Examination of Witnesses (Questions 115-119)
20 APRIL 2004
MR ANDY
CLEMENTS AND
MR TOM
TEW
Q115 Chairman: Good afternoon. You have
been in the audience and now you are players in the next act.
Mr Clements, Director of Designated Sites, English Nature, and
Mr Tew, General Manager of Designated Sites, welcome. The NFU
in their written submission to us say the PSA target for SSSIs
has not yet distorted policy priorities to the detriment of other
activities with which English Nature or Defra is engaged. However,
they do ask us as a Committee to be vigilant of such a risk. Do
you think they are right to warn us of that risk? Is there a danger
of an emphasis on work with SSSIs distorting perhaps biodiversity
roles that both English Nature and the Department should have
their eye on?
Mr Clements: If I may take that
answer first, Chairman. Thank you, by the way, for inviting us
to give our views and answer your questions today. It is an issue
worth considering without a doubt and it is an issue on which
we in English Nature, and I am sure Defra, are vigilant to already.
In thinking about the benefits of the PSA target for SSSIs I would
identify as perhaps the only disbenefit of having the target is
the fact that it focuses attention so well for the first time
on achieving a remarkable benefit for nature conservation in terms
of putting the best wildlife sites in the country into favourable
condition. It focuses energy so well on that that what we must
not do is forget that an organisation such as English Nature has
very broad responsibilities for delivering a variety of benefits
for nature conservation, for advising government quite widely
about matters for or affecting nature conservation, for encouraging
the public to understand more about nature conservation and why
important sites for wildlife for example are valuable to people,
the eco system services they provide. So I think that as far as
our organisation is concerned it is something of which we are
aware. I believe the benefits of the PSA target far outweigh any
disbenefits such as that that I have been speaking of in answering
your question. We do need to be aware however that our organisation
is not an SSSI ghetto, if I can put it like that. We do an awful
lot more in the wider countryside and with people, maybe not in
the countryside, urban nature conservation for example would be
another good example of the breadth. We need to be aware of all
of those things.
Q116 Chairman: And I take it you are
saying that the work on SSSIs and on meeting the targets informs
and affects other biodiversity work you are engaged in?
Mr Clements: Yes it does. The
other thing that is important about designated sites, of which
SSSIs are one aspect, is that in nature conservation we no longer
want to think of those of isolated islands of some good biodiversity.
It is very important that the wider countryside as well has a
level of value to the environment which is able to support the
rare and special which you may need a network of sites specifically
for, but the two things are integrated. Our own programme of designated
sites work is very clearly linked in within our organisation with
our policy role of advising government about the wider policies
affecting the countryside and the sea, for example, and also biodiversity
in the wider environment.
Mr Tew: It is a difficult opening
question for two people who are obsessed with the condition of
SSSIs, I am afraid, every waking moment! The other thing about
SSSIs is they are the jewels in the crown, they are the flagship
for nature conservation and they are very good indicators of England's
ability to have sustainable development, so the fact we now know
so much about them and can measure their condition and give accurate
updates on their progress means that they serve as very good indicators
of sustainable development.
Q117 Chairman: Do you think they ought
to continue to have that important place in the kind of new role
that, for instance, Lord Haskins's recommendations are suggesting
for English Nature?
Mr Clements: Yes, we think they
will continue to have a very important role. If the integrated
agency comes about, as was originally recommended by Lord Haskins,
then the role of designated sites will be as important if not
more important than it is now. We are already developing strong
programmes about the CRoW access to the countryside and actually
SSSIs provide a highly disproportionate resource. The SSSIs only
cover seven and a half per cent of England's land area but they
provide 55% of CRoW access land crossing so they are disproportionately
important. That is a very good example. For people who just want
to experience England's wonderful countryside for over half the
time they are going to be experiencing it in our most important
wildlife sites.
Mr Tew: We tend to speak a lot
about condition of sites but also in our NNRs we are putting a
lot of effort into making them open to the public, getting people
to visit them, getting good visitor facilities, educating people,
exciting people and we promote them via our web side so there
is a lot of time and effort going into the wider role of the science.
It is not just a dry scientific exercise about whether they are
in good condition or not.
Q118 Chairman: What about some of these
controversies that our last witnesses referred to, particularly
about the implementation of the CRoW Act, do you have any comment
on that?
Mr Clements: Once again we are
optimistic about the inception of CRoW access rights and their
use and we have done quite a lot of work in preparation for that,
alongside the Countryside Agency's lead in terms of mapping the
access routes, and we have got a good handle on those sites, where
we expect if there are any conflicts between the needs of visitors
in access terms and features of interest, that on the whole those
concerns can be managed and access can be managed in a wildlife-friendly
way. I think Alun Michael, the Minister, was very struck when
he visited Ingleborough National Nature Reserve with us about
the way in which natural access patterns of people visiting these
sites tend to stick to paths that are already there and that kind
of thing. In that way quite a soft touch can manage those access
issues and we believe restricting access will be a tiny part of
the issue. We are confident not to miss out and have a reduction
of access.
Q119 Joan Ruddock: I want to look at
the condition assessments. Again you will have heard evidence
from country landowners and we have received evidence from Water
UK so some of my comments are based on what they have said. Clearly
there are disagreements. I would firstly like to ask you how did
you assess the condition of sites and the causes of unfavourable
condition.
Mr Tew: I agree absolutely with
the CLBA that it is a tiny minority of disagreements that get
all the bad press. Let's be clear at the start, 99% of the time
we have complete agreement. We have had a major exercise with
people like the RSPB who initially said, "This is a very
difficult science, it is all subjective and we will never be able
to agree on this", but when push came to shove we found we
were discussing three or four units across the entire country.
To answer your question directly, it is not, as we heard from
CLBA, an entirely subjective business. There is a great deal of
science behind this and we follow common standards which are UK
wide and which the CCW and the SNH have agreed to. We set national
prescriptions based on a series of attributes to do with a particular
habitat. For example, for a piece of heather there would be a
series of attributes to do with how high it was, how much bare
ground there was, how old it was and so on which means that when
our individual conservation officers go out on the ground they
can almost literally tick the boxes and come to a uniform and
consistent view on the condition of that heather. Consistency
for us is very important because it is not fair that the owners
and managers of the land are left in uncertainty as to what we
mean by favourable condition, nor is it fair that they would be
treated differently if they were living in different parts of
the country or indeed if they got a different answer from a different
conservation officer who turned up the next time, so consistency
is key for us and we do not have consistency by applying different
standards. However, not all heather across all of the country
will be identical and there is indeed room for recognition of
local diversity. Not all rivers for instance will be the same
even if they are called chalk rivers. So to answer your question
there is a national framework which we are applying robustly and
there is some local autonomy given to the conservation officer.
We are keen to stress that we are very confident about the robustness
of the science.
|
