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

[Tranona]

Why is NE so insistent Studland is at risk when there is no hard data confirming it?

Marine research is a tricky, time consuming and expensive exercise, and not without some risk to the researchers. As a researcher once said its like bird spotting in a fog, particularly in UK waters. So in the absence of specific data the experts look at similar scenarios elsewhere, and draw up an assessment of what they expect to find. This called the Precautionary Principle.

This is nothing new, and we all use it most of the time. It’s the basis on which the Insurance and Health and Safety Industry operate. Put simply , it is the determination of future risk from past experience. We use it in passage planning. Weather. Wind speed and direction, alternatives if things go sour, as well as assessing our boat and crews ability and preparedness to cope if things go pear shaped. We dont actually know that anything will go wrong, but seamanship demands we prepare for it. We take precautions.

In Studland there is no existing or historic data. So NE turned to seagrass studies elsewhere and find that abrasion and damage caused by anchoring events is widely reported as a source of significant damage. The likelihood of this having occurred at Studland is very high, therefore we can safely predict the eelgrass is in need of recovery. Seagrass literature points to the need to control or prevent anchoring to achieve protection and healthy growth.

There is nothing to suggest that Studland should be an exception, therefore, as in any seagrass MCZ, anchoring must be controlled and limited, to allow it to recover. When (if) they do get to researching it properly in a few years time, they will find it in good condition. Aha! we were right . The seagrass HAS recovered!

SO where’s the loophole? Seagrass. Seagrass is generally a fragile plant, highly susceptible to damage and abrasion, slow growing and with very poor ability to recover. NE are right, anchoring in it does considerable long term damage. BUT. Here in Studland we have Eelgrass, Zostera Marina, a sub-species of seagrass. Little research has been done, but the 16 papers we found ALL without exception describe a hardy, tough, quick growing plant that recovers quickly and well from abrasion and even complete removal.

If NE was to examine eelgrass as a separate sub-species in its own right, the documented research would be clear that anchoring, as we all know, is simply not an issue. But we need a qualified Marine Biologist to pick it up and take it forward for us. At present it is classified by NE as non-admissable anecdotal evidence, because none of us is qualified to challenge their decision.

All the facts and links to the 16 papers are on the BORG website: http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/Eelgrass-recolonisation.pdf

A very good summary of one of the consequences of the expansion of the "academic" sector over the last 40 years. There is an army of what might be called overeducated people that need to be kept occupied and one of the activities they end up doing is "research". I put this in quotes because success in the system derives from reheating existing work rather than original thought - or even horror of horrors questioning current thinking. This activity is demonstrated through publishing peer reviewed articles and in turn one of the key measures of a good article is the references you cite and then the number of citations of your article.

This is a fairly recent phenomenon and encouraged by the govts policy on awarding scores and in turn funding. This slowly dawned on me in the latter part of my career when I was involved in expanding research activity in my university. It was depressing to see the games played to satisfy the system and the miserable quality of what was considered acceptable research. Much was formulaic and lacking in originality. Some of my fellow supervisors liked that because it was easier to supervise and keep up their completion rates (a measure of their performance).

What a contrast to the type of research from the 50's through to the 80's that underpinned thinking in my field. Because there were less people at it and the rewards were less, originality stood out and those who challenged were the ones listened to.

I hope a suitable expert can be found, but almost certainly s/he will be long retired so hopefully not be afraid to challenge the status quo.

 

[oldharry]

But who's he gonna call?

MMO The enforcers, who would then have to have a reason not to act.

 

[RivalRedwing]

I wrote to both the RYA and the Dorset Coast Forum over the weekend, both replied today:

To the RYA
I attended the ‘engagement’ event with the MMO on Thursday 25th March relating to the Studland Bay MCZ. It rapidly became apparent that it was more of a box ticking lecture than an engagement event with the MMO already pretty entrenched in their views, and with little appreciation of the needs of the cruising yachtsman. I found their views biased and often lacking any form of scientific rigour or credible evidence base, and very defensive. Whilst Studland is not within my usual cruising territory I am very concerned that the outcome at this MCZ will be used to set the precedent for future MCZ rulings around the coast. To that end I consider the blinkered activities of the MMO to be the most important threat to the cruising yachtsman in the near to medium future and also, indirectly, dictate my ongoing support for the RYA. Please continue to make the strongest representations you can on this matter.

In response the RYA provided a draft of their updated 'position paper' which they are circulating around local clubs which at least shows they are engaged (and concerned) with the approach being taken by the MMO. Sadly they do not seem to appreciate the difference between seagrass and eelgrass which is a shame and which hopefully can be rectified.

To Dorste Coast
Many thanks for organising the ‘engagement’ event on Thursday 25th March. Must admit I was disappointed by the content. It rapidly became apparent that it was more of a box ticking lecture than an engagement event with the MMO already entrenched in their views, and with little appreciation of the needs of the cruising yachtsman. I found their views biased, often lacking any form of scientific rigour or credible evidence base, and very defensive. If genuine engagement is indeed what they seek then their approach needs to change.

and in response
In regards to the engagement event, the Dorset Coast Forum has been asked to facilitate stakeholder feedback into the proposed management measures. Initially this engagement event was to give an update on the progress so far, introduce the draft proposals and a launch a survey for public to give feedback on them. However after feedback at the key stakeholder event on the 18th, it was decided that the MMO needed more time to consider those comments on the draft proposals so the event on the 25th was informational with the opportunity to ask questions. There will be an opportunity to feedback on the proposed management measures and further information on this will be sent to all those who registered for the event in due course.


I am sure others can do better but the key is we all try and do something to try and change the current atitude and proposals of the MMO

 

[Tomahawk]

That does not look like an organisation fighting for the interests of the people it claims to represent. They have not said anything about the emerging local plan at Tendring and Maldon which cover the Blackwate and Colne estuaries. Whereas the RSPB have written reams in support of their position (that bird watchers should have priority over everryine else when it comes to who can do what).

 

[chubby]

e mail sent to the RYA CEO

For what it is worth an email to the RYA CEO produced a quick and helpful response, she is herself a cruising sailor and has anchored in studland for decades, just all adds to the weight of lobbying and support.

 

[Seven Spades]

Seems to me that the RYA is too late to the party. They have not engaged with borg and have not understood the wider implications of letting this one go.

 

[chubby]

Seems to me that the RYA is too late to the party. They have not engaged with borg and have not understood the wider implications of letting this one go.

in which case members should bring it to their attention and make sure they realize the wider implication and maybe that current members will consider their position next time subscriptions are due for renewal.

 

[Blue Sunray]

Facebook members might wish to join this page:

Facebook Groups

 

[Channel Sailor]

I saw this quote on the bbc web pages from RH George Eustace ”.... is "indefensible" and "unnecessary", the environment secretary has said.” I briefly thought he was referring to the Studland Bay anchoring restrictions proposal, but no, it was something to do with shellfish and the EU. Ah well.

 

[FairweatherDave]

For anyone who wanted follow up from the consultation Zoom. This is what I have received so far. Basically open the link..... and note they still say there will be further opportunities to have your say.


Good afternoon,
Thank you to everyone who attended or registered to attend the Studland Bay MCZ public engagement online event last Thursday 25th March.

We hope that you found the event useful and informative. The link to the presentations at the meeting can now be viewed on the website at

https://www.dorsetcoasthaveyoursay.co.uk/studland-bay-mcz



A transcript of the Q&A session for the questions that were answered live will be shared on the same website next week.

As explained during the presentations the purpose of this information sharing event was to summarise what has happened so far, outline proposed management measures, give feedback from the recent stakeholder meeting and provide an opportunity to ask questions. In addition to the 30 minute question and answer session at the event, we had over 200 questions and comments received so we are now processing all the questions and polling votes taken at the event. They will be summarised in a report after further engagement is completed.

The MMO are reviewing all the feedback received and the Dorset Coast Forum will be in touch with further details about the next steps. There will be further opportunity for you to have your say on the MCZ management measures for Studland Bay.

Thank you again for taking the time to share your views so far.



Best wishes

Nikki



Nikki Parker-Goadsby

Dorset Coast Forum Support Officer

Dorset Coast Forum

Phone: +44 (01305) 224346

Email: nikki.parker-goadsby@dorsetcouncil.gov.uk

Web: www.dorsetcoast.com

www.dorsetcoasthaveyoursay.co.uk

 

[Blue Sunray]

It seems that the RYA have chosen to ignore the work done by BORG and accept that anchoring is causing damage to the seagrass in the Bay. Not impressive.

"The threat to habitat at Studland is inappropriate anchoring and mooring practices which damage the seagrass beds. The RYA considers that the solution to the problem is a joint strategy involving two simultaneous solutions. Firstly, the establishment of a mooring area that uses Advanced eco- 2 of 3 Mooring Systems that prevent damage to the seagrass; secondly, the establishment of an anchoring area where recreational users can safely stop without damaging the seagrass beds. "

https://www.rya.org.uk/SiteCollecti...0210326 RYA - Studland Bay Position Paper.pdf

 

[ryanroberts]

There is no reason why all of the interest groups’ objectives cannot be met with the application of some effort, and some funding

They are either naive or complicit here. If mooring becomes dependent on funding then this is the easiest thing in the world to control without further engagement.

 

[FairweatherDave]

Thanks for putting up the link Blue Sunray. Well worth a read of the whole document. Good to see the RYA are critical of the MMO proposals. I also wish they were more critical of the NE position and took the BORG line. I hope they get listened to and get a decent seat at the table.

 

[RobbieW]

Thanks for putting up the link Blue Sunray. Well worth a read of the whole document. Good to see the RYA are critical of the MMO proposals. I also wish they were more critical of the NE position and took the BORG line. I hope they get listened to and get a decent seat at the table.

There is still an outside chance. Following my email to Sarah Treseder, I had a reply from the person tasked with the RYA response. He asked for any supporting evidence which resulted in an email to him from @oldharry . We now await a reply, but he did say he was taking some time off over Easter.

 

[Blue Sunray]

There is still an outside chance. Following my email to Sarah Treseder, I had a reply from the person tasked with the RYA response. He asked for any supporting evidence which resulted in an email to him from @oldharry . We now await a reply, but he did say he was taking some time off over Easter.

It seems, to say the least, odd that they were not already aware of OH/BORG's work.

 

[RobbieW]

It seems, to say the least, odd that they were not already aware of OH/BORG's work.

Agreed, though I tend toward generosity until proven otherwise

 

[mainsail1]

The RYA have replied to my letter and one of the points that they have made surprises me greatly. I quote: Our approach is:

• Not to challenge the scientific basis for action. Natural England and the MMO have a statutory duty to protect the designated habitats and species within the Studland Bay Marine Conservation Zone. This duty is based on international treaties and national designations. The MMO and Natural England responded to questions around the science both in their site assessment and at the consultation meetings.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Good heavens. An RYA sell-out. That's never happened before.

 

[wizard]

No renewal of subscription then for the RYA next year!

If they roll over this time with Studland then they will do it elsewhere- so much for supporting the cruising yachtsman.

 

[st599]

What are the terms of reference of the group the RYA is interacting with? From what I've read a previous group undertook the scientific review, decided on the locations that were to be assigned and the protection level needed etc. Then DEFRA created a MCZ. Now this new group's role seems to be to implement DEFRA's findings.

If it's not within the new groups remit to examine the scientific advice, they won't. You'd need to try and get DEFRA to review the evidence.