When they came into being, all those years ago, SSSIs were selected as representative examples of wildlife-rich habitats. There was no expectation that every qualifying site would be protected.
Roll the clock on a few decades, and we can see that the SSSI notification has been very important in protecting our wildlife – hundreds of similar sites which didn’t get the protection have been lost (and, indeed, some that did).
There seems a very good case that Fineshade Wood, owned by the Forestry Commission on behalf of all of us taxpayers, qualifies for SSSI notification.
I’d like to see my local Wildlife Trust (Beds, Cambs and Northants) getting together with the Woodland Trust and RSPB and pressing this case very hard. And the time to do that is now.
More generally, the conservation movement needs to campaign for a new generation of SSSI to be created to stem the losses of our wildlife life blood.
[registration_form]
A couple of things here.
Firstly, if Fineshade meets the criteria for selection as an SSSI, then the WCA says that Natural England have a duty to notify the site. It’s not an option. The site may have to take its place in a queue, because not everything can be done at once, and they have other duties. I’m sure NE staff would want to notify if the evidence was there.
Secondly, on the ‘new generation’ of SSSIs, this implies that SSSI notification stopped at some point in the past. This isn’t the case. Here in Wales we are still notifying new sites at a steady rate as they are discovered and evaluated. My work programme for 2016/17 includes three sites to be assessed, which will go through to notification if we are happy with their quality.
Andrew, absolutely great that you guys are proactive in Wales but as Dytiscus indicates there is no ‘appetite’ and that is mirrored by my experience of DNR – there does need to be a ‘campaign’. NE have a duty, but who forces compliance?
That takes energy, effort and revenue and would the NGOs collaborate? I’d like to think so, but look at their track record over the upland management regimes, Hen Harrier [In]action plan and how they got behind BDGS ….
“… but who forces compliance?”
The courts – just needs our NGOs to stop whinging from the side lines about how NE aren’t notifying SSSIs and to take them to court. It’s NE’s legal duty.
Seems that a lot of organisations have no an appetite either but are happy to moan that the buffet of government action isn’t particularly appealing.
The idea that the best examples of wildlife habitats should be protected is of course a sensible one. The SSSI system may be imperfect but, as you suggest, it has certainly protected many sites from loss and destruction. I worry, though, about the corollary to the notion that we should protect the best bits which is that the rest of the landscape is up for grabs. Our SSSIs and nature reserves have steadily become more and more exceptional not because they are improving in any way but because the rest of the landscape has deteriorated so much. The attitude that ‘ordinary’ landscapes can be built on, tarmacked, drained, intensively farmed, etc with little regard for wildlife has resulted in a steady decline in what constitutes ordinary, leaving our SSSIs as increasingly isolated little islands in an ocean of sterility.
Mark – you are right – there does need to be a push to designate alot more SSSI. The SSSI network covers only about 8% of the land, and in some counties the figure is more like 4% (and below). I have been told (recently) by senior NE officials that ‘there is no appetite for further SSSI designations’. With so much pressure on our environment, SSSI designations (ASSI in N.Ireland) is becoming a more and more important protection for our wildlife.
This could be a new campaign, for all of the NGOs working together?
There was a review of SSSIs reputedly with the purpose of identifying those mainly southern examples which they [NE] could denotify to assist developers.
Extensions to existing SSSIs are certainly in the DNR tray (despite robust evidence of quality etc.)!
As for additions, probably only likely on industrial leftovers which were given to NGOs to garden (better than nothing and it introduces people to nature conservation and might stir them for campaigning).
The only safe land is that which is owned by conservation charities and even then that is not guaranteed.
Why would usual suspects campaign, it might upset their allies in the statutory agencies? Pleas of priorities and limited resources etc.
Campaigning appears to have become a neglected tool in their armory, it’s being left to others and you are a prime example. There will be exceptions I’m sure and yes much good work but …. will it be this generation that is seen as the Nero of nature conservation? I hope not.
It’s Easter and the fantastic ‘silver ghost’ is still here with us, so plenty to celebrate (one that got away) but he’ll be leaving soon for the ‘badlands’ to run the gauntlet of criminals ….
BDGS passes 12k ….
So why isn’t it ?
there is a very simple answer – which the Friends don’t seem to be aware of: NCC designated most SSSIs at the same time as the FC was planting many Ancient Woodlands with conifers. In what may have been a bit of a race against time, NCC only designated SSSIs which were still native woodland. This means that in some FC woods part of the wood is SSSI, another part is not – and in most cases the conifers have now been removed. In many cases, because of the way native woodland & its flora bounced back only a real expert could tell there had ever been conifers there at all.
Of course, for a long time it was assumed that coniferisation would cause permanent, irreparable damage but both Oliver Rackham and George Peterken have recognised that that is not the case.
So you don’t need new rules to explain why an Ancient Woodland wasn’t designated in the past bu8t should be now.
How true. there are places close to where I live, once designated as Sites of Biological Interest, that have no legal protection and, in some cases appear to be just as important for wildlife as are some of the SSSIs I’ve visited. I feel all someone like me ( simply a “member of the public”) can do is send in records of wildlife sightings on those sites to the local records centre. That will mean that come a planning application or similar, might protect them from some of the potentially damaging practices that might be otherwise carried out on them – at least. Of course that doesn’t stop a landowner doing something to destroy valuable habitat, for instance as has happened by me recently, installing a drain in a rushy field corner that has damaged part of a traditional Curlew breeding site, but what else can we (the public) do?
I agree that sites need better protection through designation, but that won’t happen with this anti-environment government. I would also like to see an alternative to SSSI status, to give room for wild nature – keeping sites in favourable condition prevents natural succession and encourages excessive management, such as tree and scrub removal, grazing with domestic livestock, turf stripping and burning.
We must protect this Ancient habitat with all its special species that are present. We must look after the remaining places where one can walk in peace and quiet.
I think it’s often forgotten in Fineshade’s case that it’s just an unique habitat for wildlife. But also archaeologically important too