Examination of Witnesses (Questions 240
- 254)
TUESDAY 23 MAY 2000
MR RICHARD
SMITHERS AND
MS HILARY
ALLISON
240. It was a DETR decision.
(Ms Allison) Absolutely. As far as Frith Wood was
concerned, that was a particular case that we raised with Mr Meacher
because we were unhappy with the way in which a piece of ancient
woodland, which was moved, so-called, from A to B, was portrayed
through the DETR's own press releases as an example of sustainable
development. In our view sustainability cannot mean a loss of
an irreplaceable habitat. It is not replaceable or capable of
being recreated.
Chairman
241. So should they not have tried to replace
it?
(Ms Allison) I think it is a question of portraying
what they were trying to do. If you say Frith Wood is an example
of sustainable development, I would say that is a completely wrong
picture to present. The problem is that yes, they will salvage
some remnant of biodiversity interest out of the site by trying
to move soils and trying to move dormice and trying to move hazel
coppice, but that is a very, very poor substitute for actually
protecting the wood in the first place.
242. Yes, but let us assume for national policy
reasons you are not going to protect the site, should you then
say, "Right, too bad, that is it, we will protect other sites",
or should you try and attempt what they did not do very successfully,
which was to recreate the habitat somewhere else?
(Ms Allison) We do not have a problem with mitigation
but the proposal for mitigation has to be honest. It has to say,
"We have lost an irreplaceable habitat, this is not sustainable
development, we are not protecting this piece of woodland in its
current format for future generations to enjoy. All we are doing
is salvaging what we can out of a situation where there is habitat
loss." It is a question of presentation and communication
and that really was the issue that I think concerned us most about
this.
243. So it is not the question of the principle,
it was the way they did it.
(Ms Allison) Which is important in itself, I think.
Mr Brake
244. Mr Smithers, you have already identified
that there is a dislocation between the national and the local
BAPs, is there also a dislocation between for instance some of
the Habitat Action Plans and could you comment on that?
(Mr Smithers) The way the Biodiversity Action Plan
has been constructed inevitably people tend to focus on their
own particular plan or plans which were relevant to them, their
own particular broad habitat type, but there is a real need for
a common sense of purpose. We are all here trying to conserve
the widest possible biodiversity and I have already said that
means that we need to target action to where there is greatest
potential for sites to be placed on a sustainable footing and
within those areas we should not be creating one habitat at the
expense of another. Be it the Woodland Trust creating woodland
on a lowland heathland—we would never do that, we would
not wish to do that—or be it seeking to restore an established
native woodland to a former habitat where none of the key features
exist, we would suggest the priority has to be within those target
areas on increasing the cumulative core area of semi-natural habitat,
by which I mean the cumulative area of semi-natural habitat which
is unaffected by external impacts from intensive land use. If
one takes that sort of line, then there is scope to look to much
greater linkage between the various action plans and to target
them towards the conservation of one another. Woodland creation
is often perceived as a threat to other habitats, it need not
be, it could actually be a significant help in sustaining and
conserving other habitats if it is created in a way which actually
buffers those other habitats from external factors.
Chairman: I am getting conscious of time, so
if you could give us slightly shorter answers, that would help.
Mr Brake
245. Could you explain who would resolve that
conflict, if someone wanted to restore woodland and someone else
wanted to take action with heathland in the same location? What
would happen at the borders?
(Mr Smithers) I think it needs to happen at two levels.
It needs to happen nationally in terms of identifying these target
areas, but it also needs to happen locally in terms of within
those target areas identifying what is the priority and where.
246. A completely different question: what do
you think should happen in Biodiversity Action Plans, or what
action do you think the Government should take in relation to
environmental change which is happening as a result of climate
change?
(Mr Smithers) This is a big question and it is going
to take me a long answer to answer it, so bear with me. In order
to help you understand where we are coming from I will need to
provide a very short amount of context. The Biodiversity Action
Plan was drawn up at a time when, whilst we all acknowledged environmental
change, it was not at the forefront of mind as it is now. It seems
certain that over the next century we are going to experience
at least a 2 to 3oC rise in temperature in this country. It has
been suggested that a 1oC rise in temperature will lead to species
ranges needing to move 150 kilometres north or 100 metres uphill,
so a site-centred approach to conservation just does not seem
tenable looking forward. It is suggested that the development
of habitat networks will help species to migrate but most of the
species of conservation concern are actually characteristic of
stable habitat and are relatively immobile. Habitat networks are
really only likely to benefit mobile species which are already
well capable of getting their way round the UK. We have already
said that many habitats are confined to unsustainably small areas
irrespective of climate change. So for species which may turn
out to be more tolerant of climate change or able to adapt quicker
to climate change, the idea of enlarging our semi-natural habitats,
buffering them, increasing the area over which species can operate,
still has a great deal to offer. It may also welcome rare and
chance long-distance dispersal events which are likely to be the
methods by which species actually do move in response to rapid
environmental change. They can hardly walk along hedgerows trying
to move rapidly north.
Mr Olner
247. There are no hedgerows left anyway.
(Mr Smithers) They are probably going to be reliant
on rare and chance events. All of that gives you a picture that
while species may migrate, habitats certainly cannot. Habitats
cannot migrate en masse. So implications for the BAP. Thanks for
bearing with me, by the way. We have already said we think there
is a need to be realistic, to simplify things. We cannot hold
the tide back, it is vital that we focus our resources to greatest
effect. I have mentioned the need to do things like bringing the
six broadleaf woodland types together under one broad plan, to
focus on areas of the country which have the greatest potential
to be placed on a sustainable footing in the face of change. That
means concentrating on habitat creation where, despite the density
of the semi-natural habitats, they are very fragmented, or focusing
on restoration where despite the density of semi-natural habitats
many of them need restoration. One other thing which the Biodiversity
Action Plan currently seeks to do is to assess the favourable
condition of sites by looking inwards on sites, and we would suggest
that in the context of a highly fragmented landscape actually
what is happening outside of sites is going to be more crucial
to their favourable condition than what is actually happening
within them. You imagine a five hectare ancient wood. Is there
any great point in focusing in on that area or do we need to focus
out from it? So targeting and focusing out from sites rather than
focusing in on sites.
Mrs Ellman
248. How can biodiversity be measured?
(Mr Smithers) We have been very good in conservation
at measuring biodiversity and measuring loss. We as an organisation
take pride in the fact that we focus on action actually in terms
of woodland restoration and woodland creation. We feel it is crucial
that ways are found to measure biodiversity in the simplest way.
There are something like 15 million species on earth today and
only some 10 per cent of those have been described. We know a
great deal about a very few of them. We know a little bit more
about a few more. We know almost nothing about most and we know
very little about the way different individual species interact
with other individual species. So we feel there is a need to go
back to first principles and to look at fundamental ecological
principles and evolutionary theory and apply them to monitoring
at a landscape scale. That way we will grasp the bigger picture
and we will be able to target action accordingly. We have spent
some 18 months ourselves working up such a system for our own
use, focusing on woodland. It is in print at the moment, we are
very happy to make a copy of that available to all of you. Whilst
it focuses on woodland we feel our methodology is relevant to
all habitats and all species, relevant to existing habitat and
habitat creation, landscapes and individual sites. It all boils
down to three things, to put it very simply, the area of semi-natural
habitat; the percentage of that semi-natural habitat which requires
restoration; and, something which I have mentioned already, the
cumulative core area of semi-natural habitat, the degree to which
semi-natural habitats as a whole, when taken together, are fragmented
by intensive land use.
249. How can the public become more involved
in this whole process?
(Ms Allison) It is perhaps not so much whether the
public should be involved in the Biodiversity Action Plan process
per se, because I certainly regard it as quite a specialist
tool for conservationists in the conservation movement to actually
organise themselves and marshall action and engage resources,
the key issue is really making the concept of biodiversity much
more accessible because it is a difficult word, people do not
relate to it, they do not immediately empathise with it and understand
it. Without wishing to parade ourselves as exemplars in this,
we have tried very hard in terms of our own materials to communicate
big issues such as the ones we have been describing today using
quite simple examples. Species examples are obviously immensely
accessible and very evocative. We have used analogies and pictures
and so on in terms of ancient woods being islands surrounded by
a sea of change. We need a different language for talking to the
public from when we talk amongst ourselves. That is the first
point. The second point is about engagement really. Engagement
of the public is not actually necessarily about getting all of
the 5 million members of conservation organisations out into nature
reserves to do a day's practical coppicing—I am not sure
whether that would actually be a good or a bad thing—and
we will never really attract more than a minority of our 5 million
members to get out and engage practically on the ground. The key
thing we need to be thinking about is how do we make biodiversity
relevant to the 50 million people who do not belong to conservation
organisations. This goes right back to the very first point which
the RSPB made in the sense that we have to show them how biodiversity
relates to quality of life, we have to show them how impacts such
as pollution on water quality—
250. Who should be doing that?
(Ms Allison) It is behoven on us as conservation bodies,
I think it is behoven on the Government too. We have already got
Doing Your Bit from the DETR but we all need to be a lot
more eloquent. It truly is a shared responsibility.
Chairman
251. Does anyone really know about the Doing
Your Bit campaign?
(Ms Allison) I saw one trailer for it on the television
last night. It has been said to lack a little fire and a little
urgency in it. But there are some great stories. Let me just give
you one example. If we relate quality of life issues to people's
health, something which everybody is very concerned about, there
is some fantastic evidence on how hospital patients have a much
quicker rate of recovery if they can look out over green spaces
and trees and wild flowers and plants. If only we can portray
this esoteric subject of biodiversity in such a way that people
can understand its immediate relevance to their quality of life,
to the way in which they can buy certified timber products, whatever
it may be. That is the big message we all have to work really
hard at.
252. One last question on Manchester poplars;
I am not quite sure what their proper name is. They survive in
Greater Manchester and on their sides you get lots of very interesting
algae. They survived particularly well during the first half of
the last century because of the very high levels of pollution.
Do those sort of algae on the Manchester poplars have any rights
in the future?
(Ms Allison) I think you can take that one, Richard!
(Mr Smithers) Well—
253. It is biodiversity.
(Mr Smithers) Absolutely. But weighting one species
against another, how do you do that? Why should one species have
more right to live than another? We would view our task is to
try and ensure the widest possible biodiversity survives, and
clearly pollution in the last century was a threat to many, many
species.
254. But it also helped some species, did it
not?
(Mr Smithers) It helped a minority of stress-tolerant
species, yes, and those species will continue to survive in situations
where such stress exists.
Christine Butler: Or without it.
Chairman: On that note, thank you very much.
|
