Defra is carrying out a review of the regulations that implement the EU Birds and Habitats Directives. They’d like to hear from you at [email protected] .
I’m glad to say that they have already heard from a large group of wildlife NGOs who have submitted their views on the nature directives – good for them! I think that these organisations, corralled by Wildlife and Countryside Link, have done a good and worthy job of showing that the implementation of the Directives is a pin-prick, if that, to the UK economy. If you think the same then why not email Defra and say that you agree with WCL’s submission? It can’t do any harm can it? And it might do some good.
The Birds Directive came into force in 1979, and the Habitats Directive in 1992, so we have been living with their yokes around our necks for many decades – as have our EU partners. What has been their crushing impact on our economies, I wonder?
This image, taken from here (Wikipedia)
seems to show no impact of the introduction of the Directives whatsoever – as one would have expected. What it does show is that per capita GDP has almost doubled in Italy, UK, France and Germany since the Birds Directive was introduced in 1979. We are all much better off. But nature isn’t.
I notice from the Defra consultation that it is possible to submit information in confidence. I can understand why this might be the case but it would be a rum do indeed if any evidence that weighed heavily in the decision-making process were not available to be seen by all. I’d be worried if, for example, industry were able to sound off in confidence about the Directives and their complaints were not open to public challenge. I’m probably too suspicious.
And talking of suspicious, did you notice that the National Trust’s name was missing from the WCL submission referred to above? How odd that one of Europe’s leading conservation organisations is not commenting with its close friends and colleagues on the implementation of Europe’s leading environmental legislation.
If you think that this review of the Habitats Regulations is a massive waste of time then you might want to vote in the Nature of Harming ‘award’ poll – although it is the opposite of sending a Valentine.
[registration_form]
Well done Mark,sent e-mail and always appreciate you making it easy if we wish to send e-mail.
On another subject,one of your favourites ref peat extraction.I was amazed to read that in actual fact although gardening seems to bear the brunt of the criticism on peat use read that only 2% of peat use went for gardening use,now obviously I don’t know if this is true but article also said that worldwide more peat was being laid down each year than was used.If all this is true then feel gardeners entitled to carry on with their small usage until several firms get creditable alternatives as at the moment most non peat seed composts are really complete rubbish.
Dennis – thanks. It may be that across the whole world there is more peat being laid down than used. There are more babies being born than people being murdered but we stil look rather askance at murder… best wishes
2% peat use by gardeners may be true for direct purchase, but does that include all peat use in the garden trade?
Peat-free composts rubbish? Yes, it’s what they are made from – apparently the chosen recycling path for MDF, judging by the one I used last year. PAS100:2011 (qv) allows for a minimum germination test response of 80% – might be acceptable for some species where seed is plentiful, but infers 20% wastage is acceptable. For F1 hybrids with 5 seeds in a packet? – No, thanks. Manufacturers must try harder – there is a need for a PAS100:higher standard for seed composts
Filbert Cobb – welcome to this blog and thank you for your comment.
Filbert Cobb—-quite right and of course the growth rate ,vigour of plants etc just as important as germination rate.I find the biggest problem with peat free composts that I have tried is that the water doesn’t soak in and never have that trouble with composts containing peat.One peat free compost seems to get good reviews but we need all stockists to have a good one as we do not want to travel 20 miles to get the one that supposedly does a good job.
Mark knows my point was that those who use more peat than gardeners if that article is correct should take more flak than gardeners.
As you rightly say Mark the economy hasn’t really suffered as a result of regulation whilst all that the regulation was intended to protect has.
Maybe I’m being cynical but it makes me wonder if there is any correlation between new or reviews of wildlife legislation and downturns in the economy?
I wonder how much it has cost all the parties involved and DEFRA to carry out the review?
Thanks Mark for exposing the National Trust for what they are in your blog – a big, corporate money-grabbing machine. There will be small economic upturn in my family economy as I jack in our National Trust membership. Maybe I’ll join a more deserving organisation instead.
First there was Simon Jenkin’s rant about red kites that you exposed in your ‘Raptor Haters’ series, and I see he’s now speaking out against wind farms, which kind of makes a mockery of NT’s renewable energy tariff. There was your rather neat expose of the lack of raptors on the NT’s Peak District estate which generated a rather weak response from NT – if they want raptors on their estate, why don’t they just keep hold of the shooting rights themselves and choose not to exercise them? But the icing on the cake was today’s revelation that NT hasn’t joined the broad coalition of ‘proper’ conservation organisations speaking out against the coalition government’s desire to weaken the European Directives that protect our most important wildlife sites.
Thanks Mark for giving me the evidence I need to save myself £80 a year. And Butterfly Conservation, you’ll be getting a new member soon!
Mark
I somehow sensed there was another challenge to the National Trust on it’s way! But you are reading too much into our name not being at the bottom of the Link submission. It’s not ‘odd’, it’s just we didn’t have time. As I recall the draft response – which was very impressive – was sent out with only a matter of hours to sign up. (And we all know the breakneck speed of this review was not Link’s fault). When I did manage to read through it, I didn’t think there was anything we’d have a real problem with, but it was pretty detailed (and I’ve learnt not to sign things in haste that I don’t fully understand). I’m sorry if this has caused any offence, but I gather it’s not exactly unusual for the Trust to not sign up to Link positions. But don’t worry, I think Defra are well aware of our concerns, and our desire for the Habs Regs to continue to provide really effective protection to both designated areas and rare species. And we will be continuing to express these views, and to work closely with Link where we think we can add value.
Simon – thank you.