In the mid 1990s I worked closely with the special advisers to successive Conservative Agriculture Ministers, encouraging them to break the anti-environment stranglehold of the then senior civil servants in MAFF. One, very generously, told me recently that I and my then boss opened his eyes to the value of biodiversity. His successor as MAFF special adviser in 95-97 has, this week, become the number one hate figure for the biodiversity conservation world. I hope I can’t be blamed for that.
As part of a pretty comprehensive and controversial Autumn Statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne riled the conservation bodies with his comment that ‘we will make sure that gold plating of EU rules on things like Habitats aren’t placing ridiculous costs on British businesses’. This has unleashed a torrent of letters to newspapers, a Harry Potter-style howler of a letter to the Prime Minister from the main NGOs and numerous blog and columnist attacks on the Chancellor.
Few people will be aware of what the Habitats Directive is and even fewer will have much knowledge of its implementation and what ‘gold-plating’ really means.
Long Dale National Nature Reserve, part of the Peak District Dales Natura 2000 site
I recall the great whoops of joy at the RSPB Sandy HQ when the EU Habitats Directive was agreed in May 1992. Today, nearly 1 million square kilometres of the EU (all 27 countries) is covered by the EU Habitats Directive and this translates to active programmes for the conservation of 200 habitat types, from Macronesian laurel forest to Mediterranean steppe grasslands and Atlantic estuaries to boreal forests. The so-called Natura 2000 series of Sites of Community Interest is, without doubt, a huge achievement of modern Europe, akin to the creation of the great Medieval Cathedrals.
A comparison of the UK land area designated, 7.2% or 54 474 square kilometres , compares less favourably with the rest of the EU at about 20%. But this is a bit misleading as our land area is much more developed than, say, Portugal or Poland or Greece or Estonia. Details on Habitats Directive implementation in England is at http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/designatedareas/sac/default.aspx
In the Peak District National Park an extremely large proportion of our land area is designated under the Habitats Directive http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/looking-after/biodiversity . And, you would expect the conservation of this to be a top priority for the National Park Authority. It is and always will be.
Defra Minister Richard Benyon hears first hand about moorland conservation from Moors for the Future's Chris Dean and Matt Buckler
Our two Habitats Directive sites include a chunky 43 642 ha share of one of the largest sites in the country, the 64 983 ha South Pennine Moors. Relatively smaller, but still important is the Peak District Dales site, which includes many of our best grasslands. Their conservation will always be a top priority.
Our Moors for the Future project is part way through a massive restoration project – Moorlife -http://www.moorsforthefuture.org.uk/node/180 funded by a huge EU LIFE grant which will restore 1200 hectares, (or 1800 football pitches) of eroded moorland. This isn’t just the biggest conservation project in the Peak District, but the biggest EU-funded conservation project anywhere in the UK, ever.
A serious business: heather brash being transported to the moorland restoration sites as part of the Moorlife restoration project
So, to George Osborne and his review.
Actually, the review is being run by Defra and was announced by Caroline Spelman on the day of the Autumn Statement. A look at the Defra statement begins to put a different complexion on this from the strident anger of the NGOs. Defra will conduct an in-depth analysis of how well the EU Habitats and Birds Directives are being applied in England. It’s terms of reference can be seen here: www.defra.gov.uk/rural/protected/habitats-wildbirds-review/
It’s worth quoting the purpose of the review in full: To review the Habitats and Wild Bird Directives as currently implemented in England by the Habitats Regulations and Offshore Marine Conservation Regulations, focussing in particular on those obligations that affect the authorisation process for proposed development, with a view to reducing the burdens on businesses while maintaining the integrity of the purpose of the directives
What I’m about to say may lead to my being off the Christmas Card list of the environment NGOs. But, maybe now is a good time to review the Directives, and especially with a review designed to ‘maintain the integrity of the purposes of the directives’. Since the Directives were agreed and translated into UK law, much has changed in Britain.
We’ve learned a lot more about habitats through better science and practical conservation. We’ve integrated conservation into key land management businesses like forestry, farming and water collection in a way unimaginable in 1992. Environmental bodies are better able, and more ambitious, in owning and protecting sites than they were 20 years ago. And local authority planners and councillors, public agencies and the public have a better feel for the issues too.
Chair of the Environment Agency Lord Smith hears first hand about the integrated management of upland moorlands for water, conservation, farming, sporting and access from Authority Deputy Chair Geoff Nickolds
Some months ago I wrote on this Blog about the Natural Environment White Paper, the National Ecosystems Assessement and work being done by the Treasury to integrate the environment into all economic and policy thinking. I’m in no great position to judge whether the Chancellor remains committted to this, but I don’t see an administrative review of two Directives as evidence that he is not.
I don’t see the real difficulties in involving businesses (so long as they’re the right ones) at the table examining these rules. Today, many businesses take these issues seriously. Corporate Social Responsibility was a theoretical concept in 1992 but is mainstream now, and what CEO of a major brand would threaten their value by an all-out assault on the environment? And, for those that don’t play by the rules then the ‘integrity of the purposes’ will remain the stick of last resort.
I think too, that it’s probably not a bad time to consider whether the full panoply of ‘Appropriate Assessments’ are always necessary, sometimes for relatively trivial actions on a site. And, the review includes looking at where the Directives are insufficiently implemented as well as too rigorously (or gold-plated’) and if that promotes a proportionate approach it should probably be welcomed.
Sometimes I feel that the commonsense solutions that well-trained and experienced ecologists, surveyors, developers and planners could come up with for modest developments are stifled by process. I welcome the review objectives of seeking ‘creative’ solutions. And the review will look at sharing best practice, improving information for business and better engagement at an earlier stage.
Important places, like the Peak District moors,need protection, but the administration of these regimes should be open to scrutiny
I don’t want to live in a Britain where we wantonly damage the most important wildlife sites. But I recognise that as conservationists we share this island with others and that true sustainable development means environmental legislation which must be effective and widely supported. I think a review is timely and I look forward to contributing to a constructive submission by the National Parks.
