Ecos 30 1 whole issue missing cover

ECOS 30(1) 2009 Editorial

Another turn of the wheel Conservationists, like most travellers, are apt to stride ahead on their path, without checking their bearings – or baggage. Is there not a choice of several paths, and almost as many destinations? Conservation is not a monolith; we easily forget that we are not all alike; we do not all want the same thing. The contributions that follow point up such a diversity. They remind us of some of the axes of thought and of emotion linking and also dividing us. Oversimplifying them as ‘isms’, I think one can discern such axial poles as parochialists or globalists (attention to one’s doorstep, or to such issues as climate change); selectivists or inclusivists (whales and orchids, say, or ‘biodiversity’); masters or lovers (I mean, roughly, anthropocentrists or ecocentrists); scientists setting the agenda, or (let’s call them) romantics; and professionals (and academics) being the main force, or the laity.

Although these can be presented as polarisations, they are better thought of as ranges – and maybe some readers will not see them at all. We can’t, individually deal with everything, and worrying about The Whole Damn Thing is, unfortunately, an unhealthy state of mind. And yet, as Pete Raine emphasises, we certainly are able to understand and show concern for, in his example, resource consumption and puffin populations at the same time.

In 30 years, many things change, not least ourselves. Three decades on, a seasoned conservationist now views his wanting to “save the planet” as grossly conceited. At the beginning of his career, Andrew Harby notices how his values are already becoming more pragmatic and understanding of local people’s perspectives. These are not atypical – yet one can find the reverse personal evolutions too. We are neither all alike nor (most of us!) individually unchanging.

But we are inclined to take things for granted.

A conservationist – not least a nature conservationist – attitude may sometimes be a mirage. For instance, in meetings of the local Transition Town initiative I met a familiar language, discussing familiar problems; and yet one of the activists pointed out my misconception: “It is about social and economic change and action....

I don’t see Transition as a conservation movement at all. Nor environmentalist. Nor Green.” The ensuing conversation was stimulating, though inconclusive. I hope it will continue and be productive. Likewise ECOS. Perhaps our main purpose is to allow a diversity of voices to say a variety of things; to allow old things to be remembered – and some of them to be cast aside – and new things to be heard and cultivated; and for misconceptions to be pointed out and debated. The 29 volumes on the shelf have done this tolerably well at times; how well or better it continues depends on all of us, the readers…

Martin Spray

1

ECOS 30(1) 2009

Nature conservation to 2040 After 30 years of conservation activity reported in ECOS many of the fundamental dilemmas restricting environmental progress remain. We must retain our passion for the next 30 years’ challenge, and take heart from local environmental projects and the lessons they offer.

TIM O’RIORDAN In praise of ECOS When Rick Minter asked me to contribute to the 30th anniversary volume of ECOS I was pleased and honoured. In the higher education world of research assessment exercises, journals are ranked by ‘impact’. Like all such slippery judgemental concepts, impact can mean almost anything. ECOS articles are written by professionals and informed amateurs for readers who study and enact nature conservation. What authors say is knowledgeable, intelligible and reliable.

That is why this is such a marvellous read. The articles are concise, well presented (and edited) and often connect through a series of themes which open up the mind and the heart to all that is being done in the cause of nature conservation. ECOS has ‘impact’.

So I salute ECOS on this its 30th anniversary. Readers have been well served by its editors and its advisors. It is pithy, it is timely, it is cascading. Mimicking biological functions, making art out of nature, and nature out of art, creating new wildernesses, and providing ecological stepping stones for species migration and adaptation to climate change and human mischief - all of these and more are innovative topics that have graced these pages. Even more relevant are the many examples of micro nature conservation – in church-yards, school green-spaces, pockets of ‘wasteland’, and in organic gardens – that delight those who toil with imagination and determination to give nature its place in our troubled world.

Looking ahead, the nature conservation professional, the dedicated amateur, and the doughty voluntary organisations, may become less numerous, less strident and less visible, as the world struggles with recession, resource degradation, terrorism, violence, and the ravages of misusing nature. In the coming 30 years, ECOS may have to fight an even tighter corner. This is not because the cause is any less worth fighting: quite the contrary. The championing of nature conservation has never been more important or noble. It is just that the heart for upgrading nature conservation is seemingly going out of the custodial agencies and the many layered governing arrangements from global to parish, precisely because the attempt to protect and enhance nature has never been so daunting. Without ECOS, that cause will even more be dissipated and endangered. So ECOS has to live on so that its noble purpose can continue to be championed.

2

ECOS 30(1) 2009

A global perspective It is a tough time for wildlife these days. Reports ranging from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 1 to the World Conservation Monitoring Centre2 and the UN Environmental Programme3, document the depressing loss of all manner of species and habitats. Some 30 billion species may have existed at one time or another on this extraordinary planet, yet only 1.77 million have been identified and classified.4 Various estimates have been made of the rate of loss from the current species mix of some 2-50 million.5 The best guess is that we are living through a wholly unprecedented sixth global species extinction event 3, where the rate of loss could be some 30 percent of all living species of multi-cellular creatures over the coming 50 years. This is frighteningly rapid. There is virtually no scope for “natural adaptation”. We cannot hope to save many of the existing stocks of highly threatened species.

Jeff McNeely summarises the 2007 IUCN Red list of endangered species. This includes 41,415 species overall, of which 16,306 are threatened with extinction: “One of four mammals, one in eight birds and one third of all amphibians, and 70 percent of the world’s plants…are in jeopardy. One might argue that things might have been worse without protected areas, but the fact remains that biodiversity loss is accelerating”.6 The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 1 concludes that the main drivers for these losses are: 1. Human population growth – still an under-examined propulsive element of the coming 30 years, where some 2 billion more people may inhabit the planet, born of the 40 percent of young people already in existence.

2. Natural resources extraction, over exploitation and ineffective property rights and regulatory safeguards. This is a serious arena for deprivation of species because it is spurred by unregulated markets, illegal and corrupt practices, no proper property rights safeguards, and more mobilisation of dispossessed and desperate people.

3. Climate change related events, notably due to flooding, drought, heat and storminess, especially along low-lying coastlines, but also generally where habitats and ecosystems are not readily adaptable to change in temperature and violent events.

4. Invasive alien species caused by unregulated trade, poor land management practices, inadequate supervision of horticultural practices and garden centres, and opportunistic spread of aggressive species, pathogens and introductions, may well turn out to be one of the biggest single disruptors of endemic biodiversity of the 21st century.

5. Pollution caused by nutrients, toxins and persistent organic substances (often non-natural), all of which overwhelm natural systems and undermine timetested biological tolerances and adaptive mechanisms.

3

ECOS 30(1) 2009 In all of these drivers, the levels of political commitment and finance cannot ensure dependable protection of natural ecosystems and species, let alone their addition and appropriate management.

Both the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the various international arrangements for protected areas under the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the Millennium Development Goals, seek paper thin, bold targets such as 10 percent of surface area adequately protected, and commitment by land managers to various measures of conservation favourability. The 2006 European Commission Communication on Biodiversity boldly proclaimed that biodiversity loss should be stemmed by 2010, with the re-colonisation of appropriate endemic and “natural” species and habitats acting in sympathetic concert. There is little chance of that objective being met.

The literature is spattered with statements of good intent and what needs to be done. Jeff McNeely6 summarises the proposals of many professionals in the field: 1. Extending research on understanding how biodiversity really works.

This remains a highly unexplored arena, despite huge numbers of peerreviewed papers. The actual conditions that promote and retain biodiversity remain difficult to simulate in any given management context. There is no “rule book” and much depends on case experience by managers and landowners who may not have the time, money or function to experiment appropriately. For almost any given habitat there will be unique conditions that favour maximum biodiversity. So there is no ready management template for ensuring reconstruction of biodiversity.

2. Expanding the scale of conservation. Enlarging existing protected sites provides the best pay-off, combined with corridors and stepping stones all linked together via regional landscapes. What is emerging is the notion of a landscape-scale biodiverse protection scheme. These will be large areas of characteristic assemblages of habitats and species, not confined to catchments or habitats on a meso-scale, but whole landscapes of organised planning and management with tough protection across sizeable locales. This will also require region scale commitment to agree land management purposes where there are, as yet, no legal arrangements to ensure neighbours will act in unison, even if the landscape science is known. Some form of locally monitored incentive for local partnerships will be needed, linked to credible scenarios of plausible landscape outcomes.

3. Promoting social science in ensuring nations’ and people’s livelihoods within effective biodiversity. It is difficult to guarantee protection of nature where people live in the same location as sensitive wildlife. Yet it is both ethical and possible to bring people into protected landscapes, and for them to be the custodians of biodiversity. To remove or bar people from desirable areas of habitation or leisure is not politically easy. There is no easy option but for participatory cooperation, and very sensitive measures for compensation and 4

ECOS 30(1) 2009 adaptation to ensure that justice is met, even though such approaches carry their own dangers.

4. Generating conservation incentives and finance. The means to fund collective resources, common property and the associated wildlife depend either on the presence of iconic species, adventurous entrepreneurs, or clever nature conservation programmes with an eye for the media as well as visitor income. What is more exciting nowadays is the emergence of the long awaited discovery that ecosystem services (absorption of flood water, sequestration of carbon, reduction of fire hazard, immobilisation of fragile topsoil) provide the essential value that well managed diverse resources can create. Yet measures to identify the worth of such services, in terms of finance and human wellbeing, remain frustratingly elusive.

All of these troublesome drivers will map out the future of nature conservation the world over.

Testing it out An interesting case for the future of biodiversity in the UK is that of the proposal to construct a tidal barrage across the Severn Estuary (see Richard Bull’s article in this issue). In planning and financing this ambitious project, the payoff in saved carbon emissions against the associated adverse impacts, is decades away. There is no adequate financing mechanism for comparing the competitive effect on the current mix of electricity provision of this huge scheme, for tidally produced electricity which will generate its power for over 150 years. Nor is there an appropriate means for assessing the repercussions on the internationally protected intertidal habitats resulting from the construction of the project. The big conservation bodies are against the scheme, but the UK Sustainable Development Commission suggested a way forward.7 This is to review the provisions of the EU Habitats Directive in favour of enabling core existing habitat to be saved. But money from the long term benefits of the power scheme could be allocated to new habitat design, ready for the possible future climatic conditions that the Severn Barrage is designed to alleviate. That would test out the science and the social acceptance for new habitat provision, ready for a new migratory age. The statutory conservation agencies are seriously considering such an approach. Here is a case for us to test our creativity, to see if we can indeed change existing nature for a brave new climate changed ‘natural’ world. ECOS could offer a good venue for this debate to be engaged.

The UK perspective – ethics and sustainability In the UK, we need to pursue a different perspective on land-use, planning, financing, regulation and social existence that is not captured with present policy measures and institutional arrangements. We need to establish that living by and through nature is the ultimate human value. Sadly such an integrationist perspective, well argued over the decades by sociologists and philosophers in the excellent companion journal Environmental Values, cannot be embedded in diverse human culture in anything like 5

NEIL BENNETT

ECOS 30(1) 2009

the time to turn around the loss of species and food resources. Similarly, in a world of increasing disparity between the rich and the poor, it is unlikely that social justice will score high on the management tasks for ensuring whole landscape integration.

And the financing of ecosystem services, no matter how noble an idea, will be doubly problematic. One: because we do not have the full theoretical and practical environmental science and economics to generate such a task; and two: because we shall have no institutional means to pay for such measures.

Meanwhile, we are faced with another daunting challenge for sustainability and landscapes, namely biofuel production and the pressures for a carbon-neutral 6

ECOS 30(1) 2009 economy based on an existing technology for fuel use that can absorb plant-based carbon, but not adjust readily to new forms of carbon production that are free of photosynthesis. Here is another arena where there are promises of change, but as yet hugely inadequate regulation and incentives. Moreover, there is still insufficient science for the job of guaranteeing the production and transportation of biofuels within the placenta of sustainability. Frankly, I do not think this will be possible in the coming, critical decade.

So I fall back on where ECOS is best. Small scale conservation schemes, at community level, demonstrate evidence of real progress, excitement over direct contact with nature and a sense of spiritual awareness that local amenity and wildlife can bring to health, happiness and wellbeing. As we move through global recession and many phases of social and individual distress, it may be that the local natural area, with its sounds, smells and pleasures, will keep us all sane (literally). ECOS champions such endeavours. We will need many more of this connected to a landscape scale, generated by codes of practice for developers and by planners, and through planning-gain benefits (such as Section 106 agreements) to ensure that functioning and wildlife-rich landscapes can be sustained.

There is already much interest by water companies, highways agencies, and insurance agencies for combined attention to “blueways� or in zones by rivers and coasts to allow floodwaters to pass with little damage, or to absorb heavy rainfall via natural drainage and soakaways. Ideally every new road, parking space and housing developing should be designed to retain and disperse excessive rainfall in a manner that enhances wetlands, open space enjoyment and provides educational facilities.

In upland areas, tracts of bogs and heath can be protected or re-created for carbon absorption as well as other benefits. These examples show ecosystem services in practice, and they are much more difficult and costly to create artificially.

On the global scale, I remain pessimistic. I do not believe we face a prospect of legally tough, corruption-proof regulation, and of low-impact lifestyles that will overcome the inexorable degradation of our wildlife heritage. We can stem the tide in some places and we will continue to move towards paying for conservation where the tourist dollar enables it. But resurrected wholesale conservation at the global level will be a tough nut to crack.

So I continue to salute ECOS for what it does best. Do the science, critique poor policy, champion good ideas, encourage local initiative, and provide the courage to enable others to be sufficiently excited and encouraged to replace a new piece of nature in their lives, properties and children’s futures.

References 1.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Island Press, Washington D.C.

2.

World Conservation Monitoring Centre (2008) Red Book of Endangered Species, Cambridge.

7

ECOS 30(1) 2009 3.

UNEP (2007) Global Environmental Outlook: Geo.4. Earthscan Publications, London

4.

Chapman, D.(2006) Numbers of living species in Australia and the world. Australian Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra.

5.

Singh, J.S. (2002) The biodiversity crisis: a multi-faceted view. Current Science 82: 638-647.

6.

McNeely, J. (2008) Protected areas in a world of eight billion. Gaia S1/2008: 104-106.

7.

UK Sustainable Development Commission (2007) Tidal Power in the UK. London

8.

Gaia (2008) Special Issue: Protected areas and biodiversity conservation. S1: 71-142.

Tim O’Riordan: Before retiring in July 2005 Tim was Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia. His current research interests are focused on global-local relations and their implications for the transition to sustainability in Europe. He continues to be an active member of the Sustainable Development Commission. t.oriordan@uea.ac.uk

Lessons from the grass roots: Birds of prey being used to scare gulls and crows from a landfill site in Devon.

This has now become a viable business for the company and a growing practice at other landfill sites.

Photo: www.glendell.co.uk

8

ECOS 30(1) 2009

The cause of conservation - 30 years on With the arrival of its 30th anniversary, ECOS asked some of its first set of authors to reflect on their work and review the changing fortunes of conservation over 30 years. This article charts the author’s values and perspectives since writing on ‘Forward Planning in conservation’ in the first edition of ECOS.

DAVID GOODE When the first volume of ECOS appeared in 1980 I was Assistant Chief Scientist in the Nature Conservancy Council, enthusiastically developing and promoting the scientific basis of nature conservation, especially through the protection of key sites. At that time some of the greatest threats were intensification of agriculture and the spread of forestry. I was particularly aware that the NCC needed to develop a more pro-active approach based on regional strategies for conservation, rather than simply responding to pressures as and when they arose. Hence my article in ECOS 1(1) advocating that approach.1 Also at that time I was undertaking a national review of habitat losses to provide ammunition for strengthening the SSSI system. A summary published in New Scientist came at a critical moment during passage of the Wildlife and Countryside Act.2 I also find looking back that I was much absorbed with the issue of “values” in conservation, in particular questioning the basis for selection of sites of importance and advocating the need for a broader set of criteria extending beyond the strictly scientific.3 All this work was aimed at protecting sites of value in the face of continuous incremental losses of habitats. It was firmly rooted in site-based nature conservation, for that was the nature of the job. Other aspects of environmental concern took a back seat.

Values in a changing context Have my values in relation to nature and the wider environmental debate changed between then and now? At one level my values remain the same, in that I am absolutely clear about the need for action to maintain the diversity of habitats and species in the UK. However, my views have been influenced by a career that has latterly taken me out of nature conservation into broader issues of environmental politics as Head of Environment at the Greater London Authority. In some ways this shift reflects what has happened in the world at large. It was the natural resource scientists of IUCN who produced the first strategy for sustainable development with the World Conservation Strategy in 1980. This set the scene for the Brundtland Commission report of 1987 and subsequent adoption of international goals for sustainable development at the Rio Earth Summit of 1992.

Those of us working in local authorities during the 1990s suddenly found that environment had become a central issue. Agenda 21 and sustainability were the buzzwords and biodiversity became accepted as part of that agenda.

9

ECOS 30(1) 2009 Through the London Ecology Unit’s work on Agenda 21 I became aware that towns and cities have a key role to play in sustainability. Using knowledge of city metabolism, analogous to ecosystem analysis, it was possible to identify where savings in resource use could be made. This was an ecologist’s approach to city planning. It became apparent that enormous potential savings could be made through the economies of scale inherent in high urban densities. In addition it is at the local level that this can best be achieved, through partnerships between local government and local communities. So instead of viewing a city as the source of all the problems, we can see it as one of the most efficient ways of contributing to sustainability.4 With Ken Livingstone as Mayor of London, I was able to implement these ideas through the Mayor’s environmental strategies. But they have wider implications. With the rapid growth of new towns and cities throughout the developing world there is an urgent need for a manual for high performance cities, which would incorporate ecosystem services as a crucial part of the process.

‘Biodiversity’ – does it resonate?

Also during the 1990s the UK Government was considering how to implement another offspring of Rio, the Biodiversity Convention. Because of pressure from the NGOs huge emphasis was placed on setting targets for priority species and habitats, and we are still grappling with the complexities of this process. My concern was that targets needed to be delivered somewhere on the ground, and I suggested that we should have Local Biodiversity Action Plans. This was not just to deliver the national targets, but was intended to broaden the constituency involved in biodiversity conservation by bringing all significant landowners into Action Plan Partnerships. It has certainly resulted in a significant boost to work on biodiversity at the local level and I have no doubt that the word biodiversity is with us to stay.

When we were first taking soundings on its public acceptability I remember being impressed by a secondary school student saying it meant, “get out there and do something”. Biodiversity conservation has brought with it a new sense of urgency.

One way in which my own values have changed relates to the significance that natural areas have for local residents, especially in urban areas. My move from Nature Conservancy Council to the Greater London Council in the early 1980s gave me the opportunity to develop new criteria for conservation of natural habitats based on their value to local people, rather than solely on their intrinsic scientific interest. This approach was fundamental to the work of the London Ecology Unit in developing a nature conservation strategy for London.5

Keeping conservation on the radar Has nature conservation lost out to other aspects of environmental concern over this period? Yes I have no doubt that it has, but the reasons go wider than that simple duality. We have seen the science of nature conservation progressively watered down within the national agencies, to the point where few staff can identify critical species or have the detailed ecological knowledge necessary for management planning. Coupled with this is the national loss of skills in taxonomy, 10

ECOS 30(1) 2009

The iconic cover of the first ECOS

which will become critical over the next 10 years as the few remaining experts retire. Nature conservation has also suffered by becoming subsumed within the culture of heritage. It is easy to think that much is being achieved with visitor centres and nature trails, when the reality is that the habitat itself may be undergoing progressive deterioration, and nobody notices. Max Nicholson’s insistence on the need for a science-based organisation is as valid today as it was in 1949.

On the other hand there has been a substantial growth in awareness of wider environmental issues and much of this must be due to TV programmes such as Planet Earth. David Attenborough has been one of the greatest inspirations for conservationists over the past 30 years. But I am asked to name a single project that has inspired me most and I go for the London Wetland Centre because of what has been achieved in real terms for conservation. Created during the late 1990s in place of redundant reservoirs at Barnes in west London, the centre is one of the most impressive habitat creation projects anywhere in Britain. The concrete lined reservoirs covering 42 hectares were replaced by newly created wetland habitats comprising grazing marsh, reed beds, lagoons, wader scrapes, and deep-water ponds, designed to provide a range of habitats for birds. These have been remarkably effective in attracting a wide range of wetland species including bittern 11

ECOS 30(1) 2009 and avocet, together with populations of water rail and water vole. Alongside these natural features high quality facilities were provided for public access and viewing.

The whole project has been remarkably successful, so much so that the wetland has been redesignated as an SSSI, and is now one of the premier bird-watching locations in London. It is all the more remarkable when one realises that it lies only four miles from Buckingham Palace.

What achievement has had the greatest positive impact over the past 30 years?

At the international level it is without doubt the Biodiversity Convention, which has given enormous impetus to work on conservation throughout the world, and has given credibility to nature conservation for many governments, which would otherwise have been impossible to achieve. In the UK I believe the setting up of the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management in 1991, had a profound effect on the practice of nature conservation, by raising standards and giving full professional status to ecologists and conservationists alongside planners, architects and chartered surveyors. The Institute has been extraordinarily effective in raising the status of the profession and giving greater credibility to our views in the eyes of others. It provides a huge range of activities including specialist training courses in taxonomy, ecology and professional practice, as well as conferences and debates on topical issues.

Celebrating success What gives me hope? Growth of people’s interest in the natural world is perhaps the most significant. When I was a teenage birdwatcher it came as a great surprise to meet someone else wearing binoculars. Now birdwatching is fast becoming one of our most popular pursuits and membership of voluntary conservation organisations has grown enormously. The great popularity of programmes such as Springwatch is a reflection of this trend. I am also heartened by the growing number of young people joining IEEM as practising environmentalists. All this is good, but what of policies and programmes? One of the most effective government projects is the Darwin Initiative which provides funding to enable biodiversity specialists from the UK to work with partners in countries lacking resources to develop effective programmes for conservation. Over 500 projects have been supported, at a cost of around £60m. It has been one of our great success stories, yet achieves little publicity. Darwin projects provide an excellent model for ensuring that programmes benefit from good science as well as good practice. We could do with a similar fund for the UK! What else gives me hope? The work of Buglife is cause for celebration, for they are pushing successfully at new frontiers.

Another inspiration is the Great Fen project in Cambridgeshire which is pitched at a scale that will in time have a significant impact for the restoration of wetland habitats. We may well see the return of species which have been absent since the extensive drainage of the fens 350 years ago. Anything that reverses such losses must be good.

What case for despair? I am particularly concerned at the gradual loss of scientific rigour within nature conservation, and even more by the general lack of 12

ECOS 30(1) 2009 awareness that we have lost it. This is exacerbated by trends in further education resulting in fewer students trained in taxonomy and field ecology. With climate change already influencing Britain’s habitats and species surely this is the time for expansion of these subjects at university level rather than reduction.

The climate change bandwagon and its consequences How is conservation perceived by other sectors? I have no doubt that nature conservation suffers as a result of climate change being regarded as the crucial environmental issue of our time. Because of the urgency for action other professions are putting their minds to a whole host of alternative technologies and energy sources, as well as adaptation measures, and in the meantime work on nature conservation has slipped down their agenda. It will be an uphill battle to restore the level of commitment to the natural world that was emerging in the post Rio years. We should take greater advantage of the benefits to be gained from nature conservation, particularly the role that ecosystem services can play in adapting to climate change. How conservation is perceived by the public is another matter. I believe that there is steadily growing support which will in time be reflected in greater political awareness. But I worry about the length of time it takes to get new ideas accepted. In 1992 the LEU published a book on Green Roofs and I gave a talk to the RIBA where I was regarded by many as completely off the wall. It has taken nearly 20 years for the benefits of green roofs to become accepted, and even now they are hardly a mainstream feature of British architecture.

What do I challenge? There is a real danger that nature conservation will suffer through trade-offs within the environmental debate on climate change. We have already seen installation of wind turbines on important peatland sites. A bigger issue will arise in the case of the Severn Estuary, the biodiversity of which is threatened by several of the proposed tidal power schemes. Then there is the possibility of yet another London airport being built, this time on the north Kent marshes. Every time we are faced with such proposals it seems that we have to educate a new generation of politicians on the values of nature. One of the greatest threats on a world scale is the potential development of polar regions as they become more accessible. For these to be protected from such development will require unprecedented international agreements, to ensure that we respect these last remaining areas of wilderness.

I have no doubt that our biggest challenge over the next 30 years will be climate change, which is likely to have profound consequences for nature conservation.

Interestingly there was no mention of climate change when the Nature Conservation Review was published in 1978. The key site concept assumed that so long as appropriate management was applied, habitats would remain intact with their characteristic assemblages of species. But with the long term implications of climate change the very basis for selection of many key sites is likely to be thrown into doubt. I believe that there is an urgent need for a national centre for ecological studies of climate change, to provide advice for future policy development in nature conservation. Sadly we still have to waste time arguing with sceptics. As Ian 13

ECOS 30(1) 2009 McEwan said recently “They can pack their bags and leave the stage.” But unfortunately they are still there. Only last week I met someone involved with a committee of the CBI on climate change who told me that they didn’t invite academics because they were too much trouble, and he was scathing in his comments about the views expressed by Friends of the Earth. His argument, all too familiar, was that it has all happened before so why should we worry. Good that the CBI takes it seriously enough to have a committee, but seriously worrying that influential people should still fly in the face of the scientific evidence.

Keep the faith My advice to a new starter? Learn your ecological skills. Stick to your principles and your convictions. Don’t compromise. This may not be easy, and you may be unpopular, but it’s worth it. You will be respected. Oh and one other thing.

Whatever job you are doing in nature conservation or environment make sure you join IEEM. You will find it gives you enormous support.

References 1.

Goode, D.A. (1980) Forward planning in conservation. ECOS (1(1) 18-21

2.

Goode, D.A. (1981) The threat to wildlife habitats. New Scientist Vol. 89, No. 1237. pp. 219-223.

3.

Goode, D.A. (1984) Conservation and value judgements. In: Roberts, R.D. and Roberts, T.M. (Eds.) Planning and Ecology. Chapman and Hall. pp. 188-205.

4.

Goode, D (2000) Cities as a key to sustainability. In: Poore, D. (Ed) Where next? Reflections on the human future. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

5.

Goode, D (2005) Connecting with nature in a capital city: The London Biodiversity Strategy. In: Trzyna, T. (Ed.) The Urban Imperative: Urban outreach strategies for protected area agencies. IUCN. California Institute of Public Affairs. Sacramento.

David Goode is Visiting Professor at the Environment Institute, University College London. davidgoode@vandoncourt.freeserve.co.uk

14

ECOS 30(1) 2009

30 years in conservation thoughts of a founding father In issue 1(1) Peter Raine analysed the emerging Wildlife and Countryside Bill. Here he reflects on 30 years of conservation activity in questions posed by ECOS…

PETE RAINE Have your values in relation to nature and the environment changed to any degree between now and the first ECOS, and why?

At the time I wrote in the first issue of ECOS I was trying to save the planet. I now believe that’s a grossly conceited view. The planet has been around for the last few billion years and will be around for the next few billion, and on any sensible timescale there is little that we can do to destroy it or to save it. I’m now much more concerned about the future of the human race, and how to limit the damage we can do to ourselves by ignoring or upsetting the balance of forces that keep the planet within the narrow limits for our comfortable existence.

Do you see the same relationship now between nature conservation and conservation in a wider sense as 30 years ago?

At a conference in Boulogne some years ago, a French academic asked me what I did. I have a variety of replies to this up my sleeve, but on that occasion I said I was an ecologist.

“Ah” he said “political or scientific?”.

“Well, actually both” I replied.

“How very unusual” he said.

That’s the essence of this question about “nature conservation and conservation in a wider sense” – there is this very surprising assumption that you can’t be concerned about, say, resource consumption and numbers of breeding puffins at the same time, despite the obvious connections between the two.

Reviewing the lines of dusty pre -1980 environmental books on my shelves,I see that the distinction was certainly real then. The likes of Capra, Schumacher, the Club of Rome, Teddy Goldsmith and The Ecologist, Dave Elliott and his Undercurrents colleagues and the like rarely seem to mention wildlife and nature conservation; conversely, Life on Earth (the first of Attenborough’s great series) was broadcast and published in 1979 and scarcely mentions human impacts until its final sentence. Only a few writers – Rachel Carson is a shining example – managed to bridge the gap.

15

ECOS 30(1) 2009 Is it any different now? Well, hardly. A Wildlife Trust Director recently told me that he doubted if his Trustees recognised the need for nature conservation outside their county, let alone internationally. Maybe Jonathan Porritt or George Monbiot are inspired by nature and wildlife, but they don’t seem to say so in public. I’d be delighted if they proved me wrong.

So – there was a gap between political and scientific ecology in 1980, and there still is now. The reason is, I think, that scientific ecologists think their science will be discredited by being politicised, and political ecologists think their beliefs will be cheapened by being associated with ‘fluffy’ wildlife. We need more bridges across this divide.

Do you use the term biodiversity, and if so, do you find it helpful?

It’s a horrid word and I use it as little as possible. In the strict sense of ‘a region of high biodiversity’ it does reasonably well, but increasingly it is being used as an entirely inadequate substitute for ‘nature’ or ‘wildlife’. It’s cold and professional and conveys nothing of the excitement of the natural world. The way things are going I shall soon be going to ‘watch some biodiversity’ on my morning walk. I hope not.

Do you use the term sustainability (and/or sustainable development) and is it helpful?

It’s very hard not to use it, and there is no obvious alternative, but it has become so over-used as to be almost meaningless. It’s tarnished with political correctness, too, which makes it hard to use it credibly in front of the likes of Boris Johnson or Jeremy Clarkson, should one think it worth the effort. I still prefer the old Brundtland Commission definition which embraces the three aims of environmental, economic and social sustainability.

What project or activity has inspired you most within the British conservation sector, in the past 30 years?

There are lots, obviously, but the one that gives me most pleasure is a small and local one in my native Birmingham. In the late 1980s, a 15 acre SSSI woodland called Moseley Bog (said, amongst other things, to have inspired J.R.R.Tolkein) was under threat for housing development. A group of local residents, led by the late Joy Fifer, ran a campaign, successfully achieved designation as a Local Nature Reserve, and it is now run as a much valued nature reserve by the Urban Wildlife Trust. It was the best sort of local campaign and made even better by a happy ending.

What achievement by the conservation or environment sector has had the greatest positive impact in the past 30 years, in your view?

In the late 1970s I was working for Friends of the Earth in Birmingham, and one of our biggest campaigns was ‘Save the Whale’. Remember that at that time nearly 30,000 great whales were being killed every year. We produced pamphlets, led demonstrations and marches, designed and sold thousands of badges and T shirts and did all the campaigning activities that you would expect. Then, in 1982, the International Whaling Commission announced that a moratorium (which they coyly call a “pause”) on commercial whaling would operate from 1986. Since then, most stocks of great whales have been recovering well. I know that everything isn’t rosy – the Yangtse river dolphin went extinct in 2006, and there are critically 16

NEIL BENNETT

ECOS 30(1) 2009

threatened dolphins in the Irrawaddy and the Gulf of Mexico – but most of the species that were being hunted are now out of danger.

I think this is hugely positive because it was achieved by worldwide action, largely by NGOs, and mostly by people who had never seen a whale. It was an international statement of moral outrage, and it worked. And many of us who marched behind banners and carried fibreglass models of whales up and down our streets can feel proud.

What gives you most hope; what most despair?

I am filled with hope whenever I see the face of someone watching wildlife and seeing something for the first time. It’s often children – but often not. Last summer, I lent an octogenarian my binoculars so that she could see dolphins for the first time, and the look on her face inspired me for weeks.

I despair when economics signally fails to reflect environmental reality. How can we hope to reduce oil consumption (let alone conserve such a priceless resource for future and more careful use) when the price of crude goes from 30 dollars a barrel to 150 dollars and then back down to 30 in the space of 8 months ?

How is conservation being perceived from the outside (by other sectors and/or the public) and what issues does this present for the conservation sector?

17

ECOS 30(1) 2009 Outsiders often see conservation as an expensive but necessary expiation of guilt.

This is hardly a positive or inspirational viewpoint. Of all the characteristics shown by wildlife conservationists, worthiness and the occupation of the moral high ground is the most repellent and the least effective. The issue for us is to present conservation as exciting and cheap (or at least good value), and to persuade politicians and the media that looking after nature is fun, interesting, vote-winning and uplifting. We need to celebrate wildlife, not apologise for it.

What aspect of current conservation activity or line of thinking do you challenge most?

I expect this will upset many ECOS readers, but I challenge the current emphasis on reintroductions. I’m not necessarily against the concept –– but it does show every sign of being the cuckoo in the nest in terms of the resources it consumes.

Surely we should be looking after what we still have rather than pining after what we have lost, in some cases several centuries ago?

If rewilding – and that’s another horrid word - means the fostering of areas of wilderness, then I’m all for it. If it means endless discussions about the rights and wrongs of reintroducing wolves, then I’m not. However far my heart lifts every time I see red kites circling over the Chilterns (and it does lift a long way), I’d still rather that my grandchildren were assured of seeing bluebells or hearing a song thrush.

What will be the biggest challenge facing conservation activity over the coming 30 years?

Stamina and bravery. Stamina because the arguments about habitat loss, species loss and climate change will run and run over the next century at least, and we need to be able to constantly engage people without boring them. And bravery because there are some sacred cows that need to be challenged – not least the ‘right’ of human beings to consume as much as they can afford and to breed as fast as they can.

What advice would you give to somebody starting out now in the conservation or related environmental sector, to help them succeed in their efforts?

I think there are three essential attributes if someone is to be a successful conservationist and stay reasonably sane.

The first is passion, without which arguments become mere rhetoric. The second is a sense of humour, both to laugh at ourselves and to win over the opposition. And the third is to be at least a competent field naturalist. By that I don’t mean that anyone practising conservation has to be an expert on identifying fine-leaved pondweeds or to be able to tell a Baird’s sandpiper from a dunlin at 50 paces – but I have never understood how anyone can call themselves a conservationist but not be able to broadly identify plants and animals in the field.

Pete Raine: Since the first issue of ECOS, Pete has been Director of the Centre for Alternative Technology; Director of Kent Wildlife Trust; Director of Strategic Planning with Kent County Council; and he now does bits of consultancy providing they’re worthwhile and interesting. pete@raine2.plus.com

18

ECOS 30(1) 2009

A founding father 30 years on In the first issue of ECOS Nick Pinder drew attention to proposals to reclaim 200 acres of saltmarsh in The Wash, as conservation groups prepared to fight a public inquiry at Gedney Drove End. Here is his response to the ECOS ‘30 year’ questions...

NICK PINDER Have your values in relation to nature and the environment changed to any degree since the first ECOS? I still get the same exhilaration from nature as I did when we produced the first ECOS and luckily I can still find it more or less on my doorstep, in the Isle of Man. I still want to share that exhilaration with others but I want them to feel it as well.

This is why I’ve come round to the view that education is the most important aspect of my job running the Government-owned Curraghs Wildlife Park.

Do you use the terms biodiversity and sustainability and do you find it helpful?

As much as I admire E O Wilson, the biologist who coined the term biodiversity, I find it an unwieldy concept. The official definition is too complicated to explain to your audience when the term is used in its official sense and when used in its colloquial sense it adds little to the discussion that is not conveyed by the cuddlier term “wildlife”. I think sustainability has also been hijacked and is used by government and its agencies with little concept of the policy changes required to achieve sustainability rather than simply how they can carry on current activities in to the future.

What project or activity has inspired you most within the British conservation sector, in the past 30 years?

Large scale conservation and re-wilding gives real scope for landscape-scale processes to develop and so remove the need for management intervention. When I think back to how many weekends I spent in my youth scrub-bashing in Norfolk attempting to maintain habitats which should have been maintained by native mammals, I wonder why it has taken so long for this concept to emerge from the undergrowth.

What achievement by the conservation or environment sector has had the greatest positive impact in the past 30 years, in your view? What gives you most hope; what most despair?

The success of the sea eagle reintroduction from relatively modest beginnings and overcoming, even reversing, a hostile attitude by some influential NGOs has completely altered official attitudes to reintroduction as a conservation tool in Britain to the extent that the Scottish government has licensed a trial reintroduction of beavers, 30 years after I completed my MSc thesis on the topic. I fervently hope that we can build on this and bring the beaver back to England and 19

ECOS 30(1) 2009 Wales as well but I despair at the deliberate obfuscation introduced by woolly thinking opponents and the continued wheel re-invention imposed by dithering decision makers.

How is conservation perceived from the outside?

Regrettably conservation is still being seen as a bolt-on luxury which can be jettisoned in favour of development whenever economic circumstances dictate.

No-one has got to grips with designing a no-growth or low-growth society and what the implications of that might be, for wildlife, for jobs, and for society as a whole.

I suspect it is an impossible dream.

What aspect of current conservation activity or line of thinking do you challenge most, and why?

I’m still fairly sceptical about the whole global warming debate, from its causes to its possible consequences. It seems to me that the temperature changes being suggested are fairly minor compared to historic changes within the last (or current, depending on your stance) ice age. Whilst I can see that wildlife now has a much more patchy, restricted distribution which might preclude distribution shifts in response, I find predictions of the extinction of, for example, polar bears to be rather alarmist given that they must have survived through some of the previous interglacial periods. There are two further aspects of climate change that worry me. First, that we have the hubris to think we understand the climatic system enough to model it with sufficient accuracy to make definitive predictions and policy decisions. Second, that it has taken over the whole agenda such that no discussion on nature conservation can take place outside the scenario of climate change, whether or not that is an appropriate consideration.

What will be the biggest challenge facing conservation activity over the coming 30 years?

Curiously enough, given the above answer, I think global warming qualifies as the biggest challenge facing conservation. If the worst case predictions do turn out to be true then we really will be facing big challenges, for society to survive as a whole let alone to permit wildlife to share our world. Conversely, conservation will have a huge public relations job to do if predictions fall short of the mark, to re-engage the public and get support for wildlife in a world where scepticism will reign.

What advice would you give to somebody starting out now in conservation?

Persistence and flexibility. My career in conservation, such as it has been, was in a different sector to that intended and I know several others who have switched horses in mid-stream, some giving up lucrative positions to do so. It is frustrating to be caught in the conundrum of failing to get positions through lack of experience but the opportunities now for meaningful voluntary work are far greater and might even help define an aspiring conservationist’s views on where they see their career taking them.

Nick Pinder is General Manager of Curraghs Wildlife Park, Ballaugh, Isle of Man. Nick.pinder@gov.im

20

ECOS 30(1) 2009

Looking ahead 30 years – ideals of a new generation The inner circle of those who created ECOS came from University College London and had links to the UCL MSc in Conservation, which is still flourishing as a course of high repute today. ECOS asked two people who are fresh from completing the course about their views and aspirations...

ANDREW HARBY & ELIZABETH COLEMAN How would you describe your values in relation to conservation?

Andrew Harby: As a young conservationist, my values originally tended towards the idealistic and focused more on issues from a global perspective. For example, initially I held a strong belief in a complete withdrawal of human influence from the remaining areas of wilderness throughout the world. Although I am still pro-rewilding to an extent, my training and work in the voluntary sector has helped me to develop a greater understanding of the differing ethical and practical issues influencing conservation approaches. I now appreciate the impracticality of human removal from the majority of even the wildest of areas and would actively encourage working cooperatively with local people to ensure the success of conservation projects. Recently, particularly through my work in the voluntary sector, I have progressed towards a more UK-centric viewpoint and have developed a much greater understanding of the role that the goodwill of local people and landowners can play in managing areas sensitively for wildlife. However it is still my belief that conservation methods need to be more proactive in redressing the natural balance where it has been heavily altered, and should not fear using novel and more extreme methods of achieving this where appropriate.

Elizabeth Coleman: I value the National Parks throughout the UK. To me they truly represent the best of the British countryside. Their remit to ‘foster the economic and social wellbeing of local communities’ but at the same time ‘conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage’ of an area is particularly challenging, but, I think, should be used much more widely throughout the countryside as a model for economic growth.

How do you relate to the terms biodiversity and sustainability?

Andrew Harby: The term biodiversity appears to have superseded the more general term ‘nature’ over the past 10 years and its use has some advantages and is more useful in conveying a wider meaning. Biodiversity can be used to express a range of diversity, from the genetic level up to the largest scales of changes between different ecosystems.

This is useful when discussing the biological health of a site where the term ‘nature’ for example, may only indicate the species composition of the site. When considering the conservation of a site or species, this term may not suffice. For species, the 21

ECOS 30(1) 2009 biodiversity at a genetic level is of great importance in understanding and estimating its ability to withstand potentially damaging changes. For sites, the biodiversity of the surrounding ecosystems is an important factor in adjudging potential change. In such cases I have found the term ‘biodiversity’ handy in expressing my thoughts.

Elizabeth Coleman: I use the term biodiversity to mean the variation of living things within an ecosystem. I find it a useful term, so long as it is properly defined in a report. Sustainable development is a way of using resources with the aim of meeting human needs whilst preserving the environment. However, I feel that this definition is rather vague. How far do you need to go to preserve the environment in order to label a development ‘sustainable?’ This needs to be quantified and schemes such as the Code for Sustainable Homes and BREEAM attempt to do this, which is definitely a step in the right direction.

What project or activity has inspired you most within the British conservation sector?

Andrew Harby: The project to reintroduce the beaver has been a high profile case amongst recent conservation measures. Though it has proved easier to portray the beaver as a cuddly, charismatic animal, whose very presence would improve the character of the British countryside, it does not come without its problems. This has been illustrated recently by the efforts of one rogue Beaver in causing extensive ‘damage’ to trees along the River Tamar. The fact that such programs are still receiving generally positive backing is encouraging as projects like this are important in inspiring interest in the general public and encouraging young conservationists like myself to believe they haven’t embarked on a career of endless scrub control.

In addition, I find recent projects to reintroduce species such as the sea eagle very appealing and am also encouraged by recent measures to restore the red squirrel through genetic investigation and a controversial, but in my opinion justified, cull of the Eastern grey squirrel in target areas. Though the prospects of reducing the stranglehold of the grey squirrel may seem imposing and improbable, such efforts summarize the lot of conservationists in their struggle to negate the pernicious influence of previous human actions and the fact that big proactive projects are still being undertaken is heartening.

Elizabeth Coleman: The reintroduction of red kites is a truly inspirational project since its success is evident to everyone. Whilst in Oxfordshire recently I observed about 25 of these spectacular birds at one time.

What gives you most hope; what most despair?

Andrew Harby: I derive most hope from the growing understanding and awareness of conservation issues amongst the general public and the younger elements of society in particular. Though the promotion of some of these issues is occasionally dubious and the science and understanding less than rigorous, these issues command high coverage across the media. This growing awareness can only be for the better for the future of conservation issues, provided that the green sector maintains a high level of involvement in their promotion rather than allowing these issues to be hijacked by industries and individuals with their own agendas.

22

NEIL BENNETT

ECOS 30(1) 2009 After years of despair in the approach of the world’s largest superpower to the greater environmental issues, including some extremely nervy moments when a particular vice-presidential candidate seemed to be gaining in popularity, it now seems that the United States may finally be on the verge of confronting their responsibility towards the environment.

Although the new administration has made all the right noises so far, it will remain to be seen just what changes are made. At the moment, I still remain sceptical about the United States’ ability to change its behaviour.

Elizabeth Coleman: The decision to give the green light to Donald Trump’s golf resort in Aberdeenshire gives me most despair. It feels like the legal protection of this area has been overridden, which sends a bad message about how we enforce protection of designated sites in the UK. When asked what worried them most, the majority of a group of school children answered ‘The Environment.’ I think kids have been brought up hearing about environmental issues, and we will consequently see much more action with regards to conservation and environmental issues in the future.

How is conservation being perceived from the outside?

Andrew Harby: Conservation issues can suffer from negative perceptions as various measures become lumped together in the public consciousness under the general heading of ‘green issues’. This is something I have had experience with in my local area, a region with a large hunting community with which I have many connections.

When talking about my choice of career, I find that amongst many hunt supporters the whole conservation ideal is frequently associated with the recent ban. The general distrust of conservation organisations caused by this ban is likely to influence the perception and success of future conservation measures in these areas. This is not to 23

ECOS 30(1) 2009 suggest that conservation is met entirely with suspicion in my local community, however it is hard to shake the impression that a number of people still resent the implication that conservation organisations in the area know best how to manage their land.

Elizabeth Coleman: Conservationists I think were traditionally perceived as ‘tree huggers’ and the field of conservation seen as something that slowed development.

But I believe that are changing, with conservation seen as essential to protecting our green spaces both for people and wildlife. Even in my short time working in ecological consultancy, I have noticed a change in attitudes. Environmental assessment is increasingly seen as an integral part of the planning and development process. I hope to see more innovative ideas, such as green roofs, which enhance the nature conservation value of a site, incorporated into developments as standard.

What aspect of current conservation thinking do you challenge most?

Andrew Harby: Extremist activism, largely under the guise of raising awareness around global warming, has been on the rise and can be expected to gather momentum over the next decade. Such activity is misguided at best, at worst irresponsible. The two issues of conservation and global warming are likely to be linked forevermore in the public imagination under the banner of green issues and there is a danger that conservation initiatives could be perceived negatively through association.

Additionally, distinguishing between the global green issues and localised conservation in the public’s perception will be a major challenge for the conservation movement. There is a danger that the huge issue of climate change and carbon emissions could cloud the understanding of conservation measures as every project becomes defined with respect to its implications regarding these.

This would be undesirable in the extreme. For example, when describing to friends that some of my recent voluntary work has involved tree felling, they reacted negatively, believing that trees are generally good because of their role in blunting global warming.

Elizabeth Coleman: I challenge the lack of enforcement and monitoring of ecological mitigation works and feel that there should be a more rigorous post-development ecological review system in place. There can be a substantial gap between what is promised by developers through planning obligations and what is delivered, due to the inadequacy of subsequent monitoring and enforcement. More rigorous enforcement would ensure developers take ecological mitigation more seriously, not seeing it as just a ‘tick box’. Mitigation measures are often applied with limited knowledge of their effectiveness and monitoring may lead to a better informed approach, ensuring that habitats and species are maintained at the desired level.

What will be the biggest challenge facing conservation activity over the coming 30 years?

Andrew Harby: Given the current economic turmoil, the most immediate challenges facing conservation are likely to be those of fiscal justification. With donations for environmental charities and government funding for conservation agencies such as Natural England likely to take a hit over the next few years, the 24

ECOS 30(1) 2009 environmental sector’s interactions with the business sector may be of increasing significance. In particular, the relations between conservation organisations and the extractive industries traditionally perceived as being the opponent of the environmental sector. This represents one of the greatest challenges to conservation and one of the greatest opportunities, and the ability of conservation organisations to use the growing interest from the business sector to their advantage will be vital to their economic survival and practical efficiency.

What advice has been most useful to guide you in your emerging career?

Andrew Harby: During my dissertation project I came to appreciate the importance of developing a thorough and comprehensive understanding of a whole ecosystem and not merely the species I was studying or developing a management plan for. More often than not, the highest considerations are to be given to the multitude of human factors that may be involved rather than the seemingly more superficially important condition of the incumbent flora and fauna. This was particularly evident in the fieldwork for my dissertation on a small population of Wallabies living on a Ramsar wetland site in the Isle of Man. The attitude of the numerous different landowners on the site and its surroundings towards my work greatly influenced the results and conclusions I was able to draw and by talking and consulting with these landowners I was able to discover much more about the site and the Wallaby population than would have been possible otherwise. Ultimately, it was the view held by the majority of farmers owning land adjacent to the site that this population was not a serious pest that helped inform my conclusion that their removal was not ultimately necessary.

Elizabeth Coleman: The most useful advice, and that which has enabled me to get a job as an ecological consultant, has to be with regards to relevant voluntary work. In short, get as much of it under your belt as possible early on!

Over to you…

In this year’s final ECOS we’d like to report more of your views on the questions posed here. In particular, please send us your brief comments on: • What gives you most hope in nature conservation?

• What do you challenge most in conservation?

• How is conservation perceived from the outside?

• What is the biggest challenge for conservation in the next 30 years?

We will put your replies on the BANC web site and compare and contrast them in the December ECOS. Please email your comments (anything from two sentences to two paras on each question) to ecos@easynet.co.uk 25

ECOS 30(1) 2009

Towards a philosophy of Nature Conservation This article explores the reasons why Nature Conservation should be embedded within its own philosophy rather than be dependent on the shifting sands of public opinion, scientific reductionism and political and economic chicanery.

BRIAN DAY Each of us represents nature as we perceive, understand and respond to it.

Conservationists often fall into the trap of believing that their representations are exemplary rather than just well-informed. The prevailing value of nature, however, reflects dominant social and political conceptions, usually misinformed by historicism and always dependent on economic conditions. As a result our globalised society has uncoupled the private appreciation of nature from its public worth, fostering instead an idealized view while transforming and destroying much of the real thing.

Definitions In this article the word ‘nature’ is used in a purely intuitive sense – life interacting with life and its environment. However, at any point in time, multiple interpretations of nature and the natural are fighting for recognition and preeminence. Many are insightful, instructive and potentially valid: wilderness, protected or reservation nature, specialty, rarity, invention, romanticized and television nature, wild or brutal nature. But when all these embodiments have been accounted for, something more remains, that which philosphers might call the essence of nature. Ecology tries to describe what it is. Nature Conservation seeks to retain it.

But one immediate problem arises. Nature conservation has two distinct meanings. Primarily it signifies the ensemble of ecological methods and techniques by which practitioners seek to protect and enhance ecosystems together with the flora and fauna which inhabit them and give them life. In this article that meaning will always appear in lower case although that is in no way to denigrate it. When the term appears in capitals, it will echo the words employed

by Aristotle in his Metaphysics almost 2400 years ago to describe the natural world: “All things are ordered together somehow but not all alike both fishes and fowls and plants; and the world is not such that one thing has nothing to do with another but they are connected.”

26

ECOS 30(1) 2009 Nature Conservation, then, will encompass any political or philosophical activity, any scientific methodology, any system of knowledge that aims to conserve the increasingly fragile link between Homo sapiens sapiens, the planet upon which we live and all the life-forms with which we share being and dependence. I do not, I am sure, have to argue here that the link is at breakingpoint. What I hope to eludicate is one of the fundamental reasons why this is so.

If Nature Conservation acts as the means by which the original and true nature of an object is maintained, then that science1 must be grounded in a love of wisdom, in its own interpretive philosophy.

Flat earthers Why does the Flat Earth Society still exist? Why has the world of our senses never recovered from Platonic longing for pure, disembodied reason or Galilean mathematical righteousness? Why has the medieval concept of sin continued to denigrate our animal nature such that we trash our environment both as a religious imperative as well as an economic necessity? Why have we espoused the cyber world with such élan to the extent of sexualizing and gaining sexual satisfaction from computerized avatars? Why, since the time of Copernicus, have science and religion incited a spiritual denudation2 of the concept of nature such that it is always object to the human subject? Why in the last 150 years has economics vigorously joined in this process and indeed become its chief exponent? Perhaps many simply share the view of the Russian poet, Vladimir Mayakovsky3: “After seeing electricity I lost interest in nature. Not up to date enough.”

There is, I believe, a common thread running through the possible answers to these discrete questions. Not yet has Nature Conservation nailed to the door of the World Bank the precepts of a shared philosophy; there is no spectre of Nature Conservation haunting Europe or any other continent; it does not possess a Manifesto like the Surrealists nor even a Bill of Rights.4 Instead a plethora of definitions, practices, outlandish and esoteric beliefs, prejudices and aversions fight like rats in a sack for the rarified air of primacy when none of them can demonstrate the understanding, the capacity, the quality or the nous to attain such heights. In default of a codified and commonly agreed set of overarching concepts, beliefs and imperatives, we argue ad infinitum over definitions of ‘alien’ and ‘natural’ while at the same time plaguing the public at large with messages of doom, destruction and despair. This is not enough. It is nowhere near enough and the lack of results bears witness.

Clapham omnibus If, for example, you ask the woman on the top of the Clapham omnibus what she knows about gravity, she will in all probability cite the story of Newton’s apple. If you ask the bloke sitting beside her why caviar is so expensive, he will doubtless explain, albeit in his own words, the laws of supply and demand. Were you then to ask the priest sitting behind them why human beings are often so brutal, he will probably impeach our animal nature and suggest we conquer and eventually seek 27

ECOS 30(1) 2009 to extirpate it. Finally all three of them are likely to agree with Lord Action5 in his pithy description of the corrupting nature of politics. Their answers demonstrate how the core maxims of physics, economics, religion and politics have percolated the common realm. Knowledge of these axioms is not limited to scientists or popularisers: on some level ordinary people understand and accept the major discoveries of these disciplines and can apply them, the need arising, in their daily lives. They can choose to deny them – and herein lies the answer to my first question – just as flat earthers deny the spherical shape of the planet. But such a choice flies in the face of all rationality and they know it. More importantly it represents no threat.

We style such a filtration of ideas as ‘common knowledge’ akin to the similarly public concept of ‘mother nature’ although of course the latter has now been much derided. But it is not so with Nature Conservation. If you now question the travellers about ecology, you are more likely to be met with derision and accusations of wanting to protect snails and bats and vermin to the detriment of human beings than with understanding and acceptance. My principal thesis is therefore quite simple: to succeed in its aims Nature Conservation requires philosophical sustenance, support and guidance. Without the development and universality of a true philosophy it cannot and will not prevail.

Wrestle with nature What then has resulted from this lack of a philosophical base? Most importantly, since Rene Descartes,6 one of the precursors of the Enlightenment, told us that we should be masters and possessors of nature, human beings have exercised their right to make and remake the world as they see fit. The rest of being was dismissed in peremptory terms by Immanuel Kant:7 “Persons differ in rank and dignity from things such as irrational animals with which one may deal and dispose of at one’s discretion.”

Hobbes8 warned that, in a state of nature, our lives would be nasty, brutish and short. Marx advised us to wrestle with nature, keeping it under control in order to subdue the eternal necessity which it imposes. Heidigger 9 referred to animals as being like water in water (meant of course to demean their nature but in my view rather a compliment). From these and many other critical accounts, value, purpose and meaning are denied to nature and granted only to humans. The dead weight of entropy lies heavy upon Nature Conservation.

Wounded Knee Animals have not been the only victims of these distinctions. Those human animals deemed to be too close to nature have suffered a similar fate. The settlers in America developed the theory of Manifest Destiny whereby the white immigrants had to prevail over the whole country, extending the round-up to any of the native peoples who got in their way. Dee Brown 10 describes how the indigenous tribes were displaced, corralled and slaughtered just as game was hunted to extinction and the huge grasslands were first impoverished then 28

ECOS 30(1) 2009 destroyed. He relates the heart-rending story of the Navajos whose stronghold lay in the Canyon de Chello in New Mexico where they had raised an orchard of some 5000 fruit trees. After their defeat, troops were ordered to chop the lot down, an early example of how ‘advanced’ society has decoupled itself from the natural world. The Navajos concluded that the whitemen hated nature as much as they hated them.

Accordingly domination of nature won the support first of anthropocentric philosophy and then of economic realism. Science and rationalism substituted a disembodied, reductionist, sterile world where human subject and natural object become entrenched enemies in a war that only the subjects can win.11 Of course, in our bodies the bacterium is often the subject while in our society the poor are demonised and objectified.

Rooney or Ronaldo There are other, more insidious results of the vacuum I am describing. Science is charged with explaining the difference between facts and values. Success marks the measure of progress towards new understandings. But the very ground ecology and Nature Conservation should occupy has been captured and its morphology transformed by other doctrines whose proponents then pontificate on ecological and environmental issues, defining nature and the natural in ways to suit their own purposes. In this way the most pernicious laws of the market place are given precedence over the most compelling laws of biology. The health of the US economy assumes a far greater importance than the health of the planet.12 The dominant economic system dictates free-market solutions to ecological crises – often having provoked them in the first place – when, manifestly, a free-for-all commons with no responsibility leads to unsustainability and a lack of accounting for externalities such as pollution and biodiversity loss. Thus, representatives of monopoly capitalism are treated as experts in the very subject for which they are least qualified to speak with any authority.

This applies on all levels, even the most absurd. Ex-chancellors of the Exchequer and scientists in hock to the oil companies are wheeled out to deny the anthropogenic causes of climate alteration (climate change is far too objective – we have altered the climate, it has not simply changed) and are treated with respect!

Is it imaginable that Rooney or Ronaldo should be asked to comment upon the propensity of the Large Hadron Collider to create a never-ending succession of black holes? Science has become tainted with ideology to such a degree that the values which it is employed to support (often economic ones) are transmogrified into facts.

Our experts So what happens to ecological experts? Practitioners in nature conervation are often subjected to verbal assault, insult, undermining and ridicule as a result of their impoverished and undervalued science. In 1961, Velsicol, pesticide producer 29

ECOS 30(1) 2009 of now-banned substances such as heptachlor and chlordane, accused Rachel Carson of having been manipulated by the Russians to consign American food production back to nineteenth century methods. Nothing has changed in the intervening period. Over 40 years later Sir David King, the Government’s former chief scientist, accused organic farmers and anti-GM campaigners of being responsible for starvation in parts of Africa by holding back a green revolution that could dramatically improve the food supply.13 According to him, organic food is merely a lifestyle choice for communities with excess food. Were the concepts and practices of ecology and conservation to be accorded their rightful place, such onslaughts would themselves be ridiculed. It is all the more galling when considering the attempts of global GM companies to eradicate agricultural systems such as the Jhum in NE India, the Bora in Peru or the Huertas in Mexico which, for centuries, have enhanced agricultural production, protected resources and produced quality crops. But of course the more distant our ecological relationships become, the more destructive our general behaviour.

Environmentalists in general are traduced as watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside), eco-freaks, treehuggers, Mr. Ozone (Bush’s description of Al Gore) and even eco-fascists. But of course the majority of these scurrilous epithets come from the mouths of those have most to gain from an economic rather than an ecological transformation of nature.

Internal dissension Without an underlying philosophy the Conservation movement has fragmented into large numbers of disparate groups and organisations, some of whom can barely stand each other as the unholy row over the proposed development of wind turbines at Whinash14 exemplified. Practitioners, despite their imaginative and excellent work, rarely make the news except in specialist magazines: more often than not Nature Conservationists only react to it. Because of this fragmented and reactive stance we have been sidelined as a special interest group akin to experts in medieval stained glass or the art of deciphering papyrus – all very interesting but too esoteric for general consumption. Indeed public perceptions of environmental goods are almost without exception shallow and lacking in substance. At higher levels Nature Conservation distinguishes itself along nationalistic lines; in the UK the aim of management by intervention in and manipulation of protected areas often seems to be an increase in species diversity to levels which could never have existed naturally;15 while in the US, after a couple of centuries of wholesale destruction, practitioners concern themselves with maintaining the supposed purity and inviolability of the ‘wilderness’ that does remain; in Spain more conservation results from the concern of local people than from state initiatives. These are, I realize, broad-brush descriptions but they do show that on many levels Nature Conservation is more characterized by divergence than by unity.

Nature Conservation is further divided. Anthropocentrics attempt, by extoling the utilitarian and functional values of nature, to persuade that we need to protect the 30

NEIL BENNETT

ECOS 30(1) 2009

natural world simply to satisfy our own designs and sensitivities. Biocentrics, by proclaiming the simplistic right to live for all beings, ignore the socio-political origins of the environmental crisis – ‘slash and burn’ development, economic injustice and the imperative of capitalism for new markets. Whether we chastise nature and elevate men or glorify nature and belittle women, all roads lead to perdition.

The conceptions behind these polarised terms are positively harmful to our aims. All living beings transform nature in their own manner. If the lion could speak, we wouldn’t understand what he said.16 But we all share the community of being that is the expression of 3.6 billion years of evolution by chance and random experimentation. We need to be experiencing the world in that light rather than choosing this or that part of nature according to our own lights.

Political ineptitude – ‘Seize the Moment’ Environmental debt is mainly paid by the poor and the powerless, whether human or non-human. Although Aldo Leopold called for an ecological interpretation of history 17, what we really need is a philosophical interpretation of ecology.

Conservationists have no power, no power base, no mass movement, no ideology, no philosophy upon which to fasten their convictions and their understanding.

Many of the larger NGOs are inward-looking and seem more concerned with 31

ECOS 30(1) 2009 membership fees than direct action. In 2006 for example the RSPB proudly announced that over 1000 of its million members had marched against climate alteration. This was a success? The same organisation is now running a campaign called ‘seize the moment’ where members are invited to provide descriptions of inspirational encounters with nature. I do not wish to decry the efforts of such a fine organisation and indeed I am a member. But surely, in the middle of the sixth great extinction event, something more inspirational per se can be found – calling its million members onto the streets for example.

A robin redbreast in a cage It is the case that much N(n)ature C(c)onservation effort has been and is being put into climate alteration. But I would argue that this pollution on a grand scale manifests itself as a function of the problem, not the problem itself. I believe that Nature Conservation has set off down the wrong track precisely because it has no philosophy to guide it. The real problem is being or in ecological terms biodiversity, its underestimation by the prevailing world view of nature, its vitiation and its ultimate destruction.

The purchase of Senegalese fishing rights by the European Union ‘puts all of heaven in a rage’; the conversion of mangrove forest into shrimp farms ‘predicts the ruin of the state’; the pollution of the oceans ‘calls for human blood’.18 If nature has no value and expresses no purpose except for its services to humanity why should people care about the planet as the despoliation of one part can clearly be compensated for by the parts remaining. Nature Conservation should indeed be about people but it is first and foremost about being: it is the basis of all ontology; it is for all being.

It is time to go on the offensive. If conservation in general sums as the expression of our relationship with nature over time, then at present all we have is an exploitative, unsustainable one. To be taken seriously Nature Conservation needs a serious take on life. It needs to grow up. It is of no fundamental use putting nature into reservations as the American settlers put indigenous tribes into them – we have seen the disastrous results. The domination of nature originated in society and must therefore be resolved by it. But society needs a weapon, a lever, an impulse... a philosophy.

Eudaemonia Physicists assure us that reality can only be found at the atomic or even sub-atomic level to which all matter, even Gaia, can be reduced. Most religions tell us that this life is merely a preparation for the one to come – elsewhere. Molecular biologists scoff at both of them, maintaining that vis vitalis exists only at the level of the chromosome. Only Nature Conservation incites us to trust the world of our senses so that we may discover what the pre-Socratic philosophers were the first to seek – the good life, eudaemonia.

32

ECOS 30(1) 2009 Dismissed by religion as sinful and by science as inconsequential and derivative, there is nevertheless one world in which coherence may be found – the inexhaustible field of our unmediated sensory experience.19 Our senses tell us about the world and our place therein. The more we withdraw from looking, feeling, touching, experiencing, the less we shall know about ourselves and the more destructive our behaviour will become. This should form the bedrock of a philosophy of Nature Conservation.

The strange kinship of being During the course of this article I have tried to elucidate, amongst the criticisms and complaints, some but far from an exhaustive list of the possible strands of belief that might constitute a philosophy of Nature Conservation – the community of being, interconnectivity and the dependence of life upon life, the paramount world of the senses, lateral rather than hierarchical relationships that fully mirror life on earth rather than a narrow, one-dimensional expression of it, species responsibility, the wisdom of ecology, the multiplicity of value and knowledge and above all what Merleau-Ponty called ‘the strange kinship of being.’ Philosophy grows from many roots and its power lies precisely in its ability to synthesize their best ideas into precepts and modes of action.

So rethink you bright young men and women when you come to draw up your natural theses to nail to the door of economic realism and robber capitalism. Think respect not ecocentrism. Think wonderment not use value. Think experience not reason. Think holism not reductionism. Most importantly rethink the hubris of the human race which claims the natural world to have been shaped by its efforts and intelligence alone so that everyone may be persuaded of the vision of a gifted French philosopher: “Non-human animals proceed to trace in their environment, by the way they act and behave, their very own vision of things... and when we can identify with them, we shall experience common ground”.20

References and notes 1.

Throughout this article I have referred to Nature Conservation as a science. I hold in fact that it combines the revelatory knowledge of science with the creative sensitivities of the arts.

2.

Hans Jonas 1968 The Phenomenon of Life Delta New York.

3.

Vladimir Mayakovsky 1985 Selected Works in Three Volumes Raduga Moscow.

4.

In 1517 Martin Luther nailed to the door of Wissenburg cathedral his 95 theses for Church reform and thereby began the Reformation; the first sentence of Marx’s Communist Manifesto of 1848 “there is a spectre haunting Europe, the spectre of communism”; in 1924 André Breton published Le Manifeste du Surréalisme; in 1789 James Madison introduced ten amendments to the US constitution protecting the rights of all citizens.

5.

Lord Acton in a letter to Bishop Creighton in 1887 wrote “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

33

ECOS 30(1) 2009 6.

René Descartes (1596-1650), responsible for the famous conclusion “Je pense donc je suis” (I think therefore I am) that has resounded through the centuries as the credo of anthropocentrism, also advised that the mind is there to lead the body away from reliance on the senses.

7.

This was quotation was included in a lecture series entitled “Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view” that Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), the renowned German philosopher, gave in 1798.

8.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), after never having got over the fear the Spanish Armada had engendered in the year of his birth, warned in his Leviathon (1651) that man in a state of nature would have a solitary,poor, nasty, brutish and short existence.

9.

Martin Heidigger (1889-1876), often viewed as the founder of existential philosophy, was anathematized for his apparent sympathies with Hitler and the National Socialist movement.

10. Dee Brown (1970) Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee Holt New York. For an excellent book on indigenous ecology see Fikret Berkes 2008 Sacred Ecology Routledge Abingdon Oxford.

11. Bruno Latour (2004) Politics of Nature Harvard University Press Cambridge Massachusetts.

12. Murray Bookchin (1996) The Philosophy of Social Ecology: Essays on Dialectical Naturalism Black Rose Books New York.

13. The Guardian 9/9/2008.

14. When Greenpeace and FoE are ranged against the CPRE, National Trust and the Council for National Parks, how is the public supposed to decide?

15. Richard Mabey (1980) The Common Ground J.M. Dent London.

16. Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations first published posthumously in 1953 and republished at the fiftieth anniversary of the philosopher’s death in 2001 by Blackwell Oxford.

17. Aldo Leopold (1949) A Sand County Almanac Oxford University Press New York.

18. ‘Adapated’ from William Blake’s poem Auguries of Innocence presumed to have been written in 1803 and which begins:

To see a world in a grain of sand. And a heaven in a wild flower.

Hold infinity in the palm of your hand. And eternity in an hour.

A robin redbreast in a cage. Puts all heaven in a rage.

19. Maurice Merleau-Ponty (2003) Nature: Course Notes from the Collège de France Northwestern University Press Evanston Illinois (English translation of the original which was first published in France by Editions du Seuil Paris 1995). Merleau-Ponty was above all concerned with multiplicity in everything and a strong opponent of reductionism.

20. ibid.

Brian Day is a part-time lecturer in Ecology and Conservation at Birkbeck College. The views expressed here are his own. brian.day4@tiscali.co.uk

34

ECOS 30(1) 2009

Everything in its place?

Nature conservation in the 21st Century Nature conservation is changing from an esoteric pursuit to one more integrated with other concerns. Sustainability, climate change and the diverse resources it now attracts, are all making nature conservation more open and extensive, although in urban areas the ‘new’ ways of working are very familiar.

PETER SHIRLEY Habitats, species and ecosystems – the start line Nature conservation emerged as a mainstream professional discipline in the middle of the 20th Century. Impetus came from the passing of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act and the creation of the Nature Conservancy in 1949. The Act made provision for a National Parks Commission, and gave powers to public bodies, including councils to establish and maintain nature reserves.

These initiatives complemented the activities of sympathetic landowners and managers, and organisations such as the National Trust, Naturalists’ (now Wildlife) Trusts and the RSPB. The timing was no surprise. In the first half of the 20th Century ecological science had developed rapidly. Species, habitats, animal behaviour, ecological systems and ecological processes all became better understood. The work of Sir Arthur Tansley was particularly influential. He it was who coined the term ‘ecosystem’ 1 and who, in 1913, helped to found the British Ecological Society.

At the same time the Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves (founded in 1912; now the Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts) had been expanding its work. This body arose following a meeting at the Natural History Museum convened by Sir Charles Rothschild. It has been said to be “the start line for nature conservation in Britain” ‘’, and that Rothschild and his friends were the first to focus on habitats as well as species.2 The first county Naturalists’ Trust was formed in Norfolk in 1925. The Trusts greatly expanded their land holdings from the 1960s on, so that today they own or manage more than 2,200 reserves. Sometimes it seemed that there was more than an echo of Clough Williams-Ellis’s remarks about the National Trust in 1938 when he said that it appears to some “…. the pious curator of rare little remnants of loveliness, ticketed specimens of what we have already largely lost or wantonly thrown away”’.3 As for species, this country had a long tradition of naturalists and natural history societies. Whatever the interest - flowers, beetles, butterflies, birds, fungi - the chances were that there was a society to join, cheap and easily available literature, and rail transport to help like-minded folk meet up in the field.

35

ECOS 30(1) 2009 So, in the early 1950s amateur effort, public policy support, and scientific endeavour combined to create what has become today’s multi-million pound industry. Running in the background was the spiritual approach, exemplified by people like Thoreau, exploring and re-evaluating the relationship between people and nature, and the combination of this relationship, ecology and land management, articulated by Aldo Leopold.

Looking back - what Golden Age? For some time the concentration was on the natural world as ‘discovered’ in the middle of the 20th Century. It was seen as corrupted, threatened, and suffering from human depredations. There was a harking back to a mythical time when everyone lived in harmony with nature, nurturing, respecting and appreciating it.

No one quite knew when this was. Victorian farming seemed to be particularly favoured in relation to flowery fields, mediaeval forestry had its advocates, as did 17th and 18th Century fenland wetland creation, and ancient heathland. That these and other land management practices might be as profound a corruption of natural habitats as urban development didn’t seem to figure in people’s thinking. Nature was something for the countryside, not towns and cities.

Thus progressive nature was denied, and it was treated as if it should regress to a previous, although rather undefined, state. Species, for example, should be in the ‘right’ places and those in the ‘wrong’ places were often seen as a problem. This was at the least, unfortunate. About half of the plants dealt with in Clive Stace’s New Flora of the British Isles4 are what ecologists are still pleased to call aliens, although I prefer the more positive ‘exotic’, or the less value-laden ‘non-native’. In urban areas in particular most people’s experience was of many plants and animals which nature conservationists would have preferred not to have to deal with. Take away things like grey squirrels, snowdrops and Himalayan balsam, and people would have much less to enjoy. Now though, some non-natives have made into local biodiversity action plans. One, the brown hare, has its own national biodiversity action plan.5

Confronting the prejudices When I came into nature conservation it was as a business manager, not an ecologist, although I am a naturalist. I really had no pre-conceived ideas about how to interpret what we had, or how things should be done. The shocks came thick and fast. Having always lived in and enjoyed the nature of the Black Country industrial conurbation, the first was that many of the people I was working with had no regard whatsoever for the wildlife of our towns and cities. At best it was insignificant, at worst whatever was there shouldn’t be, or it was alien, or was a threat.

Another shock was what seemed to me to be a lack of logic. Having discovered some hedgerows, midway between Birmingham and Walsall, which displayed all the hallmarks of being very ancient indeed (numbers of species in a 100 metres stretch, the species themselves, the form of the hedges and so on) it was disappointing to 36

ECOS 30(1) 2009 learn from the Nature Conservancy Council that they could not be protected or designated (this was the 1980s) because hedgerows are human artefacts. They are too anthropomorphic. This despite the fact that many Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) were designated on land just as profoundly affected by human activities.

The third shock was the denial of values; I was told that we had to be dispassionate. But all the science in the world only gives us the information needed to make informed choices, and those choices are dictated by our values. In any case all of the people I was working with were very passionate about nature.

Even now though people pretend that coppice woodland is the best form of woodland management for biodiversity. It is undoubtedly a good form of woodland management, but it happens to be the one that most appeals to people. It is completely artificial, there are no naturally coppiced woodlands. Dark, damp woodlands are also very good for biodiversity but are rarely striven for.

The most striking example of this double-thinking occurred at a wildlife conference I attended in Washington DC. An erudite academic gave a paper justifying the control, and if possible the eradication, of mute swans along the eastern seaboard of the USA. As non-natives they were damaging wetland ecosystems. Having made the scientific case the academic folded up his notes, leant forward on the rostrum, and finished with words something like this: “In any case ladies and gentlemen, you must admit that these European swans are so much more ugly than our native American birds.”

This concept of ugliness, or other undesirable qualities, is a recurring theme, especially it must be said in the general media, when they run stories about nonnative species. Recently there have been reports of a new species of ant (Lasius neglectus) heading for Britain. From what I have seen it looks pretty much like most other ants, but the press has labelled it ‘ugly’.

Finally there was the attitude to people, or at least non-conservationists. They were firmly seen as part of the problem and not the solution. There were too many of them, they liked things they shouldn’t, such as Rhododendron and grey squirrels, and they certainly should not be allowed anywhere near a nature reserve. Worst of all perhaps they found it impossible to distinguish between nature conservation and animal welfare, and resolutely refused to understand predators and their role. Much better, thought at least some of my colleagues, to maintain a sort of elitist mystique – we, the experts, knew what needed to be known and what should be done. We were the ones sensible enough to have the privilege of visiting rare species in sensitive locations – the green welly equivalent of ‘scientists in white coats’. Often the best that was offered was ‘members only’ access to nature reserves.

Changing attitudes As more people became involved in nature conservation through the 70s and 80s (this process greatly helped by government temporary employment schemes) the 37

ECOS 30(1) 2009 basis of the work changed. In addition to the efforts of voluntary organisations and the NCC and its successors, local authorities in particular were persuaded to become involved. This involvement took two main forms – the management of their land holdings (including the declaration of Local Nature Reserves and the creation of country parks) and strategic policy work. The latter led to the preparation of a rash of nature conservation strategies. These typically catalogued and mapped the nature conservation assets of a local authority’s area, designated some places of particular importance, and provided policies for their protection and enjoyment.

One of the earliest of these was the Nature Conservation Strategy for the County of West Midlands, published by the short-lived West Midlands County Council in 1984. This was eventually followed by similar documents for the Black Country in 1991, and Birmingham in 1997. All over the country, throughout the 80s and 90s, other local authorities were doing likewise. For perhaps the first time an area’s nature conservation resources were being treated as a whole, rather than as a series of individual sites, and tentative links were being made to social and economic issues.

To help things along nationally there was the first major piece of legislation since the 1949 Act: the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act. (There had been the 1968 Countryside Act which imposed a duty on public bodies to “have regard” to natural beauty.) Later there was to be the 2000 Countryside and Rights of Way Act, which gave stronger protection to SSSIs and the 2006 Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act. Interestingly, the names of all of these acts put nature firmly in a rural context.

Local councils’ involvement meant that nature conservationists could no longer operate from their ivory towers, aloof from the general population. The wishes and attitudes of ordinary people became important to justify the mobilisation of public resources. This is even more so the case now, with millions of pounds of Lottery and Landfill Tax money supporting many projects. When in 1978 George Barker of the NCC commissioned Bunny Teagle’s study of the natural history of Birmingham and the Black Country, published as The Endless Village6, the then Minister for the Environment was reported to be pleased because the NCC was at last doing something of relevance to his constituents in Birmingham.7 Bunny ensured this relevance by making what turned out to be very successful public appeals for information.

Later, and at a much larger scale, another crucial factor was the 1992 ‘Earth Summit’ in Brazil. Influential outcomes from this event included the Convention on Biological Diversity and the subsequent development of biodiversity planning, and the Local Agenda 21 Initiative. Local Agenda 21 helped lay the foundations for much activity on sustainability in the local government sector, and for the local strategic partnerships we have today. In addition the profile of global environmental issues, including the state and fate of the natural environment, was permanently raised.

38

ECOS 30(1) 2009

Wild nature is where you find it...

Photo: Peter Shirley

Now we have the all-pervading factor of climate change. Although not new, there is uncertainty about the current scale of change, the impact of human activities, and what the effects will be on nature. Whatever the truth, it is now the elephant at the conference table, not the one lurking in the corner. As conservationists maybe we should just be thankful that it has concentrated enough minds for our work and messages to be better received. It has certainly brought the realisation that nature reserves alone are insufficient to achieve effective nature conservation.

Finally, for those of us who have always worked in urban areas, another critical factor is that in 2007, for the first time, the majority of the world’s population lived in cities rather than rural areas. In 1900 the figure was 10%, in 2050 it is estimated that it will be 75%.8 It has been about 80% in the UK for many years. If successful nature conservation depends critically upon public understanding and support, then the wildlife of urban areas has to be taken into account. This is the wildlife that most people will have contact with most of the time. This contact will dictate their attitudes towards nature and their willingness to support nature conservation activities.

How fortunate that the methods developed by urban nature conservationists over the last 30 years are so well suited to tackling the challenges now before us.

Previous ways of working, whilst still essential, are being combined with more holistic methods (see below) which encompass both new thinking, principles and methods, and the ways of working developed in urban areas.

39

ECOS 30(1) 2009

Rebuilding Biodiversity There are several ways of referring to these holistic ways of working. Most commonly they are referred to as either ‘landscape-scale’ working or ‘large areas for wildlife’. Often the phrase ‘rebuilding biodiversity’ is used. The guiding principle is the integration of nature conservation with social and economic considerations, so that, rather than being separate, nature conservation becomes a part of everyday life and concerns. Rebuilding biodiversity is about joining up the places where nature thrives, and making the whole landscape more permeable for wildlife, as well as more productive and amenable for people. The essential focus is as much on ecological systems, functions and processes, as on the origin and fate of individual species and habitats. It is extensive, rather than intensive, nature conservation.

Having said this, where the focus is on re-introducing keystone species such as beaver, lynx, wild boar, or birds of prey, a landscape-scale approach and sensitivity to social and economic factors has always been essential. This is an example of where the old and the new come together, such animals needing not only suitable habitat, but also a more favourable general environment.

The characteristics of this way of working may be contrasted with the more orthodox approaches as follows: Box 1 Contrasts between new and old ways of working Rebuilding biodiversity

Orthodox nature conservation

Looks forward (reference points are in the future)

Looks back (reference points are in the past)

Habitats more generic (eg woodlands, wetlands)

Habitats closely defined (eg upland ash woodland)

Deals with natural communities in an holistic way

Deals with species and habitats in a reductionist way

Inclusive

Exclusive and ‘precious’

Qualitative

Quantitative

Fuzzy and chaotic

Precise

Extensive

Intensive

Generally larger scale (catchments, landscapes)

Generally smaller scale (nature reserves)

Strategic

Tactical

Embraces change

Resists change

Looks forward/Looks back Our focus used to be on what had been lost – 90% of wildflower meadows, x% of ancient woodland or so many miles of hedgerows – and how to restore it.

Essentially that meant looking back in order to return to a notional starting point.

Looking forward on the other hand starts from where we are and maps a way forward to a notional destination, which is much more positive and inspiring.

40

ECOS 30(1) 2009

Rough Wood in the Black Country Photo: Peter Shirley

Nature at the new destination will inevitably include new combinations of species in novel habitats. Instead of resisting this it will be incorporated into mainstream work. In his 2008 Nature Watch programmes about the 40 most popular wildlife experiences in Britain, Chris Packham was able to enthuse about parakeets and spider wasps new to Britain, without attracting as many howls of anguish and derision from conservationists as might once have been the case.

Generic habitats/Closely defined habitats Perhaps nowhere in ecology has reductionism held such sway as in defining habitats and vegetation communities. From the National Vegetation Classification to the fine distinctions between different sorts of woodland, ecologists love to debate exactly how to classify and deal with different ecological communities. I have been in many meetings where it has been said, for example, that we cannot have a plan or targets for woodlands in an area until they have all been classified and quantified. There usually followed a dispiriting discussion about the impossibility of doing this, usually because of lack of resources.

A more generic approach based on woodland management principles means that management can be both more quickly prescribed and more easily understood by 41

ECOS 30(1) 2009 others, such as landowners. Important as they are, often the species in a wood are no more critical to its value than other characteristics, such as light levels, age and structure, the state of the boundaries, ease of access or proximity to other woods.

Management choices will always have to be made, no wood can serve all conservation purposes. Staffordshire Wildlife Trust’s Reserve Manager Helen Gee, writing in a recent edition of the Trust’s magazine says: “Conservation is often about picking a moment in time, in the history of that piece of land when wildlife was best served”.9 One of the best outcomes of the biodiversity planning process is that consideration is in any case now given to a much wider range of habitats. There are now national and local plans for obviously man-made habitats, such as traditional orchards, wood pasture and parkland, arable field margins and brownfield land. Some of these were very much beyond the pale thirty years ago.

Nature is now being dealt with where it is, rather than where somebody thinks it ought to be.

Communities/Species and habitats Obviously some species can only thrive in particular habitats. Equally there are many places, especially in urban areas, where unique assemblages of species come together to form functioning ecosystems. In recent years it has been increasingly accepted that understanding, and where appropriate creating, these places should be part of mainstream conservation. For organisations like Wildlife Trusts in urban areas, Landlife in Liverpool, and the Trust for Urban Ecology, this has always been the case. Creative Conservation for example has long been promoted by Landlife.

This encourages “the evolutionary dance” and has been described as “jump-starting natural processes”.10 There are still problems, for example with bluebells. Despite continuing genetic uncertainties, there is almost paranoia regarding the introduction of anything other than proven ‘pure’ British bluebells to woodlands. As a result there are restrictions on seed trading and requirements to undertake genetic testing. This leads to cumbersome and expensive licensing arrangements, which in turn create difficulties, for example for community planting projects.

Inclusive/Exclusive and ‘precious’ Nature conservationists used to think and behave like a privileged elite who knew what was best. Nature reserves were for members of their club, not for people who were seen as at best ignorant, and at worse ill-disposed. This attitude ran deep, and is still encountered. There are those who will not co-operate with record centres or divulge, even in general terms, sensitive information. Safeguards are needed, but managing these should not necessarily mean keeping secrets.

It is though now much more likely that people are seen as part of the solutions rather than part of the problems. Of course we have to address criminal or thoughtless activity, but we no longer deny the majority the information and 42

ECOS 30(1) 2009 access they need to experience wildlife. One of the ironic outcomes of this wider engagement is frequent irritation with people who expect nature conservationists to jump to the defence of grey squirrels, the sycamore in their street, or other supposedly ‘worthless’ elements of nature, whilst not really caring about obscure invertebrates or bryophytes.

Qualitative/Quantitative Naturalists have always been good at cataloguing. They will proudly proclaim that a site has more than 1,000 species of invertebrates, or 250 species of plants, what proportion of a county or other area is designated, how many SSSIs we have, or how many waterfowl winter in a particular place. Useful as this is, it often tells us little about the significance behind the statistics. There is now a greater emphasis on the overall quality of the wider countryside and townscape. Nature reserves and protected sites are now the core areas from which the spaces in between will be enriched. In a society fixated on growth we still have some way to go in coping with population dynamics, which inevitably mean that numbers of this or that will naturally go up and down, but hopefully we are making some progress.

Fuzzy and chaotic/Precise There have been seemingly endless debates about what is ‘natural’, and the status of various species. Subjects have included where exactly beech should be considered to occur naturally, how long is needed before a non-native species becomes accepted as an ‘honorary native’, and whether or not conservation effort should be put into helping species of doubtful provenance.

Maybe the pool frog (Rana lessonae) debacle sums up the old ways of thinking. A debate revolved around whether or not it is a native species. The Norfolk colony under consideration died out before the experts decided that it is. A more useful argument might have revolved around its worth and value as a species, whether it was harmful, beneficial or neutral, and whether its presence was favoured. As it happens there are now colonies of this, and other water frog species, around the country, their means of introduction being unclear, but possibly linked to the import of fish farm stock from mainland Europe.11 Curiously, despite these accidental introductions, the fact that the extinct Norfolk frogs were native has led to a species recovery programme using imported stock from Scandinavia. Apparently the Norfolk frogs’ genetics are closer to Swedish populations than with those further south in Europe.12 And, as an aside, whilst endless arguments are going on in relation to species re-introductions, those fish farmers, and the angling community in general, have no compunction about moving coarse fish around the country.

The opposite may be said to have happened with the butterfly-bush Buddleja davidii. Its origins in Asia have never been in doubt, but because it is attractive to both people and wildlife it has been widely recommended for planting in gardens 43

ECOS 30(1) 2009 and urban wildlife areas. In any case it makes itself at home on open arid sites such as railway sidings and brownfield sites. This is a case where the worth and functions of a species have been allowed to outweigh its foreignness. We are increasingly realising that it is best to work with what we have where we have it, and that the chaos of ecological function may be more important than the precision of ecological origin.

Extensive/Intensive In urban areas nature conservation has always been dealt with in an extensive way.

The natural environment is manifested in streets, parks and gardens as much as in nature reserves, encapsulated countryside and features such as river valleys. There never was a way of putting nature in one place and human activities in another.

Where for instance would bats, swallows and house sparrows be without buildings?

In rural and remote areas it took longer to make and enhance these connections.

Fifty years ago conservationists seemed to be at war with farmers and foresters, or at least with the financial systems which supported their work. Fragments of wildlife-rich habitat were fought over, and the main defence of nature seemed to be the acquisition of land, hence the thousands of nature reserves. A combination of shifts in attitudes (on both sides) changes in market forces, and environmentally sympathetic funding regimes for agriculture, has resulted in much more positive and productive partnership working between those who work the land and those who protect nature.

Examples of this abound, from farm level schemes like beetle banks, conservation headlands and set-aside (although this has now apparently run its course) to catchment-wide work with neighbouring landowners, and green infrastructure projects encompassing countryside, urban fringe and inner city areas. Such work allows the protect/restore/create mechanism to come into play.

In other words protect still intact valuable habitat, restore that which is damaged, and re-create those habitats where it is possible and desirable to do so.

Large scale/Small scale All of the above leads naturally to thinking and acting on larger and larger scales.

In the Black Country for example the concept of an Urban Park is being developed.

This will address the management of all formal and informal open spaces in Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall and Wolverhampton. These spaces include encapsulated countryside, canals, parks, ancient woodlands, and designated sites, including a National Nature Reserve. Most importantly, their importance and contribution to social and economic development is being formally recognised and provided for.

The vision is to have “the largest urban parks network in Europe” and to succeed in “making the most of our hidden treasures – our hills, valleys, rivers and urban heritage”. 13 This scheme underpins plans for economic and social regeneration of this postindustrial area with a population of about one million.

44

ECOS 30(1) 2009 In many ways this is the logical outcome of the processes catalysed by Bunny Teagle’s work. His initial survey raised awareness and motivated people to act to secure the natural heritage of ‘The Endless Village’. Policies, resources and further activities followed, and now the sites and other elements are being treated as a strategic resource, rather than a collection of separate places. The vision looks 30 years ahead to doing far more than restoring what has been lost.

In a more rural setting, the Great Fen Project seems to apply the same principles to a large tract of land in East Anglia. Its website (www.greatfen.org) says that: “The Great Fen Project … will create a 3,700 hectare wetland between Huntingdon and Peterborough. This will be achieved by obtaining land adjacent to two existing National Nature Reserves, Holme Fen and Woodwalton Fen. Connecting these two vitally important nature reserves will provide a haven for wildlife and create a massive green space for people, opening new opportunities for recreation, education and business.”

Strategic/Tactical With the current penchant for strategies, plans, targets and indicators, it is perhaps inevitable that the nature conservation world should, with its public sector partners, be following this approach. From the UK BAP, to regional spatial strategies, to local strategic partnerships, nature conservation is now on the agenda. No longer are poorly resourced Wildlife Trusts and other voluntary bodies merely responding in ad hoc ways to crisis and opportunities.

In the West Midlands, for example, the Regional Biodiversity Partnership has developed a Regional Biodiversity Strategy which complements the Regional Spatial Strategy.14 The latter has policies supporting nature conservation, and identifies 14 Biodiversity Enhancement Areas, the boundaries of which are indicative rather than tightly defined. These areas are where there is most concentration of good quality nature conservation sites. They are the places which will support the ecological improvement of the wider countryside.

Embraces change/Resists change All of the above leads to what may be described as a more tolerant and liberal attitude to the natural environment’s natural fluidity and dynamism. The conservatism of conservation is perhaps less appropriate now. Take priority species action plans for instance. When these were first mooted, the Wildlife Trusts were discussing candidates, such as water voles, fresh water crayfish and bats. The Director of a large county trust was moved to say that those of us working in towns would not need to have anything to do with these processes, because the lack of ‘natural’ habitats meant that there would be no significant populations of the species concerned. He apparently had no idea that many of the species don’t seem to have read the books – where conditions suit them they thrive, where they don’t (often in their traditional rural haunts) they do not. As the world changes, through human activity or not, nature adapts. Our role is to make this adaptation possible and positive, not to be constantly trying to put the clock back. Conservationists have to become as adaptable as nature.

45

ECOS 30(1) 2009 Nature conservation in the 21st Century will not be so much about everything being in its place, as about there being a place for everything – a subtle but significant difference.

References 1.

Tansley, A. G. (1935) The Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts and Terms, Ecology.

2.

Rothschild, M. and Marren, P. (1997) Rothschild’s Reserves, Time and Fragile Nature, Balaban Publishers and Harley Books.

3.

Williams-Ellis, C. (1938) Britain and the Beast, J. M. Dent and Sons.

4.

Stace, C. (1991) New Flora of the British Isles, Cambridge University Press.

5.

Anon (1995) Biodiversity: The UK Steering Group Report - Volume II: Action Plans, Tranche 1, Vol 2.

6.

Teagle, W. G. (1978) The Endless Village, NCC West Midlands Region.

7.

Shirley, P. R. (2008) The Endless Village Revisited, the Wildlife Trust for Birmingham and the Black Country.

8.

Burdett, R., Sudjic, D. (editors) (2008) The Endless City, London School of Economics and Alfred Herrhausen Society.

9.

Gee, H. (2008) Staffordshire Wildlife No. 103.

10. Anon, (2000) Creative Conservation, the Urban Wildlife Partnership.

11. Wycherley J. (2003) Water Frogs in Britain, British Wildlife Vol. 14 p260.

12. Branson A. (2005) British Wildlife Vol. 17 p 123.

13. Anon (2006) Black Country Study, Black Country Consortium.

14. Anon (2005) Restoring the Region’s Wildlife, West Midlands Biodiversity Partnership.

Peter Shirley used to work for the Wildlife Trusts, is Vice-President of the Wildlife Trust for Birmingham and the Black Country, and a trustee of the Staffordshire Wildlife Trust, the National Wildflower Centre and the Urban Wildlife Network. The views expressed here are his own. petershirley@blueyonder.co.uk

46

ECOS 30(1) 2009

Wild nature in hard times “The word ‘wild’ is like a gray fox trotting off through the forest, ducking behind bushes, going in and out of sight”.1

MICHAEL JEEVES Wildness and prosperity in a densely populated land In the early 1970s, when nature conservation was still relatively young and I was too, I often used to watch birds around The Wash. A huge and fantastic wild place, it was for me at its best in winter, when it was cold and the coast teemed with birds.

I remember once crouching at dusk on a heathland being invaded by trees, with only my dog for company. Snow started to fall and then the Hen Harriers came in to roost, the pale grey males appearing like ghosts in the fading light.

Since then Britain has become even more prosperous and nature conservation has gained substantial support. It therefore came as no surprise to me to discover on my last visit to this special place signs indicating that it had become a nature reserve. The trees had been cleared from the heath, no doubt for good reasons, and there were signs urging people to keep to the paths. No longer was it possible to wander, no longer could I feel that wild experience I so urgently sought.

Years later I was responsible for ‘restoring’ a small limestone grassland SSSI that had been ‘damaged’ by tipping and scrub invasion. Spoil and scrub were removed, topsoil scraped off and all seemed set for limestone grassland species to recolonize from a nearby source. Some indeed soon did, but to much surprise a man who had lived locally some years before appeared from nowhere and very angrily proclaimed that the ‘magic garden’ of his childhood, as he called it, had been destroyed. He was not impressed by the limestone grassland idea and while other local people were pleased with the work, he proceeded to mount a noisy campaign against the site owners.

The trouble is that good wildlife sites are generally few, small and fragile. That is why many naturalists and conservationists are so protective of them, sometimes appearing to want to keep these places to themselves and to manage them for rare and obscure species. They are also often sceptical about the likely success of landscape-scale conservation, so they imagine that adopting a siege mentality is all that is possible, defending the special places until the end. This feeling of threat can also galvanize other conservationists onto the offensive, creating ‘movements’ and ‘battlefield language’.2

The promise of landscape-scale conservation It is Philip Grime’s wonderfully named ‘wimps’ that are really in trouble3, at least in much of lowland England. Grime referred to plant wimps, but the term could be 47

ECOS 30(1) 2009 used for many animals too. They are the habitat specialists and many of them cannot be catered for through habitat creation and agri-environment schemes, being extremely fussy and with poor dispersal powers. Ten percent of the native flowering plants and ferns of Leicestershire and Rutland are already probably extinct and a further twenty percent are threatened with extinction. They are nearly all wimps.

Wimps are very unlikely to recolonize the landscape even with more sympathetic management. Sadly it is time to let them go in some parts of the country and to cease spending money and energy on lost causes. There are, however, a few good, big areas where there is enough habitat for the wimps and their specialized habitats to survive, and of course we should remember that there are few species in these islands that are threatened on a global scale. These big areas are ripe for landscape-scale conservation, which both the government and the NGOs seem agreed we should be striving for.4,5 The Great Fen Project is an excellent example of an initiative where there is real cause for celebration, and it will be featured in the next issue of ECOS.6 Success stories such as the Great Fen Project can be used to excite people and to stimulate more such projects. They ideally need to be linked with sympathetically managed land or they will be no more than large islands in a sterile landscape.

Many of the landscape-scale projects now being developed are in river valleys, wooded and hilly areas, where agriculture is not so strong and the potential for wild nature is good. Realistically, in areas of high grade land, agriculture will be the priority and in the foreseeable future there will not be a lot of wildlife compared to, say, 30 years ago.

Reduced emphasis on creating BAP habitats is necessary - just how do you create a good heathland anyway? Instead the focus should be on new and different habitats for Grime’s less fussy and more mobile species, the colonists (but perhaps not his monopolists!). Natural processes should be used as much as possible. Apart from the philosophical reasons for doing this, intensive conservation management can be prohibitively expensive on a large scale.

Land values and grants Land purchase is still the best means of ensuring that the most is achieved for wildlife, yet land prices are soaring, with people seeing land as a better investment than banks or the stock market. At auction, small areas of land can now fetch very high prices, especially for pony paddocks. The amount of land on the market has reduced and landowners have become wise to the fact that NGOs can obtain grants, so it has become increasingly difficult to buy land relatively cheaply. But in order to secure a grant it is usually necessary for an NGO to pay for an independent valuation, which may well turn out to be much less than the landowner’s. The grant may not then be offered because of fears over value for money not being realised. Government grants for land purchase have been hard to come by for many years now, a decision having been made to focus public money on assisting management costs instead. It is therefore not surprising that land 48

ECOS 30(1) 2009

Cossington Meadows, Leicestershire – a gravel pit restored for wildlife. Quarry owners are now thinking again about donating and leasing land to wildlife groups as the credit crunch bites.

Photo: Michael Jeeves

owned by quarry companies has assumed greater importance, because this land often does not have high commercial value and the companies want to work with NGOs to improve their environmental credentials. However, quarrying activity has slowed dramatically in the recession, which might please environmentalists in one way, but many promising landscape-scale projects are based around the quarrying industry. Moreover, there are signs that these companies are now looking to maximize income from land disposals, because of the economic difficulties.

But will they be wild?

With too many people and not enough good sites we need more space to cater for all of the objectives that are now being demanded by policy makers. Nature conservation often has to fit in with recreation in particular. So, to be fair, while conservationists’ plans and strategies frequently do have the people bit tacked on to the end 7, the same in reverse is equally true with landscape character assessments, local authority plans and similar people-centred documents. The truly holistic view is a rare commodity indeed.

A zoned approach with different areas having different levels of access and control of natural processes is one way of dealing with this. Some areas can have good access and recreational facilities with managed wildlife habitats, grading into others with minimal access and where natural processes take priority. Wildlife must have some places of refuge and a wilder landscape will be composed of new species assemblages. Newcomers arriving as a result of a changing climate or just changing landscapes should be welcomed, but the success of landscape-scale projects depends on individual or corporate levels of expectations. Everyone will have their own idea of whether these new landscapes are good or not because conservationists are a mixed bag, with ideas varying from the strictly scientific to the romantic.

49

ECOS 30(1) 2009 Wild nature is exciting and sharing that excitement with other people should be like sharing a special experience with a friend. This is, perhaps surprisingly so to some, a tall order to be given to professionals on the front line. Speaking to people, listening to their many and disparate views and then finding a way forward can be both frightening and rewarding. But people love to see and hear about wild places and exciting, charismatic wildlife. They do not want to hear about targets, strategies and the like.

The environmentalist Jesse Wolf Harding wrote that “rewilding is the intentional restoration of wholeness: the integrity of entire ecosystems as well as the integrity of our individual beings”.8 While the former may only be fully achieved in unfarmed landscapes with relatively few people, the latter needs to be done nearer to where people live.

Recently, I sat listening to speeches from a procession of local authority chief executives at a meeting about The National Forest. They were all trotting out the usual sort of encouraging words, until one suddenly bucked the trend. She had visited Japan and had been inspired there by the deep spiritual connection that the Japanese have with the land (although it is not as strong as it was). Followers of Shinto, the ancient animistic religion of that country, believe that as well as people, all animals, plants, rivers, mountains, springs and similar objects have souls. In Britain animism largely disappeared as a belief system centuries ago. Perhaps what this brave chief executive was getting at was that landscape-scale projects need people to care about them, and to truly respect the land, if they are ever going to succeed.

Wild nature is still the Cinderella of the multi-objective approach in conservation and land management. Will she get to the ball? Only time will tell…

References 1.

Snyder, G. (1990) The Practice of the Wild Counterpoint Press

2.

Saunders, G. (2008) Physician, heal thyself ECOS 29 (3/4): 45-52

3.

Grime, P. (2005) Alien plant invaders: threat or side issue? ECOS 26 (3/4): 33-40

4.

Anon. (2008) Halting biodiversity loss, House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee report

5.

Hilborne, S. (2008) Passionate Leadership: conservation in the 21st century ECOS 29 (2) 64-72

6.

See www.greatfen.org.uk

7.

Saunders, ibid.

8.

Hardin, J.W. (2004) Rewilding in Taylor, B. (Ed) The Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature Continuum Books

Michael Jeeves is Head of Conservation with the Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust and a life-long naturalist. The views expressed here are his own. mjeeves@lrwt.org.uk

50

ECOS 30(1) 2009

What makes a “protected area”?

The new context from IUCN A new international definition of a protected area gives greater emphasis to its nature conservation values than in the past and also improves the framework for classifying protected areas according to management objectives. What are the implications for the UK, if any? This article reviews the changes, discusses UK protected areas in this context and makes some recommendations for future initiatives.

NIGEL DUDLEY For the last few decades, the decision about what does or does not constitute a protected area on a global scale has rested with IUCN, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, headquartered near Geneva in Switzerland. IUCN has agreed a definition of a protected area and distinguishes six different “categories” of protection based on management objectives, ranging from strictly protected, virtually no-go areas to the kind of broad-ranging landscape protection that we are familiar with in the UK in our National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). IUCN members, including a number of UK government bodies and non-governmental conservation organisations, have endorsed the framework at the Union’s periodic Members’ Assemblies. Anything that “fits” the IUCN definition is listed on the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA), managed by the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) in Cambridge, UK, and eventually ends up on the occasionally-published United Nations List of Protected Areas. This process also effectively decides what is recognised as a protected area in the context of international commitments such as those made under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the various European Union conservation frameworks.

IUCN has recently revised the definition along with some details of the categories and associated guidance in light of experience in application and in response to requests from member organisations. Following an extensive consultation process, including a two-year research project based at the University of Cardiff 1, new guidelines were published at the World Conservation Congress in Barcelona in October 2008.2 The changes, although quite subtle, could have important implication for UK policy and practice, and are described in some detail below.

The definition and categories of protected areas In 19943, IUCN adopted a definition of a protected area as follows: “An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal 51

ECOS 30(1) 2009 or other effective means”. Ever since, there has been a debate within IUCN and its members as to whether this implied that biodiversity conservation was always the primary aim of protected areas as recognized by IUCN and by implication by member organizations and governments, with the conservation of “associated cultural resources” being invariably secondary, or whether these broader values could sometimes be of equal or even superior importance to conservation of biodiversity.

This question is of particular relevance to the UK, where the whole National Park system is predicated on the concept of conserving multiple values. Although we have heard little about it here, at a global level the debate has been intense. One influential milestone was the publication of a paper in 20054 which argued that protected landscapes of the sort that the UK has to some extent pioneered5 should no longer be recognized as protected areas in a global sense, primarily because they did not give sufficient emphasis to biodiversity conservation. The resulting furore brought many long-standing frustrations out into the open and IUCN members debated these issues back and forth over the course of several years.

It would be simplistic to distinguish this only as a difference between a protectionist, nature first attitude and a more inclusive, people-centred approach to conservation. Rather it reflects a difference of opinion about the role of protected areas as a conservation tool; with some arguing that the term “protected area” can embrace a very wide range of land and water management regimes, while others see it as a narrower concept, covering a smaller number of places more explicitly directed at biodiversity conservation. The former group point to the social problems with protected areas in many countries – such as people getting expelled from their traditional lands – and look to a softer approach, while the latter fear a general dilution of the protected areas’ concept by including places where wildlife issues are only of marginal importance.

As part of the consultation process, a major conference took place in Almeria, Spain in May 2007 6, where amongst other things a new version of the definition of a protected area was proposed. This was debated and recast into something that was eventually agreed by IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA)† and endorsed by IUCN’s membership. This now current version states that a protected area is: “A clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values”.7 The new definition clears up the debate about primacy of management aims by stating clearly that the area is dedicated to the “conservation of nature” with “associated ecosystem services and cultural values” (my emphasis). This is given further weight by the addition of a series of complementary principles, the most relevant here being: “for IUCN, only those areas where the main objective is conserving nature can be considered protected areas; this can include many areas with other goals as well, at the same level, but in the case of conflict, nature conservation will be the priority”. The principle recognises that many protected areas will have other important management priorities – cultural, spiritual, tourist-related and so on – but that for a place to be a protected area recognised by IUCN and included in the 52

ECOS 30(1) 2009

Signs of human use and local identity in the Snowdonia National Park (IUCN Category V)

global UN list, when the chips are down conservation needs to take priority. This was not the case before; the 1994 guidelines included a matrix that showed conservation of biological diversity as secondary to wilderness conservation in wilderness areas and secondary to protection of specific cultural/natural features, recreation and tourism and maintenance of cultural/traditional attributes in protected landscapes.

However the definition has loosened a little in other ways. The term “biological conservation” has been replaced with “nature conservation”. Whereas biodiversity relates only to living systems, ‘nature’ also embraces rocks and landforms. Thus the new definition recognises that in some cases the protection of geodiversity may be a legitimate primary purpose of a protected area. Also the term “nature” is less “scientific” than biodiversity and in some cultures and languages carries with it cultural and other associations. These nuances will doubtless be picked over and debated in coming years.

From the outset, IUCN has based its classification system on management objectives. During the review of the 1994 guidelines there was a strong message from IUCN members that these should stay broadly the same, which is what has happened, although there have been some small but important modifications in the categories: the six management categories (one with a sub-division) are summarized in Table 1.

53

ECOS 30(1) 2009 Table 1: Revised IUCN protected area categories No. Name

Description

Ia

Strictly protected areas set aside to protect biodiversity and also possibly geological/ geomorphological features, where human visitation, use and impacts are strictly controlled and limited to ensure protection of the conservation values.

Strict nature reserve

Ib Wilderness area

Usually large unmodified or slightly modified areas, retaining their natural character and influence, without permanent or significant human habitation, which are protected and managed so as to preserve their natural condition.

II

Large natural or near natural areas set aside to protect large-scale ecological processes, along with the species and ecosystems characteristic of the area, which also provide a foundation for environmentally and culturally compatible spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities.

National park

III Natural monument or feature

Areas set aside to protect a specific natural monument, which can be a landform, sea mount, submarine cavern, geological feature such as a cave or even a living feature such as an ancient grove.

IV Habitat/species management area

Areas that aim to protect particular species or habitats and where management reflects this priority. Many category IV protected areas will need regular, active interventions to address the requirements of particular species or to maintain habitats, but this is not a requirement of the category (Note that this is a change from the 1994 guidelines where IV was defined by its need for continual management intervention to maintain values.)

V

An area where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant ecological, biological, cultural and scenic value: and where safeguarding the integrity of this interaction is vital to protecting and sustaining the area and its associated nature conservation and other values.

Protected landscape or seascape

VI Protected areas with sustainable use of natural resources

Areas which conserve ecosystems and habitats, together with associated cultural values and traditional natural resource management systems. They are generally large, with most of the area in a natural condition, where a proportion is under sustainable natural resource management and where low level non-industrial use of natural resources compatible with nature conservation is seen as one of the main aims of the area.

IUCN categories in the UK It is not possible to get a fully up to date picture of the way in which protected areas are classified in the UK. Our protected area data are currently not listed on the WDPA 8 and the most complete list of UK protected areas within an international context comes from the 1997 United Nations List of Protected Areas.9 This is by now out of date and even then was very incomplete: it lists only government-designated areas and is confined to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (England and Wales), National Nature Reserves (UK), Marine Nature Reserves (UK), National Parks (England and Wales), National Scenic Areas (Scotland) and Regional Parks (Scotland), along with a heterogeneous collection of other areas in Scotland and the New Forest. The only IUCN categories used in mainland UK (i.e. not in overseas territories like the Falkland Islands) are IV (NNRs and MNRs) and V (everything else).

54

ECOS 30(1) 2009

Attenborough Nature Reserve in Nottinghamshire, A local wildlife asset which does not qualify for an IUCN protected area category.

Photo: Nigel Dudley

The need for a certain amount of re-categorisation has already been discussed within the IUCN UK Committee. At first glance it seems that the current approach under which only two categories are used does not capture the full range of objectives of UK conservation. Some reserves (such as Cors Fochno in Wales, a large raised bog) are so fragile that access is strictly controlled and the area might more accurately be classed as a category Ia strict nature reserve. Sites that are protected particularly for specific features, such as the basalt columns on the Isle of Staffa, might qualify as a category III natural monument. Some of our largest reserves, including parts of the Flow Country in northeast Scotland, might just about qualify as wilderness areas (the term “wilderness” in this context not implying totally unmodified) while places like St Kilda and maybe Rum might be category II National Parks, being dedicated mainly to nature and some limited tourism. More significantly, the current list ignores most small reserves which are managed by NGOs such as the Wildlife Trusts, National Trust (with its power to declare land inalienable and thereby provide a form of long term protection rarely found anywhere else), RSPB, Plantlife and so on. (The question of whether or not it is worth spending time assigning categories for some international system will be addressed further on.)

The UK picture – clearer or still confused?

A potentially much more contentious issue relates to the application of the revised IUCN definition of a protected area to the UK’s National Parks and AONBs, and 55

ECOS 30(1) 2009 specifically the degree to which conservation within them has primacy as envisaged

by IUCN in its new definition. Both National Parks and AONBs aim to protect “natural beauty” (statutorily defined in 1949 and 1968 as including fauna and flora and physiographic features), and National Parks also have a recreational objective. The “Sandford Principle” (named after Lord Sandford, who chaired the National Park Policy Review Committee from 1971-1974) helped to reconcile some potentially conflicting issues in protected landscapes and states that: “National Park Authorities can do much to reconcile public enjoyment with the preservation of natural beauty by good planning and management and the main emphasis must continue to be on this approach wherever possible. But even so, there will be situations where the two purposes are irreconcilable...

Where this happens, priority must be given to the conservation of natural beauty." The principle was given weight of law by the 1995 Environment Act and applies to National Parks; it is guidance rather than law in AONBs, except where statutory AONB Boards have been established, i.e. for the Cotswolds and the Chilterns AONBs. Interpreted in a pro-conservation way, the combination of aims and the Sandford Principle fulfil many of the requirements of a protected area as outlined by IUCN. However some definitions remain vague enough to be open to argument and the Principle refers to trade-offs between natural beauty and public enjoyment, whereas the greater threats to protected landscapes have often come from the agriculture, forestry and energy sectors. The way these matters are dealt with in statute is through the ‘have regard to’ sections: i.e. 62(2) of the Environment Act 1995 for National Parks, and 85 of CROW Act 2000 for AONBs. Is this strong enough to satisfy the IUCN definition?

On the other hand, the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 widens Sandford, so to speak. It sets out four aims for Scottish National Parks, including promoting “sustainable use of the natural resources of the area “ and promoting “economic and social development of the area’s communities”, as well as the familiar aims of conservation, and recreation and access. While all these aims are to be pursued collectively, it is laid down that if any of the three non-conservation aims conflict with that of conserving and enhancing the natural and cultural heritage of the area, greater weight should attach to conservation.

In practice, conservation aims have often trailed behind others in terms of importance. Some officials have stated bluntly that they do not regard biodiversity protection as a particularly important aspects of their work; indeed it was a public statement from a National Park director that biodiversity was “irrelevant” to National Parks that first stimulated Harvey Locke and Phil Dearden to write their paper questioning the role of such areas.10 Is the spirit of the original National Parks legislation really being applied?

There is obviously already some confusion within government about these issues. UK government-produced maps of protected areas usually include all designations – National Parks, AONBs, National Nature Reserves and more – making the UK appear to be one of the most protected countries on the planet. On the other hand, the third UK government report to the Convention on Biological Diversity ignores the National Parks and AONBs altogether when discussing steps taken to meet the Programme of Work on Protected Areas and focuses solely on Sites 56

ECOS 30(1) 2009 of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protection Areas (SPA)11, along with natural World Heritage and Ramsar sites.

Although there are SSSIs, SACs and SPAs in all our National Parks and in most AONBs, they are generally fractions of the whole area. Does this mean that government does not regard its category V protected areas as serving the aims of the CBD? In which case what roles are they expected to play in biodiversity conservation strategies, if any? Should they be defined as protected areas? How does this fit with the needs of Natura 2000? The situation appears confusing at best.

Why it matters An important question is implicit here: so what? Countries design their own conservation strategies and in Europe any international concerns are likely to focus more on the Habitats Directive and Natura 2000 than on what a global body like IUCN thinks or says. IUCN’s guidance is exactly what it says – suggested guidance that countries (or other bodies managing protected areas) can take or leave as they like. In the short term, we might expect that nothing much will change.

On the other hand, the UK Government is also a signatory to a number of international agreements including particularly in this case the CBD’s Programme of Work on Protected Areas, a highly ambitious global scheme to complete ecologically-representative protected area networks, which specifically recommends countries to use the categories system. We traditionally take such international commitments seriously and most countries now apply the IUCN categories. Even the United States, which has previously ignored the system, has a team working on the categories. Reporting against the CBD’s target and inclusion in the UN List of Protected Areas both need to reflect the IUCN categories and be compatible with the IUCN definition.

There are more immediate, domestic reasons for remaining part of an international system as well. Being defined and included on the UN List of Protected Areas can help to raise awareness about the international significance of local conservation efforts. It encourages those involved in protected landscapes in the UK to be part of the wider international debate about such approaches, where we have good experience to share but also much that we can learn from other countries.

Several UK agencies are already providing welcome support for WCPA’s protected landscape approaches, in part because they see a way of sharing national experience more widely. Most importantly, being part of a global system should help to increase the security of and commitment to protected landscapes as models and perhaps also to nudge management more towards conservation priorities. If National Parks and AONBs somehow fell off the international system there is a risk that their standing, and thus their protection, would be weakened in the UK. What the new guidelines and new protected area definition represent is not so much a revolution as a change in emphasis, particularly in the less restrictive protected area approaches such as categories V and VI, so as to give greater attention to nature conservation values. Given that over half the area of land and 57

ECOS 30(1) 2009 water in protected areas in Europe is now in category V12, this change will be welcomed by many conservationists: conversely if such areas were found to be failing to protect biodiversity values much of the European Union’s conservation plans would lie in tatters. There is already evidence that protected landscapes in the UK provide some conservation benefits13, but we have not put the same type of conservation emphasis into planning our category V protected areas as is can be seen for instance in parts of Italy and Spain.14 Publication of the new IUCN guidelines provides an ideal opportunity to look again at the whole UK protected area system and reconsider how the different components fit within national and international strategies. Assigning categories to the thousands of UK sites would require some effort, although most will be fairly obvious and the exercise would have the attraction of bringing reserves run by the NGO sector more fully into the mainstream. National Parks and AONBs would need to clarify their mandate, drawing on management plans to show how the IUCN protected area standard is being met in terms of policies and with a clear affirmation of the importance of nature conservation at the highest levels. Such a process would also help us to learn a great deal about UK approaches to conservation and identify clearly any remaining gaps in the protected areas system. The IUCN UK Committee, which includes people from all statutory bodies and many NGOs, might be the ideal vehicle to help coordinate this process.

References *

Confusingly the Convention on Biological Diversity also has a definition of a protected area; there is tacit agreement between the two institutions that the dual definitions are compatible although this has been the subject of endless debate. The CBD recognises the six IUCN categories.

â€

WCPA is one of six IUCN expert commissions, with members working mainly on a voluntary basis, helping to set policy and guidance on the identification and management of protected areas around the world.

1.

Bishop, K., N. Dudley, A. Phillips and S. Stolton (2004) Speaking a Common Language. IUCN and University of Cardiff, Gland Switzerland and Cardiff, UK

2.

Dudley, N. [editor] (2008) Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland

3.

IUCN/WCMC (1994) Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories. IUCN, Gland Switzerland and Cambridge, UK

4.

Locke. H. and P. Dearden (2005) Rethinking protected area categories and the new paradigm.

Environmental Conservation 32 (1): 1-10

5.

Phillips, A. (2003) Turning ideas on their heads: a new paradigm for protected areas, George Wright Forum 20: 8-32 Dudley, N. and S. Stolton [editors] (2009) Defining protected areas: an international conference in Almeria, Spain. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland

6.

7.

58

Dudley (2008) op cit

ECOS 30(1) 2009 8.

www.wdpa.org/FAQ.aspx

9.

World Commission on Protected Areas and World Conservation Monitoring Centre (1997) 1997 United Nations List of Protected Areas. IUCN, Cambridge UK and Gland Switzerland

10. Personal communication from one of the authors, Harvey Locke 11. United Kingdom and its Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies: Third National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity (2005) 12. Gambino, R., D. Talamo and F. Thomasset (2008) Parchi d’Europa: Verso una politica europea per le aree protette. Edizioni ETS, Pisa 13. Robins, M. (2008) Protected landscapes: sleeping giants of English biodiversity. ECOS 29 (1): 74-86 14. Nogueira, H. M. [editor] (2001) Territorial Integration of Natural Protected Areas and Ecological Connectivity within Mediterranean Landscapes, Junta de Andalucia,

Nigel Dudley is a consultant with Equilibrium Research and chaired the international task force that revised guidance to the IUCN protected area categories. equilibrium@compuserve.com www.equilibriumresearch.com Thanks are due to Adrian Phillips for his help in the preparation of the article.

The special landscape of Snowdonia National Park - IUCN category V Photo: Nigel Dudley

59

ECOS 30(1) 2009

Keeping upright in the downturn Crisis or opportunity for conservation?

This article discusses how the economic downturn is affecting the conservation sector, especially amongst charities and NGOs. It looks at latest trends in income streams and considers what conservation and environment groups can do to meet the challenge of a deep recession.

JONATHAN SOMPER Income – the big issue!

Conservation organisations and environment groups in the voluntary sector typically rely on a mix of restricted income (i.e. promised against specific project deliverables) and unrestricted income (today usually accruing from membership subscriptions). These come from a variety of sources including: • Lottery funding, such as the Heritage Lottery Fund for heritage restoration and the natural environment, and the Big Lottery Fund for BBC Breathing Places and for community recycling for example; • funding from government agencies such as Natural England; • fees from local authorities for land management and consultancy work; • grants from charitable trusts for specific projects; • Tax Credits from Landfill Operators and Distributive Environmental Body Funders (DEBs), especially for projects with environmental benefits which improve the lives of communities living near landfill sites; • donations and support in kind from corporate partners, such as water companies; • campaign donations from public appeals including legacies; • investment income; and • crucially, membership subscriptions.

Balancing budgets Forecasting budgets for the next 12 months in this deepening recession is not easy.

Will the recession be ‘V-shaped’, a sharp fall followed by recovery; ‘U-shaped’, a slower 60

ECOS 30(1) 2009 recovery; or ‘L-shaped’, a long term recession where mergers and acquisitions are necessary to ensure survival? Many are predicting mergers, but this may not be all bad news as merged organisations can achieve the critical mass that they need to exist and some groups feel that the conservation sector is overdue some rationalisation.

Most conservation groups are facing budget deficits in the short term, with flat or falling unrestricted income and are using cash reserves to offset this decline. Street collections and corporate income have been particularly badly affected and one Wildlife Trust reports that unsolicited donations are down by 20%, although a greater reduction was expected. An online survey of 322 voluntary organisations by the Charities Aid Foundation reported in February 2009 that 41 per cent of respondents had received less funding in the previous three months than they had budgeted for and 60 per cent of these had used their reserves to meet the shortfall.1 Prudent organisations are now engaged in ‘future proofing’ and ‘scenario planning’, looking at substantial 10-20% reductions in unrestricted income over the next 12 -24 months and planning what actions they can take to deal with this. A few conservation organisations fearing the worst, have already instituted budget cuts, for example one organisation has cut the next financial year’s budgets by 10% across the board, to counterbalance an expected fall in income over the next year.

Membership – is a decade of growth coming to an end?

The main source of income for many conservation organisations and environmental campaigning groups are their membership. For example, the National Trust for Scotland (NTS) has nearly 320,000 members who contribute almost 25% of its income.

The NTS is funded through a combination of donations, legacies and lottery funding, but membership is the Trust’s largest single income stream. The chairman of the NTS commented recently: “as we see the impact of the recession, our concern is one of our main pillars of income, which is membership”.2 In the Wildlife Trusts the proportion is more likely to be one third of income from membership, a third from grant making trusts and major bodies, and one third from delivering services to the statutory sector; but it can account for just over one half of all income in some of the Wildlife Trusts. One Wildlife Trust, which uses in-house recruiters, has deferred launching a new recruitment campaign in the current circumstances as it puts growth plans on hold.

For conservation organisations that have over the last decade relied on face-to-face recruitment methods (employing “chuggers”3), membership recruitment costs are likely to go down as the latter are less successful in the face of economic downturn. However, do conservation organisations that continue with face-to-face recruitment in these straitened circumstances for the majority of the public, also risk damaging their brand and alienating potential supporters? In many cases rates of attrition were already creeping up before the recession, which could indicate a degree of public fatigue with this recruitment technique.

Retention, retention, retention!

Whilst it is too soon to see changes in membership lapse rates, organisations are monitoring these rates with some trepidation. Anticipating more difficulty in 61

ECOS 30(1) 2009 recruiting new members over the next 18 months, more effort is going into retention to minimise subsequent increases in lapse rates. One organisation is telephone calling new members after 3 months and then again around 11 months since they first joined the organisation. These calls are to make sure that new members are happy about the level of service they receive and to reduce member losses after 12 months, an acknowledged high ‘drop-off’ point. Welcome letters with contact details of Local Area Groups are being sent to new members by Wildlife Trusts, letters of “thanks” in month 11, and new membership cards are sent annually, to remind members of the benefits that they get.

Some organisations are offering alternative payment options if members wish to withdraw their support, because of increasing pressure on their finances, for example cutting their direct debit contribution from £5 per month to £2 a month.

“Up-lift strategies” are also being employed where selected members are being contacted and asked to increase their contribution, in one case anecdotally achieving at least a 30% success rate so far. Regional groups of Wildlife Trusts are looking at e-marketing and other digital media research as a way of adding to recruitment and retention activities. The “new media” includes use of the internet, email, SMS (text messaging), digital TV, ATMs and Coinstar machines - all media that conservation charities can exploit for fundraising purposes.

Declining investment income The squeeze is being felt by conservation organisations that rely in part on investment income. “UK charities' investments lost 19 per cent of their value last year, according to an index compiled by financial services group, State Street…The sharp falls come at a time when charities face lower income from funding sources, such as corporate giving and legacies, which have been hit by the credit crunch and housing market freeze”.4 A conservation charity with a turnover of around £1million and almost wholly reliant on income from endowments has been warned to expect a 10% cut in annual income this year, despite the fact that these endowments were chosen as relatively low risk shares.5 Since endowment values and therefore interest and dividends are derived from the stock market, these are not likely to improve in the coming year. Similarly, the investment income of charitable trusts will also have been reduced meaning that they will have less grant funding available for conservation organisations in the foreseeable future, so far organisations report that current allocations are not affected. Even before the second British Government bank bailout worth £300 billion in January 2009, the Countryside Council for Wales6 had warned previous successful applicants for funding that its budget and consequently funding available for dispersal, is likely to be reduced to the levels that they were at some 5 years ago.

Social service opportunities – the shape of things to come?

Local authority income from fees and charges is also declining. For instance, 52 local councils surveyed by the Local Government Association report income from 62

NEIL BENNETT

ECOS 30(1) 2009

property searches, planning fees and building control fell by 45%, 17% and 13% respectively, against original budgets set at the start of the year. Combined with reductions in investment income these mean that council budgets for consultancy work and land management by conservation organisations are already being affected and are likely to be cut further.7 Nevertheless public authorities still need to continue their commitments to conserving biodiversity.8 Service Level Agreements and provision of services may change, but ironically as a result of the Credit Crunch there are more opportunities for conservation organisations to deliver other local services such as training (and re-training) and meet essential social needs, as local authorities’ resources shrink. For instance, provision of environmental education; working with a variety of audiences including adults with special needs and youth offenders; training volunteers; and delivering health related projects.

Since NGOs tend not to have large supporting infrastructures they offer good value for money. So where statutory bodies have had to cut back personnel, conservation organisations with relevant competencies can offer to takeover delivery work. However, conservation organisations need to be wary of providing services to meet gaps in public delivery that are secondary to their core objectives, as this can deflect them from their mission, even though the organisation may benefit in the short term from generating income and cashflow. On that cautionary note, two years ago the Charity Commission conducted an online survey which found that public service delivery is having an impact upon the independence and governance of charities (Charity Commission. Stand and deliver: The future for charities providing public services. February 2007. RS15). Specifically, it revealed that charities that deliver public services are significantly less likely to agree that: “their charitable activities are determined by their mission rather than by funding opportunities” and “…only 26% of charities that deliver public services agreed that they are free to make decisions without pressure to conform to the wishes of funders.” Chasing the money (funding) in the short term can be the start of a slippery slope and derail an organisation’s long term delivery priorities.

63

ECOS 30(1) 2009

Is the Landfill bonanza over?

Many environment groups have benefited from Landfill Tax Credit Scheme (LTCS), now the Landfill Communities Fund.9 Last year Landfill Tax receipts were worth around ÂŁ900 million (2007/08).10 However, a surplus of un-dispersed funds has built up as environment bodies have been unable to raise the necessary matched funds (10%) from 3rd party sponsors and claim the funds already approved and allocated to their projects. The Treasury has already dipped into LFTCs once whilst Gordon Brown was Chancellor and it is likely with desperate public finances, that the Government will find this unclaimed pot too tempting to resist. In the future environmental groups may find the necessary matched funding increasingly difficult to secure, as potential funders are forced to tighten their belts.

Compounding this, if there is a long consumer recession there will be a downturn in waste handled, which will affect waste operators’ revenues and decrease Landfill Tax Credits generated.

Are your donations shrinking?

For those organisations that rely on public donations, fundraising experts are predicting the following changes: 1. A decline in the volume of response to fundraising appeals.

2. A move away from regular giving to cash donations as people become less confident about making longer-term commitments.

3. Poorer results when trying to get donors to upgrade their giving.

4. An increasing average gift as the less affluent drop out first.

However, these effects will not be instantaneous. The change in voluntary income (individual donations) occurs on average 10 months after change in GDP growth (which in this case is negative), and there is an additional 7 month lag before the impact on overall income peaks, taking into account government grants, investments and fee income, so 2010 will be the critical year for many organisations’ cashflow.11 Various charitable organisations are building up major donor programmes, however, this tends to yield restricted income for specific projects. Raffles are also being employed by conservation groups to generate additional unrestricted income. A recent survey found that two-fifths of donors are more likely to remain loyal to charities if they are offered alternatives to giving money during the recession, for example buying goods or raffle tickets.12 Cash prizes in prize draws are proving especially attractive during the Credit Crunch.13

Engaging Corporates Some organisations are scaling back their corporate recruitment activities as it is perceived that companies are likely to be less receptive to supporting groups 64

ECOS 30(1) 2009 during this downturn. Organisations have already been affected by corporate members not renewing their memberships this year. However, whilst companies are becoming chary of sponsorship, London Wildlife Trust has registered a growing demand for corporate days out. Not only can these be funded through a variety of company budgets including Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), marketing, and training, but they also tick a lot of ‘quality of life’ boxes for both the recipient and the deliverer. Organisations already geared up to deliver these activity days are in pole position to prosper. Folly Farm, the £4.5m wildlife discovery centre with residential facilities in the Chew Valley, on the outskirts of Bristol and Bath, which opened in spring 2008, has also been taking bookings for conferences and weddings, with both delegates and guests enjoying its natural setting.

Creeping running costs Conservation organisations’ highest operating costs are usually staff salaries and premises. For project staff on limited period contracts there is the worry of where the next contract will come from when their contract ends as organisations slim down during the predicted lean years. Permanent positions are not safe either, in October 2008 a survey by the Charities Commission indicated that 1 in 12 charities was making redundancies to avoid cuts in services and “1 in 3 charities is expected to lay off more staff in the coming months”.14 One Wildlife Trust looks at every post that becomes available to see if that role can be combined with another within the organisation, seeking to minimise cost and maximise efficiency. They also investigate if work can be spread more equitably among teams or if teams can be restructured to improve overall effectiveness. To facilitate weekend opening the organisation has changed staff contracts to include one weekend’s work per month. As they put it “we owe it to our stakeholders to be as lean as possible”. One potential silver lining for conservation organisations and environmental groups is that there will be well qualified and better calibre job seekers around, as casualties of the recession who may be prepared to accept more modest salaries. There may also be the opportunity to hire redundant city bankers to raise funds! The Chief Executive of The Vincent Wildlife Trust, Natalie Buttriss, has already noticed this: “we have had 350 enquiries for our recently advertised pine marten project manager and 98 applicants from a very good quality field – this has exceeded our expectations 3 fold”.

Vehicles are vital to conservation organisations working in the field, both for accessing wildlife sites and for carrying out awareness raising activities. Fuel costs became a significant issue when the price of a barrel of crude oil reached $147 in the summer of 2008. Although the price of this commodity has since fallen from this all time high, it was instrumental in causing gas and electricity price increases. As a result energy costs have increased significantly for conservation organisations with properties to maintain, and also impacted on staff office costs and they are expected to rise again in the future. Consequently, The Vincent Wildlife Trust which is involved in capital projects in Ireland, building horseshoe bat roosts in stone barns and clearing access paths, has found project costs escalating. This has been further exacerbated by the weakening Pound which has lost 20% of its value against the Euro since August 2008 and the latter is used to purchase building materials and services in Ireland.15 65

ECOS 30(1) 2009 Some conservation organisations are already only doing the minimum work to meet obligations on nature reserves and premises where the work is not directly funded by grants. In addition, local groups are being involved by field officers where practical, to cut some of the staff time costs.

Making the most of changing visitor patterns Will more people be heading out into the countryside for cheap entertainment and physical exercise for respite from the gloomy economy – or is this just wishful thinking? At the National Trust AGM in November 2008 Dame Fiona Reynolds commented “with the economy in turmoil, it is no wonder that the simple pleasures of grow-your-own, downsizing, contact with nature and spending quality time with the family seem to be growing in importance.”… “ People want their children to climb trees, build dens and get mucky. They want local and seasonal food – because it tastes better – and they want green space on their doorstep so that they can enjoy it when they want to.”

School visits, the life blood of many environmental visitor attractions, should hold up as fuel costs reduce. Last summer many garden attractions despite facing adversity from the business environment, and suffering significantly higher than average rainfall and escalating petrol prices; actually recorded increased visitor numbers! Visitors to the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew were up 15% year on year over the summer and National Trust properties experienced rises in visitor numbers of more than 10%.16 The properties offered more events than before such as guided walks and nature trails; and also sold produce from their kitchen gardens.

With less families travelling abroad, UK visitor attractions that don’t cost the family a fortune could do well in 2009 as domestic tourism increases. In addition, the weakness of the Pound against certain currencies, such as the Euro and the Dollar, make the UK an attractive proposition for tourists from countries with these currencies, which could also boost visitor numbers to well known ‘honey pot’ wildlife sites with visitor centres. However, one organisation has found that a miscellany of eco-vandalism in urban areas is increasing as people look to cut expenditure in this recession. The eco-vandalism includes: stealing fences; abandoning horses and dumping builders’ rubble (which also reduces Landfill receipts) on nature reserves; and even capturing animals and eating them.

Strive for efficiency savings Employees need to question everything that they do and to ask if the activity is essential in these economic straits. Rather than going to favoured suppliers that have been used in the past, competitive quotes are now being sought where services are outsourced. For instance, where there are properties that need ongoing maintenance such as painting and redecorating, re-guttering, hedging and grass cutting or where printed materials such as leaflets are required. An organisation that previously used professional services based in London, for insurance or legal advice, is now looking outside London for more competitive pricing. In addition, a conservation organisation has equipped its own team to do 66

ECOS 30(1) 2009 conservation work across its sites to keep costs in-house and reduce the overall cost burden, rather than employing sub-contractors.

Organisations should query if the quality of goods and services that was used in the past is really necessary today or is a cheaper alternative adequate for purpose.

Consequently, specifications are being revised, for example, fencing to safeguard the public in woods where old disused mineshafts keep collapsing, was originally costed at circa £12,000, subsequently, a lower height of fencing was agreed and the contractor able to use less materials charged just £4,500, a saving of more than 60%!

The National Trust for Scotland (NTS) is looking for ways to reduce costs and efficiency savings at its 128 sites and 115 properties that are open to the public.

Since 2002 visitor numbers to NTS sites have declined from 1.5million to 1.3 million affecting commercial income for example, from admissions and catering; and retail income is down. Properties in remote locations do not get enough visitors to cover costs and in the Outer Hebrides, the archipelago of St Kilda which is the most important seabird breeding station in northwest Europe, is also a major drain on resources.17 In the short term some NTS sites may be ‘mothballed’ and others not opened for the whole season and extra income generated by hiring out suitable venues for weddings and corporate hospitality events. One innovative suggestion is that longer term, St Kilda could be jointly managed with other charities such as RSPB Scotland and/or the Scottish Wildlife Trust, thereby spreading costs and realising new marketing opportunities.18 The recession may also mean that more Scots holiday at home, which could boost visitor numbers.

Working together, working smarter Larger conservation organisations can help smaller ones by providing backroom services in relation to financial management, human resources and membership services, saving them infrastructure costs and indeed, by providing subsidised office space. In addition, by setting up appropriate interfaces with other major nature conservation bodies operating in a region, organisations can weed out any strategic overlap and identify gaps that need filling, so by working together they can provide more for no extra cost. Smaller organisations without infrastructure should endure if they have a geographic-specific Unique Selling Point. Larger organisations benefiting from some economies of scale should also be able to weather the economy. Medium sized organisations, however, are likely to struggle and will need either a secure or a broad income base to survive. Perhaps the one key message is that all organisations should aspire to be lean and flexible.

In summary, an economic crisis also provides opportunities for organisations to improve their effectiveness and develop a stronger financial base. Conservation organisations and environmental groups should adopt sector best practice, increase efficiency wherever possible and in so doing, further their cause and secure their future. (If you have other examples that you wish to share, please contact the author directly – a follow up article will be prepared on this topic for ECOS in the first edition of 2010.)

67

ECOS 30(1) 2009

References and notes 1.

John Plummer, Third Sector Online, 9 February 2009, Half of charities are using reserves to counter recession

2.

Herald 20 January 2009, web issue 3362, Historic homes fighting a stately decline, Marissa Duffy, http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/features/display.var.2477919.0.historic_homes_fighting_a_stately _decline.php

3.

Paid street fundraisers are sometimes known as chuggers because occasionally fundraising is viewed as aggressive or invasive (a portmanteau of "charity" and "mugger"). It became popular as a way of referring to street fundraisers after several articles appeared in British newspapers which touched upon the negative image of the people doing the job. Similarly, a paid door to door fundraiser is sometimes called a churglar (contraction of charity burglar). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chugger

4.

Charity Times, “Charity Investments Fall” http://www.charitytimes.com/pages/ct_news/January_09_news/071209_State_ST.htm

5.

Endowments are typically derived from donated gifts that have been invested conservatively in stocks, bonds and property.

6.

CCW – the Government's statutory adviser on sustaining natural beauty and wildlife in Wales

7.

http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/aio/1509520 Local Authority Income Survey 5th January 2009, LGA

8.

Under the Biodiversity Duty contained in Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 and UK BAP via LBAPs.

9.

Under the Landfill Communities Fund formerly the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme (LTCS), landfill operators can claim a credit of up to 6% of their tax liability to HM Customs and Excise (HMCE) if they make qualifying contributions to Environmental Bodies (EBs).

10. http://www.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=217&listitemid=9727 11. http://www.nfpsynergy.net/mdia_coverage/our_press_releases/fluctuations_in_gdp_hit_charities_ average_voluntary_income_after_10_month_lag.aspx 12. Third Sector, 3/02/2009, Hannah Jordan, Alternatives to cash find favour as recession bites.

13. Response rates up for cash prize draws, By Hannah Jordan, Third Sector, 10 February 2009 14. The Guardian, Millions for charities hit by recession, Stratton.A, 09.02.2009 15. http://www.tititudorancea.com/z/euro_to_gbp_exchange_rates_pounds_sterling_uk.htm 16. Horticulture Week, Garden visitor numbers increase, Matthew Appleby, 18 September 2008.

17. http://news.stv.tv/scotland/66730-the-national-trust-for-scotland-hit-by-recession/ (22/12/2008).

18. TimesOnline, Sunday Times, 21/12/2008, Threat to historic Scottish houses, Mark Mascaskill.

Jonathan Somper is an independent consultant who provides practical marketing support, tailor-made research and membership know-how to charities, companies and organisations committed to the environment and a more sustainable future. jonathansomper@talktalk.net, www.jpsomper.talktalk.net

68

ECOS 30(1) 2009

Spatial planning for renewables: identifying sensitive wildlife areas The shift to a low-carbon future can create pressure on wildlife because sites that are optimal for renewable energy developments often coincide with areas of biodiversity importance. This article explains how choices made over the design, scale and sighting of renewables technologies can harmonise with wildlife protection.

FRANCES MACGUIRE & TIM YOUNGS Government renewable energy targets are being reflected in plans and strategies developed at regional and local levels. For example, in the North West region of England the draft regional spatial strategy (RSS) proposed that by 2010 at least 10% (rising to at least 15% by 2015 and at least 20% by 2020)i of the electricity supplied in the region should be provided from renewable energy sources.1 In a partial review of the draft RSS, it was recommended that an assessment be made of broad areas where renewable technologies could be located, in line with PPS 22.2 The consultants Arup were commissioned to identify the renewable energy resource in the region and possible broad locations for development with the aim of providing an ‘opportunity’ or ‘constraints’ map.3 Infrastructure and peat – wind turbines on Ovenden Moor.

Photo: Tim Melling, RSPB

69

ECOS 30(1) 2009 One of the challenges for generating constraints maps is deciding which constraints should be included. Arup consulted widely with stakeholders to ensure that local knowledge was incorporated, and compiled a list of ‘absolute’ and ‘variable’ constraints.

Table 1. Constraints on wind development in the North West identified by Arup Towards Broad Areas for Renewable Energy Development.

Constrained Areas

Variable Constrained Areas

National Parks

Scheduled Ancient Monuments (with 100m buffer)

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs)

Listed buildings (100m buffer)

Ramsar Sites

Radar safeguard areas

Special Protection Areas and Special Areas of Conservation

MOD operational constraints

World Heritage Sites and their Settings as defined by English Heritage

Airports

Sites of Special Scientific Interest

Deep peat areas

Historic Parks and Gardens

Sensitive bird sites identified by RSPB

Historic Battlefields

National Park extensions (proposed)

Areas with an average wind speed of less than 6.5 m/sec at a hub height of 80m

National trails (with a 200m buffer)

A 500m buffer around each address in the region as a proxy for noise nuisance

Existing wind turbine developments

In any constraints mapping process, designated sites such as Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs)ii should be mapped. Less obvious though is the importance of including critical flyways and feeding areas for ‘important populations’ of ‘sensitive bird species’, which lie outside of these protected sites but are functionally linked to them and may be critical to their survival. Such areas may also trigger the protective measures of the Habitats Regulations.iii 4 In some cases, these areas may merit designation as SPA either in their own right or as extensions to existing SPAs. The planning system does not always readily address these areas and developers and local authorities may not be aware that, in some circumstances, the Habitat Regulations may extend to areas that are functionally linked to SPAs and SACs. In order to address this the RSPB, in collaboration with other partners,iv has produced a series of Spatial Planning Guides, which map important populations of bird species sensitive to renewable energy developments. The work focussed on species sensitive to on-shore wind and biomass energy crop plantings. It is worth noting that only a small number of species are considered ‘sensitive’. Areas of the North West which have a deep peat resource were also mapped because these are 70

ECOS 30(1) 2009 frequently linked to on-shore wind proposals. Arup included this data in its list of variable constraints.

These four Spatial Planning Guides 5,6,7,8 are available at: http://www.rspb.org.uk/northwestrenewables The intention behind the guides is to help developers, government and other agencies to be aware of areas which, although they are outside of the Natura 2000 network, are functionally linked to them and therefore need to be considered in planning decisions. These are not ‘no-go’ areas but early consideration may reduce the number of objections and enable any potential impacts of proposals to be avoided or reduced.

Marrying renewables development with biodiversity protection The RSPB supports government targets on climate change and the development of renewable energy.9, 10 Nevertheless, challenges remain in the effort to marry biodiversity protection with the large-scale renewables development so needed to decarbonise our energy mix. Wind energy, on and offshore, will be critical to delivering our renewable energy targets and many wind turbine developments have no discernible effects on wildlife at all. However, the impacts of wind turbines on birds depends crucially on where the turbines are located since they have the potential to cause harm through direct habitat loss or damage, disturbance and displacement of species from feeding, nesting and migration and direct collision. Developments are often adjacent to bird sensitive areas such as estuaries and uplands as these areas often have high wind speeds.

The specific case of wind turbines on ‘deep peat’ raises additional issues. There may be habitat loss and hydrological disruption from the installation of turbines.

Disturbance may result in the release of carbon stored in peat deposits which would reduce the carbon avoidance benefits of the development in comparison to the same proposal on non-peat soils.

Bioenergy has a vital role to play in moving towards a low-carbon economy but it needs to be produced and deployed in the most efficient and sustainable way possible. Biomass energy crop plantings can be potentially damaging where breeding assemblages of arable and wetland birds of conservation concern occur.

There may be direct habitat loss or damage, leading to loss of food sources, disturbance and displacement of species from feeding and nesting. However, it is possible in many situations for renewables and biodiversity to co-exist if technologies are sensitively sited and operated. For example, the impacts of biomass energy crops can be reduced if best practice guidelines are followed.11

Methodology for producing Alert maps The RSPB, working with the Wildlife Trusts, Natural England and others, compiled data on bird sensitive and deep peat areas to contribute to the evidence base of 71

ECOS 30(1) 2009 Arup’s assessment of broad locations for renewables in the north west. These ‘alert maps’ were produced for Cumbria, Lancashire, Cheshire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside.v The maps were intended to trigger detailed consultations between developers, local authorities, statutory and other agencies. The aim was to highlight areas where detailed ecological survey work would be necessary, on a site-by-site basis, to determine whether a site could be appropriate for a renewable energy development.

Two levels of sensitivity were identified: • White areas - lowest risk of impacts on nationally/ internationally important ornithological interests and deep peat soils, although detailed investigation may be necessary.vi • Mapped Sensitive bird and deep peat sensitive areas - highlights alert areas where there is a higher risk of impacts on nationally/ internationally important ornithological interests and/or deep peat soils.

Criteria for identifying sensitive bird species Sensitive bird species were defined from the ornithological assessment methodology developed by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and the Scottish Branch of the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) (see Table 2). Whooper swan, Bewick’s swan and Pink-footed goose were defined as ‘sensitive species’ to wind development for several reasons: • They are a cited interest of SPAs and SSSIs • They are large, with low maneuverability and are vulnerable to collision • They feed in the area and are vulnerable to the effects of displacement by wind turbines • They occur in discrete, nationally important populations in the area These are all wintering species, which may occur both within and outwith land designated for high nature conservation or landscape value (ie. SSSI, SAC, SPA, Ramsar, NNR, AONB, National Park). In the North West, they are an important feature of the Ribble and Alt estuaries, Martin Mere, Morecambe Bay and the Upper Solway Flats and Marshes, sites that are all SPAs. Hen harrier was also included (Cumbria only). Breeding birds of conservation concern sensitive to biomass energy crop plantings were grouped into assemblages of arable birds and wetland birds (see box A). All the above wintering species were also defined as sensitive to biomass plantings

72

ECOS 30(1) 2009 Box A: Breeding bird assemblages Arable Birds

Wetland birds

Lapwing, yellow wagtail, corn bunting, grey partridge and tree sparrow.

Lapwing, yellow wagtail, curlew, snipe and redshank.

Table 2: Definition of terms relating to ‘sensitive species’ of bird This table is based on the ornithological assessment methodology developed by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and the Scottish Branch of the Wind Energy Association (BWEA).12 A column has been added listing types of sensitivity for each group of species.

Sensitivity

Definition

VERY HIGH Cited interest of SPAs and SSSIs. Cited means mentioned in the citation text for a site as the species for which the site is designated (SPAs or notified SSSIs).

Example species Type of sensitivity Whooper swan, Disturbance/displacement Bewick’s swan, pink-footed goose Collision

HIGH

Other species that contribute to the integrity Hen Harrier of an SPA or SSSI. A local population of more than 1% of the national population of a species.

Ecologically sensitive species e.g. large birds of prey or rare birds (<300 breeding pairs in the UK). EU Birds Directive Annex 1 and /or W&C Act 1981 (as amended) Schedule 1species (if not covered above).

Not listed but birds at nationally important winter roost sites are considered vulnerable to disturbance/ displacement (RSPB staff, pers.comm.)

MEDIUM

Regionally important population of a species, either because of population size or distributional context. UK BAP priority species (if not covered above).

Disturbance/ displacement

LOW

Icelandic greylag goose

Collision

Any other species of conservation interest e.g. species listed on the Birds of Conservation Concern not listed above.

Criteria for defining ‘important populations’ Birds are highly mobile and are recorded over a wide area, so the threshold for inclusion for an ‘important population’ was taken to be a complex of fields or a discrete area of land which regularly (i.e. recorded several times a year during the period when the birds are present) supports: • 1% of the relevant SPA population (i.e. to which a population is functionally linked) based on the 5-year mean peak figure OR • If this is not applicable, then a 1% of the national population threshold (nationally important) was used OR • If this is not applicable, a regularly (i.e. recorded several times a year during the period when the birds are present) occurring population present in a notable concentration (i.e. of county importance, taken as 10% of the county population) figure was used.

73

ECOS 30(1) 2009 In the case of Pink-footed goose and Whooper swan in Lancashire, the numbers of birds present in certain areas far exceeds the thresholds used above i.e. internationally important numbers of birds are present. It is highly probable that some of these areas merit designation as SPAs in their own right or, more likely, as extensions to the SPAs to which they are functionally linked.

The data used for defining important populations is updated annually, so this study was based upon current knowledge and distributions, which may be subject to change. Areas outwith the protected area network may well be â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;functionally linkedâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; to an SPA. For example, birds spend part of their time within an SPA and part of their time feeding in outlying areas. Many of the bird sensitive areas are functionally linked to each other by established bird flyways, which should be considered as important as the bird sensitive areas themselves.

Methods of producing the maps Bird sensitive areas The North West was divided into areas that are known to support important populations of sensitive species vulnerable to on-shore wind turbine developments.

Each area was defined by using the best available data and through consulting with expert bird recorders active in each area. Typically, such bird recorders survey the areas in question through monitoring schemes such as the Wetland Bird Survey.13 The same methodology was used to map flyways between bird sensitivity areas, to acknowledge the fact that birds move between suitable areas to feed, roost, loaf and assemble before migration.

Deep peat vii Under license from Natural England, National Soil Research Institute (NSRI) soils data was used to define the peat resource.14 This dataset is considered to be the best available, up-to-date and regionally applicable information.15 Three types of deep peat resource were mapped: lowland raised mire, fen and blanket bog.

It is important to note that the illustrated areas show where a peat resource exists (not necessarily peat over 1 metre deep), but to determine the exact depth of peat, a site-by-site assessment would be required. Peat depths can be highly variable in a given area, subject to the underlying geology and topography.

Much of the deep peat resource identified underlies areas designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), an SPA or a SAC. However, some areas are not designated for their nature conservation interests and yet support important bird populations and/or habitat communities (e.g. West Pennine Moors). Other areas identified would not qualify as a SSSI/SPA/SAC in their nature conservation importance, but nonetheless still have an important deep peat resource.

Maps were generated for Lancashire, Cheshire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside and separately for Cumbria.

74

ECOS 30(1) 2009

Delivering renewables targets and protecting biodiversity Alert maps such as the ones described here are a way of enabling developers and government agencies to have an early understanding of the species that may be impacted by specific developments. However there is a risk that constraint mapping for renewables could be so restrictive that we fail to meet renewables targets. The Arup report, for example, concluded that the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;widespread constraints on wind energy development in particular make it difficult to identify meaningful broad areas.â&#x20AC;&#x2122; The North West region should be able to provide significant opportunities for the renewable energy industry and will be critical to achieving UK ambitions for 45% of our electricity to come from renewables by 2020, in line with European targets.16 The Arup report concluded, for example, that there is scope for renewable energy development in most areas including within the National Park and Areas of Outstanding Beauty.

It would be useful to look in more detail within the broad areas that were mapped to see if there are opportunities for renewables which do not conflict with public interests.

Biodiversity conservation is often painted as a significant constraint to developing renewables and perhaps unfairly so. For example, from 2003 to 2007, the RSPB sustained objections to only 7% of all cases of wind turbine developments in which it became involved.17 The Arup report showed that the 500m buffer around each address in the region (Table 1) combined with MOD land created significant constraints in terms of geographic area. Increasingly conservationists recognize that in some areas designated for their biodiversity value it is possible to accommodate renewables with sensitive design. Perhaps it is time to reconsider some of the other constraints such as buffers around industrial estates so that renewables targets can be met while also reducing the pressure on sites designated for their nature conservation value and the areas functionally linked to them upon which the qualifying bird species depend.

Despite the imperative to act on climate change we also need to protect biodiversity â&#x20AC;&#x201C; our lives depend upon it. The best way of doing this in the UK is to ensure the integrity of the protected area network and areas that are functionally linked to it. Spatial planning at the regional and local level will be critical in ensuring that renewables targets are met while safeguarding our natural environment. Developers should make early contact with statutory and voluntary agencies working to protect biodiversity to better shape decisions on technology choices, scale and location of development and operation.

75

ECOS 30(1) 2009

References i

These indicative targets are equivalent to: 3,590 GWh/yr in 2010; 5,660 GWh/yr in 2015; 7,930 GWh/yr in 2020.

ii

Under the EU Birds Directive and EU Habitats Directive respectively.

iii Regulation 48 et seq. in respect of projects and Regulation 85A et seq. in respect of land-use plans. iv

The Wildlife Trust for Lancashire, Manchester & North Merseyside (LWT), Natural England, Lancashire County Council and Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service.

v

Summary maps are included in the PDF version of this article on the BANC web site at www.banc.org.uk

vi

Unmapped areas for sensitive bird populations and peat soils may contain other important habitats and species (e.g.bats)

vii Defined as peat over 1m deep, Paul Thomas, Natural England, Lancashire team (pers comm.)

1.

North West Regional Assembly (2006) The North West Plan Submitted draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West of England. Wigan.

2.

GONW (2007) North West Draft Regional Spatial Strategy Examination in Public October 2006-February 2007, Report of the Panel.

3.

4NW (2008) Towards Broad Areas for Renewable Energy Development. Final Report V1.2 Arup Consultants.

4.

HMSO (1994) Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended).

5.

Youngs, T and Shackleton, D. (2007) Wind Turbines and Sensitive Bird Populations: A Spatial Planning Guide for on-shore wind farm developments in Cumbria. RSPB.

6.

Youngs, T (2008) Wind Turbines and Peat Soils: A Spatial Planning Guide for on-shore wind farm developments in Cumbria. RSPB.

7.

Youngs, T and White, S. (2008) Wind Turbines, Sensitive Bird Populations and Peat Soils: A Spatial Planning Guide for on-shore wind farm developments in Lancashire, Cheshire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside. RSPB.

8.

Youngs, T. (2008) Biomass planting and Sensitive Bird Populations: A Spatial Planning Guide for biomass energy crop planting in North West England. RSPB.

9.

UK Climate Change Act, http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/pdf/ukpga_20080027_en.pdf, accessed 21.01.09.

10. Commission of the European Communities (2008) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, http://ec.europa.eu/energy/climate_actions/doc/2008_res_directive_en.pdf, accessed 21.01.09.

11. Wildlife and Countryside Link (2007) Bioenergy in the UK, turning green promises into environmental reality. WCL, London.

12. Langston, R.H.W. & Pullen, J.D. (2003) Windfarms and Birds: An analysis of the effects of windfarms on birds, and guidance on environmental assessment criteria and site selection issues. Report to the Standing Committee on the Convention on the Conservation of Wildlife and Natural Habitats.

Council of Europe, Strasbourg.

76

ECOS 30(1) 2009 13. The Wetland Bird Survey, http://www.bto.org/survey/webs, accessed 21.01.09 14. National Soil Resources Institute, http://www.landis.org.uk/soilscapes, accessed 21.01.09.

15. Chris Lumb and Bart Donato, Natural England, Kendal, pers. comm.

16. RSPB (2009) Power for the Planet. Putting nature at the heart of renewable energy development.

RSPB, Sandy.

17. Toby Gethin, RSPB, pers. comm.

Caveats and notes 1.

The mapped areas are not definitive.

2.

All areas covered by existing landscape (AONB, National Park) or nature conservation designations (SSSI, SPA, SAC, Ramsar) have not been illustrated on the maps.

3.

Some species – including important populations of breeding birds vulnerable to wind farms, such as raptors, and other wintering or passage birds – have not been included in this study because: • The maps identify only the most sensitive species occurring in important numbers.

• If the species are known to occur wholly within the protected area network e.g. SPA) and/ or an area designated as an AONB or National Park, these species were excluded because the species largely occur within areas subject to statutory nature conservation designations.

4.

Various species were not included in this study, but they would need to be included in a site-by-site assessment (usually through the Environmental Impact Assessment or EIA, process). Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) has produced recommended guidance on ‘Survey methods for use in assessing the impacts of on-shore wind farms on bird communities’ http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/strategy/renewable/bird_survey.pdf

5.

The number and species of bird flying through the north west especially during periods of migration (for example, geese) are not accurately known, so it cannot be assumed that important populations of birds will only occur within the mapped areas.

Acknowledgements A number of RSPB staff were involved in this work including Peter Robertson and Tim Melling. Particular thanks go to Amy Crowther for collating the data. Several other organisations helped with data collection and shaping the work, including Steve White (Lancashire Wildlife Trust), Peter Jepson (Lancashire County Council), Jenny Wain and Judy Palmer (Cumbria County Council) and Chris Bennett (Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service). RSPB and other volunteers play a large part in our work, and the wider project associated with this article benefited from the input of Derek Forshaw and others.

Frances MacGuire is a Regional Policy Advocate for the RSPB in the North West (frances.macguire@rspb.org.uk). Tim Youngs is RSPB Conservation Officer for Cumbria, Lancashire and Cheshire (tim.youngs@rspb.org.uk).

77

ECOS 30(1) 2009

Severn tidal power – the Pros and Cons Ministers have announced the schemes for generating tidal energy in the Severn Estuary that will go forward for detailed study and strategic environmental assessment, but do we know enough to reject alternative proposals at this stage?

RICHARD BULL Global imperative?

Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, together with Welsh Ministers, announced the Government’s choice of Severn tidal power candidates at the January meeting of the local stakeholders’ group in Weston super Mare. This suggests that the prospect of harnessing the huge tidal energy resources of the Severn are being taken seriously this time. As environmentalists and/or ecologists we will either be delighted or worried, or both. Previously in ECOS, Tony Prater 1 masterfully deals with the direct environmental implications of the beststudied scheme, the ‘traditional’ Cardiff-Weston barrage, which has been the subject of proposals and studies since the late nineteenth century. To many, the disadvantages to the global environment of not going ahead with this big barrage are serious, to others the threat to the wildlife populations of the Severn Estuary is so great that it should not be contemplated.

Meanwhile plans for new nuclear build continue to emerge. On Severnside, British Energy and EDF are both consulting on new stations at Hinkley Point, and the old nuclear sites of Berkeley and Oldbury seem to be waiting for takers: grid connections are in place and high-level siting criteria for nuclear use already established. Nuclear is not an alternative to a big tidal scheme: it is an adjunct – vital to provide base load and back pumping capacity to enhance the capacity of a barrage or lagoons. The public mood on nuclear seems entirely different to that of the 1980s, when Hinkley “C” was approved but not built. It’s coal that now attracts protest camps, not nuclear, although the women’s camp at the now sold-off AWRE Aldermaston still persists.

What are the options for Severn Tidal Power?

Before Miliband came on the scene the long list 2 looked at by the Government included all the schemes advocated by potential developers and environmentalists.

He announced that five schemes have been selected by the Government for further study and full environmental assessment: 1. Shoots Barrage, 1.05 GW scheme downstream of new Severn road crossing (£3.2bn),

78

ECOS 30(1) 2009 2. Beachley Barrage, 0.625 GW scheme upstream of the first Severn road crossing (£2.3bn), 3. Bridgwater Bay lagoon, 1.36 GW impoundment on the English side (£3.8bn), 4. Welsh Grounds (Fleming lagoon), 1.36 GW impoundment on the Welsh side off Magor previously studied as a “Russell” lagoon from 1980s (£4bn), 5. Cardiff-Weston (Lavernock Point to Brean Down) Barrage, 8.64GW 10-mile long (£21bn) (the traditional, big barrage).

Rejected schemes Rejected schemes include an outer barrage from Minehead to Aberthaw, which would be the longest barrage, making maximum use of the Severn Estuary tidal resource, but clearly the most expensive scheme with few fringe benefits for regional infrastructure. One end would be in or near a National Park, the other a Heritage Coast, racking up the impact.

Also rejected was a “middle barrage” from Hinkley Point to Lavernock Point which could have linked a Cardiff-Weston barrage and arranged to create two impounded areas which could be managed in tandem.

A further rejected barrage was the rather fly-on-the-wall known as Severn Lake, about which little information was forthcoming. It would be a 1 km wide barrage in a similar location to the Cardiff-Weston scheme, designed to include a wave farm on the seaward side and create development opportunities, such as four marinas.

Other schemes are not apparently dependent on associated development so do not carry the burden of additional, unquantifiable environmental impact.

Lagoon proposals rejected include those on Peterston Flats, between Cardiff and the Wye Estuary and at English Grounds, between Clevedon and Sand Point.

Other technologies The Government has not completely ruled out alternative technologies such as tidal reefs, tidal fences and free-standing tidal current turbines, and is making £500,000 available for their further research and development. Ministers say that progress on their development will be considered alongside the short listed schemes. However, this surely means that they cannot compete as actual schemes for the Severn, although the ideas may be capable of adoption elsewhere, perhaps out in the Bristol Channel.

This appears to rule out the RSPB’s suggested Cardiff to Weston Tidal Fence: a barrier constructed over part of the line, with open sections, incorporating tidal stream turbines to capture energy from the ebb and flood tides. Also ruled out in this way is a tidal reef: a concept that includes floating turbines and caissons between Aberthaw and Minehead.

79

ECOS 30(1) 2009

The Assessment so far According to the Government 3, the early work has identified a number of environmental and social benefits from the barrage and lagoon proposals: • All provide long-term, renewable, home-grown energy resources, • Some flood protection upstream from barrages from storm surges, • All barrage and lagoon schemes work by leading to higher low tide and lower higher tide within impounded areas, so their overall impact will mean that large areas of inter-tidal habitat would be lost or reduced in food value, potentially displacing the large numbers of protected birds. Mitigation and compensatory measures could cost £1bn, • Overall economic benefits are positive, but some employment losses are anticipated at ports around the estuary. In the case of the big barrage project 1,500 additional jobs could be expected.

The Process here on The five selected schemes will go forward for further study, full costing and strategic environmental assessment. A decision on Government support inprinciple for an estuary power scheme and its financial terms will be made at the end of 2010. Then it will be for a developer to come forward with a scheme to be determined by the new Infrastructure Planning Commission against the new Government-set National Planning Statements. Whatever is in the statement will basically set the decision…after that the interlinked questions that will determine the project are: • What stake the Government should hold? (the Sustainable Development Commission 4 recommended direct Government involvement to guarantee that the environment would be safeguarded), • Raising capital in the City against fluctuating energy costs, discount rate futures and renewable energy obligations, and • The attitude of the EC to loss of Habitats Directive sites and potential mitigation measures.

Natural England is leading the search for 11,500 to 15,000 ha of replacement wetland habitat on Severnside. This is the only hope for meeting the EU Habitat Directive requirements for taking or altering internationally designated wetland. It is not easy when you look Severn Levels to find the large, contiguous areas suitable for translocated wildlife because of the history of long-standing settlement of these fertile clay levels. Only large areas near the estuary which could become tidal mudflats would make a sensible impact on wildlife. This has never been done on this scale before: much talk in the 1980s to translocate the seals and other wildlife 80

ECOS 30(1) 2009 of Seal Sands on the Tees Estuary to allow port-related development came to nothing! And would the critical birds move, or just go away?

Cardiff-Weston, the big barrage So what should the ecologist think so far about the various schemes4 As Prater demonstrated1, we know a lot about the environmental impact of the â&#x20AC;&#x153;traditionalâ&#x20AC;?

Cardiff-Weston barrage in wildlife terms flowing mainly from its effect in raising low tide levels, reducing high tide levels, reducing turbidity, leaving mud flats less exposed and arguably blocking migratory fish. Prater did not deal with other impacts apart from the source of construction materials. These include the visual impact of the barrage and overhead transmission lines on landscape and seascape5, the impact of transport links to the work sites and any permanent link over the barrage, the impact of secondary development in the Weston and Penarth/Dinas Powys areas, the effect on ports and their possible re-location, the effect on the Mendip Hills AONB and on the special but undesignated environments of the two islands, Steep Holm, Flat Holm, and on Brean Down at the Somerset coast.

All these must be weighed in the balance against the prospect of 8GW of installed power, 5% of the electricity supply of England & Wales, which would, at a stroke make a major impact on our renewable energy targets and reduce our dependence on what appears to be increasingly unreliable sources of imported energy. The other barrage and lagoon schemes all produce far less power and are therefore far less attractive to Ministers bent on meeting targets. Couple the big barrage with new base-load nuclear stations and you have the perfect combination to get the best out of both by using off-peak times electricity to pump into the impoundment, but then even more mud flat would be covered more often.

Miliband summed up this dilemma by saying "We have tough choices to make.

Failing to act on climate change could see catastrophic effects on the environment and its wildlife, but the estuary itself is a protected environment, home to vulnerable species including birds and fish. We need to think about how to balance the value of this unique natural environment against the long-term threat of global climate change. It is vital we seek public views and collect all information we need to make sure our climate change actions are ambitious but fair."

In my view the big barrage will prevail - the chance of missing 5% of our electricity from a single large renewable energy scheme is just too good for Ministers to miss: much easier than making us all insulate? Barrages have other uses, such as routes for transport corridors, which might tempt choice and create additional impacts.

Lesser barrages Like the big barrage, these have been studied before. Not surprisingly, the effects and benefits are similar, just less. Maybe the effects are more manageable the higher up the estuary you go, but if the big barrage becomes necessary after all, 81

ECOS 30(1) 2009 lesser barrages will have been wasted effort and would get in the way of its best management. Some bring in other benefits: the Shoots Barrage could replace the ageing and very wet Severn Tunnel: a new crossing will become essential if a highspeed rail link is built between Cardiff and London. It allows free access to the Port of Bristol for very large carriers and to the River Usk for migratory fish. The Beachley Barrage safeguards fisheries in the River Wye as well.

Lagoons The environmental impact of lagoons is considered by many to be less than barrages, hence the support from Friends of the Earth. This appears to me to be based on quite flimsy assessment, for lagoons cover mud flats and whilst the bunds would be built with sand pumped from the estuary, they would have to be protected by millions of tons of stone which could exceed the crushed stone requirement for a fixed barrage. One inter-linked lagoon scheme required 95 miles of bunds made of 200 million tonnes of stone, rather than a 10-mile cross-estuary fixed barrage requiring 13 million tonnes of aggregate to make floated-in caissons.

The source of stone is not clear: like the barrage caissons it could be floated in from anywhere: it could be local or come from Scotland or Norway. Either way the impact of quarrying and sand pumping would be huge. In visual terms, lagoons and their bunds would totally change the appearance of wide areas of the Estuary, whereas a barrage would have a more local effect. A whole network of lagoons (or a tidal fence) could confine the channel to a narrow tidal race.

Tidal reefs, tidal current turbines and tidal fences It is very difficult to be precise about gains and loses for tidal reefs, tidal current turbines and tidal fences. They have not been studied, except that because they have less effect on the tidal regime, their environmental impact is less, but so is the electricity generated by them. Clearly individual tidal current turbines would have negligible effect on the environment, more so for arrays of them (tidal reefs), whereas the effect of a tidal fence scheme would be in direct proportion to its efficiency in stopping water flow. The more like a barrage it is, the more effect it would have on tide level, reducing exposed mud flat feeding grounds. This lack of information means that we can therefore only seriously consider the environmental effects of lagoons and barrages, as other methods will not be given full environmental assessment.

The Government has mainly rejected Tidal Fences and Tidal Reefs because it believes that their technology is insufficiently well advanced for large scale application in the Severn Estuary. It is offering to support the development of the necessary larger turbines, although it believes that scaling-up reliable machines for such applications from current prototypes will take a decade and is therefore too risky for economic application. Ecologists may well howl that the Government should not risk the birds either and should wait.

The Government has published a detailed consultation document on the choice of options for Severn Tidal Power and on the scoping of the Strategic 82

ECOS 30(1) 2009 Environmental Assessment. These and many other supporting documents on such as wildlife issues, economic issues and other impacts can be seen at: http://www.decc.gov.uk/severntidalpowerconsultation Alternatively the main consultation document is available free of charge can be ordered from BERR/DECC Publications by telephoning 0845 015 0030.

References 1.

Prater, T (2006) A barrage too far? ECOS 27 (2) http://www.berr.gov.uk

2.

See www.berr.gov.uk

3.

See www.berr.gov.uk

4.

Sustainable Development Commission (2007) Turning the Tide: Tidal Power in the UK, The Commission, London

5.

Natural England (2007) Advice on Potential Landscape/Seascape and Visual Effects of a Severn Barrage: A Report by Land Use Consultants Unpublished but see www.naturalengland.org.uk

Richard Bull is President of the Mendip Society, a geologist and a voluntary assistant at Lyme Regis Museum. richardbull@supanet.com

Not a big barrage but a new Archimedes Screw hydro power station for fresh water.

The generators get the nod from the Environment Agency because of the apparent safety for fish passing through compared to other technologies.

Photo: www,glendell.co.uk

83

ECOS 30(1) 2009

Where have all the botanists gone?

Environmental courses first appeared at British universities 40 years ago, so now is a good time to take stock. Such a period of time also equates to that which, it is suggested, is needed for a policy to be implemented. The Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management is running a research project to examine whether or not an Ecological Skills Gap exists.

JILL SUTCLIIFFE Perforate St Johnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s-wort (Hypericum peforatum) has a diagnostic feature. Hold the leaves up to the light and they appear like a band aid covered with little holes which are, in fact, translucent glands which give it this perforated appearance. I learned that when doing a botanical survey of Cornwall. Some 400 interesting sites had been identified but not surveyed. Thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s how I learned to become an ecologist.

When I went to college no such courses existed.

The first ecologically-oriented degree was the Masters in Conservation set up at University College London which was designed in conjunction with the staff from the then Nature Conservancy Council (NCC1). NCC was concerned that not enough suitably qualified staff were coming forward to work in the wildlife organisations advising government. The aim of the course was to address this gap and the link continues today, although it is now not the only relevant qualification available.

However, despite the fact that more courses are available, staff at the statutory nature conservation bodies are concerned about the lack of suitable people who apply for jobs but without an interest in natural history or knowledge of a group of species. Evidence to the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee inquiry into Systematics and Taxonomy2 showed no Botany departments left at British Universities, only seven botany courses available and no mycology courses at all. So is this gap an evolving one or a temporary blip?

Community involvement In 1971, Friends of the Earth (FOE) was set up to campaign on environmental issues and the work to encourage active student participation was seen as helping to increase the dissemination of ideas, and importantly, action. Crucially, FOE local groups have campaigned recently on the need for a Climate Change bill.

The UK educational initiative at tertiary level was followed in the early 1970s by the preparation of GCEs and A-levels in Ecology, The National Union of Students (NUS3) ran a conservation project designed to encourage student action and involvement in environmental issues. This led to a growth from 5 to some 350 action groups being established by 1974 which contributed to an increasing pressure that academic courses should be available which reflected environmental 84

ECOS 30(1) 2009 interests. Today, that interest is served by the efforts to put sustainable development on the agendas of the Universities and colleges.4 So why is that young people appear to be uninvolved or uninterested in ecology despite the popularity of media coverage such as the BBCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Springwatch or other such programmes?

It takes a combination of skills to become an ecologist. Rather like a doctor, an academic training is not enough on its own. Such courses can help to establish a foundation but becoming a professional ecologist requires fieldwork, additional sources of training and reading journals to keep up to date. A review of what had been important in the lives of experts found that those possessing the expertise were often unaware that they were regarded as experts and they stressed the importance of a good team and a good mentor (pers comm. Dan Pond formerly at Environment Agency). See Figure 1 for an Ecological Profile of Rachel Carson, the person credited with pioneering the need for an environmental movement.

Ecological profile: Rachel Carson (1907 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 64) Academic

Training

course

Job

Pennsylvania College for women (now Chatham Univ.).

summer course in Marine Biol at Marine Biol Lab

1936: Came top in civil service exams Only the 2nd woman appointed as junior aquatic biologist at US Bureau of Fisheries

Learned about ponds, fields and forests from her mother where they lived on a farm

1928: Switched to Marine Biology from English 1929: continued studies in zoology + genetics at John Hopkins Univ.

1932: Masters in Zoology 1929:

1949: Rose to become chief editor of publications (it had been renamed Fish + Wildlife Service)

Personal

Voluntary

OtherImpact

Wrote from young age and turned to full time writing having been prompted by her UG biology mentor, Mary Scott Skinker

Stirred an interest in conservation; her research led to DDT and other pesticides being banned on account of their impacts on birdlife and potentially on humans; her accessible articles and books led to the birth of the modern environmental movement and to the setting up of the US EPA in 1970.

Policy implementation In 1976, Thomas McKeown5 suggested that policy implementation followed a cycle. He argued that any new threat would take some 20 years to be identified, a further 10 years for an effective policy to be put in place and another 10 years for professionals to act on it. A very brief examination of policy on climate change can demonstrate this. Mick Kelly at the University of East Anglia did not believe his eyes when the computer programme started spewing out the results which initially demonstrated changes occurring in global weather patterns in the 85

ECOS 30(1) 2009

11 year old Danny Gregory takes his petition to Downing Street to call for environmental education to be reinstated in the National Curriculum.

Photo: www.naee.org.uka

early1980s. He was a member of the team that produced the definitive temperature record used in global warming detection studies. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established and the first Climate Change talks were held in Kyoto in 1988 and now, in 2009, the UK has many targets on climate change, and has a Climate Change Bill.

Lack of joined up thinking Currently, the Government calls for an active citizenship and provides units in the formal education process for this but it has failed to appreciate the importance of providing a similar ecological framework as part of the English National Curriculum by which to understand what is happening to the planet. In May 2008, a young lad of 11 - Danny Gregory from Sutton Coldfield - visited Downing Street to hand in a petition of nearly 400 signatures he had collected requesting the reinstatement of Environmental Education within the National Curriculum. Why is it not included?

86

ECOS 30(1) 2009 What is required is not just a better framework but a Paradigm shift, a concept developed by Thomas Kuhn in 1962. He outlined a process in which the seeds of the next paradigm existed within the present framework of understanding and that the change which takes place is driven by key factors. Climate change may be providing such a factor and it is the behviour of wildlife which is demonstrating the impacts and we need all the ecologists we can get to be involved.

James Rosenquist, the artist wrote: “What if we awoke one day to find ourselves inhabiting a plant form? How would re- integration with a natural habitat change our perception of, and regard for, that environment?”

References and notes 1.

This organisation has since morphed through various stages into Natural England and the associated statutory nature conservation bodies in the Devolved Administrations to include CCW, JNCC, EANI and SNH.

2.

BSBI evidence to House of Lords Science and Technology Committee Systematics and Taxonomy Inquiry, Feb 2008

3.

Funded by the former Countryside Commission (part of which has transferred into Natural England), and the Carnegie Trust.

4.

Sustainable development in higher education, 2009 Higher education Funding Council for Education (HEFCE)

5.

The Role of Medicine – Dream, Mirage or Nemesis. T. McKeown (1976) London, Nuffield, Provincial Hospital

6.

Kuhn, T (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolution

Jill Sutcliffe is exploring the ecological skills gap for IEEM. More on this subject will appear in the December 2009 edition of ECOS, and anyone interested is welcome to contact IEEM on the topic. jillsutcliffe@ieem.net

87

ECOS 30(1) 2009

Sacrifice – a footnote Is government’s drive on outdoor learning taking us forwards or backwards in understanding and experiencing nature?

MARTIN SPRAY Like nature conservation, environmental education comes in various flavours, and has several purposes, and the relationship(s) between flavour and purpose is not always clear. However, it has much to offer in support of nature conservation, and many of us are encouraged by that – though if it is ‘dynamite’, as some enthusiasts claimed, the explosion seems delayed.1 Of course, like other parts of education, its benefits vary according to circumstances; for example, hands-on (or more likely feet-on) experiential learning seems likely to be more effective than gawping at a flickering screen – let alone the out-of-a-book or off-a-website classroom lesson. One purpose of the essay in ECOS 29(2) was to remember the benefits of teaching children outside the classroom – which had been remembered and had received a surge of enthusiasm in Britain in the 1960s and 70s, and which seem to be being remembered again.2

Educere (Latin) ‘to lead forth’ In November 2006, a minister of the Crown launched the 24 page ‘manifesto’ Learning outside the classroom.3 The manifesto appears to have been developed carefully, intended to promote and foster out-of-school education for the whole school curriculum, not just the biology-environment parts. After its pre-announcement in February 2005, “…stakeholder workshops were held [...] attended by over 100 organisations representing outdoor education, field studies, museums and galleries, built environment, heritage, places of worship, food and farming, creativity and arts, environment and school grounds. A framework Manifesto was put out for public consultation from November 2005 until February 2006 when nine sector working groups made practical proposals for the Manifesto”.4

Riding high This represents quite a lot of effort and commitment. Indeed, it looks like the whole thing is being taken seriously, at the highest levels: “It is the first time a Government has committed itself to making learning outside the classroom an integral part of school life, with the Manifesto setting out specific measures to help schools widen access to high quality educational experiences for every young person...”

88

NITKA

ECOS 30(1) 2009

That statement from the Department for Children, Schools & Families press notice of 28 November 2006 sums up the importance of this mission, so let’s have it again: “... Government has committed itself to making learning outside the classroom an integral part of school life...”. Remember, this is presumably for the whole curriculum; but from the nature conservationists’ corner, that looks good, does it not? Quite a few other people seem to have noticed its importance. At 19 January 2009, 13,500 items were proffered by googling ‘learning outside the classroom manifesto’.

At the same date, a second google (actually using Clusty) showed a round 0 Internet references to that essay in ECOS... I mention all this in mild embarrassment, because Clusty et al. may give the impression that I am – in some way – associated with the manifesto. I am not. A much better known namesake is.

Sinking feeling It is not that I want to be. As an organisation, Learning Outside the Classroom5 is pressing the bold aims for the better education of our society‘s children: “We believe that every young person should experience the world beyond the classroom as an essential part of learning....” This important mission for the manifesto is worth stressing: it is to help ensure that every young person’s education (all umpteen compulsory years of it) should include some experience of the world beyond the classroom. (Pause a moment; let the enormity of that sink in.)

89

ECOS 30(1) 2009 That must be very near rock-bottom. But down we go: “We define learning outside the classroom”, reads a highlighted sentence starting page 01 of the manifesto (a government document), “as ‘the use of places other than the classroom for teaching and learning’.” This appears to be a fair bench-mark for the whole document. From the nat. cons. corner, the view doesn’t seem so good now. Read the rest of the manifesto if you wish.

If at first you don’t succeed,...

The recent hope for a resurgence of outside-the-classroom education, which (alongside that within the classroom) might help foster the tender growth of conservation attitudes, looks naive. Certainly, the suggestion that we would see “schools exploding into the countryside” was slightly too hopeful.6 It could be a long, tiring climb out of the pit dug by health & safety, political correctness, downdumbing, pussyfooting, and recent governance.

However, we should try. Good work has been – is being – done, and there must be a foundation down there somewhere (rock bottom) on which a less ticky-tacky edifice can be erected. It is easy to despair, and easier to mock. It is easy to cry that The System is silly... but it is, isn’t it?

This document I happen to have read is but one indicator of a systemic inanity that I would rather not be associated with. But, we have been here before; so – as my father might have said – “Onwards and upwards! ... If at first you don’t succeed, try, try, try again!”.

References 1.

Maurice Ash, quoted in Colin Ward & Anthony Fyson (1973) Streetwork. The exploding school, London: RKP.

2.

Martin Spray (2008) Sacrifice – the dilemma of Good Reason ECOS 29(2) 58-63.

3.

Document DFES-04232-2006, free, see www.teachernet.gov.uk/learningoutsidetheclassroom

4.

See www.dcsf.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2006_0175.

5.

See www.lotc.org.uk.

6.

Council for Environmental Education, quoted in Ward & Fyson (ref. 1).

Martin Spray is at spraypludds@hotmail.com

90

ECOS 30(1) 2009

Creating eco-economy islands in a sea of globalisation The theoretical opportunity exists to create the framework for ‘eco-economy islands’ to provide landscape-scale multifunctional places for nature and people within a wider ‘sea’ of intensive agricultural production responding to economic globalisation.

DUNCAN MACKAY Putting people and nature first Can we initiate change to improve our future quality of life without mindless continuous consumption and waste? We instinctively know that ‘all the best things in life are free’ so why should we spend so much time and money complicating it beyond all reason? It shouldn’t be too difficult to attain a natural state of clear air, clean water, healthy food, happy people and diverse wildlife if they were the national priorities. Clearly they aren’t the current priorities; and economic globalisation as a force will probably continue to exist but can consumers create a compromise?

This article proposes a movement towards such a position because we also need to deal with: marine inundation; food insecurity; consumption reduction; creating healthier, happier people; and, managing on less money. These are the crises that provide us with the positive opportunities to suggest alternative ways of thinking and doing. If we get it right and create integrated solutions we could staunch the decline in species and wildlife habitat and make life a more joyful experience instead of, as now, our children being the unhappiest in the ‘developed world’.

Land entrepreneurs What is stopping us producing all the food we need (not the same as all the food we want) in the UK? It’s been done before and we can do it again with local food grown in fields close to where we live and in our own gardens and allotments. Our national diet needs more fibre, fruit and vegetables with zero biocides, low food miles and much less meat, fats and dairy. However, let us also celebrate a diversity of local, artisan made, foods and also have wild deer, grey squirrel and wood pigeon on our plates. Let us reinvent the local marketplace as a centre of social life and stimulate the land entrepreneurs of the nearby countryside to feed the towns.

We ought to be considerate towards those who will be most seriously impacted by marine inundation at the low lying coasts, estuaries and flood plains of the south and east. People will have to leave homes and livelihoods and will suffer trauma.

We ought to soften their personal loss and ensure that there is a positive legacy of new habitats for wildlife, new economic opportunities in harmony with nature and 91

ECOS 30(1) 2009 places for people to enjoy these vast wetlands. New woodlands might help our towns and cities cope with future climatic instability but only if we start planting them now. Flood plain water control through marshland and reed beds and better aquifer or upland water management might also give us future supplies of clean water but we would need to consider some radical land management changes.

People are already reducing their consumption or changing their buying habits under the reality of potential income loss. We ought to go further and drastically challenge ourselves as a society on travel and acquisitions; we have enough possessions already for a very comfortable life. Reducing consumption could take many practical forms: working from home; cycling and walking; local nature parks rather than far away theme parks; camping with the kids; and insulating our buildings to Scandinavian standards.

Wellbeing, health and happiness It is the simple things that make us happy: family and friends; respect of others; pets; sunny days; starry nights; campfires; and small unexpected gifts. Getting out there in green and natural places with family or mates doing things together covers most of it. If you are happier you are healthier. If you live near tranquil, green places you will be healthier. What is stopping us making the green places that will make us happier and healthier? If you eat better and exercise more you will be healthier. Why not create: more city greenspace not more office blocks; streets that exclude cars; more urban forests; children inspired nature parks that surround and penetrate towns with wild places. We can all get by with less money because much of what we spend now is wasted on things we donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t need or suffer from built in obsolescence. We have acquired wasteful habits. We need food, shelter and water but everything else is a bonus.

Yes, we can create eco-economies. These can tolerably co-exist within a matrix of the prevailing paradigm that is globalisation. Eco-economies like Slow Food regions need positive leadership and agreement from the people that live there that they want to do things differently, more in tune with nature, softening cities to make them places where people live in supportive communities surrounded by green rings. Eco-economies need land changes and changed minds.

Collective action So, where do we start the journey? Where are the good principles to follow? If we look at the management of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;natural propertyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; through the prism of the simplest economic basics then all land, water and air becomes a continuous tussle for ownership and control. In indigenous tribal systems there are no overt owners but a respectful understanding that all depend upon the environmental resources around them. Indeed many indigenous people simply think differently and imbue all things with spirit and relationships that should be respected and acknowledged as equals.

92

ECOS 30(1) 2009

The Chalford donkey starts its delivery round from the community shop in the village of Chalford, Stroud Valleys.

Photo: www.glendell.co.uk

What has history shown us here? In Britain we disrupted most of our natural systems, cast down Nature as sinful and dispelled all of our indigenous tribes centuries ago. However, the example of common land has survived as a reminder that we did once hold land and water as a common natural resource for the well being of all. It recalls a time of local tribalism before the concept of private property was even devised. Dartmoor was once the common grazing for the people of Devon and Sherwood Forest (shire wood) was used by the shires surrounding it.

As the commons were increasingly privatised (Enclosures) and peasant subsistence economies expelled, the results were social upheaval and the migration of the dispossessed into the urban grip of the industrial revolution and wage indenture. Surprisingly, commons were still being inclosed up to the turn of the twentieth century. Around this time indignant and romantically inclined people of influence sought to champion the cause of the few remaining commoners around London. This was a response to the waves of Victorian mass house builders attempting to build on every last scrap of green space, such as Wimbledon Common, and farming speculators attempted to fell Epping Forest to grow wheat. One of the products of these threats was the creation of the Commons Preservation Society and later the National Trust (originally devised as a body to acquire commons and open spaces for public good).

At one extreme of the land management spectrum in the UK we have the National Trust that owns and controls land & water in an ecologically and people friendly way (backed by an Act of Parliament). At the other extreme is intensive agriculture that owns and controls natural resources but doesn't adjust its philosophical sights to anything other than financial gain at the expense of wildlife, 93

ECOS 30(1) 2009 environment and people. In the middle is a mixture of land-use models that fluctuate as democratic processes, global business and consumer society fiddles with the control buttons. Many farmers themselves recognise that they want to farm differently, more in tune with nature, people and a slower pace of life but find it difficult to adapt if they are substantially in hock to the banks. The dilemma is doubly difficult in recession. However, as the UK taxpayer is now propping up the bankers it would seem sensible to suggest some changes to help these naturesensitive farmers.

A new agricultural revolution The global financial crisis of 2008 and the UK recession of 2009 has at last revealed what many already knew; that this whole international house of cards was never built to last. Land managers have been facing the same choices at field and farm levels and were generally opting for ‘bigger is better’ over ‘small is beautiful’ in a desperate attempt to play keepy-uppy with cash flow. This has been blurred at the edges with some minor regulatory tools and fashionable lifestyle farming but the trend has continued to be the same. The local ‘culture’ is being beaten out of ‘agriculture’ by global economics. Farmers, as we used to call them 60 years ago, were mainly local food producers and keen observers of weather, soils, animal and plant health, prices at local markets and each others’ behaviours. Although they usually didn’t want to admit it, they were also sentimentally interested in wildlife provided that it was a by-product of farm practices rather than the dominant controlling influence.

In the next 60 years, parts of the UK will potentially have a better set of climatic conditions for growing food relative to hotter, drier places in Europe and elsewhere.

Not only will that advantage UK food producers but demand for ‘secure’ petroleum replacements such as biofuels will probably increase as oil production dribbles away. Demand from both existing global markets but also new mega-economies; countries such as China and India (copying the lifestyle of the west) may, postrecession, push up the price of basic agricultural products, such as wheat, on the global market. This might re-energise globalised food or fuel crop growing but possibly only at the most exploitative and intensive level. The timing of this reexploitation is uncertain but potentially by mid century we might expect to see most agricultural land being increasingly turned over to intensive (and probably genetically modified, seed patented and corporately controlled) food or fuel crop production. This is likely to happen if the ethics of land ownership have not changed and the economic interests that currently own it and control it still own it.

Evidence is already available of this process happening now to bio-diverse peasant farms in Eastern Europe as agribusiness buys them out in the name of farming 'efficiency'. The same thing happened to wildlife-rich common land in England in the 17th-19th centuries, a heinous process that displaced not only wildlife but indigenous people (as evidenced in the haunting poetry of John Clare). There are many lessons of history that we forget too easily and wildlife and community interests in land are usually the main losers in every past ‘agricultural revolution’ based on ‘economic efficiency’. But, can we create the change in thinking that will 94

ECOS 30(1) 2009 allow both local and global economic systems to tolerably co-exist and offer more real choice to consumers and farmers? Shouldn’t we seek the return of local farmers and teach new smallholders how to produce nature sensitive food?

Arguably the last agricultural revolution in the UK took place after the end of the Second World War via the nationalisation of land control under the post-war planning Acts (mainly to empower radical change in the name of national economic recovery) and the stabilisation of farm prices by guarantee. The creation of a false market economy independent of weather or other natural controls quickly created the conditions to turn the balance against nature, wild landscapes and social engagement. Traditional small mixed farming as an economic concept, employer of people and as a lifestyle began to rapidly lose out in favour of specialist or ‘improved’ mechanised farming. The ploughing of downland, for instance, begun under emergency measures during the war was simply extended until nearly all of it bar the steepest slopes was ploughed out and cropped. What had been zealously sought as a response to wartime privations and poor national nutrition rapidly cemented itself into the fabric of the economy and accelerated beyond reason under the franchise of the European Economic Community. Are we now due another agricultural revolution?

The food on our plates As the UK approaches a level of national obesity that mirrors the US level (so called ‘globesity’) and as we fight a desperate rearguard action to preserve the last remnants of once common but now scarce farmland species and wild habitats, everyone has forgotten why we started this in the first place. We simply wanted more food on our plates.

We wantonly throw away over a third of our food, and society is addicted to the over-consumption of oils, fats, sugars, salt, starches and alcohol. Not only that but we have been conditioned into wanting our food faster and with less effort so we are also addicted to petroleum use and facing a battle for personal fitness. If the battle cry in 1947 was to prevent starvation and the diseases of dietary malnutrition then we might need to adopt equal but opposite strategies today. The language of addiction control and the propaganda of war might seem to be uncomfortable in usage but the crises that we now face are in many ways comparable to the great social upheavals of the past brought about by war or famine. Can we create a new mass movement of local, nature sensitive, farmers, smallholders and consumers to achieve a healthier population and landscape scale change? There are already a few pioneers of ‘eco-economy’ thinking but there needs to be many more. Only Ludlow in Shropshire is currently certificated as a UK slow food town. In parts of Italy and France the ‘slow food’ movement functions because it has local identity, value and a wide enough local economic system to support it. People actually value it, own it and engage in it as both producers and consumers. It operates as a highly sophisticated low input farming economy where wild places are part of the fabric of the landscape and also a communal larder (from truffles to wild pigs) with the multi-functionality of local recreational space too.

95

ECOS 30(1) 2009

Ecosystem services In a low carbon eco-economy we need to refocus and pay for different needs: that upland peat is essential for carbon dioxide balance; that the area around towns and cities is needed as a quadruple top line function (heat absorbing woodland, habitat, local market garden and obesity-reducing recreational zone); that the undefended coast is an essential buffer to dissipate the energy of marine inundation and create wildlife habitat; that the downs and heaths are vital as low intensity, floristically rich grazing lands and aquifer; and woods are carbon absorbers. If we accept that these things are wanted and possible then we would require new partnerships of eco-economy land owners committed to very long term stability and purpose. The most likely bodies with such a long term stake in the future are probably those with most to gain or those with most to lose. Insurance companies, ethical investment companies, conservation groups, organic farmers, utilities, supermarkets, local government and the state could all be used as investment sources. Why not engineer behaviour altering levels of taxation on sugar, salt, oils, fats, starches, alcohol and carbon to create this transition to a healthy and low carbon eco-economy.

Radical pointers When water was needed for industry and industrial populations for instance, then huge purchases of land were made to control the gathering grounds and are with us to this day such as those in Wales supplying Birmingham. Some, like Cow Green Reservoir in Upper Teesdale, were driven forwards in the 1970s at the expense of internationally important remnant palaeo-arctic habitats but never used for industry. Professor Adrian Phillips has cited Ennerdale in the Lake District as a good example of a future, ecologically sensitive, landscape solution based on ownership by a water authority. Ennerdale works in its simplistic sense because ownership and control are invested in the same partnership and system of thinking over a wide enough area. It is a form of water-based monoculture with freshwater as the main ‘crop’. It is an example of a simple eco-economy ‘island’ but with a fairly easy to operate, functioning, economic framework with a selfenlightened landowner.

Food has increasingly become an unhealthy obsession for many people just as our direct connections with its production and processing are increasingly diminished.

We have lost control of our diet, our peasant farmers were lost in the Inclosure Movement and our wildlife continues to lose out. It is time to get some of it back if this increasing trend of multiple losses is to be stemmed. If we were to pick this ecoeconomy method as a means of making our mark in history as a low carbon society that delivered sustainable outcomes for the future then we would necessarily need to think and act boldly. We could make a start with the tools to hand in the places that we, as ecologically aware citizens and forward thinking politicians have an interest in and where we might exercise some control and ownership.

Duncan Mackay: The views in this article are personal. Duncan.mackay1@btinternet.com

96

ECOS 30(1) 2009

Book Reviews

provide the evidence for why pasture grazing is the solution. The book refers to the madness of the current agricultural systems with its high inputs and production of grain for animal feed. It is a welcome reminder of just how commercial and removed from its traditions farming has become.

“In view of the mounting threat to our environment, the continued production of cereals and other grains for feeding to animals is an extravagance we can no longer afford. Intensive crop growing – with all its chemical inputs and environmental damage – might have had short-term advantages when oil was plentiful and cheap, and when governments were handing out generous farm subsidies. Today the political tide has turned against subsidies and the price of oil has reached new heights. On cost grounds alone we need a new approach.”

THE CARBON FIELDS How our countryside can save Britain Graham Harvey Grassroots, 2008, 256 pages Pbk, ISBN: 978-0-9560707-0-8, £9.99 For an online 30% discount for ECOS readers quote ECO1208 at www.grassrootsfood.com Graham Harvey has produced a readable polemic in praise of low intensity pasture-based agriculture.

Only a small part of the book discusses the role of agricultural emissions in contributing to climate change, and within this section even fewer pages

The book goes on to describe the drivers for this slow erosion of the more traditional farming methods as the stranglehold of large-scale agribusiness over European policy and an obsession with techno fixes in the name of progress.

“The justification for intensive grain production is that it’s the only way to feed a fast-rising global population. It’s a piece of modern mythology dreamed up in the boardrooms of chemical companies and energy corporations. They portray any suggestion that small farmers using traditional methods can feed the world as naïve and deluded.”

It is unfortunate that the well-crafted writing is rarely backed up with the references or science to support the case it is making. Many of the views put forward, on health benefits, flood 97

ECOS 30(1) 2009 attenuation and biodiversity benefits, are both appealing and logical but little care is taken to address any counter arguments.

The final chapter implores action from both consumers and policy makers and helpfully a number of suppliers of pasture feed meat and dairy products are listed in the back of the book. A key recommendation is for the introduction of a soil carbon subsidy.

“A soil carbon subsidy would transform farming and change the world. For the first time it would give farmers an incentive to put carbon back into the soil.

Not only would this be an enormous step in the fight against climate change, it is precisely the right prescription for improving the quality of our food”.

Many of the arguments set out in the book are appealing but are not substantiated. This makes it hard to accept them on face value and you are left with the nagging doubt that the case has been overstated. Although unlikely to change the minds of those influencing European policy the book could encourage some consumers to be a bit more choosey about what they buy, which has got to be a worthwhile exercise.

Ralph Underhill

A PRICKLY AFFAIR My Life with Hedgehogs Hugh Warwick Allen Lane, Penguin Group, 2008 Hbk, ISBN 9780-1-846-14065-5, £14.99 This is a love story; one man’s erinaceous passions spilling over in a speedy romp from nefarious nocturnal introductions through to mid-life 98

ponderings on the meaning of it all.

The title gives it away. Hugh Warwick is a man seemingly consumed by his fascination for hedgehogs. Having worked and lived with them since his student days, he’s uncovered a likewise secret world of fellow admirers and, in some cases, obsessives.

A Prickly Affair covers Warwick’s journey from the damp green hills of Devon to the dusty markets of Chuzhou in China. In between we visit the solitude of midsummer nights in North Ronaldsay, the seabird battlefields of the Uists, the curious hospitals of Britain’s dedicated wildlife rescuers, and the hedgehog Olympics in a Denver hotel.

His journey is interspersed with diversions into hedgehogs’ biology, ecology and etymology. He gets into the thick of the science of understanding their behaviour, and critically, their ability to cope with introduction into new areas, given that they either appear to be where they’re not wanted, or disappearing from the places where they are.

Conservationists will undoubtedly be drawn to his Uist experience, and his insider’s account of Scottish Natural Heritage’s attempted hedgehog cull, a perceptive study in a calamitous mix of politics, science, economics and animal passions. Dancing along an equivocal line in his observations, “....his recruitment to the British Hedgehog Preservation Society suggests that the Uists’ birds didn’t really grab his fancy.”

And not just Warwick, for hedgehogs have secured a special place in people’s hearts. We learn that the Environment Agency’s efforts to develop an icon for its work in 2007 through a public vote was decided when a member of the

ECOS 30(1) 2009 public offered the prickly insectivore, trumping the Agency’s more traditional nominations.

Warwick’s descriptions of his survey work in Devon and Scotland avidly capture the physical and psychological realities of field biology; the disrupted sleep patterns, crap food and shelter, strained relationships, and spells of self-muttering loneliness. No wonder he started bonding with his prickled charges blipping into the night.

Individuals with idiosyncratic traits and tempers drew him ever-deeper into a snuffling flea-ridden world of curiosity. And we feel for him when so many fall prey to badger or wheel.

And my, how he loves them. The attachment runs deep, and in this he connects with his fellow hedgehoggers; those that run the specialist hospitals, often in the back garden, and those who keep them as pets. His meetings reveal dedicated people much as the populist media would portray: eccentric, unkempt and often alone, but Warwick is kind and empathetic. He gets quite charmingly embarrassed by exposing their - and his - love for hedgehogs.

But then the book isn’t only about hedgehogs - it is as much about Warwick, and his emotional engagement with the natural world. Whilst it’s easy to attest to the author’s dedication to the science, it’s the frustration at how his – and others’ compassion intervenes that is revealing.

For Warwick rarely has a bad word to say about anyone, and whilst that’s a trait to cherish, it’s somewhat irritating that he doesn’t take a more bullish stance on behalf of his beloved hedgehogs.

Warwick’s unbounded enthusiasm tends to stray into many chatty asides and

one-liners that probably sounded more humorous before committed to paper.

This may give it a populist appeal, but I think it fuzzes some of the core messages.

That said, one cannot dismiss the passion that fuels A Prickly Affair, and Warwick’s insights into what are admittedly fascinating and popular mammals.

Mathew Frith

WILD FOOD a guide to gathering food in the wild Jane Eastoe National Trust Books; 2008 Pbk, £6.99 This is a dinky little book that would fit snugly into your poacher’s pocket or National Trust waxed jacket if you have one. The gold standard for this subject is Richard Mabey’s Food for Free or Roger Phillip’s Wild Food with both authors pouring themselves into their books with zeal, scholarship, practical skill and, in Roger Phillip’s case, excellent outdoor photography. I admit to being confused by Jane Eastoe’s book because it doesn’t feel as if it has that raw, outdoor-tested strength of quality. It doesn’t express itself with the nettle stung, blackthorn scarred pain and dirty knees of a ‘hands on’ forager of field, forest and foreshore. It has more of the dainty quality of a mum on a mission. There’s nothing wrong with that but perhaps a sub-title to qualify that this is the marigold glove variety of wild food gathering and not the wrestling with badgers at dawn for the last earthworm in Dorset stuff. It starts with jam making and fruit and nut recipes dedicated to family members’ favourites. It’s nice, therefore, without being wildly convincing. There are some neat 99

ECOS 30(1) 2009 touches where experiences of digging horse radish roots out of the lawn (some lawn!) are retold with obvious practical concern as well as tales of laver collected off Welsh beaches “for father’s breakfast”. However, many of the other elements seem to be secondhand stories.

All wild food authors struggle with the law. Everyone wants to say just get out there and enjoy stuff responsibly and make sure you know what you are doing.

However, the list of qualifications for game laws, highway laws, trespass laws, species protection laws and all the other quirky infringements of regulations from crab carapace size to dimples on a dog whelk make this simple sentiment a real chore. To add to this confusion there is a last section in the book on roadkill which launches into a long list of legal headaches, spleen burstings, tapeworm terror tales and maggoty meat warnings but ends with the sentiment that foxes ‘taste very good, rather like goat’. However, I definitely don’t get the impression that Jane has actually stopped to strap a squashed fox to the bonnet of her car after a day out picking dog-rose petals with the children… but I could be wrong. It would be interesting to monitor just how many National Trust members are out there seeing off red kites with umbrellas to scrape dead rabbits off the hard shoulder of the M40 in the Stokenchurch cutting.

The book is good for National Trust tea shop bookshelves because it is written in a ‘naughty but nice’ style that might appeal to the customers and wafts gently through familiar fruits, nuts and plants of hedgerow to garden escapees like Mesembryanthemum. It is 100

also good to see in print the impact of family influences both in terms of learning and stimulating children to explore the world around them. Jane has clearly been excited as a child by her father’s wild food eating habits and her mother’s preserving pan systems and is passing these on to her own children with some additional local delicacies such as Whitstable razorfish to savour.

There is a quote from Noel Streatfield’s children’s book The Growing Summer when a family of city children (think Kensington not Catford I suspect) are sent to live with their great aunt Dymphna and don’t know what to do.

The improbably named and propertied aunt exclaims, no doubt in a Lady Bracknell voice, “You have the whole wing of the house to yourselves. This magnificent kitchen. The glorious world outside to play in. All that the earth brings forth to feed you and you stand there asking stupid questions until my head reels. Help yourselves children, help yourselves”. Possibly Aunt Dymphna would have been the grubchomping Ant and Dec of her day but until then there’s a nice recipe for Lulu’s sweet nuts (see page 31). Bon appetit.

Duncan Mackay

WILDCAT HAVEN Mike Tomkies Whittles Publishing, 2009, 212 pages Pbk, ISBN - 978-1904445-75-3, £18.99 The Scottish Wildcat (Felis silvestris) has become a hot topic amongst conservationists and wildlife lovers.

With the 2008 Wildcat Survey by Scottish Natural Heritage, and the passing of the wildcat stud book to the world renowned Aspinall Foundation’s

ECOS 30(1) 2009 two zoos in Kent, it is appropriate that Whittles should release a new edition of Wildcat Haven.

Mike Tomkies is a prolific writer on wildlife topics and wilderness living, and this book is a revisit of his work looking after and breeding wildcats in the 1970s and 80s. With his previous books detailing this part of his life long out of print, this edition has come at the perfect time for people newly interested in wildcats to read of the endeavours of one of this country’s early pioneers.

Mike’s wonderful flowing prose reads like a cross between a scientific journal, and a novel reminiscent of authors such as Jack London. He concentrates on his time in his remote Scottish Highland cottage - and by remote, he means only accessible by boat and foot, with no electricity, and water piped in from a stream. Living alone in this wilderness, surrounded by eagles, foxes, deer and his beloved dog Moobli, he chronicles his adventures whilst trying to raise wildcats. The remarkable events that led him to look after two wildcat kittens, to his attempts at breeding and releasing these cats and their offspring, and his taming of one of these wildcats is testament to his dedication and patience. His love of nature shines through every page, and his attention to detail is extraordinary.

He conveys his love of the country with refreshing honesty. He recounts a time when his boat overturned in extremely bad weather, and he had to swim to shore with a wildcat in a travelling box in one hand, and holding onto the tail of his dog in the other. You just have to smile at the matter of fact

way he describes it - to him it was just another part of his life in the wilderness. The book is filled with wonderful photographs taken by the author of the wildcats in his care, and they give a glimpse into the life of an animal that is truly wild in all respects.

He notes his successes and failures, as well as his numerous injuries, received when the cats wanted to remind him that they remain wild creatures.

His research and attention to detail all those years ago, has left a legacy that will undoubtedly be the saving of this wonderful animal. There are many people today involved in the captive breeding of wildcats who name Mike Tomkies and his earlier books as an inspiration behind their efforts to save the species. With only around 400 pure bred wildcats believed to be left in Scotland, now is the time for people to plan for this animal’s future.

Shaun Stevens

NATURE UNBOUND Conservation, capitalism and the future of protected areas Dan Brockington, Rosaleen Duffy and Jim Igeo Earthscan, London, 2008, 249 pages Pbk, ISBN 978-1-84407-440-2, £19.99 This book focuses on protected areas to discuss two linked questions posed by the authors: “1.In what ways do conservation policies and conservation interventions make wild nature more valuable to capitalist economies?

2.With what consequences is this value realized?” The overall premise is that a powerful alliance is developing between conservation and capitalism, 101

ECOS 30(1) 2009 which is capable of “remaking and recreating” the world.

Any book arguing a specific ideological vision is likely to be inherently biased towards the central argument, which in this case is that a conservation/capitalism alliance exists but is often unrecognised and thus the consequences of this alliance are often ignored or dismissed. The authors have clearly tried to live up to their promise of not supplying another ‘brick in the wall’ against protected areas and as being neither ‘critics’ nor ‘fans’ of these institutions. But despite each chapter beginning and ending with a balanced argument of the issues discussed, the bulk of examples and the substance of the book does seem more than a little opposed to protected areas.

The authors claim to review fortune and misfortune in relation to protected areas but their emotive language and choice of examples often tells a different story. For instance, they describe “private conservation armies” in protected areas attacking Sudanese poachers which can lead to “legitimizing and justifying serious human rights abuses”, but there is no mention of the many wildlife rangers who have lost their lives trying to protect vulnerable species from, say, rebel militia in DR Congo or from organised armed poaching gangs in Kenya or India. And although forced evictions of local communities from protected areas is clearly an issue that the protected area community cannot afford to ignore, the book includes many references to the 184 documented cases of evictions but scarcely mentions the positive social contributions of protected areas, for instance in providing clean drinking water for millions of people.

102

In contrast to the authors of this volume who claim neutrality, I will admit to being a fan of protected areas, although not an uncritical fan. Parts of this book therefore made me angry because of my perception that the authors were overly negative – but I suspect other readers will be made just as negative towards protected areas by the litany of problems the book relates.

It is a volume therefore that is likely to stimulate debate – which is no bad thing. Unfortunately some of this debate will be based on inaccuracies as the book is not without error. The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) for instance is not just a list of official state activities which excludes private protected areas as the book asserts (although admittedly the reporting of the latter is poor) and the critique of the large NGOs became slightly devalued for me when Conservation International was described as a break away group from WWF – when it in fact split from The Nature Conservancy.

But despite these problems, the warning that this book contains should not be ignored: the ‘mainstreaming’ of conservation may not provide the equitable and effective protected area network that NGOs think they are working towards. Clearly the authors have a point in highlighting the dangers of trying to determine protected area values in terms of them being “essential to the global consumer economy” rather than being essential in providing a refuge against the global consumer economy. It is perhaps unfortunate timing that this book came out just before the credit crunch as much of the criticism of the power of the large conservation organisations may already be dated as the capitalist model they

ECOS 30(1) 2009 pursued seems to be as fragile as some of the species and habitats they are trying to conserve. A review of the two questions the book is based around may well have a quite different outcome in a few years from now.

No economic downturn however is likely to stop us for very long in our seemingly tireless quest to harvest, use and throw out as many resources as we can get from our planet, so protected areas are likely to remain a major conservation tool. Any critique of protected areas should therefore be taken seriously and lessons learnt. This book highlights many ways in which the designation, governance and management of protected areas can be improved. The Convention on Biological Diversity’s 2004 Programme of Work on Protected Areas (which is curiously not mentioned in this volume) is a major instrument that should help develop a network of socially equitable protected areas which can be celebrated by all people.

It hopefully provides the “conservation code of practice” the authors call for and several of the issues raised in the book are being put in action through this programme.

For example, management effectiveness of protected areas is now being reported on the WDPA and hopefully the new guidance on the IUCN protected area management categories will bring much needed clarity.

Some of the other injustices highlighted in terms of the relationship between local and indigenous people and protected areas will not be so simply dealt with – so it is perhaps a shame that in a 250 page book the conclusions took only three pages. My appeal to the authors would be to take

up their pens again and author a companion volume which helps resolves these issues. The book ends by noting that “there are many solutions out there” and that “in our collective field work we have all encountered many… workable conservation solutions in defiance of the general trend”. The final paragraph goes on to note that “we are still a long way from making these types of solution visible and acceptable”. Personally I wish this book had spent a little longer on these solutions instead of focusing primarily on the problems. But I suspect we all find it easier to find fault rather than celebrate success.

Sue Stolton

THE LAST BEAR Mandy Haggith Two Ravens Press, 2008 ISBN 978-1-906120-16-0, £8.99

ALBA, THE LAST WOLF David Stephen.

Century Publishing Press 1986 ISBN 0-7126-0454-5 With all the current interest in possible reintroductions of missing predators to Scotland, these titles, published 22 years apart, provide a valuable and contrasting perspective on two of the key species that humans have extirpated from the UK. David Stephen was a journalist with The Scotsman, and in his time he was one of the most prominent and articulate advocates for the reintroduction of the wolf - he even kept some captive wolves in a park near Cumbernauld. His book is a fictional tale of the last wolf, and her 103

ECOS 30(1) 2009 cubs and fellow pack members, that lived in Scotland, and it provides a moving and biologically impressive account of how wolves would have survived in the Highlands. Set in the period leading up to the battle of Culloden (and therefore just a few years after the reputed death of the country’s last wolf, near the Findhorn River in 1743), the story cleverly weaves the fate of the last wolves in parallel with the human tragedy that unfolded then.

The book presents a realistic impression of the life of a wolf and the pack she belongs to, and avoids the pitfall of taking an anthropomorphic view of the animals, as some other recent fictional books about wolves have done. It is revealing in illustrating how wolves could live in close proximity to humans without being encountered by them. For anyone who knows the Highlands, and particularly the area from the Cairngorms westwards, the book’s setting will be familiar, and, to me at least, the story has a ring of authenticity in depicting wolves in their rightful place in our landscape and ecosystems. ‘Alba’ has all the hallmarks of being written by someone who knew his subject well. In telling a story about how the country’s last wolf lived and died, it also offers a lot of insight into how, and where, any reintroduced wolves would need to live.

By contrast, Mandy Haggith’s book is very much a human-centred story, set in the northwest Highlands at the time of the Viking invasions, and when Christianity was replacing the indigenous shamanistically-based earlier cultures.

The last bear of the title is a minor character in the overall story, but has huge symbolic significance for the 104

humans who still hold to the old beliefs and traditions. Unlike David Stephen’s book, this is not an ecological account of one of our missing faunal species, but is nonetheless just as important, as it depicts the massive cultural loss that accompanied and resulted from the extirpation of one of our most charismatic species. Personally I would have liked that human perspective to have been complemented by some material about the life and ecology of a bear in Scotland, but the book’s anthropocentric focus will perhaps appeal to a wider audience.

Taken together, these two similarlytitled books provide two very different perspectives on the biological and cultural impoverishment that has taken place in Scotland in the last 1,000 years, and are highly recommended reading for anyone who is a serious advocate of the reintroduction of either species. Now all we need is for someone to write ‘The last lynx’ to complete the trilogy about our lost large predators!

Alan Watson Featherstone