nature

Defend
nature
How the EU nature directives help
restore our environment
1

“The wonders of nature
are protected by the
Nature Directives.”
Jenny Hibbert (rspb-images.com)
2

Contents
Foreword 5
Summary of recommendations 7
Introduction: the laws that protect nature 11
Better for wildlife 15
Better for people 21
Better for business 27
Forward, not back 33
Conclusion 41
References 42
Left: golden eagle in the Cairngorms, Scotland.
3

“Our species and habitats are in
a better shape than they would be
without the Nature Directives.”
Dr Mike Clarke
Sue Kennedy (rspb-images.com)
4

Foreword
The world’s most important nature conservation laws are under threat. RSPB Chief
Executive, Dr Mike Clarke, summarises why proposals to pull apart the EU Nature
Directives that have protected wildlife and landscapes for more than quarter of a century
would be a retrograde step.
Two EU laws — the Birds Directive and the Habitats
Directive — are the cornerstone of conservation across
the 28 countries of the European Union, protecting an
extraordinary array of the most amazing wildlife and
landscapes. They are a proven safety net for nature,
respecting our common responsibility to conserve and
enhance our natural world, while also meeting the needs
of people and the economy.
Today, the future of the Nature Directives is in doubt.
A small but vociferous minority claim that these
environmental standards are blocking growth, based on an
outdated economic outlook that degrades natural assets.
Exhaustive studies show that the Directives work, but the
EU has chosen to carry out a review nevertheless.
The scientific evidence is clear that the Nature Directives
are an effective way to protect nature. Our species and
habitats are in better condition than they would be without
the Directives, and these include common wildlife and
the wider landscape. New evidence is now showing that
the Directives are also an effective way to build species’
resilience against emerging threats like climate change.
A threat to the Nature Directives is a threat to nature,
so the RSPB is calling on everyone who knows the
importance of our natural world — people, politicians,
businesses and charities — to step forward in defence
of the Nature Directives.
But we are not seeking to stand still. The Nature Directives
constitute smart regulation and were ahead of their time.
We still have a long way to go to achieve their objectives.
This is why we are calling for a progressive approach to
their implementation to support responsible businesses
and communities, to enable better informed and more
pragmatic decision-making and to reduce uncertainty.
Here, we call for measures that will also build resilience
and enable adaptation in the wider landscape, make
smarter use of public money, and invest in nature.
Forward-looking and progressive implementation of the
Directives should be the first five-year milestone in a
25-year plan for nature’s recovery. It is by completing that
journey that we will ensure that the full benefits of the
Directives are realised for everyone.
The Nature Directives are also good for people. Human
health, wellbeing and enjoyment all depend on a thriving
natural world. We know the majority of people across the
EU care about nature and its protection, and that future
generations will benefit from keeping our natural heritage
safe. What’s more, the Directives defend many of the
natural services we all rely on, such as flood defences,
storing carbon, and filtering air pollution.
And the Nature Directives are good for business.
They provide a fair system across 28 countries, they
sustain services that businesses depend on, and they
have stimulated innovation and investment. Changing
the Directives would be a costly exercise and create
uncertainty and investment risk.
Dr Mike Clarke
RSPB Chief Executive
Left: A Devonshire stream in full spring flow.
5

“The Government should
plan for enriching the
wider landscape”
Nick Upton (rspb-images.com)
6

Summary of
recommendations
“
For too long, nature conservation has been seen to be
in conflict with economic development and job creation.
Our partnership with the RSPB will demonstrate how we
protect and enhance the biodiversity of the local area,
benefitting the economy, creating employment
and improving health and wellbeing.
”
Barratt Developments
Left: marbled white butterfly on knapweed.
7

An eight-point plan for properly implementing the Nature Directives... for the benefit of
people, wildlife, and business.
1. Plan for nature
The Birds and Habitats Directives should not be amended.
Instead, here in the UK, bringing the Directives to full
effectiveness should be a priority for the new Parliament.
The first five-year milestone in a 25-year plan for nature’s
recovery for us should be full implementation of the Birds
and Habitats Directives in the UK.
2. Find out where we are: science and surveys
The research requirements of Article 10 of the Birds
Directive should be transposed into UK law. To meet
these requirements, the Government should institute a
rolling programme of monitoring for protected species
and habitats, on land and at sea, beginning in the first
Session of the 2015 Parliament. By addressing gaps in our
knowledge, it will be possible to improve conservation and
save money through targeting conservation action more
efficiently and making it easier for businesses to work in
harmony with nature.
3. Set out where we’re going: Favourable
Conservation Status
The Government should set, identify and publish
definitions of Favourable Conservation Status for each
protected species and habitat at a national and individual
site level. This would inform the allocation of scarce
resources for conservation, and reduce the already small
number of cases where a precautionary approach to
protection has deterred developments or increased costs.
4. Fill the gaps: complete the Natura
2000 network
The incompleteness of the offshore network has caused
difficulties for important industries like the offshore
renewables industry, which is forced to plan on the basis
of inadequate information. This means survey work often
has to begin from scratch. In some cases, wildlife found
as a result is of such significance that designation is
necessary and plans are disrupted, as was the case for
the London Array. Completing the Natura 2000 network
(a network of Europe-wide protected sites) should be a
conservation and economic imperative.
5. Join the dots: landscape-scale conservation
Alongside completion of the Natura 2000 network, the
Government should plan for enriching the wider landscape.
It should take forward a strategic plan for the rollout of
Nature Improvement Areas, based on ecological need.
6. Take out the roadblocks: smarter use of
public money
The UK negotiating position for CAP and CFP reform
should focus on environmental incentives. The
Government should announce now that this will be a
focus for the UK Presidency of the Council of the
European Union.
Domestically, the Government has committed to two
25-year plans – one to restore biodiversity and one for the
food and farming sector. It is essential that these plans are
complementary and that the Government explicitly links
the objectives of the food and farming plan to the goal of
restoring UK biodiversity.
To take one practical example, the Government should
commit to full modulation of CAP funds from Pillar I to
Pillar II and commit to an increased proportion of the
funding being allocated to biodiversity.
7. Invest in nature: beat the natural deficit
The Government should designate funding for Natural
England as protected spending.
Improved implementation of the Nature Directives should
be financed with a levy charged on depletion of nonrenewable
natural resources – this should be paid into a
Natural Wealth Fund, tasked with restoring UK biodiversity.
8. Crack down on crime: ending persecution
of protected species
Illegal persecution of wildlife still persists in the UK.
A licensing system for hunting would be an effective way
to prevent damaging and sometimes illegal behaviour,
especially for driven grouse shoots in the uplands.
Licences should be revoked immediately for criminal
persecution of wildlife, or for unlawful land management
practices. The system should build in management
conditions stipulated in Article 7 of the Birds Directive.
Vicarious liability should be established for persecution in
England, so that shoot organisers can be held responsible
for criminal activity undertaken on their behalf.
8

“The robin: voted Britain’s
national bird in 2015.”
Danny Green (rspb-images.com)
9

“The Nature Directives
have been the cornerstone
of protection of Europe’s
environment for 30 years.”
Steve Austin (rspb-images.com)
10

Introduction:
the laws that
protect nature
“ ”
... the first line of defence against environmental threats.
They provide a strong common standard...
Left: Forsinard nature reserve in the Flow Country of northern Scotland.
11

This report shows why the UK and other European countries should reject reform of the
EU Nature Directives and focus instead on their full implementation. Moving forward with
the Nature Directives – rather than going back to the drawing board – will be the best
way to protect and enhance nature across the EU. This positive approach will be better for
wildlife, business and society.
The Birds and Habitats Directives (the “Nature Directives”)
have been the cornerstone of protection of Europe’s
natural environment for 30 years. Their goals are clear.
The Habitats Directive aims to restore habitats and
species to “Favourable Conservation Status”. The Birds
Directive requires EU States to maintain all European wild
bird species at a population consistent with ecological,
scientific and cultural requirements, taking account of
economic and social needs. Together, they aim to protect
nature for prosperity and for posterity.
The Directives are built around two pillars: the Natura 2000
network of protected sites and a strict system of species
protection. They safeguard over 1,000 species and more
than 200 kinds of habitat, including some of the most
magical and iconic wildlife sites across Europe, like the
Thames Estuary, Scotland’s Flow Country, the Doñana
Marshes in Spain and Romania’s Danube Delta.
All told, Natura 2000 covers more than 18% of EU land
areas and 4% of EU marine areas, making it the largest
conservation network in the world. However, the project is
not yet complete: all EU countries still have work to do in
completing Natura 2000 and implementing the Directives.
This will be vital for protecting nature.
Meanwhile, the threats facing nature are intense and
intensifying. The main challenges are:
1. Habitat destruction, as we develop more land for
housing and other infrastructure
2. Over-exploitation, as we take more from nature than
it can sustain, such as the depletion of fish stocks
3. Pollution, like the run-off from pesticides and
fertilisers, or greenhouse gas emissions resulting
in climate change
4. Invasive non-native species, introduced by humans,
which can be deadly for fragile wildlife.
Together, these pressures amount to a crisis
for biodiversity.
• Across the EU, only 23% of animal and plant species
and only 16% of habitat types are in Favourable
Conservation Status
• In the UK, the State of Nature report found that
60% of the species we know about have declined
over the last 50 years. Only a third of our Sites of
Special Scientific Interest are in “good” condition.
A crisis for our environment is a crisis for society and
the economy. Air pollution alone causes around 29,000
premature deaths in the UK every year. By contrast, a
thriving natural environment contributes to health and
wellbeing for everyone. Providing everyone access to
natural greenspace could save the National Health Service
£2.1 billion annually.
For the economy, degraded ecosystems, such as reduced
natural flood defences, can lead to costs. In 2010, just
34 floods in the EU cost €27 billion; the cost to the UK
economy is about £1.1bn annually. But healthy ecosystems
are good for the economy. In the UK, pollinators provide
£690 million of value for the rural economy every year
(Centre for Food Security (2015) Sustainable Pollination
Services for UK Crops, University of Reading).
The Nature Directives are the first line of defence against
environmental threats. They provide a strong common
standard, which individual countries must complement
with national action if we are to maintain and restore
Europe’s natural environment.
The Nature Directives
The Birds Directive requires EU countries to:
• Maintain populations of all wild bird species across
their natural range (Article 2)
• Preserve, maintain or re-establish a sufficient diversity
and area of habitats for birds, inside and outside
protected areas (Article 3)
• Designate Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for rare
or vulnerable species listed in Annex I, as well as
regularly occurring migratory species (Article 4)
• Abide by restrictions on the sale and keeping of wild
birds (Article 6) and on hunting and falconry (Article 7)
• Prohibit large-scale non-selective means of bird
killing (Article 8)
• Encourage research (Article 10)
• Guard against the introduction of non-native birds
which may threaten other biodiversity (Article 11).
The Habitats Directive requires all 28 EU Member
States to:
• Restore protected habitats and species to favourable
conservation status
• Contribute to a coherent network of protected sites
by designating Special Areas of Conservation (SAC)
for habitats listed in Annex I and species in Annex II
• Manage SACs and SPAs designated under the Birds
Directive, and assess any development plans likely
to significantly affect an SAC or an SPA. Projects
may still be permitted if there are no alternatives, but
compensatory measures must be taken to ensure the
coherence of the Natura 2000 network (Article 6)
12

• Encourage good management of landscape features
that support the Natura 2000 network (Articles 3
and 10)
• Monitor habitats and species (Article 11)
• Ensure strict protection of species listed in Annex IV
• Report on the implementation of the Directive every
six years (Article 17).
The Directives under threat
At a time of urgent environmental need, EU states should
be focused on building on the Nature Directives with
national action. Instead, a vocal minority are pushing
for reform.
Karmenu Vella: “to overhaul the existing environmental
legislative framework to make it fit for purpose... to carry
out an in-depth evaluation of the Birds and Habitats
Directives and assess the potential for merging them”.
Now, in 2015, the EU is in the midst of a “Regulatory
Fitness Check” (REFIT) for the Directives, a process
intended to “ease the burden on business” from EU laws.
The timeline is tight. We might have just six months to
prevent the EU from undoing 30 years of work.
In this report, we demonstrate that all the countries of the
UK and all the Member States of the EU should oppose
reform of the Nature Directives. Instead, we should plan
to expedite full implementation of the Directives as they
stand, for the sake of wildlife, communities and business.
In 2014, Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the EU
Commission, instructed Environment Commissioner
Ben Andrew (rspb-images.com)
Harvest mouse – recorded as declining in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan species list.
13

“Bees are worth more than
£690 million to the UK economy.”
14
Richard Bedford (rspb-images.com)

Better for wildlife
“
We focus on biodiversity protection and sustainable
land use because we believe that this is the best way
to generate real value for nature and society.
”
Heidelberg Cement
Left: carder bumblebee seeking nectar from a wallflower.
15

The Nature Directives have helped to save and restore charismatic species like
stone-curlews, Dartford warblers, golden plovers, and marsh fritillary butterflies,
as well as habitats such as oak woods, and heathland.
The latest science demonstrates that species protected
by the Nature Directives are doing better than those that
are not. EU protected species are recovering more quickly
in the EU than outside and this is more pronounced in
countries that have been in the EU for longer. Protection
within Annex I of the Birds Directive is more significant
for species survival than factors such as climate change or
habitat loss.
Some species benefit from the protection of scarce
habitats. Others, like buzzards and peregrine falcons, are
saved from being shot, poisoned or hunted.
The greater the area of habitat safeguarded for a species,
the better its recovery has been, especially for rare and
vulnerable species. i However, it is not just rare species
that benefit. ii Common species are also faring better, with
higher populations inside Natura 2000 sites – particularly
“specialist” species that rely on habitats like bogs or
mixed woodlands.
The Directives also improve our knowledge. As they
require regular monitoring and reporting, we know more
about the fortunes of species and habitats. For example,
the National Plant Monitoring Scheme is a new study of
changes in plant abundance and diversity. This will help
meet important conservation challenges, such as the loss
of British wildflowers.
Because of growing challenges, biodiversity loss is
continuing, but the rate has been slowed by the Directives
and there have been some spectacular feats of recovery.
When the Directives came into force, the red kite was a
rare bird in the UK, with just a few dozen pairs in remote
Welsh valleys. Following legal protection and EU-funded
reintroduction projects, the red kite is now a bird of the
wider countryside, with almost 2,000 pairs (nearly 10% of
the global population) spread across all four countries of
the UK.
Added value—we can’t go it alone
Before the Directives came into force, UK conservation
laws were simply not up to scratch. Protected areas were
scarce, both on land and at sea, and conservation laws
were flimsy. Wildlife suffered grievous losses. Some might
argue that modern British law would be more effective
and cheaper than EU law. But the Directives do more
than bolster domestic law. They set a standard across 28
different countries.
Nature pays no attention to political boundaries, and
wildlife we think of as our own is a shared treasure. The
Directives are the most effective way for the UK to protect
migratory species all along their migration routes. If the
Directives were deconstructed, even the strongest British
system would not be enough to face terrible challenges,
like the loss of three-quarters of Europe’s turtle doves
since 1980.
As the turtle dove makes its way to us in the spring, it
stops throughout Europe, finding places to feed and rest.
If we want to protect turtle doves and other migratory
birds, we need to act in a precise and determined way
across Europe. Action needs to be internationally binding,
and locally targeted. The Nature Directives are unique
in allowing us to protect nature within and beyond our
borders. Only multilateral action can make a difference.
UK protection
Before the Birds Directive, the only sure way to protect a
site in the UK was to buy it. In this way, sites such as the
Ribble Estuary were saved from development. However,
this was a difficult and inefficient approach. In those days,
species now listed on Annex I of the Birds Directive were
faring much worse than non-Annex I species.
Now, however, the robustness and extent of protection
have been multiplied by the Nature Directives. On average
in the EU, 30% of protected land is only designated under
Natura 2000. 40% is designated at a national level and as
part of the Natura 2000 network. So Natura 2000 has led
to a significant increase in the area of land targeted for
biodiversity and nature protection.
The Directives have also improved the quality of
protection. For example, UK national protected areas
called Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)* were
introduced in 1949. However, this gave limited protection
from development and allowed poor practices in
agriculture and forestry. As a consequence, 10–15% of
SSSIs were damaged every year. Changes to the Wildlife
and Countryside Act 1981, driven by the Birds Directive,
led to a marked improvement. By the 1990s, the area of
SSSI lost per year had fallen below 0.005% and the area
subject to short-term damage to 2–3% per year. v
However, the standard of protection for sites only subject
to national designation remains lower than that afforded to
Natura 2000 sites. Damaging developments on non-Natura
2000 SSSIs continue to be consented in circumstances
which would not have met legal requirements for Natura
2000. Recent examples include the possibility of housing
development at Lodge Hill SSSI in Kent and Rampisham
Down in Dorset, or Canvey Wick in Essex, where a
road was constructed through the SSSI and proposed
compensation habitat was not provided.
The Directives have stood the test of time, and the
benefits effective nature conservation laws can deliver are
becoming evident. Some have argued that the Directives
could be merged for simplicity. However, making any
changes to the Directives would render European and
UK court rulings and guidance inapplicable. Case law
and guidance have been developed over the years to
clarify what the Directives require and are relied on by
governments, businesses and other stakeholders because
of the high degree of certainty they provide. Losing this
valuable resource would create uncertainty, increase
risks for developers and delay and jeopardise project
assessments and approvals.
16

Some have also suggested that the annexes to the
Directives (which set out the birds, other species and
habitats which require special protection, and which
species require protection from hunting and habitat
destruction) should be updated. However, revisions must
be based on science and, to date, there is not enough
information on the status of all habitats and species, and
the extent to which they are dependant on sustained
conservation action, to inform such a review.
In addition, a review would also cause uncertainty for
a wide range of stakeholders, including businesses,
investors, land owners and managers.
While implementation of the Directives remains
incomplete, and biodiversity still urgently needs our help,
this would be an unwelcome distraction from the urgent
imperative to take action now.
The Government has made commitments at UK, EU and
international levels to halt, and where possible, reverse,
the loss of biodiversity by 2020. The protection provided
by the Nature Directives is fundamental if we are to have
a chance of meeting these commitments. What we need
now is action – not uncertainty.
* Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) in England, Scotland and Wales and Areas of Special Scientific
Interest (ASSIs) in Northern Ireland.
Andy Hay (rspb-images.com)
Managed realignment – using natural defences to protect coastal habitats at risk from flooding.
17

“We have prevented attempts to
overturn the global moratorium
on commercial whaling.”
Stephen Frink Collection / Alamy
18

Nature and climate change
Already, amazing species from corals to capercaillie
are feeling the effects of climate change, including
ocean acidification and loss of habitats and sources
of food. Based on Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) projections for global
temperature rises, one in six species could be
extinct by 2100. We need to limit climate change to
save wildlife.
But nature is also part of the answer. Nature is
crucial in reducing climate change and increasing our
resilience to its effects. Healthy ecosystems lock up
carbon and help us adapt to change through services
such as natural flood defences. Carbon stored in
Natura 2000 sites is equivalent to 35 billion tonnes
of CO 2 . Within Natura 2000 sites, carbon stocks are,
on average, 42% higher per hectare than outside.
That’s why it’s vital that the Nature Directives are
“climate-compatible” and there’s clear evidence that
they are. Protected sites provide natural networks
that help species adapt. Healthy ecosystems in
protected areas, and across the landscape, provide
the kind of mitigation and adaptation needed to face
climate change.
Sometimes, of course, long-term needs for new
infrastructure to decarbonise our economy will come
into conflict with more immediate risks for nature. In
these cases, a balance must be struck.
It’s when the Directives aren’t adhered to that
problems arise. Poor implementation can cause
costs and risks. For example, insufficient monitoring
at sea has affected the renewable energy sector,
with offshore wind developers tied to specific
zones, allocated without a proper assessment of
environmental sensitivities. The Directives don’t
need to be changed to be climate-compatible.
They need to be implemented properly.
Natura 2000: protected, not prohibited
Natura 2000 designation does not mean a set of
rigid prohibitions; it means an obligation to maintain
or restore the quality of a site for the animals and
plants for which they were designated.
For most farmland designated as Natura 2000, the
conservation aims are about maintaining traditional
farm practices that already help these species.
Natura 2000 designation can diversify farmers’
income by tapping into the growing recreation and
tourism market. Sustainable forest management
is also usually compatible with the Natura 2000
objectives, while large-scale clear-felling, plantations
of exotic species, or removal of dead wood are not.
Working together
Working together helps ensure that one country
cannot gain competitive advantage through the
adoption of lower environmental standards, and that
migratory species are not adversely affected by a
single state allowing damaging development.
Common standards in the EU have amplified
our voice around the world. The Directives form
the basis of EU negotiating positions, showing
leadership and helping swing international decisions
in favour of better environmental standards.
To take one illustration, by voting as a bloc in the
International Whaling Commission, with a strong
precautionary position backed by EU legislation,
we have prevented attempts to overturn the global
moratorium on commercial whaling.
Left: humpbacked whale – a species still at risk from hunting for “scientific purposes”.
19

“For most of us, protecting nature
is about saving the wildlife we love,
or protecting the green spaces and
landscapes we grew up with.”
Ernie Janes (rspb-images.com)
20

Better for people
“
Biodiversity matters because it underpins the benefits
we get from the natural environment, contributes to our
economy and enriches our lives.
”
Cemex
Left: a typical lowland countryside scene in late spring.
21

The Nature Directives have created a better environment for people in the UK and
across the European Union. Looking after our landscapes and countryside, helping wildlife
to survive and thrive, and ensuring that they are passed on in good condition to the next
generation all increase our enjoyment of nature and the benefits that nature provides
for people.
What people want
Public demand for environmental protection is growing.
A surge in RSPB membership numbers shows the support
for nature that led to the adoption of the Birds Directive.
Today, our membership is higher than ever, at
1.2 million people.
For most of us, protecting nature is not about material
benefit – it is about saving the wildlife we love, or
protecting the green spaces and landscapes we grew up
with. Many people share the RSPB’s view that nature is
intrinsically valuable and should be conserved for its own
sake. The vast majority of EU citizens see the conservation
of biodiversity as first and foremost a moral obligation. vi
It is also clear that people understand the need for crossborder
action. The Directives were first passed in response
to public concern for migratory species, which motivated
the European Parliament to express its alarm “at the threat
of extinction to our migratory birds”, arguing that birds
should be regarded as everyone’s shared responsibility. vii
Today, most people value the EU’s role in protecting our
natural heritage; more than three-quarters of us think EU
environmental law is needed. Environmental protection
is seen as a key benefit of EU co-operation and an area
where we trust the EU and acknowledge that it has a role
to play. viii
What people need
Not only do people want to live in a natural world full of
life, they also need nature. Ecosystems in good condition
do more for society, both in terms of the enjoyment and
wellbeing we feel and the services we derive from nature.
ix
Protected sites, in particular, often provide a wealth
of ecosystem services, especially when they are in
Favourable Conservation Status. x For example:
• Full implementation and management of the Natura
2000 network could directly support 122,000 jobs and
contribute €3.05 billion to local economies, helping to
provide new sources of income for landowners and
managers and diversifying the rural economy xi
Some of these benefits are local (such as local air quality
improvements), while others are global (like carbon
sequestration by Natura 2000, which gives global climate
change mitigation benefits). Many are public goods,
meaning that they are under-provided by the market –
natural services are regarded as “free”, so we do not often
attribute a financial value to the benefits they provide.
Importantly, the Natura network helps to provide nature for
everyone. 65% of EU citizens live within 5 km of a Natura
2000 site, and 98% live within 20 km. Accessible nature
is particularly important close to urban areas, where most
people in Europe live. Natura 2000 sites can be found in
32 major cities in Europe and over half of EU capital cities.
Together, these sites harbour 40% of threatened habitat
types, half the bird species and a quarter of the rare
butterflies listed in the Directives. xiv
Investing in nature is excellent value for money. The cost of
managing the Natura 2000 network is around €5.8 billion a
year, but the benefits derived are in the order of €200–300
billion a year – equivalent to between 1.7% and 2.5%
of EU GDP. For example, there are 1.2–2.2 billion visits
to Natura 2000 sites each year, generating recreational
benefits worth between €5 and €9 billion per annum.
Defra has estimated that there is a benefit to cost ratio of
around 9 to 1 for conservation regulations. xv
In the UK, the Directives have acted as a catalyst and
driver for projects which deliver multiple benefits far
in excess of their costs. Key examples include the
Alkborough managed realignment project on the Humber
Estuary and the Wallasea Island habitat creation project.
Both were driven by the need to avoid deterioration and
to compensate for losses of intertidal habitat to flood
defence developments within SPAs and SACs. xvi
Biodiversity is the bedrock of ecosystem services and
plays an important role in enhancing ecosystem stability,
ensuring long-run sustainability. xvii By enriching biodiversity
in the UK and across Europe, the Nature Directives
support the services that nature provides for people, as
well as protecting the wildlife and habitats that so many
of us love.
• Investing €5.8 billion a year to keep Europe’s natural
capital in good conservation status could provide
€200–300 billion a year in services and benefits to
society and the economy xii
• Proximity, quantity and quality of green spaces
are related to health. People living near nature
engage in more physical activity, and psychological
wellbeing increases with greater species richness
and vegetation. Nature can have a positive impact on
mental health, stress, heart rate, concentration, blood
pressure, children’s behaviour and learning, and other
health factors. xiii
22

Andy Hay (rspb-images.com)
“People living near nature
engage in more physical
activity, and psychological
wellbeing increases.”
23

“... reward farmers who manage
the land most sustainably.”
Kevin Sawford (rspb-images.com)
24

EU Environmental Law
The Birds and Habitats Directives are a global gold
standard in conservation. They confirm that
cross-border cooperation is essential to deal with
many environmental problems. However, not all EU
environmental law is as effective as it could be. In
other areas, it is clear that multi-national co-operation
is helpful, but major reforms are needed:
Common Agricultural Policy: EU farm subsidies are
vital for farmland conservation. However, the system
is mired in its history of production-based subsidy
and needs reforming. Money available for transfer
from direct subsidies (Pillar 1) to payments for good
land management (Pillar 2) should be increased to
25% of the overall budget. This could provide almost
£500 million extra every year for rural development.
In the UK, the Government should transfer the
maximum amount available in this Parliament
to reward farmers who manage the land
most sustainably.
Emissions Trading Directive: The EU Emissions
Trading System (ETS) has led the world in setting
a price for carbon and an overall limit on industrial
emissions. This reduces EU emissions while
avoiding market distortion between Member
States. However, far too many EU Allowances were
released onto the market (initially for free) and too
many offsets were allowed, leading to consistently
low prices. Major change is needed to establish an
effective and reliable market for carbon emissions.
Left: brown hare in grassland.
25

“The consistency the Nature
Directives deliver is a clear
business benefit.”
Michel Dauchy/Antwerp Port Authority
26

Better for business
“
Industry and nature were once diametrically opposed.
The construction of the Deurganck dock put an end to this.
All parties became aware of the need for a new vision,
based on consultation and dialogue, rather than conflict
and legal battles.
”
Antwerp Port Authority
Left: aerial photograph of Belgium’s Deurganck dock.
27

The demand for a review of the Nature Directives is often justified in the name of
business. However, it is only a small coterie of businesses that would benefit from a
change in the law. For most, the baseline protection provided by the Directives and the
consistency they give across the EU is a clear business benefit. In fact, more economic
value would be gained by delivering full implementation and adherence to the Directives
as they stand.
Business needs nature
Changing the Nature Directives would be to the detriment
of those economic sectors that rely directly on a thriving
natural environment. In Europe, around 4.4 million jobs
and €405 billion in annual turnover are directly dependent
on healthy ecosystems.
Visitors to Natura 2000 sites contribute €50–85 billion
to local economies every year. The total expenditure
from tourism and recreation supports 4.5–8 million jobs
across the EU, out of a total of about 13 million jobs in the
tourism sector.
However, it is not only the obvious businesses like
outdoor enterprises and agriculture that rely on nature.
All economic activity ultimately relies on the natural
environment, and sustained economic growth will depend
on good management of our natural world. A national
natural capital debt is already accruing to the detriment
of our economy and wellbeing. xviii
A similar economic picture applies worldwide. The
European Commission estimates the cost of not
implementing environmental legislation and not meeting
biodiversity targets to be €50 billion each year. The loss
of biodiversity and ecosystem services between the
years 2000 and 2050 could be equivalent to 7% of the
2050 world GDP annually and 35% of jobs in developing
countries. A total of 7% of jobs in the EU are dependent
on ecosystem services. Conserving 20–30 % of global
oceans through Marine Protected Areas could create a
million jobs, sustain fish catch worth US$70–80 billion per
year and provide ecosystem services with a gross value of
roughly US $4.5–6.7 trillion per year. xix
Changing business behaviour
Of course, the Nature Directives have led to some
changes in business practice – improving the way we
interact with our natural world is exactly what they are
designed to do. In some cases, this has increased the
costs associated with particular activities, but overall the
Directives have improved the long-term sustainability of
our economy without affecting profits.
In its engagement with business, the RSPB has noted
a change in the pattern of behaviour as industries learn
how to work with the laws (see The RSPB and wind
farm cases, opposite page). The early phase can be
characterised by difficult discussions and often the
RSPB objecting to specific proposals. However, this is
quickly followed by greater understanding and smoother
outcomes, as better spatial planning, location or design
leads to the integration of natural environment objectives
within business planning. Familiarity with the Directives
facilitates constructive results, especially where a whole
sector, such as ports, is operating largely within
protected areas.
Overall, the Directives have little impact on business.
The amount of land protected is small, the proportion
of planning applications affected is very small, and the
proportion where significant change or compensation is
required is smaller still. Compared to other EU countries,
the UK has designated the least land as Natura 2000 (just
7.2%). Of the 26,500 land use consultations it receives
a year, less than 0.5% result in an objection by Natural
England under the Habitats Regulations, which transpose
the Nature Directives into UK law.
Where problems do arise, it is often because of a lack of
expertise within government authorities, or developers’
failure to engage early enough. This can result in delays,
expense and ineffective measures and may give the false
impression that conservation is a costly and arduous
process. This is exacerbated by a lack of post-construction
monitoring, which could otherwise help to avoid problems
in future.
Businesses that do not plan effectively, or those that seek
to evade or subvert conservation legislation, are rightly
challenged. However, businesses that have engaged with
the Directives have found them no barrier to commercial
activity, and some businesses have even gone so far as to
make conservation a core element of their operations.
Fairness and consistency
The Directives also offer businesses consistency across
28 different jurisdictions, helping to create a “level playing
field” across the Single Market. xx This has helped save
resources compared to a situation in which they would
have had to comply with different nature protection
regimes in the different Member States. xxi
Standards are important as they play a role in preventing
environmental damage taking place in one sector (for
example agriculture) which, by damaging the natural
environment, will have a negative impact on another
sector (such as tourism).
Changes to the Directives, such as amending the species
and habitats listed for protection, would lead to
considerable uncertainty for business over whether the
Natura 2000 network of sites would change, by how
much, and where, at a time when business is already
under economic pressure.
There is currently no scientific process for reviewing
the annexes, and no methodology for identifying which
species are dependent on conservation measures, and at
risk of declining if they were de-listed. While some species
and habitats can recover within a few years, for others,
decades or even centuries might be needed to recover
from past damage. For example, the rate of recovery of
peatlands from burning may be up to 500 years. At the
moment, it is clear that the Directives are benefiting a
28

wide range of species. Changing the species listed could
risk undermining the conservation successes achieved so
far and create considerable disruption for business. The
best course for conservation and business is to opt
for consistency.
Together, the Directives provide a practical framework for
sustainable development. They apply a set of tests to all
activities and developments to ensure that those which
do not adversely affect sites and species of European
importance may continue. Those which cannot be
progressed without harm are only permitted if the damage
is unavoidable, warranted by the importance of the
development and can be compensated for elsewhere.
The Directives provide a “litmus test” for sustainable
development, but they are too often presented as a barrier
to socio-economic activity.
The reality
The perception among a few businesses – and, more
commonly, among politicians and media – is that the
Directives impose unreasonable costs on business. This
is a far cry from reality.
Overall, environmental legislation accounts for less than
1% of administrative burdens on business in the EU,
with one third of the administrative burden estimated
to be the result of inefficient administrative practices.
Given the size of the EU’s body of environmental law, this
suggests that the administrative burden of the Directives
is negligible. xxii There may also be scope for substantial
savings in administrative costs, thanks to the way that the
Directives are implemented.
Total direct costs associated with environmental
regulations were estimated to account for 0.4%
of energy sector turnover, 0.2% of construction and
manufacturing sector turnover, and 0.1% of mining sector
turnover. xxiii This level of cost is extremely unlikely to affect
the competitiveness of European industries. xxiv
In terms of differences in costs between Member States,
only 4% of the administrative burden from EU rules is
a result of “gold-plating”. Going beyond what is strictly
required by EU legislation can often be beneficial for the
Member State concerned. xxv
Successive consultations in the UK and abroad have
confirmed that the Directives are cost-effective:
• The UK Administrative Burdens Measurement
Exercise found that the Habitats Regulations and the
Wildlife and Countryside Act accounted for £700,000
of Defra’s administrative burden, which is less than
0.1% of the Department’s total administrative costs
• The Review of Implementation of the Birds and
Habitats Directive in England concluded that: “in the
large majority of cases the implementation of the
Directives is working well, allowing both development
of key infrastructure and ensuring that a high level of
environmental protection is maintained” xxvi
• The Balance of Competences Review found that: “a
large number of organisations representing all sectors
considered that it is in the UK’s national interest for
the EU to have a degree of competence in the broad
areas of environment and climate change because of
the advantages that this brings for the Single Market
and environmental protection”. xxvii
The RSPB and windfarm cases. Rates of objection: UK and England
30%
25%
% objections (UK)
20%
% objections (England)
15%
10%
5%
0%
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
29

“Solving the problem does not
require a change in the Directives.”
Paul Hobson (naturepl.com)
30

The myth of bats and newts
Some species of plants and animals are given a high
level of protection by the Habitats Directive because
they are rare or restricted in their range. For some of
these species, such as the great crested newt, the
UK holds an internationally important proportion of
their population. Many European Protected Species
found in the UK such as newts, bats and dormice are
often highly vulnerable to development and changes
in land management.
Frustration has been expressed at some of the
challenges presented by this protection – for
example, the issue of bats in churches, and the
costs and delays sometimes associated with the
discovery of great crested newts on land proposed
for development.
The actual number of developments affected by
these issues is extremely small – but the frustrations
are very real.
The myth of bats and newts is that the only way
to resolve these issues is to remove these species
from the relevant annexes of the Birds and Habitats
Directives. In reality, these issues can be resolved
through smarter implementation without making
any change to the Directives – which is good news
for developers, who depend on the certainty the
Directives provide, and for communities too. It is
also good news for bats and great crested newts,
which remain in need of protection (with bats
showing early signs of recovery, while the status of
great crested newts is so poorly understood that the
most recent UK Government report lists their status
as “unknown”).
Better information: More information can help
us understand where populations really do need
protection. For example, Defra supported research
on Natterer’s bats and soprano pipistrelle bats. It
found that excluding Natterer’s bats from churches
is likely to harm their Conservation Status,
although with judicious use of deterrents under
licence, problems caused by bats in churches can
be mitigated. For soprano pipistrelles, however,
it showed that they use alternative roosts when
excluded from breeding roosts. Better information
can also help businesses to plan their initial
applications more judiciously, in order to avoid a
problem in the first place.
Favourable Conservation Status: Currently, most
decisions involving a protected species follow a
precautionary approach because the UK has not
defined Favourable Conservation Status—what
constitutes a healthy and sustainable population.
There is, therefore, no sound basis on which to
make judgements about the significance of any
impacts on a population. In other EU countries, this
issue has been addressed by defining objectives
for European Protected Species. The difficulty here
is not with the law, but with how we have chosen
to implement the law. This was highlighted by a
review of the Directives in England in 2012, and a
Government-led great crested newt task force is
already working to resolve these issues.
Left: great crested newt. Poor implementation of the Habitats Directive make it a scapegoat.
31

“The UK is home to 80% of the
global population of gannets. EU
site protection is vital to look after
their nest sites and feeding areas.”
Andrew Mason (rspb-images.com)
32

Forward, not back
“
Environmental protection is essential to sustainable
marine management and the maintenance of
biodiversity is critical.
”
Seabed User and Developer Group
Left: cliff-nesting gannet – our largest seabird.
33

The Directives have improved the effectiveness of UK and European conservation beyond
recognition, producing economic and social benefits in tandem with saving species and
habitats. Changing the Nature Directives would be a step in the wrong direction, but that
does not mean we should remain at a standstill.
The grave pressures on our natural environment are such
that we must do more. Completing the implementation
and improving enforcement of the Nature Directives
will help set the state of nature on a positive trajectory.
Moreover, it will help to iron out the costs and tensions
that can arise from imperfect implementation.
However, implementation of the Directives has
been slower than anticipated. The deadline for legal
transposition of the Habitats Directive was June 1994, but
no Member State met this deadline, or the 1998 goal for
proposing a set of sites for protection.
1. Plan for nature
The Birds and Habitats Directives should not be amended.
Instead, here in the UK, bringing the Directives to full
effectiveness should be a priority for the new Parliament.
The first five-year milestone for us in a 25-year plan for
nature’s recovery should be full implementation of the
Birds and Habitats Directives in the UK.
We propose several simple steps to achieve this.
2. Find out where we are: science and surveys
Both Directives require monitoring and reporting to
ascertain whether objectives are being met. However, the
UK has consistently failed to support adequate research.
For instance, the research requirements of Article 10 have
not been transposed into domestic legislation. This has
delayed research and acquisition of the data needed to
classify protected areas.
As a result, for many vulnerable species, insufficient data
has been collected. In some cases – for instance, the
medicinal leech and Desmoulin’s whorl snail – national
surveys have been undertaken but not repeated since
2000, while others like the Roman snail and lesser
whirlpool ramshorn snail, have never been surveyed.
There has been no systematic analysis of the status
of priority species since 2008, when an analysis of
progress in England suggested that 11% of species
were increasing, 32% were stable, but 22% were still in
decline (the remaining species had either been lost or their
trends were unknown). This showed that targeted work
for species is very effective. However, it also illustrated
that we need to undertake more species recovery work,
coupled with broader work on sites and habitats, because
species are being added to the priority list faster than they
are being removed.
On land, specialist woodland birds exemplify the UK’s
failure to comply with Article 10 of the Birds Directive,
as the absence of adequate research seriously hampers
conservation efforts. Overall, funding remains insufficient
to establish causes of decline and methods for recovery,
and this makes it difficult to ensure relevant provisions
are included within conservation efforts, such as agrienviroment
schemes under the Common
Agricultural Policy.
The limits on understanding are even greater in the marine
environment. For example, a monitoring programme
is needed to understand the status, trends and spatial
distribution of seabird populations. Seabird data collection
has been patchy, with most data gathered between
1979 and 2006. Since then, there has been no national
monitoring programme.
Most recent data has been collected in developer‐led
surveys linked to oil, gas and windfarm proposals. The
Government is effectively relying on developers’ data.
Such an ad hoc approach is not designed to identify areas
for site designation or keep track of changes. This lack of
information can create unnecessary conflict with industry
and presents a barrier to investment in marine renewables.
In this way, inadequate information has created barriers to
effective conservation.
The failure to require good post-construction monitoring of
impacts, and the effectiveness of mitigation for damage,
means that actual impacts of development also remain
unknown. This means that decisions remain locked in
a precautionary system, rather than improving with
experience. The precautionary approach will always have
a role to play, but data on impacts could be used to move
from a precautionary to a more evidence-based approach,
resulting in better decision-making in many cases.
The situation is improving. The latest reports on the
conservation status of the habitats and species listed
under the Habitats Directive show a reduction in the
proportion of assessments where conservation status is
unknown, from 31% to 17% for species and from 18% to
7% for habitats. xxviii However, proper survey work under
the Birds Directive is a priority.
The research requirements of Article 10 of the Birds
Directive should be transposed into UK law. To meet
these requirements, the Government should institute a
rolling programme of monitoring for protected species
on land and at sea, beginning in the first Session of the
2015 Parliament. By addressing gaps in our knowledge
of protected species and habitats, it will be possible to
improve conservation and save money.
3. Set out where we’re going: Favourable
Conservation Status
If we are to achieve the conservation benefits of Natura
2000, we need to have clear, site-specific conservation
objectives for protected species and habitats.
This is also important for business. Explicit objectives
are a prerequisite for proper assessment of development
proposals. Yet even on land, where data is often available,
site objectives are frequently wholly generic, failing even
to clarify whether a species or habitat is in Favourable
Conservation Status which must be maintained, or in
Unfavourable Conservation Status and in need
of restoration.
34

In relation to European Protected Species, this failure
to define Favourable Conservation Status has led to a
precautionary approach based on a goal of no net loss.
In other words, it is impossible to judge how an activity
will affect a species or habitat if we do not have a clear
understanding of the status of that species, nationally and
within a defined area. By contrast, in Germany, Estonia,
Flanders and France, each individual creature does not
have to be protected, provided the overall population
is maintained and the local conservation status is not
adversely affected.
The UK approach has a negative impact on planning and
species control. For example, a better understanding of
populations of seabirds offshore, and how different kinds
of development affect them, would help avoid delays
and extra costs for applications for offshore
wind installations. xxix
The Government should set, identify and publish
definitions of Favourable Conservation Status for
each protected species and habitat at a national and
individual site level. This would inform the allocation
of scarce resources for conservation and reduce the
already small number of cases where a precautionary
approach to protection has deterred developments or
increased costs.
4. Fill the gaps: complete the Natura
2000 network
In the UK, on land, the Natura network is nearly complete,
although site designation for a number of species still
needs work.
At sea, however, there are major gaps in the network,
34 years after the deadline for implementation of the
Birds Directive. The necessary network of marine Special
Protection Areas remains full of holes. No offshore sites
have been classified and, while the most important
seabird breeding colonies on land are protected, there are
only three marine SPAs, which protect just two species in
the non-breeding season, and both of these lie in inshore
waters. Although an extension of protection for breeding
colonies was agreed in 2008, these additions have yet to
be classified in England and Northern Ireland. There are
no SPAs to protect the feeding areas of any of the UK’s
internationally important breeding seabirds.
A similar situation can be found across the EU. The
European Court of Justice has repeatedly acknowledged
that BirdLife International’s inventory of Important Bird
Areas is a valid reference in assessing whether Member
States have classified a sufficient number and size of
territories as SPAs. The Court has ruled against Member
States that have failed to protect their Important Bird
Ray Kennedy (rspb-images.com)
Species like the lesser whirlpool ramshorn snail have never been surveyed.
35

Areas. However, 11 Member States have designated only
half of their marine Important Bird Areas as SPAs.
In response to Commission infraction proceedings against
the UK, consultations on protected areas for the harbour
porpoise are currently underway in Wales and Scotland
and anticipated for England in the near future.
The incompleteness of the offshore network has
caused difficulties for important industries like the
offshore renewables industry, which is forced to plan
on the basis of inadequate information. This means
that survey work often has to begin from scratch
to inform a planning application. In some cases,
wildlife found in this way is of such significance that
designation is necessary and plans are disrupted,
as was the case for the London Array windfarm
development. Completing the network of Natura
2000 sites should be a conservation and
economic imperative.
5. Join the dots: landscape-scale conservation
Both Directives encourage Member States to take
measures outside Natura 2000 to improve the wider
landscape and ensure that the Natura network is not a
patchwork of isolated reserves, but part of a wider,
healthy ecosystem.
Specifically, Article 4(4) of the Birds Directive requires
Member States to strive to avoid the pollution or
deterioration of habitats outside SPAs. Article 10 of the
Habitats Directive urges Member States to use land use
planning and development policies to encourage the
management of features of the landscape which are of
major importance for wild fauna and flora.
In 2010, a review led by Professor Sir John Lawton
concluded that there were serious shortcomings in the
network of wildlife sites: “many of England’s wildlife
sites are too small” and “important wildlife habitats are
generally insufficiently protected and undermanaged”.
Lawton concluded that “we need to take steps to
rebuild nature” and summarised the need for a coherent
ecological network with four themes: “more, bigger, better
and joined-up”.
The Lawton Review proposed “Ecological Restoration
Zones” to provide a spatial and strategic mechanism
for targeting effort and resources on areas of nature
most in need of improvement and enhancement. The
Government has experimented with this approach through
its Nature Improvement Areas. Individual NIAs are making
a difference: in the first year, just £7.5 million helped to
leverage an additional £40 million in both cash and in kind
contributions. However, the NIA approach failed to identify
these areas in a strategic manner, or to embed them in
planning or other decision-making processes. They were
allocated based on local commitment and readiness to
act, rather than ecological need. As an intervention, they
were not designed as a nationally strategic tool to focus
resources on where nature or people needed them most.
Alongside completion of the Natura 2000 network,
Andy Hay (rspb-images.com)
Measures are needed to improve the wider landscape outside Natura 2000 sites.
36

the Government should plan for enriching the wider
landscape. It should take forward a strategic plan for
the rollout of Nature Improvement Areas, based on
ecological need.
6. Take out the roadblocks: complementary
policies
Neither Natura 2000 sites nor the wider landscape can be
restored effectively while other policies act in opposition
to the objectives of the Nature Directives. A host of other
sectoral and regional policies interact with the natural
environment, including agriculture, fisheries, regional
development and cohesion, forestry, energy, tourism,
transport and industry. In particular, perverse incentives
in the agriculture and fisheries sectors stand in the way
of ecological recovery. Improvements could be made
that reward sustainable business at the same time as
contributing to environmental recovery.
Rapid changes in agricultural practices in the last 50
years have driven many species declines in the UK.
Common Agricultural Policy subsidies indirectly incentivise
production, while at the same time, farmers receive
environmental payments to help prevent damage to the
environment and to protect important wildlife habitats. The
two instruments often work against one another, with the
former dwarfing the latter. Realignment of these incentive
systems could provide the same income opportunities for
farmers while reducing the depletion of natural capital.
Although the CAP includes several references to the
Birds and Habitats Directives, there has been a longstanding
failure to integrate nature conservation in
farming. In particular, the cross-compliance rules for
ensuring basic environmental standards in return for
subsidies are not sufficient. The scope and objectives of
cross-compliance are poorly defined, and the requirements
do little to encourage practical measures.
Cross-compliance requirements related to the Directives
have been reduced in number under successive CAP
reforms, eroding the coherence of EU agriculture policies
with EU nature conservation objectives. Early indications
from the latest CAP reform round (2014–2020) suggest
that the situation has worsened. Permanent crops have
been exempted from greening measures, monocultures
can, in some instances, be deemed equivalent to crop
diversification measures, and Member States are not
obliged to designate all grasslands within Natura 2000
sites as environmentally sensitive, which would qualify
them for additional protection measures.
In the same way, overfishing presents a major threat
to biodiversity, both through species depletion and the
impact of destructive fishing practices on marine habitats.
The integration of sustainable fisheries management
is essential to support the objectives of the Habitats
Directive. Rather than generating a more sustainable
fishing sector, the European Fisheries Fund (EFF, 2007–
2013) worked to its detriment. Less than one-quarter
of the fund was directed at fleet capacity reduction.
Instead, available funds were used to help vessel owners
Laurie Campbell (rspb-images.com)
Protection of marine species and habitats will rely on proper implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy.
37

overcome economic problems at the expense of rebuilding
fish stocks.
The recently reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)
improved the integration of environmental requirements
into EU fisheries policy. Article 2(1) requires environmental
sustainability as the foremost objective of the CFP.
Measures agreed in the reform (eg legally binding
targets to stop overfishing, transparent objective
criteria for distribution of fishing opportunities, and
reduction of bycatch and discards) should support more
sustainable fisheries management. However, ambitious
implementation of the CFP will be essential to realising its
objectives. In its first test in 2014, ministers chose not to
reduce quotas for several stocks, against scientific advice.
Fishing pressure has been decreasing in the Atlantic and
Baltic, but 41% of their assessed stocks are still fished
above their maximum sustainable yield, whilst 91% of
assessed stocks in the Mediterranean and 71% in the
Black Sea were being overfished in 2014. xxx
Improving the system of incentives, rules and allocation
of funds is particularly important when funding is scarce.
The European Commission has acknowledged that
funding for Natura 2000 management is highly inadequate,
with likely only 9–19% of funding needs met. xxxi Around
€34 billion per year would be required to cover the cost
of environmentally beneficial land management on
agricultural and forested land in the EU, rising to €43 billion
per year when supportive costs such as advice provision
are included. xxxii
The CAP’s Rural Development Pillar represents the single
largest fund available in the EU for conservation measures,
but receives just €12 billion per year. In the current CAP
(2014–2020), Member States are required to spend
at least 25% of the Rural Development budget on
environmental measures, but some schemes are little
more than additional income support (such as the Less
Favoured Area payment) or have been poorly designed by
the Member States. xxxiii
The only EU funding source dedicated to nature
conservation (LIFE) represents less than 1% of the total
EU budget. Current funding available is around a quarter
of the minimum level deemed adequate to finance the
network. xxxiv Despite the fact that Structural Funds offer
opportunities for funding biodiversity, the actual use of
these funds for financing biodiversity is very limited.
In the UK, the total cost of meeting our future
environmental land management requirements, not
including provision of advice for farmers, was estimated
to be in the region of three times the existing annual
agri-environment budget. Pillar I of the CAP receives the
lion’s share of the CAP budget, some 75%, despite having
no clear policy objective and numerous studies calling
its efficacy and value for money into question. In many
cases, as payment rates are often still linked to historic
production levels, the highest support payments are going
to those who produced the most (and generally intensified
the most) in the reference period.
The Government’s negotiating position for CAP and CFP
reform should focus on the integration of environmental
incentives. The Government should announce now that
this will be a focus for the UK Presidency of the Council of
the European Union in 2017.
Domestically, the Government has committed to two
25-year plans – one to restore biodiversity and one for the
food and farming sector. It is essential that these plans are
complementary and that the Government should explicitly
link the objectives of the food and farming plan to the goal
of restoring UK biodiversity.
To take one practical example, the Government should
commit to full modulation of CAP funds from Pillar I to
Pillar II and commit to an increased proportion of the
funding for biodiversity.
7. Invest in nature: beat the natural deficit
Of course, achieving the goals set out in the Nature
Directives will require investment. The returns on
investment in nature represent excellent value for money.
One crucial aspect of this investment must be the
availability of expert advice for land management and
development, both within and outside protected areas.
In England, this advice is generally provided by Natural
England, the Government’s lead agency on biodiversity
protection. For example, Natural England advice will be
critical in helping wildlife-friendly farmers to make the
most of the new Countryside Stewardship Scheme, which
is intended to reward environmentally-beneficial farming.
Unfortunately, there are further cuts slated for Natural
England. Its funding will be cut by over a third (from
2010 levels) down to £139 million in 2015/16, which may
contribute to a crisis of expertise and morale. This is a
false economy. In trying to deal with a national budget
deficit, we must not accrue an environmental deficit that
would ultimately be far more costly.
Every time a protected site or species is affected by
development or pollution motivated by short-term profit,
some of the benefits to public health, enjoyment, food
security, water quality, climate change mitigation or
reduction of natural hazards may be lost. In other words,
damaging EU protected sites depletes our public wealth,
as well as threatening our most amazing wildlife.
Properly aligning opportunities like the CAP, CFP and EU
Regional Policy can go some way towards delivering these
financial needs.
The Government should designate funding for Natural
England as protected spending.
Improved implementation of the Nature Directives should
be financed with a levy charged for depleting nonrenewable
natural resources – this should be paid into a
Natural Wealth Fund, tasked with restoring UK biodiversity.
8. Crack down on crime: ending persecution of
protected species
The fundamental principles of the species protection
elements of the Birds Directive are largely transposed
into UK law. The framework offered by the Directives has
helped support successful reintroduction and restoration
of species such as white-tailed eagles, ospreys and red
38

kites. The Directives have also helped reduce persecution;
poisoning in the lowlands is now largely history.
However, important principles of Article 7 of the Directive
– including wise use, ecologically-balanced control, and
the principle that hunting does not jeopardise conservation
efforts – are not properly met. Moreover, inadequate
enforcement of these provisions has resulted in a failure
to prevent persecution of birds through deliberate killing,
nest destruction and disturbance of birds of prey species,
particularly in areas intensively managed for driven
shooting of red grouse.
Low detection rates, and the low level of penalties applied
where convictions are secured, have made the law an
ineffective deterrent to illegal destruction of wildlife,
notably protected birds of prey. Sentencing for wildlife
crime should reflect the damage done and provide a real
deterrent to offenders; there is a strong case for increasing
the penalties associated with wildlife crime.
Public outrage at the illegal killing of birds on migration
through Malta resulted in a referendum there this spring,
and the British public were vocal in their condemnation of
the terrible slaughter. It is thanks to the Nature Directives
that we have a legitimate say in what happens in other
countries; however, we must acknowledge that illegal
practices continue in the UK and put a stop to wildlife
crime at home. Fantastic wildlife like the hen harrier could
disappear in England unless we change our ways.
The UK currently has no system of licensing for hunting
despite ongoing problems with illegal killing of birds of
prey and damaging habitat management on some estates,
particularly intensive driven grouse moors. The UK is the
only EU Member State not to licence hunting. A more
effective deterrent is needed to improve enforcement of
legal protection for some of our best loved species
and sites.
A robust licensing system for driven grouse shoots
would be an effective way to prevent damaging
and sometimes illegal behaviour. Licences should
be revoked immediately for criminal persecution of
wildlife, or for unlawful land management practices.
The system should be designed to build in the
management conditions stipulated in Article 7 of the
Birds Directive. Vicarious liability should be established
for persecution in England, so that the shoot
organisers can be held responsible for criminal activity
undertaken on their behalf.
Steve Knell (rspb-images.com)
Hen harrier – arguably the UK’s most persecuted bird of prey.
39

“A thousand starlings, shoaling
across the evening sky.”
Mark Sisson (rspb-images.com)
40

Conclusion
From the warmth of watching a child find a ladybird hidden in a log, to the thrill of watching
a thousand starlings shoaling across the evening sky, nature brings some of the most
magical moments in our lives. In the countryside, around our coasts and in our cities, the
wonders of nature are kept close to us and protected by the Nature Directives.
At the same time as looking after the natural world for
our children, these essential laws also support our lives
in other ways. Through the Directives, we benefit from
cleaner air and water, greener places to exercise and
reflect, and nature’s ability to lock up carbon or reduce the
risk of flooding.
Of course, nature is also the most fundamental economic
factor of production. At some point, every industry and
every service relies on the bounty of nature. Protecting
our natural environment and nurturing its abundance is the
only way to ensure that we maintain a truly sustainable
economy. Where businesses work together with nature
and where the Directives are properly applied, their costs
are minimal but their rewards are great.
What’s more, these vital laws are the only effective way
of ensuring that amazing migratory species are protected
all across the European Union. By taking action together,
the influence and effectiveness of every Member State
is multiplied, so that our conservation efforts – and our
efforts to encourage conservation around the world – are
more than the sum of their parts.
In this report, we have demonstrated that the Birds
Directive and the Habitats Directive must not be
weakened. We recognise that some problems do arise,
but that these are usually a result of poor implementation,
rather than a fault within the Directives themselves. Full
implementation of the Nature Directives is better for
wildlife, better for people and better for business.
We have set out a series of eight actions for realising the
full benefits of the Directives: (1) plan to restore nature
(2) science to understand the challenge (3) objectives to
plan our response (4) completing the Natura network (5)
looking after the land in between (6) lining up policies in
other sectors to complement the work of the Directives
(7) invest in nature and (8) cracking down on illegal activity.
Together, these should comprise some of the first steps in
a plan to turn around the state of nature. The Government
should undertake to complete implementation of the
Directives as the first milestone in a 25-year plan to
restore nature.
Inspired by UK conservationists, the European Union has
provided us with our most important laws for protecting
nature. The challenges are great and some will take a long
time to overcome, but we must not give up part way. In
the UK, the public, civil society and business must come
together to support the Government in completing and
upholding implementation of the Nature Directives; the
Government must play its part in making sure that they are
not weakened.
Together, we must defend the laws that defend nature.
Left: A flock of starlings coming in to roost at Ham Wall, Somerset.
41

References
i
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5839/810.abstract
ii
Gillingham et al. 2015. The effectiveness of protected areas in the conservation of species with changing geographical
ranges. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society; Pellissier et al (2013: Animal Conservation 16: 566-574)
iii
Donald et al (2007: Science 317: 810-813)
iv
http://issuu.com/wildlifetrusts/docs/nature_and_wellbeing_act_final?e=4558523/9971297#search
v
Eurobarometer (2010). Attitudes of Europeans towards the issue of biodiversity. Analytical report Wave 2. http://
ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_290_en.pdf
vi
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C:1975:060:FULL&from=EN
vii
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_416_en.pdf
viii
Maes J, ML Paracchini, G Zulian, MB Dunbar, and R Alkemade. 2012. “Synergies and Trade-Offs between Ecosystem
Service Supply, Biodiversity, and Habitat Conservation Status in Europe.” Biological Conservation 155 (October): 1–12;
Clark NE, Lovell R, Wheeler BW, Higgins SL and Depledge MH (2014). Biodiversity, cultural pathways, and human health:
a framework. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 29: 198-204.
ix
Eastwood et al. (2013). Nature conservation and ecosystem service delivery. JNCC Report No. 492; Maes et al (2012).
Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem service supply, biodiversity, and habitat conservation status in Europe.
Biological conservation, 155, 1-12
x
GHK et al (2010) Economic Benefits of Environmental Policy. Report for DG Environment
xi
Kettunen M, Baldock D, Adelle C, Cooper T, Farmer M, Hart K, Torkler P.(2009b). Biodiversity and the EU Budget – an
IEEP briefing paper. Institute for European Environmental Policy, London / Brussels; http://ec.europa.eu/environment/
nature/natura2000/financing/docs/ENV-12-018_LR_Final1.pdf
xii
Lovell R, Wheeler B, Higgins SL, Irvine KN and Depledge MH (2014). A systematic review of the health and wellbeing
benefits of bio diverse environments. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B: Critical Reviews, 17: 1-20;
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041614001648
xiii
Sundseth, K., & Raeymaekers, G. (2006). Biodiversity and Natura 2000 in urban areas: Nature in cities across Europe
– a review of key issues and experiences. Brussels, Ecosystems Ltd., Brussels. http://www.forumtools.biz/Fedenatur/
upload/N2000inmajorEuropeancities.pdf
xiv
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-costs-and-benefits-of-defra-s-regulations; https://www.gov.uk/
government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69226/pb13623-costs-benefits-defra-regulatory-stock110816.
pdf
xv
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/291631/scho0409bpvm-e-e.pdf; http://
www.rspb.org.uk/whatwedo/campaigningfornature/casework/details.aspx?id=tcm:9-235089
xvi
McCarthy, D. & Morling, P. (2014). A Guidance Manual for Assessing Ecosystem Services at Natura 2000 Sites; Mace
et al (2012). Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends in ecology & evolution, 27(1), 19-26.
xvii
Natural Capital Committee, The State of Natural Capital: protecting and improving natural capital for prosperity and
wellbeing, Third Report to the Economic Affairs Committee
xviii
Balmford et al. (2004). The worldwide costs of marine protected areas. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 101(26), 9694-9697.
xix
Jacob et al (2009). Environment and the Single Market. Final Report to the European Commission.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/economics_policy/pdf/single_market.pdf
xx
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121212135622/http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file44583.pdf
xxi
High level group on administrative burdens (2014) Cutting Red Tape in Europe Brussels, 24 July 2014 Legacy and
outlook p.33 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/refit/admin_burden/docs/08-10web_ce-brocuttingredtape_en.pdf;
European Commission (2012) Action Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens in the EU Final Report
xxii
DEFRA. (2015). Emerging Findings from Defra’s Regulation Assessment: First Update Covering 2012. https://www.
gov.uk/government/publications/the-costs-and-benefits-of-defra-s-regulations
xxiii
Dechezleprêtre A, & Sato M. (2014). The Impacts of Environmental Regulations on Competitiveness – Grantham
Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment Policy Brief; Kozluk, T. & Zipperer, V. (2014). Environmental
policies and productivity growth: a critical review of empirical findings. OECD Journal: Economic Studies, Vol. 1. OECD
Paris; Albrizio, S. et al. (2014). Do environmental policies matter for productivity growth? Insights from new cross-country
measures of environmental policies. OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 1176.
xxiv
High Level Group on Administrative Burdens. (2011). Europe can do better. Report on best practice in Member States
42

to implement EU legislation in the least burdensome way. http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/refit/admin_burden/best_
practice_report/docs/bp_report_signature_en.pdf
xxv
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69513/pb13724-habitats-review-report.
pdf
xxvi
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284500/environment-climate-changedocuments-final-report.pdf
xxvii
EEA, 2015, The European environment — state and outlook 2015: synthesis report, European Environment Agency,
Copenhagen
xxvii
Review of Favourable Conservation Status and Birds Directive Article 2 interpretation within the European Union
(NECR176), Natural England, March 2015, para 7.3
xxix
EEA, 2015, The European environment — state and outlook 2015: synthesis report, European
Environment Agency, Copenhagen. http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2015; EC, 2014e, Communication from the
Commission to the European Parliament and the Council concerning a consultation on fishing opportunities for 2015
under the Common Fisheries Policy, COM(2014) 388 final
xxx
http://www.ieep.eu/publications/2011/03/financing-natura-2000
xxxi
Hart K, Baldock D, Tucker G, Allen B, Calatrava J, Black H, Newman S, Baulcomb C, McCracken D, Gantioler S (2011)
Costing the Environmental Needs Related to Rural Land Management, Report Prepared for DG Environment, Contract
No ENV.F.1/ETU/2010/0019r. Institute for European Environmental Policy, London
xxxii
European Court of Auditors (2011) Special report no. 7: Is agri-environment support well designed and managed?
xxxiii
Kettunen M, Baldock D, Adelle C, Cooper T, Farmer M, Hart K, Torkler P.(2009b). Biodiversity and the EU Budget – an
IEEP briefing paper. Institute for European Environmental Policy, London / Brussels. 29 pp.
43

The RSPB
UK Headquarters
The Lodge, Sandy,
Bedfordshire SG19 2DL
Tel: 01767 680551
Northern Ireland Headquarters
Belvoir Park Forest,
Belfast BT8 7QT
Tel: 028 9049 1547
Scotland Headquarters
2 Lochside View, Edinburgh Park,
Edinburgh EH12 9DH
Tel: 0131 317 4100
Wales Headquarters
Sutherland House, Castlebridge,
Cowbridge Road East,
Cardiff CF11 9AB
Tel: 029 2035 3000
Stay in touch
Richard Benwell
Parliamentary Programme Manager
The RSPB
The Lodge, Sandy,
Bedfordshire SG19 2DL
Tel: 01767 680551
richard.benwell@rspb.org.uk
The RSPB is the country’s largest nature conservation charity, inspiring
everyone to give nature a home. Together with our partners, we protect
threatened birds and wildlife so our towns, coast and countryside will
teem with life once again. We play a leading role in BirdLife International,
a worldwide partnership of nature conservation organisations.
Front cover: iStockphoto.com
The RSPB is a registered charity in England and Wales 207076, in Scotland SC037654.
280-0258-15-16
44