RE-INTRODUCTIONS - EN’S PERSPECTIVE

PLAYING GOD OR GARDENING?

53

RE-INTRODUCTIONS - EN’S PERSPECTIVE BARONESS YOUNG Can I just check before I start whether anyone here works for the Environment Agency? - No one is prepared to admit it? In that case I will make the joke that the Environment Agency is just a cunning way to get £700 million a year into conservation. The problem with talking about re-introductions at this time reminds me of a particular eight hour debate in the House of Lords when one of my colleagues stood up and said that the problem with this debate is that everything that could be said had been said about the issue but unfortunately not everyone had yet said it. Alas, I feel that my problem is the same because we have had a pretty comprehensive coverage of the ground and have already had three other English Nature speakers give their perspectives, but you will be glad to hear that there is a small degree of tension between me and other members of English Nature about re-introductions. You will probably be able to detect the cracks in our policy.

You saw in the question time session that there were very different views across the panel and we need to resolve these issues. In principle English Nature’s perspective is very similar to that enshrined in the I.U.C.N. guidelines - and will be enshrined in the J.N.C.C. policy when that is published shortly. However, I am going to try and put our position in a wider context because I have strong views on re-introductions and they are not necessarily consistent with those of my organisation Clearly English Nature supports re-introductions in certain circumstances and you have already heard about English Nature’s Species Recovery Programme. I too believe that in some circumstances re-introductions are necessary and sensible, for example where the I.U.C.N.’s guidelines are met.

Re-introductions are necessary where we have a real risk of losing a species to the UK on either a single site, or a small number of sites, if the sites are destroyed or damaged in some way. Similarly, there may be a real need for translocation if there is no possibility of extending the range of a species because of its sedentary nature.

Another criterion which should be used when considering introductions is whether or not a species would recover naturally if given enough time. Some species can lie dormant for a long time and suddenly reappear again. We sometimes lack patience when trying to determine whether a species is really endangered.

The Peregrine Falcon and Sparrow Hawk are prime examples of species which can decline dramatically and then recover naturally. I was amazed - nay appalled, when people started talking about re-introducing the Buzzard. The only thing that is stopping the Buzzard from spreading is, dare I say it, the activity of gamekeepers. The reality is that if we left Buzzards alone they would do very well.

Another guideline I would like to see fulfilled involves value for money.

There is a great need for conservation funding in this country. There are pressing priorities and it is unfortunate if we use the limited financial sources

Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 37 (2001)

54

Suffolk Natural History, Vol. 37

on non-essential projects. Sometimes it is really tempting for government and corporate sponsors to choose attractive, high profile species - preferably something fluffy with big eyes, and heroically bring it back from the brink.

For example, much as I love to see Red Kites released every year, it is important that all who sponsor species work look right across the priorities of the Bio-diversity Action Plan to the less glamorous species so that they are not short changed.

Re-introductions are less appropriate where species are re-introduced into habitats which are not in a suitable condition to sustain them long-term without a lot of support and ‘gardening’. Forty percent of our specialist sites, our SSSIs, are in an unfavourable condition, with seventy percent of our upland sites in unfavourable condition for conservation. We have to get these ‘Jewels in our Crown’ capable of supporting their full range of species before we seriously consider re-introductions. Although it may be possible in a SSSI to create a situation where we could reintroduce a species, i.e. where its particular criteria are met, I think it a real shame if we are not seeing the natural, typical ecosystem flourishing in which that species should be set.

Another question related to this issue is whether, if we do manage to create these ideal habitats in small areas, are we simply creating zoos without bars?

That is why the proposition to reintroduce Corncrakes in the Nene and Ouse washes does not ring well. Even 70 years ago Corncrakes were the chickens of the countryside, making loud noises in the night, and there are people alive today who remember how widespread Corncrakes were. They are not some curios to be preserved in an artificial environment but birds of the meadows, and we should be looking for ways of creating much larger landscape habitat for them and not little zoos without bars. The Great Bustard on Salisbury Plain comes in the same category as the Corncrake.

One of the aims of English Nature over the next ten years is to develop its ‘Lifescapes Programme’, taking SSSIs, linking them with buffer zones and corridors and encapsulating them in much more environmentally friendly farmed countryside, so that we have habitats in a series of mosaics able to support natural wildlife populations. However, species re-introduction should not be considered when, and where, the main cultural and socio-economic conditions have moved on so irretrievably that it would be difficult for the species to flourish. I think that the wolf and the bear come into that category.

Some people are keen to see wolves and bears back in Scotland, but I believe we are too small a country and would not be comfortable with these large mammals. Their reintroduction simply would not work.

There are other circumstances where re-introduction does not work. We have begun to believe that we can translocate whole habitats in an effective way. I was bemused when recently the Minister for Transport lectured me sternly on the fact that it was possible to translocate ancient woodland. I said that, although it may be possible to translocate a porridge of the components of ancient woodland a few miles up the road, the final result would certainly not be ancient woodland. You can get re-establishment of some plants and invertebrates but what you end up with is very different from the original

Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 37 (2001)

PLAYING GOD OR GARDENING?

55

woodland. For me, habitat translocation is off the agenda. When we consider large-scale road building programmes it is important that we do not encourage the government into thinking that you can take SSSIs and move them somewhere else.

Another area in which I consider re-introductions risky is in the case of non-native species. I disagree strongly with John Burton over this. The problem with non-native species, as Roger said, is finding the ideal ecological niche when we do not know enough about species interactions. The ‘Ten percent rule’ is true of most non-native species that arrive here, i.e. ten percent will establish while another ten percent will cause problems. I think that we put our own flora and fauna at great risk if we introduce species into an environment not designed for them. It also takes the pressure off the conservation of these species in their country of origin. The more we reintroduce non-native species the more we lose our own distinctive and individual habitats.

One last point which may make us feel differently about re-introductions concerns climate change. Climate change may bring re-introductions up the priority list as we see climatic zones shifting, and habitats moving and changing. We may have to resign ourselves to losing some species, such as the Dotterel, completely due to climatic change.

Some important policy issues and changes will have to be made if we are going to achieve the necessary flexibility for us to make essential introductions and for them to thrive. We need more SSSIs and they need to be of better quality. The Wildlife Bill which is currently going through the House of Lords will help English Nature and others to bring this about. We will also need more financial resources. English Nature was delighted to receive 4.6 million from the Opportunities Fund, part of the National Lottery money, for local nature reserves. It is not just SSSIs and national sites that are going to be important in the face of climatic change but also small local reserves which could help by enabling species to spread across the country. The Bio-diversity Action Plan is going to be really important, enabling us to prioritise conservation work.

Our Landscapes Programme is going to be dependent upon Common Agricultural Policy reform for both more money from main-stream subsidies into more environmentally friendly agricultural schemes and also achieving some very basic minimum environmental requirements on all farmland. We want all farmland to contribute something towards the conservation of common species and towards the creation of these broader, landscape-level ecological systems.

Last, but not least, we need to keep hammering home the message to business, government, and anyone who will listen, that biodiversity is the key.

At the end of the day I am cautious about re-introductions. My favourite film is Kevin Costner’s ‘Field of Dreams’ in which a farmer in Middle America heard voices telling him to build a baseball field in the middle of his corn field and that he would be able to bring back the 1936 world-beating baseball team.

He built his baseball field and then the ghosts of long gone players reappeared.

Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 37 (2001)

56

Suffolk Natural History, Vol. 37

I feel that it is the same in conservation. We need to build the right environment as a first step, and then think about re-introductions at a later date if there is no natural return of species. When we know what the ecosystem requirements are, when we have done the genetic work, when we know whether recolonisation is likely and re-introductions have been proved to work, then we can go ahead. (text prepared from a recording made at the conference) Baroness Young English Nature Northminster House Peterborough PE1 1UA

Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 37 (2001)