From ART N. LANCE
Having had only nine months in it, Peter Bridgewater condemns the post
of Chief Scientist of the Nature Conservancy Council as a non-job and suggests
it be abolished (Forum, 10 February). As a one-time member of the Chief
Scientist’s team myself – for nine years – may I venture some comments on
his prognosis for the NCC.
Bridgewater comments that the NCC’s regions are under-resourced. True,
but the real problem is that the entire NCC is under-resourced. If the government
can find the money to fund the triplicated functions of a split-up NCC,
why can it not properly fund it intact? The reason, of course, is that the
split is political, and nothing to do with resources.
He suggests that the split is an opportunity to improve the total scientific
effort in conservation. True again, and likewise to integrate the NCC’s
work with that of other environmental agencies. But disintegrating the NCC
is a peculiar way to assist that process.
Bridgewater pins his faith on the government’s new-found ‘joint committee’
to paper over the cracks. This again ignores the basic reasons for the split,
namely the often embarrassing and inconvenient clash between the science
and the politics of nature conservation. Conservation science has three
essential components: first, research per se (including survey and monitoring);
secondly, interpreting the findings; and thirdly, converting them into relevant
practical action – in the case of the NCC, most notably the designation
and defence of sites of special scientific interest.
Advertisement
Step 3 is where the clash with politics most often arises, but even
steps 1 and 2 are not immune. Unless given independent statutory powers
over the whole of this three-part process, the joint committee can expect
no more success in preserving its coherence than central government has
in directing wayward local authorities. But in the case of the NCC, the
removal of central control over local conservation practice is precisely
what motivates the split. What real future, therefore, has the joint committee?
The NCC never fully recovered from losing its research arm in 1973, the
last time science was thought to need severing from conservation practice.
But it refused to die from this treatment. Surgery has once again been prescribed
when the patient has shown too much vigour for the liking of vested interests
who expect to exploit the countryside unimpeded.
Art N. Lance Director, Conservation Royal Society for the Protection
of Birds
