Dysfunctional conservation laws

http://www.kent.ac.uk/dice/publications/Paisley_Swingland_BPR.pdf said:

24. Wildlife law, on the other hand, is inconsistent, repetitive and much less responsive. The thinking behind the Marine Bill has a lot to offer terrestrial biodiversity conservation such as the need for a review of out-of-date and redundant fisheries legislation. We suggest such a review should also be carried out for wildlife
legislation. Why, for example, are we free to kill foxes but not badgers when there are more badgers than foxes? Why can a trap be set for a mink or a stoat, but not a polecat when all three can be shot? Why can a black grouse from among a declining population of 13,000 be shot when a stock dove with an increasing population of half a million cannot be shot?

25. Certain species are protected by layer upon layer of European and British legislation. This is exemplified by the case of the beloved Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus), an animal that members of the British public are prohibited from disturbing in any way (including handling) much less selling, injuring, killing or damaging its habitats 33.

26 Despite suffering a modest 2% decline over 5 years in the 1980s, this species numbers at least a third of a million in over 18,000 ponds in the UK – the greatest stronghold of a widespread European population (including Albania, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Moldova, Republic of, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine).

As a result of heavy protection, there are several dozen consultants in the county of Kent alone who carry out surveys and mitigation action on behalf of the newt and have the power to halt, or at least stall, major developments. The Great Crested newt is considered of Least Concern on the IUCN Red List.

27. Contrast this with the plight of the now ironically named common skate, Dipturus batis. This magnificent animal which grows to 3 metres and can live over 50 years was once the most abundant bottom-living fish of north-west Europe. Intensively exploited during the mid 20th century, the common skate is still available in fish shops in the UK despite its dramatic decline throughout European waters and probable extinction in the English Channel and Irish Sea. Urgent active management action is required to reduce fishing effort, impose mesh size regulations and define non-trawling areas to protect both the adult and eggs. It is now listed as Critically Endangered on the IUCN Red List. The common skate has been proposed for strict protection under the UK Wildlife and Countryside Act in both quinquennial reviews since 2001 but a decision is still pending. DEFRA cites lack of staff resources as the reason for the delay.

Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting said:

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review columnist Ralph R. Reiland wrote an essay called Shoot, Shovel & Shut Up,[1] describing landowners' reactions to finding Red-cockaded Woodpeckers on their property. Under the Endangered Species Act, landowners who have a population of such birds on their property may be subject to restrictions on building and other land uses that would interfere with the animals' habitat. Therefore, it was considered prudent to eliminate the birds before the government noticed their presence. The Fall 2001 issue of the Sierra Citizen notes, "'Shoot, shovel and shut up' is the mantra of many in the so-called 'property rights' movement . . . It refers to the practice of killing and burying evidence of any plants or animals that might be threatened or endangered".[2] The property rights movement argues that the Endangered Species Act should be amended to compensate property owners for protecting endangered species, rather than making an endangered species a financial drain on the owners, and that the current Act actually hastens the decline of some endangered species when listed by causing property owners to 'shoot, shovel, and shut up' to avoid expected losses.[3]

Click to expand...

Preemptive Habitat Destruction Under the Endangered Species Act said:

This paper examines the extent to which landowners have preemptively destroyed
habitat for the endangered red-cockaded woodpeckers (RCWs) in the forests of North
Carolina in order to avoid potential land-use regulations prescribed under the En-
dangered Species Act (ESA). Under the ESA, it is illegal to kill an endangered
species and it is also illegal to damage its habitat. By preventing the establishment
of an old-growth pine stand, landowners can ensure that RCWs do not inhabit their
land and avoid ESA regulations that limit or prohibit timber harvest activity. Data
from 1984–90 on over 1,000 individual forest plots are used to test predictions about
the probability of harvest and the age of timber when it is harvested. We find that
increases in the proximity of a plot to RCWs increases the probability that the plot
will be harvested and decreases the age at which the forest is harvested.

Click to expand...

peter5930 said:

I'd much rather see a system that incentivises people for having GCN habitat on their properties, rather than penalising them for it. Perhaps the creation of GCN habitat could be stipulated in planning permission, if it weren't for the fact that under the current law, having GCN's on a property would be disastrous for the owner and deliberately introducing GCN's into a newly created habitat is an onerous legal process.

Click to expand...

Azhael said:

Reintroductions are very tricky...personally i would never want to see any done by anyone else but an official organism that knows what it´s doing.

Click to expand...

Brett Hegarty said:

Hi, I know this is a marine forum but i could do with some advice if possible, i have a large pond which is about 10 years old and has always had a healthy wildlife population even more so now that a large industrial area has been built not to far away on a large farmland/wasteland area, about a month ago i had a large number of frogs as usual breeding but noticed some newts in an orgy, i managed to identify these as smooth newts which are common throughout england but shortly after noticing these i also spotted a large black newt much bigger then the others and when researching its identity it only matches a great crested newt which im very pleased with, now what im actually wondering is how can i make my garden and pond more habitable and attractive for them? im very concious of not making massive changes because they must already like it as i selected mainly native plants to help bring local wildlife into my garden. Should i add logs? rocks for sheltering under? something to attract edible insects for them? ive tried looking into what to do via google but cant find an appropiate advice sheet and i do'nt want to report these to the local authoraties as i want to be able to have my garden to myself and do'nt want a bunch of hippies telling me i cant mow the lawn etc, any advice is much appreciated

Click to expand...

timmytank said:

Where in the country are you? We have lots of these in worcester, cool animals arent they. I m sure you know they are protected snd as you say watch who you tell

Click to expand...

Brett Hegarty said:

hi Tim im in lancashire mate, brilliant little animals to watch and glad to have them in the garden, yeah i know they are protected (thats sort of what is giving me a buzz to have them in the garden) and yeah your right i wo'nt be broadcasting it to the locals lol and forgot to mention they were found and moved when they started building the industrial site nearby

Click to expand...

I love coke said:

I've just spent the last 4 weeks surveying GCN populations in staffordshire. They are protected so don't get caught handling them!

Click to expand...

baggy said:

i work on a site that was built in 1936 that has a medium -high population of great creasted and yellow belly newts, we have lots of e.w.s. ponds that they like to spawn in. if you manage to hit one with the lawn mower dont tell anyone i think its a 5 grand fine and a dead newt . i think they are protected by euro law aswell. but good luck with them anyway, they are both beautiful and interesting.

Click to expand...

Azhael said:

I see how the current situation is problematic, although i side with John in that giving humans preference every time is no good, specially in such a crowded country. I do have a problem with the idea of reintroductions, though, specially is they were to be done by hobbyists or non-official organisms. It´s risky business.
Sure, it´s a pitty that there are suitable areas that haven´t been colonized yet, but allowing people to just introduce animals, is not a good solution. For one, if it´s not controlled, there could be a number of independent relocations, damaging the status of "donor" populations. Also, given the fact that T.carnifex is present in the country and hybridizing with T.cristatus, and that most people couldn´t distinguish them at all, it would be a hazard for the unwitting expansion of T.carnifex or the hybrids.
A similar problem would be the release of CB animals if they are not a native bloodline (people often think that being the same species is good enough, and that´s just not true). There´s also a patogen introduction hazard.

Also, people could potentially try to relocate animals into habitats that are not really suitable, without knowing it.

Reintroductions are very tricky...personally i would never want to see any done by anyone else but an official organism that knows what it´s doing.

Click to expand...

jrf23 said:

My old man has them in his pond at home! Amazing little critters! We've had a good population since I can remember, but there's been a hell of a lot of red tape around them. He wanted for ages to build a second pond nearby to encourage more growth but they just wouldn't let him! Gutting really.

Click to expand...

jrf23 said:

It was something to do with other species in the area and that a new larger pond would encourage more species (frogs etc) to come in and give the newts competition as he lives about 200m from a nature reserve.

It's a real shame! He would enlarge the original pond but he'd get done for disturbing them so he's stuck and can't do anything!

Click to expand...

955i said:

I am a Senior Ecologist licensed for GCN. If you would like a bit of free advice and can provide me with a bit more info (and a Google Earth photo of the site if possible) then I will see what help I can be.

Click to expand...

jrf23 said:

Thanks, but as far as I'm aware my old man has exhausted almost every approach. He works at wellesbourne HRI (now Warwick HRI now that the Uni has taken it over) and was able to get in touch with a few people about it through there but has no real success as his hands are just tied. I'll see what he says, but I think he gave up trying to expand a while ago now sadly!

Click to expand...

Having worked with contractors, developers, architects, designers and engineers, I think that you are a lot cannier and a more savvy group than the Government seem to acknowledge and, importantly, recognise that a healthy environment is a good thing. A good thing financially, a good thing commercially and a good thing at weekends. And if presented in an intelligent and articulate way, a more robust suite of environmental legislation may also be welcomed by you…but, and there is a but, only if there is clarity, proportionality and mutuality. Clarity such that everyone understands and appreciates what is protected, why it is protected, by how much it will be protected and where it will or can be protected. Proportionality such that where protected species or habitats are present and it is not realistic to avoid disturbing or losing them, then a more pragmatic approach, whilst still retaining the favourable conservation status (as the minimum), would be allowed under agreed circumstances and following robust guidelines, thus avoiding a dogmatic approach that can and does exist; and mutuality in that as far as is possible, all sectors get buy in. This for me would be the real benefit of the red-tape challenge and, I think, can be illustrated with an example.

Take a site with some ponds, some rough grassland and some scrub. The grassland grades in to a sparsely vegetated habitat with bare ground consisting of broken up concrete, loose gravelly material but flower-rich, i.e. a fairly typical brownfield site. The pond has a population of great crested newts and there are some important invertebrates such as scarce bumblebees, solitary bees and wasps, spiders and butterflies, some included in the local biodiversity action plan.

In today’s legislative climate, great emphasis would be placed on translocating the great crested newts at some considerable expense, including construction of new ponds and terrestrial habitat. Licence applications may take more than 30 working days to be reviewed by the statutory nature conservation organisation (SNCO), more if they themselves request further information; and the translocation period may last at least two months. It could be more than a quarter of a year before the developer gets on site. Meanwhile, there is very limited protection, if any, given to the diverse invertebrate assemblage. Retaining the good will of the developer in trying to either retain or mitigate this habitat can be easily lost in the frustration that can follow.

However, if the energies expended on the red tape challenge were spent on a comprehensive and intelligent review of our nature conservation legislation, reflecting the challenges of the 21st century (e.g. biodiversity loss, climate change and sustainable development) and the obvious need, for say affordable housing, then perhaps a more pragmatic approach, providing holistic benefits to nature conservation can be achieved.

Returning to the example, rather than making every effort to collect every newt, perhaps a shorter but no less robust translocation exercise could be undertaken, using the traditional approach of temporary amphibian fencing but say over a period of two weeks and not two months, followed by a finger-tip search in suitable habitat; and with a less complicated and onerous licence application. The developer benefits by getting on site much earlier and potentially saves a considerable amount of money. The SNCO benefits as less time is spent reviewing sometimes complex development proposals – after all, they are under resourced and under pressure – and can focus their limited resources on managing SSSIs or other extremely important and vital work. The great crested newt benefits as it is still moved out the way, has two new ponds (instead of one) and the population is not lost or isolated.

And what about that money saving? Does it line the pockets of the developer? Well, here’s my outrageous proposition…what about some of it lining the developers pocket, but a big proportion, a very big proportion gets to line the pocket of nature conservation by being diverted to protect/ mitigate the invertebrate rich habitat that currently receives little protection. This can either be achieved by strengthening the legislation to ensure that developers provide meaningful habitat mitigation, signed off by an accredited qualified ecologist or using an existing mechanism such as a Section 106 Agreement, which could fund the exercise. Examples could be on site mitigation such as a green roof (which would have added benefits such as Code for Sustainable Homes) or appropriate habitat creation in a quiet corner whose monitoring and management could be ceded to a local wildlife trust or relevant community group. Alternatively, if the on-site option is not practical, or just as an alternative, then a commitment for off-site mitigation in line with the RSPB’s Futurescape or the Wildlife Trust’s Living Landscapes could be offered.

So the alternative approach would still protect great crested newts, still enable the developer to build and over a much shorter timeframe and with less delay, but also protect the invertebrate rich habitat too. The challenge should not be identifying red tape, but finding pragmatic, proportionate and mutually inclusive conservation. And it has Government support.

Click to expand...