0:00:00 > 0:00:05Welcome to the start of a new series. I am in Essex, near Dale
0:00:05 > 0:00:09Farm. I will be finding out just why this area became so attractive
0:00:09 > 0:00:14to travellers. I meet the professor who helped the
0:00:14 > 0:00:18first travellers make their homes here, 30 years ago. I did the first
0:00:19 > 0:00:24appeal. He was the legal consultant to have the original families get
0:00:24 > 0:00:29permission to live here. All so on the programme, quite
0:00:29 > 0:00:34burning rubbish might be a waste of money. They have to feed this for
0:00:34 > 0:00:3825 years. Clearly, they will not be recycling but burning. And we
0:00:38 > 0:00:45examine compelling evidence that tiny creatures are responsible for
0:00:46 > 0:00:55destroying part of our coastline. There is a crab in here! That's
0:00:56 > 0:01:10
0:01:10 > 0:01:18To just a mile or so from here is Dale Farm. I have been looking into
0:01:18 > 0:01:21why it became the largest travellers' site in Britain. He it
0:01:21 > 0:01:25is the largest travellers' site in Europe.
0:01:25 > 0:01:31In August this year, after 10 years of battle with the council, the
0:01:31 > 0:01:36travellers are on the brink of eviction. In the interests of
0:01:36 > 0:01:44health and safety, is there anything I can say or do that will
0:01:44 > 0:01:49persuade you to remove yourself in an orderly manner? Back at the 11th
0:01:49 > 0:01:54hour, the clearance stops in its tracks. Arguments are submitted by
0:01:54 > 0:01:59the travellers at the High Court. Every submission means more delays.
0:01:59 > 0:02:02Feelings are running high among travellers and local residents.
0:02:02 > 0:02:05have put in twice for planning permission and been turned down
0:02:05 > 0:02:10twice, and I have accepted it because that is what the law has
0:02:10 > 0:02:13said. See if they go ahead and stay there I will have the biggest house
0:02:13 > 0:02:19you have ever seen on the smallest plot of land, and I don't care!
0:02:19 > 0:02:25What we think, how we feel, is not relevant. It is against the law. It
0:02:25 > 0:02:28is that simple. Not long before that first eviction attempt, I went
0:02:28 > 0:02:33to Dale Farm to find out why they came, and to meet the man who
0:02:33 > 0:02:37helped them make this their home in the first place. It is just two
0:02:37 > 0:02:45weeks to go until the deadline for the eviction. But residents are
0:02:45 > 0:02:51determined to fight and stayed. The site is a large rectangle, 150
0:02:51 > 0:02:57metres by about 350 metres. It is all owned by the travellers, but
0:02:57 > 0:03:01about half of them do not have planning permission. The other half,
0:03:01 > 0:03:05those but live on this side, too have planning permission. Basildon
0:03:05 > 0:03:10council plan to remove everything on the so-called illegal side, but
0:03:10 > 0:03:16now, the High Court has ruled even some of those homes are in fact
0:03:16 > 0:03:22legal. Tensions are running high. And surprisingly, all visitors are
0:03:22 > 0:03:29viewed with suspicion -- unsurprisingly. My name is Robert
0:03:29 > 0:03:33home, I did the first appeals. These travellers might not remember
0:03:33 > 0:03:37him, but this is the man who played a large part in starting it all. 30
0:03:37 > 0:03:43years ago, he was a legal consultant to help the original
0:03:43 > 0:03:50families get permission to live here. So it is all my fault! I
0:03:50 > 0:03:56started it! I was first involved when to gypsy families wanted
0:03:56 > 0:04:01planning permission for single family plots here. And we fought it
0:04:01 > 0:04:07against Basildon council, and we were successful. And they were I
0:04:07 > 0:04:11think the first ever gypsy caravan pitches to be allowed here. Also in
0:04:11 > 0:04:16the Green Belt. And then the Dale Farm development started later.
0:04:16 > 0:04:21Where we are standing now, what was that like nearly 30 years ago?
0:04:21 > 0:04:29not as developed as it is now, not as many of these brick walls and so
0:04:29 > 0:04:38on. But there were houses down in this part that were actually in the
0:04:38 > 0:04:44Green Belt, and a mixture of uses - small rural businesses. It is quite
0:04:44 > 0:04:50a mixed area. And then the gypsy caravans came in. But there had
0:04:50 > 0:04:54always been gypsy caravans in and around Basildon. Until 1994,
0:04:54 > 0:04:57councils had a legal obligation to provide travellers sides. The law
0:04:57 > 0:05:03changed when they were encouraged to buy their own land and applied
0:05:03 > 0:05:10for planning permission. I came here in 2001. I came with no babies,
0:05:11 > 0:05:14now I have four. Did they go to school here? Yes. Dale Farm has
0:05:14 > 0:05:20been described as a honeypot. Because some families had
0:05:20 > 0:05:24permission, others followed. All of us in politics know that you put a
0:05:24 > 0:05:28travellers' site anywhere, it is going to be unpopular with the
0:05:28 > 0:05:31local residents. But it does not mean we should not make that
0:05:32 > 0:05:37revision. We have responsibilities. And that is the decision Basildon
0:05:37 > 0:05:42took. But in terms of where we are soft touch, I do not think we were.
0:05:42 > 0:05:46But we were probably perceived by the travellers to be a soft touch.
0:05:46 > 0:05:52This part of Dale Farm, this looks like this is the area that has
0:05:52 > 0:05:55planning permission. Do they have planning permission? Not here, no.
0:05:55 > 0:06:00It is down the other end. But they had been here a number of years,
0:06:00 > 0:06:03which is why it looks established. They had built brick walls. But if
0:06:03 > 0:06:07they ever got planning permission, they would want to make
0:06:07 > 0:06:11improvements, make it look better. The ones that got planning
0:06:11 > 0:06:16permission got it in the 1990s on appeal. And when it came to this
0:06:16 > 0:06:20part of the site, the council basic be said, enough is enough. We will
0:06:20 > 0:06:28not allow any more. And there was a lot of public pressure on them as
0:06:28 > 0:06:33well. 19th September. Eviction days. The world media is waiting, ready
0:06:33 > 0:06:38for the moment the bailiffs move in. Activists move in and chain
0:06:38 > 0:06:43themselves to the barricades. But it is stalemate. There will be no
0:06:43 > 0:06:47eviction today. An injunction has been granted at the High Court, at
0:06:47 > 0:06:51the last minute. And weeks of legal argument follow.
0:06:51 > 0:06:55If this had happened anywhere else, it might have been argued out of
0:06:55 > 0:07:00the public's view, and not people - - not many people would have known
0:07:00 > 0:07:04what was going on. But the whole world is watching. What happens
0:07:04 > 0:07:10here could influence the way councils deal with illegal
0:07:10 > 0:07:16traveller sides in the future. Two weeks ago, as yet another
0:07:16 > 0:07:20hearing is held, Professor home is there, seeing how the legal
0:07:20 > 0:07:25arguments might change future actions. I think the main impact
0:07:25 > 0:07:30would be on the accommodation assessment of what gypsies and
0:07:31 > 0:07:35travellers need. And whether you can move against an unauthorised
0:07:35 > 0:07:41encampment, if there is no alternative accommodation. And that
0:07:41 > 0:07:45is what the United Nations is interested in. That you do not
0:07:45 > 0:07:48forcibly evict people and less there are alternatives for them.
0:07:48 > 0:07:52Finding alternatives is getting more difficult, and no one has come
0:07:52 > 0:07:58up with an answer. If the travellers leave Dale Farm, where
0:07:58 > 0:08:03will they go? I have spoken to leaders and members from other
0:08:03 > 0:08:10authorities. And a number have said privately that, if it was a case of
0:08:10 > 0:08:18at having to find 12 or 15 pictures, we could do it. But we saw what
0:08:18 > 0:08:22happened at Oak Lane in Basildon. You provided it doesn't, you now
0:08:22 > 0:08:27have the biggest site in Europe. We are not prepared to run that risk.
0:08:27 > 0:08:31So actually, by abusing the planning law, the travellers have
0:08:31 > 0:08:36damaged their prospects of getting local authorities to be on their
0:08:36 > 0:08:41side. It is something where I think, if we look back on it, there is
0:08:41 > 0:08:45very little that we could have done differently. You can always find
0:08:45 > 0:08:48something you could change, but it would be at the fringes, rather
0:08:48 > 0:08:52than anything at the core of the strategy. We have done the right
0:08:52 > 0:09:01thing, we have done it for the right reasons. And I would do It
0:09:01 > 0:09:05Again if we were now in 2002 again. October 12th, nearly a month after
0:09:05 > 0:09:09the first attempt to move on to Dale Farm by the bailiffs. I judge
0:09:09 > 0:09:12has thrown out their case for a judicial review. He said he found
0:09:12 > 0:09:18it astonishing that they had delayed until nearly the day or
0:09:18 > 0:09:23removal before making a legal challenge. The last chances at the
0:09:23 > 0:09:27Court of Appeal. This afternoon, Monday 17th October, the hearing
0:09:27 > 0:09:32came to an end. The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal
0:09:32 > 0:09:37against the eviction. At Dale Farm, residents and their supporters
0:09:37 > 0:09:41reinforce the barricades and fences, and that the entire site in to lock
0:09:41 > 0:09:46down in order to resist eviction. Basildon council says the eviction
0:09:46 > 0:09:50will go ahead, at a time of their choosing.
0:09:50 > 0:09:53Since his first involvement 30 years ago, Robert home has troubled
0:09:53 > 0:10:01-- study travellers across the country, and says the issue has
0:10:01 > 0:10:11been blown out of proportion. Gypsies are about one 10th of a %
0:10:11 > 0:10:12
0:10:12 > 0:10:16of the population. And the most reliable figures, there is a need
0:10:16 > 0:10:21for 1,200 pictures. That is a tiny figure in relation to the general
0:10:21 > 0:10:25housing targets that are being produced. You could fit those
0:10:25 > 0:10:29numbers on to one District Council's housing target. When you
0:10:29 > 0:10:32first got involved, did you ever anticipate it would grow to the
0:10:32 > 0:10:36size it is now? I would not have imagined that the problem would
0:10:36 > 0:10:43still be running, all these years later. But looking back in
0:10:43 > 0:10:50retrospect, it is not such a surprise.
0:10:50 > 0:10:54For all the latest developments, lit East at 6:30pm on weekdays. If
0:10:54 > 0:11:03there is something you think we should investigate, you can you may
0:11:03 > 0:11:09look -- e-mail me. Later, are crabs responsible for
0:11:09 > 0:11:17destroying our retreating Shore's? It is resisting! Almost certainly,
0:11:17 > 0:11:21they are involved. The Bangkok as it is like a Swiss cheese.
0:11:21 > 0:11:24More than half of our waste is thrown into landfill, it is
0:11:24 > 0:11:29expensive and bad for the environment. But what are the other
0:11:29 > 0:11:39options? We could recycle more, or dump less rubbish into the ground.
0:11:39 > 0:11:57
0:11:57 > 0:12:01We could burn instead of burying. Across the East of England, we have
0:12:01 > 0:12:04a big and very expensive problem. Rubbish, and how to get rid of it.
0:12:04 > 0:12:07Dumping it in the ground has become too expensive. One solution is to
0:12:07 > 0:12:10burn it. This industrial site on the outskirts of King's Lynn is
0:12:10 > 0:12:13where Norfolk County Council plans to burn our household rubbish by
0:12:13 > 0:12:15using a private company to build over here. Local people don't want
0:12:15 > 0:12:18the incinerator on their doorstep, because of pollution concerns. But
0:12:18 > 0:12:21the council is pushing ahead because it believes it will save
0:12:21 > 0:12:24millions once it is up and running. Cory-Wheelabrator, a private
0:12:24 > 0:12:27company, is to build the plant. And the council will sign a 25 year
0:12:27 > 0:12:30contract costing �500 million. Once built, it will burn 170,000 tonnes
0:12:30 > 0:12:33of Norfolk's waste every year. If you are having trouble imagining
0:12:33 > 0:12:36how much rubbish is going to go up in smoke, take this bag and
0:12:36 > 0:12:39multiply it by 200,000. That's how much will go to the incinerator
0:12:39 > 0:12:42every week - a massive 170,000 tonnes. But there are some who
0:12:42 > 0:12:45believe that generating this amount of rubbish to go to the incinerator
0:12:45 > 0:12:50could have an effect on recycling. The Knights family have a farm near
0:12:50 > 0:12:56the incinerator site. They are proposing to build it literally two
0:12:56 > 0:13:01miles in that direction, just past the trees. Mike spear-headed the
0:13:01 > 0:13:08campaign against the incinerator over worries about pollution. He's
0:13:08 > 0:13:11now more concerned about the long- term impact on recycling. So, what
0:13:11 > 0:13:14do we have in here? It serves the purpose of being the campaign
0:13:14 > 0:13:18headquarters. We are having some of our meetings in here, and preparing
0:13:18 > 0:13:21some of our stuff. This county is not very impressive with what it
0:13:21 > 0:13:24recycles. They are well down in the pecking order. Others are far
0:13:24 > 0:13:27better. We could be much better, but if you know that you have to
0:13:27 > 0:13:37meet 170,000 tonnes and you're running short. Well, the obvious
0:13:37 > 0:13:43
0:13:43 > 0:13:53thing is not to keep improving your recycling rate to feed this beast.
0:13:53 > 0:14:09
0:14:10 > 0:14:14We will get penalised for not They will not be recycling, they
0:14:14 > 0:14:19will be burning. In a recent case, a rigid a finance
0:14:19 > 0:14:23agreement was struck in Stoke for an incinerator. The city council is
0:14:23 > 0:14:28in a wrangle after being sold at built by the contractor for not
0:14:28 > 0:14:33earning enough waste. In Norfolk, 43 % of household
0:14:33 > 0:14:38rubbish is recycled. Next door, Cambridge recycles more than half
0:14:38 > 0:14:42its ways. It's that their best council in the country. It has
0:14:42 > 0:14:48reduced the amount it sent to landfill, because it reduces the
0:14:48 > 0:14:54food they end up in Arab bins. 70,000 tons of it. I had been
0:14:54 > 0:14:59invited to a site where the food is turned into something useful.
0:14:59 > 0:15:05is a kitchen and food waste from households in Cambridge. We turn it
0:15:05 > 0:15:08into compost. We taking about 70,000 tonnes a year. So you are
0:15:08 > 0:15:15bringing in rubbish, 70,000 tons of it, you were turning it into
0:15:15 > 0:15:19something useful? Rubbish is a strong word! It is good, organic
0:15:19 > 0:15:24material. There is a small amount of contamination you can see around
0:15:24 > 0:15:32you in the plastic that comes in. But it is all good base material.
0:15:32 > 0:15:38And it goes straight back out onto the farmland. It goes into food
0:15:38 > 0:15:43production, back into the loop. Pack into the household of
0:15:43 > 0:15:47Cambridgeshire. Norfolk county council say it is encouraging
0:15:47 > 0:15:51districts to recycle more food waste, and offering financial
0:15:51 > 0:15:59incentives. Unfortunately, and the two councils are operating the
0:15:59 > 0:16:03scheme. Our long-term target is to meet 50 % of all recycled waste.
0:16:04 > 0:16:08And we are putting more money forward for district councils in
0:16:08 > 0:16:12kitchen waste recycling. Kitchen waste and food waste is a long-term
0:16:12 > 0:16:16plan? If effect is the case, had come only two councils are working
0:16:16 > 0:16:21in that area. It is up to each local council to make its decision
0:16:21 > 0:16:25about what it wants to do. We spoke to the other district
0:16:25 > 0:16:30councils. They said that even with the financial incentive, it is too
0:16:30 > 0:16:34expensive. Some of that still has a long way to go to up its recycling
0:16:34 > 0:16:38target, which is why its landfill costs are so high.
0:16:38 > 0:16:45Dr Chris Edwards thinks the council could save more money if it simply
0:16:45 > 0:16:50recycled more. If you push forward with a recycling plant, you can
0:16:50 > 0:16:56recycle up to 65 %, at least. Many of the best councils in the UK are
0:16:56 > 0:17:03doing that. There is no reason why you cannot recycle something like
0:17:03 > 0:17:1060 or 65 % by the end of this decade, each 2020. That means that
0:17:10 > 0:17:15the amount that has to be put in landfill reduces. He believes the
0:17:15 > 0:17:20councillor's -- has to dust -- the council has adjusted its forecast.
0:17:20 > 0:17:25What the council has done, from about November 2010, it has changed
0:17:25 > 0:17:32its forecast. Because it realised that it needs 170,000 tonnes to go
0:17:32 > 0:17:37to the incinerator. So it has forecast a recycling rate of 47 %.
0:17:37 > 0:17:44We ought to be doing much better than that. But that conveniently
0:17:44 > 0:17:49leaves the amount for incineration. At over 200,000 tonnes, or well
0:17:49 > 0:17:53over 170,000 tonnes. It squares the circle. The council say what they
0:17:53 > 0:17:57sent to the incinerator will not change their recycling initiatives.
0:17:57 > 0:18:04Tell me why that figure was 50 % a couple of years ago, and has gone
0:18:04 > 0:18:10down. For that is based on what is happening now a. To get to 50 and
0:18:10 > 0:18:16above, we would need more recycling to be done, and to make the money
0:18:16 > 0:18:19available for kitchen waste collections. The council believes
0:18:19 > 0:18:22that they are burning -- their burning contract will work. And
0:18:22 > 0:18:27even if it falls short, it will still be cheaper than dumping it in
0:18:27 > 0:18:31the ground. Is there a penalty per tonnage if you do not hit the
0:18:31 > 0:18:35target? No. So there is no compensation that can change hands
0:18:35 > 0:18:40between yourself and the company if you do not hit the target? No, but
0:18:40 > 0:18:44we would have to pay a fixed charge for the facility, which would be
0:18:44 > 0:18:47expensive. That would still be cheaper than having waste disposal.
0:18:47 > 0:18:57Even if they fall short of household waste, they say
0:18:57 > 0:18:57
0:18:57 > 0:19:49Apology for the loss of subtitles for 51 seconds
0:19:49 > 0:19:52commercial waste is always there to fill the gap. Rather than the waves
0:19:52 > 0:19:54hitting hard sea walls, the salt marsh takes the energy out of the
0:19:54 > 0:19:57waves with the tides constantly filling and emptying these creeks
0:19:57 > 0:20:01and gullies. But this is a landscape in deep trouble. You
0:20:01 > 0:20:04don't have to look far to see that, in places, the salt marsh is
0:20:04 > 0:20:07vanishing fast. I've lived near the River Deben all my life, and there
0:20:07 > 0:20:10are now changes happening that I do not understand. So, Robert - how
0:20:10 > 0:20:15long have you lived on the river? Well, I've lived beside the river
0:20:15 > 0:20:18all my life, I've been on it since I was a small boy. If you go up and
0:20:18 > 0:20:22down it enough, you get to know it very well. People would normally
0:20:22 > 0:20:27know their garden. I know the river, all the bits of the river. And a
0:20:27 > 0:20:32lifetime spent on the Deben has led Robert to a startling conclusion.
0:20:32 > 0:20:42The destruction of the salt marsh could be down to the humble crab.
0:20:42 > 0:20:49
0:20:49 > 0:20:59Crickey - a lot! They are like maritime rabbits. Really, they
0:20:59 > 0:21:04
0:21:04 > 0:21:09burrow everywhere and they breed like mad. You can usually see the
0:21:09 > 0:21:12crab holes, you can see the whole side is burrowed out.
0:21:12 > 0:21:17You are going against what the Environment Agency said, which is
0:21:17 > 0:21:22at sea level rise is to blame for the demise of the salt marshes, and
0:21:22 > 0:21:27their whole policy is based around that fact. The government and the
0:21:27 > 0:21:31civil servants in London have got fixated on sea level rise, global
0:21:31 > 0:21:36warming. They have not bothered to look at anything else. In fact,
0:21:36 > 0:21:41they have refused to discuss anything else. He is not alone in
0:21:41 > 0:21:46his suspicions. Richard Stewart devotes much of his retirement to
0:21:46 > 0:21:50studying salt marsh loss. He also what -- believes that crabs are the
0:21:50 > 0:21:55culprit. These are photographs from other estuaries, showing
0:21:55 > 0:21:59significant levels of erosion of the salt marsh. And in this
0:21:59 > 0:22:04particular photograph, you can see that at least 50 % of the marsh has
0:22:04 > 0:22:10been eaten away. In this one even more so. This is a photograph of
0:22:11 > 0:22:17this river, it also shows very significant salt marsh loss. So, an
0:22:17 > 0:22:24alarming decline? And the reason, in your view? It certainly is not
0:22:24 > 0:22:27sea level rise. You say that, but sea levels are rising year after
0:22:27 > 0:22:32year. And we are told it is squeezing the salt marsh and that
0:22:32 > 0:22:39is why we are losing it. It has not risen any more than it has done in
0:22:39 > 0:22:43the last 400 years. It is exactly the same, roughly 3.4 mm per year.
0:22:43 > 0:22:47His point is that although sea levels are rising, the rate is
0:22:47 > 0:22:52small. So the salt marsh should be able to keep up with it, providing
0:22:52 > 0:22:58a natural defence. Instead, areas are being destroyed, leading him to
0:22:58 > 0:23:03only one conclusion. Two shore crab erosion. The trouble with all of
0:23:03 > 0:23:09this is that it is just a series. Richard and Robert might be onto
0:23:09 > 0:23:16something. Shore crabs could be the culprits. But there is no real
0:23:16 > 0:23:22science behind what they say. So we have asked Dr Rob Hughes to come
0:23:22 > 0:23:32down and find out what is going on. What are you looking for?
0:23:32 > 0:23:32
0:23:32 > 0:23:37foreshore crabs. I am looking for ragworm. We know that ragworm are
0:23:37 > 0:23:43responsible for salt marsh erosion. And we know that these animals,
0:23:43 > 0:23:47these worms had increased in abundance. Over the last 15 years.
0:23:47 > 0:23:52The ragworms burrow into the mud and feed on plant seedlings,
0:23:52 > 0:23:58stopping you salt marsh growing. What about numbers? Why have they
0:23:58 > 0:24:02increased? We now know that there are large population densities
0:24:02 > 0:24:06around sewage outfalls. And we know from looking on their -- at their
0:24:06 > 0:24:11food that they are feeding on Aldi that has been enriched by nitrogen
0:24:11 > 0:24:16comic from sewage. We do not have the evidence, but the suspicion is
0:24:16 > 0:24:21that the shore crabs are feeding on the same Aki as the ragworms, and
0:24:21 > 0:24:26they may also be feeding on them. So it could beat that pollution is
0:24:26 > 0:24:29fuelling an increase in shore crab numbers? Yes, and there is
0:24:29 > 0:24:33anecdotal evidence from local fishermen who no longer bother to
0:24:33 > 0:24:38come here because the crabs steal their bait. While we have been
0:24:38 > 0:24:44looking at the worms, Richard has found a barrel. There is a crab in
0:24:44 > 0:24:52here! There is a crab! There is definitely a chamber, and I know
0:24:52 > 0:24:55there is a crabber there. It is resisting. Do you think Richard is
0:24:55 > 0:25:01on to something here? Do you think that shore crabs are to blame for
0:25:01 > 0:25:08the demise of the Shure? Almost certainly they are involved. You
0:25:08 > 0:25:12can see they are destabilising the marsh. We know they are capable of
0:25:12 > 0:25:16making these burrows, we do not know why they do it or if they are
0:25:16 > 0:25:20permanent or temporary. If you look at the bank opposite, you can see
0:25:21 > 0:25:26that it is like a Swiss cheese. the rate of salt marsh loss
0:25:26 > 0:25:29continues as it is at the moment, how serious will that be? The first
0:25:29 > 0:25:34thing that needs to be appreciated either causes of the loss. As
0:25:34 > 0:25:41Richard said, it is not sea level rise. It is internal disintegration,
0:25:41 > 0:25:47caused by the Russian. And we know the invertebrates are involved. --
0:25:47 > 0:25:52erosion. You seem to be saying that the government is not listening to
0:25:52 > 0:25:58science. It is peddling or pursuing another story. That is right. They
0:25:58 > 0:26:04had the idea that Saltmarshe loss is due to civil -- sea level rise.
0:26:04 > 0:26:08Nowhere in the world is there an ecologist at believes that. It is
0:26:08 > 0:26:17well established that they agreed with sea level. So why is the
0:26:17 > 0:26:21government ignoring your view? not know. I do not understand it.
0:26:21 > 0:26:24If salt marsh loss is not due to sea level rise, then it is big news
0:26:25 > 0:26:29for the east coast. Millions of pounds are being spent trying to
0:26:29 > 0:26:34create new areas of salt marsh to replace those being lost. Does
0:26:34 > 0:26:39anyone in authority believe crabs are the problem? They could be in
0:26:39 > 0:26:44some areas, but not all areas. You have to look at the big picture. We
0:26:44 > 0:26:48have played around with the rivers, put in walls and developments. The
0:26:48 > 0:26:52channels change all the time. That is why the estuaries are dynamic
0:26:52 > 0:26:59force of so what should they do? They simply feel that no one is
0:26:59 > 0:27:03listening to them if people have benefited idea is, they can always
0:27:03 > 0:27:08come and ask, tried to develop ideas and see if they can get some
0:27:08 > 0:27:12funding. Local studies may be welcome, but the Environment Agency
0:27:12 > 0:27:18said it would not be feasible to carry out a detailed study to
0:27:18 > 0:27:23assess the sole effect of crabs. It says are the victors -- factors are
0:27:23 > 0:27:27considered, and sea level rise remains its focus. It
0:27:27 > 0:27:31responsibility is to respond to man-made activities. But what if
0:27:31 > 0:27:35they have got it wrong? government agency believe it is sea
0:27:35 > 0:27:41level rise. We know that is not so. We need to convince them there are
0:27:41 > 0:27:45other options, other reasons. Other options for management. And take it
0:27:45 > 0:27:49from their. We need to do more science.
0:27:49 > 0:27:53If they are right, it would not be the first time that a couple of
0:27:53 > 0:27:57enthusiastic amateurs that challenged the received wisdom
0:27:58 > 0:28:07turned it on its head. Until we know, I think I will give this
0:28:08 > 0:28:13
0:28:13 > 0:28:16That's it for this week. If you have missed any of the programme,
0:28:16 > 0:28:25have missed any of the programme, it is on the i-player. If you want
0:28:25 > 0:28:25to contact us about any stories, e- to contact us about any stories, e-
0:28:25 > 0:28:28to contact us about any stories, e- to contact us about any stories, e-
0:28:28 > 0:28:33mail me. See you next week. The programme next week is all about
0:28:33 > 0:28:36saving money. We asked if I degree saving money. We asked if I degree