Public sector pay matters. But what if Nature went on strike?

Only, surely, in the surreal world of government accountancy would it ever be the case that nature has to lose out because public sector workers need to be paid a decent wage.

But such appeared to be the case when it was revealed last weekend that Scotland’s Nature Restoration Fund, created for projects that restore wildlife and habitats on land and sea and address the twin crises of biodiversity loss and climate change, was being plundered to that purpose. 

Scottish ministers, it was reported, had written to councils telling them to divert the current year’s allocations from the Nature Restoration Fund to settle pay deals. With the threat of refuse and recycling workers going on strike, this money could be used to cover the 3.6% increase for all grades, and more significant rise for the lowest paid. 

This pitching of nature against pay and refuse collection seemed both absurd, but also symbolic of how we value nature – and how when it comes to funding and protection, the natural world upon which we depend, and are part of, loses out, or is deemed a luxury. 

Commenting in a post on X, the co-leader of the Scottish Greens, Patrick Harvie, said: “The Nature Restoration Fund was one of the most important achievements of the Greens in government. Scotland is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. The idea that we can't invest in nature and pay public sector workers fairly is false.” 

Scotland's seabirds are in decline (Image: NTS)

This government decision prompts the question, do we, or do we not want to save nature? And will the Scottish Government, now the Scottish Greens are out of power, water down its support and protections?

On one level, it’s not surprising that the fund for nature is being sacked in other difficult times. Nature can’t strike, write letters, or go on protest marches.  

If workers often struggle to be listened to, then nature has even less of a voice.

That said, there are those who speak out in its support. For instance, there is the WWF’s Lang Banks who last week said: "Pulling money from this area is just storing up problems for the future." 

Or there is Alastair Seaman, director of the Woodland Trust, for instance, yesterday wrote a letter to the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy, Gillian Martin, saying, “Given the very small proportion of the Scottish Government's overall budget that is dedicated to nature restoration, to hear that £5 million of 2024-25 allocation is being diverted away from Nature Restoration for more general use is a serious disappointment for all who care about Scotland's nature recovery.” 

Or Ruth Ashton-Shaw, a steering group member at the  Nature Friendly Farming Network and farmer, who said: "It's crucial that funding for nature restoration isn't redirected. This money should be ring-fenced to safeguard Scotland's environment and support our economy.  

"Our natural landscapes are already under significant pressure. Diverting these funds now will only worsen the situation, leading to long-term consequences that could harm both our environment and agricultural livelihoods.  I urge the government to reverse this decision and prioritise the long-term health of our natural resources. Failing to do so puts both our environment and our rural communities at risk." 

Or Howard Wood, co-founder of Community of Arran Seabed Trust (COAST), who points out, on X, “A study of EU study-nature restoration provides a return of between £8 and £38 for every £1 spent, owing to the broader benefits delivered, ecosystem services, support food security, human health and well-being, climate mitigation and adaptation.” 

We're well aware of the services the public sector brings to us, but perhaps less so of these 'ecosystem services' that nature provides.  

The Scottish Government’s defence seems to be that this is a temporary sacking of nature’s coffers. A spokesperson said: “While capital funding of £5 million from this year’s nature restoration fund has been redirected to fund the pay offer, it will be replaced in future years.”  So perhaps it’s just some kind of accountancy trick – an act of magic that will mean nothing overall is lost. But the overall message seems to be that nature can wait.

READ MORE:

What does sale of Far Ralia tell us about 'natural capital'?

What's going wrong with Scotland's forests?

Overtourism on the North Coast 500: 'Not just the Balearics'

This defunding also happens to come at a time when leading environmental groups, under the Scotland Loves Nature banner, are calling for the Scottish Government to commit to legal targets to restore the natural environment, and in the run up to decisions on the detail of the new agricultural funding system, as well as in the midst of a fisheries management consultation.

Two key questions are, does the government care? And does the public care? An answer to the first is there in a poll, commissioned by Scottish Environment LINK, and published just this week, which found that 7 in 10 people living in rural Scotland believe the Scottish Government should do more to make farming and fishing environmentally sustainable.  

How we fund nature restoration when there are so many other very immediate priorities, has long been a big question. The attempt to answer it is behind the rapid expansion of the natural capital market, and its associated carbon credits, and the controversial £2 billion private finance pilot launched in March 2023 by the Scottish Government.

Sign up for the Winds of Change newsletter and get a weekly update on all things climate and energy.

The story backing this is that we don’t have the public funding to restore peatland and woodland and hit net zero and biodiversity targets, so we must turn to private investment.

Some dispute this answer and point out that the monetising of nature is attached to other consequences: from rising land values to greenwashing schemes.  

And in the middle of all this is what we call “nature” or wildlife itself,  which, in Scotland, according to last year’s State of Nature report, “continues to decline”, with one in nine species threatened with national extinction.  

Do we care? Polls suggest that a great many of us do - and are increasingly aware of biodiversity and environmental issues. Another, again by Scottish Environment LINK, indicates that eight out of ten have noticed harm to the environment in their local area.

Of course, we also care about workers getting paid fairly and refuse not piling up in the street.  But this latest news is a reminder that a sense of urgency is not yet present with regard to biodiversity.  Perhaps it won't emergeuntil nature, and those 'ecosystem services', start to go on strike.