 |
|
|
Development and Translocation: |
| Author | Message |
|
calumma Senior Member Joined: 27 Jun 2003 No. of posts: 351  View other posts by calumma |
Posted: 10 Jun 2004 As a conservationist I am increasingly frustrated by the poorly conceived 'mitigation' and 'translocation' projects that effectively exploit loopholes in current legislation. Although mitigation projects that involve the movement of European protected species can and do occur, I feel that the current licensing system is more than capable of ensuring that method statements are sufficiently robust. Whether there is sufficient follow-through on such projects to ensure that proposed work maintains best practice is a different matter of course! My real issue is with the wholesale translocation of the more widespread reptile species. In areas of rapid development (think Ashford, Thames Gateway etc), onsite mitigation options are limited and offsite translocation is the norm. However, suitable sites for translocation are few and developers are usually extremely time constrained and unwilling to wait months or years for otherwise unsuitable habitat to be brought into a favourable status. Increasingly, we are seeing the movement of animals into areas where the species already occur. Such areas include public open spaces owned by local authorities (e.g. country parks). Developers and their consultants are also starting to approach nature conservation organisations. For such organisations, allowing consultants to release animals into otherwise protected areas could represent a significant revenue stream. Should we be accepting that country parks and nature reserves are nothing more than dumping grounds for animals that are otherwise holding up development? Should conservation organisations, at least, oppose such activities on the basis that wholesale translocation is a poor conservation tool? Thoughts on this are welcome... Lee Lee Brady Kent Herpetofauna Recorder | Independent Ecological Consultant |
|
Tony Phelps Forum Specialist Joined: 09 Mar 2003 No. of posts: 575 View other posts by Tony Phelps |
Posted: 11 Jun 2004 My hobby horse, well one of them. I am very worried about translocations. Its late right now, and must get to bed got THE meeting re management tomorrow with En etc. But if you read the latest BHS Naterjack, the bit about phylogenetics being 'too academic and not relevant' made me smile. More later. Tony |
|
calumma Senior Member Joined: 27 Jun 2003 No. of posts: 351 View other posts by calumma |
Posted: 11 Jun 2004 A further issue to throw into the debate. Should conservation organisations themselves be paid by developers to undertake protected species survey work. Many organisations will act in a consultancy capacity in order to provide protected species information to developers. Some organisations go one step further and actually engage in translocation work. There is no evidence to suggest that the quality of such work differs from other consultancies (read that how you will...). Obviously it is beneficial for protected species to be identified before development proposals are at an advanced stage. However, I have a concern that the lure of money may encourage the unwise to provide advice that does not necessarily further conservation ideals. Lee Lee Brady Kent Herpetofauna Recorder | Independent Ecological Consultant |
|
Wolfgang Wuster Senior Member Joined: 23 Apr 2003 No. of posts: 326 View other posts by Wolfgang Wuster |
Posted: 11 Jun 2004 Lee, Regarding your last point, the HGBI guidelines for ARGs quite strongly advise AGAINST any partcipation in relocation schemes, although there is (as far as I recall) nothing there against initial survey work being done by them. This seems to strike roughly the right balance... Cheers, Wolfgang Wolfgang Wüster School of Biological Sciences, University of Wales, Bangor http://sbsweb.bangor.ac.uk/~bss166/ |
|
calumma Senior Member Joined: 27 Jun 2003 No. of posts: 351 View other posts by calumma |
Posted: 11 Jun 2004 Wolfgang, I'm not necessarily referring to ARGs when I talk about conservation organisations. Think *cough* countryside projects *cough* or *cough* wildlife trusts *cough* ;-) Lee Lee Brady Kent Herpetofauna Recorder | Independent Ecological Consultant |
|
herpetologic2 Senior Member Joined: 15 Jun 2004 No. of posts: 1369  View other posts by herpetologic2 |
Posted: 15 Jun 2004 Not to mention certain government bodies who fail to even take on any mitigation or compensation prior to their cough restoration work cough cough cough!!!! Vice Chair of ARG UK - self employed consultant - visit ARG UK & Alresford Wildlife |
|
calumma Senior Member Joined: 27 Jun 2003 No. of posts: 351 View other posts by calumma |
Posted: 26 Jun 2004 A further issue for folk to consider. How ethical is it for consultants to translocate animals onto roadside verges. Although roadside habitat could be sympathetically managed, it is very difficult to install structures such as hibernacula etc into such areas. Many verges offer good habitat for reptiles and can act as important dispersal corridors through an otherwise inhospitable landscape (think arable). However, releasing a large number of animals onto a verge (where there is potentially already a good population) could overload an area and result in significant roadkill. Does it happen? You betcha... Lee Lee Brady Kent Herpetofauna Recorder | Independent Ecological Consultant |
|
Gemma Fairchild Krag Committee Joined: 14 Feb 2003 No. of posts: 193 View other posts by Gemma Fairchild |
Posted: 26 Jun 2004 Doesn't sound very ethical at all Lee. Apart from the possibility of existing populations being at carrying capacity, how likely is it that roadside verges used as receptor sites would be managed in the long term to avoid succession into not so good reptile habitat I wonder? Still I suppose if a consultant has been paid lots of money to mitigate a site, they have to dump (sorry translocate) the animals to somewhere. Cough cough cough. ----RAUK e-Forum---- 
|
|
herpetologic2 Senior Member Joined: 15 Jun 2004 No. of posts: 1369 View other posts by herpetologic2 |
Posted: 27 Jun 2004 Hmmm we will get to the point of absolutely no movement of any animals from proposed development sites??? Cough Cough - maybe we will be given the light within the new reptile mitigation guidelines from English Nature Hibernacula can easily be built along road verges - and they can be built within the arable land (say a nice ditch with bank and hedge) - but is there any legal obligation to do so - well technically there is isnt there - Abandonment of Animals Act is it 1960? Lee if it was proposed to move reptiles onto a road verge, say a development was being planned alongside a road - which had an extensive soft landscape - newly created with small bushes - grassland developing etc It would be correct to survey the proposed development site (donor)and the road verge (receptor) - would it be possible to move the reptile population onto the adjoining land and road verge after suitable hibernacula, log piles etc have been constructed - of course an agreed monitoring programme should also be put in place - would this be acceptable??? would it happen? Has anyone driven along the A12 recently I think last year reptiles were captured from the roadside and translocated several miles to a country park - do you remember Lee (at our EARG meeting) the location was confidential despite it been reported in the press - Thousands of pounds was spent on reptile fencing over 4kilometres of road and they moved the animals off the roadside!!!! Apparently to prevent the animals from being road kill!!! People are questioning the amount sof money being spent on reptile mitigation aswell as GCN's - some are saying what good does it do really? others are saying who is going to pay for all this (mitigation)? what can be done differently with the money to benefit nature conservation????
Vice Chair of ARG UK - self employed consultant - visit ARG UK & Alresford Wildlife |
|
Gemma Fairchild Krag Committee Joined: 14 Feb 2003 No. of posts: 193 View other posts by Gemma Fairchild |
Posted: 27 Jun 2004
My view is we should be looking at the purchase of arable land before mitigations occur. This way it could be given the time to develop into reasonable habitat and act as receptor sites ready made. I do not know if this is economical or truly desirable, what are others thoughts on this? I guess the legal obligation doesn't ask a lot really, but we have to ask how a translocation should be judged. Is it successful if the animals are simply moved to stop them being squashed by heavy plant machinery? Or, should mitigation really aim to result in a viable breeding population that is capable of colinisation of surrounding habitat and gene interaction with other populations. GCN moved to urban country parks springs to mind, what does it achieve if there is no gene flow? (this is not directed at any particular project, just an example) I would view road side verges along the same lines, yes possibly good corridors for naturally dispersing animals, but very poor as receptor sites for viable populations in the long term? The verges of the A12 do look very good, but will these areas be managed in the long term to suit reptiles, or will they likely succumb to succession to scrub and eventually woodland over the years? In particular the problem I can see with linear habitat is that only a short distance of the site needs to become uninhabitable for the reptiles to become isolated. I wonder how the abandonment of animals act would be interpreted if a case did go to court concerning animals left on a roadside verge, not very favourably perhaps? ----RAUK e-Forum----
|
|
calumma Senior Member Joined: 27 Jun 2003 No. of posts: 351 View other posts by calumma |
Posted: 28 Jun 2004 Habitat enhancement work (inc building hibernacula etc) can be undertaken in many places. However, if there is any perceived health and safety issue, such work is unlikely to take place. Many highway carriages are designed with wide verges to facilitate future road widening schemes. I remember a local authority countryside officer bemoaning the very existence of 'roadside nature reserves'. His view was 'what's the point'... I agree with Gemma's view that mitigation should include provision for habitat creation/enhancement. Unfortunately the current legislation provides no means by which this can be enforced. It can therefore be very difficult to convince a client to undertake such work. Although it may be unlawful to abandon an animal in a place where it is not likely to survive, the practicality of proving that such an event took place means that a prosecution is very unlikely. I believe that most reputable consultants (ecological or otherwise) would be unprepared to dump animals into areas that are clearly not going to support any animal life. However, even well intentioned translocations often target areas that are perceived to be 'good' habitat, but which already support reptile populations. The result is an ever increasing 'dumping' of animals into existing habitat areas and little or no habitat creation. Monitoring of such projects rarely takes place. Rather worryingly, I know of several local authorities that acknowledge this unfortunate trend by simply ignoring reptiles during the planning process. That is, the local countryside/planning officer may be aware of an important reptile population on a site but takes no action because he/she believes translocation work to be a waste of time... Lee Lee Brady Kent Herpetofauna Recorder | Independent Ecological Consultant |
|
Rex Sumner Member Joined: 23 Jun 2004 No. of posts: 7 View other posts by Rex Sumner |
Posted: 28 Jun 2004 What is the current situation with 'set aside' for farms? Surely many farmers who are currently enjoying income from set aside but have a dearth of reptiles, would welcome being beneficiaries of translocation? It seems to me that the major problem here is there is no obvious place for the developers to translocate the reptiles which is why they are dumping them. Surely the first objective should be to have locations that can receive the translocated animals, the second to educate the developers that they are available. Rex |
|
herpetologic2 Senior Member Joined: 15 Jun 2004 No. of posts: 1369 View other posts by herpetologic2 |
Posted: 28 Jun 2004 Okay so roads are designed to be widened - many people who I have worked with are concerned about the cost of 'land take' in order to provide receptor sites for translocated animals - With roads that are being widened such as the M25 Junc 12 to 15 and in other parts of the country - arable land should be taken from farmers to help create new habitat - Take a look at Basildon Council's proposed Local Plan they actually highlight that a large country park is being created so that protected wildlife can be translocated from elsewhere in the district - on gateway development sites! Really what needs to happen is that development should be placed onto arable fields and the good reptile habitats left alone - these areas can then be extended into ex arable fields - large scale habitat creation is what is needed unfortuantlely we have groups like CPRE who are defending lovely green rolling fields which are wildlife deserts!
Vice Chair of ARG UK - self employed consultant - visit ARG UK & Alresford Wildlife |
|
calumma Senior Member Joined: 27 Jun 2003 No. of posts: 351 View other posts by calumma |
Posted: 28 Jun 2004 The first objective should be to ensure that very important sites are not lost ;-). It is very difficult to achieve this for widespread species under the current legislation. I'm not convinced that translocation is the right answer. Sometimes we need to look at sites that are under threat from development and simply draw a line in the sand. The problem with set-aside is that farmers will take money from any source if it is offered. However, if there is a change in policy in the future why wouldn't a farmer simply re-plough a field that had previously been prepared as a reptile receptor site. In the past farmers have received subsidies to grub old orchards and then further subsidies to plant new orchards in a vicious cycle... Lee Lee Brady Kent Herpetofauna Recorder | Independent Ecological Consultant |
|
herpetologic2 Senior Member Joined: 15 Jun 2004 No. of posts: 1369 View other posts by herpetologic2 |
Posted: 28 Jun 2004 Oh road widening schemes take decades to get off the ground and so in that time it is quite acceptable to look at roadside nature reserves - as they consitute the better habitat available at the time Many road verges have ben in existence for over 30 years and so to highlight them as being important should help highlight them as areas where compensation is needed surely
Vice Chair of ARG UK - self employed consultant - visit ARG UK & Alresford Wildlife |
|
calumma Senior Member Joined: 27 Jun 2003 No. of posts: 351 View other posts by calumma |
Posted: 28 Jun 2004 I think the point that the countryside officer was making over roadside nature reserves, was that if they are all we are left with the world will be a very depressing place. He wanted to see effort targetting other areas rather than roads. In Kent, road widening schemes are in progress in several areas and consultants are busy catching and moving reptiles elsewhere. In these cases the roadside verges have been naturally colonised by reptiles that have formed good populations. Yet the roadside verges are managed in order to facilitate roadside works and future expansion. To identify other similar verges as good receptor areas is worrying, particularly when they already support good reptile populations. Lee Lee Brady Kent Herpetofauna Recorder | Independent Ecological Consultant |
|
herpetologic2 Senior Member Joined: 15 Jun 2004 No. of posts: 1369 View other posts by herpetologic2 |
Posted: 28 Jun 2004
It is worrying - and I think the main reason why exisiting habitats are being targeted is that the consultants are pressed for time as they havent not followed possibly current guidelines which are taylored to the current legislation - which basically requires developers to employ consultants to remove reptile populations and hence the problem away from their development site. What can be done to change things? how would we bring about change in the legislation? judging by the recent mitigation projects granted approval by DEFRA for GCN's I do not hold much hope Inconsistency is a recurring theme around the issue of 'protected' species on the parts of English Nature, Wildlfie Trusts, local authorities and of course the developer! Would proper law enforcement help things? it is a problem that offences under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) are now arrestable offences but they are not recorded in the crime statistics and so Police forces are reluctant to act on these cases. Would this turn up the heat on the developers and consultants oh and not to mention the Nature Conservation bodies that are technically breaking the law when it comes to protected wildlife?
Vice Chair of ARG UK - self employed consultant - visit ARG UK & Alresford Wildlife |
- Development and Translocation |