Yesterday the BES Policy Team attended a very interesting symposium at the Royal Geographical Society, London, organised by the University of Nottingham. Over two years, an interdisciplinary programme of seminars has been funded by NERC and ESRC, aiming to encourage new understanding of the links between ecosystem services and human well-being. Yesterday’s conference brought together the various sub-themes which have been running as part of this ‘FRESH’ series (Framing Ecosystem Services and Human Well-Being) and saw a large number of participants from policy, social science, economics, consultancy and natural science come together to discuss the series’ findings.

There was much discussion about whether an ‘ecosystem approach’ offers a paradigm shift in conservation. The audience didn’t reach consensus on this, with some suggesting that yes, this is a shift in conservation science and policy from a piecemeal view – individual species and habitats – to a holistic approach. Others felt that integrated natural resource management had been pursued for some time and that lessons could be learned from this to inform an ecosystem approach. There was a feeling that the ‘ecosystem approach’ and its related terminology must not complicate approaches already being taken to conserve the environment, particularly in developing countries. It must map onto what it already happening and provide a framework for existing efforts – not impose an additional burden.

The audience agreed that there was value in the ecosystem services concept: it allows effective transdisciplinary communication, is linked to end-users and can foster improved public/ political understanding. In the words of one presenter, the ecosystem approach ‘links intangible science to tangible benefits from ecosystems’.

For all that, there is still a gap between theory and policy – with policy running someway ahead of the science behind an ecosystem approach – and between science, policy and action. A question was asked from the audience in the afternoon’s discussion, ‘what’s the case record on ecosystem services research informing decision making?’, to which Defra replied that policy is still in a learning phase, collecting case studies to assess how an ecosystem approach might work effectively. Steve Bass, Senior Fellow at the IIED and a member of the afternoon’s panel, suggested that a far simpler framework was needed to translate the ecosystem appproach into real benefits for the world’s poor. Characterising ecosystem services as ‘poverty-environment links’ might help to reduce confusion around the concept and stimulate funding for implementation.

The day closed with a presentation from Paul Ekins, an ecological economist at University College London. He offered a warning to those pushing firmly for the valuation of ecoystem services, so-called ‘commodity fetishism’. If the environment is regarded as only having an economic value, it will be traded off. This is why economic values were invented, to allow trade. Resolving the current environmental crisis will require a recognition that environmental sustainability has both a high economic and a high moral value.

For more information about FRESH visit the website.

Professor Sir David King, former Government Chief Scientific Advisor, has condemned the Royal Society’s new report on ‘Geoengineering the Climate’. On this morning’s Radio 4 ‘Today Programme’, Tom Fielden, Science Correspondent, stated that Prof. Sir David King had expressed disappointment with the Society in giving credence to ideas which he sees as a distraction. Reflecting views also expressed by Dr Doug Parr, Chief Scientist and Policy Director at Greenpeace, at yesterday’s launch of the report, Prof. Sir David King reportedly views the report as ammunition for those promoting a ‘business as usual’ approach to tackling climate change, allowing emissions reductions to be sidelined as geoengineering is approached as a panacea.

All those at yesterday’s launch clearly made the point that geoengineering could not be seen as a ‘magic bullet’ and that any research into geoengineering should be secondary to attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

This morning the BES Policy Team attended the launch of the Royal Society’s new report, “Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty”. The report is the first to provide a wide-ranging assessment of potential future geoengineering options (the large scale manipulation of the earth’s climate) and is the result of over a year’s activity by the working group set up to develop the document, chaired by John Shepherd FRS.

Speaking at the launch, Professor John Beddington FRS, the Chief Scientific Advisor, UK Government, congratulated the Society on producing an authoritative and sensible contribution to a controversial area. Other speakers referred to geoengineering as an area in which there is ‘a lot of heat but not much light’, and welcomed the Society’s report as a means to dispel some of the misinformation quoted regarding geoengineering.

Geoengineering is not a ‘magic bullet’ or an alternative to emissions reductions but may help to support efforts to mitigate climate change: this was the high level conclusion of the report as outlined by John Shepherd. All speakers were clear that geoengineering is not ‘Plan B’ to the ‘Plan A’ of emissions reductions facilitated by this December’s climate change negotiations in Copenhagen but must be seen as part of a ‘toolkit’ of options to tackle dangerous climate change.

The report calls for more research to be conducted not only into the technology needed for geoengineering to proceed but into the social, ethical and legal consequences of developing geoengineering schemes. Catherine Redgwell, a member of the working group and a professor of international law at the University of London, touched upon this at the launch, stating that at present no single institution or treatise exists under which deployment of geoengineering technologies could be regulated.

The report concludes that in most respects, carbon removal systems are preferable to solar radiation management systems in that carbon removal systems directly tackle the cause of climate change, including tackling consequences such as ocean acidification. Direct removal of carbon dioxide from the air, through ‘air capture’ is outlined as a highly effective, but also highly expensive, carbon removal option, whilst stratospheric aerosols may be a highly effective and affordable method of solar management. The report concludes however that there are great risks and legal implications associated with the use of this technology.The working group advocates research into both classes of method.

Summing up discussion, which also saw contributions from Professor James Lovelock FRS, Professor Ken Caldeira and Dr Doug Parr, Chief Scientist and Policy Director at Greenpeace, Professor Beddington stated that the Government would examine the report and consider geoengineering as part of the overall solution to climate change. Professor Beddington did not see a major shift in funding towards geoengineering research as practical but said that the Research Councils and others in the ‘government advisory community’ would consider how to take forward the recommendations of the report in concert with international partners.

Read the Royal Society’s report: Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty