Why have a plan?
What should go into the plan?
Assets or outputs?
Credibility and legislation
A possible alternative
• Why have a plan?
• What should go into a plan: outputs or assets?
• Ecosystem services or natural capital?
• The milestones
• Credibility and legislation
• The institutional framework
WHY HAVE A PLAN?
• The overarching objectives
“to be the first generation to leave the natural environment in a better state
than it inherited”
• Need strategy and investments to get there: current path is not
• Capital maintenance and enhancements and their funding and
financing required on a long term basis
• No other feasible way of stopping the rot
WHAT SHOULD GO INTO THE PLAN
• Aims, objectives, goals, outputs?
• A coherent integrated plan or a shopping list of politically attractive
• A set of principles
• Measurable outcomes
• Landscape-wide frameworks
ASSETS OR OUTPUTS
• Natural capital and bequeathing a better set of assets to the next
• Renewable outputs going up
• Assets and capabilities and positive freedom
• Thresholds to operationalise the plan
• Setting intermediate targets
• 5-year intervals – set ahead on rolling basis
• Period 1: establish the 3 principles: public goods, pollution charges
and net gain
• Hold to account through continuous assessments
CREDIBILITY AND LEGISLATION
• Lobbying and vested interests will attack key principles continuously
• Examples: farmers, polluting industries, householders - anyone who
loses existing subsidies and has to pay for their pollution
• Investment horizons for long terms assets-in-perpetuity
• Legal sanctions
• The narrow watchdog/enforcers
• The reporting function
• The practical developer of the plan
• The integration of multiple parties
A POSSIBLE FRAMEWORK
• The plan matters – it’s a radical break
• It needs clear goals, principles and supporting metrics
• It needs a statutory underpinning
• Milestones are essential
• A new institutional architecture required – existing bodies not fit for
these new functions.