Memorandum by the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
INTRODUCTION
1. This Memorandum sets out Defra's responses
to the questions identified by the Committee for its inquiry into
halting UK biodiversity loss. It is written from a UK perspective
except in the case of devolved matters, where it is written from
an England perspective.
POLICY AND
PROGRESS
Q1 Is the Government on course to meet its
2010 biodiversity target?
2. There are two main targets. In 2001,
EU Heads of Government adopted the target that "biodiversity
decline should be halted with the aim of reaching this objective
by 2010". In 2002, the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development
endorsed the target agreed five months earlier by the Parties
to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) "to achieve
by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity
loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution
to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on Earth".
There is no single agreed measure of biodiversity loss but, within
the CBD, Parties have decided to use a broad framework of goals,
sub-targets and indicators relating to seven focal areas of the
Convention to assess progress towards the 2010 target. A similar
framework of indicators has also been adopted by the European
Council of Ministers for assessing the European target. Following
this lead, we have developed a broad range of indicators to measure
our performance, in addition to the more specific targets agreed
for priority species and habitats in the UK Biodiversity Action
Plan. We are on course to meet both versions of the 2010 target
in some areas, not to meet it in some, and to exceed it in others
by not only halting decline but reversing it.
3. The assessments since 2000 generally
show marked improvements compared with longer term (ie 10-30 year)
trends where comparable data exist. Of the 20 UK measures for
which post-2000 assessments are now available, 12 show improvement,
7 show no change; and only one (the wintering waterbirds indicator)
shows deterioration. Taken together, these show that the rapid
declines in biodiversity during the last quarter of the 20th century
have been substantially slowed and in some cases halted, and that
spending and public engagement have increased.
4. In absolute terms, the EU target to halt
the loss of biodiversity by 2010 will not be met—and was
never realistically achievable in all areas and aspects. It has,
however, acted as a call to arms, and has galvanised activity
by both Governments and NGOs to tackle a range of the most urgent
problems.
Q2 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?
5. Very effective overall. The UK's biodiversity
is more closely monitored than most, partly as a result of our
long tradition of voluntary biological recording, and particularly
in relation to relatively large and easy to count species (eg
birds, bats, butterflies and vascular plants). Co-ordinating scattered
and disparate records is still a challenge, which we are tackling
through sponsorship of the National Biodiversity Network[1].
6. A major periodic survey of broad habitats,
Countryside Survey[2],
was completed in 2007 and is due to report later this year, but
a significant gap remains in respect of some of the less widespread
priority habitats, especially outside designated sites. We are
addressing this with JNCC, Natural England and the Environment
Agency by developing a surveillance strategy for UK terrestrial
biodiversity, and Natural England is initiating a programme of
habitat inventories. We are also investing in Local Record Centres,
which are intended to fill in some of the gaps in our baseline
data.
7. Monitoring is inherently more difficult
and much more costly in the marine environment than it is on land,
but we are making a significant investment to improve our marine
biodiversity data. Our current monitoring programme was designed
to comply with the sector-based requirements of national and international
regulations. Given Government's desire to move towards an ecosystem-based
approach to the management of the marine environment, we have
recognised the need for greater integration of monitoring programmes
to enable us to make robust assessments of the overall state of
the marine ecosystem. We have initiated the UK Marine Monitoring
and Assessment Strategy (UKMMAS) to achieve these goals. As part
of this work, JNCC is leading the development of a coherent strategy
for marine biodiversity monitoring, including a review of currently
available indicators.
8. We already have a good set of indicators
for terrestrial biodiversity, which have drawn on data from Government
agencies and non-governmental and research organisations and are
published in Biodiversity indicators in your pocket 2007[3].
There are 18 indicators, comprising 29 component measures covering
various aspects of biodiversity. Individually, they show both
recent and longer-term change. Collectively, they provide an overview
of progress for biodiversity as a whole. Four of the indicators
are still being developed, with the aim of publishing trends for
all 18 in 2009.
9. Additionally, a wider range of state
and response indicators are published within country-level biodiversity
strategies (eg England Biodiversity Strategy[4])
and relevant pressure indicators are included within the set of
UK Sustainable Development Indicators[5].
10. The 2004 PSA Targets on SSSI condition
and Farmland Birds[6],
and the 2007 PSA indicator on changes in wild breeding bird populations
in England[7]
are underpinned by robust data. The data underpinning the UK Biodiversity
Action Plan targets published in November 2006 are more variable
in quality, and we recognise that there are not yet adequate data
to set targets for all of the 1,149 species on the UK list of
priority species and habitats published in August 2007. A balance
does, however, need to be struck between the resource spent on
data collection and refinement and that spent on direct intervention
to protect and enhance our biodiversity, and we think the current
balance is about right.
Q3. Are the policy and institutional frameworks
effective at protecting biodiversity? Is biodiversity protection
addressed effectively at local and regional levels? How successful
has the UK Biodiversity Action Plan been? Does Conserving biodiversity—the
UK approach address the need to have a joined-up approach to biodiversity
protection with the devolved administrations?
11. We believe that the frameworks relating
to protected sites are generally effective at protecting terrestrial
biodiversity, and that progress has been made on those relating
to the wider countryside.
12. The bringing together of the former
agriculture and environment departments in 2001, and the subsequent
creation of Natural England under the Natural Environment and
Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 have enabled closer integration
of biodiversity policy with policies for agriculture and wider
countryside management. Agri-environment schemes contribute to
biodiversity protection in a number of ways. In particular, Environmental
Stewardship is a key Defra policy delivered by Natural England.
Scheme options which have had particular benefits include those
for hedgerow management, which have resulted in over 90,000 km
of hedgerows under environmentally friendly management and 30,000
km of restored and newly planted hedgerows. In addition, the Hedgerows
Regulations 1997 have helped to protect hedgerows of historical
and biodiversity importance from removal. The Environmental Impact
Assessment (Agriculture) (England) Regulations 2006 give protection
to uncultivated land and semi-natural areas from agricultural
improvement.
13. In respect of protected sites, the NERC
Act closed the few remaining gaps in legislative provisions concerning
damage to protected sites, by introducing new measures to cover
third party damage. The emphasis now is on effective enforcement
of the measures which are in place and promotion of positive site
management.
14. In the wider countryside, the protection
of biodiversity is one consideration amongst many. Three recent
developments are important here. The first, introduced by the
NERC Act, is the new duty on all public and statutory bodies—including
local authorities—to integrate biodiversity into their decision
making. We have published guidance for local authorities on this,
and will be monitoring the effectiveness of their response. The
second is the adoption of our innovative ecosystem-based approach
to policy making (see Q4), which will enable biodiversity issues
to be considered as an integral part of ecosystem services
15. The third development is the new Public
Service Agreements (PSAs) which include the new Natural Environment
PSA (PSA28)[8]
to "Secure a healthy natural environment for today and the
future". This agreement approaches the natural environment
from a more holistic view and sets out what other Government departments
have agreed to do in order to achieve the outcome of a "healthy
natural environment". CLG, DfT and FCOM are formal delivery
partners while others, including BERR, have significant contributions
to make. The Delivery Agreement for PSA 28 identifies Natural
England as the lead delivery agent for the England Biodiversity
Strategy (EBS). This includes a role both in direct delivery,
and in overseeing and facilitating delivery across the piece by
a range of partners. As part of this role, NE is working with
us to refine the structure of EBS implementation arrangements,
in order to improve the integration of BAP delivery with work
to embed proper consideration of biodiversity in all relevant
sectors of policy and decision-making.
16. Funding has been secured for local and
regional co-ordination of biodiversity activity; this will focus
on supporting local and regional partnerships, delivering Biodiversity
Action Plans at local and regional levels, reporting and monitoring
progress and integrating biodiversity into regional and local
policies. A local government performance indicator for biodiversity
(the proportion of Local Sites under conservation management)
is included within the basket of national indicators by which
local authority performance will be measured7. The new local government
inspection regime, Comprehensive Area Assessment, will monitor
the delivery of the indicators focussing on those agreed in Local
Area Agreements.
17. Future priorities include:
— the further integration of biodiversity
into local and regional policies, processes and programmes, such
as Community Strategies and Regional Spatial Strategies, facilitated
by the NERC Act biodiversity duty;
— building partnerships at the local
and regional level; and
— improving access to sources of advice,
expertise and datasets for local and regional authorities.
18. The UKBAP has raised awareness of threats
and helped coordinate and drive new conservation work at national
and local levels. This has been achieved by identifying priorities
for action and setting biological targets for the recovery of
species and habitats, including those not subject to statutory
protection. It has also been influential in attracting other sources
of funding such as Landfill Tax and Lottery money.
19. The UKBAP has also engendered a strong
partnership between the UK Government, Devolved Administrations,
statutory agencies, local authorities and non-Governmental organisations,
and this partnership has enabled us to make much more progress
than would have been possible otherwise.
20. Success of the UKBAP in the marine environment
has been more limited, primarily because the marine environment
does not lend itself to local action (an important reason for
the success of the UKBAP terrestrially). There are particular
issues involved in taking effective action for some mobile priority
species (eg sharks, skates, rays and deep water species), including
achieving effective fisheries control measures beyond six nautical
miles, where agreement is generally required at EU level. The
development of the forthcoming EU Shark Plan of Action will provide
a good opportunity for us to make progress here.
21. The draft Marine Bill contains integrated
proposals to facilitate effective conservation management and
improve the management of human activities in the marine environment.
The Bill's proposals for Marine Protected Areas are covered under
Q10 below, but the Bill also includes provisions for marine planning
and licensing, new enforcement powers, and the creation of the
Marine Management Organisation and Inshore Fisheries and Conservation
Authorities, all of which will help to improve the management
and conservation of marine biodiversity.
22. Conserving biodiversity—the
UK approach[9]
sets out our shared purpose in tackling the loss and restoration
of biodiversity, the guiding principles that we will follow to
achieve it, our priorities for action in the UK and internationally,
and indicators to monitor the key issues on a UK basis.
23. Government responsibility for delivering
biodiversity is devolved but it is recognised that knowledge and
expertise on components of biodiversity are often relevant to
more than one country and can be held by individuals or organisations
(such as NGOs) who operate across the UK. To work efficiently
and avoid unnecessary bureaucracy, the new framework clarifies
that the emphasis for future work at UK level will be on co-ordination,
information exchange, identification of research priorities and
some reporting. JNCC has a key role in this respect.
Q4. How well is biodiversity protection incorporated
into the policy-making process? 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?
24. Work to embed proper consideration of
biodiversity in all relevant sectors of policy and decision-making
is undertaken through the biodiversity or environment strategies
of each of the four countries of the UK. Achievements in England
include the establishment of the biodiversity performance indicator
for local government, and the fourth Periodic Review of Water
Prices, which has led to £500m of investment benefiting more
than 170 water and wetland SSSIs damaged by sewage pollution and
over-utilisation of water. Adequate integration of biodiversity
protection into all relevant policy areas is a continuing priority.
25. Biodiversity protection has been incorporated
into the Government's marine strategy, and key components of this
are included within the draft Marine Bill. The Common Fisheries
Policy, as written, is based on an ecosystems approach, and the
UK Government is firmly committed to this.
26. Through its ecosystems approach action
plan, Defra is committed to developing a more strategic approach
to policy making on the natural environment, based on a number
of core principles, including taking a more holistic approach
to policy-making and delivery and ensuring that the value of ecosystem
services is fully reflected in decision-making. The plan includes
a range of actions with direct relevance to biodiversity.
27. On valuation, in particular, the plan
sets out actions to:
— review existing policy and project
appraisal tools to explore how the principles of an ecosystems
approach, including the valuation of ecosystem services, could
be incorporated;
— develop a benefits transfer strategy
for use in valuing ecosystem services;
— promote the development of the existing
Environmental Valuation Reference Inventory (EVRI) database to
ensure that it captures studies on the valuation of ecosystem
services most useful and relevant for benefits transfer, including
from Defra-funded studies; and
— review work on non-economic and participatory
valuation methodologies and produce guidelines on their use alongside
economic valuation methodologies
28. Defra has published "An Introductory
Guide to Valuing Ecosystem Services" to assist those involved
in the decision-making process to take better account of the value
of ecosystem services. We have also funded or supported a number
of research projects on valuing ecosystems services.
29. Internationally, considerable progress
is also being made through the G8 Potsdam initiative to produce
a Stern-style review, called The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity.
The main aim of this project is to assess the value of the loss
of biodiversity and the costs and benefits of actions to conserve
it. It will use a range of mechanisms and will develop methodologies
such as tracking the movement of biodiversity, measuring the change
in its abundance and quality, and measuring the economic value
that such changes represent. An initial report on this work was
presented to the recent CBD Conference of the Parties in Bonn,
and the UK announced a contribution of £100k towards the
next phase of the work.
30. While more work is needed to refine
and develop valuation methodologies, we have already started to
use valuation tools in government policy. For example, work to
value marine ecosystem services has been undertaken by Government,
most recently as part of the impact assessment undertaken for
the nature conservation provisions of the draft Marine Bill.
KEY THREATS
Q5. What are the key drivers of biodiversity
loss in the UK, and is the Government addressing them?
31. Detailed work has been done on reasons
for adverse condition in the context of the SSSIs PSA target in
England. The top ten reasons are: overgrazing (typically in the
uplands), moor-burning, coastal squeeze, drainage, water pollution
from agriculture and discharge, air pollution, undergrazing (typically
in the lowlands), inappropriate scrub control and lack of appropriate
forestry/woodland management (including management of deer grazing).
32. In the UKBAP 2005 reporting round[10],
lead partners were asked to list the issues that were currently
posing, or likely to pose, a significant threat to their species
or habitat over the next 5 years. Key threats faced by priority
habitats and species were: habitat loss (particularly due to agriculture
or changes in management practices), infrastructure development
(mainly housing infrastructure and development on the coast),
and climate change.
33. In the marine environment, climate change
and some fishing activities have a particularly adverse impact
on biodiversity. Some fisheries stocks are not currently at full
reproductive capacity, and levels of by-catch can impact on other
marine species. Climate change is already starting to have a significant
impact on some species (see Q7).
34. Action to address each of these drivers
is being taken under the auspices of the UKBAP and the country
biodiversity strategies.
Q6. 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?
35. We are confident that the Invasive Non-native
Species Framework Strategy will help. It is based on internationally
agreed advice and principles, and has received widespread support
from stakeholders. Its core premise is agreed under the Convention
on Biological Diversity: of firstly seeking to prevent introductions;
then swift action against those that are found early; and, finally,
effective longer-term management of those that are already established.
However, as we have acknowledged in the strategy, no system will
be completely watertight because there is so much scope for invasive
species to be introduced deliberately or accidentally through
global trade and travel.
36. Work is in hand on making further use
of existing regulatory powers to control what may be released
or sold, but the scope for additional regulation needs to be balanced
against the burdens it would impose. Success will also depend
on other approaches such as changing behaviours, and improving
understanding of the risks and the need for action against such
species.
37. The plant health regime is a good example
of an existing robust line of defence against the introduction
of invasive non-native plant pests and the strategy will lay the
foundation for better protection of our native wildlife in general.
We intend to back up preventative measures with arrangements to
instigate appropriate control actions much sooner in future. This
could involve a range of bodies whose interests or responsibilities
are relevant and may therefore be resourced in a number of ways.
However, early action is more likely to succeed, will cost significantly
less and will minimise any potential harm to native wildlife and
habitats.
38. Eradication of established invasive
species must be approached very carefully—particularly in
terms of knowing the true size and extent of the problem, the
effectiveness of control techniques and the likely response of
the species to such action—in order to avoid unsustainable
commitment of resources. For example, the policy review group
that reported in 2003 estimated that eradicating Japanese knotweed
in Britain would cost £1.56 billion. Priority will therefore
need to be given to preventing as many future problems as possible
through detection and rapid response, and to managing those species
that have already become well established in a cost-effective
and targeted way. The GB Programme Board will advise Government
on the case for major or national eradication programmes in future.
Q7. 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?
39. While we cannot be certain of the impacts
climate change will have on UK biodiversity, we know that we are
likely to face longer, hotter summers, wetter winters and more
extreme weather events, and that there will be longer growing
seasons for plants. These conditions could significantly affect
species' ranges, preferred habitats and behaviour.
40. Many species are already showing evidence
of northward extension in their distribution in the UK. We can
use studies such as the MONARCH report which modelled the "climate
space" of priority species identified in the UKBAP, using
established climate change scenarios to indicate possible outcomes.
41. In the marine environment, it is predicted
that climate change will lead to changes in temperature, pH level
(ocean acidification), water circulation and sea level rise. Changes
are likely to occur in the abundance and distribution of marine
habitats and species. For example, recent warmer conditions appear
to have led to changes in the distribution of fish prey species,
which in turn have led to reduced breeding success in some seabird
populations. Sea-level rise associated with climate change is
likely to accelerate the rate of loss of coastal habitats around
the UK. For example, it is estimated that an average of 100 ha
of saltmarsh is being lost every year in the UK as a result of
coastal squeeze. The vast majority of these losses are in the
south and east of England where Government has established a target
for the creation of at least 100 ha of intertidal habitat per
year through the flood management programme to offset this impact
and contribute to meeting biodiversity targets.
42. Increasing the resilience of species,
habitats and ecosystems to climate change will help the widest
range of biodiversity to survive its impacts and adapt. So we
should seek to:
— conserve the range and ecological
variability of habitats and species;
— maintain existing ecological networks;
— create buffer zones around high quality
habitats; and
— take prompt action to control the
spread of invasive species
We are mainstreaming climate change across all
the workstreams of the England Biodiversity Strategy so that consideration
of the impacts of climate change becomes an integral part of all
decisions made for biodiversity.
43. Our biodiversity plays an important
role in helping mitigate against climate change with forests and
peatlands providing carbon sinks. Adaptation for biodiversity
will need to be a long term activity as our knowledge increases.
It is difficult to predict the likely consequences of mitigation
and adaptation measures in other sectors, but the key lies in
ensuring that sustainable options are developed, for example in
the area of renewable energy.
Q8. 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. The Government's aim is that development
should have minimal adverse impacts on biodiversity and enhance
it wherever possible. The policy and legislative framework to
enable this to happen is already largely in place, through PPS9
and accompanying guidance; the linked Government Circular on statutory
obligations for biodiversity and geological conservation and their
impact within the planning system; and the arrangements for appraising
regional spatial strategies, local development documents and individual
planning applications.
45. In practice, much depends on the relative
weight afforded to these policies amongst the many others embodied
in planning legislation and guidance. In a small, densely populated
country, with continuing high levels of demand for housing and
infrastructure development, it remains a challenge to achieve
full integration of biodiversity conservation and enhancement
with relevant social and economic considerations, as part of delivering
sustainable development.
46. One of the problems we face is how to
make it easier for developers to provide for biodiversity, in
a meaningful way and at a sufficiently large scale, as a normal
part of their work. This requires clarity at the outset about
what is needed, and the cost and means of delivering it. To this
end, we are undertaking research to assess the potential for making
better use of biodiversity offsets (ie offsite compensation measures)
which might have a role in reducing adverse impacts on the wider
countryside.
47. The proposals for a Community Infrastructure
Levy on new development could potentially make a significant contribution
to minimising the impacts on biodiversity of housing and other
new development. Green infrastructure, and its associated biodiversity,
is an essential component of a good quality of life when communities
grow and needs to be fully integrated into new development.
48. All New Growth Point (NGP) proposals
are screened by NE and EA for their potential impacts on biodiversity;
where impacts are potentially significant, appropriate conditions
(eg necessary mitigation) are attached as part of the NGP designation.
The consultation paper issued by CLG in April makes clear that
eco-towns will be expected to "enhance the biodiversity value
[of the locality], providing a variety of important habitats and
inter-connecting wildlife corridors..." The proposed locations
have themselves been subjected to exactly the same sort of "showstopper"
review as proposed NGPs, with potential impacts on biodiversity
one of the assessment criteria.
49. The Government is working with the Town
and Country Planning Association (TCPA) on the practical application
of the key sustainability criteria for eco-towns. TCPA are producing
a series of guidance worksheets, including one on biodiversity,
which will be available to all those involved with taking forward
eco-town proposals.
50. In May 2007 the Planning White Paper,
Planning for a Sustainable Future[11],
reinforced the Government's commitment to the key principles of
Green Belt policy set out in PPG2. The planning system exists
to identify the most appropriate locations for development taking
into account a wide range of considerations, and Green Belt policy
is an important part of this.
51. While environmental enhancement is not
the primary purpose of the green belt, there are examples of communities,
local authorities and landowners working together to improve the
environmental quality of green belt land, providing benefits for
biodiversity. The Community Forests programme is a good example
of this, and similar initiatives to provide opportunities for
biodiversity, leisure, and healthy living in urban fringes are
possible within current Green Belt policy.
52. Government's recent response to English
Partnerships' recommendations on the National Brownfield Strategy[12]
recognised that not all brownfield land is suitable for development
purposes and that such sites can be important for biodiversity.
The revised UK Biodiversity Action Plan list of priority species
and habitats (approved by Ministers in August 2007) includes "Open
Mosaic Habitats on Previously Developed Land" for the first
time. We are currently commissioning research to:
— refine the definition for this new
priority habitat to aid identification on the ground; and
— identify options for compiling an
inventory of all the land in the UK that falls within that definition.
This work, and the proposed BAP for this habitat
type, will help avoid damage to those brownfield sites which are
important for biodiversity.
RESOURCES
Q9. 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?
53. A report commissioned from external
consultants and published in 2007[13]
estimated current spend on the UKBAP in 2005-06 as £388m
pa. Our biodiversity expenditure indicator[14]
shows that since 2000-01 there has been a year on year increase
in biodiversity expenditure from the public sector in real terms,
resulting in an overall increase of 33 per cent. The lion's share
of this comes from agri-environment expenditure; £2.9bn of
agri-environment funding has been secured for England for the
period 2007-13, much of which will be targeted at biodiversity.
Statutory nature conservation agencies, and Forestry Commission
are the other major public sector contributors, together with
lottery funding. In addition, the private sector, in particular
Wildlife and Countryside Link organisations, are major funders.
54. Where UK Overseas Territories (UKOTs)
are included within the UK's ratification of a multilateral environmental
agreement, they must be able to meet the obligations under that
agreement. For the Convention on Biological Diversity, St Helena
(and dependencies), Gibraltar, Cayman Islands and British Virgin
Islands are the UKOTs included in the UK's ratification. One of
the principles that govern the relationship between UKOTs and
the UK Government is that Britain will continue to provide help
to the UKOTs that need it. This is an important point, given the
wide range in GDP between different UKOTs.
55. Defra has provided funding to a number
of programmes in the UKOTs. Through the Darwin Initiative we have
so far contributed in excess of £1.5m including £79k
over the past year on two projects in Tristan da Cunha (enabling
implementation of the CBD in the marine environment) and the Falkland
Islands (conservation of freshwater fish). The new Darwin Round,
announced at the recent CBD Conference of the Parties in Bonn,
that it will give priority to applications for the UKOTs. Defra
has supplemented its Darwin support indirectly through voluntary
contributions made to international agreements, in particular
the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP),
of which the UK was a founding member. We have given voluntary
contributions to ACAP and we are also contributing towards the
costs of an officer who will co-ordinate ACAP activities in the
South Atlantic territories from a base in the Falkland Islands.
56. The Overseas Territories Environment
Programme (OTEP) was established to help the UKOTs to implement
their Environment Charters and environmental management more generally.
It is jointly funded by FCO and DfID. In the first phase (2004-07),
a total of £3m was spent on biodiversity conservation in
the UKOTs; funding in the current phase is £0.5m pa from
each department over the next three years. DfID, FCO and Defra
officials consider annual OTEP applications for funding. The FCO
portion of OTEP is a ring-fenced element within the larger Overseas
Territories Programme Fund (OTPF), a £6.5m programme. Environmental
projects can and have been funded from other parts of the OTPF.
PROTECTED AREAS
Q10. 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?
57. A coherent network of protected areas
is vital for conserving the best of our biodiversity, and is an
integral component of the England Biodiversity Strategy. On land,
designations include non-statutory local sites and local nature
reserves, Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), National
Nature Reserves, European Sites (as part of the Natura 2000 network),
and Ramsar Sites. While we expect to bring forward new national
and European marine designations (see below), the extent of the
suite of terrestrial and freshwater sites is now largely complete.
58. Natural England is developing a framework
to assess the climate change resilience of SSSIs, which it plans
to pilot this year and roll out across England in the two following
years. We will consider the fitness for purpose of the protected
areas network in the light of Natural England's work, but it seems
likely that the existing network will still have a key role to
play. Protected sites, supplemented by a broader mosaic of non-statutory
local designations, already have the best potential to support
the movement and changing distribution of species. We may need
to build in the flexibility to adjust the conservation objectives
and notified interests of existing sites, as well as developing
landscape-scale responses to facilitate movement of species. We
have commissioned research looking at such a broader `landscape
scale' approach.
59. Protection for important and threatened
marine habitats and species is not at the same level as terrestrial
protection. However, the UK is committed by international agreements
and EU Directives to establishing an ecologically coherent network
of well-managed Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). A UK-wide vision
for the network of MPAs (which will include Marine Conservation
Zones and European marine sites) is being developed with the Devolved
Administrations and the statutory nature conservation bodies.
The proposals contained in the draft Marine Bill will play an
important role in helping to deliver this vision.
60. The draft Marine Bill provides a power
for Ministers to designate Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) for
the purpose of conserving marine flora, fauna and habitats. In
particular, we want to designate areas which are important for
rare and threatened species, and for habitats that best represent
the biodiversity of UK waters. The network will be designed to
deliver, together with our European sites, an ecologically coherent
network of Marine Protected Areas, which are mutually supportive
and which contribute to healthy marine ecosystems. The MCZ provisions
in the draft Bill will not apply to the territorial waters of
Scotland and Northern Ireland. Instead, those Devolved Administrations
have announced their intention to legislate separately, and we
are working with them to ensure the coherence of the overall network.
61. The protection of MCZs will largely
be achieved through the marine licensing (and other existing)
consent regimes, in the same way as for European marine sites.
Levels of protection, and the management implications, will depend
on the conservation objectives set for each site. Public authorities
will be under a duty to further—or, where this is not practicable,
least hinder—MCZ conservation objectives in carrying out
their functions. They will not be able to license any activities
that would hinder the achievement of an MCZ's conservation objectives,
except in cases where there are no suitable alternatives, the
damage to the environment will be outweighed by the public benefit,
and the damage is compensated for. The Marine Management Organisation
(and Welsh Ministers in Wales) will have powers to make conservation
orders to protect MCZs from harmful activities which would otherwise
be unregulated. Additionally, Inshore Fisheries and Conservation
Authorities in England will be placed under a specific duty to
ensure that conservation objectives for MCZs are furthered, such
as by making fisheries byelaws where necessary.
62. On land, our emphasis is on both the
protection and the enhancement of sites, and progress in improving
their condition has been good. The condition of SSSIs, which include
European sites, is one of the key indicators of the success of
our biodiversity strategy. We are aiming to bring 95% of the area
of SSSI land in England into favourable or recovering condition
by December 2010. 82.9% of the SSSI area was in target condition
by early June 2008—up from a baseline of only 56.9% five
years earlier. Further progress relies on a partnership approach
to positive site management. Stakeholders with major land-owning
or managing responsibilities have recently agreed to delivery
commitments which should bring at least a further 5% of SSSI land
within target condition by March 2009. The challenge is to maintain
that momentum as we work towards the 2010 target.
63. While management of special sites is
a pre-requisite of securing future biodiversity, it is not sufficient
on its own. Firstly, not all of the UK's priority species and
habitats are found in designated areas; secondly, there is a need
to buffer and link small sites to reduce the risks to survival
faced by small, isolated populations; thirdly, studies of predicted
responses of species and habitats to climate change suggest that
most of the species that are currently the focus for conservation
are likely to experience changes in the location and/or extent
of areas across the UK where the climate will meet their requirements.
This illustrates the need to reduce habitat fragmentation to facilitate
species dispersal and establishment in new locations as the climate
changes. The Wildlife Trusts and other NGOs have championed this
work through their "living landscapes"[15]
and "rebuilding biodiversity"[16]
campaigns, which Government has welcomed and encouraged.
17 June 2007
1 http://www.nbn.org.uk/ Back
2
http://www.countrysidesurvey.org.uk/ Back
3
http://www.nbn.org.uk/ Back
4
http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/biodiversity/biostrat/index.htm Back
5
http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/progress/data-resources/documents/sdiyp2007_a6.pdf Back
6
http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/busplan/spending-review/psa2004.htm Back
7
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/1/3/pbr_csr07_psa28.pdf Back
8
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/localgovernment/nationalindicatorsupdate Back
9
http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/pdfs/biodiversity/ConBioUK-Oct2007.pdf Back
10
http://www.ukbap.org.uk/library/Reporting2005/UKBAPReport05.pdf Back
11
www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/planningsustainablefuture Back
12
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/doc/securingfuturebrownfield.doc Back
13
http://www.ukbap.org.uk/bapgrouppage.aspx?id=110 Back
14
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/2010-BIYP2007.pdf Back
15
http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/index.php?section=about:publications:free Back
16
(Living Landscapes, full report) Back
| 
