Hilary Benn MP, Secretary of State for the Environment, has called for world leaders to identify a way to price the impact of their decisions on biodiversity. The Guardian reports that, in a speech outlining Labour manifesto thinking, Mr Benn praised the TEEB review (the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) currently being prepared by a team led by Pavan Sukhdev of Deutsche Bank, as making a vital contribution to our understanding of the natural world and how to conserve it; “the report presented by Sukhdev can do for our understanding of the natural world what Nick Stern did for the understanding of climate change”, said Mr Benn, alluding to the report by Lord Stern into the economics of climate change.

Mr Benn’s speech encouraged politicians to think about the most effective mechanism for taking account of the economic decisions we make in relation to their impact on biodiversity. He called for society to begin to live within environmental limits and stressed the need for a body equivalent to the Independent Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for biodiversity. The scientific and policy communities are already advanced in thinking about what such a body, the Independent Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) might look like.

In a speech today to Progress Mr Benn is expected to say that the world is going through its sixth major extinction event, but that this is going largely unnoticed. He will call for greater optimism in man’s ability to tackle the environmental challenges we face and to improve the environment.

Original article: Benn to call on world leaders to adopt biodiversity pricing, Patrick Wintour, 25 January 2010

Can GM technology cure the world’s growing pains? On Thursday, 21 January, the BES attended an evening meeting at the British Library at which members of the public, academics, industry representatives and food producers gathered together to discuss this question, considering the contribution which GM crops might make to securing the world’s food supplies. The ‘cafe scientifique’ style event, the latest in the ‘Talk Science’ series organised by the Library’s science, technology and medicine division, was led by Prof. Rosie Hails, CEH and Chair of the Natural Capital Initiative.

Prof. Hails’ main point, in an opening talk which focused on the relationship between agriculture and the environment, was that assessments of the costs and benefits of GM crops have focused too rigidly on biodiversity as an indicator of environmental impact, at the expense of considering other parameters. In assessing these crops, a more holistic viewpoint should be adopted, with consideration of a whole suite of ecosystem services.

Prof. Hails outlined the results of farmscale evaluations, set up in the UK to assess the impact of GM crops on biodiversity. The trials had shown that growing herbicide resistant GM crops did have an impact on biodiversity, as competing weeds were removed. However, if other ecosystem services are taken into consideration, on balance it might be worth adopting these crops and mitigating the impacts on biodiversity in some way – through the introduction of diverse field margins for example. Herbicide resistant crops might be more compatible with low tillage systems and the consequent benefits of these systems for soil structure, nutrient, water and carbon retention may mean that these crops have an overall environmental benefit compared to standard methods of growing crops. Greater data is needed on the environmental impact of GM crops, taking this more holistic view.

Prof. Hails made another important point, not often raised in debates around GM: that GM crops are introduced into variable economic and social conditions. For example, evidence supports the conclusion that those who grow Bt cotton in China (engineered to express a protein toxic to the cotton borer) spray less insecticide. However, it is also possible that because Bt cotton seed is more expensive than non-GM seed, some farmers may adopt a highly protective attitude to their crop and spray it regardless. Prof. Hails stated that ACRE (Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment) has developed a matrix which assesses a suite of costs and benefits, including social factors, in more detail.

During the course of the ‘Question Time’ style discussion which followed Prof. Hails’ presentation a number of points were put to an audience member representing Monsanto. It was clear that protectionism and monopoly of GM technology by a few large agrochemical companies was a point of contention and source of unease for many. The point was made that EU regulations, currently very strict, should be relaxed to allow small and medium sized businesses to capitalise on GM technology and develop competing products.

The Policy Lunchbox network was this afternoon joined by Matt James, Associate Director of BioCentre, a British think-tank focusing on emerging technologies and their ethical, social and political implications. Matt delivered a fascinating presentation, introducing the work of BioCentre before focusing on ‘NBIC’; Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science, and what these emerging technologies might mean for human existence in the future.

The Centre was originally established in 1984 in response to public concern over fresh challenges to ethics and policy resulting from emerging technologies. BioCentre is a cross disciplinary network of scientists, physicians, ethicists, lawyers, researchers and others, who share a common concern that, in welcoming new developments in technology, the dignity of the individual and the uniqueness of human nature is asserted from a UK, European and global perspective. The philosophy of BioCentre was summed up by Matt as wanting to see technologies contribute to a ‘hyper human’ future. He distinguished this from another school of thought in bioethics, that the exponential growth in technologies will lead to a ‘trans-human’ future by 2045: that man and machine will become one. Instead, BioCentre promote the idea that technologies can help to maximise human life, bringing tremendous advantages and benefits.

Of the discussion points raised during the presentation, two had probably the most relevance to ecology: the development of nanotechnology and synthetic biology. The consequences of the release of nanoparticles into the environment are poorly known. A growing number of laundry products and items of clothing now incorporate nano-silver as a microbicide to enhance cleaning but the implications of the introduction of this material into water courses are poorly understood, for example. Synthetic biology – at its most extreme the creation of new organisms in the laboratory – could have tremendous implications for ecosystems. Matt characterised these as creating new life for “bio terror and bio error”; what happens if these life forms are released into the environment maliciously or otherwise?

Although many of the developments highlighted by Matt seem to belong to the realms of science fiction he assured us that these were, or were likely to become, science fact, raising key questions for ethicists to answer. As robots are developed and become increasingly more sophisticated will society need a robot ethic, governing how robots are treated and how humans interact with them? Debates will rage over whether we want to have an ‘off switch’ for our robot companions or whether we wish to see them interact with us as other humans would, without these controls. The development of ‘e-carers’ in Japan, substituting for absent family members, may raise such issues, for example.

A key area of controversy, featuring heavily in the media last year, is the development of cognitive-enhancing drugs. Ritalin is one such drug, being used to treat the 4 – 10% of the world’s children who suffer with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Ritalin is also the most stolen drug from those prescribed it amongst students however, used to boost the performance of scholars at universities. Interesting questions are raised for both children and adults: when does the use of this and other cognitive enhancing drugs in children move from being a helpful medication to a form of social control? What are the implications for society if students, shift-workers, soldiers and others who might use these drugs to stay alert and active for longer increasingly depend on them; will we move to a ‘24/7 society’ and what might this mean?

Overall, this was a fascinating and wide-ranging presentation and discussion session which gave many of those present the opportunity to consider issues outside of our usual realm of experience. BioCentre works closely with the Horizon Scanning Centre within the Government’s Foresight programme, alerting policy-makers to these emerging issues. Engaging the wider policy community and society at large with these developments will take time but is an essential step in ensuring debate and proper consideration of their ethical implications, and steps which may need to be taken to regulate their use.

Policy Lunchbox is a joint initiative between the Biochemical Society and the British Ecological Society. Throughout the year, a series of lunchtime events are held which bring together guest speakers with those who work in science policy. Our next event will be on Wednesday 3rd March, where we will be joined by Annette Williams, Director of the UK Resource Centre for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology.

Yesterday afternoon saw the official launch of POSTnote 348, on ‘Insect Pollination’, written by the 2009 BES POST Fellow Rebecca Ross. The note summarises the causes and consequences of the declines in UK insect pollinators: a subject that has received growing attention in recent years, as demonstrated by the large audience crowding the seminar room in Westminster.

Chaired by John Penrose MP, the seminar began with a presentation from Dr Liz McIntosh of the Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera), promoting BeeBase, the Government initiative to register all beekeepers. The ex-President of the British Beekeepers Association Ivor Davis then spoke, pointing at the lack of professional teaching available to beekeepers for the decline in the number of honey bees in the UK – a view echoed by comments from other beekeepers in the room. Whilst welcoming the Government’s pledge to invest £10.5 million into bee research, he expressed concern that it would all be spent on high level research rather than achieving practical, immediate goals.

Dr Simon Potts of the University of Reading then discussed the consequences of pollinator decline. Pollinator services in the UK are valued at around £440 million, or 13 % of the total value of agriculture. As only 10% of this is provided by domestic honey bees, Dr Potts highlighted the economic sense of protecting wild pollinators, at a fraction of the cost that would be incurred trying to replace them. This was theme continued by Dr Claire Carvel of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in her presentation on research into using field margin strips in Countryside Stewardship agri-environment measures to support pollinators. Comments from the floor questioned the practicalities of planting such pollinator friendly margins, for example whether regional eco-types would be considered, and challenged researchers and policy-makers to improve the implementation of these schemes amongst farmers.

Find out more about the BES POST Fellowship: applications for the 2010 scheme will open in February.

The EFRA Select Committee has today released a report criticising Defra’s waste policy, stating that the Department’s strategy has no clear targets for the reduction of England’s waste and instead concentrates efforts on improving recycling rates for domestic waste, which accounts for only 10% of total waste produced.

Commenting on the launch of their report on the Waste Strategy for England 2007, the Chair of the EFRA Committee, Michael Jack MP, said “Defra must…encourage companies to take a completely new view of waste and see it as a valuable source of raw material which must not be squandered in these difficult economic times.”

The report praises householders for increasing their recycling levels to nearly 37% and urges the Government to set stringent recycling targets of 50% by 2015 and 60% by 2020. To facilitate this, Councils must explain clearly to the public what it costs to collect and dispose of each bin, bag or wheelie bin of waste. The benefits that arise from households reducing their waste volumes must be explained to them.

Amongst other measures, the report urges Government to set a target for the mandatory collection of food waste and supply advice, education and practical support to householders in managing food waste – for example by encouraging composting and supplying low-cost composting equipment to facilitate this. The report also calls for Government to re-examine the case for imposing lower levels of duty on waste-derived fuel oil. Finally, the Committee suggests that the Government evaluate the practicalities of imposing a small ‘clean up’ duty on products such as cigarettes, whose packaging contributes the largest volumes of litter, to support work by local authorities to clean up their neighbourhoods.

Nick Clegg MP, leader of the Liberal Democrats, this afternoon addressed a packed audience at the Royal Society, laying out his party’s views on the importance of science, technology, engineering and maths. In a wide-ranging speech which lasted for approximately half an hour, Mr Clegg covered a range of topics; from early-years science and maths education to the use of independent scientific advice by the government. Mr Clegg’s speech was then followed by a high quality question and answer session.

Mr Clegg began his speech by congratulating the Royal Society on a diverse and exciting programme of events to celebrate their 350th anniversary year, stating that the Society represented one of the only bodies which has been influential historically and which continues to be so. His speech emphasised the importance of STEM training and STEM professionals in leading the UK out of recession and called for not just a ‘rebuild’ but a ‘redesign’ of the economy, built not just on the financial sector but on science, technology and innovation. Mr Clegg blamed the Labour Government for failing to capitalise on the success of UK research (with 1% of the world’s population and 8% of the world’s scientific publications) by translating this success into business opportunities.

As a key part of his speech, Mr Clegg made five pledges to the scientific community. According to Mr Clegg a Liberal Democrat government would;
1) Be honest about spending:
Mr Clegg emphasised that the Government’s current debt was not sustainable and that a period of fiscal contraction would have to occur in the years to come. He stated that STEM would be at the forefront of Liberal Democrat thinking in grappling with the economic situation.
2) Allocate funding to broad priorities:
A Liberal Democrat government would respect the ‘Haldane Principle’ but that government would be entitled to take strategic decisions based on broad priorities. ‘Impact’ as part of the Research Excellence Framework would be re-examined.
3) Reform education to increase scientific literacy:
One of Mr Clegg’s key points was the fundamental importance of early-years education in crystallising young people’s attitudes to STEM and take-up of STEM subjects later in life. A Liberal Democrat government would be committed to improving the quality of STEM tuition, with all Key Stage 4 students having the opportunity to take three sciences.
4) Uphold policy based on independent evidence:
Mr Clegg said that he understood the importance of independent scientific advice and that he supported the Prinicples for the Treatment of Independent Scientific Advice as submitted to the Government by Sense about Science. A debate was also necessary, he said, on the media’s communication of science and of the nuances of scientific discovery.
5) Immediately reform English libel laws:
Freedom to evaluate critically the work of others is fundamental to science, Mr Clegg said, and immediate reform is needed to make sure that the UK’s libel laws don’t stifle scientific debate and inquiry.

In response to questioning Mr Clegg confirmed that these five principles would be found in the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto. In response to other questions he reiterated his party’s commitment to abolishing tuition fees for university students, although acknowledged that money was not available for this at present, and reiterated his commitment to ‘lead with evidence’ the policy-making process. When questioned about how he would deal with a direct clash between the evidence (in this case, that eating less meat would be better for the climate) and politics (safeguarding farmers’ interests) Mr Clegg was pragmatic however, stating that ultimately he and his colleagues were politicians, representing the public. With many rural constituencies he said that it would be difficult in this case to make policy purely on the basis of this evidence. He hoped, he said, that a Liberal Democrat government would show ’sophistication’ in its approach to evidence-based policy-making.

The Welsh Rural Affairs Minister this week announced that a pilot scheme to cull thousands of badgers in Wales will start later this year, after the badger breeding season has finished in May. The £9m pilot cull will take place across a 288 sq.km area, mainly in Pembrokeshire, and will see five culls take place over the course of several years.

In making the announcement, the Minister, Elin Jones, said that bovine TB is “out of control” in Wales, and stated that the compensation bill for farmers was £24m in 2009, a rise from £1m in 2000. 12,000 cattle were culled in 2008 due to bovine TB.

The move has been welcomed by the British Veterinary Association and by farmers but condemned by others, citing the ten-year study by the Independent Scientific Group which showed the culling badgers could actually increase the risk of spreading the disease, conluding that “while badgers are clearly a source of cattle TB, careful evaluation of our own and others’ data indicates that badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain. Indeed, some policies under consideration are likely to make matters worse rather than better.”

Guardian: 13 January 2010, Badger cull to go ahead in Wales, John Vidal

Previous posts relating to the ISG report, the subsequent report by Prof. Sir David King, then Government Chief Scientific Advisor, the EFRA Select Committee and news stories on the topic can be found in the BES Blog archive.

The BES last night attended a debate at the Institute of Engineering and Technology, organised by the Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE), bringing together the science spokespeople from the three major political parties and aiming to make science an election issue. Lord Drayson, Science Minister, Adam Afriye, Shadow Science Minister and Dr Evan Harris, Liberal Democrat Science Spokesman, took to the stage to face questions from an assembled audience of around 400; all keen to find out what mention Labour, the Conservatives and Lib Dems would make of science in their election manifestos.

Roger Highfield, Editor of New Scientist, chaired the evening which saw the politicians face wide ranging questions, including on cuts to the science budget, the balance between public and private investment in science, the dismissal of Prof. David Nutt (former Chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs) by the Home Secretary and scientific expertise in the forthcoming parliament.

Lord Drayson focused on the Government’s track record of supporting science over the past decade or so and stressed that science would remain key to policy-making in the future, under a Labour Government. He stressed his party’s commitment to retaining the ring-fence around the science budget, but he and others commented that Labour has not yet declared what the science budget will be. In tackling a question on the £915 million cuts faced by the higher education sector over the next two years, Lord Drayson said that a fees review was necessary and that universities need to consider other streams of funding; however he stressed again that he did see science, research and education as a fundamental part of the future prosperity of the UK.

Dr Evan Harris was an engaging speaker who clearly connected with the audience over the course of the evening as he defended the right of independent scientific advisors to speak out in criticising government policy, without fear of reprissals from politicians. He was robust in his criticism of the UK’s libel laws, and stated that the Liberal Democrats were committed to reforming these, should they be elected. He stated that his party was committed to maintaining the current spend on science, as far as possible, and called for stability as a fundamental component of the science budget. He strongly criticised plans for funding to be allocated to researchers on the basis of the proposed ‘impact’ of their work, stating that this is not a route which the UK should go down and would simply lead to ’story-telling’ amongst researchers.

It was disappointing that Adam Afriye did not give specific examples of Conservative policy towards science, although commendable that he plans to introduce compulsory training in science for new Conservative MPs after the election – an announcement made by his network, the Conservative Friends of Science, some time ago. Mr Afriye was scathing about the UK’s current financial position, as was to be expected, and challenged Lord Drayson to announce what the actual size of the next science budget would be; criticising the Government for ducking the opportunity to declare this when they had the opportunity. However, Mr Afriye could not be drawn on what the science budget would be under the Conservatives and whether this would be ring-fenced. He also refused to rise to the challenge to declare whether a Conservative science minister would have a seat at Cabinet, as Lord Drayson does and as any future Labour science minister would continue to have.

In discussing the dismissal of Prof. David Nutt, Mr Afriye made a comment which much of the science community would find disturbing; stating that Ministers should have the right to dismiss their advisors on any terms at all, even for the reason of ‘not liking’ them. Lord Drayson in contrast made clear that he did not support this course of action and stated that advisors to Government must not feel under any pressure not to deliver bad news. He directly encouraged the scientific community to respond to the current consultation on Principles of Scientific Advice to Government, stressing his hope that politicians’ and scientists’ focus on science advice, caused by the Prof. Nutt affair would lead to improvements in this area.

Overall, this was a fascinating evening and CaSE are to be congratulated for putting together a stimulating, well-attended event, of great use to the science policy community.

The UN International Year of Biodiversity (IYB) was officially launched today, with an opening ceremony held in Berlin. Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel and Federal Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen officially opened the IYB at 10.00am GMT.

Marking the launch of the IYB with a piece on the Guardian website today is Dr Bob Bloomfield, co-ordinator for the International Year of Biodiversity UK activities and network, of which the BES is a member. In his piece, Dr Bloomfield emphasises the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to the health and well-being of the human population, particularly the poor. Drawing attention to the TEEB (The Economics and Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity) review, led by Pavan Sukhdev of the UN Environment Programme, Dr Bloomfield highlights the economic catastrophe which will befall society should destruction of the natural world result in a loss of fundamental ecosystem services; this would be of an order of magnitude greater than the global economic crisis.

Pavan Sukhdev was a guest speaker at a parliamentary reception in October 2009, organised by the BES and Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, at which both organisations launched a position statement on the role of science and professionalism in conserving biodiversity beyond 2010.

Signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity will gather in Nagoya, Japan, later this year to discuss performance against the target to slow declines in biodiversity by 2010 (the ‘2010 biodiversity target’) and formulate a successor. It’s widely acknowledged that countries have failed to meet this goal: robust action will therefore be needed to meet any targets developed for 2020.

The IYB-UK partnership is made up of over 200 organisations, drawn from diverse sectors, committed to using 2010 to make a difference for biodiversity conservation. You can find out more about the International Year of Biodiversity and IYB – UK at the IYB-UK website: www.biodiversityislife.net.

A report published by the UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management has outlined recommendations to make the future production of biofuels more sustainable. The report concentrated on first generation biofuels, such as ethanol and sugar cane, analysing the life cycle of their production. The authors found that the way in which biofuels are produced and managed can determine if they benefit society, the economy and the environment, but that more information is needed on the impact of biofuel production on water and biodiversity.

The report found that some biofuels can contribute to a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions; the production of ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil for example saves 70 – 100% of greenhouse gas emissions compared to fossil fuel use. However, others can substantially increase greenhouse gas emissions compared to fossil fuels; land clearance for the growth of oil palms for biodiesel results in a 2000% increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

17 billion litres of bioethanol were produced in 2000 and by 2007 this had grown to 52 billion litres. Such growth neccessitates increasing the amount of land put aside for the growth of crops for fuel: 2.3% of global cropland was covered by biofuel crops in 2008, up from 0.9% in 2004.

The report’s authors recommend reducing the environmental pressures of biofuel production through:
- enhancing the efficiency of biofuel production through increased yields and improvements in agricultural technology;
- growing biofuels on degraded, marginal and abandoned land;
- using waste from municipal, agricultural and forestry sectors to provide biomass for fuel;
- the use of biomass residue (left over from biomass processing) to produce electricity and heat.

In addition, biofuel policies should limit quotas and targets to levels which can be supplied sustainably. Productivity could be increased through reforming subsidies for fossil fuels.

Original source: European Commission – Science for Environment Policy
Download the report:Towards sustainable production and use of resources: Assessing Biofuels