Until his retirement in mid-2004, the author was Head of Environment, Greater London Authority. He is now a Visiting Professor at University College London.

Citation: This paper may be cited as: [Author.] 2005. [Article title.] In Ted Trzyna, ed., The Urban Imperative. California Institute of Public Affairs, Sacramento, California.

1. Introduction

Over the past twenty years, an innovative program for nature conservation has been developed and implemented in London. Its purpose is to protect and enhance London’s natural areas and their associated species, and to make it possible for Londoners to have greater contact with nature in their everyday lives. The program has involved many different players, including official agencies and voluntary bodies, supported by a groundswell of public opinion. Together they have generated a new consciousness and a very effective program of action.  New approaches with a strong social dimension, that may at first have seemed a radical departure from traditional nature conservation, have now been adopted as an integral part of city management. The overall program has now been formalized by the Mayor of London in his statutory Biodiversity Strategy for the capital.

The program has five main elements. At its heart is the social dimension, the objective being to enable all who live or work in London to have greater contact with nature in their own locality. This concept is imbued throughout all aspects of the program. Second, but fundamental to the whole approach, is the system for protecting London’s important wildlife habitats.  This has resulted in over 1,500 sites being scheduled for protection through the statutory planning process. These represent about one fifth of the area of Greater London. The system also enables districts that are deficient in accessible wildlife sites to be identified. These are parts of London where special action needs to be taken to create new wildlife habitats that will enable people to maintain daily links with nature

. 

Habitat creation is the third main element of the program. This includes ecological enhancement of public parks and open spaces, or creation of entirely new wildlife habitats for public enjoyment and environmental education. It also includes design for biodiversity within the fabric of the built environment.  Mainstreaming biodiversity as an element of urban design is crucial as London moves into a renewed phase of growth and development. The fourth element is education, encouraging provision of facilities for environmental education and opportunities for all sectors of society to be actively involved in environmental projects. Fifth is partnership. The program could not be achieved without a wide range of organizations and individuals working together to a common goal. This has been formalized through the London Biodiversity Partnership, which has identified key issues now being addressed through specific action plans.

This paper describes the approach adopted in London, explains how the overall strategy has been implemented through strategic planning and land management, and also considers some of the factors which have contributed to successful adoption of the whole process.

2. Evolution of the strategy

Greater London Council program, 1982-86

In 1982 the Greater London Council (GLC) instigated a major new program to cater for nature conservation in Greater London. The object was to develop an ecological perspective in all aspects of the Council’s work. The programs developed by the GLC over the period 1982-1986 are described elsewhere (Goode, 1989).  Details of the new initiatives were first published in Ecology Handbook 1, Ecology and Nature Conservation in London (GLC, 1984), which was the first in a long series of ecology handbooks. 

One of the main objectives was to ensure that nature conservation was built into the strategic-planning process in London.  At that time there was no reference to nature or wildlife in the strategic development plan for London.  Although provision was made for protection of open space for public enjoyment, the emphasis was largely on landscape and visual amenity rather than the natural environment or ecology.  A first task for the GLC, therefore, was to produce a set of policies on ecology and nature conservation for use by London boroughs in their local plans. These were published in Handbook 1. One of the key policies recommended the identification and protection of sites of nature conservation value.  It was recognized from the outset that this would require a systematic survey and evaluation of habitats of potential value throughout the 1,580 km² of Greater London. The GLC therefore commissioned such a survey of wildlife habitats in 1984. The results provided the basis for the first comprehensive strategic nature conservation plan for Greater London. The GLC also set the scene for innovative habitat creation projects, such as Camley Street Natural Park, which demonstrated the social value of such a resource in one of the most deprived parts of central London.

London Ecology Unit, 1986-2000

After the Greater London Council was abolished in 1986,the London Ecology Unit was established as a London-wide body to continue this work. A new joint committee of local authorities and other public bodies, known as the London Ecology Committee, was formed to oversee and fund the Unit’s work. The Unit adopted a twin track approach involving protection of habitats through planning; and provision of detailed advice on habitat management, including new approaches to habitat creation and design. From its inception, the Unit was a leader in the philosophy and practice of urban nature conservation, recognizing the importance of everyday nature to town and city dwellers and seeking ways of maximizing the variety of wildlife in the capital. The Unit was particularly successful in promoting ecology in urban planning through further development of the London-wide conservation strategy, working closely with borough planners and providing practical advice on many hundreds of planning cases. 

During the 1990s, the Unit continued to develop and refine the overall strategy which, despite its non-statutory status, became firmly established as the basis for nature conservation planning in London. By 1995, the system provided the basis for nature conservation planning in most London boroughs, and had been successfully tested at numerous public inquires. It was endorsed in 1995 by the London Planning Advisory Committee and was recommended as the basis for nature conservation planning in the Government’s Strategic Planning Guidance to London boroughs in 1996. The original wildlife habitat survey was substantially revised and updated on a borough-by-borough basis, for publication of a series of detailed nature conservation strategies for individual London boroughs. Systematic surveys and assessments were completed for 29 of the 33 London boroughs. Most London boroughs used the recommendations of the LEU as the basis for the nature conservation content of their Unitary Development Plans.

Over the same period, the outcome of several planning inquiries set precedents in favor of nature conservation within the urban context. Examples included disused railway land and industrial sites, as well as long established habitats such as woods, meadows, and marshland. In many cases it was the value of these places to local people that won the day, rather than scientific arguments about rare habitats or species. Such cases were important in illustrating newly emerging values and helped to establish the validity of nature conservation in heavily built-up urban areas.

Strategic planning was only part of the process.  The Ecology Unit also published guidance on other elements of the overall strategy, including the social agenda, and ecology within the built environment. Notable examples are Nature Areas for City People (Johnston, 1990), Building Green (Johnston and Newton 1993), and Nature Conservation in Community Forests (Marsh, 1993).  Progress in the development of the strategy is summarized elsewhere (Goode 1993, 1996). 

The mid-1990s also saw the emergence of another agenda that greatly influenced the course of events in London. This was the development of Local Biodiversity Action Plans, which were part of U.K. government policy for implementation of the Biodiversity Convention following the Rio Earth Summit of 1992. Such plans were seen as a means of delivering national targets for biodiversity at the local level. They were also a means of broadening the constituency of players involved in this task, by including representatives from the business and development community alongside specialist wildlife agencies.  It was argued that such Action Plan Partnerships would have more influence and be able to deliver real change through the actions of their wider membership. The London Biodiversity Partnership was launched in 1996 with the aim of implementing key elements of the overall strategy for London. This brought together all the main players with an agreed set of objectives (London Biodiversity Partnership 1996).

But other, more profound, changes were underway with the establishment in 2000 of a new Greater London Authority with an executive Mayor. One of the requirements of the GLA Act 1999 was that the Mayor must produce a Biodiversity Action Plan as one of a series of London-wide strategies, alongside those dealing with strategic planning, economic development, and transport. The London Ecology Unit was absorbed into this new authority to provide specialist input on biodiversity. As its last act the London Ecology Committee made a series of recommendations to the future Mayor, in particular that the procedures it had put in place for conserving London’s habitats and wildlife should form the basis of his statutory strategy; and that the Mayor should lead and co-ordinate the London Biodiversity Partnership as an important element of this strategy (London Ecology Committee 2000).

3. The Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy

In the event, the first Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, has gone further, not only adopting those procedures as an integral part of strategic planning, but also reinforcing the social agenda. His Biodiversity Strategy emphasizes this in its title Connecting with London’s Nature (Mayor of London, 2002).

The Mayor’s strategy sets out how London’s biodiversity can be protected and maintained. It aims to make it possible for everyone to enjoy and learn about the natural world within the capital. Its success depends on a partnership between many organizations to help carry out the proposals, such as borough councils, community groups, businesses, and conservation organizations, as well as the support of individual Londoners.  Working together, people will shape the future of green London, having a far greater effect than any single organization acting alone.

The Biodiversity Strategy sets out 14 main policies, with 72 proposals for their implementation, and identifies the main partners in each sphere of activity. It also provides an overview of London’s wildlife and the places where it is to be found.  The new London government and its associated bodies dealing with transport and economic development have a crucial role to play. Other major partners in the implementation of the Strategy are the London borough councils, English Nature, the Environment Agency, and the London Wildlife Trust. The London Biodiversity Partnership, a consortium of all the most important organizations working in biodiversity in London, brings all these players together. The Partnership has drawn up a Biodiversity Action Plan for London which identifies priority actions regarding important wildlife habitats and a number of key species. This Action Plan complements the Mayor’s Strategy and provides the basis for implementation of some of the policies. The GLA currently chairs the Partnership.

The Mayor must produce seven other strategies alongside that for biodiversity, one of which is the overall London Plan which provides the strategic planning framework for the capital.  These strategies together set out an integrated social, economic, and environmental framework for the future development of London. All are statutory strategies, and the London Plan contains policies to protect, manage, and enhance London’s biodiversity.

4. London’s Wildlife Habitats

The types of habitat of value for wildlife conservation in London fall into three broad categories:

• Encapsulated countryside;

• Unintentionally wild areas, developed on derelict or disused land;

• New habitats created or enhanced for nature conservation.

Encapsulated countryside includes a wide range of different types of habitat, such as woodland, heath, marsh, herb-rich grassland, lakes, ponds, and river corridors. Such areas vary in size from tiny fragments less than one hectare to significant tracts of semi-natural habitat over 500 ha, mainly restricted to the outer parts of London. 

Unintentionally wild areas include a great variety of habitats, a large proportion of which are of recent origin, having developed on derelict or disused industrial or other open land.  One of the characteristic features of urban areas is the remarkable diversity of species associated with “urban wastelands.” Other habitats falling in this category include those along railway corridors and a variety of rather specialized habitats associated with derelict cemeteries, mineral workings, and even disused sewage works.

The third category includes all those habitats that have been intentionally created to enhance nature within the urban context. This includes everything from small nature gardens in school grounds, to larger ecological parks, or more extensive areas of habitat such as Community Forests and wetlands.  Some of these are specifically created for environmental education. Also included in this category are areas within urban parks that have been converted to naturalistic habitats.

5. Habitat survey and nature conservation evaluation

When the GLC took the first steps in developing a nature conservation strategy in 1984, knowledge of London’s ecology was patchy and incomplete. The first priority, therefore, was to undertake a comprehensive survey of wildlife habitats. The strategy required detailed ecological information for all places of potential significance, including information on the kinds of habitat and an assessment of their importance. At that time, priority was given to areas of open land of potential significance for nature conservation. Formal parks and cemeteries, private gardens, playing fields, and open areas with little wildlife interest, such as arable land, were all excluded from the survey. An initial desk study using air photography resulted in over 1,800 “sites” being selected for survey, totaling about 20 percent of the land area of Greater London. For each site information was collected on the types of habitat and dominant species, overall richness of plant species, presence of rare or unusual species, current land use, and accessibility. 

This survey provided the starting point for selection of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation in London. A standardized set of criteria was used for comparing and evaluating sites. Although many of these criteria are similar to those developed by U.K. government agencies for selecting sites of national importance (such as species richness, and size and presence of rare species) there are some essential differences. Public access and value for environmental education are examples.

The data have since been substantially updated through more detailed surveys of each individual London borough. The resulting database has been invaluable. Over the past twenty years it has provided a vital tool in strategic planning and for advising on the ecological implications of proposed new developments. Probably the most detailed ecological database of any part of the U.K., it now provides essential information for implementing the Mayor’s biodiversity strategy for the capital. Over the years it also provided the basis for the London Ecology Unit to produce its popular series of handbooks on London’s natural history, which assisted in raising public awareness of nature conservation issues (e.g., Yarham and Game, 2000). 

The procedure for selecting sites for protection was first described in Nature Conservation Guidelines for London (Greater London Council, 1985).  This contained a series of ecological policies for use in strategic planning in London, and set out the rationale to be used for deciding which areas are important for nature conservation. It provided the basis for the system used by the London Ecology Unit in its subsequent series of publications (London Ecology Unit, 1994). Although some changes have occurred in the detailed approach, the rationale remains much the same as that developed in 1985, and it has been widely accepted as the basis for nature conservation planning in London. Although non-statutory, it was endorsed by the London Planning Advisory Committee for use in Unitary Development Plans for all London boroughs in 1995 (Goode, 1996). The same policy, criteria, and procedures for identifying nature conservation sites were adopted by the Mayor of London in 2000, and are set out in full in his Biodiversity Strategy (2002).  Details of the survey methodology and use of criteria for evaluating the nature conservation importance of sites are discussed elsewhere (Goode, 1999).

6. Categories of protected sites

From the outset, the London Biodiversity Strategy has recognized a hierarchy of sites at three levels. Those of London-wide strategic significance are called Sites of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation. They include nationally protected sites, such as National Nature Reserves and Sites of Special Scientific Interest, together with many other sites which together represent the full range of habitats in London. Other sites are of significance to individual London boroughs, and a third category of Local Sites are those important at neighborhood level.

The use of these three different levels of importance is an attempt not only to protect the best sites in London but also to provide each area of London with accessible wildlife sites so that people are able to have access to nature within their local neighborhood. This hierarchy means that sites of London-wide importance are chosen in the context of the geographical area of Greater London. Sites of borough importance are chosen from the range of sites in each individual borough. Sites of local importance are those which are valued by local residents, schools or community groups at the neighborhood level. 

At the London-wide level, 136 Sites of Metropolitan Importance are identified. They are distributed throughout London and vary in size from only a few hectares to over 1,000 hectares. Most (90 sites) are less than 100 ha, of which 55 are less than 50 ha.  A few Sites of Metropolitan Importance have been lost to development since the London Ecology Committee first endorsed the list (London Ecology Committee, 1988).  Most of these were wasteland sites already scheduled for development. Additional sites have been added to the list over the years as individual boroughs have been surveyed in greater detail. The Mayor endorsed the list of Metropolitan Sites in 2002 and these are given statutory protection by policies in his London Plan (Mayor of London, 2004), which now provides the strategic planning framework for London. 

As a result of the detailed surveys for individual boroughs, the overall strategy for London has now identified over 1,500 sites. This includes all categories of protection, i.e., Metropolitan, Borough, and Local. A significant number of the sites designated through this process are also protected as statutory Local Nature Reserves. This is a designation made by the boroughs to give a greater degree of protection to these important areas in the long term and to promote greater public access. About 75 Local Nature Reserves are now designated in London, compared with only two in 1980. 

Sites of Metropolitan Importance

Sites of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation are generally the best examples of London’s habitats, and may also contain particularly rare species. Some are sites which are of particular significance within otherwise heavily built-up areas of London. They are all sites of London-wide significance and are of highest priority for protection in the capital. The identification and protection of Metropolitan Sites is necessary, not only to support a significant proportion of London’s wildlife, but also to provide opportunities for people to have contact with the natural environment.

The best examples of London’s habitats include the main variants of each major habitat type, for example oak woodland, wet heathland, or chalk downland. Habitats typical of urban areas are also included, e.g., various types of abandoned land colonized by nature (“urban commons”). Those habitats which are particularly rare in London may have all or most of their examples selected as Metropolitan Sites. Rare species of importance in selecting these sites include those that are nationally scarce or rare, species listed in the Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN, 2004), and species that are rare in London.

A small number of sites are selected that are of particular significance within heavily built up areas of London. Although these are frequently of less intrinsic ecological quality than the best examples of habitats on a London-wide basis, they are outstanding oases and provide the opportunity for enjoyment of nature in those parts of London which are extensively built-up.  Examples include St James’s Park, Nunhead Cemetery, Camley Street Natural Park, and Sydenham Hill Woods. In some cases (e.g., the Royal Parks in inner London) their function in providing public access to nature is the primary reason for their selection. For sites of higher intrinsic interest this may be only a contributory factor. Only those sites that provide a significant contribution to the ecology of an area are identified as Sites of Metropolitan Importance. It is fair to say that if one of these sites were to be lost or damaged this would represent a significant loss to Londoners. Something would be lost which may be unique, or restricted to very few other places in London.

The definition of this category of site was approved by the London Ecology Committee in September 1988, along with a list of such sites which has been updated regularly since then (London Ecology Committee, 1988).  The Mayor adopted an updated list in 2002.

Sites of Borough Importance

These are sites that are important in a borough context in the same way that Metropolitan Sites are important to the whole of London. Although sites of similar quality may be found elsewhere in London, damage to these sites would mean a significant loss to a particular borough. As with Metropolitan Sites, while protection is important, management of borough sites should encourage their use and enjoyment by local people and their use for education.

Identifying sites of importance at borough level is particularly relevant because the 33 London boroughs are the individual planning authorities for London. U.K. government guidance on strategic planning in London (Government Office for London, 1996) included reference to the need for boroughs to take local nature conservation interests into account, and referred to the LEU hierarchy as the basis for selecting nature conservation areas within the boroughs. Most boroughs have used the Sites of Borough Importance as the basis for identifying important nature conservation areas in the borough context.

Sites of Local Importance

A Site of Local Importance is one which is, or may be, of particular value to people nearby, such as residents or schools.  These sites may already be used for nature study or run by management committees mainly composed of local people.  Sites of Metropolitan or Borough Importance may act as Local Sites if they are accessible to local people in this way.  However, specific sites are given this designation in recognition of their particular role. Local importance means that these sites also deserve protection in planning. Local sites are particularly important in areas otherwise deficient in nearby wildlife sites, and one of their purposes is to alleviate such areas of deficiency.

7. Areas of deficiency

Areas lacking accessible wildlife sites within reasonable proximity are referred to as Areas of Deficiency. They are defined as built-up areas more than one kilometer from an accessible Metropolitan or Borough Site. Detailed maps defining such areas of deficiency have been produced for most of the London boroughs. These maps assist boroughs in identifying priority areas for provision of new habitats, and aid the choice of Sites of Local Importance which are chosen as the best available to alleviate this deficiency. Such sites need not lie in the area of deficiency, but should be as near to it as possible. Where no such sites are available, opportunities should be taken to provide them by habitat enhancement or creation, by negotiating access and management agreements, or by direct acquisition of land capable of fulfilling this function.

Efforts to reduce this deficit need not be confined to places such as parks and school grounds. Land under local authority control will normally be the priority for action, but this should not preclude other approaches. This may include enhancing biodiversity within the built environment through landscaping of hard open spaces, creating greenspace associated with such locations as housing projects and hospital grounds, or through provision of green roofs, or roof gardens, and planting of climbers on walls. Another option is to encourage controlled public access to private open spaces, such as some of the private garden squares, or land along rail corridors. 

8. Implementing the strategy through strategic planning

The Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy published in 2002 includes specific policies and proposals to protect and enhance biodiversity through strategic planning. These policies are also contained in the statutory London Plan (Mayor of London, 2004). Protection of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation is covered by two major proposals, as follows:

• ·     Proposal 1. The Mayor will identify Sites of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation.  Boroughs should give strong protection to these sites in their Unitary Development Plans. The Metropolitan Sites include all sites of national or international importance for biodiversity.

• ·     Proposal 2. Boroughs should use the procedures adopted by the Mayor to identify and protect Sites of Borough and Local Importance for Nature Conservation. The Mayor will assist and advise them in this.

The effect of these proposals is that the hierarchy of designations in London is now subject to statutory planning procedures. But it goes further than that since the Biodiversity Strategy states that the Mayor will measure the success of his strategy primarily against two targets, to ensure firstly, that there is no net loss of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation, and secondly that the Areas of Deficiency in accessible wildlife sites are reduced. Monitoring of these targets is addressed in the Mayor’s State of the Environment Report (Mayor of London, 2003). For the precise wording of the policy for nature conservation in the London Plan, see the Appendix. 

9. Connecting people with nature

London’s many high quality spaces make it one of the most pleasant of world cities to live in for many people. Accessible, local, green places are not only important to people where they live, but also for enterprises seeking a suitable environment for their workforce. These green spaces act as a magnet which attracts businesses to London. However, some parts of London are poorly provided with access to such places. People living in these areas should not be denied the health, cultural, and recreational benefits provided by access to nature and open spaces.

During the past twenty years there have been changes in attitudes to nature conservation taking place in London which have led to natural areas being saved from development primarily because they were important for local people. In addition, many new ‘natural parks’ and nature reserves have been designed using ecological principles which have, over the years, become much valued by local people (Goode, 1986).  Many of the proposals in the Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy are intended to extend this process within a renewed phase of urban regeneration. 

It is argued that connecting people with nature should:

• Enhance everyday opportunities for people to have contact with nature through the creation of new greenspace and through enhancements to existing space;

• Ensure that more people know the location of their local greenspace and can get there easily; and

• Help people to understand and enjoy contact with nature.

To meet these needs, the following policies are included in the Biodiversity Strategy.

The Mayor will:

• ·     Encourage and promote the management, enhancement, and creation of green space for biodiversity, and promote public access and appreciation of nature.

• ·     Seek to ensure that opportunities are taken to green the built environment within development proposals and to use open spaces in ecologically sensitive ways. This is particularly important in areas deficient in open spaces and in areas of regeneration.

• ·     Promote local opportunities for regular direct contact with the natural world, through a variety of types of open space (such as allotments, community and cultural gardens, school grounds, environmental education centers and city farms, as well as informal wildlife areas).

• ·     Promote environmental education, participation and training for all ages and across all sectors of London’s society.

10. Habitat creation

In parallel with the work on planning, considerable progress has been made in creating new wildlife habitats. This is central to the Mayor’s strategy and is particularly important in the context of urban regeneration in East London. Guidance for developers on how to incorporate biodiversity within new developments was recently published by the London Development Agency (2004), and several new business parks have demonstrated these opportunities, especially through the use of green roofs.  The capital also boasts one of the most exciting urban nature conservation projects in Europe. This is the London Wetland Centre, a purpose-built wetland of over 40 ha with a high-quality visitor center only six miles from the centre of London. 

11. CONCLUSIONS

Successful development of a nature conservation strategy for London has depended on a number of very different factors. These include the clarity of the overall objectives and methods adopted, relevance to strategic planning, degree of public and political support, and effectiveness of consultation and partnerships.

The objectives were clearly defined from the outset, and the whole approach has been geared to achieving these objectives.  A systematic approach was developed, using a well-tested methodology for survey and assessment, which could be easily understood and accepted by planners. Throughout this process, there was a need to ensure effective integration with the planning process. This required considerable consultation with professional planners on the development of ecological policies, and for progressive refinement of the rationale for site protection. Success was dependent on ensuring its acceptance as a normal part of the statutory planning process, even though the system had little statutory basis. In the absence of statutory powers, it is extraordinary how much was achieved. Compared with the position in the early 1980s, when the words “ecology” and “nature conservation” did not figure at all in strategic planning in London, there was a sea change in the attitude of London boroughs and the level of professionalism increased enormously. 

Fundamental to all of this was the need for both political and public support for the program. The series of ecology handbooks was crucial to gaining such support. The first ecology handbook (Greater London Council, 1984) set the scene and was instrumental in gaining political support within the Greater London Council. Subsequent handbooks for individual London boroughs, published by the London Ecology Unit over a period of fifteen years, maintained the public and political support necessary to ensure long-term success of the program. These handbooks were progressively refined and improved over the years. As well as providing professional input on nature conservation for each borough plan, they provided a popular account of London’s natural history, which assisted in raising public consciousness of biodiversity issues.  Some of the later examples included a series of walks for people wishing to visit natural areas in different parts of London (Yarham and Game, 2000). 

Effective consultation with a wide range of stakeholders at each stage in the process has helped to ensure that the strategy has a broadly-based sense of ownership. The LEU undertook extensive consultation with individuals and organizations with knowledge of London’s ecology and natural history. These included local naturalists, voluntary organizations, landowners, statutory authorities, council officers, and elected officials.  Further public consultation was undertaken prior to publication of each borough handbook. Where advice from the LEU was incorporated into statutory Local Plans or Unitary Development Plans, this was subject to the wider public consultation accorded to such plans. More recently the Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy was subject to lengthy public consultation prior to its adoption. There has, therefore, been considerable public consultation in developing the nature conservation strategy and this has undoubtedly contributed to its successful implementation. 

Finally there is the issue of an effective partnership.  Experience in London suggests that there are several crucial ingredients for successful implementation of a Biodiversity Strategy. Effective progress depends on adequate policies being formulated and implemented through local government and statutory agencies. At the same time, new ideas are frequently initiated through a bottom-up approach involving “citizen action.” In London, this has included voluntary bodies, such as the London Wildlife Trust, and many neighborhood groups.  Local interest groups have a clear role to play in this process.  However, experience shows that neither the top-down nor bottom-up approach can work in isolation. The enthusiasm and energy of local people can only go so far in the absence of an official policy framework. Equally, the development and adoption of effective policies for nature conservation depends on having sufficient political support. Very often this is generated as a result of lobbying by environmental and neighborhood groups. [Some of these relationships are indicated in Figure 1 in the print version of The Urban Imperative.]

The need for key individuals in both sectors is emphasized.  Such people are vital to success, acting as interpreters of ecological knowledge and as catalysts for the whole process.  An effective program will also require a committed partnership, including organizations capable of delivering the detailed targets. To be effective, this needs to include local businesses and landowners in addition to the official agencies, scientists, and local activists. Key individuals from the business community have a particularly important role to play in raising awareness of biodiversity with those who have most direct influence on urban development.

The overall process illustrated in Figure 1 will fail if any part of the picture is missing. Top-down strategic processes provide the political and policy framework which enable long-term progress to be made. Bottom-up partnerships of NGOs and community groups generate the energy and action for change.  These two groups, working together through the London Biodiversity Partnership, drive forward and deliver much of the action, drawing on the knowledge and information held by specialist ecologists and naturalists. The overall package is delivering a radical agenda to ensure that London retains its ecological quality and that Londoners have access to it. 

12. REFERENCES

Goode, D. 1986. Wild in London. Michael Joseph, London.

Goode, D.A. 1989. Urban nature conservation in Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology 26: 859-873.

Goode, D. 1993. Local authorities and urban conservation. In: F.B. Goldsmith and A. Warren, eds., Conservation in Progress. Wiley, Chichester, U.K.

Goode, D. 1996. A decade of green planning. Planning in London 19. J. London Planning and Development Forum, London.

Goode, D.A. 1999. Habitat survey and evaluation for nature conservation in London. Deinsea 5: 27-40.  (Natural History Museum of Rotterdam.) 

Government Office for London. 1996. Strategic Guidance for London Planning Authorities. RPG3. HMSO, London.

Greater London Council. 1984. Ecology and Nature Conservation in London.  Ecology Handbook No. 1. GLC, London.

Greater London Council. 1985. Nature Conservation Guidelines for London. Ecology Handbook No.3. GLC, London.

IUCN. 2004. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/red-lists.htm. IUCN – The World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland.

Johnston, J., 1990. Nature Areas for City People: A Guide to the Successful Establishment of Community Wildlife Sites. Ecology Handbook No. 14. London Ecology Unit, London.

Johnston, J. and Newton, J. 1993.  Building Green: A Guide to Using Plants on Roofs, Walls, and Pavements. London Ecology Unit, London.

London Biodiversity Partnership. 1996. Capital Assets: Conserving Biodiversity in London. LBD, London.

London Development Agency. 2004. Design for Biodiversity: a Guidance Document for Development in London. LDA,  London.

London Ecology Committee. 2000. Nature Conservation and Biodiversity in London: Recommendations for London’s Mayor and Assembly. London Ecology Committee. London.

London Ecology Unit. 1988. Sites of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation as Identified by the London Ecology Unit. London Ecology Unit, London.

London Ecology Unit. 1994. Policy, Criteria, and Procedures for Identifying Nature Conservation Sites in London. London Ecology Unit, London.

Marsh, S. 1993. Nature Conservation in Community Forests. Ecology Handbook No. 23. London Ecology Unit, London.

Mayor of London. 2002. Connecting with London’s Nature: The Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy. Greater London Authority, London. http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/strategy.jsp.

Mayor of London. 2003. Green Capital: The Mayor’s State of the Environment Report for London. Greater London Authority, London.

Mayor of London. 2004. The London Plan: Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London. Greater London Authority, London.

Yarham, I. and Game, M. (2000). Nature Conservation in Brent. Ecology Handbook No. 31. London Ecology Unit, London.

________________

APPENDIX: Extract from the London Plan: Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (2004)

Policy 3D.12 Biodiversity and nature conservation

The Mayor will work with partners to ensure a proactive approach to the protection, promotion and management of biodiversity in support of the Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy.

The planning of new development and regeneration should have regard to nature conservation and biodiversity, and opportunities should be taken to achieve positive gains for conservation through the form and design of development.  Where appropriate, measures may include creating, enhancing and managing wildlife habitat and natural landscape. Priority for habitat creation should be given to sites which assist in achieving the targets in Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) and sites within or near to areas deficient in accessible wildlife sites.

Boroughs, in reviewing their Unitary Development Plans and in considering proposals for development, should accord the highest protection to internationally designated and proposed sites, and to nationally designated sites, in accordance with government guidance and the European Habitat Regulations, 1994.

The Mayor will identify Sites of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation (SMIs), which, in addition to internationally and nationally designated sites, includes land of strategic importance for nature conservation and biodiversity across London. Boroughs should give strong protection to these sites in their UDPs. Boroughs should use the procedures adopted by the Mayor in his Biodiversity Strategy to identify sites of Borough or Local Importance for nature conservation and should accord them a level of protection commensurate with their borough or local significance.

The Mayor will and boroughs should resist development that would have a significant adverse impact on the population or conservation status of protected species or priority species identified in the London Biodiversity Action Plan and borough BAPs. Appropriate policies for their protection and enhancement, and to achieve the targets set out in Biodiversity Action Plans, should be included in UDPs.

Where development is proposed which would affect a site of importance for nature conservation, the approach should be to seek to avoid adverse impact on the nature conservation value of the site, and if that is not possible, to minimize such impact and seek mitigation of any residual impacts. Where exceptionally, development is to be permitted because the reasons for it are judged to outweigh significant harm to nature conservation, appropriate compensation should be sought.

This paper copyright © 2004 International Union for

Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.

Reproduction of this paper for educational or other noncommercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this paper for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission from the copyright holder.

Web site hosted by the California Institute of Public Affairs,

an IUCN member since 1980

Home page  /  Site map  /  Copyright & caveats 

The copyright notice applies to the entire contents of this Web site.