I wonder, is gardening for wildlife a better option that trying to conserve habitats and species? Is the challenge to stem the decline too much and should we simply build biodiversity instead, on land that the developers and agri-industrialists don’t want (for now)?
We’ve heard much about the State of Nature published following collaboration by some 25 organisations. Some pretty horrendous statistics were revealed. In all probability it seems that they are only the tip of the iceberg?
The report catalogues the continuing failure of Government and NGOs to even stem the decline of our wildlife. It looked at some 3,148 species (but a minute fraction of the nation’s wildlife species, ones that data is held on such that meaningful analysis can be had), 60% of these have declined over the last 50 years and 31% have declined strongly. One in ten RDB species are at risk of extinction, if that’s true then Thorne and Hatfield are in for some hefty losses. Conversely I’m sure there are some who would step up and offer to introduce some iconic alternatives which would be better suited to climate change or a country park regime and badge it as a community outreach project.
So, given that speakers at the conference admitted that in 2010 they had missed the targets of halting biodiversity decline, what will they now do? Some wondered where they had gone wrong, clearly they’d not really been listening to the likes of Iolo Williams. They’d been drifting along chasing funds for projects, delivering projects designed for building biodiversity – hand outs from developers mitigation. Why has the challenge been dummed down, why did Natural England back off from taking the Walshaw case through as a compalint from Europe, why did the RSPB have to pick up the gauntlet?
Natural England happily sign off authorisations for badger culls, but they will not enforce reparation of damage to SSSIs. Similarly the Rural Payments Agency refuse to investigate reports of damage insisting it is Natural England’s role to enforce. It’s political ping pong – inactivity which might be likened to Nero fiddling whilst Rome burnt, or the ongoing decline of the UKs wildlife or SSSIs failing to reach favourable condition status.
Amongst the various responses of the ‘conservation agencies’ was the announcement of a(nother) meeting (sorry Iolo) – then the production in autumn of a challenge document and finally action will follow . I’ve heard it all before and whilst I’m absolutely certain that those speaking mean well, perhaps if I may be forgiven for considering myself an unsung hero, but here in South Yorkshire I’m not prepared to hold my breath. The 25 NGOs plan to repeat the event and reconvene in three years time, to talk maybe not about species recovery but what they’ve been doing about it – like Iolo I really hope they actually do DO something about the continuing decline which I see no sign of abating.
The Ghost Orchid Declaration produced in 2009 by Plantlife is an earlier call to arms, but it too like so many other variants from the spectacular array of special interest or focus groups pleads that agri-environment schemes are better targetted.
Apathy, avarice, competition between agri-industrialists and conservation play a significant part in the ongoing failure. The Common Agricultural Policy and its subsidies to the fat cats of agri-industry (not farmers) who tell us they are the guardians of the countryside so should receive public money to deliver nature conservation. Natural England appear to subscribe to that view because they continue to dole out extra support by way of HLS for otherwise unproductive corners of otherwise efficient businesses. Defra programmes designed to encourage land owners to be green create improvement schemes for example where land owners are advised on how best to receive additional funds for short term involvement to create ‘corridors’ or pocket handkerchief ponds. It might be suggested that the nations’ back gardens deliver better value for money but taxpayers are not recompensed, instead they appear to be expected to continue funding those who have played a significant role in the depletion of species.
Preventing a wasteful “double payment” for the same environmental activity from agri-environment schemes would at least be a start. Monitoring for tangible outcomes through truly independent analysis might also begin to offer credibility.
As someone who used to be a member of approaching a score of organisations do I think they represent value for money? If we read the future as suggested by Anna Bawden in the Guardian recently then its pretty bleak. Mark Avery in his excellent blog is currently analysing NGO performance and there are some interesting comments made by his readers.
So, what of the future, what will be left for the next generation? While you give thought to what you think should be done, I’ll offer a little grassroots activism news …. for those readers interested in invertebrates the Forum are shortly to present the findings of an invertebrate survey on a piece of peripheral lagg fen. Thus far some 8,000 specimens of coleoptera alone have been deterined and amongst them some RDBs, some species are relocated classics as recorded by the old Victorian naturalists who made occasional visits to Thorne Moors (Hatfield Moors was less accessible).
So, I hear you ask what does that prove (aside from quality habitat still exists at Thorne), well I offer that in the main the determination to get this project off the ground and then implemented was through the tenacity and committment of a handful of people – thank you to my colleagues and associates you know who you are.
It follows then (perhaps) that if we can deliver worthwhile projects then just think of the capacity of the NGOs and their statutory allies. Better still bring on ‘moor’ local action?
Remember the words of Edmund Burke who said The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing and considered that Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little.
Images: Martin Hammond & Helen Kirk.