The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has announced a review of the implementation of the EU Birds and Habitats Directives in the UK. Following the announcement of the review by the Chancellor in his Autumn Statement to the House of Commons, Defra have released details of the scope of the consultation, which will publish conclusions by the date of the 2012 budget, in March.

The purpose of the review is to assess: ‘the Habitats and Wild Bird Directives as currently implemented in England by the Habitats Regulations and Offshore Marine Conservation Regulations, focussing in particular on those obligations that affect the authorisation process for proposed development, with a view to reducing the burdens on businesses while maintaining the integrity of the purpose of the directives.’

The Habitats and Birds Directives are therefore presented as barriers to economic growth. Two of the areas of focus for the review include:
- Whether the approach taken by competent authorities is appropriate, particularly in relation to risk, or whether the requirements of the legislation are applied too or insufficiently rigorously; and whether competent authorities and statutory conservation advisers could explore more creative solutions; and
- Whether NE and JNCC’s approach to the provision of advice to competent authorities is appropriate, or takes an excessively or insufficiently precautionary approach.

The Government intends to examine other European Member States for examples of best practice in implementing the Directives and where the UK could learn from others’ experience in terms of applying the Directives whilst avoiding excessive burdens to business.

Wildlife and Countryside Link, of which the BES is a member, are in the process of establishing a taskforce to feed into the Review, with the aim of reporting by January 2012.

Today is the first day of a plenary meeting to discuss and decide upon the formation of the Integovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), convened by the UN Environment Programme. Representatives from the United Nations, and observers from NGOs and other bodies, have assembled in Nairobi, Kenya, to consider how IPBES will operate and, amongst other decisions, determine where the IPBES secretariat will be located.

On the eve of the meeting, Prof. Bob Watson, Defra’s Chief Scientific Adviser, gave an interview to the Independent newspaper, in which he outlined his hopes for IPBES. Prof. Watson suggested that the only way in which IPBES can function effectively will be if developing nations have ownership over any in-country ecosystem assessments which are conducted, and if these are conducted by scientists from that nation – similar to the UK National Ecosystem Assessment. “If they think that this is just the white world, the developed world, telling them what to do, that’ll be the end of it.”

The BES, together with the UK Biodiversity Research Advisory Group (UK BRAG) organised a session at the BES Annual Meeting in Sheffield last month which introduced the IPBES to the assembled ecologists. Dr Andrew Stott, Defra’s representative to IPBES from the civil service, outlined the role of IPBES, as agreed at a meeting in Busan, South Korea, in 2010. A copy of Dr Stott’s presentation is available from the BES website.

As outlined by Dr Stott, IPBES will:

- Generate new knowledge: identifying information needed for policy; catalysing research and surveying
- Conduct regular and timely assessments: at global, regional and sub-regional scales; and on thematic and ‘new topics identified by science’.
- Provide support for policy formulation, through promoting access to policy-relevant tools and methods;
- Have a capacity building function: identifying needs; supporting the highest priority needs; catalysing funding.

IPBES is intended as an ‘IPCC for biodiversity’; a credible, scientifically independent body which is policy relevant but not policy prescriptive (similar to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

At the plenary meeting over the next few days decisions will be made about how the IPBES is structured; whether, for example, a scientific advisory group is formed which can advise the Plenary – the IPBES decision-making body- on scientific and technical aspects of the work programme and which can approve specific scientific procedures related to how ecosystem assessments are conducted. A further meeting in Nairobi, in March/ April 2012, will see delegates decide on further aspects of how the IPBES will work, including its work programme.

As IPBES develops, there are likely to be opportunities for ecologists and others to get involved with the conduct of assessments and with capacity building, although questions remain about how to incentivise scientists to take part in these activities (for example, through university reward structures such as the Research Excellence Framework). Ecologists and others in the UK who would like to find out more about IPBES and who would like to remain fully engaged with the development of the Platform, can join the UK Stakeholder Group, maintained by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC).

An incredibly diverse and busy programme of sessions at the BES Annual Meeting this year means that I am only now able to find the time to report on Prof. Bill Sutherland’s Monday afternoon plenary; ‘Twelve months in Ecology’. Since Bill’s talk, we have also seen a fantastic plenary from Professor Jules Pretty, University of Essex – discussing the importance of social capital in ensuring ’sustainable intensification’ of agriculture – which you can now read about on the BES Annual Meeting blog. We have also had a fantastic, and packed, session on ‘What next for the UK National Ecosystem Assessment and IPBES?’, which I hope to find the time to report on tomorrow.

But for now, back to Prof. Sutherland’s review of the past year and some of the major changes which have taken place in policy impinging upon – or informed by – ecological science. One recurring theme which has come across in the sessions I have attended this year (apart from soil, which seems to have been a hot topic at this meeting) is that the past few months have seen a ‘paradigm’ shift in how the UK Government considers biodiversity and ecosystem services. First the Lawton Review of England’s protected area network, then the National Ecosystem Assessment, and latterly the Natural Environment White Paper: late 2010 and 2011 to date have seen the publication of some potentially highly significant reports and policy papers likely to have a major effect on the direction of environment policy for some time to come. But, Prof. Sutherland highlighted, the most important test – implementation – is still to come and there are some signs that the good intentions propounded in the White Paper will not be carried through easily into other areas of Government policy.

Bill’s talk was inspired by a visit to a conservation biology conference, where despite the blanket coverage of the ‘deepwater horizon’ oil spill in newsagents outside the conference centre, very little mention was made of the significance of this news within the meeting sessions. The BES, and other learned societies, Bill argued, must consider issues of importance and signficance within wider society. Hence his whistlestop tour through the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Nagoya conference in October 2010, and subsequent ‘Aichi Targets’ and strategic plan for tackling biodiversity loss worldwide; his examination of the Copenhagen climate change summit in 2010 – a cause for pessimism, Bill suggested, not to mention the policy documents which have come out of the UK this year. Badger culling and the sale of national nature reserves and the Government’s U-turn over the sale of the Forestry Commission estate were also mentioned.

Bill urged members of the BES to engage with policy-makers as these and other issues are taken forward. Sound science is needed in policy debate and Bill urged the Society to engage even more clearly and in an even more relevant fashion with policy development. Issues which members should be aware of in the future, rising up the agenda, Bill suggested, are Arctic exploration for oil – and what the opening up of the Arctic may mean for biodiversity – reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (suggesting a possible shift back to a focus on food production, away from recent rhetoric on the incorporation of ecosystem services), REDD+, an increase in the use of biodiversity offsetting in the UK and the formation of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

Bill started on a note of pessimism, but finished optimistically, highlighting good news around recent species recovery, with peregrines breeding in London, salmon returning to many rivers, otters now found in every county in England and the near eradication of the ruddy duck as examples. Bill also suggested that there has been a shift in recent months towards policy-makers using evidence as a basis for a decisions to a greater extent.

Whilst I agree with much of what Bill had to say, and don’t think that his optimism is misplaced, I would say that the recent National Planning Policy Framework and Red Tape Challenge suggest that there is much more that ecologists and those who care about the environment must do before we can consider Government really ‘get’ the importance and significance of biodiversity. The NPPF was an opportunity for the Government to demonstrate that it had really taken the sentiments within the White Paper on board, and were prepared to integrate environmental concerns across all areas of decision making. There is little evidence that this is in fact the case, with a presumption in favour of sustainable development (economic growth is the major driver) throughout the document. The Red Tape Challenge too could pose a serious threat to environmental protection and should not simply be dismissed, as discussed elsewhere on this blog.

Prof. Sutherland’s talk was a useful clarion call for action on the part of the the BES and I for one hope that this will galvanise interest and engagement with policy issues amongst the membership.

As part of the Government’s plan to reduce the regulatory burden to business, the so-called ‘Red Tape Challenge‘, the spotlight this month falls on the environment. Until the end of September comments are invited on all current environmental regulations (although comments have been welcome since the process began in April). Following the close of the spotlight period, Secretary of State Caroline Spelman and her ministerial team at Defra have three months to make a decision on which regulations should be kept and which scrapped. The presumption is that ‘burdensome’ regulations will go unless the Department can make a good case for why they should be retained.

A Defra press release, released earlier this month, makes it clear that businesses are the focus for the RTC exercise – but anyone can have their say on the RTC website and the BES encourages our members to do so.

Two hundred and eighty seven environmental regulations are up for consultation, including on issues such as waste, emissions and wildlife protection. The RTC “asks whether existing regulations are providing the environmental protection that is intended and therefore should be retained, or if they are unnecessarily burdensome or redundant and should be scrapped.” Suggestions are also welcome on how regulations should be simplified to make them easier to follow and more effective.

The press release suggests that “environmental policies often aim to encourage people to act in certain ways – and overly complex, burdensome regulation may not be the best way to do this.” The overall driver seems however to be one of saving money: “saving businesses millions in unnecessary costs.”

The BES is concerned by the RTC and was a signatory to a letter sent by Wildlife and Countryside Link to Vince Cable, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills in June, questioning the validity of the consultation process underpinning the RTC and suggesting that the RTC is insufficient as the sole public consultation tool which may result in regulation being scrapped. The letter also questioned the emphasis on ‘burden’, challenging the importance given to costs in scrutinising regulation, and not taking into account both costs and benefits.

It is also hard to see how much environmental regulation can be disposed of, given that much of it has been developed in response to European Directives and therefore in removing this regulation the UK would be likely to face legal challenge.

Partly as a result of the letter, a number of organisations (RSPB, Link, National Trust, Wildlife Trusts and others) have been invited to sit on a ‘Sounding Board’, to discuss the RTC with Defra and, the BES believes, to consider the comments received through the public consultation.

The BES encourages all members of the Society, all readers of the blog and Twitter feed to access the RTC and to emphasise the importance of regulation to achieve environmental protection. As Link emphasised in its letter “environmental legislation is fundamental to a proportionate and necessary approach to environmental protection“, whilst “most of our current regulations and legal protections have been hard-won and subject to the requisite democratic processes, including public debate, multiple consultation processes, and close parliamentary scrutiny“.

Have your say on environmental regulations through the RTC website.

Plans have been unveiled today for 127 Marine Conservation Zones in England’s waters, enacting a requirement of the 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Act. Four regional projects have engaged stakeholders from local communities, industry and the Government over the past two years in order to develop these proposals, which now go forward to an independent panel for assessment.

The ultimate aim of the four regional projects is to create an ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas which will protect scarce species, geological sites and significant heritage sites, whilst also safeguarding species representative of biodiversity in England. The final network will cover 37,000 sq km, or almost a quarter of England’s waters.

The Marine Protected Area Science Advisory Panel will examine the proposals and in October will provide an assessment of the extent to which the resulting composite network of MCZs will achieve the goal of ecological coherence. The Government will then make a final decision on the final location of sites in 2012.

The Guardian is reporting this morning that although no decision has yet been made about the activities which will be allowed or prohibited within each site, it is likely that only 20 sites will receive a high degree of protection, meaning that all extractive or damaging activities will be prohibited. However, the article also suggests that half of the sites designated will include highly protected areas within them.

Meanwhile, Dogger Bank has become the largest marine protected area in Europe after the Government put this forward to the European Commission for consideration the site’s subsequent designation as a ‘candidate Special Protected Area’. The site is the largest sandbank in UK waters and is home to significant populations of sand eels, which provide a food resource for seabirds, cetaceans and other commercial fish species, such as cod. The UK site links up with Special Protected Areas already designated in German and Dutch waters.

Original articles:
BBC News, Marine Protection Bids Unveiled (Richard Black)
Guardian, 127 areas to be proposed as English marine conservation zones (John Vidal)

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.

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.

Lord Krebs FRS, Chair of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, criticised the UK Government on the Radio Four ‘Today’ programme this morning, accusing ministers of ‘ignoring’ scientific evidence by sanctioning a badger cull. Secretary of State Caroline Spelman MP announced the cull on Tuesday in a statement to the House of Commons. Lord Krebs questioned why the National Farmers Union, also speaking on the programme, were in favour of a cull, when the evidence shows that farmers located nearby to the cull sites, but not themselves participating, would experience a higher incidence of the disease as a result of the intervention.

In delivering her statement to the Commons, Caroline Spelman stated that ‘doing nothing is not an option’, given the devastating impact of bovine TB on the livlihoods of farmers and of rural communities. Outlining why vaccination of badgers and cattle is not yet an option to control the disease, the Secretary of State commented that ‘a useable and approved cattle vaccine and oral badger vaccine are much farther away than we thought and we cannot say with any certainty if and when they will be ready‘. Instead, the proposal is for a controlled cull in England, with Natutal England issuing licenses to groups of farmers and landowners who then commit to paying, at their own expense, trained experts to shoot free running badgers across an area of 150 km2 for a minimum period of four years. There will be two pilots in year one, to assess the efficacy of shooting and whether badgers have been killed humanely.

The potential effectiveness of the cull is a hotly debated issue within science, as Professor Krebs’ appearance this morning illustrates. Professor Krebs oversaw an initial review of the evidence for the transmission of TB between cattle and badgers in 1997. As a result of his recommendations, the Independent Scientific Group (ISG) was established to oversee the 10-year Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT), which published its final report in 2007. The ISG showed that reactive culling increased the incidence of TB in cattle, making this unacceptable as a future policy option. Proactive culling, carried out over an area of 100 km2, reduced the incidence of bovine TB but this beneficial effect was offset by an increase in disease in un-culled areas. The group concluded that this was due to ‘perturbation’; the disruption of the badgers’ territorial social groups, causing the animals to roam and so spread the disease into uninfected areas.

The ISG concluded that badger culling could not meaningfully contribute to the future control of cattle TB in Britain. And yet, Caroline Spelman was adamant in the House on Tuesday that Defra’s policy is science-led and evidence-based. The scientific community does seem to be split on this issue. Several members of the ISG wrote a letter to the Times on 13th July, calling for the ‘untested and risky’ approach of badger control by shooting to be carefully monitored, whilst nine other members of the ISG were cited by Caroline Spelman this week as supporting a badger cull.

A group of independent scientific experts assembled by the Defra Chief Scientific Advisor, and including Lord Krebs, met on 4th April this year to consider the evidence and make recommendations to Defra. This group concluded that the science base (the RBCT and subsequent follow-up studies) indicates that a proactive badger cull resulted in a beneficial effect compared to areas where no cull took place. Perturbation was transient and that 12-18 months after the cull, this effect subsided. However they concluded too that the more a badger policy deviates from the conditions of the RBCT, the more likely it is that the outcome will differ; this presumably includes shooting of free-running badgers, which was untested by the RBCT, which instead trapped badgers in cages before shooting them.

The experts conclude that culling must be coordinated and sustained, over a minimum area of 150km2 and for a minimum period of four years, to avoid making matters worse. They suggest that the incidence of disease could be reduced by 20-34% after nine and a half year period, but given the perturbation effect in the area surrounding the cull locations, the net benefit would be likely to be smaller (between 3% and 24%).

Professor Krebs argued this morning that the cost of a badger cull would far outweigh the benefits; given that the total disease incidence would be eight of herds experiencing TB breakdowns in hot-spots, compared to nine out of ten herds. Questions to Caroline Spelman in the Commons earlier this week revealed that Defra will need to pay £200,000 annually to cover extra cost of policing which will be needed to deal with protests against the cull, whilst Caroline Spelman herself commented that it would ‘cost a modest amount more’ to include culling within the measures needed to deal with bovine TB in Britain. The Secretary of State suggested that reducing the social impacts of herd breakdowns, to farmers and rural livlihoods, would outweigh these monetised costs.

A busy couple of days for the BES Policy Team; first the launch of the All Party Parliamentary Biodiversity Group (APPBG) yesterday and then today, the British Society of Soil Science’s Annual Conference and launch of a new framework for professionalism in the discipline. How scientists can engage with decision-makers, whether through parliament or directly with Government, was a common theme.

The All Party Parliamentary Biodiversity Group met in the Macmillan Room in Portcullis House, Westminster. Security was tight due to the appearance of News of the World executives at the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in the building, with a large queue outside. Despite this, the Macmillan room was busy, with representatives from IEEM, the BTO, Bat Conservation Trust, Wildlife and Countryside Link, and others, assembling to network with one another and to hear speeches from Barry Gardiner MP, Chair of the Group, and Martin Brasher, Defra. Unfortunately no Defra Minister could join the event: Richard Benyon was called away to Brussels to deal with negotiations around fisheries; Lord Henley was whipped to appear in the Lords and the Secretary of State was simultaneously delivering a statement to the House regarding badgers and bovine TB.

Mr Gardiner outlined the role of the APPBG: to highlight to parliament policies in support of the environment, working as a group to identify those which should be brought in front of Government and to highlight the economic cost of not conserving natural capital. Martin Brasher then highlighted the policy drivers behind the recent Government Natural Environment White Paper for England, including the Aichi Targets agreed at the COP-10 meeting in Nagoya in October last year. The EU Biodiversity Strategy has recently been published as a European response to these targets, and the England Biodiversity Strategy is currently in preparation: when pressed by the BES for a date for the launch of this, Mr Brasher said that this would be published ’soon’.

If successful, the APPBG could provide a useful and influential means for the conservation science community to interact with decision-making within parliament. Certainly the launch attracted a number of MPs, despite the competing priority of the inquiry into phone-hacking taking place next door. A number of events are planned throughout the coming year, which the BES will remain engaged with.

The theme of scientists engaging effectively with decision-making was picked up today at the British Society of Soil Science’s annual meeting, which saw the launch this afternoon of ‘Working with Soils‘, a framework for professional standards within the discipline. Dr Miles Parker, Deputy Chief Scientific Advisor at Defra, spoke at the launch and emphasised the amount of time and money which the Department spends on linking to external scientific advice; whether through supporting research directly or by financing and supporting Scientific Advisory Committees. Dr Parker said that to deliver advice effectively, scientists must understand not only their own specialist field but also the context in which the advice is being given – understanding who else might be delivering advice and from what perspective. Scientists need to be able to speak to other experts and be able to speak to policy-makers. Skills in networking, communication and in listening to others were all important, Dr Parker said.

The importance placed by Dr Parker on scientists developing policy-relevant skills is welcome to the BES, which runs a number of schemes aimed at building capacity within our membership in this respect. Our annual Shadowing Scheme and Policy Training Workshop, aimed at early-career researchers, and POST Fellowship, for second and third year PhD students provide experience of engaging with the science-policy interface. All will open for applications once again early in 2012.