The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on Friday
publishes the Government’s response to its report on Species
Reintroduction, in which MPs considered Defra’s approach to
the ongoing and often contentious reintroduction of species such
as beavers, eagles and bison. The Committee drew attention to the
potential benefits that species reintroduction could offer but
noted that reintroductions require careful long-term plans to
identify and manage potential adverse effects on local
communities and other land users.
In their report,
published in July, the EFRA Committee cited that species
reintroduction could help government to meet its biodiversity and
species abundance goals and could benefit local communities,
restore ecosystems and secure the future of organisms in the
wild. The Committee made a series of detailed recommendations on
the Government adopting a long-term strategic vision on species
reintroduction. MPs called for the Government to produce a list
of priority species for reintroduction.
It also noted, however, that species reintroduction can be
controversial and can carry the risk of potential adverse effects
on local communities, as in the case of beaver reintroduction.
The EFRA Committee’s report recommended categorising species
according to levels of risk to stakeholders, (low, medium or
high) and emphasized the importance of a pre-reintroduction
management plan for each species.
In its response to the report, DEFRA states that ‘the
reintroduction of species is not a priority for the government’
and that the Government aims to reach its biodiversity targets
through other methods including habitat restoration and
biodiversity corridors. DEFRA says it will not be producing a
strategy or a list of priority species for reintroduction and
referred instead to the Government’s Code for Reintroductions. To
the proposal of a three-tiered list of risk levels, DEFRA
disagreed, responding that the level of risk from any species is
dependent upon local circumstances.
EFRA’s report recommended that a Species Reintroduction Strategy
by Government should include budgetary provision to support
farmers and landowners in case of adverse effects of
reintroduction. Responding to EFRA’s proposal, the Government
stated that the primary mechanism for Government funding for
farmers would be through ELMS (environment land management
schemes).
Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Committee, Sir , said:
“The Government has said that species reintroductions are not
a priority and so it will not produce a strategy for managing
them. This is despite the fact that reintroductions are currently
taking place in the UK and raising concerns in farming and rural
communities, particularly in relation to increased flooding risks
arising from beaver reintroductions.
“The Government have in the past played a role in supporting
the reintroduction of lost native species, including the red kite
and pool frog. However, given the important potential benefits of
species reintroduction and considering the Government’s own
targets on biodiversity, it is concerning that they do not have a
plan on species reintroduction and disappointing that they have
not responded positively to our report and taken more steps to
manage the reintroductions taking place as we speak.”
