We have seen several good signs over past years as governments, of all political persuasions, seem to get a better understanding of the value of nature. I mentioned the South Downs Nature Improvement Area a while ago for instance. However, against some of these good news stories are worries about the coming Budget Statement.
Our concerns have been articulated by Stephanie Hilbourne, CEO of the Wildlife Trusts nationally, in The Wildlife Trusts Pre-Budget Statement:
Society has spoken out repeatedly against policies that put short-term profit ahead of our countryside and wildlife, eroding our natural capital and quality of life. The budget next week (21 March 2012) will show whether the Government has chosen to listen.
It will test whether the Government is still at odds with itself as it was in the pre budget statement. We are unclear which side of its personality it will express.
On the one hand its Natural Environment White Paper (June 2011) states that it “wants this to be the first generation to leave the natural environment in a better state than it inherited”, a statement which we wholeheartedly support. This point is further reinforced by the National Ecosystem Assessment, (also June 2011), which makes a compelling case that failing to address declines in ecosystem health, habitats and species, will have a significant effect on the well-being of society, as well as having environmental and economic costs. The Government has committed to putting ‘natural capital at the heart of government accounting’.
On the other hand Government is pressing forward with new road building and priming the scene for more development with less planning control and even fewer environmental regulations, all in the name of growth. Comments made in the Autumn Statement on the Habitats Regulations, the ‘red-tape challenge’ and the ill-conceived planning reforms, show an out-of-date approach casting regulation and the environment as enemies to growth.
Since the Chancellor suggested ‘gold plating’ of European Regulations is hindering development, we have had to devote considerable charitable resources to participating in the review of the implementation of the Habitats and Wild Birds Directives.
The Wildlife Trusts work on the ground with developers every day and we know that the regulations are not holding back developments. We are pleased the review appears to have confirmed that view and concluded that the regulations are neither ‘gold plated’ nor an excessive burden on business. We do, however, acknowledge that there are measures that can be taken to streamline and clarify processes. Now we wait to see if the Treasury will accept the outcomes of the review.
Rather than being an obstacle to economic productivity, the environment is the very basis of it. And there is a growing body of evidence to demonstrate the fact. We appeal to the Prime Minister to champion long-term, sustainable economic policies that will bring much-needed prosperity without destroying the natural environment that millions hold dear.
To tear apart environmental regulations and weaken planning laws would be to take a huge step backwards. A Government seeking to be progressive and the greenest ever would certainly retain this established good practice.
Last century this country saw devastating declines in wildlife that only slowed towards its close. Far from undoing the laws that were created to stem this tide of loss Government should now be introducing new measures to restore our ecosystems and put our stewardship of the natural environment at the heart of government policy.
Friday, 16 March 2012
Monday, 27 February 2012
A Nature Improvement Area for the South Downs
I was delighted to hear that the South Downs has been awarded some £608,000 to become one of the Nations 12 pilot Nature Improvement Areas (NIA). We have been working with the South Downs National Park Authority, along with 26 other partners across the South Downs, to help develop the proposal and this recognition of the project is great news.
NIAs were one of the good commitments that came out of the Natural Environment White Paper published last year, the aim being to enhance and reconnect nature on a landscape scale.
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/biodiversity/funding/nia/default.aspx
The White Paper stated that government wished to see “NIAs wherever the opportunities or benefits are greatest, driven by the knowledge and vision of local partners”. The 12 pilot NIAs, including that for the South Downs will hopefully therefore just be a starting point.
As pilot NIAs, the successful bids therefore aim to pilot something. The very clear message from the National Ecosystem Assessment, reflected in the White Paper, is that nature is not adequately valued in our economic decision making. We rely on nature for everything and yet most of the goods and benefits we get from nature (ecosystem services) are ignored or taken for granted. The South Downs pilot NIA aims to look at one small part of that equation.
Our chalk downland is vital for the survival of some of our most cherished wildlife – such as the orchid-rich downland turf and uncommon butterflies such as the Duke of Burgundy fritillary. As nature conservationists we would like to enhance, expand and join up this valuable habitat. This would be to the benefit of downland wildlife but in the process could improve the Downs in terms of the benefits people get.
Obviously we get food from the Downs – and it is the sensitive sheep-grazing regime that has created the downland landscape we know today. So food, in particular meat from lamb, is a clear benefit.
But a well-maintained downland turf also allows clean water to percolate underground to replenish our water supplies. We get nearly 80% of our water from underground aquifers; erosion, pollution or an excess of fertilisers can damage this and result in large treatment costs.
The South Downs is also a major green-lung to people in Sussex, not least for the major urban centres in places like Eastbourne and Brighton. The enjoyment of the Downs for recreation, exercise or even just the chance to see a Duke of Burgundy fritillary is another benefit we all get which is impossible to put a price on.
A large number of other services are also provided by a rich environment – far too many to list, or put a price on (what price on a bee that pollinates our crops…). But the South Downs NIA will try to make a start at recognising the wider benefits provided by a wildlife-rich landscape.
The farmers of the South Downs are fundamental to all of this. Environmentally sensitive farming is an ethic to many farmers but their returns for practicing it are limited. At present, if they are lucky they may get an economic return by producing food. But all the other benefits they produce are barely recognised. I hope the NIA will help to find ways of rewarding people like farmers and landowners for the benefits we all receive – maybe by looking again at our agricultural incentive schemes or by finding novel sources of funding.
NIAs were one of the good commitments that came out of the Natural Environment White Paper published last year, the aim being to enhance and reconnect nature on a landscape scale.
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/biodiversity/funding/nia/default.aspx
The White Paper stated that government wished to see “NIAs wherever the opportunities or benefits are greatest, driven by the knowledge and vision of local partners”. The 12 pilot NIAs, including that for the South Downs will hopefully therefore just be a starting point.
As pilot NIAs, the successful bids therefore aim to pilot something. The very clear message from the National Ecosystem Assessment, reflected in the White Paper, is that nature is not adequately valued in our economic decision making. We rely on nature for everything and yet most of the goods and benefits we get from nature (ecosystem services) are ignored or taken for granted. The South Downs pilot NIA aims to look at one small part of that equation.
Our chalk downland is vital for the survival of some of our most cherished wildlife – such as the orchid-rich downland turf and uncommon butterflies such as the Duke of Burgundy fritillary. As nature conservationists we would like to enhance, expand and join up this valuable habitat. This would be to the benefit of downland wildlife but in the process could improve the Downs in terms of the benefits people get.
Obviously we get food from the Downs – and it is the sensitive sheep-grazing regime that has created the downland landscape we know today. So food, in particular meat from lamb, is a clear benefit.
But a well-maintained downland turf also allows clean water to percolate underground to replenish our water supplies. We get nearly 80% of our water from underground aquifers; erosion, pollution or an excess of fertilisers can damage this and result in large treatment costs.
The South Downs is also a major green-lung to people in Sussex, not least for the major urban centres in places like Eastbourne and Brighton. The enjoyment of the Downs for recreation, exercise or even just the chance to see a Duke of Burgundy fritillary is another benefit we all get which is impossible to put a price on.
A large number of other services are also provided by a rich environment – far too many to list, or put a price on (what price on a bee that pollinates our crops…). But the South Downs NIA will try to make a start at recognising the wider benefits provided by a wildlife-rich landscape.
The farmers of the South Downs are fundamental to all of this. Environmentally sensitive farming is an ethic to many farmers but their returns for practicing it are limited. At present, if they are lucky they may get an economic return by producing food. But all the other benefits they produce are barely recognised. I hope the NIA will help to find ways of rewarding people like farmers and landowners for the benefits we all receive – maybe by looking again at our agricultural incentive schemes or by finding novel sources of funding.
Monday, 20 February 2012
Water water everywhere – except when there isn’t!!
Whilst I am writing this there is a meeting going on in London between government, the water industry and the Environment Agency to discuss a likely drought this year.
It may seem strange, in wet, soggy Britain to talk about a drought, especially in winter, because it’s always raining here isn’t it? Well, when you think about it, how much rain have we actually had? A bit of drizzle last week, one downpour a few weeks ago, but apart from that - almost nothing.
Reservoirs, which supply about 20% of our water, are less than half full. 80% of our water comes from underground aquifers, mostly under the South Downs, and these pretty low on water too – probably as low as they have ever been. They are supposed to be full in winter and only get low later in summer. Streams that should be coming out of the South Downs are either low or non-existent, and areas that should now be wet are dry.
Obviously there will be wildlife effects – fish won’t be able swim upstream to spawn, wetland birds like redshank, snipe and lapwing will suffer, there will be fewer invertebrates that feed the rest of the food chain and wetland plants will be more restricted and flower less. Low water levels in rivers will also mean that pollution incidents will be more severe as there is less water to dilute them.
People are therefore coming forward with their own solutions to the problem – desalination plants (hugely expensive, use up large amounts of energy and produce saline pollution), a “national grid” for water (but water is heavy and it would take enormous amounts of energy to pump over large distances) and, of course, more reservoirs.
But reservoirs are not a panacea. To build them we would have to flood what is already there so could wipe out any existing wildlife interest, they are also hugely expensive and might take 20 years to become operational. Also – do the sums – we only get 20% of our water from reservoirs so even if you managed to double their area (unlikely) you would only increase the amount available by 20%. With the population increases, and the per capita consumption increases we talk about, that will not get us very far. And that’s assuming there is enough rain to fill them.
No – the problem is deeper than this. There are too many of us, each with too high a water demand on too small an area. The result is that there is now less water per head of population in the South East than there is for people in Ethopia.
We may be able to achieve some very minor improvements through these technological fixes but we are running up against real environmental limits. Overall, techno-fixes like these will be about as successful as doing the rain dance that was talked about on BBC local radio this morning. And techno-fixes will come with their own problems which could be as bad, or worse, than water shortage.
Water is one of those resources that fundamentally questions our basic assumption that we are able (indeed have the right) to expand consumption in all directions no matter what.
There is only so much water, damage to wetland wildlife indicates that we have over-stretched the resource and the only answer is to live within environmental limits rather than imagine that there are magic technological solutions. This means using less water.
It may seem strange, in wet, soggy Britain to talk about a drought, especially in winter, because it’s always raining here isn’t it? Well, when you think about it, how much rain have we actually had? A bit of drizzle last week, one downpour a few weeks ago, but apart from that - almost nothing.
Reservoirs, which supply about 20% of our water, are less than half full. 80% of our water comes from underground aquifers, mostly under the South Downs, and these pretty low on water too – probably as low as they have ever been. They are supposed to be full in winter and only get low later in summer. Streams that should be coming out of the South Downs are either low or non-existent, and areas that should now be wet are dry.
Obviously there will be wildlife effects – fish won’t be able swim upstream to spawn, wetland birds like redshank, snipe and lapwing will suffer, there will be fewer invertebrates that feed the rest of the food chain and wetland plants will be more restricted and flower less. Low water levels in rivers will also mean that pollution incidents will be more severe as there is less water to dilute them.
People are therefore coming forward with their own solutions to the problem – desalination plants (hugely expensive, use up large amounts of energy and produce saline pollution), a “national grid” for water (but water is heavy and it would take enormous amounts of energy to pump over large distances) and, of course, more reservoirs.
But reservoirs are not a panacea. To build them we would have to flood what is already there so could wipe out any existing wildlife interest, they are also hugely expensive and might take 20 years to become operational. Also – do the sums – we only get 20% of our water from reservoirs so even if you managed to double their area (unlikely) you would only increase the amount available by 20%. With the population increases, and the per capita consumption increases we talk about, that will not get us very far. And that’s assuming there is enough rain to fill them.
No – the problem is deeper than this. There are too many of us, each with too high a water demand on too small an area. The result is that there is now less water per head of population in the South East than there is for people in Ethopia.
We may be able to achieve some very minor improvements through these technological fixes but we are running up against real environmental limits. Overall, techno-fixes like these will be about as successful as doing the rain dance that was talked about on BBC local radio this morning. And techno-fixes will come with their own problems which could be as bad, or worse, than water shortage.
Water is one of those resources that fundamentally questions our basic assumption that we are able (indeed have the right) to expand consumption in all directions no matter what.
There is only so much water, damage to wetland wildlife indicates that we have over-stretched the resource and the only answer is to live within environmental limits rather than imagine that there are magic technological solutions. This means using less water.
Monday, 13 February 2012
Ecocide
A colleague has just been in touch with me to highlight a campaign to make “Ecocide” an international crime. It’s not a subject that I have looked into, but it looks like something worth thinking about. Follow the link for more information:
http://www.eradicatingecocide.com/what-you-can-do/
Ecocide is the “crime” of extensive damage to, destruction of or loss of ecosystems of a given territory, whether by human agency or by other causes, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of the territory has been severely diminished. This is certainly not something specific to Sussex, indeed most of the discussion is at international level – examples of “ecocide” given include the Amazon rainforest, the Athabasca Tar Sands in Canada and the oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico and the Niger Delta.
The proposal to adopt Ecocide as an international crime against Peace has been put to the United Nations by British environmental lawyer, Polly Higgins. World leaders attending the Earth Summit in Rio in June 2012 will have the opportunity to agree to outlaw Ecocide (but they may need a little persuading!)
An enforceable law would help close off the flow of damage and destruction at source, and encourage investment into more responsible business activities, turning hopes of a green economy into reality at last.
There are many ways you can help. One is to write to David Cameron to ensure he is aware of the importance of attending the Earth Summit. Also the Eradicating Ecocide website (above) is full of ideas, and you’ll easily see what is yours to do. Be sure to check out “The Ecocide Earth Summit Strategy”.
http://www.eradicatingecocide.com/what-you-can-do/
Ecocide is the “crime” of extensive damage to, destruction of or loss of ecosystems of a given territory, whether by human agency or by other causes, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of the territory has been severely diminished. This is certainly not something specific to Sussex, indeed most of the discussion is at international level – examples of “ecocide” given include the Amazon rainforest, the Athabasca Tar Sands in Canada and the oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico and the Niger Delta.
The proposal to adopt Ecocide as an international crime against Peace has been put to the United Nations by British environmental lawyer, Polly Higgins. World leaders attending the Earth Summit in Rio in June 2012 will have the opportunity to agree to outlaw Ecocide (but they may need a little persuading!)
An enforceable law would help close off the flow of damage and destruction at source, and encourage investment into more responsible business activities, turning hopes of a green economy into reality at last.
There are many ways you can help. One is to write to David Cameron to ensure he is aware of the importance of attending the Earth Summit. Also the Eradicating Ecocide website (above) is full of ideas, and you’ll easily see what is yours to do. Be sure to check out “The Ecocide Earth Summit Strategy”.
Friday, 10 February 2012
Natural environment white paper – progress
We were very pleased with the publication of the Natural Environment White Paper last June and quite a lot has happened since then to take it forward in Sussex. This is good stuff and I feel that we are working through some of the concerns I had when it first came out.
Two of the initiatives from the White Paper were “Local Nature partnerships” and “Nature Improvement Areas”.
Local Nature Partnerships (LNPs) were supposed to be the development of new or existing partnerships to champion nature and the environment in an area. I had some major concerns about the lack of resources, demanding timescales and rather broad guidance but we have been fortunate in getting funding to develop the idea in Sussex. We are now talking to a wide range of partners with the idea of developing our current Biodiversity Partnership into an LNP. We will not be able to apply for LNP status until later in the year but we hope that this background work will bare fruit.
One activity of a LNP must be to try to embed the value of nature into our economic decision making. Government therefore wants LNPs to have good links with Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs). This is good, but I not sure anyone has mentioned this to the LEPs. One early job, therefore, will be to try to build better links with the business community.
So, in a few months time, we should have an LNP for Sussex. More of what that might mean another time.
A Nature Improvement Area (NIA) has also been developed in Sussex by the National Park Authority for the South Downs ridge. A very professional bid has been put forward and we know it has got through to the last 15 (12 will be granted NIA status and receive funding to support its objectives). The National park Authority, with the support from a South Downs farmer, did a presentation to the selection panel this week. I am confident that they will have made a good pitch so good luck to them. We will know very soon whether the South Downs bid has been successful.
Since the publication of the White Paper, however, I have always been worried that these 12 “pilot” NIAs will end up as the only ones. The NIA concept is good but these large scale initiatives should be found all over the country, not just in 12 places. In practice I could think of very good arguments for more than 12 NIAs in Sussex alone. It does seem, however, that government does not intend to limit ecological networks to the lucky 12 pilot NIAs. Minsters have now said that they want to see NIAs wherever the opportunities or benefits are greatest, driven by the knowledge and vision of local partners. I am not sure how much, or whether, funding will be available for a proper network of NIAs but the idea that the UK’s failing ecological network will be fixed by just 12 NIAs should now have disappeared.
Two of the initiatives from the White Paper were “Local Nature partnerships” and “Nature Improvement Areas”.
Local Nature Partnerships (LNPs) were supposed to be the development of new or existing partnerships to champion nature and the environment in an area. I had some major concerns about the lack of resources, demanding timescales and rather broad guidance but we have been fortunate in getting funding to develop the idea in Sussex. We are now talking to a wide range of partners with the idea of developing our current Biodiversity Partnership into an LNP. We will not be able to apply for LNP status until later in the year but we hope that this background work will bare fruit.
One activity of a LNP must be to try to embed the value of nature into our economic decision making. Government therefore wants LNPs to have good links with Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs). This is good, but I not sure anyone has mentioned this to the LEPs. One early job, therefore, will be to try to build better links with the business community.
So, in a few months time, we should have an LNP for Sussex. More of what that might mean another time.
A Nature Improvement Area (NIA) has also been developed in Sussex by the National Park Authority for the South Downs ridge. A very professional bid has been put forward and we know it has got through to the last 15 (12 will be granted NIA status and receive funding to support its objectives). The National park Authority, with the support from a South Downs farmer, did a presentation to the selection panel this week. I am confident that they will have made a good pitch so good luck to them. We will know very soon whether the South Downs bid has been successful.
Since the publication of the White Paper, however, I have always been worried that these 12 “pilot” NIAs will end up as the only ones. The NIA concept is good but these large scale initiatives should be found all over the country, not just in 12 places. In practice I could think of very good arguments for more than 12 NIAs in Sussex alone. It does seem, however, that government does not intend to limit ecological networks to the lucky 12 pilot NIAs. Minsters have now said that they want to see NIAs wherever the opportunities or benefits are greatest, driven by the knowledge and vision of local partners. I am not sure how much, or whether, funding will be available for a proper network of NIAs but the idea that the UK’s failing ecological network will be fixed by just 12 NIAs should now have disappeared.
Monday, 5 December 2011
National Environmental organisations incredulous at George Osborne’s Autumn Statement.
The concern about George Osborne’s Autumn Statement is not limited just to the Sussex Wildlife Trust. Environmental bodies around the country find it incredible, especially against the background of other work being done in government. One illustration of this is the letter below, written to the Prime Minister by the Chief Executives of several major environmental Non Government Organisations, including the Wildlife Trusts:
Dear Sir,
The environmental movement has spoken out repeatedly against policies that put short term profit ahead of our countryside and wildlife, eroding our natural capital and quality of life.
But rarely have we been as incredulous as we were on Tuesday, upon hearing the Autumn Budget Statement. The stunning disregard shown for the value of the natural environment not only flies in the face of popular opinion but goes against everything the Government said in June when it launched two major pieces of environmental policy – the Natural Environment White Paper and the England Biodiversity Strategy.
It is increasingly clear that society needs a new economic model that accounts properly for our natural capital. Yet with this Statement, its "red tape challenge", sudden cuts to solar subsidies, and its ill-conceived planning reforms, the Government is continuing an out-of-date approach that casts regulation and the environment as enemies to growth.
Is the environment really an obstacle to economic productivity or is it in fact the very basis of it, as well as of our national well-being? Not a hard question to answer and there is an increasingly powerful body of evidence that demonstrates this, including the Government's own National Ecosystem Assessment.
How can the Prime Minister tolerate this gaping intellectual and political inconsistency, and walk with open eyes down a policy path that condemns future generations to a lower quality of life and to a massive and costly struggle to rebuild the country's natural riches?
We appeal to you Mr Cameron to show leadership and champion long-term, sustainable economic policies that will bring much-needed prosperity without destroying all that millions hold dear.
Signed by:
Mike Clarke, RSPB, chief executive
Shaun Spiers, CPRE, chief executive
John Sauven, Greenpeace, executive director
Stephanie Hilborne, Wildlife Trusts, chief executive
Andy Atkins, Friends of the Earth, executive director
There is a stark miss-match between the need to take proper account of our natural capital on the one hand and the Chancellors apparent desire to consider this as a ridiculous cost on the other. His desire to take away the “gold plating of EU rules” is perhaps just a symptom of a Chancellor who has missed the point.
Maybe it would be a good idea if SWT members and readers of this blog wrote to their local MPs to say what you feel about this proposed diminishing of the protection of our most important wildlife sites. For a list of MPs and their contact details follow this link:
http://www.sussexwt.org.uk/conservation/planning/page00008.htm
Dear Sir,
The environmental movement has spoken out repeatedly against policies that put short term profit ahead of our countryside and wildlife, eroding our natural capital and quality of life.
But rarely have we been as incredulous as we were on Tuesday, upon hearing the Autumn Budget Statement. The stunning disregard shown for the value of the natural environment not only flies in the face of popular opinion but goes against everything the Government said in June when it launched two major pieces of environmental policy – the Natural Environment White Paper and the England Biodiversity Strategy.
It is increasingly clear that society needs a new economic model that accounts properly for our natural capital. Yet with this Statement, its "red tape challenge", sudden cuts to solar subsidies, and its ill-conceived planning reforms, the Government is continuing an out-of-date approach that casts regulation and the environment as enemies to growth.
Is the environment really an obstacle to economic productivity or is it in fact the very basis of it, as well as of our national well-being? Not a hard question to answer and there is an increasingly powerful body of evidence that demonstrates this, including the Government's own National Ecosystem Assessment.
How can the Prime Minister tolerate this gaping intellectual and political inconsistency, and walk with open eyes down a policy path that condemns future generations to a lower quality of life and to a massive and costly struggle to rebuild the country's natural riches?
We appeal to you Mr Cameron to show leadership and champion long-term, sustainable economic policies that will bring much-needed prosperity without destroying all that millions hold dear.
Signed by:
Mike Clarke, RSPB, chief executive
Shaun Spiers, CPRE, chief executive
John Sauven, Greenpeace, executive director
Stephanie Hilborne, Wildlife Trusts, chief executive
Andy Atkins, Friends of the Earth, executive director
There is a stark miss-match between the need to take proper account of our natural capital on the one hand and the Chancellors apparent desire to consider this as a ridiculous cost on the other. His desire to take away the “gold plating of EU rules” is perhaps just a symptom of a Chancellor who has missed the point.
Maybe it would be a good idea if SWT members and readers of this blog wrote to their local MPs to say what you feel about this proposed diminishing of the protection of our most important wildlife sites. For a list of MPs and their contact details follow this link:
http://www.sussexwt.org.uk/conservation/planning/page00008.htm
Thursday, 1 December 2011
George Osborne's attack on nature
Not being content with a destructive shake-up of the planning system, George Osborne now has wildlife sites of international importance in his sights. Now our most important wildlife sites and rarest species face an uncertain future in England.
Osborne’s perspective on this is clear:
“..we will make sure that gold plating of EU rules on things like Habitats aren’t placing ridiculous costs on British businesses.”
“If we burden them with endless social and environmental goals…. businesses will fail, jobs will be lost, and our country will be poorer.”
So that’s it then – wildlife is just a ridiculous cost and it’s making us all poorer!
Where has George Osborne been for the last two decades? Study after study, as well as basic logic and common sense, shows the central importance of the environment. This is not separate to the economy or a cost to the economy but underpins the economy (as well as underpinning our well-being and very existence). Economic growth that damages the environment can no longer be considered economic growth at all.
The Government’s own National Ecosystem Assessment and Natural Environment White Paper, both published in June this year, promised us much more than this:
The UK National Ecosystem Assessment states: “The natural world, its biodiversity and its constituent ecosystems are critically important to our well-being and economic prosperity, but are consistently undervalued in conventional economic analyses and decision-making.”
The Natural Environment White Paper states “The Government is committed to putting the value of natural capital at the heart of our economic thinking.”
There is no sign of this clear thinking in Osborne’s current attack.
These documents were supposed to herald a step change in nature’s fortunes.
The internationally important sites under attack are the Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), established under the EU Habitats Directive, and the Special Protection Areas (SPAs), established under the EU Birds Directive.
(see http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/designatedareas/spa/default.aspx
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/designatedareas/sac/default.aspx)
They are the very foundation of environmental protection on land and at sea in England and the building blocks for nature’s recovery. They include iconic places such as the purple heaths of Ashdown Forest, the unspoilt wetlands of the Arun valley, the flower-rich grassland turf of the South Downs at Lewes and at Castle Hill and the secretive ancient woods at The Mens and Ebernoe Common.
Yet taking England’s much depleted wildlife into a more positive future is clearly far from the Chancellor’s agenda.
At a time of recession we should look to the long-term.
The coalition Government during the Second World War placed nature at the centre of post-war reconstruction and some of our greatest nature conservation initiatives stem from that period. Even during one of the worst economic climates of the twentieth century Britain was able to build a positive future for the natural world. Governments then did not have the advantage of the clear messages coming from the National Ecosystem Assessment, they had not had the decades of environmental awareness that we have now and did not have the foundation of protected sites that we have spent decades identifying and defending. But they did know it was the right thing to do. How different to today when nature is presented merely as an unnecessary cost to society.
Is the Government’s review of these sites an attempt to ease the way for major developments on land and on our coasts?
The chairs and chief executives of the 47 Wildlife Trusts met last week where we heard from the New Economics Foundation about the urgent need for a fundamentally different economic model that takes the value of our natural capital into account. Only a dramatic shift will secure the services we gain from a healthy functioning environment and produce a society that can thrive.
Economic growth achieved at the cost of our natural life support systems is not economic growth at all, merely an illusion of temporary benefit.
Osborne’s perspective on this is clear:
“..we will make sure that gold plating of EU rules on things like Habitats aren’t placing ridiculous costs on British businesses.”
“If we burden them with endless social and environmental goals…. businesses will fail, jobs will be lost, and our country will be poorer.”
So that’s it then – wildlife is just a ridiculous cost and it’s making us all poorer!
Where has George Osborne been for the last two decades? Study after study, as well as basic logic and common sense, shows the central importance of the environment. This is not separate to the economy or a cost to the economy but underpins the economy (as well as underpinning our well-being and very existence). Economic growth that damages the environment can no longer be considered economic growth at all.
The Government’s own National Ecosystem Assessment and Natural Environment White Paper, both published in June this year, promised us much more than this:
The UK National Ecosystem Assessment states: “The natural world, its biodiversity and its constituent ecosystems are critically important to our well-being and economic prosperity, but are consistently undervalued in conventional economic analyses and decision-making.”
The Natural Environment White Paper states “The Government is committed to putting the value of natural capital at the heart of our economic thinking.”
There is no sign of this clear thinking in Osborne’s current attack.
These documents were supposed to herald a step change in nature’s fortunes.
The internationally important sites under attack are the Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), established under the EU Habitats Directive, and the Special Protection Areas (SPAs), established under the EU Birds Directive.
(see http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/designatedareas/spa/default.aspx
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/designatedareas/sac/default.aspx)
They are the very foundation of environmental protection on land and at sea in England and the building blocks for nature’s recovery. They include iconic places such as the purple heaths of Ashdown Forest, the unspoilt wetlands of the Arun valley, the flower-rich grassland turf of the South Downs at Lewes and at Castle Hill and the secretive ancient woods at The Mens and Ebernoe Common.
Yet taking England’s much depleted wildlife into a more positive future is clearly far from the Chancellor’s agenda.
At a time of recession we should look to the long-term.
The coalition Government during the Second World War placed nature at the centre of post-war reconstruction and some of our greatest nature conservation initiatives stem from that period. Even during one of the worst economic climates of the twentieth century Britain was able to build a positive future for the natural world. Governments then did not have the advantage of the clear messages coming from the National Ecosystem Assessment, they had not had the decades of environmental awareness that we have now and did not have the foundation of protected sites that we have spent decades identifying and defending. But they did know it was the right thing to do. How different to today when nature is presented merely as an unnecessary cost to society.
Is the Government’s review of these sites an attempt to ease the way for major developments on land and on our coasts?
The chairs and chief executives of the 47 Wildlife Trusts met last week where we heard from the New Economics Foundation about the urgent need for a fundamentally different economic model that takes the value of our natural capital into account. Only a dramatic shift will secure the services we gain from a healthy functioning environment and produce a society that can thrive.
Economic growth achieved at the cost of our natural life support systems is not economic growth at all, merely an illusion of temporary benefit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
