A few years ago, the RSPB produced a report outlining ten principles of sustainable development (here). It might not have been the most exciting report we've ever produced but it provided a decent check-list to judge decision-making by governments across the UK.
One of principles was that public participation was key to good decision-making. We argued that it was in government's interest to engage civil society, to hear the different views from different groups who held different views. This principle is enshrined in UN's the Arhus Convention*.
Charities and other NGOs have an important role to play, in channelling the views of the ‘person in the street’ to decision-makers, in participating in expert or technical groups and in monitoring the implementation of the legislation. They represent a broader public interest in the policy process. From an environmental perspective, nature has no voice, so others like the RSPB of The Wildlife Trusts must speak up for it.
I have, however, detected a little schizophrenia from government over the past week as to whether they are keen to hear from charities or would prefer them to be quiet.
One the one hand, Defra seems to be going out of its way to seek the views of loads of different organisations as it develops both its 25 year plan for the natural environment and its response to the Cumbria floods.
On the other hand, news emerged over the weekend that Government was considering restricting the campaigning power of charities that receive government grants (see here). The details seem hazy at this stage but the rhetoric is clear that public money should not be used for campaigning.
An aerial photo of the Thames - a landscape that is being transformed for people and wildlife through strong engagement of government, local people and charities (Rolf Williams rpsb-images.com)
In her impressive speech to the Institute for Government last week, Environment Secretary Liz Truss gave the clearest signal of what to expect from Defra's new strategy. You can read it here. I particularly liked the emphasis on improving engagement and direction from government locally. This has been lacking over the past few years and our experience tells us that transformational change only happens when local people rally around shared visions for their local landscapes while government remains actively engaged by lining up incentives and regulatory control. Defra will be piloting new approaches in three Cumbria catchment pilots and three other areas which they are calling pathfinder projects (for coastal, urban and large rural landscapes). We and many others are looking forward to sharing our experience in these areas and want government to be successful at getting better outcomes for the natural environment.
Yet, after this weekend's news about proposed new restrictions on campaigning, I am now not sure how keen government is to hear the views of civil society. The Head of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, Sir Stuart Etherington, came out fighting at the weekend and said,
"The new rules attached to grant income would appear to prevent charities from suggesting improvements or efficiencies to civil servants or ministers, or even from raising concerns with MPs... Indeed, several government departments have developed ‘strategic partner’ grant programmes specifically to enable them to access the expertise of charities to inform their policy development and delivery for these reasons. This is tantamount to making charities take a vow of silence and goes against the spirit of open policy-making that this government has hitherto championed. We call on ministers to reconsider this draconian move that could have significant consequences for the charity sector’s relationship with government. I trust government will consult further on this".
Most of the challenges that the nation faces require full engagement from all parts of society and I am convinced that decision making is enhanced when the views of as many parts of civil society as possible are listened to. The last thing government needs is an imposed "vow of silence" from charities and I hope that the Government listens to Sir Stuart Etherington, goes back and thinks again.
*The Arhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters was agreed in 1998 and ratified by the UK in 2005. You can read more about its provisions here.
Governments have a significant record of making wrong decisions. It is therefore vital that charities like the RSPB continue to try to limit those wrong decisions by liaison with and lobbying of, the relevant Government Departments. The interchange of views is therefore so important. To try to restrict these is not only rather high handed, but would lead to a bureaucratic nonsense.
This Government has a rather bad record on saying one thing and doing the opposite - an approach to politics which has a long, quite successful and entirely dishonourable history. Engaging with people takes time - but the people to engage are disappearing under the banner of 'efficiency' which for this Government mainly means cuts. Certainly, for bodies like the Forestry Commission becoming unable to continue it's very successful local engagement due to lack of people is a threat both to the organisation and to the quality of its delivery.
And, as you rightly point out, attempts to muzzle the voluntary sector flies in the face of the fine words - and is actually a spectacular blunder for Government because suppressing national, organised voices will indeed achieve the Government's aims, but not in the way it wants, by spawning more and more local and less manageable protests. Fortunately, RSPB has always been careful, unlike many charities, not to become over dependant on Government money. I very much hope RSPB will continue, without fear or favour, as an objective, a-political voice giving praise where it is due and criticism where it is deserved.