Nevertheless, government agencies have continued to maintain that an algal bloom probably caused the deaths, despite evidence from released documents of high levels of uncertainty about this conclusion.
And DEFRA has refused to release email correspondence from its ministers Victoria Prentis and George Eustice relating to the incident, on the grounds that it was “manifestly unreasonable” and not in the public interest to publish the emails.
Meanwhile, the fishing communities affected by last year’s incident are still reporting lower-than-expected catches and the government decision to stick to the line that this was a naturally occurring incident provides the excuse to deny much-needed financial support to the struggling fisheries whilst simultaneously allowing the dredging in the Tees Estuary to continue uninterrupted.
In June, the MP for Stockton North, Alex Cunningham, introduced a debate in Parliament to discuss the case. Prentis again ruled out dredging as the cause, while also claiming: “We may never know for sure what caused the event.”
DEFRA told openDemocracy the investigation was “a complex area of research”.
A deep dive: did dredging cause this chaos?
Documents released by PD Ports to openDemocracy through EIR requests cast serious doubt on DEFRA’s continued insistence on ruling out dredging as a cause.
They reveal that huge amounts of contaminated sediment from the bottom of the Tees were dredged in the same weeks that tens of thousands of crabs and lobsters started washing up dead along the nearby coastline.
To bolster its algae theory, DEFRA provided a satellite image of a possible ‘bloom’ that appeared in the Tees Estuary between 9 and 15 October 2021. However, the image came with the caveat that some “uncertainties” remained on how to interpret “satellite data in near shore waters”. And openDemocracy has found that the timing and location of the satellite image coincides with PD Teesport’s dredging of over 317,000 tonnes of sediment, which was later disposed of at sea.
Internal documents released to openDemocracy suggest that agencies did not in fact rule out man-made activities as a cause of the bloom. Minutes of a meeting from December 2021 between the key agencies involved in the investigation, labelled “official sensitive”, noted: “This event is generally natural, but it does not mean it could not be influenced by human intervention.”
Another email between investigators at the UK Health Security Agency suggests: “Released nutrients from e.g. dredging could theoretically influence algal bloom.”
Other documents reveal that the Environment Agency (EA) seemingly ruled out both “algae toxins” and a “natural event” in a November 2021 presentation. The Powerpoint noted that the “behaviour and longevity mean it is unlikely that a ‘natural event’ caused the deaths”. The presentation noted that dredging was “not ruled out yet” and was the “most serious line of enquiry to be investigated”.
The released documents also show that the EA was aware of the high level of Pyridine in the dead crabs, with test results of crabs impacted by the pollution event showing Pyridine levels hitting 439.611mg/kg – a figure that is an eye-watering 7,000% higher than crabs sampled in Penzance during the same period.
Comments
We encourage anyone to comment, please consult the oD commenting guidelines if you have any questions.