Professor Alister Scott at the School of Property, Construction and Planning at Birmingham City University said:

I must write to convey my increasing concern at the polarised debate between respective elements of the conservation and development lobby over the current planning reforms. The key message is being lost in that whilst the CLG produce their NPPF framework as a blueprint for planning policy alongside and localism bill, Defra produce their 202 Biodiversity strategy as a blueprint for land use policy building on the National Ecosystem approach.

Yet within each area there is scarcely any connection made between them This divide between Defra and CLG expressed historically as between planning and the countryside is at the heart of the current furore. The opportunity is there to fuse these respective ideas in ONE coherent policy. Such developments would ensure that there is a proper connection between policy for countryside and towns and an environmental ethic that means that development is not a short term fix.

Of course some people like to maintain such divides but the loser is the economy , the environment and society. Such separate policy silos plays into the hands s of those who are currently hijacking the NPPF debate.

Professor Alister Scott at the School of Property, Construction and Planning at Birmingham City University writes on the recent publication of the National Ecosystem Assessment

"Good planning is key to the delivery of a good quality natural environment. We have today a Natural Environment Service in crisis which needs protecting and investing in".

There is much to welcome in the recent National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA) report(1). The value of nature has always been under-represented in resource management decisions and whilst many might be troubled about putting financial values on nature, it certainly reveals to people that nature has wider value to us all and is not just the preserve for David Attenborough's and scientists. It gives people a stake even if they are unsure how such values were ascribed and how they vary from place to place and from person to person.

It is interesting to note that much of the press focus has been on these ascribed values (eg £300 view of green space) but the report has much more to offer. However, reading it in its entirety is likely to be something that few public ever do; its sheer size makes it challenging and the summary report is still 60 pages long, way beyond the scope of many politicians! One early finding in the report is that the public do not really understand the ecosystem approach and ecosystem services. This is serious as it reflects the malaise of 'scientific elitism and imperialism' which alienates the public and makes them increasingly sceptical of scientists. Surely as academics we need to make the problems we research and our frameworks, findings and debates more intelligible rather than remaining 'intoxicated by the eloquence of our own verbosity'.

Lesson 1 : The NEA report is welcome and provides important messages concerning the value of nature but it needs to convey its messages in clear, accessible and meaningful vocabulary using a conceptual framework that is understandable by the public and policy makers alike. Currently it runs the risk of being marginalised as people fail to engage with the EA idea; ecosystem approach and services are not user friendly terms and we need to be smarter in the way we develop and communicate science at all levels.

The report does contain a useful and valuable inventory of what is happening to nature in the UK. It is clear from the evidence presented across the different habitats that many of our ecosystems and their associated ecosystem services are declining and have been for some time. This demands urgent action involving Defra and its key agencies Natural England; Environment Agency and Forestry Commission and, crucially, local decision makers and land managers. Yet despite the recent Environment White Paper (2) the significant cut in budgets for these agencies may jeopardise such
action. With previous plans for privatisation of forests and ideas for privatisation of national nature reserves there is a real worry that nature itself might become embedded in some form of privatisation agenda now that there is a databank of values, which suggests that there is a profit to be made somewhere by someone. Nature is perhaps too important to be reduced to such vagaries; here I offer a similar argument to the reforms of the NHS. We have a National Environment Service where competition, profits and margins are not helpful concepts and risk distorting or hyping the true value of nature and the need for its effective management for short term gain. So whilst the Defra White Paper is welcome in providing targeted opportunities for nature we need to be mindful of the risk of privatisation and indeed recognise that many of the new schemes in the White Paper are merely recycling much of the monies previously available within what were successful Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) - now cut . This recycling of old wine in new bottles for 'cheap' coalition gains is counterproductive and threatens many of the good partnership working schemes and relationships previously set up.

Lesson 2: Nature is too important to be privatised. In effect we have a National Environment Service and given that habitats and species are still declining and deteriorating, co-ordinated action is needed to address this at the appropriate scale.

In stressing this need for action, the NEA report used various scenarios (green; business; top down; bottom up and status quo storylines) to illustrate potential future impacts. Yet there is still inherent fear amongst policy makers that following a green agenda is inimical to economic growth. The NEA shows that our natural environment has real benefits to society and has ascribed values for comparative purposes. However, maintaining and improving those values depends on long term actions and resources which improve the quality of the resource. The spatiality of ecosystem services means that there are currently winners and losers and there is an urgent need to improve the quality of the environmental resource to all. Here, landscape and health agendas (cultural services) can be subject to 'postcode lotteries'. Moreover, historically designation was expert-led and focussed attention and human and financial resources on the 'best' or most 'valuable' landscapes, habitats and species with implicit assumptions about those areas or features not worthy of designation. Today we have more egalitarian agendas based on new approaches involving connectivity, inclusion, green infrastructure and active public engagement. Whilst practice still has to fully embrace such considerations there are emerging examples of good practice; however my own research tends to find that these are in spite of policy initiatives rather than because of them.

Lesson 3: Nature in its (often unacknowledged) role of our fundamental source of life, health and well-being needs continued long term support set within notions of environmental and social justice. Budget cuts threaten this in the short term.

There remains one principal challenge of the NEA which hasn't really featured in press reaction thus far relating to the tension and separation between the environment and the planning system. NEA falls under the mantle of Defra. However, this framework needs to involve all the key government departments, particularly DECC, BIZ, and CLG to be successful. The planning system is perhaps key here given its central role in shaping places and managing the environment. Today, planning is under the helm of 'Captain Pickles' and is sailing its own course of reforms in somewhat stormy waters.

On the face of it, this course seems ill-prepared to engage with the NEA. First the National Planning Framework needs to incorporate the ecosystems approach to shape planning policy and guide decision making requiring ecosystem services to be specified, analysed and used in planning decisions (as material considerations).

Yet there is clear evidence that the framework will be nothing more than a synthesis of existing statements, set within ideas of maximising sustainable economic development. Second, nature and ecosystems do not recognise boundaries. Yet the abandoning of a regional tier hinders such strategic planning and, with a focus on localism, will ensure that local authorities and their elected councillors look inwards to their populations rather than outwards to their wider environment. Third, Local Enterprise Partnerships, the principal tool for economic development, scarcely have any environmental remit or representation which again presents a piecemeal and potentially contradictory approach to development. Fourth, at the local level we will have neighbourhood plans which, by definition, will not be considering wider environmental linkages. There is an urgent need to plan at a landscape/ ecosystem scale through collaboration with interested stakeholders. The models provided by the Water Framework and the Habitats Directives through river basin management groups and special areas of conservation committees respectively are useful here but need to command a stronger government steer beyond a simple duty to co-operate. We need to respond to the NEA within a new model of environmental governance that plans at the ecosystem scale and that does mean refocusing on strategic planning. The worrying fact is that the planning system is going in exactly the opposite direction to this.

Lesson 4: The environment needs to be elevated up the policy agenda within improved governance championed by the Coalition government. The NEA and emerging national Planning Framework provide the primary vehicles to achieve this. Policy also needs to be co-ordinated across the government departments in order to prevent contradictions.

In summary good planning is key the delivery of a good quality natural environment. We have a Natural Environment Service which needs protecting and investing in. The NEA has identified real challenges for all of us interested in championing nature and preventing its free riding. The dilemma is that policy is creating a situation where such knowledge will be lost amidst a plethora of different strategies and plans all being pursued in splendid isolation whereby this country and nature will be in a right pickle.

1 Defra 2011 The national ecosystem approach http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/
2 Defra 2011 Environment White paper http://www.archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/natural/documents/newp-white-paper-110607.pdf

A leading academic from Birmingham City University has expressed his concern over the Government’s plans to sell off the Forestry Commission Woodlands.

Dr Alister Scott, a reader in Spatial Planning at the School of Property, Construction and Planning at Birmingham City University, said: “At a time when we should be thinking of maximising sustainable economic development opportunities the government plans are seen as short term and as a retrograde step.

“Woodlands are an incredible resource within England. They are key to biodiversity, recreation and development and are valued and used across urban and rural populations. This use is as a direct result of Forestry Commission diversifying their internal structures to address the woodland production, conservation, community, recreation and health agendas with huge success. The current proposals threaten that joined up approach to management of the forestry resource in the name of short term cuts.”

Dr Alister Scott sees the need for the Government to think strategically and join agendas across Defra, the Department for Business, Skills and Innovation (BIS) and the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) rather than each pursuing their own agendas. 

“Clearly savings must be made where necessary but in his view the national forest estate represents one model area where good integrated planning is already happening.
As a spatial planner I see resources needing to be planned and managed across traditional sectoral boundaries. Woodlands through their expanding initiatives with support staff have facilitated community forestry in deprived urban areas; raised huge revenues from mountain biking and other recreational activities but also secured important biodiversity outcomes. Here we see a virtuous circle which exemplifies what good spatial planning is all about. A sell off will segregate bits of woodland and lead to specialisation which was the very reason that the forestry plantations got into trouble in the late 90’s as the price of timber plummeted.”

“The case of mountain biking is really illuminating here in seeing this virtuous circle. The development of mountain biking trails in Southern Scotland in woodlands close to some extreme pockets  of rural and urban deprivation has generated 205 full time equivalent (FTE) jobs in southern Scotland with visitor spend  over £9 million in 2007₍₁₎ . Further IMBA the Global Body on mountain biking has consistently placed Scotland at the top of its ratings. Such publicity is key to unlocking economic development. Without the input of the Forestry Commission (through their recreational services) in partnership with other agencies these kinds of win-win situations would never have arisen.

“However, I am not simply advocating the status quo. Under the Land reform act in Scotland communities with wholesale support can purchase woodlands from the government to manage as community resources. Surely this represents a Big Society ethos which puts the woodlands in the hands of those communities who have the vision and plans to support their long term sustainable use.  I fear we have a lot to learn from our Scottish friends but we rarely look over the border to see and learn from their innovative approaches.”