We have set the Government some tests against which we will judge the success of its review of Natural England, Environment Agency and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.  Here, I elaborate on the another of these tests: do the agencies have what they need to do their job?

The Chancellor delivers his autumn statement tomorrow.  We can expect more gloom about the state of the economy.  Austerity seems to be here to stay and this is bound to affect future public spending.  So, it may seem an odd time to be arguing for better resourcing of government’s statutory environment agencies.

But I want to argue that a failure to invest in the Agencies is a false economy.  Recent natural disasters such as the floods and ash die-back have made the case emphatically.  They reinforced the need for appropriate investment in flood risk management and biosecurity respectively.  And, it is worth remembering that The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity report concluded that the cost of biodiversity and ecosystem damage expected to cost 18% of global economic output by 2050. 

There are other areas where it makes sense for up front investment in our agencies.  Here are three...

First, invasive non-native species generally cost the UK £1.7 billion per year. Not just a threat to biodiversity invasive species can also damage economic interests such as agriculture, forestry and fisheries. As an island nation with strong trading links, the UK stands to gain greatly by having properly resourced capacity to survey, rapidly detect and respond to emerging threats before they get out of hand. As I have argued before, prevention is much better (and cheaper) than a cure. 

Second, Defra’s review of the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directive this year found that the Directives themselves were not a barrier to economic growth.  The review concluded that "costs and delays for developers can arise in the implementation process".  A lack of data was cited as one of the major problems.  This is particularly true in the marine environment where is still no long-term strategy for survey and research.  This has led to delays in identifying marine protected areas and has hampered development at sea such as offshore windfarms which farms. The Centre for Economics and Business Research estimates that renewable energy powered by offshore wind has the potential to create 173,000 jobs and deliver an increase in net exports of £18.8 billion. We want to locate these farms in the least environmentally sensitive locations but a lack of data is slowing down the of development.  Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee need to have the resources to inform the twin goals of protection of marine wildlife and enabling smart development at sea.

Third, in England around £90 million is currently provided by public funds for managing our finest wildlife sites(Sites of Special Scientific Interest), but this gives approximately £276 million in benefits (such as clean water, carbon sequestration and flood mitigation). Yet, over half of SSSIs are not in favourable condition in England which means that we are not reaping the dividends from good SSSI management.  And this is where Natural England comes in.  One of its most important tasks must be to ensure our finest wildlife sites are protected and properly managed. They need the capacity to monitor these sites, advise and support landowners through well-resourced incentives (or tougher enforcement of wildlife laws).

I could go on.

The 2010 Spending Review hit Defra's budget (about 0.5% of total government spend) particularly badly.  Some of the 30% cuts were partly passed on to the agencies.  I am amazed that the Agencies have been able to continue to function as they have.  Yet, gaps in technical expertise have arisen, especially at Natural England. For example, there are currently no geomorphological specialists at Natural England. This is alarming, given their role as a statutory advisor for development relating to ports and dredging, as well as shoreline management.  There is also shrinking capacity in specialist taxonomic expertise. 

This is trend that needs to be reversed.  It would be wrong if the triennial review of the agencies turned into a cost cutting exercise.  If anything it is an opportunity to ensure the Agencies have the necessary resources, capacity and technical expertise to protect and enhance the natural environment.

Perhaps the Chancellor will tomorrow announce a step change in funding for the agencies and justify it as a smart investment in nature that will help our prosperity.

One can but dream.

  • It would not matter how much money was pumped into these things it is the U Ks lackadaisical attitude that they need a kick up the a*** or worse.Compare the entry of various things entering the U K  with say New Zealand and Australia.

    Another problem that no one bites the bullet and makes a decision or else it always takes ages to implement is such as one group of environment bods want the rivers and drains in say Somerset Levels left so that they flood slightly while those poor devils whose houses are flooded desperately need them dredged out.

  • Yes I am sorry to say one can only dream about what the Chancellor could do. I am afraid he suffers from a bad case of myopia when it comes to the natural environment. As John F. Kennedy said "actions defered are all too often opportunities lost, particularly in safeguarding our natural environment". Few, if any, in this Government and certainly not the Chancellor, have the forward vision that that man had.