Species Reintroduction

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Closed Inquiry
Opened: 3 Nov 2022 Closed: 8 Nov 2023 Parliament page
This inquiry looked at the role species reintroduction can play in supporting nature recovery and biodiversity, how to maximise the benefits of reintroduction and manage any conflicts with other land users. You can view the terms of reference here . Our call for evidence closed on 13 January 2023.
17 Recommendations
4 Conclusions
1 Report
4 Oral sessions
1 Letter
4 Events
Activity timeline 11 events
27 Oct
2023
Report published
11 Jul
2023
Report published
21 Jun
2023
Correspondence
26 Apr
2023
Oral evidence
26 Apr
2023
Formal meeting (oral evidence session) · Room 5, Palace of Westminster
21 Mar
2023
Oral evidence
21 Mar
2023
Formal meeting (oral evidence session) · The Grimond Room, Portcullis House
28 Feb
2023
Oral evidence
28 Feb
2023
Formal meeting (oral evidence session) · Room 6, Palace of Westminster
31 Jan
2023
Oral evidence
31 Jan
2023
Formal meeting (oral evidence session) · Room 6, Palace of Westminster
Oral evidence sessions 4 sessions
26 Apr 2023
View on parliament.uk
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
Richard Pullen · Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Trudy Harrison · Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs
21 Mar 2023
View on parliament.uk
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee; Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Dr Andy Clements, Chair, England Species Reintroduction Taskforce John Holmes · Natural England Tony Juniper · Natural England
28 Feb 2023
View on parliament.uk
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
Evan Bowen-Jones · Kent Wildlife Trust Judicaelle Hammond · Country Land and Business Association Professor Alastair Driver · Rewilding Britain Tom Bradshaw · National Farmers' Union (NFU)
31 Jan 2023
View on parliament.uk
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
Dr Katie Beckmann · The University of Edinburgh Dr Sarah Dalrymple · Liverpool John Moores University Dr Tony Sainbury · Institute of Zoology Professor Richard Brazier · University of Exeter
Title HC No. Published Items Response
Fifth Report - Species Reintroduction HC 849 11 Jul 2023 21 Responded
Recommendations & Conclusions
16 results
Clear
1 Recommendation Rejected
Fifth Report - Species Reintroduct…
Introduce interim species abundance targets to monitor progress against Environment Act goals
Without interim species abundance targets it is unclear how this and future governments will be able to monitor progress against the Environment Act targets. We support species reintroduction as part of the effort to deliver current species abundance targets, but … Read more
Government Response
The government acknowledged the need for interim targets and stated some were published in January 2023, but rejected setting a specific interim target to reduce species abundance decline by a percentage, citing difficulties and impracticality.
View details
3 Conclusion Rejected
Fifth Report - Species Reintroduct…
Government lacks clear vision and support for plant and animal reintroductions
It is unclear which plant and animal reintroductions the Government supports and there is no current long-term vision for how reintroductions fit into the Government’s species abundance targets. This has caused confusion and concern between stakeholders seeking to reintroduce certain … Read more
Government Response
The government states that species reintroduction is not a priority, and therefore it will not be producing a long-term strategy or a list of priority species, preferring to assess proposals on a case-by-case basis.
View details
4 Conclusion Rejected
Fifth Report - Species Reintroduct…
Failure to provide priority species list hinders biodiversity and reintroduction strategy
Despite assurances by the Minister that we would be provided a list of priority species for reintroduction in June, in a letter to the Committee on 14 June the Minister said that the Department does not prioritise species but that … Read more
Government Response
The government rejected the idea of producing a list of priority species for reintroduction or a reintroduction strategy, stating that reintroduction is not a government priority.
View details
5 Recommendation Rejected
Fifth Report - Species Reintroduct…
Publish a long-term strategy on species reintroduction, including a priority species list, by January 2024.
The Government should produce a list of priority species for reintroduction as part of a long-term strategy on species reintroduction in tandem with the England Species Reintroductions Taskforce. This will allow stakeholders to plan applications ahead of time and have … Read more
Government Response
The government explicitly rejects the recommendation, stating that species reintroduction is not a government priority and therefore it will not be producing a long-term strategy or a list of priority species.
View details
6 Recommendation Rejected
Fifth Report - Species Reintroduct…
Include a register of supported and unsupported reintroduction species in the Strategy, reviewed annually.
Using evidence from the England Species Reintroductions Taskforce and its Stakeholder Forum, the Government should agree on the plant and animal species it is willing and able to support the reintroduction of in England and bring this information together in … Read more
Government Response
The government rejected the recommendation, stating that reintroduction is not a priority and therefore it will not produce a strategy or a species register. It reiterated its focus on assessing proposals on a case-by-case basis and existing best practice guidance.
View details
10 Recommendation Rejected
Fifth Report - Species Reintroduct…
Identify commonly requested low-risk species for inclusion in the reintroduction register.
The current system for reintroducing species is overly bureaucratic, hindering nature recovery. There are many species—particularly amongst plants, fungi, and insects—that pose little or no risk. Identifying and supporting those low-risk species would give confidence to stakeholders seeking to reintroduce … Read more
Government Response
The government rejected the recommendation to identify commonly requested species for a register, stating that reintroduction is not a priority and it will not be producing a strategy or a list of priority species.
View details
11 Recommendation Rejected
Fifth Report - Species Reintroduct…
Categorise species in the reintroduction register by risk and establish differentiated management processes.
We recommend that the register contained within the new Strategy should include species categorised according to the risks related to their reintroduction. Of those that it has not ruled out, the Government should categorise regularly requested species into low, medium … Read more
Government Response
The government rejected the recommendation to include categorised, risk-based species in a new strategy and register, stating that reintroduction is not a priority and it will not be producing such a strategy or list.
View details
12 Recommendation Rejected
Fifth Report - Species Reintroduct…
Subject high-risk reintroductions to independent impact assessments and consult local communities.
We recommend that the Government should be clear how the classification of species determines the requirements for stakeholder consultation and involvement of the Department. We recommend that all species categorised as high-risk reintroductions should be subject to a national, independent … Read more
Government Response
The government rejected the recommendation for clear classification-based consultation requirements and national independent impact assessments, stating that assessing release licence applications on a case-by-case basis allows for comprehensive and proportionate consideration of species, circumstances, and risks.
View details
13 Conclusion Rejected
Fifth Report - Species Reintroduct…
Central species reintroduction hub would improve collaboration and coordination for recovery.
Creating a central species reintroduction hub designed to be a one-stop shop for interested parties would be a positive step forward to improve collaboration and coordination in this policy area. The value of any hub lies in its ability to … Read more
Government Response
The government rejected the idea of a central species reintroduction hub by stating that reintroduction is not a priority and it will not be producing a strategy or a list of priority species, which would form the basis of such a hub.
View details
14 Recommendation Rejected
Fifth Report - Species Reintroduct…
Establish an online species reintroduction hub by June 2024, integrating register and licensing conditions.
The Government should create an online species reintroduction hub by June 2024, supported by the England Species Reintroductions Taskforce and Stakeholder Forum, for parties interested in the reintroduction of species. The hub should be a one-stop shop for good practice … Read more
Government Response
The government rejected the recommendation to create an online species reintroduction hub by June 2024, stating that reintroduction is not a priority and it will not be producing a strategy or a species register.
View details
15 Recommendation Rejected
Fifth Report - Species Reintroduct…
Clarify and resolve the conservation translocation licensing regime inconsistencies.
There is little support for the current conservation translocation licensing regime: on the one hand some stakeholders said that it is too bureaucratic, and, on the other we heard that the existing system is not stringent enough. As a priority, … Read more
Government Response
The government rejected the need to clarify or resolve concerns about the reintroduction licensing regime, asserting that assessing applications on a case-by-case basis allows for comprehensive and proportionate consideration of species, circumstances, and risks.
View details
16 Recommendation Rejected
Fifth Report - Species Reintroduct…
Update the 2021 species reintroduction guidance to reflect new risks and standards.
The Government’s 2021 code and guidance for species reintroductions form a valuable tool, but it must be revised and updated to maintain high project standards, for example in relation to assisted colonisation, disease risks, exit strategies, impact assessments, large predators … Read more
Government Response
The government rejected the recommendation, stating they do not consider the need to revise the 2021 code and guidance for species reintroductions at this time.
View details
17 Recommendation Rejected
Fifth Report - Species Reintroduct…
Revise and reissue species reintroduction code and guidance by January 2024.
The Government should revise the species reintroduction code and guidance by January 2024 and reissue it alongside the new Strategy. The revised code and guidance should be available via the species reintroduction hub when it is launched. (Paragraph 46) Management … Read more
Government Response
The government rejected the recommendation to revise the species reintroduction code and guidance by January 2024, stating they do not consider the need for revision at this time.
View details
18 Recommendation Rejected
Fifth Report - Species Reintroduct…
Implement government-funded compensation and rapid response for land managers impacted by reintroductions.
We have seen first-hand in Bavaria that crop damage compensation and mitigating works, such as substantial structural changes to the drainage system, were major calls on the public purse, requiring bold decisions and significant funding. The annual budget for compensating … Read more
Government Response
The government rejected the idea of a new government-funded compensation scheme for land managers, stating its focus is on existing environmental land management schemes and expecting reintroduction applicants to provide funding for managing impacts.
View details
19 Recommendation Rejected
Fifth Report - Species Reintroduct…
Form and fund localised rapid response consultant networks to address reintroduced species impacts.
The Government should implement localised control and management systems by forming and funding a network of rapid response consultants by 2026. The rapid response consultants should be members of the local community and be empowered to make prompt decisions on … Read more
Government Response
The government rejected the recommendation to implement and fund a network of rapid response consultants, instead stating that release proposals should demonstrate their own management provisions, that existing management groups support communities for some species, and that funding should come from applicants or incentivised environmental land management schemes.
View details
20 Recommendation Rejected
Fifth Report - Species Reintroduct…
Make budgetary provision for sufficient support and funding for affected land managers.
Those affected by the reintroduction of species, including farmers and land managers, must have access to sufficient support and funding to prevent and deal with potential negative impacts. Budgetary provision should be made for this as part of the Government’s … Read more
Government Response
The government rejected committing to new budgetary provision for those affected by species reintroductions, stating its focus remains on existing environmental land management schemes and expecting applicants to provide sufficient funding.
View details
Government Response AI assessment · 21 of 17 classified
Accepted in Part 2
Acknowledged 3
Rejected 16
Total 17 recs + 4 conclusions
Correspondence 1 letter
21 Jun 2023 Correspondence from the Minister for Natural Environment and Land Use regarding EFRA Committee Enquiry – Species Reintroductions, dated June 2023
Parliament page