I said yesterday that governments are judged, partly, on how they spend their money.
This government might be happy to spend £30 billion on 190 new road schemes, but how does it plan to fund the nation's forests, support a strong independent champion for nature or support wildlife friendly farming? And what about local authorities? In the face of tough spending environment, will they be able to protect their crucial environmental services?
This month provides a a serious tests of the Coalition Government’s commitment to our natural environment as a number of key decisions stack up. In these troubling economic times, the clear value for money that investing in nature provides must not be overlooked.
The first key decision will be on forestry. On Thursday, the Government will begin to consider the contents of the report on the future of forestry put together by an independent panel chaired by the Bishop of Liverpool. The report is a response to the Government’s controversial proposals to sell off our forests two years ago. The Government was forced to back down in the face of public uproar, but their alternative plans for the future of woodlands in England must include a credible plan to finance their protection and management . This will be closely followed by the end of the consultation on the future Defra’s agencies. One of the options on the table is to merge the wildlife watchdog Natural England (NE) with the Environment Agency. I hope that financial considerations are secondary to the key objective of ensuring we improve our ability to "protect wildlife and... restore biodiversity". We shall continue to make the case for a strong independent champion of nature that is free to give its advice in the public domain.
Then later in February the EU Budget is set to be finalised. After the collapse of talks beflyore Christmas and following the Prime Minister's "Europe" speech last week, this will be his opportunity to turn his words into action. He will have to use all his diplomatic powers to land a good deal for farmers and wildlife. As last week's vote in the European Agriculture Committee demonstrated, there are powerful vested interests opposed to serious CAP reform. In the late night horse-trading, Mr Cameron must remember that well funded, well designed rural development programme (the so-called Pillar II of the CAP) is key to his ambition to protect the countryside and support wildlife-friendly farming. He could do well to heed the words of his Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson, who last week described the vote in the Parliament as "retrograde" and "disappointing".
The implications of public spending cuts is still be experienced far from Whitehall. For example, Somerset County Council officers are meeting tomorrow to decide how to make £8 million savings over the next three years. Their current plan includes axing the ecology and natural environment-related posts. This may seem the inevitable consequence of dealing with the deficit, but the cut in jobs could jeopardise the good work over five years that has attracted millions of pounds of inward investment to the region - including £7 million to the Somerset Levels and Moors alone. Organisations such as the RSPB and Somerset Wildlife Trust have joined forces through the Somerset Local Nature Partnership to urge the Council to think again.
The accepted wisdom within some within Whitehall suggests that the Chancellor will be forced to announce further spending cuts before the end of this parliament. I hope that the spectre of further cuts does not muddy the water for the decisions that need to be taken over the next month. We need politicians with clear heads making the right decisions for the long term and that means being prepared to invest in nature and reapt the rewards.
Tomorrow I shall give you an example of how you can help.
Martin, you are right that the financial settlement for the Forestry Commission forests will be crucial - and not just to the FC. The resource to convert and manage open habitats is key to the ambitions of RSPB and other conservation bodies like Plantlife - FC have been attacked throughout the debate over the forests for costing the taxpayer because they are seen as a business - no organisation in that position is going to take on costs its can't fund. We must all fight hard for FC to be given the money to restore and then manage more heathland and other open habitats. It is dangerous and quite wrong to portray (as many do - but I'd hasten to add not you !) FC as inefficient because it costs money to manage its heathland - it is costing everyone, including RSPB, and conservationists are paid through grant aid - especially HLS. Had the land been sold the new owners would have claimed the same money - which is why the Government's own figures showed the sale would make the country no money. In fact, as well as being the biggest heathland manager, FC is almost certainly the cheapest, too, which means funding more open habitat is good value for money for conservation and the country. And I'd guess that a lot of the resistance within forestry will disappear with the money - FC isn't just about forestry; but equally you can hardly expect an organisation to make commitments it can't afford & is then severely criticised for.