| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Marine Aggregates
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Jamieson.]
10.56 pm
Mr. Anthony D. Wright (Great Yarmouth): I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue, which has been brought to my attention by a number of my constituents. I know that it is also of great interest to the constituents of many other hon. Members.
Aggregate extraction in the UK can be divided between land-based production and dredging from the sea bed. While land-based extraction goes back to ancient times, it is only in the last century that we have begun to look to the sea for materials, with a significant industry developing in the 1970s.
Sand and gravel extractions are mainly used in the UK construction industry, although about a third of marine-extracted aggregates are exported to the near continent. Marine sand and gravel amount to 15 per cent. of aggregates used for construction in England and Wales. In 1999, 23.7 million tonnes of aggregates were removed from the sea, of which almost 40 per cent. came from the east coast. About 10 per cent. of the total aggregates extracted were used in beach replenishment, with 20.9 million tonnes sold for commercial use.
Although the amount of marine aggregates dredged over the last 10 years has remained fairly constant, it has doubled as a percentage of UK production in the last 20 years, following concerns about the impact of land-based extraction.
I understand that the Government actively encourage the extraction of marine sand and gravel because it reduces the need for quarrying. I am also aware that the area licensed for extraction is only 1 per cent. of the sea bed. The area that is dredged is even smaller--less than 15 per cent. of the licensed area. That is largely due to the fact that useful sand and gravel deposits are not widespread, although the areas that produce the best aggregates are usually also the favoured home of the local marine life, and dredging companies often operate in areas that have previously been licensed to fishermen.
Although the area dredged is relatively small and the amount of aggregates dredged has remained fairly constant, I am concerned that the amount exported to other European countries has grown from 11 per cent., or 2.4 million tonnes, in 1988 to 34 per cent., or 7.2 million tonnes, in 1999. In fact, about 50 per cent. of the aggregates extracted off the east coast in 1999 were exported.
The regulation of aggregate extraction differs greatly between land and sea. Licensing for land extraction is carried out locally. The impact of aggregate production on land is easily quantifiable, and the main environmental impacts include heavy goods vehicle traffic--as aggregates are heavy and expensive to move--noise and dust nuisance and potential loss of heritage and amenities. The environmental impacts of land-based production obviously depend on the source, but they would be carefully monitored, with clear data available to assess each project.
Marine extraction is entirely different. Licences to allow prospecting for marine aggregates are generally given by the Crown Estate, which owns the sea bed out
to the 12-mile territorial limit, including the rights to explore and exploit the natural resources present. Local authorities, although consultees on any new licence applications, have no power to prevent dredging off their coastline.Companies wanting to extract any useful aggregates are required to seek permission from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions through the interim Government view procedure. I understand that the full statutory procedure will be introduced later this year for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, in line with the environmental impact assessment and habitats regulations. Scotland is making its own arrangements.
The Government view procedure is a lengthy process, involving an environmental impact assessment and a consultation, which includes the fishing industry, local authorities and the general public. Environmental assessment, consists of among other things, physical and biological surveys, cumulative impact studies and monitoring programmes. There is the provision to hold a public inquiry during the interim and statutory procedures if necessary. Once the Government are satisfied that the extraction will not cause any adverse environmental impact, permission to dredge is given.
There are further restrictions on licensees, such as zoning and seasonal restrictions to help reduce the impact on other sea users. However, despite the strict regulation of marine dredging, which I understand is shortly to become more clearly defined, the wider environmental impact of dredging for marine aggregates is largely unknown, and relatively few studies have been carried out on it.
Two main concerns are raised both by fishermen and by environmentalists about the possible harmful environmental impact of marine dredging. The first is the impact on the marine ecosystem, owing to the disturbance that dredging causes. The other cause for concern is the unknown effect of dredging on coastal erosion, which is a significant issue on the east coast.
It is perhaps easier to gauge the impact of dredging on the marine environment than on coastal erosion, although there are difficulties in assessing even these effects, and as yet there is very little conclusive research. A study was undertaken by the Crown Estate and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in April 1992 off the Norfolk coast to assess the impact of dredging on animals living on the sea bed. The area was chosen because the sediment type was similar to the commercial marine gravel beds. There was an abundance of animals, suitable reference sites were available nearby, and the area was representative of undisturbed sea bed.
Dredging was conducted over a four-day period at the site, with 50,000 tonnes of material removed to a depth of about 30 cm. Samples taken before and after the dredging were compared with samples taken at nearby reference sites to ascertain what changes arose from the dredging activity and what could be put down to natural seasonal fluctuations. An immediate effect of the dredging was that the animal populations were reduced in numbers, variety and total weight. Although recolonisation for certain species went ahead fairly rapidly, full recovery had not been achieved by May 1994, more than two years
after the dredging took place. The range, densities and total weight of the animal species were substantially lower than before dredging.A further study in 1995 showed that the diversity, size and weight of animals in the dredged area were comparable with the reference site. However, although the number of animals had stabilised, they were at a level significantly below those at the reference site. The reason for this is not clear. Sampling will continue at the site to ascertain the longer-term effects.
The study also examined regional influences in the major dredging areas from the Humber to Liverpool bay, focusing on sediment type and the biological communities present. It found that the type of sediment and the prevailing conditions of waves and tides influenced animal communities. The Great Yarmouth bank, which has a high amount of physical disturbance due to the sea conditions, has relatively small populations in comparison with more sheltered sites such as Lyme bay. Animals in the more active sites are dominated by species that live for one to three years, while communities in sheltered areas are more mature. Consequently, stable areas take longer to recover from physical disturbance, as they are dominated by longer-lived, slower-growing animals.
Although the findings of the study seem to indicate that areas of the sea bed that are dredged will recover over time, related factors still have to be assessed. The cumulative impact around clusters of licensed dredging activity is unknown, as is the impact on fish populations, owing to the lack of knowledge about their feeding preferences. Those two issues will be considered as part of further research in the continuing study over the next three years, along with the effect of the sediment plumes created by the fine material disturbed during dredging. The plumes include industrial pollutants that have been discharged into the sea and settled over time on the sea bed. Environmentalists maintain that the marine ecosystem adapts to the introduction of the pollutants once they have settled, but when the sea bed is disturbed during dredging, the pollutants attached to the fine material are put back into suspension in the water, and become once again a substantial threat to sea life. Furthermore, once pollutants and other materials are put back into suspension, it becomes difficult to predict where they will settle.
Although scientists will be studying the impact of sediment plumes, I understand that there is no effective mechanism for tracing fine material that is put into suspension. Approaches have been made to both MAFF and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for funding to develop such a system, but none has yet been granted. One proposed method for analysing the drift of materials is to place a benign tracer in the area before dredging, which will show the movement of the plume. I await with interest the findings of those further studies, and hope that the movement of sediment plume will be addressed.
Although those concerned about the impact of dredging on the marine environment are mainly fishermen, trawling is responsible for similar disruption to the sea bed, and occurs over a larger area. The main difference is that sea bed material is not removed during trawling, but some environmentalists suggest that the impact of trawling must be considered alongside dredging to ensure the long-term survival of the marine environment--and, indeed, of the fishing industry.
The other major issue of concern over the impact of dredging relates to the unknown impact on coastal erosion. Great Yarmouth is a leading tourist resort in the United Kingdom, and our stretches of golden sandy beaches form a large part of our attraction. In recent years, that asset has been under increasing attack from global warming, and the Environment Agency estimates that sea levels are rising by around 6 mm a year.
Dredging takes place at least 4 miles offshore at Great Yarmouth, as the near-shore banks are considered to act as a buffer against strong tides and are an important component in the reduction of the wave energy that causes coastal erosion. However, many scientists believe that the offshore banks, too, play an important part in reducing wave energy and providing sediment for replenishing beaches. There is certainly a case for further research into the role that the banks play in the hydrodynamics of our costal waters before further dredging is undertaken. A case study of the banks off the Great Yarmouth shoreline would provide useful information for future policy.
I appreciate the fact that licensees are required to carry out studies on waves and currents in the area and draw up a model of the estimated impact on coastal erosion before dredging is allowed, and that even the slightest perceived threat would lead to the licence being denied. However, although research to date shows the effects on coastal erosion to be negligible, concerns remain among both environmentalists and local authorities, especially as the sand banks are not properly understood and it is known that they have changed and moved.
I also appreciate the fact that an element of aggregate extracted from the sea is used for beach replenishment and coastal defence--I have had that described to me as "doing nature's work for her"--but in 1999 that accounted for only about 10 per cent. of UK production.
Great Yarmouth borough council, the local authority responsible for coastal protection, has long been concerned about the impact of offshore dredging. The council believes that the offshore banks are closely related to the near-shore stability, given that they can influence wave action.
When they are consulted during the process of granting licences for extraction, both the borough council and Norfolk county council oppose applications on the ground that members have insufficient information that dredging does not have an adverse impact on navigation channels, marine life and coastal erosion. None the less, the view consistently taken by the Government and the Crown Estate is that there is no clear evidence that marine aggregate extraction has such effects. Consequently, licences that meet all other criteria are invariably granted.
It is unsatisfactory when the wishes of local authorities that have responsibility for the protection of their coastlines seem to have no effect on the licensing process. Although my local authorities wish to proceed with caution and allow time for proper research, the Government and the Crown Estate continue to issue licences on the ground that nothing has been proved.
I question the Government's position should research prove that dredging indeed has a sizeable impact on either coastal erosion or the marine ecosystem. One such study that should report early next year is the southern North sea sediment transport study, which is being undertaken by the Crown Estate, MAFF, the Humber estuary coastal
authority group and the Anglian coastal authority group. I am pleased that Great Yarmouth is a project leader in that study.The study, which is in its second phase, will look at sediment movement over a period of time, and will factor in the impact of dredging. The study region runs along the coast between Flamborough head and the River Thames. The research will consider sediment sources, transport pathways, volume of sediment, areas of deposition and offshore sea bed features.
Once the evidence is available from that study and from the research that I mentioned earlier on the biological effects of marine aggregates extraction, we should have a much clearer understanding of the marine environment off the east coast and the effects of dredging. Given the lack of conclusive evidence, I suggest that the caution shown by Great Yarmouth borough council and Norfolk county council is more sensible than proceeding, like the Crown Estate and the Government, on the basis that no news is good news.
I am aware that the marine aggregates production industry in the United Kingdom is an important provider of jobs and wealth to the economy. I have spent the past three years working to improve employment prospects in my constituency, so I do not want to jeopardise jobs. I appreciate the fact that to stop dredging for marine aggregates overnight would lead to a huge shortage in necessary materials in the UK, as well as placing further burdens on land-based production.
However, there is a way in which we can mitigate some of the concerns about dredging, as well as maintaining the industry while we wait for conclusive research. As I mentioned, the export market in marine dredged aggregates has grown substantially over the past 10 years and now represents a third of the market, although overall production has remained more or less stable. By far the largest market for such aggregates is Holland, although they are also sold to France, Belgium and Germany.
Although I recognise that dredging companies must remain commercially viable, I do not believe that a shortfall in demand in the UK market should be made up by export, when the environmental cost to the UK has yet to be ascertained.
The income generated by the Crown Estate through royalties on production provides a sizeable income to the Exchequer, which can only increase after the introduction of the proposed aggregate tax. However, exports are exempt from the tax, which will make them even more appealing to producers and could lead to even higher exports. I am not sure that that will achieve the desired effect of the aggregate tax, as it will undermine the environmental reasons for imposing the levy in the first place.
In conclusion, although the marine extraction of aggregates has undoubtedly helped to lessen the impact of land-based production, it is clear that the environmental impact on the marine ecosystem remains unproven.
I hope that the Government will carefully consider the research that is continuing on the subject, and also consider further research, so that we have a strong body of data on which to base future policy decisions. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider carefully whether it is in the UK's best interest to continue to export our marine minerals at the present levels while the environmental
impact is not proven, and also whether consideration has been given to the impact of the aggregate tax on the export market.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |