Important Message from Finding Sanctuary about MCZs

[oldharry]

BORG has been asked to pass on the following message from Finding Sanctuary:

As the Dorset Liaison Officer for Finding Sanctuary my attention has been brought to a recent post on this blog regarding Studland and Finding Sanctuary. I understand that the MCZ (Marine Conservation Zone) process is a technical and complicated one and that it is very difficult to compress a whole days meeting in to a short post on a blog therefore I would urge anyone who wants to keep up to date with MCZs in the South West to look at the Finding Sanctuary Website which explains the process and has on it all the meeting reports in the ‘resources’ section.

The blog post has generated a lot of comments and I feel that I need to clarify a number of points.

Firstly, Finding Sanctuary’s job is to host a ‘Steering Group’ of Stakeholders who will decide on a proposed network of marine protected areas to submit to government (via Natural England and JNCC) for approval. The Steering Group has appointed a number of its members as a working group to do a lot of the initial work narrowing down the options. To make this work easier they are starting off with some general assumptions one of which is that there will not be restrictions on boats passing through or wishing to anchor in an MCZ. This is a general assumption though and might well not apply to all MCZs, it will depend on what has to be protected and is also subject to review by the Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (Natural England, JNCC)

Secondly; there will be a number of smaller 'reference sites' where “all extraction, deposition or human-derived disturbance is removed or prevented.” This means that, amongst a number of activities, anchoring will not be allowed in reference areas. The working group has only just started to consider reference sites and has reached NO DECISIONS. There are a number of target species and habitats that need to be in a reference site and the Finding Sanctuary project team was asked to use its GIS (mapping computer) to identify some areas to focus on where a number of targets could possibly be protected in just one reference site. The Dorset Local MCZ Group meeting was a very useful opportunity for local stakeholder representatives to comment on these focus areas, suggesting changes, and/or recording their opinions. This input will be passed on to the working group so that they have the advantage of local knowledge and expertise when they are ready to make their decisions. So far no decisions have been reached on any reference sites.

A full report of the 25th January Dorset MCZ Local Group meeting will be posted on the Finding Sanctuary website in the next week or so.



www.finding-sanctuary.org

John Weinberg

Dorset Liaison Officer

07788 675 294

 

[Stemar]

Thanks for this. Earlier posts on both sides of the subject have, to my mind, generated a lot more heat than light. I now feel I have a better idea of the issues involved from a cruiser's perspective.

One question:

Would a prohibition to anchoring in a reference site apply to an emergency such as sheltering from bad weather?

I appreciate that there's a whole spectrum between "If we don't anchor right here, now, we're dead" to "It's a bit bumpy, I'll drop the hook and make a cuppa". I'm thinking towards the nastier end.

 

[Boreades]

Thanks.

Does this bit...

“all extraction, deposition or human-derived disturbance is removed or prevented.”

.. include shipwrecks as well?

 

[Searush]

Please be sensible guys; Anchoring to avoid stress of weather or in case of emergency was specifically excluded in the wording of a potential ban anyway.

I'd be grateful if anyone could prevent any shipwreck/ foundering etc that I may ever be involved in. Sadly, I doubt it is possible to prevent a shipwreck, or we would never have any, would we. Your insurance might be charged with removing the debris & clearing up any pollution tho' - much as they are required to do if you sink in a harbour or channel at present & create a hazard to other craft.

Please try to engage brains or read thro some of the past info before asking the same old, same old, questions.

 

[oldharry]

Thanks for this. Earlier posts on both sides of the subject have, to my mind, generated a lot more heat than light. I now feel I have a better idea of the issues involved from a cruiser's perspective.

One question:

Would a prohibition to anchoring in a reference site apply to an emergency such as sheltering from bad weather?

I appreciate that there's a whole spectrum between "If we don't anchor right here, now, we're dead" to "It's a bit bumpy, I'll drop the hook and make a cuppa". I'm thinking towards the nastier end.

BORG raised that point with them. Also the question of the need to stop in a no anchor zone to rectify a fault which COULD lead to serious emergency later. RYA joined us on this, and we are awaiting an answer, but we think it is something that would have to be answered at a later stage by MMO as the enforcement agency. IF any restriction applies then there must be a legal definition - and how do you define a potential emergency at sea?

But it is very important question, and one on which both we and RYA will want answers on before somebody has to do it

Boreades, answer is I dont know, and I am not sure they do yet, either. An existing shipwreck would be part of the habitat anyway so could not be disturbed. I would understand it to mean that any ongoing human activity that modifies the area, fishing, trawling, gravel dredging, anchoring etc would no longer be allowed - but I am not a conservation expert! You could contact John Weinberg, who I know would try to answer it, if there is an answer yet.

 

[deep denial]

none of this talk of emergency anchoring should relieve the proponents of no anchoring from the need to explain why we should be stopped from anchoring at all when there is no evidence that any harm is done by it.

 

[duncan99210]

The purpose of the 'reference zones', where anchoring would be prohibited, is to provide exactly the evidence that would support or deny the need for a more extensive area where anchoring was forbidden. By comparing the sea life in the 'reference zone' with that in the unrestricted areas conclusions can be drawn as to whether the anchoring is causing damage or not. I would imagine 'reference zones' will be fairly small in comparison to the overall MCZ whilst being large enough to provide a viable comparison to the unprotected area.

 

[Seajet]

Duncan, we are as Searush says in danger of repeating old points, but do have a look at the Studland VNAZ Voluntary No Anchoring Zone; while only 100 metres square, it manages to take up a large proportion of the anchorage useful to small craft.

We must keep a very close eye on this sort of thing when any 'concession of restricted anchoring areas' is mentioned.

 

[oldharry]

none of this talk of emergency anchoring should relieve the proponents of no anchoring from the need to explain why we should be stopped from anchoring at all when there is no evidence that any harm is done by it.

Agreed. But the proponents say they do have evidence of harm caused by anchoring. We (BORG and RYA) dont agree with their evidence, but as they are the governments own advisors, it is not difficult to guess whose argument will carry the most weight.

 

[grumpy_o_g]

"all extraction, deposition or human-derived disturbance is removed or prevented." could well include diving and would certainly include anchoring your dive boat. It will interesting to see if these are "genuine" conversation areas - like some ashore which do not permit ANY access at all. It would certainly remove a lot of politics from the situation if, once it was clear that if the potential for damage was proven, all access would be prohibited. There could be an exception on very rare occasions (by genuine scientists with no commercial interests) for the sake of an annual census say.

 

[oldharry]

"all extraction, deposition or human-derived disturbance is removed or prevented." could well include diving and would certainly include anchoring your dive boat. It will interesting to see if these are "genuine" conversation areas - like some ashore which do not permit ANY access at all. It would certainly remove a lot of politics from the situation if, once it was clear that if the potential for damage was proven, all access would be prohibited. There could be an exception on very rare occasions (by genuine scientists with no commercial interests) for the sake of an annual census say.

I have asked Finding Sanctuary about diving activity. In general diving is apparently not regarded as a problem as such, but in a reference area there would almost certainly be at least a 'look but dont touch' policy - in other words divers would not be allowed to remove or disturb anything. It is possible that they might decide diving on a particular site needed more regulation, if conservation needs required it.

As John Weinberg says above, the location and levels of protection of reference areas have yet to be decided, so there are no clear answers yet.

 

[KristiferColumbus]

BORG has been asked to pass on the following message from Finding Sanctuary:

As the Dorset Liaison Officer for Finding Sanctuary my attention has been brought to a recent post on this blog regarding Studland and Finding Sanctuary. I understand that the MCZ (Marine Conservation Zone) process is a technical and complicated one and that it is very difficult to compress a whole days meeting in to a short post on a blog therefore I would urge anyone who wants to keep up to date with MCZs in the South West to look at the Finding Sanctuary Website which explains the process and has on it all the meeting reports in the ‘resources’ section.

The blog post has generated a lot of comments and I feel that I need to clarify a number of points.

Firstly, Finding Sanctuary’s job is to host a ‘Steering Group’ of Stakeholders who will decide on a proposed network of marine protected areas to submit to government (via Natural England and JNCC) for approval. The Steering Group has appointed a number of its members as a working group to do a lot of the initial work narrowing down the options. To make this work easier they are starting off with some general assumptions one of which is that there will not be restrictions on boats passing through or wishing to anchor in an MCZ. This is a general assumption though and might well not apply to all MCZs, it will depend on what has to be protected and is also subject to review by the Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (Natural England, JNCC)

Secondly; there will be a number of smaller 'reference sites' where “all extraction, deposition or human-derived disturbance is removed or prevented.” This means that, amongst a number of activities, anchoring will not be allowed in reference areas. The working group has only just started to consider reference sites and has reached NO DECISIONS. There are a number of target species and habitats that need to be in a reference site and the Finding Sanctuary project team was asked to use its GIS (mapping computer) to identify some areas to focus on where a number of targets could possibly be protected in just one reference site. The Dorset Local MCZ Group meeting was a very useful opportunity for local stakeholder representatives to comment on these focus areas, suggesting changes, and/or recording their opinions. This input will be passed on to the working group so that they have the advantage of local knowledge and expertise when they are ready to make their decisions. So far no decisions have been reached on any reference sites.

A full report of the 25th January Dorset MCZ Local Group meeting will be posted on the Finding Sanctuary website in the next week or so.



www.finding-sanctuary.org

John Weinberg

Dorset Liaison Officer

07788 675 294

Dos'nt seem to clear up anything just keeps THEIR OPTIONS OPEN as to what areas should be set aside for their own personal play areas.More jobs for the boys.

 

[KristiferColumbus]

none of this talk of emergency anchoring should relieve the proponents of no anchoring from the need to explain why we should be stopped from anchoring at all when there is no evidence that any harm is done by it.

Precisely.
I think we should be fighting this kind of elitism where certain people think it is alright for them to set up & manage their own private zoos.

 

[Allan]

Most of the disagreement on this subject, especially about Studland, has been between boaters and divers. If the powers at be want to stop the conflict why not lump us all together? If they say that any ban on anchoring will include a ban on diving there would be no conflict. This is not unreasonable, if the creatures and plants are special enough to need protection from anchores then they should be protected from disturbance from divers.
Allan

 

[oldharry]

Dos'nt seem to clear up anything just keeps THEIR OPTIONS OPEN as to what areas should be set aside for their own personal play areas.More jobs for the boys.

Tut-tut Kritifercolumnbus, how do you expect them to be able to tell US what they want, when THEY still have not decided what they DO want yet? Hmmm?

 

[KristiferColumbus]

Tut-tut Kritifercolumnbus, how do you expect them to be able to tell US what they want, when THEY still have not decided what they DO want yet? Hmmm?

You don't think we're deliberately being kept in the dark & treated like mushrooms?
I can't help thinking that there is a deliberate policy of divide & rule here but then I do think the rest of society is out to get me!

 

[oldharry]

You don't think we're deliberately being kept in the dark & treated like mushrooms?
I can't help thinking that there is a deliberate policy of divide & rule here but then I do think the rest of society is out to get me!

Wrong wrong wrong - its ME they are all after, 'cos I blew the lid off their 'cunning plan'.

No, government handed the whole marine eco-thing to the conservationists, on a plate, and the rest of us are trying to catch up and get some common sense in to the process, before it all becomes law next year.

Many people we are in touch with actually think the basic idea of MCZs is basically sound, and a necessary part of 21st century life - just so long as green politics doesnt over rule common sense.

 

[platypus]

Studland Bay - No Restriction Considered

At the Finding Sanctury meeting in Dorchester on 25 January Finding Sanctuary confirmed that their assumption and present position was that there would be no restriction on anchoring or leisure boating in Studland Bay, or indeed in any of their zones under study and consideration.

Fiona McNie from Natural England, who is the representative of Natural England on the local consultation group said that Natural England (the body that have engaged Finding Sanctuary to oversee and co-ordinate the consultation process) takes a different view and have the power to veto any of the recommendations made. She indicated that Natural England's position was at odds with that found by Finding Sanctuary and the local consultees and that it, Natural England would prevail.

This begs the question of why large amounts of public money, publicly funded time and expenses and privately donated time is being expended in an exercise which appears to just be window dressing for whatever Natural England decides.

This at a time when the accountability, value delivered and squandering of public money by quangos is supposed to be under strict review. Wasting everyone's time on what has been revealed as a sham consultation and engaging a stooge organisation as a front to apparently legitimise its own autonomous, unaccountable and arbitrary agenda is likely to be found neither honest nor value for money.

What does Natural England provide? What are its qualifications? What does it cost? To whom is it accountable? Would we better off without it? Is it a Quango?

I think we should all be told.

 

[ARCO7]

Studland e-bay ?

The fate of Studland Bay Anchorage appears to be already in stone , if the Natural England Plan is anything to go by.
Thanks to Neil Maidment and friends Studland Bay is now going to the UKs first real E-BAY full of HMP's (helix mooring points) .
If there's going to be 30 of these HMP's then perhaps they could be named after UK HMP's ,ALDERNY, PARKHURST,WORMWOOD SCRUBS, BROADMOOR, etc
It is quite ironic that there are no such plans for the EXE MOORINGS off STARCROSS , TOPSHAM, EXMOUTH , DAWLISH etc to be changed to HMP's . In an area well known for its Seahorses and Eelgrass right on the Seahorse Trust's doorstep in South Devon.
I can't quite get my head round this , can anyone point me in the right direction ?

 

[Seajet]

ARCO 7,

Nothing has been decided yet about any buoys, let alone how they're made fast.