When Liz Truss became Prime Minister I had the temerity to offer her advice on dealing with the parlous state of nature in this country. I suggested that her Government needed to invest in reversing the current trend of decline and, as the country’s leader, she should instigate a change of culture in relation to the natural world at the highest level. (“Letter to our new Prime Minister” ECOS 2022.)
In a prime example of ‘beware what you wish for’ it appears that there is indeed a change of culture but for the worse not the better. The Chancellor’s so-called fiscal statement in September caused shock waves throughout financial systems and markets. Those shock waves diverted attention from the non-financial aspects of the statement to do with laws and regulations relating to planning processes and the protection of nature and wildlife.
In a disastrous policy, support and regulation U-turn the proposals do not just side-line nature but consign it to the political skip and condemn it to further decline. Even though the UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world the Government has obviously abandoned its 2019 election pledge to “Deliver the most ambitious environmental programme of any country”. Our embattled wildlife now has to face increasing harm from pollution, built development and farming.
There are two particularly pernicious proposals. First, the repeal of many retained European laws, which for many years have been the foundation for the statutory protection of nature. The ‘Retained EU Law Bill’ was introduced with unseemly haste to Parliament on 22 September. Would that such urgency had been apparent previously in relation to protecting nature. The Bill will wipe out hundreds of EU protective laws and regulations, including the Water Framework and Habitats Directives. This is a far cry, indeed the exact opposite, from the assurances given at the time of Brexit that these laws would be adopted en masse into UK legislation.
Second, the creation of investment zones, akin to the enterprise zones of the 1980s on steroids. Within these, existing requirements to protect and help wildlife will be removed or watered down. Unlike those 1980s enterprise zones which covered relatively small areas, it appears that the whole of single or multiple neighbouring local authorities (such as the West Midlands conurbation of Birmingham and the Black Country) can become an investment zone.
In addition the much-vaunted but not yet introduced Environmental Land Management Scheme to reward farmers for nature- and environmentally-friendly food production is at risk, being subject to a DEFRA review. Initial indications include the possibility of removing the two nature-friendly elements: Local Nature Recovery and Landscape Recovery. Instead we may merely continue with the discredited area-based payments system to support the agricultural sector. The new Environment Secretary, Ranil Jayawarenda, tried to smooth things over in his speech to the Conservative Party Conference saying that the Government “Remains committed to environmental conservation and restoration in reforming farming regulations”. Unfortunately he then rather gave the game away as the rest of his speech seemed to be about deregulation and cutting red tape, summarised by him saying “Instead of being a regulatory department, we are now an economic growth department”. No room for doubt there then.
The Wildlife Trusts say that “The UK Government is pursuing a dangerous agenda of deregulation that puts the very laws protecting wildlife at risk. Deregulation means removing rules and protections, often characterised as “cutting red tape”. In reality, it means polluters can get away with poisoning our rivers and countryside. It also means ripping up the rules that protect our most important wildlife sites from damage and removing funding that supports farmers to restore wildlife across our landscapes.”
They, and other conservation bodies, are calling for strengthening of protection, not just for nature, but for the environmental quality of land, air and water, effective support for nature-friendly farming to restore wildlife in the countryside, and the adoption of a legally binding commitment to ensuring nature is in a better state in 2042 than it is now.
In particular the RSPB, the National Trust and WWF have launched ‘the People’s Plan for Nature’. Through what they describe as a UK-wide conversation and the first ever citizens’ assembly for nature they are inviting everyone to have their say on how we can solve the ongoing nature crisis. They have already conducted a poll, from which they have identified the things people most want to see in relation to nature in their neighbourhoods. In order, these are:
- More action for cleaner rivers, waterways and seas
- More protection for nature in the planning and house building system
- Strengthened legal protection for nature, wildlife, and habitats
- More wildlife reserves to protect habitats and increase wildlife diversity
- More funding to restore and protect nature-friendly spaces in farmlands.
The three charity chiefs, Hilary McGrady (National Trust), Beccy Speight (RSPB) and Tanya Steele (WWF) said in a collective statement: “This government, elected on their greenest ever manifesto, is now contemplating breaking its promises on vital protections for the UK’s nature, risking catastrophic consequences. From abandoning fundamental legal protections for wildlife to failing farmers committed to sustainable agriculture, this would be an attack on nature at the worst possible time.”
You can submit your views and thoughts on their website, peoplesplanfornature.org up to 30 October.
Peter Shirley
06/10/22
Two points that arise from this as I understand the wider situation is the gradual and increasing wildlife and spaces diversity within conurbations. This has come about almost incidentally but welcomes; close to where I am typing this lies one of the most deprived areas I know. A local national retailer has a store there in which no less than 18 feet (old money) is devoted to bird feeders and food. The opportunities to make our towns and cities more attractive to wildlife are not lost on the non-specialist public. Second, the only real way to make an inroad in protecting special habitats or habitat recreation until better times emerge, is buy land. Recent purchases at Langholm show fundraising to buy land works; others are also pointing the way forward. If not wildlife trusts then local communities forming their own trusts. Peter Shirley on these pages spoke about the optimism that we over look, those of us who care about wildlife and the immeasurable worth it has for humankind ‘in mind body or soul’. Another quote for you ‘Put not your trust in Princes’. Politicians and Civil Servants are not to be relied upon is not an opinion but plain truth.
Only just come across this, thank you Barry. One small point: the increase in urban green spaces managed for wildlife has not exactly come about ‘incidentally’, myself, and others much more effective and talented than me, spent our professional lives in this field. Mind you the media, especially the BBC, still prefaces urban wildlife reports expressing surprise that there should be any wildlife in towns and cities. Some of us realised decades ago that many urban, and especially suburban, areas were richer in biodiversity than the average agricultural land.
Thank you Peter for this article and much beforehand. Incidentally, my remark refers to spaces that fall off the grid of all agencies including local government, frequently former industrial or commercial sites no one has yet found away to turn into cash. Around here, there’s quite a bit; they are all of course out of bounds to the public with suitable threats. Wandering in the twilight past one such site sandwiched between a supermarket (huge) and a mainline railway some years back, a small bird flew up from the self seeded scrubland sprung up over mossy concrete and circled, singing on its distinctive display flight. The last time I saw something very like it was in Lapland. If you were responsible, congratulations. My point is simple. I had the misfortune to begin my conservation journey in an organisation that seemingly existed to protect our (sic) natural heritage by keeping the people who paid for it well away and entirely in the dark. Richard Mabey summed it up very well; Nature conservation back then was a private affair, played by specialists on a private pitch to which the masses were not invited. From observation and personal experience, Mabey was not wrong. A potentially huge and electorally significant constituency has been kept at bay by that great English contribution to social ecology: Snobbery.