Marine conservation Zone

[AliM]

We went to a lecture by the marine officer of the Essex Wildlife Trust last week, about "Living Seas" which is the grouping that bid for, and was granted, the MCZ covering the Blackwater and Crouch/Roach. She is called Sarah Allison, and is worth talking to if you still have any concerns about how the MCZ would interfere with boating activities.

Her main concern is the native oyster and oyster beds. She has been working with the oystermen in the Blackwater to survey the oyster beds, and it was that very careful research which was instrumental in getting approval for the MCZ. She found that while most of the native oyster beds are reasonably healthy, some, notably in the approach to the Ray Sand channel, only have mature oysters with no young ones at all. They have no idea why, but have got approval for a ban on dredging for native oysters for a few years in most of the Blackwater (I think). They can still dredge for the invasive species, the Pacific oyster, which conveniently favours intertidal areas, while the native likes depths of 1-4m.

Someone asked about boating - she said that the oysters/oysterbeds seemed to thrive on being periodically dredged, so the odd anchor wasn't going to make any difference, and that was the only impact that she could think of, so didn't think boating was any problem. She also said that the oyster beds in the Crouch were largely seeded and managed privately, so were not really her concern, but I guess the same lack of problem with boating also applies.

She said that we do have eelgrass in this area - the best protected eelgrass in the country, because it is largely on Foulness sands and if you get anywhere near it, the army appear and point guns at you!

There are also sea horses, but since the only ones found were dead ones in the filter into Tilbury power station, they were of no concern yet, till more research is done to find out where they have come from (possibly the Foulness gunnery ranges).

We could invite her to a EC dinner, like we did when the Balanced Sea lot were consulting. Honestly, though, I cannot see that we need worry about this MCZ.

 

[DanTribe]

That's reassuring, thanks.
I do hope you're right.

 

[MoodySabre]

Great - business as usual then. Thanks Ali

 

[PeterWright]

Encouraging news certainly. But if anchoring is not in their sights, I wonder where they stand in respect of antifouling and black / grey water discharges. Bith of these are isses which, to be fair, must have a far more credible impact on marine wildlife.

We all know of places that oblige yachts to fit holding tanks and only pump out well offshore or to a shoreside facility which, ultimately, yotties must pay for. It was the now defunct Ceefas lab in Burnham that did the research leading to the banning of TBT for leisure craft (a good thing in my view, despite the inconvenience / cost to me). Nowadays, in some other jurisdictions, you may only scrub off on a grid where the waste goes to a tank from which it must be disposed of as toxic waste. If harbours have to install such systems and pay for the waste disposal, we all know, quite rightly, where the cost will land.

Along with MCZs, the same EU directive led to the establishment of the Marine Management Organisations (MMOs) to manage our coastline. One consequence is that a harbour now may not even lift a pontoon for maintenance or like for like replacement without a licence from the MMO on each occasion. All this adds to cost which must land .... guess where?

I'm not arguing that protecting the marine wildlife is wrong, just that the legislation will inevitably increase the cost of yachting, while most yotties will not understand the root causes.

 

[AliM]

Well, you may be right, but at least in this area, it doesn't seem to be on the agenda at present. The audience for the talk were all Essex Wildlife supporters, as we are, but in this area many of those are also boaters or ex-boaters.

The reality is that the MCZ enforcement is down to local councils and planning authorities, who, in their present cash-strapped state are unlikely to do much unless there is very strong pressure from the wildlife lobby or their constituents.

I doubt that the legislation will affect yotties in the short run, except possibly a bit more insistence on banning black water discharges (no bad thing, in my opinion).

 

[sailorman]

Well, you may be right, but at least in this area, it doesn't seem to be on the agenda at present. The audience for the talk were all Essex Wildlife supporters, as we are, but in this area many of those are also boaters or ex-boaters.

The reality is that the MCZ enforcement is down to local councils and planning authorities, who, in their present cash-strapped state are unlikely to do much unless there is very strong pressure from the wildlife lobby or their constituents.

I doubt that the legislation will affect yotties in the short run, except possibly a bit more insistence on banning black water discharges (no bad thing, in my opinion).

I wonder if Anglian Water will suspend discharges into the Orwell @ Ipswich :disgust:

 

[PeterWright]

I wonder if Anglian Water will suspend discharges into the Orwell @ Ipswich :disgust:

Or into the Crouch, just below Rice & Coles pontoon, now that it is within a MCZ?

 

[PeterWright]

The reality is that the MCZ enforcement is down to local councils and planning authorities, who, in their present cash-strapped state are unlikely to do much unless there is very strong pressure from the wildlife lobby or their constituents.

I doubt that the legislation will affect yotties in the short run, except possibly a bit more insistence on banning black water discharges (no bad thing, in my opinion).

If that's the reality, why did the act create a new QUANGO, sorry NDPB (Non Departmental Public Body), funded entirely by the taxpayer, and give it powers to make and enforce regulations?

Back in 1974, Alf Robens' Health & Safety at Work Act etablished the HSE, giving it power to make and enforce regulations, it had very little short term impact in 1975 and 76 but, looking back 40 years, I don't think anyone would argue now that it has not had a massive impact. In case anyone is not clear, I should explain that regulations are effectively laws which are made by a regulatory authority, without reference to our elected representatives, and then enforced by that same body.

Can't say I disagree with you on black water.

 

[AliM]

You have read the act itself, then, which I have not done - my information came from the MCZ info on the web, where the quango did not get a mention (in my reading anyway). The talk, too, stated that they approached the local authority for the ban on native oyster dredging - no quango was involved there. So perhaps the quango has not got itself established yet, and we will see more when it starts throwing its weight about.

All we can do now is wait and see, but I do think it is a good idea to keep on good terms with the wildlife lobby, and make sure we do not get in a confrontation with them. After all we all want (almost) the same things.

 

[PeterWright]

I'm afraid it was created by the Marine & Coastal Access Act 2009 and is up and running:

http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/index.htm

If you take a look at the "marine licensing" bit, which applies to all the UK coast, not just the MCZs, you will see that the simplest of operations by any business (or individual) operating on the coast require a licence for which Their document Marine Licence Guidance 1 runs to 32 pages and Marine Licence Gidance 7 is only 6 pages long I ca only asume nos. 2-6 are in production. Throughut the website they make much o how simple their process is and of the exemptions, which sound good until you read the detail. For instance: "Certain maintenance activities are exempted and do not require a marine licence." However, read on and you find: "These are maintenance activities undertaken by harbour authorities and, in the case of flood, drainage or coastal protection works, the Environment Agency." On othe words, they relieve fellow QUANGOS of these extra burdens but ensure that everybody else has to apply for a licence. Just in case that's not clear, they go on to state: "Maintenance activities not by or on behalf of a harbour authority or the Environment Agency are licensable activities under section 66(1) of the act if the works involve the deposit of a substance or object below mean high water springs." So adding or relacng any component part of a ontoon or slipway is automatically licenseable (deposit of an object). If you are lucky enough to fin the work you wish to do is exempt, you are still required to notify the MMO of your intention to perform an exempt activity, giving the date of the works.

So, the Crouch Harbour Authority, who provide absolutely no harbour or berthing facilities, beyond what nature gave us, are exempt from this bureaucracy, but every marina and mooring provider in the Rivers Crouch and Roach must work through this new bureaucracy. I wonder how many owners of private moorings are even aware of what they must go through prior to lifting their mooring for inspection / maintenance? How many Yacht Clubs know that maintenance of pontoons/slipways will require a licence from the MMO (Slipway washing is exempt, but, in the same breath they remind you that you will require a licence to discharge the washings! I'm at a loss to know how you could practically wash a slip without the slime / seaweed going into the river or sea).

Enough. It's just the inevitable creep of state control over every little thing we do.