Last night I sat down and read the draft manifesto that Chris Packham has published to coincide with Saturday's Walk for Wildlife.
It is a remarkable and provocative read.
Chris has pulled together a team of independent thinkers to outline their proposals for transforming UK's nature and the way our society interacts with the natural world.
The authors have included 200 ideas designed to prod, poke and shove politicians, policy makers and the conservation community.
Some really stand out, such as Robert Macfarlane's proposal to amend the Education Act to make nature central to the school curriculum or Carol Day's ideas about what should be included in the Prime Minister's promised Environment Bill or Dave Goulson's package of measures to reduce the use of pesticides or Mya-Rose Craig's proposals for getting greater diversity in conservation which I am convinced would lead to better decision-making.
I have no doubt that if many of these recommendations were implemented then we would be able to restore what we have lost (or as Chris says destroyed) over the past 50 years.
Many of the ideas were either new or felt fresh perhaps because of the context in which they are presented.
I didn't agree with everything - for example the comment from an anonymous farmer that all Countryside Stewardship schemes have failed - but that's not the point.
We need ideas, we need challenge and our collective job now is to respond. That, of course, includes big institutions/charities like the RSPB which must continue to find new ways to reflect the expectations of our members so that, together, we have greater impact for nature.
So, read the manifesto, personalise it and take action.
But, first, make sure you walk on Saturday.
See you there.
I'm glad the Walk and the manifesto are stirring debate - and disagreement - far better than the apathy (especially from the media) that can result from universal agreement.
If some of the statements and the walk cause disruption to behind the scenes discussions, as Rob suggests, it may be no bad thing.
Every time I see (as I did in the manifesto) the statement 'farming covers 70% of the landscape the implied - and frequently stated - tag on is 'and it owns it and every square inch should continue to be farmed with food production the overriding objective'. This is the biggest single hurdle to the recovery of biodiversity in the UK, even the good guys in farming tend to believe it and they have taken a majority of conservationists along with them. To recover some farmland must be farmed with other objectives leading, and some simply shouldn't be farmed - in total about 500,000 hectares under natural Capital Committee recommendations.
As for shooting, especially Grouse Shooting, there seem to be a surprising number of otherwise well informed people who think you can reach agreement with one side not shifting one inch. Add to that the incredibly aggressive language, uncompromising stance and blatant misuse of science and I would judge shooting's campaign as the almost perfect pitch for abolition - a spectacular exercise in antagonising the vital middle ground in the debate.
Rob/Martin, the fact that there has been dissent even from persons who might have been expected to support at least some parts of the walk/manifesto as well as those who could be expected to oppose it, does not suggest to me that the best way of action is anything other than ensuring it is considered carefully. Further, there are ways we can maintain some common ground with all the parties if we ensure that the parts that all groups can support are separated in some way from those which cause conflict. Many of the points raised in the manifesto have huge implications, but there is value in admitting and considering them, and not just as an aspiration.
Martin, be careful on Saturday - some of those who have contributed to the manifesto are dismayed how it's being portrayed, wielded, cherrypicked by others. As a member of the RSPB, I note it is not an animal welfare but a wildlife conservation organisation www.rspb.org.uk/.../cats-and-garden-birds and I've sought out the nuance in how to work together in guest blogs for you ww2.rspb.org.uk/.../bird-crime-a-shooters-view-draft-27-1-guest-blog-for-martin-harper.aspx
For all the work I and others are doing in the background to locate common ground between those with different values but the same love for wildlife, I fear the walk/manifesto is stirring 'public opinion' passions that are admirable but seriously threaten to derail ongoing 'public benefit' dialogue on better joint action for wildlife conservation between all conservationists whether as farmers, ecologists, wardens, scientists, gamekeepers, dog walkers, foresters, cat lovers.
Go well. Yours etc, Rob
www.robyorke.co.uk
I can't be there on Saturday, but the manifesto, if it was part of Saturday, makes my contribution to the costs more than worthwhile. It is a truly inspiring document, which may not please even everyone on the conservation sector, never mind the "fake news" conservation sector. I see little in it worth quibbling over. Rather than review every contribution, I see the document as a call for people who are interested in a section of it to propose new or amended legislation framed in such a way as to ensure that the 200 ideas could be turned into reality. I would suggest that this could be best achieved by a website hosting sections which could be monitored by a volunteer/s. As celebrity even extends to the conservation sector, a figurehead or ambassador for each section might be thought appropriate. I hope to see the RSPB play a major role in this, as you say, especially the call to politicians for action.
Thanks for spotting that! Fixed now.