The Figures
19. Records kept by individual organisations, who
decry the absence of a national record system, go some way to
establishing a partial assessment of the state of our flora and
fauna. The variety of species and habitats involved, and the
number of memoranda we received, prohibit comprehensive examination
of all the statistics provided to the Sub-committee in this report,
but we believe these memoranda demonstrate that incidents of wildlife
crime are increasing in many areas. The Association of Local
Government Ecologists (ALGE) provided us with a general overview
of the situation when they said that,
"ALGE's overall impression of the scale
and impact of "actions that contravene wildlife legislation"
is that of being frequent (i.e. at least weekly) and extensive
(i.e. 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 […] In the majority
of the above situations the "wildlife crime" is unrecognised,
unreported and no enforcement action is taken forward."[20]
20. There are many areas of impact. English Nature
report that incidents of damage by owners and occupiers of SSSIs
increased by 74% between January 2001 and April 2004.[21]
They also highlight a 168% increase in reported incidents of
damage caused by third parties, those who neither own or occupy
SSSIs but have accessed them in some way, resulting in damage.[22]
Clearly, some of this increase reflects improvements in the way
in which damage to SSSIs is reported or detected, and for which
both English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales are
to be commended, but this does not, we believe, wholly account
for the increase in reported incidents seen in the last three
years.
21. A recent Parliamentary Question asked the Secretary
of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to provide a
list of the number, percentage and location of all SSSIs that
have been subject to inappropriate development since May 1997.
Using the latest condition assessments, as agreed by the Joint
Nature Conservation Committee, DEFRA's response confirmed that,
"1,052 hectares of SSSI land, on 55 different
SSSIs, were in unfavourable condition due to activities authorised
by development or mineral planning permission, excluding peat
permissions. This is equivalent to 0.1 per cent of the total
SSSI area in England." [23]
Whilst 0.1 per cent might not seem very much, the
fact that it is spread over 55 sites around the country, we believe
demonstrates the scale of the problem facing English Nature, and
of course the Countryside Council for Wales, when they are trying
to monitor and police these areas.
22. English Nature also point to the increase in
reported incidents of illegal use of mechanically propelled vehicles
(MPVs) and 4x4's in the countryside and suggest that this is linked
to provisions within the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW)Act
2000 which allowed MPVs to access "lost" rights of way
which, in the past, had only been accessible by horse and cart.[24]
Whilst this makes the activity legal, it opens up far more opportunities
for MPV users to stray off these tracks, whether deliberately
or not, and cause significant damage. In their written evidence
they state that,
"Illegal vehicle use can subject the flora
and fauna of a SSSI to considerable damage, disturbance or destruction
by rutting and the widening of illegally established tracks.
There are reports of on-going damage from around England, the
activities being more prevalent within upland and coastal sites
and within Common Land."[25]
We understand that DEFRA has recognised some of the
potential problems arising from the CRoW Act and have consulted
with a view to introducing new legislation which will prohibit
the use of a byway by all traffic simply because, historically,
it has been used by other, non-mechanical vehicles. The damage
that mechanically propelled vehicles (MPVs), including 4x4s, can
cause is not insignificant and we would encourage DEFRA to move
quickly to close any loopholes created by the CRoW Act, either
by amending CRoW or by means of new legislation.
23. Damage caused by the building and construction
industry was also highlighted in memoranda provided to the Sub-committee.
Both the RSPB and the Bat Conservation Trust point to significant
wildlife losses as a result of building and construction activity.
Working together over a two year period they recorded 144 bat
offences alone, 67% of which were committed within the building
trade.[26] ALGE say 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."[27]
In simply clearing a construction site of existing features, such
as old boundary walls and hedges, grassland, heath and tress,
or demolishing old buildings, ALGE say that developers can damage
or destroy features which ,
"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." [28]
24. Nor should we underestimate the damage caused
to native species and their habitats by the introduction of non-native
species. In their written evidence, DEFRA described the impact
of such actions as "considerable" and said that estimates
for the cost of this damage were high, "£3 million in
lost timber production due to damage by grey squirrels, £52
million needed to clear Japanese knotweed from the banks of affected
watercourses. The price of losing a native species can be said
to be incalculable".[29]
Similarly, The Environment Agency (the Agency) highlighted the
impact that the illegal movement of fish can have on native species
and habitats.[30] In
order to reduce the potential for inappropriate fish species to
be introduced into our rivers and waterways, as well as limiting
the spread of fish diseases, all fish imports and movements of
specified non-native species are licensed by DEFRA, whilst the
Agency is responsible for giving consent to fish removals and
introductions. In 2003/04 the Agency gave consent to over 9,000
legitimate fish removals and introductions and investigated 150
reports of "unconsented" fish movements. Given the
number of rivers and waterways for which the Agency is responsible,
a figure of 150 possible "unconsented" fish movements
may not seem very many. However, the impact of even one such
movement could be drastic. In their written evidence, the Agency
refer to a situation in Norway which arose as the result of the
introduction of fish from the Baltic region which brought with
it the parasite Gyrodactylus salaris. Significant salmon
stocks were lost and chemical intervention was necessary to exterminate
whole river stocks so that the parasite could not spread further.
The Agency described the outbreak in Norway as "the fisheries
equivalent of a Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak" and admitted
to being "extremely nervous" about a possible outbreak
in the UK.[31] However,
with this in mind the Agency is developing a contingency plan
which they hope to publish later this year (2004). The Environment
Agency and DEFRA are working towards publication of a contingency
plan to tackle any outbreak of disease within the fisheries environment,
and we welcome their stated vigilance with regard to fish imports
and movements. We would like to see a firm commitment to publication
of the plan as quickly as possible, at the latest by the end of
this year.
25. Without doubt one of the most serious examples
of scale and impact we have seen, however, is in relation to birds
of prey, and to the persecution of Hen Harriers in particular.
In their written evidence, ACPO advise that :
"In England the Hen Harrier faces extinction
as a breeding species due primarily to illegal actions such as
shooting and illegal burning. Only eight pairs successfully nested
in the North of England in 2003 despite there being sufficient
habitat to carry in excess of 230 pairs."[32]
Following a meeting with the Joint Nature Conservation
Committee in 2003, the Hen Harrier was identified as one of the
key conservation objectives the Police could assist with. The
NWCIU also has birds of prey as one of its priority areas and
has facilitated enforcement action in the UK and many other countries.
26. Whilst we are grateful to those who could provide
statistical evidence of abuse within their particular areas of
expertise, for clearly without them we would be without any evidence
at all, we have some concern at the way in which these statistics
are gathered, interpreted and then used. On a number of occasions
we sought clarification as to whether the number of incidents
of wildlife crime reported to the organisation or agency concerned,
and which many then used as statistics for publication, represented
a straight forward head count of phone calls received, but not
at that point investigated, or whether they were, in fact, reported
incidents that, through investigation, had been confirmed as wildlife
crimes. What we found, in fact, was that the statistics could
reflect either of those scenarios and indeed, at least one witness
was unclear as to which category their statistics fell into.
Any central record of wildlife crimes will only be as good
as the information fed into it. It is vital, therefore, that all
those who contribute to that database do so using consistent and
comparable data.
12 
