Latest News Archive 2005

Radioactivity MA Marine Aggregates ML Marine Legislation BW Bathing Water MR Marine Reserves RE Renewable Energy OA Ocean Acidification PO Pollution FI Fisheries GW Global Warming CE Coastal Erosion

Mutual cooperation but different fact marketing?

Jerry Berne of Sustainable Coastlines (USA) sends us information that you maywish to peruse, followed by his comments.

www.mms.gov/international/uk.htm demonstrates a link in the US to UK dredging programmes. Whilst is does not saythat much, here is an extract of the main information within it.

"The UK is participating with the Marine Technology Directorate and thePetroleum Science and Technology Institute on offshore safety research. These researchgroups are industry-funded and based in the UK.

"The UK participates with MMS, Australia, and Canada in the InternationalRegulators Forum.

"The International Activities Programmes is participating in a multi-year studyof the fate and effects of sediment plumes from sand and gravel dredging in theEnglish Channel. The study is being done by Coastline Surveys, Ltd., a UK marineconsultant, along with Hydraulics Research, another consultant, and three majorUK dredging firms - ARC Marine, United Marine Aggregates, and South Coastshipping."

Jerry Berne adds his comment: -
"I think it somewhat special that the good old environmentally sensitive UKgovernment's Environment Agency is actually covering up the damage that OffshoreAggregate Dredging is doing while here in the US, our own mining agency MMS(Minerals Management Service) is admitting to it. This seems to be a reversal in whatone might have imagined, given the Iraq war intelligence cover-up." Here is a listing site of MMS studies as compiled by Barry Drucker.

Another report of interest not on the above page can be found here.

Changing Currents

Between 1984 and 1990, following intensive offshore aggregate dredging, a hugeincrease in erosion lowered Hemsby Beach to destroy the dune frontage and 98coastal bungalows. But for the past four years little has disappeared, as the focusthen went 2 kilometres to the north at Winterton-on-Sea.

Now , 1 -2 Km to the south of Hemsby is losing it's dune face at an alarmingrate whilst the erosion at Winterton has much reduced.

Here is Mike King's December 2005 photograph of the dune front at Scratby,behind which are many houses.

Campaigners 'pushing back' defence plan

from the Eastern Daily Press of 13th December 2005 by Richard Batson

Coastal campaigners feel they are turning the tide against plans to abandon seadefences along Norfolk's holiday shores.

A string of seaside communities have been up in arms after a new ShorelineManagement Plan (SMP) suggested abandoning all but a handful of major resorts to themercy of the waves. Even established holiday villages like Overstrand andMundesley faced losing the defences installed in Victorian times, under thecontroversial blueprint, which advocates a more natural "managed retreat".

But campaigners in North Norfolk say adding human and social costs to the bareproperty values in a funding formula changes the picture - and justifies spendingcash on defences. And they add that the proposed shoreline plan also has to belooked at again because it breaks the Government's own policies encouragingsustainability.

District council deputy leader Clive Stockton said the SMP's figures reckonedthat every £1 spent on sea defences saved only 60p worth of property -making it unjustifiable. But the council had redone the sums, adding on costs to theeconomy such as tourism, roads, farming and heritage. It then looked atintangible elements, including health and community togetherness. Combined, they broughtthe figure up to £16 worth of benefit for every £1 spent, makingdefences justifiable.

"We know it is a best-case scenario, but it takes account of social justice aswell as technical matters, and the difference is staggering," said Mr Stockton.

The SMP covers a stretch from Kelling to Lowestoft, and even its basic figuressay £250m worth of property would be lost in the next 100 years undermanaged retreat. Only built-up resorts like Sheringham, Cromer and Yarmouth wouldcontinue to be protected, while the holiday village area of Bacton, Walcott andOstend faced the biggest loss, totalling £65m.

But Mr Stockton said the SMP's idea of protecting some places and abandoningothers drove a coach and horses through the Government's own UK SustainableDevelopment Strategy. "It leaves a series of promontories and bays, which are notsustainable. The erosion rate at Happisburgh has increased 10 times to 10 metres ayear - because we are currently between two defended areas," added Mr Stockton,who owns a pub in the village.

The SMP is still under review by the Department for Environment Food and RuralAffairs, which was analysing feedback from the public consultation. Results weredue back in October but may be taking longer than expected because 2600 lettersof objection flooded in from East Anglia.

It left North Norfolk "in limbo", added Mr Stockton, but a study was also beingcarried out looking at some of the "nitty gritty" social issues in thecommunities affected.

There were signs that the Government was listening to the points raised by NorthNorfolk because a review of an overall coastal strategy called Making Space forWater was now looking at social justice and wider costs - thanks to publicpressure which was "making a difference".

He is due to visit a national strategy meeting in February.

Latest Aggregate Take Levels - 4th December 2005

Final Destination of Aggregate dredged off the East coast in 2004:	Provision in metric tonnes	% Percentage
North Norfolk and Lincolnshire	1,780,908	8
Belgium and Holland	6,191,867	29
London	13,575,990	63
total	21,548,756	100

These figures indicate that level landed, not that extracted. The total amounttaken from the sea bed would have been 53.7 million metric tonnes of which 32.2metric tonnes would have been washed overboard in the screening process. Only 40%of the aggregate now being taken off East Anglia is commercially viable forconstructional purposes.

New Zealand Protest at Offshore Dredging - 25th November 2005

New Zealand's NZ TV's "Close Up: The Threat of Sand Mining" is to be seen at http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411365/631880 It provides a video film of the rising protest against offshore dredging at NewPlymouth, Auckland, Kaipara Harbour down to Tarnaki on North Island.

The situation there is identical to our own, with similar exploitation, similarexcuses and similar denial of the consequences by those charged with theprotection of the environment. Those aware of the consequences have formed an effectiveprotest group, as shown on the film.

MARINET TUC Resolution - 15th November 2005

Following Pat Gowen's talks on the threat to the marine environment given tolocal TUC Branches earlier this year, a resolution on the environment (in general)including the damaging environmental impacts resulting from Offshore AggregateDredging was formulated with East Anglia's regional Trades Council at Ipswich andfinally passed at the National Trades Councils meeting in Liverpool.

The resolution placed to the National TUC Meeting at Liverpool was moved byMessrs. Mackay and Canham, both delegates from Ipswich, who overcame the initialopposition from the Executive Committee, finally to result in only two delegatesvoting against it.

A reprint of the full text (below) will now be printed as National TradesCouncil policy as of 2005.

Note: This does not mean that it is now full TUC policy yet, but it is animportant step in changing it .i.e. the vote in favour has to be responded to in apositive rather than a negative attitude).

Resolution passed at Trades Council Conference in Liverpool on Environment &prolog.

Environmental issues have increasingly come to the top of the political agenda.The tragic loss of life that took place in this year's Indian Ocean tsunamihighlights the fact that life is always subject to physical and astrophysical forcesbeyond our control. In this case, what is under our control was theinternational response time, co-ordination or lack of it with sufficient standing resourcesboth human and material that could be said to have been exposed as inadequate.

Also, the increasingly dire warnings aired during the recent meeting at Exeterof an international grouping of scientists on climate change with its manyheadline-grabbing eruptions of potential irreversible changes. Their warnings andpredictions centre on the effects which human activities are having on the balancesand loops within the overall biosphere and the necessity of changing ourpriorities and altering our behaviour through attempting to moderate these irreversibletrends by changing our present ways i.e. set in motion active decisions whichcan have beneficial outcomes.

It's in this regard that the short termism of marine dredging which has beenencouraged around our coastlines should be addressed as part of a re-evaluation - aNational/European environmental audit to include alternative sources of energygeneration, conservation and aggregates. Coastal erosion, fish stock breedingground destruction and the ever-present fears of sea level rise should be enough toshow that this practice is having a damaging effect both human and marine.

The resolution calls for action at a national level to: -

Promote and enhance the United Nation institutions with sufficientco-coordinated resources i.e. a standing facility to have more efficient response time toemergencies/disasters which will undoubtedly be the order for the future.
Promote the concept of an environmental audit which will outlaw certainactivities which do not support the trends necessary to develop a sustainable economicas part of promoting a more interdependent attitude towards the human factorimpacting the earth's biosphere: for example restrictions on military aircraft andthe search for alternatives to the present pollution of commercial air traveltechnology.
Secure the suspension and eventual closure of marine dredging as an industrialactivity that can only aggravate present negative trends.
Promote within the international sphere an international economics which has itscornerstone the relief of poverty and the transfer of sufficient and 'cuttingedge/ by pass' technical resources so that countries can achieve socialdevelopment without environmental devastation.
To promote through educational means the gathering of forces necessary for thedevelopment of a global consciousness: 'The earth's our home and it's up to us tolook after it'

Flawed Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) studies on dredging impact - 6thNovember 2005

In addition to that we already have within Briefing Paper No.1 and in the listing of scientific papers from around the world on this website, a new paper further evidences that we have long found, thatmuch of the research on the damage resulting from offshore aggregate dredging (or,as these reports usually show, the non-effects) are produced by those profitingfrom this practice.

The situation we have in the UK appears the same in the USA as shown by thepaper 'Flawed studies assess dredge-and-fill programme to protect coastlines' published in the October 2005 issue of BioScience, the monthly journal of theAmerican Institute of Biological Sciences, appears to show.

Marine scientists Charles H. Peterson of the University of North Carolina andMelanie J. Bishop, now of the University of Technology in Sydney, Australia, havereported that, despite expensive, multidecadal monitoring, the majority of studies of the ecological impacts of beachnourishment are scientifically inadequate and suffer from critical flaws, improperanalyses, and unjustified interpretations.

Peterson and Bishop point out how the activity can bury shallow reefs anddegrade other beach habitats, depressing nesting in sea turtles and reducing thedensities of prey for shorebirds, fishes, and crabs, and that the US Army Corps ofEngineers and state permitting agencies, which oversee most of the monitoringstudies, do not have expertise adequate to assess them.

Peterson and Bishop conclude that reform of agency practices is urgently neededas evidence of the cumulative risk of severe ecological impacts grows. Theirsurvey discovered that monitoring is typically conducted by project promoters withno independent peer review. See also www.aibs.org

Whilst dredging for beach restoration in the USA is seen to have such adverseimpact, this must be quite small when compared to the far greater effect in the UKwhere massive commercial quantities of aggregate have been dredged over manyyears.

Pat Gowen, 6th November 2005

Welsh coast under threat by dredging - 4th November 2005

From 'icNorthWales' 3rd November 2005

Britain's first Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty could be destroyed by sanddredging. The Gower coast, near Swansea, got its protected status 49 years ago.

But yesterday Tory AM Alun Cairns said dredging could blight the area which has27 sites of special scientific interest. More than one million tonnes of sandwere dredged in the past 40 years. Mr Cairns said that equated to an area the sizeof a football field 100 metres deep.
"There is little wonder then that the potential loss of sand is so alarming," hesaid. "If sand dredging continues this very beautiful and heavily protected areacould be destroyed for ever."

A public inquiry will hear an application to dredge Helwick Bank, 2.5km offWorms Head on Gower. "At long last the campaign by the thousands of people in Gowerhas had some impact," Mr Cairns said.

East Coast DIY Shoreline Defences terminated - 2nd November 2005

Coastal defence crusader and ex-Royal Navy Engineer Peter Boggis of EasternBavents in Suffolk has lost the latest battle in the fight protect his home andthose of sixteen neighbours from the sea. He was importing many thousands of tons ofinert clay soil and builders rubble to front the rapidly eroding cliffprotecting the housing, some of which are now only 8 metres from the edge.

Despite the past two years of ongoing support by Waveney District Council, hisefforts to build a soft sea defence using his own money and expertise have nowbeen refused permission to continue by the Environment Agency. The EA stated thatthey, long opposed to his protective measures, have now used the recent changesin waste management rules to stop the protection. They said that they wouldcontinue to inspect the site and that Peter Boggis would be prosecuted under theEnvironmental Protection Act if he carried on with the work.

Environmental Lawyer Peter Scott points out, "Provided the material imported andthe type of sources from which it is to be taken is specified in contract forthe purposes of the works described, the material will not become waste. We have aparticular form of contract for such situations, which was confirmed by theEnvironment Agency as not only correct, but useful in relation to the avoidance ofuse of exempt waste sites to receive material which need not be characterised aswaste."

In respect of the EA's latest move, Peter Boggis said "It ensures the continueddestruction of the coastline of Britain regardless of the damage to humanhabitat and people's lives. While this decision does not technically prevent me fromcarrying on, it does make it too expensive to do so. The project is 75% complete,but it is not finished and it is exposed. And with the changes to the groynes atSouthwold over the winter, we expect erosion to be bad this winter."

It almost beggars belief that the authorities responsible for the protection ofour coastline and environment are not only failing to do so, nor are theyopposing offshore aggregate dredging, the main cause of the beach stripping andconsequent erosion, but instead are actively engaged in stopping any person whovoluntarily does it for them. The only benefit from their promoting the continuederosion is to the dredging companies, the Crown Estate and the government, all ofwhom who will gain more income from the new supply of cliff released material.

Pat Gowen - 2nd November 2005

European Marine Framework Directive - 30th October 2005

The European Commission has just proposed the strategy to more effectivelyprotect the marine environment across Europe, with the aim of achieving goodenvironmental status of the EU's marine waters by 2021. It will constitute theenvironmental pillar of the future maritime policy the European Commission is working on,and is designed to achieve the full economic potential of oceans and seas inharmony with the marine environment.

Each Member State will draw up a programme of cost-effective measures. Impactassessments, including detailed cost-benefit analysis of the measures proposed,will be required prior to the introduction of any new measure. Where it would beimpossible for a Member State to achieve the level of ambition of theenvironmental targets set, special areas and situations will be identified in order todevise specific measures tailored to their particular contexts.

The detail and a number of documents relating to the implementation of thestrategy are available by going to http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/water/marine.htm

Welsh sand dredging plan goes to inquiry - 24th October 2005

Full story on www.newswales.co.uk/?section=Environment&F=1&id=8233

Proposals to dredge sand at Helwick Bank, off Worms Head on the Gower Peninsula,some 2.5km from the nearest coast, for a period of 15 years, are to be the besubject to a public inquiry, it was announced today by the Minister forEnvironment, Planning and Countryside Carwyn Jones. The Minister decided that, because ofa number of outstanding objections to the application to dredge 300,000 tonnesof sand a year, it is appropriate for the Planning Inspectorate for Wales to holdan inquiry.

Carwyn Jones said: "We have already been out to consultation on proposals fromLlanelli Sand Dredging Ltd to dredge from Helwick Bank, and have consideredresponses from many organisations and individuals both in favour and against theapplication."

Sadly, the Minister seems totally unaware of the findings of the trulyindependant experts and is oblivious of the evidence of the link between dredging anderosion, as he added,
"Although independent studies do not support claims that dredging harms ourbeaches, there is great concern among Gower residents and visitors about thepotential impact on coastal beaches. Our policy on dredging in the Bristol Channel andSevern Estuary takes a precautionary approach. While there is no evidence of alink between dredging and beach erosion, I believe that moving dredging furtheroffshore and to the outer channel areas better fits our policy on sustainabledevelopment.

"It is vital to the Welsh economy that the construction industry has an adequatesupply of minerals. It is unlikely in the foreseeable future that themarine-dredged sand could be replaced to any great degree from other sources. We will,however, continue working with the industry to encourage efficient and appropriateuse of dredged aggregates."

Llanelli Sand Dredging Ltd applied to extract 4.5 million tonnes at a rate of300,000 tonnes per year for 15 years. (Rising by 50,000 a year over three years,from an initial 150,000). This would be taken in 2-3 dredging campaigns per year,each of 7-11 weeks duration. Dredging on the Bank started in the 1950s, althoughinitially only in small amounts. About 740,000 tonnes were removed up to 1990.Dredging started again in 1993, with some half million cubic metres taken until2002.

The proposal lies within the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries SAC and will needAppropriate Assessment under the spirit of the Habitats Directive. Following thethree phases of public consultation, in spring 2003, 2004 and 2005, there are stillconcerns raised by a number of bodies. The main objections are from some localauthorities and members of the public who believe that there are changes to thebeaches as a consequence of dredging.

The Planning Inspectorate will follow the spirit of planning procedure rules.They aim to commence the hearing or inquiry within 22 weeks of the notification.

Government Policy Reviews - 23rd October 2005

The UK Government has commissioned a number of reviews looking at variousaspects of management of the UK's seas and coasts. Supported by WWF UK, the Marine andCoastal Environment (MACE) Group, Cardiff University is undertaking anevaluation of these reviews in order to inform discussion on the future of UK marinepolicy and, in particular, the possible content of the UK Marine Bill.

Key Government reviews being evaluated

Safeguarding Our Seas: A strategy for the conservation and sustainabledevelopment of our marine environment (First Marine Stewardship Report Defra, May 2002) www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/marine/uk/stewardship/
Seas of Change: The Government's consultation paper to help deliver our visionfor the marine environment (Defra, November 2002) www.defra.gov.uk/environment/consult/seas/index.htm
Marine Nature Conservation and Sustainable Development: The Irish Sea Pilot.Report to Defra by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC, January 2004) www.jncc.gov.uk/page-2767
The Government's response to its Seas of Change consultation to help deliver ourvision for the marine environment (Defra, March 2004) www.defra.gov.uk/environment/consult/seas/gov_response.htm
The Marine Environment: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select CommitteeSixth Report of Session 2003-04 (EFRA, March 2004)
Review of Marine Fisheries and Environmental Enforcement (Defra, March 2004) www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/fish-env/
Net Benefits: a sustainable and profitable future for UK fishing (PrimeMinister's Strategy Unit, March 2004) www.strategy.gov.uk/downloads/su/fish/index.htm
Marine Environment: Government's reply to the Committee's report. Tenth Report of Session 2003-04 (EFRA, June 2004)
Review of Marine Nature Conservation. Working Group report to Government (Defra,July 2004) www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/ewd/rmnc/
Turning the Tide: Addressing the impact of fisheries on the marine environment(Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, December 2004) www.rcep.org.uk/fishreport.htm
Charting Progress: An integrated assessment of the state of UK seas (Defra,March 2005) www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/marine/uk/stateofsea/
The Future for UK Fishing: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee Sixth Report of Session2004-05 (EFRA, March 2005)

Project objectives

To assess alignment and conflict between recommendations in the reviews
To consider how Government should take the reviews' recommendations forward, inparticular in relation to marine spatial planning, nature conservation, speciesprotection and fisheries management
To consider how a 'Duty of Care' placed on authorities through a Marine Billcould facilitate the implementation and enforcement of current legislation
To assess how WWF's draft Marine Act could enable implementation of therecommendations
To consider how changes in governance could help take the recommendations forward

Contact details
Dr Hance Smith
Marine & Coastal Environment Group
Cardiff University
Tel: 02920-874830
Email: SmithHD@Cardiff.ac.uk

UK study on seabed smothering from dredging - 17th October 2005

A paper that gives an insight into the damage created by dredging, specificallythe settlement of suspended sediments over the seabed, impacting the animals andplants that live on and within can be read in full by going to www.ukmarinesac.org.uk/activities/ports/ph5_2_6.htm

The paper stressed how animals with delicate feeding or breathing apparatus,such as shellfish, can be intolerant to increased siltation, resulting in reducedgrowth or fatality (ABP Research R707 1997). Maerl beds (calcified seaweed) are reported to besensitive to smothering due to channel dredging (Birkett et al 1998). In importantspawning or nursery areas for fish and other marine animals, dredging can result insmothering eggs and larvae. Shellfish are particularly susceptible during springwhen spatfall occurs. When smothering of intertidal areas occurs, there may besubsequent effects on the availability of animals and plants in bird/fish feedingareas.

The treatise points out how the blanketing or smothering of benthic animals andplants may also cause stress and reduced rates of growth or reproduction, andhow in the worse cases the effects may be fatal (Bray, Bates & Land 1997). Itfurther relates how sediments are distributed more widely within the estuary orcoastal area and may settle over adjacent subtidal or intertidal habitats somedistance from the dredged area.

The paper points out that the sensitivity of marine animals and plants tosiltation varies greatly and discusses how in areas with high natural loads ofsuspended sediments, the relatively small increase in siltation away from the immediatedredging area are generally considered unlikely to have any additional adverseeffects on benthic populations.

It concluded that the effects of siltation from capital dredging as in MorecambeBay that some smothering of benthic animals was inevitable. However, given thatthis particular area is subjected to regular maintenance dredging of navigationchannels and berths, and that the adjacent subtidal and intertidal areas appearto be productive, it is was thought unlikely that the additional effects fromthe proposed dredging programme will have anything more than temporary and fairlylocalised impacts (ABP Research R707 1997).

Post-dredge surveys of the deepened navigation channel to the Port ofLondonderry, Lough Foyle, which is in close proximity to important commercial shellfisheries, indicated that with appropriate care, substantial dredging works could beundertaken with no adverse effects on shell or other fisheries (Bates 1996).

Also see www.ukmarinesac.org.uk/index.htm

Update on the Bathing Waters Directive - 14th October 2005

It was reported on Wednesday 12th October that after many years of contention,the last hurdle is now in sight for the new European Bathing Waters Directive.All EU States appear to have finally reached a political agreement which they willhave to adopt within the next few weeks.

Each member state will now be expected to incorporate the new rules into theirown national laws within two years. The status of the water quality will now bedivided into three categories -- "excellent", "good" and "sufficient", with allEU governments having to ensure that all bathing waters achieve at least the"sufficient" status by the end of the 2015 bathing season.

Although in some ways, reducing as it does the risk of infection to swimmersfrom 12 to 15% down to between 7.5 and 8 percent, the new Directive shows somedegree of improvement, it falls far short of that hoped and worked for by MARINETand the North Sea Action Group, who hoped to see that enteroviruses and salmonellatesting was carried out and properly reported. Further, that the classificationapplied to all forms of water immersion sports and all waters where recreationtook place, not just a few designated resorts. We still feel that a risk ofinfection of 7.5 - 8% is grossly excessive.

Where the original 76/160/EEC Bathing Waters Directive contained 19 pollutants,including the dangerous enterovirus and salmonella pathogens, now only theinvestigation of two indicator microbiological bacterial are called for, i.e. E.coli(Escheria Coli) and gastro-intestinal enterococci.

It will be interesting to see if the UK government and the Environment Agency,having been instrumental in weakening what could and should have been a majormove in protecting public health instead of water companies profits, now make anhonest and meaningful attempt to abide by the rulings of the new Directive.

Pat Gowen, 14th October 2005

The New Orleans Disaster - 14th October 2005

The disastrous flooding and loss of life at New Orleans was clearly foreseen byJerry Byrne of Sustainable Shorelines, who, long before the tragic event wasaddressing the concern in communications with Barry S. Drucker, Physical Scientistand Oceanographer of the MMS-Leasing Division Marine Minerals Branch.

It was pointed out that at a time of sea rise and worsening and more frequenthurricanes due to the US's failure to take action on Global Warming, offshoredredging was ongoing, whilst the funding required for refurbishing the levee (seawall) was being taken to prosecute George Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Barry Drucker wrote in reference to critical beach draw down due to offshoredredging: -
"Some of this shift is definitely due to the realization that exploiting toomuch of deposit in close proximity to the beach can actually have a devastatingeffect on the shoreline and subsequent increases in erosion".

On 12th April 2005, six months before the inundation, Jerry Byrne, Head ofSustainable Shorelines replied : -
"The myriad forces you mentioned are not just happening off Louisiana. This iswhy it is impossible to completely model these with computers and wave tables. Assuch, we should be employing those methods which have strong, long-termempirical evidence as well as research and monitoring. To save Louisiana we are going toneed all our resources. To ignore one of the most promising options and tomaintain comfortably known, but counterproductive, methods has to raise question asto the true purposes of those making these decisions".

Doesn't this all sound rather close to home? In 1938 and again in 1953, muchlife and livelihood were lost in East Anglia when the sea broke through the dunedefence system. The governments of the day had ignored repeated warnings of theconsequences that would surely follow.

Now we have the same happening again. Our sea defence budget cut due to Blair'swar funding demands, the protecting dunes, cliffs and beaches allowed to beeroded and undermined by a rising and more turbulent sea whilst at the same timeoffshore aggregate dredging continues unabated.

Just how does one get the self-blinded to see?

Pat Gowen, 14th October 2005

Where do our cliffs go ? - 13th October 2005

It has long been assumed that 90% of the sand on beaches emanated mainly fromsediment coming from the rivers, the rest from rain. But new empirical researchsuggests that we could finally help to resolve the true source of our beach sand(and shingle?) by the use of "sand fingerprinting" techniques.

Two new research projects by scientists at the University of California, SanDiego (UCSD) used a portable laser imaging system to prove that erosion of the seacliffs from the 80 km of coast between Dana Point and La Jolla were theprimary source of the deposits on the areas beaches.

UCSD engineering professor Scott Ashford said "It's telling us that we don'tunderstand the beach system as well as we think." He showed that erosion of seacliffs is responsible for an annual inflow of 80,000 to 100,000 cubic yards, or 67percent, based on current estimates of total sediment input. A separate UCSDgraduate project using so-called "sand fingerprinting" techniques found similarresults. The papers on the discovery were presented on Wednesday 12th October 2005at a meeting of the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, andlooked at six years of imaging data.

If we could now lay the ghost of the claims made that sand deposits are stableand do not move from the shoreline to offshore to fill the created voids, bydetermining the true source and the final destination of the sand by such'fingerprinting', it could take us a long way in conclusively proving the reasons for theloss of our coastal beaches and cliffs, and the prime source of the sand landedby the dredgers.

Pat Gowen, 13th October 2005

Happisburgh Presentation in Integrated Coastal Zone Management - 10th October2005

The recent speech and accompanying slides given by Malcolm Kerby, coordinator ofthe Happisburgh Coastal Concern Action Group (CCAG) at the Edinburgh IntegratedCoastal Zone Management (ICZM) of 22nd September '05 is to be found by going totheir website www.happisburgh.org.uk/content/Malcolm_Kerby_CCAG It gives the point of view of those losing their living and housingwithout compensation when due to dredging and global warming induced erosion, and theimpact of the Shoreline Management Plan.

Being at least as important as the scientific reasoning, the emotive and moralaspects from those afflicted is well worth understanding, and is well put over inthe presentation.

Marine Conservation Society concerns on dredging - 10th October 2005

Points of concern made by the Marine Conservation Society on offshore aggregatedredging can be seen by viewing the following WORD document from their website.

An update on the East Coast Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) - 8th October 2005

Those of you who regularly peruse the Happisburgh Coastal Concern Action Group(CCAG) website www.happisburgh.org.uk will have read that Professor Tim O'Riordan of the Tyndall Centre for ClimateChange Research at the University of East Anglia, together with his ResearchAssociate Jessica Milligan, who headed the meetings on the Shoreline ManagementPlan, met many residents of Happisburgh and surrounding communities on 4th Octoberto discuss concerns with them.

Enthusiasm for the plan as given was not high among the coastal residents,evidenced by the fact that of the 2,430 who responded to consultation on the plan2,420 (99.6%) firmly objected, i.e.only ten people, 0.6%, were in approval.

Prof. O'Riordan explained that his work was part of a year long study, partlyfunded by North Norfolk District Council as a result of the responses to the SMPpublic-consultation exercise earlier in the year. He said that the challenge wasto develop ways to manage coastlines in the face of changing coastal processes,while addressing the impact on coastal communities. What was happening atHappisburgh and along the North Norfolk Coast could be repeated around the country'sshores.

At the end of the meeting, Prof. O'Riordan said that he felt humbled by what hehad heard, and than now he had met some of the peoples concerned, seen the lookon their faces and in their eyes first hand, that he had more of an appreciationof what the issues mean to residents. He appealed for as many people as possibleto write down how the proposed changes in coastal management affect their lives,saying that this evidence would have a very real impact on future plans. Thusyour views and concerns would be welcome by the professor, by either sending themto him at t.oriordan@uea.ac.uk , copy to Jessica at j.milligan@uea.ac.uk, or by post to them at the Tyndall Centre at the University of East Anglia.

Our own points will include the facts in our response to the SMP, that the basiccause of the erosion, viz offshore aggregate dredging must cease, otherwise itwill be seen that the coastline loss suffered will merely be producing moreaggregate for inflating the coffers of the dredgers, the Crown Estate and thegovernment. Further that compensation must be given to those who lose their habitationor living as a result, and that protection of village communities and wildlifeareas is at least as important as the protection funded for major profitableprivate industries such as the nuclear power stations, the gas and oil concerns, etc.

But please be sure to use this opportunity to provide feedback so that anequitable and fair strategy may yet result. Go to read www.marinet.org.uk/coastaldefences/smp.html if you wish to use any of the points made in our MARINET thoughts on the issue.

Pat Gowen, 8th October 2005

Europe's Cod and Eels Doomed if Overfishing Continues - 12th June 2005

Overfishing is just one of the problems associated with this loss. The basicproblem is that we are losing the coastal habitats needed to give birth to theseand other species including important bottom of the feed chain species.

We are losing our coastlines and the coastal resources these sustain. Most ofthis is directly related to man's activities including overdevelopment, often seen(as in the recent report on the Mediterranean) as the major culprit in habitatloss. Yet, development does not cause the erosion of the shoreline and coastalsealife habitats. Only when we attempt to protect such development withcounterproductive methods as beach nourishment or traditionally engineered erosion"protection" structures, does development directly cause coastline loss. It is what wedo in the water, mainly navigational dredging and offshore aggregate mining (forbeach nourishment and some of the aggregate which go into those coastal concretestructures), that is directly responsible for the loss of much of ourcoastlines. This loss included coastal wetlands, estuaries, and river systems. As saltwater is push further upstream by deeply dredged channels and shorelines erodeinward, already scarce coastal fresh water systems face salt water intrusion.

The 2004's Eurosion report bluntly stated the effects of dredging processes onour shorelines. To date, however, I have seen little EU support for curtailingthe numerous channel/harbour and aggregate mining dredging projects or advocatingfor more environmentally sound and sustainable options to beach nourishment andshoreline hardening.

From Jerry Berne, Sustainable Shorelines, Inc. (www.sustainableshorelines.org) responding to the 7th July Reuters report 'Europe's Cod and Eels Doomed ifOverfishing Continues' by Michael Sissenwine (michael.sissenwine@noaa.gov)

The mechanism of dredging induced shoreline erosion - 11th June 2005

This link serves an interesting conference paper given at Delft University 20-21 February2003. The treatise also gives graphical and mathematical models on the erosiveimpact of offshore aggregate dredging in France.

Although France dredges but a fraction of that of the UK, the paper is stillrelative. It mainly discusses the wave climate rather than the sediment driftseizure and the recapture from the shoreline, and appears biased toward considerationof the principles put forward as a means of permitting the continuity of theexploitation. It points out the scarcity of knowledge of the long term effects, butoffers no realistic solution to our problem.

A Fresh Look at the East Coast Shoreline Management Plan - 10th June 2005

The massive rejection by the 2,500 people who responded to the draft NorthNorfolk Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) based on non-compensated 'Managed Retreat'and the non-recognition of the major impact of offshore aggregate dredging hasresulted in the realisation to take a completely fresh look at the situation. Hadit had gone through the SMP would have condemned thousands of homes and acres ofthe land between Kelling and Lowestoft Ness to the sea without addressing themain cause of the shoreline collapse.

A year long new consultation with seaside communities will commence next month,as North Norfolk District councillors voted on 9th June to invest in a more"community-sensitive" coastal strategy in a bid to find a "fairer" solution tolong-term coastline changes on the Sheringham to Winterton stretch. A new study willbe conducted by University of East Anglia's (UEA) Professor Tim O'Riordan,involving a series of public workshops and organisations including DEFRA, the EA,English Nature and the National Trust.

NNDC chief executive Philip Burton said of the plan, which was due forpublication in September "We already know what it is likely to contain and that it isunacceptable to the authority. We will go back to the drawing board. We cannot justaccept the current position, we have to find a way forward." He added that the£20,000 contribution towards the UEA Tyndall Centre study represented "goodvalue" and would buy the council more time while the issues of compensation forhome-owners and the impact of offshore dredging were debated. But Mundesleymember Sue Willis said she was concerned that Prof O'Riordan had been raving aboutmanaged retreat only a year ago and had now made a complete U-turn. "An academicthat changes his mind greatly bothers me. If this exercise produces what it saysit will, who is bound to listen to it? What difference will it make? And will itcause more problems than it solves?"

Deputy NNDC leader Clive Stockton said the current situation was "nonsense,crazy and unjust", but the new study was the "best way" to find a solution tocoastal- management problems. "We are in a position where the existing SMP isunworkable and the proposed one is unachievable. "As far as I am aware, this is the onlyway forward at the moment and we could gain a lot from this."

Ongoing Erosion on East Coast- 29th May 2005

We are continuing to lose our eastern shoreline at a great and ever escalatingrate. The latest losses include Caister-on-Sea, Newport, Scratby and Californiain Norfolk, where much dune, beach and sandcliff has been lost in the past twomonths. Felixstowe in southern Suffolk has lost some two metres of beach sand andbeach access is now impossible.

Whilst a part of this is due to the increase in north and north-easterly erodingwinds that have come about as Global Warming increases its effect, just aspredicted, by far the greatest cause is ongoing dredging.

The latest victim is on the south coast. Rother District Council have statedthat it cannot afford work needed to protect up to 200 homes at Fairlight Cove,near Hastings in East Sussex, from falling into the sea due to the ongoing erosion.Where prior to dredging there was 100 metres clear gap between the housefrontages and the sea cliff, houses have now gone.

Dredging Application at Severn Sands - 8th April 2005

Crossavon Ltd (Severn Sands) already extract 150,000 tonnes/yr from the Bedwyn,Charston & Dunn Sands, with permit up to 2013. Their current application fora further area and much higher extraction - 400,000 t/yr from NorthMiddlegrounds must be rejected for wildlife reasons.

The inner Severn Estuary is an international RAMSAR site and designated European site (Special Protection Area) for birdlife.Studies undertaken at Cardiff University show high levels of toxic metals in speciesthat feed on the mudflats. The Estuary is also nominated for shad and lampreyspecies (Alosa alosa, Allosa fallax; Lampetra fluviatilis; Petromyzon marinus).These species are listed Annex II species for the Habitats Directive Art.12 somust be given protection.

Dredging directly damages potential feeding and spawning grounds. It alsomobilises sediments accumulated through the early industrial period when levels ofmetals were very high. The fine material that dredging returns to the water thenbecome a source of toxic metals in the food chain.

The Western Bristol Channel is an alternative source for a limited period. TheWelsh Assembly policy is to stop dredging at the Nash and Helwick banks becauseof beach erosion, and to search for alternatives in the lower estuary. The deeperwater and longer distances for dredgers will raise costs - companies likeCrossavon have to accept this.

Max Wallis, spokesperson for the Barry & Vale group said: "Friends of theEarth maintain that dredging should therefore be phased out from the whole InnerEstuary, and existing licences be reviewed. Certainly no new areas there can bepermitted for extraction as Crossavon Ltd seek."

UK gets final warning over wastewater - 7th February 2005

The European Commission has just issued the United Kingdom with a final warningdue to its failure to apply the demanded regulations on sewage treatment.

The European 1991 Urban Waste Water Directive (UWWD) long fought for by MARINETand the North Sea Action Group, demands that all sewerage and wastewater fromareas with populations of greater than 15,000 undergoes primary (solids and sludgeremoval) and secondary treatment (aeration) and in environmentally sensitiveareas such as shellfisheries and bathing waters, tertiary (e.g. UV irradiationand/or phosphate removal) before being discharged into rivers, estuaries or the sea.

It was supposed to have been complied with by 31st December 2000, but still in2005 fourteen UK locations still fail to provide legally demanded facilities. "Bynot fully complying with this EU law, the UK is not delivering the level ofprotection against pollution from waste water that it signed up to and that Britishcitizens deserve," commented Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas. "I intendto give priority to ensuring that Member States live up to their commitments."

MARINET and the NSAG researched the status of Britain's sewage outfalls afternineteen months and formally reported the UK breaches to DG-XI (the EU departmentdealing with the environment law) on 17th August 2001. NSAG's earlier formalcomplaint on the UK Government failing to meet the 1975 76/160/EEC BathingWater Directive eventually resulted in a fine of £87,000 per day in the caseof the Blackpool area alone. The UK now has until 31st December 2005 to ensurefull treatment of all outfalls from populations of >10,000. Progress towardcompliance will be followed with interest.

Pat Gowen