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.
A very important subject Martin. In all this "what's in it for me" mentality we seem to forget some of the vital things the EU has achieved. Besides the subjects you mention Martin, we are all breathing much cleaner air, drinking cleaner water and have cleaner rivers thanks to EU legislation. These advances and many more like them could not have been gained without all the European nations acting together. Yes, the EU has some rather glaringly bad policies and some not very good legislation, but the UK's approach should be to work within the EU to put those things right, not be acting like a spoilt child who think they have had not enough Christmas presents. While we of course should be mindful as to how the UK benefits from the EU we also need to be mindful as to what the UK can contibute to the improvement of the EU. We need to rid ourselves of this small minded mentality currently in fashion.
So the best thing the Prime Minister can do tomorrow is to say. leaving the EU would be a disaster for the UK and actually I am forgeting the whole thing concerning renegotiation and a referendum, and instead the UK is going to work with the EU to put right the current anomalies.
redkite