Just over a year ago, the Westminster Government launched its Natural Environment White Paper, The Natural Choice. At the time, we welcomed the White Paper – as you can see in my blog post from the day itself – as it met the majority of the ‘key tests’ we had challenged government to meet. Today, I shall be going to an event in London where Defra ministers will be celebrating the White Paper and be reporting on the progress made in putting its promises into practice.
So how are they getting on?
The ultimate test of success will be if more protected areas are in favourable condition, if more habitat is being created and if species populations increasing. This is something that I shall return to soon. But a proxy test of success is whether the policy measures in the White Paper are being implemented.
On the one hand, it is clear to see that some important milestones have been achieved. Twelve Nature Improvement Areas are now up and running for the next three years, having won a proportion of the £7.5M set aside for them through a competition last year. Capacity building funding for Local Nature Partnerships (LNPs) was doled out to 50 potential groups last year, and we anticipate the announcement of the first tranche of official LNPs very soon. The Natural Capital Committee is up and running, with an impressive cast of respected economists and scientists and Defra has published its first report on how we should reconcile the competing objectives of increasing production and improving the natural environment.
On the other hand, the hope that the White Paper would herald a new dawn of respect for the natural environment across government has been seriously tested in the past 12 months. Regular readers of this blog will be aware that Treasury, Cabinet Office and even Defra itself have made decisions or espoused rhetoric that are profoundly at odds with the core message of the White Paper itself. The Autumn Statement last year being one rather pertinent example.
Having said that, the final positive outcome of the battle for England’s planning system over the past 12 months, does show signs of influence from the cross-government nature of the White Paper. Look at the ministerial foreword of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), or the policies themselves, and its clear that someone pointed out to CLG what they had already committed to do.
My overall concern, however, is that we still fail to have a compelling funding strategy to deliver the White Paper and insufficient progress has been made in putting nature at the heart of the government's economic strategy. This is something that the Efra Select Committee of MPs picked up on its verdict, published this morning. You can read what they say here.
I would argue that there is a gap between the laudable ambitions and the tools available to deliver these objectives. A lot of hopes are quite understandably being pinned on delivering a decent outcome from CAP reform so that there is more agri-environment money to go round - something that the Secretary of State called for yesterday. But I would like clear acknowledgement that there is a shortfall in funding and greater impetus being given to finding innovative sources of conservation finance. I know this is not easy when there is little money to go around, but that should not stop us exploring new ways to pay for ecosystem services (the things that nature gives us), making the polluter pay or leveraging new money from the corporate sector.
Not surprisingly, my overall verdict is that progress has been mixed.
This isn’t just our assessment – a group of nature NGOs (including RSPB) has written its own report card on progress with the NEWP through Wildlife and Countryside Link. This has been sent to Caroline Spelman with a series of recommendations for next steps.
Our job? As ever, it is to support implementation, monitor what is going on in the natural world, help find solutions to conservation problems, provide advice, constructively challenge emerging policy, report on progress and help hold governments to account for their promises.
What's your verdict?
It would be great to hear your views.
This is parallel to your point re the central importance of nature to the wider economy. I am deeply worried that the reform of the energy market is to be a shambles; it is a matter of profound democratic concern that Treasury Minister's are refusing to dialogue with the Energy and Climate Change Ctte. This is Parliament's review and scrutiny of the Executive and if this is affected prior to the establishment of law; that is very serious indeed. We will see The Tory Chairman Tim Yeo's view today.