A new £1 billion competition has been announced by the UK Government to support the development of industrial scale Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology. So far CCS has been developed on small scales but no commercial scale test of the technology has ever been undertaken.

The Government’s previous attempt to incentivise the development of commercial-scale CCS collapsed in October 2011 following the withdrawal of all nine companies participating in the scheme, citing concerns over the financial viability of the programme.

Changes have now been made, meaning that the competition announced today will accept applications from schemes that trap carbon dioxide pre-combustion, as well as post-combustion, and will also be open to both gas as well as coal fired power plants.

One or more demonstration plants will be funded and it is anticipated that the selected projects will be up and running by 2016 – 2020. By the end of the 2020’s the Government expects 12 – 20 new plants to be fitted with the technology.

Alongside the £1 billion fund, Ministers have also announced £125 million to support research and development of CCS, including a new £13m CCS Research Centre; a virtual network coordinated by the University of Edinburgh. Ministers will also announce shortly the details of how the technology can be supported in the long-term. One approach that the Government favours is believed to be to encourage ‘clusters’ of power plants to develop, with these then supporting each other and sharing best practice in the development and utilisation of CCS.

Original articles:
Fiona Harvey, the Guardian, 3 April 2012 – New push for carbon capture and storage with £1 bn competitionDavid Shukman, BBC, 3 April 2012 – New UK attempt to capture carbon

On 27 March, the UK Government published its final version of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how they should be applied.

The final NPPF is an improvement (for nature conservation) over the initial draft that went out for consultation in 2011, however there are still some concerns.

There is still a clear “presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking” (Para 14). This presumption is not as strong as in the initial draft, as there is now also reference to the economic, social and environmental roles of sustainable development being mutually dependent on each other and therefore should not be viewed in isolation (Para 8). However, Local Plans should still “plan positively for development” (Para 157), “decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible” (Para 187) and “in assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development” (Para 197).

There is still no clear definition for sustainable development, although the NPPF does now include the UK Sustainable Development Strategy’s five guiding principles of sustainable development (Box pg 2), namely:
• living within the planet’s environmental limits;
• ensuring a strong, healthy and just society;
• achieving a sustainable economy;
• promoting good governance; and
• using sound science responsibly.

The Government has now included a statement to “encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value” (Para 17).

With regard to protecting the natural environment, there is still the reference to planning enhancing the natural environment and where possible providing net gains for biodiversity, but the importance of ecosystem services and soils is now also noted specifically (Para 109).

In addition, “development proposals where the primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be permitted” and “opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged” are also included (Para 118). Also, the “presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 14) does not apply where development requiring appropriate assessment under the Birds or Habitats Directives is being considered, planned or determined” (Para 119).

The draft NPPF had no consideration for undesignated nature conservation sites. The final version corrects this to some extent by encouraging planning policies to “minimise impacts on biodiversity and geodiversity by identify[ing] and map[ing] components of the local ecological networks, including the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites of importance for biodiversity, wildlife corridors and stepping stones that connect them and areas identified by local partnerships for habitat restoration or creation” (Para 117).

The Government continues to recognise the importance of good evidence and data for decision-making (Paras 158 and 165-167), but fails to recognise the need to support either data management or ecological competence.

There is now repeated reference to early engagement with all necessary stakeholders, including expert bodies (Paras 167 and 188-192).

Regarding information requirements, “local planning authorities should publish a list of their information requirements for applications, which should be proportionate to the nature and scale of development proposals and reviewed on a frequent basis. Local planning authorities should only request supporting information that is relevant, necessary and material to the application in question” (Para 193).

Regarding implementation:
• The policies in the NPPF apply from the day of publication, i.e. 27 March 2012 (Para 208).
• The policies in Local Plans (and the London Plan) should not be considered out-of-date simply because they were adopted prior to the publication of the NPPF (Para 211). However, the NPPF policies are material considerations which local planning authorities should take into account from the day of its publication. The NPPF must also be taken into account in the preparation of plans (Para 212), which may need to be revised and which should be done as quickly as possible (Para 213).
• For 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with the NPPF (Para 214). This however is only relevant to local development plans and the London Plan.
• Following the 12-month period, due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF (i.e. the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the NPPF, the greater the weight that may be given) (Para 215).
• Advice for local planning authorities will be available immediately and free of charge from a support service provided by the Local Government Association, the Planning Inspectorate and the Department for Communities and Local Government (Para 217).

The IEEM response to the draft National Planning Policy Framework (published in July 2011) can be downloaded here.

Jason M. Reeves AIEEM, Policy and Information Officer, Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last week saw the joint meeting of the all party parliamentary groups on Biodiversity, UK’s Overseas Territories and Zoos and Aquariums, at which the BES Policy team was fortunate enough to attend. The meeting was chaired by Andrew Rosindell MP who began proceedings by highlighting his pleasure at the well attended event before introducing Eric Blencowe, chair of the Inter-Departmental Group on Biodiversity in the Overseas Territories. Eric Blencowe spoke of the importance of the UK’s overseas territories and highlighted their high priority status for the UK Government in the form of the UK Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy. Defra is to lead on an implementation plan on the biodiversity strategy which, among other things, will seek to reduce the impact of invasive species, with the Lionfish (Pterois volitans) problem in Anguilla cited as an example.

Janice Panton of the UK Overseas Territory Association and UK representative of Montserrat then spoke of her delight at a wonderful morning attending the 20 year anniversary of the Darwin Initiative event held at London Zoo, where £8.5M of funding for 33 new Darwin Projects was announced. Mrs Panton went on to state how important the overseas territories were with regards to biodiversity and how “each territory has a unique ecosystem that is often vital to their economy and a loss of biodiversity to an overseas territory is a loss to us all and help and support from the UK Government is hugely welcome”.

Dr Tim Stowe, Director of international operations at the RSPB, highlighted that although some threatened biodiversity has been recovered, the most recent extinction was only eights years previous with the loss of the last remaining individual cultivation of the Saint Helena Olive (Nesiota elliptica). Dr Stowe went on to suggest that “action is required and that action unfortunately requires money, but in the grand scheme of things, the spending on UK’s Overseas Territories is a fraction of the spend on UK biodiversity”.

Peter Convey, of the British Antarctic Survey, was the next to highlight the unique ecosystems of the UK’s overseas territories, specifically those of the two southern polar regions, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and the British Antarctic Territory. Both territories have a high level of marine biodiversity, comparable with many temperate and even tropical areas. And although the terrestrial diversity is low there are high levels of endemism creating an overall unique ecosystem. Mr Convey went on to stress that although human impacts on these ecosystems are low at present, there is a high level of vulnerability, in particular to biological invasions, such as has been highlighted previously on this blog.

Alistair Gammell, the UK director for the PEW environment group then spoke of the need to put pressure “on the street” to put pressure on the Government with regards to the fate of the UK overseas territories biodiversity as the situation is “unknown and unheard by the general public”. Mr Gammell stressed that the UK biodiversity of global importance came from its overseas territories which are all unique, specifically citing Pitcairn as an example where there were more endemic species than people. Mr Gammell ended by suggesting that the UK Government should “look upon the overseas territories as an opportunity and not as a burden as the total investment required would be miniscule”.

Dr Colin Clubbe spoke of the long association between the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew and the overseas territories. Dr Clubbe described how recently a new species of daisy had been found on the Falkland Islands and he predicted many more new species would be described in the coming years. Dr Clubbe went on to point out that there was “no technical reason why a plant species should go extinct”. He gave the example of the St. Helena Boxwood, which was considered to be effectively extinct in the wild, has been “brought back” by growing individuals and harvesting seeds in greenhouses at Kew.

Rob Thomas of the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland then spoke to reiterate much of what had been said before and went on to suggest that the three groups present that day had “not three hats but one with many overlapping issues” and that “biodiversity should be woven into everything related to the forthcoming FCO white paper”. Finally, Rachel Jones of the Zoological Society of London described the “astonishing state of the Chagos Marine Reserve where the ecosystem is operating in a near natural state” and that the biodiversity is “off the scale”. 10 endemic species have so far been identified but only 3 per cent of the area has actually been visited and so there are likely to be many more.

The event on an extremely positive networking note with business cards being thrown around like confetti with many promises of future action.

UK businesses as a whole invest less in research and development than their major international competitors and there is more that the Government can do to address this disparity. That was the message from Beck Smith, Assistant Director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE), addressing this afternoon’s meeting of the Policy Lunchbox network. Beck provided a fascinating overview of an area of policy that members of the BES may know little about but, Beck made clear, should familiarise ourselves with given the vital importance of support from business to the health of the science base in the UK.

The previous Labour Government stated its aim to increase the overall investment in research and development (R&D) from all sources to 2.5% of GDP by 2014 but the current Government doesn’t intend to adopt national targets for proportion of GDP spent on R&D. At present we stand only at 1.8% of GDP being invested, indicating the distance that there still is to travel to catch up with other G7 countries. Given that the UK Government is committed to tackling the budget deficit and therefore tightening spending over the coming years, the importance of leveraging other sources for investment in R&D is clear. At the moment however, the UK is third from bottom amongst the ‘G7′ group of nations in terms of business spend on R&D. In 2009, the 1000 UK companies that invested the most in R&D spent a total of £25.3bn, down 0.6% year on year. So what can the Government do to address this potential downward trend?

First, Beck stressed, we need to understand why business and industry isn’t investing as much in R&D in the UK as it could do. Beck outlined research which suggests that one way this can be explained is as a combination of three factors which collectively can be called ‘market failure’:

1. ‘Spillover rationale’: the suggestion that innovators find it difficult to appropriate all returns from their innovations. For example, the inventor of the first personal computer will have seen others move into develop this technology and will now occupy a crowded space. The Government can address this by means to allow the companies to keep the benefits of their investments more immediately, for example through tax breaks such as the R&D tax credit.

2. Coordination failure: broadly speaking, difficulties encountered by groups of individuals or firms in acting collectively. There may be a failure of businesses to network sufficiently with organisations conducting research (or vice versa) that may be of benefit to them – for example, by the facilitation of partnerships between industry and universities.

3. Information failure: Differences in the information available to both parties prevent transactions from taking place. This argument, for example, suggests that businesses seeking financial support or partners for R&D projects simply don’t know where to find the information.

Beck suggested that there a number of mechanisms that Government could use to address these market failures, thereby encouraging greater support from business and industry for science in the UK, through focusing on the following areas:

1. Skills: Universities report that many students entering courses from A’ Levels require remedial lessons in, for example, mathematics and experimental design, in order to perform. In addition, industries have complained that they need to give new graduates from universities additional training before they are competent in their jobs. There have also been reports from industry surveys that there is a shortage of graduates in Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) to fill posts. Alongside addressing school and university tuition there therefore appears a need to raise the profile of careers in science amongst young people.

Recent amendments to immigration requirements in the UK may also have sent a negative message to qualified STEM graduates from overseas, those considering further study and research in the UK, regarding the UK’s reputation as a good place to pursue a scientific career. Although the Government has taken steps to address these issues for STEM graduates, these negative perceptions may take some time to dispel.

2. Financial environment: tax-breaks such as the ‘patent box’ (a corporation tax cut of 10% on all profits attributed to patents) could create a favourable environment for companies to invest in R & D. Beck also highlighted the positive role that ‘challenge prizes’, such as the $10 billion Ansari X Prize, can play in incentivising investment and scientific progress. Since the launch of the X Prize, to reward the development of the first viable craft for unmanned space flight, it is estimated that there has been an additional $100 billion of investment in this area of study.

3. Knowledge flow: the Government could amend the Research Excellence Framework to make it easier for universities to employ those who have worked in industry, for example. When budgets are cut within industry, Beck suggested, the one of the first areas of investment to be cut is the travel budget. Employees therefore decrease their network at a time when they should be expanding this resource. Facilitating the flow of information between researchers in academia and in industry can help to address this.

4. A long-term, cross-party strategy for science in the UK will also be very welcome.

Beck highlighted recent developments from Government which have gone some way to address the points raised. For example, a £250,000 prize centre has been announced (orders of magnitude less than the X Prize but nonetheless a step in the right direction), whilst the Government is pressing ahead with plans for research hubs to link business and academia (so called ‘Catapult Centres’, previously known as ‘Technology Innovation Centres’) to aid commercialisation. However, a convincing argument for the state to do more has recently come in the form of a pamphlet by Mariana Mazzucato: The Entrepreneurial State.

Speaking about the publication on this morning’s Today Programme and in the pamphlet, Ms Mazzucato argues for public policy to be bold and courageous, stepping in to fund areas that the private sector has no interest in, plus put in place mechanisms to reap greater returns for itself for doing so. As an example, the United States supported the development of the internet by pouring large amounts of money into the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) which undertook a significant amount of the research which underpinned the formation of what is now known as Silicon Valley. The private sector, Mariana suggests, has a reputation of coming into areas of research 15 – 20 years after a large amount of state investment. The private sector cannot therefore be seen as the answer to addressing deficits in state funding for science and innovation (although there is clear complementarily); the Government must find innovative ways of funding large-scale investment in the science base in this country if we want to see the emergence of another ‘Google’ in the UK, for example.

Policy Lunchbox is a network for Policy Officers and others working in learned societies and the third sector. It is run jointly by the British Ecological Society and Biochemical Society. See our webpage for details of forthcoming events.

The Environment Secretary, Caroline Spelman, today announced the creation of 12 new Nature Improvement Areas (NIA) across England. NIAs were a flagship policy contained in last year’s Natural Environment White Paper “The Natural Choice”, which set out aims to improve the quality of the natural environment across England, halt the decline in habitats and species, and strengthen the connection between people and nature. Defra launched a competition to fund an initial 12 NIAs in July 2011, judged by a panel led by Professor Sir John Lawton. 76 applications were received and 15 applicants were invited to give presentations to the panel before 12 were selected to receive Government funding. The successful partnerships will begin work in April 2012 each receiving a share of the £7.5 million fund over 2012-2015, provided by the Defra family.

At the announcement of the new wildlife havens, Mrs Spelman said: “Each of these projects has something different to offer – from the urban areas of Birmingham and the Black Country to the rivers and woods of North Devon; from marshes, coalfields and wetlands to woodland and arable chalkland and grassland. The exciting wildlife projects are the result of different organisations all working together with a common purpose – to safeguard our wildlife for generations to come”.

The 12 NIAs will be:
•Birmingham and the Black Country Living Landscape: includes urban, wetland, river and heath habitats. It will create heathland on brownfield sites and 40 hectares of new native woodland;
•Dark Peak: includes moorland and woodland in the Peak District National Park. It will restore habitats such as upland heathland and create 210 hectares of native woodland;
•Dearne Valley Green Heart: is mostly on farmland and former mining settlements with woodland and wetland. It will restore the River Don floodplain and create new wetlands and woodlands
•Greater Thames Marshes: includes agricultural marsh and urban habitats. It will create and enhance grazing marsh, salt marsh and mudflat habitats;
•Humberhead Levels: straddling Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire, it is mainly wetland, lowland and peat habitats. It will create or restore at least 1,427 hectares of wetland habitat;
•Marlborough Downs: this is predominantly a farmer-led partnership looking to restore chalk and grassland habitats and increase the numbers of farmland birds as well as creating a network of traditional clay-lined dewponds to act as wildlife havens;
•Meres and Mosses of the Marches: incorporates wetlands, peat bogs and ponds in Cheshire. It will aim to reduce diffuse pollution by working with farmers, improve peatlands and restore wildlife areas around the River Perry;
•Morecambe Bay Limestones and Wetlands: the most northerly NIA, this consists of limestone, wetland and grassland habitats. It will restore coast and freshwater wetlands and create 200 hectares of woodland, planting 10,000 native trees and develop habitat for six species;
•Nene Valley: within the River Nene regional park, this project will work with farmers to restore habitats and restore tributaries and reaches of the River Nene;
•Northern Devon: this incorporates river, woodland and grassland. The project will recreate and restore 1,000 hectares of priority habitat and restore the River Torridge so that it can support the critically endangered freshwater pearl mussel;
•South Downs Way Ahead: encompasses key chalk sites of the South Downs National Park. The NIA will restore 1,000 hectares of chalk grassland and encourage the return of the Duke of Burgundy butterfly and several species of farmland birds; and
•Wild Purbeck: is a variety of river, wetland, heath and woodland habitat as well as the largest onshore oil field in Western Europe. This NIA will introduce livestock to manage heathland , restore wetland and create or restore 15 ponds as well as creating 120 hectares of new woodland and a new seven hectare saline lagoon.

Full story available on the Defra website.

The Scottish Biodiversity Strategy, ‘Scotland’s Biodiversity: It’s in Your Hands‘ is currently undergoing a review and a pre-consultation draft of the new strategy was published on the 15th February.

The Scottish Government published the first Biodiversity Strategy in 2004 with the aim of conserving biodiversity ‘for the health, enjoyment and wellbeing of the people of Scotland now and in the future’. It fulfilled Scotland’s obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity and to the UK BAP, and is intended to cover the period up to 2030.

The current review will update the Strategy to meet the new challeneges and targets for 2020 as set out in the UN ‘Aichi’ targets and the European Biodiversity Strategy. Consultation on the proposed changes will be ongoing over the summer.

The draft strategy review is available from the Scottish Natural Heritage website, and updates on the consultation will be published by The Scottish Government.

The Welsh government is seeking opinions on two major new proposals for the future of Wales’ environmental policy.

Following the announcement of Welsh Environment Minister John Griffiths in November last year proposing the development of a single body to replace the Countryside Council for Wales, the Environment Agency Wales, and the Forestry Commission for Wales, a consultation was launched earlier this month. The intention in creating a single body is to ensure more effective and sustainable management of Wales’ natural resources whilst minimising costs. The consultation will focus on issues including the legal change needed to establish a new body and definition of its overall purpose. Interested parties have the opportunity to submit their reactions to the proposal until May 2nd.

Simultaneously, a consultation is underway into a recently published Green Paper entitled ‘Sustaining a Living Wales’. The paper is a follow up to the government’s strategy ‘A Living Wales’ developed in 2010 and proposes a change in the governance and delivery of environmental management and regulation to an ecosystem-based approach. The consultation, launched at the end of January this year, is designed to assess the degree of support for such a radical change and whether the tools the government proposes are seen to be the right ones.

Applications are now being accepted for the BES Parliamentary Shadowing Scheme. The scheme offers a fantastic opportunity for early-career ecologists to gain an insight into how ecology and the environment are addressed in policy making by spending two days shadowing a senior policy-maker. In the past, hosts have included Parliamentary-Secretaries of State at Defra, Government Ministers in Wales, Policy Advisors in Scotland and MEPs in Brussels, and previous shadowers have found their placements to be a positive, useful and interesting experience.

The scheme is open to members of the BES in the early stages of their research career. You must have finished your PhD and completed this no more than 12 years ago.

Full details on the scheme, including how to apply are available here. The closing date for applications is Wednesday 29th February.

More natural means of managing flooding are desirable and should be brought foward by the Government in a new White Paper on water. So commented Anne McIntosh MP, Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Select Commmittee and of the All Party Group on Flood Protection, at a parliamentary event attended by the BES Policy Team yesterday evening. The well-attended meeting was organised by Oliver Pescott, the most recent BES-funded Fellow at the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST), to launch the POSTnote he authored on ‘Natural Flood Management’.

Natural flood management (NFM) is defined in the POSTnote as ‘the alteration, restoration or use of landscape features’. One of the four speakers, Dr Paul Quinn, Newcastle University, made it clear that NFM is not about taking a system back to a natural state but working with and engineering natural processes. Dr Quinn presented work in which he had been involved within the town of Belford, in which residents have faced six major flooding events within the course of seven years. During extreme events, huge amounts of rainfall can be observed running off farmland; this can be tackled effectively, Dr Quinn suggested, by ‘catchment systems engineering’, which seeks to ’slow, store and filter’ water. Farm tracks, specially engineered to store water behind them; dams which ‘leak’ slowly to control water flow; and the use of woody debris (’beaver dams’) to perform a similar function can all help to attenuate run-off.

Dr Wendy Kenyon, James Hutton Institute, highlighted the importance of working with land-managers if those wishing to control flooding wished to work with natural processes as stated. Dr Kenyon’s team have conducted a number of semi-structured interviews with farmers, revealing that first and foremost, farmers are concerned with the viability of their businesses. Dr Quinn had presented results showing that 10 – 20 storage ponds could make a significant difference to the peak water flow; Dr Kenyon argued that the presence of this number of ponds on agricultural land could begin to have a significant effect on the farmer’s bottom line and so the viability of this proposal would need to be considered carefully.

It is important to ensure too that farmers are able to access funding to support their efforts to implement NFM. Fifty eight percent of farmers questioned by Dr Kenyon said that they would be encouraged to introduce NFM measures if there was more funding available to do so and if it could be applied for easily. This is significant as under the Common Agricultural Policy, money is already available to support NFM but, according to Dr Kenyon, farmers have not been accessing this as a source of funds. We need, Dr Kenyon suggested, to work with farmers to find out why.

The issue of the scale at which experiments are undertaken and from which conclusions can be drawn is a highly significant one. It became clear through the presentations that there is a great deal of uncertainty concerning the robustness of conclusions which can be drawn about flood attenuation at the catchment-scale through NFM, based on small-scale experiments. Dr Neil McIntrye, Imperial College London, suggested that although strategic tree-planting can have an affect on ameliorating flooding at a local scale, this beneficial effect is likely to be marginal at regional to larger scales. The true benefits of such interventions are only likely to become apparent, Dr McIntyre suggested, once further research has been undertaken to understand catchment-scale interactions.

The case was therefore made for greater investment in field experiments and better modelling to understand the benefits of NFM. Anne McIntosh MP questioned why the science had not yet revealed these benefits, to which the scientists responded that the high cost of studying natural processes over time and the uncertainty created by extrapolating the results from one study site to another, where geomorphology and hydrology may be very different, constrain the ability to draw robust conclusions. Dr Quinn suggested that scientists would do best to measure at an appropriate scale and then build confidence in extrapolating conclusions, for example through better models.

Funding the necessary experiments and modelling approaches, alongside funding NFM interventions will be a challenge. Anne McIntosh suggested that there was little appetite in Government to pass the cost of NFM projects, including efforts to monitor the efficacy of these projects, onto the consumer through higher water bills. Ms McIntosh, and others, suggested that Payments for Ecosystem Services could be one mechanism of paying for NFM, although here the beneficiaries (presumably the consumers) would still need to pay for the NFM interventions implemented by land-managers (the providers of the ecosystem service of flood alleviation).

There should be scope to deliver NFM alongside other services as part of a framework of multi-functional land-use. Speakers did not touch on this to a great extent and it would have been interesting to have heard more from this perspective. Dr Quinn mentioned that buffer strips planted at the sides of agricultural land can slow the flow of run-off, indicating both a biodiversity and a NFM benefit. Dr Quinn also mentioned the need for multiple stakeholders to come together (eg as in Belford), including ecologists, land-managers and residents, to discuss and agree a shared vision for a catchment. South West Water is investing a great deal of money in NFM measures but for water quality reasons (eg reducing sediment load in the watercourse), with consequent benefits for river ecology. However, overall there was little discussion of the ecological benefits, or disbenefits, of NFM approaches.

In opening the meeting, Anne McIntosh informed attendees that in a meeting of the Liaison Committee (involving all Chairs of Parliamentary Select Committees), members had extracted from the Prime Minister an undertaking that a Water Bill would be published early in the next Parliamentary session. The BES will watch with interest to see whether NFM is incorporated into the Bill when drafted.

Applications for the next BES Fellowship at POST are now open and close on Thursday 5th April. If you are in the second or third year of your PhD in ecology at a UK institution, consider applying. Find out more from the BES website.