7 June 2011

Defra has today (7 June) published plans, which it says will better protect England’s natural environment and work towards repairing damage done over previous decades. However, some groups have said that the proposals contain oversights which may reduce their efficacy. image expired

Accusations have been levelled at the Coalition that is has so far failed to live up to its promise of being “the greenest government ever.” In response, Defra released its environmental proposals in ‘The Natural Choice’, the first White Paper on the natural environment in 20 years. The report comes a week after the release of the Defra-commissioned National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA). Defra says the white paper’s policies reflect the recommendations of two reports; the NEA, which presented economic arguments for safeguarding and enhancing the natural environment and ‘Making Space for Nature’, a report on the state of England’s wildlife sites, published in September 2010. Making Space for Nature concluded that England’s wildlife sites are fragmented and unable to respond to climate change and other human pressures.

True to the NEA’s recommendations, the White Paper aims to put a monetary value on nature, and employ economic levers to conserve it. Among the proposals presented in the paper are the creation of Nature Improvement Areas (NIAs); transformed rural and urban areas and providing bigger, interconnected sites for wildlife. The sites are expected to use linking areas modelled on wildlife corridors used in parts of Africa. As the conservation sector has undergone savage cuts, Defra expects Charities, businesses, landowners and communities to submit proposals for the 12 trial NIAs.

Other suggestions made in the paper are, ‘Biodiversity offsetting’ (which, Defra suggests, will ensure the UK doesn’t lose its wildlife sites to developers, who, conservation organisations have suggested, will be equally protected under the proposals), £1m funding for ‘Local Nature Partnerships,’ introducing Green Areas Designation and the ‘Muck in 4 Life’ volunteering initiative.   

Perhaps the most promising suggestion from an environmental standpoint is the promise to phase out peat, which is favoured by horticulturalists, but which is an important natural resource, and to protect and restore the peatlands. Peatlands are valuable as carbon sinks and habitats.

Government to decide nauture’s ‘true’ value

The increasingly mercenary language and policies used by the government to incentivise conservation continues with Defra’s suggestion to form a ‘Natural Capital Committee,’ which it says will be an independent body reporting to George Osborne; Defra claims this body “will put the value of nature at the heart of the Government’s economic thinking, and advise Government about the best way of securing natural assets for the future.”
Defra says it also hopes to present “An annual statement of green accounts for UK Plc”, which it says will show “where our economy has withdrawn from the value of nature’s bank balance, and where we have invested in it. This will help measure green growth alongside GDP,” along with a business-led Task Force to expand “the UK business opportunities from new products and services which are good for the economy and nature alike.”

Charities react to The Natural Choice

The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) today said it welcomed many of Defra’s proposals, including the establishment of Local Nature Partnerships and moves to tackle light pollution.
However, CPRE criticised the paper’s stance on planning, describing Defra’s omissions relating to planning as a “big disappointment.” The charity believes the planning system could be the most powerful tool for environmental improvement and protection, as it has protected valuable landscapes and the countryside around towns over the past 50 years. However, the Natural Choice white papercontains few details about the environmental role of planning, a link which, CPRE says, will need to be made explicitly if ministers are serious about protecting the natural environment.

Ben Stafford, head of campaigns at CPRE, said of the white paper, "While this is in many ways an inspiring document, sadly every silver lining has a cloud. In this case that cloud is the failure to be more confident about the critical environmental role of planning. We are concerned that the Treasury and Department of Business have already sought to distort the ongoing planning reforms. There is a risk they will attempt to water down the commitments in the White Paper as well. In the interests of the Government’s green credibility, this cannot be allowed to happen."

Dr Isobel Tomlinson, Soil Association policy and campaigns officer, saw shortcomings in the proposals. Dr Tomlinson said, “The widespread protection of wildlife in our countryside is best achieved through encouraging farming systems that can enhance biodiversity, protect the environment, and produce food, rather than limiting wildlife protection to just designated wildlife sites.”

She expressed the hope that policy makers would, “recognise the problems that remain for the UK's wildlife in the countryside, such as farmland bird populations that are continuing to decline, and will provide a clear policy focus for reversing these trends.”
Other groups, including the Woodland Trust and the Countryside and Wildlife link, which represents 35 conservation organisations, have welcomed the paper, albeit with their own caveats, including the warning from the RSPB’s conservation director Martin Harper that without definite targets, the government’s proposals could turn out to be so much hot air. Friends of the Earth Director Paul de Zylva echoed sentiments expressed by the Soil Association that, "Simply selecting a limited number of natural habitats for protection won't be enough to safeguard the £30bn in health and welfare benefits that Britain's natural environment contributes to the economy each year."

***