Home > Press releases > 2004 > NEW PORTS THREAT TO WILDLIFE

Making life better for people by inspiring solutions to environmental problems

2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994

NEW PORTS THREAT TO WILDLIFE

Feb 4 2004

Campaigners today say that decisions on new ports should be put on hold until a coherent strategy for port development is produced by the government.

In Troubled Waters, the group's manifesto published today, Portswatch says the potential of existing ports should be explored and overall demand assessed nationally rather than new port applications being considered alone. This would limit damage to legally protected wildlife sites and disruption to local communities.

There are currently four proposals for major new ports, either at the planning stage or awaiting a decision by ministers.

In November the Transport Select Committee said: "The government must consider individual applications in the context of national policy and this may mean that it cannot consider single projects in isolation. There are compelling arguments for planning at an integrated national rather than individual level."

The government published its response last week, claiming that ports were unlikely to become major development hubs in their own right, take land from nearby communities or place heavy burdens on road and rail infrastructure. The response added: "If sufficient expansion results, it may be many years before there is a need for further expansion".

Tony Juniper, Executive Director of Friends of the Earth said:

"New port construction around our crowded coast will inevitably have major impacts for wildlife, the environment and local communities. Our coastal areas are a major national asset that are already under stress and that must not be further sacrificed for the convenience of making short term and ad hoc decisions driven forward by the vested interests of the ports companies.

"We need a ports strategy that truly reflects the principles of sustainable development, and that means taking decisions that reflect the long term and that have people and the environment at their heart".

Graham Wynne, Chief Executive of the RSPB said:

"Giving consent to one port application without considering all the alternatives is plain daft and may well be illegal too. Only Government can give proper strategic guidance on far-reaching land use allocations. To fail to do so is absurd and an abdication of responsibility."

Stephen Joseph, Executive Director Transport 2000 said:

"Ports need to be part of integrated transport, and should be developed so as reduce the need for road and air goods travel, and to maximise the use of short-sea shipping and rail access to ports. Without a national ports strategy, and policies for associated landside infrastructure, we will see significant increases in lorry traffic and port proposals may well be used to justify large-scale environmentally damaging warehousing and industrial development."

Notes

• portswatch is a new campaigning network that has been established by a group of leading national environmental NGOs to prevent the destruction of sensitive coastal areas, the overburdening of landside transport infrastructure, and the negative impacts upon related communities caused by the major deep sea container port developments now being proposed.

• The founding members include Campaign to Protect Rural England (East of England)(CPRE), Friends of the Earth, Marine Conservation Society (MCS), Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), Transport 2000 (T2000), Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS), Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (WWT), and the Wildlife Trusts.

• The Transport Select Committee's Ninth Report of the 2002-03 Session, on Ports (HC 783-I) said:

  The Secretary of State must examine all alternative plans for meeting predicted container port demand currently in the planning system in order to select the least damaging proposal or proposals which meet the identified need (paragraph 151);

• Although government appears to accept that capacity planning and forecasting is essential to any integrated transport strategy, it is not prepared to be pro-active in this area (paragraph 92) It is necessary to know how much additional capacity is needed...The government must undertake such forecasts to ensure adequate port planning at a national level (paragraph 96);

• Operation of a port is dependent on intermodal links, which must form part of any UK ports policy....(paragraph 99). A more comprehensive strategic framework is required to ensure the integration of port development into a sustainable transport strategy to encourage environmental benefits (paragraph 136);

• The government intends to set out a clear framework to guide the aviation industry in its proposals for new airport capacity. We do not see why it cannot take a similar approach for ports.....There are compelling arguments for planning at an integrated national rather than individual level (paragraph 154);

• The government supports Lord Berkeley's Harbours Bill introduced in the House of Lords because it will "help to speed up the approvals process".

• Government treats airports "as a special case", as "a matter of particular national importance" and claims "the impacts at a local and global level justify a strategic approach".

• "Compared with ports, airports are much more likely to become major development hubs in their own right, requiring land-take close to urban areas, placing heavy burdens on road and rail access infrastructure".

• Government believes that proposals for port expansion "should be treated as far as possible in the same way as other commercial and industrial development".

• Government agrees that "predictions of demand in respect of container traffic are consistent in concluding that significant capacity increases are needed". However, it continues: "It does not follow from this that the Government must itself make forecasts to ensure adequate port planning at a national level".

• "Currently, it would neither be justifiable nor practicable to formulate now an integrated national ports plan within which to assess the applications for container port expansion… It would be unacceptable to hold up decisions on those applications until the lengthy and resource-intensive process of preparing a plan could be completed".

• Dibden Bay: In the Southampton Bay Special Protection Area (an EU designation) and a Site of Special Scientific Interest. Holds more than 50,000 waterfowl in winter, and in summer is an internationally important site designated for five breeding species: Mediterranean gull, Sandwich tern, common tern, little tern, roseate tern - and four migrant species: dark-bellied Brent geese, teal, ringed plover, black-tailed godwit. It will result in the loss of at least 76 hectares of inter-tidal habitat and 240 hectares of grassland. It will generate 4,700 vehicle movements and 48 train movements per day. Air, noise, water and light pollution will all increase and clear, tranquil views from Southampton will be lost. The public inquiry has finished and the Inspector's report has been sent to the Department for Transport. A decision is expected imminently.

• The London Gateway (Shell Haven), Essex: Adjacent to the Thames Estuary and Marshes Special Protection Area and a Site of Special Scientific Interest. An internationally important site for avocets, hen harriers and ringed plovers and holds more than 33,000 wintering waterfowl. It will result in the loss of at least 25 ha of undesignated and changes to approximately 60 ha of designated inter-tidal habitat. It will generate 11,992 vehicle movements and 60 train movements per day. Air, noise, water and light pollution will all increase and there will be the loss of open green space, wildlife and tranquility. The public inquiry has finished and the Inspector's report is expected in February, 2004.

• Bathside Bay, Harwich, Essex: Proposed as an extension to Stour and Orwell Estuaries Special Protection Area and is a recently notified Site of Special Scientific Interest: More than 65,000 wintering waterfowl; internationally important for nine species, including black-tailed godwit, dunlin, redshank, grey plover, ringed plover. It will result in the loss of at least 69 hectares of notified inter-tidal habitat. It will generate 4,170 vehicle movements; 8-12 train movements per day. Air, noise, water and light pollution will all increase and there will be the loss of recreational space, wildlife and tranquillity. The public inquiry into the Bathside proposals is scheduled to begin on 20 April 2004.

• Felixstowe South, Suffolk: This development is broadly comparable to Bathside Bay in size, e.g. 910m (additional) quay and 13 quayside cranes. It is a redevelopment of an existing port facility, which would be likely to lead to the loss of 28 hectares of sub-tidal habitat due to increased dredging.

• Portswatch wants a moratorium on decisions by the Secretary of State on all proposed deep sea container port developments including Dibden Bay, London Gateway and Bathside Bay until:

• A methodology for determining the possible need for greater port capacity has been widely agreed

• It is demonstrated that the best use is being made of existing ports

• A national spatial strategy has been developed to indicate suitable/preferred and environmentally responsible locations for major port developments

• The concept of `environmental footprinting' of ports and their associated infrastructure is used to make decisions about proposed port developments

• Demand management techniques have been introduced to promote short sea and coastal shipping in order to decrease over-concentration on ports in the South East and East of England and their associated landside transport infrastructure

• An assessment of how port developments contribute to meeting integrated transport objectives has been completed.

• Portswatch wants the government to make a decision on port development `in the round' giving full weight to the environment and the principles of sustainable development in all decisions on new ports and port extensions.

Copyright © Friends of the Earth | Contact Us |
Support Friends of the Earth