MEMORANDUM BY THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (BIO
12)
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 The Environment Agency is the major
environmental regulator in England and Wales with statutory responsibilities
for controlling air, land and water pollution. It also regulates
abstractions from surface and groundwater sources. In its capacity
as a flood defence authority it is responsible for flood warning
and the maintenance of 36,000km of fluvial and 800km of sea defences.
It also has duties regarding the management of freshwater fisheries
and promoting water-based recreation. For some waterways it is
also a navigation authority.
1.2 The Agency has statutory duties under
the Environment Act 1995 to have regard to conservation
when carrying out its pollution control duties and to further
conservation when undertaking its water management activities.
It has a free-standing duty generally to promote the conservation
of flora and fauna dependent on the aquatic environment.
1.3 The Agency is a competent and relevant
authority under The Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) 1994
Regulations that implement the Birds and Habitats Directives.
It is a key player in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP),
having taken on lead responsibility for 39 species and 5 habitats
of wetland character. A report Focus on Biodiversity, that
reports on the Agency's contribution to wildlife conservation
in general, and progress on its obligations under the UK Biodiversity
Action Plan in particular, will be published in July 2000.
1.4 The evidence submitted by the Agency
to the House of Lords European Communities Committee Inquiry into
European policy on biodiversity is still relevant. It is attached
as an Annex[22]
and where appropriate, is referred to by paragraph number.
2. AGENCY EVIDENCE
The effectiveness of UK biodiversity policies
2.1 There are two main elements: (i) the
effectiveness of nature conservation legislation; and (ii) the
integration of biodiversity across the spectrum of government
policy-making.
2.2 We are pleased about the new provisions
in the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill that strengthen obvious
weaknesses in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, particularly
those dealing with the protection and management of SSSIs. Until
there is practical experience of their implementation, it is too
early to say whether they will reverse the decline in the condition
of damaged sites.
2.3 We consider that the UKBAP provides
the policy framework for improving measures to conserve biodiversity,
but it is too early to establish how effective this has been in
influencing strategic decisions on energy, agriculture and transport.
The UKBAP has been particularly important in highlighting the
need for conservation action beyond designated wildlife sites.
Progress on habitat and species action plans
2.4 Producing actions plans for 391 priority
species and 45 habitats in just four years has been an impressive
technical achievement. Collectively these set a clear agenda for
biodiversity conservation for all sections of Government and society.
Having a common agenda is a major step forward and should, through
co-ordination of effort and agreement on priorities be a more
productive approach to wildlife conservation in the UK.
2.5 Implementing the plans is a major challenge.
There are a number of elements to this, but political will, resources
and the support of society in general are all essential if the
UKBAP process is to succeed.
The priorities for implementing the species and
habitat action plans and the obstacles to their effective implementation
2.6 The published plans themselves represent
a priority list originally agreed by the UK Biodiversity Steering
Group in 1995. Since that time some circumstances have changed
and new knowledge has emerged. This means that the original priority
list was not perfect. For example, some species have declined
steeply over the past five years (eg salmon), whilst other "rare"
species have, with additional survey effort, been found to be
more widespread than originally thought.
2.7 The large number of plans, each with
individual targets and actions creates potential confusion inside
and particularly to those outside the biodiversity sector. However,
recent efforts to co-ordinate several species plans under the
"umbrella" of groups of habitats has begun to help the
implementation process considerably. Not least, this cuts down
on the number of steering groups and meetings that characterised
the early stages of the UKBAP process, giving rise to the charge
of excessive "biobureaucracy".
2.8 The devolution process has highlighted
the increased importance of the Country Groups and also the need
for UK consistency (see paragraphs 2.11 and 2.24 for issues related
to Wales). Much good work is being carried out at regional level.
For example, biodiversity audits and strategies have been developed
through partnerships involving regional assemblies, Round Tables,
local government, wildlife groups and the Agency.
2.9 One of the key overall objectives of
the UKBAP is to restore degraded habitats, thereby safeguarding
and increasing those plants and animals under the greatest threat.
Many action plans have restoration targets, and these naturally
extend beyond designated sites, reinforcing the view in our previous
evidence (Annex: paragraphs A3.25-A3.28) that SSSIs alone are
too isolated to sustain the wildlife heritage across the country.
2.10 Implementing habitat restoration targets
is a big challenge that in some instances requires a considerable
input of resources. Work by English Nature on their Species Recovery
Programme and our efforts together with partner organisations
to promote wetland and river rehabilitation are examples that
help toward restoration targets, but to make a real difference
a much more strategic habitat improvement programme and long-term
resource plans are needed.
2.11 Resourcing is a major issue, despite
welcome additional grant-aid for English Nature and increased
funding for agri-environment schemes. We are concerned that the
Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) has publicly stated that in
2000-01 it will not be able to fulfil about half its obligations
under the UKBAP, some of which are species (eg river jelly lichen,
depressed river mussel) for which we have lead responsibility.
2.12 We are not certain how effective putting
the UKBAP on a legislative footing would be. Many public bodies
(including us) and statutory undertakers already have general
duties to ensure the conservation of special interest features.
Guidance from Government that when exercising these general duties,
particular regard should be made for priorities and action of
the UKBAP would help emphasise its importance but still allow
sufficient flexibility if UKBAP priorities are reassessed in future.
2.13 Specific reference to Biodiversity
Action Plans in Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) Notes and their
equivalent in Wales would be helpful particularly in relation
to planning controls. A PPG on water would also be helpful, providing
a planning framework that takes account of wetland biodiversity.
2.14 The real impact of the UKBAP has to
be at the policy level. The recent high level targets for flood
defence set out for us by MAFF could also provide a useful model,
in that for biodiversity we have to report specifically on net
losses and gains on biodiversity action plan habitats resulting
from our flood defence work and that of other drainage authorities.
2.15 Principles and management guidance
such as those set out for us under Section 4 of the Environment
Act 1995 might also be helpful for public bodies, effectively
creating a biodiversity service level agreement between central
government (and the National Assembly for Wales) and operating
authorities. That service, would of course, need a concomitant
resource allocation for delivery.
Co-ordination of biodiversity planning and action
between national and local levels
2.16 Lack of co-ordination was an early
weakness in the UKBAP process as local initiatives sped ahead
in the absence of national guidance. This has now been rectified
with guidance for local biodiversity action plans (LBAPs), but
constant effort is still required to ensure that local targets
and priorities logically contribute to national ones.
The adequacy of arrangements for monitoring and
reporting changes in species and habitats
2.17 Unlike reporting mechanisms on the
UKBAP process itself, which are well in hand, there is a need
for better co-ordination on biological monitoring. Indeed there
is no coordination of monitoring, despite considerable effort
exerted by amateurs and professionals alike in national, regional
and local surveys of various plants and animals. As a consequence
there is at present, no simple framework for reporting.
2.18 This is due, in part, to the historical
legacy of different monitoring cycles, but also to inadequacies
in the data transfer system between local, regional and national
organisations. We are pleased that the National Biodiversity Network
has recently received £250k of DETR funding and we hope that
this will give the project impetus to deliver some early successes.
2.19 In the meantime, we recognise that
different methods will have to be used to establish change, from
accurate census on one hand to informed judgement on the other.
Indicators are a useful means for assessing general trends, but
can mislead if interpreted without adequate context.
Current implementation of EU biodiversity measures,
including the Habitats and Birds Directives
2.20 Our previous evidence (Annex: paragraphs
A3.2-A3.24) covers our experience of the Habitats and Birds Directive.
Full implementation of the EU Habitats and Birds
Directive obligations in the UK, and the adequacy of the Natura
2000 network
2.21 As a major competent authority required
to review all our existing authorisations to establish whether
they are having an impact on SPAs and candidate SACs, we consider
that implementation has been generally good. However, there is
still considerable lack of understanding by many sectors of industry
and others who are affected by the Directive when decisions are
taken on whether or not to issue an environmental licence or modify
existing ones.
2.22 We understand that, as a result of
the EU Moderation Exercise in Kilkee, there will be a very substantial
increase in the number of Special Areas of Conservation in England
and Wales. Whilst this is good news for wildlife conservation,
it will cause serious disruption to our carefully planned seven-year
review of consents programme (1998-2004), that was agreed with
English Nature and CCW and supported by the DETR. We have raised
our concerns about the implications of this potential new burden
with the DETR and National Assembly for Wales.
2.23 We have also taken an initiative to
treat the review programme as a joint project with English Nature
and CCW so that corporate planning priorities and resource allocation
for all three organisations are dovetailed, ensuring consistent
progress to an agreed joint timetable.
2.24 One example of an inconsistency in
implementing the Directive is the recent amendment (28 February)
of Regulations 10(1) and 11 of The Conservation (Natural Habitats
etc) Regulations 1994. This amendment applies only to England
and until the National Assembly for Wales approves a similar amendment
in Wales there will be an inconsistency in the protection of candidate
SACs with associated difficulties for us when dealing with cross-boundary
sites.
2.25 There is still considerable uncertainty
over the environmental requirements of many species and their
sensitivities to pollution. Better understanding requires significant
extra research effort so that the environmental standards we set
and operating practices we undertake and regulate achieve effective
biodiversity benefits.
2.26 Our views on the need to take account
of environmental change and provide land-use buffering if protected
sites are to be managed sustainably in the longer-term are articulated
in our previous evidence (Annex: paragraphs A3.8-A3.17).
Specific measures taken by Government Departments
to help achieve biodiversity
2.27 We have noted a more positive proactive
approach towards biodiversity from several Government Departments
and bodies, including the Ministry of Defence, Highways Agency
and Forestry Commission. We are beginning to see some encouraging
signs that agriculture policy will become less damaging to biodiversity,
notably in the extra funding for agri-environment schemes, but
we feel there is still scope for further improvement.
2.28 Ministerial approval for the national
environmental improvement programme in the third Asset Management
Plan (AMP3) round of the Period Review of Water Prices was particularly
welcome as it will result in substantial benefits for wildlife.
2.29 Making biodiversity information more
accessible through electronic means is a good way of ensuring
better awareness of biodiversity issues and actions, and the JNCC
and DETR biodiversity web-sites are invaluable sources of information.
The priority areas for, and what improvements
are needed, to ensure biodiversity concerns are integrated into
other government policies
2.30 Despite some encouraging signs, the
pressure on biodiversity, especially habitat fragmentation caused
by development, is still a cause for concern. These incremental
impacts on the countryside, and the resulting isolation and degradation
of remnant wildlife sites need to be reversed through biodiversity
checks and balances in planning controls and agricultural land-use
incentives (Annex: paragraphs A3.25-A3.28).
2.31 This will be brought into sharp focus
when the majority of point sources of water pollution in particular
are brought under control by 2005. This will expose the more pervasive
elements of environmental degradation that need to be addressed
at a strategic UK and European level. Implementation of the Strategic
Environmental Assessment and Water Framework Directives should
help rectify this, but making sure national, regional and local
government all move together in achieving sustainable development
with significant biodiversity gains remains a tough challenge.
3. OVERALL MESAGE
3.1 It is too early to make a definitive
statement on whether the outlook for biodiversity is better in
the long-term. Legislative and planning elements have not had
time to reveal their effectiveness, and delays in confirming the
Habitats Directive sites have added to this uncertainty.
3.2 Land-use policies will almost certainly
be the principal factor that determine the fate of wildlife conservation
in the UK, because without sympathetic management of the wider
countryside, designated sites will be exposed to greater pressures,
unsustainable in the longer-term, particularly so for those habitats
vulnerable to the effect of climate change. The extreme pressures
on the farming industry are unlikely to improve the outlook for
wildlife if increased intensification results from the current
economic crisis.
22 Evidence not printed. Back
| 
