BlueChaffinch,
Very good summary, but my cynicism trigger is pulled by trying to place 'more intelligent ways' and imagining the government dealing with complex issues intelligently into the same paragraph!
In wildlife and conservation legislation, there is a need for a standards body that has the executive responsibility to deal with aspects such as you have highlit. However, given the Pavlovian reaction of so many in government to the very idea of a quango... Such a body would not have to refer back to Parliament for every minor change - after all, this principle has worked with bird monitoring data in the 'State of the Nation' concept, where government policy is adjusted (and financial expenditure made) as a consequence of indicator species changing, but without every decision having to be referred back to Westminster.
MJB
MJB,
Good points, and believe me I have a hair trigger when it comes to cynicism! You are not alone.
My initial reaction to the original post which started this thread was mild annoyance - it is far too easy to say 'no, I object, end of story' and this seems particularly prevalent within the 'wildlife community'. It's really an extension of the 'I know what I like and I like what I bloody well know' attitude which gets 'us' nowhere. These attitudes are usually based on a lack of fundamental information - I do wish we could base our reactions on sound knowledge of the actual situation rather than just shooting from the hip any time someone mentions any possible change which may affect wildlife. Forgive me if the following is old hat...
In the UK (and beyond in Europe) our ecological 'capital' comprises a network of protected (or not) designated sites ranging from the top-drawer Natura 2000 sites down to locally designated sites such as SINCs. The best of these sites (SAC, SPA, Ramsar, NNR, SSSI) are
extremely unlikley to be impacted upon without one heck of a fight from a range of people and organisations, not least the statutory conservation bodies (who do actually have some real clout, contrary to popular belief). Many, if not most of these sites, are in either private ownership or belong to large bodies such as the MOD, Crown Estate, National Trust or RSPB - these sites are in no danger from any change to legislation, and their management to meet stringent ecological criteria attracts massive funding for the landowners.
Smaller, locally-designated sites such as LNRs or SINCs are, regrettably, at some risk of being impacted upon in some circumstances, although current planning legislation states that even non-statutory designated sites are a material consideration within the planning process (Planning Policy Statement 9). I should imagine however that, given the popularity of these sites to local communities, any change to the planning system impacting on these sites will be troublesome for the Gov't - I'd wager that Mr Pickles' Localism Bill will only strengthen the hand of concerned locals but will lead to more wildlife/development stand-offs.
The other ecological 'capital' we have is our biodiversity. At present, the key pieces of wildlife legislation comprise lists of protected species, ranging from European Protected Species (EPS) under the Conservation Regulations 2010 (bats, dormouse, great crested newt etc), to stuff such as common reptiles under the WACA. I think it is fair to say that most people don't realise just how stringent this legislation is and what effects it has on the planning system here in the UK.
Every single planning application must be accompanied by , at minimum, a Phase 1 ecological survey and most will trigger a suite of Phase 2 surveys for specific organisms. Beyond this, if EPS are involved then licences are needed from Natural England (or relevant body) before any works can commence - the licence is not granted until a detailed mitigation strategy is submitted. So, under the current system of wildlife legislation the needs of biodiversity are well-served - we have probably the toughest legislation in Europe. I also believe that the majority of folks will have no idea just how restrictive, costly and time-consuming ecological mitigation is/can be - the system is far from ideal and, as I alluded to in my previous post, can actually be harmful to wildlife in the long-term by promoting the view that it is getting in the way of development.
I would confidently state that the greatest threats and potential benefits to out natural heritage come through the planning system - I would be most concerned if changes to planning legislation were on the table rather than the loss of a vague climate change act.
Cuts to local planning authorities are already causing great concern, with many authorities laying off ecologists. Natural England are also in a spot of bother in the bonfire of the quangos (actually more of a smouldering, sub-surface peat fire).
I'm not trying to say that all is well and there's no need to be wary - but a gut-reaction panic helps no-one. Let's watch what happens and be alert for anything that needs real attention.
Cheers,
Tristan
I hope it doesn't come too quickly.
