A lesson from America

The debate about the future of the EU Nature Directives is set to dominate conservation conversations for at least the next 18 months (see here).  While the Commission runs a review of its effectiveness, Member States will report on their experiences.  The European Parliament will, inevitably, want to have its say although may have to agitate from the sidelines unless or until new legislation is drafted.  

After a rapid round of meetings with all the key players in Brussels last week, it is impossible to ignore the parallels with the review of the implementation of the Habitat Regulations conducted in England a couple of years ago: emotive language, anecdotal justification for change, deregulatory political context, NGOs and officials tied up with paperwork for months etc etc.

One of the charges against the directives is that they are old therefore surely no longer fit for purpose.  

Those with limited knowledge of the law and its implementation assume that the law is unable to deal with "modern challenges" like climate change or the drive for economic prosperity.

I beg to differ and urge those people to look at the evidence.  

Chris Gomersall's wonderful image of a flock of Golden Plover in flight

Over the past 35 years, the economy has had a number of boom and bust cycles.  I don't think nature protection laws get the credit or blame for any of the peaks or troughs.  The directives are beautiful pieces of legislation which have helped drive recovery of species populations or slow their decline.  And, as has been demonstrated on numerous occasions, they can they accommodate needs of species now and in the future but also provide no constraint to smart economic development.

I was reminded how lucky we are to have these laws when listening to a talk on Friday from David Yarnold, CEO of the National Audubon Society (our partner organisation in the United States).  David gave an inspiring talk to RSPB staff about their new campaign (see here) to highlight the impact of climate change on North American birds.  Thanks to the wonders of technology, we were able to beam in David and colleagues from Washington and New York.  As ever, it was useful to hear about what others doing to try to highlight the threat to nature from "climate pollution resulting in global warming".

Through climate modelling, they looked at how species ranges might change during the 21st century.  Their new research provides a "field guide to the future of North American birds". The headlines are stark but familiar: of the species they looked at, nearly half are at risk with some species expected to lose half their range.  At risk include birds like the American Avocet and Yellow-Headed Blackbird.

This, of course, chimes with many other studies that have been conducted which document the inexorable march of species towards the poles.  The RSPB, for example, worked with others to produce a Climatic Atlas of European Breeding Birds (see here) which showed that (under a scenario where global temperatures rise by 3 degrees above pre-industrial levels), species would, on average, move 550km north-eastwards and losing a fifth of their range. 

Audubon is using its research to encourage individual and collective action both "to reduce climate pollution and protect those places that birds need today".  They go further and say how the research can help inform conservation investments, highlighting those places that will continue to serve as valuable habitats in the years to come.

It's not rocket science - those areas of natural or semi-natural habitat most likely to provide the needs of wild species today will remain important in the future either buying species time to adapt/move or as landing pads for climate colonisers.  There is a growing body of research to back this up (see here for example).

So, laws that protect these places will become increasingly important. And those laws that help provide the right conditions outside of protected areas will also be important to help provide landscapes which are hospitable to wildlife.  

And that is exactly what has been provided by the clever people that drafted the EU 1979 Birds Directive and 1992 Habitats and Species Directive.

The Directives are good for wildlife today and will remain essential for wildlife in the future.  The need for nature to cope with climatic change will be dependent on the pace at which the world weans itself off fossil fuels, which will be partly determined by the deal which needs to be struck at the next Climate Conference in Paris at the end of the year.

An ambitious climate deal and a clean bill of health for the Nature Directives.  That's what we need in 2015.