The conservation of Jurassic heritage in the UK – a critical review of the role of governmental organisations and their effectiveness 163

The conservation of Jurassic heritage in the UK – a critical review of the role of governmental

organisations and their effectiveness

Kevin N. PAGE 1 and William A. WIMBLEDON 2

1 School of Earth, Ocean and Environmental Science, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 8AA, UK;

e-mail: kpage@plymouth.ac.uk 2 Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; e-mail: b.wimbledon@ccw.gov.uk

Key-words: Jurassic, geoconservation, UK, natural heritage, Geological Conservation Review.

ABSTRACT: In 1949 the concept of protected geological sites was first established in UK law by Nature Conservancy(NC) as ‘Sites of Special Scientific Interest’ (SSSIs). In 1977 a systematic site selection process - the GeologicalConservation Review (GCR) was established by the UK-wide Nature Conservancy Council (NCC) which identified over3000 features of geological interest nationally (excluding Northern Ireland), including around 275 representing aspectsof Jurassic stratigraphy and palaeontology. These GCR sites formed the basis for all subsequent geoconservation SSSIdesignation including under strengthened legislation in 1981 and 2002. The fragmentation of the NCC in 1991established separate country conservation bodies in Scotland (Scottish Natural Heritage), Wales (Countryside Councilfor Wales), and England (English Nature) with a fourth, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) to overseecertain national and international activities. In Northern Ireland, however, nature conservation remained theresponsibility of the Environment and Heritage Service of the Department of the Environment. With the establishmentof these five separate organisations, policy and practice began to diverge. The consequences of this divergence arediscussed with particular reference to its effects on the conservation of sites of Jurassic palaeontological andstratigraphical importance. Recommendations for future conservation strategies and procedures are proposed.

INTRODUCTION

The loss of key exposures and materials due tohuman activity has always been an issue forgeologists and palaeontologists. As long ago as1859, Leckenby, a pioneering Yorkshire amateurgeologist complained that fossil collecting hadbecome so intense from rocks on the shore belowScarborough Castle – a key Callovian/Oxfordianboundary locality – commenting that “So dili-gently have they been explored that hardly ablock is to be found to reward the industrious

collector”. By the beginning of the twentiethcentury, the area had site suffered further andmuch of the Leckenby’s former collecting groundhad disappeared behind a sea wall and promenade– a mechanism for site loss which remains all toocommon today. These early losses still hadramifications many years later for Jurassicstratigraphy as Scarborough is the type locality ofCardioceras scarburgense (Young and Bird) indexfossil of the first subchronozone of the OxfordianStage – as a result of the loss of most of the keyCallovian/Oxfordian boundary section below the

164 Volumina Jurassica, Volumen VI

town, Osgodby Nab to the south consequentlybecame an early candidate GSSP (GlobalStratotype Section and Point) for the definition ofthe base of the Oxfordian Stage (Callomon 1990).

Other lamentations and observations about siteloss are scattered through the geological literature.Even W. J. Arkell, one of UK’s most famous Jurassicspecialists, noted in his monograph of Oxfordianammonites (1935-1948) that his work was no longerrepeatable as development was already rapidlyfilling some of the most important sources of hisMiddle Oxfordian ammonite faunas around Oxforditself. Remarkably, however, during the SecondWorld War as a part of a vision to rebuild Britain, a working group was established and produced thefirst list of key UK geological sites as prelude to their conservation. In 1949 the legal frameworkfor this protection was established through theNational Parks and Access to the Countryside Act.The Act referred to both ‘geological monuments’and ‘physiographic features’ (i.e. geomorphologicalsites) and legal protection was established throughdesignation of what became known as ‘Sites ofSpecial Scientific Interest’ (or SSSIs).

The initial site selection primarily highlightedfamous or ‘classic’ localities but had no underlyingmethodology and it was not until 1977 with theestablishment of the Geological ConservationReview (GCR) by the national Nature ConservancyCouncil (NCC) that the process at last becamesystematic (Wimbledon et al. 1995; Ellis et al.1996). The GCR process led to the identification ofover 3000 features of geological interest in England,Scotland and Wales within thematic selection‘blocks’, as a basis for all subsequent geologicalSSSI designation. This selection included around275 sites representing aspects of Jurassicstratigraphy and palaeontology (Page, Prosser1994). The GCR process did not include NorthernIreland (Ulster), however, where a parallel systemusing GCR principles was established, with sitesnotified as ‘Areas of Scientific Interest’ (ASIs)under similar legislation.

SSSIs in mainland Britain are now all notifiedusing the provisions of the Wildlife and CountrysideAct 1981, as strengthened by the Countryside andRights of Way Act 2002 (or ‘CROW’ Act) in Englandand Wales. Differences in aspects of Scottish Lawmean that the latter does not apply, although itsprinciples are incorporated within the NatureConservation Act 2004. Throughout the threecountries, however, the designation is still as a Siteof Special Scientific Interest.

Site conservation activity by the NatureConservancy Council was on a learning curve in theearlier days with the legal possibilities of the 1981act being explored and techniques and philosophiesbeing developed – as summarised in the firstpublished UK Geoconservation Strategy in 1990(Nature Conservancy Council 1990). Politicalmoves, however, led to the fragmentation of the national body in 1991 and the establishment of separate country organisations in Scotland(Scottish Natural Heritage or SNH), Wales(Countryside Council for Wales or CCW) andEngland (English Nature or EN) with a fourth to service the country agencies on certain nationaland international activities (Joint NatureConservation Committee or JNCC). The latter alsoproduce the Geological Conservation Reviewvolumes, descriptive monographs for all mainlandUK geoconservation sites. In Northern Ireland,however, nature conservation remained theresponsibility of the Department of the Environ-ment, within its Environment and Heritage Service(EHS).

With the establishment of these five separateorganisations, policy and practice inevitably beganto diverge. Wales established a regionaliseddistribution of geologists in local area teamsworking on site-based casework and sitemanagement. In Scotland, a small group of centra-lly based geologists provides advice nationally,although in practice most casework is carried outby local, typically ecological-trained, conservationofficers. In England, however, a trend establishedtowards the end of the NCC continued, with moreand more key decisions being made by a centrally-based group of geological advisors with limitedexternal scientific input. In addition, local,ecological conservation officers have increasinglybeen expected to not only give day-to-day advice onthe management of geological sites, but also to setconservation objectives and monitor the same sites.These approaches have not only contributed tolosses of key parts of several protected Jurassicsites and their contained palaeontological heritage,but also to a high level of under-recording of suchdamage. In contrast, in Northern Ireland, stronglinks exist with regional museums and scientificspecialists, which are reflected not only in sitebased work but also in approaches to sitemanagement.

Beyond the SSSI network protected by nationalconservation law, sites of local importance fornature conservation are protected through Town

The conservation of Jurassic heritage in the UK – a critical review of the role of governmental organisations and their effectiveness 165

and Country planning legislation, including areadevelopment plans and strategies. For ecologicalconservation, the selection of, for instance, ‘SINCs’(Sites of Interest for Nature Conservation), is wellestablished. For geological heritage, however, thescenario is less satisfactory, with many areas of theUK still without a formally adopted network of ‘local’ sites. Known collectively as RegionallyImportant Geological Sites (or RIGS), theselocations provide a ‘second tier’ to the UK’sgeoconservation sites networks and although no comprehensive national database exists, the number of additional protected Jurassic sitescould easily number 200-300. RIGS are typicallyselected on a county by county basis by local,typically voluntary groups. Although the status ofthese sites is recognised by central government(e.g. in Planning and Policy Statement 9, Wildlifeand Geological Conservation) little support for theirprotection is often provided, and ‘RIGS Groups’typically depend on voluntary effort and grantsfrom local government organisations to supporttheir activities.

The relationship of this second tier of sites tothe national SSSI network raises some questions,however. In principle all SSSIs are of at leastnational importance and all RIGS are of regionalimportance. In reality, however, the picture is not sosimple and some RIGS are certainly of internationalimportance – the current inertia of the SSSIselection and designation process, as administeredby the JNCC, makes any updating of the nationalGCR/SSSI network difficult. As a result, RIGSdesignations are often used as a ‘holdingmechanism’, pending a future revision ofthe national networks. The role of thenon-governmental and voluntary sectororganisations (e.g. ‘NGOs’), includingRIGS groups is not discussed further,however, as this would be a study in itsown right and most activities of suchgroups are still strongly influenced bygovernmental agencies and existinglegal frameworks.

The approach of each country agencyis reviewed further below, including anexploration of case histories displayingboth successes and failures. Thisinformation is synthesised withprinciples and practice from elsewherein the world to establish a series ofguidelines on which future geologicalconservation work on Jurassic sites in

the UK could be based, thereby ensuring that theirvalue to science is adequately maintained.

WALES

Nature conservation in Wales became theresponsibility of the Countryside Council for Wales(CCW) in 1991, together with aspects of landscapemanagement and rural access and recreation – thefunctions of the former Countryside Commission inthe area being combined. CCW maintained some ofthe scientific ethos of the former national NatureConservancy Council as reflected, for instance, in its methodical approach to site managementplanning (Wimbledon et al. 2003).

With a headquarters in Bangor in north Walesand relative poor communications in rural andoften mountainous terrain – a strong regionalframework developed including a network of fourarea-focussed geologists. The latter provideconservation advice to regional offices as well as carrying out site monitoring functions. Walesalso benefits from strong regional government – the Welsh Assembly – which has specificallysupported a range of geological initiatives. Theseinclude RIGS survey projects, the establishment of a British Geological Survey Office in Cardiff(including support for the long-overdue completionof baseline mapping for the country) andLANDMAP, a novel landscape survey and chara-cterisation project, which includes a ‘Geolo-gical Landscapes’ GIS layer (see www.ccw.gov.uk).

ENGLAND WALES SCOTLANDNORTHERN

IRELAND

1949 Nature Conservancy (NC)

Environmentand HeritageService (EHS)Department

of theEnvironment

(NorthernIreland)

1973Nature Conservancy Council (NCC)

1985

1991

NatureConservancyCouncil for

England (NCCE)(1991-2)/English

Nature (EN) (from 1991)

CountrysideCouncil for

Wales (CCW)

NatureConservancyCouncil for

Scotland (NCCS) (1991-2)/

Scottish NaturalHeritage (SNH)

(from 1992)2006

Natural England(NE)

Fig. 1. Governmental organisations with responsibility for nature conservation in theUK with their dates of formation.

166 Volumina Jurassica, Volumen VI

Although Jurassic outcrops are largely limitedto the Glamorgan coast of the south Wales (Simmset al. 2004; Benton and Spencer 1995; Benton et al.2002), they do include key Triassic-Lower Jurassicsequences with internationally known littoralfacies. Conservation work on geological SSSIs in this area is typically concerned with limiting the damaging effects of coastal defence works andthere have been some notable conservationsuccesses. A more significant issue for theJurassic, however, is the current lack of a RIGSactivity in most of the country and consequently keysections of the Glamorgan coast, includinglithostratigraphical stratotypes, are still withoutprotection and several former quarry sites haverecently been lost to development. Selection of‘RIGS’ as geological Sites of Interest for NatureConservation (SINCs) is underway elsewhere,however, and surveys supported by CCW geologistshave already identified potential conservation sitesfor Lower Jurassic sequences in south-east Wales,including in the Newport area (Davies 2006).

Another problem reflects a common theme inUK geoconservation as a whole, the lack of a unified approach to palaeontological heritageconservation and the high profile of commercialcollecting in certain areas. Bendrick Rocks SSSI,near Barry, displays a remarkable assemblage oflate Triassic dinosaur footprints (Benton, Spencer1995) – or at least it used to. In around 2005, fossilcollectors quarried a substantial area of the outcrop and sold it to several fossil dealers, the bulk going to a well-known fossil shop in LymeRegis, Dorset, England. A subsequent raid on the premises by the combined South Welsh andDorset police forces and CCW seized the lattermaterial and returned it to Wales, with formalprosecution under consideration. The Dorsetlocation is key, however, as in that County thecommercialisation of fossils is actively promoted(see below), a policy which is having consequenceselsewhere in the UK with issues of conservationand legal ownership being ignored when geologicalmaterials have a market value.

Further information on CCW including details ofall geological SSSIs in the country can be found at:www.ccw.gov.uk

SCOTLAND

In a similar approach to Wales, combined natureconservation and ‘countryside’ issues became the

responsibility of a single organisation, ScottishNatural Heritage (or SNH) in 1992. The basic legalframework for conservation in Scotland is similarto that in England and Wales, with SSSI notificationbeing carried out under the Wildlife and Country-side Act 1981. Due to differences in aspects of Scottish law, however, which include a separateParliament, the principles of the Countryside andRights of Way Act (CROW) have been implementedseparately though the Nature Conservation(Scotland) Act 2004. SNH now has its corporatehead office in Inverness, although a number of sections remain elsewhere, including Edinburgh.

In a more extreme scenario to Wales, small ruralroads, large distances and typically remote ormountainous terrain can create problems for thesmall centrally based geoconservation advisorgroup in Edinburgh. Most site-related casework isinevitably, therefore, carried out by regionallybased conservation advisors who typically have nogeological background. Geological advisors,however, will lead on complex and sensitive issues,such as development pressure in urbanised areasin the Midland Valley and specimen collectingthroughout. Locally, such as on the Isle of Skye,close working relationships exist with geologistsand palaeontologists in Scottish museums anduniversities. Site management planning hasdeveloped in Scotland to allow effectivemanagement of all geological SSSIs, each having itsown management statement. In addition, inter-pretation and educational provision on geologicalsites is some of the best in the UK.

Due to the remoteness of much of Scotland andthe unique geological resource of many Scottishsites, geological specimen collecting has become a major issue in the country. Stories of helicopter-raids by foreign collectors are part of UK geo-heritage folklore but the reality is no less disturbingwith many accounts of damage to SSSIs. Largesections of the unique Lower CarboniferousGranton Shrimp Bed with its conodont animal havebeen removed by mechanical excavators and rareDevonian fish from the famous Orcadian Basinrock-sawn out for international sale. One of themost famous cases is that of ‘Lizzie the lizard’, a tiny 15 cm early Carboniferous reptile, theprospect of loss through export of whichnecessitated a public appeal to raise the £195,000asked for by the fossil dealer who had collected itfrom public land (Grayson 1990) – literally, thepeople of Scotland were forced to buy back theirown heritage.

The conservation of Jurassic heritage in the UK – a critical review of the role of governmental organisations and their effectiveness 167

One of the most worrying stories, however, is that of the primitive Silurian fish of Birks KnoweSSSI, removed by a German collector and sold tothe Humbolt Museum in Berlin. Despite numerousattempts by SNH (Macfadyen 2006) the museumhas refused to return the rarest and mostspectacular specimens collected to their rightfulowners in Scotland. The compliance of certainmuseums and academics in supporting illegalspecimen collecting such as this has unfortunatelybeen a common theme not only in the UK butelsewhere – and a number of well known UKinstitutions are also guilty of failing to adequatelyascertain whether the specimens they have beenoffered for sale have been obtained legally. Suchactions are also not only unethical, they inevitablyundermine site conservation efforts by actuallyencouraging illegal activity at the mostscientifically important and sensitive sites.

In reality, however, unlike in England and Wales,geological specimens in Scottish sites shouldactually benefit from greater protection as all loosematerials – or moveable items – remain theproperty of the landowner. In England and Walessuch materials can be considered as having beenabandoned and in the absence of instructions to thecontrary can be legally removed from areas withpublic access, for instance from most beaches. This scenario in Scotland, however, can sometimescreate additional problems for field geology,especially where large privately owned estatespersist. In some areas, landowners have begun to expect payment for allowing geological sampling– despite access itself being considered as open tomost areas under Scottish law – and this hasalready lead to problems for undergraduateteaching, as on the Isle of Arran of the west coast.

The Jurassic of Scotland, which is well exposedon both the east, and more famously the west,coasts (Simms et al. 2004; Cox and Sumbler 2002;Wright and Cox 2001) has not been immune to theseissues. On the east coast, parts of the famous Broracoastal sections in the Middle Jurassic have beenreported as being virtually closed to geologicalsampling and on the west, especially on the Isles ofSkye, key parts of the island’s Jurassic, includingthe well known Hettangian-Sinemurian sections atBroadford, may now be on ‘pay to sample’ basis orwith research being ‘rationed’ by private land-owning interests. Nevertheless, certain other areasare now publicly owned and managed by theScottish Executive’s Environment and Rural AffairsDepartment (SEERAD) who work in close colla-

boration with SNH and the local community toensure that the geological sites which they haveresponsibility for are adequately protected, whilstremaining available for scientific study. Such sitesinclude the proposed GSSP (Global StratotypeSection and Point) for the base of the KimmeridgianStage in Staffin Bay (Wierzbowski et al. 2006) andthe important Lower and Middle Jurassic sectionson the east coast of the adjacent Isle of Raasay(Morton, Hudson 1995).

Fossil collecting issues are locally significantand the classic Aalenian-Bajocian sections of theBearreraig Bay area which include the AuxilaryStratotype for the Bajocian Stage (Pavia and Enay(1997) have suffered from intensive, irresponsiblecollecting, including the use of rock saws to extractwell preserved graphoceratid ammonites – once acommon site in UK fossils shops. Several ichthy-osaur skeletons are reported as having also beenremoved from here and exported – and theircurrent whereabouts do not appear to be known.The Isle of Raasay has also been targeted by fossilcollectors and material removed from the islandsmain SSSI in contravention of the conservationrestrictions in place. On a more positive, however, aunique dinosaur bone from Skye was secretlyreturned when its collector realised theconsequences of their actions and SNH andScottish museums continue to raise the awarenessof local communities as to the intrinsic value oftheir geological heritage. Newspaper articles such“European thieves steal fossils to order” (Sun-day Times; 5th May 2002) are helping this process –although perhaps ironically some of these culprits willbe from the UK and some are certainly Scottish…

The new Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act2004 includes provision to establish a legallyenforceable code of good conduct for fossilcollecting in Scotland and SNH commencedconsultation on its contents in 2007. Crucially, thescientific community has been invited to comment(see www.snh.gov.uk), including through noticesin publications such as the UK PalaeontologicalAssociation’s Newsletter (Macfadyen 2006).Hopefully by building a consensus and raisingawareness, some of the excesses of the past can beavoided and any future issues effectively dealt with.Crucially this process represents the first time thatthere has been a genuinely open consultation in theUK on this emotive but fundamental aspect ofgeological conservation. The results may well haverelevance beyond Scotland’s national boundariesand help guide policy development elsewhere…

168 Volumina Jurassica, Volumen VI

NORTHERN IRELAND

Northern Ireland was not included in theoriginal Geological Conservation Review processand still remains outside of its site-selectionregulatory process. Nevertheless, an analogousprocess, the Earth Science Conservation Review(ESCR) broadly based on GCR principles has beendeveloped leading to the selection of ESCR sites. A programme of designating these as Areas ofSpecial Scientific Interest (ASSIs) is underway.Nature Conservation administration is theresponsibility of the Environment and HeritageService, within Northern Ireland’s Department ofthe Environment, which includes a small geologicalsection. A scientific focus is maintained by thisgroup with close collaboration with the GeologicalSurvey for Northern Ireland together with academicinstitutions and the Ulster Museum. Managementplanning for geological sites is particularlythorough and fully recognises the needs of improved documentation through futureresearch. Full documentation for the ESCR siteseries can be accessed through the ESCR website:www.habitas.org.uk/escr. Increasingly collabo-ration with initiatives in the south of Ireland isapparent and this may indicate the future directionof geoconservation practice in the region.

Northern Ireland’s Jurassic sites are few butinclude possibly the most expanded and completesurface exposures of the Triassic-Jurassic

boundary in the UK within the Waterloo ASSI(Simms and Jeram 2006) – a section of very highpotential for future research.

ENGLAND

The establishment of English Nature (or EN) in1991 radically changed approaches to NatureConservation in England as the organisationembarked on a series of major reorganisations. As a consequence, the influence of the NatureConservancy Council’s former Earth ScienceDirectorate (or ‘Branch’) became absorbed into a larger Environmental Impacts Team. Unlike in CCW, geological control remained centralised in English Nature, with locally based conservationstaff – typically ecologically trained – directingmost site-based work and enquiries concerninggeological SSSIs to the head offices in Peter-borough. The removal of the original GeologicalConservation Review (GCR) site selection unit tothe JNCC in 1991, however, and its conversion intoprimarily a publishing organisation for descriptive‘GCR volumes’, effectively removed the scientificadvisory group for the organisation (and for CCWand SNH as well of course). As a result, theorganisation has increasingly made conservationdecisions based on its own internal procedures andpolicies.

Where appropriate expertise existed internally,such decisions retained scientific validity, butreluctance to involve external specialists in the process, except as a last resort, has led to a number of questionable decisions and consequentsite loss (e.g. of Tithonian, non-marine vertebrate-bearing levels at Upper Chicksgrove, Wiltshire andkey parts of Lower Jurassic sections near Watchet,West Somerset and at Robin Hood’s Bay andWhitby, North Yorkshire coast – all SSSIs). EnglishNature also allowed the last remaining traces ofexposures on the shore below Scarborough Castleto be covered by boulders without any consultationwith key specialists – the latest instalment of thesad story of the loss of the town’s famous geologicalheritage, as first highlighted by Leckenby in 1859.

A programme of site enhancement works,latterly referred to as ‘Face-Lift’ has, however,meant that a number of geological SSSIs have nowbeen cleared and sections re-exposed. Suchactivities could be of great benefit to science,although only occasionally have key workers on thesites been closely involved, or even informed.

ENGLAND WALES SCOTLANDNORTHERN

IRELAND

National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

The NatureConservationand Amenity

Lands(NorthernIreland)

Order 1985

Countryside and Rights ofWay Act 2002

NatureConservation

(Scotland) Act 2004

TheEnvironment

(NorthernIreland)

Order 2002

Fig. 2. Key national nature conservation legislation in the UK relevantto geological features, with dates of applicable Acts (N.B. Eachsuccessive Act adds to that in place and typically modifies rather thanreplaces pre-existing legislation).

The conservation of Jurassic heritage in the UK – a critical review of the role of governmental organisations and their effectiveness 169

As a consequence important areas have beenoverlooked and remain obscured, or made virtuallyinaccessible – as occurred when Kilmersdon RoadSSSI near Radstock in Somerset (a classic site forcondensed facies in the Pliensbachian) wasdeepened. Where geoscientists have been involved,there have been some important results as atseveral Aalenian-Bajocian SSSIs in Dorset andSomerset (SW England; Chandler et al. 2006).Inadequate supervision, however, has meant that at least one of these sites (South Main Road Quarry SSSI, Dundry, south of Bristol) is now reported tobe in a worse condition then previously as the aimsof the funded excavation were to access buriedammonite-rich levels and English Nature failed toensure that new and improved sections were left forfuture visitors to examine (S. Carpenter and A.Bentley, Avon RIGS Group, pers. com. 2007).

Inevitably, with a relatively small centrally-based group to advise on a large number ofgeological SSSIs in England, much of the actual sitework has been left to regionally based non-geolo-gists. Most significantly, this includes the setting of conservation objectives for the management of geological sites. Clearly a high level of geologicalknowledge may be required to correctly identify the geological features for which a site may benotified as an SSSI, including within the nationalstandards established by JNCC (where suchfeatures have been termed ‘manifestations’). Thesesite objectives guide the organisation’s approach to each site, so it is clearly crucial that they areappropriately developed. In the current system,however, a geological site is just as likely to have an objective to conserve the lichens obscuring thefiner points of the geology as it is to maintain theexisting geological features for which that site wasoriginally selected. Similarly, ecologically-trainedarea conservation officers, although dedicated andexperienced in their own biological fields, are oftennot in a position to assess aspects of site loss and damage, especially due to specimen collectingand under-recording of such damage is therefore a reality. Fortunately, however, certain local officessuch as that in Devon (SW England) have developedstrong relationships with local geological specia-lists and groups and the result is a very healthysymbiosis which not only benefits conservation, it also benefits science.

Despite these internal issues, however, therehave been many geoconservation successes and the1981 Act has been successfully used to defend andprotect a range of geological sites from loss due to

develop, including coastal defence works.Geoconservation legislation in the UK, however, has always remained focussed on site protectionmatters and although often quite successful in thiscontext, it usually fails to protect ‘moveable’geological heritage materials, such as fossils andminerals. When appropriately informed by scienti-fic knowledge, legislation such as the 1981 and 2002Acts can be quite successful in defending theboundaries of a conservation site. To address the issue of ‘moveable heritage’, especially issuesassociated with its collection, voluntary ‘codes ofconduct’ have often been developed in Britain,especially in England, in an attempt to addresssuch problems. Most of these codes are site or areaspecific although some have a more generalapplication, such as English Nature’s guide toresponsible fossil collecting (English Nature 1996).As there is typically no legislative backing for suchcodes, their effectiveness is debatable, althoughthey do at least establish some basic principles toguide site users and managers.

In a well known scenario within the SSSIs thatcomprise the Dorset and East Devon ‘JurassicCoast’ World Heritage site in southern England,such a code (Edmonds 2001) has been used as a substitute for direct intervention by conservationauthorities, in particular English Nature and theWorld Heritage management group of DorsetCounty Council. The area is world famous for itsJurassic rocks and fossils and has become the focusof intensive commercial fossil collecting activityand a related international trade in palaeonto-logical heritage. As discussed already by Page(2005b), rather than address the consequences ofthis activity, the Fossil Collecting Code has createda mechanism through which commercial activitycan flourish by effectively ‘giving away’ anycollected fossil, no matter how rare or unusual it is,to the collector providing that they report certaintypes of find. Virtually the only additional conditionis that UK institutions are allowed 6 months to raise the funds necessary to match whatevercommercial price is asked for in order to purchasethe specimen, should they so wish, before it is placed in a broader, potentially global marketplace. In addition, as the code’s guidelines virtuallydiscard whole classes of important fossils such asammonites, much material still remains unrecor-ded and is therefore lost to science without evenbeing recorded by the system in place (Page 2005b).

Analysis of the register of finds provides anindication of the level of this loss, when compared

170 Volumina Jurassica, Volumen VI

to scientifically gathered records from an adjacentroad building scheme. These figures indicate thatover 1300 specimens of particular scientific noteshould have been recorded from the World Heritagesite over the period 1999-2002. The actual reportedfigure of only 36 specimens over the period, evenallowing for a few unrecorded academic studies,demonstrates that the code has delivered littlescientific benefit and that the loss of palaeonto-logical heritage from the area continues to be verysignificant. Not surprisingly the publication of theseresults has not been welcomed by certain of theauthorities responsible for the management of theWorld Heritage site and certain benefitingcommercial collectors, with attempts being made todiscredit the analysis and prevent their furtherdissemination (see Page 2006). Criticisms publi-shed by others (e.g. Macadam 2000; Harrison andUpton 2002; Darmon 2006) have been accepted withno more grace and rebukes – often in print – havealways followed.

Even with figures up to 2005, only around 40 more specimens are recorded, around 30 ofwhich were small insect fragments, most of whichare reported to have been found amongst wastematerials as larger fossils were prepared in localworkshops (Page 2005b, 2006). By 2006 the numberof specimens recorded by the Dorset ‘Code’ stood at106, and although 5 specimens are noted as havingbeen donated to museums (‘including’ a collectionof 34 insects), 3 had been sold to museums and 6 sold privately and are therefore lost to science(Jurassic Coast World Heritage Team 2007, p.8).The latter report also includes a photograph of alocal commercial fossil collector in his workshopproudly holding a partial ichthyosaur skeleton withthe caption: “A potentially new species of ichthyosaur from Seatown. The West DorsetFossil Code continues to be successful.”. The current whereabouts of the specimen is notstated, however, neither is its price tag.

In reality, therefore, the Dorset Code effectively‘legalises’ the intensive commercial fossil collectingfrom (in theory) protected sites that had beentaking place for many years in the area. The econo-mic ‘benefits’ to the area of this trade were clearlyappreciated by Dorset County Council as it develo-ped the Code. English Nature, however, should havehad regard for the scientific consequences of itsimplementation as part of their national naturalheritage management responsibilities – they musttherefore bear full responsibility for the continuingloss of palaeontological heritage and related

damage that continues to take place within the‘Jurassic Coast’ World Heritage site.

Beyond the Dorset coast, this commerciallyfocussed approach to site management is havingconsequences elsewhere as sites in other areas aresubjected to similar intensive commercial explo-itation. The internationally important Hettangian-Sinemurian sections on the West Somerset coasthave suffered in particular, with several groupsconnected with fossil shops in Dorset having been‘caught’ excavating fossils without permission andseriously damaging sections in both the BlueAnchor to Lilstock Coast SSSI (Page 2004, 2005a;Webber 2001) and the Bridgewater Bay NationalNature Reserve (Larwood et al. 2001). ThroughoutDorset and Somerset ammonite-rich Aalenian andBajocian localities first made famous by S. S.Buckman in the late nineteenth and early twentiethcenturies – and subsequently used to establish thehigh-resolution time scale of Callomon andChandler (1990) – have been targeted and oftenseriously damaged. After years of successfullypromoting a respect for SSSIs in the UK, thisDorset-based attitude is now sending a highlydamaging message to fossil collectors and othersand creating a view that geological heritage in theUK is a freely exploitable resource – the BendrickRocks scenario in South Wales mentionedpreviously is certainly an example of such conse-quences.

Similar scenarios have been recorded through-out England where commercially attractive fossilsand minerals are present, but very locallyauthorities have taken a distinctly different stance,for instance mineral collecting from open moorlandof part of the Lake District requires a licence fromthe National Park Authority (see Townley 2003) andthe owner of the classic Triassic-Jurassic boundarysequences of the West Somerset coast nearWatchet, has taken legal steps to protect the pala-eontological resource of their site. In such cases,somewhat ironically, it is the landowner or managerthemselves that have taken direct action to protectthe geological resource, not the governmentalconservation authority.

In October 2006, English Nature combined witha number of other ‘countryside’ organisations toform ‘Natural England’. This ‘new’ organisation is now responsible for nature conservationadministration in England in combination with a broader ‘countryside’ function as in CountrysideCouncil for Wales and Scottish Natural Heritage.The beginnings of the new organisation do not bode

The conservation of Jurassic heritage in the UK – a critical review of the role of governmental organisations and their effectiveness 171

well for the future, however, with nature conser-vation issues seemingly being low on the its agendaand with geological conservation even lower. It is early days, however, and it is still hoped thatthe new organisation will develop closer links withthe scientific community and that the past policiesand procedures of English Nature will be reviewed– it is indeed ironic that in the 21st century in one ofthe countries that first established a systematicapproach to geological conservation, especially siteselection, significant damage to and losses ofJurassic heritage continue to be recorded…

The geology and palaeontology of EnglishJurassic sites is described by Benton and Spen-cer (1995), Benton et al. (2002, 2005), Cleal et al.(2001), Cox and Sumbler (2002), Simms et al.(2004), and Wright and Cox (2001) (see www.jncc.gov.uk for availability). Information on all SSSIs inEngland can be found at: www.naturalengland.org.uk

CONCLUSIONS

A series of general principles are relevant to the future of geological heritage conservation in the UK, based on the experiences of nearly 50 years of site selection and management:

1. The establishment of a new national scientificadvisory panel – for instance based on Geolo-gical Conservation Review (GCR) specialists – is essential to provide country agencies withrelevant and up-to-date scientific and contextualinformation on which to base site selection andmanagement decisions.

2. Funding for site based research is essential toimprove documentation, including of temporaryexcavations, and to better inform the conser-vation decision-making process. Such funding is not available from any conventional science-funding source in the UK as research councilsare typically focussed on high-profile scientific‘outcomes’ rather than an improved knowledgeof the UK geology and heritage.

3. Establishment of a periodic review by subjectarea of GCR networks and a ‘fast track’ processfor new SSSI designations is essential formaintaining the relevance of the GCR/SSSInetwork and for dealing with discrepanciesbetween Regionally Important Geological Sites(RIGS) and Sites of Special Scientific Interest(SSSIs) status.

4. A review of the geological management of theDorset and East Devon ‘Jurassic Coast’ WorldHeritage site is required, to reflect broadernational and international principles andpractice in geoconservation. Issues include:commercialisation of palaeontological heritage,management plans, zoning of conservationrequirements, enforcement of conservationlegislation, establishment of a representativescientific advisory group and a scientificallyinformed revision of the existing fossil collectingcode.

5. Legislative protection for moveable heritage is urgently required, based on sound scientificand heritage principles (e.g. based on the classi-fication of palaeontological heritage forconservation of the Geoconservation WorkingGroup of the International Subcommission onJurassic Stratigraphy – see Page 2004). Anysuch legislation should fully recognise thenecessity to sample for science and educationand the contribution of voluntary (i.e. amateur)activities to geosciences in the UK, as well asproviding the necessary articles to controlillegal collecting activities and prevent the loss,including through export, of specimens whichare important for scientific studies and as partof a national, natural heritage.

Acknowledgements

Information on issues within England has beenconfirmed under the provisions of UK Freedom ofInformation legislation. The assistance of EnglishNature in obtaining relevant documents isacknowledged. The authors would like to thank DrsGuillermo Meléndez (Zaragoza, Spain) and JohnWright (Royal Holloway, England) for their usefulcomments on the original manuscript and IanEnlander (EHS) and Colin Macfadyen (SNH) forcomments on the sections concerning, respectively,Northern Ireland and Scotland.

REFERENCES:

Arkell W. J. 1935-1948. A Monograph of theammonites of the English Corallian Beds.Monograph of the Palaentographical Society,London.

Benton M. J., Cook E. and Hooker J. J. 2005.Mesozoic and Tertiary fossil mammals and birds

172 Volumina Jurassica, Volumen VI

of Great Britain. Geological ConservationReview Series, 32, JNCC, Peterborough: 215pp.

Benton M. J., Cook E. and Turner P. 2002. Permianand Triassic Red Beds and the Penarth Group ofGreat Britain. Geological ConservationReview Series, 24, JNCC, Peterborough: 337pp.

Benton M. J. and Spencer P. S. 1995. Fossil reptilesof Great Britain. Geological ConservationReview Series, 10, JNCC, Peterborough: 386pp.

Callomon J. H. 1990. On the definition of the basalboundary stratotype of the Jurassic Oxfordianstage. In: G. Melendez (Ed.), 1st OxfordianMeeting, Zaragoza 1988. Publicaciones. SepazPaeontologia Zaragoza, 2: 119-127.

Callomon J. H. and Chandler R. B. 1990. A review ofthe ammonite horizons of the Aalenian-LowerBajocian stages in the Middle Jurassic ofsouthern England. Memoire descitiva dellaCarta geologica Italiana, 40: 85-112.

Chandler R. B., Callomon J. H., King A., Jeffreys K.,Varah M. and Bentley A. 2006. The stratigraphyof the Inferior Oolite at South Main Road Quarry,Dundry, Avon. Proceedings of the Geologist’sAssociation, 117, 4: 345-376.

Cleal C. J., Thomas B. A., Batten D. J. and CollinsonM. E. 2001. Mesozoic and Tertiary Palaeobotanyof Great Britain. Geological ConservationReview Series, 22, JNCC, Peterborough: 335pp.

Cox B. M. and Sumbler M. G. 2002. British MiddleJurassic Stratigraphy. Geological Conserva-tion Review Series, 26, JNCC, Peterborough:508pp.

Darmon C. 2006. Cause for Concern: the CharmouthLandslip, January 16 2006. Down to Earth, 54:15.

Davies J. 2006. Gwent Geodiversity Audit.Unpublished report to Countryside Council ofWales.

Edmonds R. 2001. Fossil collecting on the WestDorset Coast: a new voluntary Code of Conduct.In: M. G. Bassett et al., A Future for Fossils:National Museums and Galleries of Wales,Geological Series 19, pp. 46-51.

Ellis N. V. (Ed.), Bowen D. Q., Campbell S., Knill J.L., McKirdy A. P., Prosser C. D., Vincent M. A.and Wilson R. C. L. 1996. An introduction to theGeological Conservation Review. GeologicalConservation Review Series, 1. Joint NatureConservation Committee, Peterborough: 131pp.

English Nature. 1996. Position statement on fossilcollecting: English Nature, Peterborough, 2pp.

Grayson A. 1990. Lizzie the Lizzard wins a finalreprieve. New Scientist: 4 August 1990.

Harrison D. and Upton P. 2002. One of ourdinosaurs is about to go missing: outcry at lawsallowing Dorset fossil to be sold overseas. DailyTelegraph, 15 September 2002.

Jurassic Coast World Heritage Team 2007. TheJurassic World Heritage Site.

Larwood J., King A. and Bassett M. 2001.Postscript. In: M. G. Bassett, A. King, J.Larwood, N. A. Parkinson and V. K. Diesler(Eds), A Future for Fossils, National Museum ofWales, Cardiff: 139.

Leckenby J. 1859. On the Kelloway Rock of theYorkshire Coast. Quarterly Journal of theGeological Society of London, 15: 4-15.

Macadam J. 2000. Letters to the editor. Down toEarth, 32: 4.

Macfadyen C. J. 2006. Scottish Fossil CollectingCode. Palaeontological Association Newsle-tter, 62: 100.

Macfadyen, C. 2006. Missing Birk Knowles fossils:SNH calls it a day. Earth Heritage, 27: 8-9.

Morton N. and Hudson J. D. 1995. Field guide to theJurassic of the Isles of Raasay and Skye, InnerHebrides, NW Scotland. In: P. D. Taylor (Ed.),Field Geology of the British Jurassic. GeologicalSociety, London: 209-280.

Nature Conservancy Council. 1990. Earth ScienceConservation – A Strategy. Nature ConservancyCouncil, Peterborough, 84 pp.

Page K. N. 2004. The protection of Jurassic sitesand fossils: challenges for global Jurassicscience. Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia eStratigrafia, 110: 373-379.

Page K. N. 2005a. The Hettangian ammonite faunasof the West Somerset coast (south westEngland) and their significance for the corre-lation of the candidate GSSP (Global Stratotypeand Point) for the base of the Jurassic System atSt. Audries Bay. In: M. Hanzo (Coord.), ColloqueHettangien ∫ Hettange, de la science aupatrimoine, Hettange, 1-3 avril 2005: Nancy,Unviversité Henri Poncaré: 15-19.

Page K. N. 2005b. Reconciling science and heritageprotection: Recommendations from theGeoconservation Working Group of theInternational Subcommission on JurassicStratigraphy. In: M. Hanzo (Coord.), ColloqueHettangien ∫ Hettange, de la science aupatrimoine, Hettange, 1-3 avril 2005: Nancy,Unviversité Henri Poncaré: 129-133.

Page K. N. 2006. Report of the GeoconservationWorking Group, International Subcommissionon Jurassic Stratigraphy. International Subco-

The conservation of Jurassic heritage in the UK – a critical review of the role of governmental organisations and their effectiveness 173

mmission on Jurassic Stratigraphy,Newsletter, 33: 21-25.

Page K. N. and Prosser C. D. 1994. The role of“English Nature” in the conservation of sites ofstratigraphical and palaeontological interest.Geobios M.S. 17: 381-384.

Pavia G. and Enay R. 1997. Definition of theAalenian-Bajocian Stage Boundary. Episodes,20: 16-22.

Simms M. J., Chidlaw N., Morton N. and Page K. N.2004. British Lower Jurassic Stratigraphy.British Conservation Review Series, 30,JNCC, Peterborough: 458pp.

Simms M. J. and Jeram A. J. 2006. Waterloo Bay,Larne, Northern Island: A potential GSSP for thebase of the Jurassic System. VoluminaJurassica, 4: 297-298.

Townley H. 2003. Mineral Collecting andConservation – hammering out a future?Proceedings of a one day conference in Salford,16 April 2003. English Nature ResearchReport, 505: 110pp.

Webber M. 2001. The sustainability of a threatenedfossil resource: Lower Jurassic Caloceras Bedsof Doniford Bay, Somerset. In: M. G. Bassett et

al., A Future for Fossils: National Museumsand Galleries of Wales, Geological Series, 19:108-113.

Wierzbowski A., Coe A. L., Hounslow M. W., MatyjaB. A., Ogg J. G., Page K. N., Wierzbowski H. andWright J. K. 2006. A potential stratotype for theOxfordian-Kimmeridgian boundary (UpperJurassic). Staffin Bay, Isle of Skye, U.K..Volumina Jurassica, 4: 17-33.

Wimbledon W. A. P., Barnard A. and Peterken A.2003. Site management - a widely applicablepractical approach. In: M. Parkes Natural andcultural landscapes – The geological foundation.Proceedings Dublin Conference September2002, Royal Irish Academy: 187-192.

Wimbledon W. A. P., Benton M. J., Bevins R. E.,Black G. P., Bridgland D. R., Cleal C. J., CooperR. G. and May V. J. 1995. The development of amethodology for the selection of British sites forconservation. Part 1. Modern Geology 20: 159-202.

Wright J. K. and Cox B. M. 2001. British UpperJurassic Stratigraphy (Oxfordian to Kimme-ridgian). Geological Conservation ReviewSeries, 21, JNCC, Peterborough: 266pp.