An event was held today at the Royal Society to launch the IUCN UK Peatland Programme, which aims to promote peatland restoration in the UK, through evidence gathering and providing advice for policy making and effective practice.

At the launch, the chair of the programme, Rob Stoneman from the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, explained that degraded peatlands are responsible for releasing at least 10% of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, so conservation and restoration of peatlands could be instrumental in delivering international obligations on climate change. Indeed, peatland restoration is an element of the Copenhagen accord, but it is important to ensure that this voluntary commitment is realised through legislation. Peatland restoration also avoids loss of valuable services such as water storage and filtration, and supports biodiversity.

The UK is currently among the worst 20 of the world’s 175 peatland nations for carbon emissions, but Rob Stoneman emphasised that peatland restoration is very cheap in comparison to other strategies for carbon reduction, and given the large number of peatlands in the UK, this country could become a world leader in peatland restoration.

The practical output of the programme will be delivered through the Commission of Inquiry into Peatland Restoration, run by the IUCN as part of the peatland programme. Martin Howatt, chair of the Inquiry’s advisory committee, explained that this will involve a review of key issues relating to peatlands which will be used to produce a list of recommendations for action.

There are three upcoming conferences as part of the programme, focussed on stakeholder engagement, funding peatland restoration, and considering UK overseas territories.

The EU Environment Council reached an agreement on aims and ambitions for managing biodiversity loss across Europe on 15 March this year when it adopted the following conclusions:

“[The Council] AGREES on a long-term vision that by 2050 European Union biodiversity and the ecosystem services it provides – its natural capital – are protected, valued and appropriately restored for biodiversity’s intrinsic value and for their essential contribution to human wellbeing and economic prosperity, and so that catastrophic changes caused by the loss of biodiversity are avoided;”

“For this vision to be achieved [the Council] AGREES further on a headline target of halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020, and restoring them in so far as feasible, while stepping up the EU contribution to averting global biodiversity loss;”

These resolutions appeared on page three (paragraphs one and two) of the following document; “Council conclusions on biodiversity post-2010 – EU and global vision and targets and international access and burden sharing regime“.

These conclusions were later supported by the EU Council of Ministers, in the published conclusions of a meeting held on 25/26 March:

“There is an urgent need to reverse continuing trends of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation. The European Council is committed to the long term biodiversity 2050 vision and the 2020 target set out in the Council’s conclusions of 15 March 2010.” (Page nine, paragraph 14).

The declaration of the EU target will no doubt inform discussions upon a formal successor to the target to slow biodiversity loss (to halt this decline in Europe), at the Convention on Biological Diversity meeting this October in Nagoya, Japan.

The results of a meta-analysis conducted by researchers at the University of Essex show that a ‘dose’ of nature is good for your health and well-being. Professor Jules Pretty and Dr Jo Barton analysed ten studies conducted by the university over the past six years, involving over 1200 participants. They found that ‘green exercise’ improved self-esteem and mood irrespective of duration, intensity, location, gender, age and health status. The researchers therefore conclude that the environment provides an important, and often overlooked health service.

Physical inactivity results in roughly one in 25 deaths worldwide, linked as it is to obesity and as a risk factor in many chronic diseases. More than half of the world’s population now lives in urban settlements; contact with the environment is becoming rarer. The resuls outlined by the University of Essex suggest that access to local greenspace should be prioritised in the design of sustainable towns and cities, leading to both conservation and health benefits – and therefore benefits for the economy and society.

The researchers’ analysis showed that mood improvements were greatest in participants undertaking light and vigourous activity, suggesting that there is a health benefit from any short engagement in green space. The presence of water generated greater improvements in mood and self-esteem for all participants. The greatest change for self-esteem as a result of exposure to green exercise was in younger participants, with diminishing effects with age. The mentally ill showed one of the greatest improvements in self-esteem, suggesting significant value in encouraging this group to undertake green exercise.

The researchers acknowledge that more needs to be done to disentangle the relative contribution of exercise per se and green environments to the mood and self-esteem alterations demonstrated. Research is also necessary to assess the benefits of undertaking green exercise with other people (social capital) and the benefits of connections with animals. However they conclude that attention should be given to the use of green exercise as a therapeutic intervention on the basis of the evidence presented; that planners and architects should improve access to green space and that children should be given the opportunity to learn in outdoor settings. Shifts in urban design, transport policy, support for social care and parenting can help to embed physical activity as a necessary part of life, and ensure that the public are able to take advantage of the full suite of benefits provided by green space.

Pretty, J., Barton, J. What is the Best Dose of Nature and Green Exercise for Improving Mental Health? A Multi-Study Analysis. Environmental Science and Technology (March 2010).

The Natural Capital Initiative will be organising an event later this year focused on ‘ecosystem services and health’. Further details will be available on the NCI website in due course. To register your interest contact Policy@BritishEcologicalSociety.org.

Apply for the 2010 Fellowship at the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST). Spend three-months in Westminster researching and writing a POSTnote for MPs and Peers or contribute to a parliamentary inquiry. The BES will provide a £5,000 bursary to support your living costs in London. This is open to all second and third year PhD students at a UK university, studying for an ecologically-relevant PhD.

To find out more and for details of how to apply, see the Public Policy section of the British Ecological Society’s website, under ‘Getting Involved‘.

A conference was held on Wednesday 24th March on the subject of Ecosystem Services, organised by the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management.

Prof. Bob Watson from Defra gave an opening presentation explaining how ecosystem services underpin sustainable development, and talked about the current emphasis on valuation of ecosystem services, using non-market values as well as market values. He identified the key challenge in this process as gaining the required understanding of natural science, since we already have the economic framework to be able to implement this process.

The overall impression from presentations by the other speakers at the conference was that although the ecosystem services approach can be successfully applied, valuation of ecosystems may not be practical or useful at the current time. A bottom-up participatory approach, which links land owners to beneficiaries of ecosystem services appeared to be an effective way of using the ecosystem services approach.

In particular, Peter Glaves from Northumbria University and Dave Egan from Sheffield Hallam University talked about a pilot project on “Valuing Ecosystem Services in the East of England”. They proposed a three level approach to evaluating ecosystem services, ranging from qualitative (identifying ecosystem services), then semi-quantitative, and finally fully qualitative. They concluded that the third level, involving valuation, is not practical at a local level at the moment, but the overall ecosystem services approach is useful when applied in a user-friendly and participatory way. In addition, Stewart Clarke from Natural England told us that pilot studies carried out through the “Delivering Nature’s Services” programme have shown that the ecosystem services approach can be practically implemented through building good relationships between land managers and beneficiaries of services.

A useful scenario demonstrating the potential risk of applying valuation mechanisms through the ecosystem services approach was mentioned by Diana Pound from Dialogue Matters. If an area of wetland filters nutrients from water, this ecosystem will be valued highly for the service it provides, but enrichment can be damaging to the natural habitat. If water treatment processes improve the quality of water input, the value of the wetland could become worthless because it would no longer be providing the service, but in fact the wetland would be in a better environmental condition.

The general consensus was that valuation of ecosystems could be a useful tool in the ecosystem services approach but it needs to be applied with care when there is sufficient scientific understanding to do so. In the meantime, the ecosystem services approach can be successfully used through managing relationships between service providers and beneficiaries.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills yesterday published the final ‘Principles of Scientific Advice to Government’ following consultation before Christmas with Learned Societies, the Royal Society, Sense about Science and others. Speaking on the launch of the document, which is now Government policy, Lord Drayson, Minister for Science, said “Government needs the best scientific advice it can get to inform policy and so our relationship with our advisors is crucial. They need to know their advice will be duly considered and their academic freedom will be respected when they volunteer to work with Government.”

The Principles were drafted in the wake of the dismissal of Prof. David Nutt as Chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, following pressure from leading scientists including President of the Royal Society, Lord Rees, and others. The Principles set out the rules of engagement between Government and those who provide scientific and engineering advice. They provide the foundation on which independent scientific advisors and government departments should base their interactions. They apply to Ministers and departments, all members of Scientific Advisory Committees and Councils and other independent scientific advice to Government.

On publication of the Principles the scientific community expressed dismay that one point of contention remains within the document: that ‘Government and its scientific advisors should not act to undermine mutual trust’. Commenting on this point, Nick Dusic, Director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering, said that the inclusion of this point could undermine the rest of the Principles as it is impossible to quanify. He suggested that re-drafting the Ministerial Code following the election could help to clarify what this point means and protect advisors from Ministerial interference.

Evan Harris, Science Spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, questioned Lord Drayson on this point yesterday during the last Science Question Time of the current parliament.

Chancellor Alistair Darling took to the dispatch box this afternoon to deliver the Government’s budget for the 2010 -11 financial year. Announcements of relevance to higher education, science and technology are the introduction of a new ‘University Enterprise Capital Fund’, to exploit the commercial potential of the UK’s research base, and a ‘Modernisation Fund’ to drive efficiencies in HE and fund the teaching costs of 20,000 extra places at universities from October this year.

The University Enterprise Capital Fund will consist of up to £37.5 million, including up to £25 million from Government, to provide early-stage funding for the commercialisation of promising university innovations.

The Modernisation Fund of £270 million will support 20,000 funded places from autumn 2010, ‘through a range of degrees students want in the subjects which business and employers most need’ (taken from the BIS website). £20 million of the £270 million fund will be allocated by HEFCE to ’support universities and colleges in projects to raise efficiency and value for money through the development of shared services, collaborative procurement and other innovative ways of culling overhead and back office costs while sustaining the quality of front-line teaching and research’ (again, taken from BIS). Lord Mandelson, giving an interview after the budget speech, said that no cuts would be made to the higher education sector which would affect teaching quality or research excellence.

Many announcements in the budget related to support for small and medium sized businesses. Commenting on the budget through a BIS press release Lord Mandelson declared that “This is a budget for business, innovation and skills. It is a budget for jobs – both now and in the future. At its heart are SMEs, the real heroes of the recession and the backbone of the recovery”. Lord Mandelson also commented that “we must ensure we continue to invest in the sectors in which the UK already excels. Today’s focussed investment in applied science and engineering research facilities will help our manufacturing sector continue its hi-tech, low-carbon transformation, so that Britain continues to hold its own globally.” We assume that in this statement Lord Mandelson is referring to the University Enterprise Capital Fund but this isn’t completely clear. If other announcements are forthcoming from BIS to clarify this point we will post them here.

The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has called for the Government to increase spend on science in order to ensure that the UK can remain competitive and an attractive place to both research and invest in science and technology. In a report published yesterday, the result of the Committee’s inquiry into ‘the impact of spending cuts on science and scientific research’, Committee members call for the Government to veto any potential cuts to the science budget, or face ’seriously damaging’ consequences for the sector.

The Pre-Budget Report of 9 December 2009 announced that £600 million would be cut from the higher education and science and research budgets, “from a combination of changes to student support within existing arrangements; efficiency savings and prioritisation across universities, science and research; some switching of modes of study in higher education; and reductions in budgets that do not support student participation”. The Committee conclude that the figure of £600 million is an arbitrary one, imposed by Treasury, with no clarity about how it was generated. It is also not yet clear where these cuts will fall.

In addition, the funds allocated by HEFCE to universities in England will fall in the 2010-11 financial year, by 6.5% compared to the allocation in 2009-10. Within the overall HEFCE budget, allocations to individual institutions were announced a couple of weeks ago. Against this background of cuts already announced is the very real concern amongst researchers and others in higher education that further cuts are to come. The current Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR 2007) expires in 2010-11, with funding beyond March 2011 contingent upon a new Budget and CSR. In evidence given to the Science and Technology Committee, the Minister for Science and Innovation, Lord Paul Drayson, said, “my lack of comfort is due to the fact that I am arguing very strongly for the figure for the future overall research budget… The argument is still to be made and won.”

As well as concluding that overall cuts to the science budget are unsustainable in terms of building the UK’s ‘knowledge economy’, relying on a supply of scientifically qualified teachers, researchers and an attractive research environment to business and industry, the inquiry touches upon plans in the new Research Excellence Framework to assess the ‘impact’ of researchers’ work. The Committee also examine the separate push by the Research Councils to ask researchers to consider the impact of their work when applying for grants. The Committee conclude that assessing impact retrospectively as part of the REF, whilst a commendable idea, is not feasible in practice and that difficulties in doing this will prove ‘insurmountable’. However, members do support the Research Councils requirement for researchers to consider how they might open up ‘pathways to impact’ through their research and call upon the Research Councils to clarify their requirements. There is a perception in the scientific community that researchers are being asked to ‘predict’ the impact of their research; a charge which the Research Councils dispute and on which the Committee call for clarification to correct this misinformation.

Overall, the report echoes other recent publications calling for stability, and an increase, in science spending during a period of fiscal tightening, such as the Royal Society’s ‘Scientific Century’ and the Council for Science and Technology’s recent ‘Vision for UK Research‘ report. Today’s budget announcement will be an interesting test of whether HM Treasury has got the message.

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics has been consulting since December on ‘New Approaches to Biofuels’. Today the Society of Biology submitted its response, to which members of the BES have contributed.

The aim of the Nuffield consultation is to explore the ethical implications of new developments in biofuel production, so-called ’second generation’ biofuels which can be made from woody biomass, from wastes and residues and from marine resources such as algae. A Working Party convened by the Council will consider the potential benefits and disadvantages of advances in biofuel production, along with the ethical, social, legal and economic issues raised. The Working Party will aim to make policy recommendations where appropriate.

In response to the consultation, the Society of Biology made the following key recommendations:

1. Material that can be used as food for people or livestock should not be used as feedstock for biofuels because to do so would adversely affect food security.

2. Non-food crops, waste biomass, algae, and microbes could be used to produce next generation biofuels, but only if comprehensive lifecycle and ecosystem analyses show that sustainable production is possible. For example, intensive monocultures of non-native species (e.g. Miscanthus sp.) may have negative impacts on water quality, biodiversity and landscapes.

3. Land with high biodiversity value should not be used to grow biofuels, nor should their growth ever displace other uses onto such land unless there is clear justification and no viable alternative. Land-use choices should be subject to comparative analysis through an ecosystem approach.

4. Biologists can play a key role in generating new approaches and technologies towards the goal of sustainable biofuel development.

5. It is imperative that adopted biofuels are subjected to full life-cycle analysis for energy efficiency, ecosystem and social impact, and sustainability. Sustainability criteria should be mandated EU-wide. The recent decision in favour of optional recommendations rather than binding criteria is disappointing and very unlikely to succeed in delivering the degree of environmental stewardship so urgently needed.

6. A robust policy to reduce energy use should be a primary objective. The promise of biological and other energy sources should not deter these efforts. Energy saving measures are often more environmentally sustainable, and significantly cheaper than novel fuels and processes. Energy saving and efficiency measures should be implemented vigorously by governments, organisations and individuals.

The full response can be accessed through the ‘Consultation Responses’ section of the BES website.

The Society of Biology is the umbrella body for the biosciences, and was formed by the unification of the Institute of Biology and Biosciences Federation in October 2009.

An editorial in this week’s Nature argues that the post of Chief Science Adviser to the Europe, created at a meeting of European Commissioners on 17 February, must have real teeth and the support needed to deliver effectively.

In an article on p326 (’Setting the bar’), Nature reveals that there has been pressure within the Commission to bury the post in beaurocracy, which would have resulted in a lack of power, authority and independence for the occupant of the role. The Commission has now rejected this, making clear that the Chief Scientific Advisor will report directly to the President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, and be supported by the Bureau of European Policy Advisors, a government think-tank close to the President.

The role of the Chief Scientific Adviser is likely to be to deliver science advice across the board, not just on matters related to the funding of scientific research in Europe, a welcome development given Barrosso’s comments last year when he pledged to fill the gap relating to the provision of high-quality, independent scientific advice at EU level. The editorial argues that the post-holder must be adequately supported, highlighting the example of the Office of Science and Technology in the U.S., headed by President Obama’s CSA, John Holdren. The OST has a team of 70 dedicated experts and similar should be created for the European CSA.

Highlighting the UK Government’s current efforts to develop principles on the use of independent scientific advice by ministers and civil-servants, the piece argues that similar priniples should be developed in Europe. The Commission should draw up guidelines to govern the relationship between Commissioners and the CSA, to ensure that independent science advice is intelligently procured and utilised.

See the BES and Biochemical Society’s joint response to the UK Government consultation on Guidelines for the Use of Scientific Analysis in Policy-Making.