HH & the Stour exempt from marine conservation zones

sailorman

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 May 2003
Messages
79,001
Location
temp ashore, i expect to be back🤞
Visit site
Stuff the Seahorse`s

An announcement on the 1 o clock news today

HH too important to restrict
`
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25032255

he government has announced it will create 27 new marine conservation zones (MCZs) to protect wildlife in the seas around the English coast.
The MCZs will help seahorses, coral reefs and oyster beds to remain safe from dredging and bottom-trawling.
The Marine Conservation Society welcomed the "significant milestone".
But it warned there were still fewer than a quarter of the number of MCZs recommended by scientists to complete an "ecologically coherent" network.
'Better protected'Last December a two-year £8m consultation involving the government's own science advisers recommended the creation of 127 MCZs to halt the rapid decline of fish, lobsters, oysters and seahorses.
But earlier this year, ministers announced plans to construct just 31 zones aimed at protecting life on the ocean floor.
At the time, campaigners described the plan as "pitiful" and a "bitter disappointment" - but the then environment minister Richard Benyon insisted that the scientific evidence for a large proportion of the zones was "just not up to scratch".
He said another £3.5m was being spent on gathering more evidence that could support more zones being designated in future.
Announcing the new 27 zones, marine environment minister George Eustice said the department was doing "more than ever" to protect England's marine environment and almost a quarter of English inshore waters and 9% of UK waters would be "better protected".
He said that the new MCZs - which would join over 500 marine protected areas that already exist - would cover an area roughly three times the size of Wiltshire and would span the waters around the English coast.
The scheme would ensure areas such as Chesil Beach and the Skerries Banks are safeguarded.
The minister said that the number of new sites had been reduced from 31 to 27 because two of the sites - at Stour and Orwell and Hilbre Island - were too costly,
A final decision on the two remaining sites - at Hythe Bay and North of Celtic Deep - will be made in the next phase of the project.
Mr Eustice also announced plans to designate two more phases of MCZs over the next three years, with a consultation on the next phase expected to be launched in early 2015.
"This is just the beginning," he said.
'Threatened sea bed'Melissa Moore, senior policy officer at the Marine Conservation Society, said that the organisation broadly welcomed the new proposals.
"This announcement is a significant milestone for marine conservation", she said.
But she added: "We urge government to bring forward designation of future tranches to prevent many threatened seabed habitats being further damaged - these 27 sites represent less than a quarter of the number recommended by scientists to complete an 'ecologically coherent' network."
She also pointed to the need to "police" potentially damaging activities.
"The MCZs will be multi-use, so low-impact fishing such as potting will be permitted in most sites," she said.
"It is vital that within these sites there is a clear notion of what can and can't happen, and who is responsible for policing those activities, otherwise we're just creating paper parks."
Defra said it had received around 40,000 responses to their consultation to 31 March 2013, which asked for feedback on the proposals via their website.


 
Last edited:
Just had a quick scan through the fact sheet covering the Crouch , B/water etc and can't see how this will affect us as w/e yotties , apart from stuff about fisheries there wasn't much else , like I said it was only a quick look as me dinner is on the table ......
 
I also read it. There's a lot of links to other documents, so I am sure I haven't done a thorough job, though. As Nigel says, there isn't much to bother us that I can see. There will be some restrictions on fishing, and two of the 4 objectives are about the native oysters and oyster beds, so we might see restrictions on oyster fishing of trawling within the rivers. It looks as if the institutions that would be concerned with boating would be the local authorities and the harbour authorities. They are supposed to use their powers only to further the objectives of the MCZ (ie to improve the oysters and oyster beds and the other objectives) so perhaps we will not really notice the MCZ at all.

We should keep an eye on it, though, in case we find that we can't anchor in some of the creeks where there may be oyster beds.
 
I also read it. There's a lot of links to other documents, so I am sure I haven't done a thorough job, though. As Nigel says, there isn't much to bother us that I can see. There will be some restrictions on fishing, and two of the 4 objectives are about the native oysters and oyster beds, so we might see restrictions on oyster fishing of trawling within the rivers. It looks as if the institutions that would be concerned with boating would be the local authorities and the harbour authorities. They are supposed to use their powers only to further the objectives of the MCZ (ie to improve the oysters and oyster beds and the other objectives) so perhaps we will not really notice the MCZ at all.

We should keep an eye on it, though, in case we find that we can't anchor in some of the creeks where there may be oyster beds.
We may have to comply with the "Correct Anchor" for the job :anonymous:
 
it's all rather vague though isn't it? Ok, there's a line on a map which pretty much encompasses the entire Essex coastline ads far north as Clacton and some vague references to existing bodies using existing powers to further the objectives of the MCZ


could go either way IMO, either it's a whitewash job to keep the environmental campaigners happy without actually doing anything much or its a snow job to keep users in the dark and bring in restrictions by the back door!


jesting apart, looks like the most likely impact on leisure boating might, and I emphasise might, be it becoming harder to get the necessary permissions to lay new moorings, put in pontoons and other such developments. that may or may not be a bad thing
 
May well have implications too for antifoul, scrubbing off / scrubbing posts; requirements for holding tanks; use of 2 stroke outboards; etc etc
 
The moment that someone says anything about antifout holding tanks washing off Etc..

I am goind to write to the Secretary of State saying that I was not properly consulted. Indeed I ,was not consulted at all. As such the whold lot fails the test of adequate consultation and is not legit....

DEFRA and the bug huggers deliberately did not consult boat users. The consulted marine trade organisations. However, those outfits, do not necessarily have the same objectives as boat owners.
 
That doesn't wash with me..

Clubs do not represent all boat owners. Indeed I am not a member of a club.
Clubs have also got other agendas that may conflict with taking a stand against MCZ's. What is most important to a club? repairing the roof, improving the cruising profile, a membership drive, simple cash flow… or campaigning against a bunch of bug huggers in the hope that in years to come, the club may still be able to operate?


Similarly Marinas do not have the same objectives as boat owners.. In particular, They are unlikely to want to see a big increase in supply of moorings and boat facilities. Whereas boat owners want a lot of boatyards to choose from in order to bring prices down..


On the Crouch the objective says "improving the habitat for the native oyster"… The consultation as it seemed to appear, when you could finally get through the rubbish did not say anything about restricting further new moorings, preventing new boat yards from opening, putting an end to use of antifoul…

Again this does not appear to be a robust consultation..
 
That doesn't wash with me..

Clubs do not represent all boat owners. Indeed I am not a member of a club.
Clubs have also got other agendas that may conflict with taking a stand against MCZ's. What is most important to a club? repairing the roof, improving the cruising profile, a membership drive, simple cash flow… or campaigning against a bunch of bug huggers in the hope that in years to come, the club may still be able to operate? .....
(sigh.............)
I went along with several other members and we represented ourselves individually as sailors, not club members, OK? There was no club 'agenda' to grind, there never has been in any club I've belonged to.
I presume the opportunity was presented to the club as a way of easily getting to see a bunch of sailors face to face. Doubtless there are other ways the consulters could have done it.
 
We had someone from Balanced Seas, who was in charge of the consultation around here, to talk to us at one of the ECF dinners. She was excellent and very helpful. She was very receptive to all our views and answered our questions comprehensively. Several of us reported back on ECF afterwards.

I am probably naive, but I was reassured. I have read quite a few of the documents that have been issued about MCZs, and there is little in them which should bother us. As I said above, the implementation as far as we are concerned is in the hands of the Harbour authorities and maybe the local authorities where it is a planning matter. At some time in the future, they MAY start imposing anchoring bans, insistence on holding tanks (which personally I would support), or even restricting access to some areas, but I don't think it's going to be helpful to over-react at this stage.
 
Top