Number 3 - Geological Curators Group

to select and conserve a flood ofscientifically sub-standard SSSIs forcultural, recreational, inspirational andspiritual reasons. Further, the general toneof the policy statement indicates a swiftmove away from conservation by co-operationand consent in favour of a new stance basedon arbitrary decisions against which there islittle if any appeal. I have always been infavour of conservation by consensus and notby diktat; further I do not feel that I amprofessionally qualified to select SSSls oncultural, recreational, inspirational andspiritual grounds. The new policy seeksconflict rather than co-operation and in myopinion will be disastrous for earth scienceconservation, whose primary requisite issymbiosis with the mineral industry."Throughout his service with NCC, Dr Black hasbeen well-known for his efforts to maintainthe closest possible relationships betweenthe scientific community (as the persons forwhom SSSls are primarily to be conserved) andthe other land using interests who are theowners and creators of many of the mostimportant Sites. In Dr Black's opinion,conservation, both biological and geological,must be flexible enough to accommodate theneeds of both the site owners and the siteusers. It must accept changes to theenvironment and seek to maintain its qualityby offsetting losses with gains elsewhere.As a form of applied science, conservationmust confine its attentions to scientificparameters (e.g. in the criteria it employsto evaluate sites) and not be seduced intoaccepting the apparently easy optionsprovided outside science.Unfortunately these views are in directconflict with recently adopted NCC policy aspromulgated in the definitive publicationNature Conservation in Great Britain.'For those with access to NCC's new strategydocuments, the sections most relevant to theabove press release are paragraphs 14.2.2,14.2.3, 14.2.4 and 15.2.5 of the maindocument Nature Conservation in Greatm, and 2.1, 2.3. 2.4, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4of the separate supplementary Summary ofobjectives strategy.Given the position of geology within NCChighlighted by the report (above) of theGeological Society (on whose ConservationCommittee Dr Black sits) it is perhaps alittle puzzling to the 'outsider' why DrBlack should have restricted his resignationissue. at least nubliclv. solelv " around-thepotential widencng of criteria used by NCC indesignating SSSIs (to include 'cultural,recreational, aesthetic, inspirational andeven spiritual' aspects). Many may share hisdisquiet but the long term effects of suchchanges are surely more difficult to predictthan those, already with us, which stem fromthe presently recognized shortcomings inNCC's provision for geological conservationtoday? Certainly what media reaction therewas to the press notice from George BlackAssociates failed to appreciate his uneaseabout the long term disadvantages togeological site conservation which he sawresulting from NCC's new strategy; theGuardian took the line thata new 'uncom~romisin~ militancy' within NCCwas possibly iong overdue. he Guardianfollowed up an almost verbatim report of theoriginal press notice on 1 December 1984(under the title 'Scientist quits 'militant'nature council') with a more reflectiveleader on 5 December, headed 'Rancour in thegrass'; the latter's general tone can beseen from the following extracts:'This is a strange time for civil strife tobreak out in the Nature Conservancy Council.For vears the NCC and the numerous voluntarv "organisations working the same ground havefaced official indifference despite numericalevidence of strong popular support. Withinthe past twelve months their outlook hassuddenly changed. Conservation has beenpromoted from a worthy cause to a politicalissue.The failings of the Wildlife andCountryside Act, 1981, no longer have to beargued: the Government recognises them,looks for amendments, and gives the NCC anextra 67 million to cover its addedresponsibilities.'. . . ..'Against this backdropthe resignation of Dr George Black, the NCC'sChief Geologist, may be no more than anaberration; hut his claim that the staff arebeing radicalised into young zealots willrejoice that section of the farming lobbywhich has little time for the NCC or any ofits works. There is good reason why thestaff should be radicalised, but not muchevidence to support Dr Black's claim thatthey are.'. . . . .'Dr Black's allegation thatsites are now being chosen for protectedstatus on diminishing grounds of environmentalvalue needs evidence to support it.The NCC is amply occupied with the sites ithas already named and any new ones areselected on grounds of their imminentvulnerability as habitats. That is notpopular work with the landowner, but unlessmore of Britain is to go East Anglia's wayinto ecological oblivion a slight touch ofzeal may be essential to the job.'NCC GEOLOGISTS - ARE THERE ENOUGH?A major concern brought out in the GeologicalSociety's report reproduced above is theinadequacy of geological representation atall levels within NCC - on the Council andCommittees, in senior management, among theChief Scientist's staff, and at RegionalOfficer level. The imbalance in favour ofthe biologists is clear for all to see.Growth in regional staff over the years hasnot been matched by equivalent growth ingeological support - without which theregional staff cannot carry out theirgeological function. The Wildlife andCountryside Act, 1981 has resulted in amassive increase in workload for the NCC as awhole. But, as in the past, the recentincrease in regional staff prompted by therequirements of the Act is not being matchedby the extra geologists necessary to backthem up.IrOniCaUY, the longstanding and closecooperation between the small but effective