The BES Annual Meeting is underway in Sheffield, with a packed day of presentations and sessions so far. The meeting began with the BES Tansley Lecture, this year delivered by Dr Diana Wall from Colorado State University. Dr Wall discussed the significance of soil biota to the delivery of ecosystem services and stressed that the study of this aspect of biodiversity has been largely neglected to date by ecologists. Dr Wall’s salutary message, as expressed by Roosevelt in 1935, was that ‘A nation that destroys its soil destroys itself’; it is vital that ecologists study this heretofore neglected component of ecosystems in order to better understand how soils sustain the capacity to provide critical services, including food, and how soils can be managed in this context.

The BES Policy Team has so far attended a fascinating range of talks – on everything from the delivery of ecosystem services, to the effectiveness of protected areas under climate change, to an examination of whether ecological networks – as propounded by the Lawton Review - are effective. This latter talk was perhaps the most interesting, as Prof. Adrian Newton from Bournemouth University discussed his team’s use of a Google application to identify what the public of Dorset valued about their natural environment. In analysing the market and non-market ecosystem services delivered by the Frome river catchment in South West England, Prof. Newton and his team built up a composite map illustrating carbon storage, crop production, livestock, timber, cultural services and recreational opportunities. His conclusion? That ecological networks can work for biodiversity – increasing the connectivity of habitat and species richness – and for the delivery of some ecosystem services, but may not work economically, as the opportunity costs for network creation are likely to be higher than the market value of the services delivered.

As with all the sessions at the Annual Meeting so far, there was limited opportunity to delve into more depth with Prof. Newton about this work; the programme for today is just so busy. However there are plenty of networking opportunities and delegates are sure to have the time to ask about this and the other topics covered over a glass of wine later at the first poster session.

Before that point however, Prof. Bill Sutherland will be giving his perspective on the past 12-months in ecology, touching on everything from the Natural Environment White Paper and Lawton Review to the National Planning Policy Framework, badgers and bovine TB and marine protected areas. More information will follow about this in a blog post tomorrow. For now, you can follow all the latest updates from the Annual Meeting through twitter using #BES2011, and get more in depth analysis of sessions through the BES Annual Meeting blog. The latest post discusses a session which took place at lunchtime – on ‘Research Paper to Press Release’, discussing how ecologists can engage with the media to showcase their work.

The value of ecosystem services provided by the UK’s wildlife and habitats has been estimated in two research reports published by Defra today. These two primary valuation research studies examine benefits people obtain from the natural environment in the UK.

Using expert judgement and participatory valuation approaches, the study ‘Economic valuation of the benefits of ecosystem services delivered by the UK Biodiversity Action Plan’ estimated the value of seven ecosystem services delivered by different UK BAP habitats and the changes in provision of these services through biodiversity conservation measures over the next 20 years.

The report on ‘The Benefits of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in England and Wales’ assessed the economic value of changes in biodiversity and associated ecosystem services which will result from future policy scenarios for Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs).

The reports estimate the wildlife covered by the UK BAP and Sites of Special Scientific Interest is worth approximately £1.5 billion per year to the UK.

Story taken from the Natural Capital Initiative website.

Defra today published the Government’s new strategy for biodiversity, ‘Biodiversity 2020: A Strategy for England’s Wildife and Ecosystem Services‘. The BES Policy Team has been reading through the document today but we’ve so far only managed to get through half of this. We’re therefore posting up initial details of the Strategy and a more in-depth analysis will follow next week.

The new England Biodiversity Strategy sets out the direction for biodiversity policy for the next decade, on land (including freshwaters) and at sea. The Government’s mission, stated in the document, is to “halt overall biodiversity loss, support healthy, well-functioning ecosystems and establish coherent ecological networks, with more and better places for nature for the benefit of wildlife and people.” In her introduction to the document, the Secretary of State, Caroline Spelman MP, also states that the Government’s longer term ambition is to “move progressively from a position of net biodiversity loss to net gain.” The Government are clear that they think the England Biodiversity Strategy “seeks to deliver a real step change” in biodiversity conservation.

From our initial read of the document, it isn’t clear whether the contents of the document match this ambitious objective; we hope to be able to provide more of an insight into this next week. What does seem apparent is that much of the document draws directly from, rather than building upon, the Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP), launched in June. Some of the content does seem new, but many NGOs in the environment sector criticised the NEWP for a lack of detail about how the objectives within it would be delivered. We’d be interested in your views on whether you think the Biodiversity Strategy makes delivery any clearer.

Defra divides the main areas for action into four headings: A more integrated, large-scale approach to conservation on land and at sea; Putting people at the heart of biodiversity policy; Reducing environmental pressures; and, Improving our knowledge. These draw on the five strategic goals to result from outcomes at the 2010 COP-10 negotiations on the Convention on Biological Diversity in Nagoya, Japan (to which this document is the Government’s direct response). Under each of these headlines, a number of ‘Priority Actions’ are outlined. In addition to the mission statements introduced by Ms Spelman in the document’s introduction, Chapter One of the Strategy explicitly states that these priority actions are together intended to provide ‘better, more, bigger and joined’ sites for nature; hereby directly drawing upon the Lawton Review of England’s wildlife network (read a summary of this on the blog).

1. Integrated Approach
- The development of 12 Nature Improvement Areas (NIAs) through a national competition, with £7.5 million in support provided by Defra between 2011- 2015.
- An increase in the proportion of SSSIs in ‘favourable’ condition (currently, according to the latest analysis by Natural England, this stands at 36.5%)
- An ecologically coherent network of Marine Protected Areas by 2016 (UK is already obligated to provide this under the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive)
- Agreeing a programme of targeted action with partners for the recovery of priority species
2. Putting people at the heart of biodiversity policy
- Getting more children learning outdoors, removing the barriers which prevent schools from taking children outside the classroom
- A new green areas designation so that communities can protect areas of green space of importance to them
- Helping people to ‘do the right thing’, by facilitating them to make sustainable choices – for example, through wildlife gardening
- Better accounting for biodiversity through the development of ‘new and innovative finance mechanisms’ (draws on the Ecosystem Markets Taskforce, announced in the NEWP, which is business-led and will report to Government in 2012-13 on the potential to develop new markets for green goods and services, and on the initiatives to facilitate Payments for Ecosystem Services schemes, also announced in the NEWP).
3. Reducing Environmental Pressures
- Defra announces its intention to work with a number of different sectors, encouraging them to reduce the pressure they place on biodiversity (agriculture, forestry, planning and development, water, marine, fisheries). There is also a section on tackling the impacts of pollution and invasive species.
4. Improving our knowledge
- Improving access to knowledge through the sharing of data and clear communication of evidence.
- £5 million over three years to support volunteer recording groups and those organisations that support them at national and local level, and the National Biodiversity Network.
- £1.2 million to support data sharing (a new fund for biodiversity recording in the voluntary sector). In partnership with volunteer groups, the Government will develop a ‘new and innovative approach to biodiversity recording’.
- Government will also launch three area-based pilots to trial new approaches to wildlife recording, data sharing and interpretation services to better meet local and national needs.
- There will be a follow-up phase to the National Ecosystem Assessment, developing practical tools for decision-makers and expanding on the ’societal response options’ chapter (examining the mix of future actions most likely to secure best overall value from ecosystems, for nature and for people).

There is nothing in the Executive Summary at least about support from Defra for long-term monitoring, in particular the Countryside Survey. Support for research and data-gathering seems to focus on facilitating volunteer effort, as part of the Big Society. This could be elsewhere in the document, but a brief search through the rest of the text failed to pick up these terms.

Further analysis will follow, but it is worth posing two initial questions here, which occurred to us when reading through. It doesn’t always seem clear in the document which of the actions will be the ultimate responsibility of Government and which will fall to the conservation sector and wider civil society. The document alludes to the ‘biodiversity partnership’ in a number of places, by which it means Government, NGOs, community groups, industry and business. The document does occassionally make explicit those areas where the ‘biodiversity partnership’ is expected to lead, for example in a section under ‘putting people at the heart of biodiversity policy’, the Strategy states that “Government will contribute…by helping the facilitate the sector in this role and creating the conditions whereby people are empowered to make a difference.” Elsewhere it isn’t always clear when ‘we’ means the Government and ‘we’ could mean the wider environmental community.

Secondly, despite the upbeat tone of the document in relation to planning and development, the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework, as currently drated, does not reflect the sentiments outlined here or in the NEWP. A Priority Action within today’s Strategy specifically states that a ’strategic approach to planning for nature within and across local areas’ will be taken, which will ‘guide development to the best locations; encourage green design and; enable development to enhance natural networks’. The document also states that the NEWP sets out the Government position on planning for the natural environment. As drafted, the NPPF makes only brief mention of ecologically coherent networks and the need to take the environment into account is undermined by the ‘presumption towards sustainable development’ which runs throughout the draft Framework. ‘Significant’ weight is to be given by local authorities to economic growth, whilst the environment is given ‘great weight’; a subtle, but very important distinction. It is not enough that the NEWP be the Government’s position on planning and the natural environment as in all liklihood local authorities will only see, and pay heed to the NPPF. The economy must not be weighted above all else in the NPPF, and the environment must be given due consideration within the document. With the NPPF, the Government has the opportunity to translate the commitments in the NEWP and in the Biodiversity Strategy into positive action on the ground; a clear example of where ‘joined up Government’ is necessary.

We’d welcome your views on the England Biodiversity Strategy as these, and any comments on the NPPF and how these documents relate to the NEWP, will inform our response to a current Select Committee inquiry into the Natural Environment White Paper.

A new initiative from the Kew Millennium Seed Bank will supply commercial seed companies with large amounts of high quality wildflower seed, to help in the restoration of flower-rich meadows. Only 2% of this habitat now remains in England and Wales, with 98% lost since the Second World War. The UK Native Seed Hub project will draw on the large collection of wildflower seed held by the Seed Bank.

Speaking to the BBC, Stephanie Miles, in charge of the project, explained that “commercial growers lack a good, reliable source of UK single species seed”. At present, commercial companies are often unable to provide seed which is genetically adapted to the site of restoration. Stephanie Miles commented that this project would result in the “bulking up” of seed available to support restoration projects in the UK. Plants will initially be grown in temporary seed production beds before being moved to large, permanent seed beds from where seed can be harvested.

The project is being funded by a £750,000 grant from the Esmee Fairbairn Foundation. The first restoration project to benefit from the seed will be in West Sussex, as a collaborative project between Kew and the High Weald Landscape Trust. Following the focus on meadows, the Millennium Seed Bank will expand the project to encompass 40 other habitat types, including lowland heathland and chalk grassland.

Read more in the Guardian, on the BBC News website and listen to a feature on this story on the Today Programme.

The creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) was one of the most significant actions to come out of the 10th Conference Of Parties to the Convention of Biological Diversity held in Nagoya, Japan. The IPBES is a panel based in part on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It aims to amalgamate evidence for future biodiversity policy, and is expected to become a focal point for public and media awareness of biodiversity issues.

Since its beginnings a number of meetings have been held including a key workshop between Defra and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) in July 2011. The workshop explored how best to engage government with science-policy and coordinate UK Government, scientists, NGO’s and business.

The BES is also holding a session on the IPBES at the BES Annual Meting in Sheffield entitled ‘Where next for the UK National Ecosystem Assessment and IPBES?’ on Tuesday 13th September at 11.15am. To attend the Annual Meeting and book a place at the session visit the BES website.

Such events are in preparation for the first international plenary of the IPBES due to be held in Nairobi, Kenya in October 2011. At the plenary government representatives will consider the draft principles and procedures governing the work of IPBES, the initial elements of the work program, processes for nomination and selection of host institution(s) and host country for the platform.

Booking is now open for the IEEM Annual Conference, which will take place from 2 – 3 November 2011, in Liverpool. The theme of the meeting is ‘rebuilding biodiversity’ and sessions will cover the strategic and practical approaches to conserving and rebuilding biodiversity in the UK.

The conference will paint the ‘European picture’; examine current biodiversity conservation tools available (including biodiversity offsetting); consider the evidence base for priority actions (biodiversity auditing as well as recent climate change research); and feature practical case studies (small and large scale) in the terrestrial and aquatic sectors.

This conference will appeal to all ecologists and environmental managers working in either the public or private sector.

To view the full conference programme, get further details and to book your place, please visit the conference website.

A study conducted by academics from Oxford University and Earthwatch UK has challenged the long standing assumption that farmland facilitates the movement of pollinating insects between habitat fragments.

The findings of the paper show that farmland corridors intended to help connect up areas of natural habitat, instead do the opposite and waylay non-specialist feeders, hindering pollinator movement through the corridors.

In terms of animal behaviour this makes sense- with pollinating insects concentrating their foraging efforts on resource rich farmland areas where they are most likely to be successful at finding food, rather than moving onto new habitats as the corridors intend.

Researchers are now concerned that this behaviour could impact native plant species which could fail to be pollinated as a result. The study has been published in the Journal of Current Biology and could have policy implications regarding the way habitat networks are designed and managed.

On the 25th July 2011 the draft National Planning Policy Framework was published by Government. After the release of the Natural Environment White Paper in June this year conservation organisations have been highly anticipating the publication of the Framework, which represents the next step in terms of implementing the declarations of the White Paper.

The document, which integrates the Government’s economic, environmental and social planning policies for England, was issued alongside a statement from the Environment Secretary, Caroline Spelman, who said “It will give local communities the power to protect green spaces that mean so much to them, while still giving the highest protection to our treasured landscapes such as national parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It will also ensure that development needed to grow the economy is carried out in a sustainable way.”

The Government’s objective as stated in the Framework is that planning should help to deliver a healthy natural environment for the benefit of everyone and safe places which promote wellbeing. To achieve this objective, the document states that the planning system should aim to conserve and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting valued landscapes, minimise impacts on biodiversity and provide net gains where possible. The report also makes the statement that planning permission should be refused if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated, or as a last resort, compensated for.

The Framework goes on to support the Lawton Review and the White Paper with its goals to minimise impacts on biodiversity by stating that planning policy should take into account the need to plan for biodiversity at a landscape-scale as well as identify and map components of the local ecological networks, including international, national and local sites. In line with EU targets the Framework states that planning will promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the recovery of priority species populations.

In terms of climate change the Government’s objective is that planning should fully support the transition to a low carbon economy in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change. To achieve this objective, the planning system should aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, support energy efficiency improvements to existing buildings, deliver renewable and low-carbon energy infrastructure and provide resilience to impacts arising from climate change.

The Planning Framework is now open for consultation until the 17th of October 2011 and followed by a series of events taking place across the UK. Read the full document here.

Last week the European Commission announced their plans for the new EU budget. The new budget, known as the Multi Annual Financial Framework (MFF) sets how much will be spent over the years 2014 to 2020, and how this money will be allocated.

Overall few changes have been made to the size of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) budget however there have been significant changes in the way in which this money will be allocated. Of the overall €372 billion budget around two thirds will be allocated to Pillar 1 which makes direct payments to farmers. 30% of direct payments from the CAP will be used to encourage environmentally sound practices, as part of a greening of the CAP. €4.5 billion will be spent on research into food security.

The Pillar 2 budget, which is used to fund agri-environment schemes, will be cut over the period by about 7%, leading some organisations such as WWF to doubt the ability of the new budget to deliver the ambitious environmental goals set out in Europe 2020. Sacrifices in this part of the budget have been made to avoid cutting direct payments to farmers. Another key concern is the new freedom that member states will have to move funding around between pillars 1 and 2 which many anticipate will further reduce the amount spent on environmental projects.

The budget for LIFE+, the EU scheme to fund nature and biodiversity projects has only been increased by a small fraction leading many organisations to doubt the ability of the new budget to maintain the Natura 2000 network of protected areas. National financing plans for Natura 2000 may be the only hope to protect our natural capital

The external budget, which funds initiatives such as the Global Climate and Biodiversity Fund and the European Development Fund, has been increased but it remains unclear how much funding will go specifically to projects to protect biodiversity and ecosystem services. Whether this money will be used in a way that contributes towards the millennium development goals whilst simultaneously delivering solutions for biodiversity remains to be seen, although the budget does state that the European Parliament are committed to contributing financially to help meet commitments on biodiversity and climate change.

Funding for research will focus on projects that cannot be achieved by countries acting alone. The budget states that Horizon 2020, the new framework for research funding, will focus on key sectoral policy priorities such as climate change, food security and unsustainable resource use.

A staggering 1060 new species have been discovered over the past ten years on the pacific island of New Guinea according to a new report by WWF. Around 260 new species of vertebrate, 580 species of invertebrates and 220 new species of plants were discovered during the course of the study which was carried out between 1998 and 2008. The report titled ‘Final Frontier: Newly discovered species of New Guinea (1998 – 2008)’ forms part of WWFs 50th anniversary celebrations drawing attention to the loss of biodiversity.

Approximately two species were discovered per week throughout the study. Many new species of mammal were discovered including a new species of dolphin, a group in which new discoveries are very rare. Many new species of birds, amphibians and insects were also discovered. The study serves as a reminder of the undiscovered diversity of earth. Dr Mark Wright, conservation science adviser at WWF, said “The world is full of fantastic and fantastical creatures, of quirky and improbable lifestyles. The more we look, the more we find. But this exuberance of nature is under threat. Despite the best efforts of groups like WWF, it is clear that we will not save all we would like to.”

The island of New Guinea has an area of only 0.5% of the earth’s landmass but it has been estimated that it contains around 6 to 8% of global species, and remains relatively understudied despite this fact. The country also has extraordinarily high levels of endemic species. However the forest ecosystems of New Guinea are under threat from deforestation cause by rapid development and conversion of land to agriculture, particularly for the production of palm oil. 99 of New Guinea’s vertebrate species are on the IUCN red list of threatened species. It has been predicted that forest cover could be reduced to just 50% of its original area by over the next 10 years. Mangroves and coral reefs are also at risk from development in costal regions.

It is hoped that Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation and certification of sustainable palm oil through the Roundtable on Sustainable palm oil could provide a solution to some of the problems both people and nature are facing in the country.