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
|
