Stakeholder Position: Woodland Trust

 

Conflict resolution

 

One of the outstanding issues in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill that still requires consideration is the introduction of a new clause dealing with resolution of conflicting priorities.

 

The Woodland Trust and other environmental organisations firmly believe that there is a need for an amendment to be made which clearly states that in the event of an irreconcilable conflict in the delivery of Natural England’s objectives, greater weight should be given to those relating to the conservation of the natural environment.

 

This would ensure that the environment is adequately protected by an organisation whose purpose should be primarily about environmental protection.

 

Other organisations such as RDAs have economic and social issues as their priorities and when a conflict of the sustainable development aims occurs the environment loses out.

 

It would make sense for Natural England to have the opposite approach. Clause 2 sub-section 1 should also contain the word “protect” to ensure that protection of the environment appears from the outset in Natural England’s general purpose as well as in the breakdown in 2(2).

 

Sustainable development

 

We believe that the final phrase in 2 (1) of ‘thereby contributing to sustainable development’ should be taken to mean ‘and in so doing contributing to sustainable development’ rather than ‘in order to contribute to sustainable development’. Protection and conservation of the natural environment is a prerequisite of sustainable development;

 

Natural England should seek to generate social and economic benefits, but as an environmental champion it will be fulfilling its role in contributing to sustainable development if it safeguards and enhances the environment without economic and social benefits being immediately obvious.

 

Natural England should not be diverted from its primary purpose of focussing on the protection and enhancement of the natural environment.

 

Delivering effective biodiversity protection

 

We strongly welcome the inclusion in the Bill of proposals to extend to all public bodies the duty contained within Section 74 of the CROW act ‘to have regard to’ biodiversity (Clause 40).

 

We believe, however, that the threats faced by our natural heritage, particularly those posed by climate change, are so great that there is a strong case for strengthening the wording to a duty ‘to further’ biodiversity conservation.

 

This would be in accordance with the UN convention on Biological Diversity and bring it into line with the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004.