We are aware that a number of e-mails have been sent by our readers to the European Environmental Commission concerning the lack of protection for Britain’s birds of prey, in particular upon moorland used to shoot Red Grouse. A reply to those e-mails was subsequently received by a number of individuals from Monica WESTERÉN the Press Officer for the Environment European Commissioner Janez Potočnik. We enclose below the same reply sent to John Miles and Terry Pickford from the Commission, together with John and Terry’s immediate response to the e-mail they both received in which they now asking for clarification and more information.
Dear John & Terry, (same e-mail reply)
The Commission may also take legal action against a Member State where it is clear that there is a failure to respect EU nature protection rules. The Commission is also aware that there is an on-going debate in the UK about the potential use of derogation, to be used on Buzzards, in the context of the protection of game species. Member States may only derogate (or provide exceptions) from the protection regime of the Birds Directive in limited and special circumstances which are set out in the Directive. These include for example in the interests of public health and safety or for the protection of fauna and flora. Any use of derogations must be in the absence of other satisfactory solutions to deal with the problem. They must be also carefully supervised and not detrimental to maintaining the bird species in good conservation status.
It is for the relevant competent authorities in the UK to ensure that all of the conditions in the Birds Directive are met. The Commission carefully monitors that the use of derogations by Member States is consistent with the requirements of the Birds Directive.
We have a non-conformity infringement case on-going against the UK for not transposing the Birds Directive correctly into its national legislation. An additional Letter of Formal Notice (1st stage of the procedure) was sent to the UK on 25/11/2011. The Commission services are currently assessing the information submitted by the UK on 23/03/12.
Kind regards, Monica WESTERÉN
Press Officer for Environment
European Commissioner Janez Potočnik
Enclosed below are copies of the two replies sent back to the Commission by John Miles & Terry Pickford
Reply from John Miles:
Thank you for your email. It creates questions -
1/ non-conformity infringement case on-going against the UK for not transposing the Birds Directive - Is that for not protecting Birds of Prey?
John Miles
Reply from Terry Pickford
- Reply: There is sufficient conclusive scientific evidence that shows particular species of ‘protected’ birds of prey found throughout Britain’s uplands are not receiving the legal protection they are entitled to under the EU Birds Directive. The legal framework which already exists within theUK designed to protect birds of prey within these areas, many designated as SSSi’s and SPA’s, are simply ineffective providing little or no deterrent what so ever to those involved in their persecution. In most cases UK wildlife legislation designed to protect birds of prey is simply being ignored by the majority of sporting estate landowners together with many of their gamekeepers.
- Reply: Can you please clarify how the Commission is trying to identify possible ways to tackle this issue by supporting Member States’ efforts to improve law enforcement relating to birds of prey protection here in the UK?
- Reply: Based upon my reply (1) above, would you please explain why the Commission has not already taken legal action against England based upon the scientific evidence which clearly demonstrates game predating birds of prey are not protected by existing EU orUK wildlife legislation in some areas of our country, in particular upon moorland used to shoot game birds?
- Reply: Why did the English government consider using the derogation rule for the control of both hen harrier and buzzard, if this rule could only be used in the interests of public health and safety or for the protection of fauna and flora? The use of any derogation to uphold the interests landowners and the game birds they shoot is a prime example of how the current government is prepared sacrifice protected fauna by misusing the EU Bird Directive.
- Reply: You claim it is for the relevant competent authorities in the UK to ensure that all of the conditions in the Birds Directive are met. The Commission carefully monitors that the use of derogations by Member States is consistent with the requirements of the Birds Directive. If this is the case why are so many ‘protected’ bird of prey species consistently conspicuous by their absence from up to 98% of moorlands in England used to shoot game birds, but in particular red grouse? Resulting from the lack of any effective system of protection of birds of prey or enforcement of current legislation upon England’s uplands the hen harrier population was reduced to just a single breeding pair this year.
- Reply: Can you please provide more clarification on the infringement case on-going against the UK for not transposing the Birds Directive correctly into its national legislation? For example where can I see precise details of the additional Letter of Formal Notice (1st stage of the procedure) sent to the UK on 25/11/2011, together with details of the information submitted to the Commission by the UK on 23/03/12?
Terry Pickford,
North West Raptor Group.
Immediate Reply from Monica WESTERÉN EU Commission posted below 28 August 2012
Dear John and Terry,
I have forwarded your questions to our Directorate General for Environment. They are best placed to answer your questions and will come back to you directly. In order to follow up the status of the reply, you may contact my colleague Ann Maher at [email protected].
Kind regards,
Monica WESTERÉN
Press Officer for Environment
European Commissioner Janez Potočnik
Recent Comments