Latest Newsletter

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

Ο Marine Aggregates   Ο Coastal Erosion   Ο Renewable Energy
Ο Marine Legislation   Ο Bathing Water   Ο Pollution
Ο Marine Reserves   Ο Global Warming   Ο Fisheries

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

Government confirms it has sovereignty over UK fisheries only out to 6 nautical miles

In response to a written parliamentary question from Bill Wiggin MP, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, the Minister for Fisheries at Defra, Jonathan Shaw MP, has confirmed that the Secretary of State, and Welsh and Scottish Ministers, only have powers to control fishing out to the territorial limit of 6 nautical miles. In waters between 6 and 12 nautical miles UK Ministers must have their decision to restrict fishing approved by the EU Commission or a Decision of the EU Council of Ministers, and beyond 12 nautical miles the UK Government must seek to have restrictions agreed by the EU Commission under the terms of the Common Fisheries Policy.

MARINET observes that whilst these statements are true, and that the UK has surrendered sovereignty over the management of fisheries to the EU under the Common Fisheries Policy, the UK has not surrendered management of the UK seas, including the health of the marine ecosystem, to the EU. This retention of sovereignty is confirmed within the nature and structure of responsibilities for the management of UK seas set out in the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive which can be viewed here. MARINET has obtained legal opinion which confirms that the UK can restrict unsustainable and damaging fishing practices in UK seas beyond 6 nautical miles (i.e. out to 200 nautical miles) provided that such management action is taken within the context of managing the marine ecosystem as a whole. This is precisely the basis upon which MARINET has been urging the UK Government to create highly protected marine reserves covering at least 30% of UK seas out to 200 nautical miles. (Click here to view MARINET's latest submission to Defra in connection with the current public consultation on the Marine Bill).

For a sight of the full text of the written parliamentary question from Bill Wiggin MP and the reply from Jonathan Shaw MP, please click here.

Government says marine reserves will cover 8.2% of UK seas

Jonathan Shaw MP, Under Secretary of State for Fisheries and Marine affairs at Defra, has stated in reply to a written parliamentary question from Bill Wiggin MP, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and Conservative MP for Leominster, that the UK Government is planning to create 92 Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) in English territorial and UK offshore waters following enactment of the forthcoming Marine Bill, and that these MCZs will cover 8.2% of UK waters out to the limits of the UK continental shelf (200 nautical miles). These reserves will cover approximately 71,000 square kilometres.

In contrast, MARINET is calling upon the UK Government to designate at least 30% of UK seas out to 200 nautical miles. Also, MARINET is calling for these to be highly protected reserves which prohibit all extractive activity in order that the reserves may be used as a management tool to regenerate the whole marine ecosystem. The UK Government is not giving a similar commitment, and will continue to allow extractive activity in many of these reserves. In addition, there is no evidence in the UK Government's proposals that these 92 MCZs will form an ecologically coherent network, thus enabling them to be used as a management tool to regenerate the marine ecosystem throughout UK seas. Rather, MARINET fears that these 92 MCZs will simply protect specific rare habitats and species. Whilst such protection is important, it only constitutes a "crown jewels" approach and has little ecological coherence. Without such coherence, these MCZs will not be able to seriously address the continuing decline in biodiverstity in UK seas, nor the collapse in the existing structure of the marine ecosystem threatened by continued unsustainable commercial fishing.

With regard to additional written parliamentary questions from Bill Wiggin MP, Jonathan Shaw MP has stated that the UK Government is not yet in a position to say how large an area of UK seas will be protected by Special Areas of Conservation under the EU Habitats Directive, nor is the Government in a position to say what programme of measures will be required to bring UK seas up to "good environmental status" under the forthcoming EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (see the text of this Directive here), nor is the UK Government able to say what proportion of UK seas will be protected under the UK's commitment to the OSPAR treaty (see here for further details)

For the full text of the parliamentary questions placed by Bill Wiggin MP and the answers from the Minister, Jonathan Shaw MP, please see here.

A Spit in the Ocean?

As readers will have read earlier here on our website as 'Reassurances from Environment Minister Phil Woolas' to be found under www.marinet.org.uk/latestnews.html#rfem, when Environment Minister Phil Woolas visited Norfolk he stated that DEFRA and the Environment Agency will spend £100m on sea defences over the next 50 years to save the threatened 25 sq miles of Norfolk from flooding. This works out at just £2m a year.

Already over the past twelve years the cost of beach recharge between Mablethorpe and Skegness alone has been £75 million, which translates to an average annual expenditure of £6.6 million. Additionally, over the past eight years, 5,151,000 tonnes of sand dredged from offshore and deposited on the beaches from Happisburgh to Winterton has added a further £24.1 million, or £3 million a year. So we see up to now that £9.6 million has been the average annual spending to address the relentless draw down of our beaches and threat to our sea defences. And that is a gross insufficiency.

The government have for many years been keen to advertise 'new' funding when in fact it had already announced in previous years, so was not additional. Thus, the 'new' sum announced for sea defence gives MARINET grave concerns as to exactly what is to result. This £100m over 50 years ( £2m per year) could be interpreted as being additional funding over and above that already allocated, but could equally translate as being not an increase but a lower replacement grant for the existing funding. In other words, it could herald a reduction of up to £7.6m in defence expenditure, as already proposed by the Shoreline Management Plan and 'Managed Retreat'.

Furthermore, it is by no means clear as to whether this grant is intended exclusively for the protection of The Broads, for the entire East Anglian region or for all of Britain. It also represents less than one sixth of the money that goes to the treasury from the royalties and taxation derived from the dredging that brings about the problem in the first place.

Those who have the ear of Phil Woolas, which I do not as he will not meet or communicate with me, should approach him to ask if the sum he announced is to be new and additional funding on top of that already allocated, or whether it will be that to be allocated for defence for the future. If it is the latter, then we shall most certainly be 'making room for water' - and how!

Pat Gowen, 27th July '08

Friends of the Earth Report reveals shortcomings in Tees "ghost ships" decision

A Report by independent pollution consultant, Tim Deere-Jones, reveals that there are major shortcomings in the evidence which underlies the decision by government to grant a licence to Able UK Ltd to proceed with the dismantling of the redundant US navy vessels ("ghost ships") at the Teeside Environmental Reclamation and Recycling (TERRC) facility at Seaton on the River Tees. This Report was written for Friends of the Earth and formed the basis of evidence presented to an earlier Public Inquiry in August/September 2007 - see the Report on this website.

The Report found that for many years the UK government (MAFF and CEFAS) has researched pollution in the sediments and water column of the Tees estuary, and that this research has demonstrated that these sediments consistently rank amongst the most toxic in the UK to animals (up to 100% mortality of test species). The Report concluded that Able UK Ltd's failure to analyse sediment samples from Seaton Channel and adjacent areas represented a significant flaw in the pollution monitoring work by the company in support of its Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in connection with its licence application.

The Report noted that the MAFF and CEFAS monitoring over the years has demonstrated that the water and sediments of the Tees estuary and adjacent sea areas contain high, and environmentally damaging, concentrations of a wide range of toxic substances. Of specific note are ten substances : THC (Total hydrocarbon concentration) and PAHs (Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), metals, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), endocrine disrupters, dioxins PBDE flame retardants (Polybrominated diphenyl ethers), herbicides and pesticides, and radioactivity. The Report found that despite the MAFF/CEFAS evidence regarding the presence of these foregoing substances in the estuary's sediments, the Able UK Ltd sampling for its EIA had failed to sample for six of these substances, namely: endocrine disrupters, PBDE flame retardants, dioxins, radioactivity, insecticides and herbicides.

The Report also noted that despite the extensive size of the area to be dredged, the Able UK Ltd EIA only analysed nine samples from the sediment (thus giving insufficient understanding of the area), that the majority of the Able UK samples were bulked prior to analysis (thus preventing an understanding of the location of high and low concentrations of pollutants), and despite the fact that the highest concentrations of pollutants are known to be found in finer-grained sediments the Able UK EIA made no attempt to identify areas of fine sediment within the proposed dredge sites.

The Report found that whilst Able UK Ltd had carried out a survey of metals in the proposed dredge sediments, the company had failed to analyse for barium (a metal found in significant quantities below decaying "ghost ship" fleets in the US) thus providing no baseline data by which to measure the impact of barium from the ghost ships on the Tees estuary. In addition the company had only analysed the proposed dredge sediments for 4 out of the 25 PCB congeners (contrary to survey practice elsewhere) and as a result the EIA could not present an adequate description of the PCB loading in the relevant sediments.

As a consequence of these flaws in Able UK Ltd's EIA, the Report concluded that neither the regulators, nor the decision makers, nor other interested stakeholders and members of the public are in a position where they have sufficient data required to fully understand the following:

1. The pollution impacts of sediment released and disturbed by dredging activity.
2. The source and history of existing pollution in sediments in the proposed dredge areas.
3. The source and history of pollution in sediments which would re-contribute to sedimentation and thus necessitate maintenance dredging.
4. The potential pollution impacts on wildlife, and the ecology involved in the disposal of the dredge spoil.

The author of the Report, Tim Deere-Jones, also noted in his verbal evidence to the Public Inquiry that the question of the licensing of the disposal of capital and maintenance dredge spoil is not a matter for the local planning authorities nor, indeed, the Public Inquiry procedures, but rather is determined in closed sessions between the developers and government agencies which take place without the benefit of either public discussion, independent review or any public consultation.

Able UK's TERRC facility at Teeside is granted sea dumping licence

The company which is dismantling the US Navy's "ghost ships" on Teeside, Able UK Ltd, has received a licence from the Marine and Fisheries Agency (MFA) to enable it to dump at sea the waste iron and concrete from the reconstruction of the dry docks at Seaton where the dismantling will take place (click here to see the licence), and a further licence from the MFA to enable it to dump at sea the sediment dredged from the estuary to enable a channel of sufficient depth to be constructed to allow the ships to enter the dry dock from their present anchorage at sea (click here to see the licence and click here to see the accompanying letter). The licence for sea dumping of dredged sediment permits up to 1,934,836 tonnes to be disposed over a twelve month period commencing 21st May 2008. The licence from the MFA which permits the reconstruction of the dry docks at Seaton, which are known as the Teeside Environmental Reclamation and Recycling facility or TERRC, may be seen here.

Environment Agency grants licence for "ghost ships" dismantling on Teeside

Able UK Ltd has received a licence from the Environment Agency to enable it to commence and pursue the dismantling of the redundant US Navy vessels ("ghost ships") at the Teeside Environmental and Reclamation Recycling (TERRC) facility at Seaton on the River Tees. The Environment Agency has concluded that Able UK Ltd is a "fit and proper person" to undertake such work, has sufficient financial funds, and the EA has also concluded that the work will not damage the adjacent European-designated Special Protection Area (SPA) for Wild Birds and five UK-designated Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). In addition, the Environment Agency has concluded that the work to be undertaken by the company will not cause pollution of the environment, harm to human health or serious detriment to the amenities of the area.

You can see the Environment Agency's decision document here.

First tidal power turbine gets plugged in

From The Guardian 17th July '08

An underwater turbine that generates electricity from tidal streams was plugged into the UK's national grid today. It marks the first time a commercial-scale underwater turbine has fed power into the network and the start of a new source of renewable energy for the UK.

Tidal streams are seen by many as a plentiful and predictable supply of clean energy. The most conservative estimates suggest there is at least five gigawatts of power in tidal flows around the country, but there could be as much as 15GW.

The trial at Strangford Lough, in Northern Ireland, uses a device called SeaGen and generates power at 150kW. However, engineers have plans to increase power to 300kW by the end of the summer. When it is eventually running at full power SeaGen will have an output of 1,200 kW, enough for about 1,000 homes.

Mankind's faltering efforts to protect coastal idylls from raging waves

Jerry Berne of Sustainable Shorelines Inc. sends us this item from the Times Environment News of 3rd May '08. His response follows on. Read article on our website here.

Felixstowe TV film on beach-build

Peter Waller advises that the work in attempting to restore the seriously dragged-down beach at Felixstowe can now be seen as a short video made by Felixstowe TV here.

Significant changes in phytoplankton recorded in the North Sea

The latest Ecological Status Report from the Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science (SAHFOS) provides indicators for the ecological status of the North Atlantic Ocean and supplies information for important marine management issues such as climate warming impacts, biodiversity, pollution and fisheries.

The 2008 report records that warmer species of phytoplankton (microscopic plant life which is at the base of the marine food chain) are replacing colder species of phytoplankton in the North Sea due to regional climate warming. In terms of the productive environment (i.e. the food chain) this change is considered detrimental because the warmer water species of phytoplankton are not replacing the colder water species in similar abundance and this is detrimental to other trophic levels (trophic level = level in a food chain at which an organism takes its food, with phytoplankton being a trophic level 1 i.e. the base of the food chain) including fish larvae. To give an example, zooplankton (tiny microscopic animals) feed on phytoplankton (microscopic plant life), and the Foundation has observed and recorded that an important zooplankton species has declined by 70% in the North Sea. In turn, fish species will be feeding off zooplankton. Hence, the overall productive nature of the North Sea marine environment is changing, which may be impacting adversely on traditional fish species. There is a high confidence that these trends are related to regional climate change.

Other noted changes made by the Sir Alister Hardy Foundation concern changes in seasonality. Seasonal timing is occurring earlier in the North Sea and is related to climate change. For example, some species have moved forward in their seasonal cycle by 4-5 weeks. However not all trophic levels are responding at the same time, therefore in terms of a productive environment this change is currently considered detrimental because of the potential mis-timing of peak occurrences of plankton with other trophic levels including fish larvae.

In terms of biodiversity and invasive species, the Foundation believes that the overall pelagic biodiversity of the North Sea is increasing. The Foundation has documented the presence of a Pacific diatom in the Labrador Sea since the late 1990s which has since spread southwards and eastwards. This specific diatom species has been absent from the North Atlantic for over 800,000 years and could be the first evidence of a modern trans-Arctic migration of species (i.e. the exchange of species between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans via a warming Arctic ocean).

In terms of ecosystem health and water quality, the Foundation has found that most phytoplankton trends at the regional scale are related to hydro-climatic variability rather than anthropomorphic input (i.e. not due to inputs such as excessive nutrients and consequential eutrophication related to human activities). This means that the NE Atlantic taken as a whole is generally considered to be fairly healthy. However, this is not to say that certain coastal areas in the southern North Sea are not vulnerable to eutrophication and climate change, and also the incidence of micro-plastics is notably on the increase (micro-plastics are microscopic fragments of plastic as opposed to the large items of plastic detritus, such as bottles and packaging) and the level of micro-plastics has been increasing over the last 40 years.

In terms of acidification, the Foundation is providing a critical baseline for recording the health and abundance of organism that could be particularly vulnerable to acidification. These are the calcifying organisms such as coccolithophores and formaminifera.

For further details see the 2008 report of the Sir Alister Foundation Ecological Status report as a pdf file here.

Reassurances from Environment Minister Phil Woolas

From North Norfolk News of 8th July '08 comes signs of reassurance if practice follows the claims now being made. However, there was no committment given to reimbursment those who lost houses, businesses or land to the sea due to the change of government defence policy, nor to cease offshore aggregate dredging, the main cause of the erosion.

£100m pledge to stand firm against sea

Norfolk is to stand firm against the ravages of the ever-encroaching North Sea for at least another half century after the government confirmed £100m will be spent on sea defences over the next 50 years.

People living in vulnerable coastal and low-lying areas of Norfolk breathed a sigh of relief yesterday after environment minister Phil Woolas gave reassurances their homes would not be left to flood. Responding to worries over a Natural England draft report, which includes the option of allowing a 25sqm area of Norfolk to flood, Mr Woolas said the proposal was "not an option," and stressed it was the government who drew up sea defence policy not Natural England. As he visited the county to see the effect of coastal erosion and listen to local concerns Mr Woolas said the government was committed to keeping the sea at bay for at least the next 50 years and pledged £100m of investment in sea defences over that period.

The first phase of work, to be done by the Environment Agency, is set to begin as early as September and will include beach recharging at Sea Palling and Waxham and rock works between Horsey and Winterton. Experts are also looking at longer- term options for maintaining the coastline well into the next century.

As he toured Hickling, Sea Palling and Happisburgh, Mr Woolas had some clear messages. The coastline and the Broads would be protected for at least half a century and, though individuals whose houses were lost to cliff erosion would not receive compensation, communities will be given help to cope. Mr Woolas said: "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. We have a very serious problem across the country where cliff erosion is taking away people's homes. The government is putting together an adaption package. We will not be able to directly compensate people but we will ensure that the local community is protected." Mr Woolas said "adaption tool kits" would be devised to suit individual areas and could be used for things such as relocating vulnerable roads and businesses.

During his visit Mr Woolas met dozens of parish representatives at a closed meeting at Lessingham Village Hall. After the meeting Mike Walker, from East Norfolk Coastal Parishes Group, said he was pleased by what the minister said and felt the possibility of Broadland ever being flooded had "receded significantly." He said Mr Woolas addressed two principle concerns: support for hard defences and reassurance that communities had "a medium to long- term future."

Malcolm Kerby, from the Coastal Concern Action Group, based at Happisburgh, said Mr Woolas had demonstrated a "willingness to listen" and felt the public outcry over Natural England's proposal had made a huge difference. "I do not doubt that we have got such an unequivocal statement because of the pressure we put on," he added.

Jane Archer, who, as reported in the EDP yesterday, was alarmed to discover her home was only worth £1 because it is so close to the crumbling cliffs at Happisburgh, also met the minister. She said she was disappointed that she had not been able to get a straight answer on compensation from Mr Woolas. But she felt she had been offered a "glimmer of hope" by the proposal for community adaption packages and an undertaking to look into the situation of those affected by changing government policy on coastal defence.

North Norfolk MP Norman Lamb, who accompanied the minister on his tour, said the minister's comments on the Natural England proposals were a "substantial advance" and said he was encouraged that local people would be given a say in shaping coastal defence policy in the future. But he said he still felt individuals should be compensated if they lose their homes to the sea. "We cannot allow the people in the front line to absorb all the consequences of climate change," he said.

Flood defence campaigners lobby minister

From the Eastern Daily Press of 14th July '08

Flood defence campaigners are to lobby parliament in what could be a crucial week in their bid to save land and homes from being lost to the sea. Members of the Blyth Strategy Group, which opposes the Environment Agency's (EA) plans to stop maintaining flood banks in the north Suffolk estuary in the next 20 years, and representatives from local councils will travel to Westminster tomorrow.

The move comes less than a week after environment minister Phil Woolas visited Norfolk communities and told them that in spite of draft proposals by Natural England to allow a 25 sq mile area of land to flood, their homes would not be sacrificed to the sea. Now those living around the Blyth estuary and fighting to maintain its earthwall flood defences say they too deserve government reassurance.

Guy McGregor, Suffolk county councillor and chairman of the Blyth Strategy Group, said Mr Woolas's promise to spend £100m on sea defences over the next 50 years should include the Blyth estuary. "This area is very special and of as much value as the Broads. Places like Walberswick and Southwold are real Suffolk gems and we cannot afford to lose them," he said.

After months of trying to arrange a meeting with Mr Woolas in Suffolk, Mr McGregor is going to London tomorrow with Andy Smith, deputy leader of Suffolk Coastal District Council, to lobby the environment minister in person. As well as putting pressure on the government, the Blyth estuary campaigners could soon be in line for good news from overseas. MEP Geoffrey van Orden, who took a boat trip around the estuary to see the breaches in the earthwalls in February, will meet with European representatives on Thursday to discuss the possibility of securing EU funding to help protect the estuary. The EA says it will cost millions of pounds to go on repairing the walls - which protect thousands of acres of farmland and 40 homes - and the work will be unsustainable as a result of climate change, rising sea levels and frequency of tidal surges.

Sue Allen, chairman of the Blyth Estuary Group, said she was pleased to see the government finally taking positive action on flood defences.
"Relentless pressure from everyone - our groups here in Suffolk and campaigners on the Broads - on all aspects of coastal erosion is starting to pay off. The politicians are starting to change their minds. It's about time they took an interest in coastal erosion and not just inland flooding," she said.

From Norfolk to Suffolk

Mark Lord, in the East Anglian Daily Times of 16th July '08 tells of the visit of Environment Minister Phil Woolas to Suffolk.

Minister hears flood defence fears

Flood defence campaigners met with the Environment Minister yesterday to voice concerns about plans to abandon thousands of acres of land and 40 homes to the ravages of the sea. Members of the Blyth Strategy Group, which opposes proposals to stop maintaining flood defences along the Blyth Estuary in the next 20 years, and representatives from local district councils, spoke with Phil Woolas.

The move comes less than a week after Mr Woolas visited Norfolk and told communities threatened with abandonment to the sea that in spite of draft proposals by Natural England to allow a 25 sq mile area of land to flood, their homes would not be sacrificed.

Speaking to the EADT yesterday Guy McGregor, Suffolk county councillor and chairman of the Blyth Strategy Group, said: "We got our point across to the Minister and I think he understood our issues. It is clear from the meeting that our concerns should not be directed at the Environment Agency as it is only following Government guidelines - it should be directed at Government.

"As such I am pleased we had this important meeting and I feel the Minister listened to us and that he is really trying to do his best in a difficult situation. We spoke about the impact flooding would have on the A12, Lowestoft's regeneration and Southwold - the Minister seemed genuinely concerned about the extent of the affect flooding will have on our coastal areas. This is a very special area and places like Southwold and Walberswick have a massive affect on Suffolk's tourism and economy and we cannot afford to lose them."

The proposals to stop maintaining the flood defences along the Blyth Estuary have been put forward by the Environment Agency (EA).

Mr McGregor continued: "We suggested to the Minister that a partnership should be formed between the EA and other groups and local people so that locals' knowledge and resources could be drawn upon. We suggested that the Blyth could be a trial for a make-do-and-mend strategy - getting funding as and when needed rather than the millions of pounds talked about by the EA and Natural England. Although we did not get assurances like Norfolk it was a positive meeting and one we will be following up."

He added that he and his colleagues had left behind their maps and documents with the Minister so that he can study local concerns in more detail.

If Global Warming alters enzymes in oceans, a mass extinction could follow

A Study in Biogeosciences Discuss, 2008, by S. A. Wooldridge of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, Queensland, has pointed out that all life processes are controlled by enzymes (complex organic substances that cause chemical transformations of materials in plants and animals) and that these enzymes only function across a narrow band of environmental conditions, particularly temperature and pH. Ambient conditions that challenge these operating conditions trigger enzyme dysfunction. He observes that the pH-dependent inactivation of a single enzyme, urease, provides a unifying kill-mechanism for at least four of the "big five" mass extinctions of the past 560 million years.

It is suggested that the triggering of this kill-mechanism is sensitive to both gradualistic and catastrophic environmental disturbances. These cause the operating pH of urease-dependent organisms to cross enzymatic "dead zones", one of which is suggested to exist at ~pH 7.9. For a wide range of oceanic and terrestrial ecosystems, this pH threshold coincides with an atmospheric CO₂ partial pressure (pCO₂) of ~560 ppmv - a level that, at current CO₂ emission trajectories, may be exceeded as early as 2050. The urease hypothesis thus predicts an impending Anthropocene extinction event of equivalence to the "big five" unless future atmospheric pCO₂ levels can be stabilised well below 560 ppmv.

The author, S. A. Wooldridge, suggests that immediate scientific discussion and testing is required to confirm the validity of the urease hypothesis.

Source: Wooldridge, S. A.: Mass extinctions past and present: a unifying hypothesis, Biogeosciences Discuss., 5, 2401-2423, 2008

Ocean Acidification may require even deeper CO₂ cuts

A report in the journal, Science,July 4th 2008, by Richard Zeebe of the University of Hawaii, states that the ecological and economic consequences of ocean acidification are difficult to predict but possibly calamitous, and that halting the changes already underway will likely require even steeper cuts in carbon emissions than those currently proposed to curb climate change.

Unrelated to climate change, ocean acidification is an issue of basic chemistry: atmospheric CO₂ is absorbed by and reacts with seawater to form carbonic acid (H₂CO₃). Increasing the amount of CO₂ dissolved in the ocean lowers the pH, decreases the availability of carbonate (CO₃^2-) ions, and lowers the saturation state of the major shell-forming carbonate minerals. Carbonate ions are building blocks for the calcium carbonate that many marine organisms use to grow their skeletons and create coral reef structures.

Researchers have determined that with emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide continuing to rise, the partial pressure of CO₂ (pCO₂) dissolved in the surface ocean is likely to double its pre-industrial value within the next 50 years. Oceans are naturally alkaline, and they are expected to remain so, but the interaction with carbon dioxide is making them less alkaline and more acidic. Experiments have shown that changes of as little as 0.2 - 0.3 units can hamper the ability of key marine organisms such as corals and some plankton to calcify their skeletons, which are built from pH-sensitive carbonate minerals. Large areas of the ocean are in danger of exceeding these levels of pH change by mid-century, including reef habitats such as Australia's Great Barrier Reef.

Most marine organisms live in the ocean's sunlit surface waters, which are also the waters most vulnerable to CO₂-induced acidification over the next century as emissions continue. To prevent the pH of surface waters from declining more than 0.2 units, the current limit set by the US Environmental Protection Agency in 1976, carbon dioxide emissions would have to be reduced immediately.

Although the ocean's chemical response to higher carbon dioxide levels is relatively predictable, the biological response is more uncertain. The ocean's pH and carbonate chemistry has been remarkably stable for millions of years - much more stable than temperature. Reduced calcification will certainly hurt shellfish such as oysters and mussels, with big effects on commercial fisheries. Other organisms may flourish in the new conditions, but this may include undesirable weedy" species or disease organisms.

"We need" says co-author Ken Caldeira, "to consider ocean chemistry effects, and not just the climate effects, of CO₂ emissions. That means we need to work much harder to decrease CO₂ emissions. While a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ may seem a realistic target for climate goals, such a level may mean the end of coral reefs and other valuable marine resources".

Source: Richard E. Zeebe, James C. Zachos, Ken Caldeira, and Toby Tyrrell, "Carbon Emissions and Acidification", Science 4 July 2008 doi: 10.1126/science.1159124

UK seeks renewable energy fuel for merchant fleet

The canal narrowboat, Ross Barlow, seems an unlikely weapon in the battle against global warming. Yet according to Rex Harris, the scientist who converted this pioneering zero-emissions canal boat, it could offer a way to green the world's shipping industry. The Ross Barlow runs entirely on hydrogen, so its only direct emission is water. The hydrogen is converted to electricity in a fuel cell, which is used to either power the boat's electric motor or charge a back-up battery. Although every leading car manufacturer has produced a hydrogen vehicle, the Ross Barlow breaks new ground in the way the hydrogen is stored. There is no high-pressure gas or liquid on board - a nagging safety doubt over most existing hydrogen vehicles. Instead, the boat holds its hydrogen in a metal powder. A plaque on the side of the boat boasts it is the first of its kind in the world.

Rex Harris says: "We think the technology would work on a larger scale, and that you could think about doing something similar on cross-channel ferries and inland waterways. Road travel has got most of the attention so far, but shipping produces a lot of dirty emissions and we need to find a replacement for fossil fuels." He added that the shipping industry was uniquely positioned to exploit his canal boat's brand of clean power. The powder store - known as a metal hydride - could offer safer and cheaper use of hydrogen, but is much heavier than simply squashing lots of the gas into a bottle, as is typically done. This has crippled hydride use in cars, but for ships, the extra weight could be an advantage. "Ships need ballast to keep them stable," Harris says. "We took out tonnes of concrete blocks when we converted this canal boat."

The Ross Barlow, named after a Birmingham University postgraduate student who worked on the project but was killed in a hang gliding accident in 2005, keeps its hydride powder in a series of metal cylinders at less than 10 bar pressure. Reducing the pressure slightly frees the hydrogen from the powder and allows the gas to be channelled to the fuel cell. When all the hydrogen is exhausted, the powder store needs to be recharged with the gas. With colleagues across the UK and in Switzerland, the Birmingham team is now focusing on building a hydrogen canal boat from scratch. The Ross Barlow is a converted British Waterways maintenance vessel. Harris says a purpose-built craft could be four to five times more efficient.

The UK Government's Transport Secretary, Ruth Kelly, has called for shipping to be included in emissions trading schemes, and she has highlighted cleaner options, including hydrogen. She has told a meeting of the UN's International Maritime Organisation that more must be done to tackle emissions from shipping, and has called for improvements such as the slowing down of ships to maximise fuel efficiency and for more research into hydrogen fuel cells for power. Her intervention comes after the IMO said earlier this year that carbon pollution from the world's merchant fleet was almost three times greater than previously thought, and had reached 1.1bn tonnes of CO2, or nearly 4.5% of all global emissions of the main greenhouse gas. It is predicted to rise by 30% by 2020.

Source: The Guardian 16th June '08

Cargo Ships and Tugs are significant sources of pollution

A recent paper by Daniel Lack, a scientist at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) working in conjunction with scientists at Colorado University, states that large cargo ships emit more than twice as much soot as previously estimated, and that tugboats emit nearly twice as much soot for the amount of fuel used compared to other commercial vessels.

It is estimated that commercial shipping releases roughly 130,000 metric tons of soot per year - 1.7% of the global total - much of it near highly populated coastlines. In the coming years global shipping is expected to grow two to six percent annually. Tugs emit nearly a gram of soot per kilogram of fuel burned - nearly twice as much as any other vessel type. These high levels point to their low-quality fuel. Engine age and maintenance also play a role. It is believed that tugboats have a disproportionate impact on air quality because they travel within ports, emitting potentially harmful particles near populous urban areas.

A 2007 study by American and German scientists linked particle pollution from shipping to tens of thousands of premature deaths each year, most of them along coastlines in Europe, East Asia, and South Asia . Soot makes up a quarter of that pollution, says Daniel Lack. On a global scale, soot currently traps about 30% as much heat as does carbon dioxide, the most important greenhouse gas, according to the latest assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The small dark particles absorb sunlight, create haze, and affect how clouds form and make rain, further altering a region's heat balance, according to this new NOAA study. If commercial shipping extends new routes through Arctic waters as they become navigable, soot emissions there could increase.

(Source : Lack, D., B. M. Lerner, C. Granier, T. Baynard, E. Lovejoy, P. Massoli, A.R. Ravishankara, and E. J. Williams (2008), Light absorbing carbon emissions from commercial shipping, published in Geophysical Research Letters doi: 10.1029/2008GL033906, in press).

UK Harbour/Channel Dredging

Usually being in much closer proximity to the shoreline and beaches, harbour and shipping channel dredging can often cause even more adjacent shoreline erosion than when performed offshore. Although far less is usually removed, the results are almost immediate. It is not regulated in the same way as offshore removal either. Already many places have seen severe erosion due to this, most recently Felixstowe, and soon to be Great Yarmouth.
Members may wish to keep a sharp look-out on the following when they come into practice.

Peterhead - www.sandandgravel.com/news/article.asp?v1=11076

HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT & DREDGING, UK
Contracts & Tenders - June 25, 2008
MCJ Ref No: 641/Y/11
Project Area: Peterhead, UK
Project Stage: Tenders Invited
Site: Smith Embankment
Value: £26,500,000
Start: 09/2008
Period: 20 months
Promoter: Peterhead Harbour Trustees, Harbour Office, West Pier, Peterhead, Grampian, AB42 1DW; Tel: 01779 483620
Contact: Mr John Wallace, Chief Executive
Consulting Engineer: Peter Fraenkel & Partners, 21-37 South Street, Dorking, Surrey, RH4 2JZ; Tel: 01306 879797
Contact: Mr Peter Martin
Profile: Smith Embankment Development. Dredging and extension to the existing Albert Quay and Breakwater, and a quay and reclamation extending westwards from the existing Merchants Quay.
Additional Information: A preferred bidder is expected to be appointed Mid August 2008
Tender Details: Last Report: MCJ632; 03.04.2008
Date: 19/06/2008
Deadline: 09/07/2008
Tender information supplied by Maritime Contracts Journal, the weekly guide to business opportunities (e-mail: info@maritimecontracts.com; Internet: www.maritimecontracts.com; Tel: + 44 - 23 9246 0111; Fax: + 44 23 9246 0123

======

Sunderland - www.sandandgravel.com/news/article.asp?v1=11087

DREDGING WORKS, UK
Contracts & Tenders - June 30, 2008
MCJ Ref No: 642/Y/50
Project Area: Sunderland, UK
Project Stage: Award Pending
Site: Sunderland Harbour
Value: £1,000,000
Start: 15/09/2008
Promoter: Port of Sunderland Authority, Capstan House, Greenwells Quay, South Docks, Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, SR1 2BU
Contact: Captain Ian Duncan
Lead Consultant: Anthony Bates Partnership, Laburnham Farm, Upper Weare, Axbridge, Somerset, BS26 2LE
Contact: Mr John Goodwin
Profile: Maintenance dredging of outer channel and harbour to remove 120,000 cubic metres. Additional information: Scheme is known as Sunderland Maintenance Dredging 2008. Contract is to last 15 days. Prequalification questionnaires are currently being analysed. Tender documents should be issued July 2008
Tender Details: Last report: MCJ636; 08/05/2008
Date: 26/06/2008
Tender information supplied by Maritime Contracts Journal, the weekly guide to business opportunities (e-mail: info@maritimecontracts.com; Internet: www.maritimecontracts.com; Tel: + 44 - 23 9246 0111; Fax: + 44 23 9246 0123

'Dredging News reports on Line' of 3rd and 4th July 2008 reports on MARINET's stance on the Culver Sands and Humber Estuary dredging applications

New aggregate dredging licence issued off Humber Estuary

www.sandandgravel.com/news/article.asp?v1=11098

MARINET reports that Hanson Marine has obtained a new licence to extract 500,000 tonnes per annum of sand and gravel for 15 years from Area 480 (also known as Area 106 East) located 25 miles south east of the mouth of the Humber estuary in the UK.

The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) originally expressed concern during the EIA procedure that dredging might harm the potential for Sabellaria spinulosa reefs (an Annex I habitat under the EU Habitats Directive) within the eastern arm of the site, and the licence has only been issued on the understanding that there will be no dredging there without further consultation and a review of the data collected from pre-dredge surveys.

Area 480 is a fraction under 10 square kilometres in size.

New marine aggregate dredging licence in Bristol Channel

www.sandandgravel.com/news/article.asp?v1=11099

MARINET reports that the marine aggregate companies Hanson Marine and Cemex UK Marine have obtained a new licence to extract up to 1.5 million tonnes over 10 years from Area 472, Culver Sands, which lies on the median line separating England and Wales, approximately 8 miles south of Barry and 8 miles north of Minehead.

Culver Sands is a sand bank completely covered by seawater at all times at a depth no greater than 20 metres, which means that it fits the descriptive criteria of the Annex I habitat listed in the EU Habitats Directive. However Culver Sands has never been forwarded by the UK Government to Brussels for listing under the Habitats Directive, and therefore does not currently enjoy such legal protection.

During the EIA procedure in the licencing application, this potential Annex I status was drawn to the attention of the UK Government. However, the applicant advised the UK Government and its conservation agencies that it only wished to excavate a section of Culver Sand that is separated from the main sandbank, and the applicant's consultants advised the UK Government that there is no interchange of sand between this small separate sandbank and the main sandbank, and therefore the main sandbank's integrity would remain unaffected by aggregate dredging.

MARINET also reports that it objected to the granting of this licence, and has argued that there is no real evidence to substantiate the belief that there is no exchange of sand between the small and main sandbanks.

For further details, see: www.marinet.org.uk/mad/objection.html#472

Change of Policy, Heart or Hearing Aid?

From the Eastern Daily Press of 8th July comes what appears to be a major government rethink. Has people pressure paid off?

£100m pledge to defend land from the sea

Norfolk is to stand firm against the ravages of the ever-encroaching North Sea for at least another half century after the government confirmed £100m will be spent on sea defences over the next 50 years.

People living in vulnerable coastal and low-lying areas of Norfolk breathed a sigh of relief yesterday after environment minister Phil Woolas gave reassurances their homes would not be left to flood. Responding to worries over a Natural England draft report, which includes the option of allowing a 25sqm area of Norfolk to flood, Mr Woolas said the proposal was "not an option," and stressed it was the government who drew up sea defence policy not Natural England. As he visited the county to see the effect of coastal erosion and listen to local concerns Mr Woolas said the government was committed to keeping the sea at bay for at least the next 50 years and pledged £100m of investment in sea defences over that period.

The first phase of work, to be done by the Environment Agency, is set to begin as early as September and will include beach recharging at Sea Palling and Waxham and rock works between Horsey and Winterton. Experts are also looking at longer-term options for maintaining the coastline well into the next century.

As he toured Hickling, Sea Palling and Happisburgh, Mr Woolas had some clear messages. The coastline and the Broads would be protected for at least half a century and, though individuals whose houses were lost to cliff erosion would not receive compensation, communities will be given help to cope. Mr Woolas said: "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. We have a very serious problem across the country where cliff erosion is taking away people's homes. The government is putting together an adaption package. We will not be able to directly compensate people but we will ensure that the local community is protected." Mr Woolas said "adaption tool kits" would be devised to suit individual areas and could be used for things such as relocating vulnerable roads and businesses.

During his visit Mr Woolas met dozens of parish representatives at a closed meeting at Lessingham Village Hall. After the meeting Mike Walker, from East Norfolk Coastal Parishes Group, said he was pleased by what the minister said and felt the possibility of Broadland ever being flooded had "receded significantly." He said Mr Woolas addressed two principle concerns: support for hard defences and reassurance that communities had "a medium to long-term future."

Malcolm Kerby, from the Coastal Concern Action Group, based at Happisburgh, said Mr Woolas had demonstrated a "willingness to listen" and felt the public outcry over Natural England's proposal had made a huge difference. "I do not doubt that we have got such an unequivocal statement because of the pressure we put on," he added.

Jane Archer, who, as reported in the EDP yesterday, was alarmed to discover her home was only worth £1 because it is so close to the crumbling cliffs at Happisburgh, also met the minister. She said she was disappointed that she had not been able to get a straight answer on compensation from Mr Woolas. But she felt she had been offered a "glimmer of hope" by the proposal for community adaption packages and an undertaking to look into the situation of those affected by changing government policy on coastal defence.

North Norfolk MP Norman Lamb, who accompanied the minister on his tour, said the minister's comments on the Natural England proposals were a "substantial advance" and said he was encouraged that local people would be given a say in shaping coastal defence policy in the future. But he said he still felt individuals should be compensated if they lose their homes to the sea. "We cannot allow the people in the front line to absorb all the consequences of climate change," he said.

'Consultation' by Environment Minister

Pat Gowen was confidentially informed that Phil Woolas would be at Sea Palling on the morning of 7th July to meet those concerned with flooding and the plan to abandon much of Norfolk to the sea. But it turned out that planned visit was to be kept very quiet and that the 'meeting' would be with carefully selected invitees only, presumably to avoid the inevitable confrontation that would arise had it been otherwise.
Nevertheless, Pat Gowen wrote to him three times requesting an audience, as did Mike King. Pat sent one request receipt e-mail direct weeks ahead, but there was no reply. It was followed it up with a recorded delivery request by Mike King, but still no reply. Pat then had his MP Ian Gibson place the request to meet direct into his hands. Still there was no reply. So it was pretty obvious he wished to stifle any meaningful consultation on the issue.

Norfolk house valued at just £1

From The Eastern Daily Press of 7th July '08

Jane Archer, whose home is valued at just £1

A campaigner who has been told her house is worth less than a loaf of bread will today try to show the man in charge of the nation's sea defences the true human cost of the government's coastal policies. The bungalow Jane Archer and her partner bought as a happy family home 21 years ago is still 60m from the clifftop, but is now worth just £1.

Today when environment minister Phil Woolas makes a fact-finding visit to north Norfolk over erosion and flooding issues she will be among the people keen to show him the impact of the government policy of abandoning sea defences without any compensation.

"I will tell him he is destroying our lives," said 49-year-old Ms Archer. "Lots of money is spent by the authorities compensating and finding new habitats for rare birds whose homes are threatened by climate and coastal management changes - but what about people? Are they just going to let my house fall over the edge of a cliff, and leave us with nothing?"

Mr Woolas is visiting Norfolk following the concerns of hundreds of other people living near the coast and in low-lying Broads villages which are vulnerable to erosion, and a controversial Natural England option of allowing six villages and 25 sq m of countryside to flood in the future because it is too difficult and costly to defend. After seeing reef defences at Sea Palling he will attend a meeting with representatives from a range of communities, including Ms Archer, who is a founder member of the Coastal Concern Action Group formed in her home village of Happisburgh in a bid to fight government "managed retreat" policies and battle for a fair deal for those affected by it.

Also attending is North Norfolk MP Norman Lamb who said it should be a collective effort of society to pick up the bill for adjusting to climate change not people like Ms Archer who were "in the front line through a quirk of fate and having to bear all the cost themselves."

Jane Archer's bungalow is at the top right of the picture

He was encouraged that environment officials seemed more open to discuss impacts on communities, but remained concerned that the Treasury restrictions could hamper funding, and that there was a need for urgency to help other people like Ms Archer. She and partner Chris Cutting bought their Beach Road bungalow for £20,000 in 1987, when it was 400m from the clifftop and there were no problems over a mortgage and survey.

But a road and several houses have been swallowed up by erosion in recent years, after the government refused to fund the replacement of aging sea defences, and promoted a policy of managed retreat, which abandons long-standing defences everywhere except the main resorts.
So when the couple tried to get a bank loan to expand their motor engineering business, seeking to use the house as security, the valuer's report highlighted "chronic coastal erosion", refused the loan and valued the bungalow at a paltry £1.

Mr Cutting said: "It is not as if the house was right on the edge of the cliff. But we are now left with a house that is worth nothing, and lost about £60,000 through the collapse of the business deal." The couple thought the house might be worth about £50,000-£60,000 when they applied for the loan nearly two years ago, when a nearby cottage sold for £89,000 and other three bedroomed rural homes were selling for up to £200,000. "We were angry and frustrated when we told it was worth £1," said Ms Archer. "We are stuck here. We are worse off than first time buyers, because we only have another 15 years of earning towards a mortgage before we retire, and we don't want to rent and pay out again for housing having already paid off our existing mortgage. It is so unfair, because when we came here the policy was to maintain the defences," said Ms Archer.

Action group co-ordinator Malcolm Kerby said tackling that unfairness was one of their key aims they would outline to Mr Woolas today. "Forget all the fancy technical talk. This is the real effect of these policies on families. The government suggests people should move away from coastal areas because of climate change, but how can they if their home values are being hit. "They cannot pursue these policies without ensuring there is social justice. People like Jane and Chris are being put in a ridiculous position." He suggested that properties affected by flood and erosion risk should be underwritten by the government so areas were not blighted, leaving properties and communities viable. Adding the real value of buildings into the equation might also mean it became a cheaper option to protect rather than abandon.

National Audit Office takes up MARINET complaint

Two items, one from The Guardian of 2nd June and a similar from the Eastern Daily Press of 4th June, tells that the NAO are investigating MARINET's request on the huge cost of continuing offshore aggregate dredging and of the proposal from Natural England to abandon 25 square miles of Norfolk and six Broads villages to the sea as a result.

Watchdog called in over price of seabed dredging - Guardian 2nd June '08

Allegations that dredging shingle from the North Sea to replenish Britain's coastal defences is a waste of government money and counter-productive, are being studied by the National Audit Office. The body, which normally focuses on effective use of national finances, has been asked to look at the effect of extracting gravel and sand from the seabed and to see whether it is causing widespread coastal erosion in East Anglia and Yorkshire.

The washing away of beaches and undermining of clifftop homes has been associated with rising sea levels and global warming, but some marine scientists and local communities suspect that offshore dredging has a far more significant impact. "Global warming has been estimated to increase sea levels by 3.2mm a year [at most] and East Anglia is tipping into the sea, due to movement of the tectonic plates, by about 2mm a year," said Pat Gowen, spokesman for Marinet, a marine ecology group. "The impact of industrial-scale aggregate dredging in the North Sea has been far greater. In places the sea floor has been deepened by as much as five metres."

These holes, he says, make the seabed steeper, suck in shingle, and weaken offshore sandbanks which otherwise would break up large waves. "The dredging ships use enormous vacuum cleaners. Not only do they destroy the seabed but they also smother marine life elsewhere."

The most intensive dredging has been off Great Yarmouth; near this area, claims Marinet, erosion is most severe. The Environment Agency, which buys dredged materials to shore up beaches, and the dredging industry, represented by the British Marine Aggregate Producers Association, dispute the claims. About 25m tonnes of coarse gravel and sand is extracted from the sea around England and Wales each year.

Gowen has asked the NAO to investigate whether this is a sensible use of public money.

A NAO spokeswoman said the agency was not carrying out a full investigation "at the moment", but confirmed it was "looking at the issue".

Alison Baptiste, policy manager at the Environment Agency, said the organisation was attempting to manage beaches in a sustainable way.

Watchdog to probe coastal dredging - The Eastern Daily Press of 4th June 2008

A government spending watchdog is to look into the effects of offshore dredging on the East Anglian coast. And a Norfolk MP says he will ask the National Audit Office, which oversees spending by government departments, to hold a full investigation into the issue.

Environmental pressure group Marinet, part of Friends of the Earth, has asked the office to investigate whether it is cost-effective to dredge sand and gravel for sea defences when the dredging itself may be contributing to erosion. It has also asked for an investigation into the costs of the proposal from Natural England to abandon 25 square miles of Norfolk and six Broads villages to the sea.

Marine dredging is a major source of government income, raising millions every year in licences because the land is part of the Crown Estate - and millions more in VAT when the aggregate is sold. About 25m tonnes of sand and gravel are taken from the sea bed around England and Wales each year. Dredging started off the coast of Yarmouth in 1973, and since then it has been the biggest offshore source of aggregates. The material is used mostly for buildings and roads, but some goes to repair sea defences and replace sand washed away from beaches.

North Norfolk MP Norman Lamb said last night: "I will contact the National Audit Office and support this request for an investigation. There is no doubt from the work I have done that dredging can cause an increased rate of erosion. It is not the full problem, but more research is needed."

Pat Gowen, of Norwich, Marinet's spokesman for dredging, said: "They dig out the sand and it gets put on the beaches, which the following year is washed back into the big hole that has been dug. It is like a burglar robbing your house, selling your goods back to you and then robbing your house the following year. We have been (to the National Audit Office) on the grounds that they are dredging offshore to get sand and shingle to put on the beaches to replace that which has been eroded. I have had an acknowledgement from them and they say they are pursuing it. It could take an awfully long time."

A spokesman for the office said: "We are looking into it and will respond to the letter that has been send to us. At the moment we have no plans to have a full investigation."

A spokesman for the British Marine Aggregate Producers' Association, which represents most of the companies involved in offshore dredging, said: "If there is any evidence that dredging contributes to coastal erosion it would be useful to be aware of. But all the scientific evidence we have seen is that marine aggregate dredging does not contribute to coastal erosion. Perhaps this will flush out any other pieces of evidence that may be out there once and for all?"

Government persists in aiding and abetting coastal erosion

From the Great Yarmouth Mercury of 11th June '08 comes this report that despite all the evidence of the huge loss involved (see 'Waves of Destruction' at http://www.marinet.org.uk/coastaldefences/wavesofdestruction.html ) far, far greater than the cost of maintaining sea defences, the government are rigidly sticking to their plan to abandon twenty-five square miles of Norfolk to the sea.
The only possible explanation is that the amount of sand and gravel produced by the erosion so permitted will provide a continuing supply of aggregate, and hence a far greater income to the dredging companies, The Crown Estate and by the VAT applied.

MP fails to get report withdrawn

An MP fighting plans to surrender thousands of acres of Norfolk to the sea has spoken of his anger and frustration after meeting senior executives from the government agency behind the proposals.

Norman Lamb, Liberal Democrat MP for North Norfolk, had written to Natural England formally asking it to withdraw its draft report setting out four options for dealing with the consequences of climate change in the northern Broads. The last of these was a proposal to abandon nine miles of sea defences between Eccles and Winterton, flooding an area stretching inland as far as Stalham and Potter Heigham, with the loss of 25sq miles of land, including at least six villages.

Mr Lamb asked Natural England to withdraw the report, claiming no proper analysis had been made of the cost of abandoning the area and that the issue of compensation had not been considered. He said people living in the area were already suffering the effects of planning blight, with house sales falling through and property prices falling, after details of the proposals were leaked.

Natural England's chief executive Dr Helen Phillips wrote back to Mr Lamb, saying: "I am not persuaded that withdrawing the report or the fourth option within the report would serve a useful purpose. When we issue the final report, we will stress the need for society to plan how it needs to adapt to the impacts of climate change. Publishing our report will, hopefully, inform this process."

Yesterday at Westminster Mr Lamb met Andrew Wood, executive director of Natural England, and Shaun Thomas, East of England regional director, who reiterated that Natural England would not withdraw the report.

After the meeting Mr Lamb said: "They now accept if you're going to look at some long-term option you have to look at the social implications. That is in itself an advance, but their approach contradicts that and it's not happening in tandem. Their reaction was they still intend to publish. I have made it clear I think it would be callous to publish in these circumstances. I accept they were doing their work, looking at the long-term predictions, but now they know the consequences of their work reaching the public domain, they can't stand idly by and let those communities suffer. I made it clear I was very angry and frustrated that they appear to be unwilling to consider either cost-benefit or the issue of social justice before we look at the environmental considerations. "I'm appalled by this situation. I think they have got a responsibility to these communities. I don't see that anything would be lost by withdrawing this now so that there can be a more rational debate with those communities protected."

MARINET submits written evidence to Parliament's Joint Committee on the Draft Marine Bill

A Joint Committee of the Houses of Parliament has been considering the legislative and policy proposals contained in the UK Government's Draft Marine Bill. The Joint Committee has invited written evidence and MARINET has responded, see here. In this evidence MARINET has explained to the Joint Committee the necessity for the Bill to contain a duty upon the Secretary of State to create an ecologically coherent network of Highly Protected Marine Reserves covering at least 30% of UK seas out to 200 nautical miles by 2015. In addition, MARINET has responded in writing to the written questions of the Joint Committee, see here. The membership of the Joint Committee can be seen here. MARINET has also submitted additional written evidence to the Joint Committee on the scientific basis for designating Highly Protected Marine Reserves, see here. MARINET also requested the right to present oral evidence to the Joint Committee, but this request was not responded to or acknowledged.

MARINET says Draft Marine Bill needs to be fundamentally changed

MARINET has made a submission to the UK Government under the public consultation procedure operated by Defra with respect to the draft Marine Bill, see a copy here.

MARINET believes that the current framework and proposals in the draft Bill will neither restore biodiversity nor rebuild fish stocks in our seas, and that what is required is the creation of a Ministry of the Sea with a duty placed on its Secretary of State to create an ecologically coherent network of highly protected marine reserves covering at least 30% of UK seas out to 200 nautical miles by 2015. MARINET's proposals are consistent with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in its 25th Report, titled Turning The Tide, published 2004 www.rcep.org.uk/fisheries/Turningthetide.pdf and the requirements of the forthcoming EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive which can be seen on our website at www.marinet.org.uk/marinebill/euframeworkdirective.pdf

At the moment the UK Government is failing to take such an approach. Although the draft legislation will create a series of Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs), some of which may be highly protected, MARINET believes that these MCZs will lack ecological coherence and will be unable to address the fundamental task of managing the ecosystem of our seas as a whole. Unless we adopt this extensive ecosystem approach to management throughout UK seas out to 200 nautical miles, the UK Government will have failed in its duty to manage the seas with any real effectiveness, and the current collapse in fish stocks and marine biodiversity will continue. At the moment the UK Government is saying we cannot tackle fishery issues beyond 6 nautical miles without the consent of the EU and its Common Fisheries Policy. MARINET believes the UK Government is wrong in this assertion, and we believe that the UK and our Parliament has sovereign powers which can protect fish stocks provided such action is taken within the context of managing the marine ecosystem as a whole.

In MARINET's estimation we cannot afford to prevaricate. Fish stocks are at historically low levels and if we delay any longer we may find that within five to ten years we have effectively destroyed and lost our marine ecosystem in its current form. Therefore the forthcoming Marine Bill is an opportunity that must not be squandered. Unfortunately a refusal by the UK Government to grasp the issue is, in MARINET's opinion, precisely what is happening.

As a result MARINET has described the current draft Bill as being without a soul and lacking any real spine. The Bill makes no commitment in terms of policy, and proposes to create a Marine Management Organisation (a marine version of the Environment Agency) sometime around 2010, and then only in stages. Action now is imperative, and the Draft Marine Bill does not display this characteristic. Consequently, MARINET will be continuing with its current national campaign to secure a duty on the Secretary of State to create an extensive network of marine reserves throughout all UK seas, and MARINET will be seeking an amendment to the Bill to this effect when it comes before Parliament in the autumn.

Call for one-third of North Sea to be marine reserves

The World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) has published a report which argues that at least one-third of the North Sea should be established as marine reserves in which all fishing is excluded in order to rebuild fish stocks. WWF argue that temporary closures pioneered by the EU so far have not worked, and WWF further argues that unless conservation measures target the whole marine ecosystem and allow the full range of habitats to become re-established then conservation efforts to rebuild fish stocks will fail. The proposed network of reserves includes sites close to the Dogger Bank, the North Norfolk Sandbanks and north of the Shetlands and these areas have been selected because they are nursery and spawning areas. WWF cite reserves established by Iceland as evidence that such an extensive network of reserves can work.

The report is titled A Return to Abundance: A Case for Marine Reserves in the North Sea, and further details of the Report are available in a Daily Telegraph article.

UK Government acts to protect Lyme Bay sea life

Ministers at Defra have announced that they are to enforce a ban on damaging types of fishing in 60 square nautical miles of sea in Lyme Bay, Dorset. After public consultation and a full assessment of the impacts, the Government has ordered that the area be closed from early July. About ten per cent of Lyme Bay from West Bay to Beer Head will be permanently closed to scallop dredgers and bottom trawlers which drag nets along the seabed in order to safeguard the area's rich marine life and habitats. Fishing using nets nearer the surface or static nets and lines will still be allowed, as will diving for scallops, scuba diving and sea angling. Lyme Bay is home to world-renowned reefs as well as important species including pink sea fans, sunset cup corals and several rare sponges.

Hilary Benn MP, Environment Secretary, said: "Lyme Bay is one of Britain's richest marine environments, and the measures we have announced will protect the reefs and the wildlife that depends on them from the most damaging fishing methods. The environmental benefits will be huge, and species under threat will be able to recover and thrive."

Jonathan Shaw MP, Marine and Fisheries Minister, said: "A lot of work has gone into assessing the impacts, and this is just the kind of major decision about managing and protecting our seas that the Government's Marine Bill will help us take in future. The decision to protect Lyme Bay's wildlife shows that we are committed to protecting the marine environment. I want to work with people all around our coast to establish a national network of marine conservation zones to help protect the richness and diversity of life in our seas."

Dr Jean-Luc Solandt of the Marine Conservation Society said: 'In the end, most fishermen and conservationists want the same thing - sustainable fishing which has limited impact on the marine environment. The only way achieve this is to manage areas of sea appropriate to the vulnerability of the habitat, and to leave some areas completely alone to entirely recover from man's impact.'

James Portus, secretary of the South West Inshore Fishermen's Association, said: "I'm very disappointed to put it mildly. Dozens of people's livelihoods along the south coast are being sacrificed on the altar of the marine environment which we were perfectly capable of protecting through our agreement. We don't ban all the cars from the road just because one or two break the speed limit. We were even prepared to legislate to enforce our agreement. As it is, they haven't just closed the reefs, which are a much smaller area, they have closed a vast area. They have used a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It is not the way government ought to work, it should pay attention to the economic and social costs as well as to the marine environment. There has got to be a better way of managing the sea than this."

For further details see Defra News release and Daily Telegraph article.

Sea salt worsens coastal air pollution

A new scientific study published in the journal Nature Geoscience by a team of researchers that included University of Calgary chemistry professor Hans Osthoff, reports that industrial and shipping pollution is made worse when it combines with sunshine and salty sea air, see www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080408163231.htm.

The link between sunshine and air pollution to create ozone (a lung irritant) at ground level is already well known, but this recent study suggests that the presence of chlorides (sea salt = sodium chloride) intensifies the formation of ozone, meaning that ports and coastal areas close to shipping lanes are likely to be seriously affected. Research into this phenomenon and related chemical processes is continuing.

New organisation to study impact of offshore windfarms

COWRIE (Collaborative Offshore Wind Research Into the Environment) is a registered charity set up to advance and improve understanding and knowledge of the potential environmental impacts and benefits of offshore windfarm development in UK waters. COWRIE Ltd has commissioned and published a number of reports on birds, marine mammals, underwater noise, cumulative impacts and electromagnetic fields in relation to offshore windfarms. These can be found on the new COWRIE website at www.offshorewind.co.uk under publications. The recent publication of the report prepared by BioConsult, "Methodologies for measuring and assessing potential changes in marine mammal behaviour, abundance or distribution arising from the construction, operation and decommissioning of offshore windfarms" is available for review on their website here. The report will be available to review until the end of August 2008. A report review form is available for download on the website.

Mining of seabed minerals advanced by UK company

A UK company, Soil Machine Dynamics, has been awarded a £33 million contract to supply deep sea mining equipment. The object of this equipment is to extract metals (gold, silver, zinc and copper) from mineral deposits on the sea floor at depths of over a mile. These deposits have been formed by the seepage of acidic water through deep cracks in the sea floor where the mineral solution is precipitated into deposits which are high in mineral content. The mining equipment involves cutting-heads similar to those used in coal mining, along with powerful suction machinery to pump the pulverised mineral solution to ships at the surface. Recent rises in commodity prices now make this technology financially viable. For example, the current market value of copper is $3.80 per pound, and the cost of this extraction method is around $1.50 per pound. A great variety of marine species are found in these deep ocean ecosystems, many of which are poorly recorded and understood. Mining therefore could create enormous damage, and many of the ecosystems on the seafloor are very sensitive to damage and lack resilience in the face of disturbance. Like trawling, which has ravaged shallow seafloor ecosystems, mining could now pose the same threat to deep seafloor ecosystems.

Source: Bridge Marine Science Group, Anglesey

Decline in UK Bathing Water Quality in 2007

Using figures published by the Environment Agency, the Marine Conservation Society has published its Good Beach Guide which records the results for UK compliance for 2007 against the quality standards of the EU Bathing Water Directive.

The Good Beach Guide reports that the number of UK beaches failing the mandatory EU standard rose from 17 in 2006 to 53 in 2007. In their Press Release the Marine Conservation Society "blames this drop in water quality largely on an increase in storm related pollution caused by the wet weather."

Note: MARINET observes that the excuse of wet weather is a poor one. Water companies are meant to supplement their sewage treatment works with storm tanks. These tanks store sewage in wet weather and thus enable the sewage to be treated when the wet weather has abated. However it would appear that many water companies are not installing the required storm tank capacity, and thus discharging untreated sewage to sea when wet weather occurs. At the moment, non-compliance of a bathing water with the EU Directive under these circumstance must be recorded as a "fail" in the official statistics, but under a reform of the Bathing Water Directive soon to be introduced the water companies will be allowed to claim these events as "exceptional", and then be able to erase the "fail" reading from the official figures. Thus although UK consumers are paying record annual water charges, the revenue is not yet being invested in adequate storm treatment facilities and, when the reform of the EU Bathing Water Directive comes into operation, this failure will be lost from sight in the official Bathing Water compliance figures.

Bathing Water Quality in Europe 'officially fell slightly' in 2007

The EU Commission has published results for bathing water quality at coastal and inland resorts throughout Europe during 2007 (Note: This file is 12.53 MB).

Whilst it is claimed by the EU Environment Commissioner, Stavros Dimas, that standards have remained high, there was a fall in mandatory compliance for EU coastal resorts from 96% in 2006 to 95% in 2007, and a fall in guidleine compliance from 88% in 2006 to 86% in 2007. Mr Dimas also observed in a Press Release that "he was encouraged by a 44 per cent drop from 2006 in the number of bathing areas removed by member states from their national lists. This practice, known as "de-listing", is often done in order to avoid addressing pollution at source, he added, and could explain the fall in apparent EU bathing water quality last year".

Note: MARINET observes that the testing used in the calculation of mandatory compliance fails to include, in most cases, a check for salmonella and entero-viruses, despite this requirement being stated in the Directive itself. Therefore MARINET believes that the claim by the EU Commissioner of 95% mandatory compliance is unfounded and, if checks were carried out for salmonella and entero-viruses, mandatory compliance could be considerably lower. This failure to properly implement the Bathing Water Directive has been drawn to the attention of the EU Commission by MARINET, but the EU Commission has chosen to ignore it.

New Aggregate Dredging Licence issued off Humber Estuary

Hanson Marine has obtained a new licence to extract 500,000 tonnes per annum of sand and gravel for 15 years from Area 480 (also known as Area 106 East) located 25 miles south east of the mouth of the Humber estuary. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) originally expressed concern during the EIA procedure that dredging might harm the potential for Sabellaria spinulosa reefs (an Annex I habitat under the EU Habitats Directive) within the eastern arm of the site, and the licence has only been issued on the understanding that there will be no dredging in the eastern arm without further consultation and a review of the data collected from pre-dredge surveys. Area 480 is a fraction under 10 square kilometres in size.

Severn Barrage is poor value for money

A Report written by Frontier Economics, and commissioned by 10 environmental organisations which include the RSPB, National Trust and The Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, has concluded that the proposed Severn Barrage from Lavernock Point, in the Vale of Glamorgan, to Brean Down in Somerset will cost £15 billion and represents poor value for money if that same sum were to be spent on other forms of generating renewable energy. In addition, the report questions whether sufficient compensatory habitat can be found to replace the European SAC and SPA habitat that would be lost should the barrage be built. Hence the Frontier Economics report concludes that the proposed barrage "can't be justified". The Westminster Government will decide in September of this year whether to commission further studies into the viability of the proposed barrage.

Source: Western Mail, 12th June 2008

New Marine Aggregate Dredging Licence in Bristol Channel

The marine aggregate companies, Hanson Marine and Cemex UK Marine, have obtained a new licence to extract up to 1.5 million tonnes over 10 years from Area 472, Culver Sands, which lies on the median line separating England and Wales, approximately 8 miles south of Barry and 8 miles north of Minehead.

Culver Sands is a sand bank completely covered by seawater at all times at a depth no greater than 20 metres, which means that it fits the descriptive criteria of the Annex I habitat listed in the EU Habitats Directive. However Culver Sands has never been forwarded by the UK Government to Brussels for listing under the Habitats Directive, and therefore does not currently enjoy such legal protection. During the EIA procedure in the licencing application, this potential Annex I status was drawn to the attention of the UK Government. However the applicant advised the UK Government and its conservation agencies that it only wished to excavate a section of Culver Sand that is separated from the main sandbank, and the applicant's consultants advised the UK Government that there is no interchange of sand between this small separate sandbank and the main sandbank, and therefore the main sandbank's integrity would remain unaffected by aggregate dredging.

Note: MARINET has objected to the granting of this licence, and has argued that there is no real evidence to substantiate the belief that there is no exchange of sand between the small and main sandbanks.
For further details, see www.marinet.org.uk/mad/objection.html#472

New Marine Aggregate Dredging licence for Liverpool Bay

Westminster Gravels Ltd has been awarded a licence to extract 18 million tonnes of coarse sand over 15 years, at a rate of 1.2 million tonnes per annum, from the seabed of Area 457 in Liverpool Bay. The site is located approximately 16 miles from the West Lancashire (Sefton) coast and 18 miles from the North Wales coast. The West Lancashire/Merseyside coast from the Ribble estuary to the Mersey estuary is all protected under the EU Habitats Directive, either for its importance to wild birds or for its extensive sand dune system and the biodiversity which this sand dune system supports.

Note: MARINET has objected to this licence application since it was first submitted in 2002, and has now requested the licencing agency (Marine and Fisheries Agency) to revoke this new licence and call it in for examination by a Planning Inspector under new procedures announced in the recent revision of Marine Minerals Guidance Note 2.
For further details see www.marinet.org.uk/mad/objection.html#457

Anger after Norfolk flooding meeting

From the EDP 11th June '08

An MP fighting plans to surrender thousands of acres of Norfolk to the sea has spoken of his anger and frustration after yesterday meeting senior executives from the government agency behind the proposals.

Norman Lamb, Liberal Democrat MP for North Norfolk, had written to Natural England formally asking it to withdraw its draft report setting out four options for dealing with the consequences of climate change in the northern Broads. The last of these was a proposal to abandon nine miles of sea defences between Eccles and Winterton, flooding an area stretching inland as far as Stalham and Potter Heigham, with the loss of 25sq miles of land, including at least six villages.

Mr Lamb asked Natural England to withdraw the report, claiming no proper analysis had been made of the cost of abandoning the area and that the issue of compensation had not been considered. He said people living in the area were already suffering the effects of planning blight, with house sales falling through and property prices falling, after details of the proposals were leaked.

Natural England's chief executive Dr Helen Phillips wrote back to Mr Lamb, saying: "I am not persuaded that withdrawing the report or the fourth option within the report would serve a useful purpose. When we issue the final report, we will stress the need for society to plan how it needs to adapt to the impacts of climate change. Publishing our report will, hopefully, inform this process."

Yesterday at Westminster Mr Lamb met Andrew Wood, executive director of Natural England, and Shaun Thomas, East of England regional director, who reiterated that Natural England would not withdraw the report.

After the meeting Mr Lamb said: "They now accept if you're going to look at some long-term option you have to look at the social implications. That is in itself an advance, but their approach contradicts that and it's not happening in tandem. Their reaction was they still intend to publish. I have made it clear I think it would be callous to publish in these circumstances. I accept they were doing their work, looking at the long-term predictions, but now they know the consequences of their work reaching the public domain, they can't stand idly by and let those communities suffer. I made it clear I was very angry and frustrated that they appear to be unwilling to consider either cost-benefit or the issue of social justice before we look at the environmental considerations. I'm appalled by this situation. I think they have got a responsibility to these communities. I don't see that anything would be lost by withdrawing this now so that there can be a more rational debate with those communities protected."

Community of Arran Seabed Trust wins Marine Reserve Award

C.O.A.S.T. (Community of Arran Seabed Trust) which is trying to create Scotland's first "no-take" marine reserve in Lamlash Bay has won The Observer newspaper's Conservation Project Award.

In the citation for making the Award, the judges said "In a closely fought contest and a strong category, the judges eventually selected this community-based project on the Isle of Arran that aims to protect the unique biodiversity of Lamlash Bay on the Arran Coast and to give its productivity a chance to recover for future generations. As celebratory-panellist Deborah Meaden put it: 'It was wonderful to see a local community say: "We're going to do this." After all, it's easy to gain support for a fluffy animal, but nobody cuddles fish.' Quite. Fourteen years ago the residents and supporters of Lamlash Bay began to fret about the destruction beneath the choppy waters but found that there was little to no legal protection for ocean biodiversity. They worked with fishermen, politicians and wider communities, and their painstaking mediation and education initiatives led this year to the UK's first No Take Zone around the bay - an exclusion zone of 267 hectares, providing protection from any fishing by anybody. Nothing will be removed, giving all marine life in the area - including rare maerl seaweed - a chance to regenerate. This award is for Coast's staying power and complete dedication."

For further details about the Community of Arran Seabed Trust, see www.arrancoast.co.uk