As the Eurozone crisis intensifies so does the rhetoric about reform of the European Union itself.  The Prime Minister last night said that it is time "for the European Union to focus on what really matters to underpin prosperity, stability and growth."

I would argue that our economic prosperity depends on a healthy nature environment.  And the major legislative tools to protect the natural environment are the so-called EU 'Nature Directives'.  So, please, Prime Minister, do remember some of the good things that the EU offers.

The 1979 Birds Directive and its sister, the Habitats and Species Directive of 1992 were born partly out of a desire to prevent any country for obtaining competitive advantage by destroying her local environment. They both create a level playing field across the EU, but also raise standards in environmental stewardship.

The Directives have delivered great things. Not only have they improved the prospects of wildlife across Europe (something which our Government wants), but they have also established remarkably sensible rules to guide sustainable development.

For example, the Nature Directives provide a logical and proportionate approach to meeting genuine public interests.  If a development is likely to have an adverse impact on a site of European importance then it is the obligation of the developer to demonstrate there is not an alternative, more benign way of achieving the public interests the development is designed to meet.  And if there is not, then the development will need to be of overriding national interest to proceed. And if it is, then there is an obligation to compensate for the damage caused by replacing the extent and functional quality of the habitat which has been lost.  In this way, the Directives provide a rational decision-making framework for deciding what option is in the public interest of wider society, and securing compensation where that will result in environmental damage.

Some key sectors, such as the UK ports industry, have adapted positively to, and welcome, the clear regulatory framework the Directives provide.  They have shown that rather than be a barrier to socio-economic activity, the Directives instead provide a litmus test for sustainable development.  As Stavros Dimas, EU Commissioner for the Environment, said in 2008:

"I would like to correct one of the common misconceptions about Natura 2000 – which is that once a site is designated all economic activities have to stop. This is simply not true and it is unfortunate that this myth continues.... The experience from most Member States is that it is perfectly possible to use the flexibility provided in the nature directives in an intelligent manner and find a good balance between biodiversity protection and economic needs".

Our contention is that the Directives should be treated as a force for good. Rather than overlook them or implement them in a partial and muddled way, we argue the latent potential of their positive legal framework is key to achieving most of the aims for biodiversity set out in the recent Natural Environment White Paper – they could help both shape and unlock landscape scale conservation in the UK.  Their legal framework provides the key to “smart regulation” complemented by other instruments in the conservation toolkit, whether they involve fiscal measures, exhortation, or the use of market instruments.

Such approaches could help tackle what many consider to be the perverse consequences of the Directives, such as the alleged impacts on economic development of dealing with European Protected Species.

Positive and timely investment in implementing the Directives could benefit strategic planning for key industries and avoid potential regulatory blight – for example by appropriate investment in establishing a coherent network of marine protected areas, in particular marine Natura 2000 sites.

Finally, it is worth remembering that the Directives are responsible for the UK’s modern SSSI system – 80% of which underpin and are essential to the effective management of Natura 2000 sites.  These SSSIs also provide wider societal benefits.   It is ironic how some people see the Directives as a constraint on economic activity when in fact recent Government research demonstrates that conserving our SSSIs generates benefits 8 times the investment in maintaining them.  Such sites makes an immense contribution to the wellbeing of the millions of people who visit them each year.

But that is just our view and alas, we are not in government. 

If the debate about EU reform intensifies, how would you make the case to defend the Directives?

It would be great to hear your views.

  • Think I might have to seriously disagree with you all on this as in my opinion if I am right in my thinking that Malta,Cyprus,Denmark and Holland are in the EU then they all have serious things to address and the EU does absolutely nothing about.The first two being seriously guilty of serious bird crime in fact seemingly letting the governments condone it.The latter two allow their farmers to abuse pig housing which makes a very intelligent animal just as intelligent as a pet dog be housed in disgusting conditions not allowed in this country so making their pig meat so much cheaper and putting british pig farmers out of business so in lots of ways the reverse is true as we can teach them things.

  • this is important. it is not only the Natura 2000 network that is a vital strategic network that has been driven by EU law, but cleans seas/sewage directives on our coast, recycling has been driven by EU law, as has polluting aspects of farming by pesticides and nitrate directives.

    The stand out fact is that EU law has driven much of the good law on the environment in my lifetime. The environmental alliance has never succeeded in getting this point across half adequately.

    Likewise with climate change although perhaps less succesful here; although as a negotiating bloc its been more influential than lone voices.

    Germany will save the Euro of that I have no doubt; when the "markets" fixate on our debt (lower than France and Germany !) I remain sure that in time we may well need the stability/security perhaps of certainly a northern euro area. I would prefer to have Germany in our team.

  • The Nature Directives are a force for good, couldn't agree more.  I find it very strange and disappointing that their role (past, present and future) did not get a meaningful mention in Biodiversity 2020, the revised England Biodiversity Strategy.  Whatever happens politically  our biodiversity is very much a part of Europe.