Today, the RSPB has joined forces with fourteen other organisations to send the Prime Minister a letter  - a kind of end-of-year exam to let him know how he's getting on.

Not surprisingly, it's a bit mixed. There are good things, bad things and quite a lot that's simply too early to judge. We think we've been pretty fair and we're not trying to make a political point.  The planet desperately needs the Coalition Government to succeed.  We're willing to work with the UK Government to help them make the right decisions, but we'll continue to challenge them when we think they are deviating from their green ambitions.

To help bring our letter to life, here are a few examples of what’s gone really well, a few "could do betters" and one where the Government may need to stay behind after school for extra coaching.  It’s a mixed picture, but certainly enough to build on next year.

Let’s start with...

WHAT WENT WELL?

1. Funding for farmland wildlife: We lobbied hard to protect the higher-level scheme during the Comprehensive Spending Review and were pleased that Defra decided to save it - although many farmers with excellent applications are still being turned down for the scheme. At the same time nature conservation needs more investment from innovative sources, particularly if the Government’s commitments to “protect wildlife ... and restore biodiversity” are to work.

2.    Nagoya biodiversity summit: Caroline Spelman did a good job negotiating the Nagoya biodiversity deal, committing countries to halting wildlife decline across the globe by 2020.  The challenge now is to go to the 2012 Rio+20 Summit armed with evidence of real progress in recovering lost biodiversity at home.

WHAT NEEDS MORE EFFORT OR TOO EARLY TO JUDGE?

3.    Planning reform: Reforming the planning system to prioritise growth is a definite threat to the environment in England. Growth can't be at all costs - the need for new jobs and homes must not be at the expense of the environment. It's a difficult balance, but it's important that planning laws recognise that the environment has a value all of its own.

4.    The Natural Environment White Paper: This will be published next month and we have been promised that it would be "bold and ambitious". We'll be watching with interest.  We are hoping to welcome a white paper that sets out clear measures of progress and success and that has the support of government departments beyond Defra.

5.    Delivering sustainable onshore wind power: More effort needed from the Coalition on this if it is going to fulfil its ambitions. Approval rates for onshore wind are falling, as conflicts with wildlife conservation increase. Planning reform threatens to make it worse. The solution? Putting wind farms in the right place would be a good start, so the government needs a decent strategy for doing just that.

6.    The Green Deal: We all want low carbon homes, but we won't get these without the right investment. The Green Deal is a flagship coalition policy that should unlock funds and help all of us to slash our emissions and energy bills. But we'll all play hard to get unless the Government offers us something genuinely attractive that allows us to borrow funds easily and at super-low interest rates.

7.    Green Investment Bank: The ambition for the GIB has been scaled back.  It has been relegated from a bank to a fund with no borrowing powers until 2015. That's not much use. It needs to be an independent bank with borrowing capabilities. And it needs to be enterprising, funding pro-environmental investments in all sectors of the economy instead of being confined to predictable carbon-related initiatives.

8.    Green Fiscal Reform: Not good. The Government promised to increase the proportion of the tax revenue coming from green taxes. It sounded promising, but they reduced fuel duty, froze Air Passenger Duty and ignored calls for a peat levy. We all need a bit of encouragement to live in a cleaner, greener way and tax reform is a good way to encourage us to think more about energy efficiency and reduce our consumption. The Government must stick to its pledge and offer us all some green incentives please.

WHAT'S IN TROUBLE?

9.  Marine Protected Areas: The UK is an internationally important site for many seabird species. But thirty years after the deadline was set in the EU Birds Directive, we have only three marine sites protected for wintering seabirds, and none for foraging birds in the breeding season. This really isn't good enough. We need to designate known sites immediately, and move swiftly to identify the remaining sites. One of the first steps would be systematic surveys at sea to fill the gaping holes in the data needed to do this.

So, has Cameron passed his first year exam? He has probably scraped a pass, based more on effort than achievement. And he's a new boy, so we're giving him the benefit of the doubt. But he will need to do better in his second year, or he'll be letting himself down, the school down, and, more importantly, the whole of the environment down.

From the RSPB examiners

P.S. For the purposes of this school report, we will be kind and ignore the aberration that is the Red Tape Challenge. We hope and expect Mr Cameron will recognise the error of his ways and scrap the Challenge rather than biodiveristy laws.

 

  • I think, some of the inmates of this school have actually done quite well SO FAR, and that includes Caroline Spelman and Richard Benyon but the rest of the "congregation" outside of DEFRA do worry me. I do think Mr Cameron needs to deliver a stern lecture or two to them. I suspect some of them maybe a touch colour blind, not always being able to tell green from say red. Having said that there is still some important questions to be answered by DERFA, for example,

    Certainly the lack of SPAs and MCZs to date is not good news. A rocket needs to go behind that as it is a long time now since the Marine Bill became an Act.

    Biodiversity will need to be put top of the list of a new, or changed, Forestry Commission and we await the  outcome of the committee reporting in the autumn on the future of our forests.

    Will the recently issued draft EU regulations for the Fishing Industry really deliver sustainable fishing? Sounds doubtful to me and we can't afford to mess this one up again considering the current state of our seas.

    I am also concerned that the recent "cuts" made to Natural England may render the organisation more or less impotent. While the NGOs can do a lot they have very limited legal powers to take action, for example against perpetrators of wildlife crimes. The widespread illegal killing of birds of prey is a prime example where the Government must now make big efforts to put a stop to this rotten practice. They must do what is right and ensure the law is upheld, notwithstanding the feelings of some of the grouse moor owners.

    So overall, there are currently many issues at steak and I hope the Government can tell green from red concerning them.      

  • Martin,  Thank you.  I somehow feel I ought to have been able to work that out.  It shows how easy it is to take comments at face value.

  • Thanks for this Bob.  It is a case of two Directives and one Act: the EU Bids Directive 1979, the EU Habitats and Species Directive 1992 and the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (for England and Wales).  Under the first, the UK Government is obliged to designate a network of Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for internationally significant populations of seabirds, under the second, the UK Government is obliged to designate Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) for listed habitats and non-bird species and under the Marine Act, a nationally important suite of Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs).  Together, the SACs and SPAs across Europe make up the so-called Natura 2000 network.  

    The UK Government is committed to designating an ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas by 2012 - this means SPAs, SACs and MCZs.  The 15 sites which Ms Spelman refers to are SACs.  This is of course good news, but the important sites for seabirds are not yet covered.  We need SPAs and MCZs to be designated for seabirds.  

    Does this make sense?

  • Semantics does seem to come into play here.

    Martin Harper:  "Marine Protected Areas..... thirty years after the deadline was set in the EU Birds Directive, we have only three marine sites protected for wintering seabirds, and none for foraging birds in the breeding season."

    Caroline Spelman:  "For example, we’ve created 15 new Marine Protected Areas since last May to conserve marine biodiversity".

    Martin, Can you explain to those of us who need it, what the difference is in these 2 statements.

    If the Govt has created 15 new Marine Reserves then you would expect biodiversity to include birds, being a top end feeder on whatevever is in that environment.