Memorandum submitted by the Royal Society
for the Protection of Birds (F32)
Table 1
UPTAKE OF SALTMARSH SCHEME (MAFF FIGURES
1997)
|
| Payment rate £/ha
| No. applicants | Area (ha)
|
|
| Arable land | 525 (448 if set-aside)
| 3 in Essex 1 in Devon | 53.72 4.86
|
| Permanent grass | 250 |
0 | 0 |
|
5.23 The scheme is voluntary so even if greater land
owner interest could be generated, they may not be located in
the most appropriate areas for managed retreat. It has been proposed
that the scheme will be part of the Countryside Stewardship scheme
in future. If this goes ahead there is further concern about the
funding available for saltmarsh creation with already twice as
many applications for Stewardship as money available.
Recommendation:
(20) We suggest that the Saltmarsh Habitat scheme should be
reviewed to consider:
— the reasons for poor uptake, particularly the payment
levels, promotion by the Department and land owner attitudes;
— how can the scheme be made more effective to assist
with specific managed retreat schemes;
— alternatives which may be more effective such as the
purchase of land for managed retreat, so that land owners can
buy land elsewhere.
5.24 MAFF and the operating authorities could fund some
creation of freshwater and inter-tidal habitats as part of flood
defence schemes (see para 4.21). Some habitats contribute to flood
defence and river management, such as salt marsh in front of sea
defences, and wet grassland in washlands. In addition operating
authorities could justify expenditure on habitat creation by the
savings made to the public purse if some habitats are replaced
rather than avoiding damage altogether. This could be achieved
by taking a no net loss approach to flood defences affecting inter-tidal
habitats (Table 2).
|
