Everyone seems to have a view about the European Union: Nobel Peace prize winners, mass social experiment or collosal waste of tax payers money taking away sovereign powers. This is why there is such anticipation about the Prime Minister's speech on Friday.
The debate about whether to stay, renegotiate the terms of our membership or leave is obviously intensely political. But I do think it is worth understanding the envionmental pros and cons of our membership. This is a subject neglected by most commentators.
I remember attending the Conservative Party Conference in Blackpool in 2005 and hearing a passionate speech by John Gummer (now Lord Deben) making the case for European co-operation to deal with trans-boundary environmental issues such as climate change. The case for multi-national action can equally apply to saving species that don't respect administrative boundaries or trade restrictions to limit the movement of pests and diseases.
The EU does arguably have the best nature conservation legislation in the world and the largest network of protected areas anywhere in the world. The EU Birds Directive (and its sister directive on Habitats and Species) was established in 1979 with the principle that no EU Member should be able to gain economic advantage by trashing its environment. As I have said previously, the laws include what I consider to be entirely sensible tests of sustainable development. They have never been universally loved because they do have a knack of stopping daft development (remember Dibden Bay or the Lewis wind farm?). This despite the fact that UK is bottom of the league table of Member States in terms of percetage of land protected.
What some people often forget is that these laws have served wildlife well. There is peer-reviewed scientific evidence proving that those priority birds - listed on Annex 1 of the Directive - did better in the European Union between 1990 and 2000 than in those non-member European countries. This is because the Birds Directive works.
Yet, the EU is also well known for its dysfunctional common policies on agriculture and fishing. Both policies have over the years caused environmental harm but reform (however glacial) has begun to reward environmentally sensitive practices. This is particularly true for the so-called Pillar II of the CAP which provides the largest single pot of money for conservation through grants payable to those landowners who want to farm in an environmentally-friendly way. As I have blogged on many occasions, these schemes have provided a lifeline for species such as cirl bunting, stone-curlew and corncrake. The funding arguably underpin our rural economy by helping to create an attractive countryside which people want to work in and visit.
And then there is the much-loved single fund dedicated to nature conservation - LIFE. It’s one of the few sources of grant dedicated to protecting and enhancing biodiversity and supported a vast number of projects here in the UK (such as supporting bittern or restoration of peatlands in the Flow Country) and across Europe.
But it would be foolish to see the EU entirely through rose-tinted spectacles. There can be significantly environmentally damaging consequences from EU funding. Roads, funded by EU funds, can threaten internationally important wildlife sites and even encourage high-carbon infrastructure at a time when we need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels. And this is why we, with our Birdlife Partners, have been calling for radical overhaul of the EU Budget.
Were we to leave the EU, the nature conservation community would have its work cut out to ensure all the best bits from our membership of EU were not lost, but of course there would be an opportunity to get rid of the perverse spending!
So, I also look forward to hearing what the Prime Minister has to say tomorrow. Whatever he decides, I hope that he recognises and values the environmental benefits of our membership.
What are you hoping the Prime Minister says about Europe on Friday?
It would be great to hear your views.
I hope he says nothing because anything he does say is likely to be negative and more damaging to the interests of the UK than it is to our European partners. I am fed up to the teeth with the UK's 'teddy out of the pram' approach to Europe. When even the USA warns our Government off in public (I can't remember that happening so overtly ever before) it is surely time to stop and think.
From a conservation point of view, the Wildlife Directives have been a huge positive - many politicians don't really care about domestic protection but do about EU protection because failure to comply can flash over into other areas they care about - it has really worked as has EU LIFE which has a far broader vision than most domestic grant schemes - it requires you to communicate with people, for example !
The flip side is CAP. I agree with Peter Crispin - it has gone on too long and, having been involved in RSPB's original decision to get involved in farming policy, I feel strongly it is time for a change in position. It doesn't mean disengaging from all the hard, detailed work but I feel strongly it should now be in the context of a clear position that the CAP is not working. Not the Government's view however - David Cameron has made it clear he will NOT support an upper limit on maximum payment to the biggest CAP recipients - the 2,100 Peter Crispin mentions - and on top of that the money paid to farmers, amongst whom many are struggling but are also some of the richest people in the UK, has not been cut at all. It is ironic that Sooty's view reflects that of much of the rural constituency - very anti EU whilst pulling in probably the least justified of all EU payments. And be careful, Sooty, your colleagues in the Lincolnshire and the Fens might not agree with you on those immigrants who pick most of our veg these days.
What all this illustrates is that like any system there are good and bad bits. If we don't like some bits we need to make allies to get them changed, not stamp in with hobnailed boots. One thing we won't do is split France and Germany - remember they fought three devastating wars in just 75 years and they haven't, thank God, forgotten the importance of peace and getting on together.