Ecos 34 1 entire ecos

www.banc.org.uk

Spring 2013 issue 34(1)

The conservation economy - nature & enterprise Doomed dunes – Donald Trump’s sanitised coast Agency upheaval in Wales – good or bad news for nature?

ECOS

A REVIEW OF CONSERVATION ECOS is the journal of the British Association of Nature Conservationists

www.banc.org.uk

ECOS 34(1) 2013

ecos@easynet.co.uk Editorial

Managing Editor: Rick Minter 07768 748301 ecos@easynet.co.uk

Crisis or opportunity?

Assistant Editor: Martin Spray Hillside, Aston Bridge Road, Pludds, Ruardean, Glos. GL17 9TZ 01594-861404 Acknowledgements This issue was edited by Rick Minter and Martin Spray.

Cover photo: Willow coffin under construction. Photo: Wintercomfort for the Homeless The opinions expressed in ECOS are not necessarily those of BANC Council or of the Editors.

ECOS may not be reproduced, transmitted in any form or by any means, in whole or in part, in English or other languages, without the prior written consent of the publisher, BANC.

Subscriptions/BANC membership Subscriptions for ECOS are £25 for individuals, £15 for students (pdf only), and £80 for the corporate institutional rate.

To order pdfs of specific articles or complete editions check www.banc.org.uk

President: John Bowers

Chair: Gavin Saunders

Vice-Presidents: Marion Shoard Adrian Phillips

Secretary: Ruth Boogert Treasurer: Jeremy Owen

BANC is a non profit making company limited by guarantee, registered in England No. 2136042. Registered charity No.327595

ECOS is printed by Severnprint using Cocoon Silk 300gsm cover and Cocoon uncoated 100gsm text paper. Both papers have a 100% recycled content and are FSC certified. The electricity used during printing is generated from renewable sources. The magazine is printed under the SylvaPack environmental print route using no alcohol and processless plates. Severnprint donates to Tree Aid to support tree planting in sub-Saharan Africa.

I first read ECOS in the early 1980s as a student. At the time, the earliest days of ECOS and BANC, the various government agencies charged with environment and nature conservation were described in one editorial as “hidebound”. I guessed this meant they were timid and lacked influence. This was a time when conservation was making its way. The case for the natural world was only just emerging as a voice in the media and across political and policy debates. In those times, any agency was almost apologetic as it sought resources, offered advice, or considered objecting to a new road, a port development, or any new swathe of infrastructure. It was often the bravery of staff in agency regional offices, standing up for their local mudflats, heathland habitat, or designated landscape, which as much as anything led to a corner of the countryside being fought for.

Before long, much was to change and green groups in all sectors became high profile and sought after. They led rather than followed, and the agencies grew in confidence as green agendas merged with economic aims. But despite these decades of advancement, and proof that people want protected nature and tranquil places, the economic gloom means we’re back to worries about hidebound agencies. The recent announcement of Lydd airport’s expansion in Kent is a worry.

Here is government subsidising a minor regional airport while several others elsewhere have proved unviable. Parochial business lobbies unconcerned with the special wildlife and landscape of Romney Marsh have had their flimsy case on jobs and investment backed at the expense of the Garden of England.

In the current era the agencies are more like arms of government. They are likely to be risk averse and cautious. The days of spirited Quangos, crafting ideas and winning funds to test new initiatives seems over. We can hear these concerns loud and clear in this edition. James Robertson and Mick Green discuss what’s at stake with the passing of the Countryside Council for Wales. Will specialist advice and the defence of nature be restrained by more cumbersome centralised procedures, and will the Welsh emphasis on “resources” mean a less stringent approach to managing the environment? Meanwhile in England all eyes are on the review of Natural England and the Environment Agency.

Wholesale reform would be radical at this stage of a Parliament’s life, so the two bodies may be tweaked by government to justify the review. Later in the issue Peter Shirley notes that further budget cuts may harm these bodies more than re-jigging their functions.

While conservation faces a crisis in confidence at many levels, we should promote the good rather than over-do the moans. Examples of enterprise in conservation are described in this issue, and we’ll look at more in future editions. Sure, nature is a public good, but where we can harness skills and livelihoods we should promote nature’s own economy.

Geoffrey Wain

3

ECOS 34(1) 2013

Ecosystem Services – Are we flogging a dead horse?

Different parts of the natural world may well have inherent value to society but they also need to pay their way in a meaningful sense to ensure their existence. The economic value of such places needs to be tangible and not based on contrived economic exercises.

DAVID WEST OK, so having grabbed your attention with this racey title and potentially incurred the wrath of the growing band of Ecosystem Services groupies out there, perhaps I should explain my proposition further. I fully support the concept that ecosystems deliver a wide range of essential services which are vital to the future of human society. I also recognise that the crucial importance of these ‘services’ is not always given adequate consideration by policy and decision makers, who at times just place ecosystems into a box marked biodiversity, nature or wildlife. My contention and plea, however, is that we stop this obsession with inventing a monetary value for natural services where there is no current or likely future real market value and instead focus on real income generating opportunities.

At the time of writing ‘dead horses’ are rather topical in an international meat scandal driven by economic forces. Any connection between this article and the concept of incorrect labelling, or the dangers of following a strategy based entirely on price, is purely coincidental…

The case for pricing nature’s services The Natural Environment White Paper1 states that “government and society need to account better for the value of nature, particularly the services and resources it provides”. The argument goes that placing a monetary value on the services provided by ecosystems will provide a vital tool for future land-use planning, create new income streams for managing natural habitats, and adopt a language which business and a government, driven by economic growth priorities, can understand.

ECOS 34(1) 2013

A market reality check Even the most ardent proponent of pricing Ecosystem Services (ES) would accept that it is difficult to be exact when placing a value on services where there is no actual market value. In most cases these services are neither directly ‘consumed’ nor exchanged in markets.

From a land-use planning perspective can we honestly see a scenario where, at appeal, a planning decision which impacts on a valuable habitat is overturned on the back of a valuation for services which is completely flawed or contrived and based on hypothesis? This is made even more difficult in a situation where the applicant can demonstrate actual market based figures for jobs created and rural economy growth.

If such ES ‘valuations’ became the norm there is also a real risk of suggesting that every natural service has its price, can be replicated, and the developer simply pays for it to be delivered elsewhere, or through an alternative means.

So how about paying farmers and landowners for the Ecosystem Services they produce? Yes, there are a few good examples of this. The Upstream Thinking2 initiative championed by the Westcountry Rivers Trust and funded largely by South West Water is an example to be applauded. In this case the water company justifies investing in tailored one-to-one advice and farm plans, and provides capital grants to benefit river catchments on the basis of decreases in the cost of water treatment.

Despite more than five years of impressive results, we have not seen widespread adoption of this approach on other catchments and the cost-benefit argument has not been accepted by the water sectors regulating body OFWAT. A recent review of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) initiatives prepared for Defra3 reached the following important conclusion: “While there are clear opportunities to promote the emergence of further PES schemes in England, PES remains only one environmental policy instrument among many and is unlikely to represent a universally applicable solution to ecosystem degradation.”

On the whole, the conservation world seems to have blindly accepted this approach as a key way forward without really reflecting on the potential dangers that widespread adoption of valuation could bring.

4

NEIL BENNETT

To achieve these goals a small army of senior policy makers, scientists and economists have formed national committees and established resource hungry programmes to price what is currently free. The holy grail being sought is to design mechanisms that will calculate a monetary value for the contribution a rich habitat also makes to mitigating droughts and floods, detoxifying and decomposing waste, purifying air and water, pollinating nearby crops, renewing soil fertility, providing health and well being, and offering other ‘public goods’.

5

ECOS 34(1) 2013 If we imagine a new system paying landowners to ‘bank’ carbon then there is logic to incentivising the planting of non-native and genetically improved crops and trees to bank it faster. The policy implications of ES payments could completely undermine the ethic of land stewardship. Given a finite budget do you pay the landowner who has carefully provided these services for decades? No, you target money to those whose activities, such as nutrient or sediment problems, pose the greatest problem. Perversely, this would encourage bad land management practice in order to maximise financial payments, and create an artificial market for pollution.

New and real products from nature I believe that there is a real case for greater innovative economic thinking within nature conservation. In a world of reduced public sector and European resources we must explore new ways in which conserving habitats can be economically viable. Conservationists are rarely natural entrepreneurs – but this is a skill set we really need now. The days of subsidised uneconomic land management practices are disappearing fast. We need to find new markets for real products that can be produced and sold today from extensively managed wildlife-rich habitats. We need to professionally market these products in a way which will encourage consumers to pay extra for the wider services they are supporting. We need to look at ways in which other forms of income generation can support habitat management.

For example, a well designed and small scale hydro electric plant could generate all the resources required to manage and maintain the adjoining water meadow complex with guaranteed income for the long term. Mechanised coppice extraction and conversion to biochar soil improvement products might help to solve the viability of traditional woodland management. A ‘fairtrade’ style approach to selling and marketing meat produced from flower-rich meadows could ensure the future of this declining habitat.

Devising new income streams is important work and there is a real danger that placing ridiculous £s values on non-market Ecosystem Services will undermine the real world economics that is so desperately needed.

Perhaps we should strive for honest quality beef and not create a false market for meat pies with dubious content!

References 1. The Natural Choice, Natural Environment White Paper, 2011.

2. See www.wrt.org.uk for further information on Upstream Thinking, a partnership scheme delivering Paid Ecosystem Services (PES) to assist with water quality improvements.

3. URS Scott Wilson, University of Aberdeen and the James Hutton Institute (2011) Barriers and Opportunities to the Use of Payments for Ecosystem Services, Report to Defra.

David West is a Development Manager with the Forestry Commission – the views expressed in this article are his own. david.m.west@forestry.gsi.gov.uk

6

ECOS 34(1) 2013

New entrepreneurs in conservation – lessons from South Yorkshire’s Dearne Valley The separation of nature from economy leads to ‘cultural severance’ and loss of species.

This article discusses the potential links between ecology, nature conservation and tourism, and presents an example of how a created conservation site has become a hub for economic regeneration.

IAN D ROTHERHAM “RSPB, and their partners in projects at Old Moor and throughout the Green Heart Project area, help our efforts to attract investment to the area, to dispel prejudices and change perceptions. It is an integral part of the Dearne Valley Eco-vision… But more than this, Old Moor’s hundreds of hectares of habitats teeming with wildlife have proven hugely popular with young and old: it attracts 100,000 visitors a year. Families in particular enjoy the tracks and trails, events, guided walks and activities. The café is also a big draw and the meeting rooms are an important facility for local businesses.”

John Healey MP

The business of nature-based leisure and tourism Throughout the 1990s, awareness grew of the potential for synergies between nature conservation and local economies. This recognition included the observation that countryside leisure day-visits and related tourism have large economic impacts, and much of this depends on nature and landscape. Furthermore, a significant proportion of the benefits relate to nature reserves and other protected areas. In 1998, 24% of leisure trips were to the countryside, with hikers and ramblers making up 15% of tourists in England. Recreational walkers in the English countryside spent £6.12bn on trips, generating over £2bn income, supporting 245,000 full-time jobs.

In 1999, countryside day-visits involved £9.2bn expenditure and amounted to 77% of the total countryside tourism in England. By 2003-4, the total expenditure on leisure day-visits was £71.1bn with £17bn spent in the English countryside per year. Clearly, the actual visitor profile and behaviour are important, with overnight stops increasing local economic benefits. Research for the National Trust1 found 40% of tourism-based employment in target regions depended on high quality environments and in rural areas dependency is 60% to 70%. For Wales, £6bn of 7

ECOS 34(1) 2013

ECOS 34(1) 2013

GDP depends directly on the environment. In the early 2000s, the National Trust in Cumbria spent £3.5m on staff costs, £33.4m on goods and services, supporting 2,700-4,600 full time equivalent jobs (FTE’s) or 15% of the total jobs in the regional visitor economy. Some of the first attempts to link wildlife visiting and economies were for the RSPB, such as Rayment & Dickie (2001).2 They produced data for easily identifiable economic impacts of visitors to RSPB nature reserves. For example: 1) Bempton Cliffs RSPB Nature Reserve, East Yorkshire: 44,093 visitors; £407,000 p.a. to the local economy; 2) Blacktoft Sands RSPB Nature Reserve, East Yorkshire: 23,706 visitors; £93,000 p.a. to the local economy; 3) Leighton Moss Nature Reserve in North Lancashire: 22 staff; 100,000 visitors per year; 4) Abernethy (Osprey Visitor Centre in Scotland): 11 staff; £1.7m per annum to the local economy supporting 69 jobs.

However, the total economic values of these activities are under-estimated.3 Analysis ignores wider leisure and tourism, and the wider context of countryside recreation and sports; an increasingly sophisticated sector with diverse and significant impacts.4,5,6,7 Activities involve specialist equipment, training, services, clothing, catering, guidebooks, magazines, and other media, with increasing economic and social impacts. Mintel7 for example estimated that UK expenditure on sports clothing including for outdoor activities had increased to £4,480m in 2003, with £72 per capita. Furthermore, the Ramblers’ Association in 2004 found UK outdoor clothing and equipment sales rose from £25m (1980) to over £1bn (2000).8 This is big business, and in a small rural economy or that of an urban-fringe countryside area, it is potentially significant. Much existing tourism business is environmentally parasitic and fickle, and contributes little to nature conservation.8

Emerging conservation entrepreneurs South Yorkshire’s Dearne Valley was formerly one of the most derelict and despoiled locations in industrial Western Europe. Entering the fray on the back of a major land restoration and habitat creation project, the RSPB through the RSPB Dearne Valley Nature Reserve and the Old Moor Wetlands Centre, has helped to transform the economy and has generated significant benefits for local people. The project, now with numerous partners, is growing beyond the original vision of the RSPB’s nature reserve into a bold initiative called the ‘Green Heart Project’, and has received significant funding as a Nature Improvement Area.16 The aim is to link people to nature through education and conservation, but the goals have extended to social and economic impacts too.

Growing demand for wildlife leisure and tourism In recent decades, there has been a growth in the demand for, and the sophistication of, the wildlife and heritage-tourism experience. Today, the National Trust and the RSPB for example, have well over one million members each, and the Wildlife Trusts, and the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust are not far behind. These bodies’ members can be high-spending individuals with a countryside-based hobby. Increasingly conservation bodies are managers of land including farms and production units, of cafés and shops, of visitor centres, car parks and visitor facilities. These new enterprises have grown from selling a few guidebooks and refreshments to 8

Large scale habitat creation at the heart of the RSPB’s Dearne Valley reserve.

Photo: Ian Rotherham

significant businesses in the countryside and in the urban fringe. This new entrepreneurship generates exciting opportunities but also creates lines of tension within organisations. Conservation bodies may be becoming a new breed of socially responsible businesses. In some cases, the individuals and even the organisations have not yet identified themselves with these new roles. In many cases, the new directions bring new responsibilities and new relevance to an organisation. In other examples, there can be conflicts about roles, line-management, and policy direction.

In 2002, the UK Government’s Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food9 reported that increasingly, the country’s farming industry was becoming economically unviable. Therefore, with taxpayers spending £3bn per year on agricultural support, and farm incomes falling from £7bn in 1973 to £2bn in 2000, the situation was becoming critical. Furthermore, the massive adverse effects were accepted as devastating by both the public and by decision-makers. EU grant aid to the agricultural sector has changed to be more supportive to environmental and economic needs. Yet this is still a contentious subject and farming’s share of the UK National economy has fallen to around 0.9%; the food sector as a whole being worth around 8% GDP.10 The broader environmental and development issues were set down some time ago, in landmark publications such as Biodiversity: the UK Strategy11 and Sustainable Development: the UK Strategy14, and later revisions.

The growth of wildlife and heritage tourism Many pure tourism studies ignore potential importance of local visitors and regional day visitors to attractions such as nature reserves or country parks. But 9

ECOS 34(1) 2013

ECOS 34(1) 2013

land management can link locally distinct hospitality, to tourism experience, and visitor attractiveness. Sustainable rural tourism relates landscape and community character, to distinctive visitor experience. Local food supply and traditional cuisine can join wildlife tourism to land and species conservation, supporting local farmers and extensive farming methods. Marketing of local crafts and local products which are made sustainably can support traditional land use, but only through effective business intervention. There are issues of commitment to the local supply chain, and quality assurance of product and experience. Nature and heritage based leisure and tourism are known to be vibrant sectors that grew at up to 30% per annum in the 1990s, and continue to increase today.

The opportunities of wildlife spectaculars & spectacles Supporting these ideas is a growing market in specialist adventure holidays and wildlife experience tours. However, despite a quest for adventure, most people enjoy wildlife spectacles especially if available relatively easily. This is often wildlife- and nature-based tourism and not specifically ecotourism, and it has strong synergies with heritage- and garden-visiting. This is what I describe as ‘eco-cultural’ tourism.

The spectacle might be watching breeding seabird colonies at the RSPB Bempton Cliffs Nature Reserve in Yorkshire, a wildlife safari in the Scottish Highlands, whale watching off Pembrokeshire, or raptor watching in the Chilterns. The activities and experiences may be very organised and packaged such as seeing the winter swans fed by floodlight at Welney, the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust Reserve in Cambridgeshire or very informal when wildlife watchers gather to see hundreds of Common Seals at Donna Nook in Lincolnshire. Some spectaculars result from happy accident of nature; others are constructed to maximize nature’s potential and as at RSPB Dearne Valley in South Yorkshire, creating habitat benefits both wildlife and the watcher. Increasingly however, this is done to improve wildlife habitat, provide recreational experiences and visitor opportunities, and to kick-start local tourism, and boost the economy. However, in many cases, the business opportunities are not maximised and local economic benefit does not flow. Sixty thousand visitors to the Grey Seal rookery at Donna Nook over a six-week period generates little direct local spend and almost no financial support for nature conservation. Opportunities of wildlife spectacles such as this can be helped to work harder for conservation and for local people; sometimes this is not the case and conservationists do not always make good entrepreneurs.

Opportunities to spend In order for an eco-cultural tourism or nature-based tourism activity to benefit local people through economic impact there must be ‘opportunities to spend’. If there are not, then there is tourism economic leakage and limited retention or local benefit for local people. This ‘sticky money’ might flow from entrance fees, car parking, fee-paying walks and events, educational opportunities and services, shops, garden centres, cafés and restaurants, meeting rooms and conferencing facilities, and accommodation. For example, at the Old Moor Wetlands Centre, RSPB Dearne Valley includes a shop, garden centre, café, and meeting rooms.15 The Centre is also a base for educational and ranger staff employed at the site, and they help to deliver core educational messages and the conservation targets of the 10

RSPB’s shop at the Old Moor Wetland’s Centre.

Photo: Ian Rotherham

organisation. If supply-chains for purchase and provision of goods and services are local, and if staff employed live locally too, the benefits increase dramatically.

RSPB Dearne Valley, South Yorkshire The RSPB maintains that its primary role is still wild bird conservation. However, it would not have received the substantial grant-aid to develop the Dearne Valley site without the social and economic aspirations. Investment from Heritage Lottery Fund was over £1m targeted at developing opportunities to spend. The aim was to be self-financing from tourism and countryside day-visitor revenues within five years.

RSPB Dearne Valley’s impacts have been huge, as the predicted 50,000+ visitors a year have grown to around 100,000, with many from outside the South Yorkshire catchment. The economic impact from the RSPB Dearne Valley construction works was initially over 25 weeks with 150 people working on the building project. There were 20-25 people on site each day for the contract period, 75%-80% of materials were purchased locally, and 90% of people employed were within a 30 minute drive. This phase created 12 full time equivalent years of employment, which with a multiplier of 1.1 gives 13 FTE years of employment. A total spend on construction of £500,000 and a multiplier of 1.1 gives income impact of £550,000, with a regional impact in the band of £600,000 - £750,000.

With £1 of spend by visitors supporting 49p of local income, 100,000 visitors per year generates a day visitor spend figure for 2009 from the RSPB of £13.92 per visit and annual visitor spend of £1,392,000. Assuming maybe 120,000 local day 11

ECOS 34(1) 2013 visitors expected to spend £13.38 per visit this will soon bring in to the area around £1,605,600 per year. With the Countryside Agency (2000) multiplier of 1.15 for Yorkshire and Humberside this figure equates to £1,846,440 in the economy per year. Then, assuming £35,000 spend per full time job equivalent, this creates around 53 full time job equivalents in the local economy. These are headline figures and the analysis is more detailed and rigorous.

Community and business issues Local people may be much more than just visitors and many give their time as volunteers too. At RSPB Old Moor, 1,613 volunteer person-days per year with a value of £50 per day are worth, in economic value alone, £80,650. The overall business income of the RSPB Old Moor Wetlands Centre in the Dearne Valley had grown by 2010-2011 to £565,120. Furthermore, the employment impact is significant too. With 21 full-time and part-time staff plus a share of 10 full time teaching staff for the Humberhead Levels region, there is a total expenditure on salaries (excluding National Insurance and pensions costs) of £292,646 which with a modest 1.1 multiplier amounts to £321,911 direct and induced impact in the economy. The wider Green Heart Project area produces a total habitat creation ecosystem service value of £18,320,000 per year. Whilst these figures are nominal estimations of the delivery of services by these ecosystems and not real money as such, they give an idea of the worth of the works undertaken here. In a landscape of climate vulnerability and flood risk, these are major impacts.15,16

The need for sensitive infrastructure and for specialist training In creating ‘opportunities to spend’, the necessary infrastructure developments need to be carefully designed to suit their environmental settings. Within a postindustrial location such as Dearne Valley and a created site like the Old Moor Wetlands Centre, the constraints on design and impacts are reduced. But in many situations a major development close to wildlife habitats is inappropriate, but there may be opportunities in adapting existing structures such as disused farm buildings for example.

ECOS 34(1) 2013

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

Management and Pathways to Sustainable Tourism. Robinson, M., Swarbrooke, J., Evans, N., Long, P. and Shapley, R. (eds). Centre for Travel and Tourism, University of Northumbria, Sunderland, 229-245.

Beard, C., Egan, D. & Rotherham, I.D. (2000) The changing role of outdoor leisure: a critical review of countryside tourism. In: Reflections on International Tourism. Environmental Management and Pathways to Sustainable Tourism. Robinson, M., Swarbrooke, J., Evans, N., Long, P. and Shapley, R. (eds). Centre for Travel and Tourism, University of Northumbria, Sunderland, 1-19.

Rotherham, I. D., Doncaster, S. & Egan, D. (2004b) Valuing Wildlife Recreation and Leisure. Countryside Recreation, 12, 12-19.

Rotherham, I.D., Doncaster, S. & Egan, D. (2005) Nature-based Leisure and Tourism in England’s Humberhead Levels. Current Issues in Tourism, 8 (2-3), 214-230.

Rotherham, I.D. & Egan, D. (2005) Credit Where Credit’s Due: The hidden benefits of nature reserves and conservation. The Wildlife Trusts’ Annual National Conference, Sheffield Hallam University, 2005.

Unpublished conference paper Rotherham, I.D. (2006) Opportunities and Pitfalls in Ecotourism Development. In: Dixit, S. (ed.) Promises and Perils in Hospitality and Tourism Management, Aman Publications, New Delhi, India, 148-167.

Mintel (2004) Sports Clothing. Mintel Reports. Located @ http://reports.Mintel.com Ramblers’ Association (2004) Walking makes money. Ramblers’ Association. Located @ URL: http://www. ramblers.org.uk/info/factsandfigures/economic.html Defra (2002) Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food: Facing the Future in England. Defra, London.

Department for Culture, Media and Sport (1999) Tomorrow’s Tourism. A growth industry for the new Millennium. Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Tourism Division), London.

Anon.1 (1994) Biodiversity: the UK Action Plan. DoE, London.

Anon.2 (1994) Sustainable development; the UK Strategy. DoE, London.

Rotherham, I.D., Harrison, K., Handley, C. & Egan, D. (2006) A Socio-economic appraisal of the Impacts of Heritage Lottery Fund Support: A case study of the RSPB Dearne Valley Nature Reserve. TECRU, SHU and Heritage Lottery Fund, Sheffield.

Rotherham, I.D. (2012) Transforming Lives: RSPB Dearne Valley and the Green Heart Project. A Report for the RSPB & the Green Heart Project, 2012, Wildtrack Publishing, Sheffield.

Ian Rotherham is Professor of Environmental Geography and Reader in Tourism & Environmental Change at Sheffield Hallam University; i.d.rotherham@shu.ac.uk

The journey from nature conservation to business entrepreneur is not necessarily an easy one, but the process is driven by both economic and political necessity. Many tourism providers do not to understand the wildlife resource which underpins much of their industry. Furthermore, many nature conservation bodies understand little of tourism or economics, or of business management. If current trends continue, then there may be a need to provide adequate training in business management for conservation professionals, and conservation awareness training for rural business managers.

References 1. National Trust (2001) Valuing our Environment: The economic benefit of the National Trust’s work in Cumbria. Report by SQW Ltd & System Three for the National Trust, June 2001. Located at URL: http:// www.nationaltrust.org.uk 2. Rayment, M. & Dickie, I. (2001) Conservation Works.....for local economies in the UK. RSPB, Sandy, England.

3. Rotherham, I.D., Rose, J.C. & Egan, D. (2000) A critical evaluation of the wildlife leisure industry: an emerging component of leisure and tourism. In: Reflections on International Tourism. Environmental

12

Sculptures depicting local wildlife at the RSPB’s Old Moor Wetlands Centre.

Photo: Ian Rotherham

13

ECOS 34(1) 2013

ECOS 34(1) 2013

Heathland futures – a role for wood-fuel lots?

Management of heathlands has been problematic for some decades and the situation is now acute.1 These areas have mostly lost the economic drivers that once sustained them. Now, with eutrophication, successional change, and difficulties in getting reliable conservation grazing, many sites are under threat. This article suggests that the approach applied to North American and continental European wood-fuel lots could offer a local economic function for heathlands.

IAN D ROTHERHAM & PAUL TITTERTON A cultural landscape under change The decline of British lowland heath occurred dramatically during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries facilitated by parliamentary enclosure.1, 2, 3 From 1919 to the 1980s, heathland decline was compounded by Forestry Commission policy of planting large areas with trees and the abandonment of traditional land management practices. Once a cornerstone of local subsistence, heathland sites are now mostly in decline.4,5 Some steps have been taken to graze areas with rare breeds of traditional cattle, and even to strip turf to reduce eutrophication. The problem is the abandonment of long-term community use of natural resources, which over centuries created the landscape and its ecology that we now seek to conserve. A challenge for conservation in the twenty-first century is to re-connect communities, economies and nature at the local level.

Cultural severance We define ‘cultural severance’ as the breakdown of the fundamental relations between human communities and their local environment as manifested in the landscape and its ecology as an eco-cultural resource.6,7 There are consequences of the cessation of traditional land management. For individual sites, this can result in the following kinds of effects: • Eutrophication due to non-removal of biomass (for fuel, animal bedding, fodder); • Lack of micro-disturbance from grazing or other working animals, and from subsistence activities, including transhumance use, and the like; • Lack of propagule dispersal, particularly seeds through grazing stock moving from site to site; • Successional change due to abandonment (the rate varying with the landscape and its location, so upland zones in the UK for example are more resilient than lowland ones); 14

Birch scrub on former heathy common land.

Photo: Ian Rotherham

• Decreased value for local people and abandonment or replacement by other uses, including building development ; • Fragmentation and isolation; • Displacement of native species by exotics.

One consequence of severance is changed land management, such as woodland or heath having lost their social and economic function, being converted to farmland.

Alternatively, the traditional management may cease or change radically, but the site remains physically intact.6,7 A heath, once central to the local economy, if its function and value to local people is lost, is often grubbed up, ‘improved’ and so destroyed. Sometimes it might remain physically intact but abandoned to trigger a successional change to birch wood and a gradual loss of open heathland species, or planted with exotic conifers. On the other hand, heath or similar common land may be maintained as open grazing but without its traditional management such as harvesting gorse, bracken, ling and small wood for fuel, cutting wood for construction, bracken for bedding, or turf for fuel or roofing, holly, bramble, and gorse as fodder, and grass meadows cut for hay. The ecology is changed and a major successional shift occurs with the site nutrient enriched and low, open vegetation 15

ECOS 34(1) 2013

ECOS 34(1) 2013

replaced by taller more rank species. Rich ecological mosaics are converted to a few distinct landscape areas with limited diversity and stress tolerant species are generally lost.

Heathland and grassland flora: specific losses such as Pasque Flower (Pulsatilla vulgaris) and Dodder (Cuscutaepithymum) but removal of entire flora from most of the lowland landscape and desiccation and degradation of upland areas too.

Moors, heaths and commons – the end of tradition

Heathland and grassland herptiles: Adder (Viper aberus), Smooth Snake (Coronella austriaca), Common Lizard (Lacerta vivipera), Sand Lizard (Lacerta agilis); massive declines of amphibians too.

Britain’s medieval woods, heaths, commons, and bogs supplied most people with fuel, food, and building materials.8 A major problem for what are generally plagioclimax communities is the abandonment of the drivers that led to their formation and their maintenance.

Until around 1700 through until the late 1800s, moors, heaths, bogs, fens, and commons were the distinctive open landscapes of all parts of England. Many sites probably included extensive, managed, wooded commons. At the end of the Parliamentary enclosures, they were reduced in area dramatically to a few lowland groupings of intractable heathland such as the Lizard in Cornwall or the New Forest and Dorset heaths. Extensive upland moors proved resilient to improvement except drainage and some liming, but were now separated spatially and economically from the remaining lowland heaths. However, even in the uplands, traditional functions were abandoned for sheep grazing and intensive grouse rearing.

Woodland encroachment has a great effect on declining heaths, with up to a 60% increase in tree cover recorded across a single site in the late 1900s. Trees shade out the heather and reduce other light demanding species so grasses increase (up to 80% cover under birch woodlands). Overall species diversity decreases rapidly. Birch causes significant encroachment on heathlands due to its high seed production, the light seed allowing wide dispersal on to heathlands by wind.9,10 In the Sheffield area between 1850 and 1890, there was an estimated loss of around 20 km2 of lower-lying heath, largely through enclosure and conversion. This was from a study area of about 385 km2. Parry noted a significant reversion between 1900 and 1935, but found 6,050 ha of Peak District heathland lost between 1870 and 1977.11 Heathland loss or abandonment led to dramatic declines in many typical wildlife species of these habitats. The examples below illustrate the point.

Species declines

Heathland and grassland birds: Skylark (Alauda arvensis), Woodlark (Lulluala arborea), Nightjar (Caprimulgus europaeus), Cuckoo (Cuculus canorus), Redbacked Shrike (Lanius collurio), Black Grouse (Tetrao tetrix), Stone-curlew (Burhinus oedicnemus), and Great Bustard (Otis tarda).

Heathland and grassland invertebrates: losses of many speciessuch as Dark Green Fritillary (Argynnis aglaja), High Brown Fritillary (Argynnis adippe), Large Blue (Maculinea arion), Adonis Blue (Lysandra bellargus), Chalkhill Blue (Lysandra coridon), Glow-worm (Lampyris noctiluca), Orb-web spider (Araneus quadratus), and Silver-spotted Skipper (Hesperia comma), through direct habitat loss and also through successional change following abandonment.

16

At the same time as species losses, on abandoned heaths, in the absence of traditional management and in the face of increasing biomass and nutrient levels, other species spread aggressively.

Species increases

Bracken (Pteridium aquilinum): across moors, heaths and grasslandsas a cultural artefact of changes in management.

Birch (Betula pendula & B. pubescens): massive spread over heaths and moorland fringe as a result of abandonment of traditional management.

Encroachment by exotic pines is increasingly problematic but is less so than birch.

Some conservation organisations report being pressured to accept grant-aided tree planting on some sites, which increases the problem. Site nutrient levels, biomass and pH all increase and conservation target species and typical heathland biodiversity decline.

Reconnecting people and their heaths The UK BAP identifies the need to restore 58,000 ha of heathland, but the delivery of this outside a few key lowland areas remains elusive. A long-term study of the South Pennines, Peak District and Sheffield area, suggests that the problems of severance are leading to major, long-term declines.5,7,12 Furthermore, the shortterm and generally modest interventions of grant-aided conservation projects are inadequate to halt the losses. In some southern lowland heaths, the conservation stripping of turf is used to remove biomass and to end successional decline. Whilst this can be effective for ecology, it relies on the site being free of larger stones or boulders, and the operations may seriously damage archaeological features.

However, whilst biofuel extraction can be immensely damaging to ancient woods, for re-grown birch infestation of a heath, there is great potential for fuelwood extraction. Remarkably, this source of possible biofuel is overlooked in regional energy strategies. Clearly, the use of heavy plant and big machines for commercial extraction would be inappropriate. However, we suggest that small-scale, community-based or Third Sector enterprises could provide a novel solution. Indeed, discussions with forestry professionals indicate that this might be an attractive proposition. From a conservation perspective, the approach could provide an economically viable way to address otherwise intractable heathland decline. The birch could be managed on a cycle of re-growth and coppice to produce firewood for local consumption. This was first suggested back in the 1980s for the heaths around the South Pennine and Peak District fringes. However, bureaucracy prevailed and no action was taken.

17

ECOS 34(1) 2013 Small areas have been cleared of encroaching birch by conservation volunteers and countryside management staff supported by grant aid, but this is not enough and it is not sustainable.

Clearly, if tree felling and coppicing work is to be undertaken, there might be issues of health and safety and of appropriate skills and training if the lead is communitybased.13 However, these same issues have been addressed and overcome for community woodlands, and the necessary expertise and training are available.14 Furthermore, a conservation business or a Third Sector enterprise could provide skills, training, insurance and a business plan. With harvested wood marketed for fuelwood, as either wood pellets for biofuel boilers, or firewood for domestic burners, there is a substantial demand for the product. Produced and sold locally this could deliver sustainable heathland landscapes, and environmentally friendly local energy. Fuelwood pellets could be used for heating schools and other community buildings. Furthermore, a summertime market for locally produced charcoal would give a year-round income-stream.

Models exist for woodland fuel-lots in both continental Europe and in the United States of America, and the same approach could be taken in England for heathland birchwoods. Community woodland projects easily make £1,000 to £5,000 per annum (according to work by the Community Woodland Association in 2012) from a woodland fuel project on a small site. With fuelwood process rising quickly as electricity and gas become more expensive, financial savings on fuel bills offset the modest profits for participants.

Marketing of the process and the product of these community woodland heaths, would stress the conservation and community friendly nature of the product. Sites in management would not be cleared of trees but managed as a sustainable cyclical system as heaths have been managed for centuries. A variety of silvicultural regimes might be applied: • Clear cut system • Shelterwood system • Continuous cover forestry system • Coppice system • Patch cut system • Seed tree cut system A preliminary, regional case study was undertaken around the Sheffield Peak District, the South Pennine and Peak District fringe.14 This study region has been subject to on-going research for nearly thirty years. A number of low-lying heathland sites suffering birch encroachment were identified. From these sites, five were selected 18

ECOS 34(1) 2013 for intensive study. The idea was that by applying community woodland principles, invasive birch woodlands on heathlands could provide substantial wood harvest from individual sites. Two study locations, Owler Bar and Fox Hagg at Lodge Moor in the Peak District for example, could sustainably produce 367 and 262 cubic metres respectively of wood per year.

Ideas into practice – the South Pennine and Peak District fringes The authors have investigated five local sites in detail.

• Fox House 19.9 hectares • Holbrook Heath 11.2 hectares • Fox Hagg, Lodge Moor 20.2 hectares • Loxley and Wadsley Common 49.8 hectares • Owler Bar 17.6 hectares Four of these are upland moorland fringe and the other is a lowland post-industrial heath for contrast. The field and archival research undertaken in 2012 sought to establish the scale of birch invasion and the transformation of the heaths.

Furthermore, the fieldwork provided an evidence base for the effects of birch invasion on the heathland flora and hence the fauna. Additionally, the studies assessed the amount of standing ‘timber’ available from selected sub-sites and the amount which could be harvested as ‘wood’ on a sustainable annual basis.

In addition, all the sub-sites have suffered major birch incursion and heath decline over the past 50 years. The biggest site-specific decline occurred between the 1980s and 1990s, two out of four sites experienced dramatic loss of heathland nature (Owler Bar 19.3% reduction and Fox House 29.1% reduction). Furthermore, the time-sliced landscape surveys indicated a rapidly increasing rate of decline with the most severe losses between 1980 and 2012. Over the study period, the subsites all exhibited major transformation of heath to secondary birch wood. The lowland site at Holbrook Heath Nature Reserve had almost 100% loss in the subsite that was surveyed. The upland fringe area at Owler Bar in the Peak District was the least affected with a heathland decline of 44%, and overall the upland fringe sample sites had declines of around 40% to 90%. The ecological consequences of these successional changes are immediately shading, eutrophication and increased biomass. Wildlife value plummets and typical or characteristic species of heathland environments are lost. Suffering cultural severance and biomass increase, the flammability of sites increases and on dry sites and in dry summers, many succumb to devastating wildfires. With increased biomass, the burn temperatures are high and massive damage to the ecosystem results. A potential solution needs to address all of these issues. It is important to re-connect people to their common land heaths, to reduce biomass and nutrient levels, to open up habitats to sunlight, and to limit fire risk.

19

ECOS 34(1) 2013 In order to consider the financial viability of a fuelwood enterprise we calculated the standing crop of timber (wood) within the case study sub-sites. The sample sub-sites ranged from 500 x 500 m for Owler Bar to 200 x 300 m for Holbrook.

However, these are parts of much larger complexes with, in some cases, several times the harvestable area nearby.

• Owler Bar: standing crop 15,042 cubic metres, 367cubic metres per year • Loxley &Wadsley Common: standing crop 7,737 cubic metres, 63 cubic metres per year

ECOS 34(1) 2013

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

• Fox House: standing crop 1,494 cubic metres, 65 cubic metres per year • Fox Hagg, Lodge Moor: standing crop 10,986 cubic metres, 262 cubic metres per year • Holbrook Heath: standing crop 185 cubic metres, 5 cubic metres per year If we assume a price of between £30 and £50 per cubic metre for firewood15, then some quick calculations suggest that the Owler Bar sample site, for example, might generate a sustainable harvest worth £14,680 per year from 17.8 hectares of birch wood and Fox Hagg, £10,480 from 20.2 hectares. These figures are tentative and there would be costs in extraction and processing. Birch wood is not a premium product and its value may be lower. However, if we add the potential of harvesting wood to make charcoal as an added value product too, then the possibility of a number of heathland sub-sites being managed as a rotational crop suddenly seems a reality. Cutting and processing by hand with chains and extraction with low impact vehicles would allow an economically driven nature conservation output.

For the case study region and sites, these issues have been recognised for a considerable time16, and despite some modest successes on isolated, individual sites, there is presently no sign of any joined-up, long-term, economically viable approach to resolving the problems. Indeed, by comparison with wider issues of moorland management, or peat bog restoration, these lowland heath sites are conservation Cinderellas. In the face of current austerity measures, approaches such as this might provide a mechanism for effective conservation management to move forward. Grant aid would be a bonus and through associated education projects, we could sell both the product and the process. Importantly, and differing from many industrial biomass projects, this approach could begin to re-connect people to nature as a resource. If left to decline through severance and ecological successions, the future for many of these sites remains bleak.

References 1.

2.

3.

4.

20

Webb, N. (1986) Heathlands. Collins, London.

Gimingham, C.H. (1972) Ecology of Heathland. Chapman and Hall, London.

Rackham, O. (1986) The History of the Countryside. Dent, London.

Rotherham, I.D. (2011) Habitat Fragmentation and Isolation in Relict Urban Heaths - the ecological

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

consequences and future potential. In: Rotherham, I.D. & Bradley, J. (eds) (2009) Lowland Heaths: Ecology, History, Restoration and Management. Wildtrack Publishing, Sheffield, 106-115.

Rotherham, I D. (2009) Hanging by a Thread – A Brief Overview of Heaths and Commons of the NorthEast Midlands of England. In: Rotherham, I.D. & Bradley, J. (eds) (2009) Lowland Heaths: Ecology, History, Restoration and Management. Wildtrack Publishing, Sheffield, 35 – 47.

Rotherham, I.D. (2008) The Importance of Cultural Severance in Landscape Ecology Research. In: Editors: Dupont, A. & Jacobs, H. (2008), Landscape Ecology Research Trends, ISBN 978-1-60456-672-7, Nova Science Publishers Inc., USA, Chapter 4, 71-87.

Rotherham, I.D. (2011) The implications of cultural severance in managing vegetation for conservation.

Aspects of Applied Biology, 108 (1), 95 – 105.

Rotherham, I.D. & Bradley, J. (eds.) (2011) Lowland Heaths: Ecology, History, Restoration and Management.

Wildtrack Publishing, Sheffield.

Newton, A.C, Stewart, G.B, Meyers, G., Diaz, A., Lake, S., Bullock, S.M. & Pullin, A.S. (2009) Impacts of grazing on lowland heathland in north-west Europe. Biological Conservation, 142 (5), 935 – 947.

Bullock, J.M. & Pakeman, R.J. (1996).Grazing of lowland heath in England: management methods and their effects on heathland vegetation Biological Conservation, 79 (1), 1-13.

Parry, M.L. (1977) Mapping Moorland Change: A Framework for Land-Use Decisions in the Peak District.

Peak District National Park, Bakewell, Derbyshire.

Rotherham, I.D. (2011) Cultural Severance in landscapes and the Causes and Consequences for Lowland Heaths.In: Rotherham, I.D. & Bradley, J. (eds) (2009) Lowland Heaths: Ecology, History, Restoration and Management. Wildtrack Publishing, Sheffield, 130-143.

Countryside Commission (1992) The lowland Heathland Management Handbook. Countryside Commission, Cheltenham.

Titterton, P. (2012) An assessment of site management and the extent to which low-lying heathlands have decreased in the Sheffield area. Unpiblished MSc Dissertation, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield.

Coed Cymru (2013) A rough guide to working out the cost of heat when buying split firewood logs.www. coedcymru.org.uk/firewood.html accessed February 2013 Rotherham, I.D. (1995) Urban Heathlands - Their Conservation, Restoration and Creation. Landscape Contamination and Reclamation, 3, (2), 99-100.

Ian Rotherham is Professor of Environmental Geography and Reader in Tourism & Environmental Change at Sheffield Hallam University. i.d.rotherham@shu.ac.uk Paul Titterton was a postgraduate student at Sheffield Hallam University

'Cut your own for Christmas '...

Christchurch Borough Council offers people a chance to select their own Christmas tree from the pine and spruce removed from heathland each winter.

Photo: Robin Harley

21

ECOS 34(1) 2013

ECOS 34(1) 2013

Greening the funeral business Natural burials claim to offer cheaper and more environmentally friendly end-of-life choices. This article discusses the main options for green burials and looks at some of the livelihoods created from this strand of the funeral business.

RUTH BOOGERT Benjamin Franklin said “In this world nothing can be said to be certain except death and taxes”. It is a sentiment that has the sorry ring of truth for most of us, although for the more entrepreneurially-minded it would suggest that a business in funeral services represents a steady earner. The statistics bear this out, with the average cost of a funeral in the UK having risen by around 71 per cent in recent years to over £3,200, and that is before flowers, food and even a gravestone. The numbers vary widely across the country too with the average funeral bill in London standing at over £6,000.1 But is it possible to be an ethical, environmentally focused funeral business and remain viable? Managers of a growing number of ethical coffin manufacturers and natural burial sites would say the answer is an emphatic ‘yes’.

With spiralling costs and an increasing disconnection with the rites and rituals of a conventional funeral, many people are turning to ‘woodland’ or ‘green’ burials, which claim to offer cheaper, more environmentally friendly end-of-life choices in an increasingly individualised marketplace.

Do we need ‘green’ funeral options?

A family led funeral at the South Downs Natural Burial Site, at the Sustainability Centre, East Meon.

Photo: Al Blake

literature on the subject and concluded that there was little risk from burial leachate into both soil and groundwater.3 However it appears that there is a lack of research in this area and this may be more a case of ‘no evidence of risk’, rather than ‘evidence of no risk’.

Collating statistics is difficult and does not appear to have happened in the UK, but for the US it has been estimated that each year, 22,500 cemeteries across the country bury approximately:

“Ashes to ashes, dust to dust”… surely being laid to rest and returned to the earth is one of the most natural processes we participate in during (and beyond) our lifetime? Some in the industry like to preserve this myth but from the minute the funeral machine gets underway, decisions with environmental and ecological implications are being made, knowingly or unknowingly, by the family.

• 827,060 gallons of embalming fluid

Starting with treatment of the body after death, human bodies will remain in a reasonable condition for around 24 hours, and up to 2 and 3 weeks with good refrigeration depending on the environment around the remains. Bodies will often need to be preserved beyond this length of time in order for families and friends to view the deceased, or for an open casket at the funeral. Families are often advised that embalming is necessary in order to maintain a body for a period of viewing or for an open casket funeral, but refrigeration can do the job just as well and in a much less invasive way. Embalming has become more common in the UK and involves draining the body of blood and several organs, before pumping the body with a toxic cocktail of preservatives. It has been reported that formaldehyde has been measured in high concentrations in seepage water around graves2 in the UK although a report commissioned by the Environment Agency reviewed existing

• 30-plus million board feet of hardwoods (for caskets)

22

• 90,272 tons of steel (for caskets) • 2,700 tons of copper and bronze (for caskets)

• 1,636,000 tons of reinforced concrete (for vaults) • 4,000 tons of steel (for vaults)4 As well as bodies, a host of other substances enter the ground during burial – clothes which may be natural fibres or synthetics, and coffins which could be made from threatened tree species, although are more likely to be a veneered chipboard made from wood and glues. Coffin handles are often made from plastic and electroplated to give a brass or metal effect finish. As a result, heavy metals can leach into the soil and plastics or synthetic materials can remain in the soil for hundreds or thousands of years.

23

ECOS 34(1) 2013

ECOS 34(1) 2013

Similarly, cremation will use the same products and processes to preserve and display the body, all of which will then be burned rather than buried, and released into the atmosphere. In fact, mercury from dental fillings which are vaporised in crematoria have been blamed for up to 16% of UK airborne mercury emissions, and many UK crematoria are currently fitting filters in order to meet government targets of a 50% reduction in emissions. As well as this, there is the obvious energy use required for the process. A cremation furnace will be heated to at least 750 degrees C and a body can take from 90 minutes to three hours to cremate, depending on the size of the person.

A greener way to go Green burials, also called woodland or natural burials, have gained popularity in recent years and offer an alternative to the conventional cemetery burial or cremation. They can be marketed as more environmentally friendly, giving more choice to the families of the deceased and as a cheaper, no-fuss alternative.

The first natural burial ground opened in Cumbria in 1993 as an extension to an existing Victorian cemetery and the number of sites has since grown rapidly, now with over 300 across the country. The majority of these are extensions to established local authority cemeteries but there are also a significant and growing number of privately managed natural burial grounds, run by individuals, businesses and charities. Sites can be existing woodland or wildflower meadows, converted farmland or other private land which will be managed for wildlife in some way, and typically require burials to be in biodegradable coffins with un-embalmed bodies.

In place of a gravestone, sites may allow a small ground marker of wood or stone, or planting of a memorial tree either on or near the grave. Conventional chipboard coffins will often not be accepted at natural burial grounds, in favour of ostensibly greener alternatives such as cardboard, bamboo or woven willow, which will not introduce the same pollutants into the soil.

Natural burial is one of the fastest growing areas of green commerce and this has naturally encouraged some businesses with little interest in genuine environmental ethics but who see an opportunity for profit. Rosie Inman-Cook of the Natural Death Centre and Association of Natural Burial Grounds says that many of the original green burial sites were set up by people who wanted to do something better for the bereaved, but lately big corporations and players from other, existing sectors of the funeral industry who don’t care what they put in the ground are getting in on what they see as a cash cow. As Rosie also points out though, there are plenty of good natural burial sites which do not have environmental concerns as their main priority, and don’t claim to. Natural burial can be many things to many people, and is not necessarily synonymous with an overriding commitment to minimising environmental impact. They may be chosen because the venue feels more pleasant and peaceful than a traditional cemetery, and their goal may simply be to offer a joyful and personalised celebration of a loved one’s life. If environmental ethics is a high priority, it is important to be clear about this from the start and, Rosie believes, it will quickly become apparent if the venue is not up to muster.

24

A willow coffin and coffin-sidecar as available from WinterWillow funeral service.

Photo: www.winterwillow.org.uk

Coffin criteria It is a similar story with coffins – not all eco coffins are created equal, but for some consumers that just doesn’t matter. They like the look of willow or the affordability of cardboard, and anything else is a bonus. Again, the key is separating the providers with a genuine passion for offering an environmentally conscious option from those seeing the ‘green’ label as an opportunity to advertise a premium product with a price tag to match.

In a 2010 edition of The Funeral Director magazine, the Environmental Consultant of the National Association of Funeral Directors reported that cardboard coffins can be more environmentally costly than the common chipboard/wood veneer alternative as a result of the toxic soup in which wood chips are processed in to cardboard: “the recycled content of the veneered chipboard that is made into coffins means they use fewer chemicals, glues, energy and water than cardboard coffins”.5 This sort of comment throws up a perfect example of the need to dig deeper. Whilst a cynical person may question the motives behind the NAFD statement against cardboard coffins, perhaps cardboard coffin manufacturers are not all working to the same standards. But identifying those for whom their environmental impact is a significant driver behind their business should not be too hard. Greenfield Creations have been producing cardboard coffins since 1990 and is an example of a business pursuing the so-called triple bottom line: people, planet and profit.

Will Hunneybel, Managing Director of Greenfield Creations responded to the NAFD piece with a detailed account of the manufacturing process of his own product.6 These coffins are produced from a minimum of 70% post consumer waste all sourced from local mills and new fibres only from forest certified sources, the cardboard is manufactured less than 80 miles away from their Essex base, minimising transportation impacts (unlike chipboard which can be imported from across the world) and uses only cornstarch glues in the construction process.

Similarly, willow coffins can come from a variety of sources and manufacturing methods. Completed coffins can be imported from eastern Europe or as far away as 25

ECOS 34(1) 2013

ECOS 34(1) 2013

China, and will often be made using a simple weave which allows them to be produced rapidly and by relatively low skilled workers. There are some UK-based willow coffin producers and we at WinterWillow manufacture all of our coffins locally. We are a social enterprise based in Cambridge, UK which employs and trains people with a history of homelessness to hand-weave willow coffins. We teach a coffin design which is more intricate and, we think, more attractive as well as providing more rigidity in the finished product. Learning to weave one of our coffins to a saleable standard takes about 6 months so the people involved have to show a commitment to the project. Our weavers also run regular basket weaving sessions for anyone using the homelessness services at our centre. A small project such as weaving a basket which keeps people busy and takes their minds off other things can often be the start of the longer process towards breaking away from destructive habits, acquiring skills and self confidence, and getting back to regular employment. The process can also be therapeutic for bereaved families, as they can see that their choices are having an immediate and positive impact on people’s lives. Some families have come down to our workshop to meet the weavers and weave part of the coffin for themselves. It’s not for everyone but it can be a wonderful way to say goodbye to a loved one.

Future alternatives?

These methods of disposal are not currently licensed in the UK although they are in use in other parts of the world and may be coming soon.

Liquefaction - Scottish manufacturers, Resomation Ltd, have shipped to several countries around the world including the USA. They say that this technique produces a third less greenhouse gas than cremation, uses a seventh of the energy, and allows for the complete separation of dental amalgam for safe disposal of any mercury, although they did not respond to our request to provide supporting evidence for any of these claims. The process works by submerging the body in a heated solution of water and potassium hydroxide and pressurised for up to three hours. Body tissue is dissolved and the resulting liquid can be poured into the municipal water system. Any artificial joints or implants are removed and the bones are then processed in a “cremulator”, the same machine that is used to crush bone fragments following cremation.

Promession: This is the brain child of Susanne Wiigh-Mäsak at Promessa Organic AB of Sweden and involves freezing a body with liquid nitrogen and then vibrating it until it fragments. The fragmented remains are then dried and further refined, before being passed through filters to remove metals such as dental fillings and any implants. The remains are then poured into a square biodegradable coffin for shallow burial. Susanne said: “It only takes two to three weeks before the kitchen and garden waste is soil so this is what inspired me to really see if not only the kitchen and garden waste but also everything organic, including us, could be treated this way to really become soil”. Remains will have composted in 6–12 months.

Thinking ahead

A selection of Greenfield Creations’ cardboard coffins: the brown economy coffin (top) and the chocolate box casket (below).

Photo: www.greenfieldcreationscoffins.co.uk

homework and sort out these providers from those just looking to make a fast buck. All those involved in the industry agree, the most important thing is to think about your wishes in plenty of time, and share them with those people who need to know so that when the time comes, your loved ones can be confident that they are honouring your commitment to a truly green funeral.

More information on natural burials and a list of burial sites which have signed up to the Association of Natural Burial Grounds’ Code of Conduct is at http://www. naturaldeath.org.uk/

References 1. http://www.sunlifedirect.co.uk/FinalMatters/FuneralsAndPlanning/TheCostOfFunerals/ 2. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1999/01/dead-water 3. Young, C.P., Blackmore, K.M., Reynolds, P.J. and Leavens, A., (1999). Pollution Potential of Cemeteries, R & D Technical Report P223. Environment Agency.

4. http://www.glendalenaturepreserve.org/ 5. Smith, M. (2010). Dispelling the myth about cardboard coffins. The Funeral Director 93(8).

6. Hunneybel, W. (2010). Some facts about corrugated cardboard. The Funeral Director 93(12).

Ruth Boogert works for Wintercomfort for the Homeless, parent charity of the WinterWillow eco coffin social enterprise. Ruth.boogert@gmail.com

So the good news is that first, there are people offering genuinely green funeral options, and second, there are associated livelihoods. It is important to do your 26

27

ECOS 34(1) 2013

The future of England’s green agencies Should we welcome the current review of Natural England and the Environment Agency or should we be worried if government is tempted to meddle with these bodies? Peter Shirley and Simon Leadbeater look at the options and the issues under debate.

Tidying up or dumbing down?

PETER SHIRLEY Putting to one side the question of the advisability of reviewing government agencies every three years, and the perpetual state of paranoia and nervousness thus engendered, what can we say about the current round of scrutiny of Defra’s agencies?

It seems not to be, unfortunately, a consideration of how well the outcomes of their activities match perceived needs or scientific imperatives. The many pages of background documents seem to contain virtually nothing for example about Natural England’s performance in halting biodiversity losses or implementing protective regulations. As with the Environment Agency, and despite some fine words here and there, form and function seem to be treated as quantitative rather than qualitative factors. These background papers are characterised not by visionary or inspiring prose, but rather by turgid management gobbledegook of the most stultifying kind.

Amongst the hints of what might be considered success is a depressing catalogue of resource reduction. Thus we learn, and seem to be expected to applaud, that Natural England has reduced back office costs by 40% since 2010, staff by 20% since 2010/11, and its number of offices by 60%, whilst enhancing its approach to customer service (my italics). Similarly the Environment Agency is reducing its back office costs by 33% by 2014, and has achieved ‘significant’ staff and estate costs reductions.

This attitude is doubtless what leads to being asked to consider the option of merging Natural England, the Environment Agency and parts of the Forestry Commission.

It is difficult to work out if this is a serious proposition or an ‘Aunt Sally’. Most government consultations include Aunt Sallies, put there to mitigate anguish when unwelcome reforms are announced, on the basis that ‘it could have been worse’.

Lest we forget, both Natural England and the Environment Agency are already conglomerates: Natural England includes what was English Nature, the Countryside 28

ECOS 34(1) 2013 Commission and the Rural Development Service; the Environment Agency absorbed the National Rivers Authority, the Pollution Inspectorate and waste authorities. How much more dilution, lack of focus and bureaucratic tidiness can they take?

Here we come to a conundrum. Why are so many people instinctively against merging statutory agencies, arguing that diversity equals dynamism and leanness is better than flabbiness, whilst at the same time bemoaning the multiplicity of conservation NGOs and suggesting that some of them should merge? They can’t have it both ways. I believe that we need a thriving forest of both public and private agencies, not a green corporate desert of blandness and obfuscation.

Sadly though, nothing will work well in a culture of resource starvation and environmental illiteracy. Many good people are being ill-served by blinkered political masters. This means that as long as reform is motivated by reducing the establishment and the influence of the agencies the form they take is irrelevant.

References Defra discussion paper: Triennial Review of the Environment Agency and Natural England, December 2012 Review of the Environment Agency and Natural England: Terms of reference Defra December 2012 Triennial Review of the Environment Agency and Natural England Baseline information for functions analysis: Environment Agency Defra January 2013

Peter Shirley is former Director of the Urban Wildlife Trust in the West Midlands. petershirley@blueyonder.co.uk He blogs at blogs.birminghampost.net/lifestyle/peter_shirley/

The dangers of agency merger SIMON LEADBEATER A possible merger of the Environment Agency with Natural England is likely to dilute conservation capability further and weaken environmental protection in order to streamline decisions in favour of economic growth, and for this reason I am against any proposal to merge the bodies.

An arranged marriage of incompatible partners My direct dealings with both the Environment Agency and Natural England reflect their fundamental differences. Some years ago I led a social enterprise that maintained elderly residents’ gardens, and which used to transport garden waste to a central compost site. The organisation had to obtain a waste carriers’ licence from the EA, without which it would have been operating illegally. Through Natural England I have secured an Entry Level Stewardship (ELS) grant to improve meadow and hedgerow management. Meeting ELS criteria was complex, but the NE and its staff helped me to enhance the conservation management of what little land I own, for which I am grateful. The support given me represents the NE’s purpose, as defined by the Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act (2006) to “ensure that 29

ECOS 34(1) 2013 the natural environment is conserved, enhanced and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development”.1 The EA, in contrast, is responsible for licencing, regulation and the enforcement of environmental protection legislation; instead of giving grants it charges for licences and permits.

What is actually needed for organisational effectiveness?

Faced with increasingly pressing environmental problems the real need is to re-focus on environmental management and to improve organisational capability in this field.

Some commentators, however, have said that the expertise and knowledge base that English Nature 2 once benefited from in many disciplines of nature conservation has been irrevocably eroded3 something also bemoaned by staff at my county council’s biological records office. Is this trend likely to be reversed under a merger – much more likely, as CPRE have said “the voice of the NE would be muffled within a larger single body”4 and the haemorrhaging of expertise and capability would accelerate. The same concern from an industry perspective is made by the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management (CIWM) which also argues against a merger because the industry does not want the “focus, and the Agency’s expertise in waste, diminished by the formation of an even larger consolidated body…”.5 Periodic reviews to ensure organisations remain focused is fundamental to good management, but the proposed merger is being driven by inverted priorities. When Owen Paterson writes in the foreword to Defra’s Triennial Review of the Environment Agency and Natural England ”as I seek to radically reprioritise Defra so that …its work is focused on growing the economy”6 he does state that this should not be at the expense of the natural environment. However, I believe the motivation behind the review should be – as presented by the CIWM – about “getting the balance right between environmental protection…[and] supporting economic development”.7 This is not just word order; Mr Paterson’s primary concern is about improving the “current financial climate”8 whereas I believe the environmental crisis at home and abroad is of a significantly greater magnitude and the emphasis should be the other way around.

What is driving the emphasis on economic growth?

In 2006 the Leader of HM Opposition visited the Artic island of Svalbard to “see for himself the effects of climate change” and urged voters in that year’s May elections to “vote blue to go green”.9 He later replaced Lady Thatcher’s torch logo for a tree and ruled out a third runway for Heathrow. Wind forward six years and the now Prime Minister’s apostasy, not fully satisfied with the NPPF’s ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’10 he wanted to allow 8M house extensions without requiring any planning permission,11 and his Ministers now refuse to ‘call in’ planning applications for regional airport expansions.12 This is the policy context within which the merger of the EA and NE is being considered. “An effective single body, leading to sustainable swifter decision making for, and lower burdens on, businesses and developers”13 should help stop the “dithering” which is putting the brakes on economic growth.14 Above all else this is what the merger portends.

30

ECOS 34(1) 2013 And who supports the idea – predictably enough the development planning sector.

Clive Harridge, director of the consultancy Amec Environment & Infrastructure UK, comments “to have one statutory consultee not two in the field would be very helpful for our private sector clients”.15

Seeking progressive change Economic cycles including this recession are by their nature ephemeral, but the short term fillips to promote economic growth will permanently remove some of nature’s capacity and be of enduring harm. Not only do I not accept that economic growth should be prioritised over environmental protection and enhancement, but how the two are inextricably linked – how ‘growing the economy’ leads to climate change, habitat loss and species extinction – needs decoupling and mechanisms put in place to ensure that environmental enhancement and economic sustainability complement one another. Getting this right is the challenge which should be at the heart of any review of government policy and its regulatory framework.

The review may recommend some appropriate changes. For example, the river conservation work of the EA may be better placed within the NE which already has a responsibility for the marine and water environment. However, do I want a single body to remove ‘dither,’ so that decisions are streamlined in favour of developers and which reduce local communities’ capacity to protect and preserve – An emphatic no and for good reason. Where I live the countryside and greenbelt is threatened by a coalition of infrastructure projects and economic interests; an incinerator and large rail freight depot are planned for the south, and to the north Luton Airport’s expansion would mean an additional 160 flights a day!

Delaying tactics are sometimes protest’s only meaningful recourse, so my first objection to a merger is that two statutory consultees may retain an element of ‘dither’. When Luton Airport last tried to expand this was with a proposal for two runways; I well remember our local MP arguing that anything to delay the project would be helpful, and he was right – no second runway was ever built. Second, the EA and NE have fundamentally different purposes and the culture of one amalgamated body is unlikely to be able to promote rival aspirations equally. Finally, improving the capability of both the EA and NE is needed, not a diminution in focus or capacity for either.

References 1. www.naturalengland.org.uk/about_us/whatwedo/remit/default.aspx 2. In 2006 English Nature, the Rural Development Service and Countryside Agency were replaced by Natural England.

3. www.britishbirds.co.uk/news-and-comment/natural-englandenvironment-agency-merger 4. www.cpre.org.uk/media-centre/news-release-archive/item/3166-triennial-review-natural-england-must-bestrong-independent-and-properly-resourced 5. www.ciwm.co.uk/CIWM/MediaCentre/Current_pressreleases/Press_Releases_2013/press_release_060213.aspx 6. Defra (December 2012) p.1.

7. www.ciwm.co.uk/CIWM/MediaCentre/Current_pressre Dr Simon Leadbeater is a town councillor and woodland owner in Hertfordshire. simon.leadbeater@btinternet.com 8. Defra Op.cit. p.1.

9. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4925444.stm

31

ECOS 34(1) 2013

ECOS 34(1) 2013

10. Defra (March 2012), National Planning Policy Framework 11. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19496204 12. Letter from Nick Boles MP, Under Secretary of State (Planning) to Harpenden Town Council of 1st February 2013 13. Defra, Op.cit. p.19 14. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2196870/DAVID-CAMERON-Hard-work-moral-good-dumbing--It-timestop-dithering-thats-holding-Britain-back.html 15. www.planningresource.co.uk/Environment/article/1164243/Merging-environment-agencies-hastendecisions-says-government-report/

Simon Leadbeater is a woodland owner and town councillor in Hertfordshire. simon.leadbeater@btinternet.com The first nest-building attempt by common cranes in England for 400 years.

The Great Crane Project is a reintroduction programme based at the WWT at Slimbridge. Common cranes were reared at Slimbridge in 2010 by aviculturalists who dress in adult crane costumes to teach the baby birds how to forage, feed and be scared of humans (see ECOS 32 (1) page 75. The birds were then released on the Somerset levels where they flew free. Four chose to fly north up the Severn Estuary and have been around the Slimbridge reserve in Gloucestershire during winter 2013. Nest-building is innate for cranes, although this attempt may come to nothing and be abandoned, but it is a milestone for the project to reintroduce cranes into southern Britain.

BANC’s 2013 Autumn field trip and AGM will be based at the Somerest levels where we will learn more about the Great Crane Project and view the cranes. Full details are at www.banc.org.uk Photo: WWT

Welsh nature - riches to be protected or resources to be plundered?

This article considers the background to the creation of Natural Resources Wales (NRW).

Do the economy, society and environment generally and in Wales really form a mutually supportive ‘three-legged stool’?

JAMES ROBERTSON In February 2013 a book was published to celebrate the passing of the Countryside Council for Wales.1 This is perhaps not something to celebrate, unless you believe that CCW laid the foundations for a stronger, more substantial environmental body, Natural Resources Wales, and that this could represent the coming of age of statutory environmentalism in Wales. The book is called A Natural Step? The title was my suggestion, but I had to work hard to keep the question mark.

To its credit the book is not a hagiography of an organisation (if such a thing can exist).

It is in places deeply questioning and reflective, and its heterogeneity is both its strength and its weakness. Contributors did not see each others’ chapters or have detailed guidance on style and content, as the timescale did not allow for such luxuries. In my view, and as one of the authors, I am clearly biased, this book has something to offer other parts of the UK in describing the Welsh experience of integrating landscape and nature conservation, and the way that the enjoyment and conservation of the Welsh countryside have been brought into the heart of public life here.

CCW had a 22 year run, starting just before a high point of international interest in nature conservation: the Earth Summit at Rio in August 1992. Despite its limitations, the Summit, and the Conventions which emerged on Climate Change and Biological Diversity, and its agenda for sustainable development (Agenda 21) was important for the profile it achieved for conservation, and the alliance which the parallel NGO Global Forum established between the disadvantaged human world and the struggling world of nature. Most tangibly, it gave these issues legitimacy - a legal basis. It wasn’t the turning point that many hoped for, but nor was it a high watermark.

I won’t rehearse the astonishing growth in environmentalism during the 1980s leading up to Rio, except to say that it wasn’t matched by a comparable change in the political landscape. Rio was significant in giving nature conservation some new language and credibility with decision-makers; the term ‘biodiversity’, which did not please many old school conservationists, fitted much better with Agenda 21 and a more inclusive, people-centred agenda for nature.

32

33

ECOS 34(1) 2013

ECOS 34(1) 2013

Life support or barrier?

At the heart of this agenda is the simple belief that, as there is only one planet, we had better look after it. Whether you use the term ‘conservation’, with or without the words ‘nature’ or biodiversity’ at the front, or ‘environmentalism’, this view had become mainstream in the 1990s. Yet there were several undercurrents running against the tide, and one of these, the view that conservation was a barrier in the path of progress, manifested itself most forcibly in Wales when John Redwood became Secretary of State in May 1993.

Redwood was likened to a colonial Governor-General in the way in which he attempted to introduce his own kind of free-market agenda to Wales, but he was skilled enough to enlist old grudges to help him push forward his policies. When he determined that local government should run most SSSIs, he knew he had the support of many Councillors who resented CCW’s powers. In 1994 he announced that he would cut CCW’s budget by 12% the following year, and then produced a plan, by which CCW would shed many of its responsibilities and lose a third of its budget over the following two years.

On 23 January 1995, the influential newspaper in Cardiff and South Wales, the Western Mail, reported the story on its front page under the heading ‘Privatise nature’ outrage. “A desperate attempt to stop Welsh Secretary John Redwood privatising dozens of nature reserves, including Snowdon, will be launched in the Commons today”, it began, and in a comment column, it reported the view that Redwood wanted to run down CCW so that he could ignore the obligations which arose from the Rio Summit and European directives.

The Redwood debacle united Welsh opinion behind CCW and in opposition to the dismantling of statutory environmental protection. CCW emerged stronger than before. Although many able staff took up the package on offer for early retirement from CCW, the damage was short-lived. Redwood lost the election against John Major for the leadership of the Conservative Party and William Hague became Welsh Secretary. Hague reversed the cuts, showed sensitivity in his handling of Welsh affairs generally, and a strong sympathy for the environment in particular.

A colleague of mine, a smoker, complained bitterly about the difficulty he had keeping up with Hague on a walk up Snowdon!

A Welsh cultural icon, Britannia Bridge, over a natural one, the Menai Strait.

Photo: Joanna Robertson

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which became the World Trade Organisation in 1995, was pursuing a hardnosed agenda of trade liberalisation, untainted by concerns for environmental sustainability. Its negotiations may have had a larger negative impact on exploitation of the Planet’s natural resources than the Rio Summit had a positive one.

Economic backdrop

Great steps have been made to attempt to reframe economics to take account of the environment, notably by the New Economics Foundations, and by the banker Pavan Sukhdev, whose reports on the green economy, most notably The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB) give a brilliant economic account of how much we need nature. Yet economic orthodoxy remains dominant. As my partner Joanna has observed, if only the Today programme would invite ecologists to talk about the economy, and give economists the environment to analyse, the early morning sessions might generate real light. Today is a barometer of the broadcasting media’s readiness to take on and expose new environmental thinking. The needle is, appropriately, showing ‘stormy’, indicating that the environment is now considered too confusing and potentially too controversial for media and public alike to digest.

Some of this change in mood I put down to the legacy of the difficult climate change debates.

The dissolution of the Soviet Union (USSR) took place in 1991, economic strength had become synonymous with political power, and of course Redwood was by no means a lone voice in championing unfettered capitalism and globalisation. The

Waning media interest is one among many undercurrents which have been running against the environmental agenda, and together they add up to a considerable

In 1994 Redwood had published a book called The Global Marketplace – Capitalism and its Future, which I read with, I suppose, exasperation and disbelief. It seemed that Redwood believed that the economy would move into territory largely uncharted since the 19th Century. Moreover he was cheerleader for this brave new world, urging it on. It is worth considering how much of that depressing vision has actually come to pass, and at what cost.

34

35

ECOS 34(1) 2013

ECOS 34(1) 2013

under-tow. As I have argued, economic orthodoxy, which demands growth, whether of consumption or, indeed, of population, is at the heart of this trend, and is tied up with, or perhaps has tied up politics. However the situation in Wales is distinctive, partly because of the Welsh Government’s duty and desire to build ‘sustainability’ into the economy. Its aim, that Wales should become a ‘one planet nation’, putting sustainability at the heart of Government, has resulted in a White Paper for a Sustainable Development Bill. This would embed sustainable development within the Welsh Government and public bodies, and create an independent sustainable development body.

Wales is also doing things differently in its strategic approach to the creation of a single environmental agency, NRW. A consultation document, A Living Wales2 in September 2010 proposed a new framework for the environment, based on the idea that nature should be conserved for the ecosystem services it provides. This received mixed reactions from NGOs. These doubts were summarised in an article in Natur Cymru magazine.3 Nevertheless, provided that nature is not valued for its ecosystem services alone, there is merit in shifting the focus from species to a more holistic approach. The critical issue, of course, remains the funding question – will NRW have the budget to make this new approach work for the environment.

The business case which was made for the merger anticipated savings of £158m over 10 years. Already these figures are looking shaky, with reports that the pension costs alone are likely to be £50m, not the £19m allowed for. NGOs are understandably suspicious. The announcement that the Agency was to be called Natural Resources Wales, with its clinical and exploitative ring, did not help build confidence. However the Welsh name, Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru, or Wales’ natural wealth, has a much more celebratory tone. So the two names conjure up two different visions for the environment – something to be used and spent, or to be cherished and valued. It does underline the likelihood that NRW will be pushed and pulled in different directions.

Geopolitics

The impacts of road building in Uganda as China exploits African mineral resources.

Photo: Patrick Robertson

development, fair trade and ethical procurement built into it. It would be a small step for Wales to begin supporting innovative projects in Africa to serve the interests of nature and people together. Projects which generate benefits and ease conflicts between people and wildlife do exist, such as the ground-breaking Conservation Education Community Outreach Programme (CECOP) which operates on the border of Murchison Falls National Parks in northern Uganda. I will return to the case of Africa at the end.

It is impossible to ignore more negative undercurrents which are affecting different parts of the world in different ways. China is sucking up natural resources in a way reminiscent of former colonial powers, notably in Africa, but without any sense of responsibility towards the countries and people whose resources it is removing. On a visit last year I witnessed Chinese engineers building a new road in the Western rift between Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, in order to extract minerals from the Congo via Mombassa to China. What was shocking, though, was to come across a village through the middle of which the road was being built.

Villagers stood at the roadside and gawped at the Chinese digger drivers, whose huge machines were crushing and clearing tin roofed shacks and bandas. Perhaps their village wasn’t on any map, but they looked stunned and helpless in the face of forces beyond their understanding.

EU and environment

The Wales for Africa programme, launched in 2006, gives Wales a distinct identity in the pursuit of UN Millennium Development Goals. This programme has sustainable

The downside has been the bureaucracy surrounding European law and the public antagonism, sometimes justified, that this causes. Either because of drafting or

36

I will now turn to the European Union, which also has questions to answer. The dependence of so much UK environmental policy on a European legal framework is not particularly helpful. NGOs seem to suspend their critical faculties when evaluating the role of the EU in promoting environmental policy and economic development at the same time. However in Wales, the LIFE fund has contribute to projects like the restoration of peatlands on the Migneint, LEADER projects have funded some Local Nature Reserves, while the European Regional Development Fund has a £14.5m communities and nature project, and the EU-funded Rural Development Plan supports the countryside and rural communities. As well as direct environmental gains, EU legislation has brought tangential benefits such as the broader ecological perspectives fostered by inter-community cooperation and exchange.

37

ECOS 34(1) 2013 implementation, EU environmental regulations can be inflexible and over-prescriptive.

Regional development funds, the Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy have had serious negative environmental impacts in the UK and beyond. I’m sure others have seen at first hand what these funds have done in some of the most beautiful and marginal parts of the EU, such as Ireland and Portugal.

Environmental projects depend heavily on public funding, making them vulnerable at times of public sector spending cuts. It isn’t always easy to get to the bottom of what is happening to budgets. The original case for bringing three Agencies together into a single Welsh body, NRW, was to make it more effective, and introduce an ecosystem-based approach (see above). Whether the grant-in-aid to NWR will be adequate for the job is one of several concerns. For example the merger could dilute parts of the broad NRW remit, and internalise conflicts, such as the one between planting trees and looking after (and enhancing) semi-natural upland habitats.

Life at sea CCW started out with a single marine ecologist, and one marine policy officer. When it mutated into Natural Resources Wales, it had a substantial, energetic band of highly effective and committed marine specialists. Again, to some extent at least, adversity brought strength. On 15 February 1996, the super-tanker the Sea Empress struck rocks and became stranded in the mouth of Milford Haven. More than half of its cargo of 130,000 tonnes of North Sea crude oil, and 480 tonnes of fuel oil, spilled into an exceptionally rich marine and island ecosystem in south-west Pembrokeshire.

It was one of the world’s worst oil spills, coating popular holiday beaches with thick black oil. Fisheries were closed, seabirds oiled and tourism devastated.

There were silver linings from the disaster, not least that the timing was relatively benign and stormy conditions allowed for quicker recovery than could have been predicted. Much research was conducted and valuable lessons learnt. It put the marine environment into the spotlight in Wales and demonstrated its value to the economy, and that of ecologists to politicians. CCW’s expertise benefitted, as did that of many other bodies brought in to help with the work.

Progress over Marine Conservation Zones has been pitiable, but public understanding of some of the issues, including, for example, overfishing and discards, and damage to the seabed from scallop trawling, has been growing. Marine mammals such as dolphins are far better understood, and their popularity has an economic payoff. A head of steam is building up, and behind it is a growing body of expertise.

Does the label matter?

I wanted to highlight the marine environment because it is an area where I believe CCW has punched above its weight, but progress has depended on wide alliances.

CCW completed an intertidal survey of the whole coast of Wales, an achievement in itself, but it has also added to the circulation of knowledge and interest. CCW in this case is not the beating heart – it is part of it, as are the NGOs. That raises the interesting question – does it matter what an organisation is called, so long as it does the work? This is what I want to address.

38

ECOS 34(1) 2013 When William Wilkinson gave his valedictory speech at the launch of NCC’s last annual report, he foresaw the end of an independent statutory agency for nature conservation, and spoke of handing the baton to the non-government sector. What actually happened, in Wales at least, is much more complex. The quality and clarity of CCW advice to the Welsh Office, and later the Welsh Government, has been tempered by much second-guessing of what would be acceptable. However two significant developments, in my view, have mitigated this since the Welsh Assembly was established in 1998. Assisted by offices in Cardiff, NGOs such as the RSPB have become regular briefers of Assembly Members (AMs) and Assembly Environment Committees. Any slack has been taken up in this way. Second, departmental Civil Servants have become more interested in the delivery of environmental targets.

While it is true that CCW’s remit letter, which used to spell out each year what CCW’s budget should be spent on, became more prescriptive, this sometimes improved environmental outcomes. The end result of the politicisation of the environment, which has turned independent champions of nature into government functionaries stripped of a policy role, may actually benefit the environment, because of the positive interest taken in it by Government.

The Minister for Environment, Planning and Countryside, Carwyn Jones, put his weight behind local biodiversity partnerships. “Our health, economy and quality of life depend upon increasingly fragile natural resources”, he wrote in 2006.4 Biodiversity gained traction and political favour as an important component of the local economy. Between 2007 and 2011 the Minister for the Environment, Sustainability and Housing, Jane Davidson and her civil servants pushed forward the biodiversity agenda, gave meaning to the Biodiversity Duty and promoted the Wales Biodiversity Partnership vigorously, involving local government and developing partnerships beyond the cosy scientific groups which dominated the Action Plan process within CCW. Meanwhile NGOs became stronger as CCW funding and capacity-building increased, but this has brought about a greater dependence on grants and, as a result, a reluctance to criticise. In effect, the baton has been passed back and forth between Welsh Government, Agency and NGOs. In Wales the economy and society have always been closely entwined. If sustainability is a three-legged stool, I think the third leg, the environment, has fared relatively well. My conclusion is that the label does not matter very much, CCW or NRW, as long as the context is favourable; that is that there are senior politicians and their aides, agencies and NGOs, and a broadly sympathetic public, all working to a common understanding of the importance of the landscape and nature in this beautiful country.

I don’t want to overstate this. Since I started editing Natur Cymru – Nature of Wales, a kind of British Wildlife for Wales, in 2001, I have published hundreds of articles celebrating nature, describing extraordinary efforts by people and organisations on its behalf, and also criticising shortcomings where they occur. For example tax-payer and biodiversity will lose out because of the switch from an excellent environmentcentred agri-environment scheme, Tir Gofal, to a poorly conceived replacement Glastir.5 And where is the Welsh equivalent of the Lawton report6, Making space for 39

ECOS 34(1) 2013

ECOS 34(1) 2013

Wales’ new officialdom – Nature’s wealth or wrath?

Conservation reforms in Wales have reached a milestone with the dissolution of conservation agencies and a new body focused on natural resources. This article considers the implications of this untried approach.

MICK GREEN

The Tir Gofal agri-environment scheme has supported valuable habitat management work, such as rush control here on Rhos pasture. Good habitat may be lost due to limitations of the replacement scheme, Glastir.

Photo: James Robertson

nature? Are none of the report’s 24 recommendations relevant in Wales? What about the establishment of Ecological Restoration Zones, which the Government has taken up in England as Nature Improvement Areas with £7.5m of Government funds for the first 12 areas? These and many other examples allow no room for complacency.

A final word: we value our environment for practical, cultural, aesthetic and other reasons. Ruthless, narrow economic policy and growing pressures from UK population growth, the perception of a threat to our food security and, perhaps, a growing disconnection between society and nature challenge us. The challenges are even greater in countries whose people lack food and basic health care. They put our environmental battles into sobering context. Nowhere on Earth would the prize, in terms of stunning landscapes and wildlife, be greater for getting the humanenvironment balance right, than in Africa. Despite huge problems of diminishing resources, desertification, disappearing forests and booming human numbers, I am so overwhelmed by the spirit of the people I have had dealings with in Uganda as well as by its wildlife, that I find hope comes much more readily than despair.

References 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

CCW 2013: A Natural Step?- The Countryside Council for Wales 1991-2013 Welsh Government 2010: A Living Wales – a new framework for our environment, our countryside and our seas.

Mike Alexander 2011: Natural Environment Framework – Opportunity or Threat Natur Cymru 37 pp 35-38.

Wales Biodiversity Partnership 2006: Local Success: A celebration of local biodiversity action in Wales David Harries 2011: Welsh agri-environment schemes and biodiversity. Natur Cymru 39 pp 13-17.

Professor Sir John Lawton 2010: Making space for nature: a review of England’s Wildlife Sites and Ecological Network

James Robertson is an environmental writer and editor of Natur Cymru – Nature of Wales magazine. jamrobertson@gmail.com Thanks to Joanna Robertson for valuable comments on the draft of this article.

40

From April 2013 Wales no longer has a statutory conservation body. The Countryside Council for Wales will have been abolished, along with The Environment Agency Wales and Forestry Commission Wales. The official context for this situation is Wales’ failure to meet its 2010 target to halt the decline of biodiversity. The argument being that our old ways of conservation have failed and we need to look at new methods. This thinking is reflected in a new policy based on a wider ‘ecosystem approach’, moving away from looking at individual sites and species. The Welsh Assembly Government’s ‘Natural Environment Framework’ which champions the ecosystem approach was generally welcomed as a positive approach although the main concern was that the policy lacked any content on how the measures would actually be implemented.

The environment and the economy in Wales – what relationship?

Since the initial policy, and following a change of Minister, the emphasis of the policy changed to the economic benefits of our natural resources, and the need to make regulation more “streamlined”. This was reflected in the development of the new single body that is to replace the existing three organisations. It is called Natural Resources Wales and will “have a key role in protecting our natural resources, working with businesses in Wales. It would also provide environmental advice and input to our planning processes and to the development of new legislation, helping us to design new regulatory arrangements which simplify regulatory processes and encourage investment, whilst maintaining the environment of Wales we all depend on” (From Welsh Government Website).

‘Nature’ or ‘biodiversity’ does not feature in any public utterances about the new body and the emphasis is on the management of resources which my dictionary defines as “a country’s collective means of supporting itself or becoming wealthier, as represented by its reserves of minerals, land, and other natural assets” or worse – “a stock or supply of money, materials, staff, and other assets that can be drawn on by a person or organization in order to function effectively”. We seem to be moving to an ethos of exploiting our natural environment rather than protecting and nurturing it. Whilst there are good arguments for viewing the natural world as a valuable asset it should not be seen purely as a reserve to be exploited. There is a glimmer of hope, as James Robertson points out elsewhere in this issue, in that 41

ECOS 34(1) 2013

ECOS 34(1) 2013

the Welsh version of the organisations name, Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru, translates as ‘Wales’ Natural Wealth’ and sounds less exploitative.

There is a wider issue here with the Welsh Government’s whole approach to biodiversity. While it provides some funds for the Wales Biodiversity Partnership, which is meant to co-ordinate biodiversity ‘action’ it does not take actual responsibility for that action. There is nobody within Welsh Government who admits to being responsible and therefore in reality very little is happening at a policy and funding level where any real difference has to happen.

NEIL BENNETT

A consultation towards the end of 2012 on the purpose of the new body merely proposed transferring the powers of the existing bodies “to promote nature conservation” to the new organisation. As several respondents indicated, the whole point of change originally was that the old policies and duties had failed wildlife. Simply transferring a vague duty to the new body would continue this failure, especially with the emphasis moving from conservation to resource use. The RSPB pointed out that the proposed nature conservation duties were weaker than the current duties of the existing bodies. The Welsh Ornithological Society (WOS) went further and called for the new body to have an explicit duty to meet the 2020 targets to halt biodiversity loss – a duty which should also be placed on the relevant Minister within the Welsh Government. The society argued that without this duty the organisation, and the Minister, could not be held to account if we continue to miss targets and lose further species from Wales. Of course, no Minister likes to be held accountable but it does not bode well that the current incumbent, John Griffiths, appears so unsure of success in the immediate future that he is unwilling to commit to this duty for the short term of his office when it could have been seen as a brave legacy for the future. The Minister has been directly questioned on this by letter and in the Senedd but has failed to respond specifically on this point.

In search of nature

regulations as they do at present. However, many conservationists in Wales are extremely concerned at the complete lack of any real talk on biodiversity, targets or our international commitments. Senior management need to remember the original driver behind the creation of the organisation and at least try and reassure us that it is not destined to be the (natural) resource stripping organisation that the current signals are showing.

Meanwhile the development of Natural Resources Wales (NRW) continues. At the time of writing (Feb 2012) it has a Chairman, Peter Mathews, who appears to have no previous experience in Wales, it has a board and it has a Chief Executive, Emyr Roberts, whose previous experience is with the National Farmers Union and Welsh Government. It also has a logo and a senior management team and its Welsh Language Scheme is in place. What we still do not have is any inkling of what ‘an ecosystem approach’ is going to mean or how NRW is going to work towards halting further wildlife losses across Wales. As numbers of some of our iconic species such as curlew and golden plover continue to plummet this is very worrying to those of us who care.

As ECOS goes to press there has been a re-shuffle of the Welsh Cabinet. John Griffiths is moved and his replacement, Alun Davies, becomes Minister for Natural Resources and Food combining his previous responsibilities for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with those of the former Environment portfolio including climate change, flood prevention and the establishment of Natural Resources Wales. It is unclear how having a Minister for Natural Resources will affect the establishment or strength of the new organization. Linking together the environment and agriculture briefs is welcome, but it is still unclear what emphasis will be put on wildlife, or whether agriculture will hold sway as has often been the norm.

The Chief Executive has been meeting staff of the constituent organisations and some external stakeholders, but the emphasis has reportedly been on ‘delivery’ and words such as ‘conservation’ or ‘nature’ do not appear in presentations. In the short term little will change as it will be the same staff doing roughly the same jobs until internal re-organisation takes place (albeit with as yet undefined budgets).

The organisation will be governed by, and have to deliver on, the same laws and 42

As staff do not appear to be able to get responses to these concerns internally, and certainly external stakeholders are not receiving satisfactory replies we can only hope that somebody within the Welsh Government reads ECOS and will respond.

Answers on a (large) postcard please…

Mick Green is a Director of the consultancy Ecology Matters. mick@gn.apc.org

43

ECOS 34(1) 2013

ECOS 34(1) 2013

Fighting the green token – mid Wales revolts against turbines 815 industrial scale wind turbines, plus 50 supposedly ‘domestic’ (100+ foot high) wind turbines are proposed across one of the UK’s most beautiful landscapes as identified in the 1947 Hobhouse report. This article looks at the likely environmental impacts of this proposed infrastructure and discusses the concerns of people directly affected.

ALISON DAVIES Across mid Wales the hills and valleys are alive with the sound of fury, and people are united in common cause to save the area’s environment. Ironically, it is a form of development pretending to be green that has triggered this widespread community campaign. When National Grid published its scoping study into siting a 27 acre electricity hub and 400 KV transmission lines across 45 km of Montgomeryshire and Shropshire, the whole of mid Wales and north Shropshire awoke to the reality of Wales’ planning guidance for renewable energy – Technical Advice Note 8 (TAN8).

The threat to 750 sq km of prime landscape and 118 communities, from Nant y Moch in the west to Maesbrook east of Oswestry, became clear.

Unrenewable finest landscapes In 1947, Sir Arthur Hobhouse, chair of the National Parks Committee, presented Parliament with its recommendations for National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty in England and Wales. The 1949 National Parks Act flowed from this; but what is most striking now is that in England practically everything Hobhouse recommended for AONB protection has been designated, whilst Wales got only a fraction of the Hobhouse recommendations. There was a complete absence of the proposed protection of the mid Wales area. Surely all is not lost? After all, we have a devolved government that will look after Wales far better than distant Westminster.

This Welsh Assembly would protect our greatest assets, “the environment and the people” surely? The evidence so far does not support this assumption. It seems that mid Wales is being sold down the river by its very own Government.

Wind ‘farms’ or major infrastructure development?

EU member states are bound by Directive 42/EC of 2001, effective from July 2004. It establishes rules for balancing conflicting interests of development and conservation.

Responsible authorities must undertake a series of highly prescriptive and rigorous safety checks (Strategic Environmental Assessment) before adopting any plan or programme involving energy developments or land-use change. It goes a long way beyond a mere cosy chat with conservation bodies. In this context TAN8 is the 44

A concrete turbine base built into excavated peat at a mid Wales development of wind turbines. A human figure stands at the top left of the concrete to indicate the scale. Each blade on the turbines in this development has been replaced at least once and the replacements of repairs occurs in Eastern Europe.

Photo: Cefn Croes Action Group

object of almost universal condemnation by the residents of mid-Wales because, by manipulative control of its agenda, Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) shields the TAN8 plan from the onerous requirements of the Directive. The Directive was on WAG’s legislative calendar in January 2004; its response was to rush through TAN8 (13 July 2004) to avoid compliance with the Directive’s mandatory compliance date of 21 July. As a result, the initial stages of Wales’ largest ever infrastructure project escaped the intense scrutiny that it should have been subjected to.

Is this the action of an open and responsible government? Or does it show evidence of a duplicitous administration hell-bent on ignoring legitimate environmental concerns and the views of those most affected by its plans? Cardiff cannot pass the buck back to Westminster, there is no evidence that it encouraged Cardiff to schedule its legislative business with a view to dodging the need for mandatory, comprehensive environmental impact assessment of its plan. The result is that we now have proposals for wind ‘farms’ (to slip into estate agent language) totaling 815 turbines along with 50 applications for single or ‘domestic’ 100+ foot turbines in one of the UK’s most beautiful landscapes as identified in the 1947 Hobhouse report.

Powys County Council’s recent objections to 6 applications of wind turbine infrastructure developments, 5 over 50 megawatts and 1 transmission line, has triggered one of the UK’s largest conjoined public inquiries. The outcome will be 45

ECOS 34(1) 2013

ECOS 34(1) 2013

of national and local significance because the local authority has a further 7 wind turbine infrastructure proposals awaiting determination this year with more to follow. These 5 applications total 165 turbines, from just under 400ft up to 450ft.

Some would be on peatland and all give scant regard for the existing local rural economy, where tourism and people visiting the area for its wild and undeveloped character is the main employer. The impact on the undeveloped character of the landscape would be devastating not just on mid Wales, but also on the Shropshire Hills AONB, Cambrian Mountains, and Snowdonia National Park.

Environmental protection – the holistic view of communities Over the past 20 months thousands of people have joined the well-organised opposition and become better informed about planning, nature conservation, land use issues and energy; the more local people try to find out and are misled or thwarted, the greater becomes their determination.

Twenty groups have now formed an Alliance for the Inquiry to employ a senior Planning Barrister and expert witnesses; a costly and time consuming burden for hard-pressed rural communities. Together we are gathering evidence for Statements of Case, using the expertise within our communities to produce them, as well as contributing local knowledge for professional expert witnesses. Fundraising activities and events, begging letters and phone calls as well as searching one’s own bank account to swell the fighting fund, has become the order of the day.

Why have local communities not just accepted what we are told is inevitable? It’s simple, we really, really care about mid Wales. It is not just here to provide the populations of Birmingham and Liverpool with water. Nor is it just a place you drive through on the way to Cardigan Bay, itself a magnificent and undervalued habitat in which the Cambrian Mountains feature the magnificence of the unspoilt Pumlumon range, source of both Severn and Wye. It includes Radnorshire, most sparsely populated county in England and Wales, with a population density similar to that of the Outer Hebrides; a secluded landscape of commons, featuring more Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) than any other county in England or Wales.

To its north lies Montgomeryshire whose rolling hills and wide valleys retain their ancient small field patterns lost from much of the rest of Britain.

This area’s wealth and integrity springs largely from landscape and wildlife-based tourism, using small mobile home parks, caravan sites and private accommodation providers. The Valuing Our Environment report 2001–2006, produced by Countryside Council for Wales, Welsh Assembly Government, Heritage Lottery Fund, Environment Agency Wales and The National Trust states, “The environment is fundamental to prosperity in Wales”, this is supported by the following evidence: • £6bn of GDP in Wales is directly dependent on the environment – that is around 9% of Welsh GDP • The management and use of the environment, and the knock-on economic effects of this, generates output of goods and services worth £8.8bn to Wales each year.

46

Mid Wales peat extraction: an indication of the depth of peat damaged and extracted for one wind turbine.

Photo: Cefn Croes Action Group

In the most sparsely populated area alone - mid Wales: • Activities related to environmental quality (direct and indirect) is over £1bn contributing £300m to GDP.

Wind turbines – the collision course with nature The environment provides people with their living and supports physical and mental wellbeing. Rare wildlife can still be experienced here. Curlew, golden plover, red grouse, buzzard, brown hare and otter are just a few of the species that depend upon the sparsely populated uplands. They are threatened by major development that may also impact bat roosts and their feeding grounds. Will their food supply end up stuck to turbine blades? Impact on birds will increase; one Environmental Statement noted: “If red kites are not displaced from the wind farm areas then it is apparent that they will be at risk of collision with turbines. A relatively high number of collisions have been reported from Germany... with deaths also reported from wind farms in Wales and Scotland.”

Researchers warn that, as the area given over to wind turbines expands and their height increases from around 150 to 450ft then environmental impact will also escalate.

“We found evidence for localised reductions in bird breeding density around upland wind farms. Importantly, for the first time, we have quantified such effects across a wide range of species,” said James Pearce-Higgins, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Ecologist. Writing in the Journal of Applied Ecology, Pearce-Higgins and his colleagues said birds tended to stop nesting within half a mile of any turbine. Since 47

ECOS 34(1) 2013

ECOS 34(1) 2013

the effect extends around each machine, up to two square miles could be affected by one turbine. Pearce-Higgins said: “Our results highlight significant avoidance of otherwise apparently suitable habitat close to turbines in at least seven of the 12 species studied, with equivocal evidence for avoidance in a further two species.”

The mid Wales uplands have significant peat deposits as well as dark soils. Peat displacement and other impacts are caused by an average of 300cu meters of concrete base per turbine, as well as aggregate for turbine bases, together with crane pads, sub-stations and access tracks. After cutting, peat dies back continuously so the degradation is incremental according to Friends of the Irish Peat Bogs’ report in May 2011.

Reliable base-load power – not possible from wind So where does this take us in considering Ofgem’s priorities of secure, reliable supply of affordable electricity and reduced carbon dioxide emissions? Wind turbines provide an intermittent source of electricity because wind is intermittent. Manufacturers state that wind turbines are 85% efficient (when the wind is blowing). So what does this mean in reality? National Grid data shows that wind turbines cannot be relied upon to provide us with electricity when we need it most. For example, in the bitter cold of December and January 2009-10 wind failed when it was needed most, supplying only 0.2% of a possible 5% of the UK’s electricity. Jeremy Nicholson, director of the Energy Intensive Users Group (EIUG), warned of an impending crisis when the UK is reliant on 6,400 turbines accounting for a quarter of all UK electricity demand over the next 10 years. He said the shortfall in power generated by wind during cold snaps seriously undermined the Government’s pledge to build nine major new wind ‘super farms’ by 2020. “If we had this 30 gigawatts of wind power, it wouldn’t have contributed anything of any significance this winter,” he said. “The current cold snap is a warning that our power generation and gas supplies are under strain and it is getting worse.” In Germany their 20,000MW of wind energy requires 90% back-up from conventional sources; indeed Rupert Steele of Scottish Power/Iberdrola admitted on 22 April 2009 that the 30GW of wind proposed for the UK would require 25GW of back up supply from other sources.

Electricity Companies are compelled to buy electricity from renewable sources at prices inflated by Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs). The additional cost is, of course, passed on to consumers, inflating our collective bill by around £200/MWhr, taking into account the ROC subsidy, back up generation and additional transmission costs. This is over four times the cost of energy from conventional or nuclear sources. Subsidies for on-shore wind are higher in the UK than for virtually any other European country with a large wind investment (EU Report into European Energy Market 2010). Even taking into account the 10% reduction in subsidies in 2012 it is likely that by 2020 the cost of ROCs will be £15bn – 1% of GDP. Dutch engineer Fred Udo has produced informative wind energy information, based on EIRGRID real-time data, his abstract states: “In the absence of hydro-energy the CO2 production of the conventional generation increases with wind energy penetration. The data shows that the reduction of CO2 emissions is at most a few % if gas fired generation is used for balancing a 30% share of wind energy.” Wind turbines require at least 90% backup from reliable controllable energy sources. Additional grid connection is needed to meet the installed capacity of wind 48

The open and undeveloped environment of Nant Y Moch in mid wales. Rich in history and valued for its wild land character and potential for ecological enhancement, the area has instead been zoned for possible wind turbine infrastructure in Welsh planning guidance, against strong opposition. Its future ownership remains uncertain.

Photo: Simon Ayres

installation; increasing the number and size of transmission infrastructure all of which represents a significant addition cost to consumers.

What this means in practice is that as more wind turbines come on line they require a greater proportion of back up by reliable generation; 90% according to EON Netz, which also says that it could take 50 gigawatts of renewable electricity generation to meet the EU target. But it would require around 90% of this amount as back up from coal and gas plants to ensure security of supply. This will require a significant increase in Britain’s generating capacity, at considerable cost, simply to maintain the current level of secure supply, as evidenced by National Grid’s own estimates which 49

ECOS 34(1) 2013

ECOS 34(1) 2013

shows that by 2025 the Nation needs a 21% increase in generating capacity to meet a 2% increase in demand.

In Wales we did see a reduction in carbon emissions in 2011. But was this caused by the closures of the Neath Port Talbot Steelworks and Anglesey Aluminium? Had it anything to do with industrial wind turbines installed across undeveloped rural Wales and the decimation of our peat bogs?

Core wild area safe for now?

Finally, in a surprise but welcome move in April, SSE Renewables announced it had delayed lodging a development consent order for the 62-turbine development it has proposed for Nant y Moch after considering the “investment climate”. SSE Renewables said it was “likely” that it would not make any further investment into the Nant y Moch development, and later in April the area was put on the market for £1.2m, although the potential for wind turbine development was included in the prospectus. Nant Y Moch is a core wild area of the Cambrian Mountains and high profile campaigns have been mounted to protect it from wind infrastructure developments. Nant Y Moch has a special environmental quality that wilderness campaigners would protect with direct action in places overseas. The Cambrian Mountains Society has tried to get the area designated in recent years but the area’s zoning for potential wind turbines has perhaps been too much of a distraction in policy circles at WAG. As ECOS goes to press it is hoped that the area can now be secured by conservation or amenity groups so that future generations can experience Nant Y Moch for its wildlife and rich tranquillity.

Alison Davies is Chair of the Campaign for Upland Powys. chairman@cupowys.org Snow at Glaslyn, looking to Pumlumon in the heart of the Cambrian mountains. Possible wind turbine infrastructure across this landscape would prevent other possibilities for wildlife improvement and retaining the area’s wild land values.

Photo: Simon Ayres

Trump’s golf course Society’s nature The death and resurrection of nature conservation The story of Trump’s golf resort development in Scotland, part of which falls on a protected natural area, is more than just another example of nature succumbing to economics. It symbolises the death of traditional nature conservation as a stand-alone exercise. The new green phoenix that arises from the ashes will need to integrate current, place-based conservation with a (local) green economy and sustainable living.

KOEN ARTS & GINA MAFFEY I. Tee off “I have never seen such an unspoiled and dramatic seaside landscape,” said a flamboyant American millionaire, “and the location makes it perfect for our development”.2 The flamboyant millionaire was none other than Donald Trump, and the unspoiled and dramatic seaside landscape was part of a unique sand dune system stretching northwards along the Scottish coastline from Aberdeen.

In 2006, Trump bought Menie Estate in Aberdeenshire with the intention to build the “world’s greatest golf course”.3 More precisely, a golf resort that would include two 18 hole golf courses, a clubhouse, golf academy, driving range, 450 room five-star hotel, 36 golf villas, 950 holiday homes, and space for future residential development of 500 houses.4 There were ‘minor’ issues from the beginning of the development; the north of the estate was designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI); there were tentative plans for an offshore wind farm nearby; and Menie Estate encircled the homes and land of local residents (Map 1). But none of these issues deterred a seasoned and powerful developer like Trump. In the words of one of his lawyers: “the word ‘cannot’ does not appear in his dictionary”5. Business leaders, tourism representatives, the First Minister and others across Scotland were in high spirits.

Staggering promises popped up in the media: an investment of one billion pounds generating 6,000 jobs during the building process. And not to forget a new primary school, a new bus service and half a million pounds to aid social learning.

II. In the rough In 2007, Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) really began to spoil the party, as they advised Aberdeenshire Council on the proposal. “This development, specifically 50

51

ECOS 34(1) 2013

ECOS 34(1) 2013

the championship golf course and associated infrastructure, will have significant adverse impacts both to the coastal landform interest and the coastal vegetation within the Foveran Links SSSI and also to the sand dune habitats south of the SSSI. [...] SNH does not consider it possible to mitigate or compensate for the loss of this important habitat. SNH therefore objects to the proposal to construct a championship golf course in its current location”.6 Furthermore, at a local meeting some residents expressed opposition to the plans, and Sustainable Aberdeenshire held a 200 people strong beach protest.

In November 2007, the Formartine Area Committee granted outline planning approval. But soon after that the Aberdeenshire Council’s Infrastructure Committee overruled the decision and rejected the approval by chairman Martin Ford’s casting vote. The Scottish Government was not pleased. It ‘called in’ the decision on planning approval, claiming that the decision was of national significance. As a result, Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney, was to have the final say on the matter.

III. Foul play?

It is known that, after first visiting Menie Estate in April 2005, Trump subsequently met with Scotland’s First Minister Jack McConnell in New York in October 2005.7 Two years later, it was the turn of a new Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond, to dine with Trump, again in New York. Moreover, the day before the decision on the proposal was called in by the Scottish Government, Salmond met Trump’s representatives in Aberdeen. Opposition parties in the Scottish Parliament heavily criticised the events and a Parliament Inquiry was instigated. The Inquiry Committee concluded that the decision to call in the application after being rejected by the planning authority was “unprecedented”. Salmond’s involvement was deemed “cavalier” and showed “exceptionally poor judgement”.8 The opposition pointed out that ministers were criticised on 46 occasions. However, the report was without tangible political consequences, and a government spokesman emphasised that ministers had acted legally.

IV. Immovable obstruction: the bunker At the end of 2008, the Scottish Government granted outline planning permission.

With the political decision-making going its way, the Trump Organisation (again) approached local residents to buy more land. Some residents still refused to sell, notably Michael Forbes (with a 23 acres farm), his mother Molly Forbes, and David Milne. Anticipating potential compulsory purchase orders from Aberdeenshire Council, Michael Forbes sold some of his land to the newly formed protest group Tripping Up Trump in 2010. The group created a legal maze by putting the names of hundreds of protesters on the title deeds to the land. In early 2011, a petition was lodged with the Scottish Parliament against potential compulsory purchase orders.

This was shortly followed by a statement from the Trump Organisation outlining that it had no interest in pursuing the compulsory purchase order route.

In July 2012, the golf course, a restaurant and a shop were officially opened. But the conflict continued. The 2011 protest documentary ‘You’ve been trumped’ was 52

Map 1: Trump Organisation development proposal in May 2008.1 Features include the plots of the 18 hole golf course, the SSSI (in dark hatching), and the land and property of Michael Forbes who has resisted pressures to leave the location and remains a determined force against the whole development.

broadcast by the BBC on 21 October 2012. Among its footage were recordings of the filmmakers being arrested by Grampian Police when filming near the course.

As a result, the Grampian Police received 276 complaints over the arrests. Of late, on 11 March 2013, David Milne lodged an 11,000 plus signature petition with the Scottish Parliament for a public inquiry into the handling of the development by local and national governments.9 On 25 March, the petition had reached over 17,000.10 Milne had originally hoped for 2000 signatures.

V. A different ball game At a renewable energy inquiry before the Scottish Parliament in April 2012, Trump accused politicians of luring him on false pretences to invest in the area. The false pretences Trump referred to concerned the construction of an offshore wind farm near Aberdeen. He subsequently announced that further resort development was on hold.11 The Trump Organisation later commissioned a newspaper advert that showed rusty wind turbines with the text “Welcome to Scotland” and “Alex Salmond wants to build 8,750 of these monstrosities”.12 Other organisations have since dropped their resistance, including SNH and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, both of which originally opposed the wind turbine plans. But the Trump Organisation has maintained its opposition to date, calling for a public inquiry on the matter. In early March 2013, the Trump Organisation released a teaser image of the hotel, and 53

ECOS 34(1) 2013

ECOS 34(1) 2013

stressed that it will only be built if the wind turbine application is rejected.13 On the 26th of March 2013, it was announced by the Scottish Government that the wind farm plans had been approved. Shortly after that, the Trump Organisation declared it will be bringing a lawsuit against this decision.

Table 1. Overview of events 2005

Apr

Trump visits Menie estate.

Oct

Scotland’s First Minister McConnell meets Trump in New York.

Jan

Talks occur between the Trump Organisation and Aberdeenshire Council officials.

Mar

2006

Apr

Molly Forbes is denied an interim interdict to halt the development by Court of Session in Edinburgh.

Mar

Detailed plan for golf resort shown at public exhibition in Newburgh.

Apr

Vandals cause damage at Trump site.

May 2010 Jul

More machinery moves in, further work occurs on the golf course.

Trump is concerned over wind farm plans off the coast of Aberdeen.

McConnell rejects claims regarding a breach of ministerial rules over his dealings with Trump.

2011

After discussions with Trump, developers of the wind farm modify plans.

Jan Jun

Premiere of the documentary ‘You’ve been trumped’ in UK and Canada.

Apr

Trump appears before Scottish Parliament’s Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, complaining about the offshore wind farm plans, and putting further resort development plans on hold.

May

SNH advises Aberdeenshire Council against the proposal.

Aug

SNH upholds objection to the development despite changes to the proposal.

Jul

Official opening of golf course, driving range, golf house restaurant and shop.

Sep

Trump Organisation places newspaper advert against wind turbines.

Sep

Aberdeenshire Council planners recommend development approval. A 28-signature petition against the proposal is reported. Overall there are 432 letters of representation, 105 against, 327 in support.

Oct

Several organisations drop opposition to the wind farm. Trump Organisation calls for a public inquiry into wind farm plans.

Nov

After the broadcast of ‘You’ve been trumped’ on BBC TV, the Grampian Police receives 276 complaints.

2012

Oct

First Minister Salmond meets Trump in New York.

Nov

First Minister Salmond meets Sustainable Aberdeenshire.

Feb

Formartine Area Committee in Ellon grants outline planning approval.

Aberdeenshire Council’s Infrastructure Committee rejects planning approval.

Trump Organisation states it will not appeal the rejection.

Dec

Scottish Government ‘calls in’ decision on planning approval.

Martin Ford is sacked as chairman of the Infrastructure Committee.

54

Homeowners lodge petition to Scottish Parliament against potential compulsory purchase orders.

Full golf resort planning application submitted to Aberdeenshire Council.

Nov

2009

Trump Organisation seeks expenses from Molly Forbes who abandoned her legal challenge.

Mar

Sustainable Aberdeenshire holds beach protest.

2008

Trump receives honorary degree from Robert Gordon University. Former RGU principal David Kennedy hands back his honorary degree in protest.

Trump Organisation states that it has no interest in compulsory purchase orders.

Public meeting at Balmedie Primary School.

2007

Trump visits the site and renames the dunes ‘The Great Dunes of Scotland’.

Formartine area committee approves detailed golf course plans.

Oct

Trump announces plans for a golf resort.

Tripping Up Trump buys land from Michael Forbes.

Jun

Trump purchases Menie estate.

McConnell makes Trump a ‘Global Scot’ ambassador for Scotland.

May

Jan

Jan

Parliamentary Inquiry into Scottish Government’s intervention.

Mar

Parliamentary Inquiry findings are published.

Jun

Aberdeen Public Local Inquiry – main stakeholders are heard.

Dec

Scottish Government formally grants outline planning permission.

Jan

Approval voted worst planning decision in the Carbuncle Awards.

May

Trump Organisation again approaches remaining local residents for land purchase.

Sep

Planning permission granted by Formartine Area Committee over land owned and occupied by locals.

Oct

Start of preparatory earthworks on golf course site.

2013

Michael Forbes wins ‘Top Scot’ public vote.

Trump submits planning application for second golf course, south of first course.

Photographer Alicia Bruce’s exhibition at Scottish Parliament.

Mar

Image of proposed hotel revealed. Trump states it will only be built if wind farm plans are cancelled.

Mar

Milne lodges petition at Scottish Parliament for public inquiry into handling around the development.

Mar

The Scottish Government approves wind farm plans.

A disconcerting history: old and new lessons There are at least five striking points to note from the turbulent history of events that surround the Trump golf resort development (see Table 1 one for a detailed timeline of events). a. Irresistible sums?

As so often with the promise of big investments, figures are exaggerated by proponents of the development, and uncritically reproduced by the media. In the case of Trump’s golf resort, these figures have ranged from a £300m investment 55

ECOS 34(1) 2013

ECOS 34(1) 2013

bringing £150m to the local economy and creating 400 jobs, to a £1bn investment with 6000 jobs, 1400 of which would be local and permanent.14 There is little evidence to demonstrate that any of these promises have been met, or are going to be met in the future. Trump’s involvement in the turbine talks in 2006 hints that his current objections to the wind turbine plans are a potential smoke screen for his inability or unwillingness to deliver on previous promises. As his original plans continue to change (e.g. the earlier mentioned teaser image of the hotel has 140 instead of 450 bedrooms), it is conceivable that some of the most supportive politicians, civil servants and business leaders will feel by now that they too have ‘been trumped’. b. Shifting public opinion

In September 2007, Aberdeenshire council received a 28-signature petition against the proposed golf resort. In March 2013, an 11,000 plus signature petition was lodged with the Scottish Parliament. It seems that public opinion towards the project has shifted over the years, much of which can be attributed to the increased exposure and awareness of the project. Michael Forbes winning the Top Scot award in 2012 situates this story as a modern David and Goliath; the brave and ordinary local residents fighting an American millionaire who is used to getting his way.

The loss of the sand dune habitat now plays only a small part in the continuing narrative. Salmond’s changing attitude towards Trump is also telling. In the early days of the development, he frequently associated himself in the media with the Trump Organisation. A couple of years later the opposite is the case. Although Trump wanted to have Salmond at the official golf course opening, Salmond was not there. At Alicia Bruce’s photo exhibition, showing portraits of local residents at the Scottish Parliament, Salmond said that he greatly admired the Forbes family.

This makes one wonder: if the events between 2005 and 2007 were to repeat themselves today, would Salmond’s (and the Scottish Government’s) decision be the same? c. Skewed political decision-making

It is striking that the Inquiry Committee labelled the Scottish Government’s decision to call in the application “unprecedented”. Especially when bearing in mind that the case only became of national interest after the application was rejected.

Furthermore, the situation where the Finance Minister took the ultimate decision on the future of a SSSI, seems nonsensical. However, throughout the whole process Aberdeenshire Council stated that they “have been very keen to ensure that all information has been available to the public and they are given full opportunity to comment on all details of the proposals”.15 Perhaps the decision-making process was largely transparent, legal, accounted for, and in accordance with democratic procedures. But the key question is whether there is true legitimacy in decisionmaking, and any real purpose in public consultation for that matter, if key planning decisions are possibly made between two people over diner?16 d. Failing legal framework

Besides the decision-making framework, nature conservation’s legal framework has failed too. The SSSI designation shows that it is susceptible to breaking when under 56

The southern boundary of the golf course.

Photo: Gina Maffey

pressure, which is ironic when the designation was in part meant to protect precious natural areas from development in the first place. This point is worrying when bearing in mind that SSSIs are one of the basic building blocks of the UK’s nature conservation legislation. Given SNH’s explicit reference to the European Habitats and Species Directive in its advice to the Aberdeenshire Council, it also shows that European legislation is either not properly integrated into Scottish legislation, or ultimately inadequate in itself. e. The corporate-political complex

Essentially, this is a typical case of the power of money and the primacy of economic growth over local people’s rights and nature conservation. More specifically, and alarmingly, it shows a far-reaching intertwining of corporate business and politics.

This phenomenon is not new and visible in many spheres, from natural disaster mitigation to the war industry.17 But, in the context of a globalised world, it makes 57

ECOS 34(1) 2013

ECOS 34(1) 2013

local interests and local nature designations particularly vulnerable; especially when they collide with the corporate-political complex that employs the mantra of national interest.

It should never have happened…

One could argue that these five points are the unfortunate particularities of just one case. But at the same time it cannot be ignored that all the beneficial ingredients for conservation have been in place in this story. Like many other Western counties, Scotland is an established democracy, it is on the whole an affluent society, there is an independent judiciary, freedom of speech, a high level of education, a well-developed civil society with many non-governmental organisations, expert environmental advisory bodies, there are protest groups, autonomous media, and citizens are more rapidly engaged with events through the use of internet and social media. Furthermore, there is the legacy of more than a century of nature conservation: (inter)national environmental legislation, long standing realisation of how few wild places remain, good understanding of complex ecological processes, deep insight into the current state of our planet, and awareness of the impact of the human footprint on it. But despite all of this, the unique, dynamic, pristine sand dunes of Menie Estate were transformed into a golf course.

The death of nature conservation This story reveals a fundamental flaw with traditional nature conservation: since its birth, about 150 years ago, it has struggled to become part of the solution to the problem of societies leaning on constant economic growth, the depletion of natural resources, and the overall destruction of Planet Earth. The loss of the sand dunes shows that – save perhaps in recreational purposes for some – nature does not have much value for many. And as individuals’ daily lives seem to further disconnect from the natural world, it is even more difficult to find support for any environmental ethic that requires individuals to care beyond their primary and secondary necessities of life. At present, environmental values are still poorly integrated within the overall political, socio-economic, and cultural frameworks of modern life. As a result, traditional nature conservation is too often a standalone exercise, and for that reason particularly vulnerable. If nature conservation was ever alive, the transformed dunes of Menie estate symbolise that is has little meaning for the majority in today’s societies. If nature conservation was ever alive, the transformed dunes of Menie estate symbolise its death.

Resurrection: green phoenix

Yet, numerous ECOS articles illustrate that there is hope. Successful, innovative conservation initiatives, ranging from integrated land use management to community-based action, demonstrate that after burning itself down, a green phoenix is able to resurrect itself from the ashes of its predecessor. There is, of course, no simple, uniform answer to the general indifference to nature conservation in modern life. Different locations, cultures, and traditions require tailor-made, often bottom-up, solutions. But if this green phoenix succeeds in integrating current place-based, stand-alone conservation with a (local) green economy, there is the potential to take a sustainable living approach more widely. Conservation will then 58

Fairway of the most southern hole on the left, the North Sea on the right.

be the logical and intuitive consequence of the realisation that the resources we use and the places we enjoy, all stem from nature.

References NB: All webpages were last accessed on 24-03-2013.

1. This map is taken from the RSPB/SWT alternative proposal map found at ‘Trump plans ‘could avoid dunes’’, BBC news, 19-05-2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/18_05_08_menieplans.pdf. Copyrights not specified.

2. http://www.trumpgolfscotland.com/, homepage.

3. ‘Trump golf resort given backing’, BBC news, 20-11-2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_ east/7102856.stm.

4. Scottish Parliament, Local Government and Communities Committee 5th Report 2008) Planning Application Processes (Menie Estate), http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/13_03_08_trump.pdf, page 1.

5. ‘Trump rejection ‘would be tragic’’, BBC news, 04-07-2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_ east/7490489.stm.

6. SNH, 30-05-2007, Outline planning permission for golf course and resort development – land at Menie House, Balmedie, http://www.ukplanning.com/aberdeenshire/doc/Consultee-4432117.pdf?extension=.pdf &id=4432117&location=VOLUME4&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=6.

7. ‘Trump ‘in talks’ over development’, BBC news, 12-01-2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4607062.stm.

8. See endnote 3, page 48.

9. ‘Donald Trump golf project petition goes to Holyrood’, BBC news, 11-03-2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/ news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-21741246.

59

ECOS 34(1) 2013

ECOS 34(1) 2013

10. http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/public-inquiry-into-handling-of-the-trump-resort.

11. ‘Donald Trump says he was ‘lured’ into building £1bn golf resort’, BBC news, 25-04-2012, http://www.bbc. co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-17826561.

12. ‘Donald Trump wind turbine ‘advert complaints’ upheld’, BBC news, 19-09-2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/ news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-19647185.

13. The overview thus far and Table 1 are predominantly abstracted from more than 160 news articles on www.bbc.co.uk – search entry: trump, golf course. Many primary sources on the decision-making can be found at the Aberdeenshire Council website under Ref: APP/2006/4605, http://www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/ planning/apps/detail.asp?ref_no=APP/2006/4605#casefiles.

14. Salmond in video (3.06 min) at ‘Trump golf resort given go-ahead’, BBC news, 04-11-2008, http://news. bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7707878.stm.

15. ‘Trump golf plan ‘all about homes’’, BBC news, 12-10-2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_ east/7041985.stm.

16. Wightham, A. (2011) Donald Trump’s Ego Trip: Lessons for the new Scotland, http://www.andywightman. com/docs/trumpreport_v1a.pdf. See also the video from the media conference for the Scottish Parliament’s Economy, Energy and Tourism committee. From ‘Democracy Live’ at ‘Donald Trump says he was ‘lured’ into building’ £1bn golf resort’, BBC news, 25-04-2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotlandpolitics-17826561.

17. Klein, N. (2008) The shock doctrine: the rise of disaster capitalism. Penguin, London.

Forest policy resolved?

The future’s hunky-dory

Koen Arts (koenarts.com) is a research fellow and Gina Maffey (ginazoo.com) a PhD candidate, both at the University of Aberdeen and both focussing on social dimensions of nature conservation. The authors have been living near the golf course since 2012. The views expressed here are their own and not related to their work at the University of Aberdeen.

It isn’t funny, but it can make a cynic smile. We read in its forestry policy statement that the Government accepts the need to develop a new woodland culture and economy, accepts the value of the Public Forestry Estate, accepts the need to increase access to both public and private woodland, and accepts the need to increase the extent of English woodland. It is “fully committed to protecting our woodland assets from the ever-increasing range and scale of threats”. It shares the vision, and the aspirations of the Independent Forestry Panel, which reported enthusiastically in July 2012.

The Foveran Links SSSI on the Menie Estate before the Trump golf empire got underway.

Photo: Ian Francis/RSPB

The Government’s response to the 2012 Future of Forests report from the Forestry Panel gets a wry smile.

MARTIN SPRAY I was reminded - not for the first time - last month, of psychiatric patients watching a speech by Ronald Reagan (‘Bedtime for Bonzo’ 1951, US President 1981-89). The sound was turned off, and they were convulsed with laughter. They thought the gestures and expressions were the miming antics of a comedian.

If only…. I’m afraid that the cloud of cynicism around almost any government statement – from any government – thickened dramatically as I read on. This is an era of fluffy politics and weasely words. Where does one start? A full commitment is somewhat less hedged than a qualified commitment. Everything Government does must be focused on protecting, improving, and expanding our woods and forests. The protection is presumably from the ever-increasing threats Government makes. Its policies will promote sustainable growth - and deregulation will ensure the sector is as free as possible to pursue its woodland interests. Government should facilitate, not dictate. It agrees that forestry is long-term, thus its policy will enable Government to take the long view. Only a short view, though, is needed to see some of the problems to be met. One potentially valuable area to explore is the woodfuel market - but this must not compete unfairly with other markets for home-grown wood. I am told that the current extant and proposed wood-fired power stations would require the annual importing from Canada and Russia of several times the total UK wood crop. Sustainable growth? If only!...

There was, nevertheless, much relief following the Statement. In the Forest of Dean, Hands Off Our Forest (HOOF) found the Statement very encouraging. Like other organisations, however, HOOF is concerned at what looks like an attempt to take a long view and implement its full commitment on a starvation diet. A new, 60

61

ECOS 34(1) 2013

ECOS 34(1) 2013

independent, body will hold the Public Forestry Estate, including the Dean, in trust, free from political interference, “so nobody can come along in ten years’ time and try and sell it off”. Hunky-dory? If only.

Martin Spray is at spraypludds@hotmail.com

Conservation – a fading label?

Is ‘conservation’ an outdated label in today’s era of managing nature? This article presents some thoughts on the state of UK conservation as viewed by the author, returning to Britain late in 2012 after a year away, and recognising the times are changing...

PETER TAYLOR Trends and issues On my return from a year away on the continent in late 2012 I would pick out the following factors in the media and amongst green debate: Bird trends: the decline of farmyard birds particularly makes comment and debate, notably skylark, grey partridge, yellowhammer, linnet. I hardly see them from year to year, yet was surrounded by them as a boy. Woodland birds, such as spotted flycatcher, lesser spotted woodpecker and marsh tit have experienced similar big declines. By contrast some raptor populations are on the up, such as red kite, osprey, sea eagle, goshawk, and peregrine.

NEIL BENNETT

Climate Change is still the cause of every ill for the left/liberal-greenish press (Observer, Guardian, Independent) but not for the centre-right (Times) and even less so for the climate-sceptical further-right (Telegraph, Mail, Express). Climate trends have changed: both the ocean heat content and the temperature data show a flat-line for the past decade, which is counter to the expectations of the IPCC suite of modelled predictions. However, the past 10 years are also the warmest at least in the 150 record and likely also the warmest since the last ‘warm period’ of 900-1200 AD when white stork nested in Edinburgh. But there is no indication of climate-linked losses which have been a concern, like snow bunting or ptarmigan on mountain tops.

62

Energy Policy gets a lot of headline and much political attention, but is seldom linked to anything other than cost and security. Most of the concern relates to subsidies for nuclear power, where stations will not be available until after 2020; the dash-for-gas (again!); and the cost of renewables. Impacts of biofuel policy on wildlife in places such as Sumatra and Borneo (palm-oil plantations) gets attention, and the environmental impacts of wind turbines is a continuing story. Nuclear expansion gets little informed criticism, as if the environmental movement has decided not to oppose it, perhaps because they think carbon molecules are a greater danger. Concern over the climate has fostered a nuclear renaissance in Britain.

World food supplies are critically low as a result of recent climate shifts (different directions in different world regions), with failed harvests in Canada and the USA, 63

ECOS 34(1) 2013

ECOS 34(1) 2013

Australia, Russia, China, Mongolia (livestock) and poor yields across Europe, while biofuel demands, particularly in the USA, are forcing prices higher. 2013 may be the critical year for widespread famine, and large scale pressure on marginal land and habitats for both food and biofuels.

Large-scale conservation’ and ‘living landscape’ initiatives, may go the way of the agri-environment schemes and soak up public and lottery money to little effect on the ground. There could then be a public backlash.

Important habitats in Africa and SE Asia are threatened by biofuel and hydroschemes, all supported by the Clean Development Mechanism of the UN (justified by the thought that climate change can be mitigated); there is also an increasing loss of habitat due to agricultural demand for water in Spain, Greece, Portugal.

I have been heartened by a new wave of holistic thinking – for example the links being made amongst community interests, health professionals, working woodlands and conservationists, and the related links to sustainable new communities, ecobuilding, localised food and energy production. Some of this thinking was evident at the 2011 Neroche-BANC conference. I detect a broader spiritual dimension emerging in relation to wildlife and landscape in some quarters, although I note that other wildlife conservationists show discomfort with these forms of deeper connection with nature.

Agricultural impacts on wildlife The CAP should have been able to create a wildlife-friendly agriculture without compromising food supplies. Instead farming practices are the root cause of much of the wildlife loss we see, with some key examples summarised below.

Early silage cuts, for example, with the black bin bags and monoculture rye grass and heavy fertiliser use. This has radically cut the abundance of herbs and flowers and all the insect species dependent on them. Nothing grows to seed anymore, hence the decline of seed-eaters. What is the marginal gain from these agricultural changes and hence the cost of reversing them?

The switch to winter wheat and lack of stubble has also contributed to farmland bird decline.

Wet-meadow species such as curlew and lapwing have declined markedly, so presumably, drainage practices have not altered sufficiently to help them.

The raft of environmental schemes for farmers has not worked, as might have been predicted, and the culture of farming as an industrial sector of the economy has not evolved, with farming still seen as an intensive and clinical land management business. A few exceptions of progressive private landowners and farmers do much to promote wildlife care and management.

The culture of ‘cheap food’ must have contributed with its ‘supermarket’ mentality, yet we are a rich country where most people can afford to pay for ecological standards – perhaps as much as 20% more for food (and of course, increased benefit payments for those who cannot afford a rise in their food costs). The population at large could and should prioritise food above drink, tobacco and foreign holidays, but with the number of poverty-line households estimated at 2 million, a substantial benefit increase would be required.

Holistic thinking

New labels for new mindsets?

Is the very word “conservation” a dead parrot? Is it an old paradigm in a new era (Mayan calendar not-withstanding!). Terms like rewilding may have more resonance with many people, but perhaps the biggest obstacle to broader thinking is the conservation mentality. The Welsh Assembly wants to plant 5000 ha of new native woodland every year for the next 20 years, while the current rate is 50 ha/year! The money is on the table and it is enough to persuade some farmers to shift from sheep.

But the main obstacle is conservation organisations opposing the loss of grassland, bracken and heath – much of which has little or very esoteric wildlife value.

Do we need a new word for a new concept that is all-embracing. But would many conservationists oppose this in order to conserve their own species as well as their targets – thus perhaps condemning themselves to further decline. We also need, I would argue, more cooperation and more partnerships on a large scale – with organisations like RSPB, National Trust, Forestry Commission, Woodland Trust, and the Wildlife Trusts sharing agendas and participating more openly.

Somewhere out there among the next generation of ‘conservationists’ may be someone brave enough to call for the word conservation to be ditched. Unless we embrace new bolder concepts, and take action in partnerships, such as buying and influencing larger tracts of strategic land for enlarging and connecting reserves, we may fade away with the skylarks and yellowhammers.

Peter Taylor is the editor of Rewilding. ECOS writing on wildland and conservation values, and the author of Chill. A reassessment of global warming theory. ethos_uk@onetel.com

The concern about our farmed environment is, for me, closely followed by the lack of appreciation on the part of conservationists of the value of the wild in wildlife. Is that a future trend? Organisations like RSPB, the Wildlife Trusts, and the Hawk and Owl Trust, have perhaps too readily taken the CAP’s shilling for their landholdings, rather than lobbied fiercely for regulatory reforms that would have meant freedom for lapwings – even the freedom to be predated which used to be the natural driving force of evolution!

64

65

ECOS 34(1) 2013

Book Reviews

ECOS 34(1) 2013 on wild work which covers themes like working dogs, and, enticingly, “Creatures of the Mind”. As Pullar says in her introduction, this is a study that aims to approach animals not just physically and economically, but also “at the level of feeling, imagination and belief.”

For example, the two pages devoted to the mountain hare describe its ecology, provide an insight into the lore of hare shooting (no longer an enterprise to be encouraged), and a concise summary of the hare’s meaning in Scots folklore.

In 1662 when Isobel Gowdie confessed to changing into a hare as part of her alleged witchcraft, the spell by which she claimed to restore herself to human form was:

FAUNA SCOTICA Animals and people in Scotland Polly Pullar & Mary Low Birlinn Limited, 2012, 290 pages Hbk £30, ISBN 978 1 84158 561 1 This book is more than just a study of natural nature. It also looks at the human relationship to nature. It sets nature wild and free alongside human nature and thereby explores the fauna of Scotland through the lens of human ecology; indeed, a very humanised ecology, because Mary Low’s acclaimed Celtic scholarship, her skill in folklore, richly complements the flowing narrative and vivid images of Polly Pullar and other photographic contributors.

The work is divided into 10 sections organised according to habitats. It includes the expected with chapters on mountain, bog and moor, lochs and rivers, the sea, islands and skerries, farm and croft, about town; but also chapters 66

Hare, hare, God send thee care!

I am in a hare’s likeness just now, But I shall be a woman even now – Hare, hare, God send thee care.

Similarly thought-provoking is the section on the sacred goose. Does the notion that the wild goose is a Celtic symbol of the Holy Spirit authentically come from tradition, or has it been invented by the likes of Lord George Macleod of the Iona Community?

Well, I once put that question to Ron Fergusson, Macleod’s biographer, who had in turn once posed it to old George.

“Where did you get it from?” Ron had asked. “I’ve no idea!” said George. “I probably invented it!” Fauna Scotica hints, however, that George’s intuition may have been sourced from deeper wellheads of the traditions in which he was culturally immersed; and recently, in reading the Chinese poetry of Wu Wei, I was struck by the translator’s comment in the Penguin Classics edition (p. 92) that “there was a myth that wild geese – and fish – could carry messages.”

I wrote this review sitting in Stornoway library, and as I worked a local Gaelic activist came up. He wished to remain anonymous and said “Just call me Will-othe-Wisp”. He said what impressed him about this book was that it gives names in English, Latin, Scots and Gaelic, and that while the English and Latin usually have just one name, the more vernacular languages have many. For example, the (Blue) mountain hare, Lepus timidus, in Scots can be whiddie baudrons, bawtie, cutty, donie, fuddie, lang lugs, maukin or pussy, and in Gaelic, maigheach bhàn or bocaire fasaich. If one goes to the Gaelic dictionaries, further names can be found including regional variations for the hare at different stages of development.

This is a book that honours not just the animals, with a splendour of photography that would grace any coffee table, but also their human connections. I long for more wildlife writing and praise Polly Pullar, Mary Low, and Birlinn Limited on their achievement.

Alastair McIntosh

GOSSIP FROM THE FOREST The tangled roots of our forests and fairytales Sara Maitland Granta, 2012, 256 pages Hbk, £20, ISBN 1847084293 This is an important book. It re-connects the very practical matter of the UK’s forests with our own emotional heritage of story and fairy tales. And it’s a book with real heart, a book to savour.

Themes of forestry and amenity, nature and raw material, local industry and personal sense of place are all explored, in an effective synthesis of the challenges

facing woodland management today.

So far, so good; but there the writing departs from any other woodland book you have (probably) ever read. Coupled with visits to 12 very different woodlands across the UK, Sara Maitland has skilfully re-told many of the Grimm’s fairy tales, one at the end of every chapter, linked with the issues discussed. She has taken the care to see them from different perspectives, and to include the detail and magic of the natural world – the British natural world – in each one.

Maitland’s re-telling of the stories is brave.

Many storytellers are content to leave it to the listener to fill in the detail around archetype and human activity in stories.

But here, Rumpelstiltskin looks like hazel coppice and like juniper trees - all spiky; a grown up Hansel goes back into the forest to reconnect with his wild side and his twin sister, Gretel; and the big bad lone wolf, isolated in a conifer plantation and thoroughly disgusted by Little Red Riding Hood, has a very modern guise.

67

ECOS 34(1) 2013

ECOS 34(1) 2013

What does all this have to do with the way we see forests or, for that matter, nature conservation? Maitland would argue a great deal, and I agree with her. The booming bass drum beat of the whole book is an emotional one: a yearning for honesty within our philosophy of land management, and a recognition of the ancient archetypes that underpin many of our core beliefs.

There are deeper messages within the old fairy stories, and their resonance runs deep, if you will let them in.

was shot dead by a local hunter, aged 20. He claimed self-defence, but in his trial it was revealed that he had boasted he was going to find and kill the bears.

The court found that he had deliberately set out to kill the bear, and he was given a prison sentence for the crime. Happily for the cubs, they were adopted by the other female. The reintroduction programme has continued at a steady pace since then, much slower than originally planned by government conservationists, but in the face of massive opposition from local farmers, despite compensation arrangements for loss of livestock. The programme is highly controversial.

If you would like your memories of childhood stories cast in the context of the land itself, your understanding of our forests challenged, and your thoughts provoked, read this book.

Lisa Schneidau

BEAR WITNESS A captivating journey to the wild side Mandy Haggith Saraband, 2013, 264 pages Pbk, £8.99, ISBN 1908643292 Some years ago I spent a few days in the Carpathian Mountains of Romania, hoping to sight a bear or perhaps hear the howling of wolves. I was impressed by the prolific wild flowers and some interesting bird life, but didn’t have any large carnivore experiences. Spending the last night in the city of Brasov, we were given a tip off that bears come down to the city at night to raid dustbins, and told where to get the taxi to. We found a service road next to blocks of flats, with garages and large waste containers on one side, backing onto a forested hillside. Night fell as we stood across the road from the dustbins, but not seeing any animals, we began to doubt we were in the right place. I 68

strolled across the road to check a waste container, and as I approached a dark shape moved in the skip and a bear’s head rose up and watched me.

The animal seemed huge. I quickly retreated across the road. As we looked on, several more bears came out of the woodland and climbed into the containers to rummage for food. I was surprised at just how big they are. A few weeks after this encounter, I heard on the news that a tourist had been killed by a bear at this same location in Brasov.

France has hosted a bear reintroduction programme in the Pyrenees since 1996.

At that time there was a remnant population of about 12 bears in the western Pyrenees, which is now reduced to about 4 individuals. 3 bears were initially introduced to the central Pyrenees. Breeding and further introductions have increased this number to around 15. This programme has not been without difficulties.

Within a year of introduction one of the females had two cubs. However, she

In some parts of the world, including some parts of Europe, people are proud of their bears. But where they are re-introduced, there tends to be controversy, with communities divided.

Generally farmers oppose the presence of bears, and the hunters, the men with guns, are predominantly farmers. One factor in the success of bears seems to be whether the local human population is used to living alongside them. It is a cultural question. Farming practices need to be adapted to allow for the presence of bears, and farmers resist change.

And it’s not just about farmers: people living in bear country develop a culture with the right degree of respect for this creature so that conflicts can be avoided.

I have a hunch that nasty accidents with bears usually involve tourists who are not familiar with the animal.

In Bear Witness Mandy Haggith portrays the bear sympathetically, and vividly describes a journey of discovery in Romania. It is a powerful experience where the scientific mind is displaced by an emotional response to this formidable animal in the wild nature of

the Carpathians. The bear is a powerful symbol in many cultures, including in Britain, playing a big role in myth and legend. It is an animal loaded with meaning far beyond its ecological role.

In Bear Witness, this is not analysed, but breathes through the story. Alongside this, the ecological importance of the bear is well presented, with consideration of how habitats are impoverished in a wide range of aspects when this element is missing.

The writing is inspired, ranging from imagery and description to the immediacy of dialogue and emotion, it is honest, even brutal, which enhances the interest. The story is captivating and the characters are convincing.

The controversies, the hopes, the disappointments that are all too clear from actual bear programmes, are vividly and intimately portrayed through the life of the main character.

The story is set slightly in the future.

Although not specified, it could be 5 years from now, or is that wishful thinking? The world depicted, including the social context, is entirely recognisable with some plausible refinements. Mandy Haggith’s previous book The Last Bear told the story of the killing of the last bear in Scotland a thousand years ago.

It showed a divided society, between those trying to rid the land of predators, and those who held the land and other species with a respect that was part of their spirituality. In Bear Witness, the same sort of dynamic is at play, with society divided between those who fear the wild and provide rational arguments against living with large carnivores, and those who believe in restoring balance in the world, in making space for other species. Rationality and science support both sides, but ultimately it is a question 69

ECOS 34(1) 2013

ECOS 34(1) 2013

of sentiment and belief on both sides. This is why, if we have any chance of seeing our native wildlife restored, the cultural element is so important. Our connection with other species needs to be revived through the arts and through education.

Mandy Haggith illustrates this message in her books, but more importantly, her work is part of the cultural process.

Another reality well portrayed in Bear Witness, is how radical ideas and projects are championed by one or a few individuals, and whether such initiatives get off the ground depends on individual personalities in key positions in society.

Politicians and civil servants tend to play safe, so wherever government decisions are required, initiatives can fail to get the rubber stamp, or are diluted with the more radical elements dropped. The events in both Norway and Scotland in the book demonstrate the importance of full involvement of relevant groups and people. One idea not explored by Haggith is the strategy used today in some regions hosting big predators, where local farmers are paid a fixed annual payment in return for living alongside the predator species. This payment can be in place of, or in parallel with, compensation for loss of livestock to a predator. This system has managed to turn around the attitudes of farmers, from one of hostility to co-operation, for example with wolf and lynx in Sweden.

In Bear Witness, there is an authenticity throughout the narrative that suggests the author has put much time into researching the subject, and that she taps deeply into her own experience. This makes for an informative and moving read, with an optimistic message for the future of bears and the spirit of this land.

Simon Ayres

70

suggestion that Reforesting Scotland has had the greatest impact on British Forestry practices would not be recognised south of the border. I do support the Reforesting Scotland view of forestry with references to Rackham’s woodsmanship, Peterkin’s woodlands in flux and that a ‘natural state’ is not achievable, and Mabey’s appraisal of woodland heritage. Much as I would appreciate wild camping on a woodland estate in England I am not so sure about arguing the legality with the gamekeeper. Scotland is well ahead in the public connection to forests and a more enlightened view of woodland activity, Wales is moving but England has a long way to go.

WOODLANDERS New Life in Britain’s Forests Ian Edwards and Sarah Hunt (Eds) Saraband, 320 pages, 2010 Hbk, £25, ISBN 1887354691 The book’s full title, suggesting new life in forests, perhaps sets out an impression that the book does not fulfil. Rather than a book about woodlanders as people and their motivations, this is largely a focus on projects and certainly does not unpick the individuals who drive them.

Although the book’s scope is headlined as Britain, the coverage is mainly (and not surprisingly given the greater activity) a book of woodlands in Scotland.

That said the book is full of wonderful photographs and insights into a diverse range of woodland projects and lifestyles.

It does exemplify the long overdue return to a woodland culture that slipped away during the 20th century, distorting the perception of the relationship between forests and people. This volume certainly recognises the woodland heritage that existed and demonstrates a growing rebirth of woodland culture. I am afraid the

Similarly with construction, although there are a few exceptional examples, wood is not a material favoured by planners or builders in England other than for holiday chalets. I doubt timber frame has reached anywhere near 20% of houses constructed in England so care is required in extrapolating the Scottish situation as Britain. The construction and design chapter tends to be repetitive and does not get inside the builders, just the buildings. The next chapter on community enterprise does not make clear whether the projects described are all community enterprises or enterprises that work in the community. As a hard core social entrepreneur the difference can be important. The ‘Living in the Round’ chapter presents an opportunity to more deeply investigate the people who are the actual woodlanders but does not really attempt this.

Following a lengthy section on food and foraging, the book moves to a shorter section on woodfuel. I calculate that at 16 barrows making 2 tonnes, the annual domestic total is about 25 tonnes. Admittedly this

covers heating and cooking but I use about 3-4 tonnes for annual heating.

25 sounds excessive and if purchased as split firewood it would cost over £2000. There is not enough about efficient burning, thermal mass and the first step of insulation. Just burning lots of wood is not of course a green solution.

Woodlanders is an excellent read but it does view events in England through a telescope. Maybe a follow up book would help, to examine and understand the actual ‘woodlanders’.

Nigel Lowthrop

DEEP COUNTRY Five Years in the Welsh Hills Neil Ansell Penguin Books, 2012, 206 pages Pbk, £9.99, ISBN 978-0-141-04932-8 When I spotted this title in a local bookshop the sleeve notes and illustration of an isolated cottage nestled in the woods immediately drew my attention. Ansell’s work seemed to 71

ECOS 34(1) 2013 chime both with a number of other books I have read and with my own experiences as an urban escapee (or exile?). ‘Getting back to nature’ in one’s own rural retreat has held much allure for authors, musicians, poets, mystics, artists and others of a romantic and reflective persuasion. Young and middle-aged men, in particular, seem to have sought isolation from other human beings in both a social and physical sense in order to claim time for contemplation and a re-engagement with creative flow, imagination, and play.

A further and similarly gendered aspect of escapee writing is that of robust self-sufficiency (using only archaic technology), of heightened physical sensations through raw encounters with the elements, with landscapes, and with plants and animals, in ways that no city or desk job can offer. The concept of ‘escapee’ is important, for those working (living out, or through) this tradition have been arrivals from the urban or suburban, who place or insert themselves into the deeply rural realm, and for some ‘the wilderness’; they are not lifelong countrymen and they often form distant and uneasy relationships with the few locals they may meet. Typically, once insights have been achieved, mental issues worked through, and new skills and experiences gained, the project is complete and the escapee returns to ‘normal life’. In some cases, the escapee’s return is rapid and/ or tragic brought on by illness, injury, or the mutation of warm solitude into bleak loneliness: a reality check.

Deep Country is a charming and sensitive contribution to the escapee tradition; an evocative account of one man’s engagement with the Welsh hills, their beauty, natural rhythms, flora and fauna.

72

ECOS 34(1) 2013 Some readers (this reviewer included) may feel frustrated that Ansell does not offer more personal, confessional and autobiographical context for his five years at Penlan Cottage, particularly as the sleeve notes frame the book as a reflection on: “…where I lived and how I lived…what it means to live in a place so remote that you may not see another soul for weeks on end”. In fact, much of the text is ‘nature writing’, derived from the author’s experiences of walking the landscape. There is no grand theorising, or macho risk-taking, and little angst in Ansell’s neck of the woods. The tone is upbeat, with a child-like sense of excitement and awe, conveyed through lucid descriptions of nature and especially of iconic seldom-seen birds (goshawk, merlin, woodcock). Ansell is an accomplished nature writer and the book will have great appeal to devotees of that genre.

Like many escapee stories, Deep Country is also a piece of travel writing, describing the secret lives of seldomseen places and their animal inhabitants, whilst hinting at a concurrent personal and spiritual journey. For this reviewer, the book provides further insight into the contemporary disjuncture between rooted connections to the land and its people, as experienced by ‘locals’ and the impressions of urban and suburban visitors. The weekend ‘leisure commute’ sees day-trippers descend in fleets of cars in order to take a few stolen hours in the countryside outside of ‘real lives’ in the suburbs and the city. The romantic escapee critiques the brevity and instrumentalism of these visits, seeking deeper more ‘authentic’ encounters with the rural. But what are the possibilities for those who live alone and contemplate such a life change?

That so few artistic escapees remain in

their bolt-holes for life suggests that such transitions are difficult. The deeply rural, like the past, may be a different country; different most potently from its urban and suburban imagining.

Phil Hadfield

Mammals, Amphibians and Reptiles of the North East Ian Bond (Ed) Northumbrian Naturalist Vol 73 (2012), 246pages http://www.nhsn.ncl.ac.uk/news/mars-ne/ Pbk £10.00 (+£3.50 P&P) ISSN 2050-4128 This is a landmark publication, with its only real forerunner being A Catalogue of the Mammalia of Northumberland and Durham by Mennell and Perkins in 1864. A few other key works, such as Gill’s 1905 account in the Victoria County History, and Bolam’s works are scattered through the intervening years. The account covers the counties of Northumberland, Tyne and Wear, Durham and the former county of

Cleveland, with the information compiled by the Northumbria Mammal Group under the careful editorship of Ian Bond. The mammals includes 53 established species, plus accounts of vagrant seals (three species), cetaceans (12 species), and six species are discussed under vagrant bats. There are also accounts of species extinct since the Pleistocene and Holocene, and a brief account of records of escaped mammals (including such species as porcupine and raccoon), with a separate account for records of exotic cats. Actually life isn’t quite as simple as that, such that a few species, such as black rat and yellownecked mouse, have uncertain status in the region, the former being recorded from time to time mostly in dockland areas and occasionally becoming temporarily established, the latter with one or two reliable records, but which may refer to an accidental introduction.

Accounts are also given of six amphibian species and four reptile species. The amphibians include the introduced alpine newt, which, according to its species account is known from about 10 tetrads in the south of the region, but the editor notes that since this account was completed, the species may have made a significant extension to its range.

There is, of course, no attempt to catalogue records, but there is a list of the local relevant organisations and records centres that hold the detailed records. The authors have carefully reviewed and referenced the historical knowledge and picked out points of interest in more recent studies. There are many fascinating stories and anecdotes through the book. My own experience within the region is limited, but I was impressed with the numbers 73

BACK COPIES OF ECOS

ECOS 34(1) 2013 of whiskered/Brandt’s bats occurring in the area, for species that have a rather patchy distribution further south and are more or less absent further north. And from the days when it was assumed that whiskered bat was much more common than Brandt’s bat, it is interesting to see that modern studies are suggesting that this may be the reverse of the situation now. Also good to see that some longterm studies are maintained, such as the observations at Brinkburn Priory, a site that has been under regular observation of its bats since 1985. I was privileged to visit this site many years ago; and while I can’t remember whether the problem that the bats were disturbing the concerts was worse than the concerts disturbing the bats, it does seems that they have been able to live together with minor inconveniences on both sides.

For most of the established fauna, each species has a single map with distribution given by tetrad and with records separated into pre- and post 2000. As noted above for alpine newt, such maps have a temporary accuracy - there will be additional material collected as they are published, but they still have value as a historical distribution. What can be more of a problem is decisions about what records to accept and the means of identification for the various records.

So there may be a wide variation in the reliability of the way the record was collected, but this is not reflected in the maps. This may be particularly important with groups like bats (where identification may vary between being from a bat in the hand to a bat detector record which may be more or less reliable depending on species) and cetaceans (where strandings will be much more reliably identified than some observation of cetaceans passing at sea). Similarly, the distribution maps 74

do not differentiate between different categories of record, such as can occur between groups and in, for example, the bats between individual bats grounded or trapped, in bat roosts used either in summer or winter, of roosting bats or bats foraging in the field. But that would be beyond the scope of such a book and as presented the maps are comparable throughout the fauna covered.

I have few complaints with this important account. One minor point is that while we all struggle to keep up with the changes in scientific nomenclature in our own group, trying to keep up with less familiar groups can become an added problem when, for example, the alpine newt is included in the genus Ichthyosaura in the text (p.213) but Mesotriton in the illustration (p.129)! I congratulate all the authors and compilers and recommend this book as a valuable contribution at a reasonable price.

Tony Hutson

Coming Up

ECOS 34 (2) will include commentary on badger culling and on tree disease issues and the land-use implications of ash dieback.

ECOS 34 (3-4) will focus on sustainable farming, food and conservation, looking at emerging policies and what we can learn from UK examples which integrate sustainable agriculture, food quality and wildlife management aims.

The following back copies are available for purchase. Costs range from £8.30 (inc p&p) for issues from the current and previous year’s volume, to £5.30 for older issues.

Up to date prices and order forms for back copies are available at www.banc org.uk.

www.banc.org.uk BANC inspires innovation

o 33 (3/4)

Landscape Scale Conservation issues & examples

o 33 (2)

Defending land-use planning; Development pressures in middle England; Forestry Panel review;

o 33 (1)

in conservation.

President:

John Bowers

Vice-Presidents: Marion Shoard

Lynx, Badgers, Bees & Beavers; Do we need new groups? o 32 (3/4) The Woodland Edge essays from the wildwood

Adrian Phillips

Chair:

Gavin Saunders

Secretary:

Ruth Boogert

o 32 (2)

White Paper review, Ecosystem Assessment verdicts, Red Tape rebuff

Treasurer:

Jeremy Owen

o 32 (1)

Public Forests Campaign, Big Society, Beavers, Big Birds

o 31 (3/4) Lawton Report, Big Society, Nature

Other Members of Council: Emily Adams

in Austerity

Mathew Frith

o 31 (2)

Strategies for boar, big cats, dog owners, & wild goats

Alison Parfitt

o 31 (1)

Natural aliens; climate resilience; tips for the recession

Lisa Schneidau Peter Taylor

o 30 (3/4) Ecological skills; Getting started

Scott West

o 30 (2) Nature at our service? o 30 (1) 30 years back – and forward o 29 (3/4) New nature – old creatures o 29 (2) Nature’s tonic o 29 (1) Walking the talk in conservation o 28 (3/4) Climate Change adaptation –

Subscriptions/BANC membership

in conservation

helping nature cope

o 28(2) o 28(1) o 27(3/4) o 27(2)

Nature’s Id

o 27(1) o 26(3/4) o 26(2)

Species reintroductions

Carbon, conservation and renewables

o 26(1)

The extinction of outdoor experience

Loving Nature?

Accepting the wild?

Shores and seas – the push for protection Aliens in control

ECOS & BANC - keep in touch on the web www.banc.org.uk

Subscriptions for ECOS are: £25.00 for individuals £80 for corporate/institutional rate £15 for students (colour pdf file).

Subscriptions should be sent to: Hallam Environmental Consultants Ltd Venture House, 105 Arundel Street Sheffield, 1 2NT Tel: 0114 272 4227 info@hallamec.plus.com Subscription form available at www.banc.org.uk Subs taken out on or after 1 October remain valid until 31 December in the following year.

Feature articles 1. Crisis or opportunity? Geoffrey Wain 2. Ecosystem Services – Are we flogging a dead horse?

David West 5. New entrepreneurs in conservation – lessons from South Yorkshire’s Dearne Valley. Ian D Rotherham

Spring 2013 issue 34(1) www.banc.org.uk

12. Heathland futures – a role for wood-fuel lots?

Ian D Rotherham & Paul Titterton

20. Greening the funeral business. Ruth Boogert 26. The future of England’s green agencies –

Tidying up or dumbing down? Peter Shirley The dangers of agency merger. Simon Leadbeater

31. Welsh nature - riches to be protected or resources to be plundered? James Robertson 39. Wales’ new officialdom – Nature’s wealth or wrath?

Mick Green 42. Fighting the green token – mid Wales revolts against turbines Alison Davies 49. Trump’s golf course - Society’s nature. Koen Arts & Gina Maffey 59. Forest policy resolved? The future’s hunky-dory… Martin Spray 61. Conservation: a fading label? Peter Taylor

Book Reviews Fauna Scotica Gossip from the Forest Bear Witness Woodlanders Deep Country Mammals, Amphibians and Reptiles of the North East

2013 British Association of Nature Conservationists.

ISSN 0143-9073.

Graphic Design and Artwork by Featherstone Design Cheltenham.

Printed by Severnprint Ltd, Gloucester.