Sea-level rise is a well-studied climate change phenomenon. General explanation is that thermal expansion of water and water from melting ice caps and glaciers are responsible for the rise. Global sea-level rose about 1.8 millimetres every year in the last decades. 1.1mm from the 1.8 is explained by melting ice and ocean expansion combined which leaves 0.7mm unexplained. New study in Nature Geoscience suggests an additional component which can help to solve this equation: human use of terrestrial water.

The researchers state that human impacts on terrestrial water storage could account for as much as 0.77 millimetres per year, or 42%, of the observed sea-level rise between 1961 and 2003. They used an integrated model to estimate sea-level rise caused by human use of terrestrial water (e.g. irrigation, industrial use, reservoir management). Most of the extracted subsurface water is not restocked because it either evaporates or flows into rivers ending up in seas eventually. They found that unsustainable groundwater use, artificial reservoir water impoundment, climate-driven changes in terrestrial water storage and the loss of water from closed basins are the main drivers of rising sea levels. From those drivers, unsustainable groundwater use represents the largest contribution. Even Taikan Oki, one of the researchers, was surprised by their results: “I didn’t expect that human extraction of groundwater would matter so much”.

Groundwater provides up to 80% of public water supplies for large areas of England. The current drought and hosepipe bans in England already drew attention to this precious resource and the need for its sustainable use. Findings of this new research underline this need for the sake of mitigating sea-level rise.

Yadu N. Pokhrel, Naota Hanasaki, Pat J-F. Yeh, Tomohito J. Yamada, Shinjiro Kanae & Taikan Oki 2012 Model estimates of sea-level change due to anthropogenic impacts on terrestrial water storage. Nature Geoscience. doi:10.1038/ngeo1476

A workshop which brought together economists and ecologists, and organised by the Natural Capital Initiative, took place yesterday at Charles Darwin House. The aim of the event was to facilitate conversation between experts of the two disciplines to discuss how to integrate the knowledge of the participants to inform decision making. The workshop focused on a case study of sustainable agriculture and attracted about 50 economists and ecologists altogether.

The event was chaired by Peter Costigan from Defra and started with a welcome note from the Chief Executive of NERC, Professor Duncan Wingham. To stimulate discussion, the morning continued with keynote presentations focusing on methods of incentivising farmers to adopt environmentally sustainable agricultural practices; Professor William Sutherland of the University of Cambridge provided the ecological perspective, and Professor Ian Bateman of the University of East Anglia gave the economists’ point of view. This was followed by a discussion involving a panel consisting of Mr Costigan, Prof Sutherland and Prof Bateman, as well as Prof Tim Benton of the University of Leeds, Dr. Salvatore Di Falco of the London School of Economics, Prof Charles Godfray of the University of Oxford, and Dr Paul Morling of the RSPB. Members of the panel each gave their ideas of the key issues which need to be addressed in order to facilitate progress towards sustainable agriculture in the UK, and, after questions and comments from the audience, these were summarised into a list to inform the afternoon’s break-out sessions.

After lunch and a chance to network, the audience was split up to 6 groups and each of the groups had to focus on one key issue to develop further, proposing activities which could be undertaken to explore or resolve this issue. Some interesting proposals came from these group discussions:

Issue 1: What is the best way to spend pillar II funds?
Proposal: This proposal aimed at bringing together ecological, economic and social knowledge to inform policy with the aim of reassessing the best way to spend CAP money to ensure farmers ‘do the right thing in the right place’.

Issue 2: How do we incentivise land managers to ‘do the right thing’ in the right place?
Proposal: Similarly to the first proposal, this group also focused on what management should be done where, but considered the issue from a different angle, suggesting that ecosystem services will be protected most effectively by combining top down and bottom up processes. A change to the structure of how funds are allocated to land managers were proposed, including a ‘bidding process’ and regional control of the ‘pot of money’.

Issue 3: Behaviour change to enhance resilience to shocks
Proposal: This group suggested a comprehensive study of farmer and consumer behaviour across different regions and farming types designed to identify the gap between desirable farm management and current behaviour and possible reasons for this. This would allow suitable incentives to be identified and employed.

Issue 4: Achieving a spatial balance of management activity on farmland
Proposal: This proposal aimed to change farmers’ behaviour by organising consultations and testing how land managers’ responded to different possible farming incentives.

Issue 5: ‘Better choice of choice’
Proposal: This group focused on product labeling and the possibility of integrating ecosystem services into existing certification schemes (e.g. Fairtrade, FSC, MSC).

Issue 6: Where do we need bees? A case study of spatial targeting of agriculture
Proposal: The final group’s idea was to better target agricultural incentives spatially by collecting existing knowledge, filling knowledge gaps and developing a GIS tool to help decision making for farmers. They demonstrated the idea through a case study on pollination services.

All of the proposals were strongly built on interdisciplinary or even intersectoral co-operation between ecologists, economists and other stakeholders. Four out of the six plans focused on spatial arrangements of agricultural incentives, suggesting that ecologists and economists alike think a critical problem with current initiatives lies in a lack of spatial planning and targeting of farmland management measures.

At the end of the workshop, the proposals were rated by participants based on their importance and feasibility. It was interesting to see that proposals which got more votes for importance generally got fewer votes for feasibility and vice versa. The winning scheme for importance was proposal 2, which focused on how to encourage farmers to “do the right thing in the right place”, whilst the most feasible proposal was voted to be proposal 6 on spatial planning with the case study on bees.

The feedback from participants was that it was a day of interesting and fruitful discussions, and hopefully some seeds of ideas for further research and co-operation between ecologists and economist were planted yesterday.

Additional information on the workshop and the full program can be downloaded from the workshop’s webpage.

The Royal Society yesterday published ‘People and the Planet‘, a report which marks the end of nearly two years of work by a group including both the British Ecological Society’s current President, Professor Georgina Mace FRS and a past-President of the Society, Professor Alastair Fitter FRS. Speaking to the Radio 4 ‘Today’ programme yesterday morning, Professor Mace warned that we are eroding the earth’s vital support systems through over-consumption and unfettered economic growth and that as a consequence we are not doing a very poor job of ‘gardening the planet’.

The study examines the links between global population and consumption and the implications for our finite planet. The aim of the report is to provide policy guidance to decision makers and to inform interested members of the public. Yesterday’s publication led to very interesting coverage on the Guardian’s environment blog, with members of the working group, including the group’s chair, Nobel Prize-winning geneticist Sir John Sulston FRS, commentators and others offering their views on the content. Some of those commenting contended that the scientists were too negative in their assessment and that economic growth should not always be viewed as having negative consequences for the environment. One suggestion was that economic growth means that natural resources such as timber could be replaced with man-made materials for development purposes, so reducing environmental degradation. Another was that economic growth means technological and scientific advances, with humanity thereby innovating our way out of a crisis.

Aside from any external comment on the project’s conclusions, the overriding message of the study is that we must examine population growth and consumption patterns together and that it is the combination of these two factors that has an effect on the planet. The human population is set to reach 10 billion people, from the current seven billion, by the middle of this century. Over 1.3 billion people currently live in abject poverty, on less than $1.25 per day. It is clearly not desirable to see a world in which both the population increases and inequalities are exacerbated. Inequality must be addressed, people must be lifted out of poverty, but as their wealth and living standards increase, so too will the consumption of resources. Reducing consumption whilst also reducing inequalities and ensuring that those in poverty achieve an adequate living standard is a dilemma, and one which seems intractable.

Yet, speaking to the Today Programme yesterday morning, Sir John Sulston described tackling these pressures on the planet, what he characterised as ‘planning to flourish’, as ‘very simple’. Echoing the conclusions of the report he stated that we need to ‘dematerialise’ our economy, for example by investing in zero carbon forms of energy and by moving beyond GDP as a measure of economic growth to price in natural capital. In addition, tackling population growth will require countries to work together constructively, rather than the developed somehow lecturing the developing world in how to address birth rates. Contraception should be made available to those who want it in Africa, where two thirds of the anticipated growth in population is projected to occur, for example, but representatives of some African nations, such as Kenya, are requesting this, rather than this being imposed from outside.

Top priority is afforded to lifting people out of poverty, in the report’s conclusions. The international community is urged to address inequality through investment in education, family planning and economic development. The other recommendations are (to paraphrase):

- Most developed and developing economies must stabilise and reduce material consumption levels (de-coupling economic growth from environmental impacts and improving the efficiency of resource use, for example);
- Reproductive health and voluntary family planning programmes should be supported by political leadership and financial commitments;
- Population and the environment should not be considered separately. Demographic changes should be factored in to Rio +20 negotiations, for example;
- Governments should invest appropriately in urbanisation, for example supporting waste collection, which has the potential to reduce environmental impacts through allowing resource efficiencies;
- High quality primary and secondary education should be available for all young people;
- Governments should accelerate the development of a comprehensive wealth measure, including improving national natural asset accounting;
- Governments should collaborate to develop socio-economic systems and institutions not dependent on continued material consumption.

Natural and social scientists have an important role to play. The seventh recommendation calls for scientists to increase their research into the interactions between consumption, demographic changes and environmental impacts, providing policy-makers with the information they require in order to ensure that both the planet and the human population under pressure can continue not only to survive but also to thrive.

The final day of the Planet under Pressure conference finished with a call for scientists to engage with the Rio +20 summit and beyond, defining through science the economic, social and environmental consequences of policy decisions. Interdisciplinary research, robust and comprehensive science is needed to forecast more accurately the intensity and consequences of change at multiple scales, along with assessing the consequences of potential solutions. These were the words of Dr Wendy Watson-Wright, Assistant Director General, and Executive Secretary of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, of UNESCO. Dr Watson-Wright reflected in these closing remarks many of the issues and suggestions that arose in discussion at the plenary and parallel sessions during the day.

The talks and sessions on Thursday focused on the way ahead to Rio + 20, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, following discussions in previous days examining the challenges facing the planet and the innovative solutions that might exist to tackle these. A significant theme to emerge was the need for better links between science and policy, along with the need for integrated, interdisciplinary research to tackle interconnected problems. On at least two occassions, the concept of the economic, environmental and social elements within sustainable development being characterised as ‘pillars’, as is the norm, was challenged, as this separated these factors conceptually, when in fact they are highly connected to one another. There were also calls throughout the day for new partnerships between science, policy, industry and business, along with the need for social and natural scientists to collaborate with one another.

Addressing the conference by video link, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon hailed Rio +20 as a major opportunity to develop the science-policy interface. This echoed comments at the conference earlier in the week by Yvo de Boer, former Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, who called for greater dialologue between science, policy and the media and the need to find new platforms to facilitate these interactions.

Johan Rockström, Stockholm Resilience Centre, introduced the audience to Future Earth, of which he is co-chair and which he described as an ‘Apollo-type global endeavour’. Future Earth is envisaged as a ‘global platform for collaboration on Earth-system research for global sustainability’, a 10 – year programme that brings together bodies such as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), UNESCO, the International Council for Science (ICSU) and the major funders of environmental research globally (the Belmont Forum). Future Earth will be launched at the Rio summit in June, with a new governance structure in place from January 2013. A possible outcome from Future Earth could be, Professor Rockström said, identification of the most pressing questions (and hopefully, solutions to these) facing humanity on global environmental challenges. The biggest intellectual contribution that Future Earth could make, Professor Rockström said, was in taking a bold step to integrate natural and social sciences in understanding these challenges.

There were calls from Professor Anne Glover, former Chief Scientific Adviser to the Scottish Government and now Chief Scientific Adviser to the European Commission, for better regulation of financial markets, as the real drivers of policy decisions. Professor Glover said that society spends a great deal of money on funding research into climate change, for example, which then delivers evidence on the likely impacts of environmental change, with limited uncertaintly. Policy-makers looking at this evidence can see clearly that action to tackle climate change is needed but ‘markets are not moral’; markets instead see in melting permafrost and areas of drought opportunities for the exploitation of new resources and the opening up of new commercial opportunities. Economists, social scientists and political scientists need to consider how to develop creative models for regulation, to create a level playing field for business to allow them to behave sustainably. Without this, Professor Glover said, our investment in scientific evidence is wasted.

One of the most interesting discussions attended by the Policy Team focused on the concept of ‘planetary boundaries’. There have been calls for the Sustainable Development Goals, expected as an ouput from the Rio +20 meeting, to incoporate the concept of ‘planetary boundaries’, or environmental limits to growth. A speaker from Oxfam highlighted the need to consider ’social boundaries’ alongside the environment, making the important point that a socially, as well as an environmentally just space for humanity to occupy was required as an outcome of Rio. Again, there were calls for economics to be reformed fundamentally if planetary, and social, boundaries are to be respected, with discussion of new methods of measuring social progress and growth ‘beyond GDP’. Scientists, the panellists stated, should engage with sustainable development policies to make sure that these have scientific integrity.

A ’state of the planet declaration’ was launched at the conference, representing a summary of the major themes to have emerged over the four days and the science community’s submission to the Rio + 20 meeting. This statement, which will be refined further over the next three months, emphasises the need for greater interconnectedness between disciplines, the need for an ‘improved contract’ between science and society and a ‘global innovation system’ to support the generation of solutions. Overall, the message of the declaration and of the meeting was that the science community has a responsibility and a duty to reach out beyond its borders to other disciplines, to policy-makers and society at large to convince of the scale of the challenge and the need for changes in economics, policy and society, at local, regional and global scales, to address these.

The Government will this afternoon publish the long-awaited National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which will simplify over 1,000 pages of planning guidance into just 50 pages and set out a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ that will apply across England.

Speaking to the BBC’s ‘Today’ programme this morning, planning Minister Greg Clark MP said that the NPPF would provide an opportunity to involve local communities in planning decisions ‘right from the start’. Instead of seeing developments challenged, by communities that have felt these have been imposed on them from outside, these same communities will now be given an opportunity to plan positively for the housing and infrastructure that they recognise they need, the Minister suggested.

But there are others who feel far less positively about the NPPF. Over the past few months environmental organisations have challenged the Government rigourously regarding its proposed planning reforms, with tension most obvious with regard to the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’. Many, such as the National Trust and the Campaign to Protect Rural England, have argued that the defintion of ’sustainable development’ used within the draft document, on which consultation closed last autumn, was inconsistent and confused. For example, in one instance the Brundtland Commission definition of sustainable development is used (essentially, meeting the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs) and the three pillars of sustainable development (social, economic and environmental) are mentioned. Yet in other instances the wording of the document suggests that economic growth will be given precedence over the other aspects that need to be considered for an approach to be truly ’sustainable’.

An article (1) in the latest edition of the bulletin of the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (In Practice), provides a useful analysis of the draft NPPF. The authors conclude that overall the draft NPPF promises weaker protection for the environment than Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS 9), which it replaces. Although there already exists in planning policy a presumption in favour of development that meets sustainability principles, the authors suggest that the NPPF marks a shift away from this due to the precedence afforded to economic growth above the other pillars of sustainability and the non-precautionary approach adopted by the guidance. Development is to proceed in the case of doubt over the likely impacts, unless the ‘costs significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits’. The burden of proof will therefore rest with the objector to a proposal and, the authors suggest, ‘developers are likely to have a smoother path’.

Greg Clark rejected these suggestions in an interview with the BBC Breakfast programme this morning. He said that development should not be at the expense of the environment and that the reason for a planning system in England is to ensure that economic, social and environmental factors can be considered together and balanced. Again he reiterated the need to involve local communities in planning decisions, emphasising that the reforms have been motivated by a desire to ensure that local people and not only specialists can engage with the streamlined planning guidance.

Despite these assurances, and a report in the Guardian suggesting that National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty will receive additional protection from development in the NPPF, Whitehall sources have been quoted across the media as saying that the document is ‘unashamedly pro-growth’. When the Minister makes his statement to MPs at 12.30 GMT and the new regulations come into force immediately, those who have challenged the development of the NPPF over past months will have the opportunity to assess whether any concessions have been made following the consultation phase.

1. Wilson, R. and Simpson, P. A Cunning Plan…or a Plan too Far? In Practice (2012) 75: 7 – 11.

Presentation slides, audio and video recordings, photos and links from the joint WWF-UK and Royal Geographical Society (with IBG) event ‘Navigating the Perfect Storm’ last month have been made available online.

The evening was chaired by Professor John Beddington, Chief Scientific Advisor to the Government and involved interesting presentations by Ivan Lewis, Shadow Secretary of State for International Development, Professor Bill Adams of University of Cambridge, and Dr Sejal Worah, Programmes Director for WWF India, who all gave perspectives on the action and approaches needed to navigate the ‘perfect storm’ of energy, food and water insecurity facing the world in the near future.

A previous BES Policy blog post gives a digest of the evening.

Pressure on the worlds resources means we are increasingly encouraged to consume less power, water, even food. But few of us make more than a minimal effort to change our behaviour. Is a sustainable lifestyle great in theory but impossible in practice? That was the question discussed at a British Library debate last week attended by the BES policy team.

Dale Southerton, Director of the Sustainable Practices Research Group (SPRG) and Professor of Sociology at the University of Manchester, gave a talk entitled “Bad Habits Die Hard”. He suggested changes in practices rather than changes in individual’s behaviour is required, and that habits are not the problem of the individual, but are a response to social customs.

Professor Southerton cited the freezer as an example of a technology that had significantly altered social customs. From originally being an invention to “beat the seasons”, it now dominates the kitchen and supermarket is an “appliance of convenience, storing pizzas and a glut of frozen peas”.

In conclusion, Professor Southerton suggested that individuals cannot make the planet sustainable and that changing social, economic and cultural organisation of practices is required. To achieve this is a need for adaptive policy programmes that target practices and habitual actions.

The final speaker of the event was Ian Christie, Research Fellow and Coordinator, Sustainable Lifestyles Research Group, Centre for Environmental Strategy (CES) at the University of Surrey. His talk was entitled “Sustainable Consumption: Mission Not-Quite Impossible” and talked about, among other things, rebound effects, the idea that up to one third of emission savings are cancelled out by rebound spending. For example someone may reward themselves for greening their house and reducing their carbon footprint by then booking an overseas holiday. Or someone putting in an energy saving light bulb may use that as an excuse to leave the light on for longer.

Overall, Dr Christie suggested that a sustainable lifestyle is not impossible, but stressed that if we rely on the emergence of technology, such as more efficient forms of renewable energy generation, then we will indeed be on an impossible mission.

Echoing the call for better interchange between scientists and policy makers made in the draft agenda for the upcoming Rio+20 conference, a UN report published last week stresses that a strong scientific basis is critical in political decisions, particularly in relation sustainable development.

The report, entitled ‘Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing’, reiterates the importance of science throughout its 56 recommendations and identifies a ‘pressing need’ for better integration between science and policy at all levels. Some recommendations for steps to be taken towards achieving this are made, including the creation of a UN-level science advisory board.

A focus on ongoing scientific research in order to properly define terms such as ‘environmental thresholds’ and ‘tipping points’ is recognised as necessary to allow concrete and effective policy to be made. The panel also recommends that a ‘global sustainable development outlook report’ should be produced, drawing together disparate knowledge on a range of issues including climate change, energy, agriculture, health and development. It is envisaged that this would prompt officials from a diverse range of international organisations to work together, as well as with scientific advisors and governments, to decide a holistic approach to pursuing sustainable development.

The Stakeholder Forum, a civil society pressure group actively engaged in the run-up to Rio+20, has welcomed the report and suggested the although it is ‘meant to be used beyond Rio+20, it should be read as a blueprint of what could be achieved in Rio and as a wake-up call for action’.

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

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

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

Interested in discussing the challenges facing Scotland’s biodiversity to 2020 and helping to inform the development of Scotland’s draft Biodiversity Strategy? Come along to a meeting in Edinburgh on 8th – 9th March 2012. BES members can attend for FREE (but must register in advance).

The BES is working with the British Society of Soil Science and the Scottish Government’s Biodiversity Science Group to organise a one-day conference (9th March), an evening lecture, reception and dinner (8th March) at the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh. The meeting will:

•Introduce the science community in Scotland to the revision of Scotland’s Biodiversity Strategy;
•Explore the scale of the challenges facing the implementation of an ecosystem approach in Scotland;
•Provide an opportunity for the science community to find out about the needs of policy-makers;
•Provide an opportunity for networking between the science and policy communities.

The evening reception will celebrate the launch of the BES Scotland Policy Group, a new initiative from the Society that aims to link members of the Society in Scotland who are interested in informing policy development and through this to assist the Society’s policy team in doing the same.

Confirmed speakers for the 9th of March include: Colin Moffatt, Head of Science at Marine Scotland; Ken Norris, biodiversity theme leader at NERC and biodiversity chapter lead in the National Ecosystem Assessment; Helaina Black, James Hutton Institute; and Chris Quine, Forest Research.

Poster abstracts are invited upon registration. We particularly welcome registration by students to this meeting and will be offering a prize for the best poster.

Full details of the programme and how to register are available from the BES website.