When it comes to reviewing the protection of our most important habitats and species, the Chancellor George Osborne is focusing on the wrong targets for the wrong reasons says MATT JACKSON, the head of conservation policy at the Berks, Bucks and Oxon Wildlife Trust

Announcements by the Government last autumn gave the distinct impression that ministers believe the natural environment is holding back economic growth.

Relaxing environmental protection was a key feature in the draft proposals for the new planning system, and the Government took up the theme again in the autumn budget statement.

The Chancellor has set up a review of the way in which European legislation (specifically the Habitats and Birds Directives) is used in England and Wales, saying: “We will make sure that the gold-plating of EU rules on things such as habitats do not place ridiculous costs on British businesses.” The suggestion that environmental protection is the underlying cause of our economic plight doesn’t stand up to even the bare minimum of scrutiny. In fact the ‘boom’ that Mr Osborne blames for our economic situation happened with all the same regulations in place that he claims are holding us back.

The European legislation that’s upsetting Mr Osborne (drafted in the 1980s by the then MEP Stanley Johnson, father of Boris) simply states that we must protect our finest wildlife-rich habitats and most threatened species. If it’s absolutely necessary to damage them, then that damage must be compensated for.

In Oxfordshire, this legislation relates to a tiny proportion of our land cover, just 769 ha or 0.003% of the county, and a very short list of species — including otters, bats, dormice and great crested newts.

The habitats include the beautiful Oxford Meadows, which are among the greatest examples of floodplain meadows in England, fragments of rare limestone fenland at Cothill, vulnerable chalk grassland high in the Chilterns and woods at Wittenham Clumps.

When it comes to development, our protected habitats are not exactly getting in the way. Impacts on the Oxford Meadows were raised as a concern if the proposed Northern Gateway development in Oxford went ahead. However, the Inspector at the Examination in Public listened to several professional opinions and decided that the proximity of the development site to the Meadows would not cause any difficulties.

Where Mr Osborne could, in my view, reduce burdens, is in the way that species protection is carried out in England. All the species covered do need protection. Even the great crested newt, sometimes claimed as ubiquitous in England’s clay lowlands, including much of Oxfordshire, has suffered major declines.

However, protecting each individual does lead to problems. A more sensible approach might be to focus protection on populations of these important species.

Rather than spend the fortune currently paid out every year moving newts around the countryside in buckets, it would make more sense to provide sufficient properly managed habitats in the right places, and would be much more cost effective.

Moving away from protecting every animal, even from disturbance, to focus instead on positive action to improve the populations might also avoid headlines about bats in belfries being more important than church congregations. This sort of approach requires a strong national statutory body to ensure that any small-scale impact on species is more than outweighed by large-scale population improvements.

The Berks, Bucks & Oxon Wildlife Trust, along with the other 46 Wildlife Trusts within the UK would support a simpler approach to species legislation, but only if the Government commits to maintaining proper regulation.

  • If you would like to visit Berks, Bucks & Oxon Wildlife Trust nature reserves, or find out about becoming a member of the Wildlife Trust please visit www.bbowt.org.uk or tel 01865 775476.