House of Commons - Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs

Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Twentieth Report

UK BIODIVERSITY

Government

104. The lack of integration of biodiversity throughout other areas of national policy demonstrates the limited commitment to the issue which can be found in some Government Departments. The commitment to biodiversity appears to diminish as one moves away from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds noted the need for "contributions from the whole of Government" and also suggested that the cause would benefit from an occasional mention by the Prime Minister.[230]

105. The main mechanism for achieving integration appears to be the recently produced Green Ministers' Biodiversity Checklist. Although this document is a reasonable one, witnesses commented that it was markedly less ambitious than the advice which Government had previously issued to industry. Further criticism was levelled by the Wildlife Trusts, who commented that: " it does not really get to grips with the issue of trying to get targeted delivery across the whole of Government."[231] and that "it is not really testing Government in meeting their commitments across all Departments against the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. We want to see a process of expanding it to really be a mechanism which can give us some kind of reporting against."[232] Professor Reid noted the limitations of weak requirements:

233

106. Other witnesses also called for better checking,[234] perhaps provided by the National Audit Office or by introducing a requirement for biodiversity activity to be included in the annual report of Government Departments.[235]All this criticism of the checklist should also be placed within the context of the Green Ministers Committee's poor record of bringing about integration of environmental matters across other policy areas. The Environmental Audit Committee noted that "The lack of Government target-setting gives the impression that the Green Ministers Committee is settling for progress at the pace of the slowest, and is not injecting much drive into the pursuit of the greening government agenda."[236]

107. It is clear that some Government Departments have tried but largely failed to integrate biodiversity into their operations. For example, the Ministry of Defence owns considerable amounts of land but the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds noted that it was not doing a good job of managing this for biodiversity.[237] Indeed, many Government Departments are significant land-owners and this provides a major opportunity for furthering biodiversity in the Government's own backyard. Biodiversity is not adequately integrated into all Government Departments and we are not convinced that the Green Ministers Biodiversity Checklist is a demanding enough instrument to address this. A statutory duty upon Government Departments to further biodiversity should be accompanied by redoubled efforts from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (through the Sustainable Development Unit) to push the integration message across all other Departments and develop a simple system of meaningful targets, against which progress can be monitored.

Local Authorities and Regional Development Agencies

108. Local authorities provide a critical link in the chain of organisations involved in putting biodiversity policy into action. We have already noted that their performance was described as "patchy" in relation to this issue; it is clear that some local authorities are doing very little to aid biodiversity. Some witnesses suggested the reasons for this: the Association of Local Government Ecologists noted that "the lack of a clear definition of the role and responsibilities of local authorities in nature conservation has resulted in varying standards in practice."[238] Similarly, the Local Government Association commented that "local authorities are not specifically audited on their performance on local biodiversity and therefore protection of habitats and species is not generally a high priority."[239] This is unacceptable and is perhaps the main reason for recommending a duty on local authorities: to ensure a more even commitment to biodiversity across all authorities. In connection with this, we were impressed with the guidance drawn up by the Association of Local Government Ecologists to link biodiversity with the Best Value process.[240]

109. It seems likely that local authorities are willing to participate in the process but are somewhat short of people, money and guidance. We have noted our disappointment that the Local Government Association did not initially submit evidence to our inquiry and by this fact, and other aspects of the evidence given, it is clear that they are doing little to help raise the standard of biodiversity policy across all local authorities or persuade Government of the need for more resources for biodiversity. Local record centres and local wildlife sites should be able to rely on consistent support from any local authority. However, if local authorities are to be required to do more, this duty must be accompanied by some increase in funding to enable all local authorities to commit themselves to biodiversity. The patchy performance of local authorities on biodiversity matters should be a cause for concern for the Local Government Association and we recommend that they address it as a matter of urgency. As a starting point, we recommend that the Local Government Association employ the guidance produced by the Association of Local Government Ecologists to promote biodiversity through the Best Value process. The Local Government Association also need to play a better co-ordinating role in persuading Government of the need for more resources for biodiversity.

110. As with other levels of government, regional government should be pushed to integrate biodiversity into its policy agenda. The Association of Local Government Ecologists advised us that "regional biodiversity issues have, so far, had only limited consideration"[241] Witnesses stressed the importance of biodiversity being adequately integrated into Regional Development plans.[242] There is, however, some concern about the performance of the Regional Development Agencies so far: a review by the Council for the Protection of Rural England found a lack of progress in integrating environmental concerns into their economic strategies.[243] In this context, the London Ecology Committee noted that "although guidance requires the Agencies to further sustainable development, there is a risk that the major focus of the Agencies will be 'the bottom line' and employment."[244] The Association of Local Government Ecologists noted the success of the South West Biodiversity Partnership, guidance from whom has been accepted by the Government Office and South West Regional Planning Forum.[245] There is a need to ensure that biodiversity is adequately integrated into the Regional Development Plans. We commend the guidance provided by the South West Biodiversity Partnership as a model for other regions.

Public

111. Public understanding and engagement with environmental issues is often poor and biodiversity is no different. Nevertheless, the 59 steps of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan included developing public awareness and understanding. Although there is strong public sympathy for the conservation of some of the more charismatic and appealing species, the concept of 'biodiversity' has made relatively little impact upon the public consciousness. Anglian Water wrote that "it is our belief that the general public are the 'customer' in the process of biodiversity and without their education, subsequent involvement and support the UK Action Plan will fall short of meeting its objectives."[246] It can, of course, be argued that whilst commitment is so variable across Government and business, there will be little public enthusiasm for the general cause of biodiversity.

112. One point made to us was that the very word 'biodiversity' was part of the problem since it was so poorly understood and that 'nature conservation' should be reinstated. Certainly, few can argue that the public relate to the word itself. Nevertheless, communication that nature is a system of interlinked species is a valuable one and, rather than change the use of the word 'biodiversity', we believe that greater efforts should be made to explain what biodiversity means, how it relates to people's quality of life, what the threats are, and what the implications will be if we fail to protect it.[247] There is a need for greater imagination in the communication of biodiversity issues: a good example is provided by the 'Web of Life' exhibition at London Zoo. Similarly, we were told by the National Farmers Union that "a lot of public awareness work done so far has not taken a professional marketing approach."[248] The public have great enthusiasm for nature conservation, will happily rally to the support of the red squirrel, the barn owl or a rare orchid, but for the most part are put off biodiversity by feeling that it is bureaucratic and muddled. If the public imagination is to be fired and they are to be persuaded to pay for biodiversity actions through their taxes, biodiversity policy must be grounded in sound principles which are clearly set out.

230 Q129 Back

231 Q484 Back

232 Q485 Back

233 Ev p1 (HC441-II) Back

234 Ev p26 (HC441-II) Back

235 Ev p1 (HC441-II);Q55 Back

236 Paragraph 55, The Greening Government Initiative: First Annual Report from the Green Ministers Committee, Environmental Audit Committee, Fifth Report, 14 March 2000 Back

237 Q150 Back

238 Ev p36 (HC441-II) Back

239 Ev p126 (HC441-III) Back

240 A Biodiversity Guide for Best Value Service Review: Helping Biodiversity Happen Across Local Government, the Association of Local Government Ecologists Back

241 Ev p38 (HC441-II) Back