House of Commons - Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs

Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Twentieth Report

UK BIODIVERSITY

MONITORING AND RESEARCH

33. Biodiversity monitoring and research are vital to demonstrate where the problems exist (or are developing), what progress is being made by the various initiatives and whether progress is sufficient to meet the targets set.[72] Thirty-four per cent of the plans published in 1995 still report problems with 'insufficient information'.[73] As with any monitoring process, there are debates about quite what should be measured to assess the quality of biodiversity.[74] Some witnesses suggested that current efforts to monitor the populations of species were measuring the wrong thing: that we should focus on the amount of semi-natural habitat or some other proxy for biodiversity.[75] We did not attempt to reach a conclusion on such a scientific debate but, certainly, we agree that monitoring biodiversity must be seen as a means to an end in relation to biodiversity policy.[76] Research and monitoring must never become a substitute for action.

34. Historically, the monitoring of biodiversity has been largely carried out by volunteers. As a result, the data on the more charismatic types of species (for example, a small selection of mammals and many birds) are rather good whereas relatively little is known about the fortunes of the less charismatic (for example, insects, perhaps excluding butterflies).[77] In general terms, then, monitoring has been rather patchy (both in terms of geographical coverage and biological comprehensiveness[78]) and this is exacerbated by the absence of a network to collect biodiversity data and ensure access to that data. Current efforts are now attempting to overcome these problems and the main mechanism for doing this, the National Biodiversity Network, was launched in 1996 after the UK Biodiversity Action Plan Steering Group Report. The concept has evolved since then and the vision is now of "a network of national and local data holders, working to common standards, collating data to meet the needs of key users and making it widely accessible."[79] Accessibility will be provided through a database which can be reached via the Internet. A successful National Biodiversity Network is required to ensure that the whole Biodiversity Action Plan process is heading in the right direction and that the plans can be tweaked and priorities changed according to what is actually happening.

35. The aims of the National Biodiversity Network are undoubtedly good ones but witnesses were disappointed with the progress to date: it was described as having been "slow and piecemeal" and "painfully slow".[80] Given that the vast majority of the work is being carried out by volunteers[81] and will continue to be so, the main costs involved in establishing the National Biodiversity Network will be set-up costs and, in later years, the annual costs should diminish.[82] It is, therefore, all the more disappointing that many witnesses were concerned that the National Biodiversity Network would fail due to inadequate resources.[83] The Government has recently committed £250,000 to the development of the National Biodiversity Network but the National Biodiversity Network Trust note that "the establishment of the network and its continued maintenance and extension will require far greater resources"[84]. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds estimated that the National Biodiversity Network would need around £20 million over the next ten years.[85] A successful National Biodiversity Network is a linchpin of the whole Biodiversity Action Plan and we are concerned that it may fail due to inadequate resources. We recommend that the National Biodiversity Network be provided with greater funding for the next five years, to establish the network.

36. Another continuing problem with the National Biodiversity Network is the variable commitment found in Government Departments and academic institutions.[86] Witnesses noted that tradition had always dictated that any biodiversity information or data were not made publicly available: data are kept so that you can gain the kudos from publishing it at some later date. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee called for a "change of culture" to overcome this.[87]: This applies to Universities and Research Councils[88] as much as Government Departments and local authorities. Some Government Departments (notably Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Forestry Commission and the Ministry of Defence[89]) have apparently rejected full participation in the National Biodiversity Network in favour of their own systems of data. This is unhelpful. We are disappointed that the National Biodiversity Network cannot rely on the commitment of all government Departments. We can see no good reason for individual Departments keeping data to themselves. National biodiversity policy relies on freely available, good quality data: this prerequisite must not be blocked by the Government or academic institutions. Any data collected as a result of the use of public funds must be freely available to all and should be placed on a national biodiversity website.

37. With the full co-operation of those collecting or owning the data, one of the main pillars of a successful National Biodiversity Network will be an invigorated network of Local Record Centres. These are partnership projects which are often led by the local authority and bring together biodiversity information, providing access to a range of organisations. At present, there are just 11 such centres and the performance of local record centres was described by the Minister as "extraordinarily fragmented."[90] Many witnesses agreed[91] and it is clear that the network of local record centres needs to be expanded.[92] The question is where the responsibility for doing this should be placed. English Nature said that:

Similarly, the Wildlife Trusts noted that "many local authorities do not perceive that they have any need for biodiversity information and are therefore reluctant to work with Local Record Centres."[94] The only realistic point at which support can be offered to the centres is through local authorities. It is clear that the network of local record centres should be expanded and receive greater support. We recommend that county councils, unitary authorities, metropolitan councils and the Greater London Authority be given a duty to ensure that local record centres are provided. The Government should consider what additional resources will be required to fulfil this duty.

Research Requirements

38. Witnesses noted that, in some instances, further research was needed to determine exactly what actions were required to aid a particular species.[95] The Wildlife Trusts noted that the Biodiversity Action Plans "have identified a lack of understanding of the ecological needs of a particular species as a problem or lack of methods of monitoring those species or lack of information about them."[96] This is particularly the case for marine biodiversity. Without adequate information about the behaviour of a species or the inter-linking of species, inappropriate or harmful actions could be taken. Unfortunately, a consistent theme to emerge from witnesses was dismay that the priorities of the research councils were failing to reflect the priorities of the Biodiversity Action Plans.[97] Indeed, one witness described the Natural Environment Research Council as "rather aloof" from the need for applied science to support the Biodiversity Action Plans.[98] We recommend that the Research Councils, particularly the Natural Environment Research Council, place a priority on funding practical research which fills gaps in the knowledge required to achieve the aims of the UK Biodiversity Action Plans. Action must be taken to address this swiftly because of the delays between providing funding for research and the availability of results.

Funding

39. Funding for work on biodiversity comes from both government and private sources. Many witnesses emphasised the contribution made by voluntary organisations and some noted the efforts made by those involved in field sports. Dr Potts of the Game Conservancy Trust described the contribution of game bird conservers to biodiversity as "fantastic"[99] and emphasised that the sensitive management carried out by those involved in field sports was of benefit to many species. He stressed that the reduced inputs of insecticides and herbicides that can be associated with game bird management are of benefit to biodiversity as a whole. Similarly, the Country Landowners Association told us that the total annual investment in field sports in the UK was around £6 billion and that the contribution of field sports to good wildlife management was "substantial ... and an important one"[100]. The Association went on to emphasise that this work comprised a large voluntary contribution from those involved in field sports to the cause of biodiversity.

40. As one might expect, many witnesses called for additional funding to be found for the various component parts of biodiversity policy.[101] The Government argue that English Nature has already received additional funding of £11 million in the last two years, £3.3 million of which was specifically to fund the Biodiversity Action Plan process. In evidence to the House of Lords Committee last year, English Nature suggested that it required £20 million a year to meet the immediate needs of Sites of Special Scientific Interest management. Other statutory bodies, such as the Countryside Council for Wales have made it clear that they do not have adequate funding to fulfil their biodiversity commitments.[102] Various recommendations we make in this report have associated funding requirements and, where this is the case, we note the importance of tying in resources. We did not, however, attempt to analyse in detail the full picture of funding for biodiversity. Nevertheless, a few principles did emerge.

41. Possibly the most important area to find additional funding for is local authority biodiversity work. By having just one person in each local authority, the cause of biodiversity could be significantly boosted. As Professor Colin Reid noted:

"I know from my own experience ... you can make limited progress through the good will of busy people in other bodies and volunteers doing things, but when you have a full-time project officer, that is when you can actually make big steps forward, making the connections, making what is going on known to the public, getting bodies involved to capture the good will, the expertise that is there. For comparatively small sums you can often, by bringing in all these things, have a big impact."[103]

The Association of Local Government Ecologists told us that there is a 'multiplier' effect in which major benefits can result from very limited expenditure at local authority level:

"It is important, certainly within the best value context, to think about the multiplier effect. One officer in the council probably can attract in well over 100 per cent again what that person costs the authority; and very often I should think it is many times that amount. There is a multiplier effect. Once you have got somebody in they can organise and bring down further resources."[104]

42. The Minister focussed on the "need to enthuse" and emphasised the role of voluntary groups in the biodiversity process. However, the enthusiasm of voluntary groups for pushing forward biodiversity plans generally could be exhausted if these groups feel that this commitment is not mirrored by Government at all levels.[105] Local authorities are key in this and relatively modest amounts could pay big dividends: even £50,000 for each local authority could effectively ensure a full network of biodiversity officers working to enthuse their colleagues, local businesses and the local community. If local authorities are to be given duties relating to local record centres, local wildlife sites and furthering the action plans, some additional funding must be supplied by central Government. We recommend that the Government provide an additional £10 million to local authorities. This funding should ensure that the authority provides a biodiversity officer, or enables an equivalent service to be agreed with other interested parties, with responsibility for the local wildlife site register and the local record centre.

43. Whilst it is true that additional funding is required for biodiversity, there is an important potential resource in the existing funding streams. Total annual subsidies to agriculture total more than £2.5 billion, of which spending on agri-environment schemes accounts for just £160 million or 6%.[106] With progressive diversion of greater amounts of the agricultural spend towards biodiversity aims (specifically, priorities for the Biodiversity Action Plans), this stream could cover many of the gaps in biodiversity funding. This point was explicitly made by officials from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions who noted that:

107

Baroness Young, Chair of English Nature told us that:

108

We return to the issue of targeting agri-environment spending later.

44. Although there is clearly a need to divert greater resources to the cause of biodiversity, we are concerned that there is limited scrutiny of the way in which funding is currently spent. In particular, we believe that English Nature needs to involve a much wider group of people in its funding decisions and that these decisions must be based on sound principles rather than sentiment. For example, the efforts we saw being made to extend the bittern's habitat in Suffolk were impressive but were also very expensive, particularly given the extent of the bittern in Europe. It seems unlikely that preserving the bittern's habitat in the UK is a good use of funds compared to protecting some hard-pressed beetles or algae which cannot be found in abundance in continental Europe.

Implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives

45. The Birds Directive provides for the protection, management and control of all species of naturally occurring wild birds. It requires various measures to be put in place to preserve habitats for birds and specifies that Special Protection Areas should be designated. The Habitats Directive requires Member States to take actions to maintain or restore natural habitats or wild species at "favourable conservation status" and necessitates the designation of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs). The way in which the UK has implemented the Habitats and Birds Directives was commented on by many witnesses and much criticism was levelled at the Government. For example, the Worldwide Fund for Nature described their implementation as "seriously flawed."[109] We consider the main criticisms below.

NATURA 2000 SITES

46. It now seems to be generally accepted that the list of candidate Natura 2000 sites submitted by the Government in June 1999 was inadequate. The Atlantic meetings of the Biogeographical Region in Kilkee and Paris presided over a 'moderation' process which decreed that several Member States (including the UK) had failed to put forward an adequate number of candidate Natura 2000 sites. The list put forward was insufficient for a number of reasons. The Worldwide Fund for Nature told us that:

"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."[

110

In addition to the two reasons detailed above, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions officials noted that there also needed to be greater recognition of the importance of 'subsidiary' species or habitats within sites.[111]

47. Since the Atlantic meetings, the UK has been in the process of developing a fuller list. Although many witnesses reiterated their disappointment with the original list, they did also suggest that they were now broadly happy with the approach adopted to selecting sites and emphasised that there was real commitment on behalf of the statutory agencies to this process. For example, the Worldwide Fund for Nature told us that they were "impressed" with the Government's approach to this problem and the "very rigorous process" which was being undertaken to address the inadequacies of the original list.[112]

48. In August 2000, the Government put forward a new list of UK sites for consultation which contained 576 sites, a substantial expansion from the original 340 proposed. The European Commission have informed seven Member States (including the UK) that failure to submit an adequate list of sites could result in the loss of regional aid.[113] The UK now has a "period of grace" to resolve this matter. As a general point, we regret that the European Commission appear to have made no policy link between designating sites and costing the protection of such sites: it is inevitable that any designations made without the resources to back them up will merely be empty gestures.

BUFFER ZONES

49. Inevitably, there are differences in the way that the various Member States choose to implement the requirements of the Directive. This is most apparent in the selection of Natura 2000 sites where some of the southern European Member States (such as Greece and Italy) have designated large areas as sites, within which so-called 'buffer zones' surround the core area. The aim of buffer zones is to bring land around core sites under sympathetic land-management practices. In the UK, smaller sites have been selected which consist solely of the core area. The Worldwide Fund for Nature told us of the pros and cons of the two different approaches:

"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."[

114

Despite their sympathy with the Government's approach, the Worldwide Fund for Nature recommended that the UK should designate some buffer zones. Similarly, the Woodland Trust lamented the lack of buffer zones: "It means that designation is doing nothing to actually address the threats external to the sites, it is not actually promoting positive management of surrounding land, and it probably limits us as a country in our ability to gain EU LIFE funding..."[115] The designation of buffer zones would also fit with the Biosphere Reserves model (outlined to us by the Environment Agency) in which a core area is defined (of sufficient size to meet long-term conservation objectives), with a buffer zone (in which only activities compatible with the conservation objectives are permitted) and an outer transition area (in which only sustainable resource management is permitted).[116] Representatives of farmers and landowners did not favour the use of buffer zones but did not put major arguments against their use. [117]

50. It is transparently the case that wildlife within a protected site does not necessarily confine itself to the site: for this reason, it is argued, sympathetic management of a much larger area is important if we are to genuinely protect the wildlife in the site. Certainly, with current agricultural policy and practices, we believe that the value of sites could be compromised by the inappropriate management of adjacent and nearby land. However, the merits of buffer zones and their appropriate size will vary dramatically according to the species which is being conserved and the type of habitat: there is no simple answer as to whether a large designated area with no buffer zone is better than a smaller area with a buffer zones. We recommend that the Government look again at the potential of establishing buffer zones around Natura 2000 sites. Where a site itself cannot be enlarged, or it would be a poor use of resources, buffer zones could be an effective method of offering limited protection to a larger area. However, the most practical method of improving the prospects for biodiversity in areas around Natura 2000 sites remains reform of the agricultural support system.

72 Ev p2, p8, p24, p26, p61 (HC441-II) Back

73 Ev p8 (HC441-II) Back

74 Ev p13 (HC441-II) Back

75 Q543 Back

76 Q33 Back

77 Ev p19, p42 (HC441-II); Q547 Back

78 Ev p2 (HC441-II) Back

79 Ev p62 (HC441-II) Back

80 Ev p42 and p19 (HC441-II) Back

81 Q593 Back

82 Q508; Back

83 Ev p2, p19, p42, p80 (HC441-II); Q594; Q504; Q190;Q138; Q33 Back