Conservationists have reacted angrily to plans by Defra to investigate possible measures to keep buzzards from targeting game birds.

According to the RSPB, Defra is considering options including taking buzzards into captivity and destroying nests in order to protect young pheasants and other game birds on shooting estates. A survey by the National Gamekeepers Organisation in 2011 found that 76% of gamekeepers believe buzzards have a harmful effect on pheasant shoots, and Natural England has received numerous requests to license killing of the birds, which are a protected species.

Although buzzard numbers have increased 146% between 1995 and 2009, the RSPB says that this growth is the recovery of buzzard populations from previous persecution which saw the species eradicated from large areas of the UK.

Both destroying nests and taking buzzards into captivity would be illegal under current wildlife laws as the bird is a protected species, and the RSPB have said that removing buzzards is ‘unlikely to reduce predation levels, as another buzzard would quickly take its place’.

The government report says that the impacts of buzzards on pheasant shoots had not been investigated in detail and the extent of the issues were unclear, although there are a number of sites where buzzards could be contributing to game-bird losses with significant economic impacts for shooting estates.

Defra has defended its plans in a series of Tweets, stressing that its research will consider options which ‘protect young pheasants whilst allowing buzzard populations to thrive’.

Original text from BBC news website. An RSPB press release is available on their website and there is plenty of discussion currently happening on Twitter, see @DefraGovUK.

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.

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.

Europe is not doing enough to prepare itself for an uncertain future for the continent’s water sources, according to a report published by the Lords Select Committee today.

The report, An Indispensable Resource: EU Freshwater Policy, is timely, as the UK continues to suffer the worst drought since 1976, and areas throughout Europe are feeling the effects of a signfiicant lack of rain.

In it, the Committee calls for urgent action to safeguard the quality and long-term availability of the UK’s water sources, and recommends that all EU Member States should be required to develop national water scarcity and drought management plans. It warns that the UK Government’s current schedule for reforming water abstraction regulations fails to respond to the urgency of the situation; despite acknowledging that 10% of rivers are already abstracted to an extent that may damage water ecosystems, the government has set the target of the mid to late 2020s to begin reforming the regime. The Committee warns that this may be too late.

Other recommendations in the report include a push for the government and European Commission to strongly promote catchment level governance in the Blueprint for Europe’s water resources, due to be published later this year. This will require a much greater emphasis on engaging local stakeholders – such as river trusts, farmers and anglers – in decisions relating to river catchment issues, in order to reconnect people with the value of water. Already, the UK government has expressed support for a number of ‘catchment management’ pilot schemes, and Defra has a launched a ‘Love your River’ campaign aimed at raising awareness of the importance of healthy river systems.

The report also contains a warning for the government that where other solutions to water scarcity have failed, the potentially unpopular choice to raise water prices may have to be taken. As Chair of the Committee, Lord Carter of Coles says “Governments…need to act decisively, and grasp the nettle of allowing the cost of water to rise”. However, he suggests that commitment by the government to a programme of publc and stakeholder engagment will help ease the introduction of this necessary price rise, as people gain a better understanding of what they are paying extra for.

The report is the outcome of an inquiry by the Committee into EU Freshwater Policy.

Defra together with the Northern Ireland Executive, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government launched the consultation on the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in March. One and a half months are left to submit thoughts on the implementation of the Directive till the end of the consultation on 18th June.

The main goal of MSFD is to achieve and maintain Good Environmental Status (GES) of all EU seas by the end of the decade. GES means that marine ecosystems are protected, restored and their degradation is prevented while used sustainably. The Directive includes 11 descriptors of GES covering a wide-range of aspects from biodiversity through food webs to underwater noise.

Current consultation aims to draft an initial assessment of the state of the UK’s seas, customise general GES criteria to UK seas and propose more detailed measures and indicators of GES. There will be further consultations on measures and monitoring of achieving GES of UK marine environments.

Consultation materials and information on how to take part can be found on the Defra webpage.

The UK Government’s new Bioenergy Strategy released last week aims to accelerate the use of renewable energy generated sustainably from biomass. Bioenergy is stated in the strategy as ‘one of the most versatile forms of low carbon and renewable energy’ and is proposed to be used for heating, electricity and transport fuel.

The Government’s overall goal is to meet the renewables target by 2020 and the carbon reduction targets by 2030 and 2050. To achieve this, the focus has to be on new technologies (e.g. wind, solar) and biomass energy as well. The strategy predicts that 11 per cent of all UK energy will come from biomass by 2020. This number can be achieved sustainably using domestic and international biomass resources and be sustained in the long term in spite of the expected emergence of international demand for biomass feedstock.

The Government also recognise the risks of bioenergy, emphasised by many green organisations. To address the concerns (e.g. food security, biodiversity) the Government states that sustainability and affordability are the highest importance and the strategy sets a framework of principles to guide UK bioenergy policy in the future. Amongst others the principles state that the biomass used for bioenergy has to deliver genuine carbon reductions over its full lifecycle and future bioenergy policies must assess risks to food security and biodiversity.

Alongside the strategy the government released several reports on issues relevant to or affected by the proposed bioenergy strategy. For instance, a report on the UK jobs in the sector highlights that increased use of bioenergy would create around 50,000 jobs by 2020. Analyses on the bioenergy feedstock suggest that the amount of waste going to landfill at the moment would decrease by using it for bioenergy.

The Government used a holistic approach in preparing this strategy but did not seek to answer all the questions about the issue. One thing is perfectly clear though that the Government wants sustainable and affordable bioenergy to be an integral part of UK’s energy production in the future.

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.

Yesterday’s meeting of the Cross Party House of Common’s Agroecology Group discussed the potential for soil management practices to influence the future of farming in the UK. The session was chaired by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer and co- hosted by the Food Ethics Council.

Professor Mark Kibblewhite, Chair of Soil Science at Cranfield University, kicked off the session by scene setting the romantic attachment we have with soils – the smell of light rain on dry earth on a warm summer’s evening and then the reality that this smell is the result of a chemical secreted by soil organisms. He then went on to explain how the biological engine of the earth (the soil biology) utilising carbon as its fuel source drives key ecosystem functioning. But this vital resource is under threat with 25% of soils globally showing signs of significant degradation while the increasing pressure of food production and climate change will shrink these soil resources further. Soil contains some 2,500 gigatonnes of carbon which is 3 times that of the biogenic carbon in the atmosphere and yet currently the Government has no published soil strategy in place and is part of a minority group that is blocking the proposed European Soil Framework Directive. Professor Kibblewhite called on the UK Government to work progressively to adopt the EU framework and positively influence Europe in the interests of our own food security. He also identified the progressive sealing of soils through urbanisation as a major threat. The recently published much condensed draft National Planning Policy Framework makes little specific mention of the protection of soils for the delivery of food and other ecosystem services.

Dr Charlie Clutterbuck of the Food Ethics Council discussed the decline in the study and practice of agricultural sciences in the UK and the disconnect between consumer and supply.

Peter Melchett of the Soil Association drew the formal meeting to a close discussing the need to further our research base and understanding of soil processes in relation to management techniques. This is so that soil scientists can provide practical advice for land managers and not assume that this knowledge is built in to the system. He highlighted that the treatment of soils post war has been input driven and that now was the time to look at alternatives. He heavily supported the need for EU-level soil framework legislation.

This meeting was attended by MPs, NGOs and agronomic advisers along with Dr Kathryn Allton, Executive Officer and Mr Dick Thompson, Governance Trustee, of the British Society of Soil Science.

Blog post by Dr Kathryn Allton, Executive Officer, British Society of Soil Science

At the Natural Capital Initiative Steering Group meeting this morning we received a very interesting talk about GLOBE International’s work.

GLOBE International was founded in 1989 with the aim to tackle pressing environmental challenges through legislation by creating an international and cross-party platform for legislators. Since then they have been actively working on facilitating dialogue in four major policy themes: climate change, natural capital, forestry and marine environment.

GLOBE, together with ZSL, organised a side event on ‘Legislative approaches to recognising the value of biodiversity and natural capital’ at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 10th Conference of Parties (COP10) in Nagoya in 2010. On that event they tried to find answers on why the 2010 Biodiversity targets were not met. One of the possible problems according to GLOBE was ‘the real missing link is the political leadership that is necessary to integrate these [natural capital] values into policy decisions at the local and national level’. Their Natural Capital Initiative and Action Plan, which was launched in Nagoya, tries to tackle this problem by suggesting the creation of Ministerial Natural Capital Committees to stream the Natural Capital approach into other policies. The UK took on this initiative and is setting up such a Committee at the moment.

This year GLOBE is focussing on another big challenge by organising the 1st World Summit of Legislators before the Rio + 20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development. This event will be attended by high profile experts and politicians. The goal of the meeting is to inform legislators about relevant issues. GLOBE is preparing a publication on different Natural Capital Approaches within the EU at the moment. The other important outcome of the Summit will be to ‘negotiate and agree a legislators’ protocol to be ratified in the legislatures of the participating parliaments’.
If GLOBE’s initiative succeeds we can expect strong outcomes of the Rio + 20 Conference.

The Government has announced the formation of a new cross-government unit to improve implementation of the Habitats and Wild Birds Directives. The new ‘Major Infrastructure and Environment Unit’ is designed to help developers ensure that large infrastructure projects promote sustainable development and protect our most valued habitats and species.

The Unit is one of the key recommendations to come out of a recently published Government report which re-evaluates the way the Nature Directives are currently applied in England. This review was undertaken in response to the Treasury’s ‘Red Tape Challenge’, designed to cut unnecessary regulation to improve economic efficiency.

Announcing the review in last year’s Autumn Statement, Chancellor George Osborne suggested that simplifying the implementation of the nature Directives could help save businesses more than £1billion over five years. However, environmental groups raised concerns that the move would significantly weaken nature protection and lead to a presumption in favour of development.

Caroline Spelman, the Environment Secretary, defended the review, stressing that it was ‘about getting better rules, not weaker ones’ and would be ‘good for the environment and good for business, because…[it makes] it easier for people to do the right thing, by making rules clearer’.

The review report also announces the intention to publish new guidance explaining to developers and regulators in much clearer terms what needs to be done to comply with the nature Directives.

The recommendations are designed to reduce the burden that the Directives currently place on businesses while maintaining and, where possible, enhancing the environment.

The full review report can be found on the Defra website.