Killing Joke:

How Defra

Dismissed the

Tees Bay Die-off

Dead Razor Clams on Saltburn Beach, 21 September 2022

Scott Hunter

7 October 2022

So, Cefas is explicit that it was this photo that led them to hypothesise that the cause of the die-off was the red HAB, Karenia mikimotoi.

 But there’s more. Notice that under the satellite image of the HAB is the statement that it shows algal bloom at South Shields as well as Teesside. The EA, in its January 2022 report, states:

“Medium/high values of K.mikimotoi were detected in samples off the Beadnell Bay in early September.”

Now, Beadnell Bay, just south of Lindisfarne, is a considerable distance from Teesside. We travelled to that area recently and chatted to some inshore fisherman there about the die-off. They were cynical about the algal bloom theory, pointing out that that throughout the time dead crab were being washed ashore in Tees Bay, the fishermen in and around Beadnell were finding only healthy crab, in abundance, with no sign of die-off. We note that there have also been no reports of die-off in the vicinity of South Shields.

Same type of HAB, same time, no die-off. And no explanation by the EA or Cefas as to why this might be the case.

Within a month a report was published by Defra that gave Harmful Algal Bloom as the most likely cause and dismissed all other possible explanations. Shortly afterwards the investigation was closed. Never to be reopened. A final report, published in June, restated this conclusion. At least by this time they’d stopped using Stan’s rust photo to illustrate their reports.

The Channel 4 report states that when they approached the EA/Defra, they denied that they had used Stan’s photo to bolster their case. By showing the EA’s document seems to contradict this claim. What is undeniable, however, is that Cefas connects the photo with algal bloom quite explicitly.

We wrote to the EA this week to ask for their response to the allegation made against them in the Channel 4 programme. Their response:

“On the metal dust photo claim:

• The photograph shown on the Channel 4 report of scrap metal dust in Hartlepool did not contribute to the conclusion that crustacean deaths were likely to be caused by an algal bloom. It was not used in, nor did it influence, the technical findings of the investigation.
• The EA received the photograph from a member of the public reporting discolouration in the water in September 2021. This had already been investigated and found to be metal dust.
• The hypothesis that the red colouration of the water in the photograph was due to an algal bloom was briefly considered but quickly discounted upon investigation.”
• 
  

This raises another question, however. Why, given that they were considering algal bloom from the outset as a possible cause, did they not go and take their own photos of it in the bay? Because there definitely was one. No one is denying that, even though the only evidence of it that Defra’s agencies have are some satellite images taken by Plymouth Marine Laboratory.

Let down by the weather

 If the idea that algal bloom was the cause seemed unlikely to many when Defra published its first report in February, subsequent die-off events made Defra’s insistence on it appear completely ludicrous. At least it did to most people. Defra continued to have its cheerleaders – Tees Valley mayor, Ben Houchen, and local MPs, Jacob Young and Simon Clarke.  In addition to these, PD Ports have also claimed to accept the algal bloom explanation.

When further die-off occurred, Defra dismissed these as being ‘low numbers’, as if people would fail to observe that stocks had not recovered, so subsequent die-off could inevitably only involve low numbers. As for reports that the kelp was also either dead or in very poor health, these elicited no comment at all.

Then came the wash-up of mussels and razor clams at Saltburn on 21 September, and Defra finally released a statement. They made a statement saying the wash up was caused by the weather:

“Environment Agency officers are attending reports of seaweed and deceased marine life being washed up on beaches on the North East coast. This is a regular occurrence at this time of year and follows stormy conditions over the weekend which can often have a significant impact on the marine environment. 

“We are mindful of the high number of shellfish washed up last winter, and continue to monitor stocks closely. A comprehensive investigation was conducted earlier this year, concluding a naturally occurring algal bloom was the most likely cause.”

It went on to explain that high waves were predicted on Friday 16 September.

So, we sent their statement to Stan to see what he thought of it. 

Not much, as it turns out. In addition to pointing out that it hardly amounted to a storm, he had this to say:

“Storms rip the weed and roots off. These 5ft deep piles washed up on Hartlepool north sands were stalks and leaves. "They are weak and dying.

“There [were] … only stalks left on some kelp beds weeks ago”

The 5ft deep piles of seaweed at Hartlepool were photographed by another local fisher, Jamie Wid, on 22 September:

Vast quantities of kelp washed up on the beach at Hartlepool

Jamie commented, “The shocking amount of dead sea kelp washed up on Hartlepool north sands today is the sign of a struggling ecosystem.”

When Jamie posted that comment on Facebook, another local fisher had this to say in response:

“I have walked and fished this beach for over 50 years I have worked as a fisherman making a living from it I have had boats all my life and have never ever seen anything like this before, there’s obviously something wrong going on for the sea to spew this amount of weed out”.

Secretary of Whitby Fishermen’s Association, Joe Redfern, had slightly different concerns about Defra’s explanation of the events at Saltburn:

“How about the razor clams (which live buried in the sand) and large amount of mussels attached to rocks?

“There were hundreds of them. The Storm wasn't large enough to cause all that to wash up”.

In simple terms, it is not in dispute that storms result in shellfish being washed up on beaches, but, given that mussels and razor clams are well stuck down, it would take a particularly violent storm for them to be dislodged.

So, Defra and its partner agencies now have an image problem. The environmental catastrophe has received considerable coverage in the local press in recent months, and some reports have also appeared in national media. And at least locally, the conviction that these episodes are pollution-related is widespread, despite the loud declarations of support for defra by some local political figures.

So, how are the agencies dealing with this credibility gap? Not very well, it would appear.

After the die-off at Saltburn, we wrote to the EA to ask if they had carried out any toxicology on the shellfish washed up on the beach. (We also approached Cefas, whose responsibility it would have been to undertake toxicology, but they just directed us back to the EA). The EA response:

“… following recent stormy conditions, wash up of marine life is a natural occurrence at this time of year. We did send an officer to the site last week to investigate and believe that high wave action in shallow waters has caused large amounts of seaweed and other marine life to wash up.”

So, that’s a no then.

Despite successive die-off events, all the government agencies can do is to blame it on the weather, and make no effort whatsoever to investigate alternative possibilities.

But they are at least monitoring stocks. Or rather, this is being done for them by yet another agency – the North Eastern Association of Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (NEIFCA).

Die-off? What die-off?

NEIFCA produced the Tees and North Yorkshire Stock Monitoring Report in September. Its content might be summarised as ‘reports of die-off have been greatly exaggerated’. The executive summary states

“Significant reductions in landings for both lobsters and edible crabs in late 2021 were not evident …

“Shellfish health monitoring undertaken during surveys encountered very low numbers of dead or symptomatic shellfish, suggesting that no persistent health concerns remain.”

While its conclusion adds the following caveat:

“This does not preclude the possibility that some highly localised fishing grounds suffered significant mortalities, but at a regional scale, landings in late 2021 were broadly in line with historic data and a significant reduction in landings in October and November were not observed.”

In short, last year’s mass mortality has ceased to be a fact  and is now a ‘possibility’. Which must be music to Defra’s ears.

Stan, on the other hand, is less than impressed by what he sees. Here is egregious manipulation of data where large commercial boats that do not fish in inshore waters have their catch included to artificially inflate the numbers and that fails to acknowledge that local fishers now routinely have to sail much further afield to obtain any catch at all. He characterises the contents of the report as:

“Using landing data when fishers are going further afield, to get out of the die off areas, putting more gear in the water to try make up for catches, THEN adding catches from visiting nomadic large scale crabbers' landing info, working many thousands of pots each, not only fishing outside the inside die offs affected areas, not only fishing outside NEIFCA CONTROL AREAS, but outside the 12 mile, to 50 miles Bayman's AND BEYOND.”

We wrote to NEIFCA to ask for their response to this criticism. Their response?

No response. No surprise there. (But please see addendum to this article)

This is no legitimate appraisal of current stocks. It is toadying on speed. We hope that even the powers that be at Defra will be cringing over this one.

Algal Bloom, an excuse not a theory

It seems that no matter how often Defra and its partner agencies are exposed as inept over their handling of this crisis, their response is simply to deny the truth and carry on. Where once there were scientists, now there are box tickers. And there is no shortage of agencies ready and willing to produce convenient data to order. 

It is abundantly clear that pointing to algal bloom as the cause of the first die-off event is not a theory, it is an excuse. And this bogus explanation benefits whoever or what ever really lies behind that event. A vested interest is being shielded.

Deregulation in action. 

Addendum 1.

Following publication of this article we received a reponse ot our inquiry from NEIFCA.  that response is presented here in full:

"The report referenced within your email provides a broad appraisal of the current picture of the state and health of the wider crustacea stock covering an area from Hartlepool to Scarborough. its findings are based on the best available evidence and data to hand including a range of catch and effort data, observer gathered information from potting vessels working within the area and data gathered directly from survey work conducted by NEIFCA. A considerable amount of care has been taken to refine the catch and effort data to reduce the biased effects of the offshore crab fishery prosecuted from Hartlepool and the influences of that fishery are clearly articulated and caveated within the report itself.

"Whilst the broader picture, in terms of stock health, is reassuring, the report does caveat that some observed reductions in the presence of crab and lobster persist and the findings of the report, as stated, do not preclude that some localised fishing grounds have suffered significant mortality. Outside ongoing stock monitoring NEIFCA is continuing to actively engage and work collaboratively with local fishing industry and national technical leads to further expand the knowledge and understanding of events to date since the first reports were received at the beginning of October 2021."

Addendum 2. 

The Whitby Fishing Collective has launched an appeal to help fund their efforts carry out further investigation.  To contribute, follow the link below:

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/northeastfishingcollective?utm_term=wnzdawkM2