STUDLAND - How much do they want???

[Sans Bateau]

Jon, I can just see it now, one of our rubber clad warriors turning up in Osborne bay, Cowes week, and starting to give a bunch of tanked up corporate 'racers' stopped for lunch, a lecture!!

Would be worth the visit, just to see!!!

 

[oldharry]

Yes, I think they would find Studlanders a picnic compared to the Cowes gorilla winch crews, on an adrenaline high after a days racing - plus whatever other bevvies they might be indulging in to celebrate!

 

[oldharry]

Balanced Seas (East and South coast waters MCZ proposals, latest report.

Balanced Seas Draft Final Report Summary

Balanced Seas produced a Draft Final report on 9th June. The notes following summarise findings in any area in which Balanced Seas have identified possible MCZ's, and the type of activity which is causing concern. In nearly all cases this is 'bottom disturbance' resulting from anchoring activities.

The report does not attempt to define what controls are needed to meet Conservation Objectives, or what level of control may be needed in any specific area.

The reports place each FOCI species in one of two categories for each area 'Maintain' means that the existing level of activity is acceptable, and other than monitoring the situation no further action is needed within an MCZ. The category 'Recovery' means that activities listed are demmed to be damaging, and some measure of control may be needed to acheive the conservation objectives identified for the area.

This summary generally gives only those areas categorised as 'recovery' areas, unless there are ongoing discussions in a 'high use' area such as Newtown River IoW.

NOTE that, although this is a draft 'Final Document' Balanced Seas stress that discussions continue, and these lists are in no way final or definitive.

1: East Coast MCZs

MCZ 2 Stour and Orwell, including Hamford Water
Possible local anchoring restrictions around Eelgrass Beds. Most of this area is already SSSI and SAP protected. and creation of an MCZ will reinforce existing protections.


MCZ 3 Blackwater, Crouch, Roach and Colne Estuaries
Broadscale habitat protection proposed, and existing activities unlikely to be affected.
Two reference areas proposed 1: Colne Point, 2: Oyster Grounds mid channel. Bottom disturbing activities will not be permitted in these locations

MCZ 5 Thames Estuary
From Richmond Lock to near Southend
Broadscale habitat protection proposed, existing activity unlikely to be affected
One Reference area proposed at Holehaven, giving full bottom protection.

MCZ 6 The Medway
Already receives SSSI and SPA protection, reinforced by MCZ
Broadscale habitat protection proposed, but discussions are ongoing concerning both commercial and recreational actvities. No conclusion as yet.

MCZ 7 Thanet Coast
Varying levels of protection proposed for local features. These are more likely to affect sea angling actvities.
Two reference areas proposed: 1 Westgate Promontory, 2 Turner Contemporary, both giving bottom protection.
Discussions ongoing, no firm conclusions yet.

MCZ 8 Goodwin Sands
Small boat anchoring activity being 'monitored'

2: Solent and South Coast


MCZ 19 Norris to Ryde (report P 160)
Area: Norris Castle to a point East of Ryde, and out to the s edge of the deep water shipping channel, and including Wooton Creek
This area contains large areas of Seagrass beds, all of which are classified as 'recovery'areas, and in which bottom disturbing activities are identified as damaging.
Reference Areas are proposed at Osborne Beach - the main area of eelgrass, and Wooton Creek Mill Ponds beyond the navigable part of the creek.
Reference status at Osborne would almost certainly involve closure or severe limitation of this popular anchorage.

Known Seahorse Habitat

Discussions are ongoing - no firm conclusions yet.

MCZ 20 Needles
A deep water MCZ of no concern to our activites except:
Reference area proposed in vicinity of Alum Bay. This may affect the anchorage.
Discussions ongoing

MCZ 22 Bembridge
Area: Seaview to Bonchurch and offshore to a point near the Nab Tower
This is a large and complex area of rich bio-diversity and with a variety of important features:
Several important Eelgrass beds, with Seahorses of both species.
The inshore strip between Bembridge Harbour and the Ledges is of special interest.
Several rare species identified, and a possible Seahorse breeding area (Both species), within the Harbour itself.
Eelgrass with seahorses in the 'waiting area' outside Bembridge Harbour

All the above features are designated as requiring 'Recovery'.

Because of the complex commercial interests both inside the harbour, and in the big ship anchorages , discussions are ongoing as to how conservation needs may be met.

MCZ 23 Yarmouth to Cowes
Area: from a point SW of Yarmouth, up to Gurnard Ledge inshore, and following the ship channel markers SE side up the West Solent. This includes Newtown River, but Yarmouth harbour and river are excluded.

Mainly broad scale habitat protection and not of concern to Leisure Boating except an area of Eelgrass outside Yarmouth. The whole area is designated for 'Recovery' so that bottom disturbing activities may be reviewed again.

Reference Areas 1: Gurnard Ledge and Bay Anchoring and Mooring is unlikely to be permitted in this area.

Reference Area 2: Newton River.
This report designates the whole of the Newtown River Area as a Reference Area, to protect mainly the native Oyster Beds. This suggests that anchoring would not be allowed anywhere in the Estuary, However, the main part of the report appears to contradict this, and describes the Estuary as being 'well managed' inferring no further action is needed.

I assume from this they wish to firm up the existing NAZs in the Eastern and western arms of the harbour - but that is only my personal view. I have asked Balanced Seas for clarification.

Discussions on this area are Ongoing.

MCZ 24.1 Bosham and Itchenor Creek
Area: all above the junction of Bosham and Itchenor channels, including the waters up to Fishbourne, and Bosham Quay.

Designation mainly for recovery of the Oysters beds, which is already ongoing. Chichester Harbour Conservancy are full involved, and MCZ status confirms and supports existing conservation initiatives. There could be implications for scrubbing off at tidal locations at Itchenor, Dell Quay and Bosham Hards in the longer term, but not mentioned yet.

Two other protected species are to be found in Birdham Pool.

MCZ 24.2 Fareham Creek
Will reinforce existing emergency MCZ order on Eelgrass Beds, and mainly broadscale habitat protection.

MCZ 25 Pagham Harbour
To be designated a reference area, reinforcing and possibly extending existing anchoring restrictions in the harbour.


There are many other MCZ areas designated, but mostly either offshore or inshore areas too exposed for anything but anchoring in an emergency, which we are assured by the MMO would always be permitted, even in a Reference Area.

There is one extraordinary point in this report. MCZ 6 Thames Estuary, mentions that a probable Breeding Colony of Seahorses is present in the Lower Thames Estuary. Balanced Seas will not be giving them any special protection. One up to the PLA I think, and in the context of Studland...?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT: The notes re Osborne and Newtown Reference Areas both suggest 'mitigation measures may be possible'. After a little checking around, I find this means they would allow the laying of moorings in these areas to relieve the pressure on the Eelgrass Beds. This sounds very familiar to veterans of the Studland Eelgrass campaign who now know all about the use of 'Environmentally Friendly Moorings' in that location. This would mean that once all the moorings are taken up (and I doubt rafting would be an option in Osborne because of ship wash) that would be that, you cant stay. Conservationists do not attempt to explore who would invest in the substantial cost of bouying and laying the mooring tackle, or how it would be paid for. As one dewy eyed conservation specialist said to me - "well of course the boat owners will have to pay....". The Alum Bay Referenmce area boundary is not fixed, but the specified protected area could be located to be offshore of the actual anchorage.

 

[fireball]

All the above features are designated as requiring 'Recovery'.

Recovery - an interesting term - meaning that they believed the habitat once existed and now doesn't - probably due to the 'interference' of man ...
So, if they're only interested in Recovery in certain sites then I would expect them to produce evidence of the extent of the habitat that had previously existed - if none existed or is already at the bounds then no further Recovery should be required.

The danger of MCZ's and Reference sites is that if they change the status quo then they're risking the ecology that already exists there. Removing one 'negative' influence will not necessarily be a positive influence for the area.

This whole MCZ thing does seem to be a chance for the ecologists to ask for the earth, then 'settle' for less, when what was needed was minimal and far less than they achieve ...

The fact that they've found so many species in all these places does not suggest that the current practices are having a major impact - the only thing that could do that would be a longer term study into numbers and habitat, including control areas - but how can you control things like water quality in open water?

What the basis of the report says to me is that - yes we have a lot of species that are not well known and they exist alongside current activities - and what we should do is (non-intrusively) monitor them and the activities to ensure we don't cause significant damage them.

Unfortunately, ecologists seem to think that removing human influence from an area is always a 'good thing' - which whist it may be in some areas, is not always true as our impact can be less significant than they think.

 

[oldharry]

Spot on Fireball. The classification Recovery officially designates an area where human activity is believed to be causing unsustainable levels of damage, which will result in eventual destruction of habitat or species in the area. It flags up the need to implement management control measures to reduce the 'damaging activity' to a sustainable level. The 'maintain' category indicates that levels of activity within the area are sustainable, and are not causing enough damage to need to be controlled to ensure survival of the species in that location.

Your point about altering the environment by removing certain influences is, we think entirely valid, but conservationists generally do not sem to think human influence is part of a normal and natural environmental balance. It is the same thinking that dictates that the mere presence of human activity causes damage.

The idea that species are still present and thriving in areas of high human actvity, and are evidence that it is doing less harm than suggested is the core of the argument over Studland: eelgrass and Seahorses have been present throughout the time it has been used as an anchorage. Why is this suddenly seen as a problem? 'Because we now know more about it' is the stock answer.

 

[Sans Bateau]

Mmm, strange that, the areas of strongest growth of eel grass, Studland bay and Osborne bay, both happen to be very popular anchorages. What a coincidence?

 

[Seven Spades]

It is quite clear that eelgrass and seahorses are all over the place, you just have to go and look for them.

As I understand it in the Solent the three of the four most popular anchorages Osborn Bay, Alum Bay and just outside Newtown are in line for a ban is that correct? The fourth being unaffected is off Hurst.

 

[oldharry]

It is quite clear that eelgrass and seahorses are all over the place, you just have to go and look for them.

As I understand it in the Solent the three of the four most popular anchorages Osborn Bay, Alum Bay and just outside Newtown are in line for a ban is that correct? The fourth being unaffected is off Hurst.

Pretty much so. Except the Reference area is inside Newtown, not outside, though that could come. Certainly in all these areas, anchoring activities have been identified as a threat to the species listed for each area, and the 'recovery' designation means that management protocols are likely to be set up to ensure long term survival of the 'endangered' species or habitat. This can be anything from the setting up of VNAZs, to making it a criminal offence to anchor, with a range of possible intermediate options.

Policing could be effectively acheived by taking a few poor skippers through the courts and imposing massive fines as a deterrent to the rest of us.

 

[sea urchin]

It is quite clear that eelgrass and seahorses are all over the place, you just have to go and look for them.

Inadvisable! If you do find them all over the place then you will be giving them even more scope for their zones. If you do find them, then keep it to yourself!

 

[sea urchin]

MCZ 25 Pagham Harbour
To be designated a reference area, reinforcing and possibly extending existing anchoring restrictions in the harbour.

Here we go again - Balanced Seas has been misinformed and is repeating the myth that there are existing anchoring restrictions in Pagham Harbour. The right of navigation has been admitted (reluctantly), and anchoring is an ancillary right to navigation (so long as for a reasonable time) (ie pre zones/reference areas). Anchoring does not get a mention in the harbour byelaws.

(However, mooring for any length of time is not allowed.)

Mind you anchoring may be unnecessary due to the topography - you may well find yourself settling on the mud before you have time to sling your hook.

 

[oldharry]

Here we go again - Balanced Seas has been misinformed and is repeating the myth that there are existing anchoring restrictions in Pagham Harbour. The right of navigation has been admitted (reluctantly), and anchoring is an ancillary right to navigation (so long as for a reasonable time) (ie pre zones/reference areas). Anchoring does not get a mention in the harbour byelaws.

(However, mooring for any length of time is not allowed.)

Mind you anchoring may be unnecessary due to the topography - you may well find yourself settling on the mud before you have time to sling your hook.

As you know, I am well aware of the argument over anchoring rights in Pagham. Quoting from the BS report "...byelaw exists to restrict anchoring in the lagoon". So yes , they are misinformed. However the report does acknowledge the concerns and lobbying that have taken place by local residents, especially those at Pagham who are concerned that sea defence works may be restricted, thus affecting their homes on the shingle bank E of the harbour. Reading between the lines I think they realise that its probably a bit too contentious, but because the protected species exist there, and fill the target quotas, they have to make the recommendation. If subsequently it is thrown out, then BS cannot be accused of not filling their quota.

 

[oldharry]

Edit note on BS report

Note that I have added further information as an 'Edit' on the Newtown/ Osborne Bay Reference Areas, in my post on Balanced seas Report.

 

[sea urchin]

So yes , they are misinformed.

There is a more general principle at stake here:

If they are misinformed over Pagham (no longer on most people's passage plans due to navigational difficulties), then that should raise concerns: How reliable is the information for other sites on their radar (and which might have greater consequences for navigation, anchoring etc)?

As they have to make their final recommendations in August, then there is not much time for them to check out the information submitted to them, which may be of varying standards of unreliability, out of date, vague, biased etc. depending on who has given it to them. The exercise is supposed to be 'evidence based'. Even though a draft, this latest document should by now be getting the place names right - eg 'Itchenor Creek', in Chichester Harbour. (Itchenor Reach etc) The research appears to have been done largely from a desk rather than out 'in the field'

Hopefully the site meetings they have scheduled for the second half of July will give an opportunity to correct any misinformation, but it will be very late in the day, for the huge task they have to have completed shortly afterwards. Even if the consultation next year, gives another opportunity for corrections, what a waste of peoples time trying to get the record put straight afterwards!

Reading between the lines I think they realise that its probably a bit too contentious, but because the protected species exist there, and fill the target quotas, they have to make the recommendation. If subsequently it is thrown out, then BS cannot be accused of not filling their quota.

Might this apply to Osborne Bay also (re Contentions over Cowes)?

 

[oldharry]

Eelgrass - why all the fuss?

Very frequently in the debate about MCZs and Leisure Boating, Eelgrass Beds keep coming up as a major conservation issue. Why?

Eelgrass, species Zostera, is an internationally recognised vital habitat and breeding ground for a wide range of species. In Europe it was very nearly wiped out in the 1930's by disease, and recovery has been patchy.

Conservationists take great interest in the species as it is the only marine 'flowering' plant, and makes a big difference to local eco-systems and habitats. Dorset Wildlife Trust on their website publish a long list of species which live in and are largely dependent on Eelgrass in Studland, quite apart from the Seahorses. Naturalists claim that eelgrass as a species internationally, is in decline. Its loss would result in reduction of populations of a wide range of species. It is therefore listed internationally as being a key species, and appears on various 'red lists' of vital and endangered marine plants. Conservationists therefore regard it as being a key species for conservation, and wherever it appears in the UK there will almost certainly be plans to create an MCZ to preserve it and the many species dependent on it.

Eelgrass and Anchoring:
It is unfortunate that eelgrass favours exactly the kind of sheltered sandy places that we seek out for sheltered anchorages. There is considerable controversy about whether anchoring damages eelgrass: Dr Collins of Southampton University did a two year study of Eelgrass in Studland, concentrating on the effects of anchoring in the Eelgrass Beds there. Some of us have experienced at first hand what happens when an anchor gets fouled by eelgrass, and various pictures have been published by the anti-anchoring people of anchors with huge masses of Eelgrass on the bows of boats in Studland.

But even here it is not clear exactly what is happening: Dr Collins research shows us that eelgrass forms a 'rhizome mat' from which it grows. A rhizome mat is effectively a binding mass of roots, which forms a mat on the seabed, and helps secure individual plants, rather as Marram Grass does in sand dunes, but much more dense. The rhizome mat, Dr Collins tells us, not only secures the plant, but stabilizes the seabed, allowing particulate build up, and protecting the seabed from wave erosion.

An anchor dropped into the rhizome mat, according to Dr Collins, tears a large hole in it. His study centred on just such a hole which he observed after it was created by an anchored boat, and concluded after two years that there had been no recovery - that it had not even started to grow back, and that wave action was eroding under the edges of the surviving mat causing further damage. Reportedly, other studies in the Med indicate that recovery takes 5 years.

However many observers claim that more usually when an anchor becomes fouled it is in dead weed that has already been torn up by storm or wave action, or by natural seasonal die back.

Conservationists believe that the damage generally occurs when an anchor is being raised. They believe that a powered windlass 'drags the anchor across the seabed' before raising it, and Dorset Wildlife Trust produced a leaflet suggesting boats should be pulled up to their anchors before raising them! In practice it far more likely that this sort of damage occurs when an anchor is dropped into Eelgrass and fails to set. Wind and tide action may then cause the anchor to drag, resulting in the damage reported by Dr Collins and others, as it drags through the vegetation mat. That has certainly been my experience the one time I experienced it (in 30 years visiting!)

The moorings argument is based on the fact that the riser chain scours the seabed round the mooring weight, destroying the Eelgrass within the scope of the riser, and preventing it from re-establishing. However, this is a fixed area, and will not change. Currently there are around 35 moorings in use in Studland, and their scour areas total less than .002% of the total eelgrass bed there as defined by Dr Collins.

Likewise the average area of damage caused by dragging anchors. is say 5m sq. This event averaging out at 5 times a week over the summer period (bearing in mind the anchorage is often empty for days at a time in bad weather early and late season) this still only represents around 0.1% of the total area being damaged each year. Is this the 'destruction' we are being told is happening?

For this reason, both BORG and the RYA believe that anchoring is not causing sufficient damage to justify any action proposed to protect the Eelgrass beds from anchoring activities.. Dr Collins survey while giving much detail on how it happens, gives no picture of the extent to which it has actually happened here. Natural England's senior advisor Jamie Davies, who is head of the MCZ project at Natural England also confirms that he is not aware of any survey of the present overall condition of the Eelgrass Bed. The Seastar survey currently taking place is expected to provide that information in due course. Interim findings suggest that the Eelgrass bed overall is not in good health with reduced growth. This is, Mr Davies tells us due to unknown influences. It is known to BORG and SBPA for example that eelgrass does not thrive in the presence of fresh water. local fishermen tell us there are many fresh water springs in the bay which produce holes and patches of poor growth which is exactly what conservationists say we are doing to it. Conservationists say they only know of one such spring.

Let us hope the Seastar Survey will take these factors in to account in its findings!

 

[jhr]

The notes re Osborne and Newtown Reference Areas both suggest 'mitigation measures may be possible'. After a little checking around, I find this means they would allow the laying of moorings in these areas to relieve the pressure on the Eelgrass Beds.

Presumably the NT have been one of the bodies that have been consulted about all this? It looks as if, thwarted at illegally forcing people to pay to anchor in Newtown, they're just going to lay extra moorings, tell people they can't anchor, and go back to charging everyone again .

 

[oldharry]

There is a more general principle at stake here:

If they are misinformed over Pagham (no longer on most people's passage plans due to navigational difficulties), then that should raise concerns: How reliable is the information for other sites on their radar (and which might have greater consequences for navigation, anchoring etc)?

As they have to make their final recommendations in August, then there is not much time for them to check out the information submitted to them, which may be of varying standards of unreliability, out of date, vague, biased etc. depending on who has given it to them. The exercise is supposed to be 'evidence based'. Even though a draft, this latest document should by now be getting the place names right - eg 'Itchenor Creek', in Chichester Harbour. (Itchenor Reach etc) The research appears to have been done largely from a desk rather than out 'in the field'

Hopefully the site meetings they have scheduled for the second half of July will give an opportunity to correct any misinformation, but it will be very late in the day, for the huge task they have to have completed shortly afterwards. Even if the consultation next year, gives another opportunity for corrections, what a waste of peoples time trying to get the record put straight afterwards!



Might this apply to Osborne Bay also (re Contentions over Cowes)?

The whole question about reliability of data has been raised by us and other participating groups over and over again. A clear example is the ditribution of the Seahorse species round the coast. Only one person, the Director of the Seahorse Trust, has studied and collected information about these creatures. Many people quite reasonably, question the accuracy of data collected nationally by one man and his friends even over a 30 year period. There is no way of reviewing or checking his figures. Nevertheless, because his is the only data available on a protected species, it has to be taken at face value, because it is the job of the regional MCZ groups to collect all available data. Some people suggest that data collected in this way is not sufficiently reliable to provide a basis for legislation. We all know that Seahorses keep 'popping up all over the place', inshore fishermen and potters see them so regualrly they dont bother to report them. I have been sent reports of sightings which I know are not included in the 'official' figures - simply because no one else other than SHT has bothered to count them.

Similar data collection and verification problems rise again and again: how many leisure boats are there in the SW region, we were asked? RYA gave it their best shot, but were quite unable to find a way to give a realisitic figure for the number of boats being towed in and out of the area on the M5 each fine weekend. When we 'coughed' at their figure, they invited us to try and improve on it

Two problems have arisen:
1: None of us realised when the first mention of MCZs appeared a couple of years ago, how big this all was, and I think most people, like me, just wrote it off as 'just another conservation exercise' not realising how big it all was.

2: the result was that none of us except the RYA got ourselves in where it mattered on the Stakeholder Groups. I only realised last autumn just how big this was for us, and BORG is the result of that. But we arrived too late to become Stakeholders. We were, thanks to Galadriels efforts, able to gatecrash a Finding Sanctuary Stakeholder Group but we were unable to persuade Balanced Seas to do likewise, and have had to rely on input via RYA regional Reps. We are grateful that RYA has allowed us to work so closely with them in exchanging information and ideas.

As you rightly say, time is rapidly running out, and it is unlikely that we can get any serious changes included in this stage. But what it does mean is we must be geared up, fully armed with information etc and ready to go when the '12 week Public Consultation Period' opens in New Year 2012.

Yes JHR, National Truss are involved as stakeholders throughout the UK. Yes they would naturally benefit from the extra income, but bear in mind the moorings would probably have to be EFMs which are costly, and not liked by insurers.

 

[sea urchin]

The whole question about reliability of data has been raised by us and other participating groups over and over again. A clear example is the ditribution of the Seahorse species round the coast. Only one person, the Director of the Seahorse Trust, has studied and collected information about these creatures. Many people quite reasonably, question the accuracy of data collected nationally by one man and his friends even over a 30 year period. There is no way of reviewing or checking his figures. Nevertheless, because his is the only data available on a protected species, it has to be taken at face value, because it is the job of the regional MCZ groups to collect all available data. Some people suggest that data collected in this way is not sufficiently reliable to provide a basis for legislation.

This approach is illustrated at Pagham Harbour too. The most convincing 'find' (out of 4 or 5 listed) to justify the proposed reference area, is a de folin's snail , found at only 3 places in the UK. Some guy from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (one of the bodies which Balanced Seas will report back to) found about 20 of them 4 years ago. You have to sift the gravel to find them as they are 2 mm long. Not all of them were alive. Many people wonder just how he knew to look there (or perhaps they too are not that rare - it is just that no-one else bothers to spend their time meticulously sifting gravel all day!).

The catch is, that to check to see if any of them are still there, is considered to be potentially destructive to the little blighters, and so we are left with information that is vague, and which cannot be verified. I am told (you may be able to confirm?) that if the information is vague then the 'precautionary principle' should apply, and that this means that they must be given even extra protection to treat them with kid gloves, in case the snail is about to go extinct.

Coincidentally, the snail was found just where there is a recommendation to dredge a new channel into the harbour, for coastal defense purposes. That is why the reference area is so contentious.

Over here the alarm bells only started to ring when reference areas were added to the agenda. MCZ's looked more friendly.

Oldharry, if your reading between the lines hunch is correct, then there is a lesson for others - make your views known and make them controversial!! BS 9th newsletter mentions that the Minister has been invited to the next Regional Stakeholder Group meeting on 6th July, so this could be a good deadline!

 

[Seajet]

Sea Urchin,

I would just like to point out that Old Harry is a great deal more forceful - and busy - than merely relaying his information here !

We at BORG cannot say much yet, but I am sure you and the seagoing majority will be pleasantly surprised and impressed...

I'm delighted to be hearing from you, I've heard some true horror stories about the RSPB at Pagham thinking it quite alright to wreck people's incomes and homes - literally - for the sake of a lesser spotted whatnot.

I love nature as much as anyone, but don't lose perspective; I wonder if that chap who 'found' the snails had a home or business etc threatened by flooding ?

I think I can guess...funnily enough the SHT drives from his home in Devon - where there are Seahorses close by ! To come and bother Studland.

Still, it takes effort being a nicely paid charity, and one wouldn't want to upset one's own neighbours...

 

[sea urchin]

Sea Urchin,

I would just like to point out that Old Harry is a great deal more forceful - and busy - than merely relaying his information here !

I never doubted it! My comment about about making views known was aimed at the wider seagoing majority, sorry if that was not clear! More of a united front to add moral support to what the RYA and you guys are doing, and put pressure on the powers that be, to have a rethink on how to interpret the Euro-nonsense the UK is expected to abide by .........

 

[oldharry]

"I am told (you may be able to confirm?) that if the information is vague then the 'precautionary principle' should apply, and that this means that they must be given even extra protection to treat them with kid gloves, in case the snail is about to go extinct."

Yes. This is the policy of 'possible risk', which works both ways. If there is a possible risk that a species is present, then it should be assumed it is, even if as yet unobserved. This applies particularly to species about whom little is known like Delfins Snail, and Hippocampus H & G. (Spiny and Short snout). Even more so where the species is present, and conditions favourable as a breeding ground. There may be no evidence of young, but the assumption is familiar to all of us: if the time and place are right...

'Possible risk' also works the other way: if it is identified that a species or habitat is at 'possible risk' from human activity, then it should receive protection from that risk. This is a particularly difficult one to counter, because it only takes one 'expert' to say there is a risk of damage to justify setting up management protocols to ensure that risk is reduced or removed.

There does not have to be any actual evidence either way, merely reasonable assumption.

Thinking about it - 'possible risk' is the basis of much of the H&S nonsense we have to endure nowadays.... same 'think tank' process?