Recommendations & Conclusions
16 items
1
Recommendation
Fifth Report - Species Reintroduction
Rejected
Without interim species abundance targets it is unclear how this and future governments will be able to monitor progress against the Environment Act targets. We support species reintroduction as part of the effort to deliver current species abundance targets, but also believe that interim targets should be introduced to track …
Government response. The government acknowledged the need for interim targets and stated some were published in January 2023, but rejected setting a specific interim target to reduce species abundance decline by a percentage, citing difficulties and impracticality.
3
Conclusion
Fifth Report - Species Reintroduction
Rejected
It is unclear which plant and animal reintroductions the Government supports and there is no current long-term vision for how reintroductions fit into the Government’s species abundance targets. This has caused confusion and concern between stakeholders seeking to reintroduce certain species, and amongst those against the reintroduction of such species, …
Government response. The government states that species reintroduction is not a priority, and therefore it will not be producing a long-term strategy or a list of priority species, preferring to assess proposals on a case-by-case basis.
4
Conclusion
Fifth Report - Species Reintroduction
Rejected
Despite assurances by the Minister that we would be provided a list of priority species for reintroduction in June, in a letter to the Committee on 14 June the Minister said that the Department does not prioritise species but that she would discuss the information that could be provided with …
Government response. The government rejected the idea of producing a list of priority species for reintroduction or a reintroduction strategy, stating that reintroduction is not a government priority.
5
Recommendation
Fifth Report - Species Reintroduction
Rejected
The Government should produce a list of priority species for reintroduction as part of a long-term strategy on species reintroduction in tandem with the England Species Reintroductions Taskforce. This will allow stakeholders to plan applications ahead of time and have a more strategic, coordinated approach to projects to benefit nature …
Government response. The government explicitly rejects the recommendation, stating that species reintroduction is not a government priority and therefore it will not be producing a long-term strategy or a list of priority species.
6
Recommendation
Fifth Report - Species Reintroduction
Rejected
Using evidence from the England Species Reintroductions Taskforce and its Stakeholder Forum, the Government should agree on the plant and animal species it is willing and able to support the reintroduction of in England and bring this information together in a register. This register should be included in the Strategy …
Government response. The government rejected the recommendation, stating that reintroduction is not a priority and therefore it will not produce a strategy or a species register. It reiterated its focus on assessing proposals on a case-by-case basis and existing best practice guidance.
10
Recommendation
Fifth Report - Species Reintroduction
Rejected
The current system for reintroducing species is overly bureaucratic, hindering nature recovery. There are many species—particularly amongst plants, fungi, and insects—that pose little or no risk. Identifying and supporting those low-risk species would give confidence to stakeholders seeking to reintroduce them and reduce the burden on the Department, allowing it …
Government response. The government rejected the recommendation to identify commonly requested species for a register, stating that reintroduction is not a priority and it will not be producing a strategy or a list of priority species.
11
Recommendation
Fifth Report - Species Reintroduction
Rejected
We recommend that the register contained within the new Strategy should include species categorised according to the risks related to their reintroduction. Of those that it has not ruled out, the Government should categorise regularly requested species into low, medium and high risk and create differentiated channels and processes for …
Government response. The government rejected the recommendation to include categorised, risk-based species in a new strategy and register, stating that reintroduction is not a priority and it will not be producing such a strategy or list.
12
Recommendation
Fifth Report - Species Reintroduction
Rejected
We recommend that the Government should be clear how the classification of species determines the requirements for stakeholder consultation and involvement of the Department. We recommend that all species categorised as high-risk reintroductions should be subject to a national, independent impact assessment assessing their potential benefits and risks, including to …
Government response. The government rejected the recommendation for clear classification-based consultation requirements and national independent impact assessments, stating that assessing release licence applications on a case-by-case basis allows for comprehensive and proportionate consideration of species, circumstances, and risks.
13
Conclusion
Fifth Report - Species Reintroduction
Rejected
Creating a central species reintroduction hub designed to be a one-stop shop for interested parties would be a positive step forward to improve collaboration and coordination in this policy area. The value of any hub lies in its ability to bring good practice guidance, licensing information, and sign-up opportunities together, …
Government response. The government rejected the idea of a central species reintroduction hub by stating that reintroduction is not a priority and it will not be producing a strategy or a list of priority species, which would form the basis of such …
14
Recommendation
Fifth Report - Species Reintroduction
Rejected
The Government should create an online species reintroduction hub by June 2024, supported by the England Species Reintroductions Taskforce and Stakeholder Forum, for parties interested in the reintroduction of species. The hub should be a one-stop shop for good practice and collaboration and its advice should be aligned with a …
Government response. The government rejected the recommendation to create an online species reintroduction hub by June 2024, stating that reintroduction is not a priority and it will not be producing a strategy or a species register.
15
Recommendation
Fifth Report - Species Reintroduction
Rejected
There is little support for the current conservation translocation licensing regime: on the one hand some stakeholders said that it is too bureaucratic, and, on the other we heard that the existing system is not stringent enough. As a priority, the England Species Reintroductions Taskforce should seek to clarify and …
Government response. The government rejected the need to clarify or resolve concerns about the reintroduction licensing regime, asserting that assessing applications on a case-by-case basis allows for comprehensive and proportionate consideration of species, circumstances, and risks.
16
Recommendation
Fifth Report - Species Reintroduction
Rejected
The Government’s 2021 code and guidance for species reintroductions form a valuable tool, but it must be revised and updated to maintain high project standards, for example in relation to assisted colonisation, disease risks, exit strategies, impact assessments, large predators and herbivores, and more effective stakeholder consultation. The England Species …
Government response. The government rejected the recommendation, stating they do not consider the need to revise the 2021 code and guidance for species reintroductions at this time.
17
Recommendation
Fifth Report - Species Reintroduction
Rejected
The Government should revise the species reintroduction code and guidance by January 2024 and reissue it alongside the new Strategy. The revised code and guidance should be available via the species reintroduction hub when it is launched. (Paragraph 46) Management plans and rapid responses
Government response. The government rejected the recommendation to revise the species reintroduction code and guidance by January 2024, stating they do not consider the need for revision at this time.
18
Recommendation
Fifth Report - Species Reintroduction
Rejected
We have seen first-hand in Bavaria that crop damage compensation and mitigating works, such as substantial structural changes to the drainage system, were major calls on the public purse, requiring bold decisions and significant funding. The annual budget for compensating farmers for damage to crops such as maize and sugar …
Government response. The government rejected the idea of a new government-funded compensation scheme for land managers, stating its focus is on existing environmental land management schemes and expecting reintroduction applicants to provide funding for managing impacts.
19
Recommendation
Fifth Report - Species Reintroduction
Rejected
The Government should implement localised control and management systems by forming and funding a network of rapid response consultants by 2026. The rapid response consultants should be members of the local community and be empowered to make prompt decisions on the remedial action to be taken where problems caused by …
Government response. The government rejected the recommendation to implement and fund a network of rapid response consultants, instead stating that release proposals should demonstrate their own management provisions, that existing management groups support communities for some species, and that funding should come …
20
Recommendation
Fifth Report - Species Reintroduction
Rejected
Those affected by the reintroduction of species, including farmers and land managers, must have access to sufficient support and funding to prevent and deal with potential negative impacts. Budgetary provision should be made for this as part of the Government’s reintroduction strategy. The framework for this provision should be included …
Government response. The government rejected committing to new budgetary provision for those affected by species reintroductions, stating its focus remains on existing environmental land management schemes and expecting applicants to provide sufficient funding.