Yes, it’s all about the big vote today and we’ve been publishing plenty of Green opinion over the last few weeks to help you decide which vote will best protect the planet.

But if your head is hurting from all the to-ing and fro-ing – and please note the environment didn’t even warrant a mention in the big televised debate earlier this week – then here is a bit of uplifting light relief which is also happening today.

The wildlife charity People’s Trust for Endangered Species (PTES) and the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority will be releasing 38 rare hazel dormice (Muscardinus avellanarius) into an undisclosed woodland location near Aysgarth in the National Park in an attempt to stem the decline of the species.

Once a familiar sight throughout much of England and Wales, over the past 100 years dormice have suffered from the loss of woodlands and hedgerows, as well as changes to traditional countryside management practices.  As a result, the species is now rare and vulnerable to extinction. 

The reintroduction follows a similar event in 2008, when dormice were returned to another nearby woodland after a century’s absence from the Yorkshire Dales. 

PTES has worked in partnership with the National Park Authority and Bolton Estate to carefully select a suitable new site very close to that original 2008 location and one which has been chosen to provide the best chances for the long-term survival of the species.

Ian White, Dormouse Officer at PTES explains: “The two reintroduction sites are close enough that the separate dormice populations will eventually be able to meet up and breed, creating a self-sustaining population.  In addition, the programme of habitat management in the area will have great benefits for a number of other species too such as birds and bats.”

Ian Court, the National Park Authority’s Wildlife Conservation Officer, adds: “It is fantastic that we are undertaking this additional release that will help build on the original successful re-introduction in the heart of Wensleydale. 

“We look forward to working with landowners and managers to help create a network of managed hedgerows and woodlands within the lower Wensleydale area that will look to re-establish a species back into the Yorkshire Dales that has been missing for many generations.” 

These reintroductions play an important role in the long-term conservation of this endangered species and are part of Natural England’s Species Recovery Programme. 

The release marks the culmination of weeks of work by all of the partners involved in the different stages of the reintroduction process, which also include Natural England, Zoological Society of London, Paignton Zoo, Common Dormouse Captive Breeders Group, and the Bolton Estate.

The dormice that will be released have been captive bred through the Common Dormouse Captive Breeders Group. Prior to release, the dormice undergo a six-week quarantine at Zoological Society of London (ZSL) and at Paignton Zoo in Devon, during which vets conduct a full health examination to check they are in top condition and reduce the risk of them passing non-native disease, ensuring they have the best chance of forming a healthy population in the wild.

Following the health checks, the dormice are then released on-site in breeding pairs or trios in their own wooden nest box fitted inside a mesh cage secured to trees.  The mesh cages, filled with food and water, help the dormice adjust to their new home in the wild.  The cages are eventually removed once the animals have settled into the wood. 

This year marks the 26th dormouse reintroduction led by PTES, with more than 750 dormice released at 19 different sites across 12 English counties over the last two decades. 

Visit www.ptes.org or @PTES.

The Center for Biological Diversity is offering a $10,000 reward for any information leading to the arrest and conviction of those responsible for dragging a litter of wolf pups from their den (some 15 miles from Coeur d’Alene, Idaho) and killing them.

Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center says: “A poisonous, anti-wolf culture has taken root in Idaho, driven by seasonal wolf hunts and fueled by social media sites dedicated to wolf-killing braggadocio. This latest pup-killing incident was almost inevitable.

“Sadly this kind of poaching reflects a growing body of research showing that in places like Idaho, which allows legal hunting and the trapping of wolves, social tolerance for wolves decreases and illegal poaching is often the result. We need to end this kind of violence, oppose wolf hunting and restore respect for the place of wolves in the wild.

“Wolves are intelligent, highly social animals that deserve better than to have their youngest pulled from their dens and wiped out. The war on wolves has gone too far this time and we need your help”

The Center, which has worked for over two decades now to save two endangered species and wildlands, has launched a new Wolf Defense Fund to help raise the reward money.

Almost all of the UK’s environmental regulations on fracking could be removed if the UK votes to leave the EU, according to legal experts who warn that a vote to Brexit could lead to moves that would fast-track fracking across the country.

The vast majority of the EU rules derive from 15 European Directives, which means that Parliament – and the current government – would be able to amend or even undo them in the event of a Brexit.

Most of the changes would require only secondary legislation, say the lawyers. In some cases rules could simply be more easily ignored, without fear of action by European courts.

Regulations on water use and contamination, the safe use of chemicals, air pollution, noise, climate change, biodiversity and environmental liability are among the numerous EU-wide agreements enforced by UK regulators.

Also based in EU law are rules forcing firms to carry out environmental assessments prior to drilling and to carry out extensive consultations with communities and regulators. A vote to leave would also mean that newer environmental protections for shale gas operations – such as those currently being developed by the Commission – would not apply in the UK.

UK hard at work to lighten EU regulation

The British government has for years lead the charge against the EU’s environmental rules for fracking, and succeeded in 2014 in blocking a proposed law that would have required specific environmental impact assessments for shale gas projects.

Boris Johnson once advocated for fracking in London – saying “no stone should be left unfracked.” Other prominent members of the Leave campaign are similarly minded: Michael Gove and Iain Duncan Smith also both voted to allow fracking under national parks.

As environment secretary, Owen Paterson said he did “everything [he] could to speed up approval of shale gas permits”, whilst current energy minister Andrea Leadsom is a fierce fracking advocate.

Unprecedented – but here’s what we do know

No member state has ever quit the EU, so there are, of course, a lot of unknowns on the other side of a Brexit vote. But there are things that we know for sure, and one of those is that the UK would no longer be forced to comply with the stringent environmental strictures born in Brussels.

The regulations that govern fracking have all already been transposed into UK law so they won’t simply disappear if the voters choose to ‘leave’ the EU. Instead Westminster will be able to amend or undo these rules, or could even simply choose not to enforce them.

“If the UK leaves the EU, a comprehensive review of environmental law will be needed”, says Joanne Hawkins, a law lecturer at the University of Leeds. “Having identified which laws stem from the EU, the UK will need to consider whether it wants to repeal – totally or partially – or change such laws”, she told Energydesk.

Antoine Simon, legal expert at Friends of the Earth Europe, agrees. “What would change is that future governments would be able to review the environmental legislation in place and apply the standards they deem useful, or reasonable, or necessary.

“The British people would also lose their ability to use the European appeal mechanisms and the EU courts that ensure member states are accountable for the implementation of EU law.”

EU ‘single market’ could force UK to comply

Another key consideration for what would happen to the regulatory framework of post-Brexit Britain is the type of trade deal it strikes with countries on the continent. According to Ms Hawkins, if it were to adopt a Norway-style model and become an EEA country, the UK would be forced to comply with many EU regulations, present and future – though it would cease to have a role in shaping them.

However the Leave campaign’s focus on controlling immigration – which would be impossible with a Norway-style agreement – means a lengthy negotiation is likely, with the UK quite plausibly ending up outside the single market. In that scenario it would not be bound by EU rules, and would be free to amend or repeal environmental regulations.

“If we are no longer bound by EU controls“, she said, “it is worth noting that the UK has been widely criticised for its non-compliance with EU environmental standards. Recently there have been legal challenges over the UK’s failure to meet air quality standards. Given this, the most challenging standards may be subject to review and may be relaxed.”

A look at the laws – current and future

Here’s to give you a sense of the kind of regulations the UK government would be able to unravel in the event of a Brexit. It’s often said that around 80% of environmental regulations in member states derive from EU law. In the case of fracking, there are more than 15 EU directives and regulations  that apply.

The Groundwater Directive requires the environmental authorities (in this case the Environment Agency) to enforce groundwater quality standards; REACH regulation sets limits for additives in chemicals used in the fracking process; the Mining Waste Directive covers the handling and disposal of flowback / produced water.

The extensive permitting process, bane of the industry’s nascent existence, is deeply rooted EU law,with the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (along with a few other EU laws) forcing firms to consistently consult with authorities and the public on the impacts of a given project; the Habitats Directive offering special protections to the homes of certain species; and the Industrial Emissions Directive requiring shale drillers to get a license before flaring.

There’s also the fact the UK would miss out on further EU environmental regulations designed to plug the gaps that exists in current legislation.

In 2014 the EU issued a non-binding (thanks to the UK’s coalition of pro-fracking countries) ‘recommendation’ that all shale gas projects should undergo environmental impact assessments; that policy is up for review in 2016, and if the EU decides it has been insufficiently implemented then the Commission may take legislative action.

Which, of course, the UK would not be subject to if it votes for Brexit. Likewise it would miss out on the detailed environmental standards for fracking that are being currently formulated by the EU and which will be finaled in 2018. Ms Hawkins said:

“Given the UK emphasis on cutting red tape and reducing regulatory burdens, standards such as the EU’s current ‘best available technique’ may be dis-applied in favour of other approaches to risk management, such as a cost benefit analysis. If it chooses to rely on EU standards, it will no longer have any influence over how these are shaped.”

Anti-regulation

While it’s impossible to predict the behaviour of post-Brexit government, history suggests the UK will work to get rid of what it regards as burdensome environmental rules.

“Together with Poland, the UK has been at the forefront of a rebellion group of member states which have stopped the European Commission and the European Parliament from passing binding measures on fracking”, Mr Simon told Energydesk.

Two occasions stand out, the first – which we covered earlier – involved a UK-led minority in the European Council blocking an amendment for mandatory environmental impact assessments for shale gas projects, one which had already passed the European Parliament.

In addition to blocking mandatory impact assessments Prime Minister David Cameron lobbied the then Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso to prevent legislation that would have required on-site monitoring of methane emissions and the capture of toxic gases and compounds.

And then there’s the recent revelation that the UK government’s recently passed Infrastructure Act twisted the EU’s definition of fracking to the point that nearly half of the shale wells developed in the US would not be covered by UK regulations.

Zachary Davies Boren is an environment journalist writing for Greenpeace Energydesk, the Press Association, The Telegraph, The Independent, Huffington Post, IBTimes, Yahoo, Chicago Tribune and other media.

This article was originally published on Greenpeace Energydesk.

If Greens truly believe that ‘small is beautiful’, why are more than 90% of the party’s members and nearly 100% of their councillors voting to Remain in the EU?

Polls have shown Green voters are second only to Guardian readers in taking a positive stand on Europe.  

To the tiny minority of Greens who are critical of my clear decision that we are “Greener In” I would quote Keynes: ‘When the facts change, I change my mind’. This is what I, along with the overwhelming majority of Green Party members, have done. We have not changed our principles but have responded to a changing world.

An epiphany, subsidiarity and the precautionary principle

So what has persuaded me to take my own personal journey from euroscepticism to playing an active role in Europe as an MEP? The journey began with an epiphany on a boat leaving Helsinki for St. Petersburg. There was something about being literally at sea level, watching my continent recede from view. It made me feel a strong connection to Europe not as a piece of land but as a unique example of civilisation and a system of values of which I felt and feel immensely proud.

This has not diminished my critique of the European Union and many of its policies; it is still too wedded to the dangerous ideology of growth and the misguided political project of neoliberalism. Does this mean it runs counter to the Green vision of ‘small is beautiful‘? I continue to believe in this principle, but we must adapt our politics to the post-globalisation world and accept that politics now operates on several different levels.

The European Union has recognised this concept of ‘subsidiarity‘, writing it into the Treaty on the European Union. As such, it aims to ensure that decisions are taken at as local a level and as close to EU citizens as possible. Only the EU has this, and the equally important, precautionary principle, enshrined in law.

Humanising globalisation

Leaving the EU would not challenge neoliberalism or in any way reduce the powers of multinational corporations who now dominate the global economy. Rather it would remove us from, and perhaps terminally destabilise, an organisation which is helping to humanise globalization and take back control from the corporations.

As an MEP my main area of work is combatting tax avoidance where the corporations have created loopholes precisely because they operate across national boundaries and have subsidiaries in several countries. The Commission and European Parliament are making progress together to ensure public reporting of company profits in the countries where they are earned and Greens have just secured a powerful new committee to explore the implications on the Panama Papers revelations and expose the degree to which national governments have colluded with the tax avoidance industry.

Time for a revolution?

One of the greatest problems I face as a Green MEP is that so many European citizens voted for right wing parties in the last European election, including in the UK. This means that those wanting to chip away at environmental and social regulations have a built in majority. But the belief by Lexit supporters that if we leave the EU we will then be able to gain a progressive majority at Westminster is fanciful. Neoliberalism is not a disease unique to the EU. Leaving the EU would simply result in leading, highly neoliberal, Brexit MPs taking control of our country. It would not lead to some glorious socialist revolution. The only revolution would be an uprising against a raft of EU environmental and social legislation, under the guise of ‘reducing red tape’. This would leave workers, our important nature habitats and the health of our citizens in far worse shape than is currently the case within the EU.

How about progressive reforms?

A criticism levelled at the EU from both the left and right of the political spectrum, is that it cannot be reformed. But dispensing with something because it fails to match a non-existent blueprint is not a good enough reason to leave it. The EU is an organization constantly in flux. Not least because there are elections every five years to the European Parliament, and new appointments to the Council of Ministers to reflect changing governments across the continent.

As to accusations that there is opposition to progressive reforms from within the EU, this is certainly true. But such opposition is often led by our own government which has opposed a range of reforms that Greens have fought hard for, from the ban on pesticides that are harmful to bees to regulating fracking and stronger proposals on air pollution. Opposition to progressive reforms is particularly frustrating to Greens, who believe strongly that another Europe is possible and work hard to bring about positive change. However, opposition to progressive reform is only possible because the EU is, somewhat ironically in view of frequent complaints to the contrary, democratic.

A return to Think Global, Act Local

Many left wing sceptics of the EU choose to ignore its crowning achievement: the 70 years without war that previously disfigured our continent. It is this aspect above all others that causes me to urge all Greens and those on the progressive left thinking of voting Leave to think again. Is it really the responsible thing to do, to sever ourselves from the world’s largest ever peace project when nationalism and fascism are on the rise across the continent?

Think global, act local is truer now than ever. We need to maintain our commitment to protecting our special local places and building resilient local economies but not allow our vision to be limited by them. We must also think globally and evolve into an era of multi-level democracy. This is a challenge for everybody, not just for Greens. But since some of our key issues – climate change, species extinction, air pollution, marine pollution, the refugee crisis, terrorism – can only be dealt with globally, we have an absolute duty to do this.

Greens have never believed or said the EU is perfect. Many of the criticisms levelled against it will continue to energise our political campaigns if we remain a member. And of course, as an MEP, I have direct experience of its shortcomings. But leaving the EU would be the ultimate acceptance of defeat and failure of confidence. Walking away from our own continent will not solve its many problems. Facing them in a spirit of cooperation will ensure we tackle them together in solidarity.

Molly Scott Cato is Green MEP for the South West of England, elected in May 2014. She sits on three committees in the European Parliament: Economics and Monetary Affairs (ECON), Special Committee on Tax (TAXE) and Agriculture and Rural Development Committee (AGRI). She is also Green Party speaker on economy and finance and has published widely, particularly on issues related to green economics. Molly is formerly Professor of Strategy and Sustainability at the University of Roehampton. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Scott_Cato for further details.

“Oh Mother Earth, with your fields of green,

Once more laid down by the hungry hand,

How long can you give and not receive,

And feed this world ruled by greed.”

So sings the silver haired crooner in a black fedora hat, astride an old pump organ. Alone on stage,  “EARTH” is emblazoned across his T-shirt.

As he goads melodic wails from his harmonica, figures swathed in white suits – reminiscent of the iconic Star Wars storm troopers – steal up behind him with pantomime drama, play acting the spraying of pesticides.  

Enter a band of youthful musicians who take up their position – primed before guitars and drums, and the concert rolls into a higher gear…

Welcome to the final UK gig of veteran Canadian rocker Neil Young’s Rebel Content tour, which took London’s 02 arena by storm earlier this month, before continuing across Europe.   

Touring to promote his recent anti GM food and agribusiness album The Monsanto Years (and new live album Earth) – a tirade against the multinational agrochemical giant, Monsanto – Neil also voices  concerns about pesticides, climate change, global hunger, social justice and endangered species. His latest gigs weave in subtle theatrical infusions of protest amid his habitual electrifying mix of rock, country, folk and vibrant psychedelic.   

To amplify his call for a more environmentally-conscious world, Neil’s tour is accompanied by a Global Village of activists, where before his gigs, fans can browse its themed zones – GMOs, Earth Ecology, Energy & Climate, Freedom & Justice, Future of Farming and News You Can Trust – providing an opportunity to talk with representatives from green organisations and to take away materials and information that highlight the pressing ecological and social issues facing today’s world.

Representing Resurgence & Ecologist in the News You Can Trust zone with the charity’s new sales and marketing officer, Grace Rodgers – alongside Permaculture, Positive News, Peace News and Earth Island Journal – it was exciting to be part of this collective initiative bringing awareness of how our actions affect nature and other living beings.  Other green groups in the “village” included Beyond GM, GMO Free USA, Sustain and Global Justice Now.

Kicking off the gig with “After the Goldrush”, Neil updated the lyrics to his seminal 1970s track to “Look at Mother Nature on the run in the 21^st century” as a couple of makeshift farmers scattered seeds across the stage.  Following up with Harvest classics “Heart of Gold” and “Needle and the Damage Done”, next came the aforementioned organ-performed “Mother Earth (Natural Anthem)”, cueing the arrival of Promise of the Real, Neil’s Californian backup band, featuring Willie Nelson’s sons Lukas and Micah.

Proffering rich pickings from the 70-year-old musician’s varied career – highlights included “Alabama” with its heart-tugging guitar rifts and soaring piano anthems; “Love to Burn”, a crashing séance though valleys of screeching guitars and thudding base lines; “Mansion on the Hill” with its psychedelic echoes of ‘Peace and Love’; and “Love and Only Love” – which saw Neil and the band rocking at their peak for the final crescendo, four guitarists communed centre stage, playing off each other in a raging blaze of euphoria.

The feast of old classics was deftly punctuated with “Monsanto Years”, the title track from the new album, calmly delivered with a fierce warning:

You never know what the future holds in the shallow soil of Monsanto, Monsanto,

The moon is full and the seeds are sown while the farmer toils for Monsanto, Monsanto,

When these seeds rise they’re ready for the pesticide,

And Roundup comes and brings the poison tide of Monsanto, Monsanto…

Neil Young’s new album Earth is released on 24th June by Warner Bros Records.

On the UK’s wild and beautiful southern tip, a rebellion is growing. People on Cornwall’s Lizard Peninsula have been fighting the reopening and expansion of Dean Quarry which was mothballed in 2008.

Shire Oak Quarries Ltd wants to extract 6.3 million tonnes of high density gabbro rock, over two decades, to supply a tidal lagoon proposed for Swansea Bay, as well as similar future developments. These could, in turn, boost the UK’s renewable energy supply and energy security.

Shire Oak says that the quarry could generate between £140m and £190m for the Cornish economy, but the Community Against Dean Super Quarry (CADS) group say the proposed ‘super quarry’ is a threat to the environment and local businesses.

Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay plc has a commitment to sourcing half of all elements for the lagoon from the UK and would prefer a domestic source for the rock. But, they say, Dean Quarry is just one of the places being considered and the ultimate decision is down to marine contractors.

Although Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay is controlled by a board, CADS have questioned the link with Shire Oak as the two companies share the same chief executive, Mark Shorrock.

The plans for Dean Quarry involve building jetties and a breakwater within the Manacles Marine Conservation Zone, home to a diverse range of habitats and species including spiny lobster, stalked jellyfish, sea fan anemones and delicate maerl seaweed.

Joan Edwards, head of Living Seas for the Wildlife Trusts, explains that the potential disturbance could put these things at risk: “The structure and the quarrying could create sediment which could smother the communities that live on the reef.”

Dean Quarry could test what MCZ designation actually means in practice. The first MCZ was designated in 2010 and there are now 50 in England and Wales. “The whole regulatory system associated with MCZs is brand new so we’re all learning how it’s going to work,” says Edwards.

“We don’t want to stop people developing in the sea but we don’t want the features of the MCZ to be damaged in any way.”

 CADS campaigners celebrated earlier this year when the High Court ruled planning permission, which had been granted by Cornwall Council for ancillary works at Dean Quarry, was unlawful.

 The judicial review was spearheaded by Silke Roskilly of Roskilly’s Organic Farm, a long-standing business next to the quarry site which employs 45 people – around 60 in the summer. She is worried about the impact of dust, increased noise and traffic for hers and other businesses in the area, including Cornish Sea Salt.

“We all depend on clean seas and the whole vegetation of the area is completable unspoiled,” she says. “I don’t feel that we would be able to continue our business model as we are doing it now if the quarry was to open.”

The Lizard is within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and has many other international designations, including several sites of Special Scientific Interest.

Tidal Lagoon says that the project at Swansea Bay could produce clean, renewable energy to power over 155,000 homes for 120 years, as well as up to 1,900 jobs during its construction.

CADS has defended itself against accusations of NIMBYism, saying its members support renewable energy and would support the reopening of the quarry in a sustainable manner, but only at the level of previous activity.

“Suddenly bringing Dean Quarry back to life, not just doing that but super-sizing it… it’s like wanting to put up a skyscraper on Dartmoor,” says Alison McGregor of the CADS committee who runs a holiday cottage business on the Lizard.

CADS argues that there would be other more practical sources of rock for tidal lagoons from already established quarries, particularly in Norway.

“We truly believe that there are more sustainable sources of rock which will be better value for the tax payer,” says McGregor. “Norway is just set up and ready to go… It’s a proven, reliable source. It’s like ordering a pizza.”

 The CADS campaigners are keeping a close eye on an independent review into the value for money of tidal lagoons which could put a stop to the Swansea Bay and other proposed projects for larger lagoons in South Wales. The Swansea project, which is estimated to cost £1 billion has been dogged with criticisms over costs and has struggled to get the government subsidies they want.

“I don’t think it’s an answer for energy security because one, Swansea will not provide a lot of energy and two, it will be the most expensive in the world,” says Edwards. “Forgetting the environment if you’re looking at the economics then it makes no sense at all.”

There are also some environmental concerns around the lagoons, particularly the impact on fish, although many green groups, including Friends of the Earth, have welcomed the project.

 “At the moment we have been quite supportive of Swansea because it’s a small lagoon,” says Edwards. “We always say the right renewable in the right place, the right technology in the right place. We don’t believe large lagoons are the right technology but we do agree we should looking at harnessing the energy that’s there in the Severn Estuary but not at the cost to the environment.”

 There has been no decision on whether Dean Quarry would be the source of rock if the lagoons went ahead, but Shire Oak still intend to reopen the quarry, even it it involves selling to other markets.

CADS has said they will closely monitor any planning developments at Dean Quarry and want a full Environmental Impact Assessment to take place before any work happens.

“I’m very very proud of the beauty of our area,” says McGregor. “We’re going to fight it tooth and nail and are determined to see it out. We’ve done a year and a half and it think there’s another decade in us yet.”

On being appointed European Commission President in November 2014, Jean-Claude Juncker initiated a review into the potential for “merging” the EU’s two ‘nature directives’ “into a more modern piece of legislation”.

That kicked off a scrutiny process under the EU’s ‘Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme’ (REFIT), part of the drive to cut red tape under the ‘Better Regulation’ agenda.

Appointed to take charge of the review were First Vice-President Frans Timmermans, the Commissioner in charge of ‘Better Regulation, and Environment Commissioner Karmenu Vella.

But the decision raised fears among nature-lovers cross Europe that the real purpose of the exercise was not so much to ‘modernise’ the nature directives, as to eviscerate them.

Amid the public outcry, more than half a million EU citizens responded to a Commission consultation on the review, a record number for any such consultation.

Consultants were appointed to carry out the review and they duly produced an advanced first draft on 4th January 2016. It was meant to be published in March, alongside a Commission ‘working document’ that would draw political conclusions from it, and in any event no later than the first week in June.

But the report itself and the political conclusion remain unpublished – to the embarrassment of the Dutch Presidency of the EU which was was forced to cancel an Amsterdam Conference on Future-Proof Nature scheduled for 28th to 30th June:

“Now that the Working Document will not be published before the end of June, the conference will have no substantive basis for discussions and will fail to add any substance to the debate at this moment. It is with regret that we are therefore forced to cancel the conference for now.”

Now The Ecologist has received, via the specialist EU news agency Euractiv, a full 584-page copy of the report. And what it finds is astonishing: that the two nature laws, the Habitats & Species Directive and the Birds Directive, are entirely fit for purpose.

Here we publish in full the conclusions of the report (our emphasis shown by underling):

So why the delay?

Conservation NGOs have suspected all along that the only purpose of the ‘fitness test’ applied to the directives was to brand them as unfit for purpose, an obstruction to growth, development and prosperity, and a luxury that Europe was unable to afford.

The plan would then be to either:

• replace them with deliberately weak and ineffective legislation;
• allow member states widespread ‘derogations’ from the directives, allowing them to do pretty much as they wanted in the interests of economic growth;
• or to ‘devolve’ the entire question of nature protection to member states, with no ‘level playing field’ across the EU.

The leaking of the report has effectively quashed those options, making it clear that the laws are working well, achieving their purposes, and preventing the kind of ‘race to the bottom’ that their deconstruction would entail.

As for the delay in publishing the report, there are two likely causes of the obstruction, both residing in the Commission itself:

• a rift between Commissioners running the process, with Environment Commissioner Karmenu Vella wishing to support the report and stand by its conclusion, and First Vice-President Frans Timmermans (backed by President Juncker) insisting on pursuing the all-important deregulation agenda;
• the Commissioners are united wishing to scrap the nature directives, but in conflict with civil servants who are refusing on grounds of professional integrity to write a ‘political conclusions’ report that directly and overtly contradicts all the findings of the ‘fitness test’ report.

Either way NGOs are getting increasingly upset and frustrated at the delay. “We urgently call on the Vice-President Timmermans to save the credibility of this Fitness Check and the whole agenda of ‘better regulation'”, Konstantin Kreiser, head of EU nature policy at NABU, a German NGO, told Euractiv.

“The final evaluation study of the Nature Directives must be published now, together with the political conclusions on keeping them. Otherwise a terrible image of the EU is painted for all those who care for the environment, including, by the way, millions of people who care for nature in the UK.

“The environment is a success story of the EU, and it must continue to be one.”

The report: ‘Evaluation Study to support  the Fitness Check of  the Birds and Habitats  Directives Draft‘, Final Report 4 January 2016.

Oliver Tickell is Contributing Editor at The Ecologist.

On being appointed European Commission President in November 2014, Jean-Claude Juncker initiated a review into the potential for “merging” the EU’s two ‘nature directives’ “into a more modern piece of legislation”.

That kicked off a scrutiny process under the EU’s ‘Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme’ (REFIT), part of the drive to cut red tape under the ‘Better Regulation’ agenda.

Appointed to take charge of the review were First Vice-President Frans Timmermans, the Commissioner in charge of ‘Better Regulation, and Environment Commissioner Karmenu Vella.

But the decision raised fears among nature-lovers cross Europe that the real purpose of the exercise was not so much to ‘modernise’ the nature directives, as to eviscerate them.

Amid the public outcry, more than half a million EU citizens responded to a Commission consultation on the review, a record number for any such consultation.

Consultants were appointed to carry out the review and they duly produced an advanced first draft on 4th January 2016. It was meant to be published in March, alongside a Commission ‘working document’ that would draw political conclusions from it, and in any event no later than the first week in June.

But the report itself and the political conclusion remain unpublished – to the embarrassment of the Dutch Presidency of the EU which was was forced to cancel an Amsterdam Conference on Future-Proof Nature scheduled for 28th to 30th June:

“Now that the Working Document will not be published before the end of June, the conference will have no substantive basis for discussions and will fail to add any substance to the debate at this moment. It is with regret that we are therefore forced to cancel the conference for now.”

Now The Ecologist has received, via the specialist EU news agency Euractiv, a full 584-page copy of the report. And what it finds is astonishing: that the two nature laws, the Habitats & Species Directive and the Birds Directive, are entirely fit for purpose.

Here we publish in full the conclusions of the report (our emphasis shown by underling):

So why the delay?

Conservation NGOs have suspected all along that the only purpose of the ‘fitness test’ applied to the directives was to brand them as unfit for purpose, an obstruction to growth, development and prosperity, and a luxury that Europe was unable to afford.

The plan would then be to either:

• replace them with deliberately weak and ineffective legislation;
• allow member states widespread ‘derogations’ from the directives, allowing them to do pretty much as they wanted in the interests of economic growth;
• or to ‘devolve’ the entire question of nature protection to member states, with no ‘level playing field’ across the EU.

The leaking of the report has effectively quashed those options, making it clear that the laws are working well, achieving their purposes, and preventing the kind of ‘race to the bottom’ that their deconstruction would entail.

As for the delay in publishing the report, there are two likely causes of the obstruction, both residing in the Commission itself:

• a rift between Commissioners running the process, with Environment Commissioner Karmenu Vella wishing to support the report and stand by its conclusion, and First Vice-President Frans Timmermans (backed by President Juncker) insisting on pursuing the all-important deregulation agenda;
• the Commissioners are united wishing to scrap the nature directives, but in conflict with civil servants who are refusing on grounds of professional integrity to write a ‘political conclusions’ report that directly and overtly contradicts all the findings of the ‘fitness test’ report.

Either way NGOs are getting increasingly upset and frustrated at the delay. “We urgently call on the Vice-President Timmermans to save the credibility of this Fitness Check and the whole agenda of ‘better regulation'”, Konstantin Kreiser, head of EU nature policy at NABU, a German NGO, told Euractiv.

“The final evaluation study of the Nature Directives must be published now, together with the political conclusions on keeping them. Otherwise a terrible image of the EU is painted for all those who care for the environment, including, by the way, millions of people who care for nature in the UK.

“The environment is a success story of the EU, and it must continue to be one.”

The report: ‘Evaluation Study to support  the Fitness Check of  the Birds and Habitats  Directives Draft‘, Final Report 4 January 2016.

Oliver Tickell is Contributing Editor at The Ecologist.

On being appointed European Commission President in November 2014, Jean-Claude Juncker initiated a review into the potential for “merging” the EU’s two ‘nature directives’ “into a more modern piece of legislation”.

That kicked off a scrutiny process under the EU’s ‘Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme’ (REFIT), part of the drive to cut red tape under the ‘Better Regulation’ agenda.

Appointed to take charge of the review were First Vice-President Frans Timmermans, the Commissioner in charge of ‘Better Regulation, and Environment Commissioner Karmenu Vella.

But the decision raised fears among nature-lovers cross Europe that the real purpose of the exercise was not so much to ‘modernise’ the nature directives, as to eviscerate them.

Amid the public outcry, more than half a million EU citizens responded to a Commission consultation on the review, a record number for any such consultation.

Consultants were appointed to carry out the review and they duly produced an advanced first draft on 4th January 2016. It was meant to be published in March, alongside a Commission ‘working document’ that would draw political conclusions from it, and in any event no later than the first week in June.

But the report itself and the political conclusion remain unpublished – to the embarrassment of the Dutch Presidency of the EU which was was forced to cancel an Amsterdam Conference on Future-Proof Nature scheduled for 28th to 30th June:

“Now that the Working Document will not be published before the end of June, the conference will have no substantive basis for discussions and will fail to add any substance to the debate at this moment. It is with regret that we are therefore forced to cancel the conference for now.”

Now The Ecologist has received, via the specialist EU news agency Euractiv, a full 584-page copy of the report. And what it finds is astonishing: that the two nature laws, the Habitats & Species Directive and the Birds Directive, are entirely fit for purpose.

Here we publish in full the conclusions of the report (our emphasis shown by underling):

So why the delay?

Conservation NGOs have suspected all along that the only purpose of the ‘fitness test’ applied to the directives was to brand them as unfit for purpose, an obstruction to growth, development and prosperity, and a luxury that Europe was unable to afford.

The plan would then be to either:

• replace them with deliberately weak and ineffective legislation;
• allow member states widespread ‘derogations’ from the directives, allowing them to do pretty much as they wanted in the interests of economic growth;
• or to ‘devolve’ the entire question of nature protection to member states, with no ‘level playing field’ across the EU.

The leaking of the report has effectively quashed those options, making it clear that the laws are working well, achieving their purposes, and preventing the kind of ‘race to the bottom’ that their deconstruction would entail.

As for the delay in publishing the report, there are two likely causes of the obstruction, both residing in the Commission itself:

• a rift between Commissioners running the process, with Environment Commissioner Karmenu Vella wishing to support the report and stand by its conclusion, and First Vice-President Frans Timmermans (backed by President Juncker) insisting on pursuing the all-important deregulation agenda;
• the Commissioners are united wishing to scrap the nature directives, but in conflict with civil servants who are refusing on grounds of professional integrity to write a ‘political conclusions’ report that directly and overtly contradicts all the findings of the ‘fitness test’ report.

Either way NGOs are getting increasingly upset and frustrated at the delay. “We urgently call on the Vice-President Timmermans to save the credibility of this Fitness Check and the whole agenda of ‘better regulation'”, Konstantin Kreiser, head of EU nature policy at NABU, a German NGO, told Euractiv.

“The final evaluation study of the Nature Directives must be published now, together with the political conclusions on keeping them. Otherwise a terrible image of the EU is painted for all those who care for the environment, including, by the way, millions of people who care for nature in the UK.

“The environment is a success story of the EU, and it must continue to be one.”

The report: ‘Evaluation Study to support  the Fitness Check of  the Birds and Habitats  Directives Draft‘, Final Report 4 January 2016.

Oliver Tickell is Contributing Editor at The Ecologist.