Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200
- 216)
TUESDAY 23 MAY 2000
MS CAROL
HATTON AND
MR CHRIS
HOWE
Chairman
200. This does have very considerable implications
for private bills before Parliament. Given that there are more
private Acts of Parliament than there are public Acts of Parliament,
basically you are saying the Directive might need all of those,
or parts of all of those, private Acts of Parliament to be repealed.
Would that not be a mammoth task?
(Ms Hatton) Very possibly but the Directive does not
give you that exception, so I do not see why that regulation was
introduced. I think it would be a very large undertaking but it
is interesting that the Northern Ireland permissions do not have
any such reference to private or public Acts of Parliament; I
guess they would not. Yes, it might be, but at the end of the
day if that is what the Directive requires, that is what you have
to face implementing.
Mr Olner
201. Can I ask what priority do you think should
be given to protecting biodiversity outside protected sites?
(Mr Howe) I think the first thing to say is that most
of the UK's wildlife occurs outside protected sites. If you just
take SSSIs as an example, in Scotland you have about 4½ million
hectares of what we call semi-natural vegetation—vegetation
which is not developed or intensively farmed—and only 900,000
hectares of that is SSSIs, about 11 or 12 per cent of the land
area, and it is only one-fifth of the semi-natural vegetation.
In England we have about 20 per cent semi-natural vegetation cover
and only one-third of that is SSSI. The same pattern is repeated
in Northern Ireland and Wales.
202. So what priority should be given, in your
view, to protecting biodiversity outside this small amount of
protected sites?
(Mr Howe) Firstly, there is the habitat issue. Most
habitat is outside SSSIs, so if we are going to conserve the UK's
biodiversity as a whole we need to give at least equal consideration
to the biodiversity which occurs in the strictly protected areas.
Of course, the strictly protected areas, the SSSIs and candidate
SACs, should be protected and the Countryside and Rights of Way
Bill is looking to do that but most of the wildlife is not there.
I have just talked about habitat for the moment and of course
when it comes to species, many of the mobile species—otters,
skylarks, golden eagles, loads of the butterfly species as well
as a lot of plant species—are occurring outside protected
areas.
203. So you would like the whole of the UK to
be a protected area?
(Mr Howe) On the contrary, what I think we need to
have is measures which allow us to conserve the UK biodiversity
outside protected areas. There are clearly several different ways
of doing that. One is the Wildlife Site Systems which operate
across the UK, often set up in partnership with local authorities,
wildlife trusts and other local organisations, and they have gone
ahead and identified where most of the rest of the habitats in
particular occur outside SSSIs.
204. Do you think those sites ought to receive
statutory protection?
(Mr Howe) It is important that wildlife sites are
recognised for their importance. What we have to resist, I think,
is making them a so-called lower tier of SSSI. The SSSI system
is representative of the important habitats in the UK and looking
back through the methodology that the various agencies over the
years have used to identify and select them, it is clearly based
on looking within an area of search and identifying the best examples
of those habitats.
205. Could I query with you just how robust
you think those wildlife sites are? I hope I am not misquoting
him but I think Mr Williams said in the last bit of evidence to
us that they were struggling to engage with some local authorities
about realising the importance of biodiversity and the importance
of that with wildlife sites.
(Mr Howe) There are still some gaps across the UK
where information is inadequate, but I think largely through these
local partnerships, and it is generally wildlife trusts and local
authorities although others can be involved as well—
206. Could you geographically within the UK
point out where the gaps are?
(Mr Howe) Until recently we have had gaps in various
areas of the Midlands—Derbyshire I think was quite poor—but
in general there are programmes to address that. We still have
some gaps in areas of Scotland knowing where the best vegetation
is, but the overall figures for the UK which I have just quoted
show that despite what we know or do not know about the details
of wildlife site systems most of the habitat is outside SSSIs,
for the very reason that the method of identifying SSSIs only
identified representative examples of the best habitats. So you
can have situations like in Cornwall, for example, where WWF has
a project with the Cornwall Wildlife Trust identifying the locations
of all the habitats and species which are on the Habitats and
Species Directive, the European legislation, where they exist
and how they relate to protected areas. We have situations where
there are thousands of hectares of lowland heathland of European
habitat importance which are not even SSSIs. So the balance is
that there is a lot of wildlife outside—
Chairman: We do need to watch our time.
Mr Olner
207. Can I ask whether you are satisfied that
the changes announced by the Agriculture Minister in December
last year will be adequate to address the problems posed for biodiversity
by agricultural practices?
(Mr Howe) We welcome the announcements but we do not
think they go far enough.
208. If you do not think they go far enough,
what percentage of farmland do you think needs to be covered by
agri-environment schemes?
(Mr Howe) We would like to see 70 per cent of farmers
take up agri-environment schemes.
209. Is that 70 per cent of farmers or farmland?
(Mr Howe) Of farmers. We think it would be better
to look at a living working countryside on a business basis so
that individuals have the choice to operate their businesses in
an environmentally friendly way. That is clearly not possible
at the moment with the limited funding under agri-environment
schemes. Even with the proposed modulation announcement as it
is, it only goes up to about 260 million for schemes in 2006-07
and even that would only allow between 30 and 40 per cent of farmers
to take it up.
210. So what additional proposals can you bring
to the scheme of cross-compliance? Is it just additional money
or is it something that is missing which can be brought in?
(Mr Howe) Two things. Firstly, I think modulation,
which was the first option which the Government has taken up,
should be extended. We think there should be at least £600
million allocated to agri-environment by 2006 as opposed to the
Government's proposed £300 million. We also think modulation
should be modified because it unduly penalises small farmers at
the moment, it is applied uniformly across all farms so we think
that is unfair and we think small farmers should benefit more.
211. You have mentioned the 70 per cent of farmers,
can you perhaps narrowly define that a little more and focus it
a little more?
(Mr Howe) This goes on to the next point which is
cross-compliance, which is the other option which the Government
has not taken up which we think should be taken up. We think the
agri-environment schemes should be focused on farmers who have
looked after their environment. They should not be unduly penalised
for it. At the moment it seems more cost effective to restore
lost habitat. I think those are the two main points. Cross-compliance,
of course, is an option which has been taken up by many other
European countries, there are lots of elements of the existing
codes of good agricultural practice which could easily be taken
and adapted for a cross-compliance scheme and we think the Government
should take those up straight away.
Chairman
212. Do you see as being more important human-created
habitats or natural habitats?
(Mr Howe) Most of the habitats in the UK have some
human influence on them, and of course they can be very valuable
for wildlife, particularly in the farmed landscape. In the wilder
areas of the UK, perhaps we should see some schemes which allow
us to go back to a wilder landscape over large areas, but in the
majority of the intensively farmed landscape then clearly wildlife
can only benefit if we have a human-created or a heavily influenced
landscape, so talking about chalk grasslands or coppiced woodlands,
those are the things which always need a strong human influence
to keep the wildlife there.
213. Should natural habitats be allowed to evolve
or should they be frozen in some time warp which favours particular
species?
(Mr Howe) We need to get a balance. It would be fantastic
to see some large areas in the UK where nature could take its
course, and I think that would bring us into good comparison with
countries like the Netherlands where they have undertaken such
examples, and it would be a fantastic attraction for people; some
recreated areas in the Fens or some large upland forests, these
would be absolutely fantastic and nature could take its course,
and would be very cost effective to run as well. They definitely
have their place in our landscape.
214. If it is logical for natural ones to evolve,
why is it not logical for the human-created habitats to evolve?
(Mr Howe) What do you mean by "human-created
habitats"?
215. The ones you were just referring to like
farmland areas, the Downs. Is there not a logic in allowing some
of those to revert?
(Mr Howe) There is, and it would be a very valid argument
if we had the large areas of habitat that we used to have in the
UK where those habitats, those grasslands, glades and coppiced
woodlands, could be maintained by natural processes, but the truth
is that we do not have those areas any more especially in the
lowland intensively farmed areas of the UK. There is no opportunity
for nature and natural patchiness of habitat to occur, so if we
are looking to keep the biodiversity which is associated with
those areas we will have to manage it for now. If we had a large
enough area where natural processes, herbivores and large carnivores
could operate, then perhaps there would be less of a need to intervene.
216. How do you then balance the rights between
one particular set of species' habitats against what it might
evolve into in a relatively short period of time if you did not
continue to interfere?
(Mr Howe) I think you have to look at the national
and international importance of the species and habitats which
occur there and to say that we have a responsibility both to nature
and to the people of the UK to keep those habitats, keep those
species, for now until such time as we are confident we have a
large enough area where those natural processes can occur on their
own and we have to intervene less.
Chairman: On that note, thank you very much
for your evidence.
| 
