Fifth Report - Species Reintroduction

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.

The government states it published interim species targets in January as required by the Environment Act, but found it difficult to set a specific target to reduce species abundance decline by 2028. It also deemed 2-year reporting impractical, and is reviewing other short-term metrics for measuring progress.

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.

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.

The government responded by outlining the Taskforce's existing activities, including its establishment, meeting schedule, published terms of reference, and ongoing efforts by the Chair to contact stakeholders, with further plans for meetings this autumn to improve engagement. It did not explicitly commit to the specific mechanisms for engagement or transparency requested.

The government acknowledged the importance of stakeholder engagement by outlining the Reintroductions Taskforce's activities and plans for further stakeholder meetings, but did not commit to publicising a dedicated Stakeholder Forum with specific deadlines or roles in species categorisation.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The government states it published management and licensing guidance for beavers ahead of protected status, including a management hierarchy. However, it rejects a review of protected status by the England Species Reintroductions Taskforce, stating it is too soon and the taskforce has no formal role in such decisions.