A triumph for evidence over anecdote

As you’ll be all-too-aware if you’re a regular reader of this blog, in the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement last year he announced a review that would ‘make sure that the gold-plating of EU rules on things such as habitats do not place ridiculous costs on British businesses’.

Yesterday the conclusions of the Habitats Regulations review were published.  They show, as I confidently (ha!) predicted, that there is no evidence of gold-plating of these rules.  Far from being the barrier to economic recovery that some have framed them as, the report clearly shows the economic value of the sites and species they protect.  And, many of the problems arise due to lack of implementation rather than over-implementation.

Defra’s website, announcing the report, states: “The Government strongly supports the aims of the Habitats and Wild Birds Directives to protect our rarest and most threatened habitats and species, which contribute to the economic value of our natural environment”. 

So, good news for great crested newts, for bats, and for many of our best loved birds and special places.

I am pleased (as I hope are the Directors of the Bat Conservation Trust and Amphibian and Reptile Conservation who contributed to this blog last week).  As reported here, it's not all good, but I think that the Defra team have done well to ensure that the report reflects evidence rather than anecdote. 

Just remember that the Directives were born out of a desire for no Member of the European Union to gain competitive environment by trashing the environment.  And also remember that the United Kingdom has the smallest percentage of its land protected compared to all other 26 Member States.

There were clearly rumours that others in the Cabinet wanted the Environment Secretary, Caroline Spelman, to do more to free up business.  As with debates about planning reform and the red tape challenge, some within government have chosen to place the blame for lack of economic growth at the door of environmental regulations.  

We get a few days to draw breath now before the next instalment in this run of major government announcements: the National Planning Policy Framework next Tuesday. Rumour and counter-rumour about the final state of this last piece in the reform of England’s planning system abound.  Some state that the central definition of the presumption in favour of sustainable development is still being hotly debated between the Treasury and the Communities Secretary, Eric Pickles.   Whatever the outcome, the true test of these new planning rules will come in real places, in real communities.  But one thing is now certain - if important wildlife sites get damaged as a result of these reforms, it is clear who should take responsibility.

If you have taken the time to read the results of the Habitats Regulations review, what did you think about its conclusions?

It would be great to hear your views.