Thread by @Feargal_Sharkey

SOMETHING FOR THE WEEKEND SIR.

This is a short tale about 2 environment regulators, yes we do have 2, but don't panic it's also a tale about how someone, somewhere appears to have a lot of questions to answer.

Ladies & gentlemen meet the @EnvAgency (EA) & @NaturalEngland (NE)

Yes we have 2 environment regulators but each has their own separate, responsibilities with just a small occasion overlap. For example take rivers.

The EA has a clear straightforward obligation, to "Maintain, improve and develop fisheries", our rivers..........

NE on the other hand, according to their Twitter profile, aim to secure a healthy, natural environment protected and safeguarded for future generations. All very worthy and amiable stuff.............

As we know that the EA are supposed to deliver the aims of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), you remember, by 2015 100% of England's rivers would reach 'Good' ecological status

Well it's 2019 and 86% of England's rivers FAIL. As @PrivateEyeNews would say "Trebles all round".

The chalk stream map put together by @srbuss illustrates the point depressingly well.

Just 12% of what should be the purest, most pristine, immaculate river systems in the world reach 'Good" ecological status. None reach 'High'. The rest all fail. More "Trebles all round"......

There is however one area of NE's work that intrigued me Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

This is a special form of legal protection given only to England's "Most important areas of natural heritage".

In fact it is the highest form of legal protection available.....

Would I wonder some of the world's rarest, most pristine, unique rivers, our chalk streams, be protected as SSSIs, why yes, they're are, not all of them, they should, but about 9, so far as I can tell.

NE is supposed to make sure SSSIs reach ‘favourable condition’ status.......

Which means that "SSSI’s habitats and features are in a healthy state and are being conserved by appropriate management".

In England you need permission to do any work in for on a SSSI and just to be clear you can even be prosecuted for allowing a SSSI to fall into "Neglect".

So lets see how well our SSSI chalk streams are thriving under the greatest legal protection the land has to offer. Lets start with the mightiest of them all the River Test.

The EA grades it as 'Good' ecological status under the WFD what does NE think?

What? 81% of the River Test SSSI is NOT in a 'Favourable Condition', whataya mean, what the f**k?

But this is the greatest chalk stream on the planet with the highest legal protection the country has to offer, the purest river on earth and 81% of it is what?

No, let's try again

The River Itchen. 2nd greatest chalk stream on the planet. EA say it is 'Good' ecological status, NE?

What? What the f**k? Only 10% of the River Itchen is in 'Favourable Condition', NO!

This has got to be wrong, the highest legal protection in the land & only 10%. Do it again.

River Kennet. EA grade it at 'Moderate' ecological status. NE?

What? What the f**k? Absolutely 100% of it is classified as 'Unfavourable'.

But this is a globally recognised chalk stream with the highest form of legal protection the country has to offer.

Got to be wrong, again

River Avon SSSI. EA grade it as 'Moderate' to 'Poor' ecological status. NE?

Just 3.38% of a world renowned, globally recognised chalk stream with the highest level of legal protection available is categorised as 'Favourable', just 3.38%.

You see a pattern developing here?...

Transpires not 1, not 1 of England's SSSI chalk streams, even when granted the highest level of environmental legal protection the country has to offer, not 1 comes even close to 100% 'Favourable Condition'.

This of course raises many questions. How can the EA grade the River Test at 'Good' status when over 80% of it is not in favourable condition?

How has the EA & NE allowed these most precious of our ecosystems deteriorate to this level?

Why has this system failed so badly?

As a nation it speaks volumes about the platitudes we heap upon the environment, the empty, meaningless words devoid of intent, the 25 year plans that simply perpetuate the obscenity.

If we can’t conserve the most protected, how could we ever conserve the rest?