For over a generation the UK’s approach to conservation has
been based on one of protection and prescription. So, if a species is in
worrying decline our response has been a rush to give it protection from the hand
of man. Itself a little ironic since most of the remaining species in the UK are
here precisely because they have found a way to live alongside man. Some species
in fact thrived alongside man and followed, as farmers moved west opening up woodland
for agriculture.
Protection takes two
main forms. Firstly; legal protection, even though the real threat may come
from something that legislation can’t address. It gives politicians, and those
that like writing lists, something to show; however that may be all that is
achieved. The second level of protection is buying land and putting up fences
to protect nature from the hand of man. Marvellous places for inspiring minds.
However the chances are nature is there precisely because man has not been
using it to live, work or grow food and there is often no plans to alter that
state.
Prescription takes
the form of clip-board based conservation initiatives. In response to the cry
for more to be done; NGO’s and civil servants arrive with manuals and instructions
to tell people what they should be doing. Obviously it was never intended to be
seen as top-down direction, however the bigger the conservation problem
becomes, the greater the temptation to increase to dictate. This control and
direction increase further when financial incentives are introduced to
encourage adoption of prescriptions. The bureaucracy and manual must be right because
I you are going to receive a payment for these ideas.
The result is a national
approach to conservation isn’t working well enough. Plenty of people have said
that, including the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee (2007-08) “… new approach will be needed to address the dramatic
biodiversity loss that is occurring…”. Organisations produced alternatives, including
the GWCT’s Restoring the balance discussion
paper but most offering ‘new’ thinking were uncomfortable reading for most.
Whilst all would agree we had to something better the idea of moving on from
protection and prescription based conservation alone was just too much. Remember
an entire generation had been educated and trained to follow this manta. Those
that had ideas outside the core group were marginalised.
Ignoring the warnings
that the existing approaches to conservation needs to change was easy.
Human behaviour meant that, those with most to lose, the large conservation NGO’s,
turned a blind eye to the growing problem. For as generation those that bought
into the thinking made strides up the conservation corporate ladder; the rest held
back.
The backfire effect,
another human behaviour hardly helped. Studies have shown that when likeminded
groups are presented with evidence that fundamentally challenges their view
they just don’t believe the evidence. Worse, the more the evidence mounted, the
more strongly people cling to their cherished view.
Just as in 2008 when the world realised that a AAA rated
assets could be almost worthless will the publication of the State of Nature in
2013 chance the herds relentless pursuit of prescription and protection? We are
all worried bystanders, unsure of what to do, fearful of embarrassment. Is the
herd about to change? The chances the conservation community will have to
switch course at some stage since to continue on the existing route will just
require even more money – something the next generation of conservationists are
likely to have.
Future conservation is
going to have to rely less on what conservation NGO’s and civil servants think
needs to be done – and more on engaging with and giving people on the ground
the freedom to decide what they want and how they are going to produce it. A
system that rewards success rather than putting conservation schemes in place.
It is what we do for food production for us.
No comments:
Post a Comment