Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-51)
DR PETER
BROTHERTON AND
DR TOM
TEW
17 JUNE 2008
Q40 Joan Walley: So how would you
go about preventing brownfield sites with high biodiversity value
from actually being developed?
Dr Tew: Via the guidance to planners
and the planning system. At the moment, there is an issue—
Q41 Joan Walley: But you just said
in answer to the previous question that you did not quite understand
how that biodiversity was being linked into the duties of the
Planning Bill. Would that not need to be linked to that?
Dr Brotherton: The first step
is to actually map where these sites are and that is a process
that is already under way.
Q42 Joan Walley: Is that being done
right the way across the country?
Dr Brotherton: I will come back
to you on that, if I may. Already planners have a duty to have
regard for biodiversity. There is now a new habitat on the section
41 list, the statutory list that contains the species and habitats
of principal importance for the conservation of biological diversity
in England, and they are expected, through current policy, PPS9
notably, to have regard for those habitats, so they should already
be taking measures to protect them when they find that habitat.
We see part of our role as helping them fulfil that duty by helping
them to know where those are.
Q43 Joan Walley: But does that not
assume that each local authority area, producing a local development
planning framework, has the resources to be able to identify those
sites and act in respect of any applications coming in for planning
development? I am not sure that that is available in my constituency.
Are you confident that that is available across the country?
Dr Brotherton: This year, we are
completing the network of local record centres which are repositories
of biodiversity information for both habitats and species, and
we are investing in improving the habitat inventories for a range
of priority habitats, including traditional orchards and others,
and we would encourage, and do already encourage, local authorities
to see high-quality biodiversity information as critical to underpinning
their planning functions, so what we have done is to provide the
infrastructure that we would expect local authorities and others
to help support in the future and to help support the collection
of good-quality biodiversity information.
Q44 Joan Walley: Just finally on
the issue of Green Belt, there has been an argument put forward
that the development of the Green Belt could be positive due to
the potential for improving biodiversity. I am just wondering
whether or not a better way of improving that biodiversity on
Green Belt land would be to have better land management regimes
that could actually exist there in that Green Belt area. What
is your view on that?
Dr Tew: Well, I would not disagree
with the generic point, and I think it is a case-by-case basis.
I think if you have got land that is simply neglected and not
being managed, then you need to do something about it.
Q45 Joan Walley: But how would you
address those land management regimes that could exist there as
a way of improving biodiversity?
Dr Tew: Incentivisation outside
of land that is either an SSSI or is eligible for agri-environment
schemes is an issue because there are not huge sums of money to
spend on land management outside the main frameworks we have,
which is agri-environment schemes, SSSI protection or biodiversity
delivery, and that is why I think we do need to look at other
ways. There is no doubt in principle that appropriate development
properly done will increase the biodiversity value of land, or
can increase the biodiversity value of land.
Q46 Joan Walley: In terms of what
you just said about SSSIs and the resources that are available
to help with SSSIs, what resources are currently available and
how adequate are they?
Dr Brotherton: For biodiversity
as a whole?
Q47 Joan Walley: Biodiversity in
respect of SSSIs.
Dr Tew: Again I am afraid I do
not have the figures for the SSSI programme off the top of my
head, but we can provide them very easily because we quantify
them extremely accurately. At the moment, funding for SSSI delivery
over the past few years is reaching the targets and our programmes
and our funding are designed to deliver the Government's target.
Q48 Dr Turner: Of course farmers
are managing 75% of the countryside and you are concerned about
the Stewardship Scheme. Helen Phillips has spoken about raising
the bar for the Entry Level Scheme and the need for a more targeted
approach for high-level stewardship, so can you tell us how Natural
England is planning to get more out of the Stewardship Scheme
for biodiversity protection and enhancement?
Dr Tew: Agri-environment schemes
have been running for 20-odd years now and there has been significant
progress, and we are the first to recognise some of the fantastic
things which have been delivered, but the ES Review, which is
ongoing, shows rather limited alignment between where the money
has historically been deployed and where it might best be deployed.
Furthermore, and speaking frankly, taxpayers need complete assurance
that their money is being spent to deliver real environmental
benefits, so Natural England is not in the business of measuring
success by the amount of agri-environment money it simply ships
out of the door. Where we have concerns that, for instance, the
uptake of in-field stewardship options that would benefit farmland
birds has been limited, on the one hand, and, on the other hand,
where the most popular options tend to be those which are easiest
for the farmers to manage, then we do think that some rebalancing
of that is necessary, and that is ELS. In terms of HLS targeting,
the issue here really is about trying to find synergy between
these multi-option schemes and we think that has been somewhat
lacking in the past, so we would like to target funds at those
areas that are going to deliver the greatest environmental bang
for the buck, so maps that take account of all the key objectives
across biodiversity and landscape, resource protection and so
on as well as our commitments to SSSIs allow us to look at areas
where we get real synergy between the different parts of the scheme.
We intend to be proactive in securing agreements in those target
areas, we want to work very closely with farmers in those target
areas and we want to provide as much advice as we possibly can
to farmers in those areas and to gather their support as far as
possible.
Q49 Dr Turner: Obviously the support
of farmers is crucial to making this work properly, and farmers
have said that they will be discouraged from entering into these
schemes if you get too tough, so is there a risk that this might
adversely affect the ability to meet your targets?
Dr Tew: I think there is always
that risk. As soon as the price of wheat goes up, farmers say
they do not want to enter the schemes, and that is clearly an
understandable economic decision. On the other hand, farmers are
always very consistent in saying that they do not want further
regulation, so there clearly is that balance, but farmers are
the stewards of the countryside and we do need to work with farmers
to ensure a healthy natural environment. There is no doubt that
the evidence base I referred to earlier shows a significant historical
decline across a suite of species, so it rather suggests we have
still not got that right. We think the key here lies in both land
managers and indeed the public understanding the full range of
environmental benefits that a healthy natural environment brings,
and we want clarity on goals, we want a strong partnership with
the farming community and we think that that will produce good
schemes that farmers will sign up to.
Q50 Dr Turner: Entirely, but not
necessarily, related, do you think there is an inherent conflict
between set-aside schemes and biodiversity management in land
which is still under cultivation because it increases the intensity
with which the remaining land is cultivated? Is there a problem
there?
Dr Tew: Bearing in mind that set-aside
was a production-control mechanism rather than one designed to
produce environmental benefits, I think it illustrates two things:
one, that there has been great environmental benefit from set-aside;
and, two, that that environmental benefit sometimes takes time
to develop and yet is destroyed overnight with the plough. In
answer to your question, no, I do not think there is direct conflict.
I think we need to have an overview of how the land is managed.
It does illustrate, I think, how conservation needs a long-term
view and does not respond well to the short-term idiosyncrasies
of perhaps agricultural policy or market forces.
Q51 Chairman: I am conscious that
you want to be away and we have really, I think, covered everything,
so thank you very much, both of you, for coming in.
Dr Tew: Thank you, Chairman, for
inviting us.
| 
