It’s been a strange time in environmental politics. On Monday 28 August, The Wildlife Trusts' CEO Craig Bennett tweeted:
In May, June and July, the Government made promises to the British people, and to Parliament that they would "not lower environmental protections or standards".
They lied. Just a few weeks later, they are planning to do just that...
And Craig said much the same on Radio 4’s Today (1:31:20) on Tuesday 29 August.
This particular lie refers to plans to scrap ‘nutrient neutrality’ (a key way to comply with the Habitats Regulations), and make house-building cheaper, summarised here. Basically, planners would be forced to ignore conclusive evidence of damaging impacts of pollution, and make decisions assuming there are no impacts. Craig accurately described this as Orwellian (remember 1984? ’‘The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”) In other contexts, this would be a breach of Standards in Public Life (which require integrity, objectivity and honesty), it runs counter to evidence-based planning, and ordinarily it fits the criminal offence of Misconduct in Public Office.
Michael Gove refers to the current regulations as ‘defective EU laws’. He could have found out that this law actually works well - Debbie Tann, my opposite number for Hants&IoW Trust, said online: I invited Michael Gove’s team to come and see how well the Nutrient Neutrality rules were working in the Solent. We had a visit booked for Tuesday this week… It was cancelled on Friday night. More details here.
The story heated up on Wednesday morning, when the RSPB directly accused individual ministers:
“LIARS! @RishiSunak @michaelgove @theresecoffey
You said you wouldn’t weaken environmental protections. And yet that’s just what you are doing.
You lie, and you lie, and you lie again.
And we’ve had enough.”
RSPB explained how ministers and government had repeatedly said things that they must have known to be untrue. Within hours, the tweet had been ‘liked’ 20,000 times (currently 41,500) and more than 90% of comments were positive.
A handful of observers thought this was inappropriate behaviour for a charity, and might even be against charity law. By Wednesday evening, RSPB were saying their original post ‘falls below the standard we set ourselves and for that we apologise. We will continue to campaign vigorously on behalf of nature but we will always do so in a polite and considered manner.’
Was ‘liar’ fair? This week, Michael Gove said ‘our rivers are cleaner than they have been in the past’ when the Environment Agency reported last year that, for the first time, no English river had achieved ‘good chemical condition’, and the proportion in ‘good ecological condition’ had dropped from 25% to 14% in 12 years. Mis-speaking? Mistaken? Lying?
At a meeting with Michael Gove and Terese Coffey the next day, Craig Bennett again reitereated how damaging the policy reversal would be in the i newspaper.
As a footnote, it’s not just us: on Wednesday, the government’s expert watchdog, the Office of Environmental Protection, warned the proposed legislation would weaken protection.
What sort of organisation do we want to be?
I’ve explored this news story, and how we challenge politicians, in some detail, because it’s a crucial time for the Wildlife Trusts, and for wildlife, leading up to the general election in about a year. We must get the biodiversity crisis and climate crisis high on the agenda for all serious political parties. The next government, of whatever party or parties, must take immediate and drastic actions to reduce emissions, adapt to climate change and reverse biodiversity loss.
You’ll hear much more about how we intend to do that in the coming months. Fundamentally, the way we conduct the campaign will determine our future role. A previous Environment Secretary described the Wildlife Trusts as ‘sane and reasonable’. I’ve always thought that description was better than the alternative; but the last few years of politics makes me wonder if ‘reasonable’ is enough…
You can get a flavour of how the Wildlife Trusts movement wants to be seen from our Strategy 2030. It’s worth a read: it’s likely to be the framework for BCN’s own next 5 year plan (2025-2030). The section on Shared Values highlights where we stand, and incidentally, what’s wrong with the current government: I cannot associate respect, trust or integrity with anyone who produces legislation that forces public servants to lie.
Our commitment to speak truth to power means we will challenge the lies, point out the failures and demonstrate what needs to be done. Our respect for other people’s views, and our commitment to find common ground and work collaboratively may keep us sane and reasonable, and could result in some unlikely partnerships.