Tag Archives: protected

Nightingales at risk as housebuilding threatens ‘protected’ SSSI breeding site Updated for 2026





It is revered for the beauty of its song and is a beloved adornment to the British countryside. But the nightingale – hailed by Keats as a “light-winged Dryad of the trees” – is now in trouble, having suffered a catastrophic drop in numbers in recent years.

Even worse, say ornithologists, the best site in Britain for protecting the songbird – at Lodge Hill in Medway, Kent – is under threat of destruction.

Its loss, they say, could deal an irreparable blow to the nightingale in this country. It could also open the floodgates to commercial exploitation of hundreds of other protected environmental sites across the country.

“Lodge Hill is the only Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) in the UK that is specifically set up to protect nightingales”, said Sarah Lee, of the RSPB.

“It is the most important site for the birds in the UK. Yet the local council want to build 5,000 homes there. It would absolutely destroy the site and the birds’ homes – and send a very worrying signal about the prospects of protecting other critically important sites in the UK.”

According to ornithologists, the nightingale has suffered a 90% reduction in numbers over the past 40 years. Factors involved in this population crash include the intensification of UK farming that has destroyed swaths of sandy scrubland on which nightingales like to breed.

The spread of human populations in West Africa, where the nightingale spends the winter, has also affected numbers. In 2012, a survey revealed there were only 3,300 breeding pairs left in the UK. The bird is now on the amber list of species of ‘conservation concern’.

Nightingale SSSI targetted for building

In an attempt to protect the nightingale, the Lodge Hill site – a piece of land once owned by the Ministry of Defence – was named as an SSSI, a place where local species are given special protection against human interference.

However, three years ago, Medway Council prepared plans to build 5,000 homes at Lodge Hill, a proposal that was approved by its planning committee in September.

The Council, like others around the country, is under intense pressure from the government to build new housing but has only limited amounts of available land. Lodge Hill is the only large site it possesses, the council claims. Hence the planning committee’s decision to allow the building of houses there – even though the land is an SSSI.

“We are eager for this scheme, which is on government-owned land, to progress and deliver the houses and jobs we badly need”, said leader of the Conservative-controlled council Rodney Chambers in 2013, when the proposal was first discussed at council level.

By contrast, wildlife groups and heritage organisations are enraged. “This decision is deeply flawed”, says John Bennett of the Kent Wildlife Trust, which claims that Medway Council has failed to demonstrate that the benefits of house building outweighs the destruction of a key SSSI at Lodge Hill.

Plans contravene national policies – but ministers sit on hands

At the same time, the RSPB claims the Council’s proposals contravene government planning policy. Natural England argues that alternative building schemes could deliver a similar number of houses in Medway without touching Lodge Hill.

The National Trust has also dismissed a Medway Council plan to provide an alternative wildlife site to compensate for the loss of Lodge Hill as “unrealistic”.

These groups want the Medway Council plan to be called in by the secretary of state for communities and local government, Eric Pickles, who would then have to hold a public inquiry.

But Pickles – a keen ornithologist – has said he will stand aside from making that decision and has left it instead to Brandon Lewis, the minister of state for housing.

Lewis has yet to act, however, and groups such as the National Trust and RSPB are getting nervous. They fear the Lodge Hill plan will be allowed to proceed – with disturbing implications for the UK environment.

If this development goes ahead, nowhere is safe

“If Medway’s plan for Lodge Hill is allowed to go ahead, the implication for every SSSI in Britain is that the government is not going to step in if any of them are threatened”, said Sarah Lee. “The government would be saying to developers that SSSIs are now fair game.”

In addition to Lodge Hill, 71,000 hectares of MoD land are designated as SSSIs along with 157,000 hectares of Crown Estate land. The Highways Agency, local authorities, Natural England, the Environment Agency and Forest Enterprise also possess significant amounts of SSSIs.

All this property – which gives protection to rare plant life, birds, amphibians, and special geological features in Britain – would be vulnerable to being built over if Lodge Hill is allowed to be developed, it is argued.

This point was stressed by Karin Taylor, head of planning for the National Trust, in a letter to the government. Giving go-ahead for the housing project, she wrote,

“would threaten the wider environment and wildlife networks in which we have a deep interest in terms of protecting the nation’s special places for ever, for everyone.”

Or as Lee said to the Observer last week: “Giving Lodge Hill the go-ahead would be a disaster. It would open the floodgates for uncontrolled development in rare, precious places across the country.”

 


 

Robin McKie is science editor at the Guardian.

This article was originally published in the Guardian. It is reprocuced here by kind permission via the Guardian Environment Network.

 




388440

Marine Protected Areas in South Africa – ocean grabbing by another name Updated for 2026





“This marine area is protected for your benefit”, reads a signpost on the beach of a once thriving small-scale fishing community in Langebaan, Western Cape in South Africa.

It is now known as Langebaan Lagoon Marine Protected Area (MPA). Whose benefit, one might ask? Where there used to be a bustling market filled with the pungent smells of fresh daily catches reeled in by local fisherfolk, the beaches are now lined with unoccupied holiday homes and exclusive restaurants.

The closest you can get to buying a fish is a cellophane-wrapped one in the aisles of the chain supermarket in town.

As part of the World Forum of Fisher Peoples’ General Assembly in September 2014, fisherfolk from around the world visited the Langebaan Lagoon MPA.

Enraged and yet with some sad familiarity, they listened to the disheartening tale of one former fisherman who explained how the MPA and the following ban on fishing had dispossessed his community.

It had not only destroyed his livelihood, but the very cultural DNA of his community that had fished for generations on this coast.

Prior informed consent? In your dreams …

The MPA in Langebaan is just one of the many controversial MPAs in South Africa that have been enforced by the government in cooperation with international environmental NGOs without any prior consultation with local communities.

Or rather as the chair of the South African fisher peoples’ movement calls it, “consultation at gun point” – referring to the several fishers that have been shot, one fatally, by MPA guards mandated to keep local people out of the marine sanctuaries.

Marine parks, along coastal sanctuaries and reserves that establish ‘no-take’ zones – commonly referred to as Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) have become the dominant approach, not just in South Africa but worldwide, for dealing with overfishing, pollution and habitat destruction.

One of the main advocates of MPAs is the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), who held their World Parks Congress in Sydney in mid-November 2014. They advocate the target of conserving 30% of the world’s coastal and marine areas by 2020, going further than the 10% set by the UN Convention on Biological Diversity.

Naseegh Jaffer, the Secretary General of the World Forum of Fisher People was one of the few delegates at the IUCN congress who represents small-scale fishers. Jaffer warned:

“The term ‘conservation’ carries a negative connotation for millions of local fisher folks across the world, as it means that we have to give up on most of our livelihoods and income from fishing while we draw no benefit from conservation efforts.”

The Congress officially pronounced “a decade of conservation success”. But as Jaffer asks: “a success for whom?”

Depriving small-scale fishers of their livelihoods

While the idea of protecting marine resources at a time of chronic environmental destruction may seem commendable, documented experiences from South Africa, Tanzania, India, Thailand, the Philippines, India, Mexico and elsewhere, have shown that MPAs end up excluding small-scale fishers and depriving them of their livelihoods.

In fact MPAs, along with the spread of market-based policies that favour industrial-scale fisheries, is one of the major contributors to a wave of ocean grabbing that may even surpass the scale of the more oft-reported global land grab.

Moreover, even judged by narrow conservation objectives, there are questions about the success of MPAs. In the preface to their recent anthology on MPAs, marine biologists Johnson and Sandell argue that there is a

” … lack of science underpinning the development of MPAs, a lack of clear objectives or indicators monitoring performance”, and a “lack of ongoing study or biological monitoring in the areas after they have been established on paper.”

This should not be a cause for surprise, because biodiversity conservation is rarely an end in itself. Rather, Marine Parks are usually established as part of wider schemes and strategies by powerful state and corporate actors keen to obscure more damaging activities with a little bluewash gloss.

Political cover for intensive resource exploitation

Langebaan is an all-too typical example of a fishing community dispossessed of its coastline, which is subsequently developed for foreign-owned tourism.

In some cases, MPAs provide governments the political cover for extracting more natural resources elsewhere.

Kiribati Islands’ Phoenix Islands Protected Area in Central Pacific waters, showcased at the IUCN Congress, for example, was created after the government secured US$5 million from a foundation and, more importantly, a large concession for deep-sea mining in the Pacific Ocean’s Clarion-Clipperton seabed zone.

The MPAs of Kiribati and Langebaan sadly show the increasingly muddied waters of conservation today – one in which governments, big business and a few large environmental NGOs, including WWF and Conservation International, point the finger at the beautiful signs portraying a new marine reserve – hoping we won’t notice either the fisherfolk that previously lived there or the destruction of our oceans by industrial fisheries and deep-sea mining elsewhere.

That is why today, on World Fisheries Day, fisher peoples and their allies are taking to the streets and beaches to fight for their human rights and against ocean grabbing, calling on our support for a truly sustainable environment, one which supports people and marine life.

Among them are the women of Kwa-Zulu Natal who released this powerful statement today – declaring not their opposition to MPAs as such, but their rights to be consulted, to regulate their own resources, to benefit from tourism, and not to be treated as criminals by those who stole their lands and waters.

South African fisher women’s statement on ocean grabbing

“We, the women of Kwa-Zulu Natal need access to mussels to feed our families and make some money. We need business skills and access to markets. If there is a Marine Protected Area on our coastline, we want to benefit.

“We women want to regulate our own resources. We the women of Kwa-Zulu Natal face a double oppression: oppression from ocean grabbing and oppression from patriarchy.We need this to change. We need platforms to be heard.

“We the women of Eastern Cape want control over our resources. Our traditional healers need access and control over resources. We want co-management with authorities. Profits from tourism should be made by us.

“We the women of the Western Cape and Northern say NO to Marine Protected Areas without consultation processes. Ocean grabbing breaks down our families. Our men have to travel far to the coast keeping them apart from their children and their wives. We women reject mining on our coastal lands.

“We do not want weapon testing in our waters. Ocean grabbing projects us as criminals in our own ocean and along our own coastline. We need to be informed about the policies that govern our seas. We need to be equipped to deal with ocean grabbing.

“WE THE WOMEN OF SOUTH AFRICA SAY NO TO OCEAN GRABBING. PROTECT OUR LIVELIHOODS. RESTORE OUR DIGNITY.”

 


 

Mads Christian Barbesgaard is chairman of political affairs at Africa Contact in Denmark (www.afrika.dk) a solidarity organisation that supports social movements in their struggle for social, economic and political rights.

Carsten Pedersen is a policy officer at Masifundise, based in South Africa, which works closely with small-scale fishers in South Africa and worldwide. He also works with the World Forum of Fisher Peoples, which has its international secretarial base at Masifundise.

Timothé Feodoroff is a researcher in  Transnational Institute’s Agrarian Justice programme and a graduate in Agricultural and Rural Development Studies from the Institute of Social Studies (The Hague).

The book:The Global Ocean Grab: A Primer‘ is published by the Transnational Institute – free PDF.

Also on The Ecologist

 




387109

Brazil – 10% of national parks and indigenous lands face mining threat Updated for 2026





All eyes are on Brazil following the re-election of Dilma Rousseff as president after an eventful campaign in which the strongly pro-environment candidate Marina Silva was squarely defeated.

Now, the country’s green credentials are seriously at risk. In a new report in the journal Science, researchers from Brazil and the UK (including myself) highlight the danger of new plans to allow mining and dams in protected areas and indigenous lands.

Congressional debates to approve or reject proposed legislation will decide if Brazil will retain its hard-won status as what The Economist calls “the world leader in reducing environmental degradation”.

The new government is at a crossroads: either maintain the integrity and long-term future of its globally significant ecosystems – or favour industrial interests by allowing 10% of even strictly protected areas to be mined.

While the proposals include mitigation measures (protecting land elsewhere) these are unrealistic and also inadequate because they fail to account for the indirect impacts of mines.

Developing mines and hydropower dams in protected areas would represent a reversal for Brazilian law-makers and a body blow to environmental agencies, credited with drastically reducing Amazonian deforestation over the past decade.

The gruesome twosomedamming and mining

Mega-projects have mega-impacts and in the Amazon, mining and damming go hand in hand. Mining is energy intensive and is one of the underlying reasons for Brazil developing dozens of large hydropower plants in Amazonia.

Hydroelectric dams can harm both society and the environment. For example, I was alarmed to see how severe flooding in Rondônia state this year led to economic paralysis and the spread of water-borne diseases in towns and countryside along the Madeira River.

The flooding of the Madeira in both Brazil and upriver in Bolivia was suspected to have been caused by the recently completed Jirau hydropower dam. Under current plans, very few protected areas will remain free from the influence of hydroelectric dams.

Mining projects such as the enormous Carajás iron ore mine in eastern Amazonia (see photo), powered by construction of the controversial Tucuruí dam in the 1970s, are only the tip of the iceberg. Mineral extraction in Brazil is poised to expand into what were previously considered no-go areas for industrial development.

Protected lands are a essential safeguard

Our research found that in the Amazon alone 34,117km2 of strictly protected areas and 281,443km2 of indigenous lands are in areas of registered mining interest. Forget football fields, this is an area larger than the whole of the UK.

The direct impacts of mines and dams are eclipsed by the indirect effects, as thousands of workers follow mega-development projects into protected areas. Rapid population growth in service towns causes urban areas, roads and farmland to expand into surrounding forests.

By 2000, Brazil had created the world’s largest protected area network, covering an enormous 2.2m km2 – an area the size of Greenland.

These parks have been highly effective. For example, by reducing deforestation rates to only 10-15% of those in surrounding areas, Brazil’s protected areas contribute to mitigating future climate change.

The beneficiaries of climate mitigation range from farmers in the south of Brazil who depend on Amazonia for their rainfall, to the poorest people in developing countries who stand to bear the brunt of global warming, sea-level rise and extreme climatic events.

Brazil’s protected areas go far beyond just saving the forests themselves and support traditional peoples, including rubber-tappers and Brazil-nut harvesters.

In addition, indigenous lands provide a safe space to maintain the traditions and cultures of the country’s 305 indigenous ethnic groups, including 69 uncontacted groups.

Brazil gets richer, but protected areas remain under-funded and under-staffed

Get-rich-quick mining is not a new threat to Brazil’s unique ecosystems. I have witnessed the decade-long struggle of a strictly protected area, the Jari Ecological Station in Pará, to remove illegal gold-mining from within its borders.

However, it is harrowing to now see 71% of the park (an area larger than Greater London) being under official consideration for mining operations. Even if ‘only’ 10% of the park is used for mining, indirect effects will change it for ever.

Relevant federal departments need adequate resources to ensure government decisions are made democratically and with reliable impact assessments. Chronic under-staffing in Brazil’s protected areas means that many lack basic information on baseline environmental conditions and diversity of plants and animals.

Buffer areas designed to protect parks from external threats are put at risk, and a lack of staffing and data puts ICMBio (the agency responsible for protecting parks) in a weak position from which to assess the potential impacts of dams or mining on the integrity of a park.

Brazil’s population is growing and increasingly wealthy, which means higher demands for energy and food. Some difficult decisions will have to be made.

However, environmental impact assessments and mitigation measures (in some cases impossible to achieve and in most cases not implemented anyway) surrounding proposed mega-projects have fallen short of international best practice and largely ignore indirect impacts.

I hope that Brazil reasserts its status as a leader of green development and does not legislate against her national treasures.

 


 

Luke Parry is Lecturer in Ecosystem Services, Lancaster Environment Centre at Lancaster University. He does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




386536