Ecosystem research: Black Poplar

Black poplar: at the crossroads between the science and culture of conservation


The UK has a unique and highly structured approach to biodiversity conservation, through its Biodiversity Action Plans, both national and local. How do these affect conservation? Our study uses one well-loved species as a window on the planning process.

Interpretations of conservation have shifted over the last decade, from portraying it as a reaction to the modern rationalist world, to a product of that world ( Adams 1997). Protagonists of conservation are often now loud in their calls for ‘comprehensive inventories', indicators and prioritisation. The 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity represents a step in this process of rationalisation, bringing it into the mainstream of national policy-making. The UK has been a leading example of CBD implementation with its development of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP), significant for its reliance on ‘target-based conservation'. And yet, the hundreds of Local Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAPs) that have followed in the wake of the UKBAP have been criticised as highly heterogeneous and reliant on pre-existing cultures and mechanisms (Evans 2004).

In this meeting of rationalisation and path-dependency, there is much of interest to human ecologists. In this study we focus on black poplar (Populus nigra subsp. betulifolia) as a species that represents the layers of values and subjectivities that affect the process and outcome of the various BAPs. Mabey (1996) has described it as " tree which presents, in microcosm, many of the delicate judgements facing nature conservation today, as the cultural and social profiles of species begin to be taken into account." Black poplar has been treated in a very diverse way by the range of options available. It was not prioritised by the UKBAP process, and is not therefore highlighted as a tree of national interest. Yet it is distinguished in 20 LBAPs with its own species action plan, and in 6 others either implicitly or explicitly through relevant habitat action plans.

In our study we ask three questions:

- how is a culturally significant species such as black poplar treated through the BAP framework?
- how do the values of different actors influence the process and outcomes of BAPs?
- what are the implications of our findings for a more participatory approach to environmental governance?

We've found that a multiplicity of values and reasons inform the selection of Black Poplar for an LBAP, including:

- popular appeal: perceived as a high profile tree already well known and popular through surveys such as the Great Black Poplar Hunt; or considered easy to find and survey
- culturally symbolic value: perceived as ‘catching people's imagination', or representing ‘distinctive local character'
- ecologically symbolic value: significance in UK terms i.e. the county contains a relatively high proportion of the UK population; or representative of important and threatened habitats
- political value: personal interest of key local people
pragmatic value: pre-existence of projects
- It's interesting that instrumental values are absent (no one mentioned any uses for black poplar); and nor are biological values mentioned (such as its importance to other species in the ecosystem). In fact for every reason given to select black poplar, others mentioned a contradictory reason not to select it, including:

- difficulties in identification
- lack of biological importance
- decision to use LBAP to focus only on national priority species.

For us this diversity of reasons underscores the contingent (context-specific) nature of the LBAP process. Our focus on black poplar as a window on the planning process highlighted a great range of approaches to implementation. Some counties draw up a very short list of priorities, focusing pragmatically on what they have the resources to implement. Others take the view that making a plan increases the potential for conservation, even if no resources are currently available, and draw up lists of dozens of priority species. Some focus on species as having public appeal, while others emphasise a more holistic approach and concentrate on habitat action plans.

We did find, as Evans (2004) suggests, that there is a great deal of path dependency, i.e. building on existing structures and interests. We conclude that while this serves to legitimise on-going work it is not necessarily leading to greater public involvement. Change in public awareness is one of the most uncertain outcomes of LBAPs, in any case (Luke 2004), and our study suggests that a more valuable effect of LBAPs is based on that diversity of approach itself, in allowing local approaches to recognise and support existing efforts which have grown out of the popular and scientific interest of individuals and groups. What is missing from the picture, however, is the opportunity to share and reflect on experiences, so that the best can be gleaned from this very organic approach.

source: Ecosystem research - www.eci.ox.ac.uk