Select Committee on Environmental Audit Written Evidence


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





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2008
Prepared 10 November 2008