NEW PORTS THREAT TO WILDLIFE

FOE

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

Portswatch, a consortium of eight environmental and transport NGOs, says ministers have yet to prove that more ports are needed or say where they should go if they are.

In Troubled Waters, the group's manifesto, 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: "Whilst extra port capacity maybe needed, government has so far failed to make the case. The sacrifice of so much of the wildlife for which the UK has an international responsibility to make way for new ports is unnecessary.

"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."

Click here for a complete list of books about marine wildlife