At lunchtime tomorrow, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his final Autumn Statement of this parliament.
We know quite a lot already...
...£2.3 billion of existing flood defence money will be allocated to 1400 schemes.
...£15 billion will be allocated to road improvements
...a boost to housing and the creation of a new garden town at Bicester
...the deficit reduction plan will take longer than anticipated
...an increase in health spending by £2 billion
...the natural environment is extremely unlikely to get a mention
I shall say more about the floods/roads/housing/public spending announcements once the details emerge, but I thought it would be useful to pick up the theme of Monday's blog and elaborate on my argument in favour of natural capital.
Following tomorrow's statement, there will be much media comment on the government’s progress with its flagship economic policy – reducing the budget deficit – but little comment on progress with its flagship environmental policies, an area where key targets are also being missed (at least according to a recent report by the Environmental Audit Committee). As became clear through the UK's National Ecosystem Assessment Report, we are not just suffering from a budget deficit, we are also suffering from a ecological deficit - draining away our natural capital. We know that we depend on healthy ecosystems for our own health and well-being, but this is often overlooked when decisions that impact on nature are made.
Understandably, the idea of assessing the value of nature in cold ‘economic’ terms raises some concerns amongst the many people who care deeply about protecting nature for its own sake. But protecting nature is both a moral and an economic issue. It is a moral issue, because we have a duty to future generations and to the other million of species with which we share this planet. It is economic issue because our economy depends on nature yet it is routinely assigned a low value or no value at all, sold off to the highest bidder without proper consideration of the consequences.
Of course, there are legitimate concerns that talking about the value of nature to the economy could result in some people forgetting that nature is important for more than economic reasons. However, we have lots of powerful evidence that we can use to remind policy-makers just how important people think nature is. For example...
Rather than ignoring the economic value of nature, we need to embrace it. Our Nature and Wellbeing Act proposals (here) argue that the economic value of nature is just one metric that needs to be used, alongside others such as those measuring children’s connection to nature, the amount of local green space and the trends in populations of species.
We will never be able to express the diverse range of values that people hold for nature in purely economic terms - it is neither possible nor desirable to do so. We want to and arguably have a duty to protect species even if they are neither beautiful, nor seem to do anything ‘economically’ useful. And that is not going to change. I doubt if the loss of turtle dove, wood warbler, willow tit or hen harrier would make a material difference to our economy but that doesn't mean their loss would be inconsequential.
As voters we can, however, choose to use our voices for nature. This is why next week's rally for nature (here) is so important and why we continue to encourage people to vote for Bob. The message to politicians needs to be loud and clear - act now for nature.
I detest the idea that everything can be brought down just to money and we all need to be far more vociferous in fighting the poisonous neo-liberal creed that measures not just goods but people solely by money.
However, the problem isn't real economics: the facts and figures would be far kinder to nature than current politics. There is nothing economic about our approach to agriculture in the UK - even less so the NFU's drive for ever more intensification under the seductive but spurious 'food security' banner. Equally, there is no shortage of space for biodiversity- neutral development, with 70% of our land under farming, most intensive and biodiversity free in the development pressure areas of the south east. The collateral impacts of intensive agriculture are increasingly recognised - but with the current Government backed by an immovable EU behind it, the prospects for change seem to lie more with wake up call disasters than rational policy development.
Well said Martin. As you say, their is more chance of me flying to the moon tomorrow than Mr Osborne mentioning the need to help Nature.
I haven't been following too closely the proposed promised transfer of further powers to Scotland following the independence campaign. However I think may be, we will soon need to start evaluating the State of Nature and the Scotish Government committments to it rather separately from England and Wales. Some aspects of the Chancellors Statement may be rather different for Scotland. I was for example, pleased to read the other day that the Scotish Government has said it will no longer be granting tax exemptions to shooting estates. That is good news.
Looking forward to next week,s Rally when perhaps we can redress the balance in favour of Nature in the eyes of the politicians.
(I am slated for the afternoon shift).