MEMORANDUM BY THE JOINT MARINE PROGRAMME
OF THE WILDLIFE TRUSTS AND WWF-UK (WORLD WIDE FUND FOR NATURE)
(BIO 13)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Joint Marine Programme Wildlife
Trusts and WWF-UK welcome the opportunity to contribute to the
Environment Sub-committee's inquiry into issues of concern relating
to UK Biodiversity. Our concerns relate to the lack of measures
and resources to achieve the aims and actions identified in the
Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) and the continuing lack of understanding
amongst the general public and industry about marine biodiversity.
As the maritime biodiversity action plans have only recently been
published, this evidence is therefore specifically focussed on
one of the principal tools for marine biodiversity; the implementation
of the Biodiversity Convention (CBD) and the Habitats Directive
within the UK marine environment. It should however, be recognised
that in order to provide adequate protection for marine biodiversity
in the wider environment, measures are necessary to complement
marine protected areas. This is clearly recognised in the Jakarta
Mandate (CBD) on marine and coastal biodiversity, where the main
threats are identified.
1.2 The Wildlife Trusts are a national network
of 47 local trusts with 2,221 nature reserves and a membership
exceeding 310,000. The Trusts advocate the conservation of biodiversity
and environmental standards for both people and wildlife at a
local and national level. WWF-UK (World Wide Fund for Nature)
works on a wide range of environmental issues in the UK and around
the world. WWF's philosophy is to conserve nature—wild species
and wild places—by promoting the sustainable use of natural
resources to meet the needs of current and future generations.
WWFs policy objectives stem from its worldwide experience in the
field. The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK are now working together
in areas of common concern in the marine and coastal environment
under a Joint Marine Programme.
1.3 The British Isles is home to an extraordinary
array of marine biodiversity. Within our 12 nautical-mile limit,
is an area equivalent to 70 per cent of the land surface of the
UK and there are at least 8,000 species of marine organisms occurring
within these waters. It has been estimated that 50 per cent of
the UK's biodiversity is found in the seas, and yet marine habitats
and species are continuing to decline under increasing and serious
threats in this environment, and the marine biodiversity remains
almost entirely unprotected.
1.4 The UK's marine an coastal environment
is important for many activities and interests. For our fishing
industry, for the tourism and leisure industry, transport, energy,
waste disposal to name a few. All of these rely on the natural
qualities of the marine environment in one form or another, impact
upon it with their activities, and in most cases, rely on a healthy
and diverse environment to continue.
2. UK BIODIVERSITY
POLICIES (MARINE)
2.1 The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK welcome
the production of the Maritime Action Plans (October 1999), but
feel that it is too early to be able to judge whether they are
working effectively or not. However, we have a number of issues
on future implementation of the plans that we would like to raise
with the committee.
BIODIVERSITY ACTION
PLANS PRIORITIES
FOR IMPLEMENTING
SPECIES AND
HABITAT ACTION
PLANS
2.2 The Precautionary Principle
The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK believe that
concerns over a lack of information about the marine environment
should not mean lack of action to protect it, particularly in
the case of marine SACs. The Precautionary Principle is highly
applicable to this situation, In many cases, there is insufficient
evidence to prove that a species is declining, perhaps due to
a lack of historical data or difficulty in monitoring specific
species or habitats in the marine environment, but the need to
protect the habitat or species is still clear.
2.3 Progress of Action Plans
The progress so far on many habitat action plans
such as Reed Bed and Grazing Marsh is not encouraging; there is
a need to increase the pace of restoration/re-creation to meet
targets. This is a challenge in the first case, and doubly so
where coastal squeeze is diminishing maritime habitats.
2.4 Champions
The Wildlife Trust and WWF-UK are lead partners
for the Pink Sea Fan (Eunicella verucosa), the Sunset Coral
(Leptopsammia pruvoti) and the Sea-fan Anemone (Amphianthus
dohrnii); and one of our first priorities is to find a suitable
champion for these species. Initial approaches to industry have
highlighted the lack of understanding of the process and total
ignorance of the role of a champion. In order to implement the
Biodiversity Action Plans we will clearly need to find a new source
of funding. It is essential that all Government Departments take
a role in raising awareness of the essential role of industry
in this process.
2.5 Geographical Extent
This concern also regards the geographical extent
of the local maritime plans. Whilst county boundaries may be suitable
for the terrestrial environment, it is not appropriate in the
marine environment; particularly in the case of mobile marine
species or coastal habitats, which need to be considered at an
appropriate ecological area and scale. For example, it might be
argued that coastal habitats should be considered at the coastal
cell level. Discrete populations of harbour porpoise may use the
whole of the Celtic Sea and this would perhaps form the appropriate
geographic scope of a regional plan for this species. Consideration
of the management of marine species and habitats also needs to
be considered. Little or no powers are available at a local level
to manage the marine environment and so we would question the
sense of producing a county plan on a species such as the Harbour
porpoise. The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK believe that there is
an urgent need for guidance on the development of further maritime
plans.
2.6 Biodiversity and Shoreline Management
Plans
There is concern that effective implementation
of the Biodiversity Action Plans and other marine biodiversity
initiatives will depend on the compliance of other sectoral plans
and initiatives such as Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs). The
allocation of targets at an appropriate scale is critical to letting
relevant authorities know with what they have to comply. Clear
guidance is necessary on the need for non-conservation orientated
initiatives to comply. Targets in the Habitat Action Plans (HAPs)
are set at a UK level and need to be broken down into national
and regional/local targets. In England and Wales, this is likely
to be done on a coastal cell basis, to link to Natural Areas and
Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs) in particular, although not
all habitat creation issues can be addressed by SMPs. This opportunity
for SMPs in England and Wales to be used as a vehicle to plan
and appraise strategic compliance is not available in Scotland
and Northern Ireland where alternative opportunities to develop
appropriate compliance need to be developed. There is also concern
as to how SMPs will accommodate requirements under the Habitats
Directive and Regulations.
3. THE HABITATS
AND BIRDS
DIRECTIVES
3.1 The need to implement the Habitats[23]
and Birds[24]
Directives (1992 and 1979) has given the UK Government a unique
opportunity to raise the agenda of marine conservation in the
UK. Since the UK Habitats Regulations (1994)[25],
46 coastal and marine SACs have been designated within UK waters.
The Wildlife Trust and WWF-UK view this and the Natura 2000 Programme
under the European LIFE Nature Demonstration Project as being
a monumental step in developing marine conservation in the UK,
and the Government should be praised on its work to date. However,
The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK still have some concerns about
the process, including the limiting of designated sites to within
12 nautical miles (nm), the exclusion of important habitats and
species, and the inability of the current system to conserve dynamic
and moving habitats. The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK would like
the Committee to consider the following inadequacies of the Habitats
Directives and the implications for the UK's Marine Biodiversity.
3.2 The CORINE Classification System
The Habitats Directive was developed using the
CORINE classification system which was developed and based on
southern European species and habitats and therefore doesn't take
into account important and threatened UK habitats such as the
open sea environment, shelf sea fronts, sea lochs, and keystone
species such as the basking shark, sabellaria reefs, modiolus
beds etc. These have been shoehorned into a system that is inappropriate
to the habitats and species and will lead to problems in implementing
appropriate protection. This classification system has now been
replaced by the EUNIS classification system, which uses the BioMar
habitat classification system, a UK project part funded by the
European Commission's LIFE programme to fill in the gaps and prevent
duplications that occurred under the CORINE system. However, EUNIS
will only affect future marine environmental work, and will not
affect marine SACs in Europe unless there is a review of the Habitats
Directive. The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK believe that the UK
Government should support a review and expansion of Annexes I,
II, IV and V; and should introduce a network of marine protected
areas representative of the full range of UK marine biodiversity.
3.3 Geographical Extent for Implementation
Following the ruling of Mr Justice Kay[26],
the UK must apply the Habitats Directive to all sea areas where
it is empowered to act; beyond the 12 nautical-mile (nm) limit
of territorial waters to the 200 nm limit. Agreements have been
made regarding the Continental Shelf of the North Sea, where the
UK has responsibility out to the median line. The Wildlife Trusts
and WWF-UK believe the inquiry should address the steps being
taken by the Government to fulfil the requirements of the Habitats
Directive including its commitment to protect Annex I habitats
and Annex II species within its waters to the full extent of its
jurisdiction.
4. CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE
HABITATS DIRECTIVE
IN THE
UK
4.1 There are a number of concerns regarding
the development and implementation of the Habitats Regulations
in the UK, the consultations under Regulation 33(2) (England and
Wales) and Regulation 28 (Northern Ireland).
4.2 Management Plans and Regulation 33 Advice
Many of the management documents do not include
reference to opportunities to restore or enhance important habitats
and communities, particularly for sites where there has been known
degradation of a feature or sub-feature.
4.3 The use of the term "subject to
natural change" in all objectives will not ensure that the
UK complies with Article 2(1) and 2(2) of the Habitats Directive,
particularly where the bounds of "natural change" are
not quantified or understood. There is concern that determined
changes, whether natural or anthropogenic, will be based solely
on the data gathered within the site, and will ignore information
from elsewhere in the region to place changes in a broad context.
4.4 The wording in many of the Regulation
33(2) documents refers to no loss or no net loss in situ.
The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK feel that there is an urgent need
for clarification of the working in situ in the case of
dynamic habitats, which is currently subject to different interpretations.
These habitats are generally evolving or regressing, and if this
refers to a regional or coastal cell context, we feel that "no
loss" is appropriate phrasing, but if this refers to no loss
within the specific site context, then there is concern that the
current boundaries do not give room for the habitat to "move".
4.5 There is a concern that the competent/relevant
authorities will not have to respond to changes that are not attributable
to a development or activity regulated by that authority. An example
is the situation where saltmarsh or mudflats being monitored and
discovered to being depleted due to sea level rise and coastal
squeeze and therefore falling outside the current "jurisdiction"
of the authorities. The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK feel that there
needs to be some responsibility for planning and action in the
event of such a change within the sites. The responsibility should
also be statutory to avoid a situation where the relevant authorities
limit their work.
4.6 The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK advocate
that the competent authorities must not consider operations within
a SAC in isolation. There is little horizontal integration across
the plans, or recognition of possible cumulative effects or interactions
between activities that would affect the favourable conservation
status of a site. It is particularly important in the marine environment
that operates are assessed for their cumulative impact, both inside
and outside SACs. An individual activity or management practice
in itself may not be considered as having a significant detrimental
affect on a site. However, over a period of time, or in addition
to other activities, it may have a detrimental impact upon an
SAC. Therefore, it is important that no activity is considered
in isolation, either temporarily or spatially. In addition, Conservation
Agencies must be given byelaw-making powers for all marine sites
in the network. The regulation for implementing the Directive
is deficient in this respect.
4.7 Currently in the UK, the management
scheme process states that current use must be evaluated against
the conservation status. Current UK guidance suggests any potentially
damaging activity will be allowed to continue unhindered unless
it is shown to be significantly damaging. The Wildlife Trusts
and WWF-UK believe all potentially damaging activities must be
evaluated and mitigation measures/changes in management practices
be explored independent of the level of impact an operation has.
Re-instatement and improvement of a habitat/species should be
considered during this process.
4.8 The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK are very
concerned at current UK Governmental guidelines, which advocate
that the Government does not expect day-to-day activities within
a site to be affected through the implementation of the Habitats
Directive. We are concerned that the UK Government is not taking
the necessary steps to manage these sites holistically and effectively
but is intending to simply designate them and allow activities
within them to continue as before. We believe the Government must
show its intention to stop and/or modify any damaging activities
in these European Sites. The powers given for the protection of
EU Marine Sites are not far-reaching and flexible enough to be
effective.
COASTAL ISSUES—CURRENT
BOUNDARIES OF
SPAS AND
SACS
4.9 The boundaries of some existing SPAs
and proposed SACs have been wrongly drawn. Problems with boundaries
take various forms, including:
— SPA boundaries not containing the
lands upon which the qualifying species are dependent such as
the landward boundaries of SPAs for Brent Geese;
— SAC boundaries only partially reflect
populations of Annex II species for which the site is selected;
— SAC excludes Annex I habitat for
which the site is selected.
4.10 The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK believe
that in regions of sea level rise or coastal squeeze, Natura 2000
site boundaries should be extended landward to include areas that
are currently of low nature conservation interest. Such extensions
should be designed to accommodate habitat restoration and thus
ensure the maintenance of a favourable conservation condition
and the ecological coherence of the Natura 2000 network. The Coastal
Habitat Management Plans (ChaMPs) have great potential to achieve
compliance of coastal defence with the Directive in these dynamic
coastal areas, but do not allow for landward extensions to allow
for habitat movement and restoration.
4.11 The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK believe
that there is a need for a systematic review of European coastal
sites to ensure they include not only the resource they have been
selected to represent, but also all significant areas upon which
those interests are dependent. Such a review needs to be undertaken
by the relevant experts in a transparent and objective manner.
The review will also need to be assisted by the best scientific
information together with a new survey to address particular issues.
The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK believe it would be appropriate
to undertake a 50-year study into expected coastal change and
development. Where inevitable change is identified and even within
expected coastal development (for example the needs of ports),
providing there is no possible alternative, the defined boundaries
of SACs should be redrawn to build in space for the movement and
restoration of dynamic coastlines and habitats.
COASTAL ISSUES—RESTORATION
4.12 Another fundamental issue in coastal
sites relates to those internationally important intertidal habitats,
such as mudflats and sand dunes, which are suffering from an ongoing
reduction in area due to coastal squeeze and are therefore not
in a favourable condition status. The boundaries of Natura 2000
sites designated for these dynamic habitats have not been drawn
with a view to restoration of facilitating their natural movement
in response to sea level change, human intervention or long term
coastal evolution. The criteria for the selection of SACs include
the conservation of the structure and functions of habitats and
restoration possibilities. In too many cases, dynamic functions
and the restoration possibilities have been neglected, and no
agency has responsibility in the event of the degradation of the
site due to coastal squeeze, therefore suggesting that no action
will be taken as this occurs. The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK advocate
replacing the presumption in favour of in situ preservation
in dynamic coastal and marine areas with an explicit requirement
to establish conservation measures to ensure the favourable conservation
condition of all features of Community interest (see Appendix
1). Dynamic coastlines and habitats by their nature move, and
nature conservation value may be lost if the principle if in
situ preservation is required.
4.13 Under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan,
a number of costed Habitat Action Plans have been, or are being
agreed. These plans set targets to stop the loss of important
natural assets and where appropriate reverse historic damage and
loss. Many will depend on a level of integration between natural
resource management, and flood and coastal defence that is inconceivable
under the present system. The Habitats Directive describes a site
as a "geographically defined area whose extent is clearly
delineated" (Article 1 Habitats Directive) and (Article 6)
charges Member States with taking appropriate "steps to avoid,
in the SACs, the deterioration of natural habitats and the species
for which the areas have been designated". The conservation
of dynamic, coastal habitats sits uncomfortably within tightly
delineated sites unless there is space for habitat movement or
restoration.
4.14 It is difficult, to see how the present
system will allow the UK to even meet its international obligations
to nature conservation, let alone its commitment and aspirations
as manifest in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. Rising sea levels
threaten the integrity of many sites protected by European designations.
In some cases, these areas have been rendered incapable of adapting
due to defence works. It has been estimated that 12,750 ha of
intertidal habitat, much of it enjoying European protection, will
be lost to rising sea level between 1993 and 2013. To maintain
a favourable conservation status, habitat creation or restoration
must offset these losses. The present instruments are failing
to even offset losses and doing nothing to reverse them. In the
past four years since MAFF introduced its Saltmarsh Creation Habitat
Scheme, just four schemes covering 58 hectares have been implemented.
During the same period, it is estimated that at least 500 ha of
saltmarsh has been lost to rising sea levels. The Wildlife Trusts
and WWF-UK believe urgent attention needs to be given to the need
and opportunities for habitat restoration or recreation where
appropriate, and that without this, coastal biodiversity will
continue to be lost.
5. ANNEX I AND
II SPECIES
5.1 The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK are concerned
that work regarding SACs designated for these species does not
go far enough to provide sufficient protection. Particularly for
mobile species such as the harbour porpoise and bottlenose dolphin.
For example, the proposed management scheme for the Cardigan Bay
SAC (bottlenose dolphins) does not provide any more protection
than already exists prior to the SAC being designated. Any "development"
will be subject to appraisal, and there are no guidelines as to
how any appraisal would be assessed, or how a plan/project is
defined in the context of SACs as compared to current assessments.
5.2 With regard to the identification of
cSACs, the UK government has failed to select any sites for the
harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), a species listed
on Annex II of the Directive. Whilst recognising that further
research as to the areas essential to the life and reproduction
of this species is necessary. The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK call
upon the Government to classify the waters off the Pembrokeshire
Coast as a cSAC for this cetacean on the basis of "best available
information". Our current knowledge of this species can justify
the designation of an SAC, following a Wildlife Trust and WWF-UK
report[27]
into the harbour porpoise in West Wales gives evidence of the
importance of this area for breeding as identified in Article
1(k) of the Habitats Directive.[28]
We note with concern that six member states have put forward candidate
sites for the harbour porpoise, and yet the UK, which probably
has the largest population, has not.
MANAGEMENT—NATURE
CONSERVATION AGENCIES
5.3 All the relevant and competent authorities
should be given a duty:
— to further the purpose of nature
conservation. Without this, no one is ultimately accountable if
the statutory purpose is not achieved; and
— to ensure that a management scheme
is in place for all designated marine sites. These need not be
complicated plans. They should be tailored to the needs of individual
sites. However, given their responsibilities, it is essential
that the nature conservation agencies take the lead in the development
of such plans.
5.4 The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK believe
that whilst the nature conservation agencies should do everything
reasonably expected to achieve measures through agreement, they
should be given a suite of backstop powers. Therefore, The Wildlife
Trusts and WWF-UK support giving the nature conservation agencies:
— byelaw making powers which may affect
existing user rights in the marine environment;
— powers to direct authorities with
jurisdiction in the marine environment;
— stop orders to prevent damaging third
party activities;
— dispute resolution mechanisms (not
necessary appeals) after powers are exercised;
— restoration orders; and
— powers to refuse to consent damaging
activities.
5.5 The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK believe
that it is worth considering whether a new approach to the conservation
of marine sites is appropriate. As a consequence of devolution
and the question of jurisdictions is already very complicated.
In order to achieve "to best effect the public interest"
in marine nature conservation, consideration should be given to
the establishment of a Marine Conservation Agency with a UK wide
remit for marine nature conservation but an appropriate devolved
structure to address devolved matters. If it is accepted that
the nature conservation agency should take more of a lead role
in delivering site protection and management, an alternative approach
might be to establish nature conservation "Regulation Orders"
not dissimilar to the Shellfishery Regulation Orders available
to Sea Fisheries Committees.[29]
This would allow the nature conservation agency to establish a
legal framework for the management of a marine site tailored to
specific circumstances. The framework would define the scope of
the powers available to the nature conservation agency and allow
the agency to introduce Regulations as necessary to delivery site
management objectives.
5.6 The current sectoral administration
of the marine environment by Government also needs addressing
to overcome the fragmented approach to marine policy and practice.
The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK feel that there also needs to be
greater integration of approach by the various Government Departments.
For example, MAFF (Flood and Coastal Defence) accept no responsibility
for ensuring that flood and coastal defence policy complies with
agreed UK BAP targets and objectives. Guidance is necessary to
ensure that all branches of Government contribute to the delivery
of national biodiversity targets. Greater co-operation of Government
activities and policy in the marine environment is needed, to
effectively deliver marine conservation and biodiversity objectives.
MANAGEMENT—OTHER
AGENCIES
5.7 The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK believe
guidance should be given as to how such powers should be exercised,
especially where there may be a conflict between functions and
duties, and nature conservation obligations under the Habitats
Directive. The need for this is illustrated by the recent establishment
of a cockle fishery in Strangford Lough MNR/European Marine Site.
A gap in current legislation meant that neither the Fisheries
Division nor the Environment and Heritage Service of the DoE NI
nor the landowner (National Trust) had any ability to control
and regulation the activity on the site (see Appendix 2). In addition,
such authorities should be given a duty to provide all reasonable
assistance and information concerning the establishment and implementation
of a management scheme for a designated site.
6. PROTECTION
OF BIODIVERSITY
OUTSIDE OF
PROTECTED SITES
6.1 A Holistic Approach
Any approach to maintain and enhance biodiversity
must take an holistic view of the whole environment as well as
that of specific habitats and species. This is especially true
in the boundary-less marine environment where actions to protect
habitats and species cannot be achieved in isolation of the wider
management measures. This is illustrated by the problems with
measures for the conservation fish stocks and the Common Fisheries
Policy. Whilst the Habitats Directive offers greater protection
to the marine environment, it is only under certain circumstances.
The Habitats and Birds Directives provide an opportunity to deliver
on UK biodiversity commitments; however, The Wildlife Trust and
WWF-UK believe in order to protect a mobile and threatened species
such as the harbour porpoise the UK Government will need to develop
a framework of conservation measures including marine protected
areas, fisheries conservation measures, reduction in pollution
and harassment.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK recommend
that the following areas should be priorities for improvement:
Habitats and Birds Directives
(a) The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK call for
the designation of a network of sites, representative of the full
range of UK marine biodiversity, and that Annexes I, II IV and
V should be expanded.
(b) The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK believe
that a high priority for UK biodiversity must be full implementation
of the Habitats Directive beyond 12 nm, of all sea areas within
UK jurisdiction.
(c) The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK believe
the UK's biodiversity objectives and policies cannot be achieved
unless they are integrated with all other policies regarding the
marine environment.
Current implementation of the Habitats Directive
in the UK
(d) The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK feel there
needs to be responsibility for planning and action in the event
of change that is not attributable to activities currently regulated
by competent/relevant authorities.
(e) The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK call for
the designation of a network of sites that is truly representative
of the full range of UK marine biodiversity, expanding Annexes
I, II, IV and V using the EUNIS classification system.
Management Plans and Regulation 33
(f) In the advice on operations, it is important
that assessment of activities should not be taken in isolation,
but should also examine possible cumulative effects and interactions
between activities.
(g) There needs to be a review of EU Marine
Sites to ensure they include not only the resource they have been
selected to represent, but also significant areas upon which those
interests are dependant. This also includes the need for sites
designated for their dynamic habitats to include areas to facilitate
the natural accretion, movement or erosion in response to sea
level change, human intervention or long-term coastal evolution.
(h) The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK believe
that it would be appropriate to undertake a 50-year study into
expected coastal change and development, with a view to redefining/redrawing
the boundaries of SACs to build in this space for the movement
and restoration of dynamic coastlines and habitats.
Priorities for Implementing Species and Habitat
Plans
(i) The Precautionary Principle should apply
within all EU Marine Sites and to all marine and maritime BAPs.
Co-ordination of planning and action
(j) It is essential that all Government departments
take a role in raising awareness of the essential role of industry
in the biodiversity process and the need for "champions".
(k) The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK feel that
there needs to be guidance given as to the most appropriate level
at which to produce local plans, depending on which level strategic
decisions about their management are being made. Guidance should
also be provided to the most appropriate geographical extent for
the various plans, eg Regional or coastal cell for coastal habitats
or maritime plans.
(l) The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK believe
that there is an urgent need for guidance on the development of
further marine and maritime biodiversity action plans.
Coastal Issues
(m) The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK believe
that in regions of sea level rise or coastal squeeze, Natura 2000
site boundaries should be extended landward to include areas that
are currently of low nature conservation interest.
(n) The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK believe
it would be appropriate to undertake a 50-year study into expected
coastal change and development.
(o) The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK believe
urgent attention needs to be given to the need and opportunities
for habitat restoration or re-creation where appropriate and that
without this, coastal biodiversity will continue to be lost.
(p) The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK advocate
that the competent authorities must not consider operations within
a SAC in isolation. The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK believe all
potentially damaging activities must be evaluated and mitigation
measures/changes in management practices be explored independent
of the impact an operation has.
Annex I and II species
(q) The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK call for
the waters off the Pembrokeshire Coast to be identified as a cSAC
for the harbour porpoise, on the basis of "best available
information".
Protection of Biodiversity Outside of Protected
Sites
(r) The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK believe
that there is a need for wider sea measures for all annexed species
and habitats, which will have more benefit than solely concentrating
on small areas, particularly in the case of mobile species. Marine
conservation in the UK should be placed on a sound, statutory
basis, and marine conservation should be the purpose of the statute.
(s) It is essential for the conservation
of European fish stocks, ecosystems and for the industry that
proactive/precautionary measures provide the fundamental basis
of the CFP after this review by integrating the requirements of
biodiversity and fisheries policy.
Government involvement in achieving biodiversity
targets
(t) There is a need for greater co-ordination
of Government activities and policy and integration of approach
in the marine environment in order to deliver marine conservation
effectively.
(u) Current Government guidelines advocate
that current day-to-day activities within a site will not be affected
through the implementation of the Habitats Directive. The Wildlife
Trusts and WWF-UK believe that the Government must show its intention
to stop/modify any damaging activities in SACs. The powers given
for the protection of EU Marine Sites are not far-reaching or
flexible enough to be effective.
Management—Nature Conservation Agencies
and Other Agencies
(v) The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK believe
that the nature conservation agencies should be given a duty to
further the purpose of nature conservation. Whilst they should
do everything reasonably expected to achieve measures through
agreement, they should be given a suite of backstop powers including
the following:
— byelaw making powers which may affect
existing user rights in the marine environment;
— powers to direct authorities with
jurisdiction in the marine environment;
— stop orders to prevent damaging third
party activities;
— dispute resolution mechanisms (not
necessary appeals) after powers are exercised;
— restoration orders; and
— powers to refuse to consent damaging
activities.
(w) The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK support
proposals that non-nature conservation authorities and agencies
with jurisdiction in the marine environment should be given the
ability and the duty to exercise their existing powers to further
marine nature conservation, insofar as is consistent with their
existing functions.
REFERENCES
UNEP. Global Diversity Assessment, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge 1995.
The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK joint report
"The Harbour Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in West Wales"
(May 1998)
The Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967, HMSO.
Council of the European Communities, (1992),
Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats
and of wild flora and fauna.
Council of the European Communities, (1979),
Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds.
B Kelso and M Service, The Effects of Cockle
Harvesting on Strangford Lough, (1999), DoE NI.
The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c)
Regulations 1994.
The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c)
(Northern Ireland) Regulations 1995.
Greenpeace v UK Government, (High Court Judgement),
5 November 1999.
APPENDIX 1
NO NET HABITAT LOSS AS A CONSERVATION TOOL
IN DYNAMIC COASTAL AREAS
BACKGROUND:
"No net loss" as a device for maintaining
the current stock of important habitats is implicit in much of
the UK's biodiversity planning and some conservation legislation.
However, there is little consensus about what it means in practice,
particularly where conservation in situ is not a tenable
option, and no framework, legal or otherwise, exists to administer
it. This paper seeks to explore the rationale for no net loss,
highlight some of the potential pitfalls and begin to map ground
rules for its application in environmental planning. The later
are poorly developed and much work is necessary to translate the
concept into a workable tool for biodiversity conservation.
The rationale for a policy of no net habitat
loss in the coastal environment:
In situ preservation is not a practical
option for many ecologically important coastal habitats. The reasons
for this are:
— habitats like mudflats, saltmarshes
and sand dunes are naturally dynamic—ie they move and adjust
according to changing environmental conditions such as sea level;
— many such habitats are the immature
products of evolving coastlines—that is to say that even
if global environmental conditions, such as sea level and climate,
were presently constant they would still be changing because the
landscape has yet to develop a stable form[30];
— any attempt to stop natural change
and adjustment would undermine the sustainability and alter the
ecological characteristics of the habitat.
Habitat changes can be divided into two types,
each requiring a different conservation approach:
— short to medium term cyclic change;
— medium to long term trends.
Cyclic change includes habitat responses to
seasonal or episodic occurrences such as storms. These are usually
characterised by disruption events followed by periods of recovery
however, over an extended period (of say 100 years) the overall
attributes and extent of the habitat remain constant.
Long-term trends imply changes in the gross
attributes and extent. Such changes can be masked by considerable
short to medium term natural variability. Long-term trends may
be the result of natural landscape evolution, human intervention,
and response to wider environmental forcing factors such as climate
or a combination of these things.
Any attempt to prevent natural long-term change
or cyclic variation is likely to be futile and ecologically unsustainable.
Sustainable management should be oriented towards working with
and allowing natural change. It follows that some habitat changes
in both space and time are inevitable. Conservation will be most
effective if it addresses itself to the maintenance of the ecologically
important attributes including biodiversity. In the case of coastal
areas, this objective is best served by orientating human land
use, development and exploitation toward maintaining the extent
and functionality of habitats.
For the reason outlined above a policy of no
net loss makes better ecological sense than in situ measure
in dynamic coastal environments. However, implementing a policy
of no net loss will not be easy and, from a nature conservation
perspective, there are serious potential pitfalls.
DIFFICULTIES IN
IMPLEMENTING AN
ACCEPTABLE POLICY
OF NO
NET HABITAT
LOSS:
1. The overall extent of most habitats is
constrained by natural physical factors and human land use. Habitat
migration from one place to another will only be possible if human
management facilitates it. Landowners are unlikely to volunteer
loss of income associated with the change from agriculture or
development to natural habitat.
2. There is presently no legal backing for
a policy of no net loss. Although public policy changes[31]
may facilitate the habitat creation that could balance habitat
loss, they cannot guarantee it. Given the bitter experience of
habitat loss to date, conservationists are unlikely to be satisfied
with the concept of no net loss without surety.
3. Developers and decision-makers may interpret
a policy of no net loss as legitimising otherwise unacceptable
development providing efforts are made to offset losses.
4. The rationale behind a policy of "no
net loss" is only really applicable to naturally dynamic,
recreatable habitats. It would be difficult to apply dissimilar
legislation or policy to different habitat types.
5. Current habitat conservation legislation
is framed to address clearly delineated sites rather than attributes
that may stray over lines on a map. Although the Habitats Directive[32]
refers to "the sum of the influences acting on a natural
habitat and its typical species that may affect its long-term
natural distribution, structure and functions".
Given the above difficulties, it is tempting
to despair of ever establishing an acceptable policy framework
for no net loss. Nonetheless since in situ preservation
is not tenable for many important coastal habitats, thus the options
are:
— risk the outcome of an unregulated
approach; or
— attempt to establish a framework
to guarantee no net habitat loss.
From a nature conservation perspective the only
acceptable option is to establish a framework to guarantee no
net loss. We therefore need to suspend any misgiving and seek
to overcome the difficulties outlined above.
SOME PRELIMINARY
GROUND RULES
FOR NO
NET LOSS:
In most cases, maintenance in situ will
be the preferred conservation strategy. However, in many cases,
and particularly in dynamic coastal and marine situations, conservation
in situ may not be a viable option.[33]
Where conservation in situ is not viable, a series of conditions
are necessary to define the acceptability of no net loss as a
conservation tool.
1. Any habitat created within the framework
of a no net loss policy should be more sustainable than that which
is lost.
Sustainability is a function of:
— location—vulnerability;
— diversity—ecological structure;
— physical attributes, such as hydrology.
2. Any habitat created within the framework
of a no net loss policy should be of a similar type, ie it should
provide the same ecological functions and support broadly the
same species as that which is lost.
3. Habitat created to offset loss should
be in the same eco-geographical unit.[34]
4. Habitat creation to offset loss should
be successfully implemented in advance of habitat loss.[35]
Where this is not possible, a greater area should be recreated
in order to build in a greater surety of long-term success against
the inherent risks of failure. Loss without a timetable and resources
to facilitate creation is not acceptable.
5. Arrangement should be made to guarantee
any management measures necessary to maintain the nature conservation
interest of new site in perpetuity.
6. Any conservation designations should
be transferred from the area of loss to the area of gain or creation
in advance of the loss. Where this is not possible, a timetable
for creation and review must be established.
7. Where there is a conflict between features
of international, national, regional or local interest, priority
should follow the same order.
DEFINITIONS:
Conservation = measures to maintain or restore
the natural habitats and the populations of species of wild fauna
and flora at or to a favourable status.
Conservation status of a natural habitat = the
sum of the influences acting on a natural habitat and its typical
species that may affect its long-term natural distribution, structure
and functions as well as the long-term survival of its typical
species within the territory referred to in Article 2
Favourable conservation status of a habitat
= when:
— its natural range and areas it covers
within that range are stable or increasing;
— the specific structure and functions
which are necessary for its long-term maintenance exist and are
likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future; and
— the conservation status of its typical
species is favourable.
Habitat = the living place of an organism or
community, characterised by its physical or biotic properties.
Habitat migration = the natural movement of
a habitat due to changing condition in the physical environment
such as climate, sea level or wave energy.
Habitat restoration = the re-establishment of
habitats where they formally existed or the improvement of degraded
habitats.
Habitat creation = the creation of habitats
where they do not currently exist and have not existed in recent
times.
Eco-geographical unit = a coastal sediment cell
or Natural Area as defined by English Nature.
Habitat translocation = literally lifting the
surface layer (usually the soil) of a habitat and moving it somewhere
else. This is very costly, rarely successful and just about never
sensible as a conservation technique.
Favourable conservation condition = a range
of conditions for a natural habitat or species at which the sum
of the influences acting upon that habitat or species.
ELABORATION:
No net loss of what?
Conservation of the important:
— ecological/geomorphological functions.
APPENDIX 2
THE COMMON LAW RIGHT TO FISH ON STRANGFORD
LOUGH
For the first time in Northern Ireland, large
commercial interests are exploiting cockle stocks, by mechanically
harvesting cockles in Strangford Lough using a specialised tractor
dredge.
Unlike the rest of the UK, in Northern Ireland
there is currently no legislation in place to regulate harvesting
of shellfish from the shore and so there are no restrictions to
the use of mechanical harvesters. The depletion of stocks in the
Dutch Wadden Sea, and the measures taken to allow stocks to recover
elsewhere in the UK, has increased interest in the exploitation
of new areas. In Scotland, tractor dredging was prohibited in
1994—following a change to the Inshore Fishing (Scotland)
Act 1984. In England and Wales, shellfish gathering is regulated
under local Sea Fisheries Committee byelaws. Currently, restricted
suction dredging is allowed within certain Committee areas. Tractor
dredging is only permitted under special authorisation within
the North Western and North Wales region.
Strangford Lough is the "jewel in the crown"
of conservation areas in Northern Ireland, holding numerous designations,
including ASSIs, Marine Nature Reserve, marine SAC, Special Area
of Protection (Birds), National Nature Reserve, Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty and Ramsar Site. Yet, even with all these designations,
there is an inability to respond to a new and damaging activity.
GOVERNMENT POSITION/LEGISLATION
It is generally agreed that mechanical harvesting
of shellfish is potentially to the nature conservation interest
of the site. The amount of damage will depend upon a number of
factors such as the intensity of the dredging, the nature of the
sediments and the timing of the operation.
The site is protected under Area of Special
Scientific Interest (ASSI) legislation. The legislation however,
does not allow the Environment and Heritage Service to prosecute
the party responsible for the harvesting because they are neither
owners nor occupiers. In this case, the foreshore is leased by
Ards Borough Council from the Crown Estates Commissioners, and
the National Trust, who own large tracts of foreshore at the northern
end of Strangford Lough.
Under the Habitats Directive Regulation, the
UK government has a mandatory duty to protect European sites and
there is provision for Environment and Heritage Service to introduce
bye-laws under this Directive. The Environment and Heritage Service
(EHS) were, however, reluctant to proceed with the introduction
of bye-laws, as the procedure is lengthy and will almost certainly
be challenged through the courts. Furthermore, the Minister considered
that it would be more appropriate and effective to regulate the
activity through an Amendment to the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland)
1966.
The Department of Agriculture (NI)—Fisheries
Division are working towards an Amendment to the 1966 Act, which
would confer on them powers over the intertidal area. At present,
their power only extends from low water mark. There was, and still
is a degree of uncertainty as to whether this Amendment will go
before Westminster or the new Northern Ireland Assembly, and it
is difficult to estimate how long the process will take. It may
be two years before Regulatory Orders could be drawn up.
In 1988, the National Trust attempted to enforce
their bye-laws in order to ban commercial shellfish collection
in a court action taken against Mr Thomas Adair. In this case,
the Judge ruled that the plaintiff had a common law right to collect
shellfish from the waters and the foreshore and that the byelaws
could be enforced. It is possible that the judgement of a future
case could distinguish between commercial activity (in particular
large scale mechanical harvesting) and a common law right to collect
for personal consumption.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
EHS commissioned a literature review of cockle
harvesting[36]
which reflects the complexity of assessing the extent of environmental
damage caused by cockle harvesting. Whilst the level of impact
depends on a wide range of factors including the equipment used,
timing and frequency of harvest, sediment composition and weather
conditions, the overall conclusions of the report were that it
was likely to have a severe damaging impact on Strangford Lough.
This including an immediate effect on the Zostera (eel grass)
beds, which form a very important habitat and feeding ground for
birds and for which Strangford Lough was designated an SPA.
The cockle harvesting has occurred for two years
already, with potentially another two years before the powers
are in place to regulate the activity, during which time the nature
conservation interest of the site could be severely affected.
23 Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation
of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Back
24
Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds. Back
25
The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994,
and The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) (Northern Ireland)
Regulations 1995. Back
26
Greenpeace v UK Government, 5 November 1999. Back
27
The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK joint report "The Harbour
Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in West Wales" (May 1998). Back
28
"For animal species ranging over wide areas, sites of Community
importance shall correspond to the places within the natural range
of such species which present the physical or biological factors
essential to their life and reproduction." Back
29
Under Section 1 of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967. Back
30
Usually since the major disruption associated with the end of
the last age. The same could be said for almost any physical feature
but the rate of change in many sedimentary coastal habitats is
sufficiently fast as to cause an immediate management dilemma. Back
31
In flood defence or agricultural support for example. Back
32
Directive 92/43/EC The conservation of natural habitats and of
wild flora and fauna. Back
33
The reasons for this are discussed above. Back
34
Natural Area (as defined by English Nature) or sediment cell (as
defined by MAFF). Back
35
Success will need to be defined on a case by case basis. Back
36
B Kelso and M Service, The Effects of Cockle Harvesting on
Strangford Lough, (1999), DoE NI. Back
| 
