Whoever wins the next Westminster General Election in May will assume responsibility for fulfilling the UK's obligations for the global biodiversity targets. Taken together, the 20 Aichi targets were designed to help the world halt the loss of biodiversity and begin its recovery by 2020.
The two most significant are targets 11 and 12. 12 is pretty clear - recover threatened species and prevent extinctions. 11 is equally clear but raises a number of questions. It argues for a sixth of land and a tenth of the sea to be managed primarily for nature. Others - such as EO Wilson - have argued that to prevent a mass extinction event we should set aside half the planet for wildlife (see here). Our own species doesn't have a great track record of sharing its ecological space with the millions of other species with which we share this planet, so I can understand why the Professor Wilson is making the case for 'Half Earth'. Yet, I think the current Aichi target sets an ambitious and potentially realistic target for the remainder of the decade.
That said, Birdlife International with support from RSPB scientists, have today (see here) issued a mid-decade report on progress against target 11 and they have found that only one-fifth of key sites for nature are completely covered by protected areas, with one third lacking any protection.
Restoring RSPB Dove Stone SSSI for people, water and wildlife (Ben Hall, rspb-images)
In the UK, on land, we have been trying to live up to the mantra established by Professor Sir John Lawton who called for 'more, bigger, better and joined' sites. We have a long way to go to realise that ambition. The policies and laws that provide protection are beginning to look a bit shaky - for example, note the threats to existing SSSIs such as Rampisham and Lodge Hill or consider the vulnerability of the EU Nature Directives). Equally, the resources available to secure effective management (especially through agri-environment funding) look insufficient. The Natural Capital Committee's call to explore innovative financing solutions last week was spot on.
At sea, the establishment of our ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas feels painfully slow. On Friday, Defra issued its latest consultation on the next tranche of nationally important sites (Marine Conservation Zones) and we failed to hide our disappointment with the latest small list of sites being considered. Do read a blog from Tom Hooper, our Head of Marine, on the consultation here. You'll know that the MCZ network is also failing to deal adequately with dispersed species like seabirds and cetaceans, while the Natura 2000 network is also far from complete.
As for the UK's Overseas Territories, pressure is growing for the establishment of Marine Protected Areas especially around Ascension Island (see here). Given the extraordinary importance of the seas around Ascension, this is a golden opportunity for this or the next Government to demonstrate that it is prepared to act for nature across all its territories.
We need to the next Government to hit the ground running for nature. It has five years before it will have to submit its final report on its contribution to the 2020 biodiversity challenge. I hope they set out with intent to succeed. The RSPB will, of course, do whatever it can to help to stop the rot, protect the best and restore the rest of biodiversity.
Oh and in case you forget, there are 93 days until the General Election...
The late (and great) Derek Ratcliffe back in 1977 produced the Nature Conservation Review identifying what was then regarded as our most important wildlife sites in the UK. It set a framework and since then there have been aspirational targets to protect more land 10% to be SSSIs, where still the figure falls short of 8% by land area. The rate things are going with the failure of regulations such as the EIA Agric 2006, the threats posed for the likes of Lodge Hill/Rampisham, so called protected sites, I can only wonder if there will be further wildlife-rich land worth protecting! I do actually have more hope than this but I have seen flower-rich meadows destroyed before my eyes in the last few years to know that there are massive issues.
While land ownership and management of nature reserves plays a major role in helping safeguard vital wildlife/habitats what isn't in or isn't at least protected faces a potentially bleak future. Basically, (and despite the weaknesses exposed above with SSSIs) there must be a push for more protected sites and better legislation. This has happened before with the WCA and then CRoW act and it would seem that we are in need of some renewed effort on this front again. That I suspect means a change elsewhere.
If the Green Party were to win the next election, that would shake things up a bit and there would be a good chance of meeting all these targets. As it is, the RSPB is doing all it can with the Bob campaign to ensure whatever the next Government looks like it will hit the "ground running for nature".We should all support Bob.