Protected areas are one of nature conservation’s success stories. When properly implemented, they are a well-established means of conserving target species at locations through a range of protection and habitat management techniques. 

Target 3 of the Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted in 2022 by 188 countries, including the UK, requires countries to ‘Ensure and enable that, by 2030, at least 30% of terrestrial and inland water areas, and of marine and coastal areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, are effectively conserved and managed through ecologically representative, well-connected and equitably governed systems of protected areas…’, while multiple government policy statements in the UK stress the importance of protected areas. 

For effective management of protected areas to occur, the devil is in the details. The correct species must be legally listed in formal documents to be official ‘features’ of the site. This means that they will be recognised in legal and policy processes – such as Appropriate Assessments under the Habitats Regulations, Environment Impact Assessments, other development and planning processes, and the establishment of formal Conservation Objectives – which, in theory at least, then ensures appropriate habitat management for the species at the site. Yet, over 50 years since it was required to be completed, the UK’s principal network of protected areas for birds – Special Protection Areas (SPAs) – remains insufficient in both its extent and its legal content. This situation has long been recognised by government but, as a direct consequence of the lack of priority assigned to the task by their parent country governments, is receiving grossly inadequate attention from the country conservation agencies.

The requirement for SPAs arises from the 1979 European Union’s (EU) Birds Directive, an obligation which, following the UK’s departure from the EU, has been written into domestic legislation across the UK. The current situation arises after 45 years of activity by the government’s conservation agencies – with inputs, in particular of data, from non-government conservation organisations – which has led to three published Reviews of the national SPA network. These have been formally endorsed by the agencies at the most senior level and periodically transmitted to Ministers as formal advice from JNCC on behalf of the four country agencies: Natural England, Nature Scot, Natural Resources Wales and the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside (Northern Ireland), which are agencies of and work for, in Natural England’s case, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and, in the case of the last three, the UK’s devolved governments.

The SPA Reviews
The first assessment of the SPA network in Great Britain, published by the Nature Conservancy Council (Stroud et al.1990), presented the government with a list of the then-known sites of international importance for birds. This was supplemented by the UK Important Bird Areas inventory (Pritchard et al. 1992), which further detailed the important species of each of these sites. This first Review acknowledged data inadequacies for many areas (especially in the uplands). As well as 218 proposed SPAs, it listed 58 possible SPAs, noting that the legal status of the latter would be determined following survey work.

Three years later, in July 1993, the Department of the Environment requested a ‘definitive’ list of SPAs for classification from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC). This was eventually published in 2001, following a painful five years of negotiations between the agencies to reach consensus on UK SPA selection guidelines – it was version 48 of the document that was eventually agreed and published (JNCC 1999). The second network Review (Stroud et al. 2001) was also formally transmitted to Ministers and the European Commission in September 2001. For the first time, the Review took a species-based approach – listing, for each relevant species, its suite of SPAs across the UK then considered necessary to deliver the Directive’s obligations to conserve key sites for the taxon.

In the years following its submission to Ministers, there was slow progress in implementing the recommendations of the second Review through appropriate new classifications and revision of formal site citations the legal descriptions listing the species for which the site is classified. Progress was better in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland than it was in England. In England, for an ever-changing range of justifications, the data were eventually deemed no longer ‘contemporary’.

In the early 2000s, the issue of the revision of citations to reflect the recommendations of the Review was repeatedly raised in Defra’s Natura 2000 and Ramsar Committee. In June 2004, it was agreed that ‘the country agencies would discuss the citation amendment process and likely timetable to ensure that the programme was coordinated as far as possible, in view of cross-border sites. The agencies should then advise respective administrations of the proposed programme and likely timetable. It would then be for each administration to approve the programme. However, it was agreed that this should be taken forward in between now and the next meeting in view of the need to progress the citation updates’ (minutes of Natura 2000 and Ramsar Committee, 16th June 2004).

However, three years later, in 2007, Defra was ‘in the process of finalising instructions to Natural England to implement the [2001] Review in England’ (minutes of Natura 2000 and Ramsar Committee, 24th May 2007). Those instructionswere that The bulk of this work should be carried out as part of the 2007/08 work programme (subject to resources and other priorities)…’ Yet, resources and other priorities indeed got in the way and, by 2010, there had been minimal progress and the issue had fallen off the Committee’s agenda with the start of discussions regarding another, third network Review. 

An audit of outstanding actions was presented to the SPA and Ramsar Scientific Working Group (SPAR SWG – see below) in May 2010 (Chambers 2010) and again in May 2012. The minutes of the 2012 meeting recorded: ‘11.1. JNCC (…) gave a brief update on the implementation of 2001 SPA Review recommendations. The SWG had been updated on this during 2010. Since this time, only a small number of outstanding recommendations had been implemented (connected with the extension to the Dee Estuary SPA). The Country Agencies commented that implementation had largely been put on hold until Phase 2 of the current [third] SPA Review had been reached.’

Ministers requested a third Review in 2008 (thus justifying cessation of English work to implement second Review recommendations) to address a range of identified inadequacies with the second network Review. It addressed crucial issues including:

  • clarity as to which migratory species SPAs should be classified for;
  • establishing and publishing a methodology (Williams et al. 2016) to determine when ‘target’ sufficiency population numbers for each relevant species within their SPA suites will have been reached;
  • reviewing the sufficiency of each SPA suite for 151 taxa against not only these population targets (numerical sufficiency), but also sufficiency of range, and of ecological provision (whether existing SPAs adequately contain necessary habitats);
  • making proposals to address shortfalls in population coverage as well as grouping species into 13 categories in relation to other necessary actions; and
  • publishing implementation tasks remaining outstanding from the second Review.

Applying sufficiency assessments to the existing network found that relevant SPA suites were insufficient for 89 species/seasons (table 1). Additionally, for some species and sites, 30 reviews of site management were recommended where there were deleterious site trends running counter to those at wider scales (table 2). Finally, for 51 species at 125 SPAs, it recommended reviews of, and appropriate modification to, boundaries of existing SPAs where these do not include all the areas of ecological importance for the species concerned (table 2).

Table 1. Species for which the third SPA network Review assessed SPA provision as insufficient on grounds of numbers, range and/or ecological needs. Source: Stroud et al. 2016. 

Species/population

numerical sufficiency

range sufficiency

ecological sufficiency

Red-throated Diver Gavia stellata (breeding)

Sufficient

Sufficient

Insufficient

Red-throated Diver (non-breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Black-throated Diver Gavia arctica (breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis (non-breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus (non-breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Sufficient

Slavonian Grebe Podiceps auritus (breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Sufficient

Slavonian Grebe (non-breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Sufficient

Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo carbo (breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Sufficient

Great Cormorant (non-breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Sufficient

Bittern Botaurus stellaris (breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Sufficient

Bittern (non-breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Little Egret Egretta garzetta (breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Little Egret (non-breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Spoonbill Platalea leucorodia (breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Spoonbill (non-breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Whooper Swan Cygnus cygnus

Insufficient

Sufficient

Insufficient

‘Greenland White-fronted Goose’ Anser albifrons flavirostris

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Greylag Goose Anser anser (Icelandic populations; roost)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Barnacle Goose Branta leucopsis (Svalbard populations)

Sufficient

Sufficient

Insufficient

‘Dark-bellied Brent Goose’ Branta bernicla bernicla

Sufficient

Sufficient

Insufficient

Pochard Aythya ferina (non-breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Sufficient

Tufted Duck Aythya fuligula (non-breeding)

Sufficient

Sufficient

Sufficient

Scaup Aythya marila

Sufficient

Sufficient

Sufficient

Eider Somateria m. mollissima (non-breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Eider Somateria m. faeroeensis (non-breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Common Scoter Melanitta nigra (non-breeding)

Unable to assess

Insufficient

Sufficient

Velvet Scoter Melanitta fusca

Insufficient

Sufficient

Sufficient

Goldeneye Bucephala clangula (non-breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Sufficient

Smew Mergellus albellus

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator (non-breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Goosander Mergus merganser (non-breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Sufficient

Red Kite Milvus milvus (breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Sufficient

Red Kite (non-breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus (breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Hen Harrier (non-breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Sufficient

Montagu’s Harrier Circus pygargus

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Osprey Pandion haliaetus

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Merlin Falco columbarius (breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Merlin (non-breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus (breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Sufficient

Spotted Crake Porzana porzana

Insufficient

Insufficient

Sufficient

Common Crane Grus grus (breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Common Crane (non-breeding) 

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta (breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Sufficient

Common Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula (non-breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Sufficient

Dotterel Charadrius morinellus

Insufficient

Insufficient

Sufficient

European Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria (breeding)

Sufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

European Golden Plover (non-breeding)

Sufficient

Sufficient

Insufficient

Northern Lapwing Vanellus vanellus (non-breeding)

Sufficient

Sufficient

Insufficient

Sanderling Calidris alba

Sufficient

Insufficient

Sufficient

Purple Sandpiper Calidris maritima

Insufficient

Insufficient

Sufficient

Dunlin Calidris alpina schinzii (breeding)

Sufficient

Sufficient

Insufficient

Ruff Calidris pugnax (non-breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Sufficient

Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago (non-breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Sufficient

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus (breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Eurasian Curlew Numenius arquata (breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Eurasian Curlew (non-breeding)

Insufficient

Sufficient

Insufficient

Common Redshank Tringa totanus (breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Sufficient

Greenshank Tringa nebularia (non-breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Sufficient

Turnstone Arenaria interpres

Insufficient

Insufficient

Sufficient

Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus

Insufficient

Insufficient

Sufficient

Arctic Skua Stercorarius parasiticus (breeding)

Insufficient

Sufficient

Sufficient

Mediterranean Gull Ichthyaetus melanocephalus(breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Sufficient

Mediterranean Gull (non-breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Little Gull Hydrocoloeus minutus (non-breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Sufficient

Black-headed Gull Chroicocephalus ridibundus (non-breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Common Gull Larus canus (breeding)

Insufficient

Sufficient

Sufficient

Common Gull (non-breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Lesser Black-backed Gull Larus fuscus (non-breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Herring Gull Larus argentatus (non-breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Great Black-backed Gull Larus marinus (breeding)

Insufficient

Sufficient

Sufficient

Great Black-backed Gull (non-breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Sandwich Tern Thalasseus sandvicensis (passage)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Common Tern Sterna hirundo (passage)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Sufficient

Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea

Sufficient

Insufficient

Sufficient

European Nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus

Sufficient

Insufficient

Sufficient

Woodlark Lullula arborea

Sufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Kingfisher Alcedo atthis (breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Kingfisher (non-breeding)

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Ring Ouzel Turdus torquatus

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Aquatic Warbler Acrocephalus paludicola

Insufficient

Sufficient

Sufficient

Dartford Warbler Curruca undata

Sufficient

Insufficient

Sufficient

Red-backed Shrike Lanius collurio 

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Chough Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax (breeding)

Sufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Chough (non-breeding)

Sufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Twite Linaria flavirostris

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Scottish Crossbill Loxia scotica

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

English names and species order have been kept as per the original source but scientific names follow the IOC List v12.2.

 

This third network Review (Stroud et al. 2016) was submitted as formal advice from JNCC on behalf of the country conservation agencies to relevant Ministers in October 2016. A second phase of work, determining how the identified insufficiencies should be resolved, was completed and submitted to government and its agencies in November 2017. The SPAR SWG planned the third phase of the Review (Stroud et al. 2016) as:

  • for existing SPAs and following consultation and other statutory processes, revision of citations by individual country agencies at those sites where qualifying species have been changed; 
  • consulting upon and classifying boundary amendments to existing SPAs; 
  • consulting upon and the classification of new SPAs as relevant; and 
  • revision by JNCC of relevant documentation summarising the extent of SPA suites for those species where further additions to species’ suites have occurred consequent upon decisions made in the second phase. 

The timing of Phase 3 will also be determined by each country, but is anticipated, resources permitting, to be completed within a year from the conclusion of decisions taken in Phase 2 [i.e. by 2018].

Since then, instead of a flurry of urgent activity, there has been deafening silence. Despite explicit recognition from the outset of the risk that delayed implementation would have for data quality, the data collated by the Review now ages, with much of it over a decade old. This ever increases the risk of a second cycle of dismissal of recommendations on grounds of data quality – as in the 2000s. 

For the last six years, country agencies have apparently been developing implementation ‘Action Plans’ – although, as of November 2023, there seems to have been no actual implementation of any recommendations according to the relevant JNCC web pages. The formal UK national Report under Article 12 of the Birds Directive (JNCC 2019) stated: ‘The Review was essentially a gap analysis – assessing the sufficiency of the network for relevant species. The second phase of the Review concluded in 2017, with advice being provided to government and its conservation agencies on how identified insufficiencies could be addressed for the species concerned. The third phase is continuing work to implement the recommendations made by the Review.’ Despite this, it appears that JNCC is no longer maintaining any UK overview of the process, being unable to provide any statistical information on Review implementation on request in March 2023 (JNCC 2023). Defra/JNCC have ceased to convene the SPAR SWG – the highly effective agency-stakeholder liaison group that delivered the third Review – whose last meeting was in October 2019, meaning that there is no longer any national forum for debate with NGOs or transparent tracking or reporting of national progress. Furthermore, the third Review’s Defra-chaired Executive Steering Group (comprising relevant government departments and their agencies), which was charged with overseeing the Review and its implementation, has not met since 3rd August 2020 (JNCC 2023). 

In 2018, the formal UK report to Ramsar COP13 (Defra 2018) listed as one of the five most successful aspects of UK Ramsar implementation since COP12: ‘A third review of the UK Special Protection Area network, which given the degree of overlap provides a de facto review of the UK Ramsar Site network. These site networks protect 70% of all UK’s breeding seabirds (2,471,000 pairs) and 37% of all non-breeding waterbirds (2,487,000 individuals)’; and, two years later, in November 2021, Minister Pow stated that ‘Defra and the Devolved Administrations commissioned a review of the terrestrial and coastal UK network of Special Protection Areas, some of which are designated to protect the habitats of regularly occurring migratory birds, and we have developed an England implementation plan in liaison with Natural England’ (Pow 2021), at least implying that implementation was under way. However, somewhat more accurately, in 2022, the UK’s national report to the African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement just stated bluntly that the third Review ‘had not been implemented’ (Defra 2022). 

Examples of insufficiency
Lack of full implementation of the second and third Reviews means that the full suite of SPAs is still not legally established for many species. A good example of this is the Spotted Crake Porzana porzana – a rare, Annex I-listed wetland species. The second Review established an SPA suite of four sites (River Spey/Insh Marshes, Highland; Lower Derwent Valley, Yorkshire; the Nene Washes, Cambridgeshire; and the Ouse Washes, Norfolk/Cambridgeshire. 

Screenshot 2023-11-30 at 16.21.54.png

379. Spotted Crake Porzana porzana, Norfolk, August 2014. 

David Tipling

However, the only SPA currently classified for Spotted Crakes is the River Spey/Insh Marshes, containing about 3.5% of the national population at the time of the first national census in 1999, with the English sites remaining unclassified for the species. The third Review estimated that the four sites currently contained around 27% of the UK breeding population in the late 1990s but indicated that around 60% coverage is required for adequate provision within the network (fig. 1).

Screenshot 2023-11-30 at 16.17.39.png

Fig. 1. Summary of SPA status quo for Spotted Crake Porzana porzana following two national SPA Reviews.

The third Review identified a total of 17 sites for consideration as possible SPAs for Spotted Crakes, all of which are either classified SPAs (14) or Special Areas of Conservation (three). Three of these sites were identified in the second network Review but have not been progressed since 2001. Classification of Spotted Crake at these locations, which occur in England, Scotland and Wales, would significantly increase population and range coverage of the breeding population throughout Britain. Priority for classification could be given to existing SPAs, and sites which make a significant contribution to improvements in range coverage. 

In an online conference on rare breeding birds on 15th March 2023, Natural England (Anthony & Giacomelli 2023) highlighted that there is just one SSSI for the Spotted Crake in England, despite the fact that three proposed SPAs for this species were identified and published in 2001, with another seven sites in England qualifying as SPAs (and thus SSSIs) subsequently identified by the third Review.

During the period of the reviews, the national population of Spotted Crake has declined from 85 calling males in 1999 to 19 in 2019 (Eaton et al. 2021), which includes declines at these sites of known international importance. There is no directed management for the species at any of the sites concerned.

A further example of insufficiency relates to Eurasian Bitterns Botaurus stellaris. The suite of SPAs for Bitterns is insufficient in terms of numbers and range, and also in the non-breeding season for ecological provision (table 1; see also tinyurl.com/45vxmmaa and tinyurl.com/4sscw94d). Between 2002 and 2006, the UK received LIFE funding from the EU for Bittern habitat creation and/or restoration measures (LIFE 2006). The funding for this work on habitats outside the SPA network was provided subject to the condition that classification of these sites would occur as soon as they met the SPA selection guidelines (i.e. regularly support nationally important numbers). Eight English sites now meet this condition, yet none have been classified as SPAs, despite the potential for these to be ‘quick wins’ in enhancing sufficiency.

Screenshot 2023-11-30 at 16.22.00.png

380. Eurasian Bittern Botaurus stellaris, Lakenheath, Suffolk, May 2019. 

David Tipling

Marine SPAs
While the three SPA network Reviews addressed terrestrial and coastal sites, what of marine SPAs? The first fully marine SPA – Liverpool Bay/Bae Lerpwl – was classified in 2010 and, since then, a small number of further marine sites have followed, seven being wholly offshore and others being inshore, including as extensions to coastal sites. 

In July 2015, JNCC committed to undertake a sufficiency review of marine SPAs, with SPAR SWG receiving ‘a paper summarising JNCC’s plans to summarise the assessment of sufficiency of the SPA network in the marine environment’ (SPAR SWG 2015). The following year, JNCC ‘outline[d] the expected process and timetable for consultation with the SPAR SWG. It was expected that this would happen late August through September 2016, later than anticipated’ (SPAR SWG 2016). A further year later, JNCC ‘explained that Defra and the Devolved Administrations are still considering the work that JNCC and the SNCB [Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies] have been doing for them on marine sufficiency. They are not yet ready to share the work outside of governments/their SNCB and it’s not yet clear when the work will be ready to be shared with SPAR SWG’ (SPAR SWG 2017). 

Bizarrely, given already extant activity, Minister Coffey, then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at Defra, responded to a parliamentary question in November 2018 that: ‘Defra and the Devolved Administrations have undertaken to assess the adequacy of the UK’s network of marine special protection areas after the current programme of designation of those areas is complete in 2019. The JNCC and the statutory nature conservation bodies in each country have already started work on developing the methodology to undertake that assessment’ (Coffey 2018).

Ultimately, nothing was ever submitted to SPAR SWG, with JNCC recently indicating that: ‘Following the 2016 review, work was undertaken, led by JNCC, to develop an approach to assessing SPA provision in marine waters, but this work ceased in March 2020. No decisions have been made by Defra and the Devolved Administrations on a UK approach nor any assessments undertaken’ (JNCC 2023), thus backing off from any UK oversight from this process. 

In September 2023, JNCC confirmed that the marine SPA provision remained incomplete, but that while ‘an approach to carry out a review of the sufficiency of marine SPAs was not agreed by 2020 due to differing views on methodological approach’, since then there has been no progress due to ‘new methodological challenges which need to be discussed and resolved’ (JNCC pers. comm.). JNCC is currently unable to give any timetable to resolve these ‘methodological challenges’.

The wider picture
At a time when the UK governments have committed to increase the extent of protected areas nationally, implementing the recommendations of the second (2001) and third (2016) SPA network Reviews is the lowest of all low-hanging fruits. Both the insufficiencies and the steps needed to resolve these have been clearly known for many years. 

There is no need for further reviews or time-consuming desk studies – just the speedy implementation of conclusions arrived at after three decades of significant expenditure of public resources and (conservatively) many tens of thousands of hours of discussion. Only then will we eventually have a fit-for-purpose SPA network.

References
Anthony, S., & Giacomelli, A. 2023. Use of RBBP data for Protected Sites work in Natural England.https://youtu.be/QB4XvDKmT0Q at 9m 37s

Chambers, D. 2010. SPA (re)classification tasks outstanding from the 2001 SPA review. Paper to SPAR SWG. 

Coffey, T. 2018. Answer to Parliamentary question; 28th November 2018. https://tinyurl.com/45w8s7xc

Defra 2018. United Kingdom National Report to the 13th Conference of Parties to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands.https://tinyurl.com/52daewc4

— 2022. United Kingdom National Report to the eighth Meeting of Parties to the Agreement on the conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds. https://tinyurl.com/y8z3b6wr

Eaton, M. A., & the Rare Breeding Birds Panel. 2021. Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2019. Brit. Birds 114: 646–704.

JNCC 1999. The Birds Directive. Selection Guidelines for Special Protection Areas. Peterborough, JNCC. https://tinyurl.com/yw3u8b8y

— 2019. 11th Report by the United Kingdom under Article 12 on the implementation of the Directive on the conservation of wild birds (2009/147/EC) from January 2013 to December 2018. JNCC, Peterborough.https://tinyurl.com/mtfdcpt5

— 2023. Response to Freedom of Information request; e-mail to D. A. Stroud, 24th March 2023.

LIFE 2006. Developing a strategic network of SPA reedbeds for Botaurus stellaris. Project LIFE02 NAT/UK/008527. https://tinyurl.com/4dsdb974

Pow, R. 2021. Answer to Parliamentary question; 26th November 2021. https://tinyurl.com/4syuyvr3

Pritchard, D. E., Housden, S. D., Mudge, G. P., Galbraith, C. A., & Pienkowski, M. W. 1992. Important Bird Areas in the United Kingdom including the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Sandy, RSPB/JNCC.https://tinyurl.com/ytzjpmy3

SPA and Ramsar Scientific Working Group (SPAR SWG). 2015–2017. Approved minutes of the SPA and Ramsar Scientific Working Group. https://tinyurl.com/59zz6wsu

Stroud, D. A., Mudge, G. P., & Pienkowski, M. W. 1990. Protecting Internationally Important Bird Sites: a review of the EEC Special Protection Area network in Great Britain. Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough. https://tinyurl.com/3b3ajty2

—, et al. (eds.) 2001. The UK SPA Network: its scope and content. JNCC, Peterborough. https://tinyurl.com/y6dauypx

—, et al., on behalf of the UK SPA & Ramsar Scientific Working Group (eds.) 2016. The Status of UK SPAs in the 2000s: the Third Network Review. JNCC, Peterborough. https://tinyurl.com/3bnhx3h5

Williams, G., Stroud, D. A., Hirons, G. J. M., & Wilson, J. D., on behalf of the UK SPA and Ramsar Scientific Working Group. 2016. Developing a quantitative index as a pragmatic aid to assessing implementation of European Union Birds Directive site protection measures for individual species. Bird Study 63: 447–458.

David A. Stroud; e-mail [email protected]

Volume: 
Issue 12
Start Page: 
686
Display Image: 
Article Series: 
BB eye

Stay at the forefront of British birding by taking out a subscription to British Birds.

Subscribe Now