Rather than spelling disaster for environmental funding, the current debt crisis could provide an opportunity to create a win-win scenario for the environment and economic recovery – that was the message from an Aldersgate Group panel debate in December last year, attended by the BES Policy Team and summarised in a debate report published today.

On the panel were; Janez Potočnik, European Commissioner for the Environment, Sir John Harman, Director of the Aldersgate Group, Paul Ekins, Professor of Energy and Environmental Policy at University College London, and David Baldock, Director at the Institute of European Environmental Policy.

The speakers agreed that at a time when businesses critically need to minimise costs, measures to improve resource efficiency and reduce waste could give them a significant competitive edge. However, there was consensus that barriers such as a lack of long-term policy coherence and the lock-in of existing infrastructure will need to be addressed in order to pursue this opportunity for green economic recovery, and that Governments will need to demonstrate increased investment in research and development and measures such as the reform of environmentally perverse subsidies.

The Rio +20 Earth Summit, taking place in Rio de Janeiro in June 2012, needs to build upon the momentum begun by the last round of UNFCCC climate change negotiations in Duban, South Africa. That was the message of an event in Parliament yesterday evening, organised by the Aldersgate Group (co-sponsored by WWF) and attended by the BES Policy Team.

Chris Huhne MP, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, gave the opening speech, emphasising the positives which had emerged from the climate change negotiations; primarily from the ‘huddle’ called on the conference floor at the eleventh hour by the South African delegation. Using the analogy of the film ‘Sliding Doors’, where each of two realities were equally possible depending on the choices made in an instant, Chris Huhne suggested that the outcomes of the talks could have been very different, if it wasn’t for strong leadership by a number of countries.

Outcomes from Durban included an extension to the Kyoto Protocol and a commitment to develop a successor- an international legally-binding framework to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases – no later than 2015, to come into force in 2020. Parties to the negotiations have also recognised the need for greater urgency and ambition in tackling emissions; acknowledging that the timetable for action and the pledged emissions cuts lag someway behind the necessary momentum suggested by climate science.

One of the important commitments to emerge from Durban is to a Green Climate Fund, which will assist developing countries in their efforts to establish clean energy mechanisms. Member countries of the UNFCCC are required to contribute to the fund, although the Secretary of State and others at the Aldersgate Group event recognised that public money will need to be used to leverage significant amounts of private funding for the mechanism to be a success; there were questions around whether and how, this would be possible. The Green Climate Fund builds on the pledges made at the Copenhagen negotiations in 2009, to mobilise $100 billion per year for clilmate change adaptation and mitigation.

In a question and answer session to follow the Secretary of State’s speech, one delegate challenged the Government to be yet more ambitious during international negotiations, inviting Chris Huhne to give his view on innovative approaches that can really help to move the international community towards a ‘paradigm shift’ and new political reality. To this, Chris Huhne replied that investment in science and innovation would be key; an interesting statement given the extensive analysis in recent months by the Campaign for Science and Engineering that the UK science budget is actually going to decline in real terms to 2015, whilst other countries are investing in R and D as a way out of recession.

David Nussbaum, CEO of WWF UK, speaking later in the evening, emphasised the importance of Rio +20 leading to action, not rhetoric and to a vision of human development proceeding in parallel with conservation of the planet’s ‘life support systems’ (ecosystem services). Consistency across the UK Government will be vital. A speaker from the Aldersgate Group echoed this point when calling for the Prime Minister to vest genuine responsibility in the negotiating team from Defra who will be sent to Rio; allowing substantial pledges to action to be made.

Finally, a speaker from Philips stressed the need for Rio +20 to build on the momentum and atmosphere of change which he felt was in evidence at Durban. To make genuine progress: efforts to advance technology must be continued; policy frameworks must be developed (a global treaty); innovative financing mechanisms are needed to take care of the upfront investments that will be necessary, along with changes to budgeting practice – emphasising that upfront costs may be high but long-term, this investment will reap dividends. Finally, it is vital to communicate the ecological benefits of clean energy and a decarbonised, sustainable economy to the public at large but, beyond this, the social benefits of this transition. Ultimately, this will translate to changes in individuals’ mindsets and so onwards to voting choices, consumer behaviour and to business decisions.

The final speaker, from the Aldersgate Group, was pragmatic, saying that ‘Durban teaches us that we must manage our expectations for Rio’; the pace of political negotiations and of change can be achingly slow. Alongside international negotiations, he suggested, we must develop a pluralistic consensus on the need for change.

An Aldersgate Group event on 16th May will see Secretary of State for the Environment, Caroline Spelman MP, deliver a speech looking forward to Rio +20 and outlining the UK Government’s position on the Summit.

Yesterday evening, Jonathon Porritt, founder of Forum for the Future and chair of the Sustainable Development Commission, spoke at the annual Burntwood lecture, hosted by Institution of Environmental Science.

In a dynamic talk, Porritt described the so-called “growth fetish” of modern society, in which emphasis is increasingly put on economic growth, measured by Gross Domestic Product, above all other indicators of success. He also spoke on the role of human rights and development NGOs in fighting the cause for environmentalism, stating that they had failed to address the root of the problem.

Population growth, he said, was a key factor in the debate on how to achieve “a sustainable low-carbon economy”, a piece of the puzzle that had thus far been ‘missed out’. As a result, natural and economic resources would continue to be stretched to unsustainable levels, with almost every significant trend in consumption- including water, food and energy- increasing steadily. He assured that establishing a ‘real’ global price on carbon emissions was also vital, if the world is to lower its greenhouse gas emissions to at least 50% on 1990 levels by 2050, avoiding the dangerous effects of climate change. This would be equivalent to 6g of carbon dioxide per US dollar ($) of economic growth by 2050, whilst current levels are approximately 750g of carbon dioxide per dollar of growth.

Mr Porritt then suggested the essential tools needed to get us to a ‘sustainable economy’. He supported the idea that innovation and technological advancement, driven by a need for sustainable consumption, would also bring huge benefits economically. ‘Marketisation’, or valuation of natural assets including Ecosystem Services, would help to create an economic model in which preservation of natural assets remains more profitable than environmental destruction. “It’s about using nature’s wealth more sustainably”, Porritt stated. He suggested that political corruption and the rise of ‘Denialism’ were responsible for the majority of inaction on global over-consumption, which has lead to runaway environmental destruction.

Mr Porritt then called on NGOs and environmental advocates to start focussing their effort towards promoting “limits to growth”, to stop what he regarded as “the systematic betrayal of young people today”. Relentlessly increasing levels of consumption were “completely non-viable”, he added. He commented that well-known NGOs, such as Friends of the Earth and WWF, should make more effort to address the economic developmental pressures of the world today, in order to remain the “lifeblood” of the environmental movement.

A lively question and answer session followed the lecture, in which Trewin Restorick – CEO of Global Action Plan- and representatives from WWF-UK disputed Porritt’s claims that the NGOs strategy on global sustainability was “inadequate”. Mr Porritt also acknowledged the significant positive effect” that had been made by thinking and research on ecosystem services, in making biodiversity conservation more effective. He believes that understanding the “economics of natural capital” will help to further expose the irreversible costs of environmental destruction.

Other questions from the floor related to the role of innovation and technology in achieving his vision of ‘a sustainable low carbon economy’. Mr Porritt commented that innovation in ‘green technology’ did not have to come at the expense of economic recovery. He also praised leadership from “forward thinking entrepreneurs” in partnership with the private sector, for contributing to a “thriving” portfolio of low-carbon technologies, against the backdrop of political failure to establish a “price on carbon”. Further progress was being ’stunted’ by a lack of “market-based controls on carbon”, which would allow these technologies to become more economical, he said.

A new campaign by the Guardian newspaper seeks to challenge ‘ill-conceived’ developments on nationally and internationally important habitats, by highlighting local campaigns against them from around the country.

By collating a catalogue of developments, from large national projects to small garden-grabs, the newspaper hopes to highlight the threat developments present to our national biodiversity, which, it is argued, is being eroded piece by piece. By seeking to expose what it deems to be an iniquitous planning system which permits developments despite various levels of protection, the newspaper aims to raise awareness of the changes occurring to Britain’s landscape and the consequence for our natural environment.

Beginning with featured articles from the current and former Environment Secretaries, Caroline Spelman and Hilary Benn, both of whom have expressed support for the Guardian’s initiative, the campaign starts from firm footings, already attracting a number of submissions from local groups concerned about planned local developments.

To read more about the project, see the Piece by Piece webpages, here.

David Dickson, Director of SciDev.net, has written a very interesting piece on the network’s website, discussing the importance of effective science communication in stemming the loss of biodiversity. He states that scientists and others working to tackle biodiversity loss and climate change face ‘formidable challenges’ in presuading political leaders and the public to take action. In part, he says, the failure to tackle biodiversity loss effectively to date, missing the 2010 biodiversity target to achieve “a significant reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss”, is due to poor communication on the part of scientists and the media.

Mr Dickson criticises the scientific community for poorly articulating the importance of biodiversity to decision-makers, relating it to people’s everyday lives and concerns. New targets agreed at the Convention on Biological Diversity meeting in Nagoya, Japan, in October this year, must be accompanied by a ’sophisticated communications strategy’ to avoid a continuation of this mistake. ‘Biodiversity’ as a term is itself flawed, he argues, lacking concreteness which could galvanise public support. In moving forwards, the piece argues, scientists should firm up the science behind an understanding of biodiversity and its importance and must embed this science in viable, sustainable, economic growth and development strategies. Media coverage must relate biodiversity to people’s concerns such as jobs, health and food.

The BES and Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management launched a position statement on halting UK biodiversity loss in October 2009. Read more here.

The Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation programme has launched formally, following the approval of the Department for International Development. The ESPA programme, a partnership between the NERC, Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and DFID, was established in 2007 but the past two years have seen the development of the concept of the programme. Today, the three funders announced that funding had been agreed. The project has been formally launched under the banner of the Living With Environmental Change partnership.

Funding for the ESPA programme will total £40.5 million, combining £27 million of DFID’s development research funding together with £13.5 million of UK Research Council funding. The ESPA programme will explore the sustainable management of ecosystems and how this can contribute to poverty alleviation in developing countries.

The first call for applications has opened: Funding Stream 1 is a one-off opportunity for shorter-term, innovative, conceptual development type projects submitted as a Programme Framework grant.
Funding Stream 2 has two submission opportunities: one to win catalyst funding through a Partnership & Project Development grant, in preparation for a second submission opportunity for a larger Research Consortium grant. Further details can be found at the NERC website. The closing date for submissions is 3 March 2010.

Source: Research for Development

The Policy Lunchbox network today heard an extremely interesting presentation from Dr Anu Devi, Projects Coordinator at Science for Humanity. Science for Humanity is a charity, registered in 2007 and based at the University of Oxford, which matches science capability to human needs. Through fostering a network of organisations and individuals, Science for Humanity aims to turn science into solutions to alleviate poverty, advance community development and provide economic benefit to the poor.

Anu outlined the projects which Science for Humanity is currently developing and for which she is responsible. There are six projects in total including ‘Peru Coffee’; a project to improve soil fertility for coffee production on the Eastern slopes of the Andes impacted by deforestation and ‘Green Charcoal’, a project seeking innovative technologies to transform crops such as candlenut seed kernel, palm seed kernel and cotton strokes into green charcoal. A further project examines how science can help to supply clean drinking water to a village in Thailand, purifying the water and removing harmful bacteria such as E.coli. This project in particular demonstrates the importance of working with local people to educate them about the benefits and risks of different interventions; strong public resistance to the use of chlorine in the water means that a policy to introduce such a measure will not work without an education programme to overcome this.

Anu described Science for Humanity as playing a brokerage role between communities, building links and facilitating the exchange of information between those who have identified humanitarian problems (termed ’seekers’) and those who have the capacity to solve them (scientists, or ’solvers’). Science for Humanity identifies a project and communicates this to its members (of which there are now around 1,000, joining through the website). Through this mechanism Science for Humanity can match seekers and solvers and hopefully lead to positive outcomes for development.

Although small in scale at the moment, over time Science for Humanity hopes to influence research, aiming to secure funding to support scientists to work on particular projects, and policy making. The organisation envisions changing policy through encouraging the scientific community to think outside their specific research area, encouraging governments (local and national) to consult with scientists and take an evidence-based approach to combating humanitarian problems.

When questioned about scientists’ willingness to get involved with Science for Humanity Anu was very positive, stating that very many scientists wish to apply their research to real-world problems. Science for Humanity’s projects and discussion forums allow them to get involved and do this. Anyone can sign up to become a member of Science for Humanity through the organisations’ website; membership is free. You can also follow Science for Humanity on Facebook and Twitter.

Policy Lunchbox is a monthly forum for policy officers and others to meet one another, exchange ideas and information through free seminars and discussion. The network is maintained by the Biochemical Society and British Ecological Society. Information about forthcoming events is available on the Biochemical Society’s website.

Yesterday the BES Policy Team attended a very interesting symposium at the Royal Geographical Society, London, organised by the University of Nottingham. Over two years, an interdisciplinary programme of seminars has been funded by NERC and ESRC, aiming to encourage new understanding of the links between ecosystem services and human well-being. Yesterday’s conference brought together the various sub-themes which have been running as part of this ‘FRESH’ series (Framing Ecosystem Services and Human Well-Being) and saw a large number of participants from policy, social science, economics, consultancy and natural science come together to discuss the series’ findings.

There was much discussion about whether an ‘ecosystem approach’ offers a paradigm shift in conservation. The audience didn’t reach consensus on this, with some suggesting that yes, this is a shift in conservation science and policy from a piecemeal view – individual species and habitats – to a holistic approach. Others felt that integrated natural resource management had been pursued for some time and that lessons could be learned from this to inform an ecosystem approach. There was a feeling that the ‘ecosystem approach’ and its related terminology must not complicate approaches already being taken to conserve the environment, particularly in developing countries. It must map onto what it already happening and provide a framework for existing efforts – not impose an additional burden.

The audience agreed that there was value in the ecosystem services concept: it allows effective transdisciplinary communication, is linked to end-users and can foster improved public/ political understanding. In the words of one presenter, the ecosystem approach ‘links intangible science to tangible benefits from ecosystems’.

For all that, there is still a gap between theory and policy – with policy running someway ahead of the science behind an ecosystem approach – and between science, policy and action. A question was asked from the audience in the afternoon’s discussion, ‘what’s the case record on ecosystem services research informing decision making?’, to which Defra replied that policy is still in a learning phase, collecting case studies to assess how an ecosystem approach might work effectively. Steve Bass, Senior Fellow at the IIED and a member of the afternoon’s panel, suggested that a far simpler framework was needed to translate the ecosystem appproach into real benefits for the world’s poor. Characterising ecosystem services as ‘poverty-environment links’ might help to reduce confusion around the concept and stimulate funding for implementation.

The day closed with a presentation from Paul Ekins, an ecological economist at University College London. He offered a warning to those pushing firmly for the valuation of ecoystem services, so-called ‘commodity fetishism’. If the environment is regarded as only having an economic value, it will be traded off. This is why economic values were invented, to allow trade. Resolving the current environmental crisis will require a recognition that environmental sustainability has both a high economic and a high moral value.

For more information about FRESH visit the website.

The Observer yesterday reported that the UK Government is set to increase support for the development of GM crops in sub-Sarahan Africa to the tune of £100m. In a new White Paper, the Government proposes to spend £80m on the development of biofortified crops (containing additional vitamins), £60m on researching drought-resistant crops for Africa and £24m on the development of pest-resistance.

New research published in Biology Letters indicates that real efforts must be made to maintain green space in our towns and cities as human society becomes ever-more urbanised.

Researchers Richard Fuller, University of Queensland, and Kevin Gaston, University of Sheffield, examined data on urban land cover from the European Environment Agency, selecting 386 cities across Europe as the focus of their investigation, based on land area covered and population size. Cities in Europe tended to have a greater proportion of green space than those in the South. The researchers found that the amount of green space contained within a city varied enormously: from 3 – 4 square metres per person in Cádiz, Fuenlabrada and Almería in Spain and Reggio di Calabria in Italy, to more than 300 square metres per person in Liège in Belgium, Oulu in Finland and Valenciennes in France.

The UK bucked a trend found across Europe: in 67 UK cities selected for the study, the amount of green space did not increase with increasing population size, but with overall city area.

The study suggests that residents will have less access to green space as cities grow, with consequent effects on health and well-being, unless measures are taken to actively preserve and maintain this. The researchers recommend that systematic conservation planning should be built into development plans for cities and that tools should be developed which balance benefits to biodiversity, human well-being and economic growth, when designing urban areas fit for the 21st Century.

Access full paper: Fuller, R. A. and Gaston, K.J. (2009). The scaling of green space coverage in European cities. Biology Letters. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2009.0010.

The Natural Capital Initiative, supported by the Science Council and British Library, is holding an event on 15th June focused on ‘Sustainable Cities’. All are welcome. Click here for further information.