New Biodiversity Action Plans

[Gill Catton]

I'm going to start this by talking about birds but feel free continue with other aspects of the BAP that interest you...

I read the new priority lists with interest, considerably more birds species and an interesting decision to drop down to specific races of the birds in question......

so is this positive allowing protection and targets to be tied to specific races

or negative in scaring people off who would otherwise submit records but who aren't confident in identifying the modularis race of the dunnock...

I'm somewhere in between, I like the increased number of species listed (although I recognise this as being a lot of extra work )- it gives me a stronger base to get various species considered properly with regard to development ..... However, there's no way I'd be able to separate british Larus argentatus argentatus from wintering Scandinavian ones - there's probably not that many people in the country who can confidently!!!

It seems part of the reasoning is to allow greater protection of uk races of birds - but that didn't seem to bother the likes of the RSPB, Natural England etc when it comes to red kites or sea eagles..........


also with plants 14 species of hawkweed with no english names - am I the only one who shudders at this?

[Chiltern Chris]

Hi Gill,

I don’t think going down to individual races is helpful in most cases except when dealing with some habitat compensation / restoration projects. Although I can see the temptation of using races when trying to protect sites from development if you’re relying on species which are reasonably common. However, I’ve been involved in lots of public inquiries and its hard enough getting agreement on the presence or absence of different species, survey methodologies and what significance criteria to use (don’t mention IEEM criteria or I’ll scream!). If you have to argue the case not only on species but on race as well, the planning inspector will either be confused, think it’s an irrelevant argument between specialists or commit suicide through boredom (not good for your case but a tactic often used by development friendly ecological consultants). I was at an inquiry when an inspector seemed to drop off to sleep after 3 days argument about the distribution of red data book invertebrates and I wasn’t far behind.

Also, think of the poor old planners who have to put in Biodiversity policies in their Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) and Local Development Documents. Many try valiantly but don’t have much of a clue regarding the value and legislative background of why biodiversity matters to them. I’m dealing with a Sustainability Appraisal of a RSS at the moment and most of the RSS Steering Group hadn’t heard of priority BAP habitats or their responsibilities to Habitats of Principal Importance under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 section 40, so how can they be expected to worry about races when they don’t even understand the basics?

Races should be used at site level when looking at site compensation or restoration, I always consider local provenance, it can be the difference between success and failure e.g. with tidal v freshwater phragmites, but it should be kept out of the planning system as it’s a charter for unscrupulous consultants to bog-down planning inquiries in superfluous detail that planners and inspectors often don’t understand.

Chris

[Gill Catton]

I agree entirely I don't think they have properly thought about who uses BAPS over and above those people managing reserves.....

Its weird thought because it only seems to be with birds that they have dropped them all down to race level...

Its also rather frightening that any old hawthorn dominant - managed to within an inch of its life - hedgrow has been added and any old ponds even rotten polluted ones full of car parts and dead things...... surly BAP targets shouldn't be about preserving such things but about making them better or even removing them completely and replacing with something better?

[Chiltern Chris]

Gill,

Pond Conservation has suggested a change to the pond classification and that this change is likely to be accepted. This was because JNCC thought that just using ‘ponds’ was too inclusive. The priority habitat will now only be ‘Ponds of High Conservation Value’ i.e. about the top 5% of ponds.

I have Pond Conservation’s original submission for the change. If it’s of any use to you, I’ll send it over.

I don’t know about the hedge side of things, I’m more on the wet and squelchy side of the fence.

Chris

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by Chiltern Chris

Gill,

Pond Conservation has suggested a change to the pond classification and that this change is likely to be accepted. This was because JNCC thought that just using ‘ponds’ was too inclusive. The priority habitat will now only be ‘Ponds of High Conservation Value’ i.e. about the top 5% of ponds.

I have Pond Conservation’s original submission for the change. If it’s of any use to you, I’ll send it over.

I don’t know about the hedge side of things, I’m more on the wet and squelchy side of the fence.

Chris

interesting since the new lists don't appear to be draft - they appear to be decided....

NewPriorityList

[Chiltern Chris]

Hi Gill,

I've not been through all the stuff on the UK BAP web site to see what's been put on the web but the Priorities Species and Habitats Review Working Group accepted the Pond Conservation submission and although the term ‘ponds’ was kept as a generic term for the priority habitat, what it means is described on p131 of Annex 5 of the Species and Habitats Review Report 2007.

http://www.ukbap.org.uk/library/BRIG...Annexes4-6.pdf

This states the criteria for ponds a priority habitat as:

UK BAP priority habitat Ponds are defined as permanent and seasonal standing water bodies up to 2ha in extent which meet one or more of the following criteria:

• Habitats of international importance. Ponds that meet criteria under Annex I of the Habitats Directive.

• Species of high conservation importance. Ponds supporting Red Data Book species, UK BAP species, species fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act Schedule 5 and 8, Habitats Directive Annex II species, a Nationally Scarce wetland plant species, or three Nationally Scarce aquatic invertebrate species.

• Exceptional assemblages of key biotic groups: Ponds supporting exceptional populations or numbers of key species. Based on (i) criteria specified in guidelines for the selection of biological SSSIs (currently amphibians and dragonflies only), and (ii) exceptionally rich sites for plants or invertebrates (i.e. supporting ≥30 wetland plant species or ≥50 aquatic macroinvertebrate species).

• Ponds of high ecological quality: Ponds classified in the top PSYM category (“high”) for ecological quality (i.e. having a PSYM score ≥75%). [PSYM (the Predictive SYstem for Multimetrics) is a method for assessing the biological quality of still waters in England and Wales; plant species and / or invertebrate families are surveyed using a standard method; the PSYM model makes predictions for the site based on environmental data and using a minimally impaired pond dataset; comparison of the prediction and observed data gives a % score for ponds quality]

• Other important ponds: Individual ponds or groups of ponds with a limited geographic distribution recognised as important because of their age, rarity of type or landscape context e.g. pingos, duneslack ponds, machair ponds.

Hope that helps,

Cheers, Chris

[almostnormal]

you're definitely no the only one who read the hawkweed bit with trepidation. i had to go and sit in a darkened corner and repeat 'its a daisy not a dragon' lots of times.

i think the bap lists for birds are weird. i don't really understand why they've dropped them down to race. i'm a bird person and i'd be hard pushed to tell you whether one dunnock is a different race to another. ringer's would probably have better luck! on the other hand if its breeding in this country its probably a british black tailed godwit, not an icelandic one!

[GRH]

Biodiversity isn't just about species - it's about races and subspecies as well (and habitats of course). If we lose a race or a subspecies we lose biodiversity. If we took off everything that was tricky to identify a lot of opportunities would be lost. The BAP list is about decline more than anything else. There are many species on it that are common and widespread but have declined a lot (eg quite a lot of the moths!), and adding them to the BAP list opens up funding opportunities to look into the causes of that decline. Habitats are a different issue. If you only list the habitats of high value then you lose the opportunity to bring those not so good ones up to scratch, and risk those good ones that get mismanaged dropping off the list. The BAP list isn't purely for any one audience (especially not for those managing reserves), it's a list of the Government's conservation priorities.

Greg