The one good thing about the Chancellor's autumn statement, which he delivered yesterday, was that he was not overtly hostile to the environment. This is probably progress from where we were this time last year when he presented the environment as a block to growth and bemoaned the ridiculous cost of the Habitats regulations on British business.
But there are some worrying signals in the detail of his announcements. And you really do have to read the detailed reports that accompanied his statement to the House.
First, the Chancellor appears to be ignoring the fact that investment in low carbon pays dividends for the economy and our climate - green growth accounted for a third of all economic growth in the UK last year according to the CBI. Instead the coalition government has focused on incentivising and supporting high carbon growth: for example £1 billion for new roads and the promise of tax breaks for shale gas.
Second, it is telling that the coalition is now talking about 'deregulation' rather than 'regulatory reform'. The proposed new one (regulation) in, two (regulations) out rule is... well barmy. This means that if the Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson, wants to introduce a new regulation to get tough on biosecurity to tackle tree diseases (like ash dieback) he will have to find two regulations to get rid of irrespective of how much good those regulations were doing. It would be great if every time a new issue in need of regulation arose, two disappeared, but alas that is not how the world works.
Third, the coalition wants regulators to have regard to growth, taking into account the economic impact of their actions. As I wrote this week here, it would be a retrograde step if Natural Engliand had to promote economic growth. We want and need Natural England to fulfil its statutory purpose to "ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced and managed for the benefit of present and future generations".
Finally, Defra will be cut by about 1% next year with perhaps bleaker prospects when a public spending review is announced next year. This will put huge pressure on already squeezed budgets at a time when Defra is trying to deal with the twin crises of floods and ash dieback. I expect Defra to intensify efforts to cut any waste from the system and ensure existing spending (for example through agri-environment) works as hard as possible. That does mean improving the design of existing schemes so that they deliver the environmental benefits we want - such as providing a lifeline for species such as turtle dove - whose population is plummeting at an alarming rate.
My final comment is what some will see as rhetorical but one I hold to be true. If the coalition government is genuinely interested in our future prosperity, as well as investing in our schools and grey infrastructure, they should be looking to invest in our natural infrastructure and reap all the benefits that nature gives us for free. Without sustained investment, I see little prospect of the Defra Secretary of State in 2015 being able to claim that this was the first generation to pass on the natural environment in an enhanced state to the next.
What did you think of yesterday's statement? What did you like hearing and what would you have preferred to hear?
It would be great to hear your views.
I think you have largely said it all Martin. At least Mr Osborne did not directly attack wildlife and the natural environment yesterday, so I suppose that is something The outlook is going to be very difficult not helped by a "dark grey" Chancellor instead of a "green" one which would make a diiference.