Studland - MMO Management protocols for the MCZ in place from 17th December

[oldharry]

We really need the RYA to fund a judicial review.

Forget any RYA involvement. They are more interested in conservation than their members. I worked closely with their environmental managers for many years, but the present incumbent didn't want to know of the many years work Marlynspyke and I put in with his predecessors.

 

[ImpImp]

Forget any RYA involvement. They are more interested in conservation than their members. I worked closely with their environmental managers for many years, but the present incumbent didn't want to know of the many years work Marlynspyke and I put in with his predecessors.

Very true, I'm still a member but too often, particularly on the 'green' agenda they seem to thin that their role is educating hectoring their members about what they feel that the membership should do rather that representing said members interests.

 

[Seven Spades]

Could we put a motion at the AGM calling for the RYA to pay for a judicial review?

 

[nortada]

Could we put a motion at the AGM calling for the RYA to pay for a judicial review?

How much would a judicial review cost - not cheap

I suspect a sizeable number of the RYA membership (not located on the South Coast), would not be too happy to vote considerable RYA funds into what could be a bottomless pit.

 

[Tranona]

Could not agree more. Judicial Review is a non starter. I did a lot of work on this a few years ago because many of our colleagues felt that the new management of our (public) organisation had not followed due process in arriving at its decisions - and of course we disagreed with the outcome. The key point is that it is not the actual decision that is questioned in such a review but the process. There does not seem to be any suggestion that the correct process as laid out by parliament has not been followed. The big question is about the way the "evidence" has been treated and that is an issue of professional judgement and not process.

 

[ImpImp]

How much would a judicial review cost - not cheap

I suspect a sizeable number of the RYA membership (not located on the South Coast), would not be too happy to vote considerable RYA funds into what could be a bottomless pit.

I'm not sure but if, as he did, NGM can raise the funds for one (IIRC over a drilling exploration licence) I'm sure the RYA could. Whether it stands any chance of success is, of course, a different matter,

 

[Seven Spades]

I woudl make two points:-

1. This is not about Studland, the outcome at Studland sets the pattern for the whole country. I woudl be very suprised if member in Wales, Yourshire and Essex woudl object if the RYA spent money trying top protct the right to anchor where it is doing no harm.

2. The allegation is that evidence that should have been taken into account was excluded on spurious grounds because it did not fit the narrative. This was a deliberate attempt to achieve the outcome they wanted regardless to any evidence. This must be an abuse of process and furthermore isn't this the reason why we have judicial reviews so that we can ensure the the government is subject to the law and that any decisions that are taken are done so with probity?

 

[st599]

I woudl make two points:-

1. This is not about Studland, the outcome at Studland sets the pattern for the whole country. I woudl be very suprised if member in Wales, Yourshire and Essex woudl object if the RYA spent money trying top protct the right to anchor where it is doing no harm.

2. The allegation is that evidence that should have been taken into account was excluded on spurious grounds because it did not fit the narrative. This was a deliberate attempt to achieve the outcome they wanted regardless to any evidence. This must be an abuse of process and furthermore isn't this the reason why we have judicial reviews so that we can ensure the the government is subject to the law and that any decisions that are taken are done so with probity?

The government have legally binding obligations and have decided that sequestration in seagrass meadows is one of the ways they'll do it. The RYA have decided that working out how to mitigate this is key.

 

[oldharry]

The government have legally binding obligations and have decided that sequestration in seagrass meadows is one of the ways they'll do it. The RYA have decided that working out how to mitigate this is key.

Fine if that's what RYA were doing, but they are not. They are prioritising conservation objectives as defined by NE ahead of the needs of their membership. I would say MMO have actually done more to protect our interests than RYA. MMO's decision not to make the MCZ a compulsory no anchor zone is an example: I didnt see RYA anywhere in that decision in any of the meetings I attended.

MMO has been given a legally binding brief by NE, and in my view have done a great deal to try to make it workable for us. RYA could have done a great deal more to help them in this.

RYA's objective must be to identify and secure the best ways of ensuring boaters are able to enjoy their sport with minimal environmental impact. An important part of that is to use their own experts in the field to challenge on our behalf the lack of ground truthed data, and the level of anonymous 'expert opinion' used as a basis for NE recommendations.

We here may 'know' the eelgrass is largely unaffected by anchoring activity. RYA should be pushing hard to insist that NE provides clear data to support their claim. Over 80% of the NE 'evidence' is based on supposition, not on ground trutrhed data. BORG found substantial and verified evidence to the contrary, drawing on worldwide research. RYA needs to be challenging NE as to why this body of evidence, all drawn from existing peer reviewed studies, does not apply to Studland. It needs a body of RYA's standing to push this forward. Why are they not doing so?

It can only be to everyones benefit if the true conservation needs are properly identified and applied.

 

[st599]

Fine if that's what RYA were doing, but they are not. They are prioritising conservation objectives as defined by NE ahead of the needs of their membership. I would say MMO have actually done more to protect our interests than RYA. MMO's decision not to make the MCZ a compulsory no anchor zone is an example: I didnt see RYA anywhere in that decision in any of the meetings I attended.

MMO has been given a legally binding brief by NE, and in my view have done a great deal to try to make it workable for us. RYA could have done a great deal more to help them in this.

RYA's objective must be to identify and secure the best ways of ensuring boaters are able to enjoy their sport with minimal environmental impact. An important part of that is to use their own experts in the field to challenge on our behalf the lack of ground truthed data, and the level of anonymous 'expert opinion' used as a basis for NE recommendations.

We here may 'know' the eelgrass is largely unaffected by anchoring activity. RYA should be pushing hard to insist that NE provides clear data to support their claim. Over 80% of the NE 'evidence' is based on supposition, not on ground trutrhed data. BORG found substantial and verified evidence to the contrary, drawing on worldwide research. RYA needs to be challenging NE as to why this body of evidence, all drawn from existing peer reviewed studies, does not apply to Studland. It needs a body of RYA's standing to push this forward. Why are they not doing so?

It can only be to everyones benefit if the true conservation needs are properly identified and applied.

If the target is sequestration, the anchor's affect on releasing carbon from the seabed is the issue, not its affect on seagrass.

The RYA are running investigations near Plymouth to look at possible solutions.

 

[oldharry]

If the target is sequestration, the anchor's affect on releasing carbon from the seabed is the issue, not its affect on seagrass.

The RYA are running investigations near Plymouth to look at possible solutions.

Curious that the whole debate has been about anchors damaging the seagrass. carbon sequestration was slipped in as an additional factor quite late. The argument is about the potential damage to Studland seagrass, and consequent destruction of habitat of a few stray seahorses. Later other species were brought in to strengthen the argument, and much later the carbon sequestration argument was added, but only as a consequence of the claimed loss of seagrass plants uprooted by our anchors

Carbon sequestration may or may not be the issue, but the MCZ was created to preserve the seagrass and its denizens. I know, I was part of the DCF group that defined the original specification.

 

[oldharry]

A lengthy and detailed reply to our letter attached to the MMO survey directly from the Head of Conservation at MMO:

Reproduced here in full: The original exceeds the forum limits, so I have split it in to two posts. Our points are included in Numbered paragraphs Bold type


Thank you very much for completing the survey and for taking the time to send further comments regarding the management of anchoring in Studland Bay.

With apologies for the time, it has taken for me to reply, I wanted to let you know where we are on the issues you have raised.

1. I, like many others, do not accept NE's finding that the Eelgrass beds are in unfavourable condition and need to be protected so as to bring them into favourable condition. This is nonsense. All the users of Studland bay know that the Eelgrass beds are healthy, in excellent condition and expanding year on year.

I appreciate your concerns about Natural England’s advice. I also agree that the available evidence seems to show that the seagrass beds in Studland Bay are expanding, and that this is consistent with what a lot of local stakeholders tell us. The wider picture is that this expansion is a continuation of the recovery from the wasting disease epidemic caused by Labyrinthula zosterae, which resulted in seagrass beds across Europe, including the British Isles, declining by an estimated 90%. The expansion is clearly a positive sign. However, there are also areas where seagrass has been scoured as a result of anchoring and mooring within the bay. Natural England take a range of factors into account when assessing condition including fragmentation, density, shoot length, presence or absence of epiphytes or disease. We are working closely with Natural England and others to continue to gather evidence to improve our understanding of the state of the seagrass beds. If this evidence shows that the seagrass beds are in favourable condition despite human activities, we will adjust our management accordingly.



2. MMO have been landed with the task of imposing limitations on Anchoring as decreed by NE. MMO have been reasonable and sympathetic to boating activities. No blame to MMO who presumably are duty bound to carry out NE's instructions.

Thank you for the feedback on our approach. I know what an important place Studland Bay is to boaters and I really want to ensure that minimise the impact on boaters and other visitors to the bay, and for us to communicate why and what we are doing in a clear, open and approachable way. In terms of our relationship with Natural England, they are the government’s statutory nature conservation advisors. We therefore seek their advice on conservation matters, and while we are not obliged to follow this advice, we would require clear contrary evidence to set it aside. After considering Natural England advice on Studland Bay, MMO undertook our own, evidence-based assessment of the impact of a range of activities in the MCZ. This assessment concluded that anchoring is not compatible with the achievement of the site’s conservation objectives, due to the physical impacts of anchoring on the seagrass beds, including damage to and uprooting of seagrass. The MMO assessment can be viewed online here: Studland Bay MCZ MMO marine non-licensable activity assessment.



3. Throughout this long running saga NE and to a certain extent MMO have wrongly lumped together Anchoring and Mooring as if each had the same effect on Eelgrass. Moorings do scar the seabed, Anchoring does not. So, each activity should be assessed separately.

I understand your point about the difference in impacts between anchoring and from moorings. Our assessment took differences between mooring and anchoring into consideration (page 42). The MMO assessment discusses impacts of anchoring on seagrass beds section 4.2.1. (Page 58) and section 4.2.4 (page 62) discusses impacts of moorings on seagrass beds. We found that anchoring can have significant physical impacts on the seabed, particularly given the frequency of anchoring in Studland Bay.



4. Seagrasses is a collective term for the many different types of Seagrass. Some Seagrasses are vulnerable to Anchoring. Zostera Marina (the Studland Seagrass) is not unduly affected by Anchoring as it is a strong and resilient Seagrass. NE failed to recognise the resilience of the type of Seagrass found in the bay.

There are of course a number of seagrass species across the world. The MMO assessment is based principally on evidence of impacts on Zostera marina. We did not encounter any evidence proving resilience of Zostera marina to the impacts of anchoring, however we are always open to improving our evidence base and I would be very happy to review any evidence to support the view that Zostera marina is not unduly affected by anchoring.



5. The VNAZ this year has not been a success. The Anchoring pattern of boats has not changed much from previous years. A few boats have been seen anchoring outside the VNAZ. Monitoring by MMO may show less boats in the VNAZ but the weather conditions are the reason for this. The High Pressure over the U.K. bringing settled weather has produced lengthy periods of Easterly winds which has meant less boats in the Bay. The Bay as we all know is open to and faces East thereby offering no shelter to Easterly winds.

Thank you for your feedback regarding the success of VNAZ. We have monitored activity in Studland Bay throughout the year and clearly the VNAZ has not been as effective as we would have liked. Even accounting for variables such as unfavourable weather conditions there were still high levels of anchoring within the VNAZ. We are currently reviewing the first year of the VNAZ and looking at how we can improve adherence and ensure protection of the seagrass beds.



6. The SBMP had their first meeting in March. Twenty 'worthies' attended and decided to offload the Survey research and production of a strategy plan onto DCF. This has been done at Council tax payers expenses and is an unnecessary charge to local councils. It doesn't appear much progress can be attributed to SBMP. Nothing has been published showing what if anything has been achieved and the meetings seem to have petered out.

We work with the Studland Bay Marine Partnership (SBMP), as we do with all stakeholders in Studland Bay. My view is that they have made good progress in getting stakeholders from different perspectives around the table and working together, although it is clear from your comments that not all stakeholders are pleased with their work. I would suggest that you share your concerns about SBMP with the group itself via: dorset.coast@dorsetcouncil.gov.uk



7. The findings of the DCF Survey reveal a number of important points.

1. Boaters do not accept the NE advice that the Eelgrass is in unfavourable condition as there is no evidence to support NE's case.

I understand that is the view of some of the boating community. When I last visited Studland Bay in August I met boaters who accepted and agreed that the seagrass needed to be protected from anchoring impacts, and those who did not. We are always open to new evidence and happy to receive any evidence which shows a different picture.



2. The VNAZ is still unmarked, so boaters don't know where it is. The Admiralty charts still mark the Bay as a safe Anchorage.

Awareness of the location of the VNAZ is one of the key issues we have encountered and is a high priority for us. We are working on a range of options to improve awareness of the boundaries of the VNAZ, including ensuring that it is included on navigational charts and mobile applications. We have been in contact with multiple electronic chart providers including UK Hydrographic Office (UKHO) who produce Admiralty Charts. UKHO have confirmed that the extended the full VNAZ was published in weekly bulletin 29/22 (21 July 2022) and electronic charts were updated accordingly. Other navigation services that use UKHO data have also picked up the update and it is currently displaying in Navionics. I appreciate that many boaters will use older copies of Admiralty Charts, or none at all, so we are also looking at on-water marking of the VNAZ.



3. The 10 Eco moorings are too far out in the Bay meaning tender journeys to the beach are long and often risky.

4. The plan to backfill the Bay with another 90 plastic, elastic and synthetic AMSs is repugnant to many. Less plastic in the sea the better.

5. There is still no plan to fund, maintain and manage the next 90 AMSs nor the current ones for that matter.

I understand that the location of the current eco-moorings means they are not suitable for all vessels, which is why the Studland Bay Marine Partnership is planning to install more moorings. I also understand your desire to avoid more plastic in the sea. However eco moorings are a really important part of allowing people to continue to enjoy the bay while reducing impacts on the seabed.


Contd in next post.

 

[oldharry]

Continuation:

8. Your MMO letter highlights an important point on Safety. Quote: 'People have the right to anchor within any marine protected area under emergency conditions, or in order to avoid an emergency. We encourage boat users to use their judgement and only anchor in areas where it is safe. 'At last MMO have recognised the reason why boats seeking shelter and safety need to Anchor in the SW corner of The Bay. This whole statement and in particular ..'or in order to avoid an emergency' will be welcomed by 'boaters'. Perhaps legal advice to MMO has influenced the issuing of this new statement? I hope it will be published far and wide.


We have always recognised that Studland Bay is an important safety refuge for vessels and prioritised safety at sea. The updated wording is simply an additional clarification after some concerns from stakeholders.



9. I can't help feeling this whole venture of MCZ leading to VNAZ is a waste of time and public funds. It is highly unlikely that funds to mark the VNAZ will be forthcoming. Who will pay for the extra AMSs and pay for some person to manage the whole process? The possibility of an enforced VNAZ has now gone with the change in Anchoring advice.

The Studland Bay Marine Partnership is leading the work to secure funding for and install further AMS. Please contact dorset.coast@dorsetcouncil.gov.uk for further information. While we are doing all we can to make the voluntary approach successful, we still have the option to introduce an MMO byelaw which would make it an offence to anchor within the zone.
(my emphasis)


10. Seahorses - this has been a complete 'red herring' all along. Seahorses are found all around the U.K. coastline and must therefore breed in those locations. I believe the whole issue of Seahorses in the bay should have been discarded years ago. 

Seahorses are a protected feature of the Studland Bay MCZ, and so remain an important consideration. Our work is focussed on the seagrass beds, as this is where anchoring is having a direct negative impact. However, our assessment concluded that the impacts on the site’s seagrass beds are having a negative impact on long snouted /spiny seahorses which rely on it as a habitat.

I hope you find the above information helpful, and I would be happy to discuss any of the above points with you further if that would be helpful.





Kind regards,   

Nicholas Greenwood

Head of Marine Conservation | Marine Management Organisation (MMO)

Lancaster House | Hampshire Court | Newcastle upon Tyne | NE4 7YH

 

[Babylon]

Thank you oldharry for your contribution to the MMO survey and for posting the reply in full.

 

[oldharry]

Thank you oldharry for your contribution to the MMO survey and for posting the reply in full.

Thanks but was actually done by another key member of the BORG team who lives near Studland, and probably knows the bay better than any of us, having fished it daily for 16 years.

 

[John R B]

Apologies if this has already been posted (I couldn't find it via a quick search), but details of an application to the MMO for a licence to establish 78 eco-moorings in Studland Bay can be seen in the MMO public register at:

Marine case management system - Public register - MCMS

I've found the best way to get to the details from the above page is to click "view public register" then enter the case reference MLA/2022/00476 and look in the "marine licence applications and requests" tab.

 

[oldharry]

We are still in correspondence with the Head of Conservation at MMO: at present they are sticking to the party line theat anchors cause damage, and cited an American study as evidence.

On investigation we found that the studyquoted involved long term liveaboards using heavy ground tackle! So the conversation goes on, but MMO are very open to anything new we can bring in to help them get it right. So if anyone has come across a peer reviewed study of small boat anchoring specifically in Eelgrass, Zostera marina please let me know, as well as submitting it to MMO! conservation@marinemanagement.org.uk

 

[chubby]

I see on social media that funding has been obtained for another 22 eco moorings to be installed in march or april but before the main sailing season.

I know that some will argue that they prefer to lie to their own anchor rather than trust an unknown buoy and there is the issue of bigger boats BUT to be honest if I am presented with a buoy then in the sort of settled weather I would choose to anchor in Studland it would save worrying about dragging, holding or swinging circles etc. If I was genuinely seeking shelter in bad weather then yes slinging the hook might be easier than picking up a buoy especially in the dark or I might seek shelter within Poole harbour if tides in the entrance allowed.

If the sea grass area is covered by buoys then no one would want to anchor amongst the buoys.

Will they be charged for? There was no talk of a guy in a RIB collecting but I wouldn't be adverse to a donation made online just as I choose (usually) to make a voluntary donation for anchoring in Newtown River,

 

[oldharry]

More information about the eco moorings here: Thousands raised for more eco buoys to save Studland’s seahorses

They plan to have an app to allow boaters to make voluntary donations.

"Of those surveyed, 58 percent said they were interested in the conservation of the seagrass habitat."

Maybe, but the way the question was phrased leaves us with a dilemma: We were asked if we believe the seaagrass needs protection. in the context of the NE Advice if we agree, we accept that anchoring is damaging the Bay. Disagree and we identify as not caring for the environment. We are damned if we do and damned if we dont!

I have already made this point to MMO, and am awaiting their response. I have invited them to join the Forum, so they can justify their position to us directly.

 

[Seven Spades]

Do you know if they are going to lay any moorings for bigger boats?