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.
The notion that the EU somehow makes the UK greener or that the UK prevents the EU from being greener is spurious to say the least considering that the ecological footprint of the eu is so huge that if everyone was to live at european standards we would need 2.6 planets and this does not include the ecological footprint that is outsourced through the eu free trade deals that causes deforestation, industrialized agriculture and increased consumerist products.
Basically, the ideological growthism that is at the heart of the eu project does not make anyone greener in europe or globally because europe is one of the main drivers of the global ecological and social crisis that we are currently facing whether as climate change, biodiversity loss or excess nitrogen cycles.
In fact as we speak, it is the eu that is promoting and supporting unsustainable human development and it is completely disengenious to state otherwise.
As such any so called benefits of eu environmental law are miniscule compared to the destruction that the eu is perpetrating globally whether through ecological degradation or social and economic injustices.
So whilst the EU Habitats directive is important, Europe’s natural habitats are continuing to deteriorate and an increasing number of wild species are seriously threatened. Much of this is as a result of development and agricultural intensification.
Similarly it is the Bern Convention that enforces the EU to adopt the Habitats Directive which is already adopted by the UK as The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 regardless of EU membership. jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1377
However, besides The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, in no way does EU environmental law compare to the costs inflicted on our ecological environment though ideological growthism of which freedom of movement is an intrinsic part.
For example, our green infrastructure is under pressure to accommodate migration led growthism in the form of housing, industrial warehousing units and related infrastructure. How exactly then does eu policy make Britain greener unless of course one is applying discriminative thinking in that our wildlife has different degrees of value so whilst in practice our farmland birds are declining in population due to green infrastructure being lost to grey infrastructure to accommodate migration-led growthism (and this applies to both the uk and europe as a whole), this is ok as long as we have the international based habitat directive.
Without considering the full implications of eu policy and the treaties as a whole, then this partial perspective is not green at all. It is just more of the same human-centric partialism that enables the destruction of our environment over and above a more holistic eco-centric perspective which balances environmental protection (regenerative activities) with economic prosperity (degenerative activities).
Obviously at the heart of policy that is eco-centric is sustainability and the management of resource/energy flows and in this respect, the EU is an extremely poor example with its four basic economic freedoms. At least with Brexit and bringing policy making back home which includes enabling the management of the four economic freedoms via electoral democracy and a more accountable form of policy making in concert with international obligations regarding climate change, biodiversity, heritage sites, pollution and perhaps most importantly the sustainable development goals, this clearly makes Brexit the greener option simply through the ability to exercise more management even if that is via a Tory government.
The question whether it is politics or not is as old as the hills - I think it was raised during the discussion about whether RSPB should become involved in agriculture 30 years ago - it perhaps seems extraordinary now when it such a big part of RSPB's work , but there was a fierce debate and it was in now way a foregone conclusion. The answer remains the same as it did then: RSPB isn't political, its for the birds, and if some of the things it has to fight for to save our birds happen to also be current political issues, that doesn't make RSPB political in the sense of supporting one party or political philosophy.
In this debate, I can only say that my personal experience of European conservation is largely positive: who would have thought we could ever have a Europe wide network of large habitat reserves ? I'd certainly not have predicted it when I started in conservation. The EU Life programme has been fantastic support for restoring some of our most valuable and exciting habitats, not least the New Forest bogs where Mike did his Phd.
The EU regulations have stopped Government's - and not just the UK - from doing things they probably knew they shouldn't be doing, but had difficulty resisting within the hothouse of day to day politics.
Agriculture and the CAP is a less happy story, but before we heap everything on Europe, its worth remembering that UK agriculture policy as we went into the EU pretty much matched the CAP in terms of subsidy support, and no Governing UK political party has made much effort to change things - nor have they taken full benefit of the flexibility to move money from support for intensive agriculture to more environmental aims.
So I agree with Mike - remain is better for the Birds, and as he rightly points out this will be just one factor in people making up their minds. I am sure his comments on migration will never extend beyond our birds arriving in the spring and leaving in the autumn !
In reply to greylady. It is quite normal for campaigning organisations to speak out during public debates if the subject has implications for their cause. It is also legitimate for them to lobby politicians and decision makers to illicit their support. The current debate on the referendum has widespread implications and affects almost every aspect of UK society. We shouldn't be too surprised if a group like rspb examines its relevance and asks questions about how bird and wildlife protection may be affected by the outcome. The RSPCA have carried out a similar exercise and decided to stay neutral for reasons they explain on their web site. That is not the same as staying silent.
Dear Greylady - If I am running a business I have the right and duty to say how the result of the referendum affects my business. If I am President of the USA I have the right and duty to say how the result of the referendum affects my countries interest, especially as he made it clear that he was primarily commenting on the self interest of his own country. If I am running a national charity I have the right and duty to say how the result of the referendum affects my charity and its interests. It is not a party political issue. I would be genuinely interested if you can give an example of any prominent environmentalist or scientist who is making a case to leave the EU.
As a long term member of RSPB, and parent, I look to the research and hard graft which you do to protect the UK wildlife, and this involves working in partnership with other countries.
I have dithered about which way to vote on 23rd June, but have come down on the side of remain due to the conservation concerns, and current legisliation.
In reply to greylady and others, I say that it actually is the business of NGOs to provide some guidance on a very complex and confusing issue, which most ordinary people like me, would not get if RSPB etc didn't put it out there. Thank you