According to Natural England “Maerl is a collective term for several species of red seaweed, with hard, chalky skeletons. It is rock hard and, unlike other seaweeds, it grows as unattached rounded nodules or short, branched shapes on the seabed.”
Like the tropical corals it resembles, maerl needs sunlight to grow, therefore is restricted to shallower, sunlit waters. Although the diversity of life to be found on tropical coral reefs is well known, fewer people are aware of the similar role that maerl habitats play in our waters, with maerl beds providing homes for a wide variety of marine animals and plants. Again like tropical corals – maerl is both extremely slow-growing (maerl beds can be as much as 8,000 years old), and very fragile.
So, it’s not unreasonable that the maerl found at Falmouth in Cornwall is offered legal protection. And this protection comes in the form of a Special Area of Conservation courtesy of the EU Habitats Directive.
This designation means that if anyone wishes to do things where the maerl beds are, they need to think carefully if this is going to harm them. If it will harm them, the doers need then to prove that they really have to do the harmful things, or if they can do something else. But if they do need to do things to the maerl, and it’s really really important, the law asks that they propose a way of making up for it.
In Falmouth, the proposal being put forward is to dredge the harbour to allow larger ships (especially cruise liners) to dock as part of what is hoped will be an economic renaissance for the area.
If you wish to dredge something at sea you must ask the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) for a licence. The MMO’s vision is “to promote the UK government’s vision for clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas”.
The MMO has in turn to make sure that the proposal is legal under the terms of the EU Habitats Directive that protects the maerl. To establish this, the proposers, the Falmouth Harbour Commissioners and Falmouth Docks & Engineering Company have to provide the MMO with enough information to complete an “appropriate assessment” to assess the proposed development's impact on the conservation objectives this site , including any proposed measures to avoid or to make up any likely damage - “mitigation” as it’s known.
What the harbour authorities wanted to establish was summarised neatly in the Cornish press :
“The proposed dredging, said harbour master Mark Sansom, would affect less than two per cent of the dead maerl, which would not even be removed from the area but relocated.”
The MMO looked at this, and asked other organisations who are experts in such matters for their opinion. These included Natural England, Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee and Environment Agency. They then weighed up the evidence and in January 2011, said “no”.
And the MMO said no because, weighing up all the evidence and advice:
“We have concluded that there are significant risks associated with the maerl mitigation scheme proposed in the applications, and major uncertainty surrounding the scientific evidence on which the proposed scheme is based.”
The MMO are very simply, and very reasonably, suggesting that the proposals need more work and because the mitigation offered is not a proven method - there’s little work been done on the effects of moving maerl . This is, after all, the marine equivalent of our precious forests and heaths, so before embarking on such a venture there needs to be more confidence on the efficacy of the proposal.
They’re not saying “you shall not pass”, they are just saying, that in their opinion, and that of their advisors, there is uncertainty– and that, with regards to the Habitats Directive and the designation of the maerl as an SAC, they don’t want to make a decision lightly on something that’s so important.
Consequently the MMO have asked for more work to be done and Plymouth University’s Marine Institute will be working with the harbour authorities this spring on a trial to establish the actual impacts of dredging and the feasibility of relocating maerl.
However, in the meantime Falmouth has become the cause celebre of those who see the legislation that protects such special places as placing “ridiculous” costs on British business. I’m sure that Chancellor Osborne’s visit to Cornwall in August last year played no small part in his ordering of a review into “gold-plating” in the UK's implementation of Habitats Directive in the Autumn Statement last year.
What concerns the RSPB is not the review in itself. Of course there’s always room for improvements - for example it's important that we ensure improved understanding of issues is translated into how decisions are made. More, our concern is how this betrays an attitude to the natural environment by some in the corridors of power; an attitude that appears to view our best wildlife sites as a blockage to economic growth.
Because this is not just seaweed. Like it’s not just estuary or not just heathland. These sites, these Special Areas of Conservation are the very best wildlife sites we have in Europe. They require careful consideration and decisions on their future absolutely must be based on the best science and best practice.
And it’s important to be clear. The RSPB is not “anti-development.” Growth is vital – but it needs to be environmentally as well as economically sustainable. If new facilities at Falmouth docks will provide jobs and a boost to the local economy then we would support investigations to find a way to make it happen without damaging the maerl unacceptably.
But, as stated in the Wildlife Link response to the review of implementation of the Habitats Directive published earlier this month, conservationists ask that:“The Government focuses on win:win solutions”.
Is there a “win:win” solution for Falmouth? Is there an alternative development option that helps the economy and prevents damage to the maerl?
This week the Cornwall Wildlife Trust have called for just such an alternative to be considered:
“this alternative option is outlined in the Docks’ own Masterplan and initial estimates show it could provide the economic boost the docks need, without dredging ... The preliminary economic estimates for the alternative option of developing the docks without dredging, which features in the Docks’ Masterplan, shows it would bring economic growth for Falmouth. It would create over 2000 new jobs and bring in over £100 million of income, according to the Masterplan.”
However, the Trust continues: “this option has not yet been put forward for further investigation and detailed economic assessment, despite the current proposals which include dredging being rejected over a year ago...
“...There were five development options listed in the Docks’ Masterplan, which all had initial economic assessments, but only two of them received a detailed independent economic assessment from Cornwall Council. These were the ‘No development’ option, which in the Trust’s opinion is clearly not the way forward, and the proposed ‘Develop the Docks and undertake a dredge’ option.
“Cornwall Wildlife Trust are urging decision makers to also fully economically assess the option to ‘Develop the Docks without a dredge”
In conclusion, Tom Hardy, the Trust’s Marine Conservation Officer states: “Cornwall Wildlife Trust always seeks to find ways in which development can happen without negative consequences for wildlife. The Trust works with developers to ensure that developments are not only good for our economy, but also good for our environment.”
Which in a nutshell summarises how RSPB approaches these issues. And surely, if there’s an option that allows progress without damaging the SAC, shouldn’t this be fully considered?
The RSPB accepts that the Chancellor needs to deliver economic growth and create jobs in the face of an enormous economic challenge. And the development of the docks in Falmouth no doubt has its part to play. What we do not accept, and will never accept, is that the environment is a barrier to success, here or anywhere else.
If you agree with us, please do consider writing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about this issue. Full details of how to do this can be found here.
Tony Whitehead, RSPB South West Public Affairs Officer, 23 February 2012