Simon Barnes and the SPNVS

Two weeks on holiday and back home to try and catch up on the world of wildlife conservation and my Blog. Along with numerous emails and post I received my National Trust magazine today. The opinion feature sounded interesting and it was written by Simon Barnes. He wrote “How to be a bad birdwatcher” which I found an easy book to read and useful for a non bird watcher! He wants to start a new campaign to promote, “the Society for the Preservation of Nothing Very Special” or SPNVS for short. I agree with him that it is important to seek to protect living places and living things before they get special. Special usually means rare or endangered. Our four acre meadow could easily be classified by planners or developers as ordinary. Yet unimproved grasslands are already rare in the countryside and so I aim to become a member of the SPNVS.

If you too would like to join go to www.nationaltrust.org.uk, search for the digital NT magazine Autumn 2011 and Simon Barnes article is on page 15. Or of course you could join the NT as a member.

I was pleased to see how our new pond was getting on and of course it is getting on alright in my absence. The dragon fly nymphs  are still lurking in the murky water which really needs more oxygenating plants. Waterboatman are more numerous than before and a dead reddish dragonfly lies in the water. Water snails seem to be steadily demolishing it.
Walking across the lawn to the pond I noticed a small butterfly ( shown above) which I thought initially was  probably a female Common Blue. Eventually I managed to get close to it and with the help of my trusted book on UK butterflies I am convinced it is a Small Heath. That is the first time I've ever recognised one. The books says they are one of the most common butterflies in the country so I must have been very negligent in not seeing it before.  I am adding a photo of my butterfly and the unfortunate dragon fly and the dragonfly nymph

"Prosperity Without Growth"

 I've read the book that stimulated a friend to write this letter, which he copied to me and I considered it relevent to the nature conservation theme of this Blog so here it is.

 

 

"Prosperity Without Growth"

 

A letter to the "Economist" magazine  written by Dr Michael J. Parr.

 

 

To: the Editor

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      In his 2009 book, Prosperity without Growth - Economics for a Finite Planet, Tim Jackson made an extraordinarily compelling case against continued economic growth in developed countries.  Jackson, who is Professor of Sustainable Development (University of Surrey) presents the mounting evidence that continued and increasing consumerism in the major economies is destined for disaster because we live in a finite world.  Common sense tells us growth cannot continue indefinitely, and indeed, Prof. Jackson describes how our recent problems relate to the collapse of the ecosystems sustaining our western economies due to ever-rising consumerism.

 

In his analysis, Jackson outlines how human society can not only survive, but flourish, within the clear limits of our finite Earth.  Obviously, change is essential for our long-term survival on this planet but politicians, the media and governments still continue to promote, discuss and apparently fully accept economic growth as the only way forward.  It seems to me we have this state of affairs because

1)  politicians and governments are too afraid to tackle these critical issues for obvious reasons, and

2)  the general public is simply not aware of the huge and increasing difficulties caused by consumerism and economic growth.

 

At the present time some large businesses, for example IBM and Unilever, are making some of the right noises, but for real change to occur there is a vital need for very open, inclusive acceptance of the problem by populations and governments.

 

Therefore, my call is for Prof. Jackson's thesis to be fully aired and discussed on national TV, radio, the Web and in the press.  Until this is done, we have no hope of a new and necessary system of eco-economics to supersede our present failing growth option.  Could I start the ball rolling by asking economists why many of them appear to have their heads in the sand?  Could they logically explain why Jackson's analysis is flawed, and most importantly, what alternative would they like to propose?

 

Dr Michael J. Parr

 

Garden visitor

A few weeks ago I spotted this bird sitting quite quietly and looking around. I took these photos from a window until it flew away.

It looks like a juvenile but can you tell me the species.

Probably a Sparrowhawk!

Confused about Government Policy ? Planning Law

In a recent post I quoted the CPRE views on proposed changes to planning laws.

I've just read an article by George Monbiot on the subject and as usual he makes some good points on the subject.
Here is a taster of what he says.

"Economic growth should not be the purpose of the planning system. It should ensure that human needs are met while the environment is protected. But if growth is your aim, strong planning is more likely to deliver it than weak planning. The government’s attack on planning is likely to deliver the worst of both worlds: trashing the environment while trashing the economy."


I recommend a read of the article which you can see by clicking  here 

garden butterflies

We've had around a dozen species in our garden this summer and these two were enjoying a spell of sunshine last week.

Just ordinary garden butterflies in an ordinary garden  and the photographer is quite ordinary too!

The camera is very good though.

Comma

Speckled Wood

Planning law changes

The Wildlife Trust's are concerned about the effect of reducing planning controls over development everywhere in the countryside.  All the Conservation organisations are equally concerned.
Here is what the Campaign to Protect Rural England says on its web site:




"The Government has published a highly sensitive draft National Planning Policy Framework for public consultation. This represents the biggest shake-up of planning for over 50 years and CPRE believes it will place the countryside under increasing threat.

Many elements of the Framework are deeply worrying. In particular, Ministers have failed to commit to the principle that the countryside should be protected for its own intrinsic character, beauty and heritage.
The new Framework will make the countryside and local character much less safe from damaging and unnecessary development.
We fear pressure on the countryside from damaging development will grow due to:

• loss of emphasis on brownfield regeneration - as a result of the removal of the national brownfield target and the failure to promote efficient use of land
• over-allocation of land for new housing - the draft Framework requires local councils to allocate at least 20% additional sites for housing over and above the existing five year supply
• weakening of the ‘town centre first’ policy by removing office development from the sequential test
• pressure for increased car use - by removing the requirement to set maximum parking standards for non-residential parking in major development
• abolition of exceptions policy which allows small scale affordable housing to be built in rural settlements, which is likely to add to pressure for market housing and reduce the supply of affordable housing
• weakening of controls over outdoor advertisements, including no mention of billboards being inappropriate in the countryside
• changes to Green Belt policy which would allow local communities to support building which would previously have been restricted

Please help us protect our beautiful countryside by asking your MP to say no to growth at any cost.

Write to your MP

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 Click here to view web site.

Or here.

As part of forming an opinion on the proposed changes it is useful to review the views of other organisations such as the National Trust and  RSPB.

Harvest Time

This morning has turned out dry and cloudy and the forecast says mostly sunny and 10 per cent chance of precipitation!
I hope its correct because I have just arranged for a local farmer to come and take a hay cut on our wild flower meadow.
Last year for various reasons the cut wasn't made till October. Benefits were that butterflies and the Great Green Bush cricket were left alone. Just what effect the date of the cut makes on our insects I'm not sure. Visually of course its more attractive to walk round the uncut field than a field of stubble.
Two years ago I arranged for a 10 metre wide strip to be left to allow Meadow Browns and Common Blue butterflies to enjoy the grass. For the following two years it has been quite clear that the leaving the grass uncut created in the 10 metre strip a more dense grass growth that elsewhere.
Yellow Rattle has spread over most of the 4 acres and patches of Knapweed, Ladies Bedstraw, Perforate St Johns Wort, Field Scabious, all  appear to be spreading.
This morning before the cut I've been round helping to spread those patches by taking seeds still on the plants and casting it around generally in the same area but increasing the coverage.  That after all is what the cutting machines do and it will be interesting to see if I've have helped or not.

But whilst I'm writing this Blog, we have a problem, with the hay cut. The contractor has been to the field and because of the narrow lane he cant get his very long machinery in though the gate. So back to square one and more telephone calls are already taking place. Watch this space.
In the mean time here are some Burnet moths on a scabious flower in our meadow.

Confused about Government Policy ?

I thought I would try to be non party political in my Blog but today it seems difficult to steer a neutral path through Govt statements.

In my last post I started to look at the new draft planning proposals and I more than ever hope they are draft and a long way from being final! Issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government. ( a Dept I am sure I've never heard off before and their web site doesn't look like a normal Govt site at all. Is there something fishy about this?)
Here is a link to the planning doc, click here 

********************************************************************

Today by chance I came across a news statement by another department of the Govt. This time the Department for the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs. Visit by clicking here..

********************************************************************

The former (DCLG) says:
Clause  13. Under the sub heading:-  "The presumption in favour of sustainable development".
"The  Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. A positive planning system is essential because , without growth, a sustainable future can not be achieved."


Clause 14. "At the heart of the planning system is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through plan making and decision taking."

*********************************************************************

The latter statement  ( DEFRA) issued  on 19th Aug 2011says:  "New strategy to save and protect England's Wildlife"
.
Launching Biodiversity 2020, Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman said:

"Our wildlife is not only something that we should value because its nice to look at. Nature underpins our very existence, giving us clean air to breath, clean water to drink and healthy food to eat.
This strategy sets out how we will stop the loss of species and habitats, so that this generation can be the first to leave our natural environment in a better state than they found it."

********************************************************************

I much prefer to follow the lead given by DEFRA than that by DCLG!

PS.  I'll try to add some wildlife photos in my next Blog!

Draft National Planning Policy Framework

 I received an email the other day from someone monitoring planning and environmental issues and thought you might like to see some of it.

( click here to go to Government web site )

***********************************************************************************************************

Hello all

I’m sorry to do this to you , but I need to talk to you all about planning. No, wait – don’t run off, it’s not boring stuff, I promise – it’s pretty important, actually. And I need your help. Stick with me, it won’t take more than 3 minutes unless you trot off to make a cup of tea halfway through.  

I’ve been waiting a while for something called a National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to be produced by the department for Communities and Local Government (CLG). In the run up to its release, the NPPF was touted as a document to promote “sustainable development”, and consolidate the raft of existing national planning guidance into an easy to use, simple, 60-something pages. Great – every sane person out there will agree the planning system would benefit from a bit of simplification. So the NPPF in principle seemed a good thing, and we planning folk waited excitedly to see what, post-Lawton, post-NEWP, would emerge…

…and we waited…

…and then on 25^th July, just minutes before all the MPs trotted off on their jollies, the draft NPPF was quietly slipped out into the world, and a consultation launched to find out what we all think of it. Excellent timing.

It takes a staunchly, unabashedly, pro-growth stance, and places the pursuit of economic prosperity above the other “pillars” of sustainability. So much for Lawton. A sample quote will give you a flavour of what I mean: “The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. A positive planning system is essential because, without growth, a sustainable future cannot be achieved. Planning must operate to encourage growth and not act as an impediment. Therefore, significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.” It goes on like this for quite a while, and while you’re reading the various chapters you notice you’re chewing your finger to keep yourself from pouring forth a diatribe of frustration (you can experience this for yourself if you feel like it – I have attached the NPPF for those of you with an inclination towards masochism).

    

There are some cracking elements to the NPPF, with the potential to be good and strong…if only it wasn’t for the erosion of their punch by the weight and predominance placed on economic growth! Sadly there’s a great deal in the NPPF to be nail-chewing about.

To put it simply, this document will make it harder to…

·          defend good sites

·          defend sites with potential

·          defend species that don’t have statutory protection

·          achieve ecological enhancements

…simply because ecological concerns are placed well beneath the pursuit and delivery of growth.

I won’t bore you with anymore than this – read it yourself and find out, or don’t. It’s your choice, but I will just say that planning affects us all – it shapes places, it shapes our environment, it lends or erodes quality from the areas we live. If we want an environment rich in wildlife for everyone, we have a lot to be concerned about in this NPPF, because wildlife will be consigned to national parks and not much else. It’s hard to convey in an email how worried I am by this. The NPPF is a once in a generation thing: it’ll be here for 20 years or more. At the moment, it reads like a developer’s charter, and I for one don’t want us stuck with that.

For those of you with the time and willpower, who want to read the NPPF, I would welcome your thoughts on it.

Comments should reach me by 26^th August.

A final response will be sent to CLG by 16^th October.

Followers

When someone appears on my Blog as a follower I am always curious to find out a bit about them. Why choose my Blog to follow , what do they Blog about and what are their interests etc.
The newest arrival is a Blog called Sunflower Haven based in Connecticut US.( URL http://sunflower-heaven.blogspot.com/)  Ignoring any thoughts that this might not be the sort of Blog I would want to know about I checked it out so to speak.
This is all just first impressions but does lead to something interesting.
This blog covers hand made jewelry and not especially of interest to me but  it does have posts on the subject of Bugs and photographs which are of interest.
Also I noticed the Blogs Sunflower Haven follows and one is called Bug Eric and this turns out to be a
pprofessional writer and entomologist.  His Blog says: 
The Blogger is Eric R. Eaton,  a professional writer and entomologist, principal author of the Kaufman Field Guide to Insects of North America. Eric says that he  has built a loyal following as a volunteer for AllExperts.com, Bugguide.net, and WhatsThatBug.com.

I'll leave you to follow up on this if you are as curious as I am. Eric's Blog looks very interesting to me, is full of some very attractive insects with good photographs and if he lived in Somerset I would be more than  interested in hearing one of his talks.