And now we know what the UK Government wants to achieve for wildlife. A clear set of measurable targets by which we can judge how well they are doing. Am very pleased.
I know, the money may not be in place yet, and there appears to be a general feeling that voluntary approaches will suffice, but these targets/measurable outcomes/impact measures - whatever you want to call them - do matter. These will tell us over time whether the Government is any good at saving nature.
From that White Paper...
"By 2020 we want to achieve an overall improvement in the status of our wildlife." OK that souds good, but what exactly do you mean?
"Over time, we plan to have 90% of priority wildlife habitats in recovering or favourable condition." Right, that includes all types of sites including local wildlife sites, so that sounds pretty good.
"We will work to achieve more, bigger, better and less-fragmented areas for wildlife, including no net loss of priority habitat and an increase of at least 200,000 ha in the overall extent of priority habitats." Did all government departments really agree to this expansion target - am impressed!
"At least 50% of SSSIs will be in favourable condition, while maintaining at least 95% in favourable or recovering condition." Hmm - a tiny improvement on the high point of 44.51% in favourable condition in November 2008, and maintenance of the original 95%. Here's hoping that they still want to get the other half of our finest wildlife sites into good condition.
"And, in line with commitments made at Nagoya, at least 17% of England will be managed effectively in order to safeguard biodiversity and ecosystem services." This is larger area than our current designated sites and reserves, plus local wildlife sites, but less than the area of our protected landscapes. As it’s for active management, it is quite ambitious (but then it is a Nagoya commitment).
"At least 15% of degraded ecosystems that are important for climate change mitigation and adaptation will be restored." This sounds as though it could be useful, but I've no idea how they plan to measure it.
And, as for saving species? Oh, nothing. Yet. Maybe in the England Biodiversity Strategy in a couple of weeks.
But the picture is emerging and this feels like an ambition worth fighting for.
Yes Martin the RSPB does as much as possible and hope you did not think I was suggesting the RSPB not doing anything but it is patently obvious that the schemes at the moment are a nightmare of form filling and also farmers in general are too busy to be experts in wildlife.
An example for me was a large clever businessperson who was also a landowner sat next to me at a meeting about schemes and before leaving said it was too complicated the agent would have to wade through it.To get farmers interested and really making good progress it needs simplifying otherwise we will be stuck with half baked measures.These schemes have been going long enough to have had some impact and if anything things overall have got worse.It is simply a case of decades of inaction and the top people not caring.Typical example today was David Cameron finding several hundred million £s for good cause of vaccinating lots of poor children.Could he not have found some for our wildlife no because like all previous ones he does not care.Think until we find a P M who does care the decline will inevitably continue.