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 think the RSPB behaved correctly in recommending which way to vote in a referendum. But now the vote has been decided democratically and I voted for in, but we now have to accept the way the vote went.
Regards,
Ian.
I'm also interested in your take on evidence, Keith. Equally dangerous, in this case to the whole human race, is dismissing information (I won't call them 'facts' because that would not be strictly correct) because it doesn't agree with your pre-conceived views. I do, however, agree that some people can be over bearing in their expertise - 'that is a fact, you have to agree with it'. And some birdwatchers can be very patronising to people who know less than them. The answer is for more of us to know more - and be able to judge the evidence for ourselves. It was therefore a great pleasure that literally millions of people were able to make their own judgement on the lives of Sparrowhawks in Springwatch this year and understand for themselves how the food chain, in all its 'nature red in tooth and claw' really works - and in particular understand that far from wiping out small birds, Sparrowhawks starve if there are too few of them.
And, more relevant to Mike's blog and experts and laymen, we will very soon be hearing a familiar refrain from farmers as farm subsidies come under discussion: 'you can't have a voice because you don't understand what we do'. I'll be ready to quote you back at them, Keith. I suspect quite a few will know who you are.
I agree with ‘Nightjar’ that it is undemocratic and ultimately dangerous to try to silence people who disagree with you – please desist.
I think RSPB have behaved entirely correctly in its handling of the Referendum debate. Equally, I am upset the way the vote went but we live in a democracy and even if one does not believe in the decision that is how it is. Which makes me increasingly angry with people who try to silence people who disagree with them - please desist, it is undemocratic and ultimately dangerous.
Mike,
It is always dispiriting when one’s advice is rejected by the country’s voters, and that is the risk that you run when Charities engage in national political debate. On the assumption that RSPB membership broadly represents the society from which it is drawn, it is also probably fair to assume that RSPB membership was fairly evenly divided over whether to leave the EU too. Indeed the demographics may even suggest that members were more likely to have voted for LEAVE than REMAIN. Perhaps Council now ought to reflect upon whether or not our Society should be taking overt high-profile positions on such political issues, rather than simply laying out a balanced set of threats and opportunities as it sees them, without recommendation. I for one would favour more emphasis on the seemingly humdrum but core bird protection-related issues and less high-profile politicking from our Society.
Moreover, not for the first time in recent years, the British electorate have delivered a rather damning verdict on what they perceive as an unlistening elite and establishment so-called ‘expert’ opinion - from Obama to the IMS & IFS, Bank of England, pollsters, bookies, captains of industry and many more. In the light of that, I suggest that the Society as a whole would do well to follow the Scottish Government’s (and RSPB Scotland’s) example, as recently illustrated by its ‘Understanding Predation Project’ see here - http://tinyurl.com/zqdaz9l - by attempting to engage more with lay people and take their ‘hands-on’ practical conservation and management experience into account more often, when formulating policy positions and proposed management prescriptions. In this respect, you will recall that one of the recommendations from the review of RSPB science 3 years ago was that the Society ‘…..should undertake more social science. Whilst biological research should remain fundamental to the society, we believe that economic analyses, conflict resolution, human behavioural studies, political science and governance are increasingly important in trying to find practical solutions to environmental problems’.
In the meantime, we are where we are as they say, and leaving the EU will present as many opportunities as challenges. For example, we now have the opportunity to help a British Government shape national replacements for the frankly disastrous Common Fisheries and Common Agricultural Policies (CAP). Taking full control of our extensive marine UK Exclusive Economic Zone again should allow future governments to manage better our fishing areas, permitted catches and allow fish stocks and seabed areas to recover, see here - http://tinyurl.com/zjwd43q, here, http://tinyurl.com/j25maoy and here http://tinyurl.com/j9l8cqk Our seabirds and maritime habitats are under threat, now we can do something about it, unilaterally, over a vast swathe of oceanic and inshore waters.
Equally, we all know that the CAP was not delivering for wildlife at a continental and national level. Now we can at least attempt to fix our national part of that problem – for as we all well know, one size does not fit all. Perhaps a fresh look, root and branch review of Countryside Stewardship, Glastir, Scottish Rural Development Programme and Northern Ireland Countryside Management Scheme is in order?
Positive, listening and constructive engagement with future National, Regional and Local government bodies and agencies, and with local fishermen, farmers and land managers (who will all be looking for advice and guidance in a period of transitional uncertainty), should pay dividends. We have the opportunity to develop truly inclusive, flexible and adaptive solutions for many of the challenges that our wildlife faces. The Society can and should be at the forefront of these efforts – let’s seize that opportunity.