Memorandum 4
Submission from the National Farmers'
Union of England and Wales
THE SCIENCE OF SITES OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC
INTEREST
INTRODUCTION
1. The National Farmers' Union (NFU) welcomes
this opportunity to submit evidence to the Committee's inquiry
on Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). The NFU represents
over 55,000 professional farmers and growers in England and
Wales. A significant proportion of our members manage land within
SSSIs either as owner occupiers, tenants or as graziers of common
land. While the National Audit Office[20]
indicates that 29% SSSI area is managed by "independent landowners",
the remaining area under control of "major landowners"
is most often let on tenancies to agricultural tenants and graziers.
All those involved in managing designated SSSIs have an interest
in the scientific understanding that informs SSSI selection, condition
assessment, objective setting and management. Put simply, the
rationale for designation and management within a SSSI needs to
be understood by those managing these sites on a daily basis.
NFU EVIDENCE
2. A robust science basis is implied and
required for the credibility of the UK's SSSI network yet it was
not until 1989, following the publication of "Guidelines
for selection of biological SSSIs"[21]
that consolidated national guidance was published explaining the
basis of SSSI selection—the geological equivalent was completed
in 1990. Thus for the first 40 years of their legal existence
SSSIs were proposed by local Nature Conservancy Council staff
on the basis of best available evidence before confirmation by
the NCC Council. Given the furore that followed the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981, which required re-notification of SSSIs
to those owning and managing them (who hitherto had not been informed
of designation), the absence of consolidated guidelines is in
retrospect extraordinary.
3. We identify two key areas which require a
robust scientific base and consider each in more detail below:
— Designation—owners and occupiers
will wish to be assured that the selection of sites of special
interest is undertaken consistently. For example, sites should
be of similar value, reflect the spatial variation and diversity
of habitat across Great Britain and surpass a minimum threshold
to be of "special interest".
— Management—assurance is also needed
that science underpins decisions on management permitted to be
undertaken on SSSIs and that management prescriptions incentivised
or imposed on owners and occupiers will achieve the objectives
Natural England (NE) or Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) require.
Issues related to the science underpinning notification
4. Notification of a potential SSSI is often
the first time an owner or occupier will be aware that an area
of land is under consideration for statutory protection, although
they may have been aware of its wildlife interest previously,
often as a result of their own environmental stewardship. The
notification and designation procedures established under the
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 was radically amended by
the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. It is not our purpose
to repeat these provisions but to note that statutory protection
significantly curtails opportunities to manage land as owners
and occupiers are required to obtain prior consent for undertaking
potentially damaging activities from NE or CCW.
5. As the NAO report notes (page 23) private
landowners and occupiers frequently subsidise the costs of managing
SSSIs. Given the potential restraint on freedom to manage land,
as well as the actual costs, it is not unreasonable to expect
the evaluation of potential SSSI to be guided by a consistent
and scientifically robust framework and that this evidence base
is freely available and explained to those managing such sites.
6. Both Geological and Biological guidelines
can be downloaded from NE's website[22]
both of which provide a comprehensive scientific explanation as
to the basis of site selection at a national and habitat level.
Both documents while establishing a consistent framework explicitly
recognise that this exercise must be constantly under review and
based on expert judgement, for example:
"This document [Guidelines for selection
of biological sites] aims to provide an exposition of the SSSI
selection process, from which to decide, explain and defend any
case to the best of our NCC [now NE and CCW] ability. Yet in the
last analysis, each case rests on matters of opinion. It is thus
not intended that anyone should try to apply these guidelines
as a rule book. They do not provide final or exact criteria, but
indications of presumptions to assist decisions for or against
selection". Page 20, paragraph 4.16
7. On notification owners and occupiers
have four months to make objections and representations known
to the local NE/CCW area office. Unresolved objections will be
considered alongside the proposed notification prior to confirmation
by NE or CCW Board. Significantly Ministerial guidance indicates
that NE's Council should base its decision on a "full and
careful assessment of the scientific evidence" justifying
designation or amendment of any notification eg that part of the
site does not contain species or habitats proposed.[23]
The Wildlife and Countryside Act (section 28(4)) requires NE,
or CCW, to provide the reasons for notification, the operations
likely to damage these interest (and therefore requiring prior
consent) and a statement on site management.
8. We strongly support the importance of
clear explanation of rationale and objectives for each site owner
and occupier and believe that this should be based on a credible
science base. However, we are concerned that the NAO study found
that a significant number of SSSIs (35%) had not yet had conservation
objectives set for them and that of those sites audited a significant
minority contained mis-identified or unmapped habitats. We understand
that NE has a significant challenge to bring SSSIs in favourable
or recovering condition, but eight years after the CROW Act believe
that the lack of such basic information about the special interest
of sites represents a fundamental shortfall in communication to
those managing SSSIs.
9. A final point on notification is that
of the changing context in which SSSI are now located. For much
of their history SSSI have literally been the ecological and geological
jewels in the crown, protected from negative impacts by legislation.
The context as we look forward is significantly different: environmental
land management is now common place outside SSSIs with the majority
of farmers now participating in Environmental Stewardship schemes.
Climate change is already impacting ecology and agriculture with
higher annual temperatures, drier summers and wetter winters.
It seems likely that by mid-century a changing climate must question
the sustainability of some of our current SSSIs, especially those
reliant on cool damp conditions in eastern and southern England,
coastal habitats and semi-alpine habitats in the Pennines and
Scotland. As climate change prediction becomes more refined, the
current SSSI network must be continually reviewed However, we
believe that predicting how the SSSI network needs to respond
and be supported by country-wide habitat provision in order to
cope with these future pressures, is a complex scientific challenge.
This is overlaid with additional scientific questions and possible
policy conflicts such as how increased emphasis on the provision
of such permeability and stepping stones outside SSSIs to allow
species to move and adapt, could also provide increased opportunities
for the spread of invasive non-native species.
Issues related to the science underpinning site
management
Science matters in respect to three aspects
of SSSI land management:
a. to evaluate potentially damaging operations;
b. to recommend land management to recover SSSI
condition; and,
c. to require specific management be undertaken
as part of a management notice or following an offence.
10. We have noted that SSSI notification
triggers a prior consent management requirement for farmers and
landowners (Section 28E). Should a farmer wish to undertake an
activity requiring prior notification then local NE staff must
assess whether the proposal will have a detrimental impact on
the special interest of the site. NE's guidance[24]
to owners and occupiers emphasises that simply because an activity
requires notification does not mean that consent will be refused,
by which we understand that it is the nature, timing and extent
of proposals which will be critical to NE local staff evaluation.
We presume that such judgements are made on the basis of generally
understood ecological principles, although NE's guidance provides
little explanation of the basis of such evaluation. This is important
as while the legislation requires formal notification and written
consent, the critical discussion will be face-to-face discussion
between farmer and NE advisor as to the appropriateness of proposed
actions and these will have subtle site-specific interpretations.
11. Defra has a Public Service Agreement
target to return 95% SSSI area to favourable or recovering condition
by 2010. To achieve this local NE staff must set site objectives,
complete regular condition assessments and most important recommend
land management that will set each site on a path to revering
condition. The National Audit Office report raises concerns in
respect to the accuracy of this monitoring. In each respect understanding
of not only general ecological principles but also local site
conditions and likely responses to intervention must be understood.
The experience of NFU members is that too few local NE staff have
the necessary local site experience or long standing relationships
with site owners or occupiers needed to set every site on a path
to recovering condition without some trial and error; this problem
is exacerbated by the lack of consistent keeping of case notes
by some NE staff, leading to a loss of continuity in advice.
12. This lack of local site knowledge is
of critical concern in the rare circumstances where restoration
or management notices are required. In such circumstances the
legislation (section 28K) allows NE to require owners and occupiers
to carry out work necessary to protect the special interest of
the site. Such notices can be challenged. We anticipate in such
circumstances the basis on which requirements are made must be
ecologically watertight.
CONCLUSION
13. We welcome the Committee's inquiry on
SSSIs. We have argued strongly that the science backing SSSI notification
and management is critical to the credibility as well as the management
of these nationally important sites. Equally we have made the
case for sound ecology to inform decisions that NE and CCW staff
hold with farmers and landowners. Having said this, of most importance
is the relationship between local NE staff and sites owners and
occupiers. Natural England must strive for continuity in these
relationships such that trust can build between both parties—science
is a support not a replacement for these relationships.
June 2009
20 National Audit Office (2008) "Natural England's
Role in Improving Sites of Special Scientific Interest" HMSO,
London Back
21
"Nature Conservancy Council" (1989) "Guidelines
for Selection of Biological SSSIs" NCC Peterborough Back
22
www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/designatedareas/sssi/designation.aspx Back
23
Defra (2003) "SSSIs-Encouraging Positive Partnerships"
Defra London www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/pdf/protected-areas/sssi-code.pdf Back
24
Natural England "Sites of Special Scientific Interest-England's
Special Wildlife and Geological Sites" publication NE54 Back
| 
