Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180
- 199)
TUESDAY 23 MAY 2000
MS CAROL
HATTON AND
MR CHRIS
HOWE
180. The other side of this argument of introduced
species is re-introducing species that were perhaps present decades
or centuries ago. What is your view? Do you think that re-introducing
wolves is a good PR stunt and in biodiversity terms has no practical
value?
(Mr Howe) Re-introductions are not generally cost
effective. The cost of re-introducing species that may or may
not have survived if we had not damaged them to start with is
very questionable. If you look at the large blue butterfly in
Devon and Cornwall, it has cost an enormous amount of money. In
terms of value for money it is much better to put in measures
to conserve the nature and wildlife that we currently still have.
Having said that, species like large carnivores such as the wolf,
which is a good example, are obviously very high profile. People
relate to them very well.
Mrs Dunwoody
181. They relate to wolves?
(Mr Howe) They do, and funny as it may seem, we did
a study on large carnivores in the UK and there was an enormous
resonance amongst the group you might least expect, British teenagers.
182. There are some people who relate to AK47s.
You do not encourage them.
(Mr Howe) No, but I think the species that are part
of our historic heritage are exciting and people will be very
excited to know that somewhere in the wild of some parts of the
United Kingdom there are wolves.
183. As long as they are not living there I
suppose they are.
(Mr Howe) Surprisingly enough, our research has shown
that despite that, even in rural areas, amongst the age group
you would least expect there is a very positive attitude towards
large carnivores.
Mr Brake
184. So your reasons for re-introducing them
would not be to do with cost effectiveness and would not, by the
sound of it, be to do with biodiversity but would be to do with
the excitement value?
(Mr Howe) No, that is not quite the case. It does
cost money to manage habitats in the absence of top level predators
like the wolf. What we would like to see in WWF UK is to look
forward. We do not want to hark back to a golden past. We would
like to look forward to the future.
Mrs Dunwoody
185. So it is an economy measure?
(Mr Howe) It can be a valuable measure in the long
term to have a system running as near naturally as possible, and
large predators do have a part in that. What we have to say though
is that in any re-introduction you have to be very careful to
make sure that all the conditions are in place. Otherwise it turns
into a very non-cost effective process.
Mr Brake
186. Would large predators like the wolf have
a role to play in dealing with some of the introduced species
and perhaps getting round the PR problem that arises here, for
instance, if someone decides that all Canada geese should be culled
in suburban areas? I have rather a lot of them in my constituency.
(Mr Howe) Experience has shown that when you try and
do that you usually fail because nature and ecology are so complex
that it would be dangerous to rely on that. That is however no
reason to stop us trying to project forward and look for a future
wildlife landscape where they play a role.
Christine Butler
187. Certain alien species have really got hold
of parts of the UK habitat. I could mention two plants. One is
the sycamore and the other one is a kind of balsam. Its Latin
name is noli me tangere. It has completely taken over many
stretches of inland waterway embankments. When this kind of thing
has happened, and they are just two examples but fairly good ones,
to what extent do they actually change the habitat themselves
so that it would preclude the re-introduction of British species?
When you get a wood that has almost been taken over by sycamore
or when you get a wild area that is almost taken over by what
could almost be a mono species, what can we do about that? You
seem to be a little bit hands-off, a little bit delicate, about
tackling the growth of alien species which have landed here and
are thriving far more than they would in their native and original
landscape.
(Mr Howe) In the case of the sycamore some woods,
you are right, are dominated by them, and where there is native
biodiversity which is being damaged in those woods it is quite
possible to set up schemes to access woodland grant schemes for
example to develop local partnerships, manage those woods and
control, if not eradicate, those species, for the benefit of UK
biodiversity in that particular place. What is not practical is
to eradicate sycamore from the landscape. That is the balance
we would try to draw. Where there is a key site that has value
that is being damaged, then by all means there are measures you
can take to control it.
188. What you are talking about is trying to
preserve or conserve pockets of biodiversity, but we are losing
huge tranches of land, are we not, to one or two species?
(Mr Howe) I think we are losing UK biodiversity in
some places to introduced species, but in comparison to some of
the other threats to UK wildlife it is still small.
189. On the National Biodiversity Network, how
can that achieve its aim of co-ordinating the biodiversity monitoring
across the country? Can it happen?
(Mr Howe) Yes, I think it can happen. The National
Biodiversity Network is a fantastic vision for making a wealth
of information that is out there in people's heads and on card
indexes in their attic come to life for the benefit of the people
in the UK as a whole. It is very soundly set out and specified.
It has the advantage of being a multi-partner project. It has
an enormous variety of projects within it which address some of
those critical needs like a reliable standard for biological records,
about model local record centres which other people can learn
from to make sure that local schemes work properly, and this emphasis
on people participating in it. It is a tragedy that the funds
to fund it properly have not been forthcoming yet. Everything
is worked out and costed and we could be leading the world—
190. What you are saying is that we have got
terrific potential, there is a lot of interest in it, but it cannot
be co-ordinated without more money?
(Mr Howe) Yes. Even there the money is needed now
up front to kick it off. Once the National Biodiversity Network
is up and running those initial start-up costs obviously reduce.
I think there is an enormous opportunity there to make it happen.
191. What about the UK special areas of conservation,
SACs? Do you think that they will meet your concerns about the
inadequacies of the originally submitted list? If not, where do
you expect the problems to remain?
(Ms Hatton) Perhaps I could answer that one. The first
point I need to make is that we have not had in the public domain
yet the Government's proposal post the Atlantic meeting in Kilkee.
We have to reserve the final position until we have that. We understand
that it is going to be somewhere about the 20 June when we get
the final list in the public domain. Having said that, there are
some points I would like to make about the list as it stands.
As you rightly pointed out, there were a large number of concerns
about the original list. We were very critical of it. We launched
our own SAC shadow list in 1997 and WWF was represented and made
a large number of representations at the Atlantic meetings both
in Paris and in Kilkee last year. Our concerns rested on two principal
points. First of all, we did not think there were enough sites
on the list to ensure favourable conservation status for habitats
and species on the directive, and secondly that there was not
sufficient geographical representation of sites all over the UK
to make sure that the biological variation would be represented.
It was no surprise to us that at the Atlantic meeting the UK was
found insufficient for I think 39 habitats on the directive, that
is half of those occurring in the UK, and 14 species, that is
73 per cent of the total occurring in the UK. Since the Atlantic
meeting, WWF have had regular meetings with three out of the four
Government agencies, unfortunately not in Wales but we have met
in Scotland, Northern Ireland and England, and I have to say that
we are impressed, that there does seem to be a very rigorous process
going on post-Kilkee to address the insufficiencies in the list.
I understand that something in the region of 270 more sites are
going to be put forward in June and, since we started with 340,
that takes the list to over 600 so it is something like nearly
a doubling of the list.
192. You made a comment in your memorandum that
there were no buffer zones, they were just tightly focused areas
where there was a rich habitat but you were saying there ought
to be buffer zones around them, that the UK ought to be considering
habitat on the "landscape scale". Are you satisfied
that they might be considering the issue in those terms now?
(Ms Hatton) I do not think it is being considered
in those terms. I think there is a very clear difference of approach
between countries like the UK—and as you say we have taken
very much a site-specific approach, we have followed the boundary
of the SSSI where it occurs—and the approach which has been
taken by some of the southern Member States like Greece and Italy,
where they have included very large buffer areas. There are pros
and cons in each approach. The positive side of including those
buffer zones is that it gives you a lot more flexibility to restore
and recreate and try and make these areas bigger. Particularly
in coastal and marine areas that is very important where you have
other processes going on and maybe have some loss due to sea level
rise or coastal squeeze; you can actually accommodate that because
you have larger boundaries. The down side, and this is where I
do have some sympathy with the approach the UK has taken, is that
you have really quite draconian requirements under Article 6 of
the Directive which are quite difficult to apply if you applied
them to areas which have no existing nature conservation value.
So they have drawn boundaries very tightly so they can be very
sure to implement the legal requirements of the Directive. Our
approach would be that we do need to include more of a buffer
zone and that it would have been appropriate to draw boundaries
to take in some adjacent land so we could look to increasing these
areas.
193. Why do you think they did not do that?
Let us be honest, why do you think they did not do it? Was there
a commercial interest? What was it? Do you think the Countryside
and Rights of Way Bill could actually get to grips with restoration,
a subject you have come back to time and again?
(Ms Hatton) The first point on why they have not done
it, I am afraid I do not know that for sure. I can only speculate
that it is because the Government is bound by the requirements
of Article 6 of the Directive which require it to apply quite
stringent procedures in terms of assessment when proposals come
up and then being able to justify why they would turn something
down when there is no existing nature conservation value on that
site, so they are having to justify protecting an arable field
against something which might be necessary for the national need,
and they think they cannot justify that. But I think it would
be appropriate to ask the Government why they felt that approach
was the right one to take. The second point was—remind me?
194. About the Countryside and Rights of Way
Bill. That is coming before us again. What do you think its scope
is for restoration projects? Do you think there is any hope for
addressing the neglect of former sites?
(Ms Hatton) Certainly the proposals which are within
the Bill at the moment for looking at redressing neglect are very
good and they will help a great deal. That was one of our principal
concerns, how the regulations which were brought into the Habitats
Directive were not going to deliver what they needed to do under
the Directive, because neglect was not going to be addressed by
the existing measures within the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
So that is good. I think there are also proposals for restoration
orders which will also be very helpful. What I think the Countryside
and Rights of Way Bill does not do at the moment which is a great
pity is look at the value of something which we all know as wildlife
sites, and these are sites which are designated at regional and
local level but very often support populations of species which
are important internationally and nationally. We all know a vast
majority of our wildlife occurs outside SSSIs and protected areas,
so if wildlife sites had a statutory basis, we could use them
to make sure some of the interests listed in the Habitats and
Species Directive and the Biodiversity Action Plans receive an
enhanced degree of protection.
Mr Brake
195. You mentioned earlier that you had not
had a meeting with Wales, is that just because you did not co-ordinate
diaries or because there is no progress in Wales?
(Ms Hatton) I have to say it is the former. It was
simply not being able to get a meeting.
196. You have identified that apparently there
is a loophole to do with Regulation 55. Could you explain in what
way this loophole has demonstrated itself and what would you propose
should be done about it?
(Ms Hatton) Shall I just explain what the loophole
is?
Chairman: Yes please.
Mr Brake
197. In a sentence.
(Ms Hatton) Under Article 6 of the Habitats Directive
the UK Government has a requirement to make sure that within SACs
and SPAs habitats do not deteriorate and species are not disturbed.
In part, the Government has implemented that through Regulations
50 and 51 in the regulations and part of that is that where you
have an existing planning permission affecting a Natura 2000 site
there is a requirement to review that permission under Regulations
50 and 51. The sort of thing that might have covered would have
been mineral planning permissions, for example, in peat areas,
that is the sort of thing it would apply to. If you look at Regulation
55, there is a loophole to that requirement for review for permissions
which were granted as a result of a public general Act of Parliament.
The sort of thing which might be included there would be the Cardiff
Bay Barrage. Had Cardiff Bay been included in the Lower Severn
Estuary SPA, it would not have been required to have been reviewed
under regulation 55(5). There is nothing in the Directive itself
which says you do not have to review proposals which were granted
permission in that way, so we could not see where it came from,
and accordingly we submitted a complaint to the European Commission
in 1994 on this point and various other points as well. To be
honest, we actually thought it was a theoretical problem until
earlier this year when we were made aware the Environment Agency
were seeking to rely on this loophole in Yorkshire. Many of you
might know the Lower Derwent Valley, it is a fantastic area in
Yorkshire. The Derwent Ings are some very important lowland hay
meadows and they are actually being submitted at the moment as
a candidate SAC under the Habitats Directive and the whole valley
itself is classified as an SPA. Under Regulation 50 and 51 the
Environment Agency were reviewing various permissions which were
affecting the Lower Derwent Valley. One of the things we were
aware of was that the Barmby Barrage, which was constructed in
1976, was having an effect on the Derwent Valley Ings. For a start
the grass and composition of the meadows was changing, the financial
value of the hay crop was falling, and we were starting to get
species of birds which were characteristic of much wetter grasslands
on those meadows. So there were lots of reasons why it was important
to review the permissions affecting those areas and at that time
the Environment Agency were looking at water abstraction licences
more than anything else. They wrote to the Yorkshire Wildlife
Trust in November of 1999 to say they would not be reviewing the
Barmby Barrage because it was granted permission as a result of
a public general Act of Parliament and so therefore as a result
of Regulation 55 they did not have to review that permission.
Chairman
198. They could not review it, could they? They
could not change by regulation or action an Act of Parliament,
they would have to get fresh legislation. Are you suggesting there
should be some way round getting fresh legislation?
(Ms Hatton) On the basis of that, we applied for judicial
review of their decision to take the regulations on face value.
Our understanding of the situation is that really the regulations
go against what the Habitats Directive says and I think the Environment
Agency, even though they are bound by the regulations, are actually
bound by a higher authority which is the Directive and should
have actually reviewed that permission.
Mr Brake
199. Do you know whether the Environment Agency
made representations about this to try and ensure they could apply
Regulations 50 and 51 and disregard 55?
(Ms Hatton) I am afraid I do not know that. I guess
all this will come out when we have the substantive hearing. We
have actually been granted leave to apply for judicial review,
so when we get the hearing hopefully we will be able to find out
that that is the case. I would hope so, yes.
| 
