BIODIVERSITY IN NORTHERN IRELAND

Delivery of the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy 2002-2005

FIRST REPORT OF THE NORTHERN IRELAND BIODIVERSITY GROUP

Cover Photograph Irish ladies’ tresses orchid Spiranthes romanzoffiana UK, All-Ireland and Northern Ireland priority species

Delivery of the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy

THE FIRST REPORT OF THE NORTHERN IRELAND BIODIVERSITY GROUP

2005

“Who can explain why one species ranges widely and is very numerous, and why another allied species has a narrow range and is rare? Yet these relations are of the highest importance, for they determine the present welfare, and, as I believe, the future success and modification of every inhabitant of this world” Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 1859

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Group c/o Environmental Policy Group Department of the Environment River House, High Street Belfast BT1 2AW

iii

CONTENTS Page No. 3

1.

Summary and Key Recommendations

2.

Introduction

10

3.

Background to the Report:

11

4.

Overview of Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: Key Elements for Delivery; Comment on Applicability and Measurability of Strategy

15

5.

The work of NIBG in 2004 and 2005

17

6.

The Work of the Interdepartmental Group in 2004 and 2005

20

7.

Implementation of Biodiversity Responsibilities by Individual Departments

23

8.

Structural Links Between Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy and Relevant Biodiversity Work of the EU and UK

35

9.

Species of Conservation Concern

39

10.

Delivery of the Species and Habitat Action Plans

40

11.

Delivery of Biodiversity at the Local Level

44

12.

Work of Non Government Organisations and Other Groups

46

13.

Public Awareness of Biodiversity and the Work for its Future

48

14.

Are We Making a Difference?

49

Appendix 1: Appendix 2: Appendix 3: Appendix 4: Appendix 5: Appendix 6: Appendix 7:

Representation and Attendance at Northern Ireland Biodiversity Group Work Plan of Northern Ireland Biodiversity Group, with Update on Progress as of August 2005 Representation and Attendance of Biodiversity Interdepartmental Group Reporting spreadsheets for 2004 and 2005 by Government Departments (on CD) Criteria for Inclusion on List of Species of Conservation Concern, and as Priorities for Action Northern Ireland Species and Habitat Action Plans Currently Agreed, or Awaiting Preparation, with Dates of Publication or Sign-off. List of Acronyms and Terms in the Report

1

51 53 60 62 62 63 64

“Biodiversity itself is part of our inheritance and our culture. Its future is bound up with our future. Because of the way we live, this variety of life is deteriorating. We accept that this is a sign of an unsustainable relationship between humanity and the natural world. And we believe this is true of Northern Ireland, just as it is of the world as a whole. We also believe it need not be so.” Northern Ireland Executive, August 2002

2

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

DELIVERY OF THE NORTHERN IRELAND BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY A Report by the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Group September 2005

1. Summary and Key Recommendations 1.1

The Northern Ireland Biodiversity Group has been in operation since May 2004, and has the role of co-ordinating and overseeing the delivery of the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy, together with promotion of public awareness and support. NIBG also is required to produce Reports on progress of the Strategy at three-yearly intervals. With the sign-off of the Strategy taking place in September 2002, September 2005 is the requirement for the first Report.

1.2

This Report also includes a review of the work of the Interdepartmental Group on Biodiversity, set up at the same time to ensure co-ordination of the work of all departments and agencies in delivery of biodiversity recovery in relation to their functions.

1.3

In the first year of NIBG’s existence we have concentrated on delivery mechanisms, including the effectiveness of the Government system in achieving biodiversity recovery, in response to the lead given by Government in endorsing the Strategy. We have also devoted considerable time to agreement and completion of a range of Species and Habitat Action Plans, and signing off a proposed list of Species of Conservation Concern.

1.4

In subsequent Reports, when policies, actions and implementation of the Action Plans may reasonably be expected to be producing results, we will increasingly turn our attention to the actual progress of biodiversity in Northern Ireland’s lands and waters.

1.5

Our findings in the present Report indicate that much work has been done to establish the basic systems which may deliver recovery of our biodiversity. However, our underlying concern is that this is confined to relatively few sectors within Government, whilst elsewhere in the system there is lack of awareness, low prioritisation, little planning for biodiversity responsibilities, and few lines of accountability. However, we report that discussions with the Permanent Secretaries Group have produced welcome agreement on measures to rectify this situation.

1.6

We are also much concerned that adequate and well resourced monitoring of both actions and results takes place. This is essential if we are going to assess progress towards targets, refine delivery mechanisms, and ensure we identify developing priorities, and hopefully reliably ascertain that formerly endangered species and habitats are on the road to recovery.

1.7

We report on delivery of biodiversity at a local level and by the voluntary sector. Both hold enormous potential to achieve recovery, and the NGOs are already undertaking a substantial amount of work, much of it supported by Government and Lottery funding. Significant progress is also being made in the preparation of local Biodiversity Action Plans by officers based in local authorities. The key test will be the willingness by local authorities to continue the work and press for implementation of the Plans at the end of the three year period of Government support.

3

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

1.8

We also report with concern the low level of public and community awareness of Northern Ireland’s biodiversity and the need for its restoration. We have encouraged Government to address this, and will actively support Environment and Heritage Service in its work to bring about greater awareness.

1.9

We conclude that at present it is far from clear that the Strategy’s target of halting Northern Ireland’s biodiversity loss by 2016 will be achieved. Considerable work will be required through resourcing, training, prioritisation, and co-ordination if we are to turn this around. This should also be a key component of the Sustainable Development Strategy, currently in preparation.

1.10

In each section we conclude with key recommendations emerging as a result of discussions in the text. We believe these recommendations are essential if Northern Ireland is going to delivery its Biodiversity Strategy successfully. The recommendations are listed below for convenience.

Key Recommendations, with relevant section numbers: 4.2:

Northern Ireland Executive should issue a statement clarifying the line of accountability for biodiversity delivery in Government; and identify the authority with responsibility for ensuring delivery.

4.2:

The current review of the Northern Ireland Wildlife Order should include a requirement that all public bodies and their officers should further the conservation of biodiversity consistent with the delivery of their functions.

4.2:

The findings of this Report should be considered in the forthcoming Review of Environmental Governance.

4.2:

Future version(s) of the Biodiversity Strategy (or comparable documents) should set out responsibilities that are ‘SMART’ to ensure delivery and accountability.

4.2:

The allocation of Strategy recommendations to lead departments should be reviewed in context of the evolving functions of Government departments and agencies.

4.2:

All departments and their agencies should prepare Biodiversity Implementation Plans that are adequately resourced, accountable and ‘SMART’.

4.2:

Advice and training should be given to departments, agencies and relevant officers in meeting their biodiversity responsibilities.

5.2:

NIBG should annually review its own performance and revise its work programme accordingly.

5.2:

Follow-up work on Action Plans and their resourcing should be undertaken by NIBG and EHS – this should particularly focus on any revised targets following the UK review.

6.3:

Clarification of role and functions of Interdepartmental Group representatives, with agreement for these within their departments/agencies.

6.3:

Training for representatives and other relevant officers within departments/ agencies. 4

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

6.3:

Establishment of a system of on-going guidance and support to departments/ agencies, particularly in relation to the preparation of Implementation Plans.

6.3:

Appointment of an Officer in DoE to undertake training and support for departments/agencies on biodiversity and their responsibilities.

6.3:

Agreement of clear lines of accountability for delivery of Implementation Plans within departments/agencies.

7.1.1: DoE (EPG) should issue, with the Executive’s agreement, a statement setting out the relationships between the Sustainable Development Strategy, Integrated Coastal Zone Management plan, and the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy, and their respective roles in delivering biodiversity conservation. It should emphasise the importance of thriving biodiversity as a key element of Sustainable Development. 7.1.3: CEDaR should (in co-operation with EHS) prepare an Implementation Plan stating how their work will target biodiversity conservation priorities in the next 5 years. 7.1.3: EHS should prepare and resource a Strategy for co-ordinated monitoring of species and habitats of conservation concern; in part through its site monitoring programme, and also through the engagement of other organisations and individuals with relevant expertise. Significant funding will be required to achieve this properly. (See also reference to DARD) 7.1.3: EHS should review the resourcing of its site designation, management, and monitoring programme and seek extra funding as appropriate. 7.1.4: Planning Service should prepare an Implementation Plan, setting out the structures and systems by which biodiversity conservation priorities are to be addressed. A key element of this should be urgent progress and completion of PPS 2. 7.1.4: Planning Service should follow up staff biodiversity training for both previous trainees and new post holders, and ensure this is updated on a regular basis. 7.1.4: Planning Service and EHS should clarify the mechanisms by which priority species and habitats are safeguarded in the planning system, and if necessary, strengthen these. 7.1.4: Any revised public administration system with changes in the planning system should incorporate requirements to deliver the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy from the outset. 7.2:

DARD executive should issue a clear statement giving direction to its component divisions and requiring compliance with the Biodiversity Strategy, and establishing lines of accountability to the Department and appropriate reporting systems.

7.2.1: CMB should review conservation objectives in agri-environment schemes, relating these to priority species and habitats, and establish a robust monitoring system capable of identifying conservation benefits, and areas where improvement in prescriptions is required. 7.2.1: Consideration should be given to establishing closer co-operation and compatibility between CMB and EHS in delivering for biodiversity priorities and monitoring conservation status of priority species and habitats. 5

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

7.2.1: Detailed co-ordination between CMB and EHS is required to ensure compatibility of requirements expected of farmers with ASSIs who have opted into Agrienvironment schemes. 7.2.2: The forthcoming Strategy for Forestry should recognise the key role Forest Service should play in biodiversity conservation, and contain clear commitments to delivering conservation priorities. 7.2.2: Forest Service should focus strongly on habitat restoration both of woodland and other habitats that have been impacted by forestry. In particular, all remnants of ancient woodland should be targeted for restoration, and where possible linkage of these by new planting to develop larger ecological units. 7.2.3: Fisheries Division should develop a Biodiversity Implementation Plan, incorporating the recommendations from ‘Net Benefits’. 7.2.3: Fisheries Division should review its procedures and policies to ensure compliance with management requirements of designated intertidal and subtidal sites. 7.2.3: DARD should include an environmental sustainability objective relating to fisheries in its Strategic Plan 2006-2011. 7.2.3: NIBG, EHS and Fisheries Division, together with fishing interests, should consider and review the Marine Habitat and Species Action Plans. 7.2.3: The forthcoming Aquaculture Strategy should integrate biodiversity objectives into its proposals, and Fisheries Division should work with the Loughs Agency to ensure a similar approach to the Lough Foyle Strategy. 7.3:

Department of Education should prepare a Biodiversity Implementation Plan relating to its functions.

7.3:

Department of Education should reconsider whether guidance for teachers aimed at developing pupils’ understanding of the term ‘biodiversity’ should be given.

7.3:

Encouragement should be given to Education and Library Boards, and School Governors to maximise opportunities for biodiversity and its understanding through management of school grounds.

7.4:

DEL should evaluate the potential for environment and biodiversity related employment, and following this, develop an appropriate Strategy for building Northern Ireland’s skills base in these areas.

7.5:

Consideration should be given to the best location for the Inland Fisheries unit in order to maximise its effectiveness in delivering its responsibilities.

7.5:

Department of Culture Arts and Leisure should require Inland Fisheries unit to prepare a Biodiversity Implementation Plan, incorporating fisheries enhancement with wider biodiversity objectives.

7.5:

NIBG and DCAL should explore ways in which public awareness and appreciation of biodiversity could be enhanced through the arts, entertainment and recreation.

6

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

7.6:

DETI should prepare a Biodiversity Implementation Plan relating to its functions, and establish clear lines of accountability for its delivery. The Plan should include measures to encourage industry to take active steps to conserve/restore biodiversity on their lands and through their operations and developments.

7.7:

DFP should appraise future spending plans to ensure implementation of the forthcoming Sustainable Development Strategy.

7.7:

DFP should prepare a Biodiversity Implementation Plan, identifying functions that have impact on biodiversity, and including provision for implementing existing UK initiatives.

7.7:

DFP should explore and implement ways of enhancing the biodiversity of the Government Estate, and use this as an example of good practice for other major land holders.

7.8:

The policies of health boards and other public bodies in relation to zoning in local development plans in respect of open spaces should be investigated for compliance with ‘Shaping our Future’, and Recommendation 1 of the Biodiversity Strategy.

7.8:

DHSSPS should support and promote policies for maintenance, enhancement, and creation of natural spaces in Northern Ireland communities.

7.8:

Health Trusts should explore and develop opportunities for biodiversity conservation or restoration on their lands; non-government conservation bodies should contribute support in achieving this.

7.8:

DHSSPS should prepare, with co-operation from Health Trusts, a Biodiversity Implementation Plan.

7.9:

DRD should complete PPS 20 (Coastal Development) as a matter of urgency.

7.9.1: Roads Service should prepare a Biodiversity Implementation Plan that establishes a clear policy for delivery for biodiversity on its lands, with high level support for consistent practice. 7.9.1: Roads Service should work with NGOs (eg CVNI) to ensure continuity of supply of correct plants, by detailed advance co-relation on scheduled road improvement schemes. This should include emphasis on mandatory planting of re-aligned hedgerows with native stock in rural areas. 7.9.1: Roads Service should ensure that its staff and contractors reduce cutting frequency on all its verges (subject to safety requirements on identified sites), and where reseeding use slow growing native varieties. 7.9.2: Water Service should continue its audit of biodiversity on its lands and waters as a matter of high priority, and should further develop partnerships with relevant NGOs as conservation priorities are identified. 7.9.2: Water Service and Forest Service should review the objectives for forestry management on Water Service lands, and ensure delivery for the relevant biodiversity conservation priorities.

7

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

7.9.2: Water Service should develop a Biodiversity Indicator for sustainability, compatible with requirements under the Water Framework Directive, and put in place measures to monitor delivery. 7.9.2: Water Service should prepare a Biodiversity Implementation Plan (covering inter alia the above points) as part of its business plan under the new Go Co arrangements. 8.1:

NIBG should strongly urge the UK Government to use its current Presidency to promote the commitment made in Gothenburg and in particular to confirm the outcomes of the Malahide Conference. Government should also be prepared to follow through this impetus after its Presidency.

8.2:

In the event of a clear policy signed off by the EU, the Northern Ireland Executive should initiate a review of the Biodiversity Strategy.

8.3:

EHS and NIBG should develop ways in which the system of targets and plans (both existing and revised) together with reporting mechanisms can be made accessible to decision makers and other interests in Northern Ireland.

8.3:

EHS and NIBG should work within the UK Partnership to achieve greater clarity of structures and decision making, which both achieves consistency in the delivering the UK obligation under the Convention on Biodiversity, whilst also reflecting the increased concentration on delivery at a country level.

8.4:

Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland governments should identify data management and acquisition needs to ensure as complete a biogeographical record of conservation status of priority species and habitats as possible.

8.4:

Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland Governments should review the management arrangements of water catchments from source to coastal waters in order to ensure consistency of policies and practices with the biodiversity requirements of the Water Framework Directive.

9:

EHS, CEDaR, and NIBG should consider a future review of the SoCC list, its data needs, criteria, and relation to the current and future UK reviews, accounting for comparable processes in the Republic of Ireland, and make recommendations.

10.3:

EHS, with CEDaR and Quercus, and with lead BAP partners as appropriate, should undertake review of monitoring work to ensure it is meeting the needs of Action Plan delivery, and best use of resources.

10.3:

The review of the Northern Ireland Wildlife Order should ensure that the Order will reflect the Northern Ireland conservation priorities.

10.3:

Monitored outcomes of conservation work should be used to initiate rapid review of Action Plans and urgent implementation of new measures.

11.3:

Local authorities should commence planning for continuation and development of their biodiversity work following the completion of their grant-aided LBAP projects.

11.3:

BDU and LBAP officers should consider the underlying approach to biodiversity priorities, and the balance between local and national priorities in developing local plans. NIBG would be willing to assist in this discussion. 8

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

11.3:

NIBG should meet with local authorities and explore the levels of engagement with the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy. We will also work to ensure a strong biodiversity role in any new local authority system.

12.1:

NGOs engaged in biodiversity conservation should explore ways of working more closely in sharing the delivery of biodiversity targets.

12.1:

NIBG and EHS should (with reference to other biodiversity awareness work) consider whether a mechanism to contribute to wider participation in delivery of the Strategy would be of benefit.

12.2

NIBG should find ways of working with the Statutory Advisory Councils to promote and strengthen the Lottery funding support for natural heritage, particularly with respect to maintenance and restoration of biodiversity during the review of the Lottery.

13:

EHS and DoE (NI) should develop, resource, and implement a large scale campaign to build awareness of biodiversity and the work being undertaken by the various sectors in achieving its recovery.

13:

Department of Education should re-assess the draft new curriculum to ensure that its biological content is linked to biodiversity; this should be accompanied by guidance to schools and teachers to ensure pupils’ awareness of the importance of biodiversity and what is being done to conserve it.

9

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

2. Introduction The Northern Ireland Biodiversity Group (NIBG) is required to monitor, co-ordinate, and promote the delivery of the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy. In effect it ‘champions’ the delivery through the actions and awareness of all sectors, including Government, local authorities, business, farming and fishing, the voluntary movement, and very importantly, individual people and their communities. NIBG also has the role of reporting to the Executive every three years on progress with the implementation of the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy; it is three years since the Strategy was signed off by the Executive, and this is therefore our first Report. NIBG has taken its role seriously and with enthusiasm. We are keenly aware that Northern Ireland has a great wealth of biodiversity, or wildlife, and that it is precious, both as a resource and a heritage, and it is found equally on land and in the sea. Northern Ireland people often assume that rich wildlife occurs only in exotic places; the reality however is that our wildlife is in some aspects richer that many regions. Examples are the wealth of species rich grasslands in Fermanagh – far greater than comparable parts of the UK, our exceptionally rich marine life sustained by our position in the Gulf Stream, and our key location for migratory birds. However, we are equally aware that our wildlife is under great threat through the profound rural, agricultural, and economic changes that are taking place in Northern Ireland. Many of these changes may bring about improvements in our quality of life, but NIBG is concerned to ensure that for these developments to be truly sustainable, they must be achieved in a way that does not erode our biodiversity, and indeed helps restoration. The Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy sets out to achieve this. There has been a de facto acceptance in Government that DoE (NI) carried the main responsibility for biodiversity delivery on behalf of the Executive, and this Report is therefore addressed initially to the Minister for Environment in Northern Ireland for his attention. However, the Strategy clearly identifies the contribution needed from all Government departments as well as the wide range of sectors referred to above. This Report is therefore intended for detailed consideration on a much wider basis, and we will welcome feedback and response from all quarters. NIBG was established in May 2004 – two years into the Strategy’s programme. We have therefore had much to catch up on – details of this work are set out below. In submitting this Report we recognise that we have not been able to cover all areas of biodiversity delivery. Moreover, implementation of many Biodiversity Action Plans has only begun, and it would be premature to report on their results. We therefore focus on delivery by Government, because they have assumed the lead for biodiversity conservation, and on other key areas such as local delivery mechanisms, work by NGOs, and public awareness. These are all essentially ‘means’ objectives – ways of maintaining or restoring a thriving biodiversity. We anticipate that future reporting will increasingly concentrate on the ‘ends’; the actual results on the ground and in our waters, as actions to address broad environmental issues, and targeted restoration of priority species and habitats, together begin to produce tangible results. Much work has been undertaken by government, local areas, voluntary sectors, and individuals, and we hope this Report reflects those good efforts. We also hope that the forthcoming Sustainable Development Strategy will present a significant context for our recommendations, given that the status of biodiversity is a key indicator of Sustainable Development. However, our overall conclusion is that there is an enormous amount left to do, even in terms of establishing the basic systems and initiatives that themselves will take time to bring measurable benefits. In the meantime, we greatly fear that losses of biodiversity may still be continuing in Northern Ireland, possibly accelerating, whilst the positive work that genuinely has been achieved is still a long way from demonstrating measurable results for species and habitats. We present this Report on the first three years of the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy to the Minister and to the Northern Ireland Executive. We welcome the real progress that has been made, but remind the Minister and the Executive of the “alarming rate” of loss that was identified by the Executive in the Strategy. We hope the recommendations in our Report will be acted upon urgently, in the hope that we may yet halt Northern Ireland’s biodiversity loss by 2016. 10

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

3. Background to the Report: 3.1

3.2.

Global Biodiversity Convention 3.1.1.

In June 1992 representatives from over 150 countries (one of the largest gatherings of this type) attended the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro – the Earth Summit. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was signed by 153 countries including the UK, Republic of Ireland, and the European Community. The UK ratified the Convention in 1994, and the Republic of Ireland in 1996. The Isle of Man (a UK Crown Dependency) which shares much biodiversity with the UK, has not yet signed the Convention.

3.1.2.

Article 4 of the Rio Declaration stated: “In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it.”

3.1.3.

Article 6A of the Convention requires each contracting State to: “Develop national strategies, plans, or programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, or adapt for this purpose existing strategies, plans, or programmes, which shall reflect inter alia, the measures set out in the convention relevant to the contracting party concerned.”

3.1.4.

The outcome of these two articles, as they apply to the UK and its devolved UK countries like Northern Ireland, is that conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity must be built into all aspects of development. All aspects of government, commerce and society have therefore been tasked with responsibility to maintain and restore biodiversity.

The UK Biodiversity Strategy 3.2.1.

In 1994 the UK published “Biodiversity: the UK Action Plan” – to conserve and enhance biological diversity within the UK and to contribute to the conservation of global biodiversity through all appropriate measures. Underlying principles of this plan are: 1. Where biological resources are used, such use should be sustainable. 2. Wise use should be ensured for non-renewable resources. 3. The conservation of biodiversity requires the care and involvement of individuals and communities as well as Governmental processes. 4. Conservation of biodiversity should be an integral part of Government programmes, policy and action. 5. Conservation practice and policy should be based upon a sound knowledge base. 6. The precautionary principle should guide decisions. Objectives for conserving biodiversity are: 1. To conserve and where practicable to enhance: a. The overall populations and natural ranges of native species and the quality and range of wildlife habitats and ecosystems; b. Internationally important and threatened species, habitats and ecosystems; 11

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

c. Species, habitats and natural and managed ecosystems that are characteristic of local areas; d. The biodiversity of natural and semi-natural habitats where this has been diminished over recent past decades. 2. To increase public awareness of, and involvement in, conserving biodiversity. 3. To contribute to the conservation of biodiversity on a European and global scale. Key elements of the plan are: 1. Halting net loss of biodiversity by 2010. 2. The need for targeted and costed Action Plans that would maintain and restore key species and habitats. 3. The need for concerted action across all sections of Government. 4. Engagement of the voluntary sector, local authorities and individuals. 5. The establishment of Country Biodiversity Groups charged with carrying forward action in the devolved UK countries. The last point reflects the substantial changes brought about by devolution in the UK, as acknowledged in the 2002 UK Government response to the UK Biodiversity Group Report “Sustaining the Variety of Life: five years of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan”. In it, Government acknowledges that the emphasis on delivery has shifted significantly towards delivery by the devolved UK countries (and is continuing to do so), and that reporting, planning and objective setting needed to reflect this. The response further endorsed the establishment of a UK Biodiversity Partnership reflecting this situation – this is discussed in 8.3 below. 3.3.

The Republic of Ireland National Biodiversity Plan 3.3.1.

The National Biodiversity Plan (2002) states that “The overall objective is to secure the conservation, including where possible the enhancement, and sustainable use of biological diversity in Ireland and to contribute to conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity globally.” This applied to biodiversity at habitat (ecosystem), species, and genetic levels of biodiversity.

3.3.2.

Key principles: • • • •

3.3.3.

The conservation of biological diversity is essential for sustainable development and for maintaining the quality of human life Each form of biological diversity is unique, and of value in its own right All sectors and actors are responsible for advancing the conservation of biological diversity in their respective areas The ‘polluter pays principle’ and the ‘precautionary principle’ will be supported

The preface of the Plan (Section 1.7) states that the all-Ireland context is of major importance and that the Plan benefited from consultation with Environment and Heritage Service and the Department of the Environment (NI) “Recommendations to Government for a Biodiversity Strategy” compiled by the first Northern Ireland Biodiversity Group. Sections 3.6 – 3.8 of the plan stress the importance of the 12

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

island as single biogeographical unit, and provide for increased North – South cooperation, also reflected in a number of the Plan’s actions. 3.4.

The Development of the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy 3.4.1.

In 1996 the first Northern Ireland Biodiversity Group was assembled under the Chair of Richard Rogers, then Director of Environmental Policy, attached to Environmental Policy Division of the Department of Environment (NI). The seventeen representatives were drawn from farming, forestry, local government, Northern Ireland Government, and the voluntary environmental sectors. This effectively implemented the UK Action Plan requirement to establish Country Biodiversity Groups. The deliberations of the first NIBG included: • • • • • •

Analysis of the key components of Northern Ireland’s biodiversity including its origins Factors and issues affecting our biodiversity Recommendations for actions to conserve and restore wider biodiversity, applying to all sectors of government, local government and society Recognition of the all-Ireland biogeographical context for Northern Ireland’s biodiversity The requirement to list and prioritise habitats and species of conservation concern, to prepare and implement Action Plans for priority species and habitats Responsibilities for delivery

3.4.2.

In 1999 the draft “Biodiversity in Northern Ireland; Recommendations to Government for a Biodiversity Strategy” was published and subject to wide consultation. Many useful comments were received, as a result of which the original proposals were significantly revised. A key element was obtaining support within all sectors of Government.

3.4.3.

In October 2000 the first NIBG published the completed “Biodiversity in Northern Ireland; Recommendations to Government for a Biodiversity Strategy” (the “Recommendations”), and presented it to the Minister of the Environment, Sam Foster, MLA, who undertook to initiate discussions with Departments and the Northern Ireland Executive. The key elements of the 135 page Recommendations are summarised in section 4 below.

3.4.4.

In August 2002 the Minister of the Environment Dermot Nesbitt MLA published the Northern Ireland Executive’s endorsement of the Recommendations in the “Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy” (referred to here as the “Strategy”). This 20 page document set out the Executive’s commitment “…to protecting this common wealth in a way that reflects the interests of those who use it and who live in it.” Other key statements in the document were: • Acknowledgement that Northern Ireland was losing its biodiversity at an “alarming rate”, and that the environmental challenge “…cannot be overstated” • The Strategy would operate on a timescale of 15 years (2001 – 2016) • Acceptance of the recommendations contained in the NIBG Report as a framework for biodiversity action (thus clarifying that the Recommendations formed the key agenda for biodiversity work in Northern Ireland) • Acknowledgement that, whilst the issues required action by the whole Northern Ireland community, the Executive had to take the lead

13

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

3.4.5.

The Strategy established delivery mechanisms, including the reconstitution of the NIBG by December 2002, whose role would be to: • • • • • •

3.4.6.

Co-ordinate and monitor implementation of the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy including progress towards agreed species and habitats targets Co-ordinate and monitor the development and implementation of Northern Ireland Action Plans Promote public and business awareness of, and involvement in, biodiversity conservation Explore mechanisms for promoting biodiversity conservation on an all-Ireland basis Participate in any UK biodiversity partnership and the development of UK Action Plans which relate to Northern Ireland Submit Reports to the Executive every three years (the cycle starting with the commencement of the Strategy in 2002) on progress of the implementation of the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy (this has been taken to include the Recommendations)

The Strategy further stated: •

• •

“…we will, therefore, establish an inter-departmental mechanism to coordinate the actions of the Executive in the strategy’s implementation. The purpose will be to examine the impact of departments’ policies on biodiversity, and to ensure that departments achieve increased coordination, extend the application of the ecosystem approach to environmental management and promote biodiversity on their land and water through their activities” “Another important function will be to oversee the implementation of those NIBG recommendations which relate to knowledge, understanding and participation” “While it may be decided that lead responsibility for action on certain of these recommendations should be assumed by an organisation other than that proposed by NIBG, this will in no way diminish the commitment to implementation”

These statements identified the Recommendations as the basis for action; that the Executive accepted responsibility for taking the lead; and that co-ordinated action within and between Government departments was required, and importantly, even where responsibilities were changed in any case of future reorganisation. It was also a clear acknowledgement that matters were urgent. 3.4.7.

Following the endorsement of the Strategy in 2002, there was a significant delay. Finally in 2004, Dr Bob Brown was appointed Chair of NIBG and was also invited to chair the Interdepartmental Biodiversity Group, which he did. The Interdepartmental Biodiversity Group first met on April 2nd, and the new NIBG first met on May 24th, welcomed by Minister of the Environment, Angela Smith, MP. NIBG and the Interdepartmental Group therefore commenced their work in the second year of the Strategy’s operation.

14

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

4. Overview of Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: Key Elements for Delivery; Comment on Applicability and Measurability of Strategy 4.1.

Main Components for Delivery The Recommendations to Government analyse Northern Ireland’s biodiversity, its origins, factors/issues affecting it, and develop two major strands of work: •

•

4.2.

Fourteen major issues were analysed for their impacts on biodiversity in Northern Ireland. From these, 76 recommendations for action were set out covering the major sectors and lead organisations. These are allocated to bodies with “Lead Responsibility” and “Other Parties”. In most cases the former resides with Government Departments Identification of priority species and habitats for conservation work, and development of Action Plans for these. This would take the form of a general list of species of conservation concern (SoCC) and from that a second list of priorities requiring immediate action. Both lists would reflect Northern Ireland’s unusual situation of being part of the UK, its biogeographical position on the island of Ireland, and biodiversity of particular concern within Northern Ireland

Opportunities for Future Improvement of the Strategy The Strategy, and its approved recommendations have been widely recognised as being a significant step forward for conservation in Northern Ireland, and the work attracted praise from numerous sources in the UK and Republic of Ireland. NIBG has no remit to redraft the Strategy or Recommendations. However, with the benefit of having observed its delivery prior to the establishment of NIBG, and during the last year of NIBG’s work, a number of areas where improvement would be possible should be recorded for consultation in future reviews: •

•

•

•

•

Whilst the Executive undertook to take the lead in the delivery of the Strategy, no mechanisms were identified to achieve this, nor were responsibilities within the Executive clarified. In effect the matter was delegated to DoE, and whilst the Department (and its agency Environment and Heritage Service) has exerted considerable effort in delivering this, no clear statement by the Executive was made to announce this, causing uncertainty in respect of accountability for delivery. We believe these issues should be considered during the forthcoming Review of Environmental Governance The 76 recommendations, whilst identifying ‘lead’ and ‘other’ partners, did not state timescales, or mechanisms of accountability to lead bodies. As a result the plan could not be properly described as “SMART” (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time-bound) Since the ‘Recommendations’ were published in 2000, the allocation of responsibilities of different departments or agencies has been clarified, or modified by new initiatives. The Executive’s 2002 endorsement of the Recommendations provides for this eventuality (see 3.4.6), and responsibilities and leadership should be reviewed The Strategy did not establish a requirement on bodies to prepare implementation plans that related their functions to their signed-off commitments to the Strategy. As a result, changes in staff during the period of delay meant that new post-holders had no plan to work within; indeed some new arrivals had not been briefed on the biodiversity responsibilities that their departments/agencies held There was no provision for extra support to departments/agencies in implementing their new responsibilities. With the benefit of hindsight, it was unreasonable to expect that government staff, with the variety of roles expected of them, would automatically be able to absorb a topic that for many is completely outside their ‘normal’ work arena 15

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

It could be well argued, given the length of time to achieve the Executive’s final endorsement, that a more demanding Strategy would have been even more difficult to achieve. The Chair of NIBG, as a member of the original group and therefore having some shared responsibility for the Strategy, is well aware of the discussion about this during the drafting. However, the present NIBG is of the view that the above points identify a void in the process that should be addressed by the following recommendations: Recommendation: Northern Ireland Executive should issue a statement clarifying the line of accountability for biodiversity delivery in Government; and identifying the authority with responsibility for ensuring delivery. Recommendation: The current review of the Northern Ireland Wildlife Order should include a requirement that all public bodies and their officers should further the conservation of biodiversity consistent with the delivery of their functions. Recommendation: The findings of this Report should be considered in the forthcoming Review of Environmental Governance. Recommendation: Future version(s) of the Biodiversity Strategy (or comparable documents) should set out responsibilities that are ‘SMART’ to ensure delivery and accountability. Recommendation: The allocation of Strategy recommendations to lead departments should be reviewed in context of the evolving functions of Government departments and agencies. Recommendation: All departments and their agencies should prepare Biodiversity Implementation Plans that are adequately resourced, accountable and ‘SMART’. Recommendation: Advice and training should be given to departments, agencies and relevant officers in meeting their biodiversity responsibilities.

16

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

5. The work of NIBG in 2004 and 2005 5.1.

The Role of NIBG The role of NIBG has been set out in 3.4.5. above. Representation and attendance is listed in Appendix 1. The group has held five meetings since the first introductory session on May 24 2004. It has also held a number of extra meetings or subgroup meetings in particular areas of work. These are described below.

5.2.

Major Work Areas NIBG identified priorities related to its terms of reference, and prepared an outline plan for these (see Appendix 2). However, delays in establishing NIBG (only commencing two years after the sign-off of the Strategy), and the requirement immediately to start production of a Report to comply with the three yearly cycle (see 3.4.5. above) meant that we have not covered as much as we would have wished. A key element was a backlog of work particularly relating to species and habitats of conservation concern, for which Environment and Heritage Service required urgent NIBG approval, and had been awaiting the establishment of the Group. In addition to a range of matters debated (Minutes are available from Environmental Policy Group, River House, High Street, Belfast BT1 2AW. Key tasks undertaken in the year 2004 -2005 were: 1. Ensuring co-ordination and effectiveness of delivery for biodiversity throughout the Northern Ireland Government. With the Group’s support, the Chair has embarked on discussions to identify strengths and weaknesses of the present situation. Aspects of this have been addressed in 4.2 above, and are developed further in 5.3 and 6 below. 2. Signing off the list of Species of Conservation Concern. A key element of any biodiversity strategy is the identification of habitats, species and genetic varieties that are of conservation concern, and this was held over for further work following the launch of the Strategy in 2002. EHS consulted extensively within Government, NGOs and other experts and following detailed discussions, NIBG signed off the list at its meeting on 27 September 2004. In this, 457 species have been listed due to their present restricted distribution, declines, or significance for conservation at a national/ international level, of which 272 have been prioritised for urgent action. Details of this can be found at www.ehsni.gov.uk. 3. Habitat and Species Action Plans. This entailed two days of special workshops with further time for consideration and comment. NIBG recognised the urgent need to complete this work in accordance with EHS timescales, (due to the delays in establishing the Group), but were concerned that the process was too hasty. Particular concern was expressed in relation to the feasibility of Marine Habitat Action Plans. However, there is opportunity for further consideration, not least because of the UK wide review of targets and definitions during 2005. There was also great concern that NIBG was being asked to agree the Plans without any clarity or assurance that resources were available for their implementation (see also 10.3 below). Subject to these points (which NIBG continues to pursue), the Plans were signed off in March 2005. 4. Establishment of a sub-group to investigate the conservation of rare breeds of livestock and plant cultivars (genetic diversity – Recommendation 62). This considered the range of breeds/cultivars that were associated with Northern Ireland, their status where known, presence of any groups or individuals with particular interest in certain breeds, and how this information could be brought together in order to determine priorities for action. The meeting particularly focused on the status of Irish Moiled cattle. NIBG reaffirmed that this was a core role of DARD under 17

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

the Strategy, and discussions are on-going to determine how the Department will take a proactive role to achieve this. 5. Establishment of a Public Awareness sub-group. This met on 11 February 2005 and considered its role, and the challenges posed by low public awareness of biodiversity issues (particularly in consideration of the “Framework for Biodiversity Publicity and Promotion in Northern Ireland” prepared for EHS by J Annett and C Spouncer), and the forthcoming development of an EHS Strategy for improving biodiversity awareness (see Chapter 13 below). The sub-group also considered the development of NIBG’s own public profile, particular in the context of the reporting cycle. It was recognised that NIBG’s role in this respect needed to be compatible with the EHS Strategy, and probably focus on the latter area, particularly in relation to publication of this Report. Recommendation: NIBG should annually review its own performance and revise its work programme accordingly. Recommendation: Follow-up work on Action Plans and their resourcing should be undertaken by NIBG and EHS – this should particularly focus on any revised targets following the UK review. 5.3

Chairman’s Business In addition to the main work of NIBG the chairman has undertaken investigations into the delivery of biodiversity conservation in Northern Ireland, most notably the 76 recommendations, and to ensure this has been incorporated as a key element in major policy consultations. In particular the following areas of work have been pursued: 1. Meetings with nine Government Departments, and several agencies to evaluate the level of engagement with the biodiversity process, and where appropriate offer suggestions and advice. 2. Discussions with Environmental Policy Group, Permanent Secretary of DoE(NI), and the Permanent Secretaries’ Group, concerning the co-ordinated delivery of biodiversity conservation throughout Government, particularly through the Interdepartmental Group, and strengthening the commitment and resourcing of individual departments for this. This is expanded on in section 6 below.

5.4

Future Work There are a number of issues and sectors that we have not had the opportunity of engaging with during our first year of operation, or where significant further work is needed in exploring their current or potential roles in delivering for biodiversity. These are summarised below: • • • • •

Other Government department/agencies and other bodies, including OFMDFM, DSD, Ministry of Defence and Defence Estates; Prisons Service, Waterways Ireland, HM Coastguard, Museums (MAGNI), and Northern Ireland Tourist Board Work of the universities and higher education colleges relating to biodiversity Follow-up engagement of local authorities in greater detail, notably after the anticipated review of local authorities, and in respect of delivery of Local Biodiversity Action Plans Data and reporting of outcomes of conservation action, and conservation status of species and habitats Exploration of ways in which delivery of numerous Action Plans can be costed and 18

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

• •

delivered most effectively and efficiently Role and opportunities for contribution by local management and advisory bodies like Mournes Heritage Trust, Strangford Lough Management and Advisory Committee, Rathlin Community Association and others Opportunities for greater involvement by industry

19

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

6. The Work of the Interdepartmental Group in 2004 and 2005 6.1.

Terms of Reference These were set out in broad detail in the 2002 Strategy, and refined after discussion on 20 September 2004: 1. Encourage Departments to assess all new or revised policies and programmes for their impact on biodiversity and apply the precautionary principle together with other responsibilities in the context of sustainable development. 2. Increase the co-ordination of the work of all departments and agencies on biodiversity to ensure integration and commonality of purpose. 3. Encourage all public bodies to conserve and enhance biodiversity on their land and water through their activities. 4. Co-ordinate an inter-departmental approach to the various actions in the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy which relate to knowledge, understanding and participation. 5. Extend the application of the ecosystem approach to environmental management in Northern Ireland. 6. Co-ordinate reporting by departments on implementation work to meet the needs for reports to the Executive and to integrate with UK biodiversity reporting cycles.

It is important to note that the terminology (eg, the term ‘encourage’) refers specifically to the functions of the Interdepartmental Group as a co-ordinating structure; it does not detract from the agreed responsibilities of individual departments or agencies in their direct roles in delivering conservation benefits. The Group is therefore merely advisory in its role and does not have any function in holding bodies to account or demanding delivery, and does not address any of the issues cited in 4.2 above. The Interdepartmental Group has held a total of five meetings. Representation is listed in Appendix 3. In some cases more than one representative would attend from a particular department/agency. In many cases there has been welcome consistency of attendance and representation, but a number of representatives have changed, or have attended irregularly, or resigned, causing some lack of continuity. OFMDFM have not sent a representative. Minutes are available from Environmental Policy Group, River House, High Street, Belfast BT1 2AW. 6.2.

Major Work Areas Key issues considered have been: 1. Reporting Processes. Implementation of the Strategy’s Recommendations has been variably reported. There was reluctance by departments and agencies represented to report on a standard format – representatives feeling that this would not properly reflect the great variety of roles and functions that the different departments operate. However it was agreed that reports should be submitted, and collated by EPG, and this has been undertaken. A synopsis of this reporting can be seen in Appendix 4. Departments/agencies with functions overtly linked to environmental and biological matters produced more regular and detailed submissions compared with those departments with primary functions in other arenas. A key problem for some departments is that they have no programme or plan for implementing their 20

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

responsibilities under the Strategy, and therefore no framework to report within. This point was raised in 4.2 above. 2. Delivery of Species and Habitat Action Plans. These were summarised for the Interdepartmental Group on 20 January, and had been extensively circulated for comment by individual departments and agencies prior to this. A clear view emerging from the discussions during this and other meetings was that departments found it difficult to deliver on their responsibilities because of lack of resources and because other priorities intervened. They felt this was an important issue, and in particular that a ‘…gap in resources would gravely impede the Strategy’ (Minutes, 20 Sept 2004). This major area of concern was reiterated by representatives in the context of Malahide (see below). 3. Local Biodiversity Action Plans. This is discussed in detail in section 11 below. The group received a presentation on this from EHS Biodiversity Unit, and representatives were supportive of the process. It was agreed that representatives would act as initial contact points for local biodiversity officers on issues relating to local delivery. 4. Biodiversity Training. A key aspect of this was the fact that many officers were unaware of the relevance of their work to biodiversity conservation, or even the levels of undertaking their departments had signed up to. A training programme, of possibly one day workshops, was proposed to address this. The interdepartmental group discussed and supported this suggestion, however a request that they offer representatives to guide and set up the programme (to which they collectively agreed) has been answered by only one offer. 6.3.

Conclusion The Interdepartmental Group has discussed a range of issues, and received a number of presentations. Whilst it has agreed and/or supported a number of initiatives (eg training for officers, local Action Plans), representatives have consistently stated concerns that biodiversity conservation is often over-ridden by other priorities, and that lack of resources gravely hinders progress. However, it is apparent that there are other problems impeding the effectiveness of the Group: • • • •

Lack of Strategy implementation plans in most departments; as a result in many cases there simply is no action to report on, or framework in which to discuss intentions Lack of understanding in some departments/agencies of biodiversity generally, the Biodiversity Strategy, and the relevance of their functions to the Strategy Lack of clear remit for Interdepartmental Group representatives in progressing, coordinating, and championing biodiversity work within their organisations Lack of departmental commitment (‘buy-in’) by departments/agencies. (In part this may be due to the significant delays incurred between signing off the Strategy and the establishment of the Group – many of the original signatories may have moved on). As part of this, no system of accountability in most departments to ensure delivery

Recommendation: Clarification of role and functions of Interdepartmental Group representatives, with agreement for these within their departments/agencies. Recommendation: Training for representatives and other relevant officers within departments/agencies Recommendation: Establishment of a system of on-going guidance and support to departments/agencies, particularly in relation to the preparation of Implementation Plans. 21

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

Recommendation: Appointment of an Officer in DoE to undertake training and support for departments/agencies on biodiversity and their responsibilities. Recommendation: Agreement of clear lines of accountability for delivery of Implementation Plans within departments/agencies. 6.4

Update These issues have been raised within DoE, and taken through to the Permanent Secretaries’ Group (PSG). As a result, we are pleased to report that the PSG has reaffirmed their Departments’ full support for the implementation of the Strategy, ensured support within the context of the Sustainable Development processes and Strategy, particularly through the engagement of the Sustainable Development Champions already appointed in the departments. PSG has also agreed a training programme for relevant officers, whilst DoE has identified resources for a post to conduct training, and to assist and advise departments in the preparation of implementation plans. NIBG strongly welcomes these initiatives, and will play its part in supporting and advising on their implementation.

22

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

7. Implementation of Biodiversity Responsibilities by Individual Departments The Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy and the Recommendations set out clear responsibilities for all Government departments and agencies to meet, both in terms of their policies and functions and in respect of their individual land and water holdings. The summarised comments below have been compiled from meetings with departments and reports submitted to the Interdepartmental Group, where appropriate. They should be read in conjunction with the entries supplied by the departments/agencies themselves, shown in APPENDIX 4, on attached CD. Paper copies are available on request. 7.1.

Department of the Environment 7.1.1.

Department of the Environment and its Environmental Policy Group (part of the Sustainable Development Division) are responsible for the running of the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Group and the Interdepartmental Group, and therefore have automatically participated in numerous meetings with the Chairman, and contributed significantly to the meetings of both groups. DoE does not itself have a Biodiversity Implementation Plan but its function clearly relates to biodiversity and environmental issues. It is developing strategies that will incorporate biodiversity requirements (for example, Sustainable Development Strategy and Integrated Coastal Zone Management Strategy). A clear statement or Implementation Plan explaining how these and other initiatives relate to each other, and how they are seen as contributing to biodiversity conservation would be of considerable value, and set a precedent for other departments to follow. Recommendation: DoE (EPG) should issue, with the Executive’s agreement, a statement setting out the relationships between the Sustainable Development Strategy, Integrated Coastal Zone Management plan, and the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy, and their respective roles in delivering biodiversity conservation. It should emphasise the importance of thriving biodiversity as a key element of Sustainable Development.

7.1.2.

There is an inconsistency in the role of DoE in relation to the all-government delivery of biodiversity: the Strategy was signed off by the Executive who accepted responsibility for taking the lead, and yet it has emerged after some discussion that responsibility for its delivery now rests with DoE EPG. It is not clear at present what authority, if any, the Department has in respect of obtaining compliance from the other arms of Government. Discussions at Permanent Secretary level have significantly helped to mitigate this point (see 6.4 above) by establishing a collective agreement to support the process, but there remains an underlying ambiguity. Recommendation: See first recommendation, section 4.2

7.1.3.

Environment and Heritage Service. EHS (Natural Heritage Directorate) is the only Government body to have a Biodiversity Implementation Plan. Their strong commitment to the Strategy is logical given that most wildlife conservation issues rest within, or relate to, their statutory functions and an additional £2.5m was allocated to their budget, to include extra provision for their biodiversity work, including the establishment of a Biodiversity Unit (17 policy/action staff, and 5 support staff ), and enhanced support for research, grant aid and site safeguard work. The Implementation Plan contained 50 timescaled actions, to be undertaken in the period 2002/2005 related directly to the recommendations in the Strategy, and embedded in the EHS Business Plan. A new Plan for 2005-2008 has been prepared. Whilst their adherence to the Implementation Plan timescales is welcome, it has presented the delayed NIBG with some difficulties in catching 23

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

up, eg having to sign off Action Plans with some haste – see 5.2 (3) above. For points relating to grant aid for work by the voluntary sector and local authorities see Chapters 11&12. EHS also fund the operations of the Centre for Environmental Data and Recording (CEDaR), based in the Ulster Museum. This unit now holds an extensive database, mainly of species records collated by Government and nongovernment professionals and amateurs, though the extent of information varies considerably between taxa. CEDaR recently held a workshop to assess future needs and demands for their work, which included consideration of how it would accommodate the needs of the Biodiversity Strategy. It would be helpful for them now to take this a stage further by publicising their future intentions in this respect. A key area which EHS will need to resolve in the near future is demonstrating that the actions taken through biodiversity Action Plans, and implementation by other organisations (ie the ‘means objectives’) actually result in favourable conservation status of biodiversity priorities, whilst also confirming that other, currently abundant, species and habitats are retaining their status. Ultimately the Biodiversity Action Recording Scheme (BARS) should deliver this on a UK basis, but without significant investment in monitoring it will only be the actions that get recorded, not the biodiversity outcomes. This is a fundamental resourcing issue for EHS, both in relation to conservation status of designated sites, and for monitoring widespread species and habitats that are not amenable to site protection mechanisms (often influenced by agri-environment measures, see below). NIBG are concerned that discussions within Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside (CNCC) have identified a serious lack of resourcing for monitoring the conservation status of designated sites, that many sites may be deteriorating, and that the programme for designations is being held back; yet these are a key mechanism for maintaining the more specialised elements of our biodiversity. We are also concerned that there is a risk that attention will focus on the particular Action Plan species and habitats to the detriment of the other species of conservation concern. This issue requires urgent attention (and work with CEDaR), not least because of the lead-in time for determining trends in the context of the 2016 target, or even more pressing, the UK/Gothenburg/Malahide target of 2010. Recommendation: CEDaR should (in co-operation with EHS) prepare an Implementation Plan stating how their work will target biodiversity conservation priorities in the next 5 years. Recom mendation: EHS should prepare and resource a Strategy for coordinated monitoring of species and habitats of conservation concern; in part through its site monitoring programme, and also through the engagement of other organisations and individuals with relevant expertise. Significant funding will be required to achieve this properly. (See also in ref to DARD) Recommendation: EHS should review the resourcing of its site designation, management, and monitoring programme and seek extra funding as appropriate.

24

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

7.1.4.

Planning Service. Their role will be pivotal in implementing the Sustainable Development, and Integrated Coastal Management strategies. To that end, their contributions to the preparation of PPS 2 (Planning and Nature Conservation) and DRD’s PPS 20 (Coastal Development) will be essential, and NIBG is deeply concerned that present difficulties in the planning system are causing long delays in their completion. The Service has reported some measure of confusion in the Strategy Recommendation 40 “Review and, if necessary, amend planning regulations to ensure that Environmental Impact Assessments are carried out on all projects that may have biodiversity impacts and that these are carried out to recognised standards”. However, developments relating to agriculture and fisheries and water services lie outside their remit, and therefore the Recommendation should be reviewed and other Government bodies share the responsibility for this in accordance with their functions. Another area requiring clarification is in relation to carrying capacity of key areas for tourism development. Preparation of PPS 16 relating to tourism is apparently on hold due to lack of resources. It is hoped it would give guidance in avoiding damage to the very natural resources (both biodiversity and scenery) that visitors seek. In the absence of this under-pinning guidance with legal status, it is difficult for the Service to apply any limit to cumulative developments which would identify when “enough is enough”. In addressing applications generally, the Service would normally consult EHS where there was relevance to biodiversity conservation matters, however it is unclear to NIBG what extent staff have the information and expertise to identify such applications, although it is noted and welcomed, that PS staff were given training in 2003 on biodiversity, although resource constraints have prevented any follow up to this. An issue that may be of significance is the extent to which the Service is updated about priority species and habitats under the Strategy; officers are well briefed about well known and protected species like the badger, but equally important but more obscure groups may well not receive adequate attention, unless a competent third party identifies the issue through a planning application. NIBG will explore this issue. We would also wish to draw attention to the implications of more localised planning decision making that might come about through the review of public administration, with increased input from the local authorities. It would be essential to build in strong measures to ensure delivery of biodiversity priorities from the outset. Recommendation: Planning Service should prepare an Implementation Plan, setting out the structures and systems by which biodiversity conservation priorities are to be addressed. A key element of this should be urgent progress and completion of PPS 2. Recommendation: Planning Service should follow up staff biodiversity training for both previous trainees and new post holders, and ensure this is updated on a regular basis. Recommendation: Planning Service and EHS should clarify the mechanisms by which priority species and habitats are safeguarded in the planning system, and if necessary, strengthen these. 25

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

Recommendation: Any revised public administration system with changes in the planning system should incorporate requirements to deliver the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy from the outset. 7.2.

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development With some 80% of Northern Ireland’s land surface being dominated by agriculture, and most of its sea areas impacted by fisheries, DARD has a key role to play in biodiversity issues (despite the small area under forestry) and relates to comparable sectors of Defra in England and Wales. Regrettably, given the enormous impact the Department’s functions have on Northern Ireland’s biodiversity and the fact that the Department itself is identified in the Strategy as having the lead responsibility for a range of recommendations, there is no central initiative or implementation plan driven by the Department’s core executive. Instead, the delivery is left to three key sections to evolve their own approach. The approaches taken by the three sections are summarised and commented on below, however it should be stressed that it is not possible to report on all the details within the scope of this Report. Recommendation: DARD executive should issue a clear statement giving direction to its component divisions and requiring compliance with the Biodiversity Strategy, and establishing lines of accountability to the Department and appropriate reporting systems. 7.2.1.

Countryside Management Branch (CMB). The Branch has taken a very proactive role in delivery for biodiversity, driven by EU changes in agricultural policy. A range of agri-environment schemes are available to support farmers at different levels depending on the amount of commitment the individual farmer is prepared to offer, and on the types of habitats/species the holding can, or could, support. Well qualified advisors are present to support and monitor delivery by farmers. This work is also complemented by the EHS scheme Management of Sensitive Sites (MOSS) which targets farmers with, or adjacent to ASSIs. However, there are a number of factors that impede progress to biodiversity conservation through Agri-environment schemes: • There is no overt and structured link at present to listed conservation priorities, though a number are delivered for, eg breeding waders and species rich grasslands. Indeed the differing terminologies describing habitats addressed by the different schemes make compatible management extremely difficult • The schemes are not yet available to all farmers, not least because of budgeting constraints, and they are therefore competitive • Whilst the Branch monitors the number of farms engaging, and the area of lands covered by schemes, it generally does not adequately monitor the impact of its schemes on biodiversity priorities eg SoCC species, so currently there is little information on the actual results of this work on the ground, and whether biodiversity has benefited • In a number of farms designated ASSIs lie within areas prescribed under an Agri-environment scheme. Care and detailed co-ordination between CMB and EHS is required to ensure compatibility between the two systems, particularly ensuring favourable conservation status of the ASSI Wider schemes impacting on all/most farmers, eg Nitrates Directive, Water Framework Directive, single farm payments eliminating the financial driver towards over production, should also bring biodiversity benefits (though it is likely to be a slow process), but without adequate monitoring this may be difficult to discern, and in the future impossible to improve mechanisms with confidence 26

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

of achieving a positive result for biodiversity. The issue of monitoring should be considered alongside that for EHS, and there is considerable potential for the two bodies to achieve greater effectiveness and efficiency, and real understanding of how we are progressing towards halting biodiversity loss if they established an agreed terminology, compatible measures between their different initiatives, and a joint monitoring scheme. Recommendation: CMB should review conservation objectives in agrienvironment schemes, relating these to priority species and habitats, and establish a robust monitoring system capable of identifying conservation benefits, and areas where improvement in prescriptions is required. Recommendation: Consideration should be given to establishing closer co-operation and compatibility between CMB and EHS in delivering for biodiversity priorities and monitoring conservation status of priority species and habitats. Recommendation: Detailed co-ordination between CMB and EHS is required to ensure compatibility of requirements expected of farmers with ASSIs who have opted into Agri-environment schemes. 7.2.2.

Forest Service. The Service has stressed that it has always had biodiversity as a key feature of its operation, although commentators have suggested that the policy of upland planting in earlier years was highly counterproductive in this respect. Their consultation “Forestry in Northern Ireland” was widely debated by both government and non-government environmental interests. It is to be hoped that the outcome will overtly reflect the recommendations in the Biodiversity Strategy – in effect act as an Implementation Plan, though the December 2004 further consultation document “Options for Forestry” disappointingly lacked a clear lead in this respect. However, a key target for the Service is to “Publish a Strategy for the delivery of forest policy and begin the legal process to support implementation” (Hansard, 8 June 2005) and hopefully this will reflect the much wider role compared with the old focus on the economic resource. Forest Service adheres to the UK Forestry Standard which on a UK basis is designed inter alia to deliver biodiversity benefits, and sits on the UK Woodland BAP Group. The Service is a key player in the recently established Native Woodland Group which sets out to ensure delivery of the relevant recommendations, particularly agreeing suitable targets for new native woodland. This Group may well serve as an example of co-ordinated delivery for other biodiversity sectors. NIBG is anxious that Forest Service focus strongly on the need for restoration of a range of habitats that have been impacted by, or could benefit from, forestry. These include restoration of upland habitats after felling (but accommodating conifer requirements of hen harriers), restoration of planted ancient woodland sites, and given Northern Ireland’s paucity of native woodland, enhancing the target of ancient woodland restoration to 100% of all feasible sites – currently the target is only 20%. We would also stress the need for planting entirely new native woodland, in ‘new’ areas as well as linking established and ancient sites. Recommendation: The forthcoming Strategy for forestry should recognise the key role Forest Service should play in biodiversity conservation, and contain clear commitments to delivering conservation priorities. Recommendation: Forest Service should focus strongly on habitat restoration both of woodland and other habitats that have been impacted 27

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

by forestry. In particular, all remnants of ancient woodland should be targeted for restoration, and where possible linkage of these by new planting to develop larger ecological units. 7.2.3.

Fisheries Division (FD). The relevant recommendations (21 – 26) in the Strategy are some of the least ‘SMART’ and therefore most difficult to monitor – a reflection of the complexity of the negotiations at the time. Subsequently, FD staff stressed at a very early stage in consultations that their resources allowed little opportunity for delivery of even these softened requirements. However, the Division acknowledged that the ‘Net Benefits’ study (initiated at a UK level) recommended that ‘fishing must be integrated more fully into the broader marine management process, with a balanced set of rights and responsibilities’. In December 2004 the Chairman wrote at NIBG’s request to FD stressing the strong link between the ‘Net Benefits’ consultations and delivery by FD for biodiversity. In reply, and in subsequent discussions, this point appears to have been accepted by FD. The Joint UK response to the ‘Net Benefits’ consultation is now published, and in it FD undertake to progress the review of Inshore Fisheries management and address the integration of environmental protection and fisheries management, possibly through an inshore management structure. This is extremely important if fisheries are to become truly sustainable, and it should be reflected at a high level by inclusion in the forthcoming DARD Strategic Plan 2006-2011. FD also state their intention to undertake other measures to ensure there is more effective liaison and co-ordination on marine issues, and NIBG welcomes this, stressing the urgency of the matter, given the risks of ongoing damage to key sites. Two other key areas needing further discussion involving all relevant parties, are: • •

The Marine Biodiversity Action Plans, referred to in 5.2. (3) above Integration of the forthcoming Aquaculture Strategy (and its counterpart in L Foyle) with biodiversity objectives, particularly in respect of biological carrying capacity of sea loughs

Recommendation: Fisheries Division should develop a Biodiversity Implementation Plan, incorporating the recommendations from ‘Net Benefits’. Recommendation: Fisheries Division should review its procedures and policies to ensure compliance with management requirements of designated intertidal and subtidal sites Recommendation: DARD should include an environmental sustainability objective relating to fisheries in its Strategic Plan 2006-2011. Recommendation: NIBG, EHS and Fisheries Division, together with fishing interests, should consider and review the marine habitat and species Action Plans. Recommendation: The forthcoming Aquaculture Strategy should integrate biodiversity objectives into its proposals, and Fisheries Division should work with the Loughs Agency to ensure a similar approach to the L Foyle Strategy. 7.3.

Department of Education An early meeting with the Department’s representative on the Interdepartmental Group identified the fact that few in the Department had been briefed on the Strategy, or of 28

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

its commitments under recommendations 70, 71, 73. It was indicated that there would be little opportunity for biodiversity input to the Curriculum Review, at that time at an advanced stage. Further discussion with a replacement representative explored the latter point in more detail. The department still considered that the draft curriculum (in a nearly final form) held little biodiversity content. However, following a more detailed perusal of its contents, it emerged that in fact a very considerable and well drafted biodiversity content was present, and that the misunderstanding was largely related to lack of guidance on what the term biodiversity entailed. The draft uses the term ‘biodiversity’ in the Key Stage 3 section as an example in relation to geography, but overall, the decision on its use in the classroom is left to the teacher; however issues of Sustainable Development are regularly flagged up, and biodiversity is contained within the definition of Education for Sustainable Development, connected to all subject areas. The issues surrounding lack of understanding on the meaning and implications of the term ‘biodiversity’ are not confined to DE – engagement by many departments is hindered by this problem. Another area of potential is in terms of biodiversity guidance for Education and Library Boards and School Governors in relation management of schools’ estates, although it acknowledged that many schools have already developed biodiversity initiatives on their lands. Recommendation: Department of Education should prepare a Biodiversity Implementation plan relating to its functions. Recommendation: Department of Education should reconsider whether guidance for teachers aimed at developing pupils’ understanding of the term ‘biodiversity’ should be given. Recommendation: Encouragement should be given to Education and Boards, and School Governors to maximise opportunities for biodiversity and its understanding through management of school grounds. 7.4.

Department of Employment and Learning DEL has developed a ‘Skills Strategy for Northern Ireland’ (Nov. 2004) which addresses the need to develop the skills and employability of the Northern Ireland workforce. In discussions with representatives early doubts about the relevance of their work to biodiversity, and the extent to which the Department could play a role in the Biodiversity Strategy were raised. Environment-related work is now acknowledged as an increasingly important employer in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, and there are a range of reports on the contributions of environment, biodiversity and biodiversity related spending to local economies. Section 4.3 of the DEL Strategy highlights the need for provision to be related ‘more explicitly to the emerging information on demand, locally, regionally, and where appropriate nationally. It also wishes, however, to integrate more closely the pursuit of employment opportunity with skills, training and education.’ NIBG considers that a significant range of opportunities currently exist, and will develop further through implementation of national/international environmental commitments, environmental and biodiversity related recreation and tourism, and the developing responsibilities and roles relating to biodiversity in Government, Local Government and NGO organisations. Had support and training been available to DEL, together with the early development of an Implementation Plan, it is likely this opportunity might have been identified at an earlier stage, but the time is still right for this. Recommendation: DEL should evaluate the potential for environment and biodiversity related employment, and following this, develop an appropriate Strategy for building Northern Ireland’s skills base in these areas. 29

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

7.5.

Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (Inland Fisheries Branch) DCAL is a relatively small department, and NIBG regards the inclusion of management of inland waterways in relation to fisheries (notably enhancement for salmon) in an even smaller unit (Inland Fisheries Branch) as illogical, given the role implied in the Department’s title. However the branch has built strong links with EHS (salmon-related SACs), and they have a Service Level Agreement with DARD and their fisheries scientists. Other roles relate to regulation and byelaw making, participation in the all-Ireland Pollan Action Plan, and are increasingly concerned about conservation of eel stocks whose recruitment has plummeted. They are also closely engaged with Waterways Ireland (a cross-border body). Despite these links, NIBG is concerned about the relative isolation of this unit within a Department whose main role appears so unconnected with inland fisheries, and would query whether the branch’s resources and status in this Department are sufficient to meet the increasing responsibilities incurred by the Habitats Directive, Water Framework Directive, in addition to their role in delivering the Biodiversity Strategy, the latter possibly being a low priority in the wider Department. NIBG has not yet had the opportunity of exploring issues of biodiversity awareness with other sections of DCAL, but believes significant opportunities may lie in the context of public awareness initiatives currently being developed by EHS. Recommendation: Consideration should be given to the best location for the Inland Fisheries unit in order to maximise its effectiveness in delivering its responsibilities. Recommendation: Department of Culture Arts and Leisure should require Inland Fisheries unit to prepare a biodiversity Implementation Plan, incorporating fisheries enhancement with wider biodiversity objectives. Recommendation: NIBG and DCAL should explore ways in which public awareness and appreciation of biodiversity could be enhanced through the arts, entertainment and recreation.

7.6.

Department of Enterprise Trade and Industry DETI’s functions include assessing new development projects, minerals exploitation, tourism development, and overlaying this, wider economic development. Following a meeting with NIBG’s Chair in early 2005 their draft position paper (February 2005) on sustainable development and corporate social responsibility was adjusted to include recognition of their biodiversity responsibilities as set out in the Strategy, and in the context of SD, and NIBG welcomes this. In particular DETI acknowledge the long term economic benefits to be accrued from sustainable practices – that biodiversity can deliver for the economy if the right policies are put in place. They also refer to the fact that departments are being asked to ‘mainstream overarching objectives into their policies and programmes. However, this is only referred to as needing to identify the benefits to industry, a laudable aim in its own right, but it does not reflect the Executive’s description of the urgency of problems for biodiversity in Northern Ireland. The document sets out the areas of the biodiversity Strategy relevant to DETI, and indeed expands on this in relation to Geological Survey of Northern Ireland. They report that their (Mineral Policy/GSNI) RESNI Project may contribute to a number of recommendations relating to eutrophication and water quality. The next stage should be an implementation plan, with responsibilities and timescales, signalling that economic development should deliver for biodiversity as well as the reverse situation, and that DETI would build this point into its policies. Such a plan should also reflect the frequent alignment of biodiversity interest in our countryside with areas of geological significance. 30

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

Recommendation: DETI should prepare a biodiversity Implementation Plan relating to its functions, and establish clear lines of accountability for its delivery. The plan should include measures to encourage industry to take active steps to conserve/ restore biodiversity on their lands and through their operations and developments. 7.7.

Department of Finance and Personnel There are a wide range of functions in relation to the Department’s title, and they have a key role in determining Government spending priorities in coordination with, and subject to approval from, OFMDFM. As such the department could play a major strategic role in furthering the concept of Sustainable Development in Northern Ireland, with biodiversity as a significant component of this, and NIBG will be concerned to see this approach developed when the forthcoming Sustainable Development Strategy is completed. DFP also have a major role in the management of Government’s estate, and therefore their functions in respect of construction, procurement, and management of Government buildings and estates have a clear link. A number of initiatives are in hand including a UK driven Action Plan for Achieving Sustainability in Construction Procurement, which has clear reference to ‘reasonable measures to protect habitat and species’; we are not clear however to what extent this has been implemented or reported on, and development of an implementation plan, with a large training component for relevant staff would be a major step forward. There is also a wide ranging energy efficiency scheme for Government buildings. A major area of opportunity for biodiversity is management of Government estates, including Stormont, which through their profile, size, and diversity could set clear examples for other sectors with significant land holdings. DFP have indicated their willingness to look into this further. In this context Defra’s ‘Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate’ (Part H) is particularly relevant, although it makes no specific reference to Northern Ireland and it is not clear how far its requirements have been implemented here. Recommendation: DFP should appraise future spending plans to ensure implementation of the forthcoming Sustainable Development Strategy. Recommendation: DFP should prepare a biodiversity Implementation Plan, identifying functions that have impact on biodiversity, and including provision for implementing existing UK initiatives. Recommendation: DFP should explore and implement ways of enhancing the biodiversity of the Government Estate, and use this as an example of good practice for other major land holders.

7.8.

Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety There are two major areas of interaction with the biodiversity Strategy: how policies address the link between public health and access to quality open space and environment in communities and around health facilities; and the management of the DHSSPS and Health Boards’ estates. In relation to the former, the potential of green areas to encourage exercise, improve quality of life, particularly in urban areas, is widely acknowledged, – and highlighted in Ch 12 of ‘Shaping Our Future’ (SOF). Yet it has been reported that many health boards as a matter of policy oppose ‘green zones’ in local development plans where these would be expected to adversely affect the development value of their lands. This may be the case with other departments, and would be strongly counter to Recommendation 1 of the Strategy, and to Policies ENV 1.1, 3.3, and 6.4 of SOF. NIBG recommend that the veracity of this report should be investigated. 31

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

On a broader note, a strong commitment by DHSSPS to exploring and developing the links between access to open space and health would be of enormous benefit to both biodiversity and social development – a key aspect of Sustainable Development. In relation to health estates, DHSSPS attached importance to the Achieving Sustainability in Construction Procurement Action Plan, and the Department has sought compliance with this from the Boards. Currently we have no information as to the extent to which this has been embedded in policy either at a Northern Ireland or local level. DHSSPS also report that they do issue general guidance on biodiversity, and it has been reported that whilst some health trusts have exploited opportunities to further biodiversity on their lands, others have not. Consideration should be given to links between health trusts and local environmental NGOs who would be able to contribute with expertise and community profile for such projects and the Department states it is working towards a Strategy for this. Given reports that patient recovery is faster and more effective where hospital patients have a ‘nature view’ (eg “Exploring the patient environment: an NHS Estates workshop”, 2003) development of this approach could have significant social and budgetary benefits. Recommendation: The policies of health boards and other public bodies in relation to zoning in local development plans in respect of open spaces should be investigated for compliance with ‘Shaping our Future’, and Recommendation 1 of the Biodiversity Strategy. Recommendation: DHSSPS should support and promote policies for maintenance, enhancement, and creation of natural spaces in Northern Ireland communities. Recommendation: Health Trusts should explore and develop opportunities for biodiversity conservation or restoration on their lands; non-government conservation bodies should contribute support in achieving this. Recommendation: DHSSPS should prepare, with co-operation from health trusts, a biodiversity implementation plan. 7.9.

Department of Regional Development In 2001 the Department published ‘Shaping Our Future’ (SOF), the Regional Development Strategy for Northern Ireland to 2025. Central to SOF was the promotion of sustainable development and ‘protecting and enhancing the physical, natural, and man-made assets of the Region’. This document was completed before the sign-off of the biodiversity Strategy but included a number of welcome key statements that apply today: • •

‘The enhancement of biodiversity…will be one of the most powerful indicators of progress towards sustainability’ Policies SPG-ENV 1, 2, 5, and their sub-policies strongly focus on biodiversity and the environment

It is clear from our initial analysis of departmental policies that the quality and extent of implementation of SOF in relation to biodiversity may vary considerably. Since publication of SOF, the completion and sign-off by the Executive of the Biodiversity Strategy in the following year should have given further focus and impetus, but we can see few signs of this happening in a co-ordinated way across Government. A key issue relating to this is the preparation of Planning Policy Statement (also discussed under Planning Service (7.1.4), notably in relation to PPS 20 (Coastal Development) whose preparation has been badly delayed. Without such clear guidelines linking policies under SOF to the responsibilities Planning Service, there is a risk that many key environmental issues will remain not be addressed. 32

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

Recommendation: DRD should complete PPS 20 (Coastal Development) as a matter of urgency. DRD has two services whose roles have particular relevance to biodiversity and its recovery: 7.9.1

Roads Service. Because of the enormous area of land encapsulated within roadside verges and wider motorway intersections, the Service has considerable potential for good or ill in respect of biodiversity. In particular this applies through landscaping and planting, road drainage (eg Sustainable Urban Drainage Schemes (SUDS)) and verge management. In respect of landscaping and planting the Service implements the standard UK design manual (eg Vol 10, Environmental Design and Management) which is regularly updated. A notable example of how this approach could benefit biodiversity is the planting of local gene stock of native species in the Toome by-pass development. However, it was also clear that other staff in the Service were not aware of this work, and therefore that it is not standard practice; indeed it was described in a presentation to CNCC (22 June 2005) as a “one-off project”, born out by the reported use of exotic species in other developments. There is however, a challenge in relation to the availability of native and local stock which requires a lead-in time of about two years before planting. In relation to verge management, it has been pointed out to the Service that (without compromising safety considerations) considerable savings might align with biodiversity benefits in reducing the frequency of cutting (by cutting less and planting with the slower growing native varieties), and they undertook to look into this. The fact that good practice in the Service does not appear to be disseminated throughout is another indication of the need for proper training to back up the development of a proper biodiversity implementation plan, and for the need for direction at a high level in the organisation. Recommendation: Roads Service should prepare a biodiversity Implementation Plan that establishes a clear policy for delivery for biodiversity on its lands, with high level support for consistent practice. Recommendation: Roads Service should work with NGOs (eg CVNI) to ensure continuity of supply of correct plants, by detailed advance co-relation on scheduled road improvement schemes. This should include emphasis on mandatory planting of re-aligned hedgerows with native stock in rural areas. Recommendation: Roads Service should ensure that its staff and contractors reduce cutting frequency on all its verges (subject to safety requirements on identified sites), and where reseeding use slow growing native varieties.

7.9.2

Water Service. This agency is being transformed into a Government Company (Go Co) in 2006, and the Service is undergoing considerable restructuring to meet this objective. It is also faced with stringent requirements to meet under EU legislation, imposing challenges on resourcing and priorities both in terms of water quality and implementation of the Water Framework Directive. The Service has a large land holding (including 23,000ha of uplands) and has started an assessment of their responsibilities for biodiversity on their extensive holdings, many of which are designated (eg 70 are ASSI). The Service is also seeking partnerships with NGOs to support delivery of biodiversity objectives. Another partnership already in place is with Forest Service on some of Water 33

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

Service’s lands, and the point was made that the two bodies need to collaborate on delivery of biodiversity responsibilities in this respect, particularly since any forestry on uplands would surely need review in respect of biodiversity delivery. Water Service acknowledge that a biodiversity indicator (as part of water industry sustainability indicators) has yet to be developed by the industry; NIBG would urge that this is done at an early stage to be built into the new Go Co, together with adequate provision for monitoring the biological outcomes as well as the management activities themselves. NIBG would be happy to give/facilitate advice on this, and would also welcome an early discussion on the outcome of the Water Service Board discussions on biodiversity implementation. Recommendation: Water Service should continue its audit of biodiversity on its lands and waters as a matter of high priority, and should further develop partnerships with relevant NGOs as conservation priorities are identified. Recommendation: Water Service and Forest Service should review the objectives for forestry management on Water Service lands, and ensure delivery for the relevant biodiversity conservation priorities. Recommendation: Water Service should develop a biodiversity indicator for sustainability, compatible with requirements under the Water Framework Directive, and put in place measures to monitor delivery. Recommendation: Water Service should prepare a biodiversity Implementation Plan (covering inter alia the above points) as part of its business plan under the new Go Co arrangements.

34

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

8. Structural Links Between Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy and Relevant Biodiversity Work of the EU and UK 8.1.

European Commitment to Conservation and Restoration of Biodiversity In 2001, EU Heads of State and Government committed themselves in Gothenburg to halt the EU’s decline in biodiversity by 2010, (‘to protect and restore habitats and natural systems…’). In 2003 the EU Council recorded that ‘despite some progress, the worrying trends (in natural resources degradation) observed….. have not been reversed, and a new impetus must therefore be given’. It also recommended accelerated work and actions to meet the 2010 targets. In 2004, under the Irish EU Presidency, a major EU conference on biodiversity was held to re-commit the EU to full implementation of the Gothenburg target, and particularly to focus on the priority objectives and targets needed to halt biodiversity loss by 2010. The key outcomes of the conference (“Message from Malahide”) were: • • • •

Endorsement of the 2010 target Recommendation that resources are focused on the priority objectives the conference identified Identified 18 key objectives, with 97 targets to achieve, often well before 2010 Addressed the conclusions to the Community institutions and recommended that the new Commission (starting Nov 2004) should give priority to this

Progress since then has been depressingly slow; some 16 months have elapsed since Malahide. In part this is due to difficulties in establishing the new Commission, but NIBG considers that lack of political will has also played a significant part. Recommendation: NIBG should strongly urge the UK Government to use its current Presidency to promote the commitment made in Gothenburg and in particular to confirm the outcomes of the Malahide Conference. Government should also be prepared to follow through this impetus after its Presidency. 8.2.

Implications of EU Target and ‘Message from Malahide’ for Northern Ireland The EU target is considerably more challenging than Northern Ireland’s by advancing the timescale by six years. Despite differences in their wording, they share the same objective of halting biodiversity loss, and both incorporate biodiversity recovery into their objectives. The ‘Message from Malahide’ also encompassed a wider range of issues than the Northern Ireland Strategy, but a number of these would not be directly applicable here, being largely within the remit of Member State Governments. Until there is a definitive Communication from the Commission it would be premature to review the Northern Ireland Strategy. However if the EU takes up any clear stance on biodiversity, it is likely that a review of the Strategy and Recommendations would be needed together with a change of the Northern Ireland target date, which would also bring us into line with the rest of the UK. Recommendation: In the event of a clear policy signed off by the EU, the Northern Ireland Executive should initiate a review of the Biodiversity Strategy.

8.3.

Northern Ireland biodiversity work in the UK context NIBG is a member of the UK Biodiversity Partnership and is represented by the Chairman (plus a representative from EHS). The roles of the Partnership are to co-ordinate and promote delivery of biodiversity work throughout the UK.

35

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

The Partnership’s objectives are: • • • • • • • • • • • •

To maintain and keep under review an overall Strategy for the conservation and enhancement of UK biodiversity in the light of the biodiversity priorities of the four countries of the UK To bring together all relevant sectors to work in partnership To develop, implement and keep under review targeted Action Plans for the most important species and habitats To take direct measures to conserve species and habitat diversity, in particular through the conservation of threatened or protected species and important sites, and through the management or control of non-native species To encourage the preparation, implementation and review of Local Biodiversity Action Plans to support national biodiversity objectives and to take forward local priorities for action To take steps to minimise the adverse impacts of human activity on biodiversity, both direct and indirect To take steps to understand the effect on biodiversity of large scale influences such as ozone depletion and climate change and determine appropriate responses To integrate biodiversity considerations into public policies and programmes To encourage more integration of biodiversity considerations into business policies and practices to support the delivery of biodiversity objectives To take steps to increase public awareness of biodiversity issues To identify, undertake, and keep under review, research and monitoring to support implementation of other objectives To develop and maintain comprehensive and accessible biodiversity information systems linking national and local records

The Partnership holds an annual conference, directed mainly at the practitioners of the general UK Biodiversity Action Plan – the conference for 2006 is planned to take place in Northern Ireland. The operation and structure of the Partnership is complex and substantial, reflecting the enormous role set out above, but key subgroups are: •

•

Biodiversity Reporting and Information Group (BRIG). This group is given the task of overseeing the development of the Biodiversity Action Recording System (BARS), recently launched, which will compile the actions taken by the diverse range of organisations across the country, and eventually document the species and habitat changes on the ground. BRIG also established a Species and Habitat Review Subgroup to review all the UK conservation priorities, both in terms of status, and in resetting targets for recovery Biodiversity Research and Advisory Group (BRAG). BRAG develops biodiversity research priorities, consider those offered by others, and provide advice on future research. They also have sub groups relating to monitoring and evaluation, habitat management, and non-native species

EHS has input to both these groups and their processes at various levels, mainly contributing both to the establishment of BARS and in the reviews of species and habitats. However, this system of decision making is not readily accessible or even comprehensible to external observers, and there is a major challenge for both EHS and NIBG to seek out ways of ensuring that both processes are externally transparent and accessible. The review of conservation priorities for example, is coming at a time when even the first tranch of targets and Action Plans have yet to gain public and government acceptance in Northern Ireland, whilst few people could track the records in BARS without detailed training. 36

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

Recommendation: EHS and NIBG should develop ways in which the system of targets and Action Plans (both existing and revised) together with reporting mechanisms can be made accessible to decision makers and other interests in Northern Ireland. Recommendation: EHS and NIBG should work within the UK Partnership to achieve greater clarity of structures and decision making, which both achieves consistency in the delivering the UK obligation under the Convention on Biodiversity, whilst also reflecting the increased concentration on delivery at a country level. 8.4.

Co-operation on an All-Ireland Basis Both the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy and the Republic of Ireland’s National Biodiversity Plan recognise the fairly obvious fact that biodiversity does not respect political boundaries and that many features of Ireland’s biodiversity have to be conserved on an all-island biogeographical basis. To this end, a range of initiatives have been undertaken that supplement work already being done in the context of the various EU Directives. Key biodiversity initiatives (several involving contributions by NGOs and other agencies) include: •

Joint assessments of conservation priorities, for example: o o o o o o o

•

Preparation of all-Ireland Species and Habitat Action Plans; currently these are: o o o o

• • • •

Irish Birds of Conservation Concern Dragonfly Ireland Irish Red Data books – eg on Vertebrates Lichen Ireland project – CEDaR and National Parks and Wildlife Service A call for ladybird records on an all-Ireland basis by EHS Queen’s University have established an all-Ireland bumblebee project A number of NGOs operate on an all-Ireland basis, eg Irish Whale and Dolphin Group

Corncrake Pollan Irish lady’s tresses Irish hare

Joint plans in preparation for Margaritifera margaritifera (pearl mussel) and red squirrel Representation on NIBG by officials of the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government who have the role of co-ordinating delivery of the National Biodiversity Plan, which they prepared Liaison between EHS and DEHLG on biodiversity issues Liaison between DoE (NI) Environmental Policy Group and relevant bodies in the Republic on Integrated Coastal Zone Management and Sustainable Development strategies

NIBG feels that this represents a good start in the process. However there is considerable scope for further work, for example in auditing conservation status of a range of taxa; in some cases the data is already available, but needs to be assembled in a readily accessible form incorporating data from both parts of Ireland. This is particularly relevant in establishing a baseline for monitoring the impacts of climate change. Another key area is rationalising the often complex arrangements arising out of multiple agencies on both sides of the border with responsibilities for fisheries and water course management, 37

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

relating to freshwater, estuarine and marine systems. Similarly, greater co-ordination and harmony of management is needed on cross-border terrestrial sites, though it is recognised that work is being achieved in this area. Recommendation: Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland governments should identify data management and acquisition needs to ensure as complete a biogeographical record of conservation status of priority species and habitats as possible. Recommendation: Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland Governments should review the management arrangements of water catchments from source to coastal waters in order to ensure consistency of policies and practices with the biodiversity requirements of the Water Framework Directive.

38

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

9. Species of Conservation Concern NIBG signed off the list of 457 Species of Conservation Concern (SoCC) at its meeting on 27 September 2004 (see 5.3. (4)). Criteria for selection are presented in Appendix 5. From these a list of 272 species were agreed for priority action, listed in the EHS website www.ehsni.gov.uk. The preparation of the SoCC list was a difficult process due to the varying amount of information on different taxa, the age of some of the information, and it is recommended that CEDaR prioritise its work to achieve greater balance between the taxa according to conservation priority (see 7.1.3 above). It also proved extremely difficult (if not impossible) to directly transpose criteria for selection of terrestrial and freshwater species into the marine environment, particularly in subtidal areas. As a consequence, NIBG recommend that a timetable be set for review of the SoCC list in order to incorporate new data and to refine priorities for action both in terms of auditing status and identifying new species for priority action; consideration should be given as to how relates to the UK wide reviews discussed in 8.3 above. Recommendation: EHS, CEDaR, and NIBG should consider a future review of the SoCC list, its data needs, criteria, and relation to the current and future UK reviews, accounting for comparable processes in the Republic of Ireland, and make recommendations.

39

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

10. Delivery of the Species and Habitat Action Plans 10.1

Introduction At the time of preparing this Report, the majority of Northern Ireland Action Plans have only recently been signed off, and it is therefore premature to expect any analysis of the conservation status to be meaningful. For details of these see Appendix 6. However, four species Action Plans were published in 2000, and a further twelve habitat Action Plans published in 2003. A summary of these, updated by the lead organisation for each follows:

10.2

Species and Habitat Accounts (with Date of Action Plan Publication) 10.2.1 Irish Hare (2000) SAP group established under UWT chair in May 2001. To date, 7 meetings have been held. Membership includes NGOs, civil servants and academics. Work has been done on review of agri-environment schemes, protective legislation (Wildlife Order), land-management advice, species information advice and research into genetics, ecology and population. A two-day international seminar and conference on Irish hare was held in November 2003. Results: Population survey in 2002 confirmed mid-90’s estimates of 1-2 hares per km2 but subsequent surveying in 2004 suggested this had risen to 5.87 per km2 although the reasons for this are not clear. Further surveying in 2005 may determine if this is a trend or a peak and will inform a decision on formal permanent protection of the Irish hare. 10.2.2 Chough (2000) The Chough Steering Group chaired by RSPB as the lead partner has met on an annual basis. A chough option (CO) was introduced for north coast farmers as part of an agri-environment scheme to keep their land in optimum condition for choughs. Those farms in CO and the chough population have been monitored on a three weekly basis by RSPB. The National Trust and RSPB now manage their north coast and Rathlin lands for chough. Results: A single pair bred from 2002-2004, but failed in 2005, leaving the species close to extinction as a breeding bird in Northern Ireland. It is therefore highly unlikely that the SAP target to restore the breeding population and range to at least 1982 levels by 2010 will be achieved. 10.2.3 Curlew (2000) The Curlew Steering Group has met on an annual basis, chaired by RSPB as the Lead Partner. EHS funded breeding wader surveys have been completed on an annual basis in three discrete areas. DARD and RSPB have continued to fund an agri-environment officer post, to advise farmers on how to manage their lands for curlew. Results: Despite these steps forward, initial findings point towards a continued decline of breeding curlew in the study areas. However, preliminary results suggest that appropriate management may have improved productivity in these areas. Concerted action will be required if the SAP target to restore population size and range to 1985-87 levels by 2010 is to be achieved. 40

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

10.2.4 Red squirrel (2000) FS (supported by EHS) is the lead agency. Support for the red squirrel is built into FS policies and consultations. New plantings focus on species not attractive to grey squirrels. FS undertake grey squirrel control, but little control is done by other bodies. FS and a range of bodies deploy red squirrel feeders, but this is being reduced due to risk of disease transference. EHS funded a QUB study on squirrel distribution in 2002, available on EHS website. Awareness is raised through the publication of an education pack, and events in FS forests. Results: Levels of grey squirrel control have proved insufficient to prevent a rapid spread throughout Northern Ireland, into all red squirrel preferred areas. Red squirrels appear to have been lost from up to five FS forests including Hillsborough during the period of the plan. A review of the Action Plan is being undertaken, but currently the conservation status of red squirrel appears to be deteriorating rapidly. 10.2.5 Marine Habitat Action Plans (2003) Six Northern Ireland Habitat Action Plans were published in March 2003: Seagrass Beds Tidal Rapids Maerl Beds Saline Lagoons Mudflats Sheltered Muddy Gravels The main actions which have been initiated or achieved in the period 2003-2005 are: • • • • • • •

The development of conservation objectives and monitoring of marine SACs, SPAs and ASSIs Greater biodiversity input in the regulation of developments which affect the extent and condition of marine priority habitat through the issue of FEPA licenses Increasing biodiversity input in Fisheries policy (such as the forthcoming DARD Inshore Fishing Review) The implementation of the Water Framework Directive is being developed to maintain and enhance the ecological status of waterbodies e.g. on designated sites and water bodies such as saline lagoons The preparation of ICZM Strategy– due for publication 2006 Completion of inventory of seagrass beds in Northern Ireland which was by Quercus UWT have appointed a Joint Marine Programme Officer funded by EHS, UWT and WWF) who helps promote awareness among stakeholders of the conservation importance of marine priority habitats and assess the need for further educational material

Results: In all of the Marine Action Plans, the targets were set at maintaining the extent, quality of habitat and, where feasible to restore or enhance the habitat. However, no specific target areas of dates were specified so reporting on progress on the achievement of targets is difficult. The UK targets review will aim to produce SMART targets for these habitats. 41

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

There is currently no system for monitoring the extent and condition of these six marine habitats. However, some are or will be reported on as part of the monitoring of designated sites (SACs, SPAs and ASSIs). For some habitats such as Seagrass Beds and Saline Lagoons, this will amount to a survey of the almost the total habitat in Northern Ireland. 10.2.6 Upland and Peatland Habitat Action Plans (2003) The following six Upland and Peatland (+ hedgerows) Habitat Action Plans (HAPs) were published by EHS in 2003: Blanket Bog Lowland Raised Bog Upland Heathland Lowland Heathland Montane Heath Species-rich Hedgerows The main actions which have been initiated or achieved in the period 2003-2005 are: • • • • •

Completing review of the Northern Ireland Peatland Policy and proposing changes Setting conservation objectives and monitoring of SACs and ASSIs Addressing the conservation of peatland and upland habitats in Area Plans particularly through the identification of SLNCIs The implementation of CAP reform which will help reduce the problem of over grazing and safeguarding priority habitats Establishment of a Northern Ireland peatland website, www.peatlandsni.gov.uk.

Results: No monitoring of targets has taken place 10.3

Conclusions These brief summaries of major work Plans can only be regarded as preliminary; a large number of other Plans have only just started, and many initiatives overlap, and even the above Plans are relatively early in their implementation. However, NIBG would highlight a number of points that emerge from the present information: •

•

• •

The difficulties in changing the fortunes of a species once it has declined to the point where it has become a conservation priority. Curlews particularly are an example of a species declining due to systemic changes in the countryside – direct conservation action can only work if it has a wider context where underlying issues are being addressed Difficulties in determining whether the trends recorded in a species or habitat are due to the conservation actions, or policy work undertaken, or whether additional factors (eg cyclic ecological changes, climate change, changes in rural practices) are more significant. Detailed monitoring may answer this point in some cases NIBG members have also commented on the disparity between the Schedules of the Northern Ireland Wildlife Order and the Northern Ireland conservation priorities. The review of this order should address these inconsistencies where appropriate The importance of monitoring. This is a very resource-hungry undertaking, but without it, it is impossible to determine whether targets are being achieved, or whether fine tuning of conservation actions is required, or whether key mechanisms 42

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

like ASSI designations are actually working. The latter point has been raised by CNCC who have expressed concerns at the need for adequate resources devoted to this work. NIBG is concerned that two years into the upland/peatland action plans, no monitoring is apparently taking place. Without adequate monitoring, reporting of action plan progress to BARS will amount to little more than progress on actions taken, rather than real progress for species and habitats NIBG has already commented on the importance of clarifying resources for the Action Plans (see 5.2 (3) and recommendation in 7.1.3), although we recognise this is complicated by the multiplicity of resourcing streams directed at a range of government and non-government actions. The initial results from the four species monitored above suggest however, that for some species the turnaround of the trends towards favourable conservation status is going to be extremely slow. We recommend that a review of monitoring programmes is undertaken to ensure that we have sufficient information to determine progress, and to be able to refine conservation actions speedily to ensure the best chances of meeting recovery targets. This would also help to determine the resourcing requirements referred to earlier. Recommendation: EHS, with CEDaR and Quercus, and with lead BAP partners as appropriate, should undertake review of monitoring work to ensure it is meeting the needs of Action Plan delivery, and best use of resources. Recommendation: The review of the Northern Ireland Wildlife Order should ensure that the Order will reflect the Northern Ireland conservation priorities. Recommendation: Monitored outcomes of conservation work should be used to initiate rapid review of Action Plans and urgent implementation of new measures.

43

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

11. Delivery of Biodiversity at the Local Level 11.1

Delivery Mechanisms Within the Biodiversity Unit at EHS, a team of three staff are engaged in supporting delivery of biodiversity action at a local level, whilst five in the Countryside and Coast Unit manage the system of grant aid (up to 75% level) supporting the employment of Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) officers and the preparation of local plans. Appointments are for three years, and following completion of the LBAPs, local authorities are encouraged to support their implementation through resources, projects, policies and particularly through the support of the local communities. Grants are also available to other bodies where such appointments can help to deliver biodiversity priorities in key sectors. To date, seven officers have been appointed in eight local authorities (two authorities share an officer), in effect covering about 45% of the Northern Ireland land surface. In addition EHS has funded appointments to the Quarry Products Association (Biodiversity/Geo-diversity Officer) and RSPB (Priority Bird Species Coordinator). EHS hope that eventually all Northern Ireland will be incorporated. NIBG strongly welcome this initiative, but hope that by the time the funded part of these projects are completed, local authorities and other bodies will be prepared to continue the work through their own resources; ie, develop a strong sense of ownership for the conservation of biodiversity in their areas/sectors.

11.2

Advice to LBAP Officers The work of the LBAP officers is still at a relatively early stage, indeed appointments are still being made, and it is therefore premature to comment on the plans or their implementation. BDU officers are readily available to support local staff, and the Interdepartmental Group has also offered contact points for this. It has however been reported that advice from EHS on the key objectives in these plans has changed over time, varying between support for reflecting local concerns for local biodiversity of any description, to encouragement to address Northern Ireland or UK priorities – very different approaches. NIBG feels that it is important this issue is clarified at an early stage in order to avoid confusion or inconsistency, and to give local authorities a clear message about what is being required.

11.3

Delivery of Local Biodiversity by Local Authorities NIBG will wish to explore the local delivery of biodiversity in more detail during our next reporting period. In particular we would seek to understand the actual level of commitment and understanding of the importance of the work in local authorities (both Councillors and Officers). We recognise that significant efforts are being made by a number of local authorities. However, the actual levels of commitment to delivery for biodiversity on a local basis should be questioned in some cases. For example, it has been reported to us that the relatively slow progress in the establishment of Local Nature Reserves (with implications for planning decisions) on their land has, in part, been due to the reluctance of local authorities to designate sites where there is potential for commercial development or land of other high value, irrespective of its current biodiversity importance or value as an open space for the community. If this is the case, it would be a matter of concern to NIBG, and reflects 7.8 above. Furthermore, we would also be very interested to explore the level to which local authorities have audited their responsibilities in respect of Recommendations1-3, 28, 33, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 56, 68, 69, 72, 73, and 76. In summary, whilst the willingness of local authorities to set up LBAPs is strongly welcomed, we would wish to test their underlying commitment to the process, whilst recognising that as with central Government departments, there has been little steer from the Executive on this. We also note that the likely review of the local authority structure in Northern Ireland will have major implications for this work, and will be seeking a strong role in local biodiversity conservation for any new structures. 44

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

Recommendation: Local authorities should commence planning for continuation and development of their biodiversity work following the completion of their grantaided LBAP projects. Recommendation: BDU and LBAP officers should consider the underlying approach to biodiversity priorities, and the balance between local and national priorities in developing local plans. NIBG would be willing to assist in this discussion. Recommendation: NIBG should meet with local authorities and explore the levels of engagement with the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy. We will also work to ensure a strong biodiversity role in any new local authority system.

45

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

12. Work of Non Government Organisations and Other Groups 12.1.

Non-Government Organisations and Biodiversity Non-government organisations, including the conservation charities, specialist groups, local experts, and sector organisations from business interests have an enormous variety in their approach and deliver a very wide range of biodiversity work at policy, research, advisory and land management levels. Land acquisitions are regularly targeted to meet biodiversity objectives of various types. Several organisations build in wider biodiversity objectives into their management schemes in addition to their core priorities. Moreover, some of the earliest auditing of Northern Ireland’s biodiversity was undertaken in the 1997 Report ‘Biodiversity in Northern Ireland’ edited by six NGOs, trawling the information of some 60 local experts on different taxa. There are three NGO representatives on NIBG, and these also undertake the role of disseminating the outcomes of meetings to their colleagues in other organisations. This work can be supported by the role of Northern Ireland Environment Link (NIEL), who do not undertake direct conservation action, but act as an umbrella body and conduit for information to those of its constituent bodies who undertake biodiversity work. EHS supports much of this work through its grant aid system, focusing on major public awareness, research, countryside access, direct conservation management projects, and land acquisition. EHS is currently undertaking a review of their grant aid mechanisms to ensure it is meeting present requirements. In 2004/5 they issued about £2.3 million in grants, the great majority of which were targeted at direct biodiversity benefits, and increased weighting is given to proposed biodiversity measures when appraising grant applications which we welcome. The conservation NGOs represent a highly motivated and cost-effective way of delivering biodiversity objectives, particular in the research, advisory, and management (including property acquisition for conservation). There may however be potential for greater co-ordinated input on biodiversity in the manner that they have achieved in other conservation arenas, for example their debate about an Environmental Protection Agency, or their collective profile in marine conservation issues. NIBG will explore this issue with the NGOs in the next year. It is also important to note that there are many small and specialist NGOs that are not currently part of the biodiversity ‘circuit’, but may well be playing highly positive roles that deliver for biodiversity. Consideration should be given to developing a mechanism that would recognise and support their work, and ensure their efforts and the results are reported on. It should also be remembered that there are a wide range of other bodies, local interests, businesses, representative organisations for farming and fishing, and individuals who currently have little contact with the biodiversity process as it currently operates, but who may have much to gain or contribute. The current level of public engagement with biodiversity (as a term and a process) is low (see Chapter 13 below) and it needs to be made accessible. In Scotland the potential support for biodiversity from all these sources has been harnessed through the Scottish Biodiversity Forum which acts as “an influential and inclusive grouping of bodies and individuals actively engaged in biodiversity” (Scotland’s Biodiversity: It’s In Your Hands; 2004), in effect acting as an networking and information dissemination/gathering mechanism. A body of this sort might contribute usefully in Northern Ireland, and also give NIBG a strong base from which to develop its views and advice. Recommendation: NGOs engaged in biodiversity conservation should explore ways of working more closely in sharing the delivery of biodiversity targets. Recommendation: NIBG and EHS should (with reference to other biodiversity awareness work) consider whether a mechanism to contribute to wider participation in delivery of the Strategy would be of benefit. 46

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

12.2.

Lottery Funding The work of a number of NGOs also benefits to a great extent from the support of the Heritage Lottery Fund for both projects and acquisitions related to biodiversity. £3.7m have been spent in Northern Ireland to May 2004, of which £2.4m was on acquisition of 1,092ha, with a further £1.3m on biodiversity projects (Heritage Lottery Fund Report “Wildlife 2004”). HLF stress that amongst the many criteria applied to applications, are whether projects directly address the listed and planned biodiversity priorities, although they require a much wider approach involving non-biodiversity objectives when applicants set about preparing their plans and preliminary studies. These may not always be readily compatible with the organisation’s biodiversity objectives, and careful thinking is often required to overcome this difficulty, but we welcome the emphasis given to biodiversity delivery. Whilst a number of grants have been made for very substantial projects relating to large land holdings and their biodiversity, there have been many small projects that have benefited as well. This aspect will be increasingly important if local authorities are to implement their LBAPs. The UK’s Department of Arts, Culture, Media and Sport (DACMS) are embarking on a review of the UK Lottery following 15 years of its operation, and its Report and recommendations are planned to emerge in 2009. NIBG is concerned to ensure that support for biodiversity conservation is maintained, or better increased, given the urgency for biodiversity action acknowledged at EU, UK and Northern Ireland levels. NIBG will give consideration as to whether it should be working with the Statutory Advisory Councils (CNCC, HBC, and HMC) in pressing for the heritage funding to continue, and for biodiversity conservation projects to be given a high priority. Recommendation: NIBG should find ways of working with the Statutory Advisory Councils to promote and strengthen the Lottery funding support for natural heritage, particularly with respect to maintenance and restoration of biodiversity during the review of the Lottery.

47

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

13. Public Awareness of Biodiversity and the Work for its Future In 2003 EHS contracted Judith A Annett (Countryside Consultancy) and Celia Spouncer (Spouncer Associates) to undertake a study on biodiversity awareness in Northern Ireland, and to make recommendations. The resulting report “Framework for Biodiversity Publicity and Promotion in Northern Ireland” was published in March 2004. This report is available for detailed consultation from EHS. A key conclusion was that ‘Only 16% of people surveyed had heard of the word biodiversity and only a few of those were able to state what it meant’. They estimated that only one in ten adults had an adequate understanding of the term, and few were aware that there was a Biodiversity Strategy. The report continued by proposing a range of targets: 1. Developing a biodiversity information/communication partnership as a sub group of NIBG, and a joint communication logo and set of key messages by 2005. 2. Increasing the number of people who have heard of biodiversity and know what it means from 16% to one third. 3. Increasing the numbers that make a link between biodiversity and human life (from 11% to one third). 4. Increasing the number of people and companies taking practical action to support, protect, or enhance biodiversity within the Biodiversity Action Plan framework. 5. Increasing awareness of Government/partner priorities, actions, and initiatives on biodiversity to one fifth. •

Providing local relevant accessible information on biodiversity to reinforce UK and Ireland media messages and encourage local participation and action

NIBG endorses these targets in principle, although would hope that more ambitious results of awareness might be obtained. Two consequences of this report have emerged: •

•

NIBG established a Public Awareness subgroup with the aim of assessing public awareness needs and contributing to or developing strategic thinking on this. Awareness of biodiversity matters in general, and of NIBG in particular were considered - see 5.2 (5) EHS has appointed consultants to develop a Public Awareness Strategy, giving shape to the targets and measures proposed in the earlier report. NIBG will contribute to this Strategy, and where appropriate give EHS advice and support in its future implementation

There can be little doubt that so little awareness of, or support for, an important strategy within the public domain (and indeed within some sectors of Government) is a major drawback to meeting biodiversity targets. Although most people do actually care about their environment and wildlife (63% of those surveyed had taken some action for biodiversity, albeit mainly feeding birds), few appear aware of the economic and quality of life services that biodiversity provides communities. NIBG considers that a substantial, well-resourced campaign is essential to address these problems. Recommendation: EHS and DoE (NI) should develop, resource, and implement a large scale campaign to build awareness of biodiversity and the work being undertaken by the various sectors in achieving its recovery. Recommendation: Department of Education should re-assess the draft new curriculum to ensure that its biological content is linked to biodiversity; this should be accompanied by guidance to schools and teachers to ensure pupils’ awareness of the importance of biodiversity and what is being done to conserve it. 48

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

14. Are We Making a Difference? Progress towards achieving a halt in biodiversity loss can be measured in two ways, both mutually compatible: • •

progress on actions and means which are designed to achieve conservation objectives of different types, and results for species and habitats which can be measured on the ground and in our waters.

NIBG considers that there are grounds for deep concern in both areas. This Report has concentrated largely on the progress through actions and means, through the activities of Government, local government, NGOs and communities. It has particularly focused on work by Government departments, reflecting the Executive’s 2002 statement that it was going to take the lead. Whilst there has been welcome action in a number of areas in delivering the 76 Recommendations of the Strategy, there are large sectors of work in which little progress has been made, other than the re-iteration of policies that have already operated within a scenario of declining biodiversity. In part this is due to delays and lack of communication and guidance within Government, and NIBG strongly welcomes the support of DoE and the Permanent Secretaries’ Group in addressing this issue (see 6.4 above). A major issue linking awareness in Government and the other sectors is the failure to understand the importance of biodiversity in terms of the stability of ecosystems that are important to us, the economic value of biodiversity, and (perhaps most importantly) the value of biodiversity through green spaces and landscapes to people’s quality of life – a key point raised in Shaping our Future. All of this is central to the concept of Sustainable Development, and NIBG are concerned that the future Sustainable Development Strategy should reflect the strong role that biodiversity conservation (ie wise use) has in this respect. At the end of the day however, the only way we will know if we are making a difference to biodiversity is through the results in conservation status of our species and habitats: • • •

those causing greatest conservation concern (priorities) achieve favourable conservation status or are on their way to recovery those listed as of conservation concern have not declined, and possibly increased species and habitats that are currently widespread and therefore not causing concern, retain this status

We do not at present have the required research and monitoring base to be able to assess these points; indeed there are a wide range of species and habitats (particularly in the marine environment but not exclusively so) where we still do not know their present status and cannot therefore state with any certainty as to whether it is improving or deteriorating. Moreover, most Action Plans have only just been agreed and work to implement them just commenced. Unless research and monitoring needs are identified and acted upon urgently, there is little chance of identifying species conservation needs, or of clearly measuring progress in delivery, in time to achieve and demonstrate results by 2016. Moreover, without more detailed information it will be impossible to attribute any improvements in the conservation status of a species (such as that reported for the Irish hare) to the success of Action Plans as opposed to other factors. Without such understanding, there is little chance of improving or refining these Plans. Finally, NIBG stresses the importance of the link between achieving progress on the broad environmental issues as contained in the 76 Recommendations, and achieving successful results through Species and Habitat Action Plans. It is essential that both travel together for long term recovery of our biodiversity. Concerted and co-ordinated work through the Action Plans must be underpinned by work on the wider Recommendations. Failing this, there will be a destructive ‘revolving door’ scenario in which species and habitats achieve recovery through Action Plans, slip 49

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

down the priority list as their status improves and conservation action shifts to other priorities, only to deteriorate again because the broad underlying issues still have not been addressed. This situation would be disastrous environmentally but also in terms of public confidence and support. In conclusion, our recommendations in the text and listed in the Summary are particularly intended to address the following broad areas of concern: • • • • • •

The need to bring the operation of Government departments into line with delivery of the Biodiversity Strategy, particularly within the context of sustainable development Within all sectors, issues of accountability and measurability in delivering for biodiversity in Northern Ireland Development of adequate data and monitoring to address areas where little is known about conservation status, particularly of species, in monitoring those identified of conservation concern, and in recording and assessing the results of conservation work The need for adequate resourcing of biodiversity work; in many cases this merely requires redirection of resources, and indeed savings can be made in some areas The need to achieve progress through better co-ordination between NGOs, different sectors, and through the commitment of local authorities The urgent need to develop public awareness of biodiversity, and recognition of the need for its restoration, counterbalanced by an awareness of what biodiversity does for our economy and quality of life

50

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

APPENDICES Appendix 1:

Representation and Attendance at Northern Ireland Biodiversity Group

MEMBERS CHAIRMAN Bob Brown

24/05/04 27/09/04 15/12/04 16/02/05 20/04/05 16/06/05

X

X

X

X

X

X

Ian Simpson (Member of UFU Environment Committee)

X

X

X

X

X

Allan Chambers (Member of UFU Board)

X

X

X

Sean Murray (Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association)

X

X

X

AGRICULTURE

X

BUSINESS Gordon Best (Quarry Products Association)

X

X

X

Andy Bate (Translink)

X

X

X

X

Brian Lewis (Bombardier) SEA FISHING INDUSTRY Alan McCulla (Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation Ltd)

X

X

AQUACULTURE Jasper Parsons

X

X

ENVIRONMENTAL NGOs James Orr (Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust)

X

X

Phil Davidson (National Trust)

X

X

X

X

James Robinson (RSPB)

X

X

X

X

CCEA Anne Marie Duffy

X

51

X X

X

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

MEMBERS (continued)

24/05/04 27/09/04 15/12/04 16/02/05 20/04/05 16/06/05

CNCC Patrick Cregg (The Woodland Trust)

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

NILGA Rosemary Mulholland (Craigavon Borough Council) Sean McPeake

X

X

X

X X

ESTATE MANAGEMENT John Witchell (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors)

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

REPUBLIC OF IRELAND (Department of Environment, Heritage & Local Government) Phil Buckley Pat Gernon

X

David Kelly Michael Meharg EHS

X

Louise McAlavey EHS

X

Ken Bradley EPG

X

X X X

Ronnie Tosh EPG

X X

52

X

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

Appendix 2:

Work Plan of Northern Ireland Biodiversity Group, with Update on Progress as of August 2005

Key objectives, adapted from ‘NIBG role’

Operational Objectives

Tasks and questions for NIBG meetings and subgroups

Timescale

1) Co-ordinate and monitor implementation of the NI Biodiversity Strategy, and the 76 recommendations.

1.1) Establish coordinated approach by Government Depts (via InterDpt Gp) to delivery of recommendations – (also links to ‘2’ below)

Discussion on how we can Late 2004 best work to ensure delivery.

Agreed with PSG June ‘05 (see 6.4)

Discussion on best way for getting Depts to develop their own implementation plans.

As above

Spring 2005

Update Aug. ‘05

Consider if this be outcome from 2005 reporting round Identify barriers to delivery by departments 1.2) Highlight need for sufficient priority and resourcing by departments for delivery of responsibilities

1.3) Establish clear protocol for addressing problems and issues

Essentials agreed with EPG April ‘05

Develop clear approach Urgent – Sept See 6.4 re lead Depts and roles 2004 (Recommendations, & HAPs/ SAPs) leading to Perm Sec meeting? Monitoring of UK & NI Govt approach to delivery of Malahide outcome, and building awareness.

early 2005

Ongoing, see 8.1, 8.2

NIBG to satisfy itself that Govt has identified its own accountability lines to deliver.

Dec 2004?

Actions planned Autumn ’05, and see 6.4

DoE propose mechanism/ protocol for addressing problems and issues

By end 2004

53

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

Key objectives, adapted from ‘NIBG role’

Operational Objectives

Tasks and questions for NIBG meetings and subgroups

Timescale

Update Aug. ‘05

Special meeting autumn 2004?

Not done

Presentations and discussions with Roads Service, Water Service and other departments.

2005

Meeting with NIBG Chair

Discussions on what consultations we want to engage in, and how we should relate to CNCC

Discuss with LB-H, then to NIBG

Ongoing

Identify links and gaps between Malahide and NIBS; develop initial view of need for changes, await finalisation of EU position.

In progress

Awaiting EU response before further action

1.4) Participate in Contribute to RPS DARD & major policy initiatives EHS land use study delivering strategy recommendations

1.5) Use outcome of Malahide to carry through to NI Delivery of EU/UK targets

1.6) Review delivery of LBAPs and LA structures, with NILGA

Develop dialogue with UK Partnership who presumably will also be pressing this

As above

Consider how would NILGA want to do this

Ongoing; discussed April ‘05

Review support mechanisms Spring 2005 for local delivery, and identify obstacles.

Not done

54

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

Key objectives, adapted from ‘NIBG role’

Operational Objectives

2) Co-ordinate 2.1) Regular review of and monitor the progress within EHS development implementation plan and implementation of Biodiversity Action Plans (NI, UK, All-Ireland)

2.2) Advice on issues relating to specific Action Plans

3) Foster positive links between biodiversity objectives and the objectives of social and economic interests

Tasks and questions for NIBG meetings and subgroups

Timescale

Update Aug. ‘05

Presentation and discussion of SOCC lists

Sept 2004

Signed off Sept ‘04

Annual summaries of EHS (et al) delivery. Briefing on delivery links to NGOs and LAs

Dec 2004

Ongoing

Presentation by CEDaR and clarification of role in reporting (Link to Nat Biodiversity Network)

Early 2005

Not done

Sign off outstanding species and habitat Action Plans

Urgentspecial meetings

Signed off April ‘05

Raised by EHS and other staff Ongoing as appropriate

Ongoing

2.3) Review the skills base for supply of expertise for land and species management and biodiversity education and promotion (link to 3.2)

Presentation or research? Joint with CNCC?

Could be a major initiative in 2005?

N/A

3.1) Development of links between biodiversity-rich open spaces and health/ exercise interests

Consider joint position statements with CAAN, health bodies, eg Community Development and Health Network

Raise with bodies in autumn 2004, NIBG discuss early 2005

Not done

3.2) Demonstrate economic benefits of environmental and wildlife management operations

Presentation on economic benefits of biodiversity

Dec 2004?

Not done

Identify key areas where information may be available, consider research to develop this

2005?

Likely to be 2006

Develop an ‘industry and biodiversity’ subgroup to take this forward?

Discuss Dec 2004

Not done, several representation changes

3.3) Develop best ways of building partnerships with business and industry – financial support, action on ground, examples of best practice

55

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

Key objectives, adapted from ‘NIBG role’

Operational Objectives

Tasks and questions for NIBG meetings and subgroups

Timescale

Update Aug. ‘05

4) Promote public and business and involvement in, biodiversity conservation, and awareness of its relevance

4.1) NIBG well briefed on current state of public awareness

Presentation and discussion of Annette/Spouncer report

Dec 2004

Done Dec ‘04

4.2) Ensure that a programme for building biodiversity awareness is established

Establish public awareness (PA) sub group

Dec 2004

Set up Feb ‘05

Identify key audiences, key messages, and key delivery mechanisms – and who’s doing it

PA subgroup, Deferred Jan-April re EHS 2005 awareness project, see Ch 13

Develop relationship with ‘Habitas’ when appropriate

2006?

N/A

Consider NI Biodiversity conference in 2005 for Gov. Depts, LAs, NGOs here. Would support 7.1, 7.2 below.

Jan-April 2005

Not done. awaiting UK partnership conference 2006

How do we monitor the hopeful growth in public awareness?

EHS and others to come with proposals early 2005

See Ch 13

Assess scope for grant aid for new initiatives delivering biodiversity objectives and raising awareness. (Applies to 3 above)

Presentation and discussion early 2005

See Ch 13

Review current website, invite current ‘manager’ for discussions, and upgrade. Link to media work in 4.5

Urgent updating, then see 4.5

Awaiting EHS Public Awareness Strategy

Awareness gp. Early 2005?

Awaiting EHS Public Awareness Strategy

4.3) Demonstrate transparency and communication within our own operations

4.4) Programme NIBG consider if DoE should of information and develop internal roadshow, awareness throughout with Interdept support. NI Government. Briefing and discussion on links to Sustainable Development & Water Framework Directive

56

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

Key objectives, adapted from ‘NIBG role’

5) Explore mechanisms for promoting biodiversity conservation on an all-island basis

Operational Objectives

Tasks and questions for NIBG meetings and subgroups

Timescale

Update Aug. ‘05

4.5) Develop NIBG’s own media and communications methods

Public awareness subgroup to come to NIBG with recommendations

April 2005

Awaiting EHS Public Awareness Strategy, and proposals for report publication (Aug 05)

4.6) Give advice to Develop dialogue with 2004/5 ensure that education support from CCEA and press on biodiversity DE/DEL as appropriate. is delivered appropriately at all levels of the curriculum (links to 1.1 above)

Meeting Dec ’04, and ongoing discussions

5.1) Crossrepresentation and dialogue between NIBG and appropriate RoI body.

5.2) Identification of other SAPs and HAPs (in addition to C’crake, Irish Hare, Irish ladies’ tresses, pollan) for allisland operations

RoI presentation and discussion on their Strategy, and their actions post Malahide

Early 2005

Ongoing, see 8.4

Reciprocal re NI

2005

To be determined

Review of policy actions re all-island context, and see 5.2 below

Part of 2005 reporting process?

Section 8.4

NIBG develop understanding Presentof how these are being ations early implemented, and what 2005 further ones coming

Not done

5.3) North-south Min Debate how we can achieve body to regularly this. update on Biodiversity Issues, esp Malahide.

Mid 2005

Ministerial body suspended

5.4) Links re biodiversity to Irish Heritage Council (and others?)

Mid 2005

Awaiting further discussions

Phil Buckley to suggest

57

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

Key objectives, adapted from ‘NIBG role’

Operational Objectives

Tasks and questions for NIBG meetings and subgroups

6) Participate in any UK biodiversity partnership and the development of UK Action Plans which relate to Northern Ireland.

6.1) Host 2006 UK Biodiversity Partnership Conference

Agreed in principle with DoE Start from In progress and UK Partnership? Autumn 2005

Agenda largely driven by UK Partnership, but ensure NI input, and ensure key audiences in 4.2 can contribute 6.2) Review UK Action Plans with respect to NI operations

As above

Discussion with presentation 2006? following 2005 report and 2006 review. Or earlier

6.3) Review needs for representation on any of the Partnership subgroups 7) Submit reports to the Executive every three years on progress with implementation of the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy.

Timescale

Update Aug. ‘05

Autumn ‘05

To do

2005

7.1) Gear up Departments for reporting round in 2005

See conference proposal in (4.2) above

Spreadsheet Appendix 4

7.2) Gear up NGOs and LAs for reporting round in 2005

Ditto

Not possible, except in outline for 2005 round

7.3) Draw up a structure for NI report incorporating BARS, and other appropriate reporting protocols

Consider and suggest improvements to proposed reporting system

Awaiting BARS

NIBG to be satisfied that Depts and LAs /NGOs are geared up for this

Sept 2004 Awaiting and on. See BARS other actions.

Public awareness subgroup to advise, and chair + secretariat to action.

Summer 2005

7.4) Publication and notification of reporting process and structure to Perm Secs, Interdept Group, NGOs, LAs and other sectors

58

N/A

Done by main NIBG August ‘05

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

Key objectives, adapted from ‘NIBG role’

Operational Objectives

Tasks and questions for NIBG meetings and subgroups

7.5) Monitor Identify Govt staff who’ll compliance with action this, and report to reporting system and NIBG identify any problems/ issues Updates during run-up to completion of the report.

Timescale

Update Aug. ‘05

Spring 2005

Done

Ongoing in 2005

Ongoing

Determine who is extracting information for report and drafting text/tables 7.6) Delivery and promotion of the report to NI Executive, and wider public

8) Build NIBG as a strong team, ensuring its different interests have clear and hospitable dialogue, leading to positive outcomes, and conveys this quality to NI community

Determine style and Spring 2005 nature of report (part predetermined by BARS) and review main issues identified and key statements

August ’05, BARS not ready to use

Determine promotion and launch of the report, in keeping with objectives in 4.2, 4.3, above.

Spring/ Summer 2005

August ‘05

Sept 2004

In progress

Plan 2005 dates

Sept 2004

Done

At least one excursion per year looking at projects of best practice, or identifying/ discussing problems of delivery

Annual

Not done

Consider opportunities for reps to ‘showcase’ their own deliveries and issues?

Raise Sept 2004

Opportunity for host at each meeting

8.1) Seen to be Cycle of meetings accessible and relevant throughout NI, venues to all parts of NI varying by geography and host’s interests

8.2) Focus on delivery NIBG members to regularly of the agreed Strategy. receive and be able to comment on relevant publications and reports.

Arrange 2004 Ongoing then ongoing

8.3) Clarification of Presentation by DoE (EPG) secretariat of NIBG, resourcing and modus operandi

Early 2005

59

Not done

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

Appendix 3:

Representation and Attendance of Biodiversity Interdepartmental Group

NAME

NIBIG ATTENDANCE

GRADE

Bob Brown Chairman NIBIG

02/04/04

20/09/04

06/12/05

07/02/05

06/06/05

X

X

X

X

X

William Patton Policy Evaluation Branch DETINI

DP

X

X

X

X

Paul Whiteside Policy Evaluation Branch DETINI

SO

X

X

X

X

Stephen Moore (Replaced DETI Reps) Strategy Unit DETINI

DP

X

Raymond Cummings Standards & Technology Water Service DRD

Gd 6

Harvey Hamilton Engineering Directorate Road Service DRD

PPTO

Pat Hunter-Blair Forest Service Policy DARD

Gd 7

X

Carol Millsop Countryside Management DARD

Gd 3

X

X

Ian McKee Environmental Policy DARD

Gd 7

X

X

Anne Dorbie Fisheries Division DARD

Gd 7

X

X

Hazel Campbell Inland Fisheries DCAL

Gd 7

X

X

Alison McQueen (Replaced Hazel Campbell) Inland Fisheries DCAL

Gd 7

Catherine McKinney Planning Policy Unit DOE

SPTO

John Linden Planning Policy Unit DOE

PPTO

Valerie Hamilton Planning Policy Unit DOE

SPTO

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X NO (Christine Butler)* X

X

X

X

X

X 60

No (Eilis McCullough)*

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

NAME

NIBIG ATTENDANCE

GRADE 02/04/04

Daryl Young FE Programme Support DEL

Gd 6

Stephen Hamilton Regional Planning & Transportation DRD

SPTO

X

George Davidson (Retired) OPS DSD

Gd 7

X

Shirley McKee Curriculum & Qualifications Branch DE

DP

Jocelyn McAlvera Evaluation & Equality DHSSPSNI

DP

John McKibben DFP

Gd 7

Paul Carr (New Member) Building Standards Branch DFP

Gd 7

Stewart Heaney (New Member) Construction Procurement DFP

PPTO

Patricia Donnan Estates Policy DHSSPSNI

PTO

20/09/04

06/12/05

X

07/02/05

06/06/05

X

No (John McGuinness)*

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

No (Kieth Miller)*

Also Attended:Ken Bradley EPG DOE

Gd 7

Ronnie Tosh EPG DOE

DP

Michael Meharg Biodiversity Unit EHS

PSO

X

Louise McAlavey Biodiversity Unit EHS

HSO

X

Hilary McIlroy Planning Service DOE

HPTO

X

Mark McCaughan Fisheries Division DARD

Gd 6

X

Ambrose Owens OPS DHSSPSNI

Gd 7

Jill Sefton EPG DRD

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

SO

X

Notes X Denotes attendance by member * Denotes substitution by member

61

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

Appendix 4:

Reporting spreadsheets for 2004 and 2005 by Government Departments

Please see attached CD. Paper copies available on request. Appendix 5:

Criteria for Inclusion on List of Species of Conservation Concern, and as Priorities for Action

Species fulfilling any of the following criteria:

Northern Ireland Priority Species. Declining (1% per year) Scarce and with Northern Ireland being a stronghold (S) consisting of either:>50% of the Irish population or >20% of the UK population/range occurring in Northern Ireland Amber-listed species in either the Ireland or UK Birds of Conservation Concern (BOCC) lists. Species listed as Rare in an Irish Red Data Book published within the last 15 years. Species fulfilling any of the following criteria are listed as priorities: UK Priority Species. Rapid decline in Northern Ireland (2% per year over the last 25 years). 3. Declining (1% year) with Northern Ireland being a stronghold consisting either:>50% Irish population or >20% UK population/range 4. Rare (e.g. a small population and/or confined to one or two sites in Northern Ireland) with Northern Ireland being a stronghold consisting of either:>50% Irish population or >20% UK population/range Significant proportion (>20%) of the international population of a species (or well-recognized subspecies) occurring in Northern Ireland. Published or proposed Irish Red Data Book species classed as: critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable. 7. Red-listed species in either the Ireland or UK Birds of Conservation Concern (BOCC) lists. Note: Some of the criteria listed in Biodiversity in Northern Ireland: Recommendations to Government for a Biodiversity Strategy for species of conservation concern have not been applied fully because of difficulty in applying the criteria or their application would result in unduly large list. These may be reviewed at a later stage and include:Species which are rare or scarce without conforming to any of the above criteria Genetically distinct in Ireland (e.g. Irish sub-species) Species which are functionally critical to ecosystems

62

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

Appendix 6:

Northern Ireland Species and Habitat Action Plans Currently Agreed, or Awaiting Preparation, with Dates of Publication or Sign-off.

Type of Plan

Date Published

Species Action Plans

Published 2000

Northern Ireland Exclusive Plans

UK priorities relevant to Northern Ireland, for which Northern Ireland plans prepared

Irish hare Curlew Chough

Red squirrel

Hen harrier Light bellied Brent goose Redshank Lapwing Yellowhammer River water crowfoot Blue eyed grass Meadow cranesbill Wood cranesbill

Roseate tern Marsh fritillary Fresh water pearl mussel Small cow-wheat

Published 2003

Montane heath

Sheltered muddy gravels Mudflats Saline lagoons Maerl beds Tidal rapids Seagrass beds Species-rich hedgerows Lowland heathland Upland heathland Lowland raised bog Blanket bog

Signed off March 2005

Marl lakes

Mixed ashwoods Oakwood Wet woodland Parkland Calcareous grassland Lowland dry acid grassland Lowland meadow Purple moor-grass and rush pastures Coastal saltmarsh Coastal sand dunes Maritime cliff and slopes Coastal vegetated shingle Mud habitats in deep water Sabellaria alveolata reefs Sabellaria spinulosa reefs Fens Reedbeds Coastal & floodplain grazing marsh Mesotrophic lakes Eutrophic standing waters Marl lakes Limstone pavement Modiolus modiolus beds Sub-littoral and littoral chalk

Not yet written

Crowfoot rivers

Cereal field margins Aquifer-fed naturally fluctuating waterbodies

Signed off March 2005

Habitat Action Plans

All – Ireland Plans * also UK priority

Irish hare Pollan* Corncrake* Irish ladies’ tresses*

63

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

Appendix 7:

List of Acronyms and Terms in the Report

ANIFPO BAP BARS Biodiversity Partnership BDU BRIG BRAG CCEA CEDaR CMD CNCC DACMS DARD DCAL DEFRA DEHLG DEL DETI DFP DHSSPS DoE / DoE(NI) DRD EHS EPG FD FS Habitas HAP HBC HMC HLF ICZM JNCC LA LBAP MOSS NGO NIAPA NIBG NIBS NIEL NILGA NT OFM/DFM PSG PPS QPA QUB RoI RSPB SAP SMART SoCC

Anglo North-Irish Fish Producers’ Organisation Biodiversity Action Plan Biodiversity Action Reporting Scheme UK initiative co-ordinating delivery of UK Biodiversity Strategy Biodiversity Unit, established in EHS for delivery of its responsibilities Biodiversity Reporting and Information Group Biodiversity Research & Advisory Group Council for Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment Centre for Environmental Data and Recording Countryside Management Branch Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside Department of Arts Culture Media and Sport (in GB) Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Department of Culture Arts and Leisure Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (in GB) Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government (in RoI) Department of Education and Learning Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment Department of Finance and Personnel Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety Department of Environment ( in Northern Ireland) Department for Regional Development Environment and Heritage Service Environmental Policy Group (of DoE NI) Fisheries Division Forest Service Museums’ initiative on biological & geological material & its interpretation Habitat Action Plan Historic Buildings Council Historic Monuments Council Heritage Lottery Fund Integrated Coastal Zone Management Joint Nature Conservation Committee (UK – wide) Local Authority Local Biodiversity Action Plan Management of Sensitive Sites (scheme) Non Government Organisation Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers’ Association Northern Ireland Biodiversity Group Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy Northern Ireland Environment Link Northern Ireland Local Government Association National Trust Office of First Minister/Deputy First Minister Permanent Secretaries’ Group Planning Policy Statement Quarry Production Association Queen’s University Belfast Republic of Ireland Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Species Action Plan Specific, measurable, achievable, time-bound. (in relation to setting objectives) Species of Conservation Concern 64

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy: 1st Report 2005

SOF SUDS UFU UWT WWF WWT

“Shaping our Future” Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme Ulster Farmers’ Union Ulster Wildlife Trust Worldwide Fund for Nature Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust

65

Northern Ireland Biodiversity Group c/o Environmental Policy Group Department of the Environment River House, High Street Belfast BT1 2AW For further information telephone: (028) 9025 7358