Memorandum submitted by Hertfordshire
Natural History Society Recorders Group
SUMMARY
1. The government is unlikely to meet its
biodiversity targets as these appear to have been given a low
priority and insufficient funding allocated to relevant organisations
such as Natural England and CEH to carry out the work required.
2. Our national audit is inadequate. As
a consequence the rate of biodiversity losses is likely to be
an underestimate.
3. Generally habitats do better than species,
although conflicting targets from eg Local Authorities means that
planning requirements often take priority over nature.
4. DEFRA as the guardian of the majority
of "biodiversity" related work is inappropriate. As
an organisation it is too large, has conflicting responsibilities
and its remit is far too wide to be effective in this area. It
lacks the expertise to carry its ecological duties.
5. There is no evidence that the value of
ecosystem services is reflected in decision making.
A response to the questions posed is given by
the County Recorders Committee of the Hertfordshire Natural History
Society.
ABOUT THE
HERTFORDSHIRE NATURAL
HISTORY SOCIETY
The Hertfordshire Natural History Society (HNHS)
was formed in 1879 and its aims of promoting natural history within
the County of Hertfordshire. The Society is a registered Charity
(no. 218418) and is managed by a management committee that has
responsibility for the proper fiscal management of the Society
and to meet the aims and objectives of the Society. HNHS holds
lectures, seminars, discussion groups, field visits and training
along with a range of social activities. Publications include
the Hertfordshire Naturalist (a peer reviewed Journal) and a biannual
newsletter "Fieldnotes". In addition we publish the
Annual Hertfordshire Bird Report and range of books relating to
species groups such as the Hertfordshire Bird Atlas, The Moths
of Hertfordshire, The Dragonflies and Damselflies of Hertfordshire
and The Mammals, Amphibians and Reptiles of Hertfordshire. Next
year we hope to have a new Hertfordshire Flora and the Geology
of Hertfordshire.
HNHS was the moving force behind the founding
of the Hertfordshire and Middlesex Wildlife Trust in 1963 and
we retain close links with the trust.
The Reorders Committee has 23 members who do
species level recording for the County for 26 groups of organisms
and one member who records the geology. The recorders have close
links with the Hertfordshire Biological Records Centre to whom
we feed biological records and submit the information that forms
the Counties Red Data Book (RDB) species list, ie those species
that are threatened or endangered. The recorders also feed their
records to National Recorders for their group of organisms and
participate in the field training sessions to encourage member
of the public to develop an interest in Hertfordshire wildlife.
As an organisation we are mindful that our County recorders membership
is an aging one and that there are few younger people coming through
with the skills required to identify organisms to species level
accurately. Few new graduates have the necessary taxonomic skills
as this is no longer provided at undergraduate level to any depth.
Field and training courses may locate interested persons but the
lack of a national skills base is cause for concern.
GENERAL COMMENTS
When dealing with issues relating to Biological
Diversity the term "Biodiversity" is thrown around with
little appreciation for the fact that to even begin to assess
our biodiversity we need to carry out an inventory. Without a
full inventory there is no way of assessing what we have or whether
species are declining or increasing—so the key question
of halting biodiversity loss becomes obsolete, impossible to assess.
In practice targets are set for those groups where there are reasonable
levels of information.
To be able to carry out an inventory we need
taxonomists—and we are no longer producing graduates who
have developed these skills. There are certain groups (birds,
butterflies, odonata) where the organisms are easily identifiable,
but others such as diptera (flies) lichens and insects generally
do not attract as much interest. There are many groups of organisms
where there are a handful of people in the UK who could be considered
expert in species identification (mostly ageing) and there are
very many species that are not mentioned in the UK BAP, despite
being RDB species. This is because the information is scarce /
under recorded. We are fortunate in Hertfordshire in that we have
a relatively large number of recorders; on a County scale this
is unusual. County recorders are a key resource feeding information
to Biological Records Centres (BRCs) and National lists. Although
we encourage and welcome participation from members of the public—there
are concerns as to accuracy of the records being submitted. Verification
of records is always required.
Government action relating to Biodiversity is
perverse. Of particular note are the cuts to funding. The closing
of CEH Monks Wood is a key example. Long term data sets collected
and collated at Monks Wood are under threat and conciliatory words
regarding the protection and continuation of this long term recording
is met with disbelief by most ecologists. Many of the staff with
essential & irreplaceable skills have become demoralised and
turned to consultancy or taken early retirement—this is
a national loss we cannot afford. Such action suggests that Government
puts Biodiversity issues at a low priority—all talk, no
action, or inappropriate action. Tinkering with Natural England
has also been to the detriment of the countries biodiversity responsibilities.
The assessment of SSSIs for example that they are undertaking
cannot be realistically met with the staffing levels and funds
they have available. Funds appear to be available for Quangos
and other committees, when what is really needed is people on
the ground.
POLICY AND
PROGRESS
1. Is the Government on course to meet its
2010 biodiversity target?
No. The EU Gothenburg Agreement in 2001 looked
to halt biodiversity loss by 2010. Instead of halting the decline
we continue to see species and habitat losses.
2. How effective is the biodiversity monitoring
and reporting process? Are the biodiversity indicators meaningful?
Is there adequate data upon which to define targets and to assess
progress?
There is insufficient data with which to work
with. This is a reflection on the lack of taxonomists with the
required skills to identify at the species level across all groups.
If one examines the UK BAP the species listed they give a tiny
fraction of those currently at risk. It is the inadequate nature
of the information that concerns many ecologists as these gaps
are not being closed. The monitoring/reporting is piecemeal and
there are too few resources available to cover what needs to be
done. For instance, the review of SSSI's is mostly done by Natural
England—they just don't have the staff to cover this and
these particular targets will be missed. There is insufficient
data on species—particularly in relation to what might constitute
an "indicator". As to those that are being used as target
species / groups it is usually only approximate population numbers,
area and trends that is being examined.
The indicators (Biodiversity Indicators in Your
Pocket (2007) DEFRA) are useful in that they use well documented
groups of organisms such as birds and butterflies—but takes
a very broad brush approach with many assumptions made as to how
useful some of these organisms are as indicators. If you don't
know what you have you can't assess progress! Habitat information
is generally better than species information—though there
are issues with habitat fragmentation and minimum areas required,
particularly by faunal groups.
There is little or no work on species life history
tables for example—these provides essential conservation
data in addition to identifying key mortality issues and how each
years cohort is doing (stable, increasing or decreasing). This
is because the work is often tedious to collect and for many species
falls out side of the three years of a PhD studentship. As one
of the few who work in this area I know that there is little or
no funding available, and certainly not from the main biological
funding sources! Modelling is more likely to be funded over hard
species data which is considered more "natural history"
information rather than hard science. Interestingly, there is
a great demand for species life history tables!
3. Are the policy and institutional frameworks
effective at protecting biodiversity? Is biodiversity protection
addressed effectively at local and regional levels? How successful
has the UK Biodiversity Action Plan been? Does Conserving biodiversity—the
UK approach address the need to have a joined-up approach to biodiversity
protection with the devolved administrations?
No, no and no. DEFRA is the main body dealing
with much of this and is not the place for it. It is too large,
has too much within its remit and cannot hope to cover what is
needed and doesn't have the expertise. In addition DEFRA has conflicting
responsibilities, both on the policy and funding side. Natural
England has some responsibility but with current staffing levels,
its Biodiversity remit is unrealistic. BAPS are just a snap shot
of what is there—not a full inventory of all species at
risk (habitats are generally better catered for than species).
At local & regional levels, well, Biological Records Centres
could be helpful here—but again, not all Counties have them
and most are not well supported. Many of the organisations that
take a lead on biodiversity issues are not government supported
(eg RSPB). Joined up thinking is more of a buzz phrase than actual
approach. Some organisations, such as JNCC, pull information together
well, but base line data is missing in many areas. Essentially,
we really don't know what we have for many groups of organism—so
have taken the approach that we will use what we do have. Butterflies
and birds are useful, but as previously mentioned, don't give
the whole picture. As to protection—unless we know we have
an "at risk" species (and often only BAP species are
of interest) nature takes second place to commercial interests.
Only high profile species or habitats are likely to get full protection.
4. How well is biodiversity protection incorporated
into the policy-making process? How well will the Ecosystem Approach
Action Plan address this issue? Has there been enough progress
in ensuring that the value of ecosystem services are reflected
in decision-making?
Again, industry comes first- only need to look
at the East of England plan for new build to see this. Looks good
on paper, in the real world doesn't seem to be making an impact
on decision makers as they have conflicting targets to meet! Unsure
about the use of the term "ecosystems services" that
is currently prevalent. It appears to be an attempt to put a monetary
value on nature. Regarding the UK Strategic framework—the
document "Working with the grain of nature" a biodiversity
strategy for England, one of the principles of the ecosystem approach
(which came out of the 5th meeting of the Convention on Biodiversity
in Nairobi in 2001) was to decentralise management to the lowest
appropriate level. Good in theory, but where is the training to
support this? It also highlights that our own survival and economy
is dependent on our protection of our environment and biodiversity.
This should mean that where there is a biodiversity interest,
for instance in a planning issue, that the biodiversity interest
should take priority. Unfortunately it usually doesn't.
With regards ecosystem services there seems
to be no evidence that there is progress here. An example is the
concern over bee populations and Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD).
CCD has been experienced in the USA where over 60% of bee colonies
have collapsed. This phenomenon has also been experienced in Germany,
Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Greece and France. The French, Swedes
and Germans are taking it very seriously. The cause is yet unknown,
disease, a fungus and agrichemicals are all potential culprits
and there are indications that the workers are deserting hives
in areas where electromagnetic fields are found. In the UK we
have a government spokesperson stating that we have no problems
with CCD, yet one of the largest bee keepers in London states
he has lost 30 out of his 42 hives recently and there are similar
reports from other bee keepers in London and from Scotland, Wales
and the north of England. It cannot be emphasised too highly that
the loss of bee colonies is going to have a devastating effect—not
just on the flora of the UK but on the farming industry! This
is an ecosystem service we cannot do without—yet it would
appear that we will again react rather than be proactive.
KEY THREATS
5. What are the key drivers of biodiversity
loss in the UK, and is the Government addressing them?
A lack of planning control—appears to
be the case that industry and societal needs take priority. A
lack of expertise in taxonomy means that rarities are being missed
/ not known about. The training, recruiting and provision of a
career structure for taxonomists to address this problem is not
being addressed.
A lack of commitment. The government's actions
would indicate they are not serious in addressing the problems.
Lots of committees exist—but they don't carry out the much
needed inventory.
6. Will the Invasive Non-native Species Framework
Strategy prove effective? Is there adequate regulation and resources
to prevent further invasions and to undertake eradication programmes?
Some good information coming through—but
doesn't go far enough. Regulation insufficient—only need
to see how the fish trade have lobbied to bring in exotics in
to the UK for the aquarium trade and the consequence has been
an increase in alien species in UK rivers. See Dr. Gordon Copp's
work (CEFAS) on risk assessment for alien fish.
As to eradication—if we examine the non
native crayfish problem where alien species are wiping out our
native white clawed crayfish through disease vectors (crayfish
plague) and by out-competing with our native species, there is
little hope of removing them. The Environment Agency & other
bodies survey, research, trap—to no avail, there is no solution
to this problem at present. The zebra mussel is another example—colonies
clog pipes and cost a fortune to clear.
We do to little too late. Our border & import
controls are inadequate—unlike Australia & New Zealand
where this issue is taken very seriously. Again, an example of
ineffective management—and where commercial interests win
out.
7. What impact will climate change have on
UK biodiversity? How might the impacts of climate change be reduced?
How can potential conflict between climate change mitigation and
adaptation measures and biodiversity protection be effectively
managed?
The effect climate change will have on biodiversity
is that we will see some species expand their ranges and some
retract. We are also more likely to see aliens species increase.
An example of a current concern is mosquitoes. It's rather ridiculous
to ask how the impact of climate change can be reduced, we are
doing nothing to mitigate it! Our national carbon footprint is
increasing not reducing—and until politicians take hard
decisions this is unlikely to change. Species will either have
a wide tolerance to the climatic changes or not. If not, they
will face extinction.
8. Does planning policy adequately protect
biodiversity? Are effective measures in place to ensure that Government
plans for housing growth (including eco-towns) enhance rather
than damage biodiversity? Should there be a review of greenbelt
policy, and what might the consequences be for biodiversity? Do
guidelines encouraging development on brownfield sites risk damaging
biodiversity?
In theory this is in place, in reality- as mentioned
before- there are conflicting targets for these decision makers.
Houses & industry will always come before nature. We have
seen little of real ecological value in these proposed eco-towns.
They tinker at the edges to gain planning permission. These areas
need to be small scale, all buildings could be carbon neutral,
incorporating gray water use & reuse and be as self sustaining
as feasible. There is little innovation with these settlements
and they are often too big—& in need of a high level
of infrastructure (road, schools etc). Greenbelt is valuable land
(as are gardens!) and has a purpose! As to brownfield sites, they
should be fully surveyed (by competent ecologists) in advance
of planning.
RESOURCES
9. Are there adequate resources for biodiversity
protection and enhancement? Has the Government addressed the need
to provide additional support for biodiversity protection in the
UK Overseas Territories?
No! There are few people around with this type
of expertise & no commitment to training. Resources are often
committed and spent at committee level rather than on the ground.
Can't really speak on overseas. Some support via organisations
like British Council.
PROTECTED AREAS
10. Is the UK protected area network up to
the job of maintaining biodiversity, now and into the future?
Are arrangements to protect sites effective? Is more work needed
to reduce habitat fragmentation and to link up those semi-natural
habitat areas that remain?
Generally OK for SSSI's, NNR's SPAs etc- but
there are exceptions to the rule. Fragmentation of habitats and
lack of wildlife corridors is problematic & most of the work
being done to remedy these deficiencies comes from Wildlife Trusts,
RSPB etc. rather than government. This has real implications for
certain species survival—metapopulation theory can be important
here, and has been used to good effect, for example, in the Southampton
area with increasing water vole populations. Linking habitats
is essential for the conservation of a number of at risk species
populations.
2 June 2008
| 
