Beavering away

Here we go again: an incredibly complex, multi-faceted, more-than-one-way-to-skin-a-cat Government decision is reduced to a smidgeon of its bare essentials by the Biased Broadcasting Cadaver. The BBC's report has in turn been seized on by the increasingly tiresome eco/ego-fringe as proof-positive that it’s the wrong decision.

This time, it’s Defra’s announcement that reintroducing wildlife species is not a priority, which has attracted catcalls of ‘pathetic’ from the rude and simple-minded. As with the nutrient neutrality debate of a few weeks ago, the Government stance sounded bad the way it had been reported but, once I'd looked into it, the proposed revised policies were reasonable. And, given that Fishy & Co are desperate for support anywhere they can find it, why would they alienate voters with a crass statement? I mean, what’s stopping them from saying now they intend to do something, then just not do it once / if they get re-elected?

I decided to delete the BBC (if only) and head straight for the Government’s response to the House of Commons’ Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report on Species Reintroduction, a straight-from-the-horse’s-mouth explanation of the Government’s position. This is what the eco/ego-fringe should have done. If they did, they’ve done a very convincing job of pretending that they didn’t.

In its response, the Government explained that:

• Our priority is our focus on habitat restoration and creation, and improved connectivity of biodiversity corridors to tackle pressures on species including pollution, unsustainable use of resources and climate change, with targeted action to recover specific species.

• The Environment Act 2021 required that the long-term species abundance targets will be supported by interim targets. However, the time taken for data collection and reporting makes reviews every 2 years impractical. We are currently reviewing available data to identify other short-term metrics that can help measure our progress towards meeting the targets.

• Proposals for reintroductions, and the suitability of the species proposed and associated risks, are highly dependent on the specific circumstances in which they are made. For example, the existing species assemblage, environmental conditions and socio-economic circumstances will all be factors and significantly influence decisions as to whether it is appropriate to reintroduce a species in a particular location or locations. We have set out best practice guidance in the government’s Code for Reintroductions alongside information on applying for a licence as appropriate.

• Assessing applications for release licences on a case-by-case basis allows for the nature of the species, along with the circumstances and risks of release, to be comprehensively considered in response to a specific proposal. Further, an assumption of a species being of low risk without sufficient evidence may undermine efforts to ensure best practice and result in unintended consequences or impacts being found at a later date. Individual assessment allows for the impacts of a specific proposal to be understood, and requirements for consultation and consideration of impacts to be applied proportionality.

• The government’s ‘Reintroductions and other conservation translocations: code and guidance for England’ is based on international best practice guidance, and was first published in 2021. We do not consider the need to revise it at this time.

• With regard to funding, the government’s focus remains on incentivising delivery of wider environmental benefits through our environment land management schemes. Actions that deliver wider biodiversity benefits, such as buffer zones along watercourses and provision of space for nature, can play a role in helping to manage the impacts of reintroduced species. Again, where it is clear that a proposal to reintroduce a species will impact upon land managers we would expect an applicant to provide sufficient funding to manage these impacts appropriately.

To summarise, the Government has explained that it has and will continue to support the aim to reintroduce species where appropriate by facilitating projects proposed by others. They are mindful, as they should be, of possible unintended consequences that might be detrimental to landowners and other aspects of the environment. Finally, the Government can’t do everything and has to prioritize its resources and believes that habitat restoration, improved connectivity and pollution reduction will provide the biggest bang for the buck. I agree. I’ve had discussions with insightful environmental champions, with an holistic mindset, who believe that the rush to introduce beavers here, there and everywhere is a mistake.

If the eco/ego fringe were serious about sustainably enhancing the natural environment, they’d work with the Government’s framework to maximise the opportunities for species reintroduction, taking into account safeguards against unintended consequences. But the fringe isn’t serious about anything other than ideological rewilding at the expense of food security, landowner rights and the democratic process.

Pathetic.