nature

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