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.

At present, England’s forests are managed by the Forestry Commission on behalf of the Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. Ministers however, are now proposing to reform ownership and management of the estate by selling off large quantities of woodland to the private sector in an attempt to help tackle the deficit.

Current proposals suggest the introduction of a ‘mixed model approach’ to future management. This strategy suggests selling the most commercially valuable forests to timber companies on a long lease. Additionally, the reform aims to create a far greater role for civil society, businesses, and individuals when it comes to managing the environment by allowing communities, charities, and local authorities to buy and manage forests themselves; an approach in-keeping with the coalition government’s commitments to shift the balance in power from ‘Big Government’ to ‘Big Society’.

Plans to sell off England’s forests have caused controversy over worries that privatisation will create opportunities for timber and tourism development industries to move in, compromising both wildlife conservation and public access. The Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman however reassured that ancient woodlands such as the Forest of Dean and New Forest will be exempt from sale to commercial organisations, and that biodiversity and public access would not be compromised as environmental safeguards and rights of way would be maintained where possible.

The governments approach to forestry will be outlined in the 2011 Natural Environment White Paper due to be published this spring. The current consultation is open for response until 21st April 2011 through both the Defra and Forestry Commission website. A debate concerning the matter will be held at the Houses of Parliament tomorrow afternoon, of which the proceedings will be broadcast online at www.parliamentlive.tv

Biodiversity offsetting is a method intended to help compensate for the detrimental impacts of development on biodiversity. Such an approach is designed to work by creating a credit based market that developers could use to offset actions deemed harmful to the environment by investing in habitat restoration for biodiversity elsewhere.

Today the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) hosted a seminar in Westminster to discuss the scope for implementing biodiversity offsetting in the UK. The talks bought together a number of expert speakers to explore the potential benefits and risks associated with introducing this market-based strategy as a conservation approach.

The discussion aimed to stimulate conversation on the subject of offsets, and further encourage response to DEFRA’s consultation on biodiversity offsetting for the 2011 Natural Environment White Paper which is due to be published this spring.

The seminar was led by presentations from Claire Lewis from the Biodiversity Offsetting Team at DERFA, Dr Jo Treweek of Treweek Environmental Consultants, Prof David Hill from the Environment Bank Ltd, and finally Michael Oxford speaking for the Association of Local Government Ecologists.

DEFRA said that they were not looking to develop a mandatory approach, (which many argue is required), but instead create a voluntary system in which to pilot offsetting following the consultation. Discussion then focused on how to proceed with implementing offsetting, and get it right by ensuring a simple standardised system is in place.

The role of both government (to lay out a national framework), and local authorities (to guide and monitor progress over the long term) was highlighted, as was the need to provide the capacity to do so. To bridge gaps in funding, it was suggested that all associated costs were reflected in the market value of habitat, and that only habitats of a similar value could be traded. It was recommended that restoration areas should be pooled to increase their size, and that these areas should represent an effective network within the UK.

There was discussion about avoiding the risk of providing developers with ‘a license to destroy’, which emphasised the underlying offset principle of ‘no net loss’ and reiterated that offsetting should only be used in cases where no alternative development sites are available, and when detrimental impacts cannot be mitigated on-site. Attention was also given to the fact that it is not possible to re-create all habitat types, and that there will often be a lag time before restoration is complete.

The seminar made clear that there is still a lot of research to be done in terms of valuing and measuring biodiversity appropriately. If we get it right however, offsets could represent a paradigm shift towards tackling issues in conservation by no longer looking at developers as the problem but the solution.

The deadline for applications to take part in the 2011 BES Parliamentary Shadowing Scheme has been extended until Friday 7th February.

The scheme offers a fantastic opportunity for BES members in an early stage of their research career to interact with policy-makers, gaining a greater understanding of how ecological science can inform policy development.

Placements are available at the UK Government (Defra), Welsh Assembly Government and in Brussels. Placements should become available additionally in Scotland.

Further information is available from the BES website.

Climate change is cited as one of the major future threats to biodiversity conservation and ecosystem function. As a result, the need to adapt practical conservation measures to cope with the pressures of a changing climate have become increasingly relevant when making policy decisions.

To address this issue, The BES joined forces with Natural England to organise a conference titled ‘Adapting conservation to a changing climate’. The conference was held last week at The BES in London from the 11th-12th January 2011, and represented an exciting opportunity to explore how conservation can assist adaptation to, and mitigation of climate change in the UK.

The conference joined researchers, policy-makers and practitioners to review the current research findings, and provide a forum for inter-disciplinary debate. UK and international representatives from leading organisations including Natural England, DEFRA, and a number of top universities were invited to speak on the topic, and encourage further discussion of the best ways forward.

A combination of presentations, posters, and workshops highlighted the increasing importance of climate change as a driver of biodiversity decline and ecosystem service loss. A large scale, ecosystem based approach to conservation was suggested for integration into land use planning and management to help mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change. The creation of more, bigger, better and joined reserves was also discussed, and the social, political, and economic obstacles to this debated.

The two day event was well received by audiences and has helped provide a solid foundation for stepping up the pace when it comes to climate change by creating clear guidelines for future action. A report summarising the outcome of the conference will be published in due course.