The implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives is the bread and butter of FACE’s policy work. These directives are of importance to FACE as they influence national hunting legislation and in particular habitats and site protection regimes. So, we are attentive when these pillars of EU nature legislation come under scrutiny.

The stress test of the Birds and Habitats Directives is part of the European Commission’s wider simplification initiative to strengthen EU competitiveness. It aims to assess whether the directives remain fit for purpose and will try to identify ways to reduce unnecessary layers of complexity.

While banks are stress-testing their exposure to climate-related and nature-related risks, the stress test of the Birds and Habitats Directives appears to look the other way – at the economic risks related to nature protection laws. The question is what actually needs to be simplified and how can the ecological, social, and cultural goals be preserved in the process.

At yesterday’s reality check conference the European Commission and stakeholders reviewed the contributions provided earlier in the summer to differentiate between legislative and implementation problems and discuss solutions for greater efficiency. Some of the preliminary results of the evidence gathering process were also presented. These give insight into the views of Member State authorities, industry, infrastructure, land use sectors and civil society organizations.

Three topics were discussed: (1) Planning permission in Natura 2000 sites; (2) Policy coherence, stakeholder participation, funding support and governance; (3) Species protection, derogations, and procedures for adapting the annexes of the directives.

The relevance of the very last item on adapting the annexes is not quite clear as regards European competitiveness, but the results are interesting. The question was as follows:

Do you consider that modernising the institutional procedure for updating the annexes of the Birds and Habitats Directives, following scientific and technical progress, currently governed by outdated procedures (Article 15 of the Birds Directive and Article 19 of the Habitats Directive), would improve the efficiency of Directives in achieving their objectives?

From the 24 Member States that replied the results were as follows:

• Yes – 9 Member States
• No – 1 Member State
• I don’t know – 3 Member States
• The remaining answers were more careful – stressing the importance of legal certainty, robust scientific criteria and the need for coordinated action in the case of transboundary populations.

For comparison, when the same question was asked to national nature authorities 10 years ago during the previous Fitness Check, 59% were in favour of updating the Annexes and 27% were against. So, it seems that there is less appetite for change.

To broaden the debate FACE is co-organising an event at the European Parliament next week hosted by MEP Juan Ignacio Zoido – The Stress Test of the Nature Directives: Next Steps for Wildlife Conservation and Management in Europe (link).