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.

Today the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee took oral evidence on the Forest Research Inquiry into the effects of the spending review, and research priorities in the forestry research community. The evidence session involved witnesses from a variety of backgrounds including academia, industry, public bodies and the learned societies, who were represented by Jackie Caine, Science Policy Officer at the Society of Biology. The Minister of State for Agriculture and Food the Rt Hon Jim Paice MP was also present.

Forest research is highly important because forests require active management and appropriate research will help us to understand how best to obtain the unique set of benefits forests can provide. The importance of this was outline in the National Ecosystem Assessment which was released last month. Forests are also experiencing a unique set of threats including novel pests and diseases, and climate change which needs to be researched to aid future adaptation.

The effect of the spending review on forest research in the UK and current funding strategies were one of the main topics covered by the committee’s questions. Both Forestry Commission and Research Council funding is declining. Currently the government spends around £10 million on forestry research however this is expected to decline to approximately £6 million by 2015 when the cuts have taken full effect. Almost 30% of jobs at Forest Research will be cut over the period to 2015. Reduced levels of funding available to the agency Forest Research may reduce the agency’s capacity to leverage funding from other sources such as industry and Europe. The Minister said that even with the budget cuts and fewer scientists research in priority areas will be maintained by redirecting funding from other areas.

A range of funders and a range of perspectives on research priorities may be useful for forest research in the UK. It was the opinion of Stuart Goodall from the Confederation of Forest Industries that potential income for forest research from industry is fairly modest. The sale of high quality wood and other forest products was suggested as one way in which the forestry sector could become self sustaining and fund it’s own research, however this would take time and investment. Several innovative approaches to obtaining new funding were suggested including using the carbon markets and approaching international forestry companies with high revenues to request funding and investment in future forest products and technology. Whatever the funding source is it needs to be secure over long periods because of the time frame of forest research. There was agreement that in the future it would be best for the forestry sector to become self sustaining and pay for its own research. This could be achieved by investing in research now, and developing high quality products. According to the Minister of State for Agriculture and Food the Rt Hon Jim Paice MP it shouldn’t be made mandatory for the private sector to provide funding.

The Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) fund a small amount of forest research within their other programmes. NERC and BBSRC hardly ever receive proposals for forest research because there is widespread belief that forestry is not within their remit. NERC and BBSRC would be happy to consider more proposals for forestry projects. Representatives from NERC and BBSRC were reminded that the research councils have a responsibility to ensure university forestry departments are funded appropriately and have longevity.
If Forest Research is made more independent it may be able to access research council funding in addition to the funding it receives from the Forestry Commission. Public sector organisations are currently excluded from applying for research council funding.

Priority setting by forest research institutions was also scrutinised by the committee. Dr James Pendlebury the Chief Executive of Forest Research reminded the committee that forest research is complex, long term and has numerous priorities that are balanced in the best way possible by Forest Research.

One point of agreement was that forest research needs an overall long term strategy developed by all the stakeholders in an open discussion with better coordination between universities, Forest Research and within Europe. Across the witnesses there was a consensus that the Forest Research Coordination Committee needs to be brought back. In addition the witnesses felt that better transparency is needed in the relationship between Forest Research and the Forestry Commission.

Researchers in academia currently feel that important areas of forest research are not being considered by the research councils. Appropriate outreach programmes to make sure that research is communicated to the people that use it are vital according to Stuart Goodall.

Among individuals from industry, the Forestry Commission and academia there was concern that UK forests are under managed. More research into how to produce high quality wood and other forest products is needed according to Professor Philip Turner, from the Forest Products Research Institute at Edinburgh Napier University, but this is currently not a main priority of the research councils or the Forestry Commission.

The ability of Forest Research to monitor and research the impacts of climate change, and emerging diseases such as Phytophthora ramorum is crucial and this shouldn’t be impacted by the spending review. The private sector doesn’t have the skills and experience to carry out this type of research.

Currently no-one takes responsibility for disease monitoring and research into prevention for trees in hedgerows and in public spaces. This is a serious gap in the current research priorities. It was suggested that the Forestry Commission provide an easy to access database documenting their research on particular diseases, the risks associated with the disease and potential solutions. In the future the UKNEA is likely to influence the research priorities of Forest Research.

Finally the committee discussed careers in the forest research sector. Forestry, which will be important for the green economy and green jobs, has been in decline as a profession with few graduates choosing to study the subject. Consequently the numbers of specialist scientists required in forest research such as entomologists and tree pathologists are declining. One of the main causes of the problem is the lack of PhD studentships and potential employers for graduates. The cuts are likely to affect the number of PhD studentships sponsored by Forest Research although no reductions have been made as yet. In addition as a result of the spending review Forest Research the agency is not able to hire new staff. This has significant implications for early career researchers in forestry who, in the past, have undertaken short placements after their doctorate at Forest Research as a way into the profession.

It is of paramount importance that there are scientists available trained in particular aspects of forest research because future threats will act too quickly to wait for a skills base to be re-established.

You can watch the evidence session here.

On Wednesday, 29 June, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee held a one-off evidence session to explore initial reaction to the Natural Environment White Paper (‘The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature’). Representatives of the National Farmers’ Union, the National Trust, Wildlife and Countryside Link, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Defra attended to face questioning from assembled Committee members on the content of the Paper and improvements which could be made.

You can watch the hearing in the Parliament TV Archive.

Pavan Sukhdev, leader of the TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) study was also present, in Westminster prior to collecting the Institute Medal from the IEEM at a House of Lords reception later that afternoon. Pavan welcomed the inclusion of natural capital in the White Paper, along with plans to provide guidance for business in reporting their impact on natural capital. However, he warned that the results of TEEB should not be used to provide a cost-benefit analysis of nature when making decisions.

Chris Knight, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), said that most of businesses consulted by PwC had responded favourably to the White Paper, but had expressed uncertainties over how the commitments outlined would connect with reforms to water regulation (expected in the Water White Paper in December this year) and to planning. Funding for the commitments was also a cause for concern. Greater incentives were needed for businesses to invest in environmentally friendly schemes, he suggested.

Planning reform, and the need for this to enable, not undermine, the commitments in the White Paper, was a topic touched upon by almost all those questioned, as was funding. The National Planning Policy Framework, expected for consultation this month, should include a spatial planning tool, to help farmers balance competing demands on their land, it was suggested.

The National Trust and Wilidlife and Countryside Link both suggested that the White Paper contained no clear funding strategy. An over-reliance on agri-environment schemes is unsustainable, the witnesses suggested during later questioning; instead there needs to be an exploration of what options for leveraging funding are most sensible. Several options were suggested, including biodiversity offsetting, competition between farmers to deliver environmental services, tax reform (such as tax breaks for particular land uses or reduced fertiliser application), or raising money through taxation on timber imports – whilst tracking illegally logged timber and reducing its passage into the UK market. Private sector funding was likely to be vital to the future of nature conservation, all acknowledged.

The NFU called for greater investment in research and development, arguing for more money to be put behind the development of new technology to allow farmers to deliver food production whilst reducing their environmental impacts; sustainable production is possible, they argued. There was also a plea for research into how to make it easier for businesses to invest in the environment.

Finally, witnesses suggested that more work is needed around engaging the public with the natural environment. The National Trust argued that the White Paper did not include enough detail on how the environment could become a mainstream concern for the population of England, assisting in health and education. There was a plea for the need to cut red-tape and beaurocracy around health and safety on school trips, to enable more children to experience the natural world.

Witnesses suggested that the Committee should reconvene in a year’s time to examine progress against the commitments made in the White Paper, and new tools for improving progress if the commitments are not being met.

This week Defra released the highly anticipated Natural Environment White Paper titled ‘The Natural Choice: Securing the Value of Nature’, outlining Government’s vision for the future of landscapes and ecosystem services. The paper emphasises that although we know the environment provides many irreplaceable and valuable services we have been unsustainably exploiting natural capital for many years, leading to biodiversity loss and degradation. Plans for action to halt and reverse the decline in biodiversity and ecosystem services are described.

In a Defra press release following the launch of the White Paper Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman said “The true value of nature should be built in to the decisions we make – as individuals, organisations, businesses and governments – so that we become the first generation to leave the environment in a better condition than we found it.”

One of the key plans is to create 12 new Nature Improvement Areas (NIAs), designed to fulfil many of the goals of Lawton’s ‘Ecological Restoration Zones’, and help wildlife adapt to climate change. A competition will be set up to determine the site of the 12 initial Nature Improvement Areas, and Local Nature Partnerships (LNPs) will be invited to enter their area. So far £7.5 million has been pledged to fund these Nature Improvement Areas. However the Lawton Review ‘Making Space For Nature’ estimated the cost of restoring damage already done to the natural environment at around £0.6 to £1.1 billion.

The Government also plan to use the imminent reforms of the planning system to achieve environmental objectives, and improve ecological networks. Planners will be encouraged to put the natural environment at the heart of all decision making. Reforms to the planning system will include introducing voluntary use of biodiversity offsets in some areas, with a view to broadening these pilot schemes over time.

Another key element of the paper is plans to reconnect local people, particularly children, with nature, by creating a new Local Green Area designation to protect green spaces of particular importance to communities, and removing barriers preventing teaching outdoors. Communities will be supported to volunteer to protect their local wildlife areas.

A new independent committee (The Natural Capital Committee) will be established to advise the Government on the state of natural capital in the UK. Following the release of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment natural capital will be included in the UK Environmental Accounts.

Businesses will be expected to take greater action to protect the environment, and the Government have proposed to investigate potential ways to expand markets in which ecosystem service providers are paid by the users of the service.

The government have also pledged to influence policy in the EU and internationally by showing leadership and ensuring that there are ambitious environmental commitments included in the reformed Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy. £25 million will be donated to the Darwin initiatives fund to help ecosystem and development projects, reducing poverty worldwide. Initiatives to reduce climate change will also continue to be supported through £2.9 billion of funds which will distributed to projects such as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation.

In general the White Paper received a positive response from conservation organisations. The director of conservation at the RSPB Martin Harper said “Nature Improvement Areas are about looking at conservation on a joined up, landscape scale, instead of a series of patchwork measures dotted across our landscape. It’s fantastic to see the Government promoting this idea.” At the Wildlife Trusts Paul Wilkinson, Head of Living Landscapes said “How this White Paper is implemented and adopted by all Government departments will be critical. There is a vital need to ensure it influences the current policy reforms around planning, development and growth.” All emphasised that they would be willing to work with the government to ensure that the ambitious plans are carried out.