Examination of Witnesses (Questions 44-59)
DR HELEN
PHILLIPS, MS
CHRISTINA CORK
AND DR
PETER COSTIGAN
17 JUNE 2009
Chairman: We welcome our second panel
of distinguished witnesses this morning. We have Dr Peter Costigan,
a Defra scientist; Dr Helen Phillips, the Chief Executive of Natural
England; and Christina Cork, Principal Specialist for Protected
Areas. Graham Stringer is going to begin this session.
Q44 Graham Stringer: You listened to
the previous evidence session; can you tell us whether you have
plans to revisit the way SSSIs are designated and whether you
are going to look at those SSSIs that were designated quite a
long time ago to see if they should still be designated areas?
Dr Phillips: I will start at the
point of the guidance and, as was mentioned earlier, the guidance
was finally concluded in 1989. Our view is that it is largely
fit for purpose. As Andrew mentioned earlier this morning, there
are certain editorial changes required to reflect the fact that
we have more devolution than at the time the guidance was written,
but more substantively there are some gaps. The gaps tend to be
around species and habitats, usually the lower plants and animals.
A good example would be fungi so the guidance for fungi was only
signed off three weeks ago. The other is about thresholds and
where a threshold kicks in. In terms of looking for sites that
contribute to a representative sample of a particular type of
habitat in the country, a couple of decades ago we might have
felt that one particular level was appropriate whereas now because
different environmental pressures, including climate change, a
different threshold might be suitable. There is evidence that
some updating of the guidance would be useful, but in the round
it has served us pretty well. However, that is not to say that
we are complacent about going forward and have actually set out
a piece of work on a notification strategy for SSSIs. It strikes
me that it might be helpful to put a bit of context around why
we are only now looking at a notification strategy given that
we have this responsibility across England. I think we need to
reflect on the situation we inherited in Natural England coming
up to three years ago now. We had little over half SSSIs in favourable
or recovering condition and that figure now stands at over 88
per cent. We inherited a situation where a third of sites had
no conservation objectives—or favourable condition tables
as they are called—in order to make these monitoring assessments
against. As of last March the situation is that every site, all
of our 4116 sites have those conservation objectives. As you can
imagine, that has been a pretty large piece of work. We inherited
a situation where 24 per cent of sites were out of sync on their
condition assessments. We did 3700 of those last year and are
due to conclude 7500 of them this year which means that our condition
assessment programme will be entirely up to speed by December
2010. So we have not been idle; we have been making sure that
the statutory duties we have are being properly discharged, but
we are conscious that there is this longer term piece of work
to do and consequently have brought for discussion to our board
a notification strategy. The purpose of that notification strategy—Christina
will be able to tell you more—is basically three-fold. It
is to ensure that we have proper representation of the diversity
and range of habitats and species; it is to make sure that the
most valuable of those habitats are protected and it is also to
make sure that we are getting sites that are resilient in the
face of climate change. Needless to say, that in itself is a big
piece of work because it requires a pretty thorough analysis of
some of the science that sits behind that, some of which is available
but not analysed, some of which is not available and consequently
that work is proceeding in tranches.
Q45 Graham Stringer: I will tell
you my two main concerns. The first one is that it is a one-way
ratchet and I think in the National Audit Office Report the Attenborough
Gravel Pits were pointed out and they are probably quite a good
example where a particular bird disappeared (I cannot remember
which one) but you still want to keep that site designated. Out
of the 4000 sites there must be a number of those where the original
features have disappeared and yet it seems that the criteria change
and the sites always remain as SSSIs with the problems that there
might be for farmers. What plans do you have to deal with that
criticism?
Dr Phillips: I will take that
in two parts, we have done an initial assessment based on analysis
of two regions and suggest that the potential scope for amendments
or re-notifications is of the order of less than ten per cent.
So this is not a whole scale exercise about needing to totally
review it, but it does recognise that there may need to be some
changes. Those changes will probably be principally about extending
sites where we have worked out that the ecology of the site is
dependent on some parameters or criteria or available land outside
of it rather than a whole scale series of new sites. The previous
National Audit Office in 1993 confirmed that they thought the
series was more or less complete and that would continue to be
our view.
Q46 Graham Stringer: My only real
direct experience of the designation of SSSIs is as an ex-director
of Manchester Airport when, during the works for the second runway,
there was an attempt to designate them as a SSSI. The airport
came to see me as a Member of Parliament and when we looked at
the criteria they did not seem to be very scientific. Natural
England were saying that this is the best example of mere moss
and there was a high density of great crested newts, neither of
which was the case. It has made me suspicious that not only is
the ratchet one way on previous sites but that sites are designated
sometimes for not very objective purposes. I would be grateful
if your comments both about that specific case and how you approach
things now.
Dr Phillips: I will need to ask
Christina in a moment to comment on the specifics, if I may. Coming
to the wider point about the suspicion, I think to be frank it
would be pretty difficult for lobbying to get a site of special
scientific interest through. I think perhaps what has happened
in the past is that local interest or lobbying has brought a particular
area to attention so there then has had to kick in perhaps earlier
than would have kicked in that scientific analysis of whether
or not the site is of special scientific interest. The process
by which the notification occurs is extraordinarily rigorous.
You have the officers on the ground who are experts in this area
making judgments. Those judgments are then publicly commented
on for a period of four months; anybody who has views on either
side are in on-going discussions; there is every effort made to
accommodate those so that we do not find ourselves making a notification
in the face of objections. If we do find ourselves making notification
in the face of objection it goes to a full and open meeting of
our board. That meeting is held in public; the objectors or their
legal representatives come and have the opportunity to state their
case. I would not say that we have had judicial reviews more times
than we have hot dinners, but we have certainly had our fair share
of judicial reviews, all of which have shown that the process
is robust.
Ms Cork: I am afraid I do not
personally know the specifics of the case in Manchester but we
could provide a note.
Q47 Graham Stringer: As I understand
it, it is the only case where notification has been withdrawn
and the scientific basis and judgments were pretty well demolished.
That is my reading of the evidence. My suspicion was that it was
both local lobbying groups who did not like the second runway,
but secondly it was the direct impact of the 1992 Habitat Directive
that English Nature and Natural England were expected to achieve
a number of special areas of conservation via SSSIs. Is that a
pressure you feel, to fit a particular number of special areas
of conservation via SSSIs because of the Habitat Directive?
Dr Phillips: It actually works
the other way round, to be honest with you. In reality the situation
is that we put forward proposals to the secretary of state for
designation of special areas of conservation under the European
legislation and that regime is quite separate from the SSSI regime
where the notification process was actually within Natural England's
gift, albeit what you have observed is that most special areas
of conservation tend also to be Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
The actual designation and notification processes respectively
are separate.
Q48 Graham Stringer: Are you under
pressure from the government?
Dr Phillips: To get more? No.
Q49 Graham Stringer: So there is
no history of saying that the European directive wants so much
area or so many designations and we do not feel you have done
enough in this area.
Dr Phillips: No, it does not feel
like that at all. If we think, for example, about the legislation
that is going through on the Marine Bill where the situation in
the marine environment is proposed to be different in terrestrial
environment, if you think about the SSSI regime what we have got
are very useful thresholds and standards set out in the notification
guidance. The proposal with regard to the marine environment is
that whilst measures can be put in place to make sure we an ecologically
coherent network that guidance would stop short of setting out
thresholds or the percentage of area that should be designated
for particular features. Whilst those two regimes could potentially
be different, the fact that we have that regime in the terrestrial
environment, the European legislation and the SSSI legislation
it does not feel like a target based system.
Q50 Graham Stringer: You said your
target was 88 per cent of areas that are either in a recovering
position or a satisfactory position. I know those are not technically
the right words, but you know what I mean. Out of that percentage
of 88 or 90 per cent you are still left with only 45 per cent
in the top category and the figure of 90 per cent is reached because
of the inferior category of improving. Do you think that that
is a satisfactory criterion or should it not be separated out
so that you have to hit a higher target for SSSIs in a favourable
condition?
Dr Phillips: To recall the figures,
as of the end of March this year the number of sites in favourable
or recovering condition was 88.4 per cent; the target for the
end of this year was 93 per cent and the target for 2010 is 95
per cent. As you quite rightly say, the target in the favourable
category—which is the top category—is 45 per cent
which is considerably lower than that combined figure. I think
it is extraordinarily important that we maintain the favourable
recovering category because the only difference between recovered—top
notch condition and favourable recovering—is the length
of time we anticipate it will take for the remedies we have put
in place to deliver. We have already had an example this morning
about woodland. We set the conservation objectives, we have a
requirement for a particular type of management on that site and
with all the resources and the best will in the world nature takes
some time to recover. I think it is important that we recognise
that we are actually measuring nothing more than a time lag rather
than some altogether more fundamental concern about the management
regime on that site.
Q51 Chairman: Dr Costigan, as far
as Defra is concerned, are you happy with the current guidelines
for SSSIs or do you feel that they are in need of urgent review?
Dr Costigan: We rely on the statutory
advice from Natural England and from JNCC in this regard and we
are very happy with the advice that they provide.
Q52 Chairman: It does seem that everybody
passes the buck to somebody else. Surely somebody at some point
can say, "No, we do not think the guidance is good enough,
it ought to be reviewed and we will be talking to people".
Dr Costigan: There is some need
for looking at some aspects of the guidance.
Q53 Chairman: Does Defra think that?
Dr Costigan: We take the advice
from our statutory—
Q54 Chairman: This is like from Yes
Minister.
Dr Costigan: We have high quality
scientists to provide that advice to government. We do not try
to second guess that. In fact, from what we can see from the evidence
that comes forward, the assessment seems perfectly appropriate.
Q55 Dr Harris: I think that is the
right approach and your answer to the Chairman was reasonable,
but as I understand it, it is the JNCC's advice you are talking
about so it is not really a surprise to say they are happy with
it and also, Dr Phillips, you said that you thought generally
speaking that the guidance that underpins your work was robust
and your work was robust and that is also not a surprise. I actually
think I am doing a good job but I am not necessarily the best
person to be the judge of that. I am just wondering why no-one
has commissioned an objective, independent evaluation, not a hugely
expensive piece of work but someone externally—maybe from
another country who has a similar approach—to say, "Let's
look at this afresh; it is fit for purpose?" Why has that
not been done given these guidelines are pretty old and there
have been some pretty significant changes to global ecology since
then?
Dr Phillips: I watched the earlier
equivocation and thought I had attempted to be pretty clear and
laid out four categories of criteria in respect of which the guidance
could do with being updated. The first was the administrative
point about reflecting the fact that the administrative arrangements
have changed and devolution has kicked in. The second was to recognise
the gap where there were species or habitat areas missing and
the example I gave was fungi. The other example I gave you was
about site selection in the face of the pressures of climate change
which had not been explicitly factored in post-1989. The fourth
example I gave you was the threshold criteria where those thresholds
were for representativeness. That was endeavouring to be helpful
about some specifics about where we feel the guidance could do
with being updated.
Q56 Dr Harris: It has not been updated.
Dr Phillips: No, it has not been
updated in regard to those four categories; we think that could
do with being done. We are pleased to report that we got fungi
three weeks ago and also pleased that the JNCC will be considering
a wider requirement to review the guidance on Monday.
Q57 Dr Harris: Very few people can
boast of getting fungi three weeks ago!
Dr Phillips: There was another
point you made which was, are we all happy because we think we
are doing a good job. I personally think it would be quite difficult
to commission an independent, international review because, to
be fair to JNCC, a lot of what they are doing is coordinating
and facilitating the efforts of very august scientists in their
field. There are not large numbers of people who understand the
ecology of Britain better than the folk who are employed either
by us, Scottish National Heritage and Countryside Council for
Wales.
Q58 Dr Harris: So all the people
who might independently evaluate it have been caught in the process.
That is unfortunate.
Dr Phillips: It does rather raise
the question of quality assurance.
Q59 Dr Harris: You are quite happy
that your systems are robust and certainly in terms of administration
and judicial review. I want to ask you a bit about transparency.
Do people write in to you giving a view on whether a site should
or should not be SSSI? Do you always publish those letters and
the responses?
Dr Phillips: Absolutely.
| 
