The People’s Plan For Nature has finally landed - seeking a “Union” of forces, to ensure nature is at the heart of all policy
We reported on the instigation of the People’s Plan For Nature in October 2022, shaped by Jon Alexander’s New Democracy Project, and supported by RSPB, WWF and the National Trust.
From People’s Plan For Nature - executive summary
We’re happy to let you know that the Plan is finally concluded - the outcome of nearly 30K responses from across these islands, and a citizens’ assembly, formed of 100 randomly selected citizens. Cued up with the launch of David Attenborough’s new BBC series on the nature of these islands, it’s a significant event - they tell the story of it here.
The British Ecological Society summarise its proposals this way - and below are the panels in the report that match this summary:
The end result is a plan that calls for a fundamental change on how we value nature in the UK, including mandating the inclusion of nature in decision-making at all levels. The Plan calls for no more harm to nature, and for UK-wide and regional targets to be set to renew nature and increase biodiversity. It also calls for the creation of a permanent Assembly on nature.
The call for a “Union” of organisations to push for “nature mandates” in all policy is close to our often-articulated idea of a CAN of CANs - a federated network of citizens’ action networks. But we wonder a little at the orientation to government and state, and the appeal to their regulatory virtue - which may not be that reliable… Can these structures, could this Union, build its own strengths, infrastructures and flows of resources?
There’s also the question of whether citizens’ assemblies are really as effective as they could be in cementing behaviour change, even among their participants. We found this anecdote from one of the citizens assembly members telling - on the disjunct between coming to a radical conclusion about meat and dairy eating, but being unable to follow it through in practice:
From the beginning, food was a big debating point. True to the assembly’s aim of representing all shades of opinion, members included vegans, vegetarians, flexitarians and frequent meat-eaters. At the first weekend, most people ignored the vegetarian food options, choosing chicken or beef. Many people in my discussion groups saw no issue in meat-eating and were wary of making any recommendation about diet because they thought that would be unfairly restrictive.
The majority started the process not knowing how much agricultural land is used for meat production in the UK, or the ecological impact of many of the farming systems involved. It was noticeable how people’s views changed, especially during the weekend that concentrated on food, farming and fishing. It wasn’t only farmers that came in for criticism – there was a high level of dissatisfaction with supermarkets for their pricing policies towards both growers and customers.
By the final weekend, assembly members agreed that UK meat, dairy and fish consumption needed to be reduced by at least a quarter by 2030. This was an astonishing change of view from where we started and perhaps the most radical recommendation in the whole plan.
And yet when we had dinner in the hotel, most of the people sitting near me chose meat dishes once again, even though they were made from animals reared in the conventional farming systems they had expressed such disquiet about.
I found it illuminating to see how, far away from Westminster, a group of people with differing standpoints could reach consensus on divisive issues. In fact, they can do it quite easily when their prejudices are not being goaded by politicians.
But I was left wondering why it is that, as the diet issue showed, even people who care about nature, who have dedicated themselves to hours of learning and discussion, still don’t quite close the gap between what they say and how they act.
Is this hypocrisy, or are we just too enmeshed in our current lifestyles to be able to change? What will it take to shift our individual and collective behaviours sufficiently? The assembly’s calls for action give me hope, but only if we follow through with them. Can we do that?
More here. Jumping this gap to action, and the kind of social/emotional/cultural/collective forms that can help us do that, is what we’re exploring with the CANs approach. If you’d like to be involved, please become a co-creator with us.
But of course, also get involved with the People’s Plan For Nature - full of excellent proposals and thinking! Here’s their participation link.