I can’t believe the deeply inappropriate, bizarre proposal from Melbourne Marine Services and Forth Ports to make regular ship-to-ship oil transfers in the Firth of Forth close to breeding seabird colonies and marine mammals. The oil is Russian export blend crude (REBCO), a very dense thick oil which is persistent in the event of spillage, would increase the risk of a Firth of Forth oil spill by at least 20%.

 

As a resident of North Berwick, on the Firth of Forth, I am one of those who feels incredibly fortunate to have the world’s largest single-island gannet colony on the Bass Rock, what David Attenborough called “one of the 12 wildlife wonders of the world”, and the spectacular puffin and other seabird colonies, the breeding colonies of seals and seabirds on the nearby Isle of May, and the northernmost bottlenose dolphins, as well as other important whale and dolphin populations. We have a responsibility with regard to the European Union Birds and Habitats & Species directives as they relate to seabirds, seals, dolphins and porpoises to protect these species and their habitats. Of course, most of us do care very much about these species and their habitats and the overall ecosystem that supports them, and we want to protect them. And that clearly means not exposing them to greater risk by adding ship to ship oil transfers to the oil transport traffic already coming through the Firth of Forth.

 

SNH and local authorities, the agencies that would be left to help clean up the mess in the event of an oil spill, have all written letters  rejecting the ship to ship transfers and the revised oil spill plan.  The lifeblood tourism industry all around the area is not willing to take the risk. WDCS and I have separately written letters from the cetacean point of view, presenting records of local sightings, and outlining likely scenarios if there were a spill. For the cetaceans alone, there is a great deal more that needs to be considered besides what is contained in the revised oil spill plan (which essentially dismisses the Firth of Forth as unimportant to cetaceans).

 

Extracted from my letter are these two key points about the resident northeast Scotland bottlenose dolphins:

• In 2004, dolphin researcher Ben Wilson and his colleagues noted that the Eastern Scotland bottlenose dolphins, since the early 1990s, have expanded their range to areas well outside the SAC in the Moray Firth to the southeastern coast of Scotland including St. Andrews and the Firth of Forth. The researchers say that the most likely reason for range expansion is the search for prey resources and they recommended that provision must be made to incorporate the mobility of a population into management structures for  special areas of conservation (SACs). If SACs can only protect part of the habitat, particularly with a small population of only 130 individuals which is already expected to be highly vulnerable to extinction (Soulé 1990), it may have grave consequences for the population. Since Wilson’s paper, Stockin et al (2006) have confirmed that the population has continued to expand its range, with long excursions outside the Moray Firth and along the East coast of Scotland throughout the year (sightings recorded in all months except December).

Most important of all, as the Scottish Seabird Centre, RSPB, WWF, WDCS, the Marine Conservation Society, Friends of the Earth and many other groups have advised, all proposals for ship-to-ship oil transfers should be put on hold until they can be assessed by new national regulations which would incorporate provisions of the EU Habitats & Species Directive and allow consideration of alternative solutions which are in the public interest.  This advice has cross-party support in Westminster as well as in Holyrood. But for the moment, until this plan is rejected or approved, we are all waiting to see what will happen.