REPORT ON ‘STATE OF NATURE’ CONFERENCE, LONDON, 3 SEPTEMBER
2014
An impressive cast list made RSPB’s ‘State of Nature’ conference an entertaining
and, at times, enlightening event. The term ‘nature’ wasn’t defined, but featured
prominently in place of the words ‘biodiversity’ and the ‘environment’.
Sir David Attenborough kicked off proceedings with insightful comment including a
call for conservation organisations to look forward, not backwards. Noting that no
part of the UK has been unaffected by human activity – “we are not living in the
Brazilian rainforest”, he made clear there was no point trying to go back to the past
of the 1930s or when forests and seashores were “unsullied” by man.
His message was that Climate Change is causing great change in the distribution of
species and that society needed to respect that and to take advantage of it. For
example, some species of butterflies more commonly found on the continent are
increasing in number. Effort should be focused on how to cater for the ability of
species to move, creating wildlife corridors as species move north. He noted that
every new arrival should not be seen as an “exotic to be repelled, but something to
be embraced”.
Barry Gardiner, MP (Labour) provided a diverse range of contributions throughout
the day. He noted that the problem of flooding showed that “we shouldn’t have
incentivised farmers to clear uplands of trees and shrubs for sheep”, and highlighted
forests as “one of our natural jewels offering wide benefits”. It is “difficult to conceive
of a more productive and beneficial landscape feature”. He also then noted that the
current Government only valued the Public Forest Estate for its value as timber.
Mr Gardiner announced that Labour, if elected, would keep the PFE in public
ownership and change its purpose – “not to guarantee future supply to support
sawmill investment”. The urgent need for today is “to reduce flood risk and provide
more space for nature”. Thus, Labour would explore the PFE’s statutory remit and
change it to promoting biodiversity, “public values” and access.
He went on to state that landowners cannot ignore their responsibilities to provide
wider benefits to society. If landowners do not protect and improve the environmental
and social benefits that their land provides then they should be compelled, by
government, to act. This would include forcing more access to rural land.
He also noted that, as the last Labour Government “begun the National Forest”, the
next one will deliver green infrastructure in deprived public areas – “bringing people
closer to nature”.
He also stated that “research showed” that planting woodland to deliver a
commercial return had a negative cost for the environment, but if a woodland was
planted next to a conurbation with a focus on “wider values” then it had a net positive
effect. This statement appeared to assume that a commercial woodland was of the
type planted in the 20th Century rather than one that conforms to modern standards
of forest design.
A ‘political panel’ then entertained the conference. Defra minister Lord de Mauley
presented himself as a working farmer and forester - though the panel chairwoman
noted Quentin Letts’ description of him as ‘some raffish villain from 1930s
Hollywood’!. He noted that woodland cover in England was at its highest level since
the 14th century and that the Government was committed to “substantially increasing
woodland cover and increasing the area under active management”. Under the ‘Big
Tree Plant’ a million new trees will have been planted with government support by
March 2015.
All politicians stepped up to say that nature is in crisis, but their views on what action
should be taken were very different. Green MP, Caroline Lucas stated with certainty
that “marketisation of nature” was a danger and that biodiversity offsetting
“dehumanises the issue” and is not the way forward. Barry Gardiner repsonded that
putting a monetary value on nature was different from marketisation and, later,
Stephanie Hillborne of the Wildlife Trusts noted that biodiversity offsetting had a role
as a last resort. Lord de Mauley advised that putting a value on nature enabled it to
be strengthened in policy making.
Lib Dem MP, Julian Huppert restated his party’s zero carbon ambitions, and tackled
the thorny issue of wind turbines bashing birds, by saying the focus should be on
“less energy rather than renewable energy”.
Challenged on whether the EU Habitats and Birds Directives left sufficient “room for
business”, all felt the balance was about right. Only Caroline Lucas demurred, stating
that the balance was not right - the habitats legislation “created additional hurdles to
provide opportunities for challenge”, but because the legislation allowed that
economic interest could ultimately prevail then all development could continue. This
was simply a “get out clause”.
The repeated use by speakers of the terms ‘win-win’ and ‘balance’ prompted
Caroline Lucas to state bluntly that society could not expect to have continued
economic growth and be able to protect the environment – something had to give.
Society needed “to accept that win-win isn’t always possible”. Her suggested way
forward was for products to ‘internalise’ their environmental costs so that they
reflected the cost of their impact on the environment. She conceded that this would
raise prices, but suggested that this could be compensated by, for example,
government moving tax on income to taxes on carbon.
Barry Gardiner agreed that win-win was not always possible and that society should
address priorities - for example half the woodland in England is not managed to
“national forestry standards”.
The conference also featured businesses that had made a commitment to embracing
nature, the most entertaining and informative of which was Mike Barry, Director of
Sustainable Business at Marks and Spencer. He told the conference that “nature is
the very essence and building block of our business”.
M&S have identified three mind-sets in business. A minority knowingly abuse nature
for profit, a greater number are unable to make the connection between nature and
their business, and the biggest number see the connection but can’t see how they
can act meaningfully – they believe they are too small to make a difference.
M&S aim to support nature by supporting the best suppliers who, for example in fish,
certify to the Marine Stewardship Council. Then by ignoring the worst, and working
with those in between. M&S have developed a Fisheries Improvement Programme
for those striving to improve to MSC status.
M&S use wood widely – 1537 products, made from 96 species of wood and sourced
from 45 countries. Demonstrating ethical and responsible sourcing of wood required
over 6200 lines of data! This was a huge exercise, and could only be achieved by
changing hearts and minds in the company. They also have a zero deforestation
target in their procurement, eg on palm oil.
His advice to businesses was to “set standards for everything you source”, commit to
stretching targets and support ‘smart’ regulation, citing the EU Timber Regulation.
NGOs need a ‘stepwise’ approach to support those wanting to improve – a
stepladder to improvement not exclusion. He also pleaded for the harmonisation of
standards as there were “too many out there”.
With refreshing candour he stated that there was no green premium. 35% of
consumers were ‘light green’, they don’t want to compromise their lifestyle, but are
happy to choose a product if it is provided at the same price.
Andy Spencer, Sustainability Director at Cemex was, from a timber perspective,
defending the indefensible as his business was concrete and asphalt infrastructure.
In his presentation he repeatedly claimed that Cemex gave equal measure to
financial sustainability in the business and to nature. They want to deliver a lowcarbon future and are committed to sustainability, believing their approach de-risked
the operating environment. However, there had to be level-playing field and that
required “well executed and consistently applied regulation” by government.
Cemex have a full-time RSPB internal adviser whose role is to sell the biodiversity
case in the business. This partnership working, he claimed, gave confidence to
regulators that Cemex are behaving responsibly.
Chris Matthews, Head of Sustainability at United Utilities spoke (UU) about their
approach to a Sustainable Catchment Management Programme (SCAMP). Again
partnership working was highlighted. UU are seeking to operate an ‘eco-services
scheme’ which includes changing farming practices while maintaining rural
employment. They have spent £22m, including on 350,000 trees as part of over
750ha of new woodland planted for water quality.
UU is now looking at ‘externality evaluation’ and creating their own triple-bottom line.
He signed off with a different view from most other speakers – rather than focus on
regulation, government and conservation bodies should work with business to create
the conditions “for inspiring individuals to emerge and create positive change” in the
way that inspiring individuals drove the industrial revolution.
Brother Sam, a Franciscan, in an entertaining twist, explained how they are helping
the local council in West Dorset to manage their woodlands, stressing that it had
previously been “incredibly bad, under-management”. In return the Franciscans
received wood for their biomass boiler.
In the final panel session of the day, a youthful Lucy McRobert of ‘A Focus on
Nature’ pleaded for conservationists to use “inspiring language” to engage more
people – “we must change the dialogue to reach young and urban audiences”. This
is something that many organisations, Confor included, struggle with. Unfortunately,
when she and other panel members were asked for specific examples of this few
answers were provided.
Author Germaine Greer was unsurprisingly forthright, stating that volunteers devalue
the importance of conservation. She doesn’t employ volunteers in her rainforest –
people who “will work at their pace for half a day”. Instead she paid people to get “on
with it” and who skilled up to do a professional job. “Get serious and pay, stop the
amateurism now”.
Challenged on biodiversity offsetting, Stephanie Hillborne conceded that it was an
acceptable “last resort”. That left Germaine Greer unconvinced – reflecting on a
previous example given of offsetting “a park is not nature”, biodiversity offsetting was
“not replacing like with like”.
To close the day we heard from Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg. His presentation
was, like many by ministers, wordy, but contained some announcements, including
extra cash for Kew Gardens. He referred to the Big Tree Plant, 10% woodland cover
in England and that the Lib Dems will put the PFE in ‘Trust’. But other than that, the
main interest was his ability to field questions in an area where he clearly had little
expertise.
The conference was almost always entertaining and there were interesting
perspectives provided by a number of the business speakers. However, Sir David’s
challenge to look forward, not back, to embrace a changing nature rather than a
‘restored’ nature was disappointingly never addressed.