Professor Bob Watson, Chief Scientist at Defra, will state that Britain’s carbon footprint has grown, not shrunk, since 1990, in a BBC Radio 4 documentary next Monday (6th September). Professor Watson will say that calculations taking into account the carbon embedded in products which Britain imports, from countries such as China and India, reveal that Britain’s emissions have grown by 12%, not declined by 15-16% as current accounting proceedures show. Under the current system of counting emissions, greenhouse gases generated in the manufacture of goods are assessed in the country of production, not consumption.

A spokesman from the Department for Energy and Climate Change said “Our position is that greenhouse gas emissions have been cut by 22% since 1990. While some emission reductions have resulted from the trend for manufacturing to move overseas, international rules state that emissions from manufacturing are counted by the country of production”.

In the documentary, ‘Uncertain Climate’, Prof. Watson will urge the Government to ‘be more open’ about the carbon accounting proceedure and what the emission reduction figures do and do not cover.

Original Source: Joel Taylor, Metro, 3 September

From 18th August Local Authorities across the UK will have the restrictions on generating and selling renewable energy removed, following an announcement by the Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne this week.

The potential for Local Authorities to lead the way in clean energy generation has been highlighted due to the size of many Local Authority owned estates, combined with a new ability to benefit from the new Feed in Tariff payments. This potential sharply contrasts with existing Local Authorities’ efforts, which have been restricted by 1980s regulations put in place during the privatisation of utilities. This has resulted in Local Authorities generating just 0.01% of renewable electricity nationally.

DECC hope this decision will stimulate action to tie in to their wider climate change mitigation strategy to increase the percentage of energy generated from renewable sources, and reduce carbon emissions. The decision also mirrors the new Coalition Government’s local democracy agenda, by giving Local Authorities an active role in the low carbon transition and the freedom to lead by example. To read Huhne’s letter to Local Authorities, which includes more information on the rationale behind his decision, click here.

The UK Government this morning launched the first White Paper concerned with the management of the natural environment for 20 years, at a reception at the Jodrell Laboratory, Kew Gardens. The BES was present to hear Caroline Spelman, Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Richard Benyon, Minister for the Natural and Marine Environment, give speeches to launch a consultation seeking the views of the public and private sectors on what the White Paper should contain.

The Secretary of State said that the new Government wished to ’seize the day’, with a fresh impetus to protect the natural environment, highlighting the importance of the environment to the health and wellbeing of the UK’s population. She said that society needs to make faster progress in halting environmental degradation and that making the case for the interdependence between the economy and the natural environment was a fundamental tool to allow this. Ms Spelman said that protection of the natural environment lent itself well to the coalition Government’s ‘Big Society’ agenda, with many community and voluntary groups active in environmental conservation already. She emphasised that her ‘mission personally’ was to link climate change and biodiversity in the policy sphere, later, in questionning, commenting that public understanding of biodiversity lagged 10 – 20 years behind that of society’s appreciation of climate change.

Richard Benyon emphasised that the Defra team wished to use the skills, know-how and expertise of the environmental and conservation communities to inform the development of the White Paper, and encouraged engagement from those in the audience. A small expert panel has been convened to drive the development of the Paper, including Sir Graham Wynne, former CEO of the RSPB, and an Inter-Departmental group of civil servants will work to involve all Government Departments in the formulation of the policy. Discussion groups, some which Richard Benyon hopes to chair himself, will be held around the country to seek the views of interested stakeholders.

During the question and answer session which followed the White Paper was welcomed by the RSPB, NFU and Pondlife, amongst other organisations. In answering a question from the Campaign to Protect Rural England, Richard Benyon stated that the White Paper represented the ideal opportunity to carry forward a scheme of ‘Conservation Credits’, first proposed in the Conservative Manifesto (pre-coalition). Defra officials are currently generating ideas for how such a scheme could be implemented in the UK, drawing on experiences internationally.

It was clear that both Defra Ministers are committed to the principle of better valuing the environment as a means to better conserve it. One key challenge will be bringing other Departments, particularly the Treasury, on board with this and making sure that Caroline Spelman’s ambition to ‘put the value of nature at the heart of policy-making’ across the UK is fulfilled.

The BES will be responding to the consultation to inform development of the Natural Environment White Paper (deadline: 30 October). To contribute your views please contact the BES Policy Team.

The Natural Capital Initiative is organising a workshop series on ‘Biodiversity Offsetting’, to inform policy development on an offsetting, or ‘conservation credits’ scheme for the UK. Find out more at the NCI website.

David Willetts, Minister for Science and Universities, today delivered his first major speech on the Government’s vision for science in the UK, the Royal Institution. The BES listened as the Minister outlined his priorities for science, and announced a one year delay to the Research Excellence Framework to allow HEFCE to better assess the results of the ‘impact’ pilot exercise.

The Minister began by highlighting that 2010 had so far seen a ‘great summer for science’, with the Royal Society’s hiigh profile ‘See Further’ festival, Lord Rees’ delivery of the Reith Lectures and BBC programming such as Prof. Brian Cox’s ‘Wonders of the Solar System’. He then went on to reiterate his commitment to the dual support system for universities and the Haldane Principle – that decisions about where to allocate research spend are made at arms-length from governments. He recognised the argument that many in the scientific community, including CaSE, have made; that other countries have responded to the recession by increasing their spend on science, as a pathway to growth, but stated that these countries’ deficits were less than that of the UK. He stressed however that Vince Cable, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, and Chancellor George Osborne both understood the value of science to re-balancing the economy.

The Minister said that the coalition government had so far ‘been good’ for science; with Professor Sir John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Advisor, updating guidelines on the use of evidence in policy-making, and the new principles on the treatment of independent scientific advice now referred to in the Ministerial Code. However, not unexpectedly, he could not give a commitment to levels of funding which science and HE will receive into the future: this is an announcment which must wait until the Comprehensive Spending Review later this year.

The second part of the Minister’s speech focused on the economic case for investing in science, before moving on to outline his priorities for science in the coming months and years. Public spend on science has to stand up to public scrutiny, the Minister said, and although sceptical of the ‘impact agenda’ as currently framed, the Minister sees a need to demonstrate and measure the impact of research – on the economy, policy or society. A researcher cannot see publishing a certain number of papers in a particular peer-reviewed journal as their only measure of success, or impact, he stressed later during Q and A. Hence the delay of the REF for a year, to allow assessment of the impact pilot but also to learn from schemes being developed in the USA. The Society of Biology welcomed the delay during the Q and A session.

The Minister outlined his support for ‘clusters’, which he described as ‘low risk environments for high risk’ endeavours, singling out Dundee and the computer games development industry ‘clustering’ around Abertay University. He criticised the commonly voiced notion that the ‘British invent but fail to capitalise on’ discoveries. Instead, he said, the UK has demonstrated its capacity to capitalise on the research which happens elsewhere. Science investment matters, he said, partly because it increases the absorptive capacity of the UK: our ability to apply science here and as such reap rewards for our economy.

Transparency on the part of scientists, with greater sharing of data, was also highlighted as vital, and the Minister also commented that he had raised the importance of libel law reform with the Ministry of Justice: an importance which had been recognised.

Finally, the Minister outlined three priorities for his portfolio, which will form the focus of policy:
1) Investing in shared research facilities (research platforms)
2) Government playing a greater role in procurement (for example, to support small and medium sized enterprises – SMEs)
3) Public competitions for new technologies.

On this last point, the Minister singled out the X Prize Foundation for supporting the development of sub-orbital space flight. The Government might not set the prize – this could be driven by the marketplace.

Overall, the Minister seemed genuinely committed to the importance of science and technology. He recognises the worth of science and the importance of evidence-based policy. Yet, it seemed clear too that the case for investment in science still needs to be made to the Treasury. The Minister was pragmatic, stating throughout that cuts will be necessary and at one point that the challenge is to demonstrate ‘hard headed economic returns’ to enable maintenance of basic science.

Yesterday the new Coalition Government published its Five Year Policy Programme, a 32 page document summarising their policies, and in some case the compromises both parties have made to form an alliance.

Described by the leaders as “a programme for 5 years of partnership government”, the document outlines key pledges in a list of public policy areas, as well as 28 reviews, including one on research and development grants. Here for example they have pledged to “consider the implementation of the Dyson Review to make the UK the leading hi-tech exporter in Europe, and refocus the research and development tax credit on hi-tech companies, small firms and start-ups”.

On higher education, they await Lord Browne’s final report into funding, and will consider its proposals alongside other necessary considerations, with the option for a Liberal Democrat abstention from vote if needed. On energy, alongside securing supply and low carbon energy, the role of Ofgem will be reviewed. Helping with fuel costs in rural areas is a priority, as is the promotion of community-owned renewables and smart meters. Grid investment also features, in an offshore electricity grid and a smart grid. The disagreements over new nuclear build remain – Liberal Democrats will be able to express opposition even if the Conservatives want to pursue it.

On food, they will encourage sustainable food production, and ‘introduce honesty in food labelling’ to ensure origin and environmental impact are reported. On farming they wish to reduce the regulatory burden on farmers by ‘moving to a risk-based system of regulation’. They will also investigate ways to share the responsibility of disease outbreaks with livestock keepers. A science-led policy of badger control in high risk areas will be introduced to tackle bovine tuberculosis.

On animal welfare, they will promote high standards of farm animal welfare, and end the testing of household products on animals whilst aiming to reduce the use of animals in scientific research. They will enable a free vote on the repeal of the Hunting Act in parliament.

On biodiversity they will introduce wildlife protection measures such as wildlife corridors in order to halt the loss of habitats. A national tree planting campaign is promised, alongside a review of National Parks which aims to increase local accountability. Stronger measures to prohibit the import and possession of illegal timber will also be introduced, alongside a new Border Police Force to tackle illegal wildlife trade.

On the environment, notable goals are full compliance with European Air Quality standards, reforming the water industry, introducing further recycling incentives and improving flood defences. The Marine and Coastal Access Act will be implemented effectively, including the conservation measures therein. For further details on all the policy announcements, see the full document here.

Last week the ministerial team at Defra was announced, to include James Paice as Minister of State for Agriculture and Farming, Richard Benyon and Lord Henley as Parliamentary Under Secretaries of State. Mr Benyon’s portfolio includes the natural environment and fisheries in particular. Detailed ministerial portfolios have been announced this week, which can be found on the Defra website.

David Cameron has now announced his new Cabinet, including the key environmental portfolios within the coalition government. Policies in this sector have caused significant disagreements between the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives in the past, most notably on nuclear energy which the liberals have consistently resisted. The new appointments reflect the apparent desire amongst both parties to govern in a constructive coalition.

This has been demonstrated by Cameron’s allocation of the weighty Energy and Climate Change brief to the Liberal Democrats’ former environment spokesman Chris Huhne. Huhne’s background in City makes him a practical choice given the big financial commitments a programme of low carbon energy expansion could demand. A new accord over the financial aspects of energy policy, such as the introduction of a low carbon infrastructure bank and green home loans, as well as agreements on the smart meters roll-out and marine energy will keep Huhne and his new department busy over the coming months. Huhne’s biography is available on the DECC website here.

At DEFRA Caroline Spelman has landed Hilary Benn’s former job as Environment, Food and Rural Affairs secretary. With a long farming background and published research on biofuels, Spelman starts the role on a firm footing, given she also took the brief in opposition. Spelman has said she will ‘work across government and beyond to respond to the challenges of increasing food production, adapting to climate change, protecting our natural environment and ensuring we live sustainably.’ See her biography on the DEFRA website here.

Another Conservative, Phillip Hammond MP, will take the transport brief, following his most recent portfolio in opposition as shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The prominent Liberal Democrat Vince Cable has been appointed Secretary for Business, Innovation and Skills, whilst the Conservative David Willetts will look after Universities and Science within DBIS, after shadowing the Universities and Skills minister in opposition. Further junior ministerial appointments are expected to be confirmed in the next few days as the Prime Minister fleshes out these departments with politicians from both parties.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills yesterday published the final ‘Principles of Scientific Advice to Government’ following consultation before Christmas with Learned Societies, the Royal Society, Sense about Science and others. Speaking on the launch of the document, which is now Government policy, Lord Drayson, Minister for Science, said “Government needs the best scientific advice it can get to inform policy and so our relationship with our advisors is crucial. They need to know their advice will be duly considered and their academic freedom will be respected when they volunteer to work with Government.”

The Principles were drafted in the wake of the dismissal of Prof. David Nutt as Chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, following pressure from leading scientists including President of the Royal Society, Lord Rees, and others. The Principles set out the rules of engagement between Government and those who provide scientific and engineering advice. They provide the foundation on which independent scientific advisors and government departments should base their interactions. They apply to Ministers and departments, all members of Scientific Advisory Committees and Councils and other independent scientific advice to Government.

On publication of the Principles the scientific community expressed dismay that one point of contention remains within the document: that ‘Government and its scientific advisors should not act to undermine mutual trust’. Commenting on this point, Nick Dusic, Director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering, said that the inclusion of this point could undermine the rest of the Principles as it is impossible to quanify. He suggested that re-drafting the Ministerial Code following the election could help to clarify what this point means and protect advisors from Ministerial interference.

Evan Harris, Science Spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, questioned Lord Drayson on this point yesterday during the last Science Question Time of the current parliament.

Chancellor Alistair Darling took to the dispatch box this afternoon to deliver the Government’s budget for the 2010 -11 financial year. Announcements of relevance to higher education, science and technology are the introduction of a new ‘University Enterprise Capital Fund’, to exploit the commercial potential of the UK’s research base, and a ‘Modernisation Fund’ to drive efficiencies in HE and fund the teaching costs of 20,000 extra places at universities from October this year.

The University Enterprise Capital Fund will consist of up to £37.5 million, including up to £25 million from Government, to provide early-stage funding for the commercialisation of promising university innovations.

The Modernisation Fund of £270 million will support 20,000 funded places from autumn 2010, ‘through a range of degrees students want in the subjects which business and employers most need’ (taken from the BIS website). £20 million of the £270 million fund will be allocated by HEFCE to ’support universities and colleges in projects to raise efficiency and value for money through the development of shared services, collaborative procurement and other innovative ways of culling overhead and back office costs while sustaining the quality of front-line teaching and research’ (again, taken from BIS). Lord Mandelson, giving an interview after the budget speech, said that no cuts would be made to the higher education sector which would affect teaching quality or research excellence.

Many announcements in the budget related to support for small and medium sized businesses. Commenting on the budget through a BIS press release Lord Mandelson declared that “This is a budget for business, innovation and skills. It is a budget for jobs – both now and in the future. At its heart are SMEs, the real heroes of the recession and the backbone of the recovery”. Lord Mandelson also commented that “we must ensure we continue to invest in the sectors in which the UK already excels. Today’s focussed investment in applied science and engineering research facilities will help our manufacturing sector continue its hi-tech, low-carbon transformation, so that Britain continues to hold its own globally.” We assume that in this statement Lord Mandelson is referring to the University Enterprise Capital Fund but this isn’t completely clear. If other announcements are forthcoming from BIS to clarify this point we will post them here.

The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has called for the Government to increase spend on science in order to ensure that the UK can remain competitive and an attractive place to both research and invest in science and technology. In a report published yesterday, the result of the Committee’s inquiry into ‘the impact of spending cuts on science and scientific research’, Committee members call for the Government to veto any potential cuts to the science budget, or face ’seriously damaging’ consequences for the sector.

The Pre-Budget Report of 9 December 2009 announced that £600 million would be cut from the higher education and science and research budgets, “from a combination of changes to student support within existing arrangements; efficiency savings and prioritisation across universities, science and research; some switching of modes of study in higher education; and reductions in budgets that do not support student participation”. The Committee conclude that the figure of £600 million is an arbitrary one, imposed by Treasury, with no clarity about how it was generated. It is also not yet clear where these cuts will fall.

In addition, the funds allocated by HEFCE to universities in England will fall in the 2010-11 financial year, by 6.5% compared to the allocation in 2009-10. Within the overall HEFCE budget, allocations to individual institutions were announced a couple of weeks ago. Against this background of cuts already announced is the very real concern amongst researchers and others in higher education that further cuts are to come. The current Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR 2007) expires in 2010-11, with funding beyond March 2011 contingent upon a new Budget and CSR. In evidence given to the Science and Technology Committee, the Minister for Science and Innovation, Lord Paul Drayson, said, “my lack of comfort is due to the fact that I am arguing very strongly for the figure for the future overall research budget… The argument is still to be made and won.”

As well as concluding that overall cuts to the science budget are unsustainable in terms of building the UK’s ‘knowledge economy’, relying on a supply of scientifically qualified teachers, researchers and an attractive research environment to business and industry, the inquiry touches upon plans in the new Research Excellence Framework to assess the ‘impact’ of researchers’ work. The Committee also examine the separate push by the Research Councils to ask researchers to consider the impact of their work when applying for grants. The Committee conclude that assessing impact retrospectively as part of the REF, whilst a commendable idea, is not feasible in practice and that difficulties in doing this will prove ‘insurmountable’. However, members do support the Research Councils requirement for researchers to consider how they might open up ‘pathways to impact’ through their research and call upon the Research Councils to clarify their requirements. There is a perception in the scientific community that researchers are being asked to ‘predict’ the impact of their research; a charge which the Research Councils dispute and on which the Committee call for clarification to correct this misinformation.

Overall, the report echoes other recent publications calling for stability, and an increase, in science spending during a period of fiscal tightening, such as the Royal Society’s ‘Scientific Century’ and the Council for Science and Technology’s recent ‘Vision for UK Research‘ report. Today’s budget announcement will be an interesting test of whether HM Treasury has got the message.

The only pre-election science debate to be held in parliament took place on 9 March organised by the Royal Society of Chemistry with the support of the Society of Biology, among other learned societies, and facilitated by the Science and Technology Committee. This was a great example of the value of unified action to highlight the specific value and needs of science research and education. The BES Science Policy Team attended the evening event.

Lord Drayson (Labour), Dr Adam Afriyie MP (Conservative) and Dr Evan Harris MP (Liberal Democrat) outlined their policies for science if successful in the forthcoming elections. In a long and lively question time all three candidates answered questions on funding and regulation of science; the balance between basic and applied research; the research excellence framework (REF); the balance between ‘glamorous’ and ‘Cinderella’ topics; the role of government in directing research calls; international exemplars of good funding practice, and whether the role of MPs is to respond to or actively lead public opinion of emerging science issues. There was agreement on a small number of topics including the importance of preserving the Haldane Principle and the need for a Chief Scientific Adviser to the Treasury, the only major government department currently lacking a CSA.

The RSC is hosting a video webcast at http://www.rsc.org/SAGE2010 and there was an active Twitter debate using the hashtag #scidebate.