MarlynSpyke
Active member
How they did it
So, how did the JNCC / Natural England report to DEFRA come to the conclusion that, despite the evidence of people who know Studland Bay, despite the Seastar Survey report, despite lack of evidence in the scientific literature of anchor damage to eelgrass in general, that they have “moderate confidence” that the condition of the seagrass beds is “recover” – i.e. that they are damaged by anchoring?
Fans of “Yes, Minister” will recognise the process. Lots of very long words, complicated procedures and very long reports to get Jim Hacker confused, then slip in a bit of verbal trickery, and Sir Humphrey gets his way. And inconvenient facts? – sideline them. Let me spell out how it was done. (Please stick with this, it may be handy at the consultation stage, when we can all make our views known).
Hidden in the very long report, on p.342 of JNCC and Natural England Advice on recommended MCZs is the key phrase “The MBO 102 sensitivity matrix shows the feature (i.e. seagrass beds) as being highly sensitive with high confidence to shallow abrasion/penetration (Tillin, Hull and Tyler-Waters 2010)”. This, together with the fact that boats do anchor at Studland, is their justification. It’s on p342 out of 1455.
OK, so I looked up that report (Tillin, Hull etc. at http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=MB0102_9721_TRP.pdf ) .
Shorter report that one, only 947 pages! Page 400 explains how they came to that conclusion: - it was “based on expert judgement from workshop 1”!
It seems they had gathered a committee of experts (conservationists presumably) in a “workshop” and they declared it was so. (Hence the urban myth suggested by Old Harry). No evidence is cited – it would be laughed out of a court of law.
And now for the verbal dexterity, the pea-under-the-thimble bit. Both reports use the term “seagrass”. Not the specific type of seagrass present at Studland, which is eelgrass, or Zostera marina, but “seagrass”. Seagrass covers many species of plant, and some of these, including Posidonia oceanica found in warmer waters, do seem to be more sensitive to disturbance and anchoring. So the committee of experts could perhaps declare that seagrass (thinking of Posidonia) is highly sensitive to anchoring. The NE / JNCC report refers to the Studland eelgrass as “seagrass”, and in this way the notional sensitivity of Posidonia and similar species was transferred to the more robust Zostera marina, or eelgrass. Tarred with the same brush, through use of the word “seagrass”. Was this deliberate? I could not possibly comment.
Sidelining of inconvenient information, eg the Seastar Survey? The NE / JNCC report does say “It is acknowledged that there are ongoing site-specific studies of the actual impact of anchoring. The results of these studies (as well as other ongoing surveys) will help to inform the condition of the feature…..” – although it does not say when or how.
We must make sure this is not forgotten. A major contributor to the report with the “expert judgement from workshop 1” was ABPmer, by the way.
Background material on the BORG website, http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/ .
So, how did the JNCC / Natural England report to DEFRA come to the conclusion that, despite the evidence of people who know Studland Bay, despite the Seastar Survey report, despite lack of evidence in the scientific literature of anchor damage to eelgrass in general, that they have “moderate confidence” that the condition of the seagrass beds is “recover” – i.e. that they are damaged by anchoring?
Fans of “Yes, Minister” will recognise the process. Lots of very long words, complicated procedures and very long reports to get Jim Hacker confused, then slip in a bit of verbal trickery, and Sir Humphrey gets his way. And inconvenient facts? – sideline them. Let me spell out how it was done. (Please stick with this, it may be handy at the consultation stage, when we can all make our views known).
Hidden in the very long report, on p.342 of JNCC and Natural England Advice on recommended MCZs is the key phrase “The MBO 102 sensitivity matrix shows the feature (i.e. seagrass beds) as being highly sensitive with high confidence to shallow abrasion/penetration (Tillin, Hull and Tyler-Waters 2010)”. This, together with the fact that boats do anchor at Studland, is their justification. It’s on p342 out of 1455.
OK, so I looked up that report (Tillin, Hull etc. at http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=MB0102_9721_TRP.pdf ) .
Shorter report that one, only 947 pages! Page 400 explains how they came to that conclusion: - it was “based on expert judgement from workshop 1”!
It seems they had gathered a committee of experts (conservationists presumably) in a “workshop” and they declared it was so. (Hence the urban myth suggested by Old Harry). No evidence is cited – it would be laughed out of a court of law.
And now for the verbal dexterity, the pea-under-the-thimble bit. Both reports use the term “seagrass”. Not the specific type of seagrass present at Studland, which is eelgrass, or Zostera marina, but “seagrass”. Seagrass covers many species of plant, and some of these, including Posidonia oceanica found in warmer waters, do seem to be more sensitive to disturbance and anchoring. So the committee of experts could perhaps declare that seagrass (thinking of Posidonia) is highly sensitive to anchoring. The NE / JNCC report refers to the Studland eelgrass as “seagrass”, and in this way the notional sensitivity of Posidonia and similar species was transferred to the more robust Zostera marina, or eelgrass. Tarred with the same brush, through use of the word “seagrass”. Was this deliberate? I could not possibly comment.
Sidelining of inconvenient information, eg the Seastar Survey? The NE / JNCC report does say “It is acknowledged that there are ongoing site-specific studies of the actual impact of anchoring. The results of these studies (as well as other ongoing surveys) will help to inform the condition of the feature…..” – although it does not say when or how.
We must make sure this is not forgotten. A major contributor to the report with the “expert judgement from workshop 1” was ABPmer, by the way.
Background material on the BORG website, http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/ .
