The key area concept
in nature conservation has been admirably spelt out in Cmd
7122 (Ministry of Town and Country Planning, 1947) in a discussion of the main
purposes of a series of National Nature Reserves (NNRs). The need to represent in
such a series the countrywide diversity in nature conservation interest according to
the range of human concern attaching to this is expressed as follows (ibid., para. 50):
to preserve and maintain as part of the nation's natural heritage
places which
can be regarded as reservoirs for the main types of community and kinds of
wild plants and animals represented in this country, both common and rare,
typical and unusual, as well as places which contain physical features of
special or outstanding interest. These places must be chosen so far as
possible to enable comparisons to be made between primitive or relatively
undisturbed communities and the modifications introduced by varying degrees
of human interference; typical and atypical physical conditions; distinctive
characteristics imposed upon communities and species by differences in
geographical position, physiography, climate, geology and soil, both within the
main physical regions and in the transitional zones between them; the
behaviour of species or communities living within and at the margins of their
geographical distribution or their ecological tolerance. The series as a whole
should take fair account of the varied requirements and interests of the several
different lines of scientific approach: the systematic study of particular groups
of species; studies of communities or species in relation to their environment;
of the rise and fall in population numbers; of breeding structures of populations
and the way in which inherited variations are distributed; of geographical
distribution; of plant and animal behaviour; of the climatic and microclimatic
conditions which so largely govern the distribution of organisms; of soils; of the
rocks and the fossils they hold; and of the physical forces which shape the
surface of the land; as well as general evolutionary studies. Considered as a
single system, the reserves should comprise as large a sample as possible of
all the many different groups of living organisms, indigenous or established in
this country as part of its natural flora and fauna; and within them the serious
student, whatever his bent and whether he be professional or amateur, should
be able to find a wealth of material and unfailing interest.
This lucid statement
emphasised the range of scientific
value inherent in the
features which were to be thus conserved and the exposition
went on to elaborate the functions of the sites in providing for research, educational
and ' amenity' use. It was stressed that such sites would usually need careful
management if their scientific and nature conservation value was to be maintained,
and that this in itself would often require research in depth. An extension of the 'open-
air laboratory' notion was that some sites might have to be acquired specially as
research areas, so that experiments of a kind destructive to other interests might be
performed. Experimentation was envisaged as including the deliberate re-creation of
new or lost habitats. The research was understood to serve the advancement of
science, and the giving of advice on land management elsewhere (especially in
National Parks). It should also serve as a means to an end in learning how to
manage the sites themselves. The 'living-museum' concept was related more to the
educational function and to provide ' for that considerable section of the public who
without any scientific interests can derive great pleasure from the peaceful
contemplation of nature'.
The above quotation
makes it clear that the key areas were intended to cater for the
wants of those with relatively simple interests in wildlife, as well as for the more
esoteric needs of the scientist, and the aesthetic element is clearly stated. Within the
range of broadly cultural functions, scientific purpose and maintenance of the 'natural
heritage' were stressed above all. The conservation of key areas was thus held to be
concerned especially with the advancement of knowledge and understanding, both in
the individual and in society, and with human fulfilment in a non-material sense.
The present review
accepts and endorses this rationale, but is concerned to
examine in greater depth how it is translated in practice into criteria to guide the
selection of the key sites.
It was emphasised further
in Cmd 7122 that 'It has proved necessary under the
conditions now obtaining in this country to concentrate in the first instance on saving
places which are still known to possess high scientific value . . .'. The experience of
the last 25 years has reinforced this view. It is now accepted that human impact in
Britain is so universal and pervasive that no area of land or water is safe from
developments destructive or deleterious to their nature conservation interest, unless
deliberate measures are taken to ensure that they remain unmodified. There is, in
fact, an even stronger realisation now that, since many sites are both irreplaceable
and severely at risk, serious and permanent loss is imminent if adequate safeguards
are not taken or maintained.
Present concern in
the Review has thus been to identify these irreplaceable sites
before it is too late. The overall intention has been to delineate the most valuable and
vulnerable part of the national capital of wildlife and habitat, plus an additional element
which is adequately representative of other major semi-natural ecosystems. The
process of selection presupposes that nature conservation interest is spread
throughout Britain, but unevenly and discon-tinuously in a geographical sense, and
variably also in terms of intrinsic quality. Graham (1944) first proposed a
classification of land into categories of different quality according to its potential for
agriculture, and the zoning of land according to its capability for one purpose or
another is now widely accepted in planning. The Nature Conservation Review
represents an attempt to identify the highest quality land of Britain in terms of nature
conservation interest, but also indicates how the concept of differential quality could
be made the basis for a more comprehensive zoning of this interest.
The term 'highest quality'
obviously implies that the 'best' examples of the range of
ecosystems should, by preference, be chosen for the national series of key sites. Yet
the definition of 'best' in terms of specific, measurable qualities is an extremely
difficult task, and often involves many-sided value judgements in which standards are
essentially relative and not absolute. Moreover, the concepts of 'best' or 'most
important' may involve a considerable degree of unusualness, since they connote the
acme of quality. There is also some need to represent the typical or ordinary rather
than the exceptional. The series of key sites will thus be a mixture of the scarce and
unusual and the typical or common examples of ecosystems; moreover, there may
be intermediate cases or both types may be represented within the same site.
While criteria for
selection of sites must depend to a large extent on evaluation of
their intrinsic qualities in relation to the range of human interest, there is an over-
riding need to take account of the vulnerability of the features themselves. It is
therefore necessary to consider where human impact bears most heavily on wildlife
and its habitat; importance attaches especially to species, communities and habitats
which have been most heavily reduced by past human influence, to those most likely
to disappear if no remedial action is taken, and to those which are least readily
replaced once they have been lost or badly damaged. The exceptional sites will thus
tend to predominate in the selection, for these are the places whose destruction
would cause the greatest loss to nature conservation. The typical sites are by
definition usually more widespread than the exceptional, and there is more chance
that examples will escape serious modification, or that they can be re-created
elsewhere as opportunity allows. Even so, it is important that the national series of
key sites contains major reference points within the field of ecological variation, as
'type' examples of significant ecosystems, communities and species aggregations.
Where sites chosen for their special attributes do not also contain
more ordinary and typical
features, it is necessary to choose additional sites, to
ensure that the whole series is adequately representative. The notion of a
'representative series' should not, however, be taken too far, for it could lead to the
selection of sites which are unimportant in a national context.
The criteria for assessment
of quality of an ecosystem must express the range of
human concern contained within the whole concept of nature conservation. In other
words, values have to be attached to ecosystem features according to their
significance to definable human interests. Each criterion is thus a real attribute
transformed by a value judgement about function into an abstract quality of dual
character. As an example, diversity can be measured as an attribute, and as such
has neutral value; but because high diversity usually has more interest to biologists
than low diversity, the actual value measured can be used as an index of quality in
this respect. But nature conservation is a complex subject, expressing a range of
interests (see p. 3) each with its own scale of values, e.g. what is important to a
geneticist may not be important to a field naturalist, and vice versa.
The requirements for
the 'open-air laboratory' will often be different from those for the
'living museum'. Some criteria involve more subjective concepts of quality than
others, and their attributes are less precisely quantifiable. An additional problem in
the definition of criteria is that the human interests which they reflect not only cover a
wide range of viewpoint, but also may undergo change in the future. Preferably they
should therefore acknowledge potential as well as present values. These criteria, and
the way in which they are applied, are discussed later.
The choice of key sites
involves the comparative assessment of a large number of
different examples of ecosystems, to identify those of high enough quality to be
accepted for the national series. The process depends on an awareness of the
range of variation in British ecosystems, within which certain 'types' can be identified.
This in turn requires that the extensive knowledge of real plant and animal
communities in the field be translated into some kind of abstract framework through
a classification of data. Only through adequate field survey is it possible to be
confident that this ecological framework of reference is reasonably complete, and
that all the important sites are considered in making the selection of 'type' examples
of natural and semi-natural ecosystems.
Sites of similar character,
corresponding to a certain type or combination of types,
are compared with each other and judged in terms of accepted criteria, so that
relative status can be assigned to each. There is a steady process of sifting, to
identify the most promising or obviously outstanding sites so that, finally, it is possible
to decide that one site in particular is preferred above all others. Often, however, the
type which is being considered for representation is so broad and variable that it can
only be adequately represented by a series of specific sites. For instance, oakwood
is an important semi-natural vegetation type in Britain, but woods with the common
feature of oak dominance differ enormously in other ecological features according to
differences in climate (on both a local and regional scale), topography, soil and
management. It is therefore necessary to choose a series of different oakwood sites
which adequately represent this range of variation.
A still more difficult
aspect of the selection process concerns the extent and number
of the preferred sites. In Cmd 7122 the highest importance was attached to
safeguarding examples of major ecosystems as scientific study areas; it was felt
that this selection, forming a NNR series, should include important 'museum-piece'
examples of types not easily re-created or restored, but that the areas concerned
should not be too large, nor the number of sites greater than a judiciously chosen
minimum. It was, however, envisaged that important larger areas, e.g. of upland
ecosystems, would be adequately safeguarded by other proposed measures which
were not, in fact, later adopted. The failure to include in subsequent legislation the
National Park Reserves, Scientific Areas and Conservation Areas proposed in Cmd
7122 at once made the original list of proposed NNRs inadequate.
Subsequent developments
have involved a growing realisation that, on the one hand,
the national strategy for nature conservation must consist of much more than the
safeguarding of a hard core of key sites and, on the other, that wildlife and its habitats
in Britain are under evergrowing pressure of an order greater than that envisaged a
quarter of a century ago. It is therefore natural and desirable that the purpose of
safeguarding key sites should have advanced beyond the idea of a minimum sample
of relatively small areas to the notion that the series should be as large as can be
allowed by available resources. Cmd 7122, para. 50, itself contains the statement
that 'Considered as a single system, the reserves should comprise as large a
sample as possible of all the many different groups of living organisms, indigenous or
established in this country as part of its natural flora and fauna.' It is probable that
'reserves' here was intended to mean all categories of area safeguarded for their
nature conservation interest, but the general view is clear and supports that just
expressed.
The problems and decisions
relating to ' as large a sample as possible' of key sites
will be discussed in the following amplification of the selection process.
