Memorandum submitted by Plantlife International
— Plantlife International does not
believe that the UK is on track to meet the 2010 biodiversity
target, including its commitment to the Global Strategy for Plant
Conservation.
— Government resources for biodiversity
action are inadequate, and do not reflect public opinion and commitment.
— The UK BAP process faces new constraints
to delivery, precisely at a time when dedicated action on priorities
identified would ensure considerable progress towards halting
biodiversity loss.
— Plant and fungal diversity must be
recognised for its fundamental importance in maintaining life
on earth, and conserved accordingly.
POLICY AND
PROGRESS
1. Is the Government on course to meet its
2010 biodiversity target?
1. No, the Government is not on course to
meet its 2010 biodiversity target for the following reasons:
2. Since the EU Gothenburg agreement in
2001 to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010 the UK has shown
a mixed commitment to meeting this target. Positive demonstrations
of commitment include the UK's response to the Global Strategy
for Plant Conservation (GSPC)—Plant Diversity Challenge
(PDC)[20]—and
subsequent activities such as the identification of the UK's Important
Plant Areas (IPAs).
3. Last year "Plant Diversity Challenge:
3 years—16 targets—1 challenge"[21]
recommended the UK undertake a review of the schemes available
to conserve important plants and fungi (including the protected
area network, agri-environment and forestry schemes) and where
necessary re-focus these schemes to ensure they are working to
stop plant and fungal diversity loss and to increase ecological
resilience in the wider landscape. Without this overhaul and focus
the UK will not meet its GSPC commitment.
4. The most recent assessments of plant
status in the UK indicate the continuing threatened nature of
our flora. Status and trend information from The New Atlas of
the British and Irish Flora[22]
showed that one-third of native plants had declined in range.
Plants associated with arable fields showed the greatest declines,
followed by those of dwarf shrub heath, calcareous grassland and
montane habitats. The GB Red List of Vascular Plants[23]
published in 2005 identified 345 threatened species, equating
to one-fifth of all native flowering plants. Similar Red Lists
outline 163 threatened bryophytes, 176 threatened lichens and
11 threatened stoneworts, bringing the total number of threatened
plants, according to IUCN criteria, to 695. 48% of new BAP Priority
Species are either plants or fungi, however with plans to implement
new BAP unlikely to emerge before Spring 2009 clearly the UK will
not have halted this aspect of biodiversity loss by 2010.
5. Lack of necessary commitment is also
evident in the protected sites network which is also equally operating
below optimum recovery levels. The first Common Standards Monitoring[24]
report in 2006 showed only 52% of flowering plant and fern features
on SSSIs to be in favourable condition; this figure increases
only slightly to 55% for non-flowering plants and fungi. Comparison
figures for plant and fungi features on Natura 2000 sites showed
an even worse picture with only 46% and 33% respectively in favourable
condition.
2. How effective is the biodiversity monitoring
and reporting process? Are the biodiversity indicators meaningful?
Is there adequate data upon which to define targets and to assess
progress?
6. It is difficult to assess how effective
the BAP reporting process (through BARS) is, as we can only make
an assessment on the available data from the first round of reporting
in 2005, which proved difficult for many to complete. There remains
considerable confusion over where responsibility for reporting
through BARS lies within the complex hierarchy of LBAPs and Lead
Partners, especially following devolution.
7. Another key issue comes from the fact
that monitoring of priority plant species relies heavily on the
volunteer sector, and it is usually down to BAP Lead Partners
and specialist societies to co-ordinate and support their volunteer
networks. Insufficient resources are available for this support
and monitoring is therefore not effective at the UK level. One
of the main conclusions of the 2005 UK BAP reporting round was
that "|there remain significant gaps in monitoring information
for UK priority species |especially outside of designated sites".
The situation is worse for plants and fungi, the trend for which
was unknown for 21.6% of species.
8. The JNCC-led UK Surveillance Strategy
aims to address some of these issues, but there still remains
the need for a much more efficient, strategic and adequately resourced
UK monitoring programme. With the significant increase in the
number of UK BAP species (especially fungi and lower plants),
the need for adequate resources is even more critical.
9. There is only one indicator in the "UK
Biodiversity Indicators In Your Pocket" (BIYP) that relates
directly to plant diversity. Currently this indicator is assessed
solely using Countryside Survey data, and whilst this shows overall
plant diversity to be deteriorating it does not adequately portray
trends such as those for birds, butterflies and bats. On the whole,
the use of indicators to assess success provides a diluted and
skewed picture of progress.
10. For example, the new PSA in England
to "secure a healthy natural environment for today and the
future" does not include a breakdown indicator relating to
plant diversity. It is inappropriate to use a single measure of
breeding birds as a proxy for wider biodiversity, as there is
no real evidence to suggest a direct link between the status of
bird populations and those of plants in their associated habitats.
11. Further incentives are required to ensure
adequate data is collated regularly on flowering plants, lower
plants and fungi to enable changes in trends associated with land-use
to be tracked, reported and responded to accordingly. A significant
aspect of this requirement is the need to develop botanical skills,
expertise and capacity across the UK, the increasing absence of
which, particularly in relation to lower plants and fungi, are
already severely hampering current monitoring and reporting processes.
12. Plantlife have been running the Common
Plants Survey since 2000, engaging the public in an annual survey
of 65 common species, designed to complement the Countryside Survey—in
2008 over 1,500 survey packs have been sent out. This provides
the only nationwide botanical species survey in the country.
13. A BIYP indicator on trends in genetic
diversity of livestock breeds and cultivated plants is under development,
however we believe that a focus on the genetic diversity within
wild native plants provides a better measure of the progress towards
halting biodiversity loss. The 2005 UKBAP reporting round illustrated
that 9% of priority species were mainly threatened by intrinsic
factors, which include inbreeding / poor reproduction / recruitment
/ isolated populations. This reflects the lack of, or declining,
genetic diversity of native populations and their isolation, resulting
in inbreeding and eventual loss. We must measure the impact this
has on the genetic integrity of native species, including the
effect changes in genetic diversity have on ecosystem functionality.
Delivery of target 8 of the GSPC—linking ex situ and in
situ conservation—will be vital in this respect.
3. a. Are the policy and institutional frameworks
effective at protecting biodiversity?
14. From a botanical perspective we consider
policy and institutional frameworks inadequately protect plant
diversity. "PDC: 3 years—16 targets—1 challenge"
highlighted how those GSPC targets requiring action across UK
policy sectors have not successfully progressed compared to those
targets led by the research and conservation sectors. Examples
of inadequate protection include:
15. The Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA)
(1981): Habitat destruction continues to pose the main threat
to plant diversity[25],
however, at present Section 13 of the WCA does not protect the
places where plants grow—it is an offence to kill a plant,
but not to destroy its habitat. This is compounded through the
SSSI site selection guidelines which state that there should be
"a presumption for selecting| all sites with viable populations"
of Schedule 8[26]
species. However, species listed on Schedule 8 only qualify as
those which are vulnerable to collection and not habitat neglect
or mismanagement.
16. Since the introduction of a PSA SSSI
target in England there has been a drastic halt to the notification
of new sites as all statuary agency effort is focused on attaining
favourable condition of the existing network. This has left many
important species and areas for biodiversity unprotected. In Scotland,
legislative changes to enable a more straightforward approach
to altering SSSI citations has been welcomed as a mechanism to
increase protection for biodiversity in the existing SSSI network.
17. Schedule 9[27]
of the WCA currently operates differently in Scotland, England
and Wales, and the legislative instruments to ban the sale of
non-native invasive species, while welcome, are taking too long
to set up and lack cross border cooperation. Other legislation
also needs to be assessed for its role in tackling non-native
invasive species, including for example, the Weeds Act (1959).
18. Unimproved permanent grassland can be
of the most botanically important farmed habitats in the EU. The
cross compliance standards should provide better protection for
permanent grasslands. For example, Plantlife are concerned that
further loss of semi-natural grassland is inevitable in the UK
unless measures for its protection are significantly strengthened.
Of particular concern is the threat to parcels of land less than
2ha, which are currently unprotected by cross compliance due to
a loophole in the Environmental Impact Assessment (Agriculture)
(England/Scotland) (No.2) Regulations 2006 which means that Environmental
Impact Assessments are not required before potentially damaging
activities are undertaken.
b. How successful has the UK Biodiversity
Action Plan been?
19. The UK BAP process has been the major
driver in focusing the conservation of our most threatened biodiversity
across the UK since its inception in 1996, and is crucial to the
delivery of GSPC target 7 (conserving threatened species). Governmental
and non-governmental partnership delivery of dedicated species
and habitat action plans provided the framework to achieve SMART
targets, levered in public support and additional resources, and
was the key to BAP success stories. However, the UK BAP currently
supports 190 plants representing just 27% of our threatened flora,
considerably below the 60% required of GSPC target 7.
20. The new BAP priority species list represents
a marked improvement towards GSPC target 7 with 69% of threatened
plant species now included. Recently, however, a succession of
drawn-out BAP review processes (targets, species and habitats)
have taken the momentum out of the BAP process and had a deadening
effect on the level of volunteer involvement and enthusiasm. When
coupled with the effects of devolution we are entering a period
of uncertainty for biodiversity delivery.
21. The forthcoming BAP Reporting round
will count towards the UK's measure of progress towards the 2010
target, however this assessment will only refer to "old"
BAP priorities thereby providing an artificial measure of progress
towards the 2010 target.
c. Does Conserving biodiversity—the
UK approach address the need to have a joined-up approach to biodiversity
protection with the devolved administrations?
22. Conserving biodiversity—the UK
approach, is an excellent step towards synergising conservation
frameworks, including the GSPC, at the UK level. However, we urgently
need to translate the principles of joined-up action across devolved
administrations into real, working situations. Presently country-level
frameworks to deliver biodiversity strategies and BAP are effectively
being developed in isolation.
23. Plantlife are concerned that political
will for countries to be self-sufficient in their delivery of
biodiversity objectives will strain limited expert resources,
especially considering that the majority of these lie within GB
and/or UK-level voluntary societies and small NGOs, and that this
will present barriers to effective species and habitat recovery
programmes, landscape-scale and connectivity initiatives.
d. Is biodiversity protection addressed effectively
at local and regional levels?
24. The inclusion in the Nature Conservation
(Scotland) Act and the NERC Act of a biodiversity duty on public
bodies is welcome, although its effectiveness in addressing the
loss and decline of biodiversity remains unproven. In Wales, the
Wales Biodiversity Partnership is using a dedicated liaison officer
over the next year to advise local authorities on how to implement
the duty. However, without widespread government guidance to all
public bodies on how to meet this duty, and its relation to delivering
UK and national biodiversity strategies, the duty will remain
untested and largely unused.
25. Local delivery is essential for effective
biodiversity conservation and LBAPs have a key role to play. However,
the LBAP network suffers from a lack of standardisation, limited
coordination, patchy coverage and poor resourcing. We must ensure
that all parts of the UK are covered by an LBAP, which is sufficiently
well resourced to deliver on the ground action for national biodiversity
priorities.
4. a. How well is biodiversity protection
incorporated into the policy-making process?
26. Focusing on agriculture provides examples
of inadequate incorporation of biodiversity protection into policy-making.
GSPC target 6 requires production lands to be managed consistent
with the conservation of plant diversity.
27. The biodiversity benefits of setaside
have been well documented[28]
therefore the recent loss of this agricultural feature in the
UK, without mitigation measures in place, is a massive failing
for biodiversity protection. In December 2007 Defra statistics
estimated that there would be a 40% reduction in the area of arable
land that will remain uncropped in 2008. This level of intensification
experienced over one year is a direct result of the 0% setaside
rate teamed with very strong cereal prices. In addition to biodiversity
loss, there will be impacts on soil erosion and damage to soil
structure in intensive systems. These pose greater risks of flooding
through run-off, and increased water contamination from nitrates
and pesticides.
28. Agri-environment schemes are also failing
to deliver the widest biodiversity benefits they should be capable
of. Arable plants are the most threatened group of plants in the
UK yet the uptake of the cultivated margin options that meet the
needs of these has been very low—to date less than 5% of
25,000 ELS agreements have included suitable options for rare
arable plants. In Wales, only 2% of all 2,925 Tir Gofal agreements
include options that deliver all the needs of arable plants. Moreover,
the total are of land on which they are applied is very small,
just 3033 ha (2.2% of land under Tir Gofal).
29. The multi objective nature of Environmental
Stewardship (ES) delivery, particularly the Higher Level Scheme
(HLS), limits the available funds and scope to deliver for biodiversity
as those farmers who can only "conserve biodiversity"
cannot get into the scheme. This provides particularly limited
scope for large arable farmers who may well be able to deliver
for birds, insects and plants but can only gain points for delivery
of one species-type. The highly selective nature of HLS delivery,
focusing on delivery of the PSA targets for farmland birds and
SSSIs into favourable conditions, means that this important biodiversity
delivery mechanism is failing the needs of our most threatened
groups of species.
30. Meeting the PSA target for farmland
birds will not meet all the needs of other biodiversity, as there
is no real evidence to suggest a direct link between the status
of bird populations and of plants in associated habitats. Indeed
often the artificial management techniques implemented under agri-environment
schemes for farmland birds (eg bird seed mix, Skylark plots) specifically
do not improve conditions for other species (eg plants and insects).
b. How well will the Ecosystem Approach Action
Plan address this issue? Has there been enough progress in ensuring
that the value of ecosystem services are reflected in decision-making?
31. A healthy natural environment—one
that supports functioning ecosystems and the wealth of services
provided—is by definition an environment that is rich in
a diversity of wildlife. It should naturally follow, therefore,
that a measure of the status of the species and habitats of even
our rarest species should be considered vital in assessing the
health of our environment. We must be very careful not to de-value
certain aspects of our biodiversity because of the difficulties
involved in outlining their economic-value, instead adopting the
precautionary principle as we continue to understand ecosystem
functionality. Indeed, the first guiding principle of the climate
change report published last year by Defra[29]
is to conserve existing biodiversity "the richness of future
biodiversity, in a changing world, will depend upon the diversity
we conserve today".
32. We must support large, landscape-scale
conservation initiatives that allow for the conservation of plants
and fungi and their habitats in the face of climate change. Focusing
specifically on linking up important places for plant and fungal
diversity in the UK will optimise the population size and extent
of critical species, conserving genetic diversity, improving habitat
condition and restoring resilient and functioning ecosystems.
33. The ecosystem approach must retain biodiversity
conservation as its core, as vegetation types have a critical
role in providing ecosystem services. For example, the maintenance
of sand dunes and salt marshes as soft coastal engineering can
mitigate the erosive impacts of anticipated sea-level rise[30].
The maintenance and management of natural and semi-natural, catchment
and in-stream vegetation to regulate water-flow, are important
activities. The nature of vegetation in the catchment can alter
the flow regime in a river[31].
34. The UK's sustainable use credibility
will come under further scrutiny with the Economics of Ecosystems
and Biodiversity (TEEB) report which will document the impact
of biodiversity loss on the global economy. As a major global
consumer the UK needs to do much more to determine its impact
on biodiversity and ecosystems outside of the UK. We must upgrade
our environmental standards relating to the origin of plant products,
including food and energy, on the UK market.
35. The current biofuel and land-use debate
is an example highlighting the challenge of the ecosystem approach.
Biofuel premiums and the availability to sow industrial crops
on setaside land in the past threatens arable biodiversity through
greater intensification, something that is only set to rise with
the strong energy crop market and grain price. We therefore welcome
the Commission's proposal to abolish the energy crop premium.
KEY THREATS
5. What are the key drivers of biodiversity
loss in the UK, and is the Government addressing them?
36. Plantlife identifies poor habitat management
and continued habitat destruction as the single most important
causes of ongoing biodiversity loss, and Government is simply
not doing enough to address these. On protected sites and land
under agri-environment schemes management can be addressed, although
even these areas fail priority species in many cases—for
example, delivery of appropriate management for Pink Waxcap fungi
and arable species is very poor within Tir Gofal. Outside protected
areas or agri-environment schemes, very little protection is available,
even for UK BAP priority species. Since many of the new UK BAP
plant species are widespread but in continuing decline, it is
essential that new mechanisms are developed to afford a greater
level of protection in the wider countryside. The situation is
even worse for non-priority species (such as Cowslips and Betony),
and it is species such as these which the public come into contact
most regularly and therefore will use to gauge the health of the
countryside. It is also essential that new and existing policies,
such as the Government's residential and building policies in
Southern England, take account of biodiversity loss.
37. Another major driver of change is diffuse
eutrophication—the deposition of atmospheric nitrogen on
sensitive habitats. Many studies, including The New Atlas of
the British and Irish Flora and Change in the British Flora,
identify the massive decline of nitrogen-sensitive species in
our flora yet this issue simply doesn't receive the profile it
needs. With 60-80 kg of nitrogen being deposited on each square
meter of land each year from the air it is little surprise that
habitats are becoming dominated by a small suite of aggressive,
highly competitive species[32].
38. Other key drivers of biodiversity loss
include climate change and invasive non-native species (see answers
to question 6).
6. Will the Invasive Non-native Species Framework
Strategy prove effective? Is there adequate regulation and resources
to prevent further invasions and to undertake eradication programmes?
39. The GB Invasive framework strategy represents
a step in the right direction. However, in order to be effective
it needs to be underpinned by an implementation plan that coordinates
action at all scales by enables participation by all sectors,
including government, business and other stakeholders and the
public.
40. This plan must be adequately resourced:
tackling the impact of non native invasive species is crucially
important but the sheer scale of effort required, means that effective,
targeted and coordinated action is required. GSPC target 10 calls
for management plans to tackle the most problematic invasive species.
7. What impact will climate change have on
UK biodiversity? How might the impacts of climate change be reduced?
How can potential conflict between climate change mitigation and
adaptation measures and biodiversity protection be effectively
managed?
41. The impacts of climate change on the
UK's biodiversity will only be reduced by ensuring viability and
resilience within populations, in an integrated landscape which
facilitates species movement through integral habitats with appropriate
buffering. Isolation and fragmentation of semi-natural habitats
across the UK continues to limit severely the ability of ecosystems
to cope with increasing levels of environmental change. The development
of ecological networks and a commitment to landscape-scale planning
is critical for plants and will enable the linking of core areas
for biodiversity and facilitating species migration and dispersal.
42. The conservation of Important Plant
Areas in the UK embraces this approach through work to identify
Zones of Opportunity in which habitat restoration and creation
can best be targeted to achieve connectivity. However, for this
to become a reality, biodiversity must become a key consideration
in all policy making, particularly planning. For example, Strategic
Environmental Assessments must include, in future, a requirement
to ensure that biodiversity is not damaged by proposed operations,
instead it is buffered and strengthened.
43. We still poorly understand how species,
especially plants, will respond to climate changes. We must therefore
make policy decisions with sufficient timelines to monitor processes
and allow for flexible solutions to provide the most sustainable
and effective systems.
8. Does planning policy adequately protect
biodiversity? Are effective measures in place to ensure that Government
plans for housing growth (including eco-towns) enhance rather
than damage biodiversity? Should there be a review of greenbelt
policy, and what might the consequences be for biodiversity? Do
guidelines encouraging development on brownfield sites risk damaging
biodiversity?
44. Fragmentation of habitats and the loss
of functionality in ecosystems can often be related directly to
a lack of integration in land-use planning. The planning sector
has a crucial role to play in ensuring no further loss of biodiversity.
We are therefore greatly concerned that the Planning Bill flies
in the face of an integrated ecosystem approach by removing the
process of robust examination of the impacts of major infrastructure
projects.
RESOURCES
9. Are there adequate resources for biodiversity
protection and enhancement? Has the Government addressed the need
to provide additional support for biodiversity protection in the
UK Overseas Territories?
45. Biodiversity action is inadequately
resourced across the UK, and the situation is worsening. The past
year has seen significant cuts in Government funding to Statutory
Nature Conservation Agencies such as Natural England and Scottish
Natural Heritage at a time when environmental issues are supposedly
core to Government policies.
46. In Scotland for example, there are no
government grant schemes to support biodiversity action at a local
scale, agency budgets have been cut or limited, hitting biodiversity
delivery and agri environment scheme proposals, while still in
the early stages, are likely to be highly over subscribed with
biodiversity likely to lose out. Delivery of projects to protect
national biodiversity will be more difficult to run, given the
splintering of funding sources and the decline in national resourcing.
There is an extremely urgent need to reassess our ambitions and
need the meet international targets with the amount of resourcing
that is being made available.
47. In England the HLS budget for 2007-08
is £30 million, with £16 million to be targeted at farms
with SSSIs and £14 million for the remaining "multi
objective" schemes. However, there are still many farmers
that are having good agreements rejected who could delivery benefits
for biodiversity and ecosystems. In addition, while Natural England
has made a three year commitment to support its partnerships with
key species conservation organisations such as Plantlife, the
financial support it estimates will be available for this period
will be unchanged from levels set in 2007. This leaves the voluntary
sector bearing an escalating burden of the cost of conserving
the UK's biodiversity—a burden it is already bearing under
increasing strain.
48. Approximately half of the new BAP priority
species are plants or fungi. There are only five staff positions
across SNH, NE and CCW dedicated to botanical interests. Increasingly
NGOs and voluntary societies, such as those represented in the
Plant Link UK network, are supporting and subsidising biodiversity
action which the UK Government has international obligations to
deliver. The non-governmental sector and public commitment to
biodiversity is highlighted by the 8.4 million people who are
members of NGOs within the Wildlife and Countryside Link network.
In comparison, the Government's resource commitment to halting
biodiversity loss is woefully inadequate.
PROTECTED AREAS
10. Is the UK protected area network up to
the job of maintaining biodiversity, now and into the future?
Are arrangements to protect sites effective? Is more work needed
to reduce habitat fragmentation and to link up those semi-natural
habitat areas that remain?
49. A further constraint to the achievement
of both BAP targets and GSPC targets 7 and 5—the latter
relating to the protection of Important Plant Areas- is the appropriate
management and condition of protected sites. In the first Common
Standards Monitoring report published in 2006, the results showed
that the number of flowering plant and fern features in favourable
condition were below average for species features, a pattern repeated
for lower plants and fungi. This is a significant concern, especially
considering that only a fraction of rare and threatened flowering
plants are mentioned on the relevant SSSI citations and very few
citations include lichens, bryophytes, algae and fungi. So whilst,
for example, the latest official figures on progress towards the
PSA SSSI target in England claim that 80% are favourable-recovering,
this figure masks the real picture and the target itself ignores
the gaps in our SSSI network including several Important Plant
Areas with lower plants features. Assessments in Wales are more
realistic, with 68% of SSSIs in unfavourable condition[33].
50. Clearly we need to ensure that protected
areas are managed appropriately for all of the threatened species
and habitats present upon them. This will require adequate resources
to be made available and effective communication to conservation
officers and land managers.
June 2008
Annex 1
GLOBAL STRATEGY FOR PLANT CONSERVATION, PUBLISHED
BY THE SECRETARIAT OF THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
http://www.cbd.int/gspc/
Global objectives and targets for 2010:
Understanding and documenting plant diversity:
i. A widely accessible working list of known
plant species, as a step towards a complete world flora;
ii. A preliminary assessment of the conservation
status of all known plant species, at national, regional and international
levels;
iii. Development of models with protocols for
plant conservation and sustainable use, based on research and
practical experience;
Conserving plant diversity:
iv. (At least 10% of each of the world's ecological
regions effectively conserved;
v. Protection of 50% of the most important areas
for plant diversity assured;
vi. At least 30% of production lands managed
consistent with the conservation of plant diversity;
vii. 60% of the world's threatened species conserved
in situ;
viii. 60% of threatened plant species in accessible
ex situ collections, preferably in the country of origin, and
10% of them included in recovery and restoration programmes;
ix. 70% of the genetic diversity of crops and
other major socio-economically valuable plant species conserved,
and associated indigenous and local knowledge maintained;
x. Management plans in place for at least 100
major alien species that threaten plants, plant communities and
associated habitats and ecosystems;
Using plant diversity sustainably:
xi. No species of wild flora endangered by international
trade;
xii. 30% of plant-based products derived from
sources that are sustainably managed;
xiii. The decline of plant resources, and associated
indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices that
support sustainable livelihoods, local food security and health
care, halted;
Promoting education and awareness about plant
diversity:
xiv. The importance of plant diversity and the
need for its conservation incorporated into communication, educational
and public-awareness programmes;
Building capacity for the conservation of plant
diversity:
xv. The number of trained people working with
appropriate facilities in plant conservation increased, according
to national needs, to achieve the targets of this Strategy;
xvi. Networks for plant conservation activities
established or strengthened at national, regional and international
levels.
Annex 2
FURTHER INFORMATION
Plant Diversity Challenge—the UK's response
to the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation. Defra, DoE Northern
Ireland, National Assembly of Wales and Scottish Executive (2004)
Plant Diversity Challenge: 3 years—16
targets—1 Challenge. Progress in the UK towards the Global
Strategy for Plant Conservation. Plantlife International, JNCC,
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (2007)
New Priorities for Arable Plant Conservation.
Still, K & Byfield AJB Plantlife International (2007)
A Sustainable Future for Europe: The European
Strategy for Plant Conservation 2008-14. Planta Europa (2008).
Developed by the Planta Europa Network and the Council of Europe.
20 Defra, DoE Northern Ireland, National Assembly of
Wales and Scottish Executive (2004) Plant Diversity Challenge-the
UK's response to the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation. The
Global Strategy for Plant Conservation was adopted by the Conference
of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in 2002. Back
21
Plantlife International, JNCC, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (2007)
Plant Diversity Challenge: 3 years-16 targets-1 Challenge. Progress
in the UK towards the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation.
JNCC, Peterborough, UK Back
22
Preston, CD, Pearman, DA & Dines TD (eds.) (2002) New Atlas
of the British and Irish Flora. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
See also: Preston, CD, Telfer, MG, Arnold, HR, Carey PD, Cooper,
JM, Dines TD, Hill MO, Pearman DA, Roy, DB, Smart, SM (2002) The
Changing Flora of the UK. London, Defra. Back
23
Cheffings, CM,& Farrell, L. (Eds.), Dines TD, Jones RA, Leach
SJ, McKean, DR, Pearman, DA, Preston, CD, Rumsey, FJ, Taylor I.
(2005) The Vascular Plant Red Data List for Great Britain. Species
Status 7: 1-116. JNCC, Peterborough, UK. Back
24
Williams, J M, ed. 2006. Common Standards Monitoring for Designated
Sites: First Six Year Report. Peterborough, JNCC. Back
25
Habitat change is attributed as the main factor affecting native
species in The Changing Flora of the UK (2002) Preston
et al Back
26
The Act makes it an offence (subject to exceptions) to pick, uproot,
trade in, or possess (for the purposes of trade) any wild plant
listed in Schedule 8, and prohibits the unauthorised intentional
uprooting of such plants. Back
27
Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act lists animals and
plants which may not be released into or caused to grow in the
wild Back
28
Defra Agricultural Changes and Environment Observatory Research
Report June 2007. Institute for European Environment Policy Feb
2008 Report http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/ace/set-aside1.htm Back
29
JJ Hopkins, H M Allison, CA Walmsley, M Gaywood & G Thurgate
(2007) Conserving biodiversity in a changing climate (Published
by Defra on behalf of the UK Biodiversity Partnership) Back
30
A small archipelago of artificial islands have been constructed
just off the Norfolk coast to encourage dune accretion at the
northern end of Winterton and Horsey Dunes SSSI; lying just to
the north of Great Yarmouth, this dune system protects the Broads
from incursion from the North Sea and is entirely natural in origin. Back
31
Dodds, W K. 2002. Freshwater Ecology: Concepts and Environmental
Applications-certain vegetation types are better able to attenuate
run-off close to the point of origin than others. Vegetation in
rivers also has significant effects-this effect is important in
upstream flow attenuation and therefore the reduction in flood
risk in the lower reaches of rivers; removal of such vegetation
can exacerbate flood risks downstream as "natural retention
of sediment and slowing of floodwater does not occur, thus increasing
the severity of floods". The value and vulnerability of river
vegetation is illustrated in IPAs such as the River Tweed and
River Axe IPAs, both of which support vegetation of the Ranunculion
fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion. Back
32
Duckworth, J & Costley, J, Junk Food For Plants-how nutrient
pollution is threatening the UK's wild flora, Plantlife International
2002 Back
33
47% of SSSIs in Wales were assessed in response to a Welsh Assembly
Government question 2006 Back
| 
