Nature Conservancy Council Research Articles

Norman Winfrid Moore (1923–2015)

Norman Winfrid Moore (1923–2015)

Special issue - conservation and management of sea cliffs

Introduction/background Coastal cliffs occur as a marked break in slope between the land and the sea. They may have sloping to vertical faces and form when slippage and/or coastal erosion take place. They have a range of geomorohological features depending on their resilience, structure and exposure to weathering and the action of the sea. In the 1970s and 1980s, the Nature Conservancy and later the Nature Conservancy Council (Governmental Agencies) began work to establish the status of sea cliff habitats around the United Kingdom. This special issue seeks to raise the profile of this important but neglected habitat in Europe.

Rebalancing the philosophy of river conservation

Enduring themes The essential case for river conservation has been recognized for at least five decades. Here in the UK, even in the dark wartime days of 1941, a UK conference had already discussed the role of ‘nature preservation in post-war reconstruction’ (Sheail, 1995). The 1949 ‘National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act’ followed, creating the opportunity for National Nature Reserves and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) where ‘fauna and flora’ would be protected. In the 1970s, the Nature Conservancy Council’s Derek Ratcliffe used objective criteria to identify several British rivers that merited notification as SSSIs under what was to become the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act (Ratcliffe, 1977). Other nations have their own versions of these developments. By 1992, Aquatic Conservation’s current freshwater editor, Phil Boon, was able to propose that the general IUCN aims of conservation should be applied to rivers in order maintain ecological processes for life-support, preserve genetic diversity, and ensure that species and ecosystems were utilized sustainably (Boon, 1992). In the wake of pressures from habitat modification, invasive species, pollution, climate change and exploitation, and at scales ranging from the channel or river corridor to the whole catchment and beyond, he argued for a science-led approach to conservation through which the best remaining examples of river ecosystems would be preserved. Those rivers inevitably affected by human use could be safeguarded partly by management that limited or mitigated damage, and ultimately restored as far as possible. Somewhere in here was the maxim: ‘protect the best, restore the rest’. By the 1980s, the fundamental science to underpin the conservation case was well founded, and indeed has been bolstered progressively over at least 50 years. While the ecological science of rivers is now diverse and complex, the key conservation applications are relatively straightforward. First, physical, chemical and biological elements in river ecosystems interact profoundly to create their structure, dynamics and processes (Vaughan et al., 2009). Maintaining spatial variations in these factors is important to river biodiversity, as are natural variations through time associated with the hydrological cycle (Ward, 1998). Second, the character and variety of rivers is linked inextricably to the context created by the interplay among water, land and atmosphere in river catchments (Hynes, 1975). These natural units both define rivers through hydrologically defined flow-paths, and differentiate among them by forming the boundaries that have probably been critical to the divergence of organisms and the evolution of freshwater biodiversity. The conservation relevance

English

With the full implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) by 2020, surface mining and other industries in the UK will have to embrace the concept of ecosystems and ecosystem services, and be ready to deliver satisfactory schemes with all the necessary elements where important natural vegetation and habitats are involved. It is debatable whether there is sufficient understanding of the ecosystems being considered and clarity in what needs to be achieved leaving practitioners and regulators with little guidance when faced with designing or evaluating a mining proposal or the evaluation of the success of restoration schemes. This paper introduces and examines a measurable and workable methodology based on the Tansley concept of vegetation communities (being the basic unit of ecosystems) and the application of the national monitoring standards (CSM) for the key requisite ecosystem structural elements. These are encompassed in the proposed Canopy-Age-Regeneration-Genetic-Indicator-Exotic design and assessment model. It is argued that the Joint Nature Conservancy Council (JNCC) derived CARGIE Model is applicable to the restoration of ecosystems in the UK. It could enable better design and evaluation of the restoration of ecosystems and their services, and the mining industry to meet the challenges posed by CBD and the new and emerging legislation and policies.

Geodiversity and the Role of the Planning System in Scotland

The Nature Conservancy Council Earth Science Conservation Strategy (1990) had six main areas for action, including maintaining the Special Sites of Scientific Interest (SSSI) series through the Geological Conservation Review and expanding the Regionally Important Geological/Geomorphological Sites Network (now Local Geodiversity Sites; LGS). Protection of SSSI's is well understood, statutory and the planning system generally sympathetic, albeit with a few recent notable exceptions. Local Geodiversity Sites protection is achieved through local planning policy. However, the establishment of a geodiversity site system and recognition of LGS is patchy in Scotland. Many local authorities still do not have policies to conserve their local geodiversity or to give it consideration in planning. Even where LGS have been recognised, damage to sites can occur because of lack of consultation following emergency incidents. A petition in 2009 was raised unsuccessfully in the Scottish Parliament to establish a Scottish Geodiversity Duty in order that an integrated approach to geodiversity and its conservation might be achieved. The Scottish Geodiversity Forum was established in 2011 and has pursued the avenues opened by the petition and a key Scottish Natural Heritage Report. The outcome is the launch of Scotland's Geodiversity Charter and active participation in the revision of the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy.

Long-term health effects of harness-mounted radio transmitters in red kites (Milvus milvus) in England

In 1989, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds commenced reintroduction of the red kite (Milvus milvus) according to International Union for Conservation of...

The Geological Conservation Review (GCR) in Great Britain—Rationale and methods

Geoconservation – protecting, managing and enhancing natural geological features and materials, and geomorphological landforms and processes – is especially important in Great Britain, a place sometimes described as the ‘cradle’ of the science of geology. For such a small area of land, Britain has an unusually diverse geological make-up, with rocks from every geological period present. Many stratigraphical terms used internationally were devised here, and British sites provide key study areas where important new geological theories were developed in the pioneering era of the Earth sciences. Therefore, with such a wealth of geology, and Britain's seminal place in the science itself, it is particularly important to conserve and protect key localities here for future generations. A first step in that process is the auditing of the geology and geomorphology of Britain, by carrying out a scientific evaluation exercise according to standard criteria, and creating an inventory of the most important sites for science. In the mid-1970s, the Nature Conservancy Council (NCC) began an ambitious programme for assessment and documentation of the most important sites for the scientific study of geology and geomorphology in Great Britain, building on previous statutory site conservation activity that had already been started in 1949 by the former Nature Conservancy. As a result, the ‘Geological Conservation Review’ (GCR) was formally launched in 1977. The GCR was a world-first project of its type in the systematic assessment of the whole geological heritage of a country, from first principles. Widespread consultation with geologists and geomorphologists across Great Britain was co-ordinated; their guidance and involvement was a key component of the site selection process. Almost 3000 nationally or internationally important sites had been selected for around 100 site-selection categories for the GCR register by 1990. Almost all the GCR sites are now conserved under British law as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), the GCR information providing the scientific evidence-base that underpins that designation. As part of the site-selection process – which is still active – a considerable archive of information about geological sites was amassed. A major publication exercise detailing all the GCR sites in what was to become the GCR Series of books was devised early on in the GCR programme. Thirty-six volumes of the GCR Series have been seen to completion by NCC and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, and many GCR site reports have been many made freely available on the World Wide Web. As a new venture, the remaining nine volumes will now be published by Elsevier Science Publishers as Special Issues of the Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association. Each GCR volume includes an overview of the subject and outlines the history of study of the relevant branch of the Earth sciences, but most importantly contains detailed accounts of the features of geological importance in the sites described. A scientific interpretation is provided for each site account, which includes supportive illustrations, tables and photographs and an extensive reference list. The GCR rationale, methods and information resource have been invaluable in almost every aspect of geoconservation carried out in Britain, including World Heritage Site nominations, protection of stratotypes, justifying the scientific conservation value of sites at Public Inquiries, in stimulating geological research and in providing a readily available information resource for local, regional, national and international geoconservation activities.

Context and history of geological conservation in Warwickshire, central England

Abstract The geology of Warwickshire, central England, is diverse but generally poorly exposed. Geological conservation initiatives can be traced back to the mid to late nineteenth century when the Warwickshire Natural History and Archaeological Society amassed locally collected geological specimens and documented local geological sites. The society declined during the late nineteenth century. Following the Second World War, local geological conservation activity was invigorated by national initiatives, leading to establishment of geological Sites of Special Scientific Interest within the county and a site recording programme at the Warwickshire Museum. The Warwickshire Geological Conservation Group was established in 1990. Subsequently, a partnership between that group and the Warwickshire Museum, with support from the Nature Conservancy Council, resulted in establishment of a Regionally Important Geological/geomorphological Sites network. These sites are presently the focus of funded conservation and interpretation projects.

A history of the Geological Conservation Review

Abstract A particularly ambitious programme for overhauling site assessment and documentation for geoconservation in Great Britain was initiated in the mid-1970s by the Nature Conservancy Council (NCC) resulting in the formal launch of the ‘Geological Conservation Review’ (GCR) in 1977. The GCR was a world-first project of its type in the assessment of the whole geological heritage or ‘geodiversity’ of a country from first principles. Criteria and assessment methods were developed, with a view to selecting the very best sites to represent the diversity of British geology and geomorphology. A list of selection categories—GCR ‘Blocks’—encompassing British geology and geomorphology was devised. Widespread consultation with geologists and geomorphologists across Great Britain was co-ordinated; and the criteria refined and interpreted to suit the selection category at hand. Field investigation of proposed sites was a key component of site selection, although the selection process relied heavily on expert knowledge, literature-review and consensus-building. Almost 3000 sites had been selected for around 100 site selection categories for the GCR ‘register’ by 1990. Most GCR sites are now conserved under British law as Sites of Special Scientific Interest. In Great Britain, the GCR has formed the ‘benchmark’ for attainment of national importance (in a British context), rather than regional importance; a ‘minimum number of sites’ criterion is enshrined in the GCR ethos to assist in defining this benchmark. As part of the site-selection process, a considerable archive of information about sites was amassed. A major publication exercise detailing all of the GCR sites in what was to become the GCR series of books was devised early on in the GCR programme of work. An electronic GCR database was also created in the 1980s and has been the subject of ongoing revision. Although this paper has a historical outlook, the GCR project is not intended to be a finished record of Britain's best sites up to 1990. Instead, the GCR register will keep pace with new discoveries and developments in geological research. In the future, further re-evaluation and confirmation of the ‘conservation value’ of each site is envisaged; assessment of additional sites will also take place, so that the GCR designation can continue to be a hallmark for quality in geoconservation for years to come.

The ancient woodland concept as a practical conservation tool in Great Britain

In the 1980s the Nature Conservancy Council created an ancient woodland inventory showing all woods in Great Britain (GB) greater than 2 ha that were believed to have had woodland habitat cover continuously from 1600. Subsequently these lists have been maintained as three separate inventories by NCC's successors, English Nature (now Natural England), Countryside Council for Wales and Scottish Natural Heritage. This paper outlines the concept of ancient woodland as it has developed in GB, and how this idea gave rise to the ancient woodland inventories. The criteria used in compiling the inventories are discussed, including the inception dates and the threshold size, and the difference between ancient woodland and parkland. The inventories have been digitised for use with Geographic Information Systems (GIS), which has made them more accessible to planners and nature conservation bodies; however, the digitising process is more precise than the original definition of the boundaries of the ancient woodland. The three different countries have approached this issue slightly differently, taking account of the differing landscapes within which their ancient woodland exists. As the inventory developed, new legislation has also been brought into play to protect ancient woodland further. The inventory currently lacks detailed information concerning the condition or type of wood, beyond its semi-natural or plantation status. Ascertaining, and then maintaining, the condition of ancient woodland in Great Britain will be a major challenge for the future.

Habitat associations of the Small Red Damselfly (Ceriagrion tenellum) (De Villiers) in heathland in southern England (Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae)

The Small Red Damselfly (Ceriagrion tenellum) (De Villiers) (Odonata: Coenagrionidae: Ceriagrion) is classed as vulnerable (Shirt, British Red Data Book, Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough, UK, 1987) throughout the UK, and is included in certain Local Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAPs) in the south. A large proportion of any Biodiversity Action Plan is concerned with the requirement of conservation and management programmes. In order to guide them, information about the habitat preferences of the species concerned is vital. Detailed habitat information was collected to include a variety of physical parameters particularly vegetation, both in-channel and bankside. The species was found to be primarily associated with in-channel emergent broad-leaved plants, bankside grasses and rushes, and shallow, narrow channels with dark organic substrate. The consequences of these findings are discussed in relation to the conservation and management of C. tenellum.

Derek Almey Ratcliffe, 1929–2005

Derek Almey Ratcliffe, 1929–2005

Community Structure of In-Stream Bryophytes in English and Welsh Rivers

Information on the distribution of bryophytes in mainland British rivers was collected as part of the Joint Nature Conservancy Council (JNCC) survey of in-stream macrophyte distribution between 1978 and 1997. A sub-set of sites (1604) containing the 50 most common bryophytes was analysed. The commonest of these 50 species were Fontinalis antipyretica and Rhynchostegium riparioides. The majority of species encountered are not considered to be truly aquatic. Detrended Correspondence Analysis of community structure revealed a continuum of variation in assemblages across sites rather than distinct groupings of bryophytes. Canonical Correspondence Analysis was used to analyse a sub-set of sites (625) for which water chemistry were available to test the influence of environmental variables on the distribution of bryophytes. The analysis suggested the strongest environmental gradient was the transition from lowland systems on chalk geology to steeply sloping, high altitude systems with resistant geology. Mapping CCA axis 1 scores on to a map of England and Wales suggested a geographic trend in bryophyte species distribution with community structure undergoing a transition from the upland regions and the western seaboard to the south east of England. Stepwise regression analysis confirmed the importance of the upland lowland trend, showing that substrate size, altitude of source, distance to source and altitude were important predictors of species richness (p < 0.0001, adjusted R2 = 0.30).

Guy Mountfort, 1905–2003

Guy Mountfort, 1905–2003

What Landscape Means to Me

Caroline Wickham-Jones is a freelance archaeologist specialising in the study of the earliest settlement of Scotland. Her work has led her to some of the wilder parts of the Highlands and Islands. In the 1980s she directed excavations at Kinloch on the island of Rum and more recently she has been working around the Inner Sound for Scotland’s First Settlers, of which she is a co-director (www.moray.ac.uk/ccs/settlers.htm). As she explains below she has long had associations with broader issues of landscape management: she was a Trustee of the John Muir Trust and sat on the Science Board of the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland. In 2002 she left the city to live in Orkney where there is a much better quality of life both for herself and for her son: here she continues to work as an archaeologist and to be involved in more general issues – she is now on the local Countryside Access Forum. As well as carrying out research into the early settlement of the islands she is working as part of a team on plans for the World Heritage sites in Orkney.

Management of environmental impacts of marine aquaculture in Europe

There are large differences between countries in the rate of growth and development of marine aquaculture, and also in the sophistication and complexity of its regulation, control and monitoring procedures. The potentially deleterious impacts of aquaculture are widely documented in the literature [J. Appl. Ichthyol. 17 (2001) 181; Fernandes, T.F., Eleftheriou, A., Ackefors, H., Eleftheriou, M., Ervik, A., Sanchez-Mata, A., Scanlon, T., White, P., Cochrane, S., Pearson, T.H., Miller, K.L., Read, P.A., 2002. The Management of the Environmental Impacts of Aquaculture. Scottish Executive, Aberdeen, UK, 88 pp.]. It is widely accepted that such impacts would be minimised or negated by the adoption of appropriate culturing procedures and environmental safeguards including regulatory, control and monitoring procedures [Nature Conservancy Council (NCC), 1989. Fish Farming and the Safeguard of the Natural Marine Environment of Scotland. Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough, England, 136 pp.; Codling, I.D., Doughty, R., Henderson, A., Naismith, I., 1995. Strategies for Monitoring Sediments and Fauna Around Cage Fish Farms. Marlow, UK: Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research (SNIFFER), Report No. SR 4018, 78 pp.; GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection), 1996. Monitoring the ecological effects of coastal aquaculture wastes. Scientific aspects of marine environmental protection. Rome, Italy: Rep. Stud. GESAMP No. 57, 38 pp.; GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection), 2001. Planning and management for sustainable coastal aquaculture development. Rome, Italy: Rep. Stud. GESAMP No. 68, 90 pp.]. It is essential that such safeguards are formulated from the best available science and technology and from the best available experience and expertise. In this context, there are lessons to be learned from the strategy and regulatory framework for the regulation, control and monitoring of environmental impacts of marine aquaculture within the European Union (EU). This paper identifies some of the main issues relevant to the management of environmental impacts of marine aquaculture; reviews EU and international policy and regulations in this context and provides one example of a strategy for the management of the environmental impacts of marine aquaculture by reference to the marine aquaculture industry in Scotland. In conclusion, it examines a number of current, key environmental concerns pertaining to the impact and regulation of marine aquaculture, which whilst being the subject of divergent views, are pivotal to the development of the industry. Recommendations for systems, procedures and research to address these concerns are identified. The paper is primarily concerned with marine finfish culture, although brief reference is made to shellfish culture. The control of diseases of finfish and shellfish is outside the scope of the paper, although brief consideration is given to current concerns relating to sea lice (predominantly Lepeophtheirus salmonis) infestations in salmonids.

‘Birds, bogs and forestry’ revisited: The significance of the flow country controversy

This paper evaluates the significance of the battle between forest and conservation interests in the Flow Country of northern Scotland during the late 1980s. It summarises the key arguments for and against afforestation as they were presented at the time, and reviews their validity in the light of subsequent developments. Commercial afforestation was claimed to be an economically valuable land use in a region with few alternatives, whereas conservationists presented the Flow Country as a wetland habitat of international significance. The controversy had far‐reaching consequences both for forest practice and nature conservation in Scotland and the UK. The break‐up of the Nature Conservancy Council and the remit given to Scottish Natural Heritage, the negative public perception of commercial forestry, the adoption of multiple objective forest management, Indicative Forest Strategies, and the participatory philosophy in conservation, can all be wholly or partly traced to the controversy. Ultimately, the controversy is shown to have had positive outcomes both for conservation and forest practice.

An Integrated Conservation Policy for Scotland: A Rhetoric which Belies Practice

In April 1992 Scottish Natural Heritage was created, marking the introduction of a new 'integrated* conservation policy for Scotland more 'sensitive* than hitherto concerning the needs of the country and its people. It grew out of the merger of the Countryside Commission for Scotland (Countryside Commission for Scotland), with its attendant duties regarding the protection of 'natural beauty' (the landscape) and the amenity thereof, and the controversial Nature Conservancy Council in Scotland, responsible for nature conservation. Helping develop this new policy, the Government provided for two new 'conceptual' conservation tools. First , the 'sustainability' concept was to help 'change attitudes to the environment* (Scottish Office Development Department [SODD] 1990, p. I), creating the right conditions for its protection and, second, a new designation that brought together landscape and nature conservation concerns was to be devised a designation which the former Nature Conservancy Council in Scotland or the Countryside Commission for Scotland had been able to use during their existence. It was to be called the Natural Heritage Area.

Performance measurement at English Nature

Elaborates on English Nature, a public body financed by grant‐in‐aid from the UK Department of the Environment, which was formed when the former Nature Conservancy Council for Great Britain was disbanded five years previously. Pinpoints that four types of performance measures are used by English Nature and these are: quantified corporate targets; strategic indicators; service standards; and soft indicators. States results show that English Nature is still quite risk averse ‐ in part due to Government constraints and procedures. Closes with a question and answer panel with Andy Brown, Chief Officer of the Joint Nature Committee.

Sustainable development in Scotland: The role of Scottish Natural Heritage

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) was established in 1991 largely as a result of a merger between the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland (NCCS) and the Countryside Commission for Scotland (CCS). However, SNH differs from its predecessors in an important respect. For the first time in UK history, an agency has been given a mandate which includes the promotion of sustainable development. The purpose of this article is to assess the extent to which SNH is in a position to secure sustainable development in the day-to-day exercise of its functions.