First, the good news. Defra and the Home Office have provided a funding lifeline to the National Wildlife Crime Unit. This is an important part in our fight against wildlife crime and Ministers Richard Benyon and Jeremy Browne deserve credit for securing the funding in this tough spending environment.
Second, the bad news comes from Brussels where the European Parliament Agriculture Committee has voted on proposals to reform to the Common Agriculture Policy. The votes signalled a significant watering down of environmental elements of the original Commission proposals. I shall say more on this once we have had a chance to digest the proposals but first impressions are that it is bad for wildlife-friendly farming and bad value for taxpayers money. The agriculture committee’s vote is, however, not the endgame and there will be an opportunity for these dangerous decisions to be overturned during the European Parliament’s plenary vote, scheduled for March. And, of course, there is the small matter of the Heads of State meeting in February.
Which reminds me...
Mr Cameron gave a speech on Europe yesterday. In his vision for a new Europe he highlighted the need for co-operation on issues such as climate change but then, in a section on his plans to renegotiate powers back to Britain, he said "We cannot harmonise everything. For example, it is neither right nor necessary to claim that the integrity of the single market, or full membership of the European Union requires the working hours of British hospital doctors to be set in Brussels irrespective of the views of British parliamentarians and practitioners. In the same way we need to examine whether the balance is right in so many areas where the European Union has legislated including on the environment, social affairs and crime."
While this is not a greenlight for overturning much loved environmental laws, the challenge is clear. Over the next few months (and years) we shall need to make the case for why consistent standards for protecting the environment across Europe makes sense. As I wrote last week, many of the EU's environmental laws are founded on the principle that no EU Member should be able to gain economic advantage by trashing its environment. So, even if Member States had no interest in protecting wildlife for its own sake, or for the considerable socio-economic value that it offers people, there is an argument for a level playing field to underpin competitiveness across Europe.
The debates on each of these issues (tackling wildlife crime, CAP reform, and the future of Europe) will run and run. But rest assured, we'll be doing what we can to ensure nature's voice is heard.
Nightjar----supermarkets just like farmers are going to buy from the cheapest source and supermarkets cannot force farmers to sell to them.Grain farmers had the best year ever last year and like any other business any farmer not happy with his profits needs to either improve or leave the industry.
Why ever should farmers buy everything they use at the lowest possible price beating everyone down as low as possible and not expect supermarkets to do the same.
Look at the % profit on each £100 the supermarket sells and you would find a very small margin.Indeed you would almost certainly find that the farmers supplying supermarkets with milk are paid considerably better sometimes by at least 5p a pint (at least 20%)than farmers selling to milk co-ops.
I totally disagree with Sooty, I'm afraid. Our outdated subsidy of agriculture has long outlived its usefulness and is backfiring on many farmers as the supermarkets and food industry tighten their grip - as Sooty must surely be aware farm incomes rose steadily, but have now dipped whilst the increasingly monopolistic food industry just rises and rises - it's Tescos we're all subsidising, not the farmers. In a world led by the selfishness and self interest of the developed west what is rarely mentioned is the impact of US & EU farming subsidies on the rest of the world, where Sooty's cheap food undermines local producers, affecting some of the poorest people on earth. Similarly, rising food prices because of last year's US drought are only part of the story - probably more important, and permanent, is that having made the world dependant on its production the US has simply withdrawn 25% of its crucial maize crop to turn into bio-fuel to contribute to its self-centred aim of becoming energy independant. There is a superb world overview in a recent book 'Farmland Birds across the World (Lynx Edicision) of which RSPB's Paul Donald is an author.
This good for taxpayers money is a complete red herring as the RSPB well know and are deliberately peddling this myth for their own ends to get money for wildlife.They need really to do the honourable thing and ask for it as opposed to saying they want P2 spared even at the expense of P1.Tax payers get incredible value from C A P Pillar 1 as over the last two or three decades the % of peoples income spent on food has gone down from about 33% down to about 17% allowing everyone repeat everyone including RSPB employees to spend that difference on whatever they like to meaning in general they spend it on luxuries.Without these subsidies so hated it seems by RSPB food would be dearer.
Good news on the "good" Martin, although taking a step back and looking at this from a distance such funding for up-holding ALL the laws in this country should never be in doubt. However given the current econmic situation and the very ambivalent attitude this Government seems to have toward wildlife enhancement and protection, I suppose it must be rated as an achievement. Once agan very well done to the RSPB as I am sure they were involved in lobbying behind the scenes on this.
On "bad" CAP issue it looks as though considerable loobying is going to be needed to try to overturn the Aricultural Committee's short sighted and misguided vote. I know the RSPB will be in the front row leading that lobbying.
On the "uncertain", you are absolutely right Martin about the "level playing field" being so important an issue in the area of environmental legislation. From many aspects this is a dangerous avenue into which Cameron is trying to take this country, as I am sure the unwritten agenda of a proportion of his supporters is to drive a "coach and horses" through the EU environmental legislation, part of which is so important for protecting our wildlife. (Mr Osborne's tirade against the EU Birds and Habitat Directives indicates this). Hopefully they will never have that opportunity, but it is potentially a very serious threat and I know once again the RSPB will be watching the situation like a "hawk".
redkite