An All-Party Parliamentary Group for International Development & the Environment (APPG IDE) meeting was held today in Westminster to discuss challenges facing policy-makers ahead of the UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in June this year. The APPG IDE is a forum for MPs and Peers to discuss the links between poverty and natural resources, and engage with interested people and organisations outside parliament.

The event was chaired by Jon Snow and had a panel consisting of:
Mark Simmonds MP: Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford MP: Scottish National Party spokesperson on International Development.
Dr Caroline Lucas MP: leader of the Green Party.
Martin Horwood MP: Co-chair of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Committee on International Affairs.
Tony Cunningham MP: Shadow Minister for International Development.

Jon Snow welcomed the meeting by pointing out that things have certainly happened during the last 20 years in the UK since the first Rio Earth Summit in 1992. He brought up the UK Climate Change Act and the announcement of the draft Energy Bill today as examples. After this, previously submitted questions were addressed to the panel by the audience.

The first questioner wanted to know how committed the UK Government is towards the outcomes of the Rio+20 Summit and what the key issues are. Mark Simmons listed three main issues that need to be addressed in Rio: sustainable development, GDP+ and a bigger contribution from businesses and the private sector. Eilidh Whiteford emphasised the need to transfer our technology and knowledge to the rest of the world, while Tony Cunningham mentioned poverty eradication as the bottom line of all the main issues which need to be addressed. Caroline Lucas added that human population has to admit its responsibility for the current problems and highlighted the need for financial commitment. Finally, Martin Horwood called for a holistic view to look at environmental problems at the Rio+20 Summit, rather than focusing on climate change to the exclusion of biodiversity loss and other considerations. Although the panellists pointed out slightly different issues they all agreed that the UK has to show leadership in Rio by the Prime Minister leading the delegation. At present, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg MP is due to attend, along with Secretary of State for Defra, Caroline Spelman.

Another question focussed on the North-South difference and poverty issues. The MPs agreed that social justice and sustainability should be at the heart of the new Sustainable Development Goals expected to be discussed in Rio.

The next questioner wanted to know how the global economy can provide the finances needed to meet the successors to the Millennium Development Goals and any new Sustainable Development Goals. Mr Horwood set out the UK government as a good example, applauding its decision to allocate 0.7% of the budget to international development projects. This is particularly impressive in a time of financial austerity, when it would have been easy to cut back on this spending. Mr Simmonds pointed at businesses and the private sector that need to be involved in the funding of the developmental goals. Caroline Lucas suggested that a ‘financial transaction tax’ could be levied on businesses and that a tax on greenhouse gas emissions from shipping could be a further mechanism. Mark Simmonds disagreed, stating that economic considerations are drivers for business and that business leaders will respond when they recognise that sustainable development makes good business sense, not when taxed to do so. Ms Lucas argued however that we cannot afford to wait for the majority of businesses to recognise this; instead Government needs to hold up examples of good practice to business, demonstrating that it is possible to behave sustainably and make a profit.

Then the discussion moved on to the ‘green economy’ and what the MPs think about it. The panellists agree that green economy is not equal to green growth and that there are parts of the world which still need growth but other parts should move towards a steady state economy. Therefore general global goals will not perform well due to differences in countries and regions. Ms Lucas also wondered what impacts would ‘advertisement-free zones’ have on our consumption pattern if these were widespread.

Another question which brought consensus amongst the panellists was about biofuels. They all agreed that biofuels are not all bad and there are some room for them within sustainable development but it is crucial to prioritise regarding to food security, society and environment. Martin Horwood added that the UK Government need to keep the pressure on EU renewable targets to make sure that they are really sustainable.

The last question asked the MPs’ opinion on setting up a new high commission for future generation issues. All of them, except Mark Simmonds, would like to see a new body focussing on future generations. Caroline Lucas brought up Hungary as a good example; Hungary has a Deputy-Commissioner responsible for the protection of the interests of future generations. On the other hand, Mark Simmonds would like to see existing institutions work better rather than introducing a new one. He was also wary about separating sustainable development considerations from mainstream policy, arguing that the UK Government already has a commitment to incorporating sustainable development considerations throughout the Government’s agenda.

The panellists mentioned several times that best practice has to be shared widely and the successes discussed. However, negative lessons learnt from the past could be just as important to share.

At the end of the meeting Jon Snow summarised the three most important points to emerge from the meeting:
- we should brag about our successes;
- the UK should be proud about the allocation of 0.7% of its budget to development goals and similar action by other countries should be pushed in Rio;
- and, most importantly, the Prime Minister should lead the UK delegation to the Rio+20 Earth Summit.

The Royal Society yesterday published ‘People and the Planet‘, a report which marks the end of nearly two years of work by a group including both the British Ecological Society’s current President, Professor Georgina Mace FRS and a past-President of the Society, Professor Alastair Fitter FRS. Speaking to the Radio 4 ‘Today’ programme yesterday morning, Professor Mace warned that we are eroding the earth’s vital support systems through over-consumption and unfettered economic growth and that as a consequence we are not doing a very poor job of ‘gardening the planet’.

The study examines the links between global population and consumption and the implications for our finite planet. The aim of the report is to provide policy guidance to decision makers and to inform interested members of the public. Yesterday’s publication led to very interesting coverage on the Guardian’s environment blog, with members of the working group, including the group’s chair, Nobel Prize-winning geneticist Sir John Sulston FRS, commentators and others offering their views on the content. Some of those commenting contended that the scientists were too negative in their assessment and that economic growth should not always be viewed as having negative consequences for the environment. One suggestion was that economic growth means that natural resources such as timber could be replaced with man-made materials for development purposes, so reducing environmental degradation. Another was that economic growth means technological and scientific advances, with humanity thereby innovating our way out of a crisis.

Aside from any external comment on the project’s conclusions, the overriding message of the study is that we must examine population growth and consumption patterns together and that it is the combination of these two factors that has an effect on the planet. The human population is set to reach 10 billion people, from the current seven billion, by the middle of this century. Over 1.3 billion people currently live in abject poverty, on less than $1.25 per day. It is clearly not desirable to see a world in which both the population increases and inequalities are exacerbated. Inequality must be addressed, people must be lifted out of poverty, but as their wealth and living standards increase, so too will the consumption of resources. Reducing consumption whilst also reducing inequalities and ensuring that those in poverty achieve an adequate living standard is a dilemma, and one which seems intractable.

Yet, speaking to the Today Programme yesterday morning, Sir John Sulston described tackling these pressures on the planet, what he characterised as ‘planning to flourish’, as ‘very simple’. Echoing the conclusions of the report he stated that we need to ‘dematerialise’ our economy, for example by investing in zero carbon forms of energy and by moving beyond GDP as a measure of economic growth to price in natural capital. In addition, tackling population growth will require countries to work together constructively, rather than the developed somehow lecturing the developing world in how to address birth rates. Contraception should be made available to those who want it in Africa, where two thirds of the anticipated growth in population is projected to occur, for example, but representatives of some African nations, such as Kenya, are requesting this, rather than this being imposed from outside.

Top priority is afforded to lifting people out of poverty, in the report’s conclusions. The international community is urged to address inequality through investment in education, family planning and economic development. The other recommendations are (to paraphrase):

- Most developed and developing economies must stabilise and reduce material consumption levels (de-coupling economic growth from environmental impacts and improving the efficiency of resource use, for example);
- Reproductive health and voluntary family planning programmes should be supported by political leadership and financial commitments;
- Population and the environment should not be considered separately. Demographic changes should be factored in to Rio +20 negotiations, for example;
- Governments should invest appropriately in urbanisation, for example supporting waste collection, which has the potential to reduce environmental impacts through allowing resource efficiencies;
- High quality primary and secondary education should be available for all young people;
- Governments should accelerate the development of a comprehensive wealth measure, including improving national natural asset accounting;
- Governments should collaborate to develop socio-economic systems and institutions not dependent on continued material consumption.

Natural and social scientists have an important role to play. The seventh recommendation calls for scientists to increase their research into the interactions between consumption, demographic changes and environmental impacts, providing policy-makers with the information they require in order to ensure that both the planet and the human population under pressure can continue not only to survive but also to thrive.

The Government will this afternoon publish the long-awaited National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which will simplify over 1,000 pages of planning guidance into just 50 pages and set out a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ that will apply across England.

Speaking to the BBC’s ‘Today’ programme this morning, planning Minister Greg Clark MP said that the NPPF would provide an opportunity to involve local communities in planning decisions ‘right from the start’. Instead of seeing developments challenged, by communities that have felt these have been imposed on them from outside, these same communities will now be given an opportunity to plan positively for the housing and infrastructure that they recognise they need, the Minister suggested.

But there are others who feel far less positively about the NPPF. Over the past few months environmental organisations have challenged the Government rigourously regarding its proposed planning reforms, with tension most obvious with regard to the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’. Many, such as the National Trust and the Campaign to Protect Rural England, have argued that the defintion of ’sustainable development’ used within the draft document, on which consultation closed last autumn, was inconsistent and confused. For example, in one instance the Brundtland Commission definition of sustainable development is used (essentially, meeting the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs) and the three pillars of sustainable development (social, economic and environmental) are mentioned. Yet in other instances the wording of the document suggests that economic growth will be given precedence over the other aspects that need to be considered for an approach to be truly ’sustainable’.

An article (1) in the latest edition of the bulletin of the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (In Practice), provides a useful analysis of the draft NPPF. The authors conclude that overall the draft NPPF promises weaker protection for the environment than Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS 9), which it replaces. Although there already exists in planning policy a presumption in favour of development that meets sustainability principles, the authors suggest that the NPPF marks a shift away from this due to the precedence afforded to economic growth above the other pillars of sustainability and the non-precautionary approach adopted by the guidance. Development is to proceed in the case of doubt over the likely impacts, unless the ‘costs significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits’. The burden of proof will therefore rest with the objector to a proposal and, the authors suggest, ‘developers are likely to have a smoother path’.

Greg Clark rejected these suggestions in an interview with the BBC Breakfast programme this morning. He said that development should not be at the expense of the environment and that the reason for a planning system in England is to ensure that economic, social and environmental factors can be considered together and balanced. Again he reiterated the need to involve local communities in planning decisions, emphasising that the reforms have been motivated by a desire to ensure that local people and not only specialists can engage with the streamlined planning guidance.

Despite these assurances, and a report in the Guardian suggesting that National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty will receive additional protection from development in the NPPF, Whitehall sources have been quoted across the media as saying that the document is ‘unashamedly pro-growth’. When the Minister makes his statement to MPs at 12.30 GMT and the new regulations come into force immediately, those who have challenged the development of the NPPF over past months will have the opportunity to assess whether any concessions have been made following the consultation phase.

1. Wilson, R. and Simpson, P. A Cunning Plan…or a Plan too Far? In Practice (2012) 75: 7 – 11.

In 2009, Professor John Beddington, Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government, used the term ‘perfect storm’ to describe the critical combination of food shortages, water scarcity and insufficient energy resources facing the world’s population, predicting these would come to a head in 2030 resulting in significant social unrest and destabilisation. A conference last week, jointly hosted by WWF-UK and Royal Geographical Society (with IBG) , provided an opportunity to consider the solutions available for ‘Navigating the Perfect Storm’.

The well-attended event opened with an introduction by Prof. Beddington who commented that the three years since his oft-quoted statement has been a period of significant and rapid change in factors such as food prices, energy and water demand, and population. It is the latter issue which has really drawn Prof. Beddington’s attention and has emerged as a crucial concern which ‘we haven’t thought enough about’. Projections are for 1 billion more people in just 13 years, meaning that the timetable for action it is incredibly short. Already at current population levels, millions are without access to food, water and electricity. According to Prof Beddington, tackling these issues in a sustainable way is the ‘biggest challenge we’ve got’, yet the international community has so far ‘failed to get to grips’ with it. However, he said, these acute challenges also create opportunities for exciting and important innovations.

Ivan Lewis, Shadow Secretary of State for International Development, reiterated that the current period of ‘momentous international change’ presents both both major challenges and potential opportunities in his keynote speech. He stated that the range and scale of current global challenges mean the ‘business as usual’ paradigm is no longer acceptable or sustainable and a ‘new covenant for development’, replacing the paternalistic relationship between developed and developing countries with a ‘tripartite, dynamic network’ for international cooperation, will be necessary. In this holistic approach, he stated, sustainable development will need to become the foundation of any development framework rather than the ‘bolt on’ it has often been. This change in approach will require strong political leadership and commitment to international development which Mr Lewis feels the current government is lacking but that the Labour party has begun to address in its formation of a ‘Road to Rio’ joint working group, bringing together ministers from various teams ahead of the Rio+20 conference in June this year. Mr Lewis stated that international conferences and agreements have often proved ineffective in the past due to the influence of strong individual interests. However, international binding targets drive action, even if they are not met. Mr Lewis concluded that a one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate in policy making and that scientists and politicians should play to their strengths and break down the barriers between them to cooperate on forming policy.

A call for a new policy approach was identified by Professor Bill Adams of University of Cambridge as one of the main topics of conversation surrounding the upcoming Rio+20 conference. Some people have high hopes that the summit will address many of the major global issues and argue that the process is ‘honing in on a solution’. However, others see it as simply a ‘spiral of talk’. Prof. Adams put the upcoming conference in the context of 40 years since the publication of ‘Limits to Growth’ in 1972. Since then, he stated, we have made progress in some ways but are at a point in what he called ‘the Anthropocene’ where ‘the rates, scales, kinds, and combinations of changes occurring now are fundamentally different from those at any other time in history’ (quoted from Vistousek et al). Consequently, we need new policy approaches and innovative solutions which holistically address the needs of society, the economy and the environment. Prof. Adams argued that this will require a transformation of production and consumption to reduce resource demand and improve equity. This ‘contraction and convergence’ will be ‘profoundly difficult’ due to the challenge of persuading populations in both developed and developing to adjust their material aspirations. Prof. Adams concluded that the current situation is ‘an uncomfortable place to be’ but exciting too as important political figures are beginning to recognise that a change in lifestyles and consumption is necessary to address the ‘perfect storm’ of issues facing the world.

Providing a different perspective, Dr Sejal Worah shared observations from her work as Programmes Director for the WWF in India, a country where there has been considerable economic development recently but where acute poverty and inequality, environmental damage and resource depletion persist. Dr Worah stated that efficiency and innovation offer ‘low hanging fruit’ in the pursuit of sustainable development, but that radical transformational changes are also necessary; India ‘has no choice but to develop differently to how industrialised countries developed’. She described a project in the Sundarbans which demonstrates the opportunity for technology ‘leap-frogging’; creation of a solar power station in the region resulted in community empowerment and a reduction in its reliance on unsustainable net-fishing whilst bypassing the use of unsustainable fossil fuels. Another project in the Himalayas restored depleted freshwater springs through various technical solutions developed in partnership with local communities and after a 100-110% increase in stream discharge, the Indian government scaled the approach up to a national scope. The lesson from this, Dr Worah said, is that it successful local solutions are possible and suitable for scaling-up, providing local communities are engaged and technical solutions are matched to the culture, society and economy.

The conference was rounded up with a brief panel discussion involving the four speakers alongside Katie Critchlow of BigGreenChange, Miguel Petana, Vice-President of Global External Affairs at Unilever and Chris Whaley, Head of European and International Co-ordination Division at Defra. The panel agreed that tackling the resource issues facing us will require accounting for the natural environment within economic meaures. Mr Whaley was of the opinion that there is a need to ‘trim down’ on the number of international conventions and review current objectives to focus on feasible goals. Prof. Adams agreed that alongside international policy, there is need to focus on scientific research into specific issues such as crop disease. Mr Petana said consumer education will play a role in reducing the impact of consumption whilst Ms Critchlow suggested a move towards legislating rather than persuading may be necessary.

In answer to a final question as to whether the panel felt optimistic about the current situation, two answered ‘no’, but the remainder were positive about our chances of navigating the perfect storm.

The Welsh government is seeking opinions on two major new proposals for the future of Wales’ environmental policy.

Following the announcement of Welsh Environment Minister John Griffiths in November last year proposing the development of a single body to replace the Countryside Council for Wales, the Environment Agency Wales, and the Forestry Commission for Wales, a consultation was launched earlier this month. The intention in creating a single body is to ensure more effective and sustainable management of Wales’ natural resources whilst minimising costs. The consultation will focus on issues including the legal change needed to establish a new body and definition of its overall purpose. Interested parties have the opportunity to submit their reactions to the proposal until May 2nd.

Simultaneously, a consultation is underway into a recently published Green Paper entitled ‘Sustaining a Living Wales’. The paper is a follow up to the government’s strategy ‘A Living Wales’ developed in 2010 and proposes a change in the governance and delivery of environmental management and regulation to an ecosystem-based approach. The consultation, launched at the end of January this year, is designed to assess the degree of support for such a radical change and whether the tools the government proposes are seen to be the right ones.

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.