Select Committee on Education and Employment Twelfth Report

TWELFTH REPORT

The Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee has agreed to the following Report:—

UK BIODIVERSITY

  

1. Our inquiry into UK Biodiversity has been wide-ranging and we will produce a full Report later this year.[9] However, during the course of the inquiry, it became apparent that primary legislation would be required to remedy several of the shortcomings which we identified. Opportunities to introduce primary legislation for countryside and wildlife issues are traditionally scarce: the last such piece of legislation was the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 which was introduced nearly twenty years ago. Deficiencies in that Act are only now being addressed in the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. Given the opportunity which the passage of this Bill provides, we considered it appropriate to produce an interim report which deals with those biodiversity issues which can be remedied by amendments to this bill. The purpose of this report is, therefore, to aid the House of Lords in its consideration of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill.

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs)

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

Local Wildlife Sites

3. Local Wildlife Sites are designated by local authorities as having importance for wildlife. Such sites are often run by a partnership involving the wildlife trusts, other local organisations and the local authority. Witnesses identified these sites as critical to the success of biodiversity policy and achieving targets in the Biodiversity Action Plans. However, the protection they receive is entirely dependent upon the priority given to them by the local authority — they are not the subject of any statutory provisions. We heard many calls for local wildlife sites to be given greater protection. We recommend that local authorities have a duty to identify and maintain a register of local wildlife sites and give them the status of 'material consideration' in development control decisions. This should ensure that there is a general presumption against development on these sites unless no suitable alternative can be found.

Non-native Species

4. There is a growing list of introduced, non-native species which are causing harm to the UK's native biodiversity. Few people can be entirely unaware of (or unaffected by) the relentless march of species such as the grey squirrel and the North American crayfish; floating pennywort and Japanese knotweed continue to colonise water and land respectively. However, the issue of non-native species is a complicated one with some philosophical and ethical wrinkles: for example, it is a particularly difficult judgement to decide when a non-native species (for example the rabbit or the sycamore) can be considered to have assimilated and become a naturalised one. The UK's biodiversity, of course, changes composition constantly and new species are always finding homes in the UK. There are also ethical and welfare considerations for some species (for example, American mink). Despite these matters, it is beyond doubt that the invasive nature of some non-native species makes them a serious threat to our native wildlife.

5. The practical problems of introduced species comprise two separate components: dealing with those species which have already been introduced to the UK (for which the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has responsibility), and preventing other, unwelcome, species from entering the UK (the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions). Although there already exist some measures to deal with both sets of problems, there does not appear to be a coherent strategy to deal with the problem as a whole. We recommend that English Nature be given overall responsibility for dealing with introduced species. Specifically, English Nature should monitor and assess particular problems relating to introduced species, and recommend action where required.[10]

Field Boundaries

6. In 1998, we undertook an inquiry into the protection of field boundaries, and were impressed by the powerful evidence of the importance for wildlife of traditional field boundaries such as hedgerows, dry stone walls, ditches and dykes. In our inquiry into UK Biodiversity, we once again heard about the significance of field boundaries (and other connecting features) for biodiversity and the problems caused by their loss. Fragmentation of habitats was identified by several witnesses as one of the biggest threats to biodiversity and, along with habitat recreation, one of the best methods of countering this fragmentation is to provide 'corridors' which link the remaining habitats. This is recognised in Article 10 of the Habitats Directive[11] which seeks to maintain features of importance in the landscape that link and buffer areas of importance for wildlife. Traditional field boundaries qualify as such features and their protection and recreation can be considered to be an extremely effective mechanism for aiding biodiversity.

7. Of all the different types of traditional field boundaries, only hedgerows currently receive any protection and the existing Hedgerows Regulations are partial and inadequate since they only enable the protection of 'important' hedgerows, where importance is defined by a set of nationally specified criteria. Although the Government intends to strengthen the Hedgerow Regulations later this year, we must reaffirm our previous recommendation that "all types of traditional field boundary merit equal protection in law ... the Government must introduce new primary legislation for the protection of field boundaries within the lifetime of this Parliament."[12] We recommend that all types of traditional field boundaries should be protected so as to ensure the continued presence of habitats for some species and corridors for the movement of others. Hedges, banks, ditches, dykes and walls should all receive legal protection where they are identified as being important either nationally or locally for biodiversity (or other reasons).

Management Agreements to Cover Features Outside of Sites of Special Scientific Interest

8. Witnesses emphasised that the majority of the UK's biodiversity exists outside protected sites and they stressed the importance of policy measures which recognise and deal with this. A number of policy changes will be required to address biodiversity in the wider countryside and we will return to this subject in our final report. However, we focus here on the biodiversity importance of particular features outside protected sites, in the wider countryside. The continued function of field boundaries and other features in linking habitats will not be ensured by legal protection alone: there is also a role for measures which achieve better management of these features. English Nature already has powers to negotiate management agreements but only with landowners within (and adjacent to) a Site of Special Scientific Interest. We recommend that English Nature be given the power to negotiate management agreements with landowners in the wider countryside, outside Sites of Special Scientific Interest, to cover features of importance to biodiversity. We expect that English Nature will need some additional resources to be able to fulfil the potential which this option offers.

Statutory Basis for Biodiversity Action Plans

9. It was a source of disappointment to many witnesses that the Biodiversity Action Plans had little statutory underpinning. There are two possible components to any statutory requirements. At the national level, Government Departments and other Governmental bodies could be given a requirement to further the Biodiversity Action Plans. Such a duty was strongly supported by witnesses from non-governmental organisations which considered that there was insufficient commitment to the plans across Government. Against this, most Government bodies cautioned that the Biodiversity Action Plans had made good progress, that statutory duties would not necessarily improve the fortunes of the plans and that a system of statutory duties could risk alienating many of the bodies currently involved. The other statutory requirement which witnesses favoured was giving local authorities a duty to further biodiversity. At present, the performance of local authorities in this regard appears to be patchy and the variable success of local BAPs demonstrates this. We were told by the Minister of his plans for 'Community Strategies' to take forward various local environmental matters, including the biodiversity action plans.

10. It seems clear that some statutory underpinning of the Biodiversity Action Plan process would help ensure the implementation of the plans. At the very least, a statutory duty would give increased leverage to those involved in setting priorities and bidding for funding for biodiversity work. We recommend that Government Departments, Executive Agencies, Non-Departmental Public Bodies and Local Authorities be required to further the aims of the Biodiversity Action Plans. Local authorities should also be given a duty to maintain local records centres to provide biodiversity information.

---

9   Written evidence to this inquiry has already been published as HC441-II. The remainder of the written and oral evidence received during the course of the inquiry has been placed in the libraries of both Houses of Parliament and will be published alongside our main report. Back

10  Since English Nature's remit extends only to England, close co-operation between English Nature and the devolved administrations will be necessary, particularly where preventing unwelcome species from entering the UK is concerned. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee may provide an appropriate vehicle for such co-operation. Back

11   Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora Back

12   Paragraph 129, The Protection of Field Boundaries, Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, HC969-I (1997-98) Back

---

Prepared 7 July 2000