Last week, I made the case that all of us have a role to give nature a home. I argued that politicians, for example, should focus on what they can do by making money, laws and institutions work much harder for wildlife.
And this week provides three tests of whether politicians have grasped the nettle.
On Wednesday, the Chancellor announces the results of the spending review for the 2015-16 period. We expect Defra to take its share of the cuts of around 10%. This will be on top of c32% cuts which it has carried out over the past three years. The question, of course, that everyone is asking is whether further efficiency savings can be made without compromising frontline services. For the natural environment, that means money to monitor the state of nature, money to enforce the law (for protected species and places), money to support wildlife-friendly farming (through advice and incentives), and money to support large scale habitat restoration putting back what we have lost and re-establishing the many services nature gives us for free.
These cuts come at a time when there is already a shortfall in funding to help meet the coalition Government's commitment to "protect wildlife and... restore biodiversity". We're not naive about the political necessity to reduce public spending and, in 2010, outlined options for financing nature without relying on the public purse. Yet, when it comes to replacing any lost funding for nature conservation, the cavalry (in the form of new revenue from taxing polluters, through payment for ecosystem services or other innovative forms of financing) has yet to appear. So, cuts to frontline services to our natural health service do matter and will do little to address the challenge in State of Nature.
Later this week, we should also hear the Government response to its triennial review of Natural England and the Environment Agency. We have made the case for the retention of a strong, independent champion of the natural environment and have been fearful of the consequences of a merger between the two bodies. Others, in these pages, have argued for a "new body, accountable to Parliament and the Crown, whose job will be to insist that Government applies those laws, hard-won by the people of this country, that exist to protect our land and wildlife from short-termism, vested interest and state-sponsored greed". Yet, whatever emerges, the challenge will be to ensure that the institutions have the capacity and capability to do what they need to do their job.
Finally, the debate over the future of the Common Agriculture Policy intensifies as eighteen organisations (ranging from the RSPB and Buglife to the Scottish Crofters' Association, South West Uplands Federation and the National Centre for the Uplands) have written to the Secretary of State to improve the package of support farmers receive for managing our most iconic landscapes (such as the Cornish coast and Scottish islands). These places are sustained by High Nature Value farming systems which provide a huge array of socio-environmental benefits alongside high-quality food production. Yet, the public services from these systems are not currently supported by the market and so are dependent on public support. The challenge for politicians throughout Europe is to ensure any CAP reform recognises the need to support these places and then for environment ministers in Member States (and across the UK) to ensure rural development schemes are well-designed and used to support these systems.
So, a lot is at stake this week. I'll give you our reaction as soon as we hear of any developments .
Can I draw your attention to today's letter in the Guardian from Peter Hain, Lawson of Compass and Ruth Lister and 19 others re 55 bn pound green and social stimulus. I remain frustrated that roads continue to be built and that lagoons and other opportunities are not; can you tackle these signatories with a clear programme re tidal resource etc.
Co me on Martin,describing Scottish Islands and Cornish coast as providing high value nature but also high quality food production is laughable.You have surely visited these areas and know that if the rest of the country produced the same amount of food per hectare as these areas then half the population would either be malnourished or the import bill for food would be unsustainable.
High value nature definitely,high quality food production,only for raptors.
As you say Martin there is a lot at stake this week. The Secretary of State obviously has significant financial restrictions in which to operate. However such a situation can be lessened a good deal if there is present, the ingenuity, will and determination to protect and improve, wildlife and the natural environment. It is this aspect that is so important. I hope the Secretary of State can demonstrate this week that his Department has these skills but I have my doubts.
Regardless of the forestry panel report, one area Government appears determined to cut is funding to the Forestry Commission forests which make a 'loss' of c £15/pa. Were FC forests to recieve the payments every farmer and most conservation bodies depend on it would probably be in surplus. This really matters to nature conservation: just one example - FC manages 14,000 has of heathland in the New Forest, the £1m cost accounting for virtually the whole 'loss' of that part of the organisation. As I'm sure martin would confirm, managing heathland is something that costs, there aren't many opportunities for getting your money back so talk of the FC 'breaking even' financially quite simply means removing a small but significant chunk of money from nature conservation. Is that what we want ? Is it what the panel, including Mike Clarke, told Owen Paterson ?