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.

The NERC Valuing Nature Network (VNN) will release a call for proposals next week with a deadline of 16th September.

The VNN is an interdisciplinary network of natural, social and economic scientists. The proposals being sought through this initial phase will be for year-long projects, expected to report in the October 2012. It is anticipated that the initial projects will lay the ground for a more substantive phase two, with the results of the initial projects informing the second research call.

The announcements follows a series of discipinary scoping workshops which have taken place in London over the past six weeks, culminating in an interdisciplinary town hall meeting at the end of June. The workshop series brought together researchers to consider the challenges to putting a value on natural capital and the research questions which the network should seek to address. As a result, two major themes have emerged in the work of the VNN:

‘1. Developing a trans-disciplinary framework for the valuation of stocks of natural capital and flows of ecosystem services’.
Natural and social scientists to work together to develop integrated methods for monetary and non-monetary valuation of natural capital and ecosystem services. Teams also to work to identify how natural capital and ecosystem services can be managed sustainably.

‘2. Characterising the socio-ecological system knowledge required to properly capture the value of biodiversity, ecosystem services and natural resources’.
Evaluate the information available in relation to the valuation of natural resource stocks and ecosystem service flows, recognising the limitations and uncertainties in the current knowledge base. Identify ways to improve the accessibility and the integration of this existing data, including socioeconomic data sets. Develop integrated models of natural capital and ecosystem services at relevant spatial and temporal scales.

Further information is available from the VNN website.

The European commission yesterday proposed a new strategy to achieve the 2020 biodiversity targets by incorporating the valuation of natural capital. The new strategy, which is based on a report by The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), states that the economic value of ecosystems in Europe must be factored into decision making at all levels.

This announcement follows the failure of the European Union to achieve the 2010 biodiversity target to halt and reverse the loss of biodiversity within Europe. It has become clear that current legislation is ineffective with only 11% of protected ecosystems in a favourable status despite the wide range of efforts deployed to protect nature, and the establishment of an extensive network of protected areas (Natura 2000). The new strategy blames, among other causes, lack of consideration for the economic value of biodiversity for the failure to meet past targets.

TEEB has estimated that the economic cost of loosing biodiversity dwarfs the cost of adequate protection. For example over fishing costs the fisheries industry over $50 billion annually. Janez Potočnik the EU environment commissioner stated that “It is a much smarter economic investment to protect the diversity of life and healthy ecosystems than face tragedy once diversity has been lost,”

The 2020 target to halt the loss of biodiversity and degradation of ecosystem services has been divided into six main goals covering the protection of biodiversity and ecosystem services, improving the contribution of agriculture forestry and fisheries to conservation, and addressing the worldwide biodiversity crisis.

Europe plans to achieve these goals by:
• Building on the biodiversity knowledge base by identifying research gaps, contributing to the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services, and establishing a monitoring and review procedure for the strategy.
• Setting up market based mechanisms to attract funding for the protection of ecosystem services, and to encourage projects that deliver multiple benefits.
• Establish a coherent message about biodiversity in the common agricultural policy, fisheries policy and water framework directive.
• Interacting with a wide variety of stakeholders through the EU business and biodiversity platform to help share successful initiatives and best practice.
• Engaging civil society in the hope they will become actively involved in achieving the targets.

TEEB estimates that this strategy could create new jobs and business opportunities worth 2 to 6 trillion dollars by 2050.

The full communication can be seen here.

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 panel discussion was held yesterday evening at the Judge Business School in Cambridge, entitled ‘The price of extinction: what losing biodiversity costs’. The event was part of the Cambridge Science Festival, in collaboration with Cambridge Conservation Initiative and Science Magazine.

Tim Radford from The Guardian opened the discussion by highlighting the global scale of biodiversity loss: one eighth of birds, 13% of flowering plants and one quarter of mammals are currently at risk of extinction. The panel members were asked in turn to give their opinions on the most important issues for biodiversity conservation.

Dr Hazell Thompson from Birdlife International and Dr Ruth Swetnam from the Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, were in agreement that a valuation system for biodiversity is required. Dr Thompson explained that biodiversity conservation often loses out because it is not practically valuable to the people who actually bear the cost of protecting biodiversity. For example, constructing mines in the rainforest in West Africa has a greater economic benefit for local people than protecting the rainforest. Dr Swetnam detailed the main physical resources that are provided by biodiversity, such as food, fuel and climate regulation, and concluded that if we don’t assign monetary value to biodiversity then the value will in effect be zero, and this will inevitably lead to biodiversity loss. In contrast, in the view of William Kendall from Green and Black’s, assigning value to biodiversity will not work in the world of business because business values immediate profits, so the benefits of biodiversity conservation are not considered because they are remote and poorly calculated. In his view, biodiversity conservation can only be incorporated into business through regulation, whether this is through external regulation such as government incentives, or self-regulation through customer pressure. Although valuation and regulation were presented in the debate as opposing views, perhaps they could go hand-in-hand: valuing biodiversity could be an important factor in implementing regulation.

Pamela Abbott, chair of Cambridge Conservation Forum, put forward the point that there could be huge benefits to human health of protecting biodiversity, which would reduce government spending on healthcare. For example, a 10% increase in local green space can increase life expectancy by five years. She brought the issue of biodiversity loss down to a local scale, using the catchphrase ‘Extinction begins at home’, and suggested that individuals can have a significant input into conserving biodiversity through making wildlife gardens.

Professor Bill Adams from the Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, talked about the issue of how much biodiversity we actually need. He mentioned the recent paper published in Nature on Planetary Boundaries, in which Johan Röckstrom defined limits for the capacity of the planet to cope with anthropogenic changes, including biodiversity loss. Professor Adams suggested that the particular boundaries which are considered to be important by rich countries might differ from those which are important to poor countries, such as those supporting food production. This issue was also raised in the discussion afterwards, bringing up the fact that most of the initiatives for conservation of biodiversity come from the developed world, while most of the remaining biodiversity is in developing countries. Dr Ruth Swetnam put it plainly, saying that since the UK has already cut down most of its trees, we are not in a good position to tell the inhabitants of developing countries to keep their trees when they have families to feed. Perhaps biodiversity conservation will take a different angle if more people from developing countries become involved.