Recently we have had a few more signatures on our 38 degree petition STOP & RETHINK National Nature Reserves as Open Access areas.
Why I wonder? I’d hope that it’s consequential of common sense prevailing as well as a mixture of astonishment and disbelief or perhaps even anger and naive expectation that a Government agency would act in an open and transparent manner by demonstrating best practice as well as legislative compliance. Sadly, neither expectation has been in evidence, in fact quite the reverse.
Have any of you out there heard about Nature Conservation Assessments? Setting aside the lack of science or any evidence, nor involvement with a wider expertise beyond internal staff, they appear to be a new approach to assessing ‘Likely Significant Effect’ on the interest features of a Natura 2000 site. At the risk of being accused of scepticism they seem instead to be a way to side step Habitats Directive legislative compliance (Article 6(3)). We are told that these documents exist for all the 83 NNRs proposed for Dedication as Open Access under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act.
See JNCC website on the Habitats Directive. The guidance is extensive on plans and projects which might impact on Natura 2000 sites. See particularly Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites. Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. Perhaps from an NE perspective, it is easier to re-write the rules and who could blame them?
So, what might that mean for the sensitive habitats and species out there? What might it mean for the public who visit for the quite enjoyment of the tranquil landscape or to experience the magic of wilderness and wildlife?
Car park requirement, litter bins (mmh, they are either full to overflowing or not used at all in my experience), lots of colourful expensive ‘interpretation’ boards (target practice for air gun or rifle enthusiasts) and not forgetting toilets …. I do so wish they’d sort the variation for dogs as it’s been unpleasant to witness people in wheelchairs suffering the aftermath and deposits of thoughtless pets, or rather the failure of their owners to act responsibly.
The funding for all these? We are informed that it will come from ‘core’, so despite the fact that budgets are being cut there is the ‘suggestion’ that additional expenditure can be accommodated? Not possible, so then what is dropped or neglected? Given that Thorne & Hatfield Moors SSSI for example, have yet to achieve ‘favourable condition status’ (FCS) so if funds are diverted from nature conservation management then how will that situation be addressed? Thereafter if they fail to achieve FCS are they de-notified and disposed of?
Alarmist, not at all …. how many of you remember the 1997 endeavour by English Nature to denotify large areas of Thorne & Hatfield Moors SSSI when the peat extractors Fison’s funded the hydrological reports upon which the EN case was based? Interestingly there is no corporate sponsor of the ‘science’ this time, perhaps that’s why there is none? Perhaps the local authorities who might benefit as they impose more restrictions on dogs in public places are keen to see NNRs become ‘alternative country parks’?
There is the issue of health and safety, Thorne Moors SSSI particularly have very deep and dangerous drains and canals. Parts of Crowle Moors SSSI too are equally as inviting but just as dangerous. Worse though are the uncontrolled dogs. Already there have been two attacks on Hatfield Moors and one was sufficiently serious to be reported to the police.
Please note that the walker and the dog pictured above, are not as far as we are aware the guilty parties of the attack mentioned above.
A Senior Director has tried to suggest that there will be little difference in reality, so why on earth spend funds on the exercise?
As the sites are rewetted through the implementation of the Water Level Management Plan required to assist achieving FSC, the Special Protection Area (SPA) interest feature the enigmatic and crepuscular nightjar will be squeezed to the drier areas.
What of the woodlark, a Schedule 1 breeding bird? They too have already been disturbed and displaced by NE access projects in previous seasons. But, as ‘judge and jury’ NE refused to ‘hear’ the complaint. These are also the areas which are favoured for picnics and needed for car parks and cafes, toilets etc.
The Forum do not oppose open access in principle, but this plan / project promoted by Natural England has been a communication failure from start to the present time. The Senior Director was insistent that the Forum have been consulted, rather the reality was that we had been notified and in my South Yorkshire dictionary there is a substantive difference in meaning between the two words! There has been no ‘science’ to support the proposal this time, but if you examine the proportion of access vs science based staff in NE that is perhaps not surprising and there is negligible commissioned science by the Government agency here in the Humberhead Levels.
So, thank you to those of you who have signed the 38 degree petition, if you are new to the Forum’s blog and haven’t signed the petition then please consider doing so. Better still, write to your MP, or the Minister (Owen Paterson) or the Chairman of the Board of NE about the issue. If you would like to know more then please contact us via email@example.com