Studland Consultation Consultation - we need to get proposals amended this Thursday

[MarlynSpyke]

Picking up a few points: our Public Enemy Number One is not the MMO, it’s actually Natural England, NE – but they are now sheltered (shielding??) behind MMO. Now the Bay is a designated MCZ, MMO are legally required to introduce management measures if they judge them necessary, and unfortunately their statutory advisers on conservation issues are NE. MMO have to take full account of NE’s advice. It was pretty clear that the MMO people were floundering a bit, and also made some inaccurate statements, when it came to the marine biology and conservation stuff.

It is NE who maintain, on the basis of selected studies from the general scientific literature, made in comfort from behind their desks, that the seagrass beds feature is in Unfavourable Condition. It is NE who have not done or commissioned any actual survey of the beds since the Seastar survey in 2010 or so, I suspect so they do not have to face the uncomfortable truth (for NE) that the beds are actually stable or expanding in extent, i.e. in Favourable Condition. So they fall back on selected proxy studies which they can interpret to give the result they want.

So MMO are in the position of having to implement measures based on questionable evidence which is not under their control. And it is unfortunately true that under the legislation, socio-economic considerations do not apply once a site is designated an MCZ.

To give MMO credit, they have decided not to progress the more extreme suggestions of banning boats altogether on the grounds of “visual disturbance” of a handful of seahorses, or of making too much noise for the little blighters, or of uprooting the seagrass by their wash as they passed (we did point out that compared with the waves in an easterly gale, boat wash is negligible). Seriously, all these things were in play, and BORG did send to MMO strong arguments against.

So where to go from here? I see two possible approaches – one is political, as discussed above – there does not seem to be a realistic legal approach given the provisions of the Marine and Coastal (non-?) Access Act 2009 – but I’m no lawyer, if anyone can find a possible route, great – the other is to recognise the realities and try to get the least damaging outcome under the circumstances. MMO have said they wish to minimise the socio-economic impacts while carrying out their obligations. The fact that they suggested last night a smaller no-anchor-zone (NAZ) for 2021 suggests some flexibility. And we will continue to challenge the evidence with NE and with MMO.

A voluntary NAZ seems to solve the shelter-in-emergencies issue: it would remain legal to anchor and there could be no legal sanctions taken. And if it was rough weather, there would be no Wildlife Trust volunteer paddling up in a kayak to deliver a lecture.

If a VNAZ was not strictly observed, it would not mean the measure was ineffective – as long as it resulted in a substantial reduction in anchoring over time, it would be reducing the pressures on the designated features. Since it is far from clear that the large numbers that currently anchor in the Bay are actually harming the seagrass beds, a small number anchoring would cause negligible harm, if any.

The key to getting a least bad working solution will be a VNAZ as small as possible (but this would still be of substantial size I expect) with its northern boundary as far south as possible. MMO’s map of their Option3 still has its northern boundary about 100 metres north of the edge of the southern eelgrass bed, this must be challenged. The sandy shallow inshore area where no eelgrass grows should be available for small craft anchoring, which MMO actually did mention last night. We could then still end up with a sizeable anchoring area with adequate depth which would be ok for those calm sunny summer afternoons when boats flock to Studland Bay. Not perfect, but maybe the best we can get. Meanwhile, there is still the political approach, and we must all keep up the pressure on the MMO.

Oh, and by the way, there is a paper co-authored by Richard Unsworth which looked at health indicators of eelgrass in ten sites in the UK, plus one in Ireland, and in the UK sites the Studland Bay eelgrass came second only to a site in the Scillies, which has pure Atlantic water. Water quality is a key driver of eelgrass health.

It's at https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsos.150596 and it's not too hard to skim through it and pick out the key bits.

 

[chrishscorp]

Sorry the quality is naff 4th attempt, all the highlighted areas are where MMO/NE are interested and have already gathered evidence on non licensable activities as you can see its not just Studland that are in their sights.

I have to go out, but on my return if forumites are interested in a specific area I will blow it up and put it up

 

[wizard]

Considering the serious effect that this will have on our boating activities I for one am going to send a letter to the RYA specifically asking exactly what they are going to do.

Failure to significantly step up to the plate will incur a cancellation of membership and I don’t doubt a good many others too.

 

[Concerto]

The photographic evidence provided by BORG shows the eel grass has increased over the past 50 years despite anchoring. I wonder what the MMO reaction would be if the area of eel grass reduces because of an anchoring ban.

Reading all of the posts of those who participated in the Zoom meeting, it is clear this was a white wash of a decision already made without any regard to people not in the conservation world. My opinion of MMO and NE has dropped to an even lower point. Can they stoop any lower?

Having been involved in another case where NE were involved, I can see they are determined to get their way irrespective of any sound and well reasoned objections. They are blinkered and frequently ignorant of history. This case involved the North Downs in Kent. Two conservationists obtained £1.4M of heritage lottery funding with Kent County Council backing to return the Downs back to their traditional grazing. They went back to about 150 years in their justification and how since the end of WWII many areas were becoming overgrown. THey overlooked two factors, firstly the reduction of sheep grazing and secondly 600 years earlier the whole area of the Downs and the field below were described by Chaucer as woodland and forest. So the conservationists are highly selective in their vision.

 

[DJE]

I think we should try to get "Anchoring in a genuine emergency" changed to "Anchoring for the safety of the vessel". As noted above we may need to anchor to reduce the risk of an emergency developing later due to fatigue on a long passage.

 

[Concerto]

Might be better worded "Anchoring for the safety of the vessel and crew".

 

[Blue Sunray]

Considering the serious effect that this will have on our boating activities I for one am going to send a letter to the RYA specifically asking exactly what they are going to do.

Failure to significantly step up to the plate will incur a cancellation of membership and I don’t doubt a good many others too.

I've just sent them an email. The key point is that the decision to restrict anchoring at all is taking are based of flawed logic and weak or even contrary evidence. The safety argument is interesting but very much a side issue of marginal interest to those of us who see the bay as a destination in itself.

 

[Ian_Rob]

I've just sent them an email. The key point is that the decision to restrict anchoring at all is taking are based of flawed logic and weak on even contrary evidence. The safety argument is interesting but very much a side issue of marginal interest to those of us who see the bay as a destination in itself.

+++ Exactly!

 

[oldharry]

I've just sent them an email. The key point is that the decision to restrict anchoring at all is taking are based of flawed logic and weak on even contrary evidence. The safety argument is interesting but very much a side issue of marginal interest to those of us who see the bay as a destination in itself.

Absolutely right! Safety is fundamental, but Studland is one of the most beautiful anchorages on the S Coast.

 

[Sea-Fever]

Only the RYA could seriously do that: a one day court hearing might set one back £30,000 - £50,000 with considerable upside uncertainty, such as the risk of being ordered to pay the costs of the other side and so on. A £100K opening fund might be a good starting point?

In practice a rabble can rarely fund such an operation in the absence of a few key dominant payers who drive the process forward, or in voluntary/public interest cases where solicitors and barristers might be prepared to basically take charge and work pro bono.

Neither fit the bill here.

What there no lawyers who own boats on the South coast?

 

[Sea-Fever]

Absolutely right! Safety is fundamental, but Studland is one of the most beautiful anchorages on the S Coast.

So you dont JR the MMO you JR Natural England who are carrying a statutory function for the state.

 

[Channel Sailor]

One of the speakers on the Zoom call definitely said ...."Natural England have an advisory role"... This I immediately questioned this in the Q&A chat, but later I could not find an answer. It seemed to me that NT are the Authority, the MMO are simply implementing the desire NT. The NT appear to have crashed into being these Conservation Zones with a loose brief they should be managed. But now they are now, within this scope and brief, wiggling the knife point to steam roller in restrictions using the law, even though the research base evidence (in the case of Studland) is weak and incredibly biased. Possibly ill informed as well. I am wondering if George Eustace MP has a brief on this matter to meet an objective set out in a Conservative manifesto promise somewhere.

NT is under George Eustace as well, so I suggest use communications to your MP (where ever you are) and copy to GE (and the MMO as well maybe).

As it happens I also anchor regularly in Priory Bay, Sandown/Whitecliff Bay, Chichester Harbour, Hill Head and along the shores of the eastern Solent. I vaguely recall that Priory Bay and Sandown were being targeted by GE's Natural England mob as well.

 

[oldharry]

I. George Eustice is a keen greeny himself. he will not want to see beyond the pretty seahorses, and carbon sinking weed they live in. Richard Drax is our man!
2. MMO have a legal duty to protect areas identified by NE
3. MMO's conservatiuon team are all marine biologosts. There is no one with sailing or boating experience, or representing our interests.
4. NE have a long record of working to poliitical agendas, and selective use of data..
Specific example at Studland: you will note in every paper and discussion they refer to seagrass. Seagrass generally is demonstrably fragile slow growing and susceptible to serious long term damage. Oceanica Posidona found extensively int he Med for example, can take years to recover froma single anchor dragging through it But Studland's seagrass is a cold water variety. Zostera Marina Tough, adaptable, fast growing, and well able to sustain disturbance. Some observers even suggest disturbance may stimulate growth. We can all clearly see the evidence of this in the growth and spread of the Studland seagrass bed since WW2. ALL the available research papers on Z Marina confirm it as a tough and resilient plant, bar one: that is Dr Collins 2010 paper which - you have guessed it - takes the fragile Oceanica Posidona as the model for his theories. But no: seagrass is fragile and must not be disturbed,so that is the NE party line. Try to remind them its not seagrass, its Eelgrass - Z Marina; No. Seagrass is too fragile for us to continue to anchor in it.

This debate has gone on for over 10 years. Why the sudden massive rush to get everything in place in 6 weeks? Slip it in during the confusion and trauma of post pandemic lockdown? Present us witha fait accompli whe we all start crawling out, blinking in the sunsight from lockdown? Looks very like it to me.

 

[Channel Sailor]

I have just sent in my letter to George E and the Dorset CC email address used for the MMO questions.

 

[Blue Sunray]

I have just sent in my letter to George E and the Dorset CC email address used for the MMO questions.

Anything to RYA? I'd suggest they really do need to step up to the mark now.

 

[Sea-Fever]

Considering the 'tip of the iceberg' aspect of Studland restrictions I believe the RYA and CA should be fighting this tooth and nail lest we all find ourselves with absolutely nowhere to go in our boats save for marinas. No doubt NE will find something worthy of protection in every sheltered anchorage in the UK. I believe they see this as a righteous cause. Recreational boating is a soft target and a political win.

 

[penfold]

AT presnt our sport comes under MMO's 'non-licensable activities' remit. How much longer do you think that will last? If you havea private mooring not controlled by a Harbour Authority, you will have been on the MMO Hit list since around 2010. They have 'more important things' to deal with at present, but they Will get round to regulating your mooring in time. Already you cannot legally lift it for maintenance without a licence. They are not worried about it - yet. But the legislation is already in place to ensue EVERY mooring in the Country is officially licensed and approved.

Aren't moorings in Englandshire the purview of Crown Estate like they are in Scotlandshire? They take our money, there might be a boat doing spot checks if someone complains about fly moorings but that's about it. A licence to lay a mooring is nearly the stupidest thing I've read about this year so I'm surprised Holyrood haven't got on board with this Sir Humphrey Appleby empire-building nonsense. It's quite ironic that I cannot find out more as the MMO website keeps crashing.

 

[oldharry]

Yes Penfold, you are right. Most of the seabed is the property of Crown Estates, who can collect rental for moorings laid on their property lk any landowner would.. However this overlaid by the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 which effectively places ALL Marine activity in the hands of MMO. Moorings are a 'deposit on the seabed' which is a licensed activity therefire under the conrol of MMO or a Harbour Board. MMO's jurisdiction does not extend to Scottish Waters which come under Marine Scotland who I beleive have a simiiar brief to Englands MMO, but with a rather more enlightened attitude - or so I am told! Wales has Natural Resources Wales. All three quangos control such matters as fishing quotas and licensing, water quality, marine commercial developements and so on, and of course Marine Conservation, following their National legislation.

When you get on to MMOs site you need to look for the rules concerning deposits underwater - which can be anything from a mooring block to an oil rig. You will not find anything about private moorings, because they 'have more important things to think about' but I am assured bya senior MMO man that this will come. in due course. It is mentioned in their main report on Studland referring to the existing moorings there, because they are in the MCZ, so must be taken in to acount now rather than later.

 

[Tomahawk]

Perhaps the problem is that we are being too peaceful?
The story of late is that demonstrations and attacking people gets the results you want. Start picketing the Seahorse Trust HQ and making life difficult for them in the name of freedom?

 

[wizard]

Absolutely right! Safety is fundamental, but Studland is one of the most beautiful anchorages on the S Coast.

I am thinking that safety is the Trojan horse. We need to get through the outer wall of their defence on this problem and work the leisure in later! Leisure concerns will not cut it on their own.