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.
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.