Economic benefits of the South Downs National Park

Last week saw the publication of the South Downs Visitor Survey.  This outlines the impact and benefits of visitors to the South Downs National Park.  The headline story is that there were about 46.3 million day visits, the vast majority of which were made by local people.  Visitors spent some £464 million in the local economy in 2011/12, supporting 8,200 jobs.  Nationally (in England & Wales), this places the South Downs third in terms of overall spend in National Parks: the Lake District was first with £952 million a year and the Pembrokeshire Coast second with £498 million a year.

To read a longer review of this survey see "Have we seen the benefit" on the South Downs Network web site.

Business recognises nature’s true value

A new report, published today, recognises business’ true reliance on nature and its true value to the economy.

Realising nature’s value is a report from the independent, business-led, Ecosystems Markets Task Force.

The Ecosystems Markets Task Force (EMTF) brings together industry leaders and experts from a wide range of sectors, ranging from banking and biodiversity conservation to beauty, to look for ways in which companies can improve both the environment and their bottom line.  

On 6 November 2012, the Task Force published its Interim Report, Why valuing the natural environment correctly matters for business.  The report set out the aims of the Task Force, its emerging thinking on why nature should matter to business and the potential opportunities for business from valuing nature correctly.  Led by Ian Cheshire, Group Chief Executive of retail group Kingfisher plc, the EMTF will review the opportunities available to UK business that could help them develop green goods, services, investment vehicles and markets which value and protect the environment.  The Task Force will report back to the Government in early 2013 through the Green Economy Council.  You can read the report, published on Defra’s website http://www.defra.gov.uk/ecosystem-markets/work/publications-reports/

The report strongly signals the need to take a fresh look at business to ensure that opportunities are taken to link business development with protecting and restoring the natural environment.  

Nature is good for business.  That is a fact.  Society has been too reliant on an old-fashioned view of economic growth which seems to imagine that wealth creation can somehow be achieved at the expense of the natural environment.  Yet our prosperity depends entirely on nature whether it is better management of our woods for fuel, the creation of wetlands to reduce flooding, the restoration of rivers to improve water quality, or creating new wildlife-rich places where people live.  In future, economic growth that damages the environment will simply not be considered economic growth at all.  Businesses that recognise this now and get ahead of the curve will be in a better competitive position in the future.

One of the report’s recommendations is the mandatory linking of biodiversity offsetting to new developments.  This means that, once the most important wildlife sites have been protected, any residual environmental impact will be “paid for” through a system of conservation credits.  The Wildlife Trusts welcome the report’s recommendation for this to be mandatory.  Any land lost to development should lead to gains for wildlife elsewhere.

We must not hold business back from doing the right thing.  Biodiversity off-setting must be mandatory to avoid creating uncertainty and a sense that wildlife is an ‘optional extra’.  I have not read the entire report but this recommendation is an example of some of the important thinking that has gone into the report.

The Government will respond to the Ecosystems Markets Task Force report Realising nature’s value in the summer when The Wildlife Trusts will look for recognition by the Government that nature is vital to the economy.

 

Protect for prosperity – protecting marine ecosystems DOES make economic sense.

Marine nature conservation and the fishing industry are not opposites, indeed the first is essential in order to have the second.  This is a message I’ve promoted in previous blogs and indeed evidence from around the world shows that if some areas are set aside from exploitation then the overall amount of fish available increases.

But the importance of the marine environment does not stop at fish and chips.  Far more of the earth is covered by sea than is covered by land.  The marine environment is the great natural engine that drives the biological, chemical and physical cycles of the planet.  More than half the oxygen we breathe comes from algae in the sea.  The sea determines our weather – especially in Britain.  Everything we put on the land ends up in the sea so the ability of the sea to recycle minerals and ameliorate pollutants is central to our existence.  The sea buffers the heat from the sun, makes clouds and delivers rain.  Planet earth should not be called planet earth, it should be called planet water!

It is a scandal that, in the process of developing Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs), these benefits have been virtually ignored.    Nature conservation in the sea has been assumed to be a “cost” measured only by an imagined reduction of income for the fishing industry. 

To showcase the potential benefits from the proposed network of MCZs in English and offshore Welsh waters, The Wildlife Trusts commissioned a report from Plymouth University.  This concluded that:

• MCZs can increase the socio-economic benefits of the marine environment. Designation should improve beneficial ecosystem services.
• The more connected the network, the more we benefit. The more MCZs there are, the bigger they are and the more joined up they are the better it is for society and the economy.
• Doing nothing means we lose economically as well as environmentally. Failure to designate the network of MCZs is likely to result in the deterioration of the beneficial ecosystem services.  In other words if we sit on our hands and do nothing, even the current degraded level of economic benefit that we get from the marine environment will not be sustained.

Experience across the world shows that Marine Protected Areas provide economic and social benefits that far outweigh the costs of designation and management.  Yet Defra’s impact assessment failed to mention any monetary benefits that would arise from the designation of individual sites or for the network as a whole.

Finally, congratulations to Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall’s Fish Fight.  Hugh, in partnership with the Marine Conservation Society, the London Aquarium and British Sub-Aqua Club is leading a march to defend MCZs to defend MCZs in London on 25^th February. Why not join in?

Hugh’s Fish Fight

It was really good to see the first in the series of Hugh’s Fish Fight last night.  The Wildlife Trusts have been campaigning for years to improve the protection of our marine environment and it is really good to see someone bring this more into the public arena.

The statistics are stark:  We probably have less than one twentieth of the fish in the sea than we might expect in a natural situation.  If you compare the catch landed in the year 1900 with the catch landed in the year 2000 (with the massive increase in technology and fishing effort), less than 10% of the 1900 figure was landed in 2000.  The odds are that if we had managed the sea sustainably we would now be harvesting vastly more fish than we are now.  

This is not a case of conservationists causing the collapse of an industry.  This is a case of an industry, through bad practice, bad management and (especially) bad regulation, killing itself.  Indeed it is the action of conservationists that is the one thing that might save the industry in the long term.

The Marine Act was a success.  The proposal for 127 Marine Conservation Zones, whilst extremely limited, was a success.  The number of actual MCZs going forward to consultation (31) is a scandal!  The reticence is due to some skewed view of economics where the environment is always perceived as a cost and any exploitative activity is seen as income.  Here we have a very clear example of where an unsustainable industry has damaged itself, and yet people still seem to see the conservation of the resource it relies on as a cost!  MCZs will mean more fish in the sea, not less, and could be one of the ways of saving the industry, not damaging it.

So, please take a look at the wildlife Trusts web site and see our film and look at Hugh’s web site for how you can support the campaign for better protection of our seas.

Huge support for strong marine protection

There is now a huge wave of public support for greater protection for UK’s seas and coastline. A quarter of a million people have signed up to the Wildlife Trusts Petition Fish campaign, to be presented to Natural Environment Minister, Richard Benyon at a Parliamentary reception at the House of Commons, hosted by the Wildlife Trusts. Sussex Wildlife Trust collected some 5,000 of these signatures.

Sussex Wildlife Trust hopes to meet local MPs to highlight the unprecedented opportunity that this country has to protect our marine environment using Marine Conservation Zones. There were 10 MCZs recommended for the sea around Sussex including a diversity of valuable marine habitats. These range from the tiny “Utopia” site off Selsey, important for its rare mixture of sponges and coral through to the large “Offshore Brighton” site, a deep water rocky site important for its diversity of rays and other fish. Of these 10, only 3 of the smaller sites (Pagham Harbour, Kingmere and Beachy Head West) have made it to this consultation phase.

A new poll, commissioned by The Wildlife Trusts, also shows the extent of public support for greater marine protection. 92% said that in circumstances where sea life is threatened by commercial activity such as industrial fishing or dredging, priority should be given to protecting nature, even if this means putting restrictions on where commercial activities can take place.


A new report highlights the benefits to be gained by society and the economy if the Government adopts a network of Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) around UK shores in 2013. Our surrounding seas have an astonishingly varied range of submerged landscapes which support wonderful marine life: from cold water coral beds to sponge meadows, canyons and sandbanks. MCZs were conceived to protect the plants, animals and habitats within them from the most damaging of activities, whilst mostly allowing sustainable activity to continue. This report helps confirm our long-held view that marine protection is not simply a clash between economy and environment. Protecting our marine life is the right thing to do in any case, but on top of that will yield far greater economic benefits than if we allow it to carry on degrading.



Securing the benefits of the Marine Conservation Zone Network was written by the Centre for Marine and Coastal Policy Research at Plymouth University and commissioned by The Wildlife Trusts. Its publication coincides with The Wildlife Trusts’ parliamentary event and with the Government’s current public consultation on MCZs (which closes on Sunday, 31 March).

The assessment was carried out in two ways: by analysing the provision of beneficial ecosystem services from the entire recommended MCZ network (of 127 sites) and by doing a more detailed analysis of four example MCZs. These four sites were analysed to identify the changes in beneficial ecosystem services under four different management scenarios: do nothing, recover, maintain, and improve. The report reveals that:


• MCZ designation is likely to improve the beneficial ecosystem services available at MCZs, eg food security, resilience against environmental challenges and pollution – looking specifically at four case studies, including Kingmere off Sussex. These ecosystem services, in turn, support activities of social and economic importance such as fishing, tourism and recreation.

• In all four case studies it was predicted that there would be potential additional benefits for commercial fishing, improved natural coastal protection, and increased opportunities for nature-watching and tourism while accepting that some commercial fisheries could possibly experience initial short-term disadvantage before longer-term benefits were seen.

• If these benefits of MCZ designation were copied across all recommended MCZ sites, the benefits of designating the entire network of 127 recommended sites are anticipated to be significant. MCZs working together in a network would play an instrumental role in the delivery of ecosystem service benefits and their socio-economic value. Therefore, designation of an ecologically coherent network as a whole is likely to bring greater benefits than the designation of a few isolated sites.

• Non-designation of sites is likely to result in the deterioration of the beneficial ecosystem services at MCZ sites. It could also have an adverse impact on the potential to deliver ecosystem services on a wider scale.

Sussex Wildlife Trust was disappointed that the full network of 127 recommended MCZs for the whole England were not on the Government’s list published for public consultation in December.  These Marine Conservation Zones were chosen after two years’ work by more than one million stakeholders from all sectors of the marine environment and at a cost of over £8.8 million to Government. You can visit all these zones on our interactive map and see some of the wonders they are home to.
The Sussex Wildlife Trust now calls for:

• The Government to designate all 31 of the proposed MCZs in 2013 and enforce appropriate management in these sites as soon as possible. 31 Marine Conservation Zones are a step forward, but is less the 25% of the minimum that is needed for a coherent and effective ecological network.


• The Government to set a clear timetable for the rest of the network to be designated.


• The sites identified by Natural England as being most under threat to be designated urgently.


• The evidence that the Government spent £5m collecting last year (which has not yet been used) to be taken into account immediately, along with that collected by stakeholders in 2012.


• Proper protection of sites as soon as they are designated - including banning bottom-trawling and dredging in these areas.


I would now like to encourage everyone in Sussex to respond to the Government’s consultation. The public can help us ensure that the 31 sites that the Government have selected are only the start. We also need to ensure that the remaining sites are not forgotten.

Simon King OBE, The Wildlife Trusts’ President, said:

“Whilst disappointed all 127 recommended Marine Conservation Zones are not immediately being designated, we are heartened to hear the Government confirms it has every intention of designating 127 and more if necessary. We understand that resources don’t allow this to happen in the first year - nonetheless the pressure is on. Time is of the essence. With every passing week, month, year, we are at risk of losing more of this precious resource.”

Go to www.wildlifetrusts.org to respond to the consultation.

Local people join debate to shape the future of our rivers

On the 26th November I promoted an important meeting that was about to be held by the Arun and Rother Rivers Trust (ARRT) to discuss the management of the Arun catchment.

The event actually took place on 6th December and was a great success.

Hosted by ARRT, the Arun and Rother Connections (ARC) Partnership and the South Downs National Park Authority, the event provided an opportunity for people to learn more about the catchment. It was an open event, held over two sessions at Pulborough Village Hall which encouraged people from within and around the catchment to debate and discuss their concerns for the rivers and streams, the different ways of managing them and to identify funding possibilities and opportunities for working together.

Sir Sebastian Anstruther, Chairman of the Arun & Rother Rivers Trust, said of the event: “I’m delighted that so many people took the time to attend our event, which shows just how important our rivers and streams are to people living in and around the catchment. “It was great to hear views from a range of people who work or live by the water - farmers, landowners, anglers and those who just enjoy living in and around them.

“Our local rivers are precious and important for our economy, health, well-being, leisure and for the wider environment, but they are under increasing threat. By working together we can develop a clear vision for a rich and thriving river system and the views, contacts and discussions from this recent revent will help us shape how we do that. We will continue to keep local people informed and involved as we progress with our work.”

I went to the evening session and was delighted (although not surprised) by the positive attitude by all in the room.  I am lucky in that I live in the area as well - so it is my home-patch.  The meeting helped confirm my long-held belief that if you get real people in a room talking about real issues in their local patch then it is not too difficult to get a consensus - no matter what sector or special interest group people feel they come from.

A good day, and congratulations to all who organised it.

A pitiful attempt to save our seas.

I am bitterly disappointed by the government’s feeble attempt at marine nature conservation coming from the recent announcement about Marine Conservation Zones.

Defra has now released its long-awaited consultation on the next stages of designation of Marine Conservation Zones in English and non-devolved waters and proposes to designate only 31 of the 127 sites recommended by experts and stakeholders at the end of August last year.  This is less than 25% of what experts say was the minimum required in order to deliver an effective marine ecological network.

The 127 recommended Marine Conservation Zones were chosen after two years of hard work by more than one million stakeholders from all sectors of the marine environment and at a cost of over £8.8 million to Government. 

In Sussex only 3 of the 10 proposed sites are going forward and none at all are progressing in Hampshire.

You can visit these zones on our interactive map and see some of the wonders they are home to at www.wildlifetrusts.org/MCZmap

Marine Conservation Zones should have protected the species and habitats found within them from the most damaging and degrading activities whilst mostly allowing sustainable activity to continue.  The network was designed to ensure that we don’t end up with isolated and vulnerable sites and to ensure that the wide range of marine habitats found in UK seas are protected.  Failure to designate all but a very small proportion of sites recommended by these stakeholders will mean that we lack the ecologically coherent network that our seas so badly need to recover.

The UK’s marine habitats are rich and diverse but largely unprotected - which is why The Wildlife Trusts spent a decade promoting the Marine and Coastal Access Act, eventually adopted in 2009.  This included a commitment to designate this ecologically coherent marine network of protected areas. 

Our surrounding seas have an astonishingly varied range of submerged landscapes which support wonderful marine life: from cold water coral beds to sponge meadows, canyons and sandbanks.  Without these there simply wouldn't be any fish, let alone fantastic jewel anemones, seahorses, dolphins, brittlestars and all the other wild and extraordinary creatures which are part of a healthy marine ecosystem.

Despite the variety of fantastic species and habitats, our marine environment is in severe decline.  In the last 400 years, two species of whale and dolphin have gone extinct in UK waters and of the 11 commonly sighted species found in UK waters, all are in decline.  Basking shark numbers have declined by 95% and species such as the common skate, once abundant in our waters are now critically endangered.  For too long, we have taken this environment for granted, taking too much, with too little care, destroying fragile habitats.

Designation of an ecologically coherent network would have provided our seas with the protection they need to recover from past abuses and help them to be restored to their full potential.  

This shirking of responsibility is now a significant failure of government. 

Whilst many fishermen have campaigned against MCZs, I do not blame the fishermen.  Indeed they have been the greatest victims of failure in regulation for decades.  An effective network of MCZs would have stimulated the recovery of marine life including commercially exploitable fish.  Some have presented MCZs as something that is being taken away from the fishermen when in fact the opposite is the case.  Evidence from around the world shows that even where areas are restricted to fishing the local seas become so much more productive that far more fish are caught overall.  In other words, looking after the marine environment properly provides more fish, not less.

Also, I know our local MPs have been active in supporting the Marine Act and in promoting MCZs.

Lack of information has been blamed but this is a pure smoke-screen.  After all this time, expense and the involvement of so many experts it is about as clear as it can be that this functional network of protected areas is vital to restore Living Seas.

So what has gone wrong?

I think the blame lies on the promotion of half-baked ideas of the socio-economic impacts, driven largely by The Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.  A bland mantra promoting the removal of (perceived) blocks to (undefined) economic growth seems to be thwarting all attempts of more rational progress. In spite of good work being done elsewhere in government, they seem to have lost touch with the fundamentals that underpin the country’s economy – the environment.  Without fish you can’t have a fishing industry.  Reducing exploitation of something that is over-exploited is a sensible economic decision, not one that blocks the economy.  To do otherwise is like insisting on chopping more trees down once the forest has gone, like digging a deeper mine even though you know there are no more minerals or like trying to extract more water out of a well that is already dry.  Closing eyes and carrying on regardless is economically disastrous as well as being ecologically devastating.  The sea is far too important to allow second-level issues to subvert a far more important primary objective – that of protecting the resource on which we all rely.

The Wildlife Trusts will be responding to the Government consultation at the end of January.  We will be publishing our recommendations on the consultation on our webpage.  Meanwhile, we urge those interested in responding to the consultation, to sign up to be an MCZ friend so that we can contact you when we have considered our response to the consultation. Go to www.wildlifetrusts.org/MCZfriends to sign up.