In February this year, MEPs passed a report by an overwhelming majority on the mid-term review of the EU's biodiversity target for which I was a shadow.
It was one of the rare reports which come along every so often able to garner support from every political group and MEPs from right across the spectrum.
Indeed, with less than one per cent of MEPs voting against the report in plenary, it clearly demonstrates how important an issue this is.
The report comes at a critical time for the cornerstone of EU biodiversity policy: the birds and habitats directives (together known as the nature directives) are under threat.
In spite of the clear and tangible benefits these directives have brought to European nature conservation by protecting valuable and threatened species and habitats, the European Commission has for over two years now refused to confirm that it will not abolish or diminish these vital pieces of legislation.
Crucially therefore, the report from Parliament explicitly and strongly states its opposition to any such revision of these nature directives and highlights that any improvements the Commission wants to make should be focused on implementation.
In October last year nine EU countries, unfortunately not including my own country Ireland, added their voices to over 500,000 citizens (including almost 8000 Irish people) who responded to the Commissions' public consultation on the issue and called on the EU to protect, and not weaken, these two pieces of nature conservation legislation.
Unfortunately, it seems that such calls from an overwhelming majority of MEPs, more than half a million citizens, European governments and over 100 civil society organisations, have fallen on deaf ears at the European Commission, which has yet to confirm that it will not bulldoze these pieces of protective legislation.
It is absolutely essential that the importance of maintaining the birds and habitats directives is underlined. These two pieces of excellent conservation legislation are examples of something the EU has produced which are actually worthy of praise and should by no means be seen as a target for de-regulation instead.
The so-called fitness check being undertaken by the Commission must in fact serve as a means to enforce what we already have and not, as is feared, be weakened as a consequence of this ongoing evaluation.
Successes in improved conservation status of certain species have been directly linked to these directives where fully implemented so its effectiveness and relevance cannot be called into question.
The crux of the issue lies not with the content of these two pieces of legislation, but rather with their poor implementation. It is essential that we see legislation which protects biodiversity on paper translated into protection on the ground.
Over five months since the adoption of Parliament's report, the European Commission is still playing coy over what its plans are for the birds and habitats directives.
Amid rumours that interventions to delay are being made at high levels, it still hasn't come forward with its findings on the fitness check even though this was due several weeks ago.
The Commission can no longer continue to bury its head in the sand. It is essential that it clears up the uncertainty lingering around the future of biodiversity protection in Europe and immediately assures the half a million concerned citizens that current protections will not be weakened.