for birds for people for ever - the rspb introduction 6 biodiversity policy ... black grouse by...
TRANSCRIPT
RSPB Advocacy
2007
for birdsfor peoplefor ever
2
Contents
4 Introduction
6 Biodiversity policy• Funding the Biodiversity Action Plan
• Funding nature conservation overseas • The UK Overseas Territories: the forgotten fragments of paradise
12 Connecting people with wildlife• Real world learning• Natural thinking• Wellbeing through wildlife in the EU• Homes fit for birds
18 Understanding the ecological world
21 Conserving species from direct threats• Peak malpractice• Ending unsustainable imports of wild birds• Albatross task force• Bird killing in Malta
2
RSPB Advocacy
2007
Up
ton
Hea
th, D
ors
et b
y A
nd
y H
ay(w
ww
.rsp
b-i
mag
es)
27 Protecting the best places for wildlife• Restoring protected areas to favourable condition in the UK• Better management of our common land• Inappropriate development at home and abroad• Housing and heathlands in southern England – a way forward• Via Baltica, Poland
34 Improving the wildlife value of land and sea• Stopping climate chaos• Belarus peat project• Blueprint for water• Planning reform in England• Strategic environmental assessment• Ensuring environmental sustainability in developing countries• Protecting the blue planet• Agriculture reform – towards 2008/9 EU budget review• Biofuels
46 Restoring lost biodiversity• Species reintroductions• The future of the state’s forests• After minerals: extracting benefits for all at mineral sites
3
Lap
win
g b
y A
nd
y H
ay (
ww
w.r
spb
-im
ages
)
44
IntroductionA crucial part of the RSPB’s core business is the advocacy we undertake to influence change in policy, legislation, attitudes and behaviour to benefit birds and the environment. This second review of RSPB policy and advocacy highlights the key areas where the RSPB has sought to make a difference in 2006 and identifies the major challenges wildlife faces within the UK, Europe and further afield.
Traf
fic
Jam
by
An
dy
Hay
(w
ww
.rsp
b-i
mag
es)
Do
tter
el b
y G
eoff
Do
re (
ww
w.r
spb
-im
ages
)
5
Climate change rose inexorably up the political agenda in 2006 culminating in the production of the momentous Stern review of the economic justifications for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is the greatest environmental challenge we face and it warrants the increased attention it is now being given. The RSPB, as a founder member of Stop Climate Chaos, has campaigned hard for new measures to curb emissions and has helped mobilise thousands of people to demand urgent political action.
Yet, perversely, there is a danger that, in the eyes of decision-makers, climate change becomes synonymous with ‘the environment’ and that protection of wildlife and the natural environment is neglected. The RSPB argues that this is a mistake for two reasons. Firstly, we have a moral imperative to safeguard the millions of species with which we share this planet and secondly, lack of investment in these natural assets compromises our ability to benefit from considerable ecosystem services (life-support services) both now and in the future.
The RSPB has a vision for sustainable development where society passes on the natural environment in an enhanced state to the next generation. This philosophy drives our advocacy and is outlined in this report. What follows, is not a comprehensive overview of RSPB
advocacy, rather a selection of current priorities and an insight into the range of activities that the RSPB undertakes. The report includes case studies of how the RSPB seeks to make a difference to biodiversity through advocacy both in the UK and abroad.
The focus is on advocacy that relates either to UK matters that are the responsibility of Westminster or to international policy, including the EU. Separate reports are being compiled to review our work in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
The report provides recommendations for Government to ensure society continues to benefit from the range of ecosystem services provided by the natural environment.
The starting point for all our work is to ensure that Government meets its international commitments to halt or significantly reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010 (see section on Biodiversity policy). This is important to help protect wildlife for its own sake but we argue that people benefit directly from contact with the natural world and we have evidence to underpin this belief (see section on Connecting people with wildlife).
The structure of the rest of the report follows that of the RSPB’s own conservation strategy:
• understanding the ecological world provides examples of how we need to invest in appropriate research to support conservation science
• conserving species from direct threats outlines how the RSPB seeks to change policy and legislation to end the persecution of wild birds
• protecting the best places for wildlife explains why society should invest in a robust network of protected areas even as the climate changes
• improving the wildlife value of land and sea argues that economic policies will fail society unless both the terrestrial and marine environments are protected, we minimise our ecological footprint abroad, we tackle climate change and build genuine sustainable communities
• restoring lost biodiversityillustrates how and why it pays to put back the wildlife which has been lost.
We expect this report to be challenging but we hope stimulating. Please do contact us to find out more, to offer comments and to continue the dialogue.
Dr Mark AveryDirector of Conservation
Gra
ham
Wyn
ne
and
Dav
id M
ilib
and
, Sec
reta
ry o
f S
tate
fo
r E
nvir
on
men
t, F
oo
d
and
Ru
ral A
ffai
rs, i
n d
iscu
ssio
n a
t th
e Lo
dg
e b
y G
rah
ame
Mad
ge
Sky
lark
by
Ch
ris
Go
mm
ersa
ll (w
ww
.rsp
b-i
mag
es)
Gan
net
s b
y A
nd
y H
ay
(ww
w.r
spb
-im
ages
)
66
The RSPB’s work is ultimately all about conserving biodiversity; the variety of life on the planet. It is crucial that we target our resources effectively at the priorities for species and habitat conservation both in the UK, in Europe and in the rest of the world.
Biodiversitypolicy
Bel
l Hea
ther
by
Pete
r C
reed
(N
atu
reB
ure
au)
Bla
ck g
rou
se b
y D
avid
Tip
ling
(w
ww
.rsp
b-i
mag
es.c
om
)
7
The UK Government has made commitments to halt or significantly reduce the rate of the decline of biodiversity with the aim of achieving this by 20101. This has implications not just for conservation in the UK but also (as detailed in our case studies) for our commitments to conservation in the UK Overseas Territories and in developing countries.
In the UK, we are fortunate that we have a good knowledge of the state of biodiversity, an established network of protected areas, significant wildlife legislation, huge public support for biodiversity conservation and active and committed conservation organisations to help take work forward.
However, the pressures on biodiversity in the UK are considerable. Our wildlife habitats and the species they support have been significantly diminished in recent decades and as a result our quality of life has suffered. Recent analysis2 indicates that, despite progress under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, 38% of priority habitats and 27% of priority species are still declining.
Urgent action and new funding (see case study) is required if the UK is to meet the 2010 target and to fulfil its European Union commitments. In 2006, the European Commission adopted its action plan for halting biodiversity loss. The Action Plan is highly ambitious and comprehensive, with detailed targets for the Commission and Member States alike.
Robin WyndeE-mail: [email protected]/biodiversity
References:1 European Union Sustainable Development Strategy (2001) adopted at Göteborg European Council, Sweden and World Summit on Sustainable Development2 The UK Biodiversity Action Plan: Highlights from the 2005 reporting round (2006) Defra.
Dan
del
ion
see
d h
ead
by
Dav
id T
iplin
g
(ww
w.r
spb
-im
ages
.co
m)
Hea
ther
mo
or
by
An
dy
Hay
(w
ww
.rsp
b-i
mag
es.c
om
)
88
Top priorities for2007To make real progress towards halting biodiversity loss by 2010, we need action now. This includes work identified in the specific policy sections that follow. In short, the RSPB wants to stop the rot, protect the best and restore the rest.
In the UK we will advocate:
• a clear implementation plan for UK BAP priority species and habitats, and specific targets for all of these by spring 2007, where possible to link these to favourable reference values under the Habitats Directive
• adequate monitoring for these priorities, particularlyfor habitats
• a commitment to increase funding to deliver UK BAP targets by at least £300m per year, eg through agri-environment schemes and targeted recovery programmes
• clear proposals to maximise ecosystem service benefits through habitat re-creation, eg through the introduction of a Public Service Agreement (PSA) target in England on habitat expansion and through positive planning
References:3 Halting the Loss of Biodiversity by 2010 – and Beyond: Sustaining ecosystem services for human well-being. Communication from the EC, May 2006.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/current_biodiversity_policy/biodiversity_com_2006/index_en.htm
• the inclusion of biodiversity in Comprehensive Performance Assessment for Local Authorities in England and Wales
• more technical and financial resources to be spent on biodiversity conservation in the UK Overseas Territories and in developing countries.
In the EU we will:
• monitor the implementation of the EU’s Biodiversity Communication through participation in the Biodiversity Expert Group3
• push the Commission to organise itself better to implement the Biodiversity Communication
• lobby the European Parliament for a strong report on the Biodiversity Communication
• encourage BirdLife Partners to participate in the monitoring and assessment of the conservation status of habitats and species of the Habitats Directive
• celebrate the success and importance of the Habitats Directive and Natura 2000 in May 2007, on their 15th anniversary
Bitt
ern
by
Ric
har
d B
roo
ks (
ww
w.r
spb
-im
ages
.co
m)
Ob
serv
ing
Dar
tfo
rd w
arb
lers
by
An
dy
Hay
(w
ww
.rsp
b-i
mag
es.c
om
)
Nat
erja
ck t
oad
by
An
dy
Hay
(w
ww
.rsp
b-i
mag
es.c
om
)
9
Case studyFunding theBiodiversityAction PlanIn 2006, a detailed report for Government highlighted the shortfall in funding for the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP)4. The analysis put the costs of delivering the 2005 BAP targets at £321 m/yr for habitat action plans, £22 m/yr for species action plans, and over £300 m/yr for widespread species. The report identified current annual funding for the BAP at £300 m/yr, showing that UK BAP delivery is hampered by a funding shortfall of approximately £300 m/yr, of which £220 m/yr is in England. The nature of the funding shortfall reveals the current predicament of biodiversity in the UK:
• There have been significant habitat losses, which are expensive to reverse although work is underway to do that and take action at a species level – further £10s millions/yr of funding are needed to do this.
• The majority of the funding gap relates to targets for widespread species, such as farmland birds, which have suffered dramatic declines in recent decades due to agricultural intensification driven by the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy – the costs of reversing this involves£100s millions/yr.
Despite such a massive BAP funding shortfall of around 50%, policy measures to close the funding gap are readily achievable:
• The gap in widespread species BAP funding can be filled through reallocation of agricultural subsidies to support agri-environment schemes that reward farmers for their stewardship of the environment. This reallocation would also deliver the English Public Service Agreement target on farmland birds; contribute to landscape and SSSI management; and make the countryside a more attractive place. Importantly it would have a positive impact on rural economies and provide net benefits to society.
• Support for specialist species and habitats work can be increased from a variety of complementary sources, such as the Lottery, Landfill Communities Fund, Aggregates Levy, and NGO support. Government should lead, facilitate, and match, this funding increase.
Ian DickieE-mail: [email protected]/policy/economicdevelopment
An extra c. £220 million of agri-environment spending is needed to achieve widespread species targets in England. This is about 1/6th of the predicted £1.25 billion per year single farm payment spending.
References:4 GHK & RPS Ecology ( 2006) Costs of Delivering the UK BAP. Report to Defra. The figures allow for overlaps, but not changes to species
and habitats targets during autumn 2006.
Co
rn b
un
tin
g b
y G
eral
d D
ow
ney
(w
ww
.rsp
b-i
mag
es.c
om
)
Mix
ed f
arm
lan
d la
nd
scap
e b
y A
nd
y H
ay (
ww
w.r
spb
-im
ages
.co
m)
1010
Case studyFunding natureconservationoverseasDeveloping countries contain the largest proportion of the world’s biodiversity. Protected areas are crucial to safeguard the species they contain and the beneficial services, such as watershed protection, they support5. Recent studies converge on a funding shortfall of $1 billion to $1.7 billion per year to manage all existing protected areas in developing countries and approximately $11 billion a year over the next decade if an expanded protected-area system of the kind that is needed is to be established and managed6. Funding is essential if protected areas are to retain competent staff and work with local communities. Protected areas are no different from any other business or government agency – starved of finance they will fail. Developed countries, including the UK, committed themselves in the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity to providing financial support to assist developing countries in implementing the convention. These commitments remain largely unfulfilled and biodiversity conservation remains woefully under-funded.
The RSPB works in several international fora, including the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Ramsar Convention, the World Heritage Convention and the Convention on Migratory Species, for establishment and better management of protected areas and for increased funding.
The challenges of providing sustainable, stable funding that allows for long-term planning, a career for competent staff and best use of resources, are enormous in developing countries. The RSPB is working to find ways to get protected areas properly funded so they can do their jobs more effectively. Based on research and our experience of working with developing countries, the RSPB believes that Trust Funds are one of the most realistic and practical mechanisms for addressing these challenges. Together with the BirdLife International Partner in Sierra Leone we are working to establish a Trust Fund to manage the Gola Forest, a spectacular ‘biodiversity hotspot’, and to provide income to local communities. With Burung Indonesia, the BirdLife partner, we are seeking to establish a Trust Fund to manage the Harapan Rainforest, a highly threatened Sumatran lowland rainforest.
Joy Hyvarinen and Paul MorlingE-mail: [email protected]/international/conservation
Die
ter
Ho
ffm
ann
(rs
pb
-im
ages
.co
m)
References:5 Their importance is recognised in the Millennium Development Goals (Indicator no. 26).6 Bruner A, Gullison R, Balmford A (2004) Financial Costs and shortfalls of Managing and Expanding Protected Area Systems in Developing Countries. BioScience Vol 54 No 12. These numbers may seem large but,
even at a total cost of $11 billion, this is equivalent to what Europeans spend on ice cream annually, roughly half of what the world spends on make-up and cosmetics and less than a third of what is spent annually onbottled water.
Rh
ino
cero
s H
orn
bill
by
Ch
an Y
oke
Men
g
11
Case studyThe UK OverseasTerritories(UKOTs):the forgottenfragments ofparadiseThe 14 Territories7 are mostly small islands situated in all three of the main oceans, the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian. Their rich biological diversity far outweighs their small size:
• they hold more globally threatened bird species (34) than the whole of Europe
• the largest coral atoll in the world is British (British Indian Ocean Territory)
• one third of all albatrosses breed on the UKOTs.
Because they are mostly small, remote islands with small populations and little money, they mostly lack the means to take the actions necessary to conserve their globally important biodiversity. They need the UK’s help if they are to conserve their biodiversity
and the UK should give priority to providing it, since they hold much of the most important and threatened biodiversity under the UK’s jurisdiction8. Although the UKOTs are locally self-governed, the UK retains responsibility for external affairs on the islands, including the Convention on Biological Diversity. While the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is responsible for the implementation of international conventions on the UKOTs, Defra is responsible for biodiversity in the UK, but does not include the Territories within its mandate. The Department for International Development (DfID)have the UKOTs within its mandate, but giving priority to biodiversity conservation is not.
Currently the UK spends about £1 million annually on conservation in the UKOTs compared to about £460 million in the UK, which means the areas of UK territory which are most important in global biodiversity terms are the ones which are least resourced. Furthermore, all the UK’s support for biodiversity conservation in the UKOTs is given as one-off start-stop project funding. This means that conservation measures often cannot be sustained and trained capacity is lost.
The UK Government has signed up to an international commitment to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010, however, if policy continues as at
present it cannot meet this target on the UKOTs as endemic species are heading to extinction (eg St Helena Olive tree became extinct in 2003). The RSPB estimates this could be changed by a minimum input of a £10 million/year9, which considering the global importance of the Territories is extraordinarily good value for money.
The RSPB would like to see the UK Government take its responsibility for biodiversity conservation seriously on the UKOTs, by ensuring adequate resources are available (eg at least £10 million per year). This expenditure is more than justified considering the levels of globally threatened species found on the territories. We would welcome the UK Government, either Defra or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), taking clear responsibility for biodiversity on the UKOTs and consider they could be assisted in this task through providing funding for and receiving assistance from the UK’s Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
Sarah SandersE-mail: [email protected]/international/conservation
References:7 The 14 UKOTs are Anguilla, British Antarctic Territory, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Turks and Caicos, St Helena and its dependencies (Ascension and Tristan da Cunha), Falklands,
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, British Indian Ocean Territory, Gibraltar, Pitcairn and the Sovereign Base Areas on Cyprus.8 England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland together place the UK in the bottom quartile in terms of global biodiversity importance. Add in the UKOTs, and the UK ranks in the top half of the top quartile.9 We based the figure on: Institutional resource costs on 14 UKOTs = 14 x £200,000 = £2,800,000 – costs of managing 78 Important Bird Areas = 78 x £50,000 = £3,900,000 – ‘big’ Island restoration projects > £3,000,000.
It does not include all the costs of marine areas or conserving seabirds in the South Atlantic.
Bar
ton
Po
int
Lag
oo
n b
y Pe
ter
Car
r
Atl
anti
c Yel
low
-no
sed
Alb
atro
ss b
y Pa
ul T
yler
1212
Nature conservation policy should be valued for more than just species protection. Access to wildlife and natural green space can support jobs, and benefit our health and education systems – issues that are fundamental to the quality of peoples’ lives.
Connectingpeople withwildlife
In 2006, an RSPBreport10 analysed the
economic impacts of the hundreds of thousands of
people that visit reserves and watchpoints to see spectacular
bird species each year. For example, reintroduced
white-tailed eagles bring £1.5 million per year of visitor
spending to the island of Mull.
References:10 Dickie, Esteban and Hughes (2006) Watched Like Never Before. The RSPB. http://www.rspb.org.uk/policy/Economicdevelopment/economics/local_economies/index.asp
Eb
bw
Val
e E
du
cati
on
Cen
tre
by
An
dy
Hay
(w
ww
.rsp
b-i
mag
es.c
om
)W
hit
e-ta
iled
eag
le b
y C
hri
s G
om
ersa
ll (w
ww
.rsp
b-i
mag
es.c
om
)
13
Access to wildlifethrough the RSPB
• public access for over one million visitors per year to our 200 nature reserves in the UK
• 60,000 school children participated in our field teaching programme run on our nature reserves
• 60 ‘Aren’t birds brilliant!’ species viewing projects in 2006 attracted c 485,000 visits
• more than 470,000 participated in our Big Garden Birdwatch weekend in January 2006
• 13,000 volunteers of all ages help the RSPB.
Top priorities for2007The RSPB will continue to promote the extensive public benefits that arise from opportunities for people to see and understand wildlife because:
• Real World Learning brings significant educational benefits
• green infrastructure is a vital component of sustainable communities
• access to nature is increasingly being linked to the health and wellbeing of communities
• wildlife can make a difference to local economies.
Leig
hto
n M
oss
RS
PB
res
erve
by
Ben
Hal
l (w
ww
.rsp
b-i
mag
es.c
om
)A
ren’
t B
ird
s B
rilli
ant!
Hen
Har
rier
vie
win
g b
y A
nd
y H
ay (
ww
w.r
spb
-im
ages
.co
m)
Red
hea
ded
car
din
al b
eetl
e b
y Pe
ter
Cre
ed (
Nat
ure
Bu
reau
)
1414
Case studyReal worldlearningThe RSPB believes that every child should experience the natural environment as an integral part of their education. Since 2003, and as a founder of the Real World Learning Partnership, we have campaigned for the Government to take action to this end.
In November 2006, the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) launched its Manifesto for Learning Outside the Classroom11 for schools in England. This acknowledged the broad benefits and opportunities of out-of-classroom learning, promoted co-operation between providers within the sector, and raised the profile amongst teachers, schools, and parents.
However, despite this ideal opportunity and the recommendations of the Education and Skills Select Committee, the DfES did not offer any substantial policies or dedicated funding to schools or providers in order to deliver the Government’s 2005 General Election manifesto commitment to ensure that ‘every school student [has] the opportunity to experience out-of-classroom learning in the natural environment’12.
As part of the Real World Learning Campaign, the RSPB will continue its advocacy in three main areas:
• STATUS: raising the status of out-of-classroom learning through its inclusion as a compulsory element of every schools’ Ofsted self-evaluation forms (SEFs).
• DEVELOPMENT: as well as initial teacher training (ITT), all continued professional development (CPD) should include out-of-classroom learning.
• SUPPORT: recognising the important role that school support staff, governors and teaching assistants play in delivering real world learning.
The RSPB believes that part of the £1.3 billion of funding announced by the Treasury for personalised learning should be used to provide out-of-classroom education, particularly to young people with limited access to the natural environment. DfES should give specific guidance that this money is available for this purpose, and provide adequate support and leadership to enable the full delivery of the Manifesto for Learning Outside the Classroom.
Phil BurfieldE-mail: [email protected]/policy/education
References:11 Available from http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/learningoutsidetheclassroom12 Labour Party General Election Manifesto, 2005: 100
Loch
win
no
ch R
SP
B R
eser
ve b
y A
nd
y H
ay (
ww
w.r
spb
-im
ages
.co
m)
Ph
oen
ix F
oru
m w
ork
ing
at
San
dw
ell V
alle
y R
SP
B R
eser
ve b
y C
aro
lyn
Mer
rett
(w
ww
.rsp
b-i
mag
es.c
om
)
15
Case studyNatural thinkingPublic health problems present chronic and expensive challenges to the UK. The link between our natural environment and public health has long been recognised, and two reports for the RSPB by Dr. William Bird13 analyse the evidence linking physical and mental health to the natural environment. Physical inactivity costs the UK over £8 bn/yr, mental health disorders affect one in six of the population. Nature, through the role it plays in stimulating and encouraging physical activity, and through the direct impact it has on our emotional state, can be a very cost-effective way to alleviate a range of health problems.
The incidence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in the UK is estimated to have doubled between 1998 and 200414. Over one-third of children suffering from ADHD have been excluded from school15.Dr William Bird’s16 work identifies evidence of the benefits to young people of experiencing the natural environment. These include finding that contact with green space could significantly reduce the symptoms of ADHD.
Evidence is growing that the links between green space and good mental health are significant:
• nature reduces stress within minutes of contact
• patients need fewer painkillers if exposed to views of nature
• the elderly, who can relax and enjoy nature, show significantly greater satisfaction with where they live
• the benefits of the natural environment appear especially significant for children, who have less contact with nature now than at any time in the past.
Ian DickieE-mail: [email protected]/policy/health
References:13 Bird W: Natural Fit (2004), Natural Thinking (2006) The RSPB; http://www.rspb.org.uk/policy/health/index.asp14 Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: diagnosis and management of ADHD in children, young people and adults, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), August 2006,
http://guidance.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=35127615 ADHD is real – ADDISS families survey. Research commissioned by the National Attention Deficit Disorder Information and Support Service, August 2006, http://www.adhdisreal.co.uk/survey.htm16 The ADHD dilemma for parents. BBC News Online, 22nd October 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6071216.stm
With increasing concern over prescribed medication16, treatments utilising the natural environment offer an opportunity to support ADHD sufferers’ education, as well as reducing wider family and social impacts.
Port
mo
re L
ou
gh
RS
PB
Res
erve
by
An
dy
Hay
(w
ww
.rsp
b-i
mag
es.c
om
)
Lake
nh
eath
Fen
RS
PB
res
erve
by
An
dy
Hay
(w
ww
.rsp
b-i
mag
es.c
om
)E
xam
inin
g b
ug
box
by
An
dy
Hay
(ww
w.r
spb
-im
ages
.co
m)
1616
Case studyWellbeingthrough Wildlifein the EUThe RSPB has worked with European BirdLife Partners to produce a brochure on the benefits of nature conservation for people’s quality of life: ‘Wellbeing through Wildlife in the EU’. The publication contains 26 case studies from across the European Union on how biodiversity protection benefits society by enhancing our health, offering educational opportunities, contributing to the regeneration of communities and supporting and generating economic activity.
Commission President, José Manuel Barroso, has written the foreword, in which he ‘welcomes this new publication, which practically demonstrates that conserving wildlife is not only good for the environment but also significantly contributes to our social welfare and economic activity.’ The brochure will be used in our advocacy on cross-cutting EU issues such as the Lisbon strategy, the Sustainable Development Strategy, the ‘future of Europe’ debate and the EU Budget Review.
Sacha CleminsonE-mail: [email protected]
Wild
bir
d c
over
cro
p b
y A
nd
y H
ay (
ww
w.r
spb
-im
ages
.co
m)
Wild
life
exp
lore
rs b
y R
ich
ard
Rev
els
(ww
w.r
spb
-im
ages
.co
m)
“Wel
lbei
ng
th
rou
gh
wild
life
in t
he
EU
” h
as p
rovi
ded
hig
h le
vel a
dvo
cacy
op
po
rtu
nit
ies
such
as
a m
eeti
ng
wit
h p
resi
den
t o
f th
e E
uro
pea
n C
om
mis
sio
n, M
r B
arro
so
by
Raf
f Will
ems
17
Case studyHomes fit forbirdsEverybody can benefit from green spaces near to where they live and the opportunity to enjoy a wildlife-rich environment. Such pleasures should not be restricted to those fortunate to live near the country’s few nature reserves or protected sites. Increasingly, in urban and suburban areas, the shift to converting gardens to off-road parking as well as the loss of larger, mature gardens for housing development means the wildlife which has adapted to live alongside us, enhancing our everyday lives, is finding life far more challenging.
To help address this, in spring 2006, the RSPB launched ‘Homes Fit For Birds’, an internet-based project which encouraged people to find out more about the wildlife on their doorstep and to take practical measures around their homes and gardens to benefit birds and ultimately other wildlife. The project focused on six species, including well-known birds like the house sparrow and starling, whose conservation status is causing concern as their numbers have declined rapidly in recent years.
In its first six weeks, over 22,000 people responded to our initial invitation, receiving tailored advice on wildlife-friendly management based on the home and garden features they had. For example, those with ponds were offered advice on managing them sympathetically for wildlife. In addition, participants were encouraged to record the range of wildlife, such as birds, frogs and butterflies, visiting their property throughout the summer. Thousands did, highlighting that regardless of the size of the home or garden, enhancing the amounts of natural food and shelter available brings wildlife closer to people’s everyday lives.
Darren MoorcroftE-mail: [email protected]/homesfitforbirds
Bu
ildin
g a
nes
t b
ox b
y M
ark
Ham
blin
(w
ww
.rsp
b-i
mag
es.c
om
)
Ho
use
sp
arro
w b
y B
en H
all (
ww
w.r
spb
-im
ages
.co
m)
Co
mm
on
fro
g b
y M
ike
Lan
e (w
ww
.rsp
b-i
mag
es.c
om
)
1818
The RSPB bases its policy and practice on the best available science. While it undertakes a significant amount of scientific research to support its own priorities, it is also keen to influence the research priorities of others. Specifically, the RSPB wants the proportion of UK science funding dedicated to conservation science to increase over time.
Understandingthe ecologicalworld
Wei
gh
ing
5 d
ay o
ld S
kyla
rk c
hic
k b
y A
nd
y H
ay (
ww
w.r
spb
-im
ages
.co
m)
Rad
io t
elem
etry
gea
r b
y D
avid
Bro
adb
ent
(ww
w.r
spb
-im
ages
.co
m)
19
Conservation science obtains the knowledge needed to help halt and reverse the loss of biodiversity (wildlife). It includes monitoring of biodiversity trends, understanding the causes of its loss, developing solutions to aid its recovery, determining the efficacy of conservation action, and predicting the likely impacts of future environmental change.
There has been a historic tendency for scientists in academia to remain aloof from the applied aspects of conservation science, even though there is interest in its theoretical foundations, because applied research is often seen as less intellectually challenging than pure science. Furthermore, applied conservation science is often long-term, costly, difficult to subject to experimental rigour, and rarely published in high-impact scientific journals. Conservation science thus has a low profile within the scientific community, and remains under-funded compared to other disciplines.
This view is changing slowly as biodiversity comes more to the political foreground. However, university-based conservation science and its funding, principally by the Research Councils and especially the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), remains fundamentally curiosity-driven, constrained only by broad strategic
themes. Scientific quality is the dominant criterion in deciding which bids from the research community are funded, and this can lead to excellent science, but sometimes with no clear ‘end-user’ or immediate applied value. The Research Councils are now engaging end-users to increase the relevance of their science, but are struggling to bring their community of scientists along with them.
Government departments and agencies – and the RSPB itself – have stepped into the gap to fund applied conservation science. Over the last decade, Defra has increased its spend on this area, especially research to underpin agri-environment scheme design and monitoring, and the new research strategy of the Scottish Executive’s Environment and Rural Affairs Department emphasises science to support biodiversity conservation. Among the statutory agencies,
Natural England and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) also invest in this area, most notably through the RSPB/Natural England partnership programme ‘Action for Birds in England’.
Thus, while some government departments and agencies are funding applied conservation science, NERC appears to have reduced its spend in this area, by closing four research stations and cutting 150 jobs from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH), that part of NERC undertaking most conservation science.
David Gibbons and Jeremy WilsonE-mail: [email protected]/science
Dat
a fr
om
th
e B
ig G
ard
en B
ird
wat
ch b
y A
nd
y H
ay (
ww
w.r
spb
-im
ages
.co
m)
Min
smer
e R
SP
B R
eser
ver
by
An
dy
Hay
(w
ww
.rsp
b-i
mag
es.c
om
)
2020
Top priorities for2007To ensure that spend on conservation science increases, the RSPB will:
• Argue for a greater flow of Research Council funds to science with more immediate value in halting and reversing biodiversity loss.
• Ensure that key areas of conservation science are not dropped by NERC as it implements cuts at CEH.
• Ensure that statutory nature conservation agencies and Government Environment and Rural Affairs Departments maintain and increase biodiversity research funding.
• Ensure that Natural England does not cut its partnership science funding with the RSPB as it evolves from English Nature, and seek a similar partnership with SNH.
Su
rvey
ing
ch
ou
gh
by
An
dy
Hay
(w
ww
.rsp
b-i
mag
es.c
om
)
Set
tin
g u
p C
CT
V a
t n
igh
tjar
nes
t b
y A
nd
y H
ay (
ww
w.r
spb
-im
ages
.co
m)
21
Strong legal protection and enforcement remain important foundations for today’s bird conservation challenges. In the European Union, the RSPB and BirdLife International have been at the forefront of work to secure good laws to protect wildlife and habitats. But these are nothing unless they are implemented, and beyond Europe there remains much to be done.
Conservingspecies fromdirect threats
Go
lden
eag
le b
y M
ark
Ham
blin
(w
ww
.rsp
b-i
mag
es.c
om
)A
fric
an g
rey
par
rott
by
Ger
ry E
llis/
Min
den
Pic
ture
s/FL
PA
2222
Top priorities for2007• We will press government to
implement fully the ban on the import of wild birds and commit to clear monitoring of its effectiveness, and advocate permanent restrictions for bird conservation as well as animal health reasons.
• Defend birds of prey from illegal persecution. Our figures show that populations are recovering well in lowland Britain, but there remains an attitude of zero-tolerance towards rare birds of prey in many upland areas.
• Prevent the extinction of 19 of the world’s 21 albatross species due to longline fishing. The legal measures are in place, but these birds need urgent action, especially in UK territories in the South Atlantic.
• Maintain and strengthen the effectiveness of the EU Birds Directive. The RSPB and BirdLife Partners are acting to prevent the illegal shooting and trapping of migrant birds in the Mediterranean.
• Action for all globally threatened species and declining huntable species in the EU.
Go
lden
ori
ole
by
Car
los
San
chez
(w
ww
.rsp
b-i
mag
es.c
om
)
Blu
e-fr
on
ted
am
azo
ns
har
vest
ed p
rim
arily
fo
r th
e E
U m
arke
t b
y W
orl
dPa
rro
tTru
st.o
rg
23
Case study
PeakMalpracticeEvery year, the RSPB receives hundreds of reports about crimes committed against wild birds. These are just the tip of an unquantifiable iceberg and it is sometimes difficult to determine the consequences on the status of protected birds. In spring 2006, the RSPB combined reported incidents with breeding bird information from volunteer raptor monitors in the Dark Peak of Derbyshire. Peak Malpractice showed that goshawks, peregrines and ravens fare badly in the area. Unexplained disappearances, the destruction of nests and the discovery of poison baits preceded low breeding success and ultimately the decline of these birds. Data from the South Yorkshire Badger Group suggested low numbers of these protected mammals in the same area.
There was a local public outcry demanding action to ensure that in the Dark Peak, legal protection counted for something. But 2006 was not the year that protected species thrived. No goshawks, peregrines or ravens bred on the Northeast Peak Moors, and elsewhere birds of all three species went missing during the breeding season. A peregrine
was found shot dead, another was killed by a pole trap, while several birds were found poisoned – an indiscriminate practice that was outlawed in 1911.
A ray of hope came with nesting by two pairs of hen harriers, one of the rarest breeding birds in England. Inexplicably, the males from both nests disappeared before the chicks were a few days old. A study by Natural England shows that over the last five years no hen harriers have disappeared whilst breeding in Lancashire’s Forest of Bowland, whereas on grouse moors elsewhere nearly 60% of nesting attempts failed as a result of adults disappearing.
The Dark Peak is, for some upland birds, a black hole. Innovative habitat restoration is being undertaken on moorland here, but there are few top predators to take advantage of the abundant food source. The RSPB strongly supports the creation of the National Wildlife Crime Unit and welcomes the Defra and Home Office commitments to tackle organised crime such as the killing of birds of prey.
Julian HughesE-mail: [email protected]/policy/wildbirdslaw
Hen
har
rier
by
Ric
har
d B
roo
ks (
ww
w.r
spb
-im
ages
.co
m)
Bad
ger
by
Dan
ny G
reen
(w
ww
.rsp
b-i
mag
es.c
om
)Pe
reg
rin
e b
y C
hri
s G
om
ersa
ll (w
ww
.rsp
b-i
mag
es.c
om
)
2424
Case study
Endingunsustainableimports ofwild birdsIn January 2007, the European Commission announced that the trade in wild birds will be permanently banned throughout the European Union from 1 July 2007. Although based on health grounds, the RSPB views this ban as a major conservation and advocacy success.
Previously, millions of exotic birds had been trapped in the wild each year, destined for the pet trade in the UK and the rest of the European Union. Yet, information on their wild populations, and whether these can sustain such levels of trade, has been almost entirely lacking.
Previous wildlife trade rules had allowed vulnerable species such as the African grey parrot to be continually imported in their hundreds of thousands until they became threatened across much of their range. The EU had been responsible for 90% of world trade in this species.
The ban is based on health grounds, principally surrounding avian influenza concerns. Yet, this marks a great step forward in the RSPB’s thirty year campaign to end unsustainable imports of wild birds.
The RSPB does not oppose bird-keeping, or the importation of small numbers of wild birds for conservation or research purposes.
However, we strongly believe that any commercial trade must be put on a sustainable footing. The public agrees: market research suggests that 92% of UK citizens disapprove of the wild bird trade.
In 2006, the Government changed its position on the wild bird trade in support of the RSPB viewpoint. With direct support from the Prime Minister and the European Commission, the Government was successful in negotiating with other EU Member States to support a ban.
This decision brings the EU up to the standards of countries such as the USA, Australia, New Zealand and Israel who have all but halted unsustainable imports of wild birds.
Following this success we must now decide whether to pursue a ban based on conservation grounds to underpin any health based ban.
Sacha CleminsonE-mail: [email protected]/policy/wildbirdslaw/banbirdtrade
Silv
er-e
ared
mes
ia b
y FL
PA/J
oh
n H
olm
esW
hit
e co
ckat
oo
by
FLPA
/Ju
rgen
an
d C
hri
stin
e S
oh
ns
Red
-ch
eeke
d c
ord
on
-ble
u b
y R
ob
ert
van
Zal
ing
e
25
Case study
Albatross TaskForceThe albatross family is becoming threatened faster than any other family of birds. Nineteen of the 21 species of albatross are now globally threatened with extinction, an increase from seven species since 1994. In addition, many petrel species are also threatened. The greatest threat for the majority of these seabirds is from being taken as bycatch in fisheries, particularly longline, but also trawl fisheries. Albatrosses and petrels are attracted to longline vessels to scavenge food from baited hooks as the line is set behind the vessel. The birds swoop to scavenge the baits, become hooked, are dragged underwater and drown. Each year, more than a billion hooks are set by the world’s longline fleets, killing an estimated 300,000 seabirds, of which about 100,000 are albatrosses.
Many programmes around the world place observers on vessels to monitor and record seabird bycatch. However, there is a real shortage of qualified at-sea practitioners to help and train fishermen in the selection and use of a range of simple, inexpensive techniques, so-called mitigation measures – to keep
seabirds off the hook. The RSPB and BirdLife International are currently supporting the deployment of the Albatross Task Force, the world’s first international team of mitigation instructors. Task Force members conduct workshops and fishing trips to train fisheries managers and fishermen on the need for, effectiveness of, and ease of adopting a range of ‘best practice’ mitigation measures that – once deployed – can rapidly reduce seabird mortality levels to negligible levels.
The Albatross Task Force was launched in March 2006 in South Africa with two people working in longline fisheries and one in trawl fisheries. In September 2006, a further two team members started work in longline fisheries in Brazil, an area critical for the conservation of albatrosses from the UK Overseas Territories on the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and Tristan da Cunha. Two people will also be deployed in Chile in early 2007. Ultimately, the Albatross Task Force plan to expand the team to 15–20 instructors by 2008/09.
Through the Albatross Task Force, the RSPB is leading global ‘grass roots’ efforts to save these iconic species from extinction.
Ben SullivanE-mail: [email protected]
Wav
ed a
lbat
ross
by
Sim
on
Sti
rru
pB
lack
-bro
wed
alb
atro
ss b
y D
avid
Osb
orn
Alb
atro
ss Ta
sk F
orc
e in
stru
cto
r d
emo
nst
rati
ng
wei
gh
ts t
o s
ink
lon
glin
es m
ore
qu
ickl
y b
y S
ean
Wils
on
2626
Case study
Combatingillegal birdhunting in MaltaFor many years, indiscriminate hunting of migrating birds in Malta and Cyprus has caused significant distress to both the conservation community and RSPB members. The scale of the problem is astonishing.In Cyprus, 12 million birds from over 140 species were caught on limesticks or in mist nets, prior to 2004. In Malta, 14,000 hunters shoot over 2 million birds every year having a particularly appalling impact on large numbers of threatened raptors that are inexplicably shot for target practice - on one day in December 2006, a flock of 24 short-toed eagles were shot.
Malta and Cyprus’ membership of the European Union in 2004 provided a crucial opportunity for the RSPB to join forces with our BirdLife partners in Cyprus and Malta to use the powers in EU Birds Directive to take action against illegal hunting. In Cyprus, impressive progress has been made. Since 2004, there has been an 80% reduction in hunting resulting in over 20 million birds being saved. Targeted advocacy and media work to mobilise
national opinion combined to demonstrate the widespread (75% of the public) opposition to the hunting. Simultaneously, undercover surveillance and police liaison created a sharp rise in prosecutions, some resulting in large fines that can now be promoted as an effective deterrent.
Government obstinacy compounded by a confrontational, vocal hunting lobby have made progress far more difficult in Malta. Despite adopting a similar approach to campaigning, the Maltese government remains one of the few EU member states that has continued, since 2004, to permit spring hunting of birds.This is a direct infringement of the Birds Directive. The RSPB supported the BirdLife partner’s formal EU complaint in July 2006, and encouraged the EU to undertake its own investigation into poor enforcement in the autumn. The strength of feeling amongst RSPB members coupled with close British-Maltese links led to the submission of a petition with 113,000 names calling on the Maltese Prime Minister to ban spring hunting and enforce existing conservation laws.
Intensifying national media coverage prior to spring 2007 and 2008 Maltese elections is already paying dividends by mobilising the silent majority of Maltese residents – 67% of whom recently indicated
opposition to spring hunting. As entrenched behaviours are inevitably slow to change, strengthening our partners and building their education and advocacy capacity is essential to ensuring long-term success.
Mark DayE-mail: [email protected]/international/illegal_hunting
Ro
bin
stu
ck o
n li
me
stic
k b
y G
uy
Sh
orr
ock
(rs
pb
-im
ages
.co
m)
Turt
le d
ove
wit
h m
ist
net
inju
ry t
o n
eck
by
Gu
y S
ho
rro
ck (
rsp
b-i
mag
es.c
om
)
27
Wildlife is unevenly distributed across the landscape. In part, this is due to natural factors, such as climate, topography, geology, and vegetation type, but much is due to humans’ use of land and water, for farming, housing and industry, that have much reduced and fragmented the area of wildlife-rich habitat. The end result is that the protection of the best areas, through law or purchase as nature reserves, can be a very effective means of conserving them for the future, both for their own sake, and for people – to enjoy and for the ecosystem services they provide.
Protecting thebest places forwildlife
Welwick, Humber EstuaryA managed re-alignment scheme pictured in the first
winter after its creation by Associated British Ports, as compensation for the loss of Special Protection Area (SPA) habitat to the Immingham Outer Harbour Scheme. In total, 68ha of inter-tidal mudflat was established at two sites by
agreement with the RSPB, Natural England and Environment Agency, following the Government’s decision that there were
imperative reasons of over-riding public interest for the Scheme to proceed, and no less damaging alternative to it.
Wel
wic
k, H
um
ber
Est
uar
y b
y G
wyn
Will
iam
s, R
SP
B
Aer
ial v
iew
of W
elw
ick,
Hu
mb
er E
stu
ary
by
Ass
oci
ated
Bri
tish
Po
rts
2828
Top priorities for2007
• ensuring that places identified as Important Bird Areas by BirdLife International, are designated as Special Protection Areas (SPAs) under the EU Birds Directive
• enhancing resources to enable the survey, identification and designation of a coherent network of marine SPAs by 2010, and their effective management by 2012
• attaining 95% of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in England in favourable or unfavourable recovering condition by 2010
• the making of Regulations to properly implement the Habitats Directive in the UK on land and sea, to comply with the October 2005 European Court of Justice judgement against the UK Government
• defending internationally and nationally important bird sites from damaging development proposals through the planning system and similar mechanisms
• working with local authorities, industry and other stakeholders to assist the positive implementation of site conservation legislation.
Gwyn WilliamsE-mail: [email protected]
Engagement in casework by RSPB region in 2005 to safeguard important wildlife sites.
Low
lan
d h
eath
er b
y A
nd
y H
ay (
rsp
b-i
mag
es.c
om
)
126 to 150101 to 12576 to 10051 to 7526 to 501 to 25
No of new cases
29
Ensuring our best wildlife sites are in good condition is a major challenge – one that relies on clear political will, adequate and targeted funding, and the goodwill and enthusiasm of those managing the land to implement positive changes on the ground.
The Government’s Public Service Agreement (PSA) to secure 95% of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) in England in favourable or recovering condition by 2010 is being translated into action on the ground by Natural England’s SSSI Remedies Project. By the end of 2006 over 73.9%, was in target condition – an increase of 15.9% since the end of 2003.
The RSPB’s response to meet this challenging target on its own reserves is set out in a recent report17.So far, we have made good progress – by the end of 2006 79.9% of the SSSIs we manage were in target condition. The report highlights the important role of funding in meeting the PSA target, including Defra’s Higher Level Stewardship Scheme, adequate budgets for SSSI management by public bodies and the availability of funding sources for conservation dependent habitats, such as through the EU’s LIFE+ fund.
Maintaining this momentum across all SSSIs up to and beyond 2010 is crucial. The RSPB is working to influence the Government’s 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review, to ensure a cost-effective blend of incentive funding and regulation is applied to tackle intractable problems, such as diffuse pollution. Although progress is being made towards achieving the target, the area in actual favourable condition has increased by less than 1% since 2003. In part this is because SSSIs can be classified as recovering where a funded plan has been put in place but not yet executed. Where work has been carried out, the recovery rates for many habitats may be slow. By 2010 as little as 45% of SSSI land may actually be in favourable condition. Moving sites into recovering condition is only the first step. It is essential that commitments made now to restore sites ultimatelydeliver favourable condition.
The UK’s very best wildlife sites are protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives – Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for birds and Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) for other flora and fauna. A key challenge for Government over the next few years is updating
References:17. Natural condition - Keeping our Sites of Special Scientific Interest special for wildlife and people
and improving the legislation implementing these Directives in the UK following a recent European Court judgement. Known as the Habitats Regulations, the RSPB will work closely with the Government to improve this legislation, especially to ensure that there is a clear legal framework to trigger early remedial action to address those SPAs or SACs at risk of deterioration.
Julie SuttonE-mail: [email protected]/policy/sites
Restoring protected areas to favourable condition in the UK
Nen
e W
ash
es R
SP
B r
eser
ve b
y A
nd
y H
ay (
rsp
b-i
mag
es.c
om
)
Cle
arin
g s
cru
b b
y N
eil G
arts
ho
re (
rsp
b-i
mag
es.c
om
)C
ho
ug
h b
y M
ike
Lan
e (r
spb
-im
ages
.co
m)
3030
Case study
Bettermanagementof our commonlandCommon land is extremely valuable for wildlife and an important part of our national heritage. There are nearly 400,000 ha of registered common land in England. Around 57% (213,000 ha) is designated as SSSI , but 43% of this was classified as being in unfavourable condition in March 2006. Overgrazing affects large areas of upland commons. Conversely, many lowland commons suffer from under-grazing and neglect.
Weaknesses in the legislation have in the past made it difficult to secure sustainable management on commons. Securing agri-environment agreements on common land has been difficult where large numbers of commoners are involved. Negotiations could be protracted and agreements often concluded without achieving the required objectives.
The RSPB and other stakeholders had been pressing for new common land legislation for 20 years. We worked closely with Government and others to secure much needed reform and
were delighted with the passage of the Commons Act 2006, introducing a new era in the management of common land in England and Wales.
The new legislation will enable commons to be managed more sustainably by commoners and landowners. It requires commons registers to be brought up to date to underpin commons management. It has introduced new management structures in the shape of Commons Councils to encourage improved local management of commons. Commons Councils have powers to regulate grazing and other agricultural management and to make rules by majority voting that are binding on all commoners, facilitating the entry of common land into agri-environment scheme agreements. New measures to facilitate the undertaking of works on common land have also been introduced.
Swift and effective implementation of the new legislation is now key to ensuring the better management of these important places for the benefit of wildlife, farmers and the public.
Julie SuttonE-mail: [email protected]/policy/sites
Sh
eep
on
up
lan
ds
by
Mar
k H
amb
lin (
rsp
b-i
mag
es.c
om
)
Yello
w h
amm
er b
y R
og
er W
ilmsh
urs
t (r
spb
-im
ages
.co
m)
31
Although the law often protects our most important wildlife sites, they can still be threatened by inappropriate land use. The RSPB seeks to ensure this does not happen by engaging with developers and decision makers through site casework.
The RSPB comments on about 900 land-use proposals each year that could affect the best places for wildlife. These cover a wide range of activities including key development sectors such as housing, industry and transport through to forestry, renewable energy, water abstraction and securing the right management of sensitive wildlife sites.
Whilst the RSPB always seeks to defend the best places for birds and wildlife from inappropriate proposals, it is not anti-development. Increasingly the RSPB works with developers and decision makers to find solutions to its concerns and avoid conflict early on.
A key part of this is good strategic planning, particularly through land use plans and similar initiatives. The RSPB is closely involved with strategic plans as they help deliver the right land use in the right place and minimise harm to wildlife and the environment – a vital test of whether development is truly sustainable. It also offers exciting opportunities for the restoration of lost habitats for wildlife and helps create wonderful places for people to enjoy.
The majority of the RSPB’s site casework is within the UK, but it does also have a history of providing support for work on major cases to other BirdLife International Partners. In 2005, this role was consolidated with the creation of a dedicated International Site Casework Officer post.
Brian ClearyE-mail: [email protected]/policy/sites/index.asp
Inappropriate developmentat home and abroad
Eb
bw
Val
e b
y A
nd
y H
ay (
rsp
b-i
mag
es.c
om
)
Rib
ble
Est
uar
y, H
eske
th O
utm
arsh
RS
PB
res
erve
by
An
dy
Hay
(rs
pb
-im
ages
.co
m)
3232
Case study
Housing andheathlandsin southernEngland – a wayforwardThe Thames Basin Heaths are a remnant of a once extensive tract of lowland heathland that covered large parts of southern England. Extending over 8,400 hectares of Hampshire, Surrey and Berkshire, the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) has been designated for its internationally important populations of the three scarce breeding birds dependent on the heathlands – Dartford warblers, nightjars and woodlarks. The heathlands are also important for a unique range of other wildlife.
Protection of the remaining heaths for wildlife has also helped sustain a valued area for recreation for people too, with approximately five million visits every year. However, scientific research shows that disturbance from visitors to the heaths causes lower productivity and greater nest failure in the three scarce breeding birds. Visitor pressure is
set to rise, in step with the planned development of more than 40,000 new houses around the SPA in the next 20 years, threatening to cause significant damage to the site. Proactive planning is needed to address this threat.
A particular problem with the scale of new housing envisaged is the cumulative impact of relatively small housing development that, when added together, will place considerable pressure on nearby heathland sites. Assessing and finding a solution for these impacts has been difficult; this has also led to uncertainty and delay in dealing with housing proposals.
A new strategic approach is needed – one that allows housing to be built without causing damage to the precious wildlife nearby. Natural England has proposed a framework for such a strategy through the development of its ‘Thames Basin Heaths Delivery Plan’. One of the key aims of this strategy is to assess the impacts of housing when higher-level strategic plans are drawn up and, critically, to mitigate those impacts by providing alternative recreational open space before people occupy the new houses. This will reduce the visitor pressure on the SPA and provide a much-needed solution to a serious and growing problem.
The RSPB has considerable experience of the management of heathland and has been advising Natural England during the development of the Delivery Plan. We are also working closely together with emerging Regional and Local Development Plans to help ensure that the Delivery Plan objectives are adopted and successfully implemented.
Samantha DawesE-mail: [email protected]/england/southeast/action/sites/thamesbasin
Dar
tfo
rd W
arb
ler
by
Mik
e R
ead
(rs
pb
-im
ages
.co
m)
Ho
usi
ng
dev
elo
pm
ent
on
Can
ford
hea
th b
y A
nd
y H
ay (
rsp
b-i
mag
es.c
om
)
33
Case study
Via Baltica,PolandOver the last few years there have been serious concerns about potential impacts of a series of major road projects in north east Poland on a number of valuable wildlife sites. The projects are on the likely route of the trans European road corridor from Helsinki to Warsaw (known as the ‘Via Baltica’) and will affect Augustow and Knyszyn Primeval Forests and the famous Biebrza Marshes. These areas are Important Bird Areas, are protected as Special Protection Areas (SPAs) under the Birds Directive and proposed as Sites of Community Interest under the Habitats Directive. They contain a magnificent array of wildlife including wolves, lynxes and both lesser-spotted and white-tailed eagles; the Biebrza Marshes are the most important breeding site in Europe for the globally threatened aquatic warbler and the greater-spotted eagle.
As the road projects affect Natura 2000 sites, Article 6 of the Habitats Directive requires that a proper assessment of the impacts on wildlife be carried out before any construction can be approved.
However, the Polish authorities have granted consents for these projects on the basis of environmental assessments which the RSPB and the Polish BirdLife Partner, OTOP, strongly believe do not properly fulfil the requirements of the Habitats Directive. The RSPB and OTOP understand the need for upgrading the road system but have very serious concerns about how the decisions are being bulldozed through without proper environmental evaluation. Because of these concerns the RSPB is supporting OTOP in a whole range of actions – including national court appeals, submission of a formal complaint to the European Commission and raising the international profile of the case. RSPB members supported the campaign by writing to their Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and, as a result, a large number of representations have been made by European Parliamentarians to the Environment Commissioner, Stavros Dimas.
In December 2006, the European Commission started legal proceedings against the Polish Government on the Via Baltica projects. This important step to uphold EU nature conservation legislation was welcomed by the RSPB and OTOP. The Commission expects Poland to stop work on the
projects until they are satisfied that Poland is complying with EU law. The Natura 2000 sites should have, at least for now, been given a reprieve. However, there is a real danger that construction will continue despite the legal action. Our work on this case must therefore continue.
The Via Baltica case is of key importance, not just because of the potential impacts on the particular sites, but also because of the precedent it will set for assessment of major projects under Article 6 of the Habitats Directive in new EU Member States.
Helen ByronE-mail: [email protected]/international/viabaltica
Ro
spu
da
Valle
y, P
ola
nd
by
P. M
alcz
ewsk
i
Wh
ite
taile
d e
agle
by
Grz
ego
rz L
esn
iew
ski
3434
The RSPB believes that development can only be truly sustainable if natural assets, such as those provided by biodiversity, are not just protected but enhanced for future generations. This philosophy guides the RSPB’s activity at home and internationally and is applied as much to land/sea-use policies as to those designed to tackle climate change – the greatest environmental challenge humans face.
Improving thewildlife valueof land and sea
Ou
se W
ash
es R
SP
B r
eser
ve b
y M
ike
Rea
dD
efo
rest
atio
n in
Pan
ama
by
Stu
art
.G.R
War
ner
/Sti
ll P
ictu
res
35
Stopping climate chaos
Climate change represents the greatest threat to the world’s wildlife, as well as human life on earth. For this reason, action on climate is a priority for the RSPB.
The RSPB works through the Kyoto Protocol (the international framework to tackle climate change), and with the EU and UK administrations, to promote policies that will limit global temperature rises to less than two degrees above pre-industrial levels. Above this, climate change is likely to have irreversible and catastrophic consequences. In the UK, the RSPB is a founding member of Stop Climate Chaos, a coalition of environmental, development, faith, women’s and union organisations, pressing Government to take action on climate change. In November 2006, one thousand RSPB members joined 25,000 people in Trafalgar Square to make their voices heard on this issue (as seen on the front cover of this booklet).
To protect the climate, the RSPB campaigns to halt airport expansion and curb demand for flights. We match this by actively promoting other forms of travel before flying in our own business. We advocate the development of renewable energy sources, and illustrate how they can be developed without damage to wildlife.
We are steadily increasing the amount of energy generated from renewable sources on our own nature reserves.
Protecting the world’s forests and peatlands is crucial to tackling climate change. Deforestation alone is currently responsible for almost one fifth of annual global emissions, as well as destroying unique wildlife habitats. The RSPB develops and advocates policies at home and abroad to protect these vital, but fragile, places.
Whilst we campaign to avoid further dangerous climate change, some change is already inevitable. We advocate action to help wildlife adapt to this. We explain and promote the role of nature reserves and other protected areas as refuges for wildlife. We argue for measures to make farmland more wildlife-friendly, so that species can move to find new suitable climate space. We also lobby for the creation of large areas of new habitat, linking remaining fragments of woodland, heath or wetland and providing space within which biodiversity can withstand and adapt to climate change.
Ruth DavisE-mail: [email protected]/policy/climatechange
Top priorities for2007Over the coming year, we will fight for:
• A ‘post Kyoto’ agreement, which will drive down global emissions sufficiently to ensure that average temperature rises do not exceed two degrees above pre-industrial levels.
• A mechanism to ensure that the protection and restoration of forests and peatlands is central to the global strategy for limiting climate change.
• A European Emissions Trading Scheme that will reduce emissions to safe levels, and include emissions from aviation.
• A Climate Act in the UK that will deliver at least 3% year on year reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, via a “carbon budget”.
• An end to airport expansion plans, until Governments can demonstrate that air travel will not threaten the achievement of emission reduction targets.
• A strategic approach to delivering renewable energy in harmony, rather than in conflict, with the protection of natural assets, including wildlife.
• Policies to help wildlife adapt to climate change, including support for protected sites; resources to manage the farmed countryside sustainably; and a programme of habitat creation, to provide space for species to withstand and adapt to climate change.
Iceb
urg
s b
y C
yril
Ru
oso
/JH
Ed
ito
rial
/Min
den
Pic
ture
s/FL
PA
Aer
op
lan
e b
y D
ane
Wir
tzfe
ld (
ww
w.is
tock
ph
oto
.co
m)
3636
Case study
Belarus peatprojectPeatlands are one of the most valuable and threatened habitats, supporting many special birds, plants and animals. They are also hugely important as stores of carbon, which is released into the atmosphere in gaseous form when peatlands are damaged or destroyed. Protecting and restoring peatlands is therefore vital to curb climate change and protect biodiversity.
Belarus has a globally important peatland resource. In 1950, before drainage, the overall peatland area was more than two million hectres. This has now, sadly, been reduced by 54% due to peat extraction, conversion to forestry and use for agriculture. The Belarus Peat Project is a $3.2 million Global Environment Fund Partnership project between UNDP-GEF, the Belarusian Committee of Forestry, the APB BirdLife Partner and the RSPB. It aims to restore 17 fen and raised bogs sites covering about 42,000 ha. It will focus on raising the water levels of drained peatlands to restore
peat layers, vegetation communities and encourage recolonisation by globally threatened birds such as the aquatic warbler and the greater spotted eagle. This action will also restore the carbon sink function of the peatlands; research suggests that this will prevent the release of what is equivalent to 0.2 – 0.4 million tonnes of CO2 annually.
As well as restoring the initial 42,000 hectares, the RSPB and its partners are working with the full support of the Belarusian Government, to create a mechanism for restoring all 600,000 ha of degraded peatlands in Belarus in the future. This would be the largest wetland restoration project in Europe, and would result in an avoidance of 12 million tonnes of CO2 emissions annually, estimated to be worth approximately $300 million in the developing carbon market and equivalent to taking four million cars off the road in the UK for a year. Supported by the Ministry of Environmental Protection in Belarus and the German Government CIM Programme, three experts will be recruited to ensure that peatlands are fully accounted for in global climate agreements; to verify the carbon stored in the land; and to value the carbon so that it can be traded in the international carbon market. If successful, the approach
has the potential to be extended to other countries with significant peatlands, such as Ukraine and the Russian Federation.
Zbig KarpowiczE-mail: [email protected]/international/aquatic_warbler
Aq
uat
ic w
arb
ler
by
Mik
e La
ne
(ww
w.r
spb
-im
ages
.co
m)
Distribution of the pilot sites
37
Blueprint for Water
The RSPB has been working with a unique coalition of environmental NGOs and fisheries organisations to set out a shared vision of how to secure a future for wetland biodiversity and provide a sustainable water supply, and meet the requirements of the Water Framework Directive. The Anglers’ Conservation Association, the Association of Rivers Trusts, the National Trust, the Salmon and Trout Association, Waterwise, the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, the Wildlife Trusts, WWF and the RSPB launched ‘Blueprint for Water’ in the House of Commons at the end of November 2006. Collectively these organisations have a wealth of water and wetland knowledge and represent more than six million people.
Despite some improvements in recent decades, the state of our water environment remains in crisis. Huge swathes of England’s wetlands have been lost to drainage while rivers have been embanked, dredged and canalised. Rivers and wetlands are still impacted by abstraction and pollution, pressures which are set to increase as growth in domestic water consumption and urban expansion exacerbate the impacts of climate change. As a result providing clean drinking water is increasingly expensive
and once common wetland birds such as lapwings, snipe and redshanks have suffered dramatic declines. The Blueprint for Water offers clear solutions to these problems and is timed to coincide with the implementation of the Water Framework Directive. It contains detailed steps we must take to protect and restore the ecology of our rivers, lakes and coasts. There are ten headline actions for change, and a clear implementation plan for each contained in the blueprint document18.
Rob CunninghamE-mail: [email protected]/policy/water
Top priorities for2007In its Blueprint for Water the RSPB has joined others to urge Government to:
• waste less water: more efficient water use in homes, buildings and business should lead to a reduction in water use of at least 20%
• keep our rivers flowing and wetlands wet: licences to abstract water that cause damage to rivers, lakes and wetlands should be amended or revoked
• price water fairly: household water bills should reflect the amount of water people use
• support farmers to manage land for water: advice, training and payments should help farmers to prevent diffuse pollution and restore degraded rivers and wetlands
• make polluters pay: more effective enforcement and new incentives should ensure those who damage the water environment bear the costs
• stop pollutants contaminating our water: targeted regulations should significantly reduce the quantity of harmful pollutants reaching our water
• keep sewage out of homes and rivers and off beaches:intermittent discharges of sewage should no longer affect ecologically sensitive areas or urban environments
• clean up drainage from roads and buildings: the quantity of unmanaged contaminants entering rivers and sewers from towns and roads should be significantly reduced
• restore rivers from source to sea:a significant programme of action to restore rivers, lakes and wetlands should be delivered in partnership with local communities
• retain water on floodplains and wetlands: large areas of wetland and floodplains should be restored to create vital wildlife habitats, improve water quality and quantity, and reduce urban flooding.
References:18 For more information see www.blueprintforwater.org.uk
Old
Mo
or
RS
PB
res
erve
by
An
dy
Hay
(w
ww
.rsp
b-i
mag
es.c
om
)
Was
te p
ipe
at b
each
(w
ww
.isto
ckp
ho
to.c
om
)
3838
With the implementation of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the town and country planning system in England has been undergoing major reform.
The Government continues to review and update its planning policies as part of its overall approach to planning reform. The RSPB engaged closely, along with Wildlife and Countryside Link and other non-governmental organisations, with the preparation of Planning Policy Statement (PPS3) on housing, which has a stronger emphasis on the quality of design and the environmental performance of new homes. Concerns were raised that the proposed Planning Gain Supplement (a form of development tax to fund infrastructure requirements) could prejudice the flow of funds for green infrastructure. More positively, the publication of PPS25 on Development and Flood Risk was welcomed as this introduces a more strategic approach to flood risk planning.
The Government’s publication of a draft planning policy statement on climate change provided an important signal about how development needs to be undertaken to reduce carbon emissions. The RSPB continues to argue that equal emphasis should be given to the
need to adapt to climate change, especially on planning for biodiversity.
The RSPB continues to respond to the new-style Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs) and Local Development Frameworks (LDFs), focusing on those LDFs which are important for securing our conservation objectives whether they are related to site protection, water, transport (including airports) or climate change issues.
Despite recent and major reform, the Government has still committed itself to making further ‘fundamental’ changes to the planning system. The forthcoming Planning White Paper should adopt a national spatial framework for England to ensure that sustainable development is kept at the heart of a plan-led system; proposals for economic growth do not threaten the ability for biodiversity to adapt to climate change; the public can have a proper say in major infrastructure and local plans, and the environment is properly valued through the use of assessment tools.
Simon MarshE-mail: [email protected]/policy/planningpolicy
River S
evern b
y An
dy H
ay (ww
w.rsp
b-im
ages.co
m)
Ro
ad traffi
c jam b
y An
dy H
ay (ww
w.rsp
b-im
ages.co
m)
39
Case study
StrategicEnvironmentalAssessmentStrategic Environment Assessment (SEA) is a tool to predict, evaluate and mitigate the environmental impacts of draft plans and programmes before they are adopted. It was given a legal basis in the EU when the SEA Directive (2001/42/EC) was finalised in 2001, and in the UK in 2004 when implementing regulations were adopted.
SEA complements environmental impact assessment (EIA) carried out for projects. It can identify threats and opportunities for biodiversity at the strategic level, when more environmentally sustainable alternatives are available. It can also effectively address cumulative effects, such as habitat loss, which is much more difficult at theproject level.
The RSPB has built up a strong reputation for its SEA knowledge and expertise. We aim to improve the quality of SEA practice in the UK and elsewhere, and particularly to ensure the biodiversity impacts of
plans and programmes are properly identified, evaluated and mitigated. This is achieved both strategically, by promoting good practice to practitioners, government and statutory consultees, and on a case-by-case basis, by advising individual authorities and participating in consultations.
The RSPB promotes good practice by producing SEA guidance; giving talks at conferences, universities and professional training courses; and publishing articles in professional journals.
A booklet of SEA case studies will be published by the RSPB in 2007 showing how SEA can help improve the plan-making process. This will raise the profile of SEA and inspire people to seek the most benefit from it.
The RSPB participates in SEA as a non-statutory consultee, with conservation staff throughout the UK trained and supported to help them understand SEA and to become active participants in the process.
Lisa PalframanE-mail: [email protected]://www.rspb.org.uk/policy/planningpolicy
Rain
ham
Marsh
es RS
PB
reserve by A
nd
y Hay (w
ww
.rspb
-imag
es.com
)
Nig
htjar b
y Mike R
ichard
s (ww
w.rsp
b-im
ages.co
m)
Do
rset heath
land
by A
nd
y Hay (w
ww
.rspb
-imag
es.com
)
4040
Ensuring environmental sustainability in developing countries
Awareness of the importance of ecosystem services to strategies for poverty alleviation has grown in significance in the past 18 months. This has been driven by a series of publications and studies (see references). However, there is growing and alarming evidence that the current development and growth model is failing both the poorest people and the environment on which humans and biodiversity depend. Key messages addressing this were articulated to the UK Government by 46 leading development and environment Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) as part of a joint submission to the 2006 International Development White Paper.
In response to lobbying by the RSPB and others, DFID has agreed that the international community must do more to respond to the growing weight of evidence that climate change and environmental degradation will have a major impact on their core mission of poverty elimination. DFID stresses that the new 2006 White Paper on International Development makes clear the importance of the environment and sustainable use of natural resources to their mission, and that they intend to do more.
Jo PhillipsE-mail: [email protected]
References:19 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC20 UN Task Force on Environmental Sustainability (2005) Environment and human well-being; a practical strategy. New York: UN Millennium Project21 World Resources Institute (2005) World resources 2005: the wealth of the poor – managing ecosystems to fight poverty. UNEP, UNDP, WRI, World Bank22 DFID (2006) Approach to the environment Policy Paper23 Poverty and the Environment Partnership (2005) Sustaining the environment to fight poverty and achieve the MDGs. Environment for the MDGs – a message to the 2005 World Summit prepared by UNDP, UNEP, IIED, IUCN & WRI24 Stern (2006) Stern review on the economics of climate change. HMT Report
Pickin
g tea leaves b
y Ch
arlotte T
heg
e/Still P
ictures
Slu
ms, P
hilip
pin
es. Ceb
u C
ity by M
ark Ed
ward
s/Still P
ictures
41
Top priorities for2007The RSPB will work with others to:
• follow up on environmental opportunities provided by the 2006 International Development White Paper
• ensure the concerns raised by the Environment Audit Committee inquiry into DFID and the environment are properly addressed
• ensure DFID has the necessary environmental capacity and expertise, particularly in its country offices
• work to ensure the Comprehensive Spending Review provides fresh momentum and resources so that priority is given to issues such as climate change and ecosystems protection in supporting poverty elimination.
Wo
rker wo
rking
on
the terraced
rice pad
dies b
y Mark E
dw
ards/S
till Pictu
resFish
erman
in a can
oe b
y Jeremy E
dw
ards (isto
ckph
oto
.com
)
4242
Protecting the blue planet
The EU’s sixth Environmental Action Programme called for a strategy to ‘promote sustainable use of the seas and conserve marine ecosystems’. Following intensive consultation, this call was met in October 2005 with the proposal of a Marine Strategy Directive (MSD). The proposed Directive introduces the objective of ‘Good Environmental Status’ (GES) for EU seas, and requires Member States to produce Marine Strategies to aim to achieve this by 2021.
BirdLife International, with NGO partners, had campaigned for EU legislation to protect marine biodiversity and provide an ecosystem-based approach to managing human activities. However, the proposed Directive falls short of BirdLife’s expectations: GES is not adequately defined and activities under EC competence, such as fisheries, known to cause some of the most severe damage to our seas, are not dealt with definitively.
BirdLife and partners commissioned a Shadow Marine Strategy Directive, to identify amendments and this was promoted with members of the European Parliament and Council as
Puffi
ns b
y An
dy H
ay (rspb
-imag
es.com
)
Ram
sey Island
RS
PB
reserve by B
en H
all (rspb
-imag
es.com
)
43
the proposed Directive entered the co-decision process – a process that is expected to continue through 2007.
An improved MSD will complement the UK Marine Bill, currently under development and long awaited. UK Government proposals for the Bill include the introduction of a planning system at sea, protection for biodiversity through marine protected areas and ecosystem objectives that regulators will have to help deliver. These provisions will put the UK in a strong position to implement the Directive, and the Directive should add value by providing both a legal framework for transboundary impacts to be addressed with other Member States and a more direct route to tackle activities governed by the EC, such as fisheries.
The imperative for a robust MSD is even greater given the current drive toward an EU Maritime Policy aimed at maximising economic opportunities.
Euan Dunn and Sharon ThompsonE-mail: [email protected]/policy/marine
Top priorities for2007In the UK the RSPB will continue to campaign for the introduction of comprehensive marine legislation and will urge Government to introduce a Marine Bill in 2007.
Within Europe, the RSPB will, through BirdLife International, continue to work to ensure that the Marine Strategy Directive delivers to its full potential and to call for:
• clearer objectives – good environmental status of theseas must be explicitly linked to protection and recovery of biodiversity and ecosystems; phasing out pollution; and ensuring sustainable use of resources
• benefits of GES – the costs ofinaction and damage are considered when determining the economic costs of the measures to achieve GES
• Marine Protected Areas – a key tool in delivering biodiversity conservation and recovery
• clarification of Community competence – the Commission should act when activities under EC jurisdiction – eg fisheries – prevent achievement of GES
• tighter derogations – Member States should not derogate from wider environmental targets due to localised impacts
• adaptation – Strategies should be adapted if impacts beyond national control, (eg climate change) hinder the achievement of GES.
Du
nlin
s by A
nd
y Hay (rsp
b-im
ages.co
m)
Co
mm
on
seal by M
ark Ham
blin
(rspb
-imag
es.com
)B
ladd
erwrack seaw
eed b
y An
dy H
ay (rspb
-imag
es.com
)
4444
Top agriculturepriorities for 2007• influencing the agenda for the
CAP Health Check, to include proposals for a) 20% compulsory modulation across Europe, b) the replacement of set-aside with an equivalent amount of habitat creation in intensive agricultural areas, and c) full decoupling across the whole of the CAP, to be implemented within the 2007–2013 Financial Perspective
• the EU Budget review must create a single EU rural development fund for the Financial Perspective starting in 2014, expanded from the current rural development regulation and replacing Pillar I, used to secure the public benefits supplied by land management.
Agriculture reform – towards 2008/9 EU budget review
The EU Summit in December 2005 concluded that the Commission would undertake a full, wide-ranging review covering all aspects of EU spending, including the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). This is scheduled for 2008/9. Running parallel to this, the CAP Health Check, which was agreed to in the 2003 reforms, will take place in 2008 with implementation from 2009. These two reviews represent important opportunities to influence the future of rural support to secure a better environment.
Commissioner Fischer Boel has described the process as ‘One vision, two steps’, and the RSPB believes that it is essential to link the two events to deliver real progress for the farmed environment and its communities across Europe.
The RSPB, working with BirdLife International partners in Brussels and across the EU, will advocate for a high level of compulsory modulation across the EU as part of the health check, and for the funds raised to be used to support environmentally beneficial farming in each country. This will be particularly important as the health check is expected to phase out the use of set-aside, which currently delivers important environmental benefits, particularly outside the UK.
We see this as a vital step – expanding rural development scheme across the EU in preparation for the inevitable end of traditional subsidies. This will provide farmers and administrators with a stepping stone towards more fundamental CAP reform.
One of the guiding principles for the EU Budget review should be to ensure that the Budget is true to sustainable development principles, and is allocated according to the policy objectives of the EU. As part of this, the RSPB will therefore call for the CAP Pillar I (traditional support for farmers) to be subsumed into an expanded Pillar II (rural development payments) to form a new single Rural Development Fund, charged with delivering the EU’s commitments for sustainable land use for food, fuel and fibre production, ecosystem services, biodiversity, and a sustainable rural economy.
Sue Armstrong-BrownE-mail: [email protected]/policy/agriculture
Co
nservatio
n h
eadlan
d b
y Ray K
enn
edy (rsp
b-im
ages.co
m)
Grey p
artridg
e by C
hris K
nig
hts (rsp
b-im
ages.co
m)
45
Case study
BiofuelsBiofuels offer the opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transport, but the role that they can play is limited by the large amount of land required and the potential impact this could have on birds and biodiversity. Furthermore, the GHG emissions savings on offer vary widely between biofuels and production methods.
The RSPB has been working to promote biofuels as part of a strategy that prioritises reducing demand and energy efficiency, and has been leading the call for certification to be introduced to ensure environmental standards are being met and GHG savings delivered.
The RSPB has consistently underlined the importance of linking any incentives for biofuels to such a certification scheme, so that support is provided only to those biofuels that are delivering significant and proven GHG savings. We are concerned that without such a system, policies to support biofuels could fail to deliver their environmental objectives by incentivising environmentally harmful activities such as rainforest deforestation.
Government has taken a step in the right direction, introducing a reporting mechanism to the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation that will require obligated companies to disclose information about the environmental impact of their fuels and the GHG savings achieved. The RSPB has been working as part of the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership to develop the criteria that companies will report against.
In the UK, the RSPB is campaigning for the reporting mechanism to evolve into a system of minimum standards as early as possible. In the EU, the RSPB is supporting BirdLife International’s efforts to have a similar system established across Europe, and helped put on a major conference in Brussels to discuss how this could be done as part of the revision of the Biofuels Directive.
Harry HuytonE-mail: [email protected]/policy/bioenergy
Oilseed rape and palm oil can be used to make biodiesel. The RSPB is working to ensure that policy promotes biofuels that offer significant and proven greenhouse gas savings and do not cause the destruction of globally important habitats such as Indonesian rainforest.
Rap
e seed b
y An
dy H
ay (rspb
-imag
es.com
)D
estructio
n o
f Ind
on
esian rain
forest b
y Marco
Lamb
ertini, B
irdLife In
ternatio
nal
f1 on
line / A
lamy
4646
Restoring lostbiodiversity
Corncrakes are being reintroduced to
Cambridgeshire in a trial that could see them restored to
other grasslands in England
Halting the loss of biodiversity and tackling the impacts of climate change requires landscape-scale habitat restoration. The RSPB is delivering ambitious projects such as lowland heath and blanket bog restoration, chalk grassland re-creation and coastal realignment. Tools are also being developed to enable others to think big, and work to ensure that the full array of biodiversity can be returned to the countryside.
Co
astal flo
od
defen
ce by A
nd
y Hay (rsp
b-im
ages.co
m)
Co
rncrake b
y Ch
ris Go
mersall (rsp
b-im
ages.co
m)
47
Top priorities for2007• re-invigorating habitat re-creation
through new commitments in the comprehensive spending review to ensure that wildlife is resilient to climate change and ecosystem services are sustained
• revitalising the England Biodiversity Strategy and funding mechanisms to deliver large-scale habitat creation and restoration that provides new places for wildlife to flourish
• pressing the Government to undertake ambitious programmes of habitat creation on its own estate, particularly on land belonging to the Forestry Commission and the Ministry of Defence
• working with Natural England to reintroduce bird species to their former ranges, such as the white-tailed eagle, corncrake, cirl bunting and crane.
Julian HughesE-mail: [email protected]/biodiversity
The RSPB has made a major start in its work to restore 68
square miles of blanket bog in Northern Scotland’s Flow Country, damaged by forestry in the 1980s.
Such pioneering work is essential if our most vulnerable habitats are to
resist environmental degradation.
Vane Farm
RS
PB
reserve by A
nd
y Hay (rsp
b-im
ages.co
m)Va
ne
Farm
RS
PB
res
erve
by
An
dy
Hay
(rsp
b-im
ages
.co
m)
4848
Case study
SpeciesreintroductionsThe RSPB sees species reintroductions as a valuable tool for conservation. Their primary purpose is to re-establish native species in habitats from which they have become extinct due to factors including human persecution and habitat deterioration, but where these factors can now be controlled. They can also contribute to the long-term survival of species by extending their range. Species reintroductions can act as flagship projects, encouraging wider adoption of conservation-friendly land-uses, encouraging partnerships and generating popular support and publicity for conservation.
The RSPB is working in partnership with Natural England, Paignton Zoo and the National Trust to reintroduce cirl buntings to Cornwall. This UK BAP priority species was formerly distributed across southern Britain but the population collapsed due to a reduction in available food and suitable nest sites. Following research, a suite of agri-environment prescriptions was developed to
provide the bird’s needs in south Devon – its last stronghold. Changes in land management, supported by government grants, have seen the population recover to around 700 pairs, but with no corresponding expansion in range. Re-introducing cirl buntings to parts of their former range is a means of safeguarding their future. In 2006, 72 birds were released to an area of Cornwall where cirl buntings were present until the 1990s and a significant area of farmland has recently been restored to provide suitable habitat. Releases will continue for several years.
Reintroduction projects need to be carefully designed and executed, otherwise they may fail to deliver real conservation benefit, and divert attention away from more appropriate in situ conservation actions. Successful projects tend to be costly and may take years to complete. This effort will often be repaid, however, in benefits to local communities. For example, it has been shown that the local economy on Mull, off the west coast of Scotland, benefits by around £1.5 million per annum from visitors coming to see the reintroduced population of white-tailed eagles25.Similar benefits might be expected from the planned reintroduction
of white-tailed eagles to eastern England, by Natural England in partnership with the RSPB amongst others.
Dave HoccomE-mail: [email protected]/species
References:25 http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/watchedlikeneverbefore_tcm5-101241.pdf
Cirl b
un
ting
by C
hris G
om
ersall (rspb
-imag
es.com
)
Cirl b
un
ting
hab
itat by A
nd
y Hay (rsp
b-im
ages.co
m)
Juven
ile wh
ite-tailed eag
le by Jan
Sevcik (rsp
b-im
ages.co
m)
49
Case study
The future ofthe state’sforestsPublic spending on forestry, whether management of the state forest or grant aid to private owners, should prioritise biodiversity, recreation and amenity benefits, not timber production. This was the advice accepted by Government following an economic analysis of English forestry policy26. The custodians of the state’s forests, including Forestry Commission England (FCE) and the Ministry of Defence (MoD), can produce high quality biodiversity outcomes through targeted management of existing native woods and plantation forestry. This includes re-creating priority habitats on land of low wildlife and public value, such as non-native conifer plantations.
The RSPB has a vision for the area of lowland heathland in England (currently 58,000 ha) to be doubled by 2040. This represents a minimum conservation effort required to return England’s heathlands to a sustainable ecological and management footing.
With over 61,000 ha of former heathland under plantation forestry on FCE and MoD landholdings27, conservation initiatives by these bodies alone could achieve this expansion target. In reality, the contribution of the state’s forests will be supported by re-creation work on other public and private land, including from agriculture and minerals extraction, and the continued major contribution of the voluntary sector.
The public benefits of habitat restoration are clear. The case for action to restore plantations on ancient woodland sites is accepted and an equally persuasive one exists for open habitats. Government policy and spending need to be aligned to enable major new restoration initiatives in the state’s forests, with FCE well placed to lead these projects.
Habitat restoration is not cheap. Adequate funding must be made available to enable work over 10 years and more. However, this need not be solely new money. Re-focusing management of the state’s forests to achieve specific public benefits would make a significant contribution. Placing a moratorium on re-stocking non-
native conifers on former heathland could achieve substantial habitat re-creation at a comparable cost to the taxpayer.
A strategic approach to re-creation work is needed, with Government committing to facilitate action in the state’s forests through implementation of the revised England Forestry Strategy and England Biodiversity Strategy.
Mike Wood and Fiona HunterE-mail: [email protected]/policy/forestry
References:26 CJC consulting with Pearce D and Willis K (2003) Economic analysis of forestry policy in England. Report to the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and HM Treasury.27 RSPB Heathland Extent and Potential GIS mapping project.
Forestry p
lantatio
n o
f pin
e and
larch b
y An
dy H
ay (rspb
-imag
es.com
)
Heath
land
land
scape b
y An
dy H
ay (rspb
-imag
es.com
)
5050
Case studyNature afterminerals:extractingbenefits for allat mineral sites
Creating habitat allows us to redress historical loss of wildlife habitats, and mineral sites provide a perfect opportunity for doing so. As a temporary land-use they must be restored at the end of their working lives, and this applies to huge areas of land across England – over 64,000 ha in 2005.
The Minerals Restoration Potential project began in 200528 to understand the potential contribution the minerals industry could make to UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitat creation targets, whether this potential is being met, and if not, how delivery could be improved.
Assessing the potential for creating priority habitat on each of the 1,300 sites in England was no easy task, but a Geographical Information System (GIS) made analysis on this scale possible. The results were staggering. Vast areas of habitat
could be created, with Government targets potentially exceeded for 9 of 11 priority habitats investigated. However, comparing this potential with current end-use plans shows that most opportunities are being missed.
The report ‘Nature After Minerals’helps all involved in the decision-making process of minerals planning to recognise the changes required to facilitate appropriate habitat creation on mineral sites. In addition, the design and launch of the ‘After Minerals’ interactive website in February 2007 allows users to select any of the active mineral sites in England and see the habitat(s) that could be created there and how to implement their creation, putting this crucial information, for the first time, at their finger tips.
The next stage will realise this potential and extend its application to future extraction sites, so that restoration leaves a legacy that benefits both biodiversity and local communities.
Alice DaviesE-mail: [email protected]
References:28 Funding for this project was provided by Defra through the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) Sustainable Land-Won and Marine Dredged Aggregate Minerals Programme, which is
managed by the Minerals Industry Research Organisation (MIRO)
Gravel q
uarry/w
orkin
gs n
ear Lydd
, Ken
t by D
avid K
jaer (rspb
-imag
es.com
)
San
dw
ell Valley RS
PB
Reserve b
y David
Levenso
n (rsp
b-im
ages.co
m)
Bu
llfin
ch b
y Mark H
amb
lin (rsp
b-im
ages.co
m)
Restoring mineral sites could provide valuable habitat for wildlife, and green space for people, on a huge scale.
51
As a charity, in order to carry out its policy, advocacy and conservation work, the RSPB depends on the goodwill and financial support of people like you. If you would like to join the RSPB, or donate to our work, please see www.rspb.org.uk/supporting or call 01767 68551 to find out more.
Bar-tailed
go
dw
its by M
ark Ham
blin
(rspb
-imag
es.com
)
52
The RSPB
UK HeadquartersThe Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire SG19 2DLTel: 01767 680551
Northern Ireland HeadquartersBelvoir Park Forest, Belfast BT8 7QTTel: 028 9049 1547
Scotland HeadquartersDunedin House, 25 Ravelston Terrace, Edinburgh EH4 3TPTel: 0131 311 6500
Wales HeadquartersSutherland House, Castlebridge, Cowbridge Road East, Cardiff CF11 9ABTel: 029 2035 3000
As a charity, the RSPB depends on the goodwill and financial supportof people like you. Please visit www.rspb.org.uk/supportingor call 01767 680551 to find out more.
Front cover: climate change campaigners by Grahame Madge, RSPB
Registered charity England & Wales no 207076, Scotland no SCO37654 020-0736-06-07
The RSPB is the UK charity working to
secure a healthy environment for birds
and wildlife, helping to create a better
world for us all. We belong to Birdlife
International, the global partnership of
bird conservation organisations.
www.rspb.org.uk