nature

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1 and 2: Defend nature How the EU nature dir
Page 3 and 4: Contents Foreword 5 Summary of reco
Page 5 and 6: Foreword The world’s most importa
Page 7 and 8: Summary of recommendations “ For
Page 9 and 10: “The robin: voted Britain’s nat
Page 11 and 12: Introduction: the laws that protect
Page 13 and 14: • Encourage good management of la
Page 15: Better for wildlife “ We focus on
Page 19 and 20: Nature and climate change Already,
Page 21 and 22: Better for people “ Biodiversity
Page 23 and 24: Andy Hay (rspb-images.com) “Peopl
Page 25 and 26: EU Environmental Law The Birds and
Page 27 and 28: Better for business “ Industry an
Page 29 and 30: wide range of species. Changing the
Page 31 and 32: The myth of bats and newts Some spe
Page 33 and 34: Forward, not back “ Environmental
Page 35 and 36: In relation to European Protected S
Page 37 and 38: the Government should plan for enri
Page 39 and 40: kites. The Directives have also hel
Page 41 and 42: Conclusion From the warmth of watch
Page 43 and 44: to implement EU legislation in the

nature

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?