Memorandum submitted by the Royal Society
for the Protection of Birds (DMB 60)
INTRODUCTION
1. The RSPB is a nature conservation charity,
governed by an elected council and supported by a membership of
over one million people. We work to achieve a high quality environment
for wildlife and people. We have contributed to the development
of the Government's proposals for coastal access through engagement
with Defra and the Countryside Agency/Natural England, including
membership of the Countryside Agency's National Countryside Access
Forum.
2. The RSPB approaches access in four roles:
we are a conservation body, and wish to protect the natural environment
from any harm that might result from access. As a land management
organisation, we are an access provider. Of the 116 reserves covering
76,996 ha that the RSPB manages in England and Wales, 39 are coastal,
covering over 15,000 ha and some 250 km in length of coastline.
As a membership body, many of whom enjoy birdwatching in the countryside,
we are a user group. Finally, as an organisation that seeks to
enthuse and educate people about wildlife and natural places,
we seek to stimulate public enjoyment and understanding of the
natural environment.
THE RSPB'S
OVERALL POSITION
3. The RSPB wishes to see more public access
to the countryside: people are more likely to care about the countryside
if they have more opportunities to enjoy it at first hand. We
are convinced that people wish to use the countryside confident
in the knowledge that they are not harming the very resource they
are coming to enjoy—including wildlife, that contribute
so much to the quality of visitor experience. We wish to see greater
access delivered in ways that does not harm the natural environment.
COASTAL ACCESS
AND THE
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
4. Britain's coasts are hugely important
for wildlife. The coastal strip contains a wide range of habitats,
including cliffs, rocky shores, sandy beaches, sand dunes, salt
marshes, coastal lagoons and extensive areas of mudflats. Significant
areas have been protected through notification as SSSIs under
the Wildlife and Countryside Acts, as amended, and designation
as Special Protection Areas or Special Areas of Conservation under
the EU "Birds" and " Habitats" Directives.
5. From a bird perspective, the main interests
of the coast are:
— Cliffs—used as breeding
sites by colony nesting seabirds, including gannet, puffin, guillemot,
razorbill and kittiwake, and other cliff-nesting species such
as chough, peregrine and raven.
— Rocky shores—used for
feeding and roosting by substantial numbers of passage and over-wintering
wildfowl and waders.
— Shingle beaches—used
as breeding sites by ground-nesting birds such as little and sandwich
terns, ringed plover.
— Saltmarshes—used by
breeding redshank.
— Estuaries (mudflats, saltmarsh
and coastal grazing marsh)—used for feeding and roosting
sites by huge numbers of passage and over-wintering wildfowl and
waders.
6. Over time, man has damaged and degraded
coastal landscapes and their associated wildlife:
— Agriculture—has caused
habitat loss. Cliff top fencing has facilitated the intensification
of agriculture and destruction of natural vegetation inland, whilst
on the seaward side, the management of semi-natural habitats has
been abandoned. Estuaries have been the subject of land-claim
for agriculture, and marshes drained and converted to arable production.
— Urbanisation—construction
of housing, industry, ports and coast protection and sea defence
has harmed wildlife habitats.
— Sea-level rise through a continuation
of isostatic release and global warming is causing coastal squeeze—reducing
the area of intertidal habitat and freshwater wetlands.
— Coastal erosion has increased
through interference with coastal processes, such as the interruption
of long shore drift, from coastal protection works.
7. There are identifiable adverse impacts
of access on coastal habitats and their associated wildlife.
— Access to shingle beaches has been
shown to limit population size in ringed plovers (Liley 1999).
In particular, disturbance affected settlement, territory size
and distribution of nests. Direct losses of nests due to disturbance
occurred through trampling, even in low disturbance areas.
— Human disturbance has limited the
availability of beach nesting sites for terns (Pickerell 2004).
Colonies now tend to utilise cordoned off areas, such as at Great
Yarmouth, Norfolk, and Gronant, Flintshire, where they become
subject to predation pressure, which may result in low productivity.
Their normal response—to desert a site and find a new location,
is inhibited by recreational use.
— Activities such as cliff angling,
climbing, hang gliding and canoeing are all capable of causing
panic amongst cliff-nesting seabirds.
— In winter, high tide wader roosts
may be disturbed by dog walkers, birdwatchers and others, at a
time of year when birds must conserve energy if they are to survive
cold weather (Burton 2002, Gill, Norris & Sutherland 2001,
Woodfield and Langston 2004).
The scale of adverse pressures arising from
access are relatively small, when set in the context of the impacts
outlined in paragraph 6 above. However, it is likely that in the
case of terns and ringed plover, access is having a detrimental
effect at population level.
8. As coastal habitats are so varied, it
is difficult to generalise about the impacts of access: clearly
some are more resilient than others: sand-dune systems in particular
are vulnerable to erosion.
9. In general, the adverse impacts of access
on wildlife can be mitigated through management, including zonation
in space and time. But, clearly, this requires investment in planning
and delivery. Nest site protection for species such as little
tern is expensive, and is an annual ongoing cost. In addition,
habitat creation, by increasing the resource available for people
and wildlife, can be an effective way of mitigating any adverse
impacts of access on wildlife, as well as increasing the area
available for access, and the quantity of experience enjoyed by
users.
COMMENTS IN
RESPONSE TO
THE COMMITTEE'S
QUESTIONS
The Government's vision for coastal access
10.We are supportive of the Government's vision
for coastal access. In particular, we welcome recognition of the
role that the natural environment plays in contributing to the
quality of experience enjoyed by the user.
11.In relation to access to open country in
general, the Government posed four tests for an access regime:
extent of access, quantity of access, permanency, and clarity
and certainty (DETR 1998). We believe that the approach set out
in the draft Marine Bill, provides an innovative way of achieving
the Government's vision for coastal access. Whilst the legal construction
of the Bill, and associated regulations may be rather complex,
we think it should result in an access regime at the point of
delivery that should be easily understood by users; one that passes
the Government's "tests".
12.Given the Government's objective for coastal
access, we believe, on balance, that this is best delivered through
statutory means, as it offers mechanisms to provide explicit safeguards
for the protection of areas of high wildlife interest. We accept
the analysis provided in the Coastal Access Impact Assessment
(para 24, page 107) that legislation could improve visitor management,
so helping to address impacts arising from current, de facto,
access.
13. From the perspective of the natural
environment, we conclude that the draft Bill and supporting package
(including Natural England's Outline Scheme for coastal access)
provides sound safeguards. In particular, we welcome confirmation:
— that assessments will be done to
identify the potential effect of access on wildlife; and that
where there is potential for conflict, measures will be taken
to reconcile the two (NE Outline Scheme, para 4.7.2);
— that in the case of Natura 2000 sites,
this must be done as a formal appropriate assessment, and Natural
England has a duty to prevent adverse effects on the designated
features of Special Protection Areas and Special Areas of Conservation
from arising (NE Outline Scheme, paras 4.7.4-4.7.5);
— that where informal access management
is insufficient to prevent the adverse effects of access on wildlife,
local restrictions and exclusions on access will be available
(NE Outline Scheme, paras 2.2.6 and 4.7.6);
— that enchanced access to saltmarsh
and mudflat is not regarded as a priority in its own right; and
— of the role of access management
in resolving conflict between access and the natural environment.
14. However, we are disappointed that steps
to deliver environment enhancement, integral to the consultation
document, have not been carried through into the Bill or associated
documents. Para 1.2.4 of Natural England's Outline Scheme states:
"Similarly, the scheme will not include
proposals to enhance the coastal access environment, but environmental
enhancement remains a key aspect of Government's vision for the
coast, and a key priority for Natural England. Again we will publish
separate, non-statutory criteria in due course to guide this activity".
We consider there is a strong case for the Bill
to make provision for a report, prepared under Section 51 pursuant
to the coastal access duty (clause 277 of the draft Bill), containing
proposals for the coastal route and coastal margin to also include
proposals (if any), as Natural England may feel appropriate to
enhance the quality of the coastal environment, whether to increase
the quality of experience for users or mitigate potential adverse
impacts of access on wildlife.
Whether legislation is the best or most cost-effective
means of providing increased access to the coast
15. The Defra consultation of June 2007
presented the main ways of achieving greater access to the coast:
voluntary, linear through Public Rights of Way (ProW), use of
CROW Act Section 3 as it stands, and new legislation. Of these,
we agreed with Natural England's recommendation to Government
that new legislation to combine the best features of existing
mechanisms, offering customised powers and provide for flexibility
of approach, was the best way forward. In summary, we felt that:
— voluntary measures were insecure
and may not provide for onward passage and would not address problems
arising from current de facto access;
— PRoW way were well understood, but
the process to create new rights of way was difficult, and inflexible
in the face of sea-level rise; and
— use of Section 3 of the CROW Act
would be workable, but inflexible. The dependence upon a strict
habitat based definition would cause problems in distinguishing
inter-tidal habitats associated with the open coast and estuaries.
Temporary restrictions would be needed to protect over-wintering
wildfowl and waders, which would result in closure of a large
proportion of the land to which the new rights would apply.
The proposals for coastal access in estuaries
16. We agree with Natural England (Outline
Scheme, para 6.10) that the main objective on estuaries will be
to provide a convenient means to cross them, and so maintain unbroken
passage along the coast. In most instances it should be possible
to route the trail along the sea-wall. Indeed, most sea-walls
bounding estuaries have public rights of way on them: if the trail
is aligned on the sea-wall, this would provide for access not
only on top of the wall, but also on either side of it—providing
shelter for users in poor weather, and possibly reducing disturbance
to wildfowl and waders arising through "sky-lining".
17. We note that the Outline Scheme proposes
that areas of flats and saltmarsh will normally be spreading room,
but access will be often excluded using new powers under the draft
Bill, if, in Natural England's view, they are unsuitable for open-air
recreation. (Outline Scheme, para 6.2.2). Access restrictions
or exclusions may also be necessary for nature conservation reasons
(Outline Scheme, para 6.2.3).
18. England's estuaries are of year round
international importance for wintering, passage and breeding wildfowl
and waders. Many are notified SSSI and/or SPA. For reasons of
clarity, and in light of public safety concerns, we believe the
Bill should provide that areas of flats and saltmarsh should not
normally be spreading room, unless during preparation of a Section
51 Report, Natural England considers this can be provided safely
and without detriment to wildlife. This might be achieved by limiting
the effect of clause 276 of the Bill to apply to creation of a
"coastal route" alone.
Whether there should be access rights for other
users such as cyclists or horse-riders
19.We believe it correct that the Government
has placed priority on enhancing access to the coast on foot.
We note that Section 16 of the CROW Act is available for the creation
of higher rights of access for other users.
OTHER ISSUES
Dogs
20. We are concerned that the draft Marine
Bill, and associated amendments to the CROW Act, proposes a significant
change in the "default" position regarding national
restrictions relating to dogs. Thus, at the coast, it is proposed
that dogs will be required to be kept under close control at all
times, instead of on a short fixed lead during the bird breeding
season or in the vicinity of livestock, as Schedule 2 (4)-(6)
of the CROW Act requires in respect of open country. The term
"close control" is poorly understood and very ambiguous:
it may mean a dog walking close to heel for one person, whilst
another may interpret it as acceptable to let a dog go many metres
away if it then comes to heel when called. All too often, dog
owners simply let their dog off the lead, to be under no meaningful
control at all.
21. We acknowledge that given the proposed
trail will assume the character of a public right of way, then
a requirement to keep dogs under close control would reduce confusion
between the trail and PRoWs. However, many areas of spreading
land will be grazed, and are of high wildlife importance, including
for breeding ground-nesting birds. The RSPB believes there is
a strong case for maintaining, as the default position, the CROW
Act Schedule 2 (4)-(6) requirements for spreading land, in respect
of dogs.
Access management
22. We agree with Natural England's view
that in many cases where the potential for conflict between access
and wildlife exists, access management measures can be effective
in preventing such conflicts from arising. Such measures may involve
capital expenditure (signage, provision of access infrastructure)
and revenue expenditure (wardening). The Defra Access Improvement
Grant Scheme was very important in funding works to facilitate
the delivery of access under the CROW Act in an environmentally
sensitive way.
23. We seek reassurance from Government,
that delivery of powers under the Bill by Natural England and
local authorities will be properly funded, especially where access
management measures have been relied upon to mitigate the impact
of access on the interest features of Natura 2000 sites (Outline
Scheme, paras 4.7.4-4.7.6).
REFERENCES
Burton, N H K, Armitage, M J S, Musgrove, A J, &
Rehfisch, M M. 2002. Impacts of Man-Made Landscape Features
on Numbers of Estuarine Waterbirds at Low Tide. Environmental
Management. 30: 857-864.
Department of the Environment, Transport and the
Regions. 1998. Access to the Open Countryside in England and
Wales. A consultation paper.
Gill, J A, Norris, K, & Sutherland, W J 2001.
Why behavioural responses may not reflect the population consequences
of human disturbance. Biological Conservation 97: 265-268.
Liley, D 1999. Predicting the consequences of
human disturbance, predation and sea-level rise for Ringed Plover
populations. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of East Anglia,
Norwich.
Pickerell, G 2005. Little Tern. Species account in
Mitchell, P I, Newton, S F, Ratcliffe, N & Dunn, T E. Seabird
populations of Britain and Ireland: Results of the Seabird 2000
Census (1998-2002). A & C Black, London.
Woodfield, E & Langston, R 2004. Literature
review on the impact of bird populations of disturbance due to
human access on foot. RSPB Research Report No 9, RSPB, Sandy,
Bedfordshire (as part of a programme of work jointly funded by
English Nature and the RSPB, English Nature Project, Reference
FST 20-11-011).
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
May 2008
|
