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.

Professor Charles Godfray, immediate past President of the BES, is to give evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee on Wednesday 14th December as part of the Committee’s inquiry into ‘Greening the Common Agricultural Policy‘.

Professor Godfray will give evidence at 16.00 and the session will be available to watch live on Parliament TV.

From the EFRA Committee:

MPs to examine Government proposals to protect and enhance the natural environment

Proposals set out in the Government’s Natural Environment White Paper, The Natural Choice; securing the value of nature, published on 7 June, will be the focus of a new inquiry by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

Launching the inquiry, Anne McIntosh, chair of EFRA Committee said, “In what is the first White Paper on the natural environment to be produced for twenty years, the Government says it wants to be the first generation to leave the natural environment of England in a better state than it inherited.

“Our inquiry will ask how well the Government’s proposals are likely to protect the environment for future generations, make the economy more environmentally sustainable or improve quality of life and well-being.

The committee is seeking evidence from interested parties and invites submissions on the following areas:

- What actions are required across Government Departments, from local government and by civil society to deliver the White Paper’s proposals to grow a green economy and reconnect people with nature?

– Will the institutional framework outlined for delivering the proposals (in particular Nature Improvement Areas and Local Nature Partnerships) be effective? Does the proposed Natural Capital Committee have sufficient powers?

– What further research and/or evidence is required to develop practical programmes sufficiently detailed to deliver the White Paper’s ambition to fully embed the value of nature into policy delivery?

– What evidence is there from other countries that the approaches proposed in the White Paper can be successfully applied in practice?

– What resources will be needed to fully deliver the White Paper’s ambitions and how can these best be provided? How might the value of ‘services’ provided by ecosystems to beneficiaries be translated into spending that will enhance the natural environment?

– Does the White Paper set out an accurate assessment of the barriers to public engagement with the natural environment and make the most effective proposals for re-engagement?

Details of oral evidence sessions will be released in the autumn. The deadline for submissions to the inquiry is 26th September.

The BES submitted a response to the initial inquiry on the Natural Environment White Paper, announced by the Committee in May. The Committee heard oral evidence on 29th June: read a summary on the BES blog.

Today the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee took oral evidence on the Forest Research Inquiry into the effects of the spending review, and research priorities in the forestry research community. The evidence session involved witnesses from a variety of backgrounds including academia, industry, public bodies and the learned societies, who were represented by Jackie Caine, Science Policy Officer at the Society of Biology. The Minister of State for Agriculture and Food the Rt Hon Jim Paice MP was also present.

Forest research is highly important because forests require active management and appropriate research will help us to understand how best to obtain the unique set of benefits forests can provide. The importance of this was outline in the National Ecosystem Assessment which was released last month. Forests are also experiencing a unique set of threats including novel pests and diseases, and climate change which needs to be researched to aid future adaptation.

The effect of the spending review on forest research in the UK and current funding strategies were one of the main topics covered by the committee’s questions. Both Forestry Commission and Research Council funding is declining. Currently the government spends around £10 million on forestry research however this is expected to decline to approximately £6 million by 2015 when the cuts have taken full effect. Almost 30% of jobs at Forest Research will be cut over the period to 2015. Reduced levels of funding available to the agency Forest Research may reduce the agency’s capacity to leverage funding from other sources such as industry and Europe. The Minister said that even with the budget cuts and fewer scientists research in priority areas will be maintained by redirecting funding from other areas.

A range of funders and a range of perspectives on research priorities may be useful for forest research in the UK. It was the opinion of Stuart Goodall from the Confederation of Forest Industries that potential income for forest research from industry is fairly modest. The sale of high quality wood and other forest products was suggested as one way in which the forestry sector could become self sustaining and fund it’s own research, however this would take time and investment. Several innovative approaches to obtaining new funding were suggested including using the carbon markets and approaching international forestry companies with high revenues to request funding and investment in future forest products and technology. Whatever the funding source is it needs to be secure over long periods because of the time frame of forest research. There was agreement that in the future it would be best for the forestry sector to become self sustaining and pay for its own research. This could be achieved by investing in research now, and developing high quality products. According to the Minister of State for Agriculture and Food the Rt Hon Jim Paice MP it shouldn’t be made mandatory for the private sector to provide funding.

The Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) fund a small amount of forest research within their other programmes. NERC and BBSRC hardly ever receive proposals for forest research because there is widespread belief that forestry is not within their remit. NERC and BBSRC would be happy to consider more proposals for forestry projects. Representatives from NERC and BBSRC were reminded that the research councils have a responsibility to ensure university forestry departments are funded appropriately and have longevity.
If Forest Research is made more independent it may be able to access research council funding in addition to the funding it receives from the Forestry Commission. Public sector organisations are currently excluded from applying for research council funding.

Priority setting by forest research institutions was also scrutinised by the committee. Dr James Pendlebury the Chief Executive of Forest Research reminded the committee that forest research is complex, long term and has numerous priorities that are balanced in the best way possible by Forest Research.

One point of agreement was that forest research needs an overall long term strategy developed by all the stakeholders in an open discussion with better coordination between universities, Forest Research and within Europe. Across the witnesses there was a consensus that the Forest Research Coordination Committee needs to be brought back. In addition the witnesses felt that better transparency is needed in the relationship between Forest Research and the Forestry Commission.

Researchers in academia currently feel that important areas of forest research are not being considered by the research councils. Appropriate outreach programmes to make sure that research is communicated to the people that use it are vital according to Stuart Goodall.

Among individuals from industry, the Forestry Commission and academia there was concern that UK forests are under managed. More research into how to produce high quality wood and other forest products is needed according to Professor Philip Turner, from the Forest Products Research Institute at Edinburgh Napier University, but this is currently not a main priority of the research councils or the Forestry Commission.

The ability of Forest Research to monitor and research the impacts of climate change, and emerging diseases such as Phytophthora ramorum is crucial and this shouldn’t be impacted by the spending review. The private sector doesn’t have the skills and experience to carry out this type of research.

Currently no-one takes responsibility for disease monitoring and research into prevention for trees in hedgerows and in public spaces. This is a serious gap in the current research priorities. It was suggested that the Forestry Commission provide an easy to access database documenting their research on particular diseases, the risks associated with the disease and potential solutions. In the future the UKNEA is likely to influence the research priorities of Forest Research.

Finally the committee discussed careers in the forest research sector. Forestry, which will be important for the green economy and green jobs, has been in decline as a profession with few graduates choosing to study the subject. Consequently the numbers of specialist scientists required in forest research such as entomologists and tree pathologists are declining. One of the main causes of the problem is the lack of PhD studentships and potential employers for graduates. The cuts are likely to affect the number of PhD studentships sponsored by Forest Research although no reductions have been made as yet. In addition as a result of the spending review Forest Research the agency is not able to hire new staff. This has significant implications for early career researchers in forestry who, in the past, have undertaken short placements after their doctorate at Forest Research as a way into the profession.

It is of paramount importance that there are scientists available trained in particular aspects of forest research because future threats will act too quickly to wait for a skills base to be re-established.

You can watch the evidence session here.

The chair of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Andrew Miller MP, joined the Policy Lunchbox network yesterday to discuss the Committee’s current and near-term priorities. Andrew Miller, MP for Ellesmere Port and Neston since 1992, took up the chairmanship of the Committee following the May 2010 election. He has a long history of involvement with science in parliament, having served on the Science and Technology Committee from 1992 – 1997 and as a member of the Board of POST from 1993-1997. He is currently also chair of the Parliamentary and Scientitifc Committee.

Andrew highlighted recent and current inquiries led by the Committee, into the Government’s use of scientific evidence during emergencies – such as the 2009 Swine Flu pandemic and 2010 volcanic eruption in Iceland – and into Technology Innovation Centres. Moving forward, priorities for the Committee included the science budget allocations; Departmental research and development; capital funding; the immigration cap; the impact of the abolition of quangos, and higher education funding. The Committee was also considering an inquiry on how Freedom of Information works in science, in light of the University of East Anglia’s climate change e-mail controversy in 2009.

A lively question and answer session ensued, with some interesting points raised around the Government’s ‘Big Society’ agenda and what this may mean for the use of science advice. If decision-making is devolved increasingly to the local level, efforts must be made to ensure that decision-makers in local authorities have access to the scientific evidence and capability that they require. Andrew Miller highlighted the importance of public engagement in this context – for decisions to be made locally, it’s vital to ensure that these are well-informed, and that those making them and engaging with them are scientifically literate. One interesting point was raised around the ‘kite marking’ of sources of information. How can the public be sure that they are accessing truthful and verified information, if the public is going to be increasingly called upon to seek this out in order to make decisions in their communities? Andrew Miller was supportive of this concept and called upon Learned Societies to take a leading role in public engagement and particularly in the production of accurate resources which the public could access for scientific information.

Policy Lunchbox will resume in the New Year. Full details of speakers currently confirmed for 2011 can be found on the Policy Lunchbox webpage. Further details will appear as speakers are added to the programme.

EVIDENCE SESSION

Wednesday 15 September 2010

House of Commons

Witness:
At 3.00 pm
* Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee will hold this oral evidence session in relation to Defra’s priorities and annual accounts.
The meeting will take place in a committee room in the House of Commons. Visitors should check the exact location nearer the time on http://services.parliament.uk/calendar/.

Nominations from within each party for Select Committees chair-person roles closed on June 9th, when the unopposed candidates took their seats on the newly re-formed committees. The elections for the committees where a contest was needed went ahead this Wednesday (June 10th) by a secret ballot of MPs. The Committees of interest to BES will be chaired by a mixture of both Labour and Conservative Members, some of whom have specialist knowledge gained from extensive parliamentary and government careers in relevant policy areas.

The Science and Technology Committee will be chaired by the Conservative Andrew Miller MP, whose political interests include science and technology, as shown by his long-standing membership of Scientists for Labour and his roles on the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee since 1997. As a board member for the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology in the early 1990s, and as a former member of the Science and Technology Select Committee between 1992 and 1997, his role as Chair seems a natural progression for this established parliamentarian. Commenting on his appointment, Miller said “I would like to see the Committee focussing its attention on helping to maintain the strength of the UK’s science base and also improving public understanding of some of the challenging scientific issues facing us today.”

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee receives Anne McIntosh MP as its new chair, who has sat as a member on the Committee since 2007 and previously on similar Select Committees scrutinising former environment and transport departments during the Blair Government. She has held corresponding Shadow Ministerial roles during this period, including Shadow Minister for Transport (2002-03), Environment and Transport (2003-05), and later as Shadow Minister for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2007-10). A former MEP, the Thirsk and Malton MP has long standing political interests in transport and agriculture.

The Environmental Audit Committee will be headed up by the Labour MP for Stoke-on-Trent North since 1987, Joan Walley. In opposition, Ms Walley served as Spokesperson on Environmental Protection and Development (1988-90) and on Transport (1990-95). She is a member of SERA, the Labour Environment Campaign, which reflects her political interests in this area. Ms Walley’s appointment follows her long service as an Environmental Audit Committee member, a position she has held since 1997. Ms Walley today spoke of her passion for the subject, saying “I have a long standing passion for environmental issues and I look forward to using my chairmanship to hold the government to account and ensure that environmental sustainability is at the heart of everything it does.”

The Energy and Climate Change Committee gains the experienced former chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, the Conservative’s Tim Yeo MP. As MP for South Suffolk for more than 25 years, Yeo has served as a junior minister in the Department for Environment under John Major’s premiership, and later as as Minister of State for the Countryside and Environment, where, according to his website, he “reformed planning law, helped to develop climate change policy and established the now thriving Energy Saving Trust”. In Opposition he has held relevant shadow ministerial roles including Environment and Local Government spokesman (1997-98), Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1998-2001) and Shadow Secretary of State for Transport and the Environment (2004-05). His five years as Environmental Audit Committee Chairman up until the election has given him substantial Select Committee experience.

With chairs now in place, the membership of these Committees will take shape in the coming weeks.

It has been confirmed today that the Science and Technology (S&T) Select Committee will be re-formed under the new parliament.

The membership of the committee has yet to be decided, but a vote by MPs today confirmed that the Chair will be selected from the Labour party, with Mark Henderson of The Times placing Graham Stringer, the only surviving member of the previous S&T committee, as the current front-runner for the post.

The committee’s remit is likely to remain specific, mainly scrutinising the work of the Government Office for Science, but the Former Deputy Leader of the House, Barbara Keeley MP, had formerly expressed the hope that the committee would examine the full scope of science policy and related matters across the Government.

Original article: Science & Technology Select Committee returns by Imran Khan

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 EFRA Select Committee has today released a report criticising Defra’s waste policy, stating that the Department’s strategy has no clear targets for the reduction of England’s waste and instead concentrates efforts on improving recycling rates for domestic waste, which accounts for only 10% of total waste produced.

Commenting on the launch of their report on the Waste Strategy for England 2007, the Chair of the EFRA Committee, Michael Jack MP, said “Defra must…encourage companies to take a completely new view of waste and see it as a valuable source of raw material which must not be squandered in these difficult economic times.”

The report praises householders for increasing their recycling levels to nearly 37% and urges the Government to set stringent recycling targets of 50% by 2015 and 60% by 2020. To facilitate this, Councils must explain clearly to the public what it costs to collect and dispose of each bin, bag or wheelie bin of waste. The benefits that arise from households reducing their waste volumes must be explained to them.

Amongst other measures, the report urges Government to set a target for the mandatory collection of food waste and supply advice, education and practical support to householders in managing food waste – for example by encouraging composting and supplying low-cost composting equipment to facilitate this. The report also calls for Government to re-examine the case for imposing lower levels of duty on waste-derived fuel oil. Finally, the Committee suggests that the Government evaluate the practicalities of imposing a small ‘clean up’ duty on products such as cigarettes, whose packaging contributes the largest volumes of litter, to support work by local authorities to clean up their neighbourhoods.