On the day of a crucial conference in Brussels regarding the future of the EU Nature Directives, my boss, Mike Clarke, offers his perspective on how politicians should respond to the findings of review into their effectiveness...
------------------------------------------------
For much of this year, I’ve had the privilege of being at the cutting edge of our campaign to defend the Nature Directives. In the UK, in Brussels and in Berlin I’ve met with many people who make key policy decisions. I have had the opportunity to point out that nature does not respect frontiers, and the Nature Directives have a vital role to play in saving nature in the UK and across the continent.
As you may have read here on Wednesday, hundreds of people from across Europe will meet today in Brussels to discuss the future of the Nature Directives. The Directives are the subject of a Fitness Check by the European Commission that is supposed to be an independent assessment of whether they are fit for purpose. However, from the start, it has been clear that some want to see these crucial laws weakened.
This desire to weaken environmental laws is driven by an outmoded notion that the environment is a burden on the economy, rather than an asset. In the UK the perception that environmental laws “impose a ridiculous burden on business” led to the Habitats Regulations Review in England, which found that – in fact – they don’t. At European level the drive to deregulate has led to a new “better regulation” initiative, with the new EU institutions determined to be “big on the big things, but small on the small things”.
For some nature is a small thing, despite the fact that it provides us with clean water, flood alleviation, carbon storage, pollination, mental and physical wellbeing and cherished landscapes. For me, nature is a very big thing, not just because I depend on it, but also because of it's beauty and for it's own sake. How do you judge the benefits to an individual, or indeed society, of hearing the first cuckoo of spring, of seeing porpoises leaping from the sea, or indeed of knowing, just knowing, that eagles, bears and wolves have returned to our continent?
At the Conference today I have been asked to talk on the topic of efficiency. The Commission has asked “whether the costs involved in the implementation of the EU Nature Directives are reasonable in relation to the objectives pursued and the results achieved (benefits).”
We know, and the Commission knows, that the annual costs of full implementation of the Natura 2000 network would be approximately EUR 5.8 billion per annum, while the Natura 2000 network has been estimated to deliver annual benefits of EUR 200-300 billion across the EU by supporting valuable ecosystem services.
The RSPB has helped compile evidence showing that the benefits of the Directives greatly exceed the costs at EU, national and local scales. Indeed, studies in Scotland and England have found benefit to cost ratios of up to 12:1. RSPB research in press confirms that the Directives deliver not only biodiversity benefits, but also help to fulfil other international obligations, such on climate change.
The review shows many examples of the Nature Directives working well - this has been hard earned. Charities like the RSPB have made a major financial and technical contribution to their implementation. We have worked side by side with businesses, from multi-national corporations to family farms. The policy uncertainty - and business risk - that would come from opening up the legislation would lift the lid on a Pandora's Box.
But the Nature Directives are not there just because nature is worth money. The Nature Directives exist because the European Union, and indeed the world under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, has recognised that protecting nature is also our moral responsibility. Nature is an asset that is corroding. Far from being gold-plated it is, in truth, being allowed to rust.
The evidence from this review, and the UK Govt review before it, fails to demonstrate any strategic cost on other aspects of the public interest. So, why are the Nature Directives an irritant to some policy makers? In my view, it is because of backward-looking ideas and restricted thinking.
We need a new way of working - we need to modernise our thinking. In many ways, the Nature Directives were ahead of their time. They are part of the effective functioning of a single market, and their design is as good example of smart regulation.
Nature is not a small thing, it’s a big thing. The Nature Directives can be more efficient through investment, smart implementation and consistent enforcement. They are a vital part of a future in which the next generation can have ambition, confidence and hope.
5.8 billion across the whole EU is less than twice CAP payments to the UK alone and only just more than 1/3rd of CAP payments to France. So, miniscule, and if you are talking efficiency surely it would be appropriate to look at how well the two schemes are succeeding in achieving their respective aims.
I hope the EU will recognise that the unprecedented public response to the threat to the Directives actually represents the sort of coming together across the Union that the EU is always trying to encourage - and this has been as spontaneous as it has been unexpected.
Thanks for the great update, Mike. You say the Nature Directives are an irritant to some policy makers because of backward-looking ideas and restricted thinking. Is it also because there are some very powerful lobbies out there for whom the Directives get in the way of things they'd like to do, usually to make short-term profit?