House of Commons - Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs

Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Twentieth Report

UK BIODIVERSITY

STATIC NATURE OF HABITATS DIRECTIVE

51. It is generally accepted that we are in the midst of a period of environmental change and this will have major and persistent effects on the range and location of species and habitats. As the Woodland Trust noted, "in the face of change individual species will either adapt, migrate or become extinct."[118] It is likely that species already present will migrate within the UK to areas which can best support them and species which cannot currently prosper here will start to move in. Clearly, a system of relatively small designated sites will struggle to deal with such changes and it will be impossible for sites to remain as 'fixed points' within a sea of change all around them. Unfortunately, this appears to be the requirement of the Habitats Directive.

52. The memorandum from the Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE) focussed on this issue and questions whether the Habitats Directive as it stands can incorporate the effects of environmental change. The Centre considered various methods of dealing with the problem but concluded that " [the Habitats Directive] is likely to encounter problems in the context of dynamic and rapidly changing systems."[119] Quite simply, by adopting a 'no-net-loss' approach to biodiversity without provision for changing the site boundaries, it fails to allow for the impacts of environmental change. An example of the problems to be expected was noted by the Environment Agency :

120

Other witnesses expressed concern that the likely impacts of climate change had not been adequately taken account of in biodiversity policy generally.[121] We recommend that the Government press the European Commission to amend the Habitats Directive so as to reflect the impact of environmental change upon biodiversity.

MARINE SITES

53. We did not have time in this inquiry to consider marine biodiversity issues in any detail. It was clear, however, from the written evidence which we received that there is a good deal of concern over marine issues generally and, in particular, the extremely limited designation of marine sites for Natura 2000. The most comprehensive criticism of the Government's current approach was provided by the Joint Marine Programme of the Wildlife Trusts and the Worldwide Fund for Nature-UK. In relation to the Habitats Directive, they expressed concern over the selection of sites, the management of sites, the way boundaries have been drawn and the absence of habitat restoration and recreation.[122] These worries were backed up by other witnesses and Professor Colin Reid noted that "the current legal structures are woefully inadequate to offer appropriate protection or management for marine biodiversity."[123] The importance of marine areas was emphasised and extended by a recent case which confirmed that the Habitats Directive applies up to a limit of 200 nautical miles, rather than 12 miles which had previously been assumed to be the case.[124]The problems with marine biodiversity are, if anything, more complex than those relating to terrestrial nature conservation and, as marine conservation areas are developed and designated, it is clearly critical that there is an integration of marine biodiversity needs into fisheries policy along with pollution control.

54. Friends of the Earth (FoE) noted that the work of the statutory nature conservation agencies has focussed on the terrestrial environment and argue that the marine environment has been "severely neglected."[125] FoE concluded that "It is difficult to see how the UK will ensure effective nature conservation in the marine environment, or meet its obligations under European Union directives and international conventions, unless it establishes structures and agencies that reflect the size and unprecedented nature of the task" and recommended that a new, dedicated conservation body should be established to handle marine biodiversity issues. A new, Marine Conservation Agency is also suggested by the Joint Marine Programme of the Wildlife Trusts and the Worldwide Fund for Nature-UK.[126] There are many complex and unresolved aspects of marine biodiversity policy and there is a serious risk of these issues being forgotten in the rush to deal with terrestrial matters. The subject of marine biodiversity is one to which we may return in a future inquiry. The Government must address the range of problems and inadequacies in their approach to marine biodiversity. As an island nation, the conservation of marine biodiversity should be paramount and the Government should consider whether a new statutory agency is required to deal with marine biodiversity issues.

ACTION OUTSIDE SITES

55. Witnesses suggested that implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives had focussed on designating sites to the exclusion of the implications of the Directives for the fabric of the wider countryside.[127] The Worldwide Fund for Nature (along with other organisations) has made a complaint to the European Commission that the UK has incorrectly transposed some of the provisions of Article 12 relating to the protection of species outside of Natura 2000 sites.[128] The concern over biodiversity in the wider countryside is a general one which does not relate solely to the provisions of the Habitats Directive and we consider the protection of biodiversity outside sites below.

Protection of Designated Sites

56. There exist a number of different types of protected site. Sites of Special Scientific Interest are designated under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and are of national importance. These sites may also be National Nature Reserves (NNRs). They may also be designated as Special Protection Areas (SPAs) under the Birds Directive or Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) under the Habitats Directive; both of which contribute to the Natura 2000 network. All of these types of site receive some statutory protection. In addition to these sites, there is also a network of locally-designated wildlife sites which do not have statutory protection, but which may receive limited protection in local planning policies.

57. Although Sites of Special Scientific Interest do receive statutory protection, the provisions made to protect them have not been entirely successful. For example, the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) noted that "constraints on staff time and cash for management agreements with owners/occupiers mean that not all sites/features are adequately protected."[129] Specifically, the Council note that on some Sites of Special Scientific Interest, "where overgrazing is a problem, steady degradation is occurring even though they are notified as Sites of Special Scientific Interest." English Nature also acknowledge the problems posed by over-grazing in the uplands and suggested that up to 70% of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in upland areas are in 'unfavourable condition'.[130] As in so many instances, agricultural practices and nature conservation are interwoven.

58. The Countryside and Rights of Way Bill will improve the protection available for Sites of Special Scientific Interest, thereby righting one of the main faults of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.[131] In particular, greater powers are being given to the statutory agencies to impose and enforce management agreements on owners of land in Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Many witnesses expressed their support for the improved protection of Sites of Special Scientific Interest.[132] We are pleased that the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill will offer greater protection for Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). We expect the Government and the statutory agencies to monitor the practical improvements which result, with a view to making modifications if necessary.

59. In addition to protected sites, the designation of National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty has indirect consequences for biodiversity. There are 37 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty in England, covering more than 15% of the land area. The limited protection of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) has been a matter of concern for many years and this anxiety has been heightened as development pressures on the countryside have increased. Although Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty are considered by many to be equivalent in importance to National Parks, they do not have the same statutory protection. During the last two years, unsuccessful attempts have been made to introduce a Bill in the Lords to give much greater protection to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and it was a source of disappointment to many that the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill did not include measures to enhance the protection given to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. However, the Government has brought forward amendments to the Bill to do just this. Specifically, the amendments will require a management plan to be drawn up for each Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and will enable the creation of statutory conservation boards where there is local support for such a move. Most importantly, the Government's proposals will offer Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty the same status of protection against development as currently applies to National Parks. We welcome the Government's amendments to the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill which aim to provide Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty with greater protection.

Protection of Biodiversity Outside of Sites

60. A policy of site-based protection of biodiversity has been successfully pursued in the UK for many decades. A corollary of this approach has been that biodiversity outside of the sites (which, after all, is the majority of biodiversity[133]) has been neglected and, as a result, has suffered dramatically. Sites of Special Scientific Interest cover only around 10% of UK land[134] and Sites of Special Scientific Interest only form a representative sample of sites: for example, 85% of the ancient woodlands in England and Wales fall outside of these sites.[135] One of the best indications of the state of biodiversity outside sites is the decline of farmland birds, the populations of which fell by 35% between 1973 and 1998.[136] It has been estimated that the number of pairs of skylarks has halved since 1990.[137]

61. It is a consistent feature of the criticisms levelled at the implementation of the Habitats Directive and biodiversity policy generally that action outside of sites has remained "something of a Cinderella."[138] The fragmentation of habitats, the loss of semi-natural habitats and the decline of many species which rely on the wider countryside are continuing apace. Without action outside of the sites, we risk rural England becoming a scattering of protected sites in a wildlife desert. Although almost all those involved with policy now acknowledge that insufficient attention is being paid to biodiversity outside designated sites, there is clearly some concern that action will not necessarily follow.[139] In particular, it is recognised that the UK Biodiversity Action Plans have addressed this issue in the plan stage, but there seems to be scepticism about the delivery of the plans' targets and actions which rely on action outside of sites.[140]

62. A few quotes illustrate the level and nature of concern about this issue: "a site centred system cannot deliver adequate protection for our natural heritage in the face of habitat fragmentation and climate change,"[141] " the wildlife voice outside designated areas is weak and often wholly reliant on the voluntary sector.",[142] "current legislation for protecting species and habitats outside protected sites is weak and does not adequately cover priorities identified through the biodiversity planning process."[143]

63. The importance of addressing biodiversity needs outside sites is illustrated by the statistics produced by English Nature which show that action outside protected sites will be required to achieve the targets for around 60% of the Habitat and Species Action Plans.[144] English Nature are attempting to address the current focus on sites by promoting their 'lifescapes' approach which aims to adopt a 'whole countryside' view to protecting biodiversity and includes both economic and environmental aspects. The environmental part of the 'lifescapes' approach relates to habitat recreation and the need to encourage more sensitive land management around habitats. Officials from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions argued that although it might be a "valid criticism" that too little work was being done outside sites, this was because of the efforts to designate Natura 2000 sites and that this would change once the work on designations was complete. However, even if this is the case, it remains the situation that the policy levers to help aid protection of biodiversity outside of sites are largely absent. It is not just 'effort' that is required but policy changes. We examine the influence of some areas of policy later in this report but here we consider some of the specific actions which will aid biodiversity in the wider countryside.

LINKING FEATURES

64. In 1998, we undertook an inquiry into the protection of field boundaries. Many witnesses to that inquiry stressed to us the wildlife importance of traditional field boundaries such as hedgerows, dry stone walls, ditches and dykes. In our inquiry into UK Biodiversity, we once again heard about the importance of field boundaries (and other connecting features) for biodiversity and the problems caused by their loss.[145] Fragmentation of habitats was identified by several witnesses as one of the biggest threats to biodiversity[146] and, apart from habitat recreation, one of the best methods of countering this fragmentation is to provide 'corridors' which link the remaining habitats.[147] This is recognised in Article 10 of the Habitats Directive, which seeks to maintain features of importance in the landscape which link and buffer areas of importance for wildlife. Plantlife wrote that "there is currently no appropriate mechanism to implement Article 10."[148] Traditional field boundaries qualify as such features and their protection and recreation can be considered to be an extremely effective mechanism for aiding biodiversity.

65. Of all the different types of traditional field boundaries, only hedgerows currently receive any protection and the existing Hedgerows Regulations continue to offer partial and inadequate protection for hedgerows since they only enable the protection of 'important' hedgerows, where importance is defined by a set of nationally defined criteria. Although the Government intend to strengthen the Hedgerow Regulations later this year, we must re-affirm the recommendation made in our Field Boundaries report that "all types of traditional field boundary merit equal protection in law ... the Government must introduce new primary legislation for the protection of field boundaries within the lifetime of this Parliament."[149] We recommend that all types of traditional field boundaries should be protected so as to ensure the continued presence of habitats for some species and corridors for the movement of others. Hedges, banks, ditches, dykes and walls should all receive legal protection where they are identified as being important either nationally or locally for biodiversity or other reasons. We first made this recommendation in our 1998 report on field boundaries and reiterated it in our interim report on UK Biodiversity in July of this year. Despite our concerns, the Government has not brought forward amendments to the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill to offer greater protection to field boundaries.

66. The continued function of field boundaries and other features in linking habitats will not be ensured by legal protection alone: there is also a role for measures which achieve better management of these features. English Nature already has powers to negotiate and enforce management agreements with landowners of Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Friends of the Earth called for this power to be extended outside Sites of Special Scientific Interest and stated that this was "urgently required to help biodiversity conservation in the wider countryside."[150] We recommend that English Nature be given the power to negotiate and enforce management agreements with landowners outside Sites of Special Scientific Interest, to cover features of importance to biodiversity, and are pleased that such powers will now result from the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. We anticipate that English Nature will need some additional resources to be able to fulfil the potential which this option offers.

LOCAL WILDLIFE SITES

67. Local Wildlife Sites[151] are designated at a local level as having importance for wildlife. These sites are often run by a partnership involving the wildlife trusts, other local organisations and the local authority. Witnesses identified these sites as being critical to the success of biodiversity policy and achieving targets in the Biodiversity Action Plans.[152] Further, they contribute to achieving the 'favourable conservation status' for species and habitats listed in the Habitats Directive.[153] However, the protection they receive is entirely dependent upon the priority given to them by the local authority — they are not the subject of any statutory provisions. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions recently established a Local Site Review Group to examine the issue and recommend measures for their improved protection and management. We understand that this group reported in March 2000 and witnesses urged the Government to act upon the recommendations of the group.[154]

68. The problems of local sites were encapsulated by Friends of the Earth who wrote that "The conservation and management of these sites ... is currently dependent on goodwill and there are great differences in the standard of the local wildlife site systems currently run by local authorities."[155] The degree of variation in local systems of designating and dealing with local sites was recognised by English Nature and the Wildlife Trusts as a disadvantage and a matter which required some intervention.[156] We heard many calls for local wildlife sites to be given greater recognition and protection in law and for increased resources to ensure their positive management.[157] English Nature called for a national framework to ensure a reasonably consistent approach to selection and a duty upon local authorities to become much more involved in local wildlife sites.[158] The Local Government Association acknowledged that the planning system as it stands will not be adequate to protect local wildlife sites.[159] We recommend that local authorities should have a duty to establish and maintain a register of local wildlife sites and to give them the status of 'material consideration' in development control decisions. This should ensure that there is a general presumption against development on these sites. Although we first made this recommendation in our interim report in July, the Government has not amended the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill to reflect our recommendation.

Integration into Other Areas of Policy

69. Article 6 of the Convention on Biological Diversity requires parties to integrate biodiversity considerations into all activities.[160] This feature was also included in the seminal 59 steps of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan recommended by the Biodiversity Steering Group. However this appears to be the area of least progress so far: witnesses were united in their condemnation of the lack of integration of biodiversity concerns into other areas of policy.[161]

70. This area is critical if biodiversity is to be protected throughout the UK and not just in defined sites. The Environment Agency suggested that there was a need for "some sort of gear shift" to bring about greater integration of biodiversity across other areas of policy.[162] As one might expect, the most important areas for better integration of biodiversity are agriculture and planning. We examine both of these areas below. Of course, the drive for integration should not stop at those policy areas which have the greatest influence — aspects of almost all areas of policy (for example, transport and defence) will have a marked impact on biodiversity. However, unless the degree of integration is improved in the 'headline' areas of agriculture and planning, there can be relatively little hope of it taking place in the less prominent areas. The 'Green Ministers Biodiversity Checklist' deals with this matter and other aspects of Government actions and we examine its role later in this report.

AGRICULTURE

71. The significance of agricultural policy and practices for biodiversity is difficult to overstate. Agriculture influences more than 75% of the UK's land area.[163] Up until 1900, UK agriculture was essentially mixed farming but since then the drift into monoculture has had a devastating effect in reducing biodiversity. Modern agricultural practices have been responsible for the decline of many species and the disappearance of large areas of habitat. We heard of species such as the grey partridge being "brought to their knees" by intensive farming. One witness reported the comments of a senior conservationist, who stated that the single most useful thing Western Governments could do to aid biodiversity would be to abandon subsidised agriculture.[164] Although the direction and emphasis of agricultural policy is now starting to shift to address environmental matters, it is hard to escape the conclusion that current efforts are too little, too late and too slow. Species and habitats are still in decline.[165] Agricultural policy or practice has been identified as a constraint in approximately 55% of Species and Habitat Action Plans.[166]

72. It is, however, important to recognise that farmers are not to blame for these problems: it is agricultural policy which is guilty. As the National Farmers Union noted, "the drivers of agricultural policy remain at odds with a fuller expression of biodiversity conservation."[167] The criticisms we make are of agricultural policy and market conditions, not farmers. Farmers are simply attempting to make a living within the constraints of policy and during extremely hard times. Agriculture is responsible for shaping the countryside of the UK that so many want to conserve and farming and agriculture have the potential to be extremely positive for biodiversity: sensitively managed agricultural land provides a range of habitats for a huge number of species. It is the challenge for agricultural policy to harness the work of farmers and landowners for the good of biodiversity.

73. Witnesses called for root and branch reform of agricultural policy.[168] We believe that wholesale reform of the Common Agricultural Policy is required if biodiversity is to have a bright and secure future. We urge the Government to continue to work towards this. Various changes are required to modify the face of agriculture and, whilst reform of the Common Agricultural Policy must remain the ultimate goal, there are many things which could be done now to help mitigate (and ultimately reverse) the effects of previous agricultural policies.

Increased Modulation

74. 'Modulation' is the name applied to the process of reducing agricultural subsidies for production so as to increase the funding to agri-environment schemes and rural development initiatives. Any 'modulation' of EU subsidies must be accompanied by an equal amount of matched funding from the national Government. Under the Agenda 2000 reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy, Member States are allowed to modulate up to 20% of the support paid to farmers. On 7 December 1999, the Government announced that it would modulate 2.5% of Common Agricultural Policy spending in 2001 and progressively increase the amount of spend to be modulated to reach approximately 4.5% by 2005. In practical terms, this modulation will be applied at a flat rate which means that all direct subsidies to farmers will be reduced by 2.5% in 2001 and this reduction will rise as modulation increases.

75. We discussed the development of 'modulation' in our recent report on the Rural White Paper.[169] Here, it is simply worth stating that the vast majority of witnesses pressed the case for further reducing production subsidies and increasing expenditure on agri-environment schemes.[170] Within this context we were somewhat disappointed with the stance of the National Farmers Union, which urged caution in the pace of modulation.[171] Given the precipitate decline of much farmland wildlife, the pace of change cannot be quick enough. In our report on the Rural White Paper in May 2000, we concluded that the degree of modulation should be increased and the pace accelerated. The evidence we received in this inquiry re-affirmed our conclusions. We reiterate our previous recommendation that the Government should increase the level of modulation to 10% as soon as possible with a clearly stated intention and timetable of reaching the highest permitted percentage of 20%. The level of spend on agri-environment schemes should continue to take the lion's share of the diverted funds.

118 Ev p13 (HC441-II) Back

119 Ev p32 (HC441-II) Back

120 Q650 Back

121 Ev p27 (HC441-II) Back

122 Ev pp50-52 (HC441-II) Back

123 Ev p1 (HC441-II) Back

124 R v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ex parte Greenpeace Ltd Back

125 Ev p108 (HC441-II) Back

126 Ev p52 (HC441-II) Back

127 Ev p25 (HC441-II) Back

128 Ev p3 (HC441-II) Back

129 Ev p97 (HC441-II) Back