MEMORANDUM BY THE WORLD WIDE FUND FOR
NATURE (WWF) (BIO 02)
INTRODUCTION
1. WWF welcomes the opportunity to provide
evidence to the House of Common's Environment Sub-committee Inquiry
into UK Biodiversity. WWF is a global organisation with a network
of 15 European National Offices (active in 22 countries) and a
European Policy Office in Brussels. WWF combines a strong European
presence with nationally based offices in Scotland, Northern Ireland
and Wales, enabling it to give a truly UK as well as a global
perspective.
2. The terms of reference for this Inquiry
cover a broad range of issues. Accordingly, WWF has focused its
evidence on those issues with which it is directly concerned including:
the need to place Biodiversity Action Plans on a statutory basis;
measures to protect biodiversity outside of protected areas; specific
measures by Government Departments to help achieve biodiversity
targets; and the priority areas for, and what improvements are
needed to ensure, biodiversity concerns are integrated into other
government policies.
3. The terms of reference for the Inquiry
specified that it was not necessary to repeat in detail evidence
given to the House of Lords European Communities Committee Inquiry
into EU policy on biodiversity. WWF's evidence, therefore, updates
previous evidence on the UK's implementation of the EU Birds and
Habitats Directives submitted to the House of Lord's Inquiry.
The desirability of placing Species and Habitat
Action Plans on a statutory basis and the co-ordination of biodiversity
planning and action between national, regional and local levels
4. WWF believes that the BAP process should
be put on a statutory basis. Although some Plans have been successfully
taken forward by active lead partners, others have been less successful.
The Plan for seagrass beds, for example, has not yet established
a Steering Group, despite being published over five years ago.
Similarly, the progress on plans for fens and lowland heaths has
been disappointingly slow.
5. Overall, WWF believes that the establishment
of national steering groups for Action Plans is beneficial, however,
clearer direction needs to be provided to the co-ordinators of
those groups. Furthermore, clear allocations of funding need to
be made for "hard" actions, which are often the most
difficult to fund.
6. Indeed, WWF notes that one of the main
obstacles to the implementation of the BAP process is the lack
of resources. WWF is particularly concerned about the resource
implications for progress on Species and Habitat Action Plans
in Wales. A CCW press release dated 7 March 2000 (1) stated that
"The standstill budget in real terms, awarded to CCW for
2000/01, has meant that a number of targets set for core work
programmes have been revised downwards, with the result that some
grant in aid programmes to voluntary bodies and local authorities
have been reduced in 2000/01. Placing the BAP process on a
statutory basis would help to ensure that sufficient resources
are made available. Resources are not only necessary at the national
level, but also need to be levered in from a variety of sources
at the local level. This includes local authorities as well as
the voluntary and commercial sectors.
7. It is also important that biodiversity
priorities at the regional level are identified and incorporated
into Regional Planning Guidance and regional economic frameworks.
Many potentially damaging activities, and indeed many potentially
beneficial opportunities, are now determined at the regional level.
The south-west Biodiversity partnership was the first to identify
regional biodiversity priorities and actions, and other regions
have followed suit. Placing Action Plans on a statutory basis
would help to ensure that this approach is more widely adopted
and maintained.
8. Other benefits of placing Action Plans
on a statutory basis include:
— ensuring that adequate local participative
processes are established and maintained to ensure stakeholder
involvement and co-ordinated action;
— ensuring that national, regional
and local biodiversity priorities are taken into account in development
plans; and
— ensuring that local economic development
plans take national, regional and local biodiversity priorities
into account.
9. Reporting on the progress of the BAP
process has been difficult. WWF recommends that more resources
should be allocated to developing a national scheme for reporting
on progress, which should be linked to the resulting changes in
species and habitats. Pilot schemes should be established and
the best option taken forward as a national scheme.
10. If the Government is to demonstrate
a real commitment to the recovery of UK species and habitats,
the following should be included within primary legislation:
— the Minister to determine, on the
advice of the JNCC, by Regulation: baseline survey to establish
the status of UK species and habitat; the criteria for the selection
of species and habitats to be subject to Action Plans; and the
lists of those species and habitats;
— adherence to the precautionary principle—species
and habitats should be listed even though scientific data may
not be conclusive, but where there is a reasonable expectation
that they meet the criteria;
— Action Plans to have measurable targets;
— a duty to be placed on public bodies
to further the objectives of the Action Plans (as far as it is
consistent with their primary functions);
— the Minister (in so far as the actions
are the responsibility of public authorities) and the Statutory
Conservation Agencies to have regard to the funding of actions.
The adequacy of arrangements for monitoring and
reporting changes in species and habitats
11. It is imperative that co-ordinated,
effective and cost-efficient measures are put in place to monitor
changes to species and habitats, and to identify which changes
are the result of deliberate actions for their conservation.
12. Biological recording schemes are one
way in which such changes could be monitored, however, there is
still widespread inconsistency across the UK in terms of their
geographical coverage and biological comprehensiveness. There
also remains a lack of co-ordination of local and national recording
schemes, and a lack of interchange and accessibility of information
for users.
13. The National Biodiversity Network project
has been established to address many of these issues, and has
achieved much success in the last four years. It is, however,
still enormously underfunded and this is preventing the satisfactory
monitoring and reporting of changes in habitats and species. The
Government could achieve more in terms of reporting on changes
in habitats and species by:
— requiring local authorities to ensure
adequate local records centres operate in their administrative
area; and
— allocating more resources to the
National Biodiversity Network, especially the work linking national
recording schemes with local recorders.
THE CURRENT
IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE HABITATS
AND BIRDS
DIRECTIVES
The adequacy of the Natura 2000 network
14. WWF is pleased to note that the Government
is proposing to add a significant number of sites to the UK list
of cSACs following the Atlantic SAC moderation meetings in Kilkee
and Paris last year. However, the total number of sites, and hence
% of UK resource for each interest included within the UK SAC
series, will not be known until public consultation later this
year (anticipated in May). WWF would welcome the opportunity to
provide oral evidence to the Committee on this matter when the
revised UK cSAC list is in the public domain.
The transposition of the EU Habitats Directive
15. WWF is pleased to note the passage of
the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) (Amendment) (England)
Regulations 2000. The new Regulations will extend the provisions
of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994
to sites in England which have been submitted to the European
Commission as cSACs. As the existing Regulations only applied
once sites had been submitted to the Commission and adopted as
Sites of Community Importance, this amendment puts cSACs on a
par with sites classified as Special Protection Areas (SPA) under
the Birds Directive. WWF is not aware that the regime for cSACs
has been similarly extended elsewhere in the EU, so Parliament
is to be commended on this approach. WWF urges the Sub-Committee
to recommend similar action in the remaining UK countries.
16. Notwithstanding the above, the UK's
transposition of the Habitats Directive remains seriously flawed.
With respect to the marine environment, the recent case R v
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ex parte Greenpeace
Ltd confirmed that the Habitats Directive applies up to a
limit of 200 nautical miles. Whilst this judgment places a responsibility
on the UK government to take appropriate action, WWF believes
that the implementation of the Habitats Directive is a pan-European
matter. As such, WWF believes that the European Commission has
a critical role to play in initiating a process to resolve this
issue. WWF urges the UK government and the European Commission
to address this deficiency as a matter of urgency;
17. With respect to the terrestrial environment,
Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive requires Member States
to take "appropriate steps to avoid, in the Special Areas
of Conservation, the deterioration of natural habitats and the
habitats of species . . . ". In Great Britain, the Conservation
(Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 transpose this requirement
through the provision of positive and compensatory ("profits
foregone") management agreements (Regulation 16) and the
power to make a Special Nature Conservation Order (Regulation
22). WWF has previously expressed concern that these measures
will not address the neglect of, and damage to, Natura 2000 sites.
WWF notes that Part III of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill
includes provisions that could significantly increase the protection
afforded to Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) (and hence
Natura 2000 sites). WWF urges the Sub-Committee to support the
measures contained within this Bill in order to provide enhanced
protection for nationally important sites in England and Wales,
and to ensure that the UK fully implements its obligations under
the EU Habitats Directive.
18. WWF has also highlighted deficiencies
in the UK's transposition of Article 12 of the EU Habitats Directive
relating to the protection of species outside Natura 2000 sites
(see complaint submitted to the European Commission on behalf
of WWF-UK, Friends of the Earth and the Herpetological Conservation
Trust dated October 1994 attached as Appendix I).[1]
Most specifically, the UK has incorrectly transposed the provisions
of Article 12(1)(b) and 12 (1)(d) relating to:
— The prevention of deliberate disturbance
(particularly during breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration)
of Annex IV species; and
— The prohibition of the deterioration
or destruction of the breeding sites or resting places of Annex
IV species.
19. Regulations 50 and 51 of the Conservation
(Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 provide for a review
of certain decisions or consents that may threaten SACs. Regulation
55(5) excludes from this obligation proposals for which planning
permission is granted or deemed to be granted by a public general
Act of Parliament. As there is no reference to such an exclusion
in the Directive, Regulation 55(5) provides a "loophole"
for the propagation of proposals which may otherwise conflict
with EU law. The significance of this flaw is demonstrated in
Yorkshire where the Environment Agency is seeking to rely on Regulation
55(5) in order to avoid a review of the Barnby barrage which is
having a detrimental effect on the Derwent Ings SAC/SPA (see R
v The Environment Agency ex parte Beevers & Others).
Measures taken to protect biodiversity outside
of protected areas
20. Sites of Special Scientific Interest
(SSSI) presently cover around 10 per cent of the UK land area
(England 7 per cent, Wales 10.6 per cent, Scotland 11.7 per cent
and Northern Ireland 6.1 per cent), reinforcing the importance
of a "healthy" wider countryside. Agriculture influences
in excess of 75 per cent of the UK's land area, and the downstream
effects of agriculture are major influences over freshwater and
marine biodiversity.
21. The identification and protection of
"Wildlife Sites" (sites recognised at the local level
and identified by one or more of the following: the local wildlife
trust: statutory conservation agency; and local planning authority)
provides an important mechanism for identifying and protecting
wildlife outside SSSIs. These areas host some of our most valued
species and habitats, and are important places for people to enjoy
wildlife on their doorstep. Although the Wildlife Site system
has evolved locally, the process for selection and designation
is now largely co-ordinated by the Wildlife Trusts to ensure consistency
across the UK.
22. WWF recognises that certain Wildlife
Sites host species and habitats of national or international significance,
and they contribute to other biodiversity objectives such as the
achievement of BAP targets and the implementation of the EU Birds
and Habitats Directives. With regard to the latter, WWF highlights
the contribution made by Wildlife Sites to the achievement of
the "favourable conservation status" of species and
habitats listed in the Habitats Directive. The Wildlife Site series
also contributes to the achievement of 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
(eg hedges, copses and ponds).
23. WWF notes that the DETR has recently
established a Wildlife Sites Group to recommend measures for their
future protection and management. WWF believes that a number of
these measures would benefit from being brought within the ambit
of primary legislation. For example, WWF advocates that local
planning authorities should have a duty to establish and maintain
a Wildlife Site system. Wildlife Sites also need common standards
for their establishment and management to be set out by the Secretary
of State.
24. The protection of SSSIs and species
in England and Wales is currently subject to parliamentary scrutiny
as a result of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. WWF is
also aware that the DETR is seeking to review the 1994 Habitats
Regulations and PPG 9 before the end of the year. WWF welcomes
these commitments and urges the Committee to recommend that the
other UK countries act similarly by introducing primary legislation
and reviewing planning guidance.
25. WWF wishes to make brief comment about
a number of sections of the Bill (further information can be found
in Appendix II):[2]
— WWF is concerned to note that the
Bill does not include a presumption in favour of conservation
on, or affecting, SSSIs. In effect, this would shift the present
presumption in the Town and Country Planning system away from
development and towards conservation on these nationally important
sites;
— all SSSIs should be recognised as
being of national (ie UK) importance;
— the Bill does not adequately improve
the protection for species outside SSSIs. WWF supports the advice
given by the JNCC for further measures on species legislation
(attached as Appendix III).[3]
Specific measures taken by Government Departments
to help achieve biodiversity targets
26. WWF notes that while there has been
a general tightening-up of the system of regulation that protects
agricultural biodiversity, significant loopholes remain. For example,
agricultural producers have been brought within the net of the
water pollution regulations. This has helped to address the problems
caused by agricultural point sources of pollution and is certain
to have contributed to the achievement of aquatic biodiversity
targets. However, the effects of diffuse pollution from agricultural
sources, as documented by the Government's pilot indicators on
pesticides in rivers and groundwater, remains a serious concern
as it continues to adversely affect aquatic biodiversity.
27. Agricultural Departments in all four
UK countries have introduced agri-environment measures to help
achieve biodiversity targets, however, the measured decline in
population indices of farmland birds has continued unabated (2).
There are several reasons why these measures have not succeeded
in reversing declines in the headline indicators. For example:
— while the area of agricultural land
under commitment to environmental conservation in England shows
a marked increase over the last decade, the majority of this is
under the Farm Woodland Premium Schemes which is not necessarily
a guarantee of increased biodiversity;
— Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA)
restricted support for biodiversity protection to those areas,
with limited knock-on effects. Losses of biodiversity local to
ESAs may well have been greater without those measures. ESAs also
covered the broad range of countryside measures and were not targeted
towards enhancing agricultural biodiversity. Critically, ESAs
left farmers outside these areas with no incentive to protect
biodiversity;
— The second generation of measures
(Countryside Stewardship, Countryside Management, Tir Cymen) remained
tightly targeted (in order to achieve value for money) and financially
restricted (because of tiny budget allocations). The result is
that taking responsibility for farm biodiversity is still viewed
by farmers as a specialist interest rather than a mainstream responsibility.
PRIORITY AREAS
FOR, AND
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS
ARE NEEDED,
TO ENSURE
THAT BIODIVERSITY
CONCERNS ARE
INTEGRATED INTO
OTHER GOVERNMENT
POLICIES
Agriculture
28. Agriculture affects 75 per cent of the
UK land area. WWF believes that significantly more resources are
needed for a broad agri-environment scheme that is accessible
to all, enhances farmer's understanding of how to protect biodiversity
and provides payment rates that are a real incentive for farmer
involvement in protecting biodiversity. Additional measures required
to address the neglect of habitats include:
— funding streams should be explicitly
tied to the delivery of biodiversity objectives;
— the fulfilment of biodiversity objectives
should be an explicit and assessed criterion for the award of
money through all European funding schemes under the Rural Development
and Structural Funds schemes;
— mainstream agricultural subsidies
that provide an incentive to damage the environment should be
withheld;
— domestic research resources should
be tied to the achievement of biodiversity protection;
— the achievement of biodiversity objectives
should be an explicit requirement for the award of funds for extension
and training.
Housing
29. WWF welcomes commitments in Planning
Policy Guidance Note No.3 Housing including the emphasis
placed on the importance of integrating decisions on planning
and transport in order to reduce the need to travel by car and
avoiding developments which make inefficient use of land. However,
WWF also urges the Government to:
— increase the target for the number
of additional homes to be provided on previously developed land
and through the conversion of existing buildings. WWF notes that
between 18,000 and 26,500 additional homes in England alone could
be provided each year through the conversion of buildings and
the redevelopment of existing housing (3);
— encourage local planning authorities
to fully consider the effects on biodiversity when planning development.
For example, new settlement proposals should be resisted which
risk suburbanising the countryside and generating additional traffic;
— provide support for the Urban Regeneration
and Countryside Protection Private Members Bill. The Bill aims
to place a legal duty to develop brownfield sites before greenfield
sites and would require local planning authorities to produce
urban capacity studies and an audit of derelict buildings available
for conversion;
— urge the appropriate assessment of
all potential sites for development.
Energy
30. The biodiversity implications of climate
change are now widely accepted. WWF urges the Government to:
— ensure that the Utilities Bill makes
specific reference to biodiversity, contributes to wider environmental
objectives (particularly the Government's 20 per cent CO2 reduction
target and 10 per cent renewables target) and places a duty to
protect the environment on the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority;
— ensure that the criteria used by
local planning authorities in selecting suitable sites for renewable
energy take account of the impacts of biodiversity. In particular,
new arrangements should be prevented from causing unnecessary
harm by stimulating development of inappropriate sources of renewable
energy in sensitive locations; and
— encourage better co-ordination between
and within the public and private sectors to ensure environmental,
social and economic concerns are fully integrated.
Transport
31. Government forecasts that traffic could
increase by a further 36-84 per cent by 2031 emphasise the need
for the consideration on the impacts on biodiversity. WWF welcomes
objectives within PPG 13 to integrate planning and transport at
the national, regional, strategic and local levels and to encourage
the use of alternative modes of transport. WWF also urges the
Government to:
— support the Transport Bill which
aims to improve local passenger transport services and reduce
road congestion and pollution;
— continue to shift resources away
from road construction to improve public transport; and
— apply Strategic Environmental Assessment
and ensure that new transport schemes are subject to project based
Environmental Impact Assessment.
32. In conclusion, WWF urges the Government
to ensure that the range of measures referred to in this submission
are progressed as a matter of priority and in the strongest possible
form throughout the United Kingdom. In particular, the Government
should utilise next twelve months to secure a strong legislative
basis for the protection of wildlife in England and Wales, and
strongly encourage equivalent measures in Northern Ireland and
Scotland.
The following Appendices have not been
printed. For further information please contact the WWF.
APPENDIX I
Complaint submitted to the European Commission
on behalf of WWF-UK, HCT and FoE dated 12 October 1994 concerning
the adequacy of the UK's transposition of the EU Habitats Directive.
APPENDIX II
WWF briefing on the Countryside and Rights of
Way Bill.
APPENDIX III
JNCC advice on further legislative measures
required for species protection.
REFERENCES
1 CCW press release dated 7 March 2000 "
CCW Endorses Countryside Bill Measures at Open Council Meeting".
2 RSPB and the BTO (1999) The State of
the UK's Birds.
3 DETR Press Notice 209 dated 23 March 2000
"Up to 26,500 new homes could be provided through conversions
and redevelopment each year".
April 2000
1 Ev. not printed. Back
2
E. not printed. Back
3
Ev. not printed. Back
| 
