20 years of our agreement with hunters – Is it still worth it?

Peace treaties rarely make anyone happy on either side. But they are often better than continued conflict. Last week marked 20 years since the milestone agreement between FACE, the European Federation of Hunters’ Federation, and BirdLife. I still face criticism from both camps.

The many in our constituency who oppose all hunting on moral grounds are unhappy we even speak to hunters. They (rightly) highlight numerous cases of unsustainable hunting, illegal activities, and instances where national hunting federations push to deregulate hunting or turn a blind eye to the illegal killing of birds.

On the other side, many hunters still view us as the enemy and see the agreement as a hypocritical façade for our anti-hunting campaigning. Mistrust can run very deep – our campaign to ban lead ammunition in hunting is seen by many hunters as an ideological “anti-hunting” plot, despite the fact that tens of thousands of hunters have been happily using non-toxic ammunition for decades. Ironically, lead-tainted game meat is most likely to end up on their very own plates.

Content-wise, many elements of the agreement remain disappointingly a work in progress. The painfully slow progress on bag data collection is a case in point.

Having been deeply involved in this dialogue over the past two decades, I believe this agreement was worth signing then – and the dialogue is even more needed today. Let me explain why:

We’ve spent 20 years focused on real conservation.
The agreement’s original goal was to stop the constant EU-level fighting over reopening the Birds Directive. Back then, most of BirdLife Europe’s resources in were absorbed by simply defending this cornerstone conservation law. In the agreement, we both accepted the (imperfect) compromise in the Directive. FACE stuck to their side of the deal and defended the law against repeated attempts to reopen it, including during Juncker’s notorious “fitness check”. This freed up resources for actual conservation work, and for implementation of the law. In the last 20 years we’ve helped make the Natura 2000 network a reality, notably by getting most Important Bird Areas designated as Special Protection Areas. We’ve repeatedly defended the LIFE fund, securing the investment of billions of Euros into crucial conservation work. We’ve stood up against devastating projects and saved precious places, from Portuguese estuaries to Polish wetlands and forests. We’ve helped ban lead shot in wetlands. We’ve worked with sectors from energy to mining to clean up their acts and become much more nature-friendly. The list goes on and on. Much of this progress wouldn’t have been possible if we’d spent 20 years bickering over basic legal frameworks.

Hunting is more sustainable than it was 20 years ago.
There is still much to improve. Declining species continue to be hunted. In many places enforcement is lax and penalties for breaking the law are non-dissuasive. Lead is still used, legally and illegally. Very questionable practices like the mass release of factory-farmed pheasants are still mainstream. But it’s simply not honest to deny progress. Just a glance at the latest European Bird Atlas shows the spectacular recovery of species historically decimated by hunting: raptors, geese, cranes, herons, storks, etc. The Birds Directive should have been enforced decades earlier and it is shameful that it is still so often violated. But on everything from unselective trapping to spring shooting, the situation today is way better. I cannot imagine such progress would have been possible without our agreement.

Hunters are now, at EU level, allies on key conservation issues.
We continue to disagree strongly on many topics. And while at EU level the dialogue is constructive, in some countries it is non-existent. But we must face facts: today’s collapse of European biodiversity is no longer driven by hunting. It is driven by intensive farming, clear-cut forestry, and unsustainable fishing. Climate change is hammering ecosystems putting many species at further risk. On these fundamental issues, the interests of hunters and conservationists align. Working together is essential if we want any chance to overcome powerful lobbies invested in preserving the disastrous status quo. In some countries our Partners and FACE members cooperate effectively. In others, mistrust prevails. This has local reasons. Still, having a European framework letting us work in the same direction is precious.

European democracy is at risk. Dialogue and commitment to the rule of law are vital.
One value of the agreement, which I had not foreseen 20 years ago, is that it offers a tangible example of EU democracy in action. We now face politicians who thrive on polarisation and conflict. In most cases these same politicians are also in denial about the ongoing ecological crisis. Some of them are on the payroll of fossil-fuelled foreign autocratic regimes. Discrediting civil society is central to their playbook. Our agreement proves that Europeans who disagree can still find common ground through respect, science, and the rule of law. In these dangerous times, this may be the agreement’s greatest achievement.

Written by Ariel Brunner, Regional Director, BirdLife Europe & Central Asia

Grey Partridge (Perdix perdix) by Rollin Verlinde/Vilda