On 27 March, the UK Government published its final version of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how they should be applied.

The final NPPF is an improvement (for nature conservation) over the initial draft that went out for consultation in 2011, however there are still some concerns.

There is still a clear “presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking” (Para 14). This presumption is not as strong as in the initial draft, as there is now also reference to the economic, social and environmental roles of sustainable development being mutually dependent on each other and therefore should not be viewed in isolation (Para 8). However, Local Plans should still “plan positively for development” (Para 157), “decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible” (Para 187) and “in assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development” (Para 197).

There is still no clear definition for sustainable development, although the NPPF does now include the UK Sustainable Development Strategy’s five guiding principles of sustainable development (Box pg 2), namely:
• living within the planet’s environmental limits;
• ensuring a strong, healthy and just society;
• achieving a sustainable economy;
• promoting good governance; and
• using sound science responsibly.

The Government has now included a statement to “encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value” (Para 17).

With regard to protecting the natural environment, there is still the reference to planning enhancing the natural environment and where possible providing net gains for biodiversity, but the importance of ecosystem services and soils is now also noted specifically (Para 109).

In addition, “development proposals where the primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be permitted” and “opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged” are also included (Para 118). Also, the “presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 14) does not apply where development requiring appropriate assessment under the Birds or Habitats Directives is being considered, planned or determined” (Para 119).

The draft NPPF had no consideration for undesignated nature conservation sites. The final version corrects this to some extent by encouraging planning policies to “minimise impacts on biodiversity and geodiversity by identify[ing] and map[ing] components of the local ecological networks, including the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites of importance for biodiversity, wildlife corridors and stepping stones that connect them and areas identified by local partnerships for habitat restoration or creation” (Para 117).

The Government continues to recognise the importance of good evidence and data for decision-making (Paras 158 and 165-167), but fails to recognise the need to support either data management or ecological competence.

There is now repeated reference to early engagement with all necessary stakeholders, including expert bodies (Paras 167 and 188-192).

Regarding information requirements, “local planning authorities should publish a list of their information requirements for applications, which should be proportionate to the nature and scale of development proposals and reviewed on a frequent basis. Local planning authorities should only request supporting information that is relevant, necessary and material to the application in question” (Para 193).

Regarding implementation:
• The policies in the NPPF apply from the day of publication, i.e. 27 March 2012 (Para 208).
• The policies in Local Plans (and the London Plan) should not be considered out-of-date simply because they were adopted prior to the publication of the NPPF (Para 211). However, the NPPF policies are material considerations which local planning authorities should take into account from the day of its publication. The NPPF must also be taken into account in the preparation of plans (Para 212), which may need to be revised and which should be done as quickly as possible (Para 213).
• For 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with the NPPF (Para 214). This however is only relevant to local development plans and the London Plan.
• Following the 12-month period, due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF (i.e. the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the NPPF, the greater the weight that may be given) (Para 215).
• Advice for local planning authorities will be available immediately and free of charge from a support service provided by the Local Government Association, the Planning Inspectorate and the Department for Communities and Local Government (Para 217).

The IEEM response to the draft National Planning Policy Framework (published in July 2011) can be downloaded here.

Jason M. Reeves AIEEM, Policy and Information Officer, Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management

The Government will this afternoon publish the long-awaited National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which will simplify over 1,000 pages of planning guidance into just 50 pages and set out a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ that will apply across England.

Speaking to the BBC’s ‘Today’ programme this morning, planning Minister Greg Clark MP said that the NPPF would provide an opportunity to involve local communities in planning decisions ‘right from the start’. Instead of seeing developments challenged, by communities that have felt these have been imposed on them from outside, these same communities will now be given an opportunity to plan positively for the housing and infrastructure that they recognise they need, the Minister suggested.

But there are others who feel far less positively about the NPPF. Over the past few months environmental organisations have challenged the Government rigourously regarding its proposed planning reforms, with tension most obvious with regard to the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’. Many, such as the National Trust and the Campaign to Protect Rural England, have argued that the defintion of ’sustainable development’ used within the draft document, on which consultation closed last autumn, was inconsistent and confused. For example, in one instance the Brundtland Commission definition of sustainable development is used (essentially, meeting the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs) and the three pillars of sustainable development (social, economic and environmental) are mentioned. Yet in other instances the wording of the document suggests that economic growth will be given precedence over the other aspects that need to be considered for an approach to be truly ’sustainable’.

An article (1) in the latest edition of the bulletin of the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (In Practice), provides a useful analysis of the draft NPPF. The authors conclude that overall the draft NPPF promises weaker protection for the environment than Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS 9), which it replaces. Although there already exists in planning policy a presumption in favour of development that meets sustainability principles, the authors suggest that the NPPF marks a shift away from this due to the precedence afforded to economic growth above the other pillars of sustainability and the non-precautionary approach adopted by the guidance. Development is to proceed in the case of doubt over the likely impacts, unless the ‘costs significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits’. The burden of proof will therefore rest with the objector to a proposal and, the authors suggest, ‘developers are likely to have a smoother path’.

Greg Clark rejected these suggestions in an interview with the BBC Breakfast programme this morning. He said that development should not be at the expense of the environment and that the reason for a planning system in England is to ensure that economic, social and environmental factors can be considered together and balanced. Again he reiterated the need to involve local communities in planning decisions, emphasising that the reforms have been motivated by a desire to ensure that local people and not only specialists can engage with the streamlined planning guidance.

Despite these assurances, and a report in the Guardian suggesting that National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty will receive additional protection from development in the NPPF, Whitehall sources have been quoted across the media as saying that the document is ‘unashamedly pro-growth’. When the Minister makes his statement to MPs at 12.30 GMT and the new regulations come into force immediately, those who have challenged the development of the NPPF over past months will have the opportunity to assess whether any concessions have been made following the consultation phase.

1. Wilson, R. and Simpson, P. A Cunning Plan…or a Plan too Far? In Practice (2012) 75: 7 – 11.

The Science Minister, David Willetts MP, yesterday set out the Government’s plans to leverage funding from businesses and industry to support the establishment of new graduate university institutions in England. Mr Willetts, speaking at the think tank Policy Exchange, made it clear that there will be no funding from Government to support these bodies but that ‘private finance and perhaps sponsorship’ will be sought. The Minister invited applications for the opportunity to establish these institutions.

The Minister also outlined plans to increase the number of institutions in England appearing in the top 100 university rankings and plans to increase non-governmental funding to universities by 10%.

Original article by Sean Coughlan: BBC News, 4 January 2012

An incredibly diverse and busy programme of sessions at the BES Annual Meeting this year means that I am only now able to find the time to report on Prof. Bill Sutherland’s Monday afternoon plenary; ‘Twelve months in Ecology’. Since Bill’s talk, we have also seen a fantastic plenary from Professor Jules Pretty, University of Essex – discussing the importance of social capital in ensuring ’sustainable intensification’ of agriculture – which you can now read about on the BES Annual Meeting blog. We have also had a fantastic, and packed, session on ‘What next for the UK National Ecosystem Assessment and IPBES?’, which I hope to find the time to report on tomorrow.

But for now, back to Prof. Sutherland’s review of the past year and some of the major changes which have taken place in policy impinging upon – or informed by – ecological science. One recurring theme which has come across in the sessions I have attended this year (apart from soil, which seems to have been a hot topic at this meeting) is that the past few months have seen a ‘paradigm’ shift in how the UK Government considers biodiversity and ecosystem services. First the Lawton Review of England’s protected area network, then the National Ecosystem Assessment, and latterly the Natural Environment White Paper: late 2010 and 2011 to date have seen the publication of some potentially highly significant reports and policy papers likely to have a major effect on the direction of environment policy for some time to come. But, Prof. Sutherland highlighted, the most important test – implementation – is still to come and there are some signs that the good intentions propounded in the White Paper will not be carried through easily into other areas of Government policy.

Bill’s talk was inspired by a visit to a conservation biology conference, where despite the blanket coverage of the ‘deepwater horizon’ oil spill in newsagents outside the conference centre, very little mention was made of the significance of this news within the meeting sessions. The BES, and other learned societies, Bill argued, must consider issues of importance and signficance within wider society. Hence his whistlestop tour through the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Nagoya conference in October 2010, and subsequent ‘Aichi Targets’ and strategic plan for tackling biodiversity loss worldwide; his examination of the Copenhagen climate change summit in 2010 – a cause for pessimism, Bill suggested, not to mention the policy documents which have come out of the UK this year. Badger culling and the sale of national nature reserves and the Government’s U-turn over the sale of the Forestry Commission estate were also mentioned.

Bill urged members of the BES to engage with policy-makers as these and other issues are taken forward. Sound science is needed in policy debate and Bill urged the Society to engage even more clearly and in an even more relevant fashion with policy development. Issues which members should be aware of in the future, rising up the agenda, Bill suggested, are Arctic exploration for oil – and what the opening up of the Arctic may mean for biodiversity – reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (suggesting a possible shift back to a focus on food production, away from recent rhetoric on the incorporation of ecosystem services), REDD+, an increase in the use of biodiversity offsetting in the UK and the formation of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

Bill started on a note of pessimism, but finished optimistically, highlighting good news around recent species recovery, with peregrines breeding in London, salmon returning to many rivers, otters now found in every county in England and the near eradication of the ruddy duck as examples. Bill also suggested that there has been a shift in recent months towards policy-makers using evidence as a basis for a decisions to a greater extent.

Whilst I agree with much of what Bill had to say, and don’t think that his optimism is misplaced, I would say that the recent National Planning Policy Framework and Red Tape Challenge suggest that there is much more that ecologists and those who care about the environment must do before we can consider Government really ‘get’ the importance and significance of biodiversity. The NPPF was an opportunity for the Government to demonstrate that it had really taken the sentiments within the White Paper on board, and were prepared to integrate environmental concerns across all areas of decision making. There is little evidence that this is in fact the case, with a presumption in favour of sustainable development (economic growth is the major driver) throughout the document. The Red Tape Challenge too could pose a serious threat to environmental protection and should not simply be dismissed, as discussed elsewhere on this blog.

Prof. Sutherland’s talk was a useful clarion call for action on the part of the the BES and I for one hope that this will galvanise interest and engagement with policy issues amongst the membership.

The ThinkBIG report, which was released this week, is designed to provide information for local authorities, land managers, farmers and communities as to how they can contribute to the move towards landscape scale conservation outline in the Natural Environment White Paper, which was released earlier this month. ThinkBIG was written jointly by the statutory bodies, NGOs, land owners and farming communities that make up the England Biodiversity Group. The report in support of the move towards landscape scale conservation and ecosystem approach outlined in the recent Natural Environment White Paper provides advice on how to implement these ideas by reviewing case studies of landscape scale conservation and highlighting the lessons learned.

Maintaining and repairing ecosystems needs to be the focus of environmental projects and planning if ecosystem services are to continue benefiting the economy and society. Every sector of society and the economy has a role to play in landscape scale conservation, no matter how small their contribution is perceived to be.

The report gives some excellent examples of how landscape scale conservation can work in practice, demonstrating how each situation is different and requires a slightly different solution. Some of the most interesting and varied include:

Moors for the Future – This is a moorland restoration project in the Peak District and South Pennines, delivering a variety of ecosystem services such as erosion regulation and water regulation, and improving biodiversity of ground nesting birds and plants.

The Victoria Business Improvement District – This is a business led partnership to improve prospects for local wildlife, businesses and communities by expanding and enhancing green infrastructure. The project has reduced pollution, carbon dioxide emissions and flooding whilst simultaneously supporting invertebrate diversity and several bird species.

Cambourne New Town – Landscape scale conservation can also be included in new development projects such as Cambourne New Town which was built on agricultural land in Cambridgeshire. Careful planning has ensured that local residents are able to benefit from being reconnected with nature, whilst creation of new habitats has re-introduced several species that were once extinct in the area.

Although uniform guidelines to implement this sort of project would be hard to construct the report emphasises several fundamental components that must be in place for projects to be successful. These include accurate information on the current state of the environment, partnership and co-ordination between stakeholders and those involved in implementing the project, incentives and regulations, sensible strategies at the appropriate level, and conflict management. Connected and enhanced wildlife sites which are effectively protected and buffered from human activity are most likely to be successful. The success of many of the initiatives outlined in the Natural Environment White Paper will depend on the extent to which these general principles are adhered to.

The document is intended to provide background and supporting information for local authorities, land managers, farmers and communities, and highlights what different groups of people can start doing now to achieve the aims set out in Lawton’s review of protected areas ‘Making Space for Nature’, and the Natural Environment White Paper, including supporting the work of local conservation charities, managing farmland and woodland more sustainably and collaborating with others within local and national government to help ensure the success of environmental projects.

This week Defra released the highly anticipated Natural Environment White Paper titled ‘The Natural Choice: Securing the Value of Nature’, outlining Government’s vision for the future of landscapes and ecosystem services. The paper emphasises that although we know the environment provides many irreplaceable and valuable services we have been unsustainably exploiting natural capital for many years, leading to biodiversity loss and degradation. Plans for action to halt and reverse the decline in biodiversity and ecosystem services are described.

In a Defra press release following the launch of the White Paper Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman said “The true value of nature should be built in to the decisions we make – as individuals, organisations, businesses and governments – so that we become the first generation to leave the environment in a better condition than we found it.”

One of the key plans is to create 12 new Nature Improvement Areas (NIAs), designed to fulfil many of the goals of Lawton’s ‘Ecological Restoration Zones’, and help wildlife adapt to climate change. A competition will be set up to determine the site of the 12 initial Nature Improvement Areas, and Local Nature Partnerships (LNPs) will be invited to enter their area. So far £7.5 million has been pledged to fund these Nature Improvement Areas. However the Lawton Review ‘Making Space For Nature’ estimated the cost of restoring damage already done to the natural environment at around £0.6 to £1.1 billion.

The Government also plan to use the imminent reforms of the planning system to achieve environmental objectives, and improve ecological networks. Planners will be encouraged to put the natural environment at the heart of all decision making. Reforms to the planning system will include introducing voluntary use of biodiversity offsets in some areas, with a view to broadening these pilot schemes over time.

Another key element of the paper is plans to reconnect local people, particularly children, with nature, by creating a new Local Green Area designation to protect green spaces of particular importance to communities, and removing barriers preventing teaching outdoors. Communities will be supported to volunteer to protect their local wildlife areas.

A new independent committee (The Natural Capital Committee) will be established to advise the Government on the state of natural capital in the UK. Following the release of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment natural capital will be included in the UK Environmental Accounts.

Businesses will be expected to take greater action to protect the environment, and the Government have proposed to investigate potential ways to expand markets in which ecosystem service providers are paid by the users of the service.

The government have also pledged to influence policy in the EU and internationally by showing leadership and ensuring that there are ambitious environmental commitments included in the reformed Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy. £25 million will be donated to the Darwin initiatives fund to help ecosystem and development projects, reducing poverty worldwide. Initiatives to reduce climate change will also continue to be supported through £2.9 billion of funds which will distributed to projects such as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation.

In general the White Paper received a positive response from conservation organisations. The director of conservation at the RSPB Martin Harper said “Nature Improvement Areas are about looking at conservation on a joined up, landscape scale, instead of a series of patchwork measures dotted across our landscape. It’s fantastic to see the Government promoting this idea.” At the Wildlife Trusts Paul Wilkinson, Head of Living Landscapes said “How this White Paper is implemented and adopted by all Government departments will be critical. There is a vital need to ensure it influences the current policy reforms around planning, development and growth.” All emphasised that they would be willing to work with the government to ensure that the ambitious plans are carried out.

The BES policy team yesterday attended a meeting of the All party Parliamentary Conservation and Wildlife Group. The meeting commenced with a talk about future priorities of Natural England from Dr Helen Phillips, Chief Executive of Natural England, followed by a question and discussion session. The talk focussed on the effects of the budget cuts on the services that natural England provides, and the direction of Natural England’s efforts over the coming years. The recent reform of Natural England has resulted in budget cuts, a ban on lobbying activities, and a keener focus on customer service. However there has been no legislative change and the main purpose of natural England remains the government’s independent advisory body on the natural environment. Dr Phillips explained to the group how Natural England will continue to provide this service despite the funding cuts.

Dr Phillips started by focussing on the successes of Natural England in the past five years, of which there have been many. A survey of farmers enrolled in agri-environment schemes revealed that 84% thought that Natural England gave good or excellent customer service. 70% of agricultural land is now under some sort of environmental management which is up from 45% in 2006. This has made a noticeable difference to protected species and habitats on which agricultural land has an important impact. 96% of (Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) are in good or excellent condition compared with only 73% 5 years ago. A slowing of farmland bird decline has occurred with signs of recovery. 30% of the UK landscape is under some form of protection whether that be SSSIs or national parks. There have also been a variety of very successful programmes to connect people with their environment.

However Natural England faces many challenges in protecting the natural environment. England is still experiencing ongoing habitat losses and biotic homogenisation, with many once common species rare and declining. The natural environment is also experiencing increased pressures from an increasing human population demanding more from the same land area. Importantly Lawton’s vision of more, bigger, better, and joined protected areas still has not been realised. There are lots of imminent opportunities to respond to these challenges: the Defra white paper, European biodiversity strategy, the National Ecosystem Assessment. Natural England aims to make sure that people reconnect with nature, our natural assets are protected and we maximise the opportunities offered to society by a green economy. Dr Phillips noted that there is also strong cross party support for these ideas, improving the chances of success.

The talk ended with Dr Phillips outlining the main strategies Natural England will employ to achieve these goals over the coming years:
• Improving protection of priority species and habitats.
• Continuing the success of the agri-environment schemes.
• Establishing a coherent network of Marine Protected Areas.
• Taking a landscape scale approach to conservation.
• Creating “ecological restoration zones” led and funded by a wide variety of organisations.
• Forming partnerships with businesses, local authorities, and NGOs.

One of the main themes to the questions was the effect of budget cuts on the ability of Natural England to provide sound advice to local people, who have become more involved in local decision making because of the Government’s “Big Society” initiative. Natural England have collaborated with the Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, and Wildlife Trusts to share information and identify priority areas in which to act. Defra is also developing an evidence portal for local people to enable access to sound scientific evidence to empower local communities to make more decisions.
Dr Phillips suggested that the BES could also have an important role to play in ensuring good decisions are made at the local level, by providing accreditation for learning and education programmes. This could be particularly useful when training members of local authorities tasked with making decisions about protected species and habitats in planning applications. She also suggested that the BES could support and contribute to research work done by Natural England, by providing quality assurance or peer review.

The announcement of a badger TB vaccination trial on the National Trust’s Killerton Estate has been welcomed by both farmers and local environmental groups. The four year programme which will commence this May aims to show that vaccination is a viable alternative to culling programmes, particularly in places where Defra’s culling criteria cannot currently be met.

Bovine tuberculosis is a major burden for both farmers and taxpayers in the UK. Last year the cost of the disease to the taxpayer was almost £63 million, mainly paid out in compensation to farmers who had cattle destroyed as a result of the disease. However farmers say that this sum does not cover the cost of replacing lost animals, and more needs to be done to prevent the spread of the disease.

Badger culling, the current recommended strategy for control of bovine TB, has been shown to be effective within culling sites but can have detrimental knock on effects for surrounding areas, which often see an increased incidence of the disease. As a consequence of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) which showed these effects Defra introduced stringent criteria to set the conditions under which badger culling can take place, which require farmers to demonstrate that they can minimize any potential edge effects, and cull within a minimum area size of 150km2. There are very few instances when these criteria can be met. When these criteria cannot be fulfilled it seems that vaccination may be the only viable option but so far there is little evidence to show how effective it might be.

The new programme funded by the National Trust aims to demonstrate to the government and farmers that vaccination is a viable alternative to culling. It also aims to stimulate research into an oral vaccine, such as the type which has been used with great success to treat rabies, which would be a cheap and easy to administer option for carrying vaccination out on a larger scale. Mark Harold from the national trust said that he hopes that this project can “pave the way for more widespread use of vaccination as an effective alternative to culling”, and also noted that “the National Trust is in a unique position as a major landowner in rural areas” allowing them to pioneer the scheme.

The vaccination programme will involve 18 tenant farmers on 20 km2 farmland in the Killerton estate, a prime example of a site that cannot meet current DEFRA criteria for badger culls. It is expected to cost around £80,000 per year and run until 2015. Badgers will be trapped, vaccinated and marked by licensed experts.

The Policy Team has today submitted its response to Defra’s consultation on the forthcoming White Paper on the Natural Environment. The Department’s discussion document published earlier this summer, asked a series of questions about the current system of nature protection in England, and sought input on how it could be improved.

In responding to the document, BES has presented practical improvements in a number of policy areas, from biodiversity protection, to water, sea and air pollution. The discussion document also asked consultees to comment on the overarching challenges identified by the Department, and the best way to respond to these challenges. The document included a strong emphasis on the role of the ‘Big Society’ in delivering conservation objectives, asking what role civil society should play in managing future conservation work. Some key recommendations in the BES response are below:

• The challenge posed by biodiversity loss requires explicit recognition in the White Paper.
• A systematic review of existing legislation is needed to identify gaps for the White Paper to fill. The proper implementation of existing law is equally important, as is the strengthening of existing planning guidance, which could be reworded.
• Innovative ways need to be found to fund conservation, in the absence of public funds. Market mechanisms, for example a biodiversity offsetting system to compensate for losses from development, could be considered.
• Civil society can be given an enhanced role in the management of the natural environment but only in the context of an overarching national framework. It is not practical to rely on NGOs and charities to deliver UK compliance with targets.
• Implementing the 24 recommendations contained within Sir John Lawton’s “Making Space for Nature” Review should be a priority action going forward. This offers a coherent and effective approach to managing our ecological networks.

The full response is available on the BES website – we welcome your comments.

Defra has today published the Lawton Review of England’s protected areas and ecological network. Professor Sir John Lawton, who led the review, is a past-President of the BES.

From the Defra press release:

An independent review of England’s wildlife sites and the connections between them was published today, with recommendations to help achieve a healthy natural environment that will allow our plants and animals to thrive.

Led by Professor Sir John Lawton, the review was set up to look at our wildlife sites and whether they are capable of responding and adapting to the growing challenges of climate change and other demands on our land.

Welcoming the report, Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman said:

“I am extremely grateful to Professor Sir John Lawton and the other panel members for their hard work in carrying out this valuable review. Sir John Lawton is right to challenge us over what it takes to address the loss of biodiversity but he is also clear this cannot be done by Government alone. Everyone from farmers, wildlife groups, landowners and individuals can play a role in helping to create, manage and improve these areas, so if ever there was a time for the Big Society to protect our natural environment, this is it.

“We must work together to find innovative ways to protect and enhance our wildlife habitats – particularly as we respond to the growing threat of climate change. I will be calling for international action in Nagoya next month as we look to set new targets to tackle the decline in our natural environment, and we will follow this through with the first Natural Environment White Paper for 20 years in the UK.”

Launching the report, Professor Sir John Lawton said:

“There is compelling evidence that England’s collection of wildlife sites are generally too small and too isolated, leading to declines in many of England’s characteristic species. With climate change, the situation is likely to get worse. This is bad news for wildlife but also bad news for us, because the damage to nature also means our natural environment is less able to provide the many services upon which we depend. We need more space for nature. Our 24 recommendations in this report call for action which will benefit wildlife and people. They provide a repair manual to help re-build nature.”

The report makes the following key points for establishing a strong and connected natural environment:

That we better protect and manage our designated wildlife sites;
That we establish new Ecological Restoration Zones;
That we better protect our non-designated wildlife sites;
That Society’s need to maintain water-quality, manage inland flooding, deal with coastal erosion and enhance carbon storage, if thought about creatively, could help deliver a more effective ecological network.

We will not achieve a step-change in nature conservation in England without society accepting it to be necessary, desirable and achievable.

The report makes many recommendations and the Government response will be included in the Natural Environment White Paper to be published next year. Making Space for Nature will also help those that wish to contribute to the White Paper discussion document by the end of October to submit their ideas on what they want to see included.

The BES Policy Team will scrutinise the Review and would welcome comments on this from members. We are also preparing a response to the White Paper and would value members’ input.