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.

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.

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 first of four webcast Earth Debates in advance of Rio+20 will happen at 19.00 on Wednesday 25 January.

Ecosystem services – can we put a price on nature? will be chaired by BBC Environment correspondent Richard Black. The panellists will comprise:
• The Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP, Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who is the lead representative at Rio+20 for the UK
• Claire Brown was a senior scientist at UNEP-WCMC who coordinated the UK National Ecosystem Assessment development
• Will Evison, an environmental economist with leading consultants PwC was the editor of the TEEB for Business report.
• Ian Dickie, a Director of the city business Aldersgate group which lobbies for better business engagement in the green economy.
•
What questions would you like the experts to answer? Tweet your views now using hashtag #earthdebates and join the debate online.

With thanks to the United Nations Decade on Biodiversity (UNDB) UK Friends Newsletter (13 January 2012) for this information.

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.

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.

Vince Cable yesterday announced more detailed plans for the green investment bank, including some indication of the type of projects that will be financed. The bank will be the first of its kind in the world, specifically designed to fund the new low carbon green economy. The announcement, and publication of a progress report by the department of business innovation and skills, follows a speech given by Nick Clegg at an event hosted by Climate Change Capital.

The deputy Prime Minister emphasised the need to consider the reasons for investing, including preserving the environment on which we rely for the next generation. He also mentioned the economic incentive to make the UK the world leaders in producing green technology, suggesting that many companies could set up manufacturing plants in the UK.

In an oral statement to the House of Commons Vince Cable focussed on the legally binding commitment made by the government to reduce carbon emissions 50% by 2050, and the need to revolutionise our energy and transport sectors, and invest in green infrastructure to achieve this target. He also noted the requirement for stable long term green policies to encourage investment in green infrastructure, which will flow through the green investment bank. £3 billion will initially be invested in the bank.

The progress report published by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills picks out the Water Framework Directive and Air Quality Standards Regulations as other key legislation to be supported by the green investment bank. Money will be invested in waste water management and improving flood defences replacing loss of funding due to Defra budget cuts. Money will also be invested in improving air quality and reducing emissions from vehicles.

Both Nick Clegg and Vince Cable noted the economic benefits of investment in green infrastructure in terms of saving energy and money, however there was no mention of investment to protect ecosystem services, and biodiversity, or the possible cost of inaction in these areas. Investment in better protection of ecosystem services will be vital for protecting the environment for the next generation.

All 278 of Britain’s green laws, originally put in place to safeguard the natural environment, have been included on the list of red tape regulations to be considered for the axe by the public as part of the ‘Red Tape Challenge’. The proposed deregulation is a corwdsourcing exercise launched by government to assess which of the current regulations restrict growth of the economy and scrap unnecessary red tape.

Environmental laws including; the Wildlife and Countryside Act, National Park Act, Clean Air Act and the Climate Change Act could now all be scrapped by government as they fall under ‘general regulations’ outraging environmental campaigners.

If green laws such as the Wildlife and Countryside Act – which governs the protection of animals and plants in Britain – were axed as a result of the ‘Red Tape Challenge’ national parks, marine reserves and sites of special scientific interest (SSSI’s) would no longer be protected by law.

Additionally, the retraction of the Climate Change Act – which was the first of its kind – would mean the release the secretary of state from duties to reach climate change targets such as to reduce the UK’s carbon emissions by at least 80% below 1990 levels by the year 2050.

The Government’s ‘Red Tape Challenge’ website invites comments either as an individual or as an organisation about red tape regulations, with Ministers facing the presumption that laws and regulations listed in the ‘Red Tape Challenge’ should be scrapped unless argued otherwise. You can comment on environmental regulations threatened to be axed by the scheme over a number of subject areas including:

• Air quality
• Biodiversity, wildlife management, landscape, countryside and recreation
• Energy labelling and sustainable products
• Industrial emissions and carbon reductions
• Noise and nuisance
• Waste
• Environmental permits, information and damage

After receiving public comments Ministers will then have three months to work out which regulations they want to keep and why.

The Green Investment Bank (GIB) – proposed as part of government’s strategy to tackle climate change through the promotion of investment in environment and clean energy projects, is not the most controversial topic to spring to mind. Yet the subject of how to proceed with plans for the GIB has however been one of hot debate.

The GIB hopes to raise £200 billion in the long term to help renew the UK’s energy grid. At present, the government has pledged £1 billion towards the bank, which critics argue is simply not enough. The pinnacle of the controversy however arises over how to proceed with the GIB; as an investment bank or fund.

If the GIB were classified as a bank by the National Statistics Office, (whether independent or publicly owned), it would have the ability to raise additional capital and borrow money. If however the GIB were to take on the form of a fund it would not be granted these borrowing rights, and would therefore be expected to fall far short of government climate change targets due to a lack of funds.

It is subsequently argued that the GIB should adopt the form of a public sector investment bank, as a government backed bank would have a higher rating than an independent one. The major obstacle to this lies in the reluctance of the treasury to back the GIB as this would mean that government would have to accept all future liability, which in turn could threaten to undermine plans to reduce the deficit. If the GIB were to alternatively become a fund, the UK could miss out on the opportunity to attract billions of pounds worth of green investment to assist economic growth.

If climate change targets are to be reached with additional potential for economic growth there is a strong case to designate the GIB a public bank. Nonetheless, considering the current economic climate, uncertainty, and resulting caution this is a subject that will continue to be debated. Plans concerning the future role of the GIB are due to be released at the end of May.