£30bn for the UK's natural spaces

Assume somebody wanted to buy all of the UK's natural space and cover it in tarmac and concrete, what would they need to pay? In their UK National Ecosystem Assessment (UK NEA), DEFRA today revealed what they have calculated to be the value of the UK's ecosystem's. Far from being a financial burden the UK NEA proves that the annual benefit to the economy of our green and blue spaces is somewhere around the £30bn mark. So, does this mean that if I wanted to buy all of this natural space I would need to compensate the Government to the tune of £30bn? Well, no, not quite. If looked at in purely financial and economic terms, I would need to ensure that I contribute at least £30bn a year to the economy as a result of changing the use of this land and water. If I couldn't guarantee that, I would assumedly need to pay 100 x £30bn plus interest at the rate of inflation to cover 100 years worth of loss, or maybe it should be 200 years, or 300? I'd also need to buy the land and a competitive market rate, that is likely to be loads more than £30bn. However, by throwing up a load of luxury apartments on say Hyde Park and Regent's Park, I could probably charge rents totaling more than enough in London alone. Or how about I buy Hyde Park, keep it as it is, but charge an entry fee to the public? Luckily I don't think DEFRA are looking at it this way, I'm confident that they recognise that some things truly are priceless. Then again, we have to pay an entry fee to get onto some National Trust land.

Forests, its not about public access or sustainability....

Today at about 4pm MPs will debate the coalitions plans for our Forests. Earlier today David Cameron said that the plan (selling the remaining 18% of our woodlands that are still publicly owned) is better for public access and woodland management. It may well be, but that is not the reason they want to do it.

By campaigning on public access and sustaining woodlands, we are doing Caroline Spelman, David Cameron and all their cronies a massive favour, this is exactly what they want us to do. Why? Because it will give them room to make 'compromises' in the shape of grants to the new landowners that 'help' them to maintain the woodlands and improve public access. As Private Eye recently reported, the government will give back nearly all the money they make from sales in grants to the new landowners. The landowners will therefore make a very tidy profit, by essentially not having to pay anything to maintain and enhance their asset. This represents yet another gradual transfer of wealth from the tax payer to the rich elite.

A dangerous and hidden knock on effect of this policy is that to make up for these expenditures (either from the grants, or, if campaigners are successful in changing the policy over the selling of the forests) is that there will be even more job losses at Natural England and the Forestry Commission. The jobs of wardens, ecologists, scientists and so on are already under threat, losing the key employees will be devastating for the long term sustainability of all our wild places.

The £400m saving deriving from these cuts is a laughable drop in the ocean, its impact on the deficit is minuscule, yet the impact on our natural environment, inequality and environmental education will be very tangible and devastating.

Do visit 38 Degrees and ask your MP to vote for a re-think on DEFRA's plans. But, make sure they know what the true motivation for the plans are and that in the debate they highlight this.

Oh yeah, and it is also a sweet tax relief move for corporations and wealthy individuals!!

Please also see my post on Pam Warhurst, chair of the Forestry Commission

Greenest Government Ever...

It was reported today in the Telegraph that DEFRA are being forced to sell off thousands of acres of woodland in the UK to cuts their costs.

These are sad times.

If you're better at graphic design for me, please make a better version of this!!