This week is an historic occasion for marine conservation. It will be remembered for years to come as the time when the landmark Marine and Coastal Access Act came in to force.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/marine/legislation/index.htm
For over a decade the Wildlife Trusts have been campaigning for holistic and coherent laws to better manage our activities at sea and properly protect our marine habitats and species, which have been declining for years as a result of our actions. Finally, the hard work has paid off and we have a Marine Act. http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/index.php?section=environment:marine
The seas around Sussex are home to a wealth of fantastic wildlife, however, we have put our seas under sustained pressure and our marine habitats and the wildlife that they support have suffered as a result.
At present less than 0.001% of the marine environment around Britain is fully protected from damaging activities. The Marine and Coastal Access Act allows Government to designate new Marine Conservation Zones, areas where activities and exploitation can be managed so as not to damage the environment. This network of protected zones will allow degraded habitats to recover and wildlife to once again thrive. New legislation, however, is only the beginning and we will continue to press for strengthened provisions for marine wildlife through the implementation process. The decisions made, and actions taken, over the next five years will determine the future of the UK’s seas. This is a unique opportunity and we must seize it.
If you would like to read about how our seas are now but a shadow of their former selves I suggest you read “The Unnatural History of the Sea” by professor Callum Roberts.
This is an incredible eye-opener. The history of our marine environment is one of long term damage from unsustainable activities and poor regulation. It is a classic “tragedy of the commons” situation. Nobody will restrict their use of the sea, even if it would protect dwindling fish stocks because others would always step in and exploit them instead. The statistics are daunting. There would probably be about 20 times as many fish in the North Sea, if it was not fished, and the over-fishing of the last century means that we are now landing less than 10% of the fish that were landed in 1900.
Callum Roberts’ view, supported by clear logic, is that we need to protect as much as 30% of the sea and reduce the intensity of use over much of the rest. Far from disadvantaging the fishing industry, this is probably the only action that will save it. Protected zones are massively productive, so areas around them have significantly increased fish stocks. For example one small protected area near Devon has a lobster population 8 times greater than outside, and fishers benefit from this as stocks spill out into surrounding areas.
My feeling is that the situation in Sussex is actually improving. Much of the remaining fishing industry is conducted on a more sustainable basis and the trick will now be to make sure that regulation boosts local fishing, perhaps protecting it from over-exploitation from further afield. There are even ideas that the whole of the Sussex fishery should be certified by the Marine Stewardship Council. If this was done then it would mean that anyone buying local fish could be confident that they weren’t damaging the marine environment by doing so. (If it is not done then perhaps people should question whether they should really buy endangered-fish-and-chips for supper).
Implemented well, the Marine Act will not be a case of conservation versus fishing; it will be a case of conservation ensuring the survival of fishing.
And there is more to the sea than fish for the dinner plate. Taken as a whole the sea is the fundamental regulator for the functioning of the whole planet. From the weather, to nutrient cycling and the provision of oxygen for us to breathe the sea is pretty important! World wide, the expansion of “dead zones” – zones where the ecosystem has essentially collapsed – should be a concern for all of us. Sorting out our approach to our own seas is vital. But we can’t just push the problem off to somewhere else.
Tuesday, 17 November 2009
Thursday, 5 November 2009
Chris Packham at SWT’s 2009 AGM
Over 200 people came along to our AGM on Saturday 31st October and were treated to an excellent presentation by Chris Packham.
It would have been great to get him along just to hear about his favourite wildlife observations, and maybe listen to some stories from the Autumnwatch programme. But what we got was an inspiring challenge – recognising what we have done so far but spurring us on to do more.
Before Chris’s talk I gave a rather disorganised ramble through SWT action over the last year – a discussion of the projects we are engaged in. This had a positive slant because, obviously, I am quite proud of what the Trust is doing. He said that while this is great – it is not enough. We have still not turned the tide and reversed the wildlife losses of the last decades. We are still not winning.
And he is right. To highlight the size of the challenge he read back some of the points made in our own pamphlet “Sussex Wildlife Today”. This was a short document we produced to report on how we felt wildlife had faired since we produced our “Vision for the Wildlife of Sussex” in 1996. http://www.sussexwt.org.uk/about/page00006.htm
So what were some of the key points he pulled out:
Lowland meadows still suffering a greater rate of loss than any other habitat.
Coastal habitat still being lost in spite of projects to create more.
Reactionary objection to environmental schemes where they are being promoted.
Targets for heathland presented in the Vision not achieved.
And so on.
He summarised with one of the key conclusions that we drew in “Sussex Wildlife Today” –
The scale is unbalanced; we have big threats but only small opportunities.
So we have to make best use of those small opportunities.
Having said this Chris was very positive about the approaches that Wildlife Trusts are taking all over the country, including here in Sussex. The Living Landscape approach http://www.sussexwt.org.uk/conservation/living_landscapes/page00002.htm was praised as an initiative looking to work at a larger scale to deliver nature conservation over whole landscapes. Nature reserves are important, but they must be part of the wider landscape and be of value to people. He liked some of our large scale approaches, like the West Weald Landscape Project, and also liked the way that projects like this aim to integrate benefits for wildlife with the benefits for people.
Whilst we in nature conservation may be fascinated by the re-appearance of a wood boring beetle thought extinct in England for 150 years, to most people this would be of little more than passing interest. Being inspired by nature, recognising its value, demanding it and being a part of it are much more important. If we achieve that then perhaps everyone will be fascinated by rare beetles.
When I ask people what they remember about his talk they often point to one particular example. I will probably summarise badly, however one of his key points concerned what to give children and grand children for Christmas this year. Instead of giving children some piece of plastic, consumer rubbish he said spend time with them, instead of spending money on them. Take them out into an area of green space and encourage them to experience the real world. Show them nature, get them to see it, hear it, smell it – and hopefully value it. Most of the people in the audience will probably have been turned on to nature by some direct experience in their past – not by seeing it on TV or over the internet or even by reading books. So we owe it to our children to give them that experience, rather than palm them off with just another “thing”.
Maybe this is not just a message for children though – perhaps we should all forget the shinny things and go out and enjoy nature instead!
Monday, 12 October 2009
How will a New Town improve this!!?
Tuesday, 6 October 2009
Adversane New Town
We knew it would happen. If government tries to force large numbers of houses into an already crowded part of the country then conflicts were bound to happen. The South East Plan puts local councils in the invidious position of being forced to build over their own countryside.
This is what has happened in Horsham District and this is why we are now faced with mad schemes like the Adversane New Town.
A quiet, rural part of West Sussex, a small hamlet with just a few houses, will turn into an extended sub-urban settlement – 4,000 houses, as many as in Billingshurst and Pulborough combined. We will end up with ribbon development – continuous housing from north of Billingshurst to south of Pulborough – effectively doubling the population of the area to around 26,000 people.
But even bearing in mind the developer’s charter that is the South East Plan, is this inevitable?
The SE Plan dictates that the District must find locations for 13,000 houses yet all the proposals in Horsham’s Core Strategy add up to over 20,000.
Furthermore the SE Plan says that only 3,800 should be outside the Gatwick area (so why are there proposals for at least 4,000 in Adversane alone?).
Carry on reading the SE Plan and you find clear policies stating that at least 60% of any new development should be on previously developed land, otherwise known as brown field land. What is more, there are key policies about protecting the landscape, conserving and enhancing wildlife and building in such a way as to retain and enhance the character of an area. None of the plans in Horsham’s Core Strategy are for houses on brown field land and all the proposals will harm the character of the area.
Do the sums. Even if we accept the SE Plans demands (which I do not) we should be looking for locations for 3,800 homes in rural Horsham, of which 60% (2,280) should be on brown field land. This leaves only 1,520 to be placed on green field sites in rural Horsham. A large number certainly, but nothing like the 20,000 in the current Core Strategy.
Maybe it is disingenuous of the SE Plan. There may not be enough previously developed land in rural areas, like Horsham, to be able to keep all this housing away from green field land. Maybe Horsham District Council are not trying hard enough to find brown field sites, or maybe they are just not there to be found.
But government would never dream of reducing the housing allocation because it can’t be met on brown field sites.
Why is it that every time there is a conflict of policies it is always the environment that looses out?
The pattern is always the same:
You can’t put all the houses on brown field land so don’t reduce the number, just put them on green field land – forget environmental protection.
If there isn’t enough water then just find some more, no matter what the environmental damage.
The roads get congested, so just build them bigger and don’t listen to the complaints of the people who have had their lives ruined.
We are often told, in situations like this that “difficult choices may have to be made”. In practice, whenever people in authority say this, it means they want to be able to make the easy choice, not the difficult one.
In this case the easy choice will be to ignore everyone and over-develop the area come-what-may.
The difficult choice would be to plan within the ability of the area to absorb development. And if this means less development – then that is the difficult choice.
Thursday, 24 September 2009
Concreting over the countryside
A “strategic site option”. This is code for a New Town, and that is what is threatened between Billingshurst and Pulborough around what is now the small hamlet of Adversane.The proposal is for between 4000 and 5000 houses on about 155 ha of quiet rural West Sussex. That will be a population of around 10 to 12,000 people – bigger than both Billingshurst and Pulborough added together, and about the same size as the much criticised Ford “Eco” Town south of Arundel.
A new town of this size would essentially join up Billingshurst and Pulborough, making an expanded settlement of over 8,000 houses. Add in the 1750 houses also proposed for Billingshurst and 280 for Pulborough and we are heading for a major urban settlement of around 10,000 houses (total), more than 25,000 people. I thought that amalgamation of settlements into a large sub-urban mass was something that we were trying to avoid these days!
Swept away will be ancient woodlands, species rich hedgerows and the foraging areas of one of Europe’s rarest bats. Tranquillity would disappear to be replaced by many thousand extra car movements along the A29 and surrounding roads. This major development would completely devastate the area, changing it from a rural location into an expanse of suburbia.
And how do we know about it - through one of the passages in the Core Strategy of the Horsham District Councils Local Development Framework. Hardly bed-time reading for normal human-beings, but it shows how astute you have to be to stand a chance of arguing against major urban expansion.
I have seen reports tucked away in some of the local papers and the magnitude of the threat is slowly dawning on people. The Local Parish Councils, to their credit, are doing what they can to raise awareness. But I am slightly amazed that our local media, normally so good at these matters, are not jumping up and down.
So who would live in this new town and where would they work? There is no demand for a large work force in the area and no proposal for major industrial development to support the huge population increase. The consultation document itself says that this development would not support a range of services - an admission that it will be a dormitory town for people working elsewhere, probably in London. As such this form of town could be placed anywhere around London, there is no overriding need for it to be in Adversane. There is nothing wrong with people working in London whilst living in and appreciating Sussex. But we are now being threatened by a waste tip for London’s waste down the road at Laybrook, and a sub-urban sprawl designed only to be a dormitory town for London. Isn’t this all getting a bit unbalanced?
This is so often the case. We get big, menacing plans for housing development, being told that we are forced into this because of the South East Plan. But there are other policies in the SE Plan, including policies for nature conservation, and all policies are supposed to be balanced against each other. We have the site allocations for housing, so where are the site allocations for nature development?
Perhaps some policies are more equal than others.
Have your say!
Get the documents and response forms at http://www.horshamdistrictldf.info/LDDS/local_dev_documents_4625.asp
and go along to the exhibitions at Billingshurst Village Hall on 10am on 26th September and at Adversane Village Hall on 3rd October.
Let’s not sleep-walk into a miniature Milton-Keynes.
Wednesday, 2 September 2009
This is not a barren quarry devoid of life!
My last blog posting outlined my general concerns about our throw-away society, in particular highlighting concerns about the proposed Laybrook landfill site as an example of the damage that can be done. I do not know the site but I had an excellent comment back from Pip Edgcombe who has clearly done significant research in the area.
I think this is a comment well worth reading so rather than leaving people to click on the comments box, I though I'd just publish it word for word as a separate blog posting:
This hole in the ground, Laybrook brickworks, does have significant existing wildlife interest. Far from being a barren quarry devoid of life, the varied mosaic of different habitats in and around the brickworks and the fact that it remains relatively undisturbed for much of the time has resulted in a site which supports a diverse mix of invertebrate, bird and mammal species. Many of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority species and other high conservation species are represented.
23 bird species with high conservation status were recorded by Cory's consultants (ESL) but based on other records and local knowledge this is a very conservative figure, it could be as high as 45.
There is a considerable bat population at the site with 8 species (including barbastelles) being recorded by ESL at the site and another over the adjacent fishing ponds. Many of the foraging habitats and the hedges used as flight lines by the bats will be destroyed. Work being undertaken at Knepp indicate that ESLs records are incomplete.
Water voles are also present on the site. There are very few colonies anywhere in the Adur, and the existing populations are extremely fragmented and vulnerable to extinction. The proposed landfill, rather than affording protection that is required by law, will result in the total destruction of their habitat.
As far as invertebrates are concerned the site is incredibly rich which is why it can support so many other species. Of the 565 species recorded by ESL, 60 have formal conservation status. ESL themselves describe it as a ‘site with a wide diversity of invertebrate interest’. The reason there are so many insects is because of the wide variety of habitats. Most of these will be destroyed during the construction and running of the landfill site. Mitigation measures are proposed to replace the hedges and plant new trees. However the current habitats have developed over tens, probably hundreds of years. They cannot be replaced overnight. The result will be habitat simplification, with a concomitant simplification of biodiversity that again the more common, competitive, species at the expense of far rarer niche-specialists. In addition, there will be a considerable delay before any restoration is carried out and be functional even at a basic level.
Landfill gas, landfill gas flare emissions, leachate, polluted surface water, dust, litter, noise and vermin are known to impact flora and fauna. Planning permission for the landfill should be refused as it is not needed and not wanted but also on the basis that this is an area of great biodiversity value, the ecology reports submitted by Cory's consultants are not complete and that the full impact on the ecology of the brickworks and the surrounding area has not been assessed.
Very many thanks, Pip, its good to have an insight from someone who knows the area.
I think this is a comment well worth reading so rather than leaving people to click on the comments box, I though I'd just publish it word for word as a separate blog posting:
This hole in the ground, Laybrook brickworks, does have significant existing wildlife interest. Far from being a barren quarry devoid of life, the varied mosaic of different habitats in and around the brickworks and the fact that it remains relatively undisturbed for much of the time has resulted in a site which supports a diverse mix of invertebrate, bird and mammal species. Many of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority species and other high conservation species are represented.
23 bird species with high conservation status were recorded by Cory's consultants (ESL) but based on other records and local knowledge this is a very conservative figure, it could be as high as 45.
There is a considerable bat population at the site with 8 species (including barbastelles) being recorded by ESL at the site and another over the adjacent fishing ponds. Many of the foraging habitats and the hedges used as flight lines by the bats will be destroyed. Work being undertaken at Knepp indicate that ESLs records are incomplete.
Water voles are also present on the site. There are very few colonies anywhere in the Adur, and the existing populations are extremely fragmented and vulnerable to extinction. The proposed landfill, rather than affording protection that is required by law, will result in the total destruction of their habitat.
As far as invertebrates are concerned the site is incredibly rich which is why it can support so many other species. Of the 565 species recorded by ESL, 60 have formal conservation status. ESL themselves describe it as a ‘site with a wide diversity of invertebrate interest’. The reason there are so many insects is because of the wide variety of habitats. Most of these will be destroyed during the construction and running of the landfill site. Mitigation measures are proposed to replace the hedges and plant new trees. However the current habitats have developed over tens, probably hundreds of years. They cannot be replaced overnight. The result will be habitat simplification, with a concomitant simplification of biodiversity that again the more common, competitive, species at the expense of far rarer niche-specialists. In addition, there will be a considerable delay before any restoration is carried out and be functional even at a basic level.
Landfill gas, landfill gas flare emissions, leachate, polluted surface water, dust, litter, noise and vermin are known to impact flora and fauna. Planning permission for the landfill should be refused as it is not needed and not wanted but also on the basis that this is an area of great biodiversity value, the ecology reports submitted by Cory's consultants are not complete and that the full impact on the ecology of the brickworks and the surrounding area has not been assessed.
Very many thanks, Pip, its good to have an insight from someone who knows the area.
Tuesday, 18 August 2009
We can’t throw things away – because there is no “away” left!
Chucking things away on a huge scale is a painful symptom of our modern society.
When you think about it, this makes no logical sense. We take resources that have taken millions of years to build up, make something briefly of use to us and then chuck them away where they become pollutants, make mess and take up space.
This is clearly unsustainable (yes – that “sustainable” thing again – it’s not jargon, it just means you plainly can’t do this for ever!). Furthermore, this causes damage to wildlife in all sorts of ways. One result that is all too obvious to people living in parts of Sussex is the need for landfill sites. We are running out of holes in the ground where we can casually throw our cast-offs so what we are left with is getting more and more damaging.
One site that is causing well-deserved concern is a proposal to fill a clay pit at Lay Brook with waste. This is a site near Ashington, immediately adjacent to Knepp – one of the country’s leading conservation projects.
I have talked about the Knepp estate in this blog before. For more details go to the estate’s own web site at http://www.knepp.co.uk/.
Suffice it to say here that the Sussex Wildlife Trusts has long supported the project and we consider ourselves extremely fortunate to have one of the country’s best re-wilding projects on our doorstep. What is more, it is not just us that support it – friends of the project come from all over Britain (e.g. the Environment Agency and Natural England) and Europe. It has also received warm support from the Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment. See:
http://www.nickherbert.com/Nick_Herbert_visits_Knepp_Wildland_Project.aspx?ArticleID=3356&PageID=65&RefPageID=23
The presence of a landfill so close to its borders could have a major effect. The proposed pit is wet – i.e. it fills up with water. Filling this up with any old waste would be extremely damaging. Dumped waste here would rot, chemicals would leach out and surrounding rivers would be devastated. This pit would leach directly out into the river Adur as it runs through Knepp. That would be the end of any re-wilding attempts. This would clearly not be allowed so, generally, two solutions are proposed. First the pit would be “sealed”, so nothing could leach out. Second, only inert waste that would not rot would be allowed in.
The trouble is that I am not sure this really works in practice.
First a pit will never really be sealed permanently – polluted water will always get in and out somehow, getting into surrounding rivers. Preventing a pit from flooding into surrounding steams becomes even more difficult with the increase in severe rains storms that we are now getting.
Second, can we really trust people dumping waste to only dump the most inert material into a big wet hole? Would anyone really notice the odd rotting refuse sack, oil drum or paint pot (until it started leaching into the surrounding river)?
Furthermore, these holes in the ground often have significant existing wildlife interest, or have the potential to develop it. The largest sand marten colony in Sussex is in an old sand pit for example. Holes in the ground are not just wasted land waiting to be dumped in – they are assets that could have a very positive potential use.
The current issue - Laybrook landfill - will shortly be considered by the County Council. For further details, with advice on how to make representations on the proposal, then the web site http://www.nolaybrooklandfill.co.uk/ is perhaps a good starting point.
However, we shouldn’t only be fighting against landfill sites, instead we should be forming partnership to work together and make best use of these potential assets. In other words we should be pushing for what we do want in these places, not just having to fight against what we don't. For my part I’d like to see a restored, re-naturalised lake and wetland there.
But all of this comes down to our attitude to consumption and waste. If we can’t consume without wasting then we shouldn’t consume in the first place. It may be reassuring to blame the County Council or the landfill companies (and the Sussex Wildlife Trust will oppose damaging landfill along with everyone else), but really they are just dealing with a problem that we are giving them. Obviously we have to produce less waste, obviously we have to reuse and recycle more and maybe there will always be some residue left to dispose of (maybe in an incinerator outside somebody else’s house). But the only real answer is to move to a no-waste society. Idealistic? Well I would say not, indeed our current get it, use it, chuck it approach is a silly ideal, and one that is now failing.
When you think about it, this makes no logical sense. We take resources that have taken millions of years to build up, make something briefly of use to us and then chuck them away where they become pollutants, make mess and take up space.
This is clearly unsustainable (yes – that “sustainable” thing again – it’s not jargon, it just means you plainly can’t do this for ever!). Furthermore, this causes damage to wildlife in all sorts of ways. One result that is all too obvious to people living in parts of Sussex is the need for landfill sites. We are running out of holes in the ground where we can casually throw our cast-offs so what we are left with is getting more and more damaging.
One site that is causing well-deserved concern is a proposal to fill a clay pit at Lay Brook with waste. This is a site near Ashington, immediately adjacent to Knepp – one of the country’s leading conservation projects.
I have talked about the Knepp estate in this blog before. For more details go to the estate’s own web site at http://www.knepp.co.uk/.
Suffice it to say here that the Sussex Wildlife Trusts has long supported the project and we consider ourselves extremely fortunate to have one of the country’s best re-wilding projects on our doorstep. What is more, it is not just us that support it – friends of the project come from all over Britain (e.g. the Environment Agency and Natural England) and Europe. It has also received warm support from the Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment. See:
http://www.nickherbert.com/Nick_Herbert_visits_Knepp_Wildland_Project.aspx?ArticleID=3356&PageID=65&RefPageID=23
The presence of a landfill so close to its borders could have a major effect. The proposed pit is wet – i.e. it fills up with water. Filling this up with any old waste would be extremely damaging. Dumped waste here would rot, chemicals would leach out and surrounding rivers would be devastated. This pit would leach directly out into the river Adur as it runs through Knepp. That would be the end of any re-wilding attempts. This would clearly not be allowed so, generally, two solutions are proposed. First the pit would be “sealed”, so nothing could leach out. Second, only inert waste that would not rot would be allowed in.
The trouble is that I am not sure this really works in practice.
First a pit will never really be sealed permanently – polluted water will always get in and out somehow, getting into surrounding rivers. Preventing a pit from flooding into surrounding steams becomes even more difficult with the increase in severe rains storms that we are now getting.
Second, can we really trust people dumping waste to only dump the most inert material into a big wet hole? Would anyone really notice the odd rotting refuse sack, oil drum or paint pot (until it started leaching into the surrounding river)?
Furthermore, these holes in the ground often have significant existing wildlife interest, or have the potential to develop it. The largest sand marten colony in Sussex is in an old sand pit for example. Holes in the ground are not just wasted land waiting to be dumped in – they are assets that could have a very positive potential use.
The current issue - Laybrook landfill - will shortly be considered by the County Council. For further details, with advice on how to make representations on the proposal, then the web site http://www.nolaybrooklandfill.co.uk/ is perhaps a good starting point.
However, we shouldn’t only be fighting against landfill sites, instead we should be forming partnership to work together and make best use of these potential assets. In other words we should be pushing for what we do want in these places, not just having to fight against what we don't. For my part I’d like to see a restored, re-naturalised lake and wetland there.
But all of this comes down to our attitude to consumption and waste. If we can’t consume without wasting then we shouldn’t consume in the first place. It may be reassuring to blame the County Council or the landfill companies (and the Sussex Wildlife Trust will oppose damaging landfill along with everyone else), but really they are just dealing with a problem that we are giving them. Obviously we have to produce less waste, obviously we have to reuse and recycle more and maybe there will always be some residue left to dispose of (maybe in an incinerator outside somebody else’s house). But the only real answer is to move to a no-waste society. Idealistic? Well I would say not, indeed our current get it, use it, chuck it approach is a silly ideal, and one that is now failing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
