Green Party press release (5 Dec 2019)
Lucas launches New Deal for Nature
Caroline Lucas, Green parliamentary candidate for Brighton Pavillion, has today (5 December) launched a New Deal for Nature, an independent report commissioned to inform the Green Party’s policies on nature and stimulate debate on the future of UK wildlife.

The report, which has been written by a group of leading UK conservationists and nature writers, focuses on eight areas, including farming, schools and young people, urban wildlife, the marine environment and biosecurity. Among its 80 recommendations are suggestions for new national parks, with a goal of designating 20 per cent of Britain as a national park, and for all farmers to be paid to devote a minimum of 15 per cent of their land to nature.
With regard to schools and young people, the report suggests that all primary schools should deliver one hour a day outdoor learning and each primary school in the UK should be twinned with a farm.
Launching the report at The Linnean Society in central London, Lucas also outlined the Green Party’s commitments on nature, explaining that the party’s manifesto has more than 70 proposals dedicated to nature and wildlife.
[Report launch panel. Photo by Ruth Tingay]

The party’s pledges include a 10-year transition to agro-ecological farming, more outdoor learning and the introduction of a GCSE in Natural History to encourage better knowledge and understanding of nature.
The manifesto also includes proposals for a new Sustainable Economy Act, which will set legally-binding targets for biodiversity, soil health and water quality.
With the 2019 State of Nature report revealing that 41 per cent of species in the UK have declined since 1970, Lucas stressed the urgency of the situation: “We are not only running out of time on the climate emergency, there’s also little time left to reverse the catastrophic decline in nature and wildlife. This election has to mark a turning point and the moment when people vote for nature.”
“Other parties still ignore the fundamental economic and infrastructure changes we need to truly protect the natural world. We’re looking ahead to what’s being called the ‘2020 super year’ for nature and climate with crucial international summits taking place.
“Yet we’re also looking at a Johnson Brexit deal that is even worse for the environment and nature than the May hard-Brexit deal. Now more than ever, we need more Green MPs to stand up for wildlife and put the wellbeing of people and nature first across all policy making.”
Commenting on the report, Michael McCarthy, Former Environment Editor at The Independent and author of ‘The Moth Snowstorm – Nature and Joy’, said: “The terrible destruction of British wildlife over the last half century has only just begun to dawn on the public in the last five years, and it has still barely touched the political agenda.
“So it is hugely heartening to see the Greens commission a report which explicitly addresses this tragedy, and suggests the political measures necessary for the recovery of our lost birds, butterflies and wild flowers, as well as the other steps needed for our part of the natural world to regain its health. This issue affects us all, every citizen, indeed every voter. It may not decide the election, but thank God the Greens are pushing it up the agenda, which is where it needs to be.”
ENDS
You can download the report here: A New Deal for Nature
Overall, this is a strong set of proposals, many of them influenced by the Peoples Manifesto for Wildlife, coordinated by Chris Packham et al and published in 2018. This influence has been acknowledged by the report’s authors and Rob Sheldon has also blogged about it this morning.
And as Mark Avery noted yesterday, a lot of the proposed policies in this report will find favour with many in the conservation and environmental sector but probably not with the likes of the Moorland Association, BASC, GWCT or the Countryside Alliance. One of the report’s co-authors, Jake Fiennes, a former gamekeeper and now General Manager (Conservation) at Holkham Estate can expect to be at the receiving end of some nasty abuse for daring to put his name to some of these proposals.
Of particular interest to us was the section on Hunting and Shooting, as follows:


Interestingly, despite what could be described as some hard line policies (e.g. banning the release of non-native game birds), a proposal to ban driven grouse shooting is notably absent. There’s a bit of tinkering around the edges of grouse moor management, e.g. banning medicated grit and licensing of all game shoots, but no mention of heather burning and no explicit suggestion of an outright ban on driven grouse shooting.
A question was posed to the panel about this obvious omission and the response went along the lines of, ‘We have suggested a ban but we’ve just been a bit cleverer about doing it’. It was argued that the ban on medicated grit would effectively cause the artificially-high density of grouse to diminish and thus driven grouse shooting would become unviable.
Unfortunately this simplistic argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Even if medicated grit was banned, there’s still the practice of direct dosing where red grouse are captured at night to have oral anti-wormer drugs forced down their throats but even without direct dosing (assuming that too, was banned), some grouse moors are still able to maintain high densities of red grouse, as discussed by grouse shooting ‘guru’ Mark Osborne here. All that would happen if medication was banned would be a return to the cyclical ‘boom and bust’ years where periodically the grouse stocks would fall to the effect of the strongyle worm but would then recover for shooting to resume all over again.
There’s no question that medicated grit should be banned, not least because it’s been identified as an emerging environmental contaminant of acute and chronic toxicity in studies elsewhere, as well as being implicated in the rapid spread of disease (via grit trays on grouse moors), but to consider a ban to be an effective way of bringing down driven grouse shooting is just naive.
It seems strange that a report that’s so radical in some ways has gone out of its way to avoid explicitly calling for a ban on driven grouse shooting. That’s disappointing and a bit of a missed opportunity, to be honest.