Memorandum submitted by Vaughan Grantham
SUMMARY
— Halting the loss of Biodiversity
requires action to effect land management on an extensive scale
in a consistent manner.
— Agri-environment schemes must be
a key delivery mechanism.
— LBAP have been relatively ineffective
in halting biodiversity loss because they have great difficulty
in influencing the management of private land, their actions tend
be small scale and are not well coordinated.
— The planning system places far too
much emphasis on mitigation for protected species rather than
on compensation for the loss of habitat.
NB. These comments are a personal view of issues
I consider important and do not the question or numbering in the
consultation.
1. When we consider how we can halt the
loss of biodiversity I think we should remember the following
basic ecology: The distribution and populations of all organisms
is governed by the availability of conditions and resources. Conditions
are relatively constant environmental factors such as climate
or the chemistry of an environment. Resources are finite environmental
factors such as food or suitable places to reproduce.
2. Any attempts to halt the loss of biodiversity
will therefore only be successful if they include measures to
affect the conditions and resources on which all biodiversity
depends. This means manipulating ecosystems on an extensive scale
and in a consistent manner across the UK if we are serious about
halting the loss of biodiversity.
3. Some examples of action on an extensive
scale are:
— The tougher regulation of water quality
in recent years which has lead to a considerable increase in biodiversity
in our rivers.
— The Forestry Commission has recently
begun a very welcome initiative to convert planted ancient woodland
from conifers to broad-leaved. This will have positive befits
for biodiversity for generations to come.
— Agri-environment schemes also have
huge potential to enhance biodiversity due to the extent of agricultural
land use. The intensive use of fertilisers and pesticides in the
second half of the twentieth century decimated a great deal of
once common farmland biodiversity.
4. All are examples of central government
controlling the management of land on an extensive scale. The
positive benefits for biodiversity are achieved by measures being
applied across the whole of the UK in a common manner, not on
an ad-hoc local basis. This sort of "big government"
is less fashionable politically than "community involvement"
but is a lot more effective.
5. Local Biodiversity Action Plans and Partnerships
have not been very effective in halting the loss of biodiversity.
This is because of a number of serious weaknesses. The small local
groups and individual who attend partnerships generally lack the
power to affect land management, especially private land which
is the majority of the UK. LBAP funding bids and projects tend
to focus on what they can achieve easily. This tends to be awareness
raising, survey work and small scale practical projects such as
pond work and tree planting. Although these may make a l contribution
to biodiversity locally these practical projects affect only a
tiny percentage of the LBAP area. Therefore, this approach cannot
halt the loss of Biodiversity by 2010.
6. There is a problem with the lack of disaggregation
of UK HAP and SAP targets to LBAPs. The distribution of LBAPs
implementing various action plans appears to be rather erratic.
I believe this is because the choice of actions plans is very
much dependant on the interests and expertise of individual members.
Clearly this is going to vary considerably between partnerships.
One, less desirable result of this is a focus on species which
are rare locally. This may simply be because they are on the edge
of their range. On the other hand the core population in need
of conservation in a neighbouring LBAP may not have a local plan.
I am therefore strongly of the view that biodiversity work needs
to be better co-ordinated at a regional, rather than a local level.
7. The UK targets for the condition of priority
habitats are a good idea. However they would require a huge resource
in terms of skilled surveyors to obtain the data.
8. In the planning system there is far too
much emphasis on mitigation for protected species. To an extent
this is understandable with species protected by EU Directive.
However, the UK legislation (Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000) is more
aimed at animal welfare than the planning system. Every year at
least tens of millions of pounds are spent on consultants undertaking
surveys of relatively common species. In my view this money would
be far better spent on funding the creation and management of
BAP habitats. I recommend that the Committee look at how the planning
systems in Holland and Germany operate where there is a requirement
for compensatory habitat measures.
2 June 2008
| 
