Sarah Tooze

SW Biodiversity Co-ordinator

June 2003

The South West Regional Biodiversity Partnership’s aim is to ‘promote and enable the delivery of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan through regional and local biodiversity action in line with the England Biodiversity Strategy’.

In 1997, the Partnership provided a regional biodiversity context by producing ‘The South West Biodiversity Action Plan’ (SW BAP). The aim was to influence the developing regional structures, and inform the local BAP process.

The regional habitat targets within the SW BAP were revised and included within the Regional Planning Guidance (RPG 10) document in 2001. These targets are the tool against which the SW Biodiversity Partnership aims to monitor progress.

This report has collated data from existing reporting mechanisms to establish progress towards the regional biodiversity targets. The results will inform the production of the forthcoming Regional Biodiversity Strategy by helping to evaluate priorities and identify emerging issues.

The following existing reporting mechanisms were available to consider achievements against regional habitat targets:

• SSSI data - The SSSI monitoring data for the 2003 State of the Environment Report provides data on the condition of SSSI’s in the SW.

• DEFRA Agri-environment contribution to BAP targets 2002 – 2003 – provides a snapshot of what is being achieved through agri-environment schemes in the SW.

• 2002 LBAP & Lead Partner National Reporting Round - The data generated provides a national position on progress by Lead Partners and LBAPs.

• SW BAP Review 1998 – provides an outline of progress towards 6 SW BAP Action Plans in 1998.

In addition, the following data sources were used to supplement the above information:

• Local contacts –a quick survey was undertaken of the larger LBAPs to generate more data on LBAP contributions towards regional targets.

• Area based Initiatives – through local contacts, a list of landscape scale projects delivering BAP targets was produced.

The level of biodiversity activity in the region cannot be used as a measure of progress towards targets, but it does highlight the increasing importance of biodiversity conservation in government policy and programmes.

LBAPs are key to the delivery of UK and regional targets. Map 1 shows the LBAP boundaries in the SW. There is 100% LBAP cover, with some small areas (notably National Parks) having overlap of 2, or even 3 LBAPs.

In total there are 23 LBAP processes. 18 with published BAPs. Appendix 1 gives more detail on the individual status of each LBAP, but the following summarises some key points:

• Level of implementation is mixed, with higher levels of activity and stronger partnerships in LBAP areas with a dedicated Biodiversity Officer:

• Cornwall, Dorset, Wiltshire, Avon, Gloucestershire, Somerset and Purbeck have dedicated Biodiversity Officers.

• Many of the District/UA LBAPs have someone who’s role is to co-ordinate their LBAP, but generally the LBAP is a secondary duty, which suffers as a result;

• After an active start, Devon is currently lacking a Biodiversity Officer, and the LBAP partnership is moribund.

• Somerset have a one year seconded post to review the local biodiversity process in the county with a view to making a case for a Biodiversity Officer and county LBAP.
• LBAPs are particularly successful in achieving increased awareness of biodiversity; an achievement which is hard to measure.

Delivery towards targets can be measured by the tangible outcomes that BAP implementation delivers.

An important measure of success is whether or not the status of UK/SW BAP species and habitats is improving. National trends were identified in the 2002 UK BAP Reporting Round. Lead Partners estimated habitat decline or increase. A similar methodology was used for this report to gauge regional trends. County LBAP contacts were asked to assess trends for habitats represented in their area. Appendix 2 shows the UK and regional habitat trends. It indicates that of the UK priority habitats listed as SW regional priorities by English Nature, there are:

• 5 increasing
• 4 stable
• 11 decreasing (slowing)
• 2 decreasing (continuing/accelerating)

In general, the SW is following the national habitat trends. It is difficult to compare the trend with a baseline, as during the 1999 reporting round most Lead Partners did not have enough information to establish a trend.

Two habitats; purple moor grass and rush pasture; and wood pasture and parkland may be faring slightly better in the south west, in terms of no net loss.

An important measurement of maintenance is the condition of habitats. The only readily available information on habitat quality is the SSSI data produced by English Nature, to monitor the PSA target of 95% of SSSIs in favourable or recovering condition by 2010.

In total 63% of SSSIs in the SW are in favourable or recovering condition (higher than the national average of 59%).

Appendix 2 shows SSSI condition by BAP habitat category. There is some correlation between habitat area and percentage of habitat in favourable and recovering condition. The following habitats have 80% or more in favourable or recovering condition, but have an overall habitat area that is comparatively low:

• Lowland acid grassland
• Ancient &/or species rich hedgerows
• Coastal & floodplain grazing marsh

Habitats with comparatively large areas, where less than 60% are in favourable or unfavourable condition are:

• Lowland hay meadows

• Lowland calcareous grassland

• Upland heath.
• Blanket bog

It would be misleading to draw conclusions from this information on habitat quality in the wider countryside.

The regional survey on habitat trends highlighted that quality may be an issue where the habitat area is deemed stable for the following;

• Wood pasture and parkland;

• Purple moor grass and rush pasture;

• Hedgerows.

Current reporting mechanisms are not sufficient to show actual progress towards regional targets. There is a lack of reporting of quantified information. Also, the quantified information that exists is not reported in a standardised way, and therefore cannot be collated to form meaningful regional figures. However, the following information helps build a picture of progress.

From 2002 Defra in the SW have undertaken a pilot exercise to report agri-environment schemes against BAP habitats, See Table 1. The figures are encouraging, but are only an estimate. Issues relating to data quality still need to be addressed.

This is the first time Defra have collated data in this way, and it therefore provides a snapshot, rather than overall contribution figures.

Landscape scale habitat projects are increasing throughout the region, and are contributing significantly to BAP targets. Many are funded by HLF or European funds, and are increasingly part of multi-objective projects, which link social, economic and environmental objectives. Examples are given in table 2 below:

These targets help meet, and sometimes exceed the LBAP targets in their area. There is a question mark at the moment as to how these targets are reported against, to avoid double counting.

The 1998 SW BAP Review concluded that some progress was occurring towards the 6 action plans that were selected for review. They were:

By comparing SW habitat targets with aggregated LBAP targets it should be possible to establish whether the regional targets can be realised by successful LBAP implementation.

For many LBAPs, regional targets will have been used to inform local target setting, but LBAPs will have also utilised local expertise.

Direct comparison of all local targets against regional targets is difficult because:

• Only 13 LBAPs in the SW have quantitative habitat targets.
• Some targets are expressed as a percentage of the habitat resource, and baseline data on the local habitat resource is not readily available.

Bearing these constraints in mind, the following conclusions have been made:

• The following SW habitat targets may be realised if current LBAP targets are met:

• The following SW targets will be achieved if current LBAP targets are met:

SSSI data for the 2003 State of the Environment Report lists the following reasons for adverse conditions on SSSI’s :

agriculture overgrazing 23%

agriculture undergrazing 22%

lack of corrective works – scrub control 9%

fire moor burning 9%

agriculture other 7%

freshwater drainage 4%

military 3%

lack of corrective works – weed control 3%

agriculture fertiliser use 3%

forestry and woodland management 3%

public access/disturbance 2%

vehicles illicit 2%

agriculture inappropriate css/esa prescription1%

Factors causing loss or decline of BAP habitats reported by Lead Partners in 2002 provides a similar list of factors, but includes global warming/sea level rise as a factor affecting 18 habitats. Also, coastal defence works were listed as a factor affecting 19 habitats.

(ranked 1 or 2) affected

Coastal defence works 8 11

Agriculture – inappropriate grazing 7 10

(e.g. timing/livestock type)

Agriculture – overgrazing 6 12

Agriculture – drainage 6 10

Scrub encroachment 6 9

Agriculture – freshwater|nutrient enrichment 6 13

Global warming/sea level rise 5 13

Agriculture – undergrazing 5 9

Water abstraction from water bodies 5 11

Competition from non native species 3 13

Infrastructure development 2 11

Currently, local, regional and national targets are not aligned. This is mainly because the BAP process is dynamic, and has evolved as a top down and bottom up process. The opportunity to align targets is based on the cycles of review. The UK targets are due for review in 2005. LBAP review cycles vary between 5 and 10 years from LBAP publication. This report will help inform the review of regional targets.

To enable future alignment of targets the following points would need to be standardised:

There are some inconsistencies between the habitat definitions and priorities in the UKBAP and the SW BAP:

• The SW BAP was produced before the completion of the UK BAP Tranche 2 Action Plan Volumes I – VI (produced between 1996 – 1999). Some priority habitat definitions were redefined during this period. They are:

*also colonies outside estuaries

• The SW BAP has used some broad habitat categories that encompass one or more priority habitats. They are:

• The definition of a priority habitat is not always the same in the UKBAP and SWBAP i.e broader or narrower definition, resulting in reporting difficulties. They are:

There are currently some discrepancies over the terminology used in national, regional and local targets. Terms used include; maintenance /management; restoration/ rehabilitation, creation/recreation. These terms can mean different things, which make reporting difficult.

Action Plans for 18 habitats appear in the SW BAP. They were selected for one or more of the following reasons:

1. They occur in >2 counties in the region;
2. They represent >10 % of the UK resource;
3. A UK action plan has been prepared;
4. They are of international importance and/or
5. They are a ‘key’* habitat in the UK report.

*now called ‘priority’ habitat.

The RPG targets also include purple moor grass and rush pasture, and ancient woodland.

English Nature has since identified 31 priority habitats as having special significance within the South West Region (Habitats listed in Appendix 2), all of which fit the above criteria.

The SWBAP targets were devised in 1997, and refined in 2001 to be included in RPG 10. They represent the SW Regional Biodiversity Partnership’s ambitions for habitat maintenance, restoration and recreation based on the best available data at the time.

English Nature produced regional targets in 2002, devised from the proportionality of the disaggregated England BAP targets by Natural Area. These are viewed as the baseline of what must be achieved.

The difference between the two sets of targets is shown in Appendix 3. In summary:

• RPG targets are more challenging, because they are based on local knowledge;
• EN targets are more comprehensive across the range of BAP habitats, but for some habitats appear to be comparatively low.

Appendix 3 shows that the current SW RPG targets for restoration and recreation are significantly higher for the following habitats:

• Lowland calcareous grassland

• Lowland hay meadows
• Lowland heathland
• Lowland wood pasture and parkland
• Reedbeds

The current SW RPG targets for restoration and recreation are lower than the EN targets for the following habitats:

• Cereal field margins
• Blanket bog
• Upland oakwood (note: Natural Area boundary goes outside region!)

The following SW habitats have regional EN targets, but were not allocated targets in the SW BAP or RPG:

• Upland mixed ashwoods (part of ancient woodland)

• Wet woodlands
• Lowland beech and yew woodland
• Fens
• Lowland raised bog

• Coastal vegetated shingle
• Saltmarsh
• Mudflats
• Saline lagoons
• Sabellaria alveolata reefs

It would appear that current regional targets are capable of being met, if LBAP and Area Based Initiatives meet their targets.

Any future revision of regional targets should seek to:

• Utilise the NBN SW Pilot data to help establish up to date habitat resource figures, and the extent of restoration/recreation possibilities;

• Take on board information from other relevant projects, e.g. Rebuilding Biodiversity.

• There is a lot of BAP activity in the region, utilising government, charity and European funds.
• LBAP Co-ordinators are key to LBAP implementation and reporting, but funding for these posts is patchy and short term.
• The South West is generally following national habitat trends.
• Describing habitats as stable hides issues of habitat condition, meaning maintenance targets may not be being achieved.
• Reporting on progress towards targets is difficult due to lack of a standardised reporting framework, and lack of funds to undertake monitoring and reporting. (Only 8 LBAPs in the SW reported to the 2002 Reporting Round).

• The development of the Biodiversity Action Reporting System (BARS) will provide a standardised reporting system. It will be launched in late 2003.

CORDREY, L (Ed.) (1996) The Biodiversity of the South-West: an audit of the South West biological resource. The South-West Biodiversity Partnership, Exeter.

CORDREY, L (Ed.) (1997) Action for Biodiversity in the South-West. South-West Regional Biodiversity Action Plan. The South-West Biodiversity Partnership, Exeter.

Defra (2003). Agri-environment Scheme contribution to BAP targets in the SW Region April 2002 – March 2003. Exeter.

ENGLISH NATURE (1999) Natural Areas in the South West Region. EN, Peterborough.

ENGLISH NATURE (2003). SSSI Condition Spreadsheets.

Government Office South West (2001). Regional Planning Guidance for the SW (RPG 10), London

UK BIODIVERSITY GROUP (1999) UK Biodiversity Group: Tranche 2 Action Plans. Vo1 II – terrestrial and freshwater habitats. English Nature, Peterborough.

UK BIODIVERSITY GROUP (1999) UK Biodiversity Group: Tranche 2 Action Plans. Vo1V – maritime species and habitats. English Nature, Peterborough.

UK BIODIVERSITY STEERING GROUP (1995) Biodiversity: the UK Steering Group Report. 2 Vols. HMSO, London

Appendix 1 Summary of LBAPs in the South West Region