Contents
Response to the Committee's recommendations
Concluding remarks of the Interim Report
UK Sites of Special Scientific Interest - the requirements for improved protection
Natura 2000: site selection issues
Statutory nature conservation advice in the United Kingdom
Target national coverage of protected species and habitats
Protection of candidate SPAs and SACs
Working with non-governmental organisations and other interests
Biodiversity in the wider countryside
Maximising the benefits for biodiversity from other EC instruments
Agricultural expertise in the EEA
The marine environment of the United Kingdom
Coastal zone planning in the United Kingdom
Handling of marine and coastal issues at the Community level
Exchanging experience at a practical level between Member States
United Kingdom devolution issues
Introduction
1. The Government welcomes the House of Lords European Communities Select Committee's report on Biodiversity in the European Union. The Committee's recommendations are for the most part either being addressed already or are a feature of developing Government policies.
2. The Committee produced two reports. The first, "Interim" report, of 27 July 1999, dealt with the implementation of these matters within the UK. The Final Report, published on 18 January 2000, looked more widely at the actions needed if the EU is to achieve the goal of establishing a coherent network (the so-called "Natura 2000" network) of sites in accordance with the EU Habitats and Birds Directives. This response deals with both.
3. The UK Government can only respond to those matters for which it is accountable to the UK Parliament. This response therefore, deals with those matters which involve co-ordination at the UK level and their delivery within England. It does not deal with matters that fall to the devolved administrations. Although the UK Government retains ultimate responsibility for international and European obligations, statutory responsibility in Scotland and Wales for the implementation of many of the matters about which the Committee has made recommendations transferred to the Scottish Executive (SE) and the National Assembly for Wales (NAW) respectively on 1 July 1999.
Response to the Committee's recommendations
Concluding remarks of the Interim Report
Recommendation 1. We were pleased to learn from Ministers of the Government's positive commitment to promoting biodiversity and not least its determination to press for more rational Community policies on agricultural support in the context of Agenda 2000. However, this may be the last opportunity the United Kingdom has for introducing improved wildlife and countryside legislation before the Commission carries out the review of Member States' compliance with the Habitats and Species Directive. We are concerned that without a demonstrable commitment to strengthening the national statutory protection available to Natura 2000 sites the UK may be found wanting.
The Government welcomes the Committee's acknowledgement of its positive commitment. The Government keeps under review both the effectiveness of domestic nature conservation legislation and its compliance with European directives. It will embark later this year on a review of the Habitats Regulations 1994 with the aim of updating the proper transposition of the Directive into domestic law. It will consult extensively on the review.
UK Sites of Special Scientific Interest Ð the requirements for improved protection
Recommendation 2. Just as the 1992 Biodiversity Convention contains a set of positive objectives, the Birds and Habitats and Species Directives also clearly define the objectives of site selection and designation. We note that DETR is actively pursuing the strengthening of domestic wildlife legislation. We concur with the opinion of those witnesses who have recommended that, as a first step, measures should be enacted so that nature conservation becomes an explicit statutory purpose of SSSIs. We hope the Scottish Executive will similarly improve legislation in Scotland.Recommendation 3. The Government, the devolved administrations and the statutory nature conservation agencies would thereby be under an explicit duty of care towards SSSIs, with a view to ensuring that SSSIs are well managed and contribute fully to the targets set in the UKBAP. The "competent authority" approach adopted in the Habitats Regulations 1994 should be expanded to cover all SSSIs.
The Countryside and Rights of Way Bill ("the Bill"), which was published on 3 March 2000, includes measures that the Government is confident will significantly improve the protection and management of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) in England and Wales. While the Government believes that by far the most significant progress in delivering nature conservation benefits will be made through partnership, the Bill reflects the Government's firm view that further regulatory powers are necessary.
The Government gave careful consideration as to whether the Bill should contain an explicit statutory purpose for SSSIs. It is the Government's clearly stated intention that all SSSIs are of national significance and that the SSSI series should represent all the most valuable nature conservation and earth heritage sites. This is reflected in the Bill's removal of past distinctions that some SSSIs are more important than others. However, the Government concluded that to translate its purpose for SSSIs into statute would add nothing to their protection. The Government agrees, however, that there should be new duties on public bodies in relation to SSSIs, and an appropriate provision has been included in the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. All public bodies will be specifically required to take steps to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs, both in carrying out operations and in exercising decision-making functions that affect them (i.e. in line with the "competent authority" approach). The Government believes that public bodies should give a lead whether through their ownership of SSSIs or through their responsibility for regulating activities affecting these sites.
In Northern Ireland, the Department of the Environment is drafting a consultation paper on the protection and management of ASSIs.
Recommendation 4. In relevant cases, we strongly recommend that the agencies should be given the power to make what might be termed "Management Orders", which could be issued by the relevant territorial minister following a request from the statutory conservation agency. Such orders would allow the agencies to take action to prevent the loss of biodiversity interest from an SSSI suffering neglect, or a refusal by the owner or occupier to undertake proper management.
The Government agrees. As the Committee recognises, the most difficult issue to be addressed, to ensure that all SSSIs are in good heart, is the absence of appropriate management in the conservation interest. The Bill provides the conservation agencies with the power not only to refuse consent for operations that might cause damage to SSSIs, but also to serve notices requiring beneficial action to be taken. Any such notices would be preceded by the offer of a management agreement covering the cost of the works, and would be accompanied by advice and assistance. There would be a right of appeal against the notice, but if it was disregarded the agency would, where appropriate, be able to enter the land and carry out the work.
Recommendation 5. We agree with the statutory nature conservation agencies and NGOs on the need for improved measures to control damaging activities by third parties Ð for example motor bike scrambling or walkers with dogs out of control Ð perhaps with powers for the statutory nature conservation agencies to act in cases of default.
The Government agrees that more needs to be done to control damaging activities by third parties. In relation to damage to SSSIs by third parties, the Bill introduces for the first time a specific offence of deliberate or reckless damage. The Government also proposes to amend the Road Traffic Act 1988, which prohibits the driving of motor vehicles without lawful authority elsewhere than on a road, so that it covers all mechanically propelled vehicles, including scrambler and quad bikes. This will make it easier to prevent damaging activities by users of such vehicles.
Recommendation 6. In cases where deliberate damage to an SSSI occurs in contravention of Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, we recommend that the courts should have powers to order the restoration of the site at the perpetrator's expense or, if that is physically impossible, to order other compensatory measures. We believe these might have a more deterrent effect than fines.
The Government agrees and has proposed such powers in the current Bill.
Natura 2000: site selection issues
Recommendation 7. In the United Kingdom, core areas of qualifying (semi-natural) habitat should be notified (as now) as SSSIs (or ASSIs) to allow the operation of management agreements and other action to maintain favourable conservation status. We see considerable merit in declaring an enlarged area as SPA or SAC around a core SSSI to incorporate these essential feeding or nesting places within the boundary of the European site. This would ensure that the conservation interest is properly recognised within the planning system and by all competent authorities. This larger area could also qualify for enhanced payments under the agri-environment programme to aid its positive management.
Recommendation 8. The approach which we have proposed, by notifying Natura 2000 sites that include land not of SSSI status, would alleviate pressures on the conservation resource in some cases. In others, rigorous attention by the competent authorities will be required to assess and avoid possible damaging impacts. We were impressed by the evidence given by the Environment Agency, who told us of the progress being made in the regulation of water abstraction and discharge consents and the operation of flood defences.
The Government supports the principle that the impact of activities in areas surrounding Natura 2000 sites should be appropriately assessed and regulated but believes that formal 'buffer zones' are neither required by the Directives nor generally appropriate in the UK. The UK has a long established and robust land-use planning regime that already enables appropriate account to be taken of activities outside Natura 2000 sites that may affect them. Moreover, a range of wider countryside measures, such as agri-environment schemes already contribute towards ensuring appropriate protection of Natura 2000 sites. As an example, the importance of sites designated for their wildlife value and the possible need to buffer and extend them is recognised by the Countryside Stewardship Scheme. The Habitat and Species Action plans under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, set out action to be taken for those habitats and species wherever they occur.
Recommendation 9. It is essential that the UK statutory nature conservation agencies select sufficient numbers of sites as SPAs or SACs by using agreed scientific criteria and with all the relevant data to hand. More could be done to harness the knowledge of the NGOs and research institutions. The statutory nature conservation agencies should inform those bodies who make a reasoned and scientifically supported case for site selection why (in the case of a rejection) the agency is not recommending the site (or a portion of it) for classification as SPA or SAC.
The Government agrees on the need to use agreed scientific criteria and has adopted such an approach in its selection of both SACs and SPAs. The approach relies on the three principles that:
- that site selection should be made on purely scientific considerations;
- that the number and range of sites must contribute effectively towards the obligations of the Directives to maintain the conservation status of habitats and species in terms of their range and abundance; and
- that full consultation with owners/occupiers and other interested parties takes place before sites are transmitted to the European Commission.
The Government relies on its statutory nature conservation advisors, who in England are English Nature. At the UK level, consistency is achieved through the co-ordination of the national conservation agencies' advice by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC). The general approach to site selection for SACs is set out in the JNCC's 1997 Report "The Habitats Directive: selection of Special Areas of Conservation in the UK". Similar principles have governed the selection of SPAs, and will govern the review of the number and range of proposed SACs being undertaken by JNCC and the country agencies in the light of the moderation process underway at the European level.
The Government has also encouraged the JNCC and English Nature to seek and take account of the views of the conservation NGOs. It has been reassured that such a dialogue is underway. It has also asked English Nature to explain fully the reasons which underpin their choice of additional features and sites.
Statutory nature conservation advice in the United KingdomRecommendation 10. The Government and the devolved administrations of the UK should set out their reasons, properly argued on the basis of science, should they decide to overrule or ignore the advice of English Nature, Scottish Natural Heritage, the Countryside Council for Wales or the Northern Ireland Environment and Heritage Service on the classification of appropriate SPAs and SACs. In the interests of transparency, the agencies' advice must be publicly available at the time it is passed to the Government. Science should be the deciding factor when making decisions on the classification of SPAs and SACs, not social or economic criteria Ð which are to be considered on their merits if a development proposal should arise at a later stage.
The Government agrees that its decisions should be based on science, and on the need to set out reasons for decisions. Any formal advice from English Nature to the Government will be treated as in the public domain and made freely available. The same principle applies to the Northern Ireland Environment and Heritage Service.
The Government fully agrees that science, not socio-economic criteria, should be the deciding factor in deciding whether to put forward candidate Natura 2000 sites. Since the Lappel Bank judgement (ECJ C-44/96, 11 July 1996), this policy has been rigorously and consistently followed but is currently being challenged in the European Court of Justice (ECJ C-371/98) in a case brought by First Corporate Shipping against the Government. A ruling is currently awaited.
Targeting national coverage of protected species and habitats
Recommendation 11. Greater thought should be given to the percentage of a protected species' national population or a listed habitat which should be included in areas classified as SPA or SAC. The JNCC considered that 50 per cent (as used by WWF) was an arbitrary figure, but it does not appear to have its own targets. Such targets need to be set, not only to determine whether more SPAs or SACs that should be classified, but also to identify the effort and resources required to address the needs of these protected habitats and species in the wider countryside.
Neither the Government nor its scientific advisors favour the rigid use of generic targets for the representation of habitats and species within the Natura 2000 network. The thresholds used by the European Topic Centre for Nature Conservation are useful as a guide to assess the sufficiency of Member States' SAC lists but have been acknowledged by the Topic Centre itself as arbitrary. However, the Government accepts that such thresholds can provide a broad guide to the sufficiency of sites, but believes that there must be flexibility in their application to specific habitats or species.
The Government believes that sensible representation levels for habitats and species can only be derived by considering the particular attributes of that habitat or species. The UK approach towards the selection of SACs has been to consider the geographical distribution and rarity of each habitat or species (both in the UK and elsewhere in the EU) and then to use site-based information to identify an appropriate suite of sites. The Government believes that this approach is more defensible. For some very rare habitats and species (e.g. mountain hay meadows; fen orchid) a very high proportion of the total UK resource is represented within the candidate SAC series, while for very extensive habitats and widely distributed species (e.g. European dry heaths; great crested newt) the proportion is significantly lower.
Recommendation 12. We agree with JNCC that the percentage of national territory is not the best measure of a Member State's approach to site designation. Rather it should be considered as the percentage of the relevant habitat (or species) present in the State which is protected within the Natura 2000 network. These data are not currently available for the UK. In view of their importance JNCC should make these data publicly available in due course.
The Government has asked JNCC to make available the data on the national resource of relevant species and habitat, and JNCC will do so once it has been checked for reliability.
Protection of candidate SPAs and SACs
Recommendation 13. We consider the policy of the UK in offering candidate sites protection through land-use planning policies is a sound stopgap measure. We consider that this should be recommended to other Member States as an example to be followed.
As a matter of policy, the UK Government and the devolved administrations already treat candidate SACs as if they were fully designated. The Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2000 (SI. 2000/192) put candidate SACs in England on a par with SPAs, which are already so covered by the provisions of the 1994 Regulations. Northern Ireland has separate Regulations that implement the Directive and has indicated it will be making parallel changes in due course.
The earliest protection of SACs is an issue the UK has already championed in Europe. The Government recognises that delays in the adoption of Natura 2000 sites could have an impact on their protection and management. The UK has therefore pressed for candidate SACs hosting priority habitats or species to be "fast-tracked" for selection by the European Commission. However, to date no other Member State has supported this proposal. In the absence of such agreement, the amending Regulations achieve this result domestically.
Working with non-governmental organisations and other interests
Recommendation 14. Following the example of BirdLife International's work in relation to the selection of SPAs, we believe that the Commission, the European Environment Agency and the Nature Conservation Topic Centre could help develop similar initiatives and approaches for interests covered by the Habitats Directive. This would encourage voluntary effort and the development of NGOs across the EU with expertise in those areas where information is currently scant or absent. The provision of good data is an essential pre-requisite to effective conservation action. We recommend that DG Environment consider this as part of its developing strategy for biodiversity. Appropriate funding to pump-prime the process will be required.
The Government agrees and will continue to press for a consistent approach to the selection of SACs to be adopted throughout the EU based on the best available data and sound scientific principles.
Recommendation 15. In the UK, we recommend that the JNCC takes active steps to ensure involvement of the whole community of NGOs, including small specialist voluntary conservation organisations and learned societies, to assist the process of data gathering and assessment.
The Government agrees. The UK already has a proactive approach to securing the involvement of the NGO community and recognises the essential role of NGOs in the process of data gathering and assessment. The final report from the Co-ordinating Commission on Biological Recording, 'Biological recording in the United Kingdom: Present practice and future development' (1995, DoE), revealed the extent of the contribution to biodiversity data by NGOs and voluntary recorders. The country agencies and the JNCC have specific programmes to encourage the involvement of specialist societies and groups in the gathering and maintenance of biodiversity information. This is particularly relevant to the delivery of Biodiversity Action Plan targets and monitoring outcomes. Substantial proportions of biodiversity funds are allocated to partnership projects with NGOs for these tasks. A strong element of this approach is to support co-ordination or liaison posts within NGOs to help them to develop as providers of data on biodiversity.
The country agencies and the JNCC are also playing an active part in the National Biodiversity Network (NBN), the development of which has recently received a significant injection of funds from the Government. The NBN is a widely supported initiative to secure better access to data on biodiversity and to encourage the whole conservation community to work together on data collection and dissemination. At the heart of the NBN is the involvement of NGOs and individual recorders as key providers and users of biodiversity information. A specific NBN project is exploring how to better engage national societies and recording schemes. This includes assisting such groups with financial and expert support to enable them to play a full and effective part in the NBN.
The NGOs have played a crucial role in the identification of candidate SACs under the Habitats Directive and potential SPAs under the Birds Directive. The role of NGOs in the selection and scrutinising of European sites is one that the Government supports. The more open approach to the selection process now pressed upon the country agencies and JNCC by Government will help ensure the NGOs are able to add value to the process in a positive and timely manner.
Monitoring
Recommendation 16. We cannot emphasise too strongly that the purpose of the Birds and Habitats Directives and other EC instruments beneficial to biodiversity could be frustrated if good data upon which to form decisions are not available. Furthermore we are unclear how the effectiveness of existing EC policies can be evaluated unless a serious attempt is made to standardise methods to monitor the status of species and habitats.
Recommendation 17. This situation needs urgent attention at the political level in the Union. We recommend that a well resourced co-ordinated monitoring programme be a priority component of the EC's developing Biodiversity Strategy.
The Government agrees. Monitoring, exchange of information, and scientific co-operation form an important basis for the development of the EC Biodiversity Strategy. The European Environment Agency's development of Community-wide systems for monitoring the status and trends in biological diversity, including development of the EC Clearing House Mechanism, will benefit the sectoral action plans being formulated under the Strategy. The plans themselves also include specific targets, practical indicators and indicative timetables to enable appropriate monitoring. We shall be looking to the Commission for a co-ordinated system of monitoring as called for in Council Conclusions.
Biodiversity in the wider countryside
Recommendation 18. The reform of the CAP so that farmers are encouraged to manage their land in ways which benefit biodiversity is thus essential if the Natura 2000 sites are not to be left as "islands" within an increasingly hostile farmed landscape.
Recommendation 19. All landowners and occupiers have a moral duty of stewardship and care for biodiversity. However, where action involves loss of income or recurring extra expenditure this should be eligible for support through agri-environment measures.
The significant reform of the Common Agricultural Policy which was achieved in the Agenda 2000 negotiations, particularly with the establishment of the Rural Development Regulation (RDR). (EC) No 1257/1999 (RDR) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the CAP, will contribute to this objective. The Government believes that these Regulations supporting rural development and environmental protection represent the way forward for EU agriculture. In particular, the Government welcomes the scope to divert direct commodity support towards these aims, and is taking full advantage of it. Much of the funding under the England Rural Development Plan will be on agri-environmental schemes. This is in keeping with the Government's desire to see the development of policies which foster biodiversity within the framework of a competitive, diverse and sustainable agriculture industry in the UK.
Recommendation 20. Biodiversity objectives will not be achieved without a wide range of complementary policies, especially in the fields of agriculture and forestry, other countryside policies, devolved and regional planning for sustainable development, air quality, protection of the aquatic environment and fisheries policy.
The Government is committed to the integration of the conservation of biological diversity into the full range of policy areas and is actively working towards the development and implementation of policies which will contribute towards the maintenance and enhancement of biodiversity in the wider countryside and the conservation of priority habitats and species in particular. For many of the habitats and species identified as a priority for action in the Biodiversity Action Plan, agriculture, fisheries and forestry are key factors in the delivery of BAP objectives and targets. The England Rural Development Plan, and particularly the agri-environment measures within it, are an important mechanism for encouraging the conservation of biodiversity and farmers and landowners now have a better opportunity than ever before to make a significant contribution.
Other policies are designed to protect biodiversity through the promotion of good husbandry and environmentally responsible farming practices. These include free initial on-farm conservation advice to farmers and advice on preventing pollution, such as that provided by the Codes of Good Agricultural Practice for the Prevention of Pollution of Water, Air and Soil. ADAS and the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG) deliver the free on-farm conservation advice. The MAFF document "A New Direction for Agriculture" (December 1999) states that one of its priorities is for agriculture to be "environmentally responsible".
The Government agrees that biodiversity objectives need to be set in the framework of sustainable development. The concept of sustainable development is a fundamental feature in a number of Government initiatives, including DETR's "Quality of Life Counts" and MAFF's "Towards Sustainable Agriculture". There is also a raft of other policies with mechanisms for protecting and managing habitats and species of interest, including SSSIs, Town and Country Planning, and the England Forestry Strategy.
The same principles apply to the integration of policy making in the marine environment, where there is a general move towards a more ecosystem based approach. This allows objectives to be addressed in a more concerted and systematic way, including in fora whose main focus has not been biodiversity. For example, the Government helped secure a new annex under the OSPAR Commission for the Protection of the North East Atlantic, which specifically provides for measures to be taken to protect the ecosystem and its marine biodiversity. Further integration is also central to its approach towards fisheries management. Building on the initiative launched at Cardiff, the Fisheries Council is now required to produce a strategy to integrate fisheries management with environmental considerations, including impacts on wider marine biodiversity. The Government intends that the strategy should help inform the forthcoming review of the Common Fisheries Policy.
In June 1999 the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Group (comprising representatives of Government, voluntary organisations and the business and farming communities) published a draft Biodiversity Strategy for Northern Ireland. The Strategy includes a comprehensive and wide-ranging set of proposals aimed at sustaining and enhancing biodiversity in Northern Ireland. Following consideration of the responses it has received the NIBG will make its recommendations to Government.
Recommendation 21. Outside the designated areas we believe that the statutory backing for the Directives and biodiversity conservation is much less clearly transposed into UK law. For the avoidance of doubt, this must be addressed. We therefore recommend that the Biodiversity Action Plan process is put on a statutory basis so that it can be accorded proper weight in decisions taken by local authorities and statutory nature conservation agencies, and at the level of policy and plan-making in each of the constituent parts of the UK. This could be reinforced by acceptance on the part of central and devolved government and their statutory agencies of an explicit collective responsibility for furthering the conservation of biodiversity.
The Government is fully committed to ensuring that it meets all its international obligations. The Government will keep under review the need for a statutory basis for the Biodiversity Action Plan process. The UK Biodiversity Action Plan is part of the Government's response to obligations arising from the Convention on Biological Diversity which, as an international treaty, does not require national legislation to give effect to it. Article VI of the Convention specifically requires signatories to prepare a national strategy. The Government is committed to ensuring that all its Ministers take action to integrate biodiversity considerations into their policies and programmes as a key element of action for sustainable development. A significant manifestation of this is the Biodiversity Checklist published by the Committee of Green Ministers in March 2000.
A bald statutory duty to give effect to the provisions of the BAP process might not create an obligation to deliver more than is currently being achieved. If a more precise duty to deliver the 391 species and 45 habitat action plans were framed, it could have the perverse effect of breaking down the current highly successful delivery partnerships of statutory, business and voluntary sectors, to be replaced by legal confrontation. In addition, the action plans, which contain aspirational targets agreed by consensus, could not be imposed retrospectively without building in a review provision. This could lead to unwelcome reconstruction of targets by statutory bodies and consequent diversion of effort, away from implementing the plans.
Agri-environment schemes
Recommendation 22. We consider that a package of incentives (e.g. through agri-environment schemes), regulation and good advice can be further developed by the agriculture departments of the UK to reward farmers for undertaking nature conservation management in the interests of biodiversity. As Mr Morley said: "We would like to do more and expand these schemes significantly". We endorse the Minister's aspirations and therefore recommend that MAFF and the relevant devolved administrations consider such a programme Ð applicable to all farmers Ð to improve and reward positive management, and to prevent the further loss of habitats and species in the countryside.
Recommendation 23. Until CAP reform is successful the agri-environment programmes will continue to be vitally important measures for protecting biodiversity. Across the UK, agri-environment budgets would need to grow between three or four times to equate to the spend of the median group of Member States. We therefore recommend that the agri-environment programme budgets of each country within the UK be steadily increased. The EC median spend of about =C22 per hectare of utilisable agricultural land would be a good target.
The Government has already taken steps to meet these recommendations. Agri-environment schemes are to be significantly expanded as part of the England Rural Development Plan. The Minister of Agriculture announced on 7 December 1999 that the Government intends to spend £1bn on such schemes over the next 7 years. Under the England Rural Development Plan, annual agri-environment expenditure will have increased by almost 130% by 2006/07 compared with 1999/2000.
The Plan recognises, in particular, that the Countryside Stewardship Scheme is currently heavily over-subscribed and that increased funding will lead to substantial additional environmental benefits. The funds being made available for Stewardship (some £0.5 billion over the full seven year programme period) will bring about a significant extension in the area covered by the scheme and contribute substantially to achieving the UK's Biodiversity Action Plan targets. The number of new agreements each year under the Countryside Stewardship Scheme will be double previous levels. Recent developments include new options within the Scheme (e.g. the new upland and inter-tidal options), the Arable Stewardship Scheme Pilot Project in East Anglia and the West Midlands, and the Upland experiment (Forest of Bowland and Bodmin Moor).
Following the introduction of the Countryside Management Scheme and the Organic Farming Scheme in 1999, Northern Ireland expenditure on agri-environment schemes is expected to rise from some £8 million in the current year to over £21 million by the end of March 2006. The allocation of public expenditure in delivering agri-environment programmes in Scotland and Wales is for the devolved administrations to determine.
The Government accepts that UK expenditure on agri-environment schemes has historically been lower than in some other Member States. However, the expenditure of a particular sum of money per hectare of utilisable agricultural land is no guarantee that it will provide commensurate environmental benefits. It is important to ensure that available funding is directed towards high quality projects and targeted to best effect. All the UK schemes are regularly reviewed and evaluated to increase their effectiveness and value for money. In England, it is proposed to carry out a major review of the agri-environment schemes in time for it to feed into the mid-term evaluation of the England Rural Development Plan in 2003 and subsequent proposals for improvements to the schemes.
Recommendation 24. Overgrazing in the uplands in particular should be the subject of a major review, with a view to bringing hill livestock numbers and management into line with the carrying capacity of semi-natural habitats. The planned removal of 1,500,000 sheep, to combat over-grazing on the commonages in the Irish Republic, demonstrates how large the problems can become. Such measures should be considered alongside schemes to assist livestock producers, so that the package of support is sustainable.
The Government believes that the root cause of upland overgrazing is complex and lies in the impact of the CAP over many years. The problem is unlikely to be resolved fully without further CAP reform Ð for which the Government continues to press Ð running alongside the industry restructuring which the Government is facilitating through its long-term strategy for agriculture. Overgrazing controls have applied since 1993 as part of the administration of CAP livestock subsidies. They have now been included in the definition of Good Farming Practice for the purposes of the England Rural Development Plan. The operation of these controls is continually monitored and developed to ensure that they contribute effectively to the Government's objectives for the agriculture industry and the environment.
Overgrazing also tends to be a particular problem on common land, where the multiplicity of owners and users can make it difficult to determine and carry through equitable solutions. In February this year the DETR issued a consultation paper on the protection and management of common land in England and Wales. This includes a substantial section on overgrazing on commons and invites views on various ways that it might be better addressed.
Agricultural advice
Recommendation 25. We consider that the provision of sound advice to farmers and landowners is essential to win their support for the conservation of biodiversity, particularly in the wider countryside. Many organisations and agencies offer advice to farmers in the UK, and an accreditation scheme comparable to that in Ireland would encourage best practice and rapid dissemination of new techniques through advisers.
The Government already offers free initial on-farm conservation advice, including advice on woodlands and set-aside, to most farmers and landowners in England. Both English Nature and the Environment Agency offer direct guidance to farmers and landowners. MAFF funds visits by ADAS, and MAFF and DETR contribute to the cost of visits by the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG). In 1998/99 over 3,900 such visits were made. An independent evaluation of MAFF's free conservation advice programme is being carried out and a report is expected in July 2000. MAFF is not aware of the details of the Irish accreditation scheme referred to but is requesting information from the Irish Government.
Maximising the benefits for biodiversity from other EC instruments
Recommendation 26. We recommend that environmental and other Directives and regulations should always be examined to see if in their application opportunities to enhance the conservation of biodiversity can be taken.
The Government agrees and through Green Ministers seeks to ensure that the environmental impact of proposed Directives and Regulations are assessed. Each department has a Green Minister. Green Ministers champion sustainable development and environmental matters in their own departments and collectively work to promote the integration of sustainable development across Government and the wider public sector, and encourage the use of environmental appraisals as part of policy making. The Green Ministers Committee produced its first annual report in July 1999. The recent DETR publication "Making Biodiversity happen across Government Ð Green Ministers biodiversity checklist" notes that Green Ministers have agreed that biodiversity is the key test of the Government's sustainable development policies. The checklist provides a framework for integrating biodiversity into policies and programmes across Government.
In its Greening Government Policy Note, DETR gives guidance to Government Departments on appraising the effects on the environment of a policy or programme that may impact on human health or biodiversity etc, or damage features or functions of the environment, such as the ability of land to sustain biodiversity or of nature to act as a carbon sink. The Cabinet Committee on the Environment (ENV), chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, brings together Ministers from all key departments. The Committee considers environmental policies and co-ordinates those on sustainable development.
Recommendation 27. We consider it is essential that the EC LIFE funds are increased in order to help fund the restoration of damaged biotopes, the protection of the Natura 2000 network and address the needs of particular dispersed species which are not at a favourable conservation status.
Government welcomes the important part EC LIFE Funds have and continue to play in the measures that address the restoration of damaged biotopes. Some 207 million Euro from the total available for the (1996-1999) LIFE II financial instrument are dedicated to projects that support the Natura 2000 Network. This commitment from European Union Funds is currently envisaged to increase to 300 million Euro for the LIFE III programme covering the years 2000-2004. Government policy is clear, and encompasses a commitment to encourage, support and assist applications for funding from LIFE.
Enlargement of the Community
Recommendation 28. We recommend that an early programme of habitats and species surveys is supported by the Community to ensure that the baseline data to make sensible decisions are available prior to the accession of the candidate states. It is not too soon for the EU to be encouraging candidate states, and providing the necessary funding, to press ahead with identifying sites that would qualify as candidate SPAs and SACs, so that other important social and economic programmes can be integrated with the EC Biodiversity Strategy from the outset.
The Government agrees on the importance of good information about habitats and species in the applicant states. These states will need to compile such information in order to make a judgement about their compliance with the Habitats and Birds Directives. In the Enlargement negotiations on the environment chapter the EU has taken a robust line on the importance of nature protection directives, and where necessary, has queried individual applicants requests for transition periods. In doing so, the EU has asked the applicants to provide detailed justifications for these requests.
Recommendation 29. We recommend that the agri-environment measures be an essential factor in any farm support system extended to the candidate states. Indeed, if these measures were to be linked to action to anticipate implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives, they would encourage the maintenance of those farming systems which help to safeguard biodiversity both within and outside the protected areas.
Agri-environment measures have already been recognised as an essential factor of farm support as they are a compulsory element under the new Rural Development Regulation. Candidate states to the EU will need to comply with the Rural Development Regulation and so to introduce agri-environment schemes if they do not have them already. The UK recognises the importance of agri-environment measures in the Central and East European applicant countries and has helped them to access funds under the SAPARD programme (Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development). Four of the seven twinning projects with which MAFF is involved have a SAPARD component. The SAPARD programme closely reflects the provisions of the Rural Development Regulation, and provides 520 million Euro each year in EU funding, shared between the ten applicant countries of Central and Eastern Europe.
Recommendation 30. As we pointed out in our 1998 Report on the Tacis Programme, there is widespread awareness in the CEECs and NIS of the richness of their natural heritage. This is greatly to be welcomed. The rapid growth of NGOs in the 1990s has helped to increase awareness. What is needed now is to develop the capacity and expertise of NGOs so that they can begin to play the same sort of role that NGOs such as WWF and RSPB play in identifying candidate Natura 2000 sites. The early identification of sites is crucial. The Commission should therefore provide for further promotion of skills and professionalism in conservation NGOs through Phare, Tacis and other EC programmes.
The Government agrees that the Commission should be encouraged to provide for further capacity building in environmental NGOs in the CEECs and the NIS. It also provides some bilateral capacity building support to environmental NGO's through the environmental tranche of the Know How Fund (managed by DfID). For example, the Know How Fund supported a conference on public participation in environmental decision making which was held in Newcastle in December last year, and was attended by a large number of NGOs from the CEECs and the NIS.
Integration of biodiversity and Natura 2000 work within the Commission, the European Environment Agency and the Nature Conservation Topic Centre
Recommendation 31. The case for closer integration within DG Environment of biodiversity and Natura 2000 work, and the resource implications for the Commission, the European Environment Agency, and the Nature Conservation Topic Centre, are matters which should be revisited when the current organisational upheaval in the Commission has settled down.
The Government agrees and will seek opportunities to press for this to occur. The future direction of the European Topic Centres (ETCs) is being discussed during Spring/Summer 2000 and within the EEA Management Board.
Agricultural expertise in the EEA
Recommendation 32. The Sub-Committee was concerned to be told by the Executive Director of the EEA that the Agency had no senior member of staff who was expert in agriculture, despite having pressed for an appointment for three years. In view of our comments about the key significance of agriculture for biodiversity, we consider this lack to be serious and call upon the Council to give the matter urgent consideration when next reviewing the EEA's budget.
The Government agrees that this is an important issue. We understand that the lack of an appointment is not due to budget restrictions; DETR will pursue the issue initially through the EEA Management Board.
The marine environment of the United Kingdom
Recommendation 33. In the United Kingdom, we remain to be convinced that SPAs and SACs classified in the marine environment will receive adequate statutory protection. The process of identifying and classifying such areas is still at an early stage but greater clarity as to how such areas will be managed (and by whom) and protected from inappropriate use is required in domestic law.
Recommendation 34. Urgent ways of making progress must therefore be found. We support the action of the JNCC in identifying areas worthy of protection, such as sea lochs, marine reefs and cetacean sites. The Directives set minimum levels of protection to be achieved. The UK Government should act now to interpret the requirements positively, and to go further than the existing specifications.
The Government believes that European legislation and in particular the Habitats Directive has given a major boost to marine conservation in the UK. A large area of the marine and estuarine environment is included within the Natura 2000 network, and considerable progress has been made by the statutory conservation agencies in working with other parties to ensure appropriate management of these sites. However, further work is required. For example, the Government accepts that there is a need to consider the identification and classification of SPAs below the mean low-water mark in the territorial sea. The Government hoped that work by the JNCC and the country agencies to recommend action could be expected during 2000. However, the need to identify further candidate SACs in the light of the moderation process is likely to delay that review until the following year.
Last year's judgement upholding Greenpeace's view that the UK had incorrectly restricted the geographic scope of the Habitats Directive to the limit of territorial waters, requires the Government to consider extending relevant provisions up to 200 miles from shore. Consideration is being given to legislative and practical requirements. During this year the Government will liaise with all sectors to identify the most appropriate way forward. A key participant in those consultations will be the European Commission itself, in view of its competence in matters relating to the Common Fisheries Policy. The UK looks forward to leading in the development of a consistent approach to the identification and management of sites and the protection of species in all European Union off-shore waters.
Recommendation 35. We believe that a new approach to protect sites in the marine environment is now required. The time has come to review the relevant provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Better legislation to provide workable and effective protection for important areas of nature conservation interest in the marine environment is needed as a matter of urgency.
The Government agrees that the time is ripe to review marine nature conservation. The September 1998 consultation paper, 'SSSIs: Better Protection and Management', accepted that the concept of Marine Nature Reserves established under the 1981 Act had not been as successful as hoped. Procedures have been criticised as complex and unwieldy. The Government has therefore set up a working group to examine options for improving the protection of marine nature conservation interests. It has been asked to prepare recommendations and report to DETR and Welsh Assembly Ministers by the end of this year. The group comprises a wide range of organisations representing Government and its agencies, marine users and voluntary conservation organisations. The primary focus of the group is on inshore waters (from Mean Low Water Mark to the 12-mile limit of territorial waters). But the group has been asked, in preparing its recommendations, to consider how these might fit in with our European and international obligations.
Coastal zone planning in the United Kingdom
Recommendation 36. We encourage all those with interests in the coastal zone to work together and pool ideas and resources and thus speed up the decision making process. Scottish Natural Heritage's firths initiatives, and English Nature's estuary forums, in which the relevant interests already work together, could be further developed by the production of management plans to guide decision-making. This should ensure a more orderly and (it is to be hoped) speedier decision-making process.
The Government fully agrees. English Nature are well advanced in drawing up and agreeing conservation objectives for coastal sites necessary to direct relevant authorities in the establishment of management schemes in accordance with regulation 34 of the 1994 Regulations. A number of shadow schemes of management have already been or are in the process of being set up, in some cases with supporting funds from the EU LIFE Nature programme. As far as possible the Government is working with English Nature and relevant authorities to establish a coherent management structure between schemes to ensure utilisation of the most successful management measures and strategies.
The Government continues to work closely with the flood and coastal defence operating authorities in developing an integrated service of flood forecasting, warning and response. Initiatives on Shoreline Management Plans, Water Level Management Plans and Coastal Habitat Management Plans (CHaMPS), and for monitoring the impact of flood and coastal defence take account of European sites and habitats covered by Biodiversity Action Plans.
Recommendation 37. We recommend a review of the powers of agencies in the devolved administrations responsible for fisheries management to ensure that the powers are adequate for furthering the conservation of biodiversity.
Consideration of a review of agency powers in Scotland and Wales are a matter for the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly of Wales.
Handling of marine and coastal issues at the Community level
Recommendation 38. We recommend that the relationship between the Nature Conservation and the Marine and Coastal Topic Centres be reviewed and rationalised with this end in mind.
The 2000 EEA Management Board review of the work programmes and responsibilities of the European Topic Centres will consider a realignment of topics. The Government will seek to influence those discussions to ensure a coherent relationship between all the ETCs.
Recommendation 39. The Government should encourage the Portuguese Presidency, in the first half of 2000, to ensure that there is continuing importance attached to the process of integrating CFP and other marine policies with the EC Biodiversity Strategy.
The UK, and other Member States, has been pressed the Portuguese Presidency to give priority to the integration of the CFP and other marine policies into the EC Biodiversity Strategy. Regular bi-monthly meetings of the EU Ad-hoc Group on Biodiversity are chaired by the Presidency, at which the issue of the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy through sectoral Action Plans is maintained as a primary agenda item. During the recent Finnish and current Portuguese Presidencies the UK has actively pressed the Commission to deliver the Action Plans according to the timetable established by the Strategy. We have expressed disappointment at the pace of progress and the fact that none of the Action Plans was communicated by February 2000 as required. There has been evidence of progress in recent weeks as Member States have been invited to comment on early drafts of the Plans, including one to integrate biodiversity considerations into the Common Fisheries Policy.
Exchanging experience at a practical level between Member States
Recommendation 40. We recommend that the DETR and the JNCC should promote with the other Member States the idea that there should be a regular forum in which statutory nature conservation agencies could meet their counterparts from other States.
The Government agrees. In addition to tri-annual meetings of officials in the Habitats and ORNIS Committees in Brussels, the European Commission has set up Scientific Working Groups for both the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive. The main members of these are the nature conservation agencies, and the working groups provide important fora for allowing the nature conservation issues relating to the implementation of the two Directives to be discussed between the agencies of the different Member States.
Recommendation 41. We consider the benefit of seeing practical examples of how other Member States tackle common issues cannot be overstated. To be able to see new schemes or projects at first hand can trigger ideas of benefit to the UK and we recommend that opportunities of this kind are built into the work plans of the relevant key staff of DETR and the devolved administrations.
Officials in DETR and MAFF, as well as in JNCC and the country agencies, have already found considerable benefit in establishing more informal contacts with their opposite numbers in various Member States. These provide an opportunity to discuss issues such as site selection, habitat management and monitoring techniques with European partners. The Government will be looking to maintain and develop these contacts over the coming years.
United Kingdom devolution issues
Recommendation 42. We consider that the guidelines for the selection of SSSIs should continue to be the responsibility of JNCC for Great Britain. We recognise that alternative guidelines for ASSIs in Northern Ireland are appropriate. However, the selection process for the Natura 2000 sites should be applied in a consistent manner across the UK. Those responsible in central and devolved government should assure themselves that standards are being met and that progress is sufficient to meet the UK's European and international obligations. It is essential that, as the lead department, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions establishes effective interdepartmental procedures to ensure compliance on a UK-wide basis with the standards for SSSIs and classification of Natura 2000 sites.
Policy and legislation on the selection and management of SSSIs are a devolved matter in Scotland, although at present the JNCC guidelines on site selection remain in force for Great Britain as a whole.
The selection process for Natura 2000 sites must, however, be applied in a consistent manner across the UK. The UK Government and the devolved administrations are statutorily obliged to act in a way that is consistent with European Directives. They are, therefore, committed by both policy and law to ensuring that the selection of Natura 2000 sites, based on the advice of its statutory nature conservation agency, contributes effectively to meeting the UK's commitments. Furthermore, the DETR and the devolved administrations are in regular dialogue to ensure that the implementation of Natura 2000 is co-ordinated throughout the UK.
The Guidelines for the Selection of Biological ASSIs in Northern Ireland, published by EHS in 1999, provide a 'local interpretation' to the selection guidelines established by JNCC and are entirely consistent with those in place for GB.
Recommendation 43. This will require an audit process, independent of the statutory nature conservation agencies, to gauge performance and to compare outcomes against UK policy and standards in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The JNCC is not empowered to do this and, as a joint committee of the agencies, is not appropriate. Mr Meacher said, of himself, "the buck stops here". It is therefore the responsibility of DETR to ensure that it puts in place the proper institutional structure, with adequate transparency to engage public confidence.
Recommendation 44. The UK Government, and the devolved administrations, will want to be assured that all Ministers, including those with responsibilities for agriculture, transport, education, industry and (above all) public expenditure and fiscal matters, are properly advised on policy issues relating to biodiversity. The staff of biodiversity policy units in each national and devolved department should liaise closely with JNCC, the relevant country statutory nature conservation bodies and relevant conservation non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in their areas.
Recommendation 45. A central biodiversity policy unit (building on the existing UK BAP process) charged with monitoring and reporting on progress with the UK BAP should be established, with the task of reporting to both Houses of Parliament, to the Scottish Parliament and to the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies.
Country biodiversity groups in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are responsible for overseeing or advising on the implementation of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan in their respective parts of the UK. The UK Biodiversity Group (UKBG) continues to provide a forum for advice to the UK Government and the devolved administrations on the implementation of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan as a whole. The JNCC, other relevant statutory organisations, the business community and the NGO sector are all represented on UKBG alongside Government Departments and the devolved administrations. UKBG will present a report on the first five years of the biodiversity process to the UK government and the devolved administrations early next year. The report will provide the opportunity to consider any proposals for future arrangements taking account of devolution. A Biodiversity Policy Unit within DETR, in liaison as necessary with its counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, provides a Secretariat for UKBG. The Government's view is that the current arrangements satisfactorily deliver the appropriate co-ordination and assessment of progress.
Further copies of this document are available from:
The Stationery Office Limited
The Publications Centre
PO Box 29, Norwich NR3 1GN
General enquiries 0870 600 522
or through the Parliamentary Hotline Lo-call 0845 7 023474
Fax orders 0870 600 5533ISBN 0 10 147122 X
Price £4.45
Defra is not responsible for the contents or reliability of the linked web sites and does not necessarily endorse the views expressed within them. Listing should not be taken as endorsement of any kind. We cannot guarantee that these links will work all of the time and we have no control over the availability of the linked pages.
Published 12 June 2000
European Wildlife Index
Wildlife and Countryside Index
Defra Home Page