Monthly Archives: March 2026

Book reviews, Conservation

NUTS about the Rainforest…Brazil Nut… Lisboa & Prance, 2026

Nuts About The Rainforest, The Brazil Nut (Bertholletia excelsa Bonpl.) its role in the ecology, ethnobotany, and economy of Amazonian Brazil with an emphasis on the indigenous peoples. By Pedro B.L. Lisboa and Ghillean T. Prance. Published by Redfern Natural History Productions Ltd. 2026.  484pp  with dustjacket.

 A huge amount of time, energy and decades of exploration in the Amazon rainforest has gone into this magnificent work, compiled by two authors. The first is Pedro Lisboa who was Director at the Goeldi Museum in Belem, and Professor Sir Iain Prance who was Director of the Royal Botanic Garden, Kew 1988-1999. Both love trees; particularly this one. Between them they have published 43 books and about 700 scientific papers. For a while, Sir Iain seemed to be forever in Amazonia since he clocked up 39 expeditions and collected over 350 new species of plant; a rare and superlative record for field botany in the thick of it. He has 15 honorary doctorates.

But this tome is almost as heavy as the fruit of the tree that they have compiled, the Brazil Nut. So why this species?  The answer is because it is simply the ‘greatest symbol of sustainability and conservation in the Amazon Basin’. It certainly is distinctive and magnificent, an ‘eye-stopper’, towering over other vegetation, growing on a straight trunk and flowering amongst the canopy, 20-30 metres up. This is a killer nut, the size of a child’s head, that has claimed several lives and fractured skulls.

The nut is made of hard wood, and its evolutionary origin is fascinating, perhaps being so hard to avoid the ravaging skills of the megapods before man evolved, or simply to deter large herbivores, or both: a consequence of evolution.  The nut has a lid which detatches to allow the fruits to tumble out, and the whole fruit is a pyxidium, a device also shared by the delicate and humble Scarlet Pimpernel.

Cracking the nut in the wild has been achieved in a symbiotic relationship with the agouti  – the main disperser – which helps to spread the species. This rodent has such strong teeth it can gnaw its way to the softer centre of the nut. This is coevolution at it is best.  The nut it nutritious for indigenous peoples and explorers alike, for instance saving Humboldt men from starvation when they came up the Orinoco into Amazonia.

Pollination of the flowers is done by strong-bodied bees of five genera, able to fly up to 20km, thus increasing gene flow and ensuring good genetic variability. Germination takes a while; when Kew tried germinating the whole capsule it took up to six years to get a few seeds to germinate out of the pericarp. In the wild the hard nuts can lie around in the leaf litter for a few years before germination.

Knowledge of the Bazil nut came late to Europeans; the first mention being Carolus Clusius (1526-1609) who established it in Leiden, Netherlands. But this book digs very deep into its origins of the Brazil nut in the ordinary lives of the indigenous peoples of the Amazon. There are 331 indigenous lands in the ‘Legal Amazonia’, of an increasing population (730K in 2022), and most collect Brazil nut as part of their diet, usage (i.e. matting) and for sale. The authors describe the nut productivity of indigenous peoples along all the main river basins. There is no other book that has meticulously catalogued the profit and loss accounts, and vagaries of the world trade in these nuts. The book thus presents historical, ecological, anthropomphic information and commercial data on the species. It is no wonder that Robin Hanbury-Tenison, Founder of Survival International, has endorsed the book.

The nut crop is so important that models have been worked up to show that of the indigenous people could produce 34,608 tons of Brazil nuts a year, as an reliable economic gain. This has been worked out as a means of proving that this reliance of one single food source may restrain the progressive loss of the rainforest by preserving and conserving rainforest. After the nut have been taken from the wooden capsule a modern usage of the capsules has been to make organic bioplastics.

Harvesting of nuts is done from existing rainforest trees, so the harvest is entirely sustainable. We learn than there are no plantations in the Amazon, that there are great swathes without the species, and that its origin is a little obscure, there are conundrums and enigmas and false declarations and there is a lack of fossils which is an evolutionary botanical mystery.

These two botanists have ‘cracked’ the story of Brazil nuts…..yes, they have become nuts about the nuts on this botanical literary expedition. There is nothing quite like this botanical masterpiece on such a key rainforest species. The book has many colour photographs, and there is a General Index, Index of Scientific Names, Index of Indigenous tribes cited, and  a Glossary.

 Every botanical and ethnobotanical library in the world should have a copy.

Conservation

Rother District Council Draft Local Plan, 2025-2042

Draft Local Plan 2025-2042. Regulation 18 Consultation: Development Strategy and Site Allocations. Interim Sustainability Appraisal in support of the Regulation 18 stage consultation on the Development Strategy and Site Allocations January 2026    209 pp

Summary

Overall, not a great slew of new nature legislation, but too much reliance on BNG sorting everything out and ticking the box for ‘conserve and enhance’ which goes back decades.

There are more of the same paragraphs on nature conservation to look after town and country, protected areas, especially in proximity to UK and EU sites, confusing advice on buffers around Ancient Woodland (upped to 50m), new enthusiasm for corridors, continued promotion of BNG but retreating from higher than national mandatory levels, so overall a continuation of what was already described in Rother and plenty of leeway for negotiation with the use of the word ‘seeking to’ which is not following the proscribed format of UK Policy Paper ‘Biodiversity 2020’. Very little on Dark Skies policies, despite Rother’s Climate Strategy published six years ago.

There is great reliance on dealing with ecological issues in a colour-coded impact design, where neutral effects are deemed preferred options, and red is the worst impact. However, with enhancements and BNG the issues are addressed.  So they say.

Readers of the earlier Local Plan will not be surprised to see repetition of all the applicable policies for the protection of habitats and species. Very little is offered new.

Perhaps there is a single gain for the proposal for Swift boxes on new developments, but Rother have missed out House Martin nest cups on all new builds, as House Martins are declining too.

‘Conserve and Enhance’ legal obligations  – sweet words from the 1980s no less!

On the long-established issue to ‘conserve and enhance’ habitats and species, there are five references, four of them are for nature conservation, the other is to conserve archaeological sites.  Under ‘Biodiversity’ RDC added a third dimension ‘protected, conserved and enhanced’ to ‘enhance priority species and habitats, and increase local biodiversity’. Also, to ‘achieve a net gain in biodiversity. And ‘protect and enhance ecological networks.’  It is good the RDC state that one should ‘Conserve and enhance the High Weald National Landscape in line with the aims and objectives of the 2024-2029 Management Plan’ especially as they single out on place in particular, around Bewl Water, and that they also have another Duty – for Protected Landscapes (Under SA Objectives).

Take-aways:

  • So, no change in wanting to ‘conserve and enhance’ where needed, and, in the 83% of RDC that is in the AONL, then follow the latest AONL Management Plan.
  • RDC legally must proscribe that a net gain has to be achieved (they do not declare any % gain) – just that net gain should be achieved. Nationwide it is mandatory for 10%. They have rowed back on previous local increase to 20%.
  • They also seek to enhance ecological networks – no particular change there but more emphasis than usual.
  • No mention of Buglife’s initiative to connect habitats especially for bees –- Bee Lines – hat many councils have adopted.  And routes for pollinators, action for pollinators….Gov.uk’s initiative on ‘stepping stones’, ‘joined-up habitats’   More on this please.

Wellbeing and Community

There are up to 76 citations on wellbeing, which is beginning to be mentioned increasingly in UK legal texts and guidances. In Rother it is usually in the context of ‘Health and Wellbeing’.   So get out there and enjoy the countryside. The Council are behind you.

Community is cited 40 times involved with ‘delivery of services’ to communities to improve connectivity, health and wellbeing. Nothing about financially aiding communities, only getting them well connected.  Roll on better (i.e. reliable) bus services and EV connectors as promised a while ago, maybe two years ago. The Recs await installation.

Development on Allocated Sites

The problem is there is no more brownfield in some rural parishes, it has to go on greenfield.

 Take-aways:

  • There is no brownfield in Crowhurst, probably none in Catsfield. So all allocated sites are on greenfield.
  • It is interesting that Rother will ‘seek to locate’ development on lower grade agricultural land, i.e. NOT on BMV (Best Most Valuable Land) i.e. not on Grade 1 & 2 soils. I am not sure that all Allocated Sites have been assessed for soil grading as many are greenfield. All three sites in Catsfield and all three in Crowhurst are on greenfield of indeterminate soil grading.

Biodiversity and Protection of Habitats

Take-aways:

  • Although there is a commitment under SA 2. (above) to protect, conserve and enhance biodiversity’ the Commentary is very weak, for it admits that ‘some biodiversity may be impacted by development.’ Well yes, and as the small print says, an opportunity for BNG.
  • RDC seeks to achieve a neutral impact of any development (yellow above).

It does not indicate that significant impacts can be mitigated.

Take-aways:

  • Good to see that LWS (Local Wildlife Sites) could potentially be affected by development, and the threat to them is recognised. Always a thorny issue in planning applications, as the law is not as strong for sites such as UK SSSIs and EU Natura Sites (SPA, SAC, Ramsars) all of which are applicable round here (Catsfield and Crowhurst).
  • Networks and corridors are recognised, well promoted for the first time. Good to see. We proposed all that for the Crowhurst Solar Farm and it was approved!
  • Appropriate management is recommended to ensure that there is no significant adverse impacts occur on ANY UK and EU Natura sites, as well as anywhere within the AONL. Ditto above for Crowhurst.
  • All good proposals – the reality will be how it will be applied.

 Adjacency to Ancient Woodlands, and Priority Habitats

Take-aways:

  • RDC seem to be going for a 50m buffer away from i) Ancient Woodlands, ii) TPOs or iii) Priority Habitats.
  • Building within 50m of the above, is deemed to be just Minor Negative, which seems to suggest that construction is possible, but would need to be mitigated. However, it goes against their aim (see previous) of seeking to get a Neutral impact – thus below 50m is something that would not be tolerated. Confusing and Contradictory.
  • The colour coded table suggests that if a site is within 50m of an Ancient Woodland it can be mitigated successfully with a bit of enhancement or BNG. Not that it should not be permitted within 50m.

Interim Sustainability Appraisal in support of the Regulation 18 stage consultation on the Development Strategy and Site Allocations Draft Rother Local Plan 2025 – 2042. 209pp

  1. 16 Fig 4. SA Framework…

Under Energy and Water Consumption:  no mention of, or inclusion of, the need to ensure that a new development will not negatively impact upon the ground water of a nearby Nature 2000 site. NB. Natural England define ‘nearby’ as up to 12km.  If a Natura 2000 site is a wetland then development of housing would have to prove that none of the groundwater waters are mopped up to the detriment of the protected EU habitats. Protection of Pevensey wetlands come to mind.

Air pollution has not been properly addressed, as I have seen other councils supporting the law regarding proximity to EU site, even when ‘nearby’/

Re. p. 157 Methodology for proposed site allocation, Infrastructure needs:

Under Green and blue infrastructure, and flood defence.:  Biodiversity and nature conservation

Comment:   Under ‘Minor Negative’ column, Rother are proposing that if a site is located in an IRZ (Impact Risk Zone) that relevant usage, residential, or commercial; would be OK, just Minor Negative.  This translates to just do a BNG and it will be mitigated sufficiently.

I am not sure this is best conservation strategy to protect nature properly. Mitigation is not always the solution to get round the environment constraint. Leaving the habitat alone in an IRZ is sometimes best.

 Interim Consultation Statement   Only one reference to ‘Ancient’ (i.e. woodlands)!

Under Biodiversity    Comment: the objective is well stated, protect, conserve and enhance. But nothing new.  Their options are to enhance conservation interests, increase local biodiversity, achieve a net gain and protect ecological networks.

This section offers nothing new, that had not previously been proposed by Gov.uk over the last few decades.

 Under Figure 7: SA scoring key Symbol Explanation

How shall I put this.

It is sad that ecology has come to this. Colour-coded deference to the natural world that gets in the way of development. And how to manage it. Agreed Rother have to find a way, and this is one way, albeit formulaic. They have few options. None easy.

To be in a RED zone – just mitigate with enhancements and BNG to prove it!  Is that the long-term solution for nature conservation ?

Sure, forever, we, ecologists have assessed an impact on the environment as either negative or positive environmental impact or declared that an impact is significant or not significant. And we have conserved and enhanced and BNG’d to prove that a gain is actually a gain.

If we planted a one kilometre native hedgerow that would be a significant and positive environmental gain. It has always been.  Why need to prove it with an algorithm?   You can see it by satellite that it is a new hedgerow. A gain. I have colleagues who have planted woodlands. You can admire the new woods on satellite maps. A gain for sure. Without algorithms to prove it.

Rother have climbed down on to ask for 20% net gain instead of the nationwide mandatory 10% gain.

New policy (N1): They say that LPAs should not attempt to levy higher biodiversity net gain requirements than the statutory level, except on specific site allocations where fully justified. But measures to support biodiversity, including “swift bricks”…The addition of swift bricks is to be applauded.

House Martin artificial cups should also be included as it is a Red Species under severe decline.

With Rother seeking to build 15,504 houses over the next 17 years, that is 15,504 house footprints (at 67.8sqm a footprint) lost, mostly on greenfield land, lost permanently with potential increased flooding issues.

Interim Sustainability Appraisal (January 2026) Ends on 23 March 2026 (6 days remaining)

 Development Strategy and Site Introductions, Rother District Local Plan 2025 – 2042 Interim Consultation Document, pp38

Re. Strategic Spatial Objectives, list 12 Objectives. None are for Dark Skies despite  Rother’s Climate Strategy, 2020 saying this was an objective to achieve, six years ago!

There are a few AONL parishes working towards International Dark Skies Community Certification and their continued efforts for the wellbeing of everyone have not been recognized or promoted. In many cases residents are ahead of the council in their furthering the benefits of Dark Skies.

From Rothers’ Climate Change Strategy 2020  Objectives

  1. The built environment will be low carbon and climate resilient.
  2. The need to travel will be reduced, those that do will be on foot, bike, public transport, or in a low/zero carbon vehicle.
  3. The district will produce less waste and support a thriving circular economy.
  4. Nature will be in recovery across the district.
  5. Clean, renewable energy will be produced locally.

Six years on. Most objectives are not realised. Recovery has been painfully slow, and energy is not yet produced locally.

NPPF comments

Suggested change from “great weight” to “substantial weight” on the importance of conserving and enhancing natural beauty.  Yes, this is good.  Are they trying to say ‘significant’?

I am not sure I found the answers to the following two topics:

  • Clarification sought of what constitutes an ‘acceptable loss’ of trees, woodlands and hedgerows.
  • Whether the use of the Capital value Asset for Amenity Trees (CAVAT) tool will provide a justification for avoidable tree loss.

Ends.