Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

I shall speak to Amendment No. 116, which stands in my name and is grouped with Amendment No. 111. Inadvertently, I failed to declare an interest when I first spoke in Committee the other day. I own land in the north of England, mostly moorland and mostly subject to agricultural tenancies. I apologise if it will take a little longer at this late hour, but I need to explain to your Lordships exactly what I am trying to achieve. Amendment No. 116 would put a statutory obligation on Natural England to address the UK’s obligations on the sustainable use of natural resources under the 1992 United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. I am sure the Minister will point out that, under Clause 40, there is an obligation for government departments to have regard to the convention. Clearly, that is not the same as having a statutory obligation to abide by it. If Natural England is to wholeheartedly commit itself to sustainable management of wildlife resources—that is the important phrase—then an adherence to the convention should be mandatory. Furthermore, it could probably be argued that, by failing to support the principles behind the convention, the Government run the risk of undermining the internationally agreed conservation goal of sustainable use, and even appearing to condone the non-sustainable use of such resources. Without going into the convention in too much detail, there are one or two key issues on which I shall focus. As a general point, wildlife legislation has tended to concentrate too much on a purely protectionist stance. We need to move to a more positive position, whereby active conservation becomes more prevalent and reflects more realistically the principles of sustainable use. My amendment specifically refers to Article 6 of the convention. However, the wording of that article is such that it covers the measures set out in the convention as a whole. It would therefore include an obligation under Article 10, for example, to,"““support local populations””—" when I talk about ““local””, I mean ““human””—"““to develop and implement remedial action in degraded areas where biological diversity has been reduced””," and,"““encourage co-operation between its governmental authorities and its private sector in developing methods for sustainable use of biological resources””." There is a greater need for government and their agencies to appreciate the role that the private sector can and, indeed, does play in enhancing biodiversity objectives and to work more closely toward that aim. To that end, article 8 includes the objective to,"““respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovation and practices of indigenous and local communities””." That, again, reflects the fact that local experience and wisdom should be harnessed more effectively to obtain common objectives in wildlife management. I recognise that the UK Government have started down the road with their biodiversity action plans for species of conservation concern, but they are not quite as effective as they might be. Their approach is, if I may use the term, rather bland. Furthermore, conservation organisations such as the wildlife trusts and the RSPB have been channelling funds for specific conservation via their nature reserves—whereby the public pay in return for access—which has resulted in positive examples of wildlife management. One good example is the successful osprey breeding programme at Loch Garten. A further example of such sustainable wildlife benefits comes indirectly—and here I declare an interest—from grouse moors management. I apologise to those of your Lordships who may have heard me mention these statistics before in debate on the Commons Bill, but they are very important. On the managed moors of the north Pennines, we have in the region of 3,900 pairs of curlew whereas, elsewhere, their numbers appear to be quite unsustainable. Indeed, in the Berwyn SPA in Wales, the number is down to a mere 35 pairs. Similarly, golden plover populations on the two Pennine SPAs amount to some 2,150 pairs—in areas managed for grouse—whereas the population in the whole of Wales appears now to have slumped to a mere 85 pairs. That clearly represents a non-sustainable management regime. Positive management is required to try and rectify those ever falling wader populations. A similar report has been produced on Dartmoor, where the golden plover and green plover populations are literally falling out of bed. If that continues along current lines, they will cease to exist there, so positive management is required. This amendment is not simply about conserving biodiversity: it promotes the sustainable use of biodiversity via active species management. All wildlife in this country owes its position to man’s involvement, and wildlife management must be seen as part of our conservation effort, not separate from it. I should add that that would include flora as well as fauna. One clear example; if we want to encourage bluebells into woodlands it requires a certain type of woodland management through coppicing which would, again, require the careful management of deer. There is a real need for more pragmatic and positive moves toward sustainable wildlife objectives, involving all parties in a more constructive dialogue and a realistic approach. This amendment, which simply incorporates into law the United Nations convention on the sustainable use of biodiversity, would go some way toward meeting those objectives. In the parliamentary briefing for the Bill, the three organisations that will form part of Natural England stated that they want to achieve,"““a clear general purpose that should be enabling rather than prescriptive, inclusive rather than narrow and forward-looking rather than retrospective””." I suggest that this amendment would greatly enhance the prospects of such objectives being achieved. To do its job effectively, Natural England should have a statutory duty to develop wildlife policies that are sustainable in the long term. That has to embrace positive wildlife management, which must include the word ““use””. That is crucial.