the countryside and conservation · ii nature conservation sites and legislation there have been...

RESEARCH PAPER 00/3016 MARCH 2000

The Countryside andRights of Way Bill –Wildlife andConservationBill 78 of 1999-2000

This paper is concerned with Parts III and IV of theCountryside and Rights of Way Bill, which is scheduledto receive its Second Reading on Monday 20 March.This paper deals with the wildlife and conservationaspects of the Bill.

The provisions for protection of sites of specialscientific interest (SSSIs) follow those set out in theDETR Sites of Special Scientific Interest: betterprotection and management. The Government’sFramework for Action document. (August 1999)Where notified SSSIs exist the Bill intends tostrengthen the protections provided by suchdesignation; improve notification procedures andintroduce the power to denotify sites. The Bill alsoseeks to increase penalties for damaging both SSSIsand other wildlife and nature sites.

The Bill will grant extended powers to wildlifeinspectors for the enforcement of wildlife legislationand will provide powers for enforcing the restoration ofsome damaged sites and managing other sites indanger.

This Bill extends to England and Wales only.

Grahame Allen

SOCIAL AND GENERAL STATISTICS SECTION

HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY

Stephen McGinness

SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENT SECTION

Library Research Papers are compiled for the benefit of Members of Parliament and theirpersonal staff. Authors are available to discuss the contents of these papers with Members andtheir staff but cannot advise members of the general public. Any comments on ResearchPapers should be sent to the Research Publications Officer, Room 407, 1 Derby Gate, London,SW1A 2DG or e-mailed to [email protected]

ISSN 1368-8456

Recent Library Research Papers include:

00/15 The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill: ‘Age of Consent’ and abuse 07.02.00

of a position of trust [Bill 55 of 1999-2000]

00/16 Licensing (Young Persons) Bill 1999-2000 [Bill 14 of 1999-2000] 09.02.00

00/17 The Parliamentary Oath 14.02.00

00/18 Postal Services Bill [Bill 54 of 1999-2000] 11.02.00

00/19 Unemployment by Constituency, January 2000 16.02.00

00/20 European Defence: from Pörtschach to Helsinki 21.02.00

00/21 Economic Indicators 01.03.00

00/22 The Health Service Commissioners (Amendment) Bill [Bill 15 of 1999-2000] 01.03.00

00/23 The Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill

[Bill 73 of 1999-2000] 03.03.00

00/24 The National Lottery 08.03.00

00/25 The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill [Bill 64 of 1999-2000] 03.03.00

00/26 The Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill (Revised edition)

[Bill 16 of 1999-2000] 07.03.00

00/27 The Race Relations Amendment Bill [HL] Bill 60 of 1999-2000 08.03.00

00/28 Unemployment by Constituency, February 2000 15.03.00

00/29 Unemployment by Constituency, Revised rates 15.03.00

Research Papers are available as PDF files:

• to members of the general public on the Parliamentary web site,URL: http://www.parliament.uk

• within Parliament to users of the Parliamentary Intranet,URL: http://hcl1.hclibrary.parliament.uk

Summary of main points

The wildlife and nature conservation provisions within the Bill have been anticipated for aconsiderable time. Since Labour won the last General Election with a promise to improvewildlife protection in their manifesto, there has been speculation as to the extent ofimprovements to wildlife law.

While the provisions of the Bill have, in general, been welcomed by most wildlife and natureconservation groups, there has been some disappointment expressed at the fact that thelegislation has not been more wide ranging. There is no inclusion of Areas of OutstandingNatural Beauty within statutory protection measures; there is no legal underpinning of theprocess resulting in Biodiversity Action Plans; there is no duty on local authorities tomaintain wildlife sites and there is no mention of marine habitats or marine speciesprotection.

The response from landowners has been one of qualified welcome. It is felt that the powersgranted by the Bill should be seen as measures of last resort for use when reasonablemanagement agreements cannot be reached with the owners/occupiers of an SSSI.

There has also been a general feeling, from all concerned, that the Government must ensurethat the changes and improvements in management and enforcement are accompanied byadequate funding for the conservation agencies (English Nature and the Countryside Councilfor Wales). As the Government have announced increased funding for English Nature this ismore an issue for the CCW as the Welsh Assembly is now responsible for the funding ofsuch activity.

CONTENTS

I Introduction 7

II Nature Conservation Sites and Legislation 9

A. Statistical Data on Wildlife and Nature Conservation 15

1. Prosecutions and convictions under the Wildlife and Countryside Act1981 15

2. Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) 16

III Recent Parliamentary Debate 21

A. The Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty Bill [HL] 1998/99 21

B. The Wildlife Bill [Bill 252] 1997-98 23

IV Sites of Special Scientific Interest 25

A. Protection and Management 25

B. Criticisms of the SSSI system 26

C. SSSI Adjournment Debate 28

V The Current Bill 32

A. Immediate Reaction to the Bill 32

1. Non-Governmental Organisations 32

2. Government Agencies and Political Parties 34

B. Provisions of the Bill 36

1. Sites of Special Scientific Interest 36

2. Enforcement of Wildlife Legislation 38

3. Other Provisions of the Bill for the Countryside 39

RESEARCH PAPER 00/30

7

I Introduction

The countryside holds a special place in the hearts of many people both urban and rural: thereexists an idyllic picture of “England’s green and pleasant land”. There is little truly wildcountryside left in England and Wales and, for many people, the view of the countryside isnot wild woods and mountains but rolling fields and well managed hedges.

There is no precise definition of ‘countryside’ used by the Countryside Agency but itgenerally refers to land outside built up areas. The Department of the Environment carriedout a Countryside Survey which reported that 88% of England is countryside of which over70% is arable land or managed grassland.1

Rural areas are defined as those wards or postcode sectors which are outside settlements of10,000 or more people. Rural parishes are those which have a resident population of 10,000or less. There are 9,677 such parishes in England.2

The character of the land tends to reflect the history of the area and the use to which the landhas been put over the past few centuries. The Countryside Agency have launched aCountryside Character Initiative that aims to:

look at the whole of England’s countryside - rather than just specific designated areas- and provide a consistent national framework within which more detailed locallandscape assessments would sit.3

In the past, conservation of the countryside has been approached in a less holistic fashion,attempting to identify the important bits and provide protection for those. This has led to apiecemeal approach and a patchwork of legislation which is not held, by wildlife groups andconservation agencies, to have accomplished the conservation of the countryside nor thewildlife that once flourished in it.4

The State of the Countryside 19995 reports that over half the English population wish to livein the countryside but that a third of the population expressed some concern about the qualityof countryside. The 1996 British Social Attitudes Survey reported that 47% of respondentsbelieved the countryside to have changed for the worse over the previous 20 years, asopposed to the 12% that believed it to have changed for the better. It was also noted thatwhilst fewer than half of those living in cities or the suburbs were content with their way oflife, 89% of countryside dwellers were content with living there.

1 Department of Environment, Countryside Survey 1990, January 19932 The Countryside Agency, The state of the countryside 19993 http://www.countryside.gov.uk/what/cci1.htm4 Graham Harvey, The Killing of the Countryside, 19975 The Countryside Agency, The state of the countryside, 1999

http://www.countryside.gov.uk/what/cci1.htm


8

The three main concerns expressed with regard to the countryside were development,pollution and the removal of hedges and woods. These concerns were expressed by at leasttwice as often as other concerns.6

The Labour Party in their 1997 election manifesto promised to ‘ensure greater protection forwildlife’. There has been considerable speculation since the election amongst wildlife andcountryside groups as to the nature of a countryside bill. Among the hopes of theseorganisations have been:

• stronger penalties for wildlife crime• better protection for wildlife sites such as SSSI and AONB;• better protection for hedgerows and landscape features;• the legal underpinning of the Biodiversity Action Plan; and• some consideration of how the marine environment might be protected.

In Scotland, responsibility for the environment is now largely devolved. Thus the ScottishParliament will be responsible for producing legislation to update or alter the Wildlife andCountryside Act 1981 (WCA) as it applies in Scotland. Schedule 10 of the current Bill makesconsequential amendments to the WCA to reflect this change.

6 Countryside Commission, Public Attitudes to the Countryside, 1997


9

II Nature Conservation Sites and Legislation

There have been only a few major Acts of Parliament which address the countryside and thepreservation of wildlife and wildlife habitats. The first of these, the National Parks andAccess to the Countryside Act 1949, provided the beginnings of many of the bodies andmechanisms used today.

The National Parks Commission set up under the 1949 Act became first the CountrysideCommission (1968) and then the Countryside Agency (1999). Between 1951 and 1957 tennational parks were established under this Act. A special case, The Broads, was added in1989. The Broads are not legally a national park; they were set up under the Norfolk andSuffolk Broads Act 1988 rather than the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act1949. They are, however, usually considered part of the national parks group and arereported on within the Association of National Park Authorities Annual Reviews. There havebeen repeated calls for the New Forest and the South Downs to be added to the list of nationalparks. After receiving advice from the Countryside Commission, Protecting our FinestCountryside, the first steps were taken to do so in September last year.7

The next major piece of countryside legislation was the Countryside Act 1968 whichestablished the Countryside Commission and provided new powers for local authorities toestablish country parks. The Act also made provision (section 11) that:

In the exercise of their functions relating to land under any enactment every Minister,governing department and public body shall have regard to the desirability ofconserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside.8

The 1968 Act also made provision for the establishment of management agreements betweenconservation agencies and the owners of SSSIs. These agreements were, however, to forgodevelopment rights rather than to positively manage the site.

Following this was the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 that provided extensive protectionfor a whole range of wildlife species and habitats. The Act extended protection given towildlife sites to provide control over damaging activities by the owners, or occupiers, of sites.The motivation for this legislation was the perceived damage caused by agricultural activityon, or near, the sites of interest.9

Though there have been subsequent changes to the way in which conservation has beenmanaged through Government, there has been little change to the national legislative basis ofnature and wildlife conservation. There has been a raft of European and international

7 Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions 953/ENV, First steps to create new nationalparks, 29 September 1999

8 Section 11; Countryside Act 19689 M Shoard, The Theft of the Countryside, 1981


10

agreements and pieces of legislation which have, in conjunction with national legislation,provided us with the following list of sites:

World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites are areas of global natural and/or cultural significance,nominated by the state within which they are situated, the nominations then beingconsidered by a World Heritage Committee of Party States. Sites that are acceptedare placed on the World Heritage List. World Heritage Sites must have strict legalprotection and any management of the site must ensure that this continues.

Biosphere ReservesBiosphere Reserves represent globally significant examples of biomes (biologicalcommunities) for both terrestrial and coastal environments. They have particularvalue as benchmarks or standards for the measurement of long-term changes in thebiosphere as a whole. They were devised by UNESCO under Project No. 8 of theirMan and the Biosphere (MAB) ecological programme, and were launched in 1970.Criteria and guidelines for selection of sites were produced by an UNESCO task forcein 1974. Although Biosphere Reserves are not always statutory protected areas, allBritish sites are also National Nature Reserves.

Biogenetic ReservesIn 1973 the European Ministerial Conference on the Environment recommended thata European network of reserves to conserve representative examples of Europeanflora, fauna and natural areas be established. All sites in the UK are existing Sites ofSpecial Scientific Interest (SSSIs), and most are also National Nature Reserves(NNRs).

Wetlands of international importance (Ramsar sites)Ramsar sites are statutory areas designated by the UK government on the advice ofthe conservation agencies under the Ramsar Convention (the Convention on wetlandsof international importance especially as waterfowl habitat). Contracting parties (ofwhich the UK is one) are required to designate wetlands of international importanceand to promote their conservation and ’wise use’. Ramsar sites are designated fortheir waterfowl populations, their important plant and animal assemblages, theirwetland interest or a combination of these: all Ramsar sites have first to be designatedas Sites of Special Scientific Interest.

Special Protection AreasThe 1979 EC Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (the Birds Directive)requires member states to take conservation measures particularly for certain rare orvulnerable species and for regularly occurring migratory species of birds. In part thisis achieved through the designation of statutory Special Protection Areas (SPAs) bythe UK government on the advice of the statutory conservation agencies. Thisdesignation is implemented through the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981; all SPAshave first to be notified as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs).

Special Areas of ConservationThe designation of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) is one of the mainmechanisms by which the EC Habitats & Species Directive (1992) is implemented.


11

SACs are areas identified as outstanding examples of selected habitat types or areasimportant for the continued well-being or survival of selected non-bird species in aEuropean context. In the UK, the Directive is implemented through the Conservation(Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 (DoE 1994); all SACs have first to benotified as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). A list of ’possible’ SACs wasannounced by the Government on 31 March 1995, and additions were announced inOctober 1997.

Environmentally Sensitive AreasEuropean Community authorisation for Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) isderived from Article 19 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 797/85 - National Aid inEnvironmentally Sensitive Areas. ESAs are statutory areas in which the Governmentseeks to encourage environmentally sensitive farming practices, prevent damage thatmight result from certain types of agricultural intensification, and restore traditionallandscapes, for which member states are allowed to make payments to farmers.

Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and Areas of Special Scientific Interest(ASSIs)The Site of Special Scientific Interest/Area of Special Scientific Interest designationis the main site protection measure in the UK. All Biosphere Reserves, BiogeneticReserves, Special Protection Areas, Ramsar sites, Areas of Special Protection,(Candidate) Special Areas of Conservation and National Nature Reserves have first tobe notified as SSSIs/ASSIs. The notification process involves considering the siteagainst a published set of quality and rarity criteria, followed by consultations withthe owners and occupiers of the land, the local authority and the appropriate Secretaryof State. All views on the proposed notification are considered. Once notified,protection of the site is achieved by agreements to compensate land owners oroccupiers for profits lost as a result of not carrying out specified damaging operationsor, increasingly, through ‘positive’ management agreements. In the last resort, sitescan be bought from the owner without their agreement. Around 8% of the total landarea of Britain is designated as SSSIs.

National Nature ReservesNational Nature Reserves (NNRs) contain examples of some of the most importantnatural and semi-natural ecosystems in Great Britain. They are managed to conservetheir habitats, providing special opportunities for scientific study of the habitats,communities and species represented within them. Wherever possible, access by thepublic is encouraged. Most are owned and managed by the country natureconservation agencies, although increasingly land owned and managed by otherbodies is being designated as NNRs.

Marine Nature ReservesMarine Nature Reserves (MNRs) conserve marine flora and fauna and geological orphysiographical features of special interest, while providing opportunities for study ofthe marine systems. Their designation involves consultation with numerous statutoryand voluntary bodies and interest groups and consequently only three have so farbeen established in the UK. By far the largest is Strangford Lough in NorthernIreland.


12

Areas of Special ProtectionThe ’Area of Special Protection’ (AoSP) designation replaces Bird Sanctuary Ordersunder the 1954 to 1967 Protection of Birds Acts, which were repealed and amendedunder the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981. Designation makes it unlawful todamage or destroy either the birds for which the area is identified or their nests. Insome cases this involves prohibiting or restricting access to the site.

Areas of Outstanding Natural BeautyAONBs are statutorily designated by the Countryside Commission (in England) andthe Countryside Council for Wales (in Wales), under the National Parks & Access tothe Countryside Act 1949. In Northern Ireland they are statutorily designated by theDepartment of the Environment under the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands(Northern Ireland) Order 1985 and its amendments. AONBs are not designated inScotland. Their primary purpose is to conserve natural beauty, but account is taken ofthe need to safeguard agriculture, forestry and other rural industries, and theeconomic and social needs of local communities.

National ParksNational Parks in England and Wales were statutorily designated by the NationalParks Commission and confirmed by the Government between 1951 and 1957, andone area with similar status, The Broads (in East Anglia), was established in 1989.The Countryside Commission (England) and the Countryside Council for Walesadvise government on National Parks, each of which is administered by a ParkAuthority. The purpose of National Parks is to preserve and enhance the mostbeautiful, dramatic and spectacular expanses of countryside, while promoting publicenjoyment of them, and having regard for the social and economic well-being ofthose living within them. In 1998 SNH presented proposals to Government to informseparate legislation to be considered by the new Scottish Parliament, introducingNational Parks in Scotland.

National Scenic AreasNational Scenic Areas (NSAs) are statutorily designated by Scottish Natural Heritageas the best of Scotland’s landscapes, deserving special protection in the nation’sinterest. NSAs replace two earlier categories of sites of importance for scenic interestthat mirrored the National Park and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)designations in England and Wales. Special development control measures for the 40National Scenic Areas in Scotland were introduced by the Scottish DevelopmentDepartment in 1980.

Country ParksCountry Parks are statutorily declared and managed by local authorities under section7 of the Countryside Act 1968. They are primarily intended for recreation and leisureopportunities close to population centres and do not necessarily have any natureconservation interest. Nevertheless, many are in areas of semi-natural habitat and soform a valuable network of locations at which informal recreation and the naturalenvironment co-exist.


13

Local Nature ReservesA local authority can declare a site in which it has a legal interest as a Local NatureReserve (LNR) under section 21 of the National Parks & Access to the CountrysideAct 1949, for the same purposes as NNRs, but because of the local rather than thenational interest of the site and its wildlife. Under this Act local authorities have thepower to issue bylaws to protect their LNRs.

Limestone Pavement OrdersLimestone Pavement Orders afford statutory protection for limestone pavementsunder the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981. An Order, created by the relevant localgovernment authority, prohibits the removal or damage of limestone within adesignated area, after notification of its importance by English Nature and theCountryside Commission. Limestone pavements are identified as a priority habitatunder the EC Habitats & Species Directive.10

The patchwork of protection for wildlife and nature conservation sites in the UK can appearconfusing and some wildlife organisations feel frustrated that a site can be recognised asimportant but receive no statutory protection.

The main statutory protected site designations in the UK are outlined below. Sites designatedunder international conventions, treaties and directives occur throughout Europe (in the caseof sites designated under EC legislation) and the world. Other sites are designated under UKdomestic legislation only.

*As at 31.3.97 +As at 31.3.98Sites designated underinternationalconventions anddirectives Established by No. in the UK Total area (ha)World Heritage Sites+ UK government 2 923Biosphere Reserves + UK government 13 44,258Biogenetic Reserves* UK government 18 8,000Ramsar sites+ UK government 122 462,125Special Protection Areas(SPAs)+

UK government 177 743,859

(Candidate) SpecialAreas of Conservation(SACs)+

UK government 301 1,568,060

Environmentally SensitiveAreas (ESAs)*

UK government 43 3,377,000

10 http://www.jncc.gov.uk/communications/natcons/descriptions.htm

http://www.jncc.gov.uk/communications/natcons/descriptions.htm


14

Sitesestablished/protectedunder national statute Established by No. in the UK Total area (ha)Areas of SpecialProtection (AoSPs)

UK government Not available Not available

National NatureReserves (NNRs)*

English Nature/CCW11/SNH12/EHS13 362 206,710

National Parks*CountrysideCommission/CCW

10 1,376,000

Marine Nature Reserves(MNRs)*

English Nature/CCW/SNH/EHS

3 19,390

Sites of SpecialScientific Interest(SSSIs) (in England,Scotland and Wales)

English Nature/CCW/SNH

6,382 2,109,450

Areas of SpecialScientific Interest(ASSIs) (in NorthernIreland)*

EHS 117 78,968

Local Nature Reserves(LNRs) (IN England,Scotland and Wales;Local Authority NatureReserves (LANRs) (inNorthern Ireland)*

Local governmentauthorities

629 33,000

Areas of OutstandingNatural Beauty(AONBs) (in Englandand Wales)+

Countryside Commission(in England)/ CCW (inWales)

41 2,123,700

National Scenic Areas(Scotland only)*

SNH 40 1,001,800

Country Parks*Local governmentAuthorities

281 35,150

Limestone PavementsAuthorities

Local governmentAuthorities

Not available Not available

11 Countryside Council for Wales (Wales), http://www.ccw.gov.uk12 Scottish Natural Heritage (Scotland), http://www.snh.org.uk/13 Environment and Heritage Service (Northern Ireland), http://www.ehsni.gov.uk:8080/index.htm

http://www.jncc.gov.uk/communications/natcons/descriptions.htm

http://www.snh.org.uk/

http://www.ehsni.gov.uk:8080/index.htm


15

A. Statistical Data on Wildlife and Nature Conservation

1. Prosecutions and convictions under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

Table 1 below shows the number of defendants prosecuted and convicted of offences related tobirds under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 between 1990 and 1996. Figure 1 below alsoshows the percentage of the prosecutions that lead to a conviction over the same period.Table 1Number of defendants prosecuted and convicted of offences related to birds under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, 1990-1996 England and Wales

Offence description 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

ProsecutionsWildlife and Countryside Act 1981Protection of wild birds (Section 1) 35 45 44 48 30 41 33Protection of nests and eggs of wild birds (Section 1) 5 14 9 16 17 18 9Protection of wild birds in sanctuaries (Section 3) -- 1 -- -- -- -- --Protection of the nest and eggs of wild birds in sanctuaries (Section 3) 3 1 -- 1 -- 2 --Prohibition of certain methods of killing or taking wild birds (Section 5) 11 7 7 10 3 3 8Protection of captive birds (Section 8) 7 1 4 3 -- 3 2

Total 61 69 64 78 50 67 52

ConvictionsWildlife and Countryside Act 1981Protection of wild birds (Section 1) 24 33 33 32 19 30 24Protection of nests and eggs of wild birds (Section 1) 2 12 7 8 15 10 3Protection of wild birds in sanctuaries (Section 3) -- 1 -- -- -- -- --Protection of the nests and eggs of wild birds in sanctuaries (Section 3) 3 0 -- 1 -- 0 --Prohibition of certain methods of killing or taking wild birds (Section 5) 9 6 5 8 3 2 7Protection of captive birds (Section 8) 7 0 4 2 -- 3 1

Total 45 52 49 51 37 45 35

Percentage of prosecutions leading to a convictionWildlife and Countryside Act 1981Protection of wild birds (Section 1) 69% 73% 75% 67% 63% 73% 73%Protection of nests and eggs of wild birds (Section 1) 40% 86% 78% 50% 88% 56% 33%Protection of wild birds in sanctuaries (Section 3) -- 100% -- -- -- -- --Protection of the nests and eggs of wild birds in sanctuaries (Section 3) 100% 0% -- 100% -- 0% --Prohibition of certain methods of killing or taking wild birds (Section 5) 82% 86% 71% 80% 100% 67% 88%Protection of captive birds (Section 8) 100% 0% 100% 67% -- 100% 50%

Total 74% 75% 77% 65% 74% 67% 67%

Source: HC Deb 5 Mar 1998 c706W

Figure 1: Percentage of prosecutions leading to a conviction for offences related to birds under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

60%

62%

64%

66%

68%

70%

72%

74%

76%

78%

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996


16

Between 1990 and 1996 the majority of prosecutions against offenders were brought underSection 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which relates to the intentional killing,injury, taking and destroying of wild birds, their nests or eggs in the wild. Of the 441prosecutions relating to birds brought to court between 1990 and 1996, 364, or almost 83% ofprosecutions, were brought under Section 1 of the Act. In 252, or 69%, of these cases,convictions were made.

The most successful prosecutions, in terms of the percentage leading to a conviction, werebrought against offenders under Section 3 of the Act, which relates to wild birds in sanctuaries.Between 1990 and 1996 the conviction rate for prosecutions under this part of Section 3 was100%. The most unsuccessful prosecutions, in terms of the percentage leading to a conviction,were brought against offenders under Section 3 of the Act that relates to the protection of thenests and eggs of wild birds in sanctuaries with a 57% success rate between 1990 and 1996.

Although there were the highest number of prosecutions for offences related to birds in 1993 itwas also the year in this period that had the lowest percentage of convictions. This was mainlydown to half the prosecutions brought against offenders under Section 1 of the Act not leading toa conviction. Of the total number of prosecutions relating to birds brought under the Wildlifeand Countryside Act 1981 in 1996, in 33% of cases no conviction was made. This isapproximately the same percentage of defendants that were not committed for trial to the CrownCourt or found guilty in Magistrates Courts for all offences in England & Wales in the sameyear.14 Between 1992 and 1996 The number of recorded convictions brought against offendersunder Section 9 and Section 11 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which relatesspecifically to offences against wild animals, was 17 and 13 respectively.15

2. Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

Table 2 and figure 2 below show that in 1991/92 there were just over 3,700 Sites of SpecialScientific Interest (SSSI) in England and 800 in Wales. The total number of SSSIs in Englandand Wales has increased each year subsequently, from 4,500 in 1991/92 to 5,000 at 31December 1999. However, the growth in the number of SSSIs created each year in England &Wales has slowed form almost 2% per annum between 1991/92 and 1992/93 to just over 1.5%per annum between 1997/98 and 1998/99.

The total area covered by SSSIs in England and Wales, shown in table 3 and figure 3 below, hasalso increased each year from just over 1 million hectares in 1991/92 to almost 1.3 millionhectares at 31 December 1999, an increase of 27%. The average size of a SSSI in England hasrisen from 220 hectares in 1991/92 to almost 260 hectares at 31 December 1999. In Wales, overthe same time period, the average size of a SSSI has fallen from 240 hectares at 31 December1991 to 225 hectares at 31 December 1999.

14 Home Office, Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1997, November 199815 HL Deb 19 May 1998 c 154WA


17

Table 2 Table 3Total number of SSSIs Total Area (ha) of SSSIsEngland & Wales England & Wales

England WalesEngland &

Wales England WalesEngland &

Wales1991/92 3,675 827 4,502 1991/92 809,525 198,341 1,007,866 1992/93 3,730 849 4,579 1992/93 858,921 201,626 1,060,547 1993/94 3,794 882 4,676 1993/94 871,066 205,795 1,076,861 1994/95 3,825 894 4,719 1994/95 893,335 205,670 1,099,005 1995/96 3,865 907 4,772 1995/96 919,807 207,665 1,127,472 1996/97 3,912 917 4,829 1996/97 951,680 218,135 1,169,815 1997/98 3,987 930 4,917 1997/98 967,365 218,225 1,185,590 1998/99 4,045 946 4,991 1998/99 1,035,821 222,661 1,258,482 31/12/99 4,081 988 5,069 31/12/99 1,051,928 223,532 1,275,460

Note: Figures for Wales are at 31st December Note: Figures for Wales are at 31st December

Source: English Nature & Countryside Council for Wales Source: English Nature & Countryside Council for Wales

Figure 3: Total area of SSSIs in England & Wales

1,000,000

1,050,000

1,100,000

1,150,000

1,200,000

1,250,000

1,300,000

1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 31/12/99

Figure 2: Total number of SSSIs in England &Wales

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 31/12/99

Tables 4 and 5 below show summaries of the scale and reason for damage that has occurred todesignated SSSIs in England during 1998/99. Cases that have been reported are those thatinvolve damage exceeding any of the thresholds set out below: 16

• Greater than 0.5 hectares damaged, or• Greater than 10% of the SSSI area damaged, or• Greater than 100m of a linear feature on the SSSI damaged, or• Greater than 10% of a particular habitat or species feature damage

From table 4 below it can be seen that 3,286 hectares or 98% of the features damaged in 1998/99have been designated as areas where there is a reduction in the special interest that will takemore than three years for recovery. This is shown as long term recovery of features in table 4

16 English Nature, Facts and Figures, 27 October 1999, http://www.english-nature.org.uk/facts.htm

http://www.english-nature.org.uk/facts.htm


18

below.17 Only 4 hectares or less than 0.2% of the total area damaged have been designated as‘no recovery, whole feature’ that may lead to the denotification of the whole feature. The twoSSSIs in this category are the Scroggs in Northumberland and Horse Field, Gilling in NorthYorkshire.18

Table 4 Table 5Summary of recovery type for all damaged SSSIs Summary of SSSIs damaged in 1998/99England England

Recovery Group Categories Sites Cases Area(Ha) Feature Damage Site Recovery Area(Ha) Site Area

Loss of whole (unit) feature 2 2 4 Agricultural 3,097 114,541 Partial loss of (unit) feature 6 6 4 Insufficient management 73 806 Long term recovery of features 35 39 3,286 Development 42 3,485 Short term recovery of features 10 10 35 Forestry damage 4 830 Unknown feature recovery period 5 5 34 Recreational 6 630

Miscellaneous damage 142 19,602 Total number of sites damaged 553 62 3,362

Total damage 3,362 139,896

Note: Some sites are listed in more than one categorySource: English Nature Press Release EN/99/43 28 October 1999 Source: English Nature Press Release EN/99/43 28 October 1999

From table 5 the major factor in damage to SSSIs in 1998/99 can be seen to be agriculture whichwas found to have been the cause of damage to 3,000 hectares, or 92% of the total area. Of thearea damaged by agriculture 92% was due to the effects of heavy grazing of upland heath andgrassland. The largest single area reported damaged was Whernside SSSI in North Yorkshirewhere 2,000 hectares were lost to over-grazing.19

The full list of SSSIs damaged in 1998/99, broken down by feature, is presented on thefollowing pages.

17 English Nature, Facts and Figures, 27 October 1999, http://www.english-nature.org.uk/facts.htm18 Ibid19 Ibid



19

List of SSSIs damaged in 1998/99

Key to recovery potential codes:

NR whole - No recovery for whole featureNR part - No recovery for part of featureLT mgd / ST mgd - Long Term / Short Term managed recoveryLT spon / ST spon - Long Term / Short Term spontaneous recoveryU - Unknown

Feature Damage Site Recovery

AgriculturalSite name County Type Damaged

Area (Ha)Site area Potential

Aarreton Down Isle of Wight Grassland 2 29.3 LT mgdBowland Fells Lancashire Moorland 100 16002.3 LT mgdBraunton Burrows Devon Sand dunes 250 1346.6 LT mgdBurgh Common & Muckfleet Marshes Norfolk Wet ditches 0.5 120.1 LT mgdCalbourne Down Isle of Wight Grassland 0.5 15.2 LT mgdClayton to Offham Escarpment Sussex Grassland 0.2 431.3 LT mgdClayton to Offham Escarpment Sussex Grassland 0.5 431.3 LT mgdCowpen Marsh Cleveland Marshy grassland 0.5 120.5 ST sponDark Peak Derbyshire Grassland 250 31818.9 LT mgdDungeon Ghyll Cumbria Upland ledges 5 10.1 LT mgdGeldeston Meadows Norfolk Fen 0.5 13.8 LT mgdGreat Asby Scar pavement Cumbria Limestone 349.8 349.8 LT mgdHorse Field, Gilling N Yorkshire Grassland 2.1 2.1 NR wholeLambert’s Castle Dorset Grassland 0.3 108.1 LT mgdLune forest Durham Heathland 7 6333.4 ST mgdMambury & Stowford Moors Devon Grassland 1 39.8 LT mgdNewby Moor N Yorkshire Grassland 5 277.7 LT mgdNorth Exmoor Somerset Heathland 50 12016.7 LT mgdNorth Exmoor Somerset Heathland 20 12016.7 LT sponNorth Exmoor Somerset Heathland 20 12016.7 ST mgdRiver Eden and Tributaries Cumbria River 4.2 2491.1 LT mgdRodney Stoke Somerset Grassland 3.5 71.4 LT mgdUpper Teesdale Durham Blanket bog 20 14370.8 LT mgdUpton Broad and Marshes Norfolk Lake 0.5 194.8 LT mgdWhernside N Yorkshire Heathland/bog 2000 3853.4 LT mgdWolstonbury Hill West Sussex Grassland 4 58.8 ST mgdTotal 3097.1 114540.7

Insufficient managementBassenthwaite Lake Cumbria Fen 34 674.2 LT mgdBishop’s Hill Wood Avon Grassland 6 30.2 LT mgdBowlditch Quarry Avon Geological 0.1 0.2 ST mgdGrime’s Graves Norfolk Heathland 28 66.4 LT mgdHuish Colliery Quarry Avon Geological 0.2 0.8 ST mgdKilmersdon Road Quarry Avon Geological 0.2 0.5 ST mgdShiplate Slait Avon Grassland 4 34.1 LT mgdTotal 72.5 806.4


20

DevelopmentSite name County Type Damaged

Area (Ha)Site area Potential

Elterwater Cumbria Lake 20 36 LT mgdHumber Flats & Marshes, Barton & Barrow Clay Pits

Humberside Swamp 1 452.4 ST mgd

Lazonby Fell Cumbria Heathland 5 331 LT mgdMatchams Dorset Heathland 1.3 9.8 LT mgdMid Colne Valley Greater London Lake 10.5 147.8 LT mgdParley Common Dorset Heathland 0.5 164 LT mgdPovington and Grange Heaths Dorset Fen 1 1210.2 NR partSpadeadam Mires Cumbria Blanket bogs 1 1132.8 NR partThe Scroggs Northumberland Grassland 1.4 1.4 NR wholeTotal 41.6 3485.4

Forestry damageGog Magog Golf Course Cambridgeshire Grassland 3.5 88.1 UnThe Malvern Hills Hereford & Worcester Grassland 0.3 741.7 LT mgdTotal 3.8 829.8

RecreationalBognor Reef West Sussex Grassland 1.5 74.7 UnBowerchalke Downs Wiltshire Grassland 0.3 128.6 NR PartRiver Blythe West Midlands River 0.5 105.3 LT mgdShrawley Wood Hereford & Worcester Woodland 3 101.5 LT sponUpton Heath Dorset Heathland 0.3 220.3 LT mgdTotal 5.5 630.4

Miscellaneous damageClayhanger West Midlands Grassland 4 27.7 UnEsthwaite Water Cumbria Lake 100 156.3 LT mgdHope’s Nose to Wall’s Hill Devon Geological 0 62.1 NR partLow Church Moss Cumbria Wetland 0.9 4.9 NR PartLune Forest Durham Blanket bog 20 6333.4 UnMeathop Woods and Quarry Cumbria Woodland 0.8 38.7 LT mgdNorth Exmoor Devon Heathland 1 12016.7 LT mgdOss Mere Shropshire Grassland 2.1 29 ST mgdRiver Nent at Blagill Cumbria Geological 4.5 9 UnRose End Meadows Derbyshire Grassland 0.2 54.5 ST mgdSouth Gare & Coatham Sands Cleveland Sand dune 0.8 387 NR partTees and Hartlepool Foreshore & Wetlands Cleveland Coastal lagoons 7 288.2 LT mgdUpton Broad & Marshes Norfolk Fen 0.5 194.8 LT mgdTotal 141.8 19602.3

Total damage, all categories 3362.2Total site area 139895

Source: English Nature Press Release EN/99/43 28 October 1999


21

III Recent Parliamentary Debate

Conserving the countryside and wildlife has given rise to substantial Parliamentary interestsince the 1997 General Election. A search of records since that time shows that there havebeen at least: 38 oral debates (16 of them in the Lords); 62 early day motions; 9 privatemembers bills and 8 select committee reports with direct bearing on these issues.

Perhaps the most relevant Parliamentary debates have been those on Bills concerning areas ofoutstanding natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest.

A. The Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty Bill [HL] 1998/99

A Bill was introduced in the Lords in each of the last two years to provide greater protectionfor those areas designated as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

The AONB designation is awarded where there is a desire to conserve and enhance naturalbeauty, taking into account the needs of agriculture, forestry and other rural industries and ofthe economic and social needs of local communities. Sustainable forms of social andeconomic development, which in themselves protect and improve the environment, areencouraged.

AONBs were established under the same legislation as National Parks (National Parks andAccess to the Countryside Act 1949), but the key difference between the two is that creatingopportunities for recreation is not a specific purpose of AONB. However, recreation withinAONBs is acceptable if it is consistent with the conservation of natural beauty and the needsof agriculture, forestry and other uses.

Although AONBs do not have statutory protection, local authorities are expected to ‘take thespecial character of the landscape into account’ when creating policy and controllingdevelopment.

The Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty Bill (HL Bill 46) received its second reading in theLords on 21 May20 before being committed to a Committee of the whole House. The functionof the Bill was discussed fully in the Second Reading debate; the three key objectives wereelucidated by its sponsor, Lord Renton of Mount Harry:

My Bill has three prime objectives. The first is to enable--that word is important--theestablishment of statutory conservation boards. But that is done on an "opt-in" basis.It is not compulsory. It happens where the Countryside Agency, English Nature andthe elected local authorities recommend to the Secretary of State that they want thisdone. It will be done on an a la carte basis; each will be considered on its merits,each individual conservation board perhaps having somewhat different powers and

20 HL Deb 21 May 1999 cc 537-548, cc 558-592


22

composition appropriate to its area. That is a point that is not fully understood in thebriefing put out by the National Farmers’ Union.

The second objective is to provide secure funding from central and local government.The third and most complex is to strengthen the protection given by the planningsystem.21

Replying for the Government, Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton noted:

Unlike the national parks, there is no provision for a comprehensive set of powers andduties for AONBs, for dedicated statutory bodies to look after them or for anextensive system of central funding. The former Countryside Commission, now theCountryside Agency, recognised this last summer in presenting its advice togovernment.

Advice on the protected landscapes included proposals for the future managementand funding of AONBs and consideration of possible national park status for theSouth Downs and the New Forest. In Wales, the Countryside Council for Wales hasrecently submitted advice on AONBs which is broadly similar to that provided by theCountryside Agency, except that it does not envisage statutory conservation boards.

The key recommendations advanced by the agency are similar in most ways to theproposals in the noble Lord’s Bill. The agency’s advice sought new primarylegislation to strengthen the administration and management of AONBs, including arecommendation that local authorities should be required to pursue AONB objectivesand to produce management plans and for all relevant authorities to have regard to thepurposes of AONBs.

The Government, in considering this, have paid high regard to the advice that theyhave received, including the agency advice, seeking core management costs to be metby 50 per cent government grant, although Ministers have received a number ofrepresentations that central funding should be at 75 per cent, like the national parks.We will consider these points.

We have a great deal of sympathy with the overall objectives of the Bill. We sharethe same goal in wanting to achieve the best for the future. There are complexproposals involving significant implications for local government, the planningsystem, development control and financially. All these questions need to beconsidered properly. Ministers have been studying the advice that we have receivedon the options for change. I understand the impatience of the noble Lord, LordRenton of Mount Harry, but there are implications which need to be carefullybalanced. We want to make the right decision.22

21 HL Deb 21 May 1999 c 53822 HL Deb 21 May 1999 c 589


23

The Bill eventually progressed to report stage23 where it fell through a lack of time. LordRenton re-introduced his bill (HL Bill 7) in the current session but the Bill has not yetreceived a date for its Second Reading.

B. The Wildlife Bill [Bill 252] 1997-98

There has been pressure on the Government for a new Wildlife Bill to incorporate legislationthat would essentially update the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

David Lepper introduced the Wildlife Bill, Bill 252 1997-98, following a well received EDM,late in the 97/98 session.24 Both the Bill and the EDM (reproduced below) aimed to bringattention to the Wildlife Charter and the coalition of wildlife groups lobbying forimprovement to the current wildlife legislation. The EDM was eventually signed by 302Members of Parliament, a significant number from each of the parties.

That this House is concerned at the continuing loss of the country’s wildlife and urgesthe Government to support the Wildlife Charter launched by a broad coalition ofwildlife groups; believes that implementation of this charter will help to secure thefuture of the United Kingdom’s wildlife; recognises the role of those who dependupon the natural environment for their livelihoods; welcomes the recognition in theGovernment’s manifesto that the countryside is a great national asset, ’a part of ourheritage which deserves careful stewardship’, and further welcomes the manifestocommitment to providing ’greater protection for wildlife’; and therefore urges theGovernment to introduce broad-based wildlife legislation which puts into law theprinciples called for by the broad alliance of organisations behind the WildlifeCharter, namely the British Association for Nature Conservationists, BritishEcological Society, Butterfly Conservation, Earthkind, Environmental InvestigationAgency, Friends of the Earth (England, Wales and Northern Ireland), Friends of theEarth (Scotland), Greenpeace, Herpetological Conservation Trust, InternationalWildlife Coalition, Marine Conservation Society, Plantlife, Royal Society for thePrevention of Cruelty to Animals, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, ScottishWildlife Trust, The Wildlife Trusts, Tuskforce, Whale and Dolphin ConservationSociety, Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, Woodland Trust, WWF-UK - The World WideFund for Nature, and the Young People’s Trust for the Environment and NatureConservation.

Mr Lepper maintained the pressure in the 1998-99 session by tabling another EDM whichreceived 349 Members’ signatures.25

The Wildlife Charter26 was co-ordinated by the Wildlife and Countryside Link (WCL),27 aliaison body for voluntary organisations in the UK concerned with the conservation and

23 HL Deb 9 July 1999 c 1202-1024 David Lepper, EDM 559 1997-98, Launch of the wildlife charter, 4 December 199725 David Lepper, EDM 11 1998-99, Wildlife Charter And Wildlife Bill, 24 November 199826 The Wildlife Charter, http://www.wildlink.demon.co.uk/page28.html

http://www.wildlink.demon.co.uk/page28.html


24

protection of wildlife and the countryside. The aims of the WCL with regard to reform ofwildlife law are quite clearly laid down in the Charter:

• provision of a basic standard of protection over the whole of the UK;• legislation which has clear aims of what it has to accomplish;• a good deterrent in the form of higher penalties where persuasion and incentives fail;• fundamental duties of care; and• increased powers of access for officers of conservation agencies.

The WCL believes that previous statutes have relied too much on voluntary compliance to bereally effective and have been easy to ignore in the face of short term economic gain.

In January this year the WCL produced a comprehensive document28 outlining what they feltnecessary to ensure the comprehensive protection of wildlife. This document provides, notonly the actions they wished to be taken, e.g. the legal underpinning of the BiodiversityAction Plan process, but also the reasons why and how they would like to see it done inpractice.

27 Wildlife and Countryside Link, 246 Lavender Hill, London, SW11 1LJ. http://www.wildlink.demon.co.uk/

Tel: 0171 924 2355, Fax: 0171 223 4235, Email: [email protected] Wildlife and Countryside Link, Ensuring Comprehensive protection for wildlife in the year 2000,

January 2000

http://www.wildlink.demon.co.uk/


25

IV Sites of Special Scientific Interest

The UK conservation framework and SSSI system were discussed in great detail in an earlierLibrary research paper. Some of that material is repeated here but for further detail pleaseconsult The habitats directive and the UK conservation framework and SSSI system.29

SSSIs by definition contain the UK’s finest and most precious examples of habitat and wildlife,or landscape and geological features. English Nature describes them as the "core of our nation’snatural heritage".30 The land-based component of the UK Natura 2000 network will be baseddirectly on the SSSI network.

As discussed earlier within the statutory sites SSSI designation is the main site protectionmeasure in the UK. All Biosphere Reserves, Biogenetic Reserves, Special Protection Areas,Ramsar sites, Areas of Special Protection, (Candidate) Special Areas of Conservation andNational Nature Reserves have first to be notified as SSSIs. The SSSI designation wasoriginally established by the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 but aretoday notified under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Once notified, protection of the siteis achieved by agreements to compensate land owners or occupiers for profits lost as a result ofnot carrying out specified damaging operations or, increasingly, through ‘positive’ managementagreements. In the last resort, sites can be bought from the owner without their agreement.Around 8% of the total land area of Britain is designated as SSSIs.

According to the latest available figures, there were 5,969 SSSIs in England and Wales and 117Areas of Special Scientific Interest (ASSIs) in Northern Ireland.31,32 Approximately 32,000people own, or live on, the SSSIs in England alone.33 The average area of an SSSI is around 252hectares.34

A. Protection and Management

The SSSI notification sent by the conservation agency (English Nature or the CountrysideCouncil for Wales) to the owner or occupier of a site contains a list of all the operations which,in the agency's view, could conceivably damage the site. These are termed potentially damagingoperations (PDOs). Notice must be given in writing by the occupier or owner of any suchoperations at least four months before they are carried out. In these four months, theconservation agency will consider the implications of the proposals. It may give consent to theoperation, refuse it, or invite the owner or occupier to consider modifications which might avoiddamaging the wildlife or site.

29 Patsy Richards, Library Research Paper 94/90, The habitats directive and the UK conservation frameworkand SSSI system, 15 July 1994

30 English Nature, Progress ’9431 English Nature, Facts and Figures, http://www.english-nature.org.uk/facts.htm (31 July 1999)32 Department of the Environment, Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics, No.20, 199833 English Nature, Facts and Figures, http://www.english-nature.org.uk/facts.htm (31 July 1999)34 English Nature, What you should know about SSSIs, 1992




26

Damaging a SSSI without consent from the conservation agency is punishable on summaryconviction by a fine of up to £2000.

Consent will not normally be given for damaging operations.35 Instead, English Nature may,under s15 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA), offer the owner or occupier apayment in return for a management agreement that protects the interest of the site. Most ofthese compensate the owners, or occupiers, for profit forgone by not developing the site. Thenegative nature of these management agreements, as well as their expense, is often criticised.

If negotiations become protracted, the conservation agency may ask the Secretary of State tomake a Nature Conservation Order (NCO) under s29 of the WCA. This will specify operationsthat may not be carried out on the site and is intended to give protection against specific workswhile consultation is extended. The legal obligations under a Nature Conservation Order last fortwelve months and apply to anyone, not just owners and occupiers.

SSSIs to which NCOs have been applied have been termed "super SSSIs".36 The legalrequirements under standard SSSI notification apply to owners and occupiers only.

However, NCOs are not commonplace; typically only one or two dozen will be in force at agiven time.37 As a last resort, the conservation agency can apply to the Secretary of State for aCompulsory Purchase Order for a SSSI.

English Nature has a number of schemes aimed at enhancing and monitoring SSSIs. A nationalsite monitoring and information system was launched in 1993, starting off with grassland sitesand with lowland heath and upland grassland planned for 1994. The Wildlife EnhancementScheme aims to link EN wildlife management expertise with the local site knowledge andpractical skills of SSSI managers. The first four pilot schemes have concluded 175 managementagreements. The Reserves Enhancement Scheme supports local Trusts managing SSSI naturereserves, encouraging the use of volunteers and aiming to increase public access andunderstanding.38

B. Criticisms of the SSSI system

The problems with the SSSI system are best summarised by a National Audit Office reportwhich commented that:

Notification of a SSSI does not guarantee absolute protection and was not intended byParliament to do so...Owners can legally carry out damaging activities if they havegiven English Nature due notice, and the four month period available to EnglishNature to persuade and negotiate has expired. This is unless application is made to

35 Ibid36 "Nature conservation and the protection of SSSIs" ENDS Report 212, September 1992, p 3437 HC Deb 3 February 1994 c 917-8W; English Nature, What You Should Know About SSSIs, 199238 English Nature, Progress ’94, May 1994


27

the Secretary of State who may grant a Nature Conservation Order, extending theperiod of negotiations by 12 months. Damage may also be caused by third partieswho are not covered by SSSI procedures. Nor can SSSIs be isolated from the effectsof developments and management changes on adjacent or nearby land. Planningpermission, local and private Acts of Parliament and Statutory Orders may allowdevelopments to proceed which damage the site.39

Despite this criticism an analysis of the effectiveness of the Wildlife and Countryside Act1981 suggests that the Act has been of use:

The changes that have occurred since the enactment of the Wildlife and CountrysideAct and that can be attributed to it are: an increase in the number of managementagreements; a decrease in the amount of damage; and the destruction of sites by anumber of landowners in the three month period for consultation before designation.Apart from the last of these, which was remedied early on in the operation of thesystem, it is submitted that the impact [of the Act] has been generally positive.40

This analysis, which appeared in the Journal of Environmental Law, argued that the 1981 Acthad successfully addressed the problems that it was introduced to deal with. The currentcauses of concern are outwith the remit of the 1981 Act; it would therefore be unfair toexpect this Act to address those concerns.

When the Act was introduced, agriculture was seen as the primary threat to habitats.Much of the threat from positive agricultural operations has been successfully tackled,both by the Act and by general changes in agricultural policy. The areas where levelsof damage are now of concern, such as the activities of third parties and insufficientmanagement, are outside of the controls imposed by the Act. The fact these are nowthe issues of importance in habitat protection is a clear sign of the success of the Actwithin its own limitations.41 [emphasis added]

It should be remembered that the caveat at the end of the quotation; ’within its ownlimitations’ means that only those aspects of habitat protection related to the SSSI system areconsidered. Agriculture still represents a substantial threat to wildlife habitats outside of theSSSI system. Hedgerows are a good example of this threat and it has been argued that thecurrent agricultural system contains more incentives to diminish this habitat than to conserveit.42

39 National Audit Office Protecting and Managing Sites of Special Scientific Interest in England., 11 May 1994,HC 379 1993-94

40 Katheryn V. Last, Vol 11 No 9, "Habitat Protection: Has the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 made adifference?", Journal of Environmental Law, 1999

41 Ibid42 Country Landowners Association Press Release, CLA concern for new ’two-metre’ ruling, 6 March 2000


28

The Government consulted on the topic of sites of special scientific interest in advance ofintroducing the current Bill.43 There were over 560 responses to the consultation and theGovernment produced their response44 in August 1999.

The Framework for Action outlined the approach the Government intended to take inaddressing the issues highlighted in the consultation exercise:

• a statutory duty on public bodies to secure the positive management of SSSIs which theyown or occupy;

• provision of additional powers for conservation agencies- to require land managers to carry out necessary works or allow agencies to do so;- more flexible powers to purchase land compulsorily;- additional power to enter land; and the

• introduction of stronger penalties for damaging SSSIs

The Framework also indicates that action over and above direct legislation is necessary.There will be an opportunity to change planning guidance in the forthcoming review ofPlanning Policy Guidance note 9. It would appear that the Government intends that theplanning guidance should provide protection to those areas outside the SSSI system (andwhich are not addressed in the current Bill). The marine environment is to be looked atthrough the establishment of a marine working party.

C. SSSI Adjournment Debate

Caroline Flint introduced an adjournment debate on Sites of Special Scientific Interest andthe Government’s action plan late last year.45 She began by highlighting the desire for actionon wildlife issues:

With such rapid destruction and degradation of our precious wildlife resource, therehas been steady growth in public and political support for tough and comprehensivenew laws. In August, in a poll conducted by the Royal Society for the Protection ofBirds, 65 per cent. of people said that they would like the Government to change thelaw, to give greater legal protection to wildlife. Additionally, 35 environmental andconservation groups - representing more than 6 million people - are now united intheir desire for urgent environmental legislation.

She went on to argue that even within the limits of its remit the action plan was lacking inprotection measures.

43 Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions, Sites of Special Scientific Interest: BetterProtection and Management, September 1998http://www.wildlife-countryside.detr.gov.uk/consult/sssi/index.htm

44 The Government’s Framework for Actionhttp://www.wildlife-countryside.detr.gov.uk/consult/sssi/response/index.htm

45 HC Deb 3 November 1999 cc 229-251

http://www.wildlife-countryside.detr.gov.uk/consult/sssi/index.htm

http://www.wildlife-countryside.detr.gov.uk/consult/sssi/response/index.htm


29

I welcome the framework document, but it is neither sufficiently tough nor sufficientlycomprehensive. It contains, for example, no mention of measures to protect speciesoutside SSSIs or at sea. It does not contain a legal presumption against developmentaffecting SSSIs, nor does it mention an issue that is at the forefront of my constituents’minds--lowland raised peat bogs being cut up by an American multinational, baggedup and sold cheaply to gardeners to sprinkle in their pots.

The destruction of wildlife habitats for commercial purposes will probably dominatediscussions on the issue. Quarrying for stone products such as granite and slate and for othermineral products such as coal and peat are often carried out in, or nearby, areas where there islikely to be some statutory habitat protection in force. Such activity is almost certain to causesome damage to the habitat. While many companies are sensitive to such issues they arerestricted as to where they might carry out such commercial activity; restoration has not oftenbeen successful in returning sites to their original ’of special scientific interest’ condition.

Caroline Flint explained that another problem with commercial exploitation of these areas isthat the damage caused to parts of the area might eventually cause it to lose protected statusand thereby open it to even greater exploitation:

In 1997, English Nature’s rationale for removing the moors’ SSSI status was that partsof them had been worked for peat extraction, hence, the vegetation had been stripped,hence--in English Nature’s logic--the moors were no longer either special orsignificant. I am pleased to tell the House that, with the help of my right hon. Friendthe Minister for the Environment, English Nature bowed to public pressure demandingthat Thorne and Hatfield moors be treated as an integral, whole and interdependentecosystem that needed restoration and protection in law, not further destruction.46

David Taylor pointed out that the legislation required some supplemental support throughoutplanning legislation rather than being expected to stand on its own. He also pointed out thatthe landowner needed incentives, as well as legislative sticks, to encourage propermaintenance and conservation of these sites. A particular danger, however, was that of priorplanning agreements:

A major threat to SSSIs often arises when the owner or occupier activates an ancientplanning permission which the modern planning framework would never havesanctioned. Owners and occupiers can, after giving notice, carry out damagingactivities, preventable only if English Nature produces a management agreement withfinancial compensation for lost profits.47

Mr Taylor also called for the Government to introduce a system whereby conservationagencies might order an owner to carry out work or to have the work done and subsequentlyrecover costs from the owner of the site. He acknowledged that such orders might be

46 HC Deb 3 November 1999 c 23147 HC Deb 3 November 1999 c 236


30

appealed against. There is no such appeal available in the analogous situation of listedbuildings.

Helen Brinton added her concerns to the others in the debate. She supported earlier calls forprotective measures to be introduced for marine wildlife in the case of accidental, as well asdeliberate, harassment. She believed that powers had to be devolved to bodies other than thepolice to deal with offshore wildlife crime; that sanctions for wildlife crimes should beincreased; and that the concept of recklessness should be introduced for wildlife crimegenerally as it is in the specific example of Protection of Badgers Act 1992.48

Lindsay Hoyle called for a ’Rangers Agency’ highlighting both the need for greaterenforcement of the legislation and some body involved in enforcement with a greaterunderstanding of the requirements of the countryside.49

It was pointed out by Damian Green that the countryside legislation to be introduced wouldhave to live alongside the also-promised right to roam legislation. There was bound to besome conflict between a right to roam and habitat protection.50

The Wildlife Trusts have made a number of good points on access, saying that a"distinction must be made between access on foot for quiet enjoyment and access forother recreational pursuits that are more disruptive to wildlife".The trusts add:"Agencies should have the power to close (permanently or temporarily) areas or closeor divert rights of way, if . . . access is having a significant affect on the wildlife orhabitat."The trusts also make the good point that there"should be wide-ranging consultation before access to other areas of open country areagreed."

There were repeated references throughout the debate to the costs of further wildlifelegislation and whether further legislative moves would be backed by sufficient finance toprovide meaningful implementation and enforcement of the new measures. A further area ofgeneral concern was the impact of development near SSSIs. It was pointed out several timesthat such development would often have an impact on the site making it necessary forplanning authorities to have regard to this kind of impact on wildlife habitats.

Chris Mullin (the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport andthe Regions) responded to the debate for the Government.51 He welcomed the debate and theopportunity to detail the Government’s intentions in regard to wildlife protection.

48 HC Deb 3 November 1999 cc 238-4149 HC Deb 3 November 1999 cc 241-250 HC Deb 3 November 1999 c 24551 HC Deb 3 November 1999 cc 247-251


31

He indicated that the proposed new powers for agencies would be strong:

the most significant of which will allow them, for the first time, to refuse consent fordamaging operations52

Such refusal would not automatically grant the right to compensation. There would also bepowers to enable agencies to enforce the better management of wildlife habitats. Rights ofentry and more flexible compulsory purchase would go some way to aiding this effort.

A greater incentive to avoid damaging wildlife habitats would be introduced in the form ofgreater penalties and more wide-ranging powers to deal with third party damage. There wasalso to be a greater emphasis on positive management as opposed to simple avoidance ofdamage that would require the wider regard of public bodies in the conduct of their generalduties.

A major point with regard to planning was also mentioned:

The habitats regulations will also require a review of all extant permissions andconsents--including planning permissions, which were granted prior to their inclusionin the list of candidate special areas of conservation, or their classification as a specialarea of protection for birds, under the birds directive. Where the review, which iscarried out by the local planning authority, concludes that the integrity of the site islikely to be adversely affected, the consent will have to be modified or revoked,unless Ministers decide that an imperative reason outweighs the conservation interest.

This would mean that planning permissions previously granted for development of sites maynot be activated on sites that are given special status under EU law. There was no mention ofsimilar provisions being made with regard to SSSI status under new legislation.

Revocation of planning permission would be compensated, however, and the Governmentwould consider providing some aid to local authorities where such compensation was costly.

52 HC Deb 3 November 1999 c 248


32

V The Current Bill

The Countryside and Rights of Way Bill [Bill 78] 1999-2000 was presented on 3 March 2000to a flurry of immediate reaction by interested organisations. The text of the Bill53 isavailable on-line as are the Explanatory Notes54 produced by the Government.

A countryside bill has been keenly anticipated among environmental organisations and therehas been of some concern to landowners organisations. The announcement of the Bill55 madeit clear that a Bill would address both wildlife conservation and the right to roam. There werea number of questions as to how far the Government would go in providing greater access tothe countryside and in furthering the protection of wildlife.

Reactions with regard to the right to roam and rights of way aspects of the Bill are presentedin a second Library briefing. This paper concentrates on those aspects of the Bill concerningwildlife conservation.

Mr Meacher, the Minister for the Environment, indicated that the Bill would:

• Give greater protection to Sites of Special Scientific interest (SSSIs) -conservation agencies will have the power to prevent damaging activities;

• Include tougher action against wildlife crime by creating a new offence ofreckless disturbance; giving increased powers to the police and wildlifeinspectors; increasing fines up to £5,000 and introducing prison sentences of upto six months for virtually all wildlife offences.56

A. Immediate Reaction to the Bill

The initial reaction to the Bill seemed to be one of qualified welcome. There seemed to besomething for everyone to be pleased about and some aspects that caused concern. As mightbe expected views were split between the wildlife and conservation groups and thelandowners organisations.

1. Non-Governmental Organisations

Tony Juniper of Friends of the Earth was interviewed on the Radio 4 Today programme onthe morning the Bill was presented.57 The policy director congratulated the Minister on theBill and welcomed many of the measures contained in the Bill to protect wildlife. He saidthat when the Bill was enacted it should spell the end of scenarios like that of the Newbury

53 http://pubs1.tso.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmbills/078/2000078.htm54 http://pubs1.tso.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmbills/078/en/00078x--.htm55 Department of Environment Transport and the Regions 151/ENV, Greater access and wildlife protection -

we’re on our way says Meacher, 3 March 200056 Ibid57 Radio 4, Today Programme, 3 March 2000

http://pubs1.tso.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmbills/078/2000078.htm

http://pubs1.tso.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmbills/078/en/00078x--.htm


33

by-pass where four SSSIs were damaged to accommodate the road. He made it plain,however, that he would have preferred the Bill to go further than simply addressing the SSSIsystem and, instead, had brought all wildlife conservation under some statutory protectivesystem.

He would like to see some key aspects of the Bill strengthened as it passed through theParliamentary system.

The Wildlife Trusts (Royal Society for Nature Conservation) and Worldwide Fund for Nature(WWF-UK) had both been campaigning for a countryside bill under the umbrella of theWildlife Link. There were a number of points in common in their response to the Bill. Theirimmediate reaction to the Bill was to welcome several of the measures they had beencampaigning for:

The Wildlife Trusts have urged the Government to consider three measures tostrengthen the Bill: greater recognition of important wildlife-rich areas outside theSSSI network, improved protection of rare species wherever they occur and legalunderpinning of the Biodiversity Action Plan process.58

The Director General of the Wildlife Trusts (Dr Simon Lyster) said

This is a good day for wildlife but if the Bill is strengthened as we have suggestedthen it will be a truly great one.59

An initial response to the Bill by the WWF-UK said:

SSSI measures and wildlife crime enforcement are very welcome and should succeedin deterring offenders and preventing damage to and improving the quality of ourSSSIs. There are a number of missing elements, which we feel would greatlyimprove the species conservation…60

The Council for the Protection of Rural England also welcomed the Bill then chose toconcentrate on the features not included in the Bill: hedgerows and Areas of OutstandingNatural Beauty:

We are concerned however that the Bill is a missed opportunity to deliver onnumerous Government commitments to secure much needed improvements to theprotection and management of England's valuable hedgerows, landscape features andAreas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and further the Government's newdirection for agriculture.61

58 Wildlife Trusts Press Release, Countryside Bill brings new hope for wildlife says The Wildlife Trusts,3 March 2000

59 Ibid60 WWF-UK briefing, Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, 3 March 200061 CPRE Briefing, Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, 3 March 2000


34

The Country Landowners Alliance found many aspects of the Bill to welcome and believedthat ’Common Sense wins’. While much of their concern was related to the access aspects ofthe Bill the CLA president (Anthony Bosanquet) made some mention of the countryside,

The conservation agencies must use negotiation and mediation to resolve disputesover the management of these wildlife sites, invoking their new regulatory powersonly as a last resort. And we shall press the Government to deliver the resourcesneeded - estimated by English Nature as some £20 million per year in England - tosupport sensitive but often unprofitable - farming regimes on SSSIs.62

The Countryside Alliance also focused on the rights of access to be introduced by the Bill andbroadly accepted the countryside aspects of the Bill:

…this protection must be coupled with substantial new funds for conservation and afundamental shift in agricultural policy. [The Alliance] is also calling forclarification on the destination of extra funding promised for SSSI management -which it fears could go solely to sites managed by statutory conservation bodies,rather than to farmer-owned sites.63

There seemed to be little concern that the promised rights of access would impinge onconservation issues. Indeed, the Wildlife Trusts said:

The balance is about right. It is important that the countryside and wildlife are moreaccessible to people but with safeguards against the thoughtless action of a few.64

2. Government Agencies and Political Parties

The response of conservation agencies, those Government agencies responsible forimplementation of new SSSI notification procedures, was to welcome to the Bill. EnglishNature was pleased with the increased powers and duties to enable them:

to take positive steps to tackle the quality of …English SSSIs…neglected or sufferingfrom inappropriate management.65

Baroness Young, the chairman of English Nature, believed that the money announced toenable her organisation to carry out the provisions of the Bill would be sufficient to begin thework, but felt that more would be necessary to ensure that all SSSI are in favourablecondition. She said that there should be money spent from agri-environment schemes,

62 CLA Press Release, Countryside Bill - common sense wins say Landowners, 3 March 200063 Countryside Alliance Press Release, Opportunities of Countryside Bill must not be outweighed by burdens,

3 March 200064 Wildlife Trusts Press Release, Countryside Bill brings new hope for wildlife says The Wildlife Trusts,

3 March 200065 English Nature Press Release EN/00/10, New laws for special wildlife sites, 3 March 2000


35

especially with regard to uplands where a large proportion of SSSIs are in unfavourablecondition.

Before the Bill was published the Countryside Council for Wales reported on the extremelypoor state of SSSIs in Wales. The Chief Executive of the Council called for tougherpenalties, a greater ability to enforce positive management schemes and the legal means toenforce restoration of sites.66

The CCW welcomed the Bill but pointed out that the budget that they had been set by theAssembly was already restricting the activity they had hoped to be able to carry out prior tothe Bill.67

The Countryside Agency were supportive of the Bill but concerned that there was no mentionof field boundaries, an issue also highlighted by the Council for the Protection of RuralEngland (CPRE). The minutes of the Agency’s meeting on the 7th March provides a goodsummary of, and background detail to, their concerns:

6. The 1998 report of the House of Commons Environment Sub-committee TheProtection of Field Boundaries was unequivocal in its recommendation that all typesof traditional field boundary should be given legal protection via primary legislation.In his subsequent letter (30.11.98) to the Rt. Hon. Michael Meacher MP, theChairman of the Countryside Commission said We consider that the Governmentshould introduce new primary legislation within the lifetime of this Parliament for alltypes of traditional field boundary, which should without exception be protected inlaw.

7. Instead, DETR intends to strengthen the existing Hedgerow Regulations (June1997), by issuing a revised Statutory Instrument later this year which will amend thecriteria for selecting hedgerows for protection. However, there will remainwidespread concern that some valuable hedgerows are likely still to be at risk, andother types of traditional field boundary (eg many Cornish/Devon hedge banks anddry stone walls) will be without legal protection. It is therefore very likely that thevoluntary sector will propose amendments to the Bill at committee stage introducingnew clauses on field boundaries.68

With regard to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Agency went one stage further.They believe this Bill to be the last forseeable opportunity to bring these sites under thestatutory protection that they believe necessary to preserve them. They would promoteamendments to the Bill to introduce clauses along the lines of those within the Areas of

66 Countryside Council for Wales Press Release, Countryside Bill legislation cannot come soon enough to easeWales’ SSSI pressures, 28 February 2000

67 Countryside Council for Wales Press Release, CCW endorses Countryside Bill measures at open meeting,7 March 2000

68 http://www.countryside.gov.uk/who/meetings/mar_00/part3.htm

http://www.countryside.gov.uk/who/meetings/mar_00/part3.htm


36

Outstanding Natural Beauty Bill sponsored by Lord Renton.69 The disappointment in thefailure to provide statutory protection for AONBs was shared by the Local GovernmentAssociation, which represents every local authority in England and Wales.70

There has been little comment from the political parties with respect to the countrysideaspects of the Bill. The Conservatives attacked the Bill as being ‘confused andinsubstantial’.71 They believed that the access provisions would leave SSSIs open toincreased damage from passers-by.

The Liberal Democrats are concerned that the extra costs implied by the Bill could be passedon to farmers and local authorities rather than be funded by central Government. They alsocommented that there seemed to be bits and pieces missing from the Bill such as what shouldbe done with regard to Biodiversity Action Plans and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.72

Neither Plaid Cymru nor the Welsh Liberal Democrats had come to a position at the time ofwriting.73

B. Provisions of the Bill

The Bill has several major provisions in the area of nature conservation. This section willlook at those and highlight any concerns raised with respect to them.

1. Sites of Special Scientific Interest

Schedule 9 of the Bill, introduced by clause 62, will amend those sections of the Wildlife andCountryside Act 1981 (WCA) relating to SSSI. This schedule is concerned with thenotification of SSSI and the responsibilities and rights of the various bodies concerned withsuch notification.

The first significant change to the notification process is that notification that a site is ofspecial scientific interest must now be published in at least one local newspaper in addition tothose listed in the WCA, i.e.:

• the local planning authority,• every owner and occupier of any of that land; and• the Secretary of State.

69 http://www.countryside.gov.uk/who/meetings/mar_00/part4.htm70 Telephone conversation with LGA policy officer, 11 March 200071 Conservative Party Press Release, Government’s approach to the environment is ’confused and insubstantial’,

3 March 200072 Telephone conversation with Liberal Democrat Policy Officer, 10 March 200073 14 March 2000

http://www.countryside.gov.uk/who/meetings/mar_00/part4.htm


37

The proposed subsection 28(3) will also allow the Nature Conservancy Council (NCC) tomake comment on the management of the land whereas before they were limited tospecifying the special nature of the site. This would seem to place a greater emphasis on thebetter future management of the site. As before, there is provision to make representationson, or objections to, the notification of a site as being of special scientific interest. WWF-UKbelieve such representations should be limited to scientific grounds thereby mirroring boththe Habitats and Species and Birds Directives.

The Bill aims to introduce a number of new sections to the WCA through Schedule 10 of theBill. There is a new power intended to amend notifications made on sites (Section 28A).The requirement to notify through a local paper does not extend to such amendments and soonly those bodies in the bullet list above would receive notice of such amendments.

The power to denotify a site is to be granted (Section 28B). The denotification of sites, orparts of sites, can be carried out if that area no longer meets the requirements of an SSSI, i.e.to be of special scientific interest. There is some concern that this may be easier, andtherefore more likely, than restoration and positive management of the site. Denotificationmust be published in at least one local newspaper.

The duties on those owners, or occupiers, under notification has changed (Section 28C). Therequirement to seek consent from the Nature Conservancy Council remains in force althoughstatutory undertakers (listed in the proposed Section 28E) are excluded from suchrequirements. The Wildlife Trusts are concerned that this is a weakness in the Bill. That theability of statutory undertakers to appoint third parties to carry out such works will leave thedoor open to damage that might otherwise be avoided. There is no test within the legislationas to whether the action taken by statutory undertakers is necessary or merely desirable.

Statutory undertakers are required to report to the NCC any works they propose to undertake,outside SSSI, that will cause damage to those sites (Section 28F). This notification would notprovide the NCC with an ability to prevent such actions taking place. Both the WildlifeTrusts and WWF-UK think that the Bill should allow certain conditions to be placed onstatutory undertakers when there is a risk of damage to an SSSI.

There appears to be some discrepancy that, although it is recognised that action outside theSSSI may damage the site, only statutory undertakers shall be required to take notice of suchdamage.

A major step proposed in the management of SSSIs is the ability of the NCC to formulate andimpose a management plan, after proper consultation, upon the owner/occupier of an SSSI(Section 28H). This management plan can be enforced through management notices whichrequire the owner to carry out the work required to implement the formulated managementplan (Section 28I). In extreme circumstances the NCC may enter the land, carry out the workand subsequently recover the costs of the operation from the owner/occupiers. There wouldbe a system of appeals in place to address a variety of situations including where oneowner/occupier feels that there are grounds for another owner/occupier to pay the majority, orall, of the costs individually.


38

Another tool to be granted to conservation agencies is a wider and more flexible remit underwhich they may compulsorily purchase land under threat.

A widespread concern of wildlife organisations has been that there was insufficientdisincentive to break the law. This may have been addressed in the proposed Section 28Mwhich raises the fines that may be imposed on those proved guilty of an offence under thislegislation. Fines up to £20,000 could be levied on those convicted under the proposedSection 28C(1) of the legislation and also for statutory undertakers that do not comply withboth sections 28F(1) and 28F(4) of the proposed legislation. Allowance is made forreasonable excuse to be made for any breach of the law.

One excuse for damage might be that the work was carried out under planning permission.The Wildlife Trusts feel that there would be a more informed debate if the proposed draftrevised Planning Policy Guidance note 9 could be released.74 There is also some concern thatdiscussion of the Bill be undertaken with some knowledge of the DETR review group reporton local wildlife sites. This report is due to be released in the near future but there is noguarantee it will be ready for either the second reading or the committee stages of the Bill.

The new Section 28M(5) will introduce the concept of reckless damage to wildlife crime.This would require the person responsible to know that the damage occurred within a SSSI.It may be that such knowledge will be hard to prove and that the legislation will be severelyweakened due to this requirement.

The ability to order restoration of a site following a conviction under the new legislation hasbeen widely welcomed. This means that not only will such people not benefit from theircrime, but that the SSSI would not suffer any long term damage.

The right to access is actually widened considerably by Clause 66 which allows any personauthorised in writing by the conservation agencies to enter SSSI land to aid the protection andmanagement of SSSIs. These entry rights would be welcomed by wildlife organisations andthe conservation agencies for other purposes of wildlife and nature conservation but are notprovided by this Bill.75

2. Enforcement of Wildlife Legislation

There is some recognition in the Bill that wildlife legislation outside of the SSSI system isalso in need of tightening up.

The major measure within the Bill to achieve this is the provision of greater penalties underexisting wildlife legislation. There are also amendments to sections 1 and 9 of the Wildlifeand Countryside Act 1981 (WCA) to include reckless disturbance to animals and birds

74 Telephone conversation with policy officer, 13 March 200075 WWF-UK, Brief on Countryside and Rights of Way Bill 2000, 7 March 2000


39

protected under that legislation. This means that prosecution would not depend on provingintent to disturb wildlife, just that there had been such disturbance by the accused. The WWFwould like to see this strengthened even further as the protection afforded to wildlife andplants under wildlife protection is less than that afforded to animals and plants under accessprovisions elsewhere in the Bill.

Penalties under the WCA are increased to a maximum of two years imprisonment and/or afine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (£20,000). There is also an indication in theExplanatory Notes that future regulations implementing the Habitats Directive and the EUWildlife Trade Regulations will include an ability to create offences that will attract custodialsentences of up to six months. The fines for damaging limestone pavements are alsoincreased to match those being imposed for damaging SSSIs.

In order to make enforcement easier the Bill also aims to provide wildlife officers withgreater rights of entry to facilitate enforcement of the legislation. These rights are limited toentering land to check wildlife crime with reference to only limited sections of the WCAlegislation. The WWF-UK would like to see more extensive powers of entry but there isusually resistance to the granting of police powers to non-police agencies.

A wildlife inspector is defined within the new Bill as ‘a person authorised in writing by theSecretary of State’.

3. Other Provisions of the Bill for the Countryside

The Bill makes provision for the fact that the new Scottish Parliament now has authority withregard to SSSI. Schedule 10 of the Bill amends the relevant parts of the Wildlife andCountryside Act to reflect this change.

The Bill also imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to notify the conservation agencies ofwetlands which are designated under the 1971 Ramsar Convention of Wetlands ofInternational Importance.

Clause 71 of the Bill provides that Parliament shall be responsible for the payment ofincreased costs of the Countryside Agency and the Nature Conservancy Council that aredirectly attributable to this legislation. Parliament will also pay for increased costs toMinisters which are attributable to provisions within the legislation. The Clause also makesprovision for payments, made under other enactments, which arise due to the enactment ofthe Countryside and Rights of Way Bill to be paid by Parliament.

The Government’s explanatory notes recognise some of the costs implicit in the Bill, such asstaff needs at English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales and costs to thePlanning Inspectorate. There is also recognition that public bodies subject to s11 of theCountryside Act 1968, to pay general regard to nature conservation in the course of theirduties, will attract increased costs due to the legislation. There is, however, no mechanismproposed for identifying such costs.

the countryside and conservation · ii nature conservation sites and legislation there have been...

Documents