Following the launch of the State of Nature report, I am keen to stimulate a debate about what else we need to do to live in harmony with nature. Over the next few weeks, people from differing perspectives will propose their One Big Thing for Nature. Today, I am delighted to welcome Ruth Davis, who has previously worked for Plantlife and RSPB and is now Chief Policy Advisor at Greenpeace UK.
The State of Nature report, detailing over half a century of decline in the richness and beauty of our countryside, fills me with sadness. I know that the millions of other people in the UK feel the same.
Ours are a group of nations whose identities have grown from the land; whose poets – from Shakespeare, to Clare, Thomas, Hill and Duffy - have dug their words out of the soil; and whose people have struggled not just to secure the vote and decent wages, but to retain common land and to be allowed to walk the hills. If we lose the battle to protect our corner of the natural world, it is no exaggeration to say that our history as peoples will fade before our eyes.
Yet somehow we find ourselves paralysed - faced down by an economic philosophy that tramples on our deeply held values and affections with apparent impunity. This is the future, and it hurts. So, to borrow (tongue in cheek) from Lenin, what is to be done? Well, to me, the most inspiring – and the only politically credible - way to reclaim our country from the grip of this brutal form of accountancy, is to rebuild its institutional and social, as well as its environmental fabric. Then, we will have a chance to defeat the divisive logic that pits nature against prosperity, and presents the protection of wildlife as an impediment to our common good, rather than an intrinsic part of it. Here are three ideas that might help.
Firstly, why don’t we work with housing campaigners to develop a plan for green affordable homes? We could support fair rents and the release of empty properties. But we could also demand that the country’s biggest landowners – Government, universities, churches, the Crown, for example - put a proportion of their land into community land trusts, to build houses in places that will not damage nature. By supporting housing schemes in the right places, as well as opposing those in the wrong, we will demonstrate our commitment to the common good.
Secondly, let’s tackle food, farming and wages. Many small farmers don’t earn enough to get by, let alone to farm in the way that they and we would like. At the same time, millions of people earning less than a living wage have little choice but to buy the cheapest food on offer – which is cheap precisely because farmers are not being paid enough. Farmers, customers, and employees could demand that big supermarkets pay a living wage, give farmers a decent price at the farm gate, and buy from farms that protect our land, water and wildlife.
Finally, let’s create an independent institution to safeguard our land. After years of political interference, Natural England is not so much a muzzled watchdog (to borrow Peter Marren’s phrase) as a neutered one. When its death warrant arrives, in the form of a proposal to merge it with the Environment Agency, let’s not negotiate the terms of its execution. Instead, let’s propose 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 interests and state-sanctioned greed.
Do you agree with Ruth? And what would be your One Big Thing for Nature?
It would be great to hear your views
Look, when it comes to Lenin, I'd settle for the brutal forms of accountancy anytime. As far as I'm aware Lenin never set foot in our green and pheasant land and whilst he knew everything there was to know about common land he was unlikely to have supported the idea of increasing payments to landowners.
Ruth, you are my hero.
Thank you for such a great article! Lovely fresh ideas!
I think working together is a great idea - I think the way forward politically is to work together with everybody, and not use partyism or classism as an excuse to say "Oh, they're Tories, we're never going to have any luck here so why bother?" (this is in response to some of the comments too). Deep down, we all care about nature. Deep down, we all want fair wages, and we don't want anyone - nature or humans - to be in poverty. This often needs reminding or reawakening, but it is there.
What benefits nature can benefit us. We can create solutions that work for the UK, (and the world), as a whole.
I totally agree with the farming thing. I campaigned hard for Fairtrade, bought Fairtrade products, but then when my benefits were reduced because I became classed as a single person, and there were errors in the processing of my benefits, I could no longer afford to buy Fairtrade. I had to buy the cheapest food there is, and shopped at the Co-op to try and make it neonicotinoid-free for the bees. I began to think, why should we feel pressured to buy Fairtrade for developing countries (which is, of course, vital), when we do not receive a fair wage in this country? (I am including welfare as a wage, as it is what we need to live on).
I think responding to the badger crisis with aggression is not tackling the root cause which is that farmers are suffering, so yes, it needs to pay to be a farmer and also, dare I say (echoing the words of George Monbiot but extending them), it needs to pay to protect nature as well. That doesn't mean punishing those that do farm intensively - everyone needs a living wage. People need fairer working conditions - they should not be pushed to exhaustion or mental illness by all the pressure, the changes, the restructuring, the uncertainty, even disproportionately negative publicity. But if there are farmers out there who want to do more, there should be funds available. I hope that doesn't sound unfair.
I don't know very much about the Governmental organisations, but I have really enjoyed the work of Natural England, where I have come across them, and if it is going, it feels like a loss. I think it is a lovely name for an organisation. Disbanding an organisation because it doesn't speak out for compassion might not work in the long term, I'm not sure, mind you I am not experienced in these matters, but let's face it, it is a cycle that we are always working with: an institution or organisation can develop a culture of not speaking out, or even a culture of neglecting those it cares for, and it takes voices to be brave, speak out, act, and start being more caring. I've seen this in my conservation college course, in care homes for the elderly, in music education. Moreover, in Governmental organisations, I refer back to my earlier point where we have to let go of stereotypes to do with political parties and class - maybe many nature lovers in government will have a tendency to be complacent because deep down, they have a prejudice that Tories are not caring.
I love this article, and I love this bit, and I agree, Ruth for Prime Minister! Ha.
"Ours are a group of nations whose identities have grown from the land; whose poets – from Shakespeare, to Clare, Thomas, Hill and Duffy - have dug their words out of the soil; and whose people have struggled not just to secure the vote and decent wages, but to retain common land and to be allowed to walk the hills. If we lose the battle to protect our corner of the natural world, it is no exaggeration to say that our history as peoples will fade before our eyes.
Yet somehow we find ourselves paralysed - faced down by an economic philosophy that tramples on our deeply held values and affections with apparent impunity. This is the future, and it hurts. So, to borrow (tongue in cheek) from Lenin, what is to be done? Well, to me, the most inspiring – and the only politically credible - way to reclaim our country from the grip of this brutal form of accountancy, is to rebuild its institutional and social, as well as its environmental fabric. Then, we will have a chance to defeat the divisive logic that pits nature against prosperity, and presents the protection of wildlife as an impediment to our common good, rather than an intrinsic part of it. Here are three ideas that might help."
Natalie Windsor
Email: nataliewindsor@live.co.uk
Don't forget that Owen Patterson is brother in law to the well known CC denier Matt Ridley who also managed to jump the gun on the crash of 2008 as a director of Northern Rock which you'll remember went bankcrupt ahead even of Lehman brothers. So would you give Matt your money - or back him on CC ? One of the most convincing arguments in fvaour of CC for me is that right wing, wealthy Americans are reputed to have pumped over $100m into anti-CC organisations and some of that money may have reached the UK - they simply wouldn't have done that if they didn't think there was a problem, any more than the huge amount of money the tobacco industry spent trying to disrupt scientific evidence that smoking damages your health.
Ruth,think Greenpeace have very good ideals,only in small details do I disagree with you.Millions of UK residents do not agree with your first statement otherwise there would be more people as members in wildlife and associated organisations.Secondly you cannot demand supermarkets give farmers a decent price at farm gate(they already do so but certain well known figures brainwashed public they do not).Promise you those same small farmers turn the screw relentlessly on their suppliers.
What is sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander.