creating environmental improvements through biodiversity

3.5 WORKING TOGETHER
The importance of stakeholders
The value of stakeholder engagement is a common feature of many of the reviewed projects. Bringing
all stakeholders together for discussion at an early stage is essential for successful minerals planning for
biodiversity, both at a strategic (landscape) level and on individual sites. Considerable benefits can be gained
from this, as seen in many of the successful ALSF projects. It ensures that outputs are as useful as possible for
all involved. In many cases, ALSF work has brought all types of stakeholders together for the first time.
Providing numerous datasets together in one platform, such as in Steadman et al. (2005), has the potential to
act as a focus for stakeholder discussion about the location of sites in strategic planning. Parker et al (2004)
engaged face to face with key stakeholders, and as a result noticed increased enthusiasm and conservation
knowledge among local minerals operators, and awareness among local farmers and landowners.
Successful integration of multiple end-uses
Bringing together multiple end-uses on a site can, if managed and planned well, provide funding for long-term
management. Harris (2004) showed how a visitor centre and associated businesses could provide sufficient
funds to make a site in the Idle Valley self-sufficient after initial investment in set-up.
Sustainable Aggregates Creating Environmental Improvements through Biodiversity
Mineral sites restored for biodiversity [to open water – not clear if also true for reedbed, wet grassland],
can have a flood alleviation benefit by providing flood storage (Clayton et al. 2004) Mineral sites restored for
biodiversity and flood alleviation, and thereby meeting two important objectives on one site, are the focus of
the SAND project in continental Europe.
Part of successfully integrating end-use demands is providing contacts for areas of expertise such as
geological conservation, archaeology, agricultural soils management etc. This was done in the West Sussex
County Council handbook (Ryland et al., 2005), and should be extended to other areas.
A number of combinations of end-uses are possible, if planned and integrated well so that habitat creation is
not marginalised:
• Cripps et al. (2004) points out the potential for educational or recreational facilities based on ecological,
geological, archaeological and industrial resources, and that surveys are needed to inform this.
• Portland Sculpture and Quarry Trust (2004) used extensive community and stakeholder engagement in
designing a restoration plan for Independent Quarry that integrated art, heritage, landscape, environment
and education. It focused on local species, low-nutrient substrates, natural regeneration and provision of
micro habitats, with key invertebrates a main focus. It also placed emphasis on benefits for mental health and
disadvantaged groups. However large scale habitat creation did not appear to be incorporated at the site.
• Roberts and Buffin (2005) states that restoring sites for their invertebrate interest can provide
communities with access to an important recreation and education resource. This Buglife project should
work with industry to change public perceptions on this
• Roberts and Buffin (2005) states that managing sites for geodiversity can benefit invertebrate population,
25