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.
Greylady seems to misunderstand the role of charitable organisations - a key function of special interest groups whether they be related to medical research, child protection or nature conservation is to attempt to influence policy to best help their cause. If they identify a potential threat, it is incumbent upon them to make this known to both public and government and particularly to those who have supported them through their donations. The RSPB has pointed out flaws in EU policy, particularly in relation to farming and fisheries policy, and recognised the merits for nature conservation. They have also recognised that consideration of nature is only one aspect that people will take into account when decided how to vote in the referendum. As many of our insects and birds are migratory and affected by conditions in continental Europe as well as within the UK, I am not surprised that RSPB feels nature is better protected if the UK remains in the EU where it, and other nature conservation organisations, have more influence over a wider geographical area.
In reply to greylady, I have to disagree with that member of the forum, as I think the RSPB have a right to support in or out and it is non political as both the main political party's are split between there MP's on which way they should vote and I do think the RSPB in that case have a right to give there opinion.
Regards,
Ian,
Ian.
Unfortunately even though I've voted to stay in the EU, I have a gut feeling sadly that the majority of UK citizens will vote to leave, after I've talked to lots of local people where I live and a big majority of them have told me that they are going to vote to leave. So although all the opinion polls say it's to close to call, I fear there will be a big majority to leave in the referendum. Hope I'm wrong!
I am appalled that a charity that relies on public donations is getting involved in taking sides in the forthcoming referendum. KEEP YOUR OPINIONS TO YOURSELF!! You have no business publicising them on this website. Charities should be non political. Can you really afford to alienate at least half of tne nation in this way? Have you learned nothing from the plight of the RSPCA when it comes to taking a political stance? Using the plight of birds as an excuse to bring the debate onto this site is outrageous and shows the deplorable and desperate depth that the remain campaign has sunk to.
Totally, 100 percent agree, Mike, I actually think nature would be MUCH safer if the UK remains in the EU.
There is further point too, the strength and quality of the RSPB and the respect it has, means that in combination with Birdlife International and other conservation organisations in the EU, the RSPB can and does have a significant influence within the EU on improving current and future protection for nature across all member countries. This influence is of major importance and would be largely lost if, "heaven forbid it", this country was to leave.
redkite