Surfbirds News

« Galapagos Islands Warning | Main | Senate OKs Broad Waiver for Pentagon on Migratory Birds »

October 04, 2002

RSPB Answers Cliffe Questions

SB Q - The RSPB are obviously very aginst the airport proposal!

PH A - The RSPB is extremely concerned by the Government's proposal for a new airport on the North Kent Marshes, centred on Cliffe, as one of its options for infrastructure expansion in the current consultation on runway capacity in South East England, we are calling on the Department for Transport to rule out the option of a new airport at Cliffe when it publishes its definitive Aviation White Paper early next year. As soon as the news was first leaked in the FT back in March, our Chief Executive Graham Wynne wrote to John Spellar to communicate that we would oppose the proposal vigorously. I was tasked with the role of NA@C RSPB campaign co-ordinator and immediately began active campaigning here on the peninsular, by the end of May we were out on the ground and had provided the NO AIRPORT AT CLIFFE slogan, first phase leaflets, T-shirts etc, with dedicated pages on the RSPB website up and running, we've enjoyed much mutual support, working with a whole variety of concerned groups and individuals, especially the communities, councils and conservationists. The Cliffe option shouldn't even have been included in SERAS in my view!

SB Q - Are the SERAS report economic benefit forecasts convincing?

PH A - No, the South East Regional Air Study (SERAS) contends that building a four-runway airport at Cliffe would cost 8.9 billion-by far the most expensive option-but would produce 17.3 billion in benefits, creating a net benefit of 8.4 billion. However, there are other, ambiguous figures contained in the document - For example, the SERAS summary document admits that building a four-runway airport at Cliffe could incur capital costs of up to 11.5bn, which is 2.6bn more than the figure used in the cost benefit analysis.

SERAS goes on to say that, if CO2 emissions charging were enforced, economic benefits would be reduced by an additional 1 billion. These uncertainties mean it is very difficult to get an accurate picture of how much Cliffe would cost, and what the economic benefits would be. One thing is clear, though whichever way you look at it, Cliffe is the most expensive option on the table.

SB Q - Can you be more specific regarding costs?

PH A - Estimated costs of Cliffe have been grossly underestimated not least because a number of aspects have not been included. These are additional costs relating to: risk 700m; earthworks 500m; airport 600m; lower Thames crossing 500m; environmental compensation 300m; rail and road access 200m. The total cost of Cliffe might well be underestimated by somewhere in the region of 3bn, which will have a significant impact on net present value of the project.

SB Q - Would the proposal compliment regional regeneration?

PH A -There are serious problems with the contention that an airport at Cliffe would regenerate the regional economy. Kent County Council, who oppose an airport at Cliffe, argued in a public statement (July 23): That the South East Regional Aviation Study (SERAS) does not include a dedicated new rail-link from the airport to London, domestic and international rail services may have to be reduced to make room for the 100,000 airport passengers a day expected to travel by rail - equivalent to the total Kent commuters a day travelling to London already. Kent County Council also argues that there is already concern about the capacity of the M25 to take this increase from the Kent side of London, and that; "It makes absolutely no sense to put an airport in Kent on the far side of London, away from the rest of England." Kent County Council is also concerned that it would distract from the regeneration schemes already in place for the Kent Thames Gateway. This should come as no surprise. The Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment (SACTRA) examined the links between transport provision in general and economic activity (SACTRA, 1999). SACTRA found that new transport infrastructure does not necessarily lead to any gains in economic performance, and only has a role to play in economic regeneration if a whole number of other factors are also put into place.

SB Q - What are the environmental consequences?

PH A - Devastating, some say surely only King Canute could imagine preventing wave after wave of birds using this precious area as a migration hub, as they have done throughout the ages, land within a 13km radius would effectively have to be rendered unsuitable for birds according to CAA guidelines, which is a mammoth unprecedented piece of hypothesis in this case. By the way, an interesting observation is that the compensation area suggested to compensate for Cliffe (on the Isle of Thanet) is actually within 13km of Manston!

Cliffe is the wrong place for any major infrastructure development, let alone a new airport, given its outstanding value to wildlife and its consequent protected status under both national and international law. The proposed airport would destroy large areas of proven national, European and international importance for wildlife. This includes important wetland and estuarine habitats, including part of four Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and the Thames Estuary and Marshes Special Protection Area and Ramsar site. The Thames is one of the most important sites for waterfowl in the UK, supporting an average of over 155,000 wintering waders and wildfowl. The area supports internationally important numbers of brent goose, oystercatcher, ringed plover, grey plover, knot, dunlin, bar-tailed godwit and redshank during winter. The proposed airport would also destroy most of the RSPB's Nature Reserve at Northward Hill and affect a number of other important landholdings in the area.

This part of Kent also has high historic, cultural and landscape value and, assuming the area's many assets are nurtured, it will play an important role in the regeneration of the Thames Gateway. Many organisations have been working together imaginatively to ensure that this potential is fulfilled. Overall, a new airport at Cliffe would be one of the most environmentally damaging proposals ever seen in the UK.

SB Q - What about demand management?

PH A - The RSPB's work on aviation focuses on its environmental impact, both in terms of direct impact on important wildlife sites and the indirect effects of emissions from aviation and associated infrastructure on climate change. The "predict and provide" approach to policy, which failed for roads, is failing too for aviation. Instead, we believe that the overarching principle for policy on air travel should be to manage demand within environmental and social limits, through policy mechanisms such as:

Bringing responsibility for aviation emissions within the remit of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol. Once there, aviation emissions would be capped and could be traded with other emissions. Also, as a matter of urgency, resolving the issue of allocating emissions to countries, by point of sale of fuel. If responsibility for emissions remains in the International Civil Aviation Organisation, impose a standard rate of tax, world-wide. (This would not be levied internationally but in each country at the same rate.)

Meanwhile, in the interim, the EU imposing a tax on fuels used on all flights within the EU. At a minimum, the UK should impose a fuel tax on domestic flights. Plus, introducing VAT or a sales tax on all flights, preferably a standard tax across the EU but, in the first instance, certainly in the UK. Then there's adding an environmental surcharge to the Air Passenger Duty, auction takeoff and landing slots and introducing a 'dual till' approach to takeoff and landing charges, as well as promoting alternatives to aviation for short-distance travel, notably rail.

According to the Department for Transport's own analysis, it would be extremely cheap to create a vast reduction in demand. If GDP were to fall by 0.5%, from the assumed average of 2.25% per year to 1.75% per year, passenger numbers would fall from about 400 million in 2020 to about 330 million. If airfares did not fall at 1% each year but remained constant, demand in 2020 would fall dramatically from about 400 million to about 300 million (i.e. roughly a 50% increase on present demand rather than 100%). This demonstrates that demand can be managed simply, and without imposing anywhere near the tax burden on aviation that the other transport sectors bear.

SB Q - What about efficiency savings?

PH A - We strongly believe that any unavoidable need for capacity expansion should be strictly limited and met first by improved efficiencies and only then by new airports infrastructure. The Government is committed to making best use of existing infrastructure, which it should do by increasing the efficiency of main airports. This can be achieved with improvements in air traffic control, baggage handling and aircraft wing design.

SB Q - Jools Holland is a high profile NA@C campaigner isn't he?

PH A - Yes, Jools has indeed been terrific in his support, generously sharing his media spotlight and valuable input with the NA@C campaign, I have worked with him quite closely and have upmost respect for the man and his many talents, he has a very very real love for the area and thinks it is quite magical, sentiments that I share entirely!

Bill Oddie came onboard early on in the campaign too, as has born and bred local actor Chris Simmonds, who stars in the TV series The Bill, every pocket of Cliffe and the marshes have special memories for Chris, whilst Bill Oddie has been visiting the area to watch birds and enjoy the natural beauty here for decades.

SB Q - Have you any other points you would like to make?

PH A - We must keep up the pressure, for example on the 7th of December the RSPB are hosting a boat trip along the Thames to view the threatened marshes from the great river, we will have over 100 young people onboard, including members of Medway Youth Parliament, this is to be sure that the youth are aware that their heritage is under threat, Bob Marshall Andrews will also sail with us, so as to add his highly valued stalwart support, his sterling opposition has been without hesitation and unflinching!

I'm of course very aware that homes and peoples lives would be destroyed if the proposed airport went ahead - 1,100 homes are actually quoted in the report. I would like to take this opportunity to say that we will do all that we can to fight these ludicrous proposals, so that future generations can enjoy their natural, national, indeed international heritage that is under threat. Conservation groups and the community are all in this together, we are united and we will make sure our message is heard loud and clear - NO AIRPORT AT CLIFFE!

As the RSPB motto says: FOR BIRDS, FOR PEOPLE, FOR EVER!

Posted by Surfbirds at October 4, 2002 11:18 PM

Comments

Post a comment