Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman last week announced the appointment of five members to the recently formed independent Natural Capital Committee.

The members are experts in the fields of natural science and economics, with a considerable range of specialist knowledge and experience:
Professor Ian Batemen of University of East Anglia served as Head of Economics for the UK National Ecosystem Assessment and is a Member of Defra Science Advisory Council
Dr Giles Atkinson is Head of the Environmental Economics and Policy Cluster at London School of Economics
Kerry ten Kate is Director of Business and Biodiversity at Forest Trends and is currently working on the Valuing Nature Network
Robert Smale is Director and Founder of Vivid Economics Ltd and has led projects including an analysis of the scope for a Green Investment Bank in the UK
Rosemary Hails has an MBE for services to Environmental Research and is chair of the Natural Capital Initiative (of which the BES is a partner).

The Committee was created as an outcome of last year’s Natural Environment White Paper (The Natural Choice: Securing the Value of Nature) and will provide independent expert advice on the state of England’s natural capital, reporting directly to the Economic Affairs Committee, chaired by Chancellor George Osborne.

The group’s aim is to ensure that the Government has a good understanding of the value of Natural Capital and that the decisions it takes support and improve the UK’s natural assets. By reporting directly to the Chancellor and Economic Affairs Committee – who advise the Government on economic decisions – the Natural Capital Committee has a real opportunity to influence economic policy for the good of the UK’s natural environment.

The Committee is chaired by Professor Dieter Helm, an economist with considerable influence and experience in the field of European economic and environmental policy, and membership will be complete with the appointment of two further members.

A workshop which brought together economists and ecologists, and organised by the Natural Capital Initiative, took place yesterday at Charles Darwin House. The aim of the event was to facilitate conversation between experts of the two disciplines to discuss how to integrate the knowledge of the participants to inform decision making. The workshop focused on a case study of sustainable agriculture and attracted about 50 economists and ecologists altogether.

The event was chaired by Peter Costigan from Defra and started with a welcome note from the Chief Executive of NERC, Professor Duncan Wingham. To stimulate discussion, the morning continued with keynote presentations focusing on methods of incentivising farmers to adopt environmentally sustainable agricultural practices; Professor William Sutherland of the University of Cambridge provided the ecological perspective, and Professor Ian Bateman of the University of East Anglia gave the economists’ point of view. This was followed by a discussion involving a panel consisting of Mr Costigan, Prof Sutherland and Prof Bateman, as well as Prof Tim Benton of the University of Leeds, Dr. Salvatore Di Falco of the London School of Economics, Prof Charles Godfray of the University of Oxford, and Dr Paul Morling of the RSPB. Members of the panel each gave their ideas of the key issues which need to be addressed in order to facilitate progress towards sustainable agriculture in the UK, and, after questions and comments from the audience, these were summarised into a list to inform the afternoon’s break-out sessions.

After lunch and a chance to network, the audience was split up to 6 groups and each of the groups had to focus on one key issue to develop further, proposing activities which could be undertaken to explore or resolve this issue. Some interesting proposals came from these group discussions:

Issue 1: What is the best way to spend pillar II funds?
Proposal: This proposal aimed at bringing together ecological, economic and social knowledge to inform policy with the aim of reassessing the best way to spend CAP money to ensure farmers ‘do the right thing in the right place’.

Issue 2: How do we incentivise land managers to ‘do the right thing’ in the right place?
Proposal: Similarly to the first proposal, this group also focused on what management should be done where, but considered the issue from a different angle, suggesting that ecosystem services will be protected most effectively by combining top down and bottom up processes. A change to the structure of how funds are allocated to land managers were proposed, including a ‘bidding process’ and regional control of the ‘pot of money’.

Issue 3: Behaviour change to enhance resilience to shocks
Proposal: This group suggested a comprehensive study of farmer and consumer behaviour across different regions and farming types designed to identify the gap between desirable farm management and current behaviour and possible reasons for this. This would allow suitable incentives to be identified and employed.

Issue 4: Achieving a spatial balance of management activity on farmland
Proposal: This proposal aimed to change farmers’ behaviour by organising consultations and testing how land managers’ responded to different possible farming incentives.

Issue 5: ‘Better choice of choice’
Proposal: This group focused on product labeling and the possibility of integrating ecosystem services into existing certification schemes (e.g. Fairtrade, FSC, MSC).

Issue 6: Where do we need bees? A case study of spatial targeting of agriculture
Proposal: The final group’s idea was to better target agricultural incentives spatially by collecting existing knowledge, filling knowledge gaps and developing a GIS tool to help decision making for farmers. They demonstrated the idea through a case study on pollination services.

All of the proposals were strongly built on interdisciplinary or even intersectoral co-operation between ecologists, economists and other stakeholders. Four out of the six plans focused on spatial arrangements of agricultural incentives, suggesting that ecologists and economists alike think a critical problem with current initiatives lies in a lack of spatial planning and targeting of farmland management measures.

At the end of the workshop, the proposals were rated by participants based on their importance and feasibility. It was interesting to see that proposals which got more votes for importance generally got fewer votes for feasibility and vice versa. The winning scheme for importance was proposal 2, which focused on how to encourage farmers to “do the right thing in the right place”, whilst the most feasible proposal was voted to be proposal 6 on spatial planning with the case study on bees.

The feedback from participants was that it was a day of interesting and fruitful discussions, and hopefully some seeds of ideas for further research and co-operation between ecologists and economist were planted yesterday.

Additional information on the workshop and the full program can be downloaded from the workshop’s webpage.

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 Chancellor George Osborne yesterday announced the UK’s new budget for 2012. With the Government’s election pledge to be ‘the greenest government ever’, environmental groups were anxious to see whether the proposed financial measures for the coming year would reflect this rhetoric.

In the statement, the Chancellor detailed measures for energy, transport and planning, outlining support for gas as the UK’s primary source of power in the coming years and a review of the carbon reduction commitments placed on business. Renewable energy technologies were identified as ‘a crucial part’ of Britain’s energy mix but Mr Osborne cautioned that he would ‘always be alert to the costs we’re asking families and business to bear’ and no new funds for green energy were allocated. In aviation, the budget statement delivered on increasing air passenger duty (APD) – an environmental tax on flights – but the Chancellor’s statement that ‘we must confront the lack of airport capacity in south-east England’ suggests a possible change in the Government’s stance on airport expansion. No details were revealed of the content of the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), due to be published next Tuesday 27th March, except that it will feature a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ and ‘new growth-friendly planning laws’ designed to boost Britain’s competiveness and economic prosperity.

Press releases published in response to the announcement express environmental groups’ concerns that the new budget demonstrates a perpetuation of the view that measures for environmental protection present a barrier to economic growth and prosperity, rather than the promised commitment to developing a green economy.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) called Osborne’s statement ‘misguided’, saying that the budget would ‘put sustainable economic growth at risk’. Wildlife and Countryside Link seconded this view, saying that the budget statement ‘suggest(s) that the government will focus on economic growth at the cost of genuinely sustainable development’. The RPSB too called for an economic plan for growth which ‘puts the environment at the heart of decision making’, saying that it is crucial to recognise that Chancellor Osborne’s assertion that ‘environmentally sustainable has to be fiscally sustainable’ works both ways, something they point out was recognised in the opening paragraph of the Government’s Natural Environment White Paper published last year, which stated that ‘a healthy, properly functioning natural environment is the foundation of sustained economic growth’.

Planning
Groups raised concerns over apparent developments in relation to the new National Planning Policy Framework. The National Trust say they are ‘not much wiser on the content’ of the new NPPF and will only know when the Framework is published next week whether issues they raised in their consultation responses have been included. A point of contention is the Chancellor’s stated ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ which CPRE, for example, fears could lead to large areas of countryside being ‘placed at the mercy of developers’. The National Trust and the WWF both stressed a pressing need for a clear definition of sustainable development before it is pursued, to ensure it is not just a rebranding of traditional economic growth at the expense of the environment. Further concerns have been voiced over indications that the Framework may not contain provisions to allow Local Authorities and communities the time and resources to adjust their existing local plans to meet requirements of the new framework, which the CPRE says ‘could leave more than one third of areas that don’t currently have a plan exposed [to development]’. However, the National Trust say there may be ‘tentatively good news’ on this area, provided that the phrase “appropriate implementation arrangements for local authorities in local plans” , included in the full budget document yesterday, will address this.

Energy
Environmental groups also responded to the Chancellor’s emphasis on pursuing gas as the UK’s primary source of electricity generation and his reticent support of renewable energy. The RSPB said that new tax breaks for oil and gas exploration off the Shetland Islands is ‘a cause for concern for both the climate and the wildlife in that region’ and stated that if oil and gas remain a central part of the UK’s energy strategy, it will only be acceptable ‘if matched with robust environmental safeguards’.

Transport
The WWF applauded the Government’s commitment to raising air passenger duty (APD) by 8% this year, rising to 50% by 2016. However, reservations were expressed in relation to what is feared to be an apparent u-turn in the government’s stance on airport expansion, with CPRE and others urging the Government to maintain its opposition to the creation of further runways at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, suggesting instead the use of ‘smart-hubbing’ – through better allocation of runway slots – to provide additional passenger capacity without the need for further development.

Wildlife regulations
The outcome of the government’s ‘Red Tape Challenge’, in which environmental regulations are to be simplified in an effort to save businesses £1billion, was announced today and can be viewed at Defra’s website.

Overall, there is notable concern amongst environmental groups that the new budget will not deliver a truly green economy; the stance of most organisations seem to echo a statement by the RSPB who ‘agree that development is necessary if the UK is to remain competitive…[and] to enable all of us to prosper’ but stress that this must be ‘compatible with the green economy we have been promised…by this Government’ and ‘not at the cost of our environment’.

Communities in Scotland could be encouraged to use a newly developed ‘toolkit’ to assign values to the local ecosystem services they depend on.

A summary report published by the Highland Council reveals plans for two initial pilot studies in the Highlands, taking place in April and July this year. Residents will be asked to consider the benefits they derive from their local environment and to assign a value to natural processes such as provision of food, soil enrichment and purification of air and water.

This new scheme signals a novel approach to ecosystem service valuation as, despite much interest in natural capital in both international and national policy, localised action has so far been relatively limited.

For more on valuing ecosystem service, see the Natural Capital Initiative webpage.

Tuesday 13th March 2012
The Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (IOM3) 1 Carlton House Terrace, London

Business has been put at the centre of the stage to deliver the sustainable economy that the Government pledges to provide in the Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP).This creates real opportunities for businesses, in terms of new markets (e.g. via Payment for Ecosystem Services/Offsets/Restoration) and new collaborations with delivery agencies and other institutions (e.g. via Nature Improvement Areas).

This one-day event, supported by professional and business bodies, will provide a forum for businesses to engage directly with some of the key researchers working in this area.

With top speakers including Prof. Ian Bateman (Co-Leader of the Valuing Nature Network), Prof. Rosie Hails, MBE, (Leader of the Natural Capital Initiative), Prof. Dave Rafaelli (Leader of NERC’s Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Programme) and Dr Rob Bradburne of Defra, as well as key business leaders, the day will provide a mix of speakers, discussion and project-development breakout sessions.

Outcomes of the day will include:
 Identification of specific areas where there are already tools that could be used or developed further by industry in collaboration with academia
 Identification of common themes of interest and actions that would address these
 Initiation of project developments for internship funding

To register for this free event and for full details of the day and directions to IOM please go to http://natural-capital.eventbrite.com.

SAC & SEPA BIENNIAL CONFERENCE (in association with Forest Research, the James Hutton Institute and Scottish Natural Heritage)
3-4 April 2012, Edinburgh
Integrated management of our agricultural and forestry landscapes is essential to the delivery of multiple ecosystem services. However, current understanding of the linkages between different ecosystems and the services they provide is incomplete. The management implemented therefore needs to be flexible to adapt to these uncertainties. The need for implementation at the landscape scale also means integrating management practices across different land-managers.

This conference will seek to present not only the best possible scientific understanding of the complexities associated with the delivery of multiple ecosystem services but also provide a forum to raise and discuss what still needs to be done to have an ecosystem approach recognised and supported by land managers, researchers and policy makers. The conference will be relevant to members of all three of these target audiences.

A range of platform presentations will be made under the four conference themes:
1. How are the linkages between ecosystems and the services they provide currently understood, viewed and valued?

2. What does the delivery of multiple ecosystem services mean at a practical level in terms of management and scale of implementation?

3. How does the governance of landscape-scale management affect the delivery of multiple ecosystem services?

4. How does our thinking, management practices and policies need to adapt?

The keynotes for each of the four themes will be given by Jonathan Pryce from the Scottish Government (Theme 1), Brian Chambers from ADAS (Theme 2), Heidi Wittmer from Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (Theme 3) and Tom Crompton from WWF (Theme 4).

Venue, Costs and Accommodation

The Conference will take place in the John McIntyre Conference Centre of the University of Edinburgh on 3-4 April 2012. Details of Costs and Accommodation can be found at www.sac.ac.uk/sacsepaconf.

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.

A fusion of economics and ecology is required to properly measure and capture the value of biodiversity. That was the message of an event at Parliament earlier today organised by Biodiversity, the UK all party parliamentary group, chaired by Barry Gardiner MP, and attended by the BES Policy Team.

Lord Deben, president of GLOBE International, began proceedings emphasising the need for an optimistic outlook by ecologists with regards to biodiversity, saying “misery never convinces” and that we should “celebrate 30 years of growing awareness for environmental issues”. Lord Deben went on to highlight the importance of establishing a method for the valuation of natural capital as quickly as possible so that biodiversity impoverishment “can no longer be avoided on the political agenda”.

Professor David Hill of the Environment Bank went on to discuss the need for moving away from seeing the environment as a “charitable exercise”, and to support the establishment of policies that enable financial markets to properly value ecosystems. Professor Hill echoed Lord Deben’s calls for action stating “don’t start, don’t go”.

Dr Tim Jenkins, director of the Great Transition Initiative suggested that well-being and not wealth needs to be the measure of progress within society and that the value of natural capital may be at a critical threshold. Dr Giles Atkinson, of the London School of Economics, agreed that wealth should be measured in more depth than from a purely financial point of view and joked that economists were “worried about adding together, literally, apples and oranges”.

Dr Roddy Farley of the Scottish Natural Heritage presented cause for optimism in his assessment that Scottish natural capital was on the rise but reinstated the need for a transparent, readily available measurement for the value of biodiversity which can be used on policy time frames.

The final speaker was Pandev Sukhdev, author of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, who highlighted the problem of the economic invisibility of nature and how this can result in short term private profits but far more damaging long term public losses. He sited an example of shrimp farms in south Thailand where the initial short-term profit was grossly out weighed by the long-term cost when natural capital losses were factored in.

Applications can now be made to attend the ‘Workshop for Economists and Ecologists’ run by the Natural Capital Initiative. The workshop is aimed at encouraging interdisciplinary cooperation and knowledge exchange between economists and ecologists, with the goal of informing public policy. Sustainable agriculture will be used as the case study theme.

The workshop will take place on Tuesday 8th May 2012 at Charles Darwin House, London.

The day will begin with presentations outlining current ecological and economic perspectives on sustainable agriculture after which there will be a panel discussion, followed by group sessions to identify possible opportunities for interdisciplinary work.

If you would like to participate, please register by sending a summary of up to 150 words of how you would benefit from attending the event, as well as your position in any organisation you are affiliated with, and send to secretariat@naturalcapitalinitiative.org.uk by the 31st January 2012.