DefendHow the EU nature directives help restore our environment

nature1

Jenny Hibbert (rspb-im

ages.com)

“The wonders of nature are protected by the Nature Directives.”

2

Contents

Foreword 5

Summary of recommendations 7

Introduction: the laws that protect nature 11

Better for wildlife 15

Better for people 21

Better for business 27

Forward, not back 33

Conclusion 41

References 42

Left: golden eagle in the Cairngorms, Scotland.

3

Sue Kennedy (rspb-im

ages.com)

“Our species and habitats are in a better shape than they would be without the Nature Directives.”

Dr Mike Clarke

4

Two EU laws — the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive — are the cornerstone of conservation across the 28 countries of the European Union, protecting an extraordinary array of the most amazing wildlife and landscapes. They are a proven safety net for nature, respecting our common responsibility to conserve and enhance our natural world, while also meeting the needs of people and the economy.

Today, the future of the Nature Directives is in doubt. A small but vociferous minority claim that these environmental standards are blocking growth, based on an outdated economic outlook that degrades natural assets. Exhaustive studies show that the Directives work, but the EU has chosen to carry out a review nevertheless.

The scientific evidence is clear that the Nature Directives are an effective way to protect nature. Our species and habitats are in better condition than they would be without the Directives, and these include common wildlife and the wider landscape. New evidence is now showing that the Directives are also an effective way to build species’ resilience against emerging threats like climate change.

The Nature Directives are also good for people. Human health, wellbeing and enjoyment all depend on a thriving natural world. We know the majority of people across the EU care about nature and its protection, and that future generations will benefit from keeping our natural heritage safe. What’s more, the Directives defend many of the natural services we all rely on, such as flood defences, storing carbon, and filtering air pollution.

And the Nature Directives are good for business. They provide a fair system across 28 countries, they sustain services that businesses depend on, and they have stimulated innovation and investment. Changing the Directives would be a costly exercise and create uncertainty and investment risk.

A threat to the Nature Directives is a threat to nature, so the RSPB is calling on everyone who knows the importance of our natural world — people, politicians, businesses and charities — to step forward in defence of the Nature Directives.

But we are not seeking to stand still. The Nature Directives constitute smart regulation and were ahead of their time. We still have a long way to go to achieve their objectives.

This is why we are calling for a progressive approach to their implementation to support responsible businesses and communities, to enable better informed and more pragmatic decision-making and to reduce uncertainty. Here, we call for measures that will also build resilience and enable adaptation in the wider landscape, make smarter use of public money, and invest in nature.

Forward-looking and progressive implementation of the Directives should be the first five-year milestone in a 25-year plan for nature’s recovery. It is by completing that journey that we will ensure that the full benefits of the Directives are realised for everyone.

Dr Mike ClarkeRSPB Chief Executive

ForewordThe world’s most important nature conservation laws are under threat. RSPB Chief Executive, Dr Mike Clarke, summarises why proposals to pull apart the EU Nature Directives that have protected wildlife and landscapes for more than quarter of a century would be a retrograde step.

Left: A Devonshire stream in full spring flow.

5

Nick U

pton (rspb-images.com

)

“The Government should plan for enriching the wider landscape”

6

Summary of recommendations

For too long, nature conservation has been seen to be in conflict with economic development and job creation. Our partnership with the RSPB will demonstrate how we protect and enhance the biodiversity of the local area, benefitting the economy, creating employment and improving health and wellbeing.

Barratt Developments

“”

Left: marbled white butterfly on knapweed.

7

1. Plan for natureThe Birds and Habitats Directives should not be amended. Instead, here in the UK, bringing the Directives to full effectiveness should be a priority for the new Parliament. The first five-year milestone in a 25-year plan for nature’s recovery for us should be full implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives in the UK.

2. Find out where we are: science and surveysThe research requirements of Article 10 of the Birds Directive should be transposed into UK law. To meet these requirements, the Government should institute a rolling programme of monitoring for protected species and habitats, on land and at sea, beginning in the first Session of the 2015 Parliament. By addressing gaps in our knowledge, it will be possible to improve conservation and save money through targeting conservation action more efficiently and making it easier for businesses to work in harmony with nature.

3. Set out where we’re going: Favourable Conservation StatusThe Government should set, identify and publish definitions of Favourable Conservation Status for each protected species and habitat at a national and individual site level. This would inform the allocation of scarce resources for conservation, and reduce the already small number of cases where a precautionary approach to protection has deterred developments or increased costs.

4. Fill the gaps: complete the Natura 2000 networkThe incompleteness of the offshore network has caused difficulties for important industries like the offshore renewables industry, which is forced to plan on the basis of inadequate information. This means survey work often has to begin from scratch. In some cases, wildlife found as a result is of such significance that designation is necessary and plans are disrupted, as was the case for the London Array. Completing the Natura 2000 network (a network of Europe-wide protected sites) should be a conservation and economic imperative.

5. Join the dots: landscape-scale conservationAlongside completion of the Natura 2000 network, the

Government should plan for enriching the wider landscape. It should take forward a strategic plan for the rollout of Nature Improvement Areas, based on ecological need.

6. Take out the roadblocks: smarter use of public moneyThe UK negotiating position for CAP and CFP reform should focus on environmental incentives. The Government should announce now that this will be a focus for the UK Presidency of the Council of the European Union.

Domestically, the Government has committed to two 25-year plans – one to restore biodiversity and one for the food and farming sector. It is essential that these plans are complementary and that the Government explicitly links the objectives of the food and farming plan to the goal of restoring UK biodiversity.

To take one practical example, the Government should commit to full modulation of CAP funds from Pillar I to Pillar II and commit to an increased proportion of the funding being allocated to biodiversity.

7. Invest in nature: beat the natural deficitThe Government should designate funding for Natural England as protected spending.

Improved implementation of the Nature Directives should be financed with a levy charged on depletion of non-renewable natural resources – this should be paid into a Natural Wealth Fund, tasked with restoring UK biodiversity.

8. Crack down on crime: ending persecution of protected speciesIllegal persecution of wildlife still persists in the UK. A licensing system for hunting would be an effective way to prevent damaging and sometimes illegal behaviour, especially for driven grouse shoots in the uplands. Licences should be revoked immediately for criminal persecution of wildlife, or for unlawful land management practices. The system should build in management conditions stipulated in Article 7 of the Birds Directive. Vicarious liability should be established for persecution in England, so that shoot organisers can be held responsible for criminal activity undertaken on their behalf.

An eight-point plan for properly implementing the Nature Directives... for the benefit of people, wildlife, and business.

8

“The robin: voted Britain’s national bird in 2015.”

Dan

ny G

reen

(rsp

b-im

ages

.com

)

9

Steve A

ustin (rspb-images.com

)

“The Nature Directives have been the cornerstone of protection of Europe’s environment for 30 years.”

10

Introduction: the laws that protect nature

... the first line of defence against environmental threats. They provide a strong common standard...“ ”

Left: Forsinard nature reserve in the Flow Country of northern Scotland.

11

The Birds and Habitats Directives (the “Nature Directives”) have been the cornerstone of protection of Europe’s natural environment for 30 years. Their goals are clear. The Habitats Directive aims to restore habitats and species to “Favourable Conservation Status”. The Birds Directive requires EU States to maintain all European wild bird species at a population consistent with ecological, scientific and cultural requirements, taking account of economic and social needs. Together, they aim to protect nature for prosperity and for posterity.

The Directives are built around two pillars: the Natura 2000 network of protected sites and a strict system of species protection. They safeguard over 1,000 species and more than 200 kinds of habitat, including some of the most magical and iconic wildlife sites across Europe, like the Thames Estuary, Scotland’s Flow Country, the Doñana Marshes in Spain and Romania’s Danube Delta.

All told, Natura 2000 covers more than 18% of EU land areas and 4% of EU marine areas, making it the largest conservation network in the world. However, the project is not yet complete: all EU countries still have work to do in completing Natura 2000 and implementing the Directives. This will be vital for protecting nature.

Meanwhile, the threats facing nature are intense and intensifying. The main challenges are:

1. Habitat destruction, as we develop more land for housing and other infrastructure

2. Over-exploitation, as we take more from nature than it can sustain, such as the depletion of fish stocks

3. Pollution, like the run-off from pesticides and fertilisers, or greenhouse gas emissions resulting in climate change

4. Invasive non-native species, introduced by humans, which can be deadly for fragile wildlife.

Together, these pressures amount to a crisis for biodiversity.

• Across the EU, only 23% of animal and plant species and only 16% of habitat types are in Favourable Conservation Status

• In the UK, the State of Nature report found that 60% of the species we know about have declined over the last 50 years. Only a third of our Sites of Special Scientific Interest are in “good” condition.

A crisis for our environment is a crisis for society and the economy. Air pollution alone causes around 29,000 premature deaths in the UK every year. By contrast, a thriving natural environment contributes to health and wellbeing for everyone. Providing everyone access to

natural greenspace could save the National Health Service £2.1 billion annually.

For the economy, degraded ecosystems, such as reduced natural flood defences, can lead to costs. In 2010, just 34 floods in the EU cost €27 billion; the cost to the UK economy is about £1.1bn annually. But healthy ecosystems are good for the economy. In the UK, pollinators provide £690 million of value for the rural economy every year (Centre for Food Security (2015) Sustainable Pollination Services for UK Crops, University of Reading).

The Nature Directives are the first line of defence against environmental threats. They provide a strong common standard, which individual countries must complement with national action if we are to maintain and restore Europe’s natural environment.

The Nature DirectivesThe Birds Directive requires EU countries to:

• Maintain populations of all wild bird species across their natural range (Article 2)

• Preserve, maintain or re-establish a sufficient diversity and area of habitats for birds, inside and outside protected areas (Article 3)

• Designate Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for rare or vulnerable species listed in Annex I, as well as regularly occurring migratory species (Article 4)

• Abide by restrictions on the sale and keeping of wild birds (Article 6) and on hunting and falconry (Article 7)

• Prohibit large-scale non-selective means of bird killing (Article 8)

• Encourage research (Article 10)

• Guard against the introduction of non-native birds which may threaten other biodiversity (Article 11).

The Habitats Directive requires all 28 EU Member States to:

• Restore protected habitats and species to favourable conservation status

• Contribute to a coherent network of protected sites by designating Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) for habitats listed in Annex I and species in Annex II

• Manage SACs and SPAs designated under the Birds Directive, and assess any development plans likely to significantly affect an SAC or an SPA. Projects may still be permitted if there are no alternatives, but compensatory measures must be taken to ensure the coherence of the Natura 2000 network (Article 6)

This report shows why the UK and other European countries should reject reform of the EU Nature Directives and focus instead on their full implementation. Moving forward with the Nature Directives – rather than going back to the drawing board – will be the best way to protect and enhance nature across the EU. This positive approach will be better for wildlife, business and society.

12

• Encourage good management of landscape features that support the Natura 2000 network (Articles 3 and 10)

• Monitor habitats and species (Article 11)

• Ensure strict protection of species listed in Annex IV

• Report on the implementation of the Directive every six years (Article 17).

The Directives under threatAt a time of urgent environmental need, EU states should be focused on building on the Nature Directives with national action. Instead, a vocal minority are pushing for reform.

In 2014, Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the EU Commission, instructed Environment Commissioner

Karmenu Vella: “to overhaul the existing environmental legislative framework to make it fit for purpose... to carry out an in-depth evaluation of the Birds and Habitats Directives and assess the potential for merging them”.

Now, in 2015, the EU is in the midst of a “Regulatory Fitness Check” (REFIT) for the Directives, a process intended to “ease the burden on business” from EU laws. The timeline is tight. We might have just six months to prevent the EU from undoing 30 years of work.

In this report, we demonstrate that all the countries of the UK and all the Member States of the EU should oppose reform of the Nature Directives. Instead, we should plan to expedite full implementation of the Directives as they stand, for the sake of wildlife, communities and business.

Harvest mouse – recorded as declining in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan species list.

Ben A

ndrew (rspb-im

ages.com)

13

Richard B

edford (rspb-images.com

)

“Bees are worth more than £690 million to the UK economy.”

14

Better for wildlifeWe focus on biodiversity protection and sustainable land use because we believe that this is the best way to generate real value for nature and society.

Heidelberg Cement

“ ”

Left: carder bumblebee seeking nectar from a wallflower.

15

The latest science demonstrates that species protected by the Nature Directives are doing better than those that are not. EU protected species are recovering more quickly in the EU than outside and this is more pronounced in countries that have been in the EU for longer. Protection within Annex I of the Birds Directive is more significant for species survival than factors such as climate change or habitat loss.

Some species benefit from the protection of scarce habitats. Others, like buzzards and peregrine falcons, are saved from being shot, poisoned or hunted.

The greater the area of habitat safeguarded for a species, the better its recovery has been, especially for rare and vulnerable species.i However, it is not just rare species that benefit.ii Common species are also faring better, with higher populations inside Natura 2000 sites – particularly “specialist” species that rely on habitats like bogs or mixed woodlands.

The Directives also improve our knowledge. As they require regular monitoring and reporting, we know more about the fortunes of species and habitats. For example, the National Plant Monitoring Scheme is a new study of changes in plant abundance and diversity. This will help meet important conservation challenges, such as the loss of British wildflowers.

Because of growing challenges, biodiversity loss is continuing, but the rate has been slowed by the Directives and there have been some spectacular feats of recovery. When the Directives came into force, the red kite was a rare bird in the UK, with just a few dozen pairs in remote Welsh valleys. Following legal protection and EU-funded reintroduction projects, the red kite is now a bird of the wider countryside, with almost 2,000 pairs (nearly 10% of the global population) spread across all four countries of the UK.

Added value—we can’t go it aloneBefore the Directives came into force, UK conservation laws were simply not up to scratch. Protected areas were scarce, both on land and at sea, and conservation laws were flimsy. Wildlife suffered grievous losses. Some might argue that modern British law would be more effective and cheaper than EU law. But the Directives do more than bolster domestic law. They set a standard across 28 different countries.

Nature pays no attention to political boundaries, and wildlife we think of as our own is a shared treasure. The Directives are the most effective way for the UK to protect migratory species all along their migration routes. If the Directives were deconstructed, even the strongest British system would not be enough to face terrible challenges, like the loss of three-quarters of Europe’s turtle doves since 1980.

As the turtle dove makes its way to us in the spring, it stops throughout Europe, finding places to feed and rest.

If we want to protect turtle doves and other migratory birds, we need to act in a precise and determined way across Europe. Action needs to be internationally binding, and locally targeted. The Nature Directives are unique in allowing us to protect nature within and beyond our borders. Only multilateral action can make a difference.

UK protectionBefore the Birds Directive, the only sure way to protect a site in the UK was to buy it. In this way, sites such as the Ribble Estuary were saved from development. However, this was a difficult and inefficient approach. In those days, species now listed on Annex I of the Birds Directive were faring much worse than non-Annex I species.

Now, however, the robustness and extent of protection have been multiplied by the Nature Directives. On average in the EU, 30% of protected land is only designated under Natura 2000. 40% is designated at a national level and as part of the Natura 2000 network. So Natura 2000 has led to a significant increase in the area of land targeted for biodiversity and nature protection.

The Directives have also improved the quality of protection. For example, UK national protected areas called Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)* were introduced in 1949. However, this gave limited protection from development and allowed poor practices in agriculture and forestry. As a consequence, 10–15% of SSSIs were damaged every year. Changes to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, driven by the Birds Directive, led to a marked improvement. By the 1990s, the area of SSSI lost per year had fallen below 0.005% and the area subject to short-term damage to 2–3% per year. v

However, the standard of protection for sites only subject to national designation remains lower than that afforded to Natura 2000 sites. Damaging developments on non-Natura 2000 SSSIs continue to be consented in circumstances which would not have met legal requirements for Natura 2000. Recent examples include the possibility of housing development at Lodge Hill SSSI in Kent and Rampisham Down in Dorset, or Canvey Wick in Essex, where a road was constructed through the SSSI and proposed compensation habitat was not provided.

The Directives have stood the test of time, and the benefits effective nature conservation laws can deliver are becoming evident. Some have argued that the Directives could be merged for simplicity. However, making any changes to the Directives would render European and UK court rulings and guidance inapplicable. Case law and guidance have been developed over the years to clarify what the Directives require and are relied on by governments, businesses and other stakeholders because of the high degree of certainty they provide. Losing this valuable resource would create uncertainty, increase risks for developers and delay and jeopardise project assessments and approvals.

The Nature Directives have helped to save and restore charismatic species like stone-curlews, Dartford warblers, golden plovers, and marsh fritillary butterflies, as well as habitats such as oak woods, and heathland.

16

Some have also suggested that the annexes to the Directives (which set out the birds, other species and habitats which require special protection, and which species require protection from hunting and habitat destruction) should be updated. However, revisions must be based on science and, to date, there is not enough information on the status of all habitats and species, and the extent to which they are dependant on sustained conservation action, to inform such a review.

In addition, a review would also cause uncertainty for a wide range of stakeholders, including businesses, investors, land owners and managers.

While implementation of the Directives remains incomplete, and biodiversity still urgently needs our help, this would be an unwelcome distraction from the urgent imperative to take action now.

The Government has made commitments at UK, EU and international levels to halt, and where possible, reverse, the loss of biodiversity by 2020. The protection provided by the Nature Directives is fundamental if we are to have a chance of meeting these commitments. What we need now is action – not uncertainty.

* Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) in England, Scotland and Wales and Areas of Special Scientific Interest (ASSIs) in Northern Ireland.

Managed realignment – using natural defences to protect coastal habitats at risk from flooding.

Andy H

ay (rspb-images.com

)

17

Stephen Frink C

ollection / Alam

y

“We have prevented attempts to overturn the global moratorium on commercial whaling.”

18

Natura 2000 designation does not mean a set of rigid prohibitions; it means an obligation to maintain or restore the quality of a site for the animals and plants for which they were designated.

For most farmland designated as Natura 2000, the conservation aims are about maintaining traditional farm practices that already help these species.

Natura 2000 designation can diversify farmers’ income by tapping into the growing recreation and tourism market. Sustainable forest management is also usually compatible with the Natura 2000 objectives, while large-scale clear-felling, plantations of exotic species, or removal of dead wood are not.

Working together helps ensure that one country cannot gain competitive advantage through the adoption of lower environmental standards, and that migratory species are not adversely affected by a single state allowing damaging development.

Common standards in the EU have amplified our voice around the world. The Directives form the basis of EU negotiating positions, showing

leadership and helping swing international decisions in favour of better environmental standards.

To take one illustration, by voting as a bloc in the International Whaling Commission, with a strong precautionary position backed by EU legislation, we have prevented attempts to overturn the global moratorium on commercial whaling.

Already, amazing species from corals to capercaillie are feeling the effects of climate change, including ocean acidification and loss of habitats and sources of food. Based on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections for global temperature rises, one in six species could be extinct by 2100. We need to limit climate change to save wildlife.

But nature is also part of the answer. Nature is crucial in reducing climate change and increasing our resilience to its effects. Healthy ecosystems lock up carbon and help us adapt to change through services such as natural flood defences. Carbon stored in Natura 2000 sites is equivalent to 35 billion tonnes of CO2. Within Natura 2000 sites, carbon stocks are, on average, 42% higher per hectare than outside.

That’s why it’s vital that the Nature Directives are “climate-compatible” and there’s clear evidence that

they are. Protected sites provide natural networks that help species adapt. Healthy ecosystems in protected areas, and across the landscape, provide the kind of mitigation and adaptation needed to face climate change.

Sometimes, of course, long-term needs for new infrastructure to decarbonise our economy will come into conflict with more immediate risks for nature. In these cases, a balance must be struck.

It’s when the Directives aren’t adhered to that problems arise. Poor implementation can cause costs and risks. For example, insufficient monitoring at sea has affected the renewable energy sector, with offshore wind developers tied to specific zones, allocated without a proper assessment of environmental sensitivities. The Directives don’t need to be changed to be climate-compatible. They need to be implemented properly.

Nature and climate change

Natura 2000: protected, not prohibited

Working together

Left: humpbacked whale – a species still at risk from hunting for “scientific purposes”.

19

Ernie Janes (rspb-im

ages.com)

“For most of us, protecting nature is about saving the wildlife we love, or protecting the green spaces and landscapes we grew up with.”

20

Better for peopleBiodiversity matters because it underpins the benefits we get from the natural environment, contributes to our economy and enriches our lives. Cemex

“ ”

Left: a typical lowland countryside scene in late spring.

21

What people wantPublic demand for environmental protection is growing. A surge in RSPB membership numbers shows the support for nature that led to the adoption of the Birds Directive. Today, our membership is higher than ever, at 1.2 million people.

For most of us, protecting nature is not about material benefit – it is about saving the wildlife we love, or protecting the green spaces and landscapes we grew up with. Many people share the RSPB’s view that nature is intrinsically valuable and should be conserved for its own sake. The vast majority of EU citizens see the conservation of biodiversity as first and foremost a moral obligation.vi

It is also clear that people understand the need for cross-border action. The Directives were first passed in response to public concern for migratory species, which motivated the European Parliament to express its alarm “at the threat of extinction to our migratory birds”, arguing that birds should be regarded as everyone’s shared responsibility.vii

Today, most people value the EU’s role in protecting our natural heritage; more than three-quarters of us think EU environmental law is needed. Environmental protection is seen as a key benefit of EU co-operation and an area where we trust the EU and acknowledge that it has a role to play.viii

What people needNot only do people want to live in a natural world full of life, they also need nature. Ecosystems in good condition do more for society, both in terms of the enjoyment and wellbeing we feel and the services we derive from nature.ix Protected sites, in particular, often provide a wealth of ecosystem services, especially when they are in Favourable Conservation Status.x For example:

• Full implementation and management of the Natura 2000 network could directly support 122,000 jobs and contribute €3.05 billion to local economies, helping to provide new sources of income for landowners and managers and diversifying the rural economyxi

• Investing €5.8 billion a year to keep Europe’s natural capital in good conservation status could provide €200–300 billion a year in services and benefits to society and the economyxii

• Proximity, quantity and quality of green spaces are related to health. People living near nature engage in more physical activity, and psychological wellbeing increases with greater species richness and vegetation. Nature can have a positive impact on mental health, stress, heart rate, concentration, blood pressure, children’s behaviour and learning, and other health factors.xiii

Some of these benefits are local (such as local air quality improvements), while others are global (like carbon sequestration by Natura 2000, which gives global climate change mitigation benefits). Many are public goods, meaning that they are under-provided by the market – natural services are regarded as “free”, so we do not often attribute a financial value to the benefits they provide.

Importantly, the Natura network helps to provide nature for everyone. 65% of EU citizens live within 5 km of a Natura 2000 site, and 98% live within 20 km. Accessible nature is particularly important close to urban areas, where most people in Europe live. Natura 2000 sites can be found in 32 major cities in Europe and over half of EU capital cities. Together, these sites harbour 40% of threatened habitat types, half the bird species and a quarter of the rare butterflies listed in the Directives.xiv

Investing in nature is excellent value for money. The cost of managing the Natura 2000 network is around €5.8 billion a year, but the benefits derived are in the order of €200–300 billion a year – equivalent to between 1.7% and 2.5% of EU GDP. For example, there are 1.2–2.2 billion visits to Natura 2000 sites each year, generating recreational benefits worth between €5 and €9 billion per annum. Defra has estimated that there is a benefit to cost ratio of around 9 to 1 for conservation regulations.xv

In the UK, the Directives have acted as a catalyst and driver for projects which deliver multiple benefits far in excess of their costs. Key examples include the Alkborough managed realignment project on the Humber Estuary and the Wallasea Island habitat creation project. Both were driven by the need to avoid deterioration and to compensate for losses of intertidal habitat to flood defence developments within SPAs and SACs.xvi

Biodiversity is the bedrock of ecosystem services and plays an important role in enhancing ecosystem stability, ensuring long-run sustainability.xvii By enriching biodiversity in the UK and across Europe, the Nature Directives support the services that nature provides for people, as well as protecting the wildlife and habitats that so many of us love.

The Nature Directives have created a better environment for people in the UK and across the European Union. Looking after our landscapes and countryside, helping wildlife to survive and thrive, and ensuring that they are passed on in good condition to the next generation all increase our enjoyment of nature and the benefits that nature provides for people.

22

And

y H

ay (r

spb-

imag

es.c

om)

“People living near nature engage in more physical activity, and psychological wellbeing increases.”

23

Kevin Saw

ford (rspb-images.com

)

“... reward farmers who manage the land most sustainably.”

24

The Birds and Habitats Directives are a global gold standard in conservation. They confirm that cross-border cooperation is essential to deal with many environmental problems. However, not all EU environmental law is as effective as it could be. In other areas, it is clear that multi-national co-operation is helpful, but major reforms are needed:

Common Agricultural Policy: EU farm subsidies are vital for farmland conservation. However, the system is mired in its history of production-based subsidy and needs reforming. Money available for transfer from direct subsidies (Pillar 1) to payments for good land management (Pillar 2) should be increased to 25% of the overall budget. This could provide almost £500 million extra every year for rural development.

In the UK, the Government should transfer the maximum amount available in this Parliament to reward farmers who manage the land most sustainably.

Emissions Trading Directive: The EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) has led the world in setting a price for carbon and an overall limit on industrial emissions. This reduces EU emissions while avoiding market distortion between Member States. However, far too many EU Allowances were released onto the market (initially for free) and too many offsets were allowed, leading to consistently low prices. Major change is needed to establish an effective and reliable market for carbon emissions.

EU Environmental Law

Left: brown hare in grassland.

25

Michel D

auchy/Antw

erp Port Authority

“The consistency the Nature Directives deliver is a clear business benefit.”

26

Better for businessIndustry and nature were once diametrically opposed. The construction of the Deurganck dock put an end to this. All parties became aware of the need for a new vision, based on consultation and dialogue, rather than conflict and legal battles.

Antwerp Port Authority

“”

Left: aerial photograph of Belgium’s Deurganck dock.

27

Business needs natureChanging the Nature Directives would be to the detriment of those economic sectors that rely directly on a thriving natural environment. In Europe, around 4.4 million jobs and €405 billion in annual turnover are directly dependent on healthy ecosystems.

Visitors to Natura 2000 sites contribute €50–85 billion to local economies every year. The total expenditure from tourism and recreation supports 4.5–8 million jobs across the EU, out of a total of about 13 million jobs in the tourism sector.

However, it is not only the obvious businesses like outdoor enterprises and agriculture that rely on nature. All economic activity ultimately relies on the natural environment, and sustained economic growth will depend on good management of our natural world. A national natural capital debt is already accruing to the detriment of our economy and wellbeing.xviii

A similar economic picture applies worldwide. The European Commission estimates the cost of not implementing environmental legislation and not meeting biodiversity targets to be €50 billion each year. The loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services between the years 2000 and 2050 could be equivalent to 7% of the 2050 world GDP annually and 35% of jobs in developing countries. A total of 7% of jobs in the EU are dependent on ecosystem services. Conserving 20–30 % of global oceans through Marine Protected Areas could create a million jobs, sustain fish catch worth US$70–80 billion per year and provide ecosystem services with a gross value of roughly US $4.5–6.7 trillion per year.xix

Changing business behaviourOf course, the Nature Directives have led to some changes in business practice – improving the way we interact with our natural world is exactly what they are designed to do. In some cases, this has increased the costs associated with particular activities, but overall the Directives have improved the long-term sustainability of our economy without affecting profits.

In its engagement with business, the RSPB has noted a change in the pattern of behaviour as industries learn how to work with the laws (see The RSPB and wind farm cases, opposite page). The early phase can be characterised by difficult discussions and often the RSPB objecting to specific proposals. However, this is quickly followed by greater understanding and smoother outcomes, as better spatial planning, location or design leads to the integration of natural environment objectives within business planning. Familiarity with the Directives facilitates constructive results, especially where a whole sector, such as ports, is operating largely within protected areas.

Overall, the Directives have little impact on business. The amount of land protected is small, the proportion of planning applications affected is very small, and the proportion where significant change or compensation is required is smaller still. Compared to other EU countries, the UK has designated the least land as Natura 2000 (just 7.2%). Of the 26,500 land use consultations it receives a year, less than 0.5% result in an objection by Natural England under the Habitats Regulations, which transpose the Nature Directives into UK law.

Where problems do arise, it is often because of a lack of expertise within government authorities, or developers’ failure to engage early enough. This can result in delays, expense and ineffective measures and may give the false impression that conservation is a costly and arduous process. This is exacerbated by a lack of post-construction monitoring, which could otherwise help to avoid problems in future.

Businesses that do not plan effectively, or those that seek to evade or subvert conservation legislation, are rightly challenged. However, businesses that have engaged with the Directives have found them no barrier to commercial activity, and some businesses have even gone so far as to make conservation a core element of their operations.

Fairness and consistencyThe Directives also offer businesses consistency across 28 different jurisdictions, helping to create a “level playing field” across the Single Market.xx This has helped save resources compared to a situation in which they would have had to comply with different nature protection regimes in the different Member States.xxi

Standards are important as they play a role in preventing environmental damage taking place in one sector (for example agriculture) which, by damaging the natural environment, will have a negative impact on another sector (such as tourism).

Changes to the Directives, such as amending the species and habitats listed for protection, would lead to considerable uncertainty for business over whether the Natura 2000 network of sites would change, by how much, and where, at a time when business is already under economic pressure.

There is currently no scientific process for reviewing the annexes, and no methodology for identifying which species are dependent on conservation measures, and at risk of declining if they were de-listed. While some species and habitats can recover within a few years, for others, decades or even centuries might be needed to recover from past damage. For example, the rate of recovery of peatlands from burning may be up to 500 years. At the moment, it is clear that the Directives are benefiting a

The demand for a review of the Nature Directives is often justified in the name of business. However, it is only a small coterie of businesses that would benefit from a change in the law. For most, the baseline protection provided by the Directives and the consistency they give across the EU is a clear business benefit. In fact, more economic value would be gained by delivering full implementation and adherence to the Directives as they stand.

28

wide range of species. Changing the species listed could risk undermining the conservation successes achieved so far and create considerable disruption for business. The best course for conservation and business is to opt for consistency.

Together, the Directives provide a practical framework for sustainable development. They apply a set of tests to all activities and developments to ensure that those which do not adversely affect sites and species of European importance may continue. Those which cannot be progressed without harm are only permitted if the damage is unavoidable, warranted by the importance of the development and can be compensated for elsewhere.

The Directives provide a “litmus test” for sustainable development, but they are too often presented as a barrier to socio-economic activity.

The realityThe perception among a few businesses – and, more commonly, among politicians and media – is that the Directives impose unreasonable costs on business. This is a far cry from reality.

Overall, environmental legislation accounts for less than 1% of administrative burdens on business in the EU, with one third of the administrative burden estimated to be the result of inefficient administrative practices. Given the size of the EU’s body of environmental law, this suggests that the administrative burden of the Directives is negligible.xxii There may also be scope for substantial savings in administrative costs, thanks to the way that the Directives are implemented.

Total direct costs associated with environmental regulations were estimated to account for 0.4% of energy sector turnover, 0.2% of construction and manufacturing sector turnover, and 0.1% of mining sector turnover.xxiii This level of cost is extremely unlikely to affect the competitiveness of European industries.xxiv

In terms of differences in costs between Member States, only 4% of the administrative burden from EU rules is a result of “gold-plating”. Going beyond what is strictly required by EU legislation can often be beneficial for the Member State concerned.xxv

Successive consultations in the UK and abroad have confirmed that the Directives are cost-effective:

• The UK Administrative Burdens Measurement Exercise found that the Habitats Regulations and the Wildlife and Countryside Act accounted for £700,000 of Defra’s administrative burden, which is less than 0.1% of the Department’s total administrative costs

• The Review of Implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directive in England concluded that: “in the large majority of cases the implementation of the Directives is working well, allowing both development of key infrastructure and ensuring that a high level of environmental protection is maintained”xxvi

• The Balance of Competences Review found that: “a large number of organisations representing all sectors considered that it is in the UK’s national interest for the EU to have a degree of competence in the broad areas of environment and climate change because of the advantages that this brings for the Single Market and environmental protection”.xxvii

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

% objections (UK)

% objections (England)

2010200920082007200620052004200320022001

The RSPB and windfarm cases. Rates of objection: UK and England

29

Paul Hobson (naturepl.com

)

“Solving the problem does not require a change in the Directives.”

30

Some species of plants and animals are given a high level of protection by the Habitats Directive because they are rare or restricted in their range. For some of these species, such as the great crested newt, the UK holds an internationally important proportion of their population. Many European Protected Species found in the UK such as newts, bats and dormice are often highly vulnerable to development and changes in land management.

Frustration has been expressed at some of the challenges presented by this protection – for example, the issue of bats in churches, and the costs and delays sometimes associated with the discovery of great crested newts on land proposed for development.

The actual number of developments affected by these issues is extremely small – but the frustrations are very real.

The myth of bats and newts is that the only way to resolve these issues is to remove these species from the relevant annexes of the Birds and Habitats Directives. In reality, these issues can be resolved through smarter implementation without making any change to the Directives – which is good news for developers, who depend on the certainty the Directives provide, and for communities too. It is also good news for bats and great crested newts, which remain in need of protection (with bats showing early signs of recovery, while the status of great crested newts is so poorly understood that the

most recent UK Government report lists their status as “unknown”).

Better information: More information can help us understand where populations really do need protection. For example, Defra supported research on Natterer’s bats and soprano pipistrelle bats. It found that excluding Natterer’s bats from churches is likely to harm their Conservation Status, although with judicious use of deterrents under licence, problems caused by bats in churches can be mitigated. For soprano pipistrelles, however, it showed that they use alternative roosts when excluded from breeding roosts. Better information can also help businesses to plan their initial applications more judiciously, in order to avoid a problem in the first place.

Favourable Conservation Status: Currently, most decisions involving a protected species follow a precautionary approach because the UK has not defined Favourable Conservation Status—what constitutes a healthy and sustainable population. There is, therefore, no sound basis on which to make judgements about the significance of any impacts on a population. In other EU countries, this issue has been addressed by defining objectives for European Protected Species. The difficulty here is not with the law, but with how we have chosen to implement the law. This was highlighted by a review of the Directives in England in 2012, and a Government-led great crested newt task force is already working to resolve these issues.

The myth of bats and newts

Left: great crested newt. Poor implementation of the Habitats Directive make it a scapegoat.

31

Andrew

Mason (rspb-im

ages.com)

“The UK is home to 80% of the global population of gannets. EU site protection is vital to look after their nest sites and feeding areas.”

32

Forward, not backEnvironmental protection is essential to sustainable marine management and the maintenance of biodiversity is critical.

Seabed User and Developer Group

“ ”

Left: cliff-nesting gannet – our largest seabird.

33

The grave pressures on our natural environment are such that we must do more. Completing the implementation and improving enforcement of the Nature Directives will help set the state of nature on a positive trajectory. Moreover, it will help to iron out the costs and tensions that can arise from imperfect implementation.

However, implementation of the Directives has been slower than anticipated. The deadline for legal transposition of the Habitats Directive was June 1994, but no Member State met this deadline, or the 1998 goal for proposing a set of sites for protection.

1. Plan for natureThe Birds and Habitats Directives should not be amended. Instead, here in the UK, bringing the Directives to full effectiveness should be a priority for the new Parliament. The first five-year milestone for us in a 25-year plan for nature’s recovery should be full implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives in the UK.

We propose several simple steps to achieve this.

2. Find out where we are: science and surveysBoth Directives require monitoring and reporting to ascertain whether objectives are being met. However, the UK has consistently failed to support adequate research. For instance, the research requirements of Article 10 have not been transposed into domestic legislation. This has delayed research and acquisition of the data needed to classify protected areas.

As a result, for many vulnerable species, insufficient data has been collected. In some cases – for instance, the medicinal leech and Desmoulin’s whorl snail – national surveys have been undertaken but not repeated since 2000, while others like the Roman snail and lesser whirlpool ramshorn snail, have never been surveyed.

There has been no systematic analysis of the status of priority species since 2008, when an analysis of progress in England suggested that 11% of species were increasing, 32% were stable, but 22% were still in decline (the remaining species had either been lost or their trends were unknown). This showed that targeted work for species is very effective. However, it also illustrated that we need to undertake more species recovery work, coupled with broader work on sites and habitats, because species are being added to the priority list faster than they are being removed.

On land, specialist woodland birds exemplify the UK’s failure to comply with Article 10 of the Birds Directive, as the absence of adequate research seriously hampers conservation efforts. Overall, funding remains insufficient to establish causes of decline and methods for recovery, and this makes it difficult to ensure relevant provisions are included within conservation efforts, such as agri-enviroment schemes under the Common Agricultural Policy.

The limits on understanding are even greater in the marine environment. For example, a monitoring programme is needed to understand the status, trends and spatial distribution of seabird populations. Seabird data collection has been patchy, with most data gathered between 1979 and 2006. Since then, there has been no national monitoring programme.

Most recent data has been collected in developer‐led surveys linked to oil, gas and windfarm proposals. The Government is effectively relying on developers’ data. Such an ad hoc approach is not designed to identify areas for site designation or keep track of changes. This lack of information can create unnecessary conflict with industry and presents a barrier to investment in marine renewables. In this way, inadequate information has created barriers to effective conservation.

The failure to require good post-construction monitoring of impacts, and the effectiveness of mitigation for damage, means that actual impacts of development also remain unknown. This means that decisions remain locked in a precautionary system, rather than improving with experience. The precautionary approach will always have a role to play, but data on impacts could be used to move from a precautionary to a more evidence-based approach, resulting in better decision-making in many cases.

The situation is improving. The latest reports on the conservation status of the habitats and species listed under the Habitats Directive show a reduction in the proportion of assessments where conservation status is unknown, from 31% to 17% for species and from 18% to 7% for habitats.xxviii However, proper survey work under the Birds Directive is a priority.

The research requirements of Article 10 of the Birds Directive should be transposed into UK law. To meet these requirements, the Government should institute a rolling programme of monitoring for protected species on land and at sea, beginning in the first Session of the 2015 Parliament. By addressing gaps in our knowledge of protected species and habitats, it will be possible to improve conservation and save money.

3. Set out where we’re going: Favourable Conservation StatusIf we are to achieve the conservation benefits of Natura 2000, we need to have clear, site-specific conservation objectives for protected species and habitats.

This is also important for business. Explicit objectives are a prerequisite for proper assessment of development proposals. Yet even on land, where data is often available, site objectives are frequently wholly generic, failing even to clarify whether a species or habitat is in Favourable Conservation Status which must be maintained, or in Unfavourable Conservation Status and in need of restoration.

The Directives have improved the effectiveness of UK and European conservation beyond recognition, producing economic and social benefits in tandem with saving species and habitats. Changing the Nature Directives would be a step in the wrong direction, but that does not mean we should remain at a standstill.

34

In relation to European Protected Species, this failure to define Favourable Conservation Status has led to a precautionary approach based on a goal of no net loss. In other words, it is impossible to judge how an activity will affect a species or habitat if we do not have a clear understanding of the status of that species, nationally and within a defined area. By contrast, in Germany, Estonia, Flanders and France, each individual creature does not have to be protected, provided the overall population is maintained and the local conservation status is not adversely affected.

The UK approach has a negative impact on planning and species control. For example, a better understanding of populations of seabirds offshore, and how different kinds of development affect them, would help avoid delays and extra costs for applications for offshore wind installations.xxix

The Government should set, identify and publish definitions of Favourable Conservation Status for each protected species and habitat at a national and individual site level. This would inform the allocation of scarce resources for conservation and reduce the already small number of cases where a precautionary approach to protection has deterred developments or increased costs.

4. Fill the gaps: complete the Natura 2000 networkIn the UK, on land, the Natura network is nearly complete, although site designation for a number of species still needs work.

At sea, however, there are major gaps in the network, 34 years after the deadline for implementation of the Birds Directive. The necessary network of marine Special Protection Areas remains full of holes. No offshore sites have been classified and, while the most important seabird breeding colonies on land are protected, there are only three marine SPAs, which protect just two species in the non-breeding season, and both of these lie in inshore waters. Although an extension of protection for breeding colonies was agreed in 2008, these additions have yet to be classified in England and Northern Ireland. There are no SPAs to protect the feeding areas of any of the UK’s internationally important breeding seabirds.

A similar situation can be found across the EU. The European Court of Justice has repeatedly acknowledged that BirdLife International’s inventory of Important Bird Areas is a valid reference in assessing whether Member States have classified a sufficient number and size of territories as SPAs. The Court has ruled against Member States that have failed to protect their Important Bird

Species like the lesser whirlpool ramshorn snail have never been surveyed.

Ray Kennedy (rspb-im

ages.com)

35

Areas. However, 11 Member States have designated only half of their marine Important Bird Areas as SPAs.

In response to Commission infraction proceedings against the UK, consultations on protected areas for the harbour porpoise are currently underway in Wales and Scotland and anticipated for England in the near future.

The incompleteness of the offshore network has caused difficulties for important industries like the offshore renewables industry, which is forced to plan on the basis of inadequate information. This means that survey work often has to begin from scratch to inform a planning application. In some cases, wildlife found in this way is of such significance that designation is necessary and plans are disrupted, as was the case for the London Array windfarm development. Completing the network of Natura 2000 sites should be a conservation and economic imperative.

5. Join the dots: landscape-scale conservationBoth Directives encourage Member States to take measures outside Natura 2000 to improve the wider landscape and ensure that the Natura network is not a patchwork of isolated reserves, but part of a wider, healthy ecosystem.

Specifically, Article 4(4) of the Birds Directive requires Member States to strive to avoid the pollution or deterioration of habitats outside SPAs. Article 10 of the

Habitats Directive urges Member States to use land use planning and development policies to encourage the management of features of the landscape which are of major importance for wild fauna and flora.In 2010, a review led by Professor Sir John Lawton concluded that there were serious shortcomings in the network of wildlife sites: “many of England’s wildlife sites are too small” and “important wildlife habitats are generally insufficiently protected and undermanaged”. Lawton concluded that “we need to take steps to rebuild nature” and summarised the need for a coherent ecological network with four themes: “more, bigger, better and joined-up”.

The Lawton Review proposed “Ecological Restoration Zones” to provide a spatial and strategic mechanism for targeting effort and resources on areas of nature most in need of improvement and enhancement. The Government has experimented with this approach through its Nature Improvement Areas. Individual NIAs are making a difference: in the first year, just £7.5 million helped to leverage an additional £40 million in both cash and in kind contributions. However, the NIA approach failed to identify these areas in a strategic manner, or to embed them in planning or other decision-making processes. They were allocated based on local commitment and readiness to act, rather than ecological need. As an intervention, they were not designed as a nationally strategic tool to focus resources on where nature or people needed them most.

Alongside completion of the Natura 2000 network,

Measures are needed to improve the wider landscape outside Natura 2000 sites.

Andy H

ay (rspb-images.com

)

36

the Government should plan for enriching the wider landscape. It should take forward a strategic plan for the rollout of Nature Improvement Areas, based on ecological need.

6. Take out the roadblocks: complementary policiesNeither Natura 2000 sites nor the wider landscape can be restored effectively while other policies act in opposition to the objectives of the Nature Directives. A host of other sectoral and regional policies interact with the natural environment, including agriculture, fisheries, regional development and cohesion, forestry, energy, tourism, transport and industry. In particular, perverse incentives in the agriculture and fisheries sectors stand in the way of ecological recovery. Improvements could be made that reward sustainable business at the same time as contributing to environmental recovery.

Rapid changes in agricultural practices in the last 50 years have driven many species declines in the UK. Common Agricultural Policy subsidies indirectly incentivise production, while at the same time, farmers receive environmental payments to help prevent damage to the environment and to protect important wildlife habitats. The two instruments often work against one another, with the former dwarfing the latter. Realignment of these incentive systems could provide the same income opportunities for farmers while reducing the depletion of natural capital.Although the CAP includes several references to the

Birds and Habitats Directives, there has been a long-standing failure to integrate nature conservation in farming. In particular, the cross-compliance rules for ensuring basic environmental standards in return for subsidies are not sufficient. The scope and objectives of cross-compliance are poorly defined, and the requirements do little to encourage practical measures.

Cross-compliance requirements related to the Directives have been reduced in number under successive CAP reforms, eroding the coherence of EU agriculture policies with EU nature conservation objectives. Early indications from the latest CAP reform round (2014–2020) suggest that the situation has worsened. Permanent crops have been exempted from greening measures, monocultures can, in some instances, be deemed equivalent to crop diversification measures, and Member States are not obliged to designate all grasslands within Natura 2000 sites as environmentally sensitive, which would qualify them for additional protection measures.

In the same way, overfishing presents a major threat to biodiversity, both through species depletion and the impact of destructive fishing practices on marine habitats. The integration of sustainable fisheries management is essential to support the objectives of the Habitats Directive. Rather than generating a more sustainable fishing sector, the European Fisheries Fund (EFF, 2007–2013) worked to its detriment. Less than one-quarter of the fund was directed at fleet capacity reduction. Instead, available funds were used to help vessel owners

Protection of marine species and habitats will rely on proper implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy.

Laurie Cam

pbell (rspb-images.com

)

37

overcome economic problems at the expense of rebuilding fish stocks.

The recently reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) improved the integration of environmental requirements into EU fisheries policy. Article 2(1) requires environmental sustainability as the foremost objective of the CFP. Measures agreed in the reform (eg legally binding targets to stop overfishing, transparent objective criteria for distribution of fishing opportunities, and reduction of bycatch and discards) should support more sustainable fisheries management. However, ambitious implementation of the CFP will be essential to realising its objectives. In its first test in 2014, ministers chose not to reduce quotas for several stocks, against scientific advice.

Fishing pressure has been decreasing in the Atlantic and Baltic, but 41% of their assessed stocks are still fished above their maximum sustainable yield, whilst 91% of assessed stocks in the Mediterranean and 71% in the Black Sea were being overfished in 2014.xxx

Improving the system of incentives, rules and allocation of funds is particularly important when funding is scarce. The European Commission has acknowledged that funding for Natura 2000 management is highly inadequate, with likely only 9–19% of funding needs met.xxxi Around €34 billion per year would be required to cover the cost of environmentally beneficial land management on agricultural and forested land in the EU, rising to €43 billion per year when supportive costs such as advice provision are included.xxxii

The CAP’s Rural Development Pillar represents the single largest fund available in the EU for conservation measures, but receives just €12 billion per year. In the current CAP (2014–2020), Member States are required to spend at least 25% of the Rural Development budget on environmental measures, but some schemes are little more than additional income support (such as the Less Favoured Area payment) or have been poorly designed by the Member States.xxxiii

The only EU funding source dedicated to nature conservation (LIFE) represents less than 1% of the total EU budget. Current funding available is around a quarter of the minimum level deemed adequate to finance the network.xxxiv Despite the fact that Structural Funds offer opportunities for funding biodiversity, the actual use of these funds for financing biodiversity is very limited.

In the UK, the total cost of meeting our future environmental land management requirements, not including provision of advice for farmers, was estimated to be in the region of three times the existing annual agri-environment budget. Pillar I of the CAP receives the lion’s share of the CAP budget, some 75%, despite having no clear policy objective and numerous studies calling its efficacy and value for money into question. In many cases, as payment rates are often still linked to historic production levels, the highest support payments are going to those who produced the most (and generally intensified the most) in the reference period.

The Government’s negotiating position for CAP and CFP reform should focus on the integration of environmental

incentives. The Government should announce now that this will be a focus for the UK Presidency of the Council of the European Union in 2017.

Domestically, the Government has committed to two 25-year plans – one to restore biodiversity and one for the food and farming sector. It is essential that these plans are complementary and that the Government should explicitly link the objectives of the food and farming plan to the goal of restoring UK biodiversity.

To take one practical example, the Government should commit to full modulation of CAP funds from Pillar I to Pillar II and commit to an increased proportion of the funding for biodiversity.

7. Invest in nature: beat the natural deficitOf course, achieving the goals set out in the Nature Directives will require investment. The returns on investment in nature represent excellent value for money.

One crucial aspect of this investment must be the availability of expert advice for land management and development, both within and outside protected areas. In England, this advice is generally provided by Natural England, the Government’s lead agency on biodiversity protection. For example, Natural England advice will be critical in helping wildlife-friendly farmers to make the most of the new Countryside Stewardship Scheme, which is intended to reward environmentally-beneficial farming.

Unfortunately, there are further cuts slated for Natural England. Its funding will be cut by over a third (from 2010 levels) down to £139 million in 2015/16, which may contribute to a crisis of expertise and morale. This is a false economy. In trying to deal with a national budget deficit, we must not accrue an environmental deficit that would ultimately be far more costly.

Every time a protected site or species is affected by development or pollution motivated by short-term profit, some of the benefits to public health, enjoyment, food security, water quality, climate change mitigation or reduction of natural hazards may be lost. In other words, damaging EU protected sites depletes our public wealth, as well as threatening our most amazing wildlife.Properly aligning opportunities like the CAP, CFP and EU Regional Policy can go some way towards delivering these financial needs.

The Government should designate funding for Natural England as protected spending.

Improved implementation of the Nature Directives should be financed with a levy charged for depleting non-renewable natural resources – this should be paid into a Natural Wealth Fund, tasked with restoring UK biodiversity.

8. Crack down on crime: ending persecution of protected speciesThe fundamental principles of the species protection elements of the Birds Directive are largely transposed into UK law. The framework offered by the Directives has helped support successful reintroduction and restoration of species such as white-tailed eagles, ospreys and red

38

Steve K

nell (rspb-images.com

)kites. The Directives have also helped reduce persecution; poisoning in the lowlands is now largely history.

However, important principles of Article 7 of the Directive – including wise use, ecologically-balanced control, and the principle that hunting does not jeopardise conservation efforts – are not properly met. Moreover, inadequate enforcement of these provisions has resulted in a failure to prevent persecution of birds through deliberate killing, nest destruction and disturbance of birds of prey species, particularly in areas intensively managed for driven shooting of red grouse.

Low detection rates, and the low level of penalties applied where convictions are secured, have made the law an ineffective deterrent to illegal destruction of wildlife, notably protected birds of prey. Sentencing for wildlife crime should reflect the damage done and provide a real deterrent to offenders; there is a strong case for increasing the penalties associated with wildlife crime.

Public outrage at the illegal killing of birds on migration through Malta resulted in a referendum there this spring, and the British public were vocal in their condemnation of the terrible slaughter. It is thanks to the Nature Directives that we have a legitimate say in what happens in other

countries; however, we must acknowledge that illegal practices continue in the UK and put a stop to wildlife crime at home. Fantastic wildlife like the hen harrier could disappear in England unless we change our ways.

The UK currently has no system of licensing for hunting despite ongoing problems with illegal killing of birds of prey and damaging habitat management on some estates, particularly intensive driven grouse moors. The UK is the only EU Member State not to licence hunting. A more effective deterrent is needed to improve enforcement of legal protection for some of our best loved species and sites.

A robust licensing system for driven grouse shoots would be an effective way to prevent damaging and sometimes illegal behaviour. Licences should be revoked immediately for criminal persecution of wildlife, or for unlawful land management practices. The system should be designed to build in the management conditions stipulated in Article 7 of the Birds Directive. Vicarious liability should be established for persecution in England, so that the shoot organisers can be held responsible for criminal activity undertaken on their behalf.

Hen harrier – arguably the UK’s most persecuted bird of prey.

39

Mark S

isson (rspb-images.com

)

“A thousand starlings, shoaling across the evening sky.”

40

At the same time as looking after the natural world for our children, these essential laws also support our lives in other ways. Through the Directives, we benefit from cleaner air and water, greener places to exercise and reflect, and nature’s ability to lock up carbon or reduce the risk of flooding.

Of course, nature is also the most fundamental economic factor of production. At some point, every industry and every service relies on the bounty of nature. Protecting our natural environment and nurturing its abundance is the only way to ensure that we maintain a truly sustainable economy. Where businesses work together with nature and where the Directives are properly applied, their costs are minimal but their rewards are great.

What’s more, these vital laws are the only effective way of ensuring that amazing migratory species are protected all across the European Union. By taking action together, the influence and effectiveness of every Member State is multiplied, so that our conservation efforts – and our efforts to encourage conservation around the world – are more than the sum of their parts.

In this report, we have demonstrated that the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive must not be weakened. We recognise that some problems do arise,

but that these are usually a result of poor implementation, rather than a fault within the Directives themselves. Full implementation of the Nature Directives is better for wildlife, better for people and better for business.

We have set out a series of eight actions for realising the full benefits of the Directives: (1) plan to restore nature (2) science to understand the challenge (3) objectives to plan our response (4) completing the Natura network (5) looking after the land in between (6) lining up policies in other sectors to complement the work of the Directives (7) invest in nature and (8) cracking down on illegal activity. Together, these should comprise some of the first steps in a plan to turn around the state of nature. The Government should undertake to complete implementation of the Directives as the first milestone in a 25-year plan to restore nature.

Inspired by UK conservationists, the European Union has provided us with our most important laws for protecting nature. The challenges are great and some will take a long time to overcome, but we must not give up part way. In the UK, the public, civil society and business must come together to support the Government in completing and upholding implementation of the Nature Directives; the Government must play its part in making sure that they are not weakened.

ConclusionFrom the warmth of watching a child find a ladybird hidden in a log, to the thrill of watching a thousand starlings shoaling across the evening sky, nature brings some of the most magical moments in our lives. In the countryside, around our coasts and in our cities, the wonders of nature are kept close to us and protected by the Nature Directives.

Together, we must defend the laws that defend nature.

Left: A flock of starlings coming in to roost at Ham Wall, Somerset.

41

i http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5839/810.abstractii Gillingham et al. 2015. The effectiveness of protected areas in the conservation of species with changing geographical ranges. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society; Pellissier et al (2013: Animal Conservation 16: 566-574) iii Donald et al (2007: Science 317: 810-813) iv http://issuu.com/wildlifetrusts/docs/nature_and_wellbeing_act_final?e=4558523/9971297#search v Eurobarometer (2010). Attitudes of Europeans towards the issue of biodiversity. Analytical report Wave 2. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_290_en.pdf vi http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C:1975:060:FULL&from=EN vii http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_416_en.pdf viii Maes J, ML Paracchini, G Zulian, MB Dunbar, and R Alkemade. 2012. “Synergies and Trade-Offs between Ecosystem Service Supply, Biodiversity, and Habitat Conservation Status in Europe.” Biological Conservation 155 (October): 1–12; Clark NE, Lovell R, Wheeler BW, Higgins SL and Depledge MH (2014). Biodiversity, cultural pathways, and human health: a framework. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 29: 198-204. ix Eastwood et al. (2013). Nature conservation and ecosystem service delivery. JNCC Report No. 492; Maes et al (2012). Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem service supply, biodiversity, and habitat conservation status in Europe. Biological conservation, 155, 1-12 x GHK et al (2010) Economic Benefits of Environmental Policy. Report for DG Environmentxi Kettunen M, Baldock D, Adelle C, Cooper T, Farmer M, Hart K, Torkler P.(2009b). Biodiversity and the EU Budget – an IEEP briefing paper. Institute for European Environmental Policy, London / Brussels; http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/ENV-12-018_LR_Final1.pdf xii Lovell R, Wheeler B, Higgins SL, Irvine KN and Depledge MH (2014). A systematic review of the health and wellbeing benefits of bio diverse environments. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B: Critical Reviews, 17: 1-20; http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041614001648 xiii Sundseth, K., & Raeymaekers, G. (2006). Biodiversity and Natura 2000 in urban areas: Nature in cities across Europe – a review of key issues and experiences. Brussels, Ecosystems Ltd., Brussels. http://www.forumtools.biz/Fedenatur/upload/N2000inmajorEuropeancities.pdfxiv https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-costs-and-benefits-of-defra-s-regulations; https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69226/pb13623-costs-benefits-defra-regulatory-stock110816.pdf xv https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/291631/scho0409bpvm-e-e.pdf; http://www.rspb.org.uk/whatwedo/campaigningfornature/casework/details.aspx?id=tcm:9-235089 xvi McCarthy, D. & Morling, P. (2014). A Guidance Manual for Assessing Ecosystem Services at Natura 2000 Sites; Mace et al (2012). Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends in ecology & evolution, 27(1), 19-26. xvii Natural Capital Committee, The State of Natural Capital: protecting and improving natural capital for prosperity and wellbeing, Third Report to the Economic Affairs Committeexviii Balmford et al. (2004). The worldwide costs of marine protected areas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(26), 9694-9697.xix Jacob et al (2009). Environment and the Single Market. Final Report to the European Commission.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/economics_policy/pdf/single_market.pdf xx http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121212135622/http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file44583.pdfxxi High level group on administrative burdens (2014) Cutting Red Tape in Europe Brussels, 24 July 2014 Legacy and outlook p.33 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/refit/admin_burden/docs/08-10web_ce-brocuttingredtape_en.pdf; European Commission (2012) Action Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens in the EU Final Report xxii DEFRA. (2015). Emerging Findings from Defra’s Regulation Assessment: First Update Covering 2012. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-costs-and-benefits-of-defra-s-regulationsxxiii Dechezleprêtre A, & Sato M. (2014). The Impacts of Environmental Regulations on Competitiveness – Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment Policy Brief; Kozluk, T. & Zipperer, V. (2014). Environmental policies and productivity growth: a critical review of empirical findings. OECD Journal: Economic Studies, Vol. 1. OECD Paris; Albrizio, S. et al. (2014). Do environmental policies matter for productivity growth? Insights from new cross-country measures of environmental policies. OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 1176. xxiv High Level Group on Administrative Burdens. (2011). Europe can do better. Report on best practice in Member States

References

42

to implement EU legislation in the least burdensome way. http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/refit/admin_burden/best_practice_report/docs/bp_report_signature_en.pdf xxv https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69513/pb13724-habitats-review-report.pdf xxvi https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284500/environment-climate-change-documents-final-report.pdf xxvii EEA, 2015, The European environment — state and outlook 2015: synthesis report, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen xxvii Review of Favourable Conservation Status and Birds Directive Article 2 interpretation within the European Union (NECR176), Natural England, March 2015, para 7.3xxix EEA, 2015, The European environment — state and outlook 2015: synthesis report, European

Environment Agency, Copenhagen. http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2015; EC, 2014e, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council concerning a consultation on fishing opportunities for 2015 under the Common Fisheries Policy, COM(2014) 388 final xxx http://www.ieep.eu/publications/2011/03/financing-natura-2000xxxi Hart K, Baldock D, Tucker G, Allen B, Calatrava J, Black H, Newman S, Baulcomb C, McCracken D, Gantioler S (2011) Costing the Environmental Needs Related to Rural Land Management, Report Prepared for DG Environment, Contract No ENV.F.1/ETU/2010/0019r. Institute for European Environmental Policy, Londonxxxii European Court of Auditors (2011) Special report no. 7: Is agri-environment support well designed and managed? xxxiii Kettunen M, Baldock D, Adelle C, Cooper T, Farmer M, Hart K, Torkler P.(2009b). Biodiversity and the EU Budget – an IEEP briefing paper. Institute for European Environmental Policy, London / Brussels. 29 pp.

43

The RSPBUK HeadquartersThe Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire SG19 2DL Tel: 01767 680551

Northern Ireland HeadquartersBelvoir Park Forest, Belfast BT8 7QT Tel: 028 9049 1547

Scotland Headquarters2 Lochside View, Edinburgh Park, Edinburgh EH12 9DH Tel: 0131 317 4100

Wales HeadquartersSutherland House, Castlebridge, Cowbridge Road East, Cardiff CF11 9AB Tel: 029 2035 3000

Front cover: iStockphoto.comThe RSPB is a registered charity in England and Wales 207076, in Scotland SC037654. 280-0258-15-16

The RSPB is the country’s largest nature conservation charity, inspiring everyone to give nature a home. Together with our partners, we protect threatened birds and wildlife so our towns, coast and countryside will teem with life once again. We play a leading role in BirdLife International, a worldwide partnership of nature conservation organisations.

Stay in touch Richard BenwellParliamentary Programme ManagerThe RSPBThe Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire SG19 2DL Tel: 01767 680551

richard.benwell@rspb.org.uk

44