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 first of these tests: Is there a body whose primary purpose is to think, speak and act for nature?
Can you imagine a situation where the Independent Police Complaints Commission was told what to do by govenment? Or where the Chief Medical Officer was asked to give advice about the nation's health but only if it doesn't impact on our economic interests?
Of course, not.
What about the independent champion for wildlife being told what to by government and asked to protect wildlife but only it makes economic sense?
No? Well, you may need to think again as some alarming things appear to be happening to Natural England.
Natural England is what is known as a Non-Departmental Public Body (I know, quite a mouthful). It plays an important role in protecting wildlife, as did its predecessors English Nature and the Nature Conservancy Council. Since 1949, specialist nature conservation agencies have complemented the role of central government. While central government tries to reconcile potentially competing economic, social and environmental objectives so that (theoretically at least) we have a fair and just society that lives within environmental limits, agencies tend to focus on one of these objectives. So, for 63 years we have had a science-led agency acting as an independent champion for the natural environment .
Natural England was established under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006). Its statutory purpose (which was, I remember, subject to much debate at the time) is "ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development".
This makes perfect sense and Natural England has, by and large, done its job well. It will never be popular with some land managers or users of the sea because its job is challenge practices which cause harm to wildlife and encourage more sympathetic management of land and sea. We need bodies which stand up for wildlife and face up to commercial interests. And it is becoming increasingly clear that action to protect the natural environment is also good for us. It helps secure those services that nature gives us for free: clean water, flood protection, carbon storage etc. And there is growing evidence that contact with nature improves our physical and mental well being.
But this summer changes were being made which appear to challenge Natural England's way of working. A new draft Framework and an innocently titled Improvement Plan appear to place increasing importance of economic considerations and decreases the independence of Natural England.
This cannot be good for wildlife.
First, the draft Framework states, "The reference to ‘sustainable development’ in the organisation’s statutory general purpose, indicates that Natural England should seek solutions which, while achieving environmental benefits, also provide long-term economic and social benefits, and avoid untoward economic and social impacts... "
Diluting Natural England's focus on the natural environment has serious implications for how they operate. For example, if Natural England were obliged to take economic factors into account in advice regarding development on protected areas its ecological advice would be compromised. It is for the central government, not its agencies, to weigh up expert advice on different matters from relevant experts.
Second, the original Natural England Management Statement requires Natural England to act as an "independent champion of the natural environment, inspiring public support and holding the Government and others to account for their actions". Such an interpretation clearly accords with Natural England remit in the NERC Act. In stark contrast, the draft Framework states that NE will "support the Government’s aims and priorities as effectively as possible." Given that the coaliton Government's number one priority is clearly economic growth, I struggle to see how this squares with a body whose principle objective in law is nature conservation.
There are obvious parallels here with what had been proposed as part of the now aborted merger between the British Antarctic Survey and the National Oceanographic Institute. That was wrong and I believe that the changes to Natural England's way of working are also wrong.
If the public are to feel confident that the natural environment is being "conserved... and enhanced... for future generations", they need an independent agency that is free from political interference or requirements to boost short-term economic growth.
The triennial review is a chance to put this right and re-establish an independent champion of the natural environment.
I share your grear concerns here Martin and agree fully with what you say about what the role of Natural England is and what it should remain. I think the "draft Framework" just points to this Government's bankruptcy of thought and ideas when it comes the saving and enhancing our natural environment. They seem to be willing to "sell their natural environment grandmother" for economic growth when the real cause for lack growth is the huge problems in the Eurozone, the significant decline in economic growth in our major trading countries like China, India and Brazil, and the high personal indebtedness in this country. These are the causes of this country's economic problems not the our wildlife. Destroying the important role of an independent Natural England and diluting its duty to advise on what is the best for wildlife will not alleviate these problems whatsoever. It will cause even more decline in our biodiversity . Hopefully Scotland and Wales will not be subjected to such myopic thinking.
redkite