Welcome call for action to protect the marine environment

The Commons Science and Technology Select Committee published the results of its inquiry into marine science on 11^th April.  This influential group of MPs warns that the Government’s failure to push forward with the designation of Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) is creating uncertainty for sea users and risks putting important habitats at risk.

We in the Wildlife Trusts have voiced our concerns for some time that Government’s commitment to protecting the marine environment is failing.  The need for Marine Conservation Zones is well known, yet the Government is still refusing to act with the urgency required.  In Sussex just 3 of the proposed 9 Marine Conservation Zones are being taken forward to consultation.

It is difficult to see why there is such delay and why, nationally, less than 25% of what should be considered a minimum is going forward to the next stage.  Lack of information is often given as the reason yet there is ample information on which to base a decision.  Indeed, I wonder what information the government has to justify the idea that a functional marine ecological network can be created with less than 25% of what the scientists say is necessary.

The Committee’s Chair, Andrew Miller MP, said the Government must end the uncertainty and set out a clear timetable for the designation of the MCZ network.

The MP’s report said the Government had ‘moved the goalposts’ during the MCZ process and that it was unclear how they had chosen the 31 sites out of the original 127 to put forward for designation this year.  The Committee also questioned why some sites identified as being ‘at risk’ were not being taken forward for protection.

Andrew Miller MP, said, “Properly managed Marine Conservation Zones will protect marine life in the UK’s coastal waters and ensure the fishing industry has a sustainable long- term future.  The Government is currently letting the project flounder while sensitive environments are further degraded and the industry is subjected to further uncertainty.

Joan Edwards, Head of The Wildlife Trusts Living Seas project added:  The Science and Technology Select Committee’s report is clear that the Government has no reason to delay the designation of the MCZ network. We have been calling – and shall continue to call - for a clear timetable for action.  We hope this Committee’s report will encourage some renewed commitment to protecting our fragile seas.”

 

Unprotected countryside – unconstrained development.

I was very pleased to attend the CPRE conference entitled “Future Proofing Sussex” last Saturday.  In general the Sussex Wildlife Trust and CPRE are tending to work even closer together these days so it was good, if worrying, to hear some excellent presentations on the development threats that Sussex is under.

In particular Roger Smith, Chairman of CPRE’s Horsham branch, exposed some very important issues that we should all worry about. 

Much of our countryside is unprotected.  In the language of developers this means that it is unconstrained – locations ripe for development.  Indeed even that which is protected in some way can still often be under threat.

We have housing needs, and figures are always marshalled to show how we must “predict and provide” in order to meet these needs.  Even though they are accepted unquestioningly by the media, such figures are often extremely dubious, but this is not the element I wish to point out here.

The South East Plan was revoked this week.  I was no fan of the SE Plan so you may think I’d be pleased.  The plan imposed top-down figures for how much housing had to be built.  Local Authorities simply had to do their duty and find locations for the dictated housing.  This inevitably bred conflict and the incoming coalition government vowed to make the situation much more locally led.

This clearly is the intention of many politicians of all shades, and it was good to hear MP Nick Herbert at the same conference speaking strongly in support of a locally led approach.

Roger Smith’s presentation, however, showed that we should still be concerned. 

Many in government are very pro-development.  They still push for the availability of a 5 year supply of land for housing, to house a growing population or drive economic growth or whatever.  All the presumptions about house building can be questioned but these “needs” for development are still pushed down from above.

So Local Authorities still have to identify land for housing.  How much land must they find and where do they go for figures on this?  You've guessed it – the South East Plan! 

It would appear that the top-down approach to housing numbers remains, even after the plan has been revoked.  The Planning Inspectorate may therefore still consider the house building targets set in the SE Plan to be the yardstick by which they assess housing numbers put forward by Local Authorities.

The South East Plan is dead – long live the South East Plan!

We may end up with the worrying worst-case scenario where all the best parts of the South East Plan have been revoked (the policies for environmental enhancement, the protection of our natural assets etc) but all the worst parts are still just as strong as they were before.

But it gets worse.

Developers are sitting on hundreds of permissions - land where they already have permission to build houses.  They are not building them because they can’t sell them and this is part of the reason why housing figures are not being met.  Nevertheless developers still claim they need more land to build more houses even though they are not building on land where they already have permission.  Could it be that developers are banking large numbers of permissions so storing up a wave of development for a future date when they feel they can sell houses again?

So we can look forward to another house building boom where the few remaining fragments of the Sussex countryside are built on.  But at least it means everyone will have a house.  Well will they?  I’ll finish with a silly statistic. 

A main drive to the need for housing isn't just population growth or immigration; it is a trend for there being fewer people per house.  Fewer people per house – so you need more houses.  If we guess the rate of reduction of household size (there were about 3 people per house in the 1970s, there are about 2.5 people per house now) and extrapolate forward then you get to a point in about 250 years when the graph crosses the zero line - nobody will be living in any houses no matter how many you build – and people will still be homeless!  This shows the fallacy in adopting statistics and trends unquestioningly.

The Budget 2013: Value of nature still invisible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

While many in parliament, and in government departments, are trying to find ways of recognising and reflecting the value of nature in national accounting, the Chancellor still seems to view the environment as a cost to be beaten down.

In his 2013 Budget, Chancellor George Osborne has again put long-term prosperity at risk with a short-term bid for so-called growth.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its beleaguered environmental agencies face further big cuts after the Chancellor raided the Department’s budget to pay for more spending on major infrastructure projects. 

Even before the anticipated £11.5bn extra cuts across Government, to be announced in June, £37m will be lost from Defra and its already cash-strapped agencies which have huge responsibilities for dealing with flooding, water pollution, plant and tree diseases and protecting and enhancing important places for wildlife.

The savings will contribute to increased spending on potentially damaging major infrastructure from 2015-16, and coincide with a drop in petrol duty.  So the Chancellor is reducing investment in natural capital in order to throw money at damaging activities.

The Wildlife Trusts have been calling on the Chancellor to invest in the natural environment – our natural capital - as a way to secure our long-term prosperity.

Stephanie Hilborne OBE, Chief Executive of The Wildlife Trusts, said:

“Despite the fundamental importance of the natural environment to people’s lives, the Department in charge of looking after it has a tiny budget – that is hit incredibly hard with each spending review.  The debate about the public forests has shown how important our natural assets are: people care passionately about their local woods and parks; and they are fundamental to the quality of our lives and our well-being.  Nature is also of vast economic value - just £20m of Government money is invested in the public forest estate each year yielding economic benefits of over £400m per year. 

“The case for a different approach is clear.  For example, investment in job creation through environmental projects is an investment in our natural capital and in reducing our welfare bills.   These are the kinds of new and innovative win-win ideas that the Government needs to grasp.

“Defra had to stomach unusually high budget cuts in 2011.  Sadly these further cuts indicate a Government that does not understand the value of nature and its importance to our future prosperity.”

Failure to recognise the value of nature in our national accounting is not just bad for the environment, its bad maths!  How can government know if it is creating prosperity if it does not, or will not, measure those things that make up prosperity.

Economic benefits of the South Downs National Park

Last week saw the publication of the South Downs Visitor Survey.  This outlines the impact and benefits of visitors to the South Downs National Park.  The headline story is that there were about 46.3 million day visits, the vast majority of which were made by local people.  Visitors spent some £464 million in the local economy in 2011/12, supporting 8,200 jobs.  Nationally (in England & Wales), this places the South Downs third in terms of overall spend in National Parks: the Lake District was first with £952 million a year and the Pembrokeshire Coast second with £498 million a year.

To read a longer review of this survey see "Have we seen the benefit" on the South Downs Network web site.

Business recognises nature’s true value

A new report, published today, recognises business’ true reliance on nature and its true value to the economy.

Realising nature’s value is a report from the independent, business-led, Ecosystems Markets Task Force.

The Ecosystems Markets Task Force (EMTF) brings together industry leaders and experts from a wide range of sectors, ranging from banking and biodiversity conservation to beauty, to look for ways in which companies can improve both the environment and their bottom line.  

On 6 November 2012, the Task Force published its Interim Report, Why valuing the natural environment correctly matters for business.  The report set out the aims of the Task Force, its emerging thinking on why nature should matter to business and the potential opportunities for business from valuing nature correctly.  Led by Ian Cheshire, Group Chief Executive of retail group Kingfisher plc, the EMTF will review the opportunities available to UK business that could help them develop green goods, services, investment vehicles and markets which value and protect the environment.  The Task Force will report back to the Government in early 2013 through the Green Economy Council.  You can read the report, published on Defra’s website http://www.defra.gov.uk/ecosystem-markets/work/publications-reports/

The report strongly signals the need to take a fresh look at business to ensure that opportunities are taken to link business development with protecting and restoring the natural environment.  

Nature is good for business.  That is a fact.  Society has been too reliant on an old-fashioned view of economic growth which seems to imagine that wealth creation can somehow be achieved at the expense of the natural environment.  Yet our prosperity depends entirely on nature whether it is better management of our woods for fuel, the creation of wetlands to reduce flooding, the restoration of rivers to improve water quality, or creating new wildlife-rich places where people live.  In future, economic growth that damages the environment will simply not be considered economic growth at all.  Businesses that recognise this now and get ahead of the curve will be in a better competitive position in the future.

One of the report’s recommendations is the mandatory linking of biodiversity offsetting to new developments.  This means that, once the most important wildlife sites have been protected, any residual environmental impact will be “paid for” through a system of conservation credits.  The Wildlife Trusts welcome the report’s recommendation for this to be mandatory.  Any land lost to development should lead to gains for wildlife elsewhere.

We must not hold business back from doing the right thing.  Biodiversity off-setting must be mandatory to avoid creating uncertainty and a sense that wildlife is an ‘optional extra’.  I have not read the entire report but this recommendation is an example of some of the important thinking that has gone into the report.

The Government will respond to the Ecosystems Markets Task Force report Realising nature’s value in the summer when The Wildlife Trusts will look for recognition by the Government that nature is vital to the economy.

 

Protect for prosperity – protecting marine ecosystems DOES make economic sense.

Marine nature conservation and the fishing industry are not opposites, indeed the first is essential in order to have the second.  This is a message I’ve promoted in previous blogs and indeed evidence from around the world shows that if some areas are set aside from exploitation then the overall amount of fish available increases.

But the importance of the marine environment does not stop at fish and chips.  Far more of the earth is covered by sea than is covered by land.  The marine environment is the great natural engine that drives the biological, chemical and physical cycles of the planet.  More than half the oxygen we breathe comes from algae in the sea.  The sea determines our weather – especially in Britain.  Everything we put on the land ends up in the sea so the ability of the sea to recycle minerals and ameliorate pollutants is central to our existence.  The sea buffers the heat from the sun, makes clouds and delivers rain.  Planet earth should not be called planet earth, it should be called planet water!

It is a scandal that, in the process of developing Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs), these benefits have been virtually ignored.    Nature conservation in the sea has been assumed to be a “cost” measured only by an imagined reduction of income for the fishing industry. 

To showcase the potential benefits from the proposed network of MCZs in English and offshore Welsh waters, The Wildlife Trusts commissioned a report from Plymouth University.  This concluded that:

• MCZs can increase the socio-economic benefits of the marine environment. Designation should improve beneficial ecosystem services.
• The more connected the network, the more we benefit. The more MCZs there are, the bigger they are and the more joined up they are the better it is for society and the economy.
• Doing nothing means we lose economically as well as environmentally. Failure to designate the network of MCZs is likely to result in the deterioration of the beneficial ecosystem services.  In other words if we sit on our hands and do nothing, even the current degraded level of economic benefit that we get from the marine environment will not be sustained.

Experience across the world shows that Marine Protected Areas provide economic and social benefits that far outweigh the costs of designation and management.  Yet Defra’s impact assessment failed to mention any monetary benefits that would arise from the designation of individual sites or for the network as a whole.

Finally, congratulations to Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall’s Fish Fight.  Hugh, in partnership with the Marine Conservation Society, the London Aquarium and British Sub-Aqua Club is leading a march to defend MCZs to defend MCZs in London on 25^th February. Why not join in?

Hugh’s Fish Fight

It was really good to see the first in the series of Hugh’s Fish Fight last night.  The Wildlife Trusts have been campaigning for years to improve the protection of our marine environment and it is really good to see someone bring this more into the public arena.

The statistics are stark:  We probably have less than one twentieth of the fish in the sea than we might expect in a natural situation.  If you compare the catch landed in the year 1900 with the catch landed in the year 2000 (with the massive increase in technology and fishing effort), less than 10% of the 1900 figure was landed in 2000.  The odds are that if we had managed the sea sustainably we would now be harvesting vastly more fish than we are now.  

This is not a case of conservationists causing the collapse of an industry.  This is a case of an industry, through bad practice, bad management and (especially) bad regulation, killing itself.  Indeed it is the action of conservationists that is the one thing that might save the industry in the long term.

The Marine Act was a success.  The proposal for 127 Marine Conservation Zones, whilst extremely limited, was a success.  The number of actual MCZs going forward to consultation (31) is a scandal!  The reticence is due to some skewed view of economics where the environment is always perceived as a cost and any exploitative activity is seen as income.  Here we have a very clear example of where an unsustainable industry has damaged itself, and yet people still seem to see the conservation of the resource it relies on as a cost!  MCZs will mean more fish in the sea, not less, and could be one of the ways of saving the industry, not damaging it.

So, please take a look at the wildlife Trusts web site and see our film and look at Hugh’s web site for how you can support the campaign for better protection of our seas.