The Countryside Alliance is calling on all those who love British wildlife and the countryside to respond to the European Commission's proposal to review the Birds and Habitats Directive.
The Nature Directives, as they are collectively known, have played an essential part in increasing our biodiversity and wildlife, with SPAs and SACs forming the backbone to our conservation aims. Shooting is highly regarded in the Nature Directives and we wish it to stay that way. Opening and amending the Directives may leave shooting vulnerable to those who do not value it and seek to alter the way in which it operates.
The public consultation is open for 12 weeks and we ask you to spare just a few minutes of your time to answer the questionnaire.
You can answer the questionnaire here
The European Federation of Associations of Hunting and Conservation (FACE) have put together a few answers for the key questions in an attempt to keep the Directives closed and keep both out nature and sport safe.
- Are the Directives' strategic objectives appropriate for protecting nature in the EU?
ANSWER: 'very appropriate' – REASON: the strategic objectives are good, but have not been reached as cultural, social, regional and regional/local aspects have not been considered fully.
- Is the approach set out in the Directives an appropriate way to protect species and habitats in the EU?
ANSWER: 'appropriate' – REASON: the approach is good but lacks sufficient flexibility
- Have the Directives been effective in protecting nature?
ANSWER: 'somewhat appropriate' – REASON: there has been habitat loss and deterioration in ordinary landscapes. It also allows an answer to 6b.
6 b. If you think the Directives have not been effective or have only been somewhat effective, is this mainly due to:
ANSWER: 'problems with implementation' – REASON: there has been one-sided application
- How important is the Natura 2000 network for protecting threatened species and habitats in the EU?
ANSWER: 'important' – REASON: to support the directives not being opened
- How do the costs of implementing the Birds and Habitats Directives compare with the benefits from their implementation?
ANSWER: 'The benefits of implementation are somewhat greater than the costs' – REASON: to support the directives not being opened
- While the Directives are primarily focused on conserving nature, to what extent have the following been taken into account in implementing them?
ANSWER: for economic choose 'enough' (logical based on above answer), for Cultural, Regional, Local, choose 'not enough' or 'not at all'
The Countryside Alliance and FACE believe the Nature Directives are currently fit for purpose, please do your bit to protect nature and shooting for future generations -
https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/EUNatureDirectives.