By Mike Clarke, RSPB Chief Executive
We have 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. This concept stretches back throughout the RSPB’s history, ever since the organisation joined international efforts to curb oil pollution in the 1920s. And this concept was our starting point when we began to weigh up the environmental impacts of the UK’s potential withdrawal from the EU.
Back in March we joined forces with the Wildlife Trusts and WWF to commission an independent report into the likely environmental impacts of leaving the EU. The report illustrated how EU measures have safeguarded birds such as the bittern, nightjar and Dartford warbler, protected habitats that are essential for butterflies and bees, and have delivered cleaner air, rivers and beaches.
Our report was soon followed by others echoing its conclusions, most notably from the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee and another from leading academics. The evidence was beginning to stack up: the EU has provided many benefits for wildlife that would be hard to replicate if we left. The Nature Directives in particular provide a robust international framework that ensures that roads, ports, airports and housing are not developed at the expense of our most valuable wildlife sites. 93.8% of UK citizens live within 20km of one of these protected places, which provide homes for species like otters, stag beetles, bitterns and butterflies. Some of our most spectacular landscapes – from the Moray Firth and the North Antrim Coast, to Ramsey Island and The New Forest – are protected by EU regulations.
People across Europe have also benefitted from water quality, climate change, air quality and renewable energy targets set at EU level, with the direct involvement of successive UK governments.
These benefits have been hard won. Our supporters have been at the forefront of many campaigns over the past 40 years that have helped to make our wildlife and fragile habitats safer and more secure.
But, these reports also point out that the EU isn’t perfect and there is room for improvement, particularly in areas such as agriculture and fisheries policies. So in April, with the referendum campaign officially underway, we asked the two campaigns – Britain Stronger in Europe and Vote Leave – to set out for our members and supporters how their proposition will deliver for nature.
We are delighted that both campaigns responded positively to our challenge, and provided video and written statements clearly setting out their stall. You can find out what they said on our website.
However, no-one from the “Leave” campaign has yet been able to reassure us that we wouldn’t need to start again from scratch were we to leave the EU. What will happen to nature in the meantime? Recent calls from supporters of “leave” to scrap the Nature Directives – which have been proven to work so effectively where properly implemented – are of great concern.
That is why we are pleased that the Prime Minister has today recognised that the outcome of the EU Referendum could have significant implications for the future of our wonderful, world-renowned wildlife and it is great to see the environment featuring in the discussion. He has also recognised the role that civil society, including organisations like the RSPB, can play in democratic debate and we both welcome and endorse this remark.
The RSPB is a nature conservation charity with 1.1 million members. Yet we recognise that most people will consider a range of different issues when deciding how to cast their votes on 23 June and we won’t be telling anyone what to do. As a charity we are not aligned to any particular organised campaign on either side of the argument. The RSPB can only comment on the implications for nature and the environment, based on an objective assessment of the available evidence.
We want a secure future for our most precious wildlife and the places they call home. In weighing up the current evidence, the uncertainties and the balance of risks, we have concluded that the safer option for nature is for the UK to remain a part of the European Union.
I'm afraid your wrong Roger K, as a lot of charities do comment on controversial subjects such as the RSPCA as well well as the RSPB, and it's very much non political as both Goverment and opposition parties are split down the middle. So the RSPB is justified in publishing it's opinion as long as it doesn't contravene it's royal charter.
Regards,
Ian.
Sorry Thomo but you miss the point entirely. The role of newspapers is to promote news and report progress on such things as the EU referendum. The RSPB is a charity and not part of the media and as such, has no role in the broadcasting of politically orientated opinions.
Sorry Roger K,
But newspapers are passing there views on the referendum, so any charity should be allowed to pass it's view. So I disagree with you and Greylady.
100 per cent agree with everything Greylady has to say. Whilst it's acceptable for the RSPB to have an opinion on the forthcoming referendum, to publicly promote that view by broadcasting it in the national press and on its own website is not just outrageous but scandalous. The referendum is a political issue and the RSPB has no right whatsoever to try and exert any influence over its outcome. The publishing of its view bears no comparison to lobbying politicians in order to influence policy. In this instance, the RSPB is lobbying the electorate at large, many of whom are its very own members, which is another matter entirely.
Many, many thanks to all of you for your comments. I am glad that as a result of this intervention last week the environmental impacts of the referendum are now getting some attention at last. Good luck to all of you as you make up your minds how to vote.