Today the RSPB launches its Giving Nature a Home campaign. 

We want everyone to give nature a home in their own gardens or communities. This is good for garden wildlife, good for people and will evolve into a growing force that demands action from others in society.

The State of Nature report has been a wake-up call for all of us. Despite the best endeavours of conservationists and progressive parts of the landowning and business community, nature remains in crisis.  60% of species for which we can assess trends continue to decline. The findings of this report are remarkably consistent with the UK National Ecosystems Assessment of 2011 which showed that 30% of the services that nature gives us for free are continuing to decline. 
 
Whether for moral or utilitarian reasons, if we want to be the first generation to pass on the natural environment to the next in a better state, halt the loss of biodiversity and begin its recovery by 2020, then we all need to rethink our collective strategies. Our current efforts are inadequate.

The pressures on nature are growing. These four horsemen of the environmental apocalypse (habitat destruction, non-native invasive species, over-exploitation and pollution especially climate change) are driven by a growing population consuming more.

To win, we need change.  But there is hope. There has to be.  In your vision of a world richer in nature, imagine this: birds and other wildlife are no longer declining.  Nature is being restored and is enriching people's lives.  We have a world where clean air and water are guaranteed, in a stable climate, with rich and varied wildlife and a robust, sustainable economy.

Ultimately, we need to end the battle for ecological space between humans and the millions of other species on which we share this planet. Instead, we must create the conditions for harmonious and mutually beneficial co-existence. We need to decouple growth from unsustainable exploitation of the natural world. The value of nature needs to be reflected in economic thinking, decision-making, models of governance and in scientific and technological advancement.

However much we want these changes, they will not happen overnight.  In the short term, the guiding philosophy for all of us should be, in the words of Richard Mabey, to DO NO HARM and to make things better.  All parts of society can play a role and help give nature a home...

Politicians: Think about the planet when you make big decisions about where to invest and where to make cuts. Make it easier for people to do the right thing and stop bad things from happening. Create institutions that are free to do what nature needs and are immune from political interference. MONEY, LAWS and INSTITUTIONS all need to work harder for nature. As an electorate we will be intolerant of politicians that fail wildlife or renege on their commitments.

Landowners: Manage your land with wildlife in mind. We want more farming heroes who dedicate more of their land to nature and who ensure that food production does not come at the expense of wildlife.  Award-winning wildlife farmers like Henry Edmunds need to become the norm. Support Conservation Grade, which ensures that farmers are paid a premium for the food they produce. 

Businesses:  Find new ways to make a profit without trashing the environment.  United Utilities gets it – they know their business model depends on well managed water catchments. Get it right and you’ll save money, deliver a high quality product and help recover threatened wildlife populations. CEMEX gets it – they are restoring their sites to become fantastic places for wildlife. Make investment in improving the wildlife value of land the norm and prioritise investment in the greening of your supply chains.

Developers and local authorities: Make space for nature and encourage sympathetic development on land and at sea, in harmony with nature. As a society, we will continue to be intolerant of developments which sacrifice our finest wildlife sites, depriving us and future generations of beauty, wonder and our own natural assets.

Environmental NGOs: Let’s work smarter together. Let’s be committed to ensuring that our collective actions are greater than the sum of our parts. The State of Nature launch was just the start. Let’s work together wherever we can.  We are stronger together and we will prove it through our actions.

All of us: Let’s give nature a home in our gardens and our communities and in the wider landscape - wherever we feel we can make a difference. In the aftermath of the State of Nature Report, some of us said (see here) that we want the campaign to inspire more people to make a difference in their own lives and where they live. 

The RSPB has decided to invest resources in a campaign to do just that, reaching new audiences in different ways. While there is a risk in doing this, the prize is potentially enormous. If enough of us take action for wildlife at home, we may take more interest in wildlife in our communities and in the wider landscape. Imagine what we could do if we turn that concern into an unstoppable demand for greater action by others.

And the RSPB? Our conservation strategy is clear: we will do whatever it takes, with others, for ever... to stop common species becoming rare and threatened species from going extinct. 

Image credits: Orchids by Andy Hay (rspb-images), Heath fritillary by Jackie Cooper (rspb-images.com), Frogs welcome by Eleanor Bentall (rspb-images.com)

  • Martin,you are so right that conservationists are limited what they can achieve and what they have achieved in lots of instances is fantastic especially with improving numbers of rare birds and re-introductions.improving numbers of once common birds seems more difficult and we need to find ways to do so then somehow mainly persuade farmers(I do not however think they are more guilty than anyone else)to do things to improve numbers,simply because they are custodians of most of the land.Like all things though it will require payment,persuasion and respect for so doing.General public will be hard to get to buy into that.

    Agree 100% with redkite essential world population controlled especially UK.Even more essential with everyone living longer.

  • Martin,   I wholeheartedly concur with what you have said here but this is now not only about what we have to do but how we do it.  I tend to agree with Thomas Crownley on the previous post that I felt yesterday evening in Bristol (whilst extremely enjoyable and enlightening) was a bit like talking to the converted and it would have been nice to feel it get a bit gritty with various sides in this debate getting their view across.

    There are a number of battles going on and not just between nature and humans but also apparent entrenched positions between various human interest groups.  We have the Angling Trust wanting to cull cormorants and possibly otters, we have the Moorland association drawing up ranks against the RSPB, The RSPB drawing up ranks against the Game industry over pheasant protection, the Hunting movement trying to silence the RSPCA, raptor groups in wars of words with gamekeepers, landowners trying to restrict access, the NFU wanting specific CAP proposals and dead badgers.  Even within the conservation movement there is a divided approach between organisations who all want the same thing, need the same money from the same supporters but under pressure from their marketing strategies try to achieve it in various different ways undoubtedly increasing administrative costs.  We also appear to have various Governments listening to one side or the other without an overall balance.

    A lot of the conflict at the moment is about what the Secretary of State likes to term as wildlife management.  A belief that we as human beings can somehow adapt nature to fit around our wants.   However, what one wants as a monetary or otherwise "profit" (e.g a healthy Harrier population, Hunting, income from energy production etc) is seen by another as a "cost" (Predation, Animal welfare, bird strikes and countryside appearance).

    What is missing is the ability to sit down, talk, understand what is logically possible, destroy a few ivory towers and myths, and above all be prepared to say that if you want something then you will give something in return.  We need to realise the Holy Grail is above all the State of Nature and everything that goes with it and that will mean making decisions that hitherto have been regarded as unpopular and not possible.

    That should apply to everyone and from the Conservation side it may well be in our interests to take the first small step.  Take the pressure off the farming community, off the gamekeeper, off the landowner (Never the Government) but ask them to do something in return.   Isn't it about time that instead of saying "We object to you doing that" we started saying "We don't like that but if you can show us that the effect of doing it is to maintain the income for the local community, increase the quality of wildlife and give the wider community a greater involvement in the natural world we will come and help you".   We may have to do that in areas that before we would regard as unacceptable.

  • You're in a radical mood today, Redkite.  But your point about contigency planning is, of course, wise. Sooty - to be honest we are looking for leaders in each of the sectors of society.  There are obvious limits to what we, in the conservation community, can do on our own.

  • I think these targets are excellent, but  knowing human nature they will be very hard to  achieve and the last to achieve them, if they are achieved, will be the politicians. I do think however it would be very wise to have a back up plan.in case these targets fall by the wayside. For example, the "battle between ecological space and humans" I fear will normally be won by the humans. I think the only real way of lessening that battle is to adopt a planet wide level of birth control, which in the long run will benefit humans just as much as nature. A back up plan of this type advocated by as many organisations as possible would be well worth having.

    redkite

  • Yes really good aspirations,getting most of population to carrying it all out will prove very difficult.

    Just one disagreement is about being the first generation to pass things on in a better state,think it would be better to say all previous generations passed nature on in a really good state and we have trashed it,let us try and get it back on the right track.