But accepting that the world is like that doesn’t mean that we have to accept that it has to be like that, or that it always will be like that. Indeed, my feeling is that the environment is now lower down the pecking order than it was, and so it hasn’t even always been as bad as it is. So it could be better in future. How?
We need people to care as much about the environment of their planet as the pound in their pocket and to translate that into voting intentions. And I’m not assuming that everyone who could be mobilised to think about the environment in the polling station would necessarily vote in the same way that I do – but I would like the environment to be more important in those decisions because that would sharpen up the acts of all political parties and all future governments. And it is abundantly clear that the environmental stances of the parties differ enormously.
So how could we reach lots of people? There are lots of ways, but the obvious starting point is through environmental organisations which have large numbers of supporters – our environmental NGOs who always claim to have around 8 million members.
Where were the environmental NGOs in this general election? Pretty much absent I would say – what would you say? If I haven’t noticed them much then I would contend that those with little interest in the subject won’t have noticed them at all.
Why have the environmental NGOs been rather quiet? It can’t be because they all think everything is great, because once in a blue moon they all get together to produce a report saying how dire everything is.
Well, it was a snap general election so it caught everyone by surprise and so that is a mitigating factor, but it goes a lot deeper than that.
As a whole (and they are all different, but I want to make the general point rather than stab a finger in any particular direction here) the environmental NGOs are very quiet most of the time. They seem to be a little locked out of mainstream media and that may not be their fault (although I would wager fortunes that Tony Juniper, Jonathan Porrit and others could still get a much stronger media showing). Environmental NGOs aren’t making the case for there being a problem and nor are they offering solutions in a newsworthy or challenging or interesting way. So why would the media come to them at election time?
Are the environmental NGOs just a bunch of wimps? Not really, and no-one could accuse Greenpeace of that, and only sometimes FoE these days, but they aren’t very brave. I’ve seen environmental NGOs do some things that they thought were rather daring in recent years which would be regarded as dully mild and mildly dull in other countries and at other times. Timidity is now the norm – I wouldn’t mind if this strategy (if it is a strategy) were working, but it clearly isn’t.
However, there is a new reason for timidity, and that is the Lobbying Act. Now, the Lobbying Act 2014 and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 restrict the ability of third parties to say things that might influence the results of votes. They particularly restrict how much money they can spend through the fear that elections could be bought. I’m not an expert on this legislation (and very far from it) and if there is anyone out there who’d like to write a guest blog on the subject then that would be very welcome.
However, at the Greener UK hustings I attended, both Baroness (Kate) Parminter and Barry Gardiner MP politely criticised NGOS for not speaking out more (I think mostly on the EU referendum) but also had a go at the Lobbying Act for creating a landscape of fear amongst civil society bodies so that too often remain silent.
This was followed last week by a letter being sent to all political parties by more than 50 charities who warned that charities were ‘weighed down by an unreasonable and unfair law which restricts our ability to contribute fully to a democratic society’ (see Guardian, HuffPost, thirdsector, thirdsector, civilsocietynews).
The 50+ signatiories included a large range of large and small charities and NGOs, and from a wide range of interests. Friends of the Earth helped coordinate signatures and Greenpeace was a signatory but some NGOs were so nervous about the Lobbying Act that they did not publicise the fact that they were involved and others from ‘our’ sector did not sign up.
[registration_form]
The RSPB (the NGO I know best) is certainly not a wimp and has challenged the government in the courts. It is, however, a membership organisation. At the time of the EU referendum I thought it went as far as it could without prompting mass resignations.
The EU is still the most important issue facing this country. Since the referendum was won with a big lie (Save the NHS) and lots of half-truths, it amazes me that Corbyn & Co supported triggering article 50. He campaigned half-heartedly for Remain and now appears happy to leave. You can’t expect NGOs to do what politicians need to do for us. And as for much of the media, your post about Farming Today says it all.
It’s very easy, very tempting and very seductive when you’re on the inside, to delude yourself that your organisation has a high profile and is making a positive impact upon the public, politicians and the press. Once you step outside the bubble, you realise how invisible most of those well intended but somewhat frenzied efforts are.
If NGOs are going to shake politicians, the public and the press out of their current complacency, they are going to need to do something different and disruptive. From what you say, the Lobbying Act makes that more difficult than ever. Hopefully, a future – not too far off? – shift in political power will lead to a more enlightened view of the third sector.
I am sick to death of the environment and our wildlife always being placed on the back burner in favour of the economy. Out of all of my friends and colleagues who voted in the EU referendem I am the only one who voted with wildlife in mind rather than ‘protecting my pension’, or ‘keeping migrants out’. Greed and selfishness seems to rule the day for too many.
Nar then.
These NGOs such as the RSPB, don’t need to grab birders by the scruff of their neck and march them up to a political poster and then shout in their ear ‘you need to vote for this political party’!!!
But what they MUST be doing is repeatedly broadcasting through social media etc that not all the political parties are the same and people that are interested in birds and other forms of wildlife should read the environment section of manifestos.
If NGOs make their presence made then the political parties will eventually sit up and take notice – especially when there are millions of our votes up for grabs.
But as things stand – the NGOs choose to sit on their hands and consequently the millions of potential wildlife enthusiasts are at best ignored – and at worst given a Gove.
Chris – agreed. The NGos just need to say what they believe in and what needs to be done. Some of the rest of us can then pick up the threads.
Totally agree Jane, there always seems to be a zillion other policies to talk about first. And that cannot be coincidental. In all the many days of questioning I only recall one or two (presumably token) questions to Caroline Lucas. For the record, I voted Green, a party who made most sense to me. Until PR becomes law it seems they won’t get a look in. Several Tory MPs are currently being investigated over illegal spending in the 2015 election so yes, currently you can buy victory – if you have the money
Here’s one of my responses in Mark’s most recent but one blog re Gove and the environment. My first comment in that blog had 12 dislikes — possibly due to one sloppy statement — anyway grist to the mill. This might be relevant here:
“The outrageous over-inflation of house prices which forces young people to leave their towns and villages, is a modern version of the Clearances. We need 2 million more houses now. Inevitably some will end up near prime habitats. So that’s bad is it if it benefits nurses, teachers and factory workers – you know those sorts of people who serve the rest of the privileged members of society? Incidentally those workers will have far less distance to travel to work. Ultimately that will benefit wildlife.
In this small town we have issues finding accommodation for nurses at the cottage hospital. Recently it had to be closed because of lack of recruitment. Some nurses were commuting 50 miles. That pattern is being repeated countrywide.
Mark wonders, in one of his next blogs, as to how wildlife NGO’s can create a higher public profile. One answer, is to actively engage in the housing crisis debate and be prepared to make concessions re parts of the countryside. Most people haven’t the time to care that much about conservationists. Some just dismiss us as nimbys and lone misanthropes. It’s about time we upped our game.”
There is no government since (random cut-off point) the War, that has been good for the environment.
For most individuals, their own immediate concerns and some degree of thought about the future will determine their decisions and actions. Unlike sex (other topics are available) most of us don’t think about how we might benefit or reduce impacts on the environment every n seconds/minutes/hours/days/Christmasses (Lie back and think of Natural England (Sorry, other countries/environmental agencies are available)). And there are so many inequalities to be addressed and/or fears to be played upon that it would be deidedly strange for any political party or the few politicians who clearly do think about natural environmental matters on a more than a festive frequency to be banging on about heathland, dormice or marine nature reserves (Other biodiversity is available).
Without a way to mainstream the natural environment it will continue to be the political party wallflower, the hope left trapped in Pandora’s box, ‘hidden in the basement behind a sign saying “Beware of the Leopard”, and pretty much the last thing on anyone’s mind, however green any government may claim to be.
Properly implemented, a natural capital/ecosystems services approach would be a way of getting the environment and the green and/or wriggly bits onto the balance sheets (about which so many seem to care) that would actually make for better environmental decision making, encourage postive outcomes and ensure that negative actions would be minimised and (at the very least) compensated for so that the stock of environmental goods: hedgehogs, ecologically sound waterways, air that doesn’t make you sick, the numbers pigmy hippopotami per capita (other random examples are available) will go up rather than continuing to spiral down.
Alongside this, which would have the benefit of demonstrating to a new Secrerary of State that areas of the countryside which generate a net public good are productive whether or not they’re down to rape, and which should give encouragement to an effective environmental stewardship scheme and precision agriculture, there is a need for:
Us all to be shouting out loud/arguing quietly and persuasively for net environmental benefit;
Wildlife/environmental NGOs to work more effectively together and make better use of science {note that the main NGOs delivering landscape scale conservation schemes are now seeing to work together}.
Active and meaninful cross-party political support, NGO backing and long-term commitment to any UK natural environmental strategy – which will depend on a raft of local plans and strategies that a natural capital approach with biodiversity offsetting (within appropriate constraints) should fund.
The point is that investment in natural capital increases its value and the scope of what can be done with it which then boosts the opporunities for the traditional economy.
Scanty generalisms in the time/attention span available I know but what we have in place at present isn’t working for people, the populace or political parties and it certainly isn’t working for the natural environment.
So, roll on a positive national strategy that is worth getting behind, local natural environmental capital plans and the means of and reasons for getting more of us to think more frequently and more deeply about the issues and the benefits of contributing in a constructive way.
Mr Gove has the opportunity to publish the draft 25 Year Environment Plan as the starting point for this. We (other collective nouns are available but this is the right one) have the opportunity to learn from rather than repeat past errors.
I should think the most important thing in people’s lives are their children, if they have any. Ways of expressing this and turning it into reasons why the natural world and environment should be more important politically need to be found, to build a future for the future.