nature

Recommendations

Info

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
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 and 16: Better for wildlife “ We focus on
Page 17 and 18: Some have also suggested that the a
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: Better for business “ Industry an
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?