The European Birds Directive · 2017. 1. 26. · Conservation of Wild Birds 79/409/EEC (known for short as the ‘Birds Directive’) recognised that bird conservation needed to be

– safeguarding special places for people and wildlife The European Birds Directive

SAFEGUARDING SPECIAL PLACES2

The European Birds Directive – safeguarding special places for people and wildlife

Citation

This report should be cited as:

Williams G, Pullan D, Dickie I,

Huggett D, Mitchell H (2005)

The European Birds Directive –

safeguarding special places for

people and wildlife. The RSPB, Sandy.

Please address any comments

on the report to:

Countryside Conservation,

The RSPB, UK Headquarters,

The Lodge, Sandy, Beds SG19 2DL,

or e-mail: [email protected]

Designation as an SPA has helped to conserve the Insh Marshes in Speyside as a naturally functioningfloodplain that is important for many wetland species.

Peter Cairn

s (rspb

-imag

es.com

)

‘The RSPB believes that the Birds Directive is working wellin the broadest public interest –safeguarding special places for birds and people. This report provides the basis for this conclusion.’

Graham Wynne, Chief Executive

SAFEGUARDING SPECIAL PLACES 3

The UK supports 224,000pairs of breeding gannets.This represents 57% of the world population.The most importantbreeding colonies areprotected as SPAs.Foreword

It has been 25 years since the BirdsDirective was adopted (in April 1979)and the RSPB thinks there is goodcause for celebration. One of the main achievements of the Directivehas been the creation of a network of Special Protection Areas (SPAs)across Europe, which help to protectthe internationally important birdpopulations that use them. The SPAdesignation has saved some of theseplaces from damaging developmentand they have benefited from bettermanagement. Birds are betterprotected and restoration work isunderway to reverse a legacy ofhabitat destruction. We recognise that, at times, implementing theDirective has forced difficult decisionson government and society as awhole, especially when economicaspirations have conflicted withconservation. We believe the Directivehas been successful because not only has it has stopped ill-judgeddevelopment proposals, but it hasallowed developments to go aheadwhen there has been no alternative,there have been imperative reasons of overriding national interest, and with the incorporation of measures to compensate for the environmentaldamage caused.

An

dy H

ay (rspb

-imag

es.com

)

The UK currently has 242 SPAs covering over 1 million hectares.


Introduction to the Birds Directive

The UK’s estuaries provide a vital link in a chain of sites used by migratorybirds. In winter they provide frost-freefeeding areas for more than 1.5 millionwading birds, such as these knots and oystercatchers.

IntroductionHabitats form inspiring landscapes andprovide us with vital natural services:wetlands can buffer the impact of flooding,estuaries provide spawning grounds forcommercial fisheries, and saltmarshes form natural sea defences. Somelandscapes contribute to rural development,especially through tourism, and theysustain birds. This richness of wildlife addsimmeasurably to our quality of life – from a jar of honey to a dawn chorus; riches that deserve the best legal protection.

This publication celebrates the successesof the Birds Directive, which was passed25 years ago. When legislators catch themood of the time there is the opportunityfor a new approach and new thinking.Twenty-five years ago the Directive on theConservation of Wild Birds 79/409/EEC

(known for short as the ‘Birds Directive’)recognised that bird conservation neededto be addressed at an international scale,as birds know no national boundaries.Crucially, the Directive drew together the means to protect and restore theplaces that birds use to feed, live andbreed. The justification for co-ordinatedaction at European level was simple: thatno member state should gain a short-termeconomic advantage over another bydestroying its environment. And, just asimportant, many birds are migratory, soloss of habitat in one country may haveknock-on effects on the bird populations of another.

To those who love nature and wild places,such an approach is both logical anddesirable. Inevitably, the application of

the Directive on the ground has requireddecisions to be made about the future of protected sites. These have often beencharacterised as profound choices betweendevelopment and conservation although,increasingly, these are being seen aschoices about different kinds ofdevelopment – between that based on rapid economic growth, or moresustainable development based on thenatural assets of the area. Whichever, thepassage of the Birds Directive has provideda robust framework within which thesechoices can be made. It has helped to levelthe playing field between development andconservation, providing very necessarysafeguards to ensure that Europe’s wildlifeis taken into better account when planningdecisions are taken, so contributing tosustainable development.

Ch

ris

Go

mer

sall

(rsp

b-i

mag

es.c

om

)


What is the Birds Directive?

The Birds Directive addresses theconservation of all wild birds throughoutthe European Union. It includes terrestrialand marine areas, and covers theirprotection, management, control and exploitation.

It applies to the birds themselves, theireggs, nests and habitats. It places anoverarching requirement on Member States to take whatever measures arenecessary to maintain the populations of all wild birds at levels determined byecological, scientific and cultural needs. In doing so, Member States must haveregard for economic and recreational needs. The Directive divides into two main parts: habitat conservation andspecies protection.

The habitat conservation provisions of the Birds Directive

Article 3 requires Member States topreserve, maintain and re-establishsufficient diversity and area of habitats for all wild birds. This should primarily (but not exclusively) involve the creation of protected areas (not just SPAs under Article 4 – see below). Recognising thehistoric losses of wildlife, the Article alsocalls for the appropriate management of habitats both inside and outsideprotected areas, the re-establishment of destroyed habitats, as well as thecreation of new habitats.

Article 4 sets out special conservationmeasures that should be taken further to those required under Article 3. MemberStates are obliged to take special action for a range of species, which are listed on Annex 1, taking account of their likelyextinction, vulnerability to changes in theirhabitats and their rarity. These specialmeasures must include the classification of the most suitable areas, both in numberand size, for the conservation of thesespecies on land and sea. However, themeasures are not restricted only to thisaction, or exclusively to the most suitableareas. These areas are known as SPAs.

The bittern’s inclusion in Annex 1 of the Birds Directive has stimulatedconservation action, which has increasedbittern numbers in the UK from only 11booming males in 1997 to 55 in 2004.

Rich

ard B

roo

ks (rspb

-imag

es.com

)



Barnacle geese migrate to Scotland from Greenland and Svalbard in Norway. SPAs have helped to ensure the protection and management of their traditional wintering sites.

The special measures, including theclassification and protection of SPAs, must also be applied to regularlyoccurring migratory bird species. In doingso, Member States should have regard totheir breeding, moulting and winteringareas, as well as staging posts along themigration routes. Particular attention must be afforded to the protection ofwetlands, and especially (but notexclusively) the protection of wetlands ofinternational importance.

Article 4.3 of the Birds Directive requires Member States to report back to the European Commission on theestablishment of SPAs so that theCommission can consider whether furtherinitiatives are required in order to ensurethat, collectively, the sites form a coherentnetwork that meets the conservation needs of the species concerned.

This concept of a coherent network forsites to protect Europe’s biodiversity is also reflected in a sister Directive on theconservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora 92/43/EEC, also known as the Habitats Directive. Article 3of the Habitats Directive states that anecologically coherent network of SpecialAreas of Conservation (SACs) and SPAs

shall be established, to be known as Natura 2000. This network enables themaintenance and, where appropriate,restoration to favourable conservationstatus, of the natural habitats and species’habitats concerned. In doing so, MemberStates should endeavour to improve theecological coherence of the network bymaintaining and (where appropriate)developing features of the landscape thatare important for wild plants and animals,which includes birds. These features includerivers and hedgerows as well as `steppingstones' such as ponds and small woodsessential for migration.

Protection of SPAs

Since the introduction of the Birds Directivein 1979, the duty to protect SPAs set out inArticle 4.4 of the Birds Directive has largely– but not entirely – been replaced by therequirements set out in Articles 6.2 to 6.4 of the Habitats Directive.

Article 6.2 of the Habitats Directiveprovides a general protection provision for SPAs. Member States must takeappropriate steps to avoid habitatdeterioration and the disturbance of species for which the site has beendesignated (insofar as such disturbancewould prove significant). It is not

permissible to wait until deterioration ordisturbance has occurred before takingaction.

Articles 6.3 and 6.4 provide more detailed procedures in relation to plans and projects, which are aimed at ensuringthe objective of Article 6.2 is met. Onlythose plans and projects (or parts thereof)that are considered connected with, ornecessary for, site management of theSPA, are exempt. Where a plan or project –either alone or in combination with other`plans and projects' – is likely to have asignificant effect on the SPA, then anappropriate assessment must beundertaken. An appropriate assessmentmust consider whether it is possible to saythat the integrity of the SPA will not beaffected. If the integrity of the SPA will beadversely affected (or it is not possible tosay it will not be), then a plan or project canonly proceed if there are no less damagingalternatives and it is imperative that it goesahead for reasons of overriding publicinterest (the ‘IROPI’ test). For SPAs,consideration of public interest can includesocio-economic factors, other factors thatmay be of benefit to the environment, aswell as other matters that the EuropeanCommission consider to be of overridingpublic interest.G

ord

on

Lan

gsb

ury

(rs

pb

-im

ages

.co

m)


Where a Member State does allow adamaging plan or project to proceed, then it must take all compensatorymeasures necessary to ensure that theoverall coherence of the Natura 2000network is protected.

Other than for `plans and projects', theHabitats Directive does not specify how the objectives of Article 6.2 should be met. However, it is logical that the generalprinciples that must be applied to `plansand projects' should also apply to otheractivities. These principles includeundertaking an appropriate assessment,only allowing damaging activities toproceed under exceptional circumstancesand the provision of compensatory habitatin order to secure the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network.

In addition to the detailed protectionrequirements set out in the HabitatsDirective, the last sentence of Article 4.4 of the Birds Directive also requires Member States to strive to avoid thepollution or deterioration of habitats outside SPAs.

The species protectionprovisions of the Birds Directive

This reports focuses on the habitatconservation provisions of the BirdsDirective. However, the Directive alsocontains important species protectionmeasures. As a general rule, the BirdsDirective requires Member States to ban the deliberate killing or capture of all species of wild birds naturally occurring in their European territories. This ban alsoapplies to damaging nests and eggs andthe taking or keeping of eggs. The keeping of wild birds and the deliberatedisturbance of birds is also contrary to the Birds Directive, particularly during the breeding season.

There are exceptions. Certain species,listed in Annex II, may be hunted if nationallegislation of the Member State concernedpermits it. Species in Annex II/I may behunted throughout Europe; species onAnnex II/II may only be hunted in namedStates. However, hunting may only becarried out provided it does not jeopardiseconservation efforts anywhere in thedistribution area of the species, and followsthe principle of ‘wise use and ecologicallybalanced control of the species concerned’,and it does not compromise the

SPAs help to protect some of our most stunninglandscapes.The basalt and chalk cliffs of the RathlinIsland SPA (part of which is an RSPB nature reserve)are important for breeding seabirds.

Ch

ris Go

mersall (rsp

b-im

ages.co

m)



The RSPB regularly makes thecase for the protection of SPAsfrom damaging development.We have sought to prevent theextraction of peat from the Thorneand Hatfield Moor SPA.

overarching requirement to maintainspecies at a level corresponding to theirecological requirements. The Directive alsorequires Member States to prohibit huntingduring the rearing season, reproductiveseason and, for migratory species, theperiod of return migration, ie springshooting is prohibited. It also places strictcontrols on the sale, transport for sale,keeping and offering for sale of live or dead parts of wild birds, or their parts or derivatives.

Article 9 of the Directive allows MemberStates to permit exceptions from theseprovisions in certain circumstances: for public health and safety; air safety; to prevent serious damage to crops,livestock, fisheries and water; for theprotection of plants and animals, and forthe purposes of research. It also allows,under strictly supervised conditions and ona selective basis, the capture, keeping orother judicious use of wild birds in smallnumbers. These exceptions or ‘derogations‘are only permitted where there is no othersatisfactory solution, and annual reports ontheir use have to be made to the EuropeanCommission to check that their use is notincompatible with the Directive.

Implementation of the Birds Directive in the UK

We do not analyse further the operation of the species protection provisions of the Birds Directive in the UK, other than to note that the Directive drew heavily onthe approach adopted in the BritishProtection of Birds Act 1954. The laws inthe UK were already structured to meet theDirective’s requirements, although someimprovements have been (and continue tobe) made to ensure full compliance. Farmore significant changes were required tobring the habitat conservation requirementsof the Directive into effect. The principlevehicle for the implementation of the BirdsDirective (both in terms of site protectionand species protection) was the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 in Great Britain,and the Nature Conservation and AmenityLands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 andthe Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 in Northern Ireland. This legislation didmuch to improve the protection of Sites ofSpecial Scientific Interest (SSSIs) in Britain,and Areas of Special Scientific Interest(ASSIs) in Northern Ireland – the mainmechanism that underpins the protection of SPAs. By the mid-1990s, it became

apparent that this legislation requiredimprovement, especially to addressdeterioration in the ecological condition of sites through management neglect.However, the Countryside & Rights of WayAct 2000 in England and Wales, the NatureConservation (Scotland) Act 2004 and theEnvironment (Northern Ireland) Order 2002have significantly changed the protectionregime afforded to SSSIs in England, Wales and Scotland and ASSIs in Northern Ireland. Although the detail of the legislation varies by country, allgreatly improve the protection of sites, and provide measures to secure positivesite management.

The Birds Directive in actionThe RSPB makes representations toplanning authorities and others on some500 development proposals affectingprotected areas each year. Of these, abouta third affect internationally important areasdesignated as SPAs and the remainderaffect SSSIs/ASSIs of national interest forbirds. Proposals include applications forhousing and industrial development,afforestation, transport infrastructure(roads, ports, airports), energy generationand flood defence works.

Hel

en K

irk


Most of these developments only pose a problem for conservation because of their proposed location. The RSPB’srepresentations aim to influence thelocation or design of developments so that they do not have an adverse effect on wildlife. Over the last decade, we havefound developers are generally very willingto enter into negotiations with statutoryand voluntary conservation bodies to seekpositive outcomes for wildlife and people.In the minority of cases, where asatisfactory outcome cannot be foundthrough negotiation, the RSPB will carry its objection through to planning inquiry or, in extreme cases, the courts, in thehope and expectation that the proposal will be refused. The logic of this isstraightforward: where development andconservation cannot be reconciled, then itis important the case for both is heard in an open and transparent way, so thatsociety can decide where the balance ofadvantage lies.

Over recent decades, the balance drawn bysociety has changed. As man’s impact onthe environment has grown, and has beenmore widely recognised, developmentsthat would have been permitted in onedecade have been rejected in the next.

The Birds Directive itself is a product ofgreater environmental awareness as thereis now an understanding that there arelimits to development if we are not to loseirreplaceable environmental assets. Thenext nine pages summarise some of the key cases in the UK where the BirdsDirective has been influential in determiningwhere the balance between developmentand conservation lies. We have presentedthese in four categories.

1 Cases where development did not goahead, as it was determined the wildlifeinterest of the site was more important.

2 Cases where development waspermitted with the provision ofnecessary mitigation or compensationmeasures, as it was determined thatthere was no alternative and there were imperative reasons of overridingnational interest.

3 Cases where the RSPB believes thedecision making framework provided by the Birds Directive was appliedinappropriately in some way.

4 Current cases where the outcome is yet to be determined.

The Humber estuary: an area where integratingthe requirements of development and wildlifehas proved demanding, yet possible.

Ch

ris Go

mersall (rsp

b-im

ages.co

m)


Cases where development did not go ahead

1 Holton Heath, Dorset. 1996–2002:a proposed new settlement of 1,350houses and associated transportimprovements allocated in the localdevelopment plan, which wouldincrease urban pressures from peopleand domestic pets on parts of theDorset Heathland SPA (of importancefor woodlarks, Dartford warblers andnightjars). The allocation was rejectedfollowing a lengthy public inquiry.

2 Fox Farm, Hampshire. 1995:application for a housing estate next to Yateley Common, part of theThames Basin Heaths proposed SPA (of importance for ground-nestingheathland birds such as woodlarks andnightjars). The Secretary of State upheldthe Council’s rejection of the applicationdue to likely damage to the integrity ofthe site from disturbance. The applicantalso failed to prove lack of alternativesor imperative reasons of overriding public interest.

3 Gruinart Flats and Laggan Bay, Islay,1998–9: The then Scottish Office issuedlicences to farmers within these twoSPAs to shoot barnacle geese to assisttheir scaring programmes. The RSPBwas unconvinced that the Government’sassessment was correct – it wasclaimed that such shooting and scaringpolicies would have no significant effect

on the population of Greenland-breedingbarnacle geese as a whole. The RSPBbelieved this to be the wrong test andthat Article 6.2 required the preventionof significant disturbance within SPAs –otherwise SPAs were, in effect, nodifferent from anywhere else. Onappeal, the Scottish courts held the site-based approach to be correct.

4 Duich Moss, Islay. 1984–1987: proposalto extract peat within the Duich MossSSSI, before the site was designated as an SPA. This would have impacted onthe internationally important populationof Greenland white-fronted geese usingthe site. Permission was granted, butfollowing an RSPB complaint to theEuropean Commission the developersagreed to extract peat from a suitablesite nearby instead.

5 Duich Moss, Islay. 1995: proposal forfive wind turbines overlooking DuichMoss SPA. The planning authority wasminded to approve the project, butfollowing inquiry the Secretary of Staterefused permission, because of the riskof collision particularly by Greenlandwhite-fronted geese and hen harriers.This risk meant he could not concludethat there would be no adverse effecton the integrity of the site.

6 Barksore Marshes, Medway, Kent,1997: the planning authority wasrequired to review an extant 1964consent to use Barksore Marshes for the disposal of river dredgings. It had to decide if it should be revokedbecause of its adverse effect on the Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA, an important site for wintering andbreeding wildfowl and wading birds. The Council determined that thepartially unimplemented consent would have an adverse effect, and theSecretary of State upheld this decisionafter inquiry, noting that there wereviable and less damaging alternativesolutions for disposing of the dredgings.

7 Magheramorne Quarry, CoAntrim,1994–1997: proposed use of a quarry next to Larne Lough SPA forlandfill. Concerns focused on whetherleachate from the site would impact onfeeding ducks and geese, and whetherbreeding terns would be affected bypredation and disturbance caused bygulls attracted to the waste site. TheDepartment of Environment (NorthernIreland) refused permission due to theprobable adverse effect on the SPA, and because lack of alternatives andimperative reasons of overriding publicinterest had not been shown.

An

dre

w D

od

d (

RS

PB

)

The RSPB often co-ordinates its sitesafeguard work with other organisations. AtHolton Heath, Dorset, the RSPB worked withEnglish Nature and the Dorset Wildlife Trustto present a joint case at the public inquiry.

1

2

4 5

6

7

11 8

9

10

12

13

14

3


8 Portsmouth Stadium, Hampshire,1993: proposed new PortsmouthFootball Club stadium on playing fields used by feeding brent geese fromthe nearby Chichester and LangstoneHarbours SPA. The planning authoritywas minded to approve the project, but following inquiry the Secretary ofState refused permission, due to thelikelihood of an adverse effect on theintegrity of the SPA, through a reductionin feeding habitat on which the SPAbirds relied.

9 North Duffield Carrs, North Yorkshire,1980–1984: proposed Internal DrainageBoard (IDB) pump drainage scheme of flood meadows that were used bywintering and breeding ducks, geeseand wading birds and formed part of thethen proposed Lower Derwent ValleySPA. The scheme was to permitconversion to arable cropping, whichwould have destroyed the wildlifeinterest of the site. Application forgrant-aid was rejected by MAFF,following which the IDB decided not to proceed with the scheme.

10 Penbreck windfarm, East Ayrshire,2004: proposal for a 12 MW wind farmoverlapping the Lowther and MuirkirkUplands SPA. The proposal had thepotential to adversely impact breedinghen harriers and golden plovers through

collision mortality and disturbance.Following a public inquiry, the proposalwas rejected due to the potential foradverse impacts upon the SPA.

11 Dibden Bay, Hampshire, 1996–2004:proposal for a large container port whichwould have destroyed inter-tidal habitatwithin the Solent and SouthamptonWater SPA, with knock-on effects onwading birds and populations of ducksand geese. After a public inquiry, theSecretary of State refused permissionbecause of the potential environmentalimpact of the project and the fact thatpotentially less damaging alternativesto the scheme existed.

12 Mersey Barrage, Merseyside,1986–1993: proposed barrage across the estuary for electricity operation.Detailed feasibility studies highlightedthe adverse impact that the schemewould have on wintering ducks, geeseand wading birds, for which the estuarywas proposed as an SPA. Plans for thebarrage were put on hold: subsequentlyan integrated Mersey EstuaryManagement Plan has given fullrecognition to the estuary’s wildlifeimportance.

13 Cliffe Airport, Kent, 2002–2004: as part of its consultation on the future ofaviation in the UK, the UK Governmentidentified several options for airport

expansion, including the option of constructing a new airport at Cliffe. This development would havecaused the loss of some 6,200 hectaresof SPA – of importance for breeding and wintering ducks, geese and wadingbirds. Following a vigorous campaign bythe local community and the RSPB, theCliffe option was rejected in the AviationWhite Paper on economic, financial,passenger safety (due to bird strikehazard) and wildlife conservationgrounds. The Governmentacknowledged that the HabitatsDirective ‘tests’ would have beendifficult to pass, as other less damagingsites were available, and it would havebeen difficult to secure adequatecompensatory habitat.

14 Creag Meagaidh, Highland,1983–1984: proposals to afforest the Creag Meagaidh SSSI (prior to itsdesignation as an SPA), which holdsinternationally important breedingupland bird populations. Although the RSPB objected to the application,permission was granted for half of the afforestation to take place, despitethe site’s conservation importance. The site was subsequently bought bythe then Nature Conservancy Counciland designated as a National NatureReserve, thus saving it fromdevelopment.

Case studies

Key1 Holton Heath2 Fox Farm3 Gruinart Flats and Laggan Bay4 Duich Moss peat extraction5 Duich Moss windfarm6 Barksore Marshes7 Magheramorne Quarry8 Portsmouth Stadium9 North Duffield Carrs10 Penbreck windfarm11 Dibden Bay12 Mersey Barrage13 Cliffe Airport14 Creag Meagaidh

Map to show cases wheredevelopment did not go ahead.


Cases that went ahead after proper application of the process

1 Cavenham Quarry, Suffolk, 1997:an extension to the existing sand andgravel extraction was proposed at thesite, which held more than 1% of theUK’s breeding stone-curlew population,and part of the proposed BrecklandSPA. Discussions between EnglishNature, the RSPB and the ownerprovided for quarrying to be done in a way that maintained the breedinghabitat. After the quarrying wascomplete, there was agreement thatthe worked area would be restored tosuitable stone-curlew habitat. As there would be no adverse effect on the SPA, the planning authority granted permission.

2 Immingham Outer Harbour, NorthLincolnshire, 2001–2004: the portcompany proposed extending theHumber International Terminal to createa new roll-on, roll-off ferry terminal,which would have caused direct loss of 22 hectares of inter-tidal mud withinan area proposed as an extension to the Humber Flats, Marshes andCoast SPA. In discussion with theEnvironment Agency, English Natureand the RSPB, the port accepted thatthere would be an adverse effect on the integrity of the site, and entered alegal agreement with the conservationorganisations to provide adequatecompensation to maintain the integrityof the network. The developer also

produced the necessary information toinform the Government’s considerationof alternative solutions, and imperativereasons of overriding public interest. This allowed the RSPB and EnglishNature to withdraw their objections to the scheme.

3 Harwich channel deepening, Suffolk,1997–1998: the port authority proposedto deepen the approach channel toFelixstowe to allow the dock to acceptlarger container vessels. The RSPBobjected, as reduced sediment suppliesin the estuary would be likely to lead to increased erosion of the inter-tidalmudflats that are used by feedingwintering ducks, geese and wading birds in part of the Stour and OrwellEstuaries SPA. The developer proposedmitigation of this potential impact bysupplementing the sediment supply, and providing 17 hectares ofreplacement habitat within the estuary.The experimental nature of theseproposals meant the developer could not demonstrate that there would be noadverse effect on the SPA. In the event,the Secretary of State approved thescheme, having determined that therewas no alternative to the project and itwas in the overriding public interest. Thedeveloper was required to provide the 17 hectares of habitat as compensation,not mitigation.

Agreement over the Harwich Channeldeepening project has helped to protectthe birds of the Stour Estuary.

Mar

k H

amb

lin (

rsp

b-i

mag

es.c

om

)

A planning agreement sustained breedingstone-curlew numbers during quarryingoperations at Cavenham, Surrey.

1

3

4 2


Case studies

4 Humber urgent flood defence works, Humberside, 2000–2001:the Environment Agency broughtforward a programme of urgent seadefence works to reduce flood risk to land next to the estuary. TheEnvironment Agency accepted thatthere would be an adverse effect on the Humber Flats, Marshes andCoast SPA, which is of internationalimportance for wintering ducks, geese and wading birds. In discussion, all parties agreed that there was no alternative, and that there were reasons of overriding public interest.The planning authority approved theworks with the provision ofcompensatory habitat at Paull HolmeStrays, using a planning agreement to link the delivery of the schemes in different local authority areas.

An

dy H

ay (rspb

-imag

es.com

)

Key1 Cavenham quarry2 Immingham3 Harwich channel deepening4 Humber urgent works

Map to show where cases were permitted


Cases where the RSPB believes the decision-making framework provided by the Birds Direct

1 Lappel Bank, Medway, Kent,1989–1993: in 1989, Medway PortsAuthority sought and received planningpermission for the reclamation ofLappel Bank, for a car and cargo park,but this was not immediatelyimplemented. In 1993, the Secretary ofState designated the Medway Estuaryand Marshes as an SPA, but left outLappel Bank on economic grounds,despite its value for wintering feedingducks, geese and wading birds. The RSPB challenged this decision on the grounds that the Birds Directivedid not allow economic considerationsto be taken into account in SPAdesignations. The subsequent JudicialReview was referred to the EuropeanCourt of Justice, which agreed the UKGovernment had acted illegally. As the planning application had beenimplemented and the site destroyed,the UK Government was obliged tocompensate for the loss. This had still not been delivered at the time of writing, but is now being brought forward.

2 Cardiff Bay, Glamorgan, 1986–1993:following earlier failed attempts, in 1989 the Cardiff Bay DevelopmentCorporation proposed a barrage in thebay to create a recreational lagoon andremove ‘unsightly’ mudflats as part of a dockside redevelopment. Despite the

destruction of the nearly 200 hectareTaff/Ely Estuary SSSI and the adverseeffect on the Severn Estuary pSPA (dueto the loss of intertidal mudflats usedby wintering and passage ducks andwading birds), the Cardiff Bay BarrageAct was passed by Parliament in 1993,citing economic need. The Governmentfunded a 439-hectare compensatorywetland creation project on the nearbyGwent Levels. Despite this, the RSPBstill finds it difficult to understand howParliament concluded there was noalternative to the barrage, given expertevidence and experience elsewherethat mudflats are not a barrier toeconomic development.

3 Mostyn Dock, Flintshire, 1994:extension of the dock, including a new quay, foreshore land claim and dredging to deepen the accesschannel. The RSPB objected because of the impact on the Dee Estuary SPA,one of the UK’s most important sites for wintering ducks, geese and wadingbirds. After an inquiry, the Secretary ofState consented to the proposal, as the impact on the SPA would beinsignificant and there would not be an adverse effect. The tests ofalternatives and imperative reasons for overriding interest were thereforenot relevant and no compensation wasrequired. We find it difficult to see how Dunlins at the Taff estuary.This habitat has since

been destroyed by the Cardiff Bay barrage.

Ch

ris

Go

mer

sall

(rsp

b-i

mag

es.c

om

)

Lappel Bank, Medway, Kent: once avibrant mudflat and a place for ducks and geese to spend the winter, it is now parking for imported cars.

12

3

4


tive was applied inappropriately Case studies

the Secretary of State reached thisconclusion, given the evidence showing the impact of habitat loss on estuarine birds.

4 Pentland Road windfarm, Isle ofLewis, 2002: a proposal for six windturbines within the Lewis PeatlandsSPA, presenting potential collision risksfor golden eagles. In March 2004, theapplication was referred by the councilto Scottish ministers on aviationgrounds. At this point, the RSPB andothers became aware of the applicationand registered objections with theScottish Executive, but the case wasreferred back to the council. Theproposal was approved in August 2004.We find it difficult to see how thecouncil were able to conclude that there would be no adverse impact forgolden eagles given the poor quality ofinformation that was available to them.

Ch

ris Go

mersall (rsp

b-im

ages.co

m)

Key1 Lappel Bank2 Cardiff Bay3 Mostyn Dock4 Pentland Road

Map to show cases where developmentwas inappropriatelyconsented


Current cases where the outcome is yet to be determined

Windpower generation can make animportant contribution to limiting theproduction of greenhouse gases. However,better strategic planning is needed to prevent developments that adversely affect SPAs.

1 Lewis Windfarm, Isle of Lewis, 2002:a proposal for 234 wind turbines within the Lewis Peatlands SPA. Thishas the potential to adversely affectinternationally important populations of breeding wading birds includingdunlins and golden plovers, along withbreeding golden eagles and merlins.These impacts cannot be overcome by mitigation and so the RSPB willobject to the application.

2 Shell Flat Windfarm, off the coast of Lancashire, 2000: a proposal for 90 wind turbines on shallow sandbanks. The area of the applicationcoincides with an area used by one of the most important populations of wintering and moulting commonscoters in the UK, which the RSPBbelieves should be designated as amarine SPA. There could be potentialadverse impacts on this populationthrough disturbance and collisionmortality and the RSPB has objected to the application. A possible solutionwill be to move the windfarm area away from the scoter populations, and so avoid these impacts.

3 A11 trunk road between Mildenhalland Thetford, Suffolk, 2001: proposalsfor dualling of the carriageway on theremaining single lane section of theroad. The road corridor passes through

the proposed Breckland SPA, ofinternational importance for its breedingstone-curlews, woodlarks and nightjars. The development could potentially cause disturbance to the stone-curlews,but these impacts may be mitigated bysuitable habitat creation within theproposed SPA.

4 London Gateway, Essex, 2001:application for a large container port next to the Thames Estuary andMarshes SPA, which would result indamaging changes to intertidal habitatsand knock-on effects on winteringwading birds. The RSPB has objected to the scheme, although agreement has been reached with the developerregarding appropriate compensatoryand mitigation measures, should thescheme be consented. A decision is awaited.

5 Bathside Bay, Essex, 2001: applicationfor a large container port next to theStour and Orwell Estuaries SPA, withpotential loss of intertidal habitat withinthe estuaries, leading to adverse effectson wintering ducks, geese and wadingbirds. The RSPB objected to theproposal because of the loss of theproposed Bathside Bay extension to the SPA. However, agreement has been reached with the developerregarding appropriate compensatory

and mitigation measures, should thescheme be consented. A decision is awaited.

6 Queen Elizabeth II Barracks,Hampshire, 2000: application for 1,132 houses on surplus Ministry ofDefence land. The site is within half akilometre of the Thames Basin HeathsSPA. There is potential for adverseimpacts on breeding nightjars,woodlarks and Dartford warblersthrough increased recreationaldisturbance and fires. The RSPB hasobjected to the application. However,there is potential for the impacts to be mitigated through the provision of a considerable area of open spacewithin and adjoining the developmentsite, and through management ofexisting access to the SPA.

7 Cardiff Eastern Bay Link, 2003:proposal to build an eastern distributorroad around the south and east ofCardiff, which would impinge andimpact upon intertidal habitat, and sowintering birds, of the Severn EstuarySPA. The proposal has been a long-timeaspiration of the local council, althoughit does not presently have fundingallocated to it. The RSPB objected to the proposal in the emerging UnitaryDevelopment Plan (UDP). However, dueto planning reform in Wales, the draft

Ing

ram

Pu

blis

hin

g

1

2

3

4

5

67

8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

18

17


Case studies

UDP is now likely to be superceded.The RSPB will press hard for thescheme to be dropped in the new Local Development Plan.

8 Ouse Washes, Cambridgeshire andNorfolk, 1975: deterioration of the Ouse Washes SPA washlands hasoccurred through more frequentsummer flooding and longer, deeperwinter flooding. This has led to adverseimpacts on breeding wading birds, suchas black-tailed godwits, snipe andwintering wigeons. Flood mitigation torestore the SPA is not feasible due tothe scale of flooding. The Ouse Washesflood defence function is so importantthat a case could be made forcontinuing the current flood regime, in which case approximately 1,000hectares of compensatory habitatwould be required to safeguard the SPA interest features.

9 Easton Broad, Suffolk, 2004: proposalsto safeguard the freshwater reedbeds by constructing a new flood defenceembankment inland. The proposals willhave adverse effects on the Benacre to Easton Bavents SPA through salineintrusion into reedbed habitat that isused by breeding bitterns. This wouldalso, however, permit the evolution ofsaline lagoon candidate SAC (cSAC)

features. The RSPB is in consultationwith the agencies responsible as to the most appropriate location for new defences further inland. Suitablecompensatory habitat will be providedshould the scheme proceed.

10 Cley Salthouse, Norfolk, 1998:proposals to lower and re-profile ashingle ridge, and so restore an SACfeature – which is also the primary seadefence – to favourable condition, willhave an adverse effect on the NorthNorfolk Coast SPA. The freshwaterreedbed habitat, which is used bybreeding bitterns, would suffer fromsaline degradation. The RSPB is indiscussion with the agencies involved,but is concerned that the presentproposals will not protect the SPAhabitat long enough for compensatorysites to be implemented nearby.

11 Little Cheyne Court, Kent, 2003:application for a 26-turbine wind farmnear the Dungeness to Pett Levels SPA and potential SPA extension. This development would potentiallyimpact on wintering Bewick’s swans (in particular) through collision mortalityand disturbance. The RSPB objected, as we believe potential impacts cannotbe mitigated adequately and thatalternative solutions exist. A decision is awaited.

12 Wing Water Treatment Works,Rutland, 1998: an application for anextension to a water treatment worksto allow up to 30% increasedabstraction from Rutland Water SPA.During peak demand, this could lead to significant draw-down events, leading to adverse impacts in thereservoir on the internationallyimportant wintering populations of ducks and geese. The RSPB has objected to the scheme, but the potential exists for impacts to be mitigated and compensated forthrough appropriate habitatenhancement and creation.

13 Slieve Beagh Windfarm, Co Tyrone,2004: proposal for 12 wind turbines, in conjunction with another 12 adjacentto the site in the Republic of Ireland.Both applications relate to an area usedby breeding hen harriers, which shouldbe designated as an SPA. The RSPB has objected to the scheme due toadverse impacts on the breeding henharriers through disturbance andcollision mortality.

14 Derry Airport, Co Londonderry, 1999:an application to extend the runwaysafety area over inter-tidal habitat, partof which is managed as an RSPBreserve, within the Lough Foyle SPA.This would lead to loss of habitat for

Key1 Lewis windfarm2 Shell Flat windfarm3 A11 trunk road4 London Gateway5 Bathside Bay6 QEII Barracks7 Cardiff Eastern

Bay Link8 Ouse Washes9 Easton Broad10 Cley Salthouse

11 Little Cheyne Court12 Wing Water

Treatment Works13 Slieve Beagh windfarm14 Derry Airport15 Mostyn Dredge16 Gruf Hill17 Leith Docks

Development Framework

18 Kircaldy Esplanade

Map to show caseswhich are yet to bedetermined


Current cases where the outcome is yet to be determined (continued)

wintering wading birds and increaseddisturbance to birds using the SPA. TheRSPB objected to the application butconsent was granted without a publicinquiry. At the RSPB’s request, a judicialreview of the decision has beenundertaken; the outcome is awaited.

15 Mostyn Dredge, Flintshire, Wales,2003: an application to increasemaintenance dredging to 200,000 m3

(+/-50%) of sediment per annum withinthe Dee Estuary SPA. This has thepotential to increase erosion on inter-tidal sand banks, which are used byfeeding wintering wading birds such as redshanks and dunlins. The RSPBbelieves that there are less damagingalternative solutions to meet the project need and has objected to theapplication. A decision is awaited.

16 Gruf Hill, Orkney, 2002: a proposal fora small-scale wind farm (three turbines)on Orkney, which presents a potentialcollision risk to hen harriers. The RSPBobjected to the development andlodged written submissions for thepublic inquiry, which was held in mid-December 2004. Relocation of theturbines would significantly reduce the impacts on the SPA.

17 Leith Docks DevelopmentFramework, Edinburgh 2004:this Framework document is beingproduced as supplementary planningguidance for the local plan. Theframework applies to a 87-hectare siteand includes proposals for residential,commercial, educational and industrialuses. Depending on the design andlayout of the proposal, it could have an impact on the Firth of Forth SPA and the Imperial Dock Lock SPA.Negotiations are ongoing with theCouncil to ensure any potential impacts are reduced or removed.

18 Kircaldy Esplanade, Fife, 2004:application for outline planningpermission for a large development oninter-tidal land to be reclaimed from theFirth of Forth. This would result in thepermanent loss of 13 hectares of birdhabitat within the Firth of Forth SPA(see also case 17 above potentiallyaffecting the same SPA). The RSPB hasobjected to the proposal and a decisionis awaited.

As cases 17 and 18 both impact on theFirth of Forth SPA the Directive requiresthat their affects be considered incombination with each other.

Hen harrier – a species at risk fromwindfarm construction, such as thatat Gruf Hill, which is part of theOrkney Mainland Moors SPA.

An

dy

Hay

(rs

pb

-im

ages

.co

m)

The RSPB works with local communitiesto protect places that are important tothem.

RS

PB


Analysis of the Case studies

Although selective, we believe someconclusions about the role and value of the Birds Directive in the UK can be drawnfrom these case studies.

■ That the Birds Directive has made apositive contribution to sustainabledevelopment. Developments that wouldhave had an adverse impact on SPAshave been halted either where therewas an alternative or no imperativereasons of overriding public interest.Conversely, developments have beenpermitted where adverse effects couldbe mitigated (eg through modifying thedesign, changing working practice oraltering the location), or where it hasbeen found there was no alternativeand there were imperative reasons of overriding public interest.

■ The process is participatory and allows all stakeholders to be involvedand put across their views – includingdevelopers, the general public, statutory bodies and non-governmentorganisations. Implementation of theAarhus Convention will further improvethe ability of the public and others to participate in and influenceenvironmental decision making.

■ In general, the Government and localplanning authorities in the UK haveapplied the legislation implementing the site protection provisions of theBirds Directive rigorously. There are afew cases where the Directive’s ‘tests’have been inappropriately applied topermit development.

■ Set against the number of planningapplications as a whole (some 625,000in England in 2003 alone), thoseaffecting protected sites are relativelyfew, suggesting that the impact of theDirective is not disproportionate to itsbenefits to wildlife and human quality of life.

■ Conserving habitat in situ remains by far the best option. From an ecologicalperspective, it is still difficult to re-createor create many habitats within areasonable timescale. For those wherethere are reliable habitat recreationtechniques (such as inter-tidal, reedbed,wet grassland and heathland), thepractical difficulties of locating, financingand delivering compensatory habitat ofan adequate functional match for thatlost are considerable. The UKGovernment has still not deliveredcompensatory inter-tidal habitat forLappel Bank, nearly nine years after aEuropean Court of Justice judgementrequired it to do so, although a site has now been identified and habitatcreation work should begin soon.

The North Norfolk Coast SPA, of which the RSPB’s Titchwell reserveis a part, makes an important contribution to the economy of thearea through green tourism. It attracts some £1.8 million visitorspending per annum, supporting more than 41 full time jobs.

Ch

ris Go

mersall (rsp

b-im

ages.co

m)


Analysis of the case studies continued

■ Inevitably, the Directive has added to the regulatory requirements faced by developers. However, we consider this reasonable, given the high wildlifeinterest of the land, and that many of the decisions being made within the framework of the Directive, whether to permit development or not, are irreversible.

■ Some industries are more likely thanothers to be able to demonstrate ‘noalternative solution’ and ‘imperativereasons of overriding public interest’ in respect of development proposals that would have adverse affects onNatura 2000 sites. A good example is the ports industry, which operateslargely within estuarine areas, many ofwhich have been designated as SPAs byvirtue of their importance for winteringducks, geese and wading birds. Portexpansion is difficult to achieve withoutadverse effects on the SPA network.Over the years, port companies have

come to work with the Directive,increasingly acknowledging thatdevelopments may have adverse effectson protected areas and, where they do,putting in place robust provision forcompensatory habitat, and presentingtheir alternatives and IROPI case forconsideration at public inquiry. We seethis as a considerable advance from thesituation where companies would seekto deny adverse effects on protectedsites. Other industries, such as housing,energy and aviation, where the choice of location is far wider, are likely tofind it much harder to construct such a compelling case. Even for ports therigour of the alternatives and IROPI tests means that a strong case fordevelopment is required if a project is to gain approval. The evaluation of the strength of individual competingproposals has been hampered by theabsence of a Government ports strategyfor the development of the overallindustry.

Favourable site conditions must bedelivered and sustained by soundmanagement. At the Ouse Washes SPA,continuation of summer grazing isessential to provide the right vegetationlevels needed for wetland birds.

An

dy

Hay

(rs

pb

-im

ages

.co

m)

■ This account has focused on individualsites. Obviously, sites do not exist inisolation from the wider environment,and although the protection of sites has improved, the context in which they exist has not. Site condition hasdeteriorated, sometimes because ofpoor site management, but more oftenas a result of external factors such aseutrophication (over-enrichment of water) from air- and water-bornepollution, coastal erosion, over-abstraction of water, or poor water-levelmanagement control due to floodmanagement operations. Addressingthese factors presents a major challenge for the future.


Benefits of the Birds Directive

The primary benefit of the European Union protected area network of Natura2000 sites is to the biodiversity it protects,and the contribution it makes to thesurvival of wildlife for its own sake. Wehave a moral responsibility to ensure thegood stewardship of our planet, and toprevent extinctions of plants and animals,independent of any social or economicbenefit that it might provide.

Many people already acknowledge this responsibility, and place high intrinsicvalue on the natural environment and thecontinued existence of wildlife. Economictechniques allow for these values to beestimated and taken into account in themanagement of Europe’s natural resources.A recent report for the Scottish Executiveexamined the intrinsic values for Scotland’snetwork of Natura 2000 sites.

It estimated that the benefits ofmaintaining this network to residents and visitors was £210 million per year, and outweighed the costs ofmanagement by seven times 1.

For those seeking a more tangible rationale for conserving wildlife, protectedareas provide significant resource-use orutilitarian benefits to the economic andsocial aspects of human quality of life.These benefits include private and publiceconomic benefits; benefits to health andbenefits from sites providing valuableeducational resources. A protected andwell-financed Natura 2000 network can play an important role in solving twocurrent public policy challenges: ruraleconomic decline and improvement in our quality of life.

Local economic benefitsMany sites of high conservation value are found in remote, rural or deprivedareas. Growing evidence shows that propermanagement of these sites regularlybenefits areas that were previously relianton activities generating low economicreturns. Properly managed Natura 2000sites are multi-functional and active inproducing rural products, supportingemployment and contributing to aneconomically diverse local economy.

1 Jacobs et.al (2004) An Economic Assessment of the Costs and Benefits of Natura 2000 Sites in Scotland. Scottish Executive

Barrie C

oo

per (R

SP

B)

Celebrating the birds of the MorecambeBay SPA has played a key role in theregeneration of Morecambe itself.



Employment opportunities

It is estimated that in the EU-15 125,000jobs are supported in nature protectionrelated activities 2. Direct employment in the natural environment sector in the UKis estimated at 18,000 jobs 3. Significantly,nature conservation is a growth sector,unlike agriculture and forestry, which haveshed many jobs in the last decade.

Urban renewal

The value of a high quality localenvironment is increasingly beingrecognised as having an important role in urban regeneration, and attracting inwardinvestment, employers and employees. A good example is at the Tees Estuary,where protection of the Teesmouth andCleveland Coast SPA, and creation of aflagship nature reserve at Saltholme fromderelict industrial land adjacent to the SPA, is an integral part of the regenerationof the area. Elsewhere, at Morecambe,celebration of the internationally importantwaterfowl population using the MorecambeBay SPA has been built into theregeneration of the resort’s promenade.

Local spending

In addition to employment effects,significant amounts of direct spending areattributable to protected sites. For example,spending on local goods and services atthe RSPB’s protected sites in the UK, bothdirectly for site management and indirectlyby the million-plus annual visitors, is morethan £19 million each year.4 This spendingincreases income diversification in oftenagriculturally reliant economies. Direct andindirect local employment attributable solelyto RSPB reserves (of which some 60% byarea is SPA), is estimated at more than1,000 jobs 5.

Growing tourism potential

Certain protected areas are suited to nature tourism. If sensitively developed,this has been shown to help diversifyeconomies, supplement incomes, andmaintain rural communities. A goodexample of this is the Exe Estuary, wherepleasure cruises to view avocets and otherestuary birds have extended the touristseason into autumn and winter, making avaluable contribution to the local economy.

Broader economic benefits of the environment

From a broader perspective, studies showthat environment-related activities supportsignificant parts of many remote regionaleconomies. For example, environment-related economic activity in south-westEngland contributes approximately 100,000jobs and some £1.4 billion to the regionaleconomy. This represents 5–10% of theregion’s GDP 6. A study for Scottish NaturalHeritage, shows that almost 93,000 jobsand £2.2 billion each year are generated by Scotland’s natural heritage 7.

2 IEEP and WWF (2002). Promoting the Socio-Economic Benefits of Natura 2000. 3 Rayment and Dickie (2001). Conservation Works. The RSPB.4 Shiel, Burton and Rayment (2002). RSPB Reserves and Local Economies. The RSPB. 5 Shiel, Burton and Rayment (2002). RSPB Reserves and Local Economies.6 The RSPB and NT (1999). An Environmental Prospectus for SW England. 7 ERM (2004). The role of the natural heritage in generating and supporting employment opportunities in Scotland. SNH.

The RSPB puffin cruise from Bridlingtonenables people to enjoy the seabirds ofthe Flamborough Head and BemptonCliffs SPA.

Ch

ris

Go

mer

sall

(rsp

b-i

mag

es.c

om

)


Public goods

The deterioration of sites with a variety of biodiversity is partly attributable to thefailure of traditional economic assessmentsto capture the full benefits of biodiversity.Well-maintained, semi-natural and naturalecosystems provide services such as flood prevention, pollution capture, andrecharging of groundwater. The cost ofallowing these assets to degrade willimpact on future generations, and istypically only recognised when naturaldisasters occur as a result of actions such as forest clearance.

The value of nature’s life support systems

Preservation of biodiversity protects the ecological ‘life-support’ systems thatnature provides. A global study into thevalue of wild nature suggests that globalexpenditure of US$50 billion per year onconservation measures would help topreserve US$5,000 billion of suchservices 8. Translated to the country level, in Scotland such ecosystem services havean estimated value of £17 billion per year 9.

Such figures can never be more thanindicative but start to provide real order of magnitude estimates of the value of maintaining our natural systems.In the past, the conversion of naturalhabitats to seemingly more productiveuses, such as agriculture and forestry often benefited society, but currentevidence shows that conversion ofremaining habitat to such uses fails to make economic sense.

Health benefits

Physical inactivity is a major preventablehealth risk that leads to increased levels of obesity and heart disease, costing the UK economy £8.2 billion per year (£1.7 billion to the NHS, £5.4 billion for work absence and £1 billion for early mortality).

A recent study commissioned by the RSPB shows the provision of public green spaces and natural places, such as Natura 2000 sites, has a key role inencouraging exercise10. The study showsthat the greater the natural diversity of asite, the more likely people will be to visit

8 Balmford A. et.al (2002). Economic Reasons for Conserving Wild Nature. (Science, 9 August 2002, Vol 297)9 Williams E. et.al (2003). The value of Scotland’s ecosystem services and natural capital. European Environment. 13: 67–7810 Dr W Bird (2004). Natural Fit. The RSPB.

Volunteers planting reeds. Each year,11,900 volunteers spend 700,000hours helping the RSPB.

Ch

ris Go

mersall (rsp

b-im

ages.co

m)



it regularly and therefore maintain exerciseregimes. The provision of managed accessto sites of high biodiversity interest, closeto population centres, represents goodvalue for money for taxpayers and wouldintegrate health and nature conservationpolicy goals.

Leisure opportunities

Many people enjoy birdwatching as aleisure pursuit, and many Natura 2000 sitesserve a recreational purpose that can onlybe provided through their conservation.Studies have suggested that as many as 5 million people in the UK spend more thanfive hours per week pursuing their interestin birds 11.

Coincidentally, Natura 2000 sites contributeto the protection of some of our mostvalued landscapes, which are enjoyed by many other recreational users of the countryside.

Education benefits

Many Natura 2000 sites have the potentialto be an excellent educational resource.Well-developed programmes on Natura2000 sites across Europe have provedeffective in providing children with realworld learning experiences by attractingschool groups to on-site classroomfacilities, getting them to take part in sitevisits and to learn about nature outside. In the UK, 40,000 pupils visit RSPBreserves during school time every year.Promotion of, and investment in, thesesites is therefore necessary to maximisethis potential.

11 A 1995 Gallup poll done for EMAP publications.

Bar

rie

Co

op

er (

RS

PB

) Genevieve Leap

er (rspb

-imag

es.com

)

Full implementation of the Birds Directivein the marine environment is needed tosecure the future of seabirds, such as thekittiwake.

The Ribble Estuary SPA provides anexciting outdoor classroom wherechildren learn parts of the curriculum andthe importance of conserving Natura2000 sites and biodiversity.


Future development of the Birds Directive

Whilst the Birds Directive has contributedmuch to UK wildlife conservation,implementation of the Directive is far from complete. In particular:

■ the RSPB considers the terrestrialnetwork of SPAs to be incomplete. Several key species, such as the chough and corncrake, remain under-representedwithin the network. There are stillimportant discrepancies between theareas designated as SPAs under theBirds Directive and those identified byBirdLife International as Important BirdAreas (IBAs) 12. We believe IBAs areworthy of statutory protection as SPAsgiven that they are of internationalimportance for birds. Completion of the network is especially important in Scotland.

■ implementation of the Birds Directive in the marine environment has beenlamentable. Only one marine SPA has been designated – for common scoters in Carmarthen Bay – and that was in theface of European Court action. The lack of certainty about the location ofinternationally important sites for birds at sea is now posing a major problem for conservationists and developers alike, as it is difficult to guide marinedevelopment away from sensitive areas

■ much of the current SPA network is notin a favourable condition. A mixture ofpolicy reform, regulatory improvementsand more resources for positive landmanagement agreements with ownersand occupiers is required to achievefavourable condition. The decoupling ofagricultural subsidies from production,and modulation of production paymentsto rural development schemes, includingagri-environment schemes, should helpto reduce the pressure on sites fromagricultural intensification, and increasethe money available for positive sitemanagement. However, furtherresources to bring land into favourablecondition will be required.

In England, Defra’s Public ServiceAgreement with the Treasury to bring 95% of SSSIs into favourable condition by 2010 is helping to drive the delivery ofbetter site condition, including of SPAs.English Nature published comprehensivedata on site condition as a product of thefirst national assessment in December2003. Sadly, similar data is not available for Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland and currently the political commitment to delivering favourable site conditionappears weaker.

12 Heath M F and Evans MI Eds. 2000. Important Bird Areas in Europe: Priority sites for conservation. 2 vols. BirdLife International (BirdLife Conservation Series No 8).

The UK population of choughs was only347 pairs strong (as of 2002).This speciesis under-represented in the SPA network.

Mike Lan

e (rspb

-imag

es.com

)

RS

PB


Future development of the Birds Directive

Mountain species such as dotterels areunder threat from climate change.

■ Some parts of the Directive are stillpoorly implemented in the UK. Forexample, much effort has been put intothe designation of SPAs under Article 4,but the wider habitat conservationrequirements of Article 3 – which requirethe recreation of destroyed biotypes –have not been properly implemented.Measures to address site deteriorationunder Article 6.2 of the HabitatsDirective are also poorly developed.This is especially relevant given theincreasing impacts of climate change,coastal squeeze and diffuse pollution on protected sites.

■ Some commentators have suggestedthat the Birds and Habitats Directivesprovide for a too static approach tobiodiversity conservation in the light ofdynamic environmental change causedby climate change and sea level rise(itself the product of isostatic release –ie adjustment of land levels following thelast ice age – and man-induced climatechange). We do not share this view. Webelieve that, for site protection at least,the two Directives together provide asound framework to address climatechange – requiring mitigation measures

to contain the greenhouse gasemissions, as well as adaptive measuresto help wildlife adjust to climate change.In summary, we see conservation ofexisting wildlife interest in situ as beingimportant in buying time in which toenable delivery of adaptive measures. In parallel, investment will be needed to create new habitats in areascorresponding to their migrated climatespace. In addition, provision of habitatstepping stones and corridors, and thetranslocation of species may have arole in enabling species to migrate.

We believe this document demonstratesthat the Directive has operated in thebroadest public interest. It is an importanttool in delivering sustainable developmentand providing solutions that achieveintegrated economic, social andenvironmental objectives. We are in nodoubt that the Birds Directive, and theHabitats Directive, will continue to play afull role in helping to deliver the EuropeanUnion’s objective of halting the loss ofbiodiversity by 2010. It is reassuring toknow that the special places it has created,and will continue to create, will be a proudlegacy for future generations to enjoy.

Mar

k H

amb

lin (

rsp

b-i

mag

es.c

om

)


Conservation

The success of the Birds Directive has been possible as a result of manyindividuals and organisations efforts. Herewe outline the role the RSPB has played in assisting with the development andimplementation of the Directive.

■ contributing to the development of theBirds and Habitats Directives, and theirtransposition into national legislation

■ supporting bird surveys to identifyImportant Bird Areas for consideration fordesignation as Special Protection Areas

■ assisting the UK Government, devolved administrations and statutoryconservation bodies in the developmentof SPA site selection guidelines and their application

■ promoting strong protection for SPAs inplanning documents and other land usestrategies. We also help to identify bestpractice policies and disseminate thembetween planning authorities

■ acting as a watchdog to spotdevelopment proposals that mightdamage sites. We make representationson over 500 projects each year and,where appropriate, object to damagingdevelopments. We also assist with sitemonitoring to help assess site condition;if deterioration in site quality is detected,we press for remedial action to be taken by the appropriate agencies.

■ we support the protection and positive management of SPAs throughthe RSPB reserve network. The RSPB’snature reserves cover over 134,000hectares of land, 60% of which, some80,219 hectares, has been designated as an SPA. In total, the RSPB helps toconserve 5.5% of the total SPA area of 1,447,557 hectares in the UK.

Niall B

envie (rspb

-imag

es.com

)

Through its acquisition as an RSPBnature reserve, we play a key role inthe protection and management ofAbernethy Forest SPA.

The RSPB’s role in the conservation of Special Protection Areas

The European Birds Directive – safeguarding special places for people and wildlife

The RSPB is the UK charity working to secure a healthyenvironment for birds and wildlife, helping to create abetter world for us all. We belong to BirdLife International,the global partnership of bird conservation organisations.

Front cover photo: Redshank by Chris Gomersall (rspb-images.com) Registered charity no 207076 225-1360-03-04

The RSPB believes that the Birds Directive is working well, in the broadest

public interest, to safeguard special places for birds and people. This report

provides the basis for this conclusion.

The RSPB

UK Headquarters

The Lodge

Sandy

Bedfordshire

SG19 2DL

Tel: 01767 680551

Fax: 01767 683211

Northern Ireland Headquarters

Belvoir Park Forest

Belfast

BT8 7QT

Tel: 028 9049 1547

Scotland Headquarters

Dunedin House

25 Ravelston Terrace

Edinburgh

EH4 3TP

Tel: 0131 311 6500

Wales Headquarters

Sutherland House

Castlebridge

Cowbridge Road East

Cardiff CF11 9AB

Tel: 029 2035 3000

www.rspb.org.uk

Documents

The European Birds Directive · 2017. 1. 26. · Conservation of Wild Birds 79/409/EEC (known for short as the ‘Birds Directive’) recognised that bird conservation needed to be