The full implications of last week's Comprehensive Spending Review announcement are still not clear. But here are some headlines;
Defra: there really is more money for wildlife-friendly farming through the Higher Level Scheme over the years ahead. This remains a very good piece of news.
DECC: funds from the Carbon Reduction Commitment will no longer be recycled to the companies that contribute - acting as a carbon tax raising around £1bn per annum.
DECC: £1bn to be invested in carbon capture and storage.
DECC, Defra and DFID: International Climate Finance will be £2.9bn over the next few years - let's hope this saves some rainforests, their carbon and their wildlife.
Department for Education: a 'pupil premium' to reduce educational inequalities - let's hope some of this provides access to nature for all as part of the educational experience.
DECC: £1bn for a Green Investment Bank - not enough, but a start. Green groups had called for £6bn.
Foreign and Commonwealth Office: 24% cuts, will the environment and sustainability be spared from these cuts? For example, what future for the Overseas Territories Environment Programme?
DFID: a 'protected' Department but a new committee will review the effectiveness of our international aid. The focus of UK aid will shift to enhancing economic growth and wealth creation. The danger here is that we fund unsustainable development abroad that adds to climate change and biodiversity loss. Not a word about environmental sustainability.
Communities and Local Government: a 'Homes Bonus' will incentivise the building of new houses by providing local authoriities with the equivalent of the Council Tax for new houses for six years. New houses, if built to high environmental standards, will replace old housing stock and reduce greenhosue gas emissions, but new houses, if built in the wrong palces, just add to environmental degradation. 150,000 new affordable houses are envisaged.
It really will take time before we understand the impacts of all these changes. And it makes you wonder whether anyone else does at the moment?
Certainly the wish to be the 'Greenest Government Ever' depends not just on what Defra and DECC do, but quite fundamentally on how local government is funded, how the UK treats its own overseas territories but also our relationship through funding and aid to other countries. Where is the controlling mind that assesses the environmental impacts of such fundamental change? Who in the Treasury or Downing Street kept an eye on the environmental impacts? Where was the environment or sustainable development in the mind of Eric Pickles as he planned his cuts?
And who will speak out after they have analysed all this - a good job for the Sustainable Development Commission? Oh yes, they've been axed.
I quite agree Mark, there is a decided risk of a lack of an over view as to the environmental sustainability of many of the new directions of Government aid and spending. If there is this lack of cooordination then for sure one allocation of aid will quite likely run contary to another allocation of spending. Also, which Government Department is responsible for the Overseas Territorities presumably the Foreign Office but are they the Depatment that we need to lobby regards the imminent loss of so many species in the Territories?
STILL GETTING REAL !!
The SDC reports to the Prime Minister. There’s nothing wrong with this concept or arrangement and it only costs £3M a year.
BUT – the SDC is (seen as) a left-wing organisation! It was set up by John Prescott under New Labour with Jonathan Porritt as its first director and is much praised by Ms Caroline ‘Gobby’ Lucas (Green MP).
With the SDC the phrases “global eco-fascism”, “nanny state” and “political agendas” unfortunately spring to my mind!
So - ‘Thanks but no thanks” says the Cameron. “It has to go!”
To illustrate my point - it’s a bit like the Charities Commission with Dame Suzi Leather in charge - she was and still is a strong devout Labour Party political appointee / supporter – hence her very recent attacks (right or wrong) on the Coalition Government – and her politically motivated attack on the National Bullying Helpline to defend Gordon Brown’s bullying of his own staff – the Commission’s report is still to be published!
It’s a fair point you make Mark but New Labour’s made life difficult enough for the Nation as it is - despite having heroically ended ‘boom and bust’.
You can’t blame the current PM for getting rid of a (potential) pain in the neck!
So the SDC simply has to go!
WHITHER THE RSPB?
Coincidentally I’ve had lunch today with three other ‘countrymen’ friends – all of us working and living in the countryside – all of us hunting, shooting and fishing enthusiasts.
The main topic – on reflection - turned out to be the Shooting Times and a certain Dr Mark (ears-burning) Avery – Conservation Director of the RSPB in the article “RSPB Director questions impact of game releases”!
Interestingly all of us (4) were especially intrigued with the ST article on hunting wild grey partridges with English setters and peregrine falcons – all of us had “shooting’ dogs but none had worked them with falcons.
This led us to discussing the difference between ‘birders’ and ‘shooters’ and which was ‘closest’ to Nature in terms of understanding and ‘appreciation’. One guy strongly felt that a ‘townie’ – although very interested in birdlife wouldn’t / couldn’t fully appreciate the seasons / the predation and the shooting aspects and that ‘most RSPB members’ fell into this category (?)
All agreed that they were in the main pro-RSPB’s general endeavours – how could they not be - but were irritated by its apparent ‘left-wing one-sided conservation’ stance.
The overall conclusion was that all shared the belief that the RSPB needs to modify its stance regarding a few important items – for it to receive ‘sign-off’ from the current Coalition Government – indeed the quote of ‘Sharpshooter’ at the back of the current issue of Shooting Times that ‘the conservation quangocrats should take heed - the tumbrels are starting to roll’ was wholeheartedly (100%) supported.
Just of late Mark appears to get more column inches in the Shooting Times than he does in his own RSPB blog!
Trimbush, quite a few people in shooting question game releases, too - and quite rightly - they recognise that ridiculous levels of release for intensive shooting is damaging the reputation of shooting as a whole - and they are right. There is a huge specturm, with some of the most respected big landowners leading through natural bird only shoots, a brave route which deserves support & respect and shows shooting at its best.
When you criticise RSPB's 'extreme' positions, is it just possible some of the positions taken up by shooting & other rural interests may look equally extreme to RSPB's largely urban (like the nation as a whole) membership ? Coming from forestry, where most people are well intentioned (and poor !) its exasperating when the tiny world of foresters can't get it that the rest of the world see things differently & just don't understand their dearly held beliefs.
All - you are all very welcome! The exchange of views is fascinating. Just one point - although it is often said by 'real country people' that most RSPB members are urban and townies I have no idea where this comes from. The places where you will have to look hardest before you find an RSPB member (they'll be there too though!) are inner cities. The parliamentary constituencies with most RSPB members are rural ones. For example, the constituency of Suffolk Coastal, formerly held by John Gummer (now Lord Deben), was the constituency with the largest number of RSPB members (and probably still is). Of course there are towns in it - places like Southwold and Aldburgh - but this is hardly the urban townie living out of touch with the countryside and its ways.
Nice point Mark something most of us have no idea about and seems much like the hunting folk saying townies against hunting and country people for it.Well we have lived in countryside all our lives and hunting would not get much support round here.
Hi - living in the Peak District may distort my view but most passing 'walkers' (say 85%) are 'very interested' in the local bird life and most appear to be from towns - incidentally I was born in London some many years ago!
'Hunting' goes on all the time - non-stop - 24/7 !