A birthday present from Europe?

I write this on my birthday.  I am 44 years today.  Happy birthday to me.

But I also write this in the week that WWF produced a report (here) saying we have lost half of the world's wildlife since 1970 - the date I was born.

Given that most graphs depicting wildlife declines start in 1970, it is no wonder that I feel guilty and responsible for what has been happening in my lifetime.   Every time another report comes out about loss, it is a bit like being whacked over the head with a mallet.

And, the latest assessment* of progress (here) towards meeting international commitments to wildlife (Aichi targets established through the Convention on Biological Diversity meeting in Nagoya in 2010) suggests that, globally, we are not doing enough to halt the loss of biodiversity.

This makes it all the more galling that there should be a debate about the future of the EU Birds and Habitats Directives.   As I wrote (here), these laws have (for 35 years in the case of the Birds Directive) provided the foundation of modern nature conservation and we should be celebrating what they have achieve and what they can achieve in the future.  

The reality, however, is different.  Since the European President Jean-Claude Juncker nominated his new Cabinet of Commissioners and opened up the prospect of a merger of the Directives.  I expressed a fear that a merger would, under the current economic climate, inevitably lead to a weakening of the Directives.

Moreover, in a guest blog last week (here), my colleagues Steve Micklewright, Executive Director of Birdlife Malta questioned the wisdom of nominating Karmenu Vella from the Maltese Government, as Commissioner responsible for the environment, including implementation of the Birds Directive.  He called upon our elected representatives in the European Parliament to provide close scrutiny of Mr Juncker's agenda and of Mr Vella himself.  

So have Mr Juncker and his proposed new Environment and Fisheries Commissioner listened to concerns?

In the field of environmental policy, it is sometimes difficult to measure success in concrete, tangible ways. A change to one word, or the re-ordering of a sentence, seemingly a purely cosmetic change, can have massive implications for nature. Transforming “could” to “must” for example.

In the last seven days the Juncker Commission’s language concerning the Directives has changed. Not much, but in the right direction.

Juncker’s original instruction to the new Environment and Fisheries Commissioner ran as follows, with no reference to the EU’s nature conservation objectives, and every indication that the Birds and Habitats Directives would be “modernised”, i.e. weakened;

"Continuing to overhaul the existing environmental legislative framework to make it fit for purpose. In the first part of the mandate, I would ask you to carry out an in-depth evaluation of the Birds and Habitats directives and assess the potential for merging them into a more modern piece of legislation."

Just a few days later, the new Commissioner’s written answers to questions sent to him by the European Parliament’s Environment Committee showed that the ground was already shifting;

“The Habitats and Birds Directives are at the core of our EU Biodiversity policy. I am committed to ensuring that the on-going Fitness Check in this area provides a thorough, transparent and evidence based evaluation, which will allow us to assess the potential for merging them into a more modern piece of legislation.”

In his speech to the Committee on Monday, further ground was given;

“We must step up efforts to meet the 2020 biodiversity targets with a legal framework that is fit for purpose. Any scope for simplification should be identified. Therefore, my task to carry out an ‘in-depth evaluation of the Birds and Habitats Directives’ is an assignment to maintain and, where necessary, improve the protection for our ecosystems and vulnerable species.”

And in Mr Vella’s oral responses to questions from MEPs in the Environment Committee, Mr Vella began to say the sort of things we would expect from an Environment Commissioner, describing the  Birds/Habitats directives as the cornerstone of European biodiversity, and stating, “obviously there is no idea to deregulate or to demote them”.

Further encouragement came in a leaked letter from the German Environment minister to Mr Juncker on Thursday, telling him not to merge the Habitats and Birds Directives, Europe’s main nature protection laws.

The letter highlighted that “The process of merging the directives would bring years of uncertainty,”  and further stated “I want to be frank with you that your asking the commissioner for environment to evaluate the potential for merging and modernising the Habitats and Birds Directives...is a cause of concern to me. The directives are a central, successful cornerstone of European biodiversity conservation”.

The letter echoed what we have been saying for years, clearly stating that laws “provide the legal certainty companies require” and “are working, even in a highly industrialised country such as Germany”.

With the EU  already at risk of missing the goals set out in its biodiversity strategy, which calls for biodiversity loss to be halted and begin its recovery by 2020, it is self-evident that now is not the time to mess with the only effective nature conservation tools available to the EU, the focus must be on implementation.

And what of Malta?

Mr Vella explained that as Tourism Minister for Malta he had two in-trays, one for regular mail, and one for hunting–related mail. He responded to a British MEP’s demand to “stop killing our birds”by saying “you are preaching to the converted”, and said that abuses of environmental laws would not be tolerated. All this would be music to our ears, were it not for the fact that while in Government in Malta, Mr Vella did not seem to have done anything about the illegal hunting situation.

So, we think we have made progress over the past fortnight.  That is good news. I'll happily accept this as a birthday present - I know, I am low maintenance.  But, be in no doubt, this is merely the initial skirmish in what is set to be a long drawn out campaign to protect the laws that protect nature.  

*Authors of this paper include the RSPB's Head of Species Monitoring and Research, Dr Richard Gregory.