Memorandum from the Association of Local
Government Ecologists (ALGE)
ALGE
The Association of Local Government Ecologists
(ALGE) was established in 1994. It is the association in the UK
which provides support for professional officers with responsibility
for and interest in biodiversity and nature conservation in Local
Authorities and National Parks. ALGE also provides formal professional
advice to the Local Government Associations in the UK, governmental
organisations and others on biodiversity issues that affect local
government.
ALGE's aims are to:
— Promote and develop good principles
and practice for biodiversity, nature conservation, and sustainable
development in local government, including National Parks, through
its members;
— Maintain an active advice and support
forum amongst its members for the exchange of information and
ideas on biodiversity and nature conservation matters; and
— Provide regular advice on biodiversity
and nature conservation matters on behalf of members to government,
local authority associations, chief officer societies and others;
ALGE has members in all of the English government
regions, and is represented on most of the English regional biodiversity
fora. ALGE is also an effective voice in Wales with a strong
membership there and has a developing membership in Scotland.
All members of ALGE work as specialist professionals, often working
alongside a multi-disciplinary team of landscape architects, archaeologists,
countryside and public rights of way staff, and other planning
colleagues. They may be the sole representative of the ecological
profession in their authority, and may therefore often not have
the benefit of direct professional support and advice from colleagues
within their workplace on nature conservation and biodiversity
matters.
Since our evidence in April 2000 to the Environment
Sub-Committee and the 20th Report on UK Biodiversity we have been
working positively with the Local Government Association to help
frame the LGA's biodiversity position statement. This joint working
is now at the implementation stage and we are looking to reach
out to and support more LAs, provide more advice and build the
membership of ALGE further. The financial support of English Nature
and the Countryside Council for Wales ALGE has enabled a coordinated
set of actions agreed with the LGA to move the position statement
forward. In the last three years we have established a website,
developed communication systems and increased our membership by
100%. Our recent publication "Increasing the Momentum
A Vision Statement for Biodiversity in Local Government, 2004-10"
sets out the hallmarks for a modern efficient and effective Local
Authority. We are now working on a revised Business Plan which
we aim to publish in 2005.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ALGE and the LGA are aware of a number of issues
relating to wildlife crime (and also of non-compliance with statutory
wildlife responsibilities) that fall within the remit of local
authorities: These can be summarised as follows:
A. Beside obvious issues of law enforcement,
the prevention of wildlife crime should be considered as an integral
part of the Government's "holistic" approach to biodiversity
conservation and to the achievement of a sustainable society as
a whole.[1].
B. By using their statutory powers for nature
conservation, local authorities have a clear and central role
to play in combating wildlife crime and in securing better protection
for wild flora and fauna as part of the wider delivery of sustainability
and biodiversity conservation.
C. ALGE members are aware of a wide range
of wildlife offences that are regularly committed within the development
industry either:
(a) before planning permission is granted
ie during site clearance or duration demolition works (which are
often deemed to be permitted developments[2])
or
(b) during actual implementation of development
that has been granted permission under planning legislation—often
carried out in a reckless manner and/or in a manner that is inadequately
controlled by the planning consent.
D. Many local authorities are not fully
aware of either their statutory powers and/or legal responsibilities
under various wildlife legislation; these include:
(a) statutory powers enabling local authorities
to take action over wildlife crime (ie powers of prosecution under
Section 25(2) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) or under
the Hedgerow Regulations (1997), or
(b) statutory powers to raise awareness with
the public of the protection afforded to wildlife (ie under their
powers arising from Section 25(1)(a) and (b) of the Wildlife and
Countryside Act (1981).
(c) statutory duties requiring their own
legal compliance with various wildlife and environmental legislation
when undertaking council activities and works that may impact
on protected flora and fauna (ie timing of land management works
to avoid clearance of nesting habitat during the bird nesting
period).
INTRODUCTION
1. The ALGE membership (200 members in local
authorities throughout the UK) regularly reports on and raises
issues relating to protected sites and species, and to the interpretation
and enforcement of their relevant wildlife legislation.
2. Most ALGE members do not often become
involved in wildlife crime involving captive breeding of birds
of prey, persecution of birds of prey, or trade in "exotic"
species as may be covered under the Convention on International
Trade of Endangered Species (CITES). In such cases where they
are involved, it is likely to be on a voluntary basis where they
may be assisting other agencies or the police. ALGE is therefore
not in a position to offer evidence to the Committee relating
to this form of wildlife crime.
3. Instead, ALGE's evidence relates to wildlife
crimes committed within the scope of more common local authority
functions—and involving domestic sites and native species
that are protected by national and European legislation, such
as The Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981), The Protection of
Badgers Act (1992), the Habitat Regulations (1994) and the CROW
Act (2000).
4. Given the current resource pressures
on local government and on public expenditure generally, local
authorities often find it difficult to allocate sufficient resource
to work on biodiversity generally. This is particularly an issue
for smaller councils. Our following observations about what local
government is able to do to help prevent wildlife crime and to
enforce relevant legislation should therefore be taken in this
context.
WHAT IS
THE SCALE
AND IMPACT
OF WILDLIFE
CRIME?
5. ALGE's overall impression of the scale
and impact of "actions that contravene wildlife legislation"
is that of being frequent (ie at least weekly) and extensive (ie
occurring in all local authority areas). On an individual basis,
these actions are usually small scale, but cumulatively their
impact represents thousands of individual animals and birds being
disturbed, harmed or killed each year. Since many of the species
affected enjoy legal protection, this means that wildlife offences
are both commonplace and widespread.
6. In the majority of the above situations
the "wildlife crime" is unrecognised, unreported and
no enforcement action or prosecution is taken forward
7. With regard to this type of "wildlife
offence", ALGE has two main concerns. The first relates to
the building and construction industry. The second relates to
the activities of local government departments. These concerns
are addressed below.
THE BUILDING
AND CONSTRUCTION
INDUSTRY
8. As a matter of documented fact, the Royal
Society for the Protection of Birds and the Bat Conservation Trust
have undertaken research[3]
that has shown—over a two year period—that 144 bat
offences alone were recorded. Of these offences, 67% was committed
within the building trade.
9. ALGE believes that this is the "tip
of the iceberg" and is indicative of a much wider problem
within the building and construction industry that affects, very
widely, many legally protected species.
10. For instance, a very large proportion
of all construction sites involve works to clear existing features,
such as:
— old boundary walls and hedges;
— grassland, heathland, scrub and trees;
— to completely or partially fill or
change small watercourses and water bodies; and/or
— to fully or partially demolish or
refurbish old buildings and structures.
11. In many cases, there is a very strong
likelihood that these features (at least at some times of the
year) support legally protected species, such as: nesting and
breeding birds, roosting and breeding bats, badgers, water voles,
great crested newts, dormice, white clawed crayfish and amphibians
and reptiles.
12. On many occasions, the builders and
construction contractors on site are oblivious to the wildlife
present and ignorant of the harm that their actions may cause.
However, in other situations, the contractors know (or have indeed
been told) what wild species are present and what the implications
of their work will be—but they proceed anyway, knowing that
legally protected wildlife will be disturbed, harmed or killed.
13. From ALGE's collective experience, we
believe that many construction contractors persist in this behaviour
because they think (quite rightly) that they will "get away
with it" because no enforcement action or prosecution will
be taken against them. Furthermore, the penalties often imposed
by the courts do not realistically act as a deterrent, especially
when the overall sums involved in development absolutely dwarf
the fines issues by the courts.
14. Also, since building, construction and
development work is controlled by planning legislation, there
is a clear role for stronger local authority involvement in preventing
this type of wildlife crime.
ACTIVITIES OF
LOCAL AUTHORITIES
15. Notwithstanding the above observations
of paragraph 15, many council departments and staff[4]
are unaware of the legal protection afforded to some wild species,
and are ignorant about how and when their council actions may
cause harm to such species. This applies to both capital schemes
and to maintenance works.
16. For instance, in 2003, in one council
area, highway maintenance staff mowed a road verge. As a consequence,
in one afternoon, five species of reptiles were killed, including:
17. Sand lizards and smooth snakes are of
European importance and thus are given full protection under the
Wildlife and Countryside Act and the Habitat Regulations. Adders,
grass snakes and slow worms are also protected against deliberate
killing and injury under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. No
legal action was taken over these potential offences.
18. By way of a defence for this action,
it can be argued that the killing was "not deliberate"
and that the works were "incidental to an otherwise lawful
operation". However, it is more difficult to justify that
the works could not reasonably have been avoided—or have
employed less harmful techniques. Therefore, in this instance,
it appears that the council's actions may have been undertaken
recklessly.
19. Unfortunately, the above is situation
not unique and ALGE members are aware of many other examples where
council actions cause harm to protected species—that could
very often be avoided through careful seasonal timetabling of
works and/or through use of prior species surveys and alternative
measures and working practices.
IS THE
FRAMEWORK OF
NATIONAL AND
EUROPEAN LAW
AND OF
INTERNATIONAL REGULATION
ROBUST ENOUGH
TO DEAL
WITH WILDLIFE
CRIME EFFECTIVELY?
20. ALGE is relatively content with the
framework of national and international law and regulation.
21. The Association is, however, very concerned
about:
(a) the effectiveness of the publicity and
profile given to wildlife legislation and to the sites and species
that it is intended to protect; and
(b) the commitment to, and effectiveness
of enforcement action by relevant bodies in response to alleged
crimes.
22. The Association would also like the
planning system to more effectively embrace the problems of protected
sites and species encountered within the construction and development
industry. We believe that planning legislation, regulations and
guidance all provide for improved control of wildlife crime through
land use planning, but in practice the potential effectiveness
of the provisions is often not fully realised on the ground.
Recommendation No 1
ALGE would like to see Central government consider
how other legislation, such as planning, can be used to compliment
and augment primary wildlife legislation so that collectively
there is a stronger and clearer suite of coordinated powers available
to all bodies able to take action.
DO RESPONSIBLE
BODIES WHO
DEAL WITH
THIS TYPE
OF CRIME
HAVE SUFFICIENT
RESOURCES AND
POWERS TO
DO SO?
DO THEY
TREAT WILDLIFE
CRIME WITH
PROPER AND
DUE GRAVITY?
Sufficient Powers for Local Authorities?
23. Local authorities have a number of very
important powers that can enable them to help prevent wildlife
crime or to take action when an offence has been committed. However,
from experience, ALGE members report that a large proportion of
local authorities in England are unaware of and/or are confused
about the full extent of powers available for them to take effective
action against wildlife crime.
24. Re Awareness Raising and Publicity:
There is among local planning authorities widespread confusion
and discrepancy over the amount of advice that they should give
applicants about the possible presence of protected species.
25. Section 25(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside
Act (1981) states that every local authority shall take such steps
as they consider expedient for bringing to the attention of the
public and of school children in particular the provisions of
Part 1 of the Act.
Recommendation No 2
ALGE believes that local authorities should
take greater advantage of their powers under S.25(1) when dealing
with planning applications to inform applicants about protected
sites and species (for example with the issue of standard information
leaflets accompanying planning application forms).
Such guidance could bring to the attention of
all planning applicants the importance of wildlife legislation
and how any proposed developments may come into conflict with
it, and the practical measures that can be taken to avoid potential
offences being committed.
Model "information" for dissemination
by local authorities could be prepared jointly between relevant
bodies (ie EN, LGA, ALGE etc).
This would have the aim, through awareness raising,
of hopefully reducing "reckless" harm to protected species
and sites during building and construction works (as discussed
in sections 8 to 15 above).
26. Re Prosecution of Wildlife Crime: Section
25(2) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) states that a
local authority may institute proceedings for any offence under
Part 1 of the Act which is committed within their area. However,
many authorities are unaware of the powers and do not assume that
they can take action.
Recommendation No 3
ALGE would like greater encouragement and support
for local authorities to take forward prosecutions for wildlife
offences, particularly where these are committed during development
that has received planning consent AND where specific planning
conditions/obligations were attached in an attempt to prevent
and control harm to protected species or sites.
In this way, potential prosecution by the local
planning authority, would send a stronger message of deterrence
to builders and construction contractors that habitually, as a
matter of "convenience", disturb, harm and kill protected
species on their sites.
27. Re Enforcement Action through Planning
Controls: Local authorities also have powers of enforcement under
the Town and Country Planning Act (1990). ALGE believes these
powers could be better used to help prevent and control wildlife
offences occurring on development sites. Again, there appears
to be widespread uncertainty over what wildlife action is legitimately
within the scope of planning enforcement and consequently many
LPAs are hesitant to take action.
Recommendation No 4
ALGE would like to see similar encouragement
and support for local planning authorities to take stronger and
much more frequent planning enforcement action over wildlife offences
committed as part of development works.
SUFFICIENT RESOURCES
FOR LOCAL
AUTHORITIES?
28. ALGE represents the professional ecologists
that work in local government. We believe that such officers are
ideally placed to advise their authorities on wildlife crime,
and on the potential actions that the authority can take to help
prevent and control it. They are also able to offer advice on
how the council's own activities can be carried out in a lawful
manner that is compliant with wildlife legislation.
29. However, of the 400 hundred local authorities
in England, only about 35% employ a professional ecological officer
(ie about 140 local authorities). The remaining 65% do not have
ecologists. ALGE assumes that many of these authorities operate
without the benefit of in-house professional ecological expertise,
meaning that they remain unaware of either (i) how they could
act to control wildlife crime and at the same time (ii) ensure
their own activities do not break the law
30. ALGE assumes that the extra work involved
in the implementation of our Recommendations 2, 3 and 4 would
have resource implications for local authorities over and above
what is currently available at a time when resources are already
stretched.
31. At present, local authority staff do
not usually have the time or resources to pursue anything other
than the most high profile cases/large scale offences. This sends
entirely the wrong message out to developers and building contractors
who know that, in most instances, the LPA will not take action
(because they do not have the time or resources to do so). Assuming,
of course, that the LPA is aware that an offence has even been
committed and that they know they have powers to take enforcement
action.
32. If LAs are to assume a greater role
in combating wildlife crime, it is vital that they have sufficient
professional officers with the necessary skills and expertise
to undertake the work as outlined above. Linked to this is need
for professional expert support from other enforcement agencies,
such as English Nature and the local police.
33. Additional resources should also be
provided in the form of:
(a) new central explanatory guidance on how
LAs can in practice help prevent wildlife crime; and
(b) the provision of training to equip relevant
council officers with appropriate skills and expertise.
34. The provision of training might be something
that could be coordinated through the Partnership Against Wildlife
Crime Scheme (PAWS). It might also be complimentary to and accommodated
within the Government's proposals to strengthen enforcement powers
in the new Planning and Compensation Bill. Another alternative,
might be to see Police Wildlife Liaison officers seconded to,
say, English Nature—as has been done in Wales where two
welsh police officers are working very closely with the Countryside
Council for Wales to provide stronger and better coordinated enforcement
action.
35. Also, many council departments—that
come into conflict with protected wildlife—state that they
do not have adequate resources to undertake all of their works
in a manner that is compliant with wildlife legislation. They
argue that if they did, it would make the work too expensive and/or
take longer or cause too much delay. ALGE believes that this is
totally unacceptable and since, in most instances, alternative
good practice exists, there is no excuse for not complying with
all legal wildlife constraints.
Recommendation No 5
ALGE would like to see a strong statement from
Central Government to all local authorities drawing their attention
to their statutory duties regarding protected sites and species.
All local authority departments should be reminded that compliance
with wildlife legislation is not something that is discretionary
and applies only where it is convenient or fits with the "traditional"
way of doing things.
DUE GRAVITY?
36. Many elected councillors and senior
council officers are often unfamiliar with wildlife legislation
since it is perceived, by many, as peripheral to core local authority
functions. As a consequence, many local authorities are unaware
of the role they could play in preventing and/or controlling wildlife
crime.
37. Likewise, many councils do not understand
their own statutory responsibilities under wildlife legislation,
and do not appreciate that some of their actions are not entirely
compliant with either the letter or the spirit of the law—and
certainly not good practice (eg mowing protected reptiles species
on a road verge—see section above).
38. In this context, ALGE believes that
many local authorities do not give the issue of wildlife crime
due gravity. They have powers to enforce it, but do not—and
they have duties of compliance that they do not always follow
themselves.
IS THERE
SUFFICIENT DIALOGUE
AND CO-OPERATION
ACROSS GOVERNMENT
AND AMONGST
THE VARIOUS
BODIES RESPONSIBLE
FOR DEALING
WITH THIS
TYPE OF
CRIME?
39. There is valuable co-operation taking
place between many organisation and individuals. ALGE supports
these efforts and is committed to working in partnership with
Government agencies and the various bodies responsible for dealing
with this type of crime. To this end, ALGE members are represented
on all of the regional Partnerships Against Wildlife Crime, and
nationally ALGE has been invited to join the PAWS committee.
40. Also, in the autumn of 2003 ALGE hosted
a meeting between English Nature, the Bat Conservation Trust,
the Mammal Society and CIRIA (the construction industry's research
and information association). The purpose of the meeting was to
explore future collaboration and coordination over working with
protected species when they are encountered in the planning system
and in the construction industry. This meeting particularly looked
at measures to raise the awareness and profile of protected species
among the two groups that are most likely to encounter them—planners
and construction workers. Several initiatives have arisen from
this meeting, but nothing was discussed or resolved over how to
actually tackle wildlife offences when they occur.
41. So, despite existing efforts at co-operation,
ALGE believes more wildlife crime could be effectively prevented
or controlled with even greater levels of collaboration between
key bodies. All too often, while several organisations could take
action, in the end nobody carries out an investigation and/or
pursues a prosecution—leaving the impression with many would-be
offenders that they will get away with it. Clearer roles need
to be defined so that the most appropriate body for action can
be quickly identified for each situation encountered, taking into
account the availability of local resources and expertise.
42. ALGE is currently working with English
Nature, DEFRA and the ODPM over the preparation of good practice
guidance that will accompany the new Planning Policy Statement
No 9 on Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. ALGE hopes that
the guide will provide new and more useful advice to planning
authorities and to English Nature to illustrate and explain how
practical measures to prevent harm to protected sites and species
(occurring during new development) can be incorporated into planning
consents—ie through the formulation of more effective and
enforceable planning conditions and obligations.
43. ALGE also believes that the practical
inter-relationship between planning consents and species licences
(as dealt with by English Nature and DEFRA) are not widely understood,
nor that these arrangements necessarily work as effectively as
they might to prevent harm to protected species.
Recommendation No 6
ALGE would like to see a review of how planning
consents (conditions and obligations) could more effectively support
and integrate with the aims of species licensing arrangements
(notwithstanding proposals to pass licensing arrangements from
DEFRA to local authorities).
44. ALGE would like to draw to the attention
of the Sub-committee, two pieces of exemplar work undertaken by
English Nature and CIRIA.[5]
Firstly, over that last two years, in close partnership with the
Department of Trade and Industry, UK wide statutory nature conservation
organisations and NGOs, CIRIA has commissioned the preparation
and publication of a training resource pack entitled "Working
with Wildlife—Compliance and Beyond". The purpose of
the pack is intended to raise awareness in the construction industry
about potential conflicts with wildlife and to suggest practical
measures that can be implemented on construction sites to avoid
harm being caused. While aimed primarily at construction personnel,
the pack will also be invaluable to planning professionals and
to police officers in so far as it explains the potential conflicts
and suggests workable solutions.
45. Secondly, English Nature is also to
be commended for the publication of its series of handbooks[6]
that give practical help over dealing with protected species in
the planning system.
46. Both the CIRIA and EN publications should
be promoted as widely as possible on the basis that prevention
of wildlife crime is better than effective prosecution after the
event.
47. On another positive note, many ALGE
members report that they receive effective support from their
local Police Wildlife Liaison Officers. That said, ALGE is aware
that not all LAs are able to call upon the specialist assistance
of WLOs, because their local constabulary does not have such a
dedicated officer.
48. In many instances, cooperation between
local authorities and local police forces seems to rely on relationships
forged between individual council and police officers. There does
not, however, seem to be a great deal of cooperation and discussion
over how to tackle wildlife crime between senior council officials
and police chiefs. ALGE is not aware of any local initiatives
that have been planned and implemented at this level. Ultimately,
without senior level support local arrangements based upon personal
working relationships can be highly fragile. For instance, one
ALGE member has reported that when their Police Wildlife Liaison
Officer retired, the local constabulary decided not to replace
him because wildlife crime was not seen as a priority—despite
written representations to the contrary from a number of key nature
conservation organisations.
49. ALGE also believes that the Crown Prosecution
Service and magistrates' courts should become more actively engaged
in combating wildlife crime. They should be more aware of the
conservation significance of such crime, and should be aware of
and be prepared to set realistic fines and to consider other sentencing
options so that penalties act as real deterrents.
Recommendation No 7
Penalties issued by the courts should more realistically
reflect the scale of financial benefits derived by offenders when
committing an offence. Penalties should be reviewed so that they
truly act as deterrents.
April 2004
1 DEFRA (2002) Chapter 3 A Holistic Approach. Working
with the Grain of Nature: A biodiversity strategy for England. Back
2
Permitted developments under The Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995. Back
3
The Bat Conservation Trust and RSPB (2003) Bat Crime. Is the
legislation protecting bats? Back
4
Departments and council functions whose actions include vegetation
management and clearance are particularly prone to come into conflict
with protected species; such as Highway and Engineering, Parks
and Grounds Maintenance, Land Drainage and Flood Defence, Pest
Control, and Crematoria and Graveyards. Back
5
CIRIA is the construction industry's research and information
association. Back
6
For instance: Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines (2001)
and Bat Mitigation Guidelines (2004). Back
| 
