On land, habitat restoration and creation are increasingly being used to facilitate development and there is a wide range of techniques available. Sometimes developers operate in contentious circumstances: a relatively recent and wellpublicised example of such habitat translocation and creation work is that which was carried out for Vertigo moulinsiana in the context of the Newbury Bypass construction. This thinking is now finding its way into arguments about the exploitation and development of the marine environment which in turn raises some important questions about its management. The aim of the meeting was to provide a forum to explore concepts of active habitat restoration and creation to see how far they can apply in the marine environment both at the site level and on a wider geographic scale. But to what extent is the marine environment a selfregulating one and what do we know about the ecology of natural recovery and restoration in intertidal and subtidal environments? Fishing, oil production, spoil dumping, aggregate dredging, pollution and human recreational activities…. they all take their toll. Is recovery necessarily vital, how much loss is permissible and can we exploit degraded habitats for further development? What timescales of recovery should we expect? Do we want to ‘garden’ habitats in the sea as we do on land to get the results we want and does it matter if the end results differ from the original natural state?
To answer these concerns and questions a series of case studies was presented throughout the day by representatives from the Conservation agencies, Wildlife Trusts, CEFAS, BT (underwater cables) as well as oil, sea fisheries and aggregate extraction industries. A hierarchy of definitions was given to distinguish between terms such as Recovery, Restoration, Remediation, Rehabilitation. However, the underlying objective in these terms is the same: the Return of an ecosystem to a similar and/or viable state prior to its disturbance or degradation.
Examples of case studies presented included that by Ken Collins of Southampton Oceanography Centre who described the Centre’s artificial reef project as a marine management tool for promoting marine biodiversity, fisheries enhancement, habitat restoration and protection of vulnerable habitats. Another good news story was given by Rebecca Smith of CEFAS. Aspects of the River Crouch Estuary have been studied for over 50 years, mainly on behalf of the commercial interests in populations of the native oyster, Ostrea edulis largely to establish reasons for their decline. But more recently their work has been directed towards the consequences of the use of TBT-based antifouling paints. Following their ban on vessels <25m in length in 1987, the response in the environment was relatively rapid with low levels of TBT recorded at all sampling locations from 1992 onwards. Additionally there was an improvement in faunal communities, a shell thickening in local stocks of Ostrea edulis and a recovery in the local Littorina littorea population. Like Nucella lapillus, Littorina had also manifested similar adverse anatomical effects and decline in numbers. A further ban on the use of TBT paints on large vessels was introduced in 2003 and we might expect that concentrations of TBT in docks and harbours will decline rapidly, with associated ecosystem benefits.
Despite the two foregoing examples, Keith Hiscock of the Marine Biological Association of the UK was moved to point out that there are numerous case studies in the Journal of Missed Opportunities where baseline information and routine monitoring which would be so beneficial in informing trends observed in the present day are lacking! This point was reiterated in the plenary session at the end of the afternoon and the value of databases, such as the one this Society holds on marine molluscs, was highlighted because they contain important and useful information accrued over many years, which results from regular monitoring, surveys and structured- or spontaneous field-work. With its transfer to the NBN it will become more widely available and thus have an increased role to play in protecting and conserving the marine environment.
These implications for the Society should be seen in the wider context of the proposed Marine Bill. Over the last 3 or 4 years there have been a plethora of high level policy consultations concerning a wide range of issues covering the coastal and marine environment; and many of these issues are still unresolved. At the January 2005 Coastal Futures Conference the Government announced that it was considering a draft Marine Bill. The commitment to this appeared in the Labour Party Manifesto in April 2005 as follows: “Through a Marine Act, we will introduce a new framework for the seas, based on marine spatial planning, that balances conservation, energy and resource needs. To obtain best value from different uses of our valuable marine resources, we must maintain and protect the ecosystems on which they depend.” The Marine Bill proposals also received support from the two other main political parties.
Such a measure is long overdue and indeed such an opportunity for changes to marine and coastal legislation only occurs every decade or so. This bill represents a golden opportunity for the marine constituency to achieve wideranging changes that deliver the Government’s commitments to sustainable development. This will be achieved by securing important changes for industry, enhancing environmental protection, and obtaining benefits for those who use and depend upon the coastal and marine environment. In furthering sustainable development the bill should also provide greater integration in the way we manage our coastal and marine activities.