 Discussion topics Reintroductions in middle England Wild herbivores in middle England Nature conservation – but not as we know it Natural processes in existing wildlife sites RETURN to Meeting Report |
Rewilding Middle England Prospects for creating wild nature in lowland England - 22nd November 2007 WORKSHOP REPORTS |
|
GROUP DISCUSSIONS Participants discussed, in smaller groups, these topics in relation to reintroductions:
Groups addressed a selection of the following points on their topic:
Each group recorded their discussion and fed back. | |
|
Main issues discussed: The reasons for reintroductions are:
What will make things happen? Raising public awareness and engendering support. A strong lobby to Government. Resources of land, time and money. Other discussion points on Reintroductions: Red squirrel: No problem of reintroducing in principle but massive practical implications of culling greys Kite: Happened Osprey: Happened Peregrine falcon: Colonised naturally, but requires positive management of for example, quarries to increase population. Dormouse: Sites in Cambs already. Could be repeated Beaver: Has value for its ecosystem and is attractive to people Pine marten Wild boar Should be focusing on charismatic species because these can:
Can ecosystems support the species? Ref. IUCN Guidelines Berne Convention requires us to look at reintroducing lost native species. Should we put these into the BAP? All lost natives? How far should we go in middle England? Perhaps not brown bear and perhaps not wolf | |
|
Main issues discussed: Are wild herbivores for their own sake or are they management tools? Need to clarify and influence the legal and social responsibilities and acceptance of different categories of grazing animals. What will make things happen? Getting a clear groundswell of opinion amongst conservation bodies to manage land more extensively (Agency lead?) Other discussion points on wild herbivores: What are wild herbivores?..
Perhaps select them based on function? ‘Wild herbivores’ implies no overview and human support. How are wild herbivores living now? Can distinguish:
Are we including medium herbivores like rabbits and hares? There is public uncertainty about free-ranging animals. ‘Wild’ raises notion of danger. Does ‘wild’ imply lack of clear ownership and responsibility? How big an area to allow social group structure? Can you have herbivores without carnivores? Tension between legal requirements and social requirements Cross compliance issues if claiming Single Farm Payment Disbenefits of wild herbivores
Benefits of wild herbivores:
| |
|
Nature conservation – but not as we know it. Implications of wild land and natural processes for BAPs, targets and other formal procedures. | |
|
Main issues discussed: Update BAP processes Update SSSI processes What will make things happen? Get our own act together as NGOs and decide priorities Advocate change to Defra, Natural England and other agencies Bring the public with us Other discussion points on ‘Nature conservation, but not as we know it’ Points on people and wildlife: If we don’t do these things eg. Artcile 10 there will be disbenefits for wildlife. People want different things. Communication needs to be on a continuum. Need to capture people’s imagination. We have a role in raising the agenda and increasing momentum. We need to demonstrate that the public want this so we should be spending public money here. ‘Nature conservation’ is an obscure and antiquated term for people and what does ‘biodiversity’ mean? If you show people something tangible and exciting like the Great Fen project, they get it! Need to avoid conservation gardening. The scale of intervention is vast. Do we need targets? Are targets a help or hindrance? Perhaps set framework around connectivity of sites and areas of semi-natural landscape? Note the tension between targets and letting things happen naturally. We are culturally prone to need to report back on how we’re delivering. What gets measured is what gets done. But, easily measured things do give something to aim at. Targets can be levers to draw down funds. There could be a range of outcomes relating to targets. The whole point is that ‘we don’t know yet’ so targets could be dangerous. How do we make things happen from an SSSI context? Natural England etc at government level. Voluntary sector needs to work together. How do we make things happen from a BAP context? Similar staring point eg. Defra Voluntary sector split of responsibilities doesn’t help eg. Thousands of Species Action Plans. Not helpful for pushing landscape-scale activity. Need to consider philosophy and psychology. Need mechanisms to get hold of large areas, and therefore community involvement is essential. Need to think how this links with other measures and plans such as Local Development Frameworks and other planning processes. JCAs etc already decided – can be restrictive. How do we align with existing processes? Difficult – traditionally been species focused Uncertainties from climate change eg. which species? A fixed or flexible approach? Do we need a more relaxed attitude? Historically we’ve been reactive. Now in first phase of prioritizing. Is BAP process a help or hindrance? As a way through, use some BAP principles but not necessarily into delivery. BAP is conventional – will it be hard to move away from this? Reasons why sites are valuable now may change. Some habitats need a lot of intervention. Do we scrap this? What do we actually want from and mean by rewilding? Are processes more important than features? BAP is a tool – how is it best applied? How do we get BAP fit for purpose? How should we use the SSSI network? Major role as seed bank May be legislative restrictions Could the SSSI citations be rewritten? It’s tricky, as needs to involve consultation. Fixed in time and space Role as museums?! Fragments of the past In European context – not delivering article 10. Should be using this policy lever for connectivity, networks and the like | |
|
Ecosystem services – harnessing wild nature for water management, carbon absorbing soils, and other natural benefits - what, where and how? | |
|
Main issues discussed: Who should own what? Who should pay for what benefits and disbenefits? What will make things happen? Education Negotiation Other discussion points on Ecosystem services: Benefits of ecosystem services:
But, these benefits can be intangible to many people It’s difficult to identify precisely who gets the benefits from something like floodplain restoration Disbenefits: Are we exporting some environmental problems? Policy measures: Carbon absorption: ethical dilemma of carbon trading Approach to flood management Resources: Developer contributions from new development | |
|
Thinking big - ideas for major new initiatives. What, where and how? | |
|
Main issues discussed: Scale in relation to the context. How big is big? Engagement of people over time – may engage more people over longer timescale. Big areas near big populations. (eg. One project in every County?) Note the tension between multi-functional spaces and a single conservation focus What will make things happen? Money Land banks and planning gain measures Environmental justice Inspirational sites for people Biofuels may be a barrier | |
|
Natural processes in existing wildlife sites – enabling natural processes in existing reserves and small places. What, where and how? | |
|
Main issues discussed: Scale: eg. Don’t rewild a hay meadow but get linkage to it Time: eg. Woodland & evolving equilibrium What will make things happen Policy and flexibility Connectivity and linkage of sites Using our reserves as evidence and demonstration Other discussion points on natural processes: For Local Development Plans, need to acknowledge the buffer and linkage relationships of wildlife sites. What is a natural process? Grazing? Don’t be too rigid – have to select where a natural process can go. Review criteria of wildlife sites - not based on species numbers. Climate change as a driver is creating a shift in thinking: demonstrates importance of suites of wildlife sites in the farmed countryside as well as need for larger core wildlife areas. How do we get the flexibility needed? Climate change may drive alien species but scientific knowledge on impacts is lacking. | |
|
RETURN to Meeting Report |