General Assembly

NORTH SEA COMMISSION ENVIRONMENT STUDY TOUR WORKSHOP SESSION

Thursday 20 June 2002, Stonehouse Farm, East Harling, Norfolk

Q1: The loss of habitat and characteristic landscapes, blurring the distinction between areas. How important is this?

During the study tour different aspects that are characteristic of this area were pointed out. There are now fewer of them, and it was asked if this is something that we should be concerned about.

Various suggestions included that it depends upon the image you want to reach and the date that you want to go back to/restore the landscape to. The landscape changes throughout the years. 

At Wretham Heath Bev Nichols mentioned that years ago the area had been a very different landscape, virtually treeless, and that over the years trees had begun to establish themselves, and that this was not necessarily good for the nature conservation of that area. It was asked why this is so. Again this reverts back to the question of what sort of landscape you would like to see - but also how to seek the best option for biodiversity in a country with relatively few semi-natural habitats remaining.

Bev Nichols spoke of the young woodland coming up and the effect that this has on the heath, but stressed that we are not talking about creating a wilderness.

Graham King made mention about what we have been left with through the ages - buildings, etc and the different character this gives to different areas. Future change needs to take account of the history of an area if places are not to become more homogeneous. 

It was agreed that there are similarities in some building materials, but flints and coping stones are characteristic to this area. Should they, for example, be used more to retain that character? 

Q2: What are the values of biodiversity and landscape? 

It was mentioned that our landscape is very neat and famous with high biodiversity in its own right. It was asked if perhaps we are looking to another kind of biodiversity.

During discussion it was suggested that a decision needs to be made about balance and values, eg looking to small communities and how things can be achieved. There is a far wider issue than biodiversity, buildings and materials, etc. 

Sheila Childerhouse gave the local community's point of view, and re-emphasised the point mentioned previously. What is special and important comes from within the local community and has to grow from there. Regarding planning development, there is some pressure to keep distinctiveness. But this has not always been supported, and help is needed from Central Government. 

There have been local community schemes where groups have tackled wide issues and regenerated communities, which in turn gives local pride and identity. Also supporting local produce and markets - regeneration projects. Setting up a village resource - if a community provides a resource, and owns it, this becomes more wholehearted and valuable. 

Bill Nickson mentioned a rare Norfolk bird, stone curlew, and how this species brings people to visit certain areas. Traditional management and wildlife fit together to make an area valuable. 

From a farming viewpoint, Richard Evans mentioned that most of the meat from his farm is either marketed to local butchers, or they do it themselves. This has an intangible effect, almost creating a market place for himself. It is the relationship between the customers (community) that keeps him here. He also mentioned the support from DEFRA (organic farming scheme) to enable him to achieve this. 

It was asked what would happen if five other farmers did the same thing. He replied that there are plenty of customers in the market place. An example was then given of a local butcher in a small village in Kent who had to close down, as he could not keep up with the increasing demand! 

Q3: What are the roles of different sectors in promoting biodiversity and landscape conservation? Who manages, who should pay? Participants compare different countries. 

The Norfolk Wildlife Trust has approximately 19,000 members within this county that help to fund the organisation. A large basis of the voluntary sector in Britain relies upon membership donations and this is a valuable contribution to nature conservation. 

A Danish delegate thought that it was extraordinary that people pay voluntarily to support conservation. In Denmark it is paid for through the tax-payers' money. The same goes for Sweden. 

Bill Nickson suggested that there might be different pressures in different countries. Some parts of Britain are very overcrowded and the people from these areas appreciate the countryside more and readily pay to belong to these organisations.

In the Netherlands large numbers of people support conservation. There are 12 Provinces within the country with approximately 10,000 members. Other organisations depend heavily on voluntary work. They also rely on farmers to support their work, and farmers are offered an incentive in the form of payments for traditional farming. Land is very expensive (price per hectare approximately €30,000), which makes it expensive to buy farmers out in order to obtain land and rebuild the landscape (buying upland). 

It was asked: shouldn't it be a balance? It was replied that there will always be farmers and also the more traditional methods. 

Graham King asked the Wildlife Trust if they bought land. They confirmed that they do buy some small areas of farmland. The Royal Society for Protection of Birds, RSPB, have also been additional buyers of land. 

The delegates from the Netherlands went on to explain that in order to extend reservations, etc, they need farmers' land, but that this, in turn, gets farmers more involved in nature. 

It was explained that in Britain we tended to manage land for biodiversity and landscape conservation through other means and incentives. 

The Netherlands delegates were asked about the role of the regional authorities in this process. It was replied that they deal mostly with planning, spatial planning, and supporting the landscape. This is a task that comes from National Government to every Province. 

Graham King mentioned that spatial planning is within the role of the County Council, but we also operate a grant scheme system. The money that Central Government has is vast compared to Local Government. We offer a maximum grant of £1,600 per annum at a rate of 40%. £4,000 gross total per project. These grants are given to aid small capital projects involving tree planting, pond work, biodiversity work, etc. where no incentive is available, and we seek to fill that gap. 

It was also mentioned that most of this work has been achieved in almost every Parish in Norfolk over the past 10 years or so, and so is a widespread contribution to landscape and biodiversity conservation throughout the countryside of our area. 

The tourism industry relies to a considerable extent on a good environment as one of its basic resources. Does it inject money into the area and into conservation? Some communities have been fortunate in accessing European money. Some is aimed at economic regeneration, whereas other monies are keyed around the environment. The coming together of the right grants - tourism and environment - will benefit each other. 

It was agreed that people go to an area because it looks good. Biodiversity has a value, as it attracts visitors. But you could ask: what is the economic value of this? It was confirmed that the RSPB has undertaken some work on the value of the osprey. However, if you turn that question around you can ask: what is the value of losing biodiversity? It has already been acknowledged that things are lost through time, and there is a value of preserving. Once it's gone, it's gone. 

In the Scottish Highlands work is taking place to preserve the culture and language. Keeping people in the communities and the landscape as it is. How can you put value on local pride? X million pounds is going into preserving the Gaelic language - others ask why. 

It was asked if the public has access to all areas owned by the Wildlife Trust. Where possible areas are open to members of the public. There are three categories:

1. Completely open areas;
2. Controlled access areas, for the safety of the public, and to lessen disturbance to what is being protected;
3. No access sites, in order to give maximum preservation to the area. 

It was asked if there is much demand for access to these areas. It was agreed that there are always many visitors to the Nature Reserves, tens of thousands of visitors every year.

Finally, Per Hörberg, co-ordinator of the NSC Environment Group, gave many thanks to all those who have contributed to the study tour. He mentioned a forthcoming Rural Development Project being developed through the North Sea Commission and will be forwarding ideas from this to relevant persons. If interested, please contact Per Hörberg at: per.horberg@vgregion.se 

Graham King thanked everyone for their contributions today; particular thanks go to Richard Evans, Bev Nichols, Bill Nickson and Sheila Childerhouse. 

Notes: Sharon Bland.