Select Committee on Environmental Audit Minutes of Evidence


Memorandum from the Herpetological Conservation Trust

  1.  The Herpetological Conservation Trust is a UK registered charity dedicated to the conservation of amphibians and reptiles and their habitats. We are lead partner, or Joint lead partner, for all five amphibians/reptile Species Action Plans and manage 1,400 ha of nature reserves, most of which is designated SSSI and/or SAC. The Trust is actively involved in promoting species conservation legislation and policy at European, National and local levels being an active member of Wildlife & Countryside Link and working through association with the European Herpetological Society with a European NGO network called the European Habitats Forum (EHF). Through the EHF we represent European NGO interests on an EC Working Group looking at the development and application of Article 12 of the EC Habitats Directive (Strict protection measures for animals species). The Trust is a supporter of the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime. We have a professional staff with work experience in the statutory, local authority and non-Governmental sectors.

  2.  The HCT is keen to promote a focus on nature conservation "outcomes" through our work on policy and legislation. We believe that the development and application of legislation should address the significance of the impacts of activities. We advocate that there should be a shared appreciation and understanding amongst legislators, law enforcement agencies (eg Police, English Nature, Local Authorities) and judiciary about the importance of biodiversity conservation. We believe that:

    —  there should be a clear focus in legislation and policy to address activities and measures that have an impact on the conservation status of wildlife; this needs to be a consistent message across the different mechanisms used to ensure and promote biodiversity conservation; we believe that looking at concepts such as "Favourable Conservation Status", as outlined in the EC Habitats Directive, would provide a useful legislative framework for assessing impacts and looking to achieve appropriate application and enforcement of legislation;

    —  legislation should support the national and social importance of biodiversity as a key component of "Sustainable Development"; and

    —  understanding the importance of wildlife, and the duty to conserve it, is often confused by attempts to justify or to quantifying its value in terms of monetary cost.

  Against this background, we offer answers framed around the specific queries raised in the press release.

  3.  With regard to the extent of wildlife crime, this assessment is made difficult because of the lack of clarity about "significance" of what constitutes a criminal act. The impact that is more important than the activity per se. Some "real crimes" (such as theft of birds of prey from collections and certain types of poaching) can have little impact on the conservation status of wildlife; yet often "incidental results" (especially of development or release of non-native species) can have much greater impacts and yet less likely to be considered to be criminal. A clearer basis for understanding this significance is needed and a better policy mechanism is needed to fully appreciate the effects of activities that illegally impact on the conservation status of habitats and species.

  4.  Our focus is on the European species, and our comments are intended to reflect this perspective. We are concerned that the framework for implementing and enforcing legislation is insufficiently robust to deal with wildlife crime effectively.

    —  the importance of "biodiversity" at the heart of Sustainable Development/Living is being poorly articulated and consequently the context of the wildlife conservation legislation is not widely appreciated. This principle can help underpin the understanding of the importance of conservation at all levels, from the international to the local. CITES for example is essentially about "sustainability" and not about protection for the sake of it, the severity of an offence should be considered by the impact on the conservation status of the species affected;

    —  greater "joined-up thinking" across the biodiversity agenda would greatly assist the legislative framework;

    —  there remains a difficulty in interpreting legislation, notably with regards to the European Union Directives. This makes the application difficult and especially hard for enforcement bodies;

    —  the legislation is too complex; for example there are parallel and largely similar pieces of legislation covering UK species (eg the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc) Regulations 1994) with subtly different wording and different enforcement provisions and penalties (for effectively the same offence on the same species!). This has been made more complex by the many amendments and variations of schedules, and by the devolution of environmental functions. Consolidation legislation at UK or Country level within a consistent UK framework may assist;

    —  there have been significant advances within the enforcement agencies over many aspects of wildlife crime, yet the focus has largely remained on the more "traditional" perception of "crime", such as bird of prey offences, egg collecting and CITES. Comprehension of the broader context of "damaging activities" is poorly understood within the enforcement bodies and the public at large;

    —  there has been some success in interpreting certain wildlife crime (notably arson on SSSI) as "anti-social behaviour" (this has been particularly successful via Dorset Urban Heaths LIFE project—this is a project funded by the European Commission involving a wide consortium of conservation bodies, police, fire service and local authorities on the urban heaths in and around Bournemouth and Poole that is looking at human impacts on urban heaths). Linking wildlife crime to other social agendas/crimes has helped see enforcement, but has meant that wildlife legislation may be less frequently used or "tested";

    —  there is a lack of clarity about and comprehension of biodiversity conservation—effecting both the public and enforcers; heathlands, for example, illustrate this nicely: In some cases burning is management, in others it is arson. Cutting down trees is necessary management (it is an activity) yet is perceived as vandalism. Allowing trees to grow "passively" is in fact negligence and debatably (an on SSSIs) illegal. There needs to be a stronger education role, possibly through the Biodiversity Action Plan, to support the development, understanding and enforcement of conservation legislation. The educative duties of Local Authorities with this regard are not sufficiently exercised; and

    —  Enforcement and penalties need to be proportional to the direct and indirect impacts on the conservation of biodiversity.

  5.  Resources are scarce for wildlife crime enforcement. Such crimes will also often be treated with less "importance" than other types of crime as these are frequently considered to be "victim-less". Penalties for wildlife crime still tend not to reflect the seriousness of some offences, nor stand as a deterrent—especially in the context development (eg large areas of habitats of protected species are cleared on a regular basis with minimal likelihood of prosecution, and fines that are considerably less than would be the cost of appropriate mitigation or avoidance). However we perceive that increasingly wildlife crime seems to be treated at with increasing importance at the "institutional level" but education is still needed to ensure greater understanding of the issues amongst all those involved within the process, whether in the judiciary, police or other enforcement body.

  A greater understanding of duties concerning wildlife crime is needed amongst all appropriate agencies (for example local authorities) both with regard to their duties to enforce and educate, but also in ensuring compliance with wildlife legislation when exercising other functions (for example highways/Rights of Way maintenance).

  The further improvement of networks amongst enforcement and statutory bodies, and provision of appropriate support and advice from non-statutory "experts" to provide a greater synergy may help develop more effective public understanding (and therefore reduction in offences) and enforcement, if additional resources cannot be forthcoming. The Dorset Urban Heaths LIFE project is trialling such approaches, eg joint education visits to school with local authority education staff and police.

  6.  We feel that dialogue across Government in connection with biodiversity conservation, across the board, needs improving. For example, there is insufficient coherence both within the Biodiversity Action Plan (eg from national to local levels)—which provides a key conservation mechanism—and between this and other measure that support conservation. This affects the outlook of key organisations involved in the process (for example local authorities). Inconsistent policy messages and application of conservation policy will undermine the role of the legislation and its enforcement.

  Notably this is important in the context of EC legislation, both in terms of its interpretation and application and also in determining what is acceptable level of "derogation". There is considerable debate at the EC level as to the way the Directives should be applied.

  This confusion and poor focus means that for certain damaging activities, no one seems to know what is actually a "crime", let alone how it should be enforced.

  In conclusion, we need to see clearer and more focused policy to set the socio-economic framework for biodiversity conservation to provide an understanding of the importance of wildlife and therefore the significance of wildlife crime. It will also help with enforcement—shifting the emphasis from prosecution of only "acts" that seem criminal to ensuring that action is taken to prevent or to punish activities (or negligence) that actually impact on conservation status and see appropriate penalties given out. Ideally, over time, we would effectively achieve a shift away from "protection" to "conservation".

  While this present Inquiry is focused on Wildlife Crime, we believe that broader policy contexts should be considered to understand the context and that recommendations should be made elsewhere where these would help with the understanding or application of the legislative framework. For example we are keen to see a more explicit link made between the concept of Favourable Conservation Status—which underpins the goals of the European Directive—and national conservation policy and the Biodiversity Action Plan. Setting the BAP on a firmer legislative basis, nationally and locally, would actually help meaningful interpretation and enforcement of the legislation and more explicit definition of roles of Governmental and Public bodies in the prevention and enforcement of Wildlife Crime.

April 2004





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 7 October 2004