest and fastest predators, in three years unless catches are dramatically reduced, according to conservation group WWF.

Read the article at Scientific American here.

Communities help tackle coastal erosion

In an item with the title above the Great Yarmouth Mercury of 8th April tells how Huw Irranca-Davies, Minister for the Natural and Marine Environment, Wildlife and Rural Affairs, on a recent visit to the rapidly eroding Norfolk and Suffolk Coast, stated that guidelines on how the government will try to tackle to problem of coastal erosion will be drawn up using knowledge from communities along the Norfolk and Suffolk coast.

He stated that information gathered from visits to the coast will be used to draw up future government policies and said:

"By the summer we hope to be able to bring forward a range of options for how to deal with problems along the whole coastline. This is not a 'one size fits all' approach and we will need a lot more tools in our toolbox if we are going to work out these problems. There is tremendous passion among the people I have met. When you're faced with the possibility of losing your house or your business then that is natural. It is vitally important to come out of Whitehall. I haven't come out with solutions or to preach a message pretending that I have all the answers. I'm trying to see whether there is agreement around the challenges we face".

If put into practice this measure will be most welcome as a complete change of policy from the remote non-listening non-thinking attitude demonstrated by central government so far. And if the information and advice supplied is heeded and acted upon, so much the better.

The press article can be seen in full here.

Plankton rôle in Climate Change

In an an item entitled 'Ocean organism key to climate change' the Eastern Daily Press of 10th April '09 reports on how work on the little previously studied Micromonas Photo-Plankton by Dr. Thomas Mock of the University of East Anglia has shown that it appears to have an important role in moderating the world's oceans and could prove to be an important indicator of climate change.

The full article can be read in this weeks 'Science' journal, or the press report by Tara Greaves here.

A Campaigning Victory For Public Pressure

This time last year (April 2008) English Nature (now renamed Natural England) issued a study report which was supposed to be confidential and for Defra and the Environment Agency's eyes only.
The report contained a recommendation to allow a vast coastal area of Norfolk (25 square miles) from Eccles-on-sea to Winterton-on-sea and as far inland as Stalham to be flooded by the sea.
Fortunately this report was leaked to the local press who published its contents — there was a public out-cry with severe opposition to this recommendation, not only by local people but by many other UK residents who had fond memories of Norfolk and the Norfolk Broads and wanted to preserve this unique holiday location.

The main questions asked were:

• How could Natural England, an organisation that is supposed to care for our environment, propose such destruction to communities and the unique flora & fauna and wildlife in this area of the Norfolk Broads and its surrounding fresh water marshes? The Norfolk Broads and our fresh water marsh wild life habitats are precious, irreplaceable and should be preserved for future generations.
• Coastal and inland low-lying villages, businesses, homes and infrastructure in this proposed 25 square mile area would also be destroyed by the ingress of sea flooding.
• This low-lying area of coastal Norfolk also contains a large area of rich productive farm land which has been drained and developed from salt water wet-lands and the sea by our forefathers since the 16th Century — why should it now be surrendered to the sea in the 21st Century? The destruction of this large section of English farm land would also make the UK much more reliant on foreign imports and increase our CO₂ emissions.

Public meetings were organised and local groups campaigning for coastal defences came together with parish council partnership groups to campaign and put pressure on the then Minister for the Environment, Phil Woolas MP, to get Natural England to remove this recommendation from their report.

My (MARINET) campaign and correspondence with Phil Woolas (previous) Minister of the Environment, about this 'managed retreat' in Norfolk can be viewed on Marinet website at: www.marinet.org.uk/coastaldefences/philwoolas.html

In his letter to me dated 23rd April 2008 Phil Woolas did say that the preferred option for this area was to maintain sea defences for the Broads for the next 50 years and he also said in his letter to me dated 27th April 2008 (in reply to my suggestion) that "It would not be appropriate for me to instruct Natural England to remove the assessment of the impact of flooding from this report" — but!

Because of the combined efforts of local groups and the pressure of local support, both of these campaigned requirements are now in place:

• Natural England (formerly English Nature) have now revised this report and removed the recommendation of allowing the sea to flood this section of Norfolk from the report; this was confirmed by the article on the front Page of the Eastern Daily Press (our local Paper) on 31st March 2009 "Victory for the People".
• The Environment Agency (the Responsible Authority for this unit) have now pledged to maintain sea defences and hold the line for this section of the Norfolk coastline for the next 50 years and Natural England have supported this decision in their revised report.

This is a worthy victory for people power shows that local campaigning can change government department decisions which some times seem cast in stone.

Map showing the 25 square mile area of Norfolk (outlined in red) recommended by English Nature (now Natural England), to be flooded by the sea in their original report.

PNSD: Denotes location of proposed New Sea Defences at Stalham and Potter Heigham to protect the A149 main road

Mike King - Marinet Great Yarmouth Norfolk

Offshore Aggregate Dredging and Coastal Erosion

Yet a further paper has come to light on coastal erosion brought about by Offshore Aggregate Dredging in a paper entitled:

EFFECTS OF MARINE SAND EXPLOITATION ON COASTAL EROSION AND DEVELOPMENT OF RATIONAL SAND PRODUCTION CRITERIA written by Emre N. Otay, Paul A. Work and Osman S. Börekçi

It tells how such mining yields an inexpensive source of sand for construction or industrial uses. how it may modify nearshore wave conditions, create erosion and deposition rates, impact the sedimental drift and alter benthic habitats and nearshore circulation.

The goals of the project described in the proposal are to quantify the influences of sand mining on nearshore waves and currents, assess the magnitude of any mining-related erosion, and establish guidelines for acceptable mining rates and locations. The conclusions are based on numerical model results, but with validation of some aspects of the modelling via field data, and how although the findings are site specific, the methodology could be applied at any coastal site that features primarily non-cohesive sediments.

It shows how regardless of the final destination of marine sand, topographic changes caused by underwater dredge holes have immediate effects on nearshore waves and currents and that these hydrodynamic changes can rapidly lead to local perturbations in the ambient littoral transport patterns and eventually changes in the shoreline morphology. It is a very lengthy and detailed paper, the totality of which can be read by going to: www.ce.boun.edu.tr/otay/Kilyos/pdf/MarineSand.pdf

MARINET's response to MFA proposed amendments

The Marine and Fisheries Agency's (MFA) Sustainable Marine Resources and Climate Impacts Team put out a consultation on the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007 appertaining to a proposed amendment that would enable and permit the re-use of harbour dredgings for beach recharge and the like.
Here is MARINET's response to that consultation.

FAO: Sustainable Marine Resources and Climate Impacts Team

Subject: Consultation response on an amendment to the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007

From: Pat Gowen, MARINET and NSAG

Thank you for the opportunity to consult and provide the responses of the combined MARINET and North Sea Action Groups to you on the matter of amendment to the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007. We are pleased to convey our considerations.

Prologue

Our mutual organisations have long been concerned on the impact(s) brought about by Harbour Dredging and the fact that no Environmental Impact Assessment have hitherto been demanded for such operations. That there are such environmental (and social) impacts are indisputable, as severe erosion has come about to local beaches due to draw down following deep dredging for deeper draft shipping navigation. e.g. Felixstowe (see 'Seeing is believing - the erosion at Felixstowe' www.marinet.org.uk/archive/archivelatestnews2007.html#sib and 'Huts tower over Felixstowe's beach' www.marinet.org.uk/archive/archivelatestnews2007.html#hto and others in the Latest News archive pages at www.marinet.org.uk/archive.html).

Yet the re-use of such dredged aggregate would, on the proviso that it is safe and free from toxic content such as Tri-Butyl Tin (TBT) and/or similar frayed hull coatings, appear eminently sensible, as this in itself would provide a viable alternative to that also causing beach draw down (and damage to the seabed and its ecosystem) e.g. the dredging for aggregate for construction purposes and for beach recharge taken from offshore.

MARINET and NSAG thus feel that the redeployment of the dredging should be subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) including analyses of the dredged material, and that if the use of this is benign as beach recharge and/or for its employment in concrete etc. in the built environment, there is no good reason as to why such material should not be used as a recycled component. But such deployment must be subject to suitable findings on its content by an independent authority.

We are also very concerned that it appears that self-regulation is in vogue. It would obviously be advantageous in terms of cost and simplicity for any port operator to claim suitability as outlined above. It is thus felt necessary that a truly independent assessor must be instituted to evaluate each and every case of such dredging operation and the use of the proceeds, and to report to the MFA their findings and level of suitability before permission was provided.

Further, in that erosion resulting from such dredging could impact holiday beaches, the stability of the built environment, the coastal holiday trade and the tourist and holiday income of the area adjacent, an independent sourced EIA should also be sought for expert report consideration on the high probability, and that reparation, reimbursement and compensation be possible should such damage arise.

Subject to meeting the above considerations, we do not oppose the measures contemplated, but I would point out that under your listing 'Other Environmental Issues' no mention is made of the possible toxicological hazard nor of the likely resultant erosion. These elements vitally require inclusion.

I hope that you will find that the above comments adequately reply to the specific ten questions you questions levelled.

Please do not hesitate but to come back to you should any points made require clarification or further description.

Pat Gowen, 8th November 2008
o.b.o. MARINET and NSAG

Items older than 12 months can be found in the Archive section