RSPB Reserve Manager Robert Coleman on the reserve at Snettisham. Picture Matthew Usher.

Warning over Norfolk’s wildlife habitats

By CHRIS HILL, Rural affairs correspondent Sunday, December 11, 2011
8:00 AM

A review of EU habitats directives to assess their impact on the nation’s prospects for commercial growth has outraged East Anglia’s conservation community.

There’s no doubt the government must make some unenviable decisions if it is to revive this country’s economic prosperity.

But fears are growing that ministers, in their haste to create an environment where development and industry can bloom, risk sacrificing some of the most cherished parts of our natural world.

One particular announcement in George Osborne’s autumn statement last week provoked widespread alarm among the custodians of East Anglia’s wildlife.

The chancellor told MPs that he wanted to make sure that “gold-plating of EU rules on things like habitats” were not putting “ridiculous costs” on British firms, pricing them out of the global economy.

“If we burden them with endless social and environmental goals – however worthy in their own right – then not only will we not achieve those goals, but the businesses will fail, jobs will be lost and our country will be poorer,” he said.

Defra then announced a review of how the EU habitats and birds directives are being applied in England, “with a view to reducing the burdens on businesses while maintaining and, where possible, enhancing environmental benefits”.

The suggestion is that these directives are being imposed too rigorously, preserving wildlife sites at all costs – to the detriment of the industry required to kick-start our creaking economy.

But East Anglia’s wildlife charities said watering down these legal safeguards would threaten not only protected plants and animal habitats, but also the substantial tourism industry which flourishes around them.

Paul Forecast, below, the RSPB’s regional director for the east of England, said: “At this stage, until we know exactly what’s going to happen in the review, we don’t know what the full implications might be. Clearly, from George Osborne’s statement, he wants to weaken the legislation that protects our important wildlife sites in the region.

“The east of England has a higher number of these important areas for wildlife than many other parts of the country.

“When you think about the Broads, the Brecks, the Wash and the North Norfolk coast – there are so many areas of land protected by this legislation. The fear is that for short-term economic gain, we might threaten some of the environment which makes the region so distinctive.

“All of us who live in the East do so because we love the area we live in, and that’s part of attracting business and tourism into the area. You meddle with that at your peril.”

A recent study showed the RSPB’s flagship reserve at Titchwell Marsh attracted £4.6m of tourist spend alone to North Norfolk in 2009, supporting 132 local jobs through the reserve’s conservation, farming, and tourism appeal.

Mr Forecast said: “Places like Norfolk are highly dependant on environmental tourism. Our reserves are putting millions into the economy through direct employment, people staying in bed and breakfasts, contractors. We risk damaging that.

“If you weaken the safeguards then in 50 years time we will be saying what a shame it is that we have lost part of the Broads or the Wash to unsightly development when there used to be a tourism industry there. It is very short-sighted.”

Mr Forecast said there were already good examples of where the habitats directives had been used to negotiate “win-win” solutions for both developers and conservation bodies.

He said the RSPB had been involved in discussions to ensure the dualling of the A11 had been routed to avoid protected areas of Breckland, and land for 5,000 proposed new homes in Thetford being allocated to the north-east of the town, away from buffer zones to protect stone curlews.

“We should all want a win-win solution like that. The economic and social needs were balanced and that thinking is at the heart of sustainable development.

“The habitats directives are not designed to block development. There are often practical solutions around any development,” he explained.

EU legislation restricts development in special areas of conservation (SACs) under the habitats directive and in special protection areas (SPAs) under the birds directive.

Both designations are held at the RSPB’s reserves at Snettisham and Titchwell Marsh, which are overseen by senior sites manager Robert Coleman.

He said: “The habitat we’re looking at here is a very wild place, and there are not many landscapes like this left in the UK. The habitats and birds directives have been in place for a good number of years and they have done a good job helping us to protect these places for wildlife.

“It is easy to look at these places in isolation, but we need to look at the wider context. We are part of the ‘Natura 2000’ network of SACs and SPAs across Europe. This legislation is not just about protecting it for the UK. Wildlife does not recognise boundaries, so what happens here affects birds migrating from places like Greenland and Iceland.”

Snettisham attracts an estimated 350,000 birds during the winter, but Mr Coleman said that even this isolated stretch of marshy coast facing the Wash could potentially be threatened by development.

“The biggest threat to the Wash as a habitat is the potential of changing the way the Wash works in the form of tidal energy barrier or something similar,” he said. “We have already got large wind-farms on the far side of the Wash and the building of the turbines and the way their cabling comes ashore all needs to be assessed.

“These are the kind of things these two directives were set up to assess, so appropriate decisions can be made. We are very aware that it is important the economy gets back on track. We don’t want to stop that, but it needs to be somewhere appropriate.

“The habitats directives are a great way to negotiate that balance between the need for economic growth and the really important protection of our wildlife heritage.”

Norfolk Wildlife Trust (NWT) chief executive Brendan Joyce, right, said the habitats directive in particular had been an important “last resort” in protecting its reserves.

He said the controversial waste incinerator proposal at King’s Lynn was an example of where the EU legislation had provided a framework for the NWT to voice its concerns about potential effects on nearby Roydon Common.

“It is an SAC and the valley mire is an extremely important and sensitive habitat where the pH of the water has to be precise,” he said. “One of the concerns we have is whether whatever particulates coming from the incinerator could change that balance. At the moment the habitats directive is in our favour, but without it developments could just ride rough-shod over places like this.

“The sort of places that the habitats directive protect are the most important places on a European scale. If they were not, they would not have the designation as an SAC. You cannot just say you are going to let those places go.

“We are not anti-development. We are not standing in the way of progress. We should have modern networks and housing and we do need economic security, but to be prepared to trash the wildlife jewels in the crown for the sake of it seems to me to be crazy.”

The review expects to publish its recommendations before next year’s budget in March. It will consider where implementation of the legislation gives rise to the greatest compliance costs and delays, whether the requirements are “applied too or insufficiently rigorously”, and “whether competent authorities and statutory conservation advisers could explore more creative solutions”.

Following the chancellor’s autumn statement, environment secretary Caroline Spelman said the government still “strongly supported” the aims of the habitats and birds directives.

“It’s important that we maintain the integrity of these directives,” she said. “The vast majority of development cases do successfully meet the directives’ requirements but a small number raise particularly complex issues which give rise to unnecessary costs and delays.

“That is why I am looking forward to seeing recommendations on dealing with any overly-bureaucratic or long, drawn-out examples of implementation, without compromising the current levels of environmental protection.”

Latest News

26 comments

*School. lol the irony!!

Report this comment

Focus1

Saturday, December 17, 2011
*School. lol the irony!!

Report this comment

Focus1

Saturday, December 17, 2011
Flooding flooding flooding, yadda yadda yadda! I was taught at scool that within 50 years the whole of Great Yarmouth would be underwater due to "Global Warming" and Sea level rise, what have we seen in the many many years since then? well they have changed the buzz words to "Climate Change" and the beaches have got bigger i.e the piers at Yarmouth no longer touch the water (you used to walk over the water getting to the Brittania Theatre) and you can walk round the end of the Gorleston Breakwater! The truth is we live by the sea, there has always been flooding and there always will be!

Report this comment

Focus1

Saturday, December 17, 2011
The continued focus on wetland wildlife is a ploy used by government and government supported agencies to divert attention from the very real danger of serious flooding in East Anglia that will take human lives.

Report this comment

keith gerrard

Saturday, December 17, 2011
A lot of controversy on here.Re the RSPB,if they are the one and only saviour that are protecting the Broads etc.perhaps Copsys will tell us when they objected to the very close to the beaches dredging for aggregates which is causing the lowering of the beaches and undermining the cliffs where the dicky birds roost.Why do they object so much to dredging out the Broads [Breydon] Could it be that the RSPB would like to be the controlling body for Broadland?Why were they touting for members in the villages surrounding the Broads just after they announced their plans for the future of the Broads.On another thread Copsys praises the work of the Norfolk Wildlife Trust and yet on here he is saying they are a waste of time.The Broads Authority are the controlling group for the Broads,not the RSPB.They are there to protect wildlife,human life,businesses,mariners and to protect the beauty of the Broads.Yes they have their faults.They are a mainly unelected quango,but sooner them than the RSPB.

Report this comment

john kendall

Saturday, December 17, 2011
Daisy Roots - the RSPB runs boat trips on Breydon Water to show people the wildlife on the estuary. Hardly a good strategy if they want to keep it quiet. In my view the RSPB does a fantastic job in standing up for nature and speaking out, even if its going to make them unpopular. Natural England has been castrated by the current government and isn't much use now except for doling money out to farmers. Norfolk Wildlife Trust won't say boo to a goose for fear of upsetting the landed gentry who are their main benefactors. We need the RSPB now more than ever.

Report this comment

xxxx

Tuesday, December 13, 2011
IMO, Natural England and English Nature do deserve some of the criticism they get- they are a bit of a self promoting bureaucracy eager to get their fingers in as many pies as possible. But on the whole they are infinitely preferable to the RSPB who have their eyes a bit much on the membership and are sideways with the facts at times. (Ever wondered why the RSPB dont make a lot of fuss about the masses of birds on Breydon? Could it be the hides and footpaths are all public? ) But they are all of huge value in keeping in rein the crooked bunches that sit on our councils and would wreck everywhere for a quick profit. Those who have been to Hemsby might wonder why there is a car park on an ancient dune system, part of a system which just a few hundred yards north is an SSSI- who got away with that? But-there are some sites that are talked up- I dont know much about Roydon but I do know three commons that in my youth were rough grass and grazed and are now all grown up with trees and left undrained. To read what some have to say you would think they had been like it since the Middle Ages-they are either being deliberately misleading or are poor ecologists. The wild life value might be the same, but so would everywhere left to revert to an uncultivated state. I don't think the organisations concerned can make this sort of anxious announcement until they are clear about what sort of habitats the EU have in mind. A builder being forced to leave untouched a dozen poplar trees planted in the 60s is daft, but there places -even small patches -that need protecting tooth and nail.

Report this comment

Daisy Roots

Tuesday, December 13, 2011
John: Natural England have never once actually objected to flood defence on the Horsey-Winterton frontage that defends the Broads. In fact they support the current policy of defending it for at least the next 50 years. What they did do was dare to suggest a debate was needed about whether that policy was sustainable long term in the face of sea level rise predictions, sensible one might think given that the Upper Thurne was originally tidal within the last 2000 years and is in effect still a coastal floodplain. Regardless of how clumsily that message was handled, the the press jumped on it and sensationally distorted it into 'conservationists want to flood the Broads' story. Crucially, people like you bought it. I know some hard working Natural England and RSPB staff who are quietly and professionally getting on with the day to day job of protecting the wildlife of the Broads and it's coast and making sure you can still enjoy it. They don't deserve your vicious and hysterical rhetoric. Defending the current line of dunes at Horsey is increasingly challenging both technically and economically and is likely to become more so as we try and maintain an un-natural system.

Report this comment

beeston bump

Tuesday, December 13, 2011
John, I think you're still confusing the RSPB with Natural England. Incidentally the Broads Authority is a statutory agency and is therefore backed by Government and its own legislation. Keith, you provided a pretty poor example of where the RSPB has 'drowned the people to save dickie birds'. As far as I am aware, no-one lives on their Titchwell nature reserve. Do you want to try again?

Report this comment

xxxx

Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Well Copsys.Going back now to what the RSPB did say.They said it would be better to allow the area around Hickling return to salt marshes and they went on to say that the Broads were very badly maintained and should be governed by someone else[who could that be]Myself,along with a lot more people wrote to Norman Lamb,our own M.Ps and in my case Miss Anne McIntosh the then shadow minister for the Environment.We had letter after letter in return and over 2000 people joined in a thread on these very pages.Yes Natural England were the main objectors to furthur flood defences,strongly backed by the RSPB.Incidently,they were the only ones who did not reply to any letters.The Broads Authority do have a 20yr.plan but will any government back them up?

Report this comment

john kendall

Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Not a very good example Keith. As far as I am aware no-one was drowned at Titchwell to save any dicky-birds. Care to try again?

Report this comment

xxxx

Monday, December 12, 2011
Biodiversity, flood alleviation, water storage etc are all important for future food security. It's now about growing more, it's about having suitable suistanable systems that provide true resilience. Currently the world isn't short of food, the distribution of food is distorted and ineffective. Many developing countries have the natural resources to develop suistanable agricultural yet many are still reliant on aid. We should think about food security here but that is a whole picture -nature on farmland with flood alleviation provided by areas like the Ouse Washes, Nene Washes etc directly to agriculture also providing for nature.

Report this comment

Tonko0900

Monday, December 12, 2011
Tonko, it may have escaped your notice but, as well as water shortages, we are also faced with an unwelcome population explosion. Increasingly we are importing a larger proportion of our food. To allow productive land to be flooded will cost us all and I fail to see the logic of wanting that land to be flooded for some idealist view of nature. There has to be a balance and with respect your views are not.

Report this comment

andy

Monday, December 12, 2011
I'm baffled - isn't allowing some areas to flood etc actually one very effective way of sea defence? whilst also providing areas for wildlife, flood alleviation, water storage etc - building giant walls etc are only shifting the problem along the coast and don't always work (indeed can cause further problems!) As for the Habitat Regulations there are 96% of cases that are no problem and 4% that had to be halted - where is the problem Mr Osborne? Are this govt just happy to let development spring up just like Mr John Kendall doesn't like?. The removal or erosion of any protection for the country's wildlife sites comes at a time when nature needed protecting most. Perhaps we need to take stock of how much the wildlife of these areas serve to the rural economy (BTW its a lot of money!) and realise nature needs protecting for its own value as well as the value it brings to many businesses. Of course sea level rise is mostly being caused by global warming - so the most effective solution would be to sort that out Keith?

Report this comment

Tonko0900

Monday, December 12, 2011
Perhaps Keith you aren't aware of the Broadland Flood Alleviation Project? webpage here: www.bfap.org ??? Where they work in conjunction with many stakeholders including the RSBP.

Report this comment

NorthCity

Monday, December 12, 2011
http:www.rsa-geotechnics.co.ukcase_study_detail.asp?fld_case_ID=7 Just one of many such flooding incentives by the RSPB. Drown the people save the dicky birds. Problem is it wont save the birds if sea level rise continue. It will just spend the charities money on a waste of time. Proper flood defence is the ONLY way forward.

Report this comment

keith gerrard

Monday, December 12, 2011
With respect John, I have been following the story and my recollection is that it was in fact Natural England that raised the point that in the long term, the Broads may not be defendable in the face of sea level rise. Some creative(!) reporting from the EDP made it sound as though Natural England was advocating flooding the Broads. Why let the truth get in the way of a good story eh? I would also like Keith Gerrard to give us some examples of where the RSPB and other conservation organisations have prevented investment in flood defences.

Report this comment

xxxx

Monday, December 12, 2011
In my opinion the government and its agencies is using wildlife trusts and charities like the RSPB to save it the cost of investing in proper flood defences for East Anglia. When the inevitable disaster occurs the government will blame them for it, mark my words.

Report this comment

keith gerrard

Monday, December 12, 2011
No Essex girl, I will not publish yet. I will give them time to reflect on their stupidity and hopefuly change their selfish attitudes. When (and not if) Norfolk has its next serious flood and people drown, then I will publish.

Report this comment

keith gerrard

Monday, December 12, 2011
As usual, the RSPB is way out of touch with reality, why don't they get real jobs? The Broads and people living around that area are much more important than the birds which mother nature takes care of better than your likes.

Report this comment

Paul Platten

Monday, December 12, 2011
Re Copsychus.Obviously you have not been following this story for as long as Keith.The RSPB were promoting the Broads[ part of] as a ideal place to allow the sea to flood the Broads.Does not matter that people live there or business like tourism thrives in that area or more seriously,the wildlife that is there now would not survive in salt water.

Report this comment

john kendall

Monday, December 12, 2011
Am a bit baffled by Keith Gerrad's assertion that the RSPB is a major cause of future coastal flooding. I thought the most likely causes were sea-level rise and isostatic change.

Report this comment

xxxx

Sunday, December 11, 2011
keith gerrard, please could you publish the list of those responsible before we drown !

Report this comment

Essex Girl

Sunday, December 11, 2011
George Osborne and David Cameron rejected incinerators in their own constituencies, quoting they are the largest polluters to humans and wildlife. Maybe it is ok in Kings Lynn as it is not in their back yards.

Report this comment

Choice

Sunday, December 11, 2011
The RSPB and many of these PC protectionists are the major cause of future potential flooding in coastal Norfolk and yet they still force their puerile ideas for controlled flooding on the public and prevent the flood protection that thousands of Norfolk people should have within their human rights. I have a list of those responsible which I will publish when there is the next seriouse flooding and people drown.

Report this comment

keith gerrard

Sunday, December 11, 2011
Once again,the RSPB are being very selective in choosing the areas THEY want to save.Buffer areas around here have already been built on.What have we got,supermarkets,supermarkets and more supermarkets.These areas at one time were designated green belts and now convieniently called buffer zones.The RSPB do not give a damn about parts of the Broads,it is only the areas they choose to manage.

Report this comment

john kendall

Sunday, December 11, 2011