UKELA. Registered Charity number: 299498 (Registered in England and Wales), Company limited by guarantee: 2133283 (Registered in England and Wales)

Welcome to the first issue of e-law for 2017. The theme for this edition is biodiversity.

This month the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC)has advised, in their report The future of the naturalenvironment after the EU referendum, thatenvironmental protections must not be weakenedduring the Brexit process. The report looks at issues atstake during a withdrawal from the EU in terms of

biodiversity and environmental protection challenges related to landmanagement and agriculture.

The findings are particularly pertinent now we know that Theresa May islikely to lead us to a hard Brexit. From a biodiversity perspective,consideration needs to be given to the fact that the Birds Directive2009/147/EC and the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC do not form part ofeven the European Economic Area regime, so unless specific domesticlegislation is passed, these protections will be lost.

Alongside six further suggestions of steps to take before Article 50 istriggered, the EAC recommends the introduction of a new EnvironmentalProtection Act to help find a way to afford the strength and range ofenvironmental protection currently given, such as through the EU networkof protected wildlife areas under the Birds and Habitats Directives.

In Words from the Chair, we hear all about the UKELA Brexit Task Force(BTF) and their ongoing progress considering these sorts of issues. Itremains to be seen what the government will propose in any Brexit plans,before parliament vote on triggering Article 50.

On an international level, the UN Biodiversity Conference, COP 13 inDecember 2016, agreed on encouraging measures to integrate biodiversityin forestry, fisheries, agriculture and tourism and one can be hopeful thatthe Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity will take theirobligations seriously. But with the USA absent from the list of countriesthat have ratified this Convention and with Trump in the White House,certain key players are noticeably absent.

Despite the political turbulence at national and international levels, it isheartening to read about local projects invested in supporting biodiversity.The City of Trees project in Greater Manchester, alongside similar schemesin other regions in the UK, focuses on planting trees, bringing unmanagedwoodlands back into production and supporting the natural world.

e-lawBetter law for the environment January/February 2017 | Issue 98

In this issueWords from the Chair 3

News 5

Student news 6

UKELA events 7

60 second interview 8

Conference report 9

Environmental law headlines 11

Biodiversity 14

Matters in practice 25

Adverts, jobs and tender opportunities 31

About UKELA & e-law 33

2 elaw January/February 2017

Simone Davidson

In this edition of e-law we have a fantastic selection of articles which discussbiodiversity from some of these perspectives, including articles from:

• Alistair Taylor on EU nature laws—fit for purpose;• Dr Paul Stookes and Matthew McFeeley on Reversing the decline of

nature in the UK; and• Dr Nick Atkinson, Wyn Jones and Tom Huggon on The ash dieback

crisis.

Find out more about Wyn Jones in our 60 second interview.

We are also lucky to have two really interesting pieces in matters in practice:

• The enforcement of environmental law: challenges and opportunitiesby Professor Richard Macrory; and

• Highlights from the meeting with Turkish officials by Jill Crawford.

Best wishes,

Simone DavidsonE-law Acting Editor

E-laweditorialteamSimone Davidson, ActingEditor – Simone is Head ofEnvironment at LexisPSL andwas at Clyde & Co for 8 yearsprior to joining LexisNexis.Simone is covering HayleyTam’s maternity leave.

Jessica Allen, AssistantEditor – Jessica is currentlystudying Law with French andFrench Law at the Universityof Nottingham, expecting tograduate in 2017.

Ben Christman, AssistantEditor – Ben is a final yearPhD candidate in the Schoolof Law at Queen’s UniversityBelfast.

Lewis Hadler, AssistantEditor – Lewis currentlystudies the BPTC at theUniversity of the West ofEngland, having previouslyworked as a paralegal withRichard BuxtonEnvironmental & Public law.He graduated in 2015 aftercompleting his LLB at AngliaRuskin University Cambridge.

3 elaw January/February 2017

New yearnews andresolutions New theme for UKELAin 2017

I send my warmest regards to UKELA’s growingmembership in the UK and abroad.

As you may know, each year we set a key theme forUKELA’s activities. In 2016 it was the internationaldimension of environmental law – rather prescient ofus bearing in mind the tectonic shifts in the EU andUS! Our work last year raised our international profileand encouraged members to help environmental lawassociations elsewhere in the world. We hostedimportant meetings with international judges andlegislators. We ran a successful conference on theinternational theme. We founded UKELA’sInternational Ambassador network. In the yearsahead, we will continue to spread our wingsinternationally.

Our theme for 2017 is promoting environmental law ina changing, less-certain world. Change of course causesreal disquiet for many people. Change is not always forthe better. That said, fear of change can become self-fulfilling and a positive outlook is to be encouraged.Speaking personally, I have learnt to live with (if not torelish) change, risk and uncertainty in my professionalcareer. I have developed environmental ventures, suchas Argyll Environmental and The Ashfield Group ofbusinesses, where we have embraced the businessopportunities arising from a changing world withtechnological change and new laws.

It seems likely if not inevitable that Brexit will drivechanges to the framework of environmental lawaround the UK. Yes, this is a cause for concern, but it isalso an opportunity. The challenge for UKELA – Ibelieve we are meeting it – is to make a measured andeffective contribution so that the law continues towork for the environment.

With this in mind, I am delighted to report thefollowing progress on the Brexit front:

• Two esteemed former Chairs of UKELA – foundingChair, Professor Richard Macrory, and highlyexperienced practitioner, Andrew Bryce – havebeen appointed as Co-Chairs of our 27-strongBrexit Task Force (BTF). I am very grateful to themfor stepping forward. We could not be in betterhands for this most important of responsibilities.

• UKELA’s Council has approved the release of someof our financial reserves to fund a ResearchAssistant to support the BTF. There is a great dealof interest in this position. We will make anappointment as soon as we can.

• My fabulous UKELA colleague, Rosie Oliver, hascommitted more time to work with our BTF Co-Chairs and assist the BTF. Rosie used to work forthe Government’s Legal Service and is ideallyplaced to help UKELA make an effectivecontribution.

• At the second meeting of the BTF we were joinedby Stanley Johnson at my invitation. One of theUK’s top nature conservationists, pioneer of EUenvironmental legislation during his time at theEuropean Commission, and former MEP, Stanleyrecently joined UKELA. He is a real asset for us andwe are most grateful to Stanley for the energy andexpertise he is contributing.

• My thanks go to the working parties – especially‘nature conservation’ and ‘waste’ – for supportingthe BTF with helpful contributions which map theextent to which our environmental laws arederived from the EU.

Meantime, the BTF is actively reaching out togovernment to make our resources available when theenvironmental aspects of Brexit come to be negotiated.

Patron newsWe are most fortunate for the help and guidancewhich our patrons provide and I would like to thankour patrons for their ongoing support.

On a positive note, I am delighted to report that oneof our newly appointed patrons, Bishop James Jones,was appointed Knight Commander of the Order of theBritish Empire (KBE) in the 2017 New Year’s HonoursList for services to bereaved families and justice.Bishop James chaired our 2016 Garner Lecture withgreat skill and charm.

However, on 20 December, it was with great sadnessthat we received the news of the loss of our kind andgenerous patron, The Hon Mrs Justice Patterson.Appointed to the High Court Bench in 2013, Franceswas lead judge in the Planning Court. She was acommitted patron, who judged our mootingcompetitions in addition to other contributions, andwe will miss her enormously. We extend ourcondolences to Frances’s family.

Tempus inreparabilef fugit When I took up the reins at UKELA some 18 monthsago, I promised to be ambitious and to make this avintage period for UKELA. Well, tempus does indeedfugit – I have just six months to go now as Chair. That

Words from the Chair

4 elaw January/February 2017

said, please be assured that I will continue to workunrelentingly hard with Linda, Alison, Rosie, Elly-Mae,my Vice Chairs and my fellow Trustees to furtherstrengthen our association.

Here are some of the highlights (to date!) of my timeas Chair:

• Greatly enhancing the role for women: • Two of my Vice Chairs are women. • UKELA’s first female Garner lecturer was my

great friend, Pamela Castle OBE. • The wonderful Anne Johnstone has just been

appointed as Chair Elect. Anne will be a terrificChair for UKELA – only our second female Chair,she will undoubtedly be a trailblazer for otherwomen to take up this role in the future.

• Increase in membership.• Gearing up for Brexit.• Internationalising UKELA.

The benefits to our environment and our citizens ofhaving an independent expert environmental lawassociation like UKELA have never been moreimportant or more necessary. We have a vitalcontribution to make to the future of environmentallaw across the UK. Rest assured that we will step up tothe mark.

Regards,

Stephen SykesUKELA Chair

Stephen Sykes

5 elaw January/February 2017

The Hon Mrs JusticePatterson DBEIn December, we were saddened to learn of the deathof our Patron, Mrs Justice Frances Patterson. Franceswas a much valued member of our organisation,lending support and expertise in a generous manner.She will be greatly missed by all of us at UKELA. A fundin her memory has been set up by her family. If youwould like to make a donation, please visit thefundraising page.

Wildlife law bursary 2016 The wildlife law course arranged every Novemberunder the auspices of UKELA’s nature conservationworking party makes a little profit due to thegenerosity of the tutors and Browne Jacobsonsolicitors. The working party decided that the profit beused to fund an annual bursary of £1,000 to support apost graduate research project addressing wildlife law.

We are delighted to announce therecipient for 2016 is Joanna MillerSmallwood. Joanna completed aBSc Hons in Tropical EnvironmentalScience and a LLM inEnvironmental Law at AberdeenUniversity. Her BSc dissertation waspublished. She worked at Friends ofthe Earth UK head offices in theparliamentary and in the legal department where shewas involved in public interest cases including thoseconcerning genetically modified organisms. Inspired bythe work at Friends of the Earth she then went on toqualify as a lawyer (PGDL and LPC; The London Collegeof Law). She completed her training contract and thenpracticed as a solicitor at Leigh, Day & Co. in London,with a particular interest in environmental law multi-party actions. She was involved in a group litigationagainst BP representing Columbian peasant farmerswhich was successfully resolved.

Following some time out to look after her two childrenshe returned to university in 2014 and completed anMSc in Social Research Methods at Sussex University.She is currently in the second year of an ESRC fundedsocio-legal PhD at Sussex University. The title of herPhD is: ‘The Convention on Biological Diversity’sobjectives include conservation of biological diversityat a global level, but has it become another victim ofextinction as a result of its text and strategic plan?’

MembershiprenewalsYour membership renewal for 2017 was sent inDecember, with a reminder sent recently. Many thanksto those of you who have renewed already – it is muchappreciated. If you do not think that you have receivedyour renewal information, please get in touch. You canalso renew on our website via the ‘Join Us’ link.

Annual conference 2017Bookings are now open for the annual conference,which will be hosted in Nottingham this year. Thetheme is ‘Cities of the Future: legal challenges andopportunities for more sustainable living’. Moredetails, including how to book, can be found on ourevents page further on in this edition.

Student competitions 2017The moot competition shortlisting starts shortly andthe essay competition is now open! The winner gets afree place at our annual conference. Find out more onthe student pages later on in this edition.

News

6 elaw January/February 2017

Andrews Lees Prizearticle competition2017UKELA is pleased to announce the launch of its annualarticle competition, The Andrew Lees Prize. This year,students are invited to write an article addressing oneof the following:

1 ‘Brexit – threat or opportunity for theenvironment?’

2 A topic of your choice that is relevant to UKenvironmental law

If you choose to submit an article on the topic of yourchoice, you may submit an article that you haveprepared for another purpose. However, it must havebeen researched and written after 1 January 2017. Wemay ask to see evidence of this. Entries must besubmitted between 14 March and midday on 19 April.

The winner will receive a free place at UKELA’s annualconference at the University of Nottingham from 7 to 9July, including travel expenses from within the UK. Thewinner will also have their article published in e-law,UKELA’s electronic journal, and on the UKELA website.

Student AdvisorchangesWe are delighted to welcomeRosie McLeod as our new studentadvisor. Rosie will be workingalongside Mark Davies, takingover from Emma Lui. Rosie iscurrently undertaking aninternship within the policy teamof the International Chamber ofCommerce UK. She recentlygraduated from the University of Amsterdam with aLLM in International and European Law in 2016, aftercompleting her LLB at the University of Durham in2015. Whilst at University, Rosie was Chief Editor of theUniversity’s Pro Bono blog and hosted student radioshows discussing environmental issues.

This means we are sayinggoodbye to Emma Lui, who hasbeen our student advisor for thepast 2 years. Emma will becontinuing her role as a paralegalin the LexisPSL Environment andConstruction teams at LexisNexis,and assisting as Senior Advisor atthis year’s Public InterestEnvironmental Law (PIEL) UK conference. We wish herthe best in her pupillage applications, and lookforward to seeing her again at upcoming UKELAseminars and events.

Student publicationopportunityInterested in co-authoring a hot topic article with anenvironmental professional? UKELA provides anopportunity for students to publish their work in e-law, our members’ journal which is circulated to over1400 practitioners. Students are invited to email ashort abstract of up to 500 words to Mark Davies orRosie McLeod, our student advisors. If selected, theeditorial board will endeavour to pair students with asupervising practitioner in that field. Articles can beon the e-law issue theme or on any topic related toenvironmental law. The theme of the next issue is‘Energy/climate change’, expected to be published on27 March.

Student news

7 elaw January/February 2017

UKELA Scotland AGM – 23 February,Shepperd and Wedderburn, EdinburghSave the date – details to follow very soon.

London meeting: wildlife law – 28 February, London (and various UK venues)Please join us for a seminar entitled ‘Where the wildthings are: A discussion on the value of wild placesand how to find and protect them’. We are pleased tooffer the opportunity to attend in London and anumber of venues around the UK, including Bristol,Birmingham, Newcastle and Nottingham. Moredetails on our website.

Moot competitions finals day – 6 March, LondonJoin us as our finalists battle it out to become thejunior and senior moot champions. Pick up valuabletips on how to argue for both the respondent and theappellant. The final round of each competition will bepresided over by a senior member of the bar. As limitedplaces are available, please get in touch to book.

South West regional group seminar –Dirty air, science, consequences andlaw – 16 March, BristolJoin us for seminar on air quality. Our speakers are DrEnda Hayes, Associate Professor – Air Quality andCarbon Management University of West England; DrKatharina Janke, Lecturer in Health EconomicsModelling – University of Lancaster and JamesThornton, Founding CEO of ClientEarth,environmental lawyer behind the most significantchallenges brought in the UK in relation to clean air.

Save the date – bookings opening very soon.

Nature conservation working partymeeting – 20 May, NottinghamMore details are available online. To attend, pleasecontact the convenor.

Wild law weekend – 26-29 May, Fort WilliamBookings will open soon! Make sure to keep theweekend free.

Annual conference – 7-9 July 2017,University of NottinghamJoin us at the University of Nottingham for our annualconference on the theme of ‘Cities of the Future’. Morethan half of the world’s population now live in townsand cities, and this number is growing inexorably.Living sustainably in cities is therefore a key challengefor politicians, planners, engineers, architects andlawyers. UKELA’s 2017 conference will cast light on therole of lawyers and regulators in making cities moresustainable, sharing knowledge and best practicerelevant to the UK context. For more details, pleasevisit our website.

UKELA events

8 elaw January/February 2017

What is your current role?I am the convenor of the nature conservation workingparty. I retired 8 years ago after nearly 30 yearsworking for one or other of the statutory natureconservation agencies.

How did you get into environmental law?Through my work. I have had a variety of posts mostof which addressed legal or quasi legal issuesincluding the site safeguard officer for the NatureConservancy Council during the 1980’s, head ofdesignated areas at English Nature and head ofhabitats advice at the Joint Nature ConservationCommittee, being the UK Government representativeon the EC Habitats Directive and its scientific workinggroup for 8 years.

What are the main challenges in your work?Being ‘retired’, the challenge is keeping up to date with issues.

What environmental issue keeps you awake at night?Brexit.

What’s the biggest single thing that would make adifference to environmental protection and well-being?The retention of as much of EU law as possible afterBrexit.

What’s your UKELA working party of choice andwhy?Self-explanatory!

What’s the biggest benefit to you of UKELAmembership?Being able to make a difference in furthering natureconservation.

The e-law 60 secondinterviewWyn Jones, convenor of natureconservation working party

9 elaw January/February 2017

The 10th annualEuropean Pro BonoForumJessica Allen, UKELA e-law Editorial Assistant and Lawwith French and French Law Student at the University ofNottingham

About the ForumEach year, PILnet organises the annual European ProBono Forum in order to bring together the variousstakeholders that are engaged in public interest lawand proactive pro bono work; from law firms and barassociations, to NGOs and charities, the eventfacilitates an invaluable opportunity for collaborativeand interdisciplinary discourse. Although there arenow Pro Bono Forums held across the globe, theEuropean Pro Bono Forum remains the most vibrantand the most diverse in terms of participation – withdelegates attending from as far as the United States,Malaysia, and Australia. All attendees are invited toforge international alliances and to work together tostrengthen existing initiatives, or pioneer new ones.

When selecting a host destination, PILnet adopts aconsiderate approach and assesses the pro bonoattitude that exists among the legal community of eachprospective country. Part of the aim of the Forum is tobring good practice to locations where professionaldevelopment is needed, with the immediate years afterthe event showing a remarkable growth in local probono practice. The 2016 Forum took place from 16-18November in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and washosted in the beautiful Beurs van Berlage building,directly down the road from the Central Station. Theschedule comprised a myriad of workshops on criticalissues of social justice, as well as various social eventsand structured networking opportunities.

Environmental probono practiceMy sessionAs an undergraduate Law withFrench and French Law student, Iwas surprised and honoured to be invited by PILnetrepresentatives to attend the Forum and to speak as apanellist on the topic of ‘Legal careers with purpose:the perspective of young lawyers’. My personalinvolvement in pro bono work stems primarily frommy role as Vice President for Academic Activities forthe European Law Students’ Association (ELSA) UK,and my role as an Editorial Assistant for UKELA.However, to avoid overlapping with my ELSAcolleague Anastasia Kalinina, my presentation focusedon the pro bono atmosphere fostered by professionallaw associations.

Following guidance offered to me by UKELA’s DirectorLinda Farrow, I introduced the delegates to ourregional groups, our working parties, our e-lawjournal, and our new Brexit Task Force. As a studentmember, I also discussed the way in which theassociation works hard to engage students. After all, Iam lucky to have personally benefitted from theStudent Vocational Bursary scheme, and the StudentSubmission Scheme with e-law, and even the AndrewLees Prize essay competition. All of these projectsreceived warm and encouraging comments from theaudience.

Other sessionsOnce our session was over I attended the session on‘Harnessing the power of law to restore our climate’.The discussion was led by Gillian Lobo fromClientEarth, with Michelle Jonker-Argueta fromGreenpeace International, Dennis van Berkel from theClimate Litigation Network, and Elizabeth Brown fromOur Children’s Trust. The speakers delivered anincredibly insightful presentation on their current

Conference report

Jessica (fourth from left) speaking at the European Pro Bono Forum inAmsterdam, the Netherlands. (© Lorna Kralik)

10 elaw January/February 2017

efforts to combat climate change and the problemsthat undermine their work.

However, I was disappointed to notice such a poorturnout. It became increasingly obvious to me thatother causes being discussed in other sessions, suchas human rights, were deemed to be more pertinent,more accessible and more attractive. ‘But surely’, Ithought, ‘we shouldn’t forget that a safe andsustainable environment is a precondition to many ofour human rights!’ After the presentations ended, Iwas determined to voice my concern to the panel.

The remark provoked a response from a lawyer in theaudience, who commented on the difficulties faced bylaw firms whose clients have competing interests inrelated commercial industries. Though somewhatdisheartened by this comment, I was enthused to heara subsequent exchange between legal and charitablestakeholders on ways in which this hurdle might beovercome – this same obstacle was highlighted timeand time again in the panel sessions.

Together, we considered that asking the opinion ofclients outright might be an effective way for law firmsto allay their worry that clients may take offence to afirm’s environmental pro bono practice. After all,engaging in pro bono environmental work will equiplawyers with a better understanding of current issuesand legal trends, enabling them to advise their clientsof ways to adapt their practices accordingly.

Final thoughtsUpdate from Sierra LeoneStumbling across the presentation of Richard Honey, afellow UKELA member and Barrister at Francis TaylorBuilding, further rekindled my faith in environmentallaw pro bono practice on the final day of the Forum. Aprevious attendee at the Forum, Richard’s proposal toschedule a panel on the topic of ‘How can solopractitioners do pro bono effectively?’ waswholeheartedly approved by PILnet. I was pleasantlysurprised to see that another UKELA member wasamong the panelists in Amsterdam and it wasinspiring to hear about his own experiences as a probono practitioner.

Knowing we had published an article by Richard in aprevious edition of e-law, I made sure to introducemyself to him at the end of the session. Richard hadspent time in Sierra Leone in September 2016, alongwith John Jolliffe of Francis Taylor Building and OliverAl Falah of the S&O Partnership, providing training tothe Sierra Leone Environmental Protection Agencyand specialist police officers. This focused on thehighly contentious topic of the regulation of mineralextraction in Sierra Leone, including environmentalimpact assessment, licensing and enforcement, butalso covered criminal, tort and public law subjects.

UKELA is keen to help in Sierra Leone as part of itsinternational work, providing advice and assistance tothe Environmental Protection Agency remotely andperhaps also in country. Richard advised me that agroup to do this is being formed and that anyoneinterested in getting involved should contact himdirectly at Francis Taylor Building.

The year aheadWhat we can all take from this, I think, is a sense ofpride in the reputation that our association isdeveloping overseas and the wider impact of ourpractices and initiatives. At the end of UKELA’sinternational year, and the start of a year focusing onenvironmental law in a changing world, the Forumprovides the perfect opportunity for us to reflect onour own involvement in the network and to praise thework of our peers.

For me, this January also marks the end of my first yearas a member of the e-law Editorial Board and the startof my second year in this role. As a young, self-taughtenvironmental lawyer, I would not have this position ifnot for UKELA’s pro bono projects (particularly thosethat engage students), so it was a privilege to be able torepresent the network at the Forum. Each of you inspireme every time I read an article submission, and at eachUKELA event I attend – I want to thank you for that.

Here’s to 2017!

Jessica Allen is currently completing her Law with Frenchand French Law degree at the University of Nottingham.As well as being an Editorial Assistant for UKELA (2016-18), she is the incumbent Vice President for AcademicActivities of the European Law Students’ Association(ELSA) United Kingdom (2016-17). Her research interestsfocus upon national and international public law,writing various articles and winning several essaycompetitions in the areas of environmental law andhuman rights law in particular. After graduating thissummer, Jessica hopes to pursue postgraduate study,undertake the BPTC, and intern with internationalenvironmental law organisations (not necessarily in thatorder!).

11 elaw January/February 2017

Environmental PermittingRegulations 2016 enter into forceLexisPSL EnvironmentThe Environmental Permitting (England and Wales)Regulations 2016, SI 2016/1154 (2016 Regulations)came into force on 1 January 2017. The 2016Regulations consolidate all of the amendments to theEnvironmental Permitting (England and Wales)Regulations 2010, SI 2010/675 (2010 Regulations). Theexplanatory memorandum to the 2016 Regulationsincludes a correlation table at Annex A which sets outwhere provisions of the 2010 Regulations may befound in the 2016 Regulations.

As well as consolidating and updating the legislation,there is a set of amendments which revise the rules formobile crushing of lamps that contain mercury (the T17exemption). This will restrict those who are able to crushlamps under the T17 exemption and reduce the numberof lamps which can be crushed without a permit.

For administrative reasons, the 2016 Regulationsprovide that the registrations of the T17 exemptionunder the 2010 Regulations will cease to have effect.Anyone wishing to operate under the new rules, as setout in the 2016 Regulations, will have to register touse the new T17 exemption.

There is also a correction to allow the Canal and RiversTrust, and other statutory undertakers, to be able todredge without the need for a permit under a floodrisk activity scheme in England.

Brexit: Environmental AuditCommittee calls for newEnvironmental Protection ActPractical Law EnvironmentOn 4 January 2017, the House of CommonsEnvironmental Audit Committee published its reporton the future of the natural environment, followingthe EU referendum.

The report warns of the potential loss of habitats,species and biodiversity protection legislation andthat there is a risk of ‘zombie legislation’, whereexisting EU legislation transposed into UK legislation isno longer being updated or subject to propergovernance and can be eroded through statutoryinstruments without full parliamentary scrutiny.

The report calls on the government to introduce anew Environmental Protection Act before the UK

leaves the EU. The new Environmental Protection Actwould be necessary to maintain and enforceenvironmental standards after the UK leaves the EU.

For more information, see Legal update,Environmental Audit Committee publishes report onfuture of natural environment following Brexit.

ECJ decisions on the concept of‘emissions into the environment’LexisPSL EnvironmentThe European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Commission vStichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe (C-673/13) and Bayer CropScience and Stichting DeBijenstichting v College voor de toelating vangewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden (C-442/14)has given guidance on the concept of ‘information onemissions into the environment’, confirming that theconcept is not to be interpreted narrowly.

Both cases, although different in terms of facts,address the right of access to environmentaldocuments—in Stichting Greenpeace Nederland underRegulation (EU) 1367/2006 and in Bayer CropScienceunder Directive 2003/4/EC.

In both judgments, the ECJ found that the concept of‘emissions into the environment’ includes the releaseinto the environment of products or substances, suchas plant protection products or biocides or activesubstances contained in those products, to the extentthat the release is actual or foreseeable under normal orrealistic conditions of use of the product or substance.

The concept cannot be restricted to emissions fromindustrial installations but also covers emissionsresulting from the spraying of a product, such as aplant protection product or biocide, into the air or itsuse on plants, in water or on soil.

The ECJ also confirmed that Regulation (EU)1367/2006 and Directive 2003/4/EC cover not onlyinformation relating to actual emissions, but alsoinformation on foreseeable emissions from thatproduct into the environment. However, informationrelating to purely hypothetical emissions would notbe covered.

In addition, the concept of ‘information on emissionsinto the environment’ must be interpreted as coveringnot only information on emissions as such, but alsoinformation enabling the public to check whether the

Environmental law headlinesDecember 2016 – January 2017A selection of recent environmental law news and updates prepared by the teams at LexisPSL Environment andPractical Law Environment.

12 elaw January/February 2017

assessment of actual or foreseeable emissions iscorrect, as well as the data relating to the medium orlong-term effects of those emissions on theenvironment.

For more information, see Environment Analysis,European court addresses right of access toenvironmental documents.

Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI):reforms to be introduced in spring2017Practical Law EnvironmentOn 14 December 2016, the Department for Business,Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) published thegovernment response to its March 2016 consultationon reform of the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI).

The response document explains the reforms to thedomestic and non-domestic RHI that the governmentintends to introduce in spring 2017, mainly to thearrangements for biomass, biogas, biomethane andheat pump technologies.

Importantly, the government has decided not tointroduce amendments to:

• Withdraw support for solar thermal.• Allow domestic RHI payments to be assigned to

third parties. This change will be made at a laterdate.

For more information, see Legal update, RHI:Government response to consultation on reforms for2017.

Revised National Emissions CeilingDirective enters into forceLexisPSL EnvironmentA new National Emissions Ceilings Directive (EU)2016/2284 (NEC Directive), entered into force on 31December 2016.

The new NEC Directive establishes national emissionceilings for 2030 for all Member States covering fivemain air pollutants, which include sulphur dioxide,ammonia, volatile organic compounds, nitrogenoxides and fine particulate matter. It replaces Directive2001/81/EC, which set caps on Member States’ totalannual emissions from 2010 onwards.

The NEC Directive also requires that national airpollution control programmes be drawn up, adoptedand implemented and that emissions of the five mainpollutants and other listed pollutants, as well as theirimpacts, be monitored and reported.

The revised NEC Directive is designed to reduce, byalmost 50%, the negative health impacts of airpollution, such as respiratory diseases and premature

death, by 2030. It will also help address the impacts ofharmful particles, such as black carbon, on climatechange.

Member States must implement the NEC Directiveinto national law by 30 June 2018.

For more information, see LNB News 14/12/2016 168,LNB News 19/12/2016 42 and Environment Analysis,The new EU air quality package—a breath of fresh air?

Landfill tax: draft Finance Bill 2017clarifies the definition of a taxabledisposalPractical Law EnvironmentOn 5 December 2016, HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC)published the draft Finance Bill 2017, which includes aclause clarifying the definition of a taxable disposal forlandfill tax, but without changing the scope of the tax.Clause 47 redefines a taxable disposal for landfill taxpurposes so that any material disposed of at a landfillsite will be taxable unless expressly exempt.Exemptions will be set out in secondary legislation.

HMRC also published its response to its May 2016consultation on proposals to clarify the definition, anda tax information and impact note for landfill siteoperators.

The ambiguity in the landfill tax treatment of certainmaterials disposed of at landfill sites has beenproblematic since the decision of the Court of Appealin HMRC v Waste Recycling Group Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ849. It has created uncertainty for taxpayers and led toa great deal of litigation.

For more information, see Legal update, Landfill tax:HMRC responds to 2016 consultation on definition oftaxable disposal, publishes clause in draft Finance Bill2017 and tax information for landfill site operators.

Landfill tax decision – liability for taxwhere biodegradable material isused to generate methane LexisPSL EnvironmentIn the case of Patersons of Greenoakhill Limited v TheCommissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs[2016] All ER(D) 63 (Dec) the Court of Appeal hasconsidered liability to pay landfill tax where a depositof biodegradable material produced methane, laterextracted to generate electricity.

The landfill tax operator, Patersons, sought arepayment of landfill tax paid for the biodegradablematerial.

The Court of Appeal held that the question of whetherthe material was disposed of as waste for the purposeof s40(2) Finance Act 1996, had to be decided at thedate of the deposit by reference to the material in the

13 elaw January/February 2017

form that it was at that date. The court reasoned that if‘material’ meant material in the form it may exist atany time, it would be uncertain, and if parliament hadthis intention it could have included suitable wordingin the legislation.

At the time of the deposit there was no methane andPatersons’ appeal was therefore dismissed.

For more information, see Patersons of GreenoakhillLimited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’sRevenue & Customs and Environment Analysis,Landfill tax and biodegradable materials (Patersons ofGreenoakhill Ltd v Revenue and CustomsCommissioners).

High Court refuses permission forjudicial review of fracking mineralspermissionPractical Law EnvironmentOn 20 December 2016, the High Court rejected theapplication by Friends of the Earth for judicial reviewof the minerals permission for shale gas (fracking) tobe carried out in Ryedale, North Yorkshire.

In May 2016, North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC)granted a minerals permission for fracking by ThirdEnergy at a site in Ryedale.

The court found that, on the facts, NYCC had properlyconsidered climate change impacts when consideringthe environmental impacts of the proposed fracking.It also found that NYCC acted lawfully in exercising itsdiscretion in imposing restoration and aftercareconditions and deciding not to seek a financial bond.

The court therefore refused permission for the judicialreview application.

For more information, see Legal update, Judicialreview application of fracking permission in NorthYorkshire rejected (High Court).

Consultation on EIA regulations toimplement amended EIA DirectiveLexisPSL EnvironmentThe government is consulting on proposals forimplementing the environmental impact assessmentDirective 2014/52/EU (EIA Directive) insofar as itapplies to the town and country planning system inEngland and the nationally significant infrastructureplanning regime established by the Planning Act2008. Although the proposals aim to minimisechanges to existing regulations, developers will haveto familiarise themselves with the changes before theycome into force in May 2017.

The new provisions will not apply where a screeningor scoping opinion, or an actual application, havebeen applied for before 16 May 2017. Developers maytherefore try to submit such requests just before thisdate, to avoid being subject to the new rules.However, it may be safest to start complying with therevised EIA regulations soon, as there are additional,rather than different requirements. One of the mostsignificant changes to be aware of is the extension ofthe consultation period, which developers will need tofactor into their application procedures.

The consultation closes on 1 February 2017. SeePlanning Analysis, Consultation on EIA Regulations toimplement amended EU Directive.

14 elaw January/February 2017

At a glance• The Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats

Directives1 has concluded that these two laws arefit for purpose, and that nature in the UK andacross Europe is better off as a result of them.

• EU-level findings confirm the industry-supportedfindings of the Habitats Regulations Review inEngland, that the Birds and Habitats Directives do notimpose unnecessary burdens on business, and thatthey guarantee regulatory certainty and consistencyacross jurisdictional boundaries between the UK andits European neighbours, and within the UK acrossthe four devolved administrations.

• Challenges for nature conservation in the UKinclude completing the designation of marineNatura 2000 sites, effectively managing sites,implementing the recommendations of theHabitats Regulations Review, and securingsufficient resources.

• Brexit poses significant challenges going forwards,but the Fitness Check confirms the legalframework created by the Birds and HabitatsDirectives continues to be a crucial tool forachieving UK and international biodiversityconservation objectives.

IntroductionIn the July/August 2016 UKELA E-Newsletter I outlinedthe politics around the Fitness Check of the BirdsDirective (79/409/EEC) (codified 2009/147/EC) and theHabitats Directive (92/43/EEC)2. The Fitness Check hasnow concluded, with publication by the Commissionof a Commission Staff Working Document3 setting outofficial conclusions and outlining next steps, alongsidethe Fitness Check consultants’ final report.4 Thesefindings have some significant implications for UKbiodiversity conservation efforts, but also pose somechallenging questions about UK’s relationship with itsEuropean neighbours, and how it protects nature inthe context of Brexit.

The Birds Directive and HabitatsDirective are fit for purpose

‘Within the framework of broader biodiversitypolicy the Nature Directives are fit for purpose butfully achieving their objectives and realising theirfull potential will depend on substantialimprovement in their implementation in relationto both effectiveness and efficiency, working inpartnership with different stakeholdercommunities in the Member States and across theEU, to deliver practical results on the ground.’5

The findings of the Fitness Checkconfirm that the Birds Directiveand the Habitats Directive (the Nature Directives) aremaking a positive difference to the status of Europe’swildlife, and that the status of species and habitatsprotected by the Nature Directives would besignificantly worse in their absence. These findings arebased on a comprehensive policy evaluation thatbrings together a substantial body of evidence,including over 1,800 legal and policy documents,studies, reports, datasets and other pieces of writtenevidence.

The Fitness Check also demonstrates continued strongpublic support for nature conservation. The onlinepublic consultation, launched as part of the FitnessCheck, received over 550,000 responses, breakingprevious records for EC public consultations by asignificant margin.

The findings of the Fitness Check support the findingsof the 2012 DEFRA review of implementation of theNature Directives in England, which concluded that ‘inthe large majority of cases the implementation of theDirectives is working well, allowing both developmentof key infrastructure and ensuring that a high level ofenvironmental protection is maintained’.

The results of the Fitness Check have finally laid to resta number of persistent myths around the NatureDirectives that had been cited in support of calls torevise them, including the following three chief myths:

1) The Nature Directives do not hold back economicdevelopmentThe Fitness Check, and the 2012 Review, both supportthe view that Natura 2000 does not act as a blanketban on developments within these sites. Evidencesubmitted to the Fitness Check by UK stakeholdersbacks this up. Of the 19000 planning projects thatNatural England deals with each year, 2200 relate toadvice on potential impacts on European sites, ofwhich only 500 require appropriate assessment (AA)under the Habitats Directive.6 In the calendar yearleading up to the Fitness Check, the UK’s Departmentfor Energy and Climate Change (DECC) received 270applications for overhead electricity line works(applied for under s37 of the Electricity Act 1989).None of these applications required an appropriateassessment to be undertaken.7

BiodiversityEU nature laws – fit for purposeAlistair Taylor, Senior Policy Officer at the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

15 elaw January/February 2017

2) The Nature Directives do not cause an excessiveadministrative burdenThe evidence also demonstrates that the NatureDirectives are not responsible for delays, excessivecost and administrative burden. Evidence for thiscomes from government, NGO and industrystakeholders from across the 28 Member States. Theevidence submission from DECC states:

‘...we believe that the Nature Directives have played akey role in delivering sustainable development,ensuring that the biophysical aspects of sustainabilityare fully considered, and in the vast majority of casesthis happens in a manner proportionate to the level ofenvironmental risk. The preparation of a shadow HRAis now a standard part of a Developer’s application forconsent and a key part of the decision maker’sconsiderations.’8

3) The Nature Directives are consistent with other EUpolicies and legislationFinally the evidence confirms that the NatureDirectives are coherent with other EU legislation, suchas the Water Framework Directive, Marine StrategyFramework Directive and Environmental ImpactAssessment Directive. Defra’s submission to the FitnessCheck highlights that implementation of Article 4 ofthe EU Water Framework Directive will assist in thedelivery of favourable condition of water-dependentNatura 2000 sites, and the EU Environmental LiabilityDirective furthers the protection of protected speciesand natural habitats through the prevention andremedying of environmental damage and the polluterpays principle.9

The evidence compiled for the Fitness Check shouldserve as a first stop for any policymaker or practitionerinterested in how EU nature conservation policy isworking, and how conservation is being delivered onthe ground across the 28 EU Member States.

Next stepsThe Commission has confirmed that it will develop anaction plan to correct the deficiencies inimplementation of the Birds and Habitats Directivesidentified by the Fitness Check. It has stated that theaction plan will contain a series of concrete measuressuch as holding regular meetings with mayors andother local authorities to assess implementationchallenges and help Member States take thenecessary corrective action. Moreover, theCommission has proposed that the plan will, ‘design,in partnership with Member States and relevantstakeholders, appropriate implementation guidelinesfor regional actors, reducing unnecessary burdens andlitigation, and incentivising national and regionalinvestment in biodiversity.’ The Commission has alsoproposed that the Committee of the Regions is closelyinvolved in these actions.

Good news for nature and achievingUK and EU nature conservationobjectives?The Fitness Check has confirmed that the legal toolsdeveloped by the EU for halting and reversingbiodiversity loss are effective where properlyimplemented, and that a protected areas basedapproach, coupled with targeted interventions for theconservation of species and habitats across the widerlandscape, are effective.

Indeed the approach adopted under the NatureDirectives is not just effective for target species.Evidence gathered for the Fitness Check confirms thatmany non-target species across all taxa are alsoprotected indirectly by the Nature Directives, inparticular via the protection offered by the Natura2000 network of protected sites.

The evidence also confirms the importance of theNature Directives for delivering on internationalnature conservation obligations under the Conventionon Biological Diversity, the Convention on MigratorySpecies, the Bern Convention, and other multilateralenvironmental agreements to which the UK and otherEU Member States are signatories.

The message is clear: in the legal frameworksestablished by the Nature Directives, governmentshave effective and efficient tools that enable them todeliver on national and international natureconservation commitments.

Nevertheless nature remains in trouble, and theFitness Check further confirms the need for allEuropean countries to do more for nature.

Challenges for the UKThe Fitness Check has identified conservationchallenges that must be addressed if EU andinternational nature conservation targets are to beachieved. In the context of UK nature conservation,these challenges include:

1) Completing designation of sites in the marineenvironmentAlthough the terrestrial part of the Natura 2000protected areas network is now largely established atEU level, substantial gaps remain in the marineenvironment, both in terms of the designation of sitesand our knowledge of the distribution and status ofmarine protected species. Although progress hasrecently been made in the UK in identifying anddesignating new marine sites, the UK’s network ofmarine Sites of Community Importance (SCI) isinsufficient for around 25% of the habitat types andspecies for which sites must be designated.10

2) Effectively managing UK Natura 2000 sitesAccording to the EU 2015 State of Nature assessment,

16 elaw January/February 2017

only 50% of Natura 2000 sites are reported as havingcomprehensive management plans.11 The UK hasmanagement plans for 6% by area of its ‘SpecialProtection Areas’ designated under the Birds Directive,and 13.7% by area of its ‘Special Areas of Conservation’designated under the Habitats Directive.12 The 2012Habitats Regulations Review in England found thatconservation objectives are not always readilyaccessible for Natura 2000 sites. This can make itdifficult for developers to assess the impacts of theirplanned development, and can add to uncertainty interms of defining and assessing data requirements.

The Fitness Check also points out that smaller sites aremore likely to be vulnerable to outside pressures. InMember States like the UK where a very restrictiveapproach to the definition of site boundaries has beentaken, so that only the protected habitat is included withno buffer area around it, greater efforts will be requiredto address outside pressures (e.g. pesticide drift).

This echoes the Lawton Report (2010)13

recommendation that critical areas should bebuffered from the effects of potentially damagingexternal activities. The evidence compiled for theFitness Check confirms that the Habitats Directiveprovides the flexibility to include buffer zones whendesignating sites.

3) Implementing the findings of the HabitatsRegulations reviewThe 2012 DEFRA review of implementation of theNature Directives in England14 and EU-wide studies ofpermitting procedures15 have identifiedimplementation problems relating to:

• Poor quality of the AA undertaken.• Lack of skills/ knowledge /capacity in the Article

6(3) procedure.• An inadequate knowledge base on which to assess

impacts.• Inconsistent screening of plans and projects.• Lack of understanding of key concepts and legal

terms.• Persistent lack of assessment of cumulative effects.• Confusion with the EIA/SEA procedure.• Lack of early dialogue.• Lack of effectiveness of AA in plans.• Problems during public consultation.16

The UK review identified a number of initiatives toaddress some of these problems, including throughstreamlined processes for assessment and permitting,advance collection of data and early identification of anyissues relevant to the Nature Directives for nationallyimportant infrastructure projects. However, in itsevidence to the Fitness Check, Energy UK points out, ‘Weconsider that the recommendations which came out ofthe 2012 review of the Birds and Habitats Directives aresignificant and many are yet to be fully implemented.’17

4) Addressing funding shortfallsFunding shortages have been highlighted across allMember States by all groups of stakeholders, particularlyrelating to the ongoing management and monitoring ofthe Natura 2000 network. The Fitness Check found thatthe availability or lack of funding is likely to have had themost influence on the implementation of the NatureDirectives, not just limiting progress, but also impactingimplementation due to delays in site designation,management planning and permitting.

Defra’s submission to the Fitness Check18, states;

‘the availability and access to funding is both asupport and a constraint to the implementation ofthe Directives. As resources are not infinite therewill always be a need to maximise the benefitsdelivered by what resources are available. This isespecially true in the current economic climate.’

The challenge of BrexitThe present government pledged in its electionmanifesto ‘to leave the natural environment of Englandin a better state than that in which we found it’.19 TheFitness Check confirms that the standards and legalframeworks established by the EU Nature Directivesare effective and efficient tools for delivering on thiscommitment. Maintaining these standards is thereforecrucial to achieving the government’s objective.

The aim of the Great Repeal Bill is to convert all theprovisions of EU law into British law on the day the UKexits the EU.20 At face value this implies maintainingthe conservation standards established by the NatureDirectives, but leaving the EU is still likely to result in aweakening of levels of protection.

Currently UK citizens and businesses can complain tothe European Commission and take the UKgovernment to the European Court of Justice forbreaches of EU law, including not just the lawfulnessof a decision, but the implications of the decisionitself. Once the UK has left the EU, this avenue forredress will no longer be available. Nationalmechanisms, including ultimately judicial review, aresignificantly more burdensome, and generallyconsider only the lawfulness of a decision, not themerits of the decision itself.

EU nature laws have provided a framework forcooperation between the UK and our Europeanneighbours. They are part of a coherent legislativeframework, linked to funding, cooperation andenforcement mechanisms, and have demonstrablydelivered benefits for conservation. The challengeposed to the UK government by Brexit is not just toretain the level of protection provided by EU naturelaws, but also to put in place mechanisms forcooperation that are at least as effective as those thatcurrently exist.

17 elaw January/February 2017

The UK’s departure from the EU also raises thepossibility of a parting of the ways in terms ofapproaches to permitting and standard-setting.During the negotiation period the UK government islikely to want to maintain equivalence between UKand EU law to strengthen its position. Once thenegotiations are over this imperative goes away,subject to the UK’s future relationship with the EU. IfUK and EU law deviate, UK businesses working onpan-European projects, or involved in trade with EUcountries, could potentially be required to complywith two different sets of standards, reportingobligations, and permitting procedures.

Within the UK where environment is a devolvedresponsibility, EU laws have helped ensurecoordination of environmental policy between thedevolved administrations. With the UK’s departurefrom the EU there is a risk that different parts of the UKcould choose their own direction in terms of standard-setting. This could result in a disparity not justbetween environmental rules in the UK and in otherEuropean countries, but also across the differentdevolved administrations within the UK.

Alistair Taylor is a Senior Policy Officer at the Royal Societyfor the Protection of Birds where he has been leading policyadvocacy targeting the Fitness Check of the Birds andHabitats Directives for RSPB in the UK and for the BirdLifeEurope Partnership at EU level. He has played a leading rolein influencing EU legislative and policy instrumentsincluding Regulation 1143/2014 on Invasive Alien Speciesand the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Alistair started theLPC in September 2016, and is still enjoying it.

Endnotes1 European Commission, ‘Fitness Check of the Birds

and Habitats Directives’http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/fitness_check/index_en.htm accessed 17January 2017.

2 UKELA elaw July/August 2016 edition, ‘Law,Evidence, Nature and Politics’.

3 European Commission, ‘Staff Working DocumentSWD(2016) 472 final, Fitness Check of the EUNature Legislation (Birds and Habitats Directives)’http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/fitness_check/docs/nature_fitness_check.pdfaccessed 17 January 2017.

4 Milieu, IEEP and ICF, ‘Evaluation Study to supportthe Fitness Check of the Birds and HabitatsDirectives March 2016’http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/fitness_check/docs/study_evaluation_support_fitness_check_nature_directives.pdf accessed 17January 2017.

5 European Commission ‘Staff Working DocumentSWD(2016) 472 final’ Executive Summary.

6 DEFRA, ‘Evidence Gathering Questionnaire for theFitness Check of the Nature Directives: Additional

information for Consultants’http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/fitness_check/evidence_gathering/index_en.htm accessed 17 January 2017.

7 DECC, ‘Evidence Gathering Questionnaire for theFitness Check of the Nature Directives’http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/fitness_check/evidence_gathering/index_en.htm accessed 17 January 2017.

8 Ibid.9 DEFRA, ‘Evidence Gathering Questionnaire for the

Fitness Check of the Nature Directives’http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/fitness_check/evidence_gathering/index_en.htm accessed 17 January 2017.

10 European Commission Staff Working DocumentSWD(2016) 472 final’ Figure 10: Sufficiency of Sitesof Community Importance.

11 EEA Technical report No 2/2015, ‘State of Nature inthe EU’http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-nature-in-the-eu accessed 17 January 2017.

12 Ibid, p131.13 ‘Making Space for Nature: A review of England’s

Wildlife Sites and Ecological Network’http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130402151656/http:/archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/biodiversity/documents/201009space-for-nature.pdf accessed 17 January 2017.

14 DEFRA, ‘Report of the Habitats and Wild BirdsDirectives Implementation Review’https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69513/pb13724-habitats-review-report.pdf accessed 17 January2017.

15 Ecosystems Limited, ‘Study on Evaluating andImproving the Article 6.3 Permit Procedure forNatura 2000 Sites’http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/AA_final_analysis.pdfaccessed 17 January 2017.

16 Milieu, IEEP and ICF, ‘Evaluation Study to supportthe Fitness Check of the Birds and HabitatsDirectives, March 2016’.

17 Energy UK, ‘Evidence Gathering Questionnaire forthe Fitness Check of the Nature Directives’http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/fitness_check/evidence_gathering/index_en.htm accessed 17 January 2017.

18 DEFRA, ‘Evidence Gathering Questionnaire for theFitness Check of the Nature Directives’

19 Conservative Party Manifesto 2015https://www.conservatives.com/manifestoaccessed 17 January 2017.

20 House of Commons Library, ‘Briefing PaperNumber 7793 21 November 2016, Legislating forBrexit: the Great Repeal Bill’http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7793/CBP-7793.pdf accessed 17 January2017.

18 elaw January/February 2017

At a glance• The State of Nature 2016 report highlights that

there continues to be considerable species loss inthe UK with over 40% of species showing strong ormoderate declines since 1970.

• While current regulatory provisions in the UK maybe adequate, the implementation of thoseprovisions is often poor, with key regulators failingto acknowledge the continuing decline in natureand wildlife in the UK or to take a holistic approachto nature and wildlife.

• It is crucial that legislators and decision-makersrecognise the central role of regulation inpromoting conservation and biodiversity and takeresponsibility to ensure that the environment andnature are central to decisions taken.

• The cumulative effect of many environmentaldecisions (including those relating to land useplanning) whereby impacts are not regarded as‘significant’ is likely to be exacerbating widespreadloss of wildlife and nature.

• Clear guidance by national governments, includingon the value of nature and how this should betaken into account in decision-making, could put ahalt to the continuing decline in nature andwildlife (see for example the advances being madeby the Welsh government in this regard).

The decline of nature in the UKA report published in September 2016 found that overhalf (56%) of UK species have declined since 1970,with 15% of species thought to be extinct orthreatened with extinction.1 Average speciesabundance or occupancy (a measure similar toabundance for species too tricky to count) has fallenby 16% since 1970.

The latest State of Nature report was produced by awide-ranging partnership of over 50 organisationsinvolved in the research, recording and conservationof nature in the UK and its overseas territories. Itincluded input from the Bat Conservation Trust,Buglife and Froglife, as well as more well-knownpartners such as the Royal Society for the Protection ofBirds and the World Wide Fund for Nature. It buildsupon the State of Nature Report 2013, whichhighlighted a severe loss of nature in the UK since the1960s.

The report finds that there continues to beconsiderable species loss in the UK with over 40% ofspecies showing strong and moderate declines. It

notes that the UK is one of the most nature-depletedcountries in the world and that of the 8,000 speciesassessed as high risk, 15% of these threatened species(those listed on the international red list ofendangered species) are either extinct or threatenedwith extinction from Great Britain.

It is alarming to note that the UK has lost significantlymore nature than the global average. The reportexplains that there are many factors responsible forthe changes but that UK agricultural policy as well asclimate change are key aspects in the long-termdecline.

The role of regulation in protectingnatureThe report argues that well-planned conservationprojects can turn around the fortunes of nature andwildlife in the UK. This may be so. However, it is alsocrucial that legislators and decision-makers recognisethe central role of regulation in promoting andenhancing conservation and biodiversity and takeresponsibility to ensure that the environment andnature are central to the decisions taken. There aresome encouraging signs, the Welsh governmentappears to be pursuing an important and robustapproach to environmental protection through, forinstance, a commitment to genuine and effectivesustainable development.

By contrast, the approach in England to sustainabledevelopment is often vague and uncertain, withdecisions seen as promoting economic growth beingtaken without any consideration for theenvironmental damage that may result.

UK law contains protections for nature. There is arange of legislative measures in place that should beadequate to protect nature and biodiversity including,for instance, the Conservation of Habitats and SpeciesRegulations 2010, SI 2010/490, the variousenvironmental impact assessment provisions and therange of Town and Country Planning provisions. TheNational Policy Planning Framework states that it ismeant to ‘contribute to and enhance the local andnatural environment by … minimising impacts onbiodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversitywhere possible [and] contributing to theGovernment’s commitment to halt the overall declinein biodiversity.’2 There is also responsive legislationsuch as the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 whichcreates specific offences of harming or destroying

BiodiversityReversing the decline of nature in the UKDr Paul Stookes, Solicitor-advocate at Richard Buxton.Matthew McFeeley, Lawyer and Public Policy Analyst.

19 elaw January/February 2017

wildlife. In combination, these should ensure aprecautionary and preventative approach toenvironmental harm is taken, whereby the impact onnature and wildlife should be considered beforedamaging decisions are taken. However, all too often,this promise is not fulfilled.

Other efforts to protect nature in the UKRegulation is not the sole solution. There are a largenumber of local conservation projects run by non-governmental organisations and with the support ofvolunteers, e.g. the network of wildlife trusts and bothlocal and national volunteer-based ecology groups.Indeed, many of these were instrumental in buildingup the body of evidence for the State of Nature report2016. However, these invaluable efforts will continueto be undermined if local and national governmentscontinue to permit environmentally harmfuldevelopment proposals and encourage agriculturalintensification and monocultural practices (includingthe increased use of pesticides, herbicides, andsynthetic fertilisers) rather than more sustainablefarming practices.

Adequate enforcement of currentprotections is needed The findings of the State of Nature report 2016 make itclear that the current protections are simply notworking and the primary responsibility for this is withdecision-makers and regulators – both at the nationaland local level.

At the national level, government agencies such asNatural England and the Environment Agencyfrequently avoid involvement in local, butnevertheless important, decision-making where theirinput and expertise may be needed. Often, this isjustified on the basis that local decision-making isregarded as a matter of ‘judgement’. Thesegovernment bodies can and should play a moreproactive role in stemming the decline of natureacross the UK.

Unfortunately, if anything, the direction of travelseems to be in the other direction. For instance,Natural England recently announced changes to thelicensing system designed to ‘safeguard protectedspecies’.3 The changes are intended to increaseflexibility for developers, but risk contributing tofurther declines among some of the most vulnerablespecies. For instance, the new policies would allow adeveloper to engage in activities that eradicate thelocal population of a protected species at a site aslong as the developer enhances habitat elsewhere,relying on the hope that the species would one dayoccupy the new habitat and the overall populationwould increase (the old policies would have requiredthe members of the species at a site to be capturedand relocated). For instance, one firm, touting the

license they obtained for a developer at a site whereGreat Crested Newts were potentially present afterrelying on this approach (albeit in a pilot-programcapacity before the new policies were instituted),stated that “[t]here is clear recognition now that ‘everynewt is not sacred” and [it] is now believed that, withthe right arguments and submissions, the door is nowopen to push harder for less onerous EPS licences’.

On the local level, there is sometimes tacit acceptanceof environmentally-damaging decisions where councilofficers either do not comment or recommendapproving decisions, for example because they aretaken in isolation, or a specific project may not have anationally significant impact. The cumulative effect ofthis is that a series of decisions, that may not benationally significant in themselves, may well lead towidespread losses of wildlife and nature. Thoseindividual decisions should, in fact, be regarded asimportant in biodiversity terms if we are ever going toreverse the decline in nature.

Put simply, decision-makers are ignoring the ‘biggerpicture’ which is now present in the State of Nature2016. Thus, while the current regulatory provisions maybe adequate in many cases – it is the application orimplementation of those provisions that is frankly poor.

The ‘significance’ of environmental harmAlso alarming is the persistent undervaluing of natureand environmental concerns by decision-makers, inparticular with regard to the question of whetherenvironmental harm is ‘significant’ for the purpose ofenvironmental impact assessment (EIA).

One recent example demonstrates how far thependulum has swung towards the view that seriousenvironmental concerns should not present animpediment to development. In December 2016, theSecretary of State for Communities and LocalGovernment issued a screening direction determiningthat a proposed development of over 150 houses on aproblematic and contaminated site in Hemsworth,West Yorkshire was ‘not significant’ and therefore didnot require EIA.4 This decision was made despite thefact that planning permission for this developmenthas already been quashed on two separate occasionsbecause of failures to consider environmental impacts.The site was formerly used as a quarry and later as alandfill. The developer’s own consultant foundmultiple sources of contamination present at the site.Moreover, numerous concerns were raised by localresidents, Sports England, and the Local Lead FloodAuthority, regarding increased flood risk and loss ofopen space, woodlands and wildlife, and sportsprovision. Yet none of these concerns appeared to bementioned by the Secretary of State in reaching hisdecision. Rather, he simply referred to the Council’sstatement that it did not believe that EIA was required.

20 elaw January/February 2017

The way forwardVery simple measures can be taken by nationalgovernments to address the existing problems andconsequential harm to wildlife and nature. They canprovide clear guidance on the true value of theenvironment and show how this must be taken intoaccount instead of relying upon overarching andvague policy guidance such as the National PlanningPolicy Framework now provides. See, by contrast, thedetailed explanation of sustainable development inChapter 4: Planning for Sustainability, Planning PolicyWales 9th ed (2016). Similarly, the courts canacknowledge the present crisis and also that publicsector decision-making is failing the environment.Once government and the judiciary recognise the truevalue of biodiversity in society, the continuing andserious decline in nature and wildlife may be haltedand the UK may be able to improve the quality of theenvironment for all.

Dr. Paul Stookes is a solicitor-advocate who has workedin the environmental field since 1995. He joined RichardBuxton 10 years ago, having previously worked inregional law firms, local government, and as the ChiefExecutive of the Environmental Law Foundation. Paulhas written a number of books, articles and researchpapers including: Nature & Law in The Habitats Directive(2012); Planning & the Localism Act 2011: a guide to thenew law (Law Society, 2012) (co-author with Pat ThomasOBE); and A Practical Approach to Environmental Law2/e (2009).

Matthew McFeeley is a U.S.-qualified lawyer and publicpolicy analyst. Before moving to the UK in 2015, heworked in Washington DC on a range of issues includingthe protection of nature and wildlife for the NaturalResources Defense Council, one of the United States’leading non-partisan environmental law organisations.

Endnotes1 Daniel B. Hayhow et al, The State of Nature

partnership, State of Nature 2016 (2016).2 National Policy Planning Framework, para. 109

(2012).3 Natural England, Proposed new policies for European

Protected Species Licensing: Analysis of responses tothe public consultation held between 25 Februaryand 7 April 2016 (2016).

4 Department of Communities and LocalGovernment, Screening DirectionNCPU/EIASCR/X4725/77010 (Dec. 16, 2016).

21 elaw January/February 2017

At a glance• The UK’s 130 million ash trees are at risk from ash

dieback, prompting concern over the impact of thedisease at a landscape scale. The greatestecological impact will be through the loss ofindividual, non-woodland trees.

• The importance of the road network in providingecological connectivity is currentlyunderestimated: roadside ash trees will be aparticular management target for local authoritiesand their replacement is not guaranteed.

• Landowner responses will be critical to both themanagement of ash dieback and the subsequentprocess of recovery, if current canopy levels are tobe maintained or enhanced.

• Legislation is largely designed to protect individualtrees and is poorly suited to protect populations oftrees, which are currently under threat from severalmajor diseases.

• There is an urgent need to produce a nationalstrategy for the management of ash dieback,which must include the provision of adequatelyresourced bodies to monitor and enforce therelevant provisions

The pathogen and its prognosisAsh dieback (ADB) is the common name for the fungalpathogen Hymenoscyphus fraxineus, which attacks and

kills European ash (Fraxinus excelsior) trees. It was firstidentified in the UK in 2012 and has since spreadrapidly, being known to be present in every county inEngland and Wales, and currently in Scotland as farnorth as the Great Glen, and recently discovered inNorthern Ireland. The pathogen originates from Asia1

and appears to have arrived in Europe first in Poland,from where it spread naturally via windblown spores,assisted by the trade in nursery trees.2

Ash is a common tree across the UK; there are anestimated 120 million mature trees outside woodlandin Great Britain,3 and it is a major species in NorthernIreland and Eire. It is a dominant landscape tree,occurring as individual specimens in fields and ashedgerow standards. The European experiencesuggests that anything up to 95% of the population issusceptible to ADB, although recent genetic evidencehints that the lineage in the Southwest might be moretolerant. Tolerant trees do not appear to be able toresist infection but seem able to recover from one year to the next, whilst still being infectious tosurrounding trees.

The expectation is for the widespread loss of ash inmuch the same way as elm in the 1970s and 80s as aresult of Dutch elm disease4. In woodlands where thereis a seed bank and natural generation is possible (i.e.

Biodiversity The ash dieback crisisDr Nick Atkinson, Senior Conservation Advisor at the Woodland Trust.Wyn Jones, convenor of the UKELA nature conservation working party.Tom Huggon, past Chairman of the UKELA nature conservation working party.

Ancient roadside ash. Just infront of it are the remains ofanother, the timber left where itwas felled. (© Nick Atkinson)

22 elaw January/February 2017

where factors such as grazing pressure from deer areunder control), other species are expected to takeadvantage of the decline of ash.5 The resultingpotential increase in the availability of deadwood, bothstanding and fallen, will be ecologically beneficial tosaproxylic species (organisms dependent on dead ordecaying wood) and the communities they support.Some woodlands are at particular risk, however, suchas the ash-dominated ravine woods in the Peak DistrictNational Park. These will require active intervention toenable the species mix to be reconfigured over arelatively short period: the National Park authority ispoorly resourced to do so at present.

Although ash is known to support over a thousandspecies,6 relatively few are obligates (species thatdepend exclusively on ash for habitat or food).Nevertheless, the dominance of ash as a major specieswithin the UK’s limited tree biota means that thecumulative impact of ADB is likely to be profound interms of ecological connectivity across landscapes.This spatiotemporal impact has yet to be fullyrecognised, especially as an acute shock against abackground of chronic decline in the UK’s treescape.

The linear forestMature infected ash trees have a tendency to becomeunstable: ash is a tree known for its tendency to shedlimbs in any case, and opportunistic secondaryinfections by species such as honey fungus (Armillariaspp.) compound the risks, in some cases increasingthe likelihood of complete collapse. The prospect oftrees falling onto public highways is a serious causefor concern among Local Authorities.

Ash is a particularly common roadside tree. LocalAuthorities carrying out survey work in anticipation ofADB-related work are finding tens if not hundreds ofthousands of large trees capable of falling onto thepublic highway.7 The overwhelming majority ofroadside trees are privately owned, meaningresponsibility for the safety of road users rests with theindividual landowner (or homeowner, as many ruralproperties have the odd ash tree in the garden).Roadside trees are often also within close proximity toutilities, power lines and telephone cables, makingtheir safe management even more complicated. Ashtrees are notoriously difficult to work8 andarboricultural services will be expensive, with costs ofroad closures, specialist felling equipment and evenpotentially night time work being required.

The sheer number of roadside ash trees presents localauthorities with a looming issue. They share acommon interest with landowners in achievingeconomies of scale, so if a road needs to be closed toattend to one ailing tree should its healthy neighboursalso be felled at the same time? Precautionarygovernment advice is for trees to be allowed to remainstanding for as long as possible: indeed, the felling

licence regulations allow emergency felling only whena tree presents an immediate danger.9 This raises theprospect of the same stretch of road being closed onmultiple occasions as needs require, clearly not in thebest financial interests of the landowner, althoughperhaps falling to the favour of the arborist.

Under the current regulations, any pre-emptive fellingwould require a felling licence. However, theincreasingly limited resources of the ForestryCommission suggest difficulty in processing largenumbers of felling licence applications, not tomention an inability to police against widespreadillegal felling. Where trees are felled outside a fellinglicence there will be no compulsion to restock and it isnot unreasonable to assume that will result in a netreduction in tree numbers.

The road network provides an increasingly importantrefuge for landscape trees against a backdrop of everlarger agricultural fields, the expansion of which hasalways come at the expense of trees and hedgerows.Roads do act as both ecological barriers and corridors,but the loss of roadside trees will enhance the formerfunction whilst diminishing the latter.

The social dimensionIf we accept that large numbers of ash trees will dieover the coming years, and that their removal will beat the expense of the person on whose land they are,there is another question concerning the potentialrecovery post-ADB. Having paid thousands of poundsto remove a roadside tree many landowners wouldlikely not be well disposed to replanting in the samelocation. This is not to say that landowners disliketrees in any way, just that they understandably do notwant to bear such a costly future risk.

The issue throws light on a fundamental fact aboutnatural capital and the provision of ecosystemservices. Trees provide largely public goods, yet theoverhead for their maintenance is privatised. Giventhat the establishment of ADB in the UK happened atleast in part due to government policy on theinternational free trading of biological material itseems unfair to burden private landowners with thecosts, especially if we hope they will then act torecover lost ecological connectivity. Work is needed tounderstand the ‘cost sharing’ balance between theprovision of public goods by trees and theirmanagement overheads, which arguably should bemet in part from the public purse.

Protection measures There are many and varied mechanisms by which treesmay be protected by law or policy.10 They areadministered by a number of different statutory bodiesat local and national levels, each of which have limitedresources and expertise with which to administer,monitor and enforce the relevant provisions and policies.

23 elaw January/February 2017

The mechanisms include:

• Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) may be made bylocal authorities for individual trees, groups oftrees or woodlands. A tree subject to a TPO mayonly be felled with the approval of the relevantlocal authority but replacement planting isdiscretionary.

• Under the Hedgerows Regulations 1997 mosthedgerows (including trees within the hedgerows)in England and Wales are protected. There is nospecific legislation for the protection of hedgerowsin Scotland.

• Ancient Woodlands are centuries’ old nativewoodland habitats that are listed by the relevantstatutory agencies but are not afforded specialprotection. The woodlands should be managed inaccordance with the UK Forestry standard.

• Veteran Trees are those of a great age, size orcondition which are of exceptional value culturallyin the landscape or for wildlife. Such trees are notafforded special protection but guidance isavailable regarding their management.

• A tree felling licence is required from the ForestryCommission unless it is exempted. The exemptionsinclude situations where trees are dangerous or area nuisance, terms that lack a robust definition.

• Under Part 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act1981 as amended and the equivalent legislation inNorthern Ireland, there are provisions for theprotection of birds, their nests and eggs during thebreeding season. In addition under the same Act,protection is provided for the places or structuresused by other listed mammals for shelter orprotection. This includes all species of bat foundnaturally in the UK and the dormouse.

• Trees within designated areas notified as a Site ofSpecial Scientific Interest (SSSI) under section 28of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (asamended) may have a measure of protection iffelling is listed as an operation likely to damage thespecial interest(s).The legislative framework inScotland for SSSIs and in Northern Ireland for Areasof Special Scientific Interest is the same. There areprovisions that allow damaging activities to beundertaken without consultation/consent whereemergency situations arise and the relevantstatutory nature conservation body must benotified as soon as practicable.

• Most international terrestrial wildlife designationsin the UK are underpinned by SSSI designation.Natura 2000 sites comprising Special ProtectionAreas (SPAs) under the EC Birds Directive andSpecial Areas of Conservation (SACs) designatedunder the Conservation of Habitats and SpeciesRegulations 2010 (the Regulations) as amended,which transpose the EC Habitats Directive(92/43/EEC) into national law, are afforded strictprotection. The felling of trees within such areasmay be afforded protection if the activity is listed

as being potentially damaging to the site interestfeatures. Trees may be important in terms ofproviding habitat for a species or routes to keyphases in its life cycle or feeding areas. Many batSACs comprise the roost alone and do not includeroutes to and from feeding areas. The felling oftrees on such routes may affect the site’s interestfeature (i.e. the bat population for which the SAChas been designated) and is therefore subject tostrict protection measures set out in theregulations.

• In the UK, Ramsar sites under the RamsarConvention are treated as Natura 2000 sites as amatter of government policy.

• Trees may also host European protected speciessuch as bat or dormouse, which are afforded strictprotection under the species provisions of theregulations.

• Under the regulations, government endeavours totake measures to improve the ecologicalcoherence of the Natura 2000 network, includingthe identification of wildlife corridors in support ofthe network. Such areas have already beenidentified by the statutory nature conservationbodies.

• Also under the regulations public bodies havewider obligations with regards to wild bird habitat– to use all reasonable endeavors to avoid anypollution or deterioration of habitats of wild birds.

• Landscape designations (National Parks and Areasof Outstanding Beauty) are designated for theirnatural beauty and are afforded a measure ofprotection driven by policies administered byNational Park authorities and local planningauthorities.

ConclusionThere are many and varied potential measures totrigger the protection of trees by means of law andpolicy, but none specifically to address the threat andimpact of disease epidemics in trees. The lack of aclear mechanism and therefore responsibility, resultsin the fragmented and ineffective situation.

In much of the legislation and policy the emphasis isfor the protection of individual trees with variousexemptions to allow for unregulated management ifthe tree is diseased, dying or presents a public danger.These same exemptions mean that in the case of ahighly infectious pathogen such as ADB the treepopulation as a whole has little protection.Furthermore, the lack of requirement to replace lostash trees is a very real threat to the ecologicalconnectivity of the landscape.

The statutory bodies responsible for implementingthe many and varied pieces of legislation and policieshave been subject to cuts in their resources in recentyears. This has resulted in the reduction of necessarypool of expertise with which to identify, monitor and

24 elaw January/February 2017

address diseased trees thereby detrimentally affectingtheir effectiveness to undertake their statutoryfunctions. This further exacerbates the fragmentedlegal and policy framework with which to addressdiseased trees.

A national strategy is required for the management ofADB and addressing other and future threats ofdisease in trees. This must include the identification ofadequately resourced bodies with the responsibilitiesto manage, monitor and enforce the relevantprovisions. The current evidence is strongly suggestiveof a future net reduction in canopy, which as one ofthe least wooded countries in Europe the UK can illafford. The case for landscape trees and roadside treesin particular needs to be strongly communicated andthe right support identified to enable landowners towillingly replace lost trees. Ash dieback is merely a testrun: acute oak decline, oak processionary moth,phytophthora and dothistroma are already affectingother native species and a host of other pathogenshave the potential to wreak havoc upon our treescape.

Dr Nick Atkinson is a Senior Conservation Advisor at theWoodland Trust, specialising in spatial ecology and treehealth.

Wyn Jones is the convenor of the UKELA natureconservation working party. He is retired having spentnearly 30 years working for one or other of the statutorynature conservation agencies.

Tom Huggon is a past chairman of the UKELA natureconservation working party. He is a retired partner atBrowne Jacobson LLP and is currently retained by themas a consultant.

Endnotes1 There is a closely related fungal species, Chalara

pseudoalbidus, which is native to the UK and non-fatal to ash.

2 Since 2007 over one and a half million ash treeswere imported to the UK from European countriesin which ADB was known to be present.

3 Kirby, K. Potential conservation implications of ashdieback (Chalara fraxinea) in Britain (accessedonline athttp://dps.plants.ox.ac.uk/plants/Content/KeithKirby/PotentialConservationImplicationsOfAshDieback_11_16.pdf on 25/01/2017).

4 That wave of the disease wiped out an estimated26 million elm trees and continues today: apartfrom a handful of refugia, such as the city ofBrighton, mature elms are a rare sight.

5 Lawrence, R. & Cheffings, C.M. (2014) A summary ofthe impacts of ash dieback on UK biodiversity,including the potential for long-term monitoringand further research on management scenarios.JNCC Report No. 501.

6 Mitchell, R.J., Bailey, S., Beaton, J.K., Bellamy, P.E.,Brooker, R.W., Broome, A., Chetcuti, J., Eaton, S.,Ellis, C.J., Farren, J., Gimona, A., Goldberg, E., Hall, J.,Harmer, R., Hester, A.J., Hewison, R.L., Hodgetts,N.G., Hooper, R.J., Howe, L., Iason, G.R., Kerr, G.,Littlewood, N.A., Morgan, V., Newey, S., Potts, J.M.,Pozsgai, G., Ray, D., Sim, D.A., Stoclan, J.A., Taylor,A.F.S. & Woodward, S. (2014) The potentialecological impact of ash dieback in the UK. JNCCReport No. 483.

7 A survey conducted in the summer of 2016 byNorfolk County Council resulted in an estimated200,000 ash trees (pole stage or larger) capable offalling onto the county’s public highways.

8 The ash is colloquially known as the ‘widowmaker’because of the unpredictable way in which it cansplit when being felled.

9 See http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-6dfkw6. There is no definition for what constitutesa dangerous tree.

10 Mynors, C. (2002) The Law of Trees, Forests andHedgerows: Sweet & Maxwell.

25 elaw January/February 2017

At a glance• Recent developments in EU environmental law are

considered. • The value of emerging environmental enforcement

networks is also discussed.• Regulators and enforcement agencies need to

exploit new technologies and strategies.• More research is needed to ascertain the

effectiveness of sanctions for environmental crime.

Implementation and enforcementThe development of detailed, often ambitious lawsdesigned to protect the environment over the past 30years has been a striking phenomenon of our age.Laws in the statute book may provide some comfortbut without effective implementation andenforcement they are meaningless. A Member of theEuropean Parliament once remarked ‘We are goodmidwives but bad mothers’ — implying thatlegislators often pay more attention to passing newlaws than considering the equally challenging issuesof implementation, and what happens after the lawhas come into force.

The potential gap between the formal law and itsenforcement is seen in many fields of law, but it raisesparticular challenges in the field of environmentalprotection. In areas of law such as competition, socialsecurity, or consumer protections there are clearlydefined victims with legal interests who can and willensure that the law is enforced. In contrast, theenvironment is often unowned in legal terms — withthe consequence that the environment dies in silence,it has been said. The responsibility for its legalprotection lies largely on public authorities — thepolice, local authorities, or specialised regulatoryagencies — often under competing policy prioritiesand severe resource constraints.

Yet, as this thematic issue demonstrates, in recentyears far greater attention is being paid to thequestion of enforcement of environmental law — howit should most effectively be implemented, how bestto ensure compliance, and how best to deal withbreaches of environmental law where they occur.

These issues can raise delicate political issues at both

national and regional levels. Deciding how to employresources and respond to breaches of environmentallaw often involves considerable discretion amongstenforcement authorities, and national and localadministrations have their own traditions and culturein which they operate. Imposing over-elaborate, top-down solutions may therefore be inappropriate.Within the European Union, environmental legislationhas generally left the question of enforcement to thediscretion of Member States, and it is rare for EUregulations or directives to specify the type ofsanction that must be employed. The Court of Justiceof the European Union has been equally reticent totrespass on the discretion of national authorities inthis context, and simply relied upon the generalprinciple that any sanctions employed must beeffective, proportionate, and dissuasive.

An important exception to this picture was thepassing of the EU Environmental Crime Directive in2008, requiring that certain types of conduct inrelation to EU environmental law must at least bedefined as a crime by Member States. The proposal todo so was the subject of legal challenge before theCourt of Justice on the grounds that there was nolegal competence under the environmental provisionsof the European Treaty to do so. Eventually the Courtheld that if there was a genuine problem ofenforcement, this was the proper subject of aEuropean directive, but recognised the sensitivities ofMember States by holding that the question of thesize of penalties was a matter of national notEuropean Union law.

Another very important legal development was thedecision of the European Court in 2005 in a case takenby the European Commission against Ireland inrespect of illegally operated and unlicensed wastesites. Until then enforcement actions concerning thefailure by a Member State to implement EUenvironmental obligations in practice had beenconfined to specific examples. Here the Court held forthe first time that the numerous cases of illegallyoperated sites represented a systematic failure in theadministrative system for enforcement, and that thisrepresented a breach of its obligations under EU lawby the Member State.

Matters in practiceThe enforcement of environmentallaw: challenges and opportunities Professor Richard Macrory, UKELA patron.

This article was first featured as an editorial in a recent report on ‘Environmental compliance assurance and combattingenvironmental crime’ published in a thematic issue of Science for Environment Policy 56 (2016) by the EuropeanCommission. The full report is available online.

26 elaw January/February 2017

EU environmental law, such as the 2010 IndustrialEmissions Directive, is beginning to containrequirements concerning inspection andenforcement, though still couched in carefully draftedlanguage so as not to over-intrude on areas thoughtappropriate for national or local discretion. The MakeIt Work programme, initiated in 2015 by Germany, theNetherlands and the United Kingdom has now draftedcommon principles on issues of inspection andenforcement which are recommend to be included infuture environmental legislation.

Against this background, the papers highlighted inthis thematic issue provide important insights forpolicymakers and enforcement, and reflect thecontribution of recent research in this area. Fourparticular themes emerge — the value of emergingnetworks of enforcement bodies, the need to exploitnew technologies and strategies, the use ofappropriate sanctions and the added value of acompliance assurance conceptual frameworkreflecting the interaction between three mainfunctions — compliance promotion, compliancemonitoring (inspections/surveillance) andenforcement.

Environmental networksWe have seen in recent years the growingdevelopment of various networks of enforcementagencies, at local, national, regional and internationallevels. Cross-border cooperation may be essential forissues such as transboundary pollution, the illegaltransport of waste, and the illegal trade in endangeredspecies. But the exchange of views and experience atnational level where authorities may handle similarproblems in different ways may also provide aninvaluable learning experience.

Research is now beginning to attempt to evaluate theeffectiveness of these networks, and how they mightbe improved in the future. Contacts, the developmentof good relationships, sharing best practice, andaccess to information can provide real benefits, butthere are also challenges in funding, participation, andeffective administration of the networks. The 2011survey by one of the earliest such networks, INECE(International Network on Environment Complianceand Enforcement), covered some 10 networks aroundthe world and highlighted a number of critical factorsto ensure success. These include the need to prioritise,ensure adequate funding and the translation of keymaterials. Effective communication and thecontinuing evaluation of the performance networkwere equally vital. Ireland has provided a usefulexample of a national network —the Network forIreland’s Environmental Compliance and Enforcement(NIECE) established in 2004, operating in the field ofwaste disposal and involving a national regulator and34 local authorities. This helped to provide guidanceand training for local enforcement officers, improving

coordination and consistency in approach. The NIECEappeared to lead to a dramatic improvement in thequality of local authority inspection plans in a shortspace of time — in 2007 less than a quarter of suchplans were given an ‘A’ rating but, by 2009, 85%received such a rating.

Using resources more effectivelyRegulators and enforcement agencies never haveunlimited budgets, and these days are normallyoperating under increasing financial constraints. Thismeans developing more effective approaches andstrategies. Risk-based enforcement strategies basedon focusing efforts on activities judged to be the mostproblematic have emerged as one response, which isreflected in recent legislation such as the EU IndustrialEmissions Directive. Carrying out the same inspectionlevels for all industrial installations in a sector may notbe the most effective use of scarce resources; it ispreferable to give a lighter touch to those consideredmost compliant, while drilling down on the moreproblematic. But it is important to first ensure thatthere is public understanding and confidence in suchan approach. Risk assessments are never foolproof.Members of the public who have not been engaged inthe development of risk-based strategies are unlikelyto react positively to a pollution incident on a sitewhere there have been few inspections because theinstallation had been previously judged to have littlerisk, for example.

Against a background of resource constraints, newways of using technology and data are likely to proveimportant. The Environment Agency in Englandprovides an example of an intelligence-led policy inthe field of illegal export of wastes, using data-collection technologies in a more focused way. Theresolution of satellites is becoming ever finer, and aleading British legal expert in the use of spacetechnologies as evidence highlights the potential ofsuch technology to alert authorities of potentialbreaches of law, to monitor high-risk offenders toensure compliance, and to check historical data. Thisresearch emphasises the need for lawyers to engagewith Earth observation specialists so that thedisciplines can more fully understand one another’s’needs and constraints. A Belgian judge notes thatEarth observation techniques are unlikely to replaceground-based monitoring and will have little to offerin some areas of environmental law, but neverthelesshave a potential that is yet to be fully exploited.

Appropriate sanctionsThe 2008 EU Environmental Crime Directivehighlighted the potential significance of criminal lawin dealing with breaches of environmental law,especially for those jurisdictions where there had beena heavy reliance of administrative penalties in dealingwith regulatory breaches. Studies here include the useof imprisonment as a sanction, and argue for the

27 elaw January/February 2017

greater involvement and acknowledgement of victimsin the process.

Yet the message of many recent studies is that relianceon a single form of sanction is unlikely to be the mosteffective approach. A mixture of administrative andcriminal enforcement is preferable, but since in manyjurisdictions this is likely to involve different agencies(including the police), the development of newcoordination strategies will be vital.

It is clear, however, that we still have little robust,comparative data on the real effectiveness of differentforms of sanctions — either in terms of their impacton the individuals or business involved in the breachof environmental law, or on how they affect theinternal costs of regulators and the public sector,including the courts. This needs to be a continuingarea for future research and monitoring.

Regulatory agencies are likely to be under increasingscrutiny for their cost-effectiveness and efficiency. Interms of public accountability, it is important to haveperformance indicators based on activity such as thenumber and type of enforcement actions taken. Butwe must not let these requirements obscure thereason we have environmental law and regulation inthe first place. Outcome measures relating to thequality of the environment being protected should bea central aspiration, and studies here indicate howthey are being developed in some jurisdictions. But itis not an easy exercise. It is all too easy for outcomemeasures to become goal-orientated targets whichthen over-dominate the enforcement body’s strategyand thinking.

The more recent emphasis on implementation andenforcement is to be welcomed, but there are clearlymany areas in which the research community hasmuch to offer. Regulators and government shouldvalue the input of independent research to improvetheir own understanding and performance, and workclosely with research bodies to help identify key issuesthat need exploring. Legislative bodies such as theCouncil of the European Union or UK ParliamentarySelect Committees should systematically evaluate theactual implementation of environmental legislation sothat improvements can be made to the enforcementof existing laws, and lessons learnt in the design ofnew legislation. The environmental challenges facingour society are profound, but the signs from therecent research identified in this thematic issue givesome room for optimism.

Professor Macrory is a barrister and a member of BrickCourt Chambers, London. He is also a Patron of UKELA. In2000 he was awarded a CBE for services to theenvironment and law and in March 2008 he was madehonorary Queens Counsel. In 2010 he was elected aBencher of Gray’s Inn.

28 elaw January/February 2017

At a glance• UKELA has a growing international environmental

law dimension.• To assist Turkey in transposition of the

Environmental Liability Directive, Turkish officialswere invited to a meeting with UKELA to discusssome of the practical legal issues faced in the UKwhen the UK government transposed theEnvironmental Liability Directive.

• The meeting was very successful, drawing on theexperience and knowledge of UKELA members toprovide a valuable and broad insight into the UK’sdifficulties with the Environmental LiabilityDirective.

• The meeting also provided important insight forUKELA about operating within international law,but outside of the European Union.

IntroductionUKELA’s theme for 2016 was to highlight environmentallaw’s international dimension. This looks set to continuein 2017 and beyond with the setting up of UKELA’sInternational Ambassadors initiative. The team willfocus on supporting the development and practice ofenvironmental law and associations overseas. Therewas a call by our Chair in the last edition for moremembers to come forward and join the initiative; so agentle nudge to any members who are able to help, toget in touch with Stephen.

During the course of 2016 UKELA met with delegatesfrom Brazil, China, South Korea and Turkey on variousenvironmental issues. In 2015 I met with delegatesfrom the Uzbekistan government who were keen tofind out more about the UK’s environmental judicialreview system. These meetings highlight UKELA’sgrowing standing in the international arena as beingrecognised experts in environmental law. It issomething that we all as UKELA members should beproud of.

The purpose of this article is to give you an insight intoUKELA’s meeting with officials from the Turkishgovernment which took place on 15th November 2016.It concerned Turkey’s transposition of theEnvironmental Liability Directive (the Directive) intoTurkish law. Hopefully it highlights some of the issuessurrounding Turkey’s transposition of the Directiveand provides an awareness of not only how UKELAwere able to assist the Turkish officials, but the crucialbehind the scenes planning and the importance of

UKELA members contacts and networking whichenables such an event to happen in the first place.

Background planning of the meetingIn the summer of 2016 Rosie Oliver was contacted by aformer colleague at DEFRA, Edward LockhartMummery (the environmental litigation working partyhad met with Edward previously to assist DEFRA withthe government’s Red Tape Challenge onenvironmental legislation). Edward had left DEFRA andwas working on a project with the Turkish governmentin relation to its transposition of the Directive. Edwardwas arranging a week’s visit to the UK with around 10 –12 Turkish officials including delegates from SWECO(one of Europe’s leading architecture and engineeringconsultancies) and during the course of that weekwanted to include a meeting with UKELA to discusssome of the practical legal issues faced in the UK whenthe UK government had transposed the Directive intothe Environmental (Damage and RemediationRegulations (the Regulations).

UKELA was very keen to facilitate the meeting notonly for reasons of knowledge exchange but also froman international networking prospective.

The original meeting was due to take place on 25 Julyin London. Simon Colvin (member of environmentallitigation working party) very kindly offered to hostthe meeting at Weightmans offices in London.However due to the attempted coup in Turkey in Julywhere regrettably over 300 people were killed, and2,100 people injured, the meeting was cancelled.There was serious doubt that the meeting would berearranged in light of the coup. The subsequentcrackdown following the coup by President Erdogan,who had ordered the detainment of 40,000 people(over 2400 being Judges incidentally) and was talkingabout reinstating the death penalty to punish thoseinvolved in the coup, damaged Turkey’s relations withthe European Union.

In November 2016, the European Parliament voted infavour of a non-binding resolution to request that theEuropean Commission temporarily suspendmembership negotiations due to the ‘disproportionaterepressive measures’ of the government to the coup.

However, we were all very pleased to hear fromEdward again at the end of September who wanted toarrange a further date for our meeting, and that

Matters in practiceHighlights from the meeting withTurkish officialsJill Crawford, Environmental Solicitor at BLM Law.

29 elaw January/February 2017

despite the setback of the coup and difficultiessurrounding Turkey’s proposed membership of theEuropean Union, Turkey still intends to continue withits accession bid to become a member of theEuropean Union.

Identifying issues ontransposition/implementation ofEnvironmental Liability DirectiveOne of the conditions for full accession is that Turkeyhas to adopt the body of European Union law. TheEnvironment chapter, which was opened fornegotiations in December 2009, is among theEuropean Union legislation that Turkey has to fullytranspose and implement.

The purpose of the Directive when it was firstintroduced by the European Commission was toestablish a framework of environmental liability, basedon the ‘polluter-pays’ principle, by way of preventingand remedying environmental damage. Its aims wereto ensure that the financial consequences of certaintypes of harm caused to the environment were borneby the economic operator who caused the harm.

With the assistance of Edward, the Turkish officialsidentified the following areas of concern regarding thetransposition of the Directive of which they wantedUKELA to assist:

1 ‘Imminent threat’ – the Directive provides thatwhere there is an imminent threat ofenvironmental damage occurring, the operatorshall, without delay, take the necessary preventivemeasures and, in certain cases, inform thecompetent authority of all relevant aspects of thesituation, as soon as possible and in the case whereactual environmental damage has occurred, theoperator shall, without delay, inform the competentauthority of all relevant aspects of the situation.

The officials were keen to find out how the UK hadinterpreted ‘imminent threat’ and transposed itinto its own Regulations.

In relation to the three categories of environmentaldamage set out in the Directive the category theofficials were most interested to hear about was‘damage to protected species and natural habitats.’This is any damage that has significant adverseeffects on reaching or maintaining the favourableconservation status of such habitats or species. Thehabitats and species concerned are defined byreference to species and types of natural habitatsidentified in the relevant parts of the BirdsDirective 79/409 and the Habitats Directive 92/43.

Turkey has not fully transposed the Habitats andWild Bird Directive and therefore is essentiallyproposing to ‘cut and paste’ the relevant Annexes

from the Habitats and Wild Bird Directive into itsown regulations and wanted suggestions onwhether UKELA thought that this was a good orbad idea.

2 Furthermore, in relation to the issue ofenvironmental damage and assessment ofenvironmental damage by a competent authorityin accordance with the Directive there wereconcerns over the definition of ‘CompetentAuthorities’. For example, that Turkish staff wouldnot have the requisite skills to carry out all theassessments necessary to determine thesignificance of the damage and the requirednecessary remediation. The question for UKELAwas how did a competent authority go aboutgetting that assistance in the UK. Turkey wasconsidering having a committee of ‘experts’.

3 What issues if any did the UK have with the permitdefence and state of the art defences? The permitdefence provides a defence to the operator if anoperation has been licensed and the permitrequirements were being followed. The state of theart defence allows the operator not to bear costs ofremedial action – but not of preventive action –when the operator can demonstrate that it was notat fault or negligent and the environmentaldamage was caused by an emission or activity – orany manner of using a product in the course of anactivity – which the operator proves was notconsidered likely to cause environmental damageaccording to the state of scientific and technicalknowledge at the time when the emission wasreleased or the activity took place.

Interestingly Turkey did not intend to includeeither defence as part of its transposition of theDirective but the officials were keen to hear whatissues if any had arisen in the UK with these twodefences.

Addressing the issuesRosie identified and organised an appropriate set ofexcellent speakers from UKELA who could best dealwith these questions and issues, and included anacademic, practioner and a representative of an NGO.

Valerie Fogleman is Professor of Law at CardiffUniversity, a Consultant at Steven Boltons, andlectures extensively on the issues and difficultiesexperienced in the UK with the government’stransposition of the Directive into the Regulations.Valerie gave a presentation on legislation and non-legislative transposition measures in response to theissues raised by the Turkish officials.

Valerie considered on the whole that the Directivedoes not work across the European Union, includingthe UK. She highlighted that there were many

30 elaw January/February 2017

Member States that have had no cases at all under theDirective. However the European Union is aware of thedifficulties and challenges of transposition of theDirective and is trying to do something about it.

She said that the ‘state of the art’ defence has onlybeen used once over the entire European Union. Inaddition, Valerie did not consider it was a good thingto have so many ‘competent authorities’ in the UK.There are currently four ‘enforcement authorities’ listed.

Ray Clarke (Environmental law specialist and aConsultant at Weightmans) gave a really interestingpresentation from the point of view of the operator(having had experience of representing operators)including approaches to defining and assessingenvironmental damage as it relates to biodiversity,water, land and contamination; and also approachesto remediation and compensatory measures. He alsotalked about the first case to go to a public inquiry.

Andrew Kelton, of Fish Legal, talked about the NGO’sposition generally in relation to Directive and the UK’stransposition of the Directive. He also set out reasonswhy not to use the Regulations; for example theDirective only applies to damage occurring after 2007and does not cover damage when the emission waspost 2007 but the activity that caused the emissionwas pre-2007. Therefore it is quite different from theUS CERCA (Superfund) Programme which requiresclean-up of historic contamination, pollution etc.

Andrew also highlighted particular lessons learnedfrom the Llyn Padarn judicial review which insummary is that Directive application in the UK seemslikely to remain limited give the stringentrequirements of a ‘significant adverse change’ causedby emissions occurring post 2007. He left aninteresting question for everyone at the end of hispresentation: ‘Will the Water Framework Directive beadequate for dealing with continuing damage towater bodies such as Llyn Padarn?’

Conclusion It was an excellent all round presentation withperspectives from all sides, providing the Turkishofficials with a valuable and broad insight into theUK’s difficulties with the Directive since imposing itinto UK law.

The meeting provided a constructive understandinginto how other countries view their environment; thelegislation it has in place to protect it and how it plansto prioritise and enforce that legislation.

The officials were extremely pleased with the cast ofspeakers and for providing to them all the latestinsights from experience at the sharp end. The officialsconsidered it a very useful meeting in terms ofguiding how they pull together the draft law over thecoming weeks.

It was a great learning exercise on both parts, and asEdward rightly pointed out: while Turkish colleaguesare learning from us about implementing EuropeanUnion legislation, we perhaps also have lots to learnfrom them about operating within international law,but outside of the European Union.

A big thank you to Rosie for all her hard work andcommitment in setting up the meeting and making itsuch a successful event, to Simon Colvin for hosting,and of course to our speakers for their excellentpresentations and giving up their valuable time toattend.

31 elaw January/February 2017

High Court selection exercise –launch 12 January 2017The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) willlaunch a selection exercise for High Court judges on12 January. There are vacancies in all 3 divisions(Family, Chancery and the Queen’s Bench division).Salaried part time working opportunities may beavailable, subject to the agreement of the relevantHead of Division. 

High Court judges deal with serious and complex cases.They sit at the Royal Courts of Justice in London andalso spend some time on Circuit. The Chancery Divisionundertakes civil work of many kinds, includingspecialist work such as companies, patents andcontentious probate; the Family Division deals withdivorce, and disputes over children, property or money,adoption and wardship; and the Queen’s BenchDivision has both a criminal and civil jurisdiction. In pastselection exercises for the High Court, candidates haveusually been expected to have previous judicialexperience in either a fee-paid or salaried capacity. Onthis occasion previous judicial experience is notrequired; this change applies in all three divisions.Applications are invited from solicitors and barristerswith at least 7 years’ post qualification experience, whocan demonstrate the necessary transferable skills andexpertise required of a High Court judge. 

Also for the first time, this exercise will offer 2 differentapplication tracks. The first track will be on similar linesto previous selection exercises and will involvecandidates submitting a self-assessment and thenames of persons who could provide independentassessments. This track is open to all eligiblecandidates. Applications will be sifted on the basis ofthis information, and invitations extended toshortlisted candidates to a selection day. The secondtrack is open to those appointed or authorised undersection 9 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (section 9judges), to take account of their experience at HighCourt level. Section 9 judges applying via this routewill be asked to provide a statement of suitabilityalong with up to 3 judgments, notes of judgments ordeterminations. Invitations to selection day will beissued on the basis of this information. At that stage,shortlisted candidates will be asked to complete theusual self-assessment and to provide the names ofpersons who can provide independent assessments.

The JAC is extremely keen to reach as wide a range ofpotential candidates as possible, in order to attract astrong and diverse pool of applicants. Details aboutthe exercise, including the competency framework

against which candidates will be assessed, are on theJAC website.

Recorder selection exercise – launch1 February 2017The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) willlaunch a selection exercise for Recorders on 1February 2017, and it is anticipated that this will marka return to a programme of regular competitions. 

This will provide an excellent opportunity forpractitioners to join the ranks of the judiciary. Thework of a Recorder is important, and it is an extremelyinteresting and worthwhile role. The part-time natureof the position means it can be combined with otherprofessional commitments, which makes it particularlyappealing to those in the relatively early stages oftheir professional lives. The JAC is particularly keen torecruit Recorders who have an interest in progressingto a full-time judicial career, and this will enablesuccessful candidates to gain insight into, andexperience of, the life and work of a judge.

The brief agreed by the Lord Chancellor and the LordChief Justice asks the JAC to select the best 100 of theapplicants, in an exercise which will not pay anyregard to jurisdictional experience. Althoughsuccessful candidates will be deployed to sit in thecriminal and family jurisdictions, the competition isopen to all solicitors and barristers with at least 7years’ post qualification experience, regardless of theirbackground. This approach will be reflected across theentirety of the selection process: knowledge of thethree jurisdictions will not be tested, and candidateswill not be required to study the detail of a newjurisdiction in order to compete on what will be a trulylevel playing field.

There will be 4 stages to this year’s selection process,with the best candidates progressing from one stageto the next. The four stages are: an online multiplechoice test; an online scenario test; a telephoneassessment; and a selection day comprising aninterview and role play. The tests have been devisedand extensively ‘road tested’ by practitioners andjudges from different jurisdictions, to ensure theprocess will enable the JAC to select fairly on merit. Itis hoped that this new approach will providereassurances to candidates who felt there was toomuch emphasis on jurisdictional expertise in the lastselection exercise. This constitutes a valuabledeparture from the past, aimed at attracting a widerange of candidates of the highest calibre in order toidentify the best and the brightest.

Adverts, jobs and tender opportunities

32 elaw January/February 2017

The JAC is also committed to making the judiciarymore diverse. Applications are therefore welcomedand encouraged from groups currentlyunderrepresented in the judiciary, including but notlimited to those from Black, Asian and ethnic minoritycommunities, solicitors, women, disabled candidatesand those from the LGBT communities. Further detailsabout the exercise are available on the JAC website.

Pioneering new research onsustainability and the commissioningof legal services – add your voiceWork has been done to explore the relationshipsbetween law firms and their clients, and in particularwhat clients are looking for when they ask lawyers totender for work. Thus far, however, no work has beendone to explore the extent to which sustainability is amatter of interest for clients in choosing the law firmsthey engage and in the requirements they make oftheir firms. This project, the first of its kind and fundedby the Legal Sustainability Alliance (LSA), seeks toremedy that gap. The LSA is an inclusive movement ofsolicitors, legal firms and organisations committed toworking collaboratively to improve the environmentalsustainability of their operations and activities.

The project consists of three phases. This first phase isdirected at those in private practice (a later phase willgather data from those in-house) and consists of asurvey, which you can access online. The online surveyshould take between 10 and 15 minutes to complete.While we ask for the name of your law firm (so we cancorrelate answers from multiple people at the samefirm), when we report on the data everything will beanonymous. All research data is confidential andsecurely held. Only the academic researchers haveaccess to the data. They will publish overall findingsfrom the research and will do so in a way that does notenable individuals or the organisations that they workfor to be identified.

This research is being undertaken by Professor RobertLee and Dr Steven Vaughan of the University ofBirmingham’s Centre for Professional Legal Educationand Research, working with Begonia Filgueira of ERICLtd. If you have any queries, please contact Begoniadirectly.

Book reviewsThe e-law editors are regularly sent book lists byvarious publishing houses which may appeal toUKELA members keen to write a review. If you areinterested in contributing a book review to a futureedition of e-law, but would first like some guidance orsuggestions, please drop us a line.

UK Environmental Law AssociationelawThe editorial team is looking for quality articles, news and views for thenext edition on ‘Energy and Climate Change’ due out in March 2017. If youwould like to make a contribution, please email elaw@ukela.org by 15March 2017.

Letters to the editor will be published, space permitting.

© United Kingdom Environmental Law Association and Contributors 2017All rights reserved. No parts of this publication may be reproduced ortransmitted in any form or by any means or stored in any retrieval systemof any nature without prior written permission except for permitted fairdealing under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or inaccordance with the terms of a licence issued by the Copyright LicensingAgency in respect of photocopying or/and reprographic reproduction.Applications for permission for other use of copyright material includingpermission to reproduce extracts in other published works should bemade to the Editor. Full acknowledgement of author, publisher and sourcemust be given. E- Law aims to update readers on UKELA news and toprovide information on new developments. It is not intended to be acomprehensive updating service. It should not be construed as advising onany specific factual situation. E-Law is issued free electronically to UKELAmembers. An additional charge is made for paper copies. The viewsexpressed in E-Law are not necessarily those of UKELA.

Registered Charity number:299498 (Registered in Englandand Wales), Company limited byguarantee: 2133283 (Registeredin England and Wales)

For information about workingparties and events, includingcopies of all recent submissionscontact:

UKELA, PO Box 487, Dorking,Surrey RH4 9BH or visitwww.ukela.orgLinda FarrowExecutive DirectorLinda@ukela.org07970 956 171