The point here is that most of what bothers us is in the detail, and we want our supporters to know what this is so you can judge UK Government rhetoric against the reality of actual proposals. Warm words are great, but we need action! So …
First - as it stands, there is NO proposed #EnvironmentAct target for improving the condition of protected sites on land, such as SSSIs, SPAs and SACs. These include, for instance, some of our best woodlands, wetlands, heaths and moors across the country.
And these are not in great condition - for SSSI's in 2021 62% were in unfavourable condition by @NaturalEngland's calculation …
And as SSSI's underpin SACs and SPAs, the same condition can be extended to these.
It's pretty poor – it means they are not doing the job nature needs. And yet these SHOULD be the backbone of any plan to restore nature in England – they are the best of what we have left for nature and yet the majority are in a sorry state
The UK Government accepts this in the targets consultation. But it says it will be dealt with when Defra responds to the Nature Recovery Green paper. But there’s no sign of that happening, and there are no new nature laws on the agenda for this Parliament.
And the clock is ticking - we have 8 years left to restore 30% of land by 2030 as per UK Gov ambitions.
So that’s the first thing that concerns us, the second one is this ...
The Env Act consultation suggests a target to a) halt the decline in species abundance by 2030 b) increase species abundance by at least 10% by 2042, compared to 2030 levels.
So, while we welcome the ambitious target for 2030 (see our blog 👇) there’s a hitch …
That first target is just to HALT the decline by 2030. Which means wildlife abundance could continue to decline over the next 8 years. Which at 2% average decline per year (the number given in the consultation doc) means allowing a further decline of up to 15%.
So why on earth set 2030 as the baseline for a future increase of 10% to 2042.
That could mean, potentially, legally binding the UK Government to a lower species abundance in 2042 than today!
This means potentially fewer butterflies in hedgerows and less birdsong in our woods
Of course, Gov would say this is a minimum etc, but why not set some actual ambition?
Why not set 2022 as the baseline (which is a known) and go for a much bigger percentage increase for 2042?
"At least 10%" - is that the best we can do?
And then cost it into the mechanisms by which this will be achieved, such as ensuring good protected site condition, and properly funding nature through an ambitious Environment Land Management Scheme - given 71% of our land is farmland.
These are a couple of things to look out for when @DefraGovUK publish its targets. And one of the ways of measuring the warm words from UK Government against the reality of what's on the table.
Don't get us wrong, the fact that we have an Environment Act is great. But for it to support delivery of "the most ambitious environmental programme of any country on earth" it's going to have some meaningful targets and big numbers in it and then drive the means to deliver these
We ask all our supporters to keep asking questions about the details and keep the pressure up. We can help with these explainers and get our experts to provide analysis ... but we want to help give you the power to help hold the UK Government to account as well.
Read our full response to the Environment Act targets consultation here:
A step in the right direction. @michaelgove said yesterday on Sky News, re Investment Zones (IZs), that "anything that in any way might undermine environmental protections is out".
So, what are some of things that will have to be “out”?
First, any development on legally designated protected sites for nature must be “out”.
So that’s NO IZs on Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), National Nature Reserves, Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Ramsar sites.
There’s a description of the different designations here:
🌍⚠ URGENT: #AttackOnNature. Despite all the recent U-turns the new UK Government is STILL not listening.
But we will not stand by and let wildlife be trashed.
You’ve been brilliant in your support already🙏but we now need to step up a gear. This is how … 🧵
It looks like the one thing the UK Government has not U-turned on is the #AttackOnNature. We urgently need them to do this. Nature needs them to do this! 2/
One of the key ways we will achieve this this is by getting MPs of all political parties to stand with us and oppose the #AttackOnNature. We are already seeing signs of this. But we need more. 3/
🚨⚠ "Confidence and stability". As we hear the Chancellor’s words today, we ask the UK Government to now give us confidence that they recognise that economic growth depends on a healthy natural environment, and that we can move on from this #AttackOnNature …
Thread …
We need to hear that the reckless gamble that is the Retained EU Law Bill will not be allowed to waste 2 years of gov time, tying up civil servants/parliament & threatening vital laws that have been proven repeatedly to deliver for nature and people. UK just can't afford this. 2/
We need to hear that important planning rules that protect our much-loved green spaces and wildlife will not be weakened within new Investment Zones. 3/
Explainer! You’ve asked for more info on #InvestmentZones and the #AttackOnNature. We are worried these zones won’t work for nature, but will they even deliver for growth?
We asked one of our RSPB planning experts, Simon Marsh @RSPBplanner, to take a closer look. Thread …
The UK Government’s proposed #InvestmentZones (IZs) bear a striking resemblance to Enterprise Zones (EZs) and Simplified Planning Zones (SPZs). 2/
SPZs have been around for about 50 years, but there are very few of them. It’s a planning, not a tax, designation where the planning process is relaxed to encourage some types of development.
They mostly permit office, R&D and warehouse uses on old industrial sites. 3/
We agree with @nationaltrust director-general Hilary McGrady when she says:
“We are facing one of the biggest threats to nature in my lifetime. It potentially means we will be turning some of our most precious green spaces grey.” 2/
We’ve been overwhelmed by the support for our e-action, 77,284 at last count! Lots of you are getting replies from your MPs. It is great to read the positive ones, but we know many of you are disappointed that some have been less positive (1/5)
Thanks to your support, the media coverage on the recent UK #Government announcements has been very fast-paced. Some MPs have questioned why we are claiming this is an #AttackOnNature, so it’s important that we are clear on why we, the RSPB, are raising concerns about this. (2/5)
We are raising the alarm about what recent announcements could mean for nature, the environment and for people. If you have had a response from your MP questioning our position or facts, here's some guidance to help you respond! bit.ly/AttackOnNature2 (3/5)