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.

The UK National Ecosystem Assessment has been released today, and is the first independent, peer reviewed, in detail assessment of the state and value of the UK’s natural environment and ecosystem services. Both scientists and economists were involved in the assessment, which was funded by the governments of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and by the Natural Environment Research Council and the Economic and Social Science Research council.

The UK National Ecosystem Assessment strengthens the argument for protecting nature, and demonstrates that the costs of protecting the environment are shadowed by the cost of inaction. One of the key messages of the report was that we have focussed far too heavily on the market value of natural resources we can sell (e.g. timber and food), and not properly considered natural capital during decision making.

During the 20th Century population increases and initiatives to produce more food and timber led to serious damage and degradation of ecosystems and related services. Agricultural land, urban areas and woodlands have decline at the expense of other habitats such as semi-natural grasslands. Across all habitats the changes in land use and environmental pressures have led to declines in the number of species and quality of ecosystem services. 50% of fish stocks are being harvested unsustainably, and the UK has the lowest percentage forest cover of anywhere in Europe, with over two thirds being non-native plantation.

The report suggests that if the UK’s ecosystems were properly protected and enhanced then they could add an extra £30 billion to the UK economy. Neglect and loss of ecosystem services may cost as much as £20 billion to the economy per year.

The assessment looked at eight different types of ecosystems (Mountains, Moorlands and Heaths, Semi-natural Grasslands, Enclosed Farmland, Woodlands, Freshwaters – Openwaters, Wetlands and Floodplains, Urban, Coastal Margins, and Marine), the services that they provide, how the levels of service provisioning have changed over the past sixty years, and the main drivers of environmental change. The report considered both the monetary and non-monetary value of our natural environment, and the economic value of the observed changes in the way that ecosystems function and provide services, demonstrating that individuals, society and the economy can benefit financially from protecting ecosystems. Finally the report focuses on the potential effects of decisions that are made now, by examining the ecosystem effects of several different scenarios.

The synthesis report of the National Ecosystem Assessment outlines six key findings:

1. Nature is consistently undervalued in a wide range of decision making processes, even though we are fully aware that it is highly important.
2. Ecosystems have changed over the past 60 years, as have the services that they provide, and the ways in which people benefit from them. Population growth, technology, and globalisation have had major effects on the way in which we behave and consume ecosystem services.
3. Some ecosystem services are in long term decline, although other services are being provided well, or improving. Approximately 30% of services are currently declining, with some services already in a degraded state
4. The UK’s population is growing, as are our demands on the natural environment. This, with the added pressure of climate change, will accelerate the rate at which we impact the environment both in the UK and worldwide. Increasing the production of food whilst safeguarding ecosystem services will be the main challenge in this area.
5. Actions taken now will impact the future of the UK’s ecosystems, ecosystems services and human wellbeing. It is important that we make the right decisions now, using the National Ecosystem Assessment to inform decision making, which would allow us to pursue a better future where the benefits of ecosystem services are better realised and more evenly distributed.
6. Regulations, technology, finance, education and changes in individual and societal behaviour are all needed to ensure that we move towards sustainable development. We also will also need a more integrated, collaborative approach to managing ecosystems, between different government departments, business local authorities, and civil society.

In response to the release of the National Ecosystem Assessment Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman said “The UK National Ecosystem Assessment is a vital step forward in our ability to understand the true value of nature and how to sustain the benefits it gives us. I want our children to be the first generation to leave the natural environment in a better state than it was left to them. The findings of this assessment have played a big part in shaping our forthcoming Natural Environment White Paper that will help us revitalise our towns and countryside.”

The report presents a real opportunity to start changing the way we think about the natural environment, and will be vital in shaping many areas of policy in the coming months. An effective strategy to ensure preservation of the UK’s ecosystems needs to be developed. Bob Watson, Chief Scientist at Defra Chief and co-chair of the UK NEA, said “Until now there has been no clear way of valuing the full range of benefits they provide beyond what we can buy and sell. The UK NEA introduces groundbreaking approaches to measure the value of these services and how they will be affected in future if we do not make the right choices now. The NEA shows that we need a more integrated approach to ecosystem management, involving Government, the private sector, voluntary groups and the public working together to protect the services nature provides.”

The Defra White Paper, which should be released later this month, is expected to include actions on some of the key findings of the national ecosystem assessment. Planning policy is also expected to be affected by the release of this report, which currently puts little value on green spaces, and does not ensure adequate protection of ecosystem services or biodiversity.

The BES policy team tweeted from the launch event.
@BESpolicy

The Defra press release can be seen here.

The BES policy team yesterday attended a meeting of the All party Parliamentary Conservation and Wildlife Group. The meeting commenced with a talk about future priorities of Natural England from Dr Helen Phillips, Chief Executive of Natural England, followed by a question and discussion session. The talk focussed on the effects of the budget cuts on the services that natural England provides, and the direction of Natural England’s efforts over the coming years. The recent reform of Natural England has resulted in budget cuts, a ban on lobbying activities, and a keener focus on customer service. However there has been no legislative change and the main purpose of natural England remains the government’s independent advisory body on the natural environment. Dr Phillips explained to the group how Natural England will continue to provide this service despite the funding cuts.

Dr Phillips started by focussing on the successes of Natural England in the past five years, of which there have been many. A survey of farmers enrolled in agri-environment schemes revealed that 84% thought that Natural England gave good or excellent customer service. 70% of agricultural land is now under some sort of environmental management which is up from 45% in 2006. This has made a noticeable difference to protected species and habitats on which agricultural land has an important impact. 96% of (Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) are in good or excellent condition compared with only 73% 5 years ago. A slowing of farmland bird decline has occurred with signs of recovery. 30% of the UK landscape is under some form of protection whether that be SSSIs or national parks. There have also been a variety of very successful programmes to connect people with their environment.

However Natural England faces many challenges in protecting the natural environment. England is still experiencing ongoing habitat losses and biotic homogenisation, with many once common species rare and declining. The natural environment is also experiencing increased pressures from an increasing human population demanding more from the same land area. Importantly Lawton’s vision of more, bigger, better, and joined protected areas still has not been realised. There are lots of imminent opportunities to respond to these challenges: the Defra white paper, European biodiversity strategy, the National Ecosystem Assessment. Natural England aims to make sure that people reconnect with nature, our natural assets are protected and we maximise the opportunities offered to society by a green economy. Dr Phillips noted that there is also strong cross party support for these ideas, improving the chances of success.

The talk ended with Dr Phillips outlining the main strategies Natural England will employ to achieve these goals over the coming years:
• Improving protection of priority species and habitats.
• Continuing the success of the agri-environment schemes.
• Establishing a coherent network of Marine Protected Areas.
• Taking a landscape scale approach to conservation.
• Creating “ecological restoration zones” led and funded by a wide variety of organisations.
• Forming partnerships with businesses, local authorities, and NGOs.

One of the main themes to the questions was the effect of budget cuts on the ability of Natural England to provide sound advice to local people, who have become more involved in local decision making because of the Government’s “Big Society” initiative. Natural England have collaborated with the Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, and Wildlife Trusts to share information and identify priority areas in which to act. Defra is also developing an evidence portal for local people to enable access to sound scientific evidence to empower local communities to make more decisions.
Dr Phillips suggested that the BES could also have an important role to play in ensuring good decisions are made at the local level, by providing accreditation for learning and education programmes. This could be particularly useful when training members of local authorities tasked with making decisions about protected species and habitats in planning applications. She also suggested that the BES could support and contribute to research work done by Natural England, by providing quality assurance or peer review.

The announcement of a badger TB vaccination trial on the National Trust’s Killerton Estate has been welcomed by both farmers and local environmental groups. The four year programme which will commence this May aims to show that vaccination is a viable alternative to culling programmes, particularly in places where Defra’s culling criteria cannot currently be met.

Bovine tuberculosis is a major burden for both farmers and taxpayers in the UK. Last year the cost of the disease to the taxpayer was almost £63 million, mainly paid out in compensation to farmers who had cattle destroyed as a result of the disease. However farmers say that this sum does not cover the cost of replacing lost animals, and more needs to be done to prevent the spread of the disease.

Badger culling, the current recommended strategy for control of bovine TB, has been shown to be effective within culling sites but can have detrimental knock on effects for surrounding areas, which often see an increased incidence of the disease. As a consequence of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) which showed these effects Defra introduced stringent criteria to set the conditions under which badger culling can take place, which require farmers to demonstrate that they can minimize any potential edge effects, and cull within a minimum area size of 150km2. There are very few instances when these criteria can be met. When these criteria cannot be fulfilled it seems that vaccination may be the only viable option but so far there is little evidence to show how effective it might be.

The new programme funded by the National Trust aims to demonstrate to the government and farmers that vaccination is a viable alternative to culling. It also aims to stimulate research into an oral vaccine, such as the type which has been used with great success to treat rabies, which would be a cheap and easy to administer option for carrying vaccination out on a larger scale. Mark Harold from the national trust said that he hopes that this project can “pave the way for more widespread use of vaccination as an effective alternative to culling”, and also noted that “the National Trust is in a unique position as a major landowner in rural areas” allowing them to pioneer the scheme.

The vaccination programme will involve 18 tenant farmers on 20 km2 farmland in the Killerton estate, a prime example of a site that cannot meet current DEFRA criteria for badger culls. It is expected to cost around £80,000 per year and run until 2015. Badgers will be trapped, vaccinated and marked by licensed experts.

Last week the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) released the results of an investigation into public attitudes and knowledge relating to biodiversity and the natural environment.

The results of the study reflect the answers given by 1,769 people who participated in face-to-face interviews in England during March 2011, and similar surveys conducted between the 2007-2011 period.

Questionnaire results revealed the following key points:

• In 2011 92% of respondents said it was fairly or very important for them to have public gardens, parks, commons or other green spaces nearby.
• 56% of respondents said they used public gardens parks, commons or other green spaces at least once a week.
• 48% of respondents reported knowing at least a little about biodiversity; a slight increase from 44 per cent in 2009.
• 78% of respondents when prompted agreed that they “worry about changes to the countryside in the UK and loss of native animals and plants”.
• 13% of respondents had volunteered with, given time to or taken part in conservation volunteering for an organisation or community group in the previous 12 months.

In terms of environmental knowledge, when people were questioned specifically on how much, they knew about ‘climate change’, ‘ecosystem services’, and ‘biodiversity’ 44% reported knowing a lot or a fair amount about climate change. Yet, 31% of respondents said they had never heard of the term ‘biodiversity’, and 28% of respondents said they had never heard of the term ‘ecosystem services’.

The release, despite indicating progress towards increased environmental awareness among members of the public, shows that there is still room for improvement of environmental education, particularly in relation to biodiversity and ecosystem services.

The European Nitrogen Assessment (ENA), a major new investigation, today released its findings revealing the environmental and economic cost of nitrogen pollution in Europe.

The ENA, conducted by over 200 international experts, estimated that nitrogen pollution is already costing Europeans up to £650 each every year – amounting to a total of £280 billion. This cost reflects the value of damage to essential services, (known as ‘ecosystem services’), such as climate regulation and the supply of clean water and air provided by healthy ecosystems that are rich in biodiversity.

For decades nitrogen fertiliser has been used to increase agricultural food production in order to meet rising demands and feed the planets growing human population. The use of nitrogen fertiliser to improve crop yields has however had negative environmental impacts. Much of the nitrogen pollution associated with agriculture is linked to its use as a fertiliser to produce crops used to feed livestock intended for meat production. As a result, large areas of forest are cleared each year to make space for soy beans grown to feed Europe’s chickens, cows and pigs.

In terms of climate, up to 60% of the economic cost of nitrogen damage is derived from fossil fuels burnt in order to generate energy and from transport (with the remiaing 40% coming from agriculture). Nitrogen fertilisers also cause the release of nitrous oxide, one of the fundamental green house gases responsible for global warming. Furthermore, nitrogen also contributes to air pollution with negative implications for human health, reducing life expectancy and causing problems such as asthma and cancer.

Despite this, there remains a great need to use nitrogen fertiliser, and demand for fossil fuel combustion. Consequently, there is now more than ever, a need to improve the efficiency of processes associated with nitrogen pollution so as not to cause unnecessary damage to the environment. The ENA report addresses these issues and suggests we minimise future damage by reducing fossil fuel emissions through investment in clean energy for homes and transport, and by reducing our demand for meat. The report discusses altering the western diet by decreasing meat consumption, in order to ease the environmental pressures associated with its production. Present figures show that in Europe people currently eat 70% more meat and diary products than required for a healthy diet and therefore reducing meat intake could be beneficial for both human health and the environment.

The report concludes that the overall costs of damage to the environment at the expense of nitrogen pollution far out-weigh the direct economic benefits of using nitrogen in agriculture alone. In light of these developments a move towards a more sustainable lifestyle by individuals, institutions and government is needed. Defra’s Chief Scientist, Professor Bob Watson, remained positive commenting that “things are going in the right direction, [the UK has reduced nitrous oxides by 60% since 1990] but we do need to move faster to avoid this environmental damage”.

On Thursday 17th February 2011 it was announced that the consultation into the future ownership and management of England’s Public Forest Estate will be halted, and that and all forestry clauses in the Public Bodies Bill will be scrapped.

In response to over half a million people protesting against the privatisation of up to 258,000 hectares of public forest, the Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman, made a statement in the House of Commons yesterday declaring the end of the consultation, saying that the government had “got this one wrong”.

Mrs Spelman further announced the establishment of an independent panel to advise on the future direction of forestry and woodland policy in England, and consider the role of the Public Forest Estate and Forestry Commission. The new panel will include representatives from key environmental, forestry, and access organisations, and will report its findings to the Secretary of State in autumn.

In her speech Mrs Spelman said “we have listened to people’s concerns … if there is one clear message from this experience, it is that people cherish their forests and woodlands and the benefits they bring.”

The British Ecological Society’s Conservation Ecology Special Interest Group (SIG) is organising a meeting on 19th April 2011, exploring the implications of Prof. Sir John Lawton’s review of England’s protected areas (’Making Space for Nature‘). The meeting will consider the ecological challenges of the approach to nature conservation advocated by the Review (including more protected areas, which are ‘bigger, better and joined’), in the context of Defra’s Natural Environment White Paper, expected in the spring.

The meeting is an opportunity for ecologists, conservationists and policy-makers to get together at the BES’s headquarters, Charles Darwin House, to discuss the research and knowledge exchange required to ‘make space for nature’ in England, and the UK as a whole.

You can now book a place at the meeting, by downloading a booking form from the BES website and returning this by post to the meeting organiser. See the Conservation Ecology SIG page for further details.