Deciduous woodland in early spring A dozen new large-scale conservation areas, protection for ancient woods and nature ambassadors are needed to protect England's environment, the government said on Tuesday in the first natural environment white paper in nearly 20 years.
But the government's vision for the natural environment over the next 50 years provides only £7.5m extra over the next three years for the 12 large "nature improvement areas" and could lead to conflict with planning authorities with its clear aim to encourage business to take more advantage of England's "natural assets".
The document states that England's environment will be "better protected, restored and improved" after years of continual biodiversity loss and degradation. This, it proposes, will be reversed by giving local communities and volunteers a greater connection to nature and allowing business to forge partnerships with farmers, local authorities and conservation groups.
The idea of a competition to develop "ecological restoration zones" was recommended last year by Prof John Lawton as part of an independent review. Lawton put the cost of rebuilding nature in England between £0.6bn and £1.1bn, hundreds of times the amount proposed today for the nature improvement areas (NIAs) which it is hoped will provide bigger, connected sites for wildlife to live in and adapt to climate change. These would be based on partnerships between local authorities, the private sector and conservation groups.
In addition, the government will set up a natural capital committee - an independent panel to advise ministers on natural environment issues and report to the government's economic affairs committee. The committee will produce a statement of green accounts showing where our economy has withdrawn from the value of nature's bank balance, and where we have invested in it, in a bid to help measure green growth alongside GDP.
The environment secretary, Caroline Spelman, said: "This will create a radical shift on how we view our natural assets by incorporating the natural environment into economic planning and ensuring there are opportunities for businesses that are good for nature and good for a strong green economy. In the past we have undervalued what our natural environment gives us."
The paper was broadly welcomed by Britain's powerful conservation groups which have a combined membership of more than 5 million people.
Martin Harper, RSPB conservation director, said: "The proposal for a series of nature improvement areas is based on a pioneering approach to conservation which brings together farmers, charities, communities and public bodies to make a real change across a whole landscape. It would see an end to the unconnected patchwork of environmental measures in our countryside which limits our potential to restore the natural environment.
"But the government will need to be brave enough to intervene with the right mix of regulation and incentives whenever progress on wildlife and habitats is stalling."
It was unclear how some of the new policies intended to protect nature would clash with relaxation of the planning system. Under the new measures, developers will be encouraged to compensate for habitat destroyed in one area by improving it elsewhere in a scheme known as "biodiversity offsetting" and communities will be allowed to set up their own protection areas.
"[It] sets out an exciting vision for the future of our natural environment: that we should be the first generation to leave the environment in better condition than we inherited it; and that we should turn a nature net loss into a nature net gain. But the jury is still out on how the changes to the planning system may hinder these laudable ambitions, said Fiona Reynolds, director general of the National Trust.
Opposition politicians and some rural groups were critical of the paper.
Mary Creagh, shadow secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs, said: . "It provides few clues about the government's plans for nature. It fails to set out a clear plan for major challenges such as reforestation or biodiversity loss, or deal with concerns about planning policy."
The countryside alliance, said the government had missed a chance. "It has missed an opportunity to support the 'big society' that already exists in the countryside. Rural communities undertake hundreds of millions of pounds worth of unpaid conservation work each year for the benefit of all and the government should make it a priority to support them in this role. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Rather than trying to create a new set of bodies to administer the natural environment, the government should be investing in the people who do so much to keep the countryside the special place it is."
A rearguard lobbying action by industry appeared to have successfully avoided plans to phase out the use of peat in gardening. Although government says in the white paper that it wants to end its use by 2030, the only restrictions will be on peat procured through new public contracts by 2015, with all other targets for professional and amateur gardeners being voluntary.