The UK has voted to leave the European Union.
The RSPB has always believed that, because nature transcends national boundaries, it needs cross-border co-operation to protect it and a common set of international standards that enable it to thrive.
That is why, now the UK has decided to leave the EU, the RSPB believes the UK must continue to act internationally, and look to forge comprehensive international agreements for nature conservation and the environment.
But we also need action at home.
David Tipling's fabulous image of two turtle doves - our fast declining migratory bird
There are millions of people in the UK who love nature – just think about the viewing figures of BBC Springwatch. We need clean air and water, and we want an attractive countryside rich in wildlife.
It is essential that we do not lose the current, hard won, level of legal protection. Given the current state of nature, we should be looking to improve the implementation of existing legal protection and, where necessary, to increase it.
It will now be down to the governments in Westminster, Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff to make this happen.
As the new constitutional settlement is negotiated over the coming months (and years?), the RSPB will continue to be a voice for nature, raising the importance of environmental issues that has an impact on people, wildlife and the economy. We will provide a constructive challenge to all governments across the UK where necessary, and give credit where it is due; just as we always have done.
And, of course, trans-national challenges such as protecting our migrating birds, tackling climate change remain, which is why we shall work internationally, as we have done so for over a hundred years, and will continue to act across Europe with our Birdlife International partners to tackle the many challenges facing nature.
In short, we shall continue to do whatever nature needs.
Finally, I hope that all those that have invested so much in this campaign take time to recover. We need our leaders to be at their best as they make sense of this result and to rise to meet the challenges we and nature face. Given that contact with nature is good for the soul, I recommend a visit to a local nature reserve this weekend.
Ben Hall's image of RSPB Arne at dawn (rspb-images.com)
I completely agree with Keith Cowieson's points. From what I have read so far, the special unit to deal with Brexit does not have representation from the Dept of Environment/Energy and Climate Change. We need nature to have a voice on the bodies that plan and negotiate our exit.
I looked into UK wildlife legislation to see if leaving the EU would cause us a problem.
The way EU Directives work is that Parliament has to pass its own law to bring the legislation into being. No longer being a member of the EU does not negate that legislation.
Looking at protected areas designation status:
AONB are protected by several Acts, including the Environment Act 1995
Areas of Special Protection are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
Country Parks are protected by the Countryside Act 1968
Limestone Pavements by the WCA 1981
Local Nature Reserves by the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949
Marine Conservation Zones by the Marine and Coastal Act 2009
Marine Nature Reserves under the WCA 1981
National Nature Reserves by WCA 1981, and others.
National Parks by the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949
Ramsar under world-wide international treaty.
SSSIs by the WCA 1981 and other Acts.
SPAs under the WCA 1981, and beyond 12 nautical miles by the Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 2007
World Heritage Sites under the World Heritage Convention
National Trust by the National Trust Act 1907
The Special Areas of Conservation are sites that have been adopted by the European Commission and fomally designated by the Government of each country in whose territory the site lies, meaning they are all formally designated by the UK Government.
However, there are also SCIs, which are sites of community importance, and they are sites adopted by the European Commission but not yet formally designated by the government of each country.
Candidate SAC's are sites that have been submitted to the European Commission but not yet formally adopted.
In England, the number of SACs is 235. The number of SCIs is just 7. There are no candidate SACs in England.
In Wales, the three numbers are: 85; 0; 0
In Scotland, the three numbers are 236; 2; 0
There are some cross-border sites (England/Wales/Scotland): 10: 0; 0
However, there are some offshore sites, and the numbers are: 5; 10; 1
SACs and SPAs form the Natura 2000 network.
The above data was correct in the UK at 24th May 2016.
I cannot guarantee this is all absolutely watertight, but it looks pretty comprehensive to me.
I completely agree with Keith Cowieson's blogs. We need to respect the democratic decision of the Brexit vote and take the new opportunities to save nature.
I'd be interested to learn how RSPB is planning to fund major increases in land acquisition over the coming years. If European SPA/SAC designations can no longer be relied on to defend our most important wildlife sites, ownership by conservation bodies will become the primary way of ensuring they continue to be protected and managed for nature.
At the same time, it's unlikely that UK taxpayers will be prepared to carry on propping up uneconomic farming activities after the CAP ceases to apply. Expect many farmers to go out of business, especially in the uplands, and consequently large areas of sensitive land coming on the market.
I hope RSPB (and other environmental charities) have a lot of money in the kitty - it's likely to be needed soon!
Nightjar (whoever you are),
What a strange (3rd) Comment. I suggest you go back and re-read the 2nd paragraph of my original Comment again - you appear to have missed the point. The key words are '...the British electorate...' and '....on what they perceive...'
Whether the evidence touted around in the Referendum debate is dangerous to the whole human race is an interesting observation. I suppose if you accept David Cameron’s fears over a British EU exit leading to some sort of war or nuclear Armageddon then it might just be conceivable. However, on balance, I view EU exit as significantly less of an existential threat to the human race than say an asteroid collision, super volcano eruptions or some unexpected major solar phenomenon.
For what it is worth, I agree with you that is better for more of us to know more - and be able to judge the evidence for ourselves and that sparrowhawks starve when there is too little prey to support them.
Interesting that you are so confident about what farmers will soon say – perhaps as confident as others were of a REMAIN referendum result? And quite why you would want to quote me back at farmers is also a mystery, and yes I do know a couple, and am perfectly capable of telling them my views myself.
What I am advocating is that our Society seizes the opportunity to help fashion the national CFP and CAP replacements through positive, listening and constructive engagement with fishermen, farmers and other land managers (and their representative bodies if they have them) so that the gulf between ‘lay’ practitioners’ and ‘experts’’ respective views is narrowed (if one exists) and that a common understanding is fostered (if one needs to be). I gave the example of the Scottish Government-endorsed Understanding Predation Project as a useful model for such dialogue. Collaborators in that project included civil servants, NGOs, land managers and other interested stakeholders – all facilitated by academics from both natural and social science disciplines - with welcome and valuable RSPB Scotland participation throughout.