Environment The Real meaning of Conservation by David Gerry, former Canal Manager

During the last four years of the 1980s I was asked to give talks on the subjects of conservation of the Basingstoke Canal and the conservation conflicts of the canal. Before one such talk I looked up 'conservation' in a dictionary. Among several definitions it gave 'preservation'. So I looked that up as well and one of the definitions was 'conservation'. But do they mean precisely the same thing? I attended a British Waterways (BW) training course on 'conservation' and I am much happier with the definitions that were given by Peter White, BW's Architect. Conservation is a practical, caring, tangible concern for places, buildings, structures, amd landscape, leading to an appreciation of and an attraction for appearance, character, personality, atmosphere, scale and form. Conservation is about spaces and places, group value, totality that needs looking after. It is a positive stance with action to search for new uses for old forms. It is about conversion and re-use, it's friendly. Conservation is not about specimens or museum pieces, it is not a reaction to threat. Preservation is about individual buildings or trees perhaps, there are criteria for listing buildings by historic interest and architectural value. It is often defensive with experts to support arguments, such as against development. Preservation is retention almost regardless of circumstances. It is academic and expert. Many issues have elements of conservation and preservation in them. Canals certainly do. So we must ensure that the work that we do is in hamony with our heritage.

Our work is surrounded by legislation that is frequently in danger of conflicting with other legislation and occasionally does. On the Basingstoke Canal we have - Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) Ancient Monuments and Buildings of Historic or Archaeological Interest (Listed Buildings) Conservation Areas Heritage Sites Rights of Way Rights of Navigation and now much other legislation covering public safety, against flooding, preventing damage to other peoples property and so on. I don't doubt that in a world that is becoming increasingly conscious of the environment that more legislation will come, some to the canals advantage and some not. If legislation is in conflict it matters only when people form up behind one law or another and growl at one another. If lawyers cannot agree a way through the conflicting arguments then there are, in my view, only three options: Further legislation which is very expensive and occasionally the law is seen to be an ass. Litigation which is also very expensive and occasionally the law is seen to be an ass. Compromise. With legislation and/or litigation there is usually a winner, but there is also a loser who may be left with very little. The wise gambler will hedge his bets and go for compromise and that sounds like conservation to me.

Despite all the problems we are told that the general view is that the Canal Society and the two County Councils made a super job of restoring the canal. I suggest that conservation doesn't stop at the completion of restoration, indeed it is just beginning. If the restorers do not continue their attention to detail they will find that others will dictate how the canal should be used and managed and what happens within sight and sound of it. It is my belief that those of you who have been involved in this project have not done it for your grandchildren or your great grandchildren but have done it for 'All People for All Time'. You must now recruit your grandchildren to the cause of Conservation. [from BC News 144, March 1989] See also The Right of Navigation in the Society archives section. BACK

Last updated May 2000