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.
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.