Memorandum from the Bat Conservation Trust
1. THE BAT
CONSERVATION TRUST
1.1 The Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) is
pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the above. The BCT
is the only organisation concerned solely with the conservation
of bats within the UK. It is a registered charity, serves a network
of over 95 bat groups across the UK and Eire, and has a membership
of over 4,000. We are supported in our work by government agencies,
professionals and expert volunteer bat workers.
1.2 A joint BCT/RSPB two year investigation
project into bat related crime was completed in April 2003. As
a result of this investigation a report was produced (a copy is
available at <au,02>http://www.bats.org.uk/downloads/BatCrimeReport.pdf<xu)
which gave an insight into the high levels of crime against bats,
its causes, and the way in which it is treated within the criminal
justice system. All 16 species occurring in the UK are European
Protected Species, protected under the EU Habitats Directive,
the UK Habitats Regulations, and the Wildlife & Countryside
Act 1981 (as amended by the Countryside & Rights of Way Act
2000). The greater mouse-eared bat became extinct in the UK in
1991, and the greater horseshoe bat is estimated to have declined
by over 90% in the last 100 years.
2. THE SCALE
AND IMPACT
OF BAT
RELATED CRIME
2.1 During the two years of the Bat Investigations
Project between April 2001 and April 2003, 144 offences were identified
in the UK; offences were also reported that had taken place before
April 2001, which brought the total number reported to 209. However,
this is likely to be the tip of the iceberg because most offences
take place on private land and so remain undiscovered, and there
is also a reluctance to report wildlife crime incidents to the
police.
2.2 Ninety seven per cent of these 144 incidents
involved damage or destruction of the roost, obstruction of roost
access, or disturbance of bats actually at the roost. This is
of particular conservation concern; because female bats gather
together from a wide area in the summer to give birth, incidents
involving these roosts can have very serious implications for
conservation of bats from a whole area. Similarly, in the winter
some sites are important for the number of hibernating bats they
host. Whole colonies—not just individuals—could effectively
be wiped out by these incidents affecting roosts. Over two-thirds
of the 144 incidents were caused by the building trade.
3. IS THE
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
ROBUST ENOUGH
TO DEAL
WITH BAT
RELATED CRIME?
3.1 Amendments to the W&CA 1981 by CRoW
2000 have improved protection for bats in England and Wales. However,
equivalent amendments are needed for Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Although the legislation is in place to protect bats, there are
some improvements to it that could still be made in England and
Wales; its enforcement also needs to be made more effective. (The
latter will be addressed to an extent by the implementation of
Operation Bat by the police—improved handling of and training
for bat related offences by the police; bats were made a wildlife
crime priority as a result of these BCT/RSPB Bat Investigations
Project findings.) In areas where bat workers, statutory nature
conservation organizations (SNCOs) and the police work in partnership,
this has proved to be effective in enforcing the legislation.
3.2 Changes in the law that would improve
protection for bats include the following:
(a) Bat offences should become "recordable
crimes" by the police.
(b) Legislation in Scotland and Northern
Ireland should incorporate the improvements brought about by CRoW
2000 in England and Wales.
(c) Where actions would affect a protected
species the advice sought as a legal requirement from an SNCO
must be followed.
(d) Habitats Regulations derogations must
be accurately and consistently applied across the UK.
(e) All those who have formal responsibilities
for implementing wildlife legislation must have thorough training
in their area of responsibility.
(f) A question about presence or absence
of European Protected Species needs to be included on all planning
application forms, listed building application forms and applications
for works to trees with tree preservation orders. EPS must then
be taken into account in decisions made in these areas.
(g) Consideration should be given to how
the amendments made by CRoW can be included within the UK Habitats
Regulations.
4. DO RESPONSIBLE
BODIES HAVE
SUFFICIENT RESOURCES
AND POWERS?
DO THEY
TREAT WILDLIFE
CRIME WITH
PROPER AND
DUE GRAVITY?
4.1 SNCOs have traditionally taken a conciliatory
approach to bat crime and dealt with offences internally without
reporting them to police or taking enforcement action. Contributory
factors to this approach may be absence of knowledge about the
action to take and the powers that are available, a lack of staff
resources, or a reluctance to inform the police because of fear
that heavy-handed enforcement action will automatically ensue.
However, without enforcement there is no deterrent for those who
repeatedly ignore legislation. We would like to see more resources
put into training and providing staff to address these issues
within SNCOs. With SNCOs working in partnership with bat workers
and the police, the police can be guided by their expertise and
experience to come to informed decisions about the best possible
outcome for long-term bat conservation.
4.2 The police have recently announced that
bat related crime is to be one of its wildlife crime priorities;
this will lead to improved wildlife crime procedures within the
police, training of police wildlife crime officers and a higher
profile generally for bat related crime. However, there is still
a real shortage of wildlife crime officers (WCOs) across the UK
leading to delays and inaction. Some constabularies do not have
a WCO, and of those that do, most have to fit wildlife crime work
around their other duties which take precedence over wildlife
crime. We would like to see this addressed, and for WCOs to have
more time dedicated to wildlife crime issues.
4.3 Many local planning authorities do not
have the interest in or resources to take account of EPS—probably
because their protection comes under legislation other than planning;
however, more emphasis needs to be given to the requirement to
take EPS matters into account when deciding on planning applications.
Resources need to be put into initial planner training courses
and continuing professional development to ensure planners understand
the importance of EPS legislation and the procedures they must
take. Resources also are needed to enable planners to implement
these procedures. The forthcoming PPS9 needs be stronger and clearer
on the requirements of EPS.
5. IS THERE
SUFFICIENT DIALOGUE
AND CO-OPERATION
ACROSS GOVERNMENT
AND AMONGST
VARIOUS BODIES
DEALING WITH
THIS TYPE
OF CRIME?
5.1 The BCT/RSPB Bat Crime report highlights
areas requiring closer working. In particular, bat workers, SNCOs
and the police need to work closely to ensure that bat related
crime is properly dealt with. It will act as a deterrent to serial
offenders only if it is enforced.
5.2 It is also important that Crown Prosecutors
are fully briefed on the conservation significance of bat offences
and that this is relayed to magistrates during trial; if not,
there is a very real possibility that the penalty will not reflect
the seriousness of the crime. There is now an Environmental Crime
Toolkit and sentencing guidelines for magistrates—the Magistrates'
Association should encourage use of the full range of penalties
available.
5.3 BCT wants the best outcome for bat conservation;
in conjunction with bat workers and SNCOs, it is keen to see legislation
that, when implemented, meets this aim. The UK legislation as
it stands is an effective conservation tool, but the points above
highlighting problems with the legislation and its enforcement
need to be addressed by Government to improve bat conservation.
April 2004
| 
