Policy on Protecting Wildlife

South Beds FoE oppose Western Linslade development on biodiversity issues

Unlike the other housing in Leighton Buzzard, which would be very difficult to stop, we have a very good chance of stopping this development through legal means, using wildlife laws. The area is one of the richest in wildlife around Leighton Buzzard. The fields of Valley Farm are very rich in wildflowers and the hedges are filled with birds and fenland is very rare in this area.

Biodiversity worldwide is still in serious decline

There is an international target agreed by all countries to halt the decline in biodiversity by 2010 called 2010 Countdown.

Biodiversity in the UK is still in decline

In the UK, wildlife (biodiversity) is still seriously declining “38% of priority habitat and 27% of priority species are still declining” as explained by Wildlife and Countryside Link. This is a coalition of environmental organizations such as the RSPB, wildlife trusts, Badger Trusts etc.

Last month on November 3^rd 2008, a report from the Environmental Audit Committee, a cross party select committee of MPs at the House of Commons called 'Halting Biodiversity Loss', concluded that despite some good work by Government many species and habitats continue to face severe declines and local extinctions across England. It warns that the Government will miss a key international target to halt biodiversity loss by 2010. However, “although there are barriers to overcome there is no reason why biodiversity loss could not be halted in England—indeed, with leadership and effective policies, biodiversity loss could be reversed”.

According to Tim Yeo MP, Chair of the environmental audit committee of MPs, “we have lost some 97% of our flower-rich meadows and there are now half the number of farmland birds that there were fifty years ago”.

Natural England has recently produced a report ‘State of the Natural Environment’ which concludes that:

Historical Decline - Over the last 50 years or so England’s natural environment has suffered serious losses. Our farmland today is much less rich in wildlife. Although there is much grassland, now only 3% of it is rich in plant species, and traditionally managed meadows are very rare. Arable land is also now much poorer in wildlife. There has been a substantial decline in the distribution of arable flowering plants, with seven species going extinct. Farmland birds have declined by over a half since the 1970s.

Many of the surviving wildlife-rich sites form a small, isolated and fragmented resource - Some species are now more or less confined to protected sites, for example early spider, late spider and burnt orchids. There have been major declines in all three easily monitored invertebrate groups: moths, butterflies and bumblebees. Wetland species have suffered: England and Wales hold one quarter of the world population of southern damselfly, but it has declined by 30% since the 1960s. And all amphibian species have declined; the natter jack toad by three quarters of its former range.

Past decade - There has been a leveling off in the past decade in the long-term decline of a number of indicator species including farmland birds and butterflies. However, the trend for some groups is still downwards. For example, the flora, birds and butterflies most associated with our woodland are all continuing to decline. There has been a particular decline in specialist species – those species that have very specific habitat requirements – revealed in the monitoring of birds, bumblebees and butterflies. For example, the specialist grassland edge Duke of Burgundy butterfly has declined by 50% in the last ten years.

Wetland and freshwater habitats continue to give us particular concern - Our open waters are perhaps in the worst condition of all habitats, even where legally protected. Wetland species are suffering with, for example, eels declining by 90% since the mid-1980s and water voles the most rapidly declining mammal. There have been major declines in populations of breeding wading birds on unprotected lowland wetland grasslands, notably the snipe which is down by 90% in some regions

Conservation action can be successful - Whilst the general picture of our natural environment reveals many problems, our analysis of the impact of actions taken to date shows that much can be achieved in tackling these problems.

There is growing evidence that conservation action has been successful, particularly where it has been targeted - For example, the Species Recovery Programme has led to the successful re-introduction to England of the red kite, large blue butterfly, pool frog and interrupted brome grass (the last being one of the arable plant species that went extinct). The Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) process has had successes for other species, with recovery targets exceeded for a range of species such as lesser horseshoe bat, bittern, curl bunting, silver-spotted skipper and Deptford pink. Of the priority habitats targeted under the UK BAP 24% are now assessed as increasing, including lowland heathland, arable field margins, grazing marshes, reed-beds and a number of woodland types. However, other BAP habitats and species continue to decline, for example chalk rivers, fens and coastal sand dunes, and red squirrel, turtle dove and starfruit.

Both the Species Recovery Programme and BAP show what can be achieved through partnerships and coordinated action involving not only central government agencies but also non-governmental organisations, local bodies and individuals.

What does this mean for us?

There is a serious decline in wildlife in the UK so there is a risk that our children will not enjoy a fraction of what we grew up with. This is due to intensive farming practices and the fragmentation of habitats as many species need to move between areas and need corridors to do so. The culminative effect of loosing lots of areas of fen land scrub land, species rich hedges is often not taken into consideration. If you lose just one hedge and one mature tree it is not that bad, but if you lose lots and lots of individual hedges and lots of individual mature trees in an wider area then the culminative effects could be a dramatic decline. This will become increasingly important with climate change as species will need to be able to migrate and cover a wider area to cope with the changes in temperature.

The good news is that it is possible to reverse it. This is why it is so important for us to save an area as important as Valley Farm and conserve and enhance it and also make sure that it is linked as much as possible to other areas and make other areas richer in biodiversity. In other words we need our councils and the government office to show a commitment to conserving and improving biodiversity in this area.

South Beds FoE have been running a Greening group working with residents associations through Leighton-Linslade to plant trees and bushes to increase wildlife corridors and create more habitats for wildlife

Laws and national planning statements

There are very strict wildlife laws both from the UK and from Europe, and also very strong national planning statements, which councils and developers have to follow. We believe that our councils and the government office should have a plan for the local area to halt the decline of biodiversity and to conserve biodiversity. And that this should really influence the use of land. This opinion is backed up by laws and planning statements from the government.

Under the 2006 Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act Section 40 there is a duty for local authorities “to conserve biodiversity”. Loss of this area would be very difficult for the local councils to compensate as regards biodiversity.

Planning Policy Statement 9

This is an easy document to read and is aimed to halt the decline of biodiversity.

“Plan policies on the form and location of development should take a strategic approach to the conservation, enhancement and restoration of biodiversity and geology, and recognise the contributions that sites, areas and features, both individually and in combination, make to conserving these resources.”

The toughest laws: The EU Habitats Directive and the UK’s Habitats Regulations

The European Habitats Directive was passed in 1992

Its overall aim is set out in article 2 Article 2 1. The aim of this Directive shall be to contribute towards ensuring bio-diversity through the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora in the European territory of the Member States to which the Treaty applies.

2. Measures taken pursuant to this Directive shall be designed to maintain or restore, at favourable conservation status, natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora of Community interest.

This is done by two approaches:

First, the most important wildlife sites in all the countries in the EU will be classified and listed as the Natural 2000 Network and will be strictly protected

“A coherent European ecological network of special areas of conservation shall be set up under the title Natural 2000. This network, composed of sites hosting the natural habitat types listed in Annex I and habitats of the species listed in Annex II, shall enable the natural habitat types and the species' habitats concerned to be maintained or, where appropriate, restored at a favourable conservation status in their natural range”

Secondly species that are most at risk will be very strongly protected. In the case of Valley Farm Fen this relates to bat species. If a bat roost is disturbed it is a criminal offence without a licence

Article 12. Member States shall take the requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection for the animal species listed in Annex IV (a) in their natural range, prohibiting:

(a) all forms of deliberate capture or killing of specimens of these species in the wild;

(b) deliberate disturbance of these species, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration;

(c) deliberate destruction or taking of eggs from the wild;

(d) deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places.

You can apply for a license to Natural England to move a bat roost but only if you fulfil very strict conditions

Article 16 1. Provided that there is no satisfactory alternative and the derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range, Member States may derogate from the provisions of Articles 12, 13, 14 and 15 (a) and (b):

c) in the interests of public health and public safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment;

This means that you have to look at alternative sites to build first and prove that that they were not satisfactory.

Then you have to look at whether the favourable conservation status of the bat population would be affected. This means will the population of bats in wider area decline as a result of losing these specific roosts. This Directive has a wider application than just the actual roost: lighting, according to the Bat Conservation Trust, can result in a disturbance to bat roosts and so bat licenses would be required if there is going to be an increase in lighting in the area. Article 12 talks of “deterioration of breeding sites” which means that if you loose the foraging and feeding grounds that are necessary for the bats to feed on and so support a roost then you are causing “deterioration.”

This Directive means that Natural England will have to look at the wider effects on the overall bat population in the area. There are issues with Natural England’s processes with granting licenses as they do not have the data on bats in the area to be able to fully assess this. At present Natural England are granting licenses on a case by case basis and not looking at the overall culminative effects and not necessarily adequately monitoring the effect of the mitigation on the population. There are questions as to whether they are following the directive correctly. We believe that natural England and local authorities should be assessing the overall population of bats and other protected species and their overall biodiversity. Then they can plan development in the areas with least biodiversity and put in improvement plans to increase biodiversity. If you can prove that you will not negatively affect the population of bats you still have to prove that it is of overriding public interest, which is very tough test, as regards European law.

More strongly the Joint Nature Conservation Committee reported to the European Commission in August 2007 on the state of the UK’s protected Habitats and species.

This concluded that nearly all species of bats apart from Pipistrelles were in decline, i.e. they did not have favourable conservation status. This makes it even more difficult to grant a license as it will be even harder to prove that loosing the roost and foraging grounds will not harm the overall population of the bat species.

Guidance on the Habitats Directive from the European Commission in February 2007 supports this. Page 65 paragraph 58 “Summary the less favourable the conservation status and trends, the less likely will the granting of derogations be justified apart from in the most exceptional circumstances”.

This means that it should be very difficult/ impossible to get licenses to disturb the bats if the law is being followed. We have to make sure that the law is being followed.

In October 2005, The UK was ruled against by the European commission for not following the Habitats directive as it was not properly protecting Natural 2000 network, which are the most important wildlife sites. Since then then the Habitats Regulations which are how the European Law is transposed have been amended. Now surveys called Appropriate Assessment have to be done to make sure that any development does not have culminative or indirect effects on any of these sites. The Government has had to do Appropriate Assessments as a result on the East of England Plan and the South East Plan.

They were also found against over protected species. The habitats Regulations have been amended but the principle that you have to asses the overall population of the protected species in an area does not seem to be carried through by Natural England. The government needs to fund a huge increase in surveillance so that there is accurate data of biodiversity in a local area.

There have been surveys done by Jacobs Babtie in 2003 and 2004 for the bypass covering the area which will be built on and these have shown the presence of several different species of bats. In order to get licenses to move or disturb bats through development and lighting, the Developer and Natural England, will have to follow the Habitats Regulations amended 2007. Unless they have license they will be committing a criminal offence

Section 39 - Protection of certain wild animals

(1) A person commits an offence if he—

(a) deliberately captures, injures or kills any wild animal of a European protected species;

(b) deliberately disturbs wild animals of any such species in such a way as to be likely significantly to affect—

(i) the ability of any significant group of animals of that species to survive, breed, or rear or nurture their young; or

(ii) the local distribution or abundance of that species;

(c) deliberately takes or destroys the eggs of such an animal; or

(d) damages or destroys a breeding site or resting place of such an animal

They can only get a licence if:

Section 44 (3) The appropriate authority shall not grant a licence under this regulation unless they are satisfied-

(a) that there is no satisfactory alternative,

and

(b) that the action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.

Charlie Hopkins' letter to GOSE

Ecological Assessment by Philip Irving

National

Friends of the Earth

home