|
Back to ENVIRONMENT Homepage
PEOPLE TOO RESPONSE TO A “CALL FOR EVIDENCE”:
CONSULTATION ON
THE NATURE CONSERVATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
(Filed 20 Nov 03)
www.land-care.org.uk
20th November, 2003
PART 1 : BIODIVERSITY
1. DEFINING BIODIVERSITY
The current UK commitment to Biological
Diversity, in so far as it includes conservation of species and
habitats, is too narrowly based on protectionism. This is the root
cause of the conflict between nature conservation and other forms
of land management.
Article 8(j) of the Berne Convention on Biological
Diversity requires nations to
“respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and
practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional
lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity”
while the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment
and Development states as a key principle that
“Local communities have a vital role in environmental management
and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices.”
In Scotland the communities answering these descriptions
do not have a role in conservation policy making. Their practical
skills are excluded by a system which gives power to scientists.
Social and economic factors are still not being integrated with
conservation policy in this bill. Introducing a duty to protect
biodiversity on these terms will create more restrictions in rural
areas via local government and public bodies with the greatest negative
impact falling on the planning system.
2. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Conservation of biodiversity is part of a larger
commitment to sustainable development. There is a government scientific
agency to champion the cause of biodiversity (Scottish Natural Heritage)
but no corresponding body whose remit it is to provide a balancing
socio-economic view. A system has evolved where interests are consulted
but conservationists alone have a veto over policy. The bill will
reinforce this inequitable situation.
3. SCOTTISH BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY (SBS)
Not only is the concept of an SBS introduced in
the bill but there is pressure from the Royal Society for the Protection
of Birds in particular to ensure that the Scottish Executive “must”
rather than “may” designate it. The implications of such
a strategy are not clear. What is certain is that a recent study,
The Status of Traditional Scottish Animal Breeds and Plant Varieties
and the Implications for Biodiversity (funded by the SE Agricultural
and Biological Research Group Flexible Fund, 2002) highlighted the
fact that as regards the native breeds of cattle and sheep which
dominate land use in the north and west -
“A review of the research which has been conducted on the
role and performance of rare and traditional Scottish breeds of
sheep and cattle indicated that virtually no research has been
conducted on the role of these breeds in maintenance or enhancement
of biodiversity, nor on their wider socio-economic role.”
SNH and environmental pressure groups claiming
to be science-driven are keen to change the law so that they dictate
what is and what is not appropriate land management, despite the
fact that huge gaps in very basic research and understanding exist.
The lack of a proper body of reference material on the links between
traditional land management and biodiversity may also affect the
ability of the Land Court to take on conservation disputes as part
of its role as a court of appeal.
4. SBS LINK TO Sites that are not of Special
Scientific Interest (Non-SSSIs)
Through the activities of pressure groups a SBS
may be nothing more than a conservation Wish List for selected species’
protection. This in turn may unduly influence SNH’s selection
of new areas of “special” land for protection.
PART 2 : Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)
Our objection in principle to this bill is based
partly on the view that SNH is not a fit organisation to carry out
the duties assigned to it. Nothing in the bill materially alters
SNH’s operation. What changes there are benefit conservation
groups and environmental activists in rural areas.
So-called major improvements to the SSSI regulating
system are exaggerated.
5. SNH CONSULTATION
SNH will still select, define and draw boundaries
to designate SSSIs. Only at the advanced stage of notification will
consultation begin. This is now widened to include broader interests
but this “improved” consultation is rendered worthless
by two facts :
(a) there are no proposals to dilute the scientific
criteria for selection so all consultees will find themselves in
the same position as farmers and landowners over the last 10 years,
i.e. having to find scientific data in order to lobby for or against
the designations;
(b) the new duty to consult widely will only
apply to new SSSIs and extensions but virtually all sites have now
been designated.
The Policy Memorandum is therefore misleading
at # 8 where it says the bill will allow stakeholder input into
“decisions about the selection, notification and subsequent
management of SSSIs”. The only stakeholders to benefit here
are the pro-SSSI scientists, monitors, site surveyors and local
environmentalists who set the priorities, provide the data and give
“local support” to bolster the scientific criteria which
underpin conservation policy. In practice it will be possible to
lobby for a conservation designation (with sympathetic funding from
SNH) but virtually impossible to stop one. This discriminates against
all land managers.
6. SITE MANAGEMENT STATEMENTS
Exaggerated claims are made about their ability
to incorporate socio-economic factors.
The site-based Statements are firstly produced
by SNH without consultation with the land manager; they are underpinned,
like SSSIs, by scientific criteria - in this case on a Site Condition
Monitoring Programme. There is no reference to this programme in
the bill but according to SNH each SSSI will be surveyed using standard
UK methods and targets to assess the “health” of features
of interest.
This surveying is carried out randomly on a site
by site basis, not on an owner/occupier basis. Thus, through the
actions of any one person occupying or visiting the site, the whole
site may be given a negative grading.
7. POTENTIALLY DAMAGING OPERATIONS
Much has also been made of the abolition of these
unpopular lists but they are simply being replaced (within 6 years
of the bill becoming law) by “Operations Requiring Consent
(ORC) ” which may also be in list form.
As pointed out at 6, if the future scientific
monitoring of SSSIs is to be site rather than individual owner/occupier
based, we assume the “ORC” list will also be site-based.
For those people living on large SSSIs, particularly in the Highlands
and Islands, this falls far short of what is required – i.e.
restrictions and also incentives that are specific to the area of
land managed at individual level.
The responsibility of the individual owner/occupier
towards the overall state of the site itself needs clarification,
given that SNH can exercise its power to compulsorily purchase land
in order to secure its conservation interest and given that dozens
of people can share that responsibility on many sites.
8. NEW SNH POWERS
We are opposed to SNH gaining/retaining powers
to impose Land Management Orders/Nature Conservation Orders for
the following reasons :
(a) The SNH modus operandi, including current
staff recruitment, is based on academic scientific criteria and
focuses on the implementation of policy, not on actual land management
and the impacts of policy/market forces, which is what LMOs and
NCOs are all about;
(b) SNH and the Scottish Executive Environment
Group claim that there will be no real increase in NCOs and that
the new LMO will be rare; we disagree.
The 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act and the
1991 Natural Heritage Act gave the NCC/SNH the ultimate sanction
of compulsorily purchasing land to prevent damage to an SSSI. But
damage then was popularly understood to mean burning, quarrying,
tree planting or bulldozing – i.e. indisputable destruction
of the site.
Now the definition of “damage” is being
broadened to imply inappropriate land management – in the opinion
of SNH and/or like-minded groups. There are already major disagreements
between land managers and SNH regarding the definition of “overgrazing”,
for example. We therefore anticipate a substantial rise in the volume
of such disputes which will affect the financial forecast accompanying
this bill;
(c) Compulsory purchase of land is accepted
as a means of delivering public benefit, like road widening or schools
and hospitals. A new justification for compulsorily purchasing land
for the sake of nature conservation, however, is not at all transparent
nor based on widespread popular support. The scientific criteria,
the surveying, the inter-agency/partnership discussion, the ranking
of species in order of priority and the ultimate purpose of any
such compulsory purchase are all part of a secretive and exclusive
process which is not open to public scrutiny.
9. DAMAGE TO EXISTING SSSIs
“45% of SSSIs in Scotland are deteriorating”
– this claim has recently been made before the Environment
and Rural Development Committee. If the Committee accepts it is
true, it cannot also accept SNH’s and the Scottish Executive
Environmental Group’s claim that the impact of the bill on
land management will be financially modest.
45% of SSSIs represents over 1m acres. If, on
the other hand, the Committee shares the PEOPLE TOO view that Scotland’s
natural heritage is in good heart, why do we require a draconian
bill to strengthen SSSI protection at all?
PART 3 : WILDLIFE CRIME
10. CORE PROBLEM
Wildlife crime is a symptom of an important and
widespread problem which this bill does not tackle – the lack
of willingness on the part of SNH to resolve conservation and socio-economic
disputes swiftly, effectively and fairly. This core issue is constantly
being overshadowed by sensational stories about poisoned raptors.
OTHER MATTERS
11. EXPLANATORY DOCUMENTS
The Policy Memorandum’s upbeat description
of the bill and the actual content of the bill do not tally. Overall,
the burdens and restrictions on those people living within SSSIs
will be increased and more freedoms removed without compensation.
The reduction in red tape for land managers will be minimal. Paragraphs
49 – 56 make totally bogus claims about the bill delivering
transparency, protecting the right to enjoy private property, allowing
freedom of information and not discriminating against islands.
12. FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES
(a) The UK civil service is equipped to
assess the financial consequences of the bill’s implementation
on its own bureaucracy but not its impact on the rural economy and
land values. Independent advice must be sought on this important
issue.
(b) The suppression of new ideas and freedom
of choice will have dire social and economic consequences for those
rural areas affected by conservation restrictions. Some of the most
heavily designated local authority areas in the country are also
facing severe rural depopulation. Is there a connection?12. (Con’t)
(c) The only focus on SNH’s budget
management has been on that “proportion of the money available
to support SSSI management” which “has been taken up by
large payments to a few landowners to prevent damaging developments
from going ahead” (Draft Financial Guidelines - repeated @
19 of the Policy Memorandum).
Would it not be timely to address the fact that
55% of SNH’s annual budget is spent on its own staff wages
and administration?
(d) A relatively small sum is to be added
to the SNH budget for new management schemes. (“Positive management
payments” for geese alone presently cost about £1m per
annum). The calculations of payments on agricultural land assume
a financial underpinning via the Common Agricultural Policy which
is currently in complete disarray and there are no calculations
at all for the bill’s effects on non-agricultural enterprises.
13. CONSULTATION
As the figures show for both this draft bill and
the related Biodiversity consultation, very few people in Scotland
are interested in this whole policy area. The main pressure for
change is coming from conservation groups with a vested interest
in increasing their influence and grant-aided income.
SEERAD did not consult directly with those individuals
whose land is affected by SSSIs and European site legislation. As
a result, SNH must be asked to renegotiate the terms of all individual
SSSIs and non-SSSI SACs and SPAs.
We note that RSPB employees appeared 3 times
before the Environment and Rural Development Committee to give oral
evidence – Jo Lenthall, Scotland LBAP Project Officer; Lloyd
Austin, LINK; and Dave Dick, RSPB Senior Investigations Officer.
Is the Scottish Parliament interested in the views of ordinary people
or just those of large corporations?
14. URGENT MEASURES REQUIRED
(a ) Advisory Committee on Sites of
Scientific Interest (ACSSI)
Greater authority must be given to the Advisory
Committee on SSSIs to police SNH’s scientific standards, to
compel SNH to accept its rulings on SSSI objections, to highlight
areas of research which are not being adequately covered and to
explore ways in which objectors to SSSIs and conservation designations
have equal access to scientific material.
There is also a role for the ACSSSI to play in
settling disputes between land managers and SNH in addition to a
final appeal route through the Land Court;
(b) Scrutiny OF SNH
SNH cannot continue to be self-policing. An independent
complaints procedure must be established to cover all aspects of
SNH’s work.
The current system of bringing a complaint through
SNH with further recourse to the Ombudsman via one’s local
MSP is failing to provide the service required.
A number of petitions have been presented to Parliament
since 1999 out of sheer frustration with SNH’s all-powerful
position. These petitions have been terminated by a toothless committee
system. Where is the environmental justice for the petitioners?
(c) The future of conservation Policy
The previous parliament’s Rural Development
Committee heard evidence from all over rural Scotland which confirmed
that SNH is seen as one of the main barriers to Sustainable Development.
This bill will exacerbate an already serious situation.
People Too
20th November 2003
|
