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.

Professor Jules Pretty gave a fascinating and wide-ranging insight into the sustainable intensification of agriculture on Tuesday afternoon at the BES Annual Meeting; this year’s BES Lecture. Prof. Pretty suggested that there was an ‘emerging consensus’ around the necessity of improving agricultural productivity whilst minimising harm to the environment – as testified by recent reports from the Foresight Global Food and Farming Futures programme, the Royal Society and others.

By 2050, the Foresight report has concluded, a 50-100% increase in food production will be needed worldwide to feed a growing human population. The precise figure will depend on how fast and far the population grows and on the consumption patterns which emerge. Food choices are currently converging. Where these were previously divergent, driven by choices and norms informed by differences in culture, now a Western ideal of consumption dominates, informing a greater consumption of meat in China, for example. Food price spikes in recent years have also adversely and disproportionately affected the poor and the hungry. Such trends will only continue unless radical reform is made to the systems by which we currently produce food, which involve intensive application of fertilisers, an increased use of machinery and a huge growth in livestock for meat and dairy which themselves eat grain which could be used to feed the hungry.

Read the full report at the BES Annual Meeting blog.

The UK National Ecosystem Assessment has been released today, and is the first independent, peer reviewed, in detail assessment of the state and value of the UK’s natural environment and ecosystem services. Both scientists and economists were involved in the assessment, which was funded by the governments of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and by the Natural Environment Research Council and the Economic and Social Science Research council.

The UK National Ecosystem Assessment strengthens the argument for protecting nature, and demonstrates that the costs of protecting the environment are shadowed by the cost of inaction. One of the key messages of the report was that we have focussed far too heavily on the market value of natural resources we can sell (e.g. timber and food), and not properly considered natural capital during decision making.

During the 20th Century population increases and initiatives to produce more food and timber led to serious damage and degradation of ecosystems and related services. Agricultural land, urban areas and woodlands have decline at the expense of other habitats such as semi-natural grasslands. Across all habitats the changes in land use and environmental pressures have led to declines in the number of species and quality of ecosystem services. 50% of fish stocks are being harvested unsustainably, and the UK has the lowest percentage forest cover of anywhere in Europe, with over two thirds being non-native plantation.

The report suggests that if the UK’s ecosystems were properly protected and enhanced then they could add an extra £30 billion to the UK economy. Neglect and loss of ecosystem services may cost as much as £20 billion to the economy per year.

The assessment looked at eight different types of ecosystems (Mountains, Moorlands and Heaths, Semi-natural Grasslands, Enclosed Farmland, Woodlands, Freshwaters – Openwaters, Wetlands and Floodplains, Urban, Coastal Margins, and Marine), the services that they provide, how the levels of service provisioning have changed over the past sixty years, and the main drivers of environmental change. The report considered both the monetary and non-monetary value of our natural environment, and the economic value of the observed changes in the way that ecosystems function and provide services, demonstrating that individuals, society and the economy can benefit financially from protecting ecosystems. Finally the report focuses on the potential effects of decisions that are made now, by examining the ecosystem effects of several different scenarios.

The synthesis report of the National Ecosystem Assessment outlines six key findings:

1. Nature is consistently undervalued in a wide range of decision making processes, even though we are fully aware that it is highly important.
2. Ecosystems have changed over the past 60 years, as have the services that they provide, and the ways in which people benefit from them. Population growth, technology, and globalisation have had major effects on the way in which we behave and consume ecosystem services.
3. Some ecosystem services are in long term decline, although other services are being provided well, or improving. Approximately 30% of services are currently declining, with some services already in a degraded state
4. The UK’s population is growing, as are our demands on the natural environment. This, with the added pressure of climate change, will accelerate the rate at which we impact the environment both in the UK and worldwide. Increasing the production of food whilst safeguarding ecosystem services will be the main challenge in this area.
5. Actions taken now will impact the future of the UK’s ecosystems, ecosystems services and human wellbeing. It is important that we make the right decisions now, using the National Ecosystem Assessment to inform decision making, which would allow us to pursue a better future where the benefits of ecosystem services are better realised and more evenly distributed.
6. Regulations, technology, finance, education and changes in individual and societal behaviour are all needed to ensure that we move towards sustainable development. We also will also need a more integrated, collaborative approach to managing ecosystems, between different government departments, business local authorities, and civil society.

In response to the release of the National Ecosystem Assessment Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman said “The UK National Ecosystem Assessment is a vital step forward in our ability to understand the true value of nature and how to sustain the benefits it gives us. I want our children to be the first generation to leave the natural environment in a better state than it was left to them. The findings of this assessment have played a big part in shaping our forthcoming Natural Environment White Paper that will help us revitalise our towns and countryside.”

The report presents a real opportunity to start changing the way we think about the natural environment, and will be vital in shaping many areas of policy in the coming months. An effective strategy to ensure preservation of the UK’s ecosystems needs to be developed. Bob Watson, Chief Scientist at Defra Chief and co-chair of the UK NEA, said “Until now there has been no clear way of valuing the full range of benefits they provide beyond what we can buy and sell. The UK NEA introduces groundbreaking approaches to measure the value of these services and how they will be affected in future if we do not make the right choices now. The NEA shows that we need a more integrated approach to ecosystem management, involving Government, the private sector, voluntary groups and the public working together to protect the services nature provides.”

The Defra White Paper, which should be released later this month, is expected to include actions on some of the key findings of the national ecosystem assessment. Planning policy is also expected to be affected by the release of this report, which currently puts little value on green spaces, and does not ensure adequate protection of ecosystem services or biodiversity.

The BES policy team tweeted from the launch event.
@BESpolicy

The Defra press release can be seen here.

Sustainable eel fishing may start to increase in the European Union following the development of a new labelling scheme by the Sustainable Eel Group. The group, whose members include scientists, NGOs and policymakers, have developed a new standard (the Sustainable Eel Standard) to identify and promote best practice in the eel fishing industry. The development of the new standard is part of a move in the EU to put pressure on caterers and retailers to purchase eel only when they can be certain that it has been sustainably caught.

Eel populations have declined dramatically since monitoring began. A variety of factors have contributed to this decline including habitat destruction, pollution of waterways, disease, blocking of migratory pathways, and the complexity of the European eel lifecycle. These problems led to the eel being listed as endangered in 2008, after numbers had declined by as much as 90%. The new standard will start to tackle these problems by creating wetland habitats, monitoring water quality, and making alterations to the blocks in migratory pathways to allow eels to pass.

The new standard outlines key actions that the fishery must undertake in order to obtain a green score. These include:
• To achieve 40% escapement of eels, and minimise mortality during fishing
• To be licensed and provide accurate logbook data
• To use only legal gear
• To cause only negligible impacts on bycatch species or rare and protected species
• To cause on negligible impacts on habitats
• To active contribute in research and monitoring
• To develop and implement an eel management plan for restocking, and monitor the success of restocking
The report also contains recommendations for reducing the environmental and ecological impact of cultured eel and recommendations for animal welfare. Although these recommendations will ensure progression towards sustainability in the eel fishing industry the report also recognises that the fishery can not yet be called sustainable, as recovery of the stocks has not been sufficient.

The Sustainable Eel group is working with the Environment Agency to ensure that these recommendations are implemented in line with an EU Eel Management Plan

A new government report titled Mapping and Understanding UK Palm Oil Use has identified possible policy options to increase the volume of sustainable palm oil used in the UK. The use of by-products of the palm oil industry in animal feed as one of the main challenges facing the move towards use of only sustainable palm oil in the UK. The report also noted the importance of commitment by the biofuels and personal care product industries as crucial for success. In 2009 the UK imported 643,000 tons of palm oil, and 663,000 tons of palm kernel meal, the by-product of the palm oil industry that is commonly used in animal feed. Over 10% of the world’s entire production of palm kernel meal is used to feed animals in Britain.

The report which was compiled for Defra by Proforest was designed to inform the government of potential policy options relating to palm oil.

Palm oil plantations are one of the main causes of deforestation in South East Asia and are frequently established on peatland resulting in loss of biodiverse forests and high greenhouse gas emissions. Palm oil and palm kernel meal can be used in products as diverse as biofuels and confectionary.

Certification by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil was set up in 2004 as a standardised certification system for palm oil. Currently 24% palm oil is currently obtained from sustainable sources, with many supermarkets and manufacturers committed to becoming 100% sustainable by 2015. However the UK government has no policy of sustainability for palm oil, and many pubs, restaurants, and manufacturers of animal feed have made no commitment so far. The report suggested that more needs to be done to gain commitments from refineries, producers of personal care and cleaning products, and the biofuel sector to increase the volume of sustainable palm oil used during manufacturing.

The report identified five main policy options:
• Awareness raising campaigns.
• Goals for removing unsustainable palm oil from supply chains.
• Government procurement policy promoting sustainable palm oil within supply chains.
• Voluntary or mandatory reporting of companies’ performance
• Private sector due diligence demonstrating sustainable sourcing

The European Nitrogen Assessment (ENA), a major new investigation, today released its findings revealing the environmental and economic cost of nitrogen pollution in Europe.

The ENA, conducted by over 200 international experts, estimated that nitrogen pollution is already costing Europeans up to £650 each every year – amounting to a total of £280 billion. This cost reflects the value of damage to essential services, (known as ‘ecosystem services’), such as climate regulation and the supply of clean water and air provided by healthy ecosystems that are rich in biodiversity.

For decades nitrogen fertiliser has been used to increase agricultural food production in order to meet rising demands and feed the planets growing human population. The use of nitrogen fertiliser to improve crop yields has however had negative environmental impacts. Much of the nitrogen pollution associated with agriculture is linked to its use as a fertiliser to produce crops used to feed livestock intended for meat production. As a result, large areas of forest are cleared each year to make space for soy beans grown to feed Europe’s chickens, cows and pigs.

In terms of climate, up to 60% of the economic cost of nitrogen damage is derived from fossil fuels burnt in order to generate energy and from transport (with the remiaing 40% coming from agriculture). Nitrogen fertilisers also cause the release of nitrous oxide, one of the fundamental green house gases responsible for global warming. Furthermore, nitrogen also contributes to air pollution with negative implications for human health, reducing life expectancy and causing problems such as asthma and cancer.

Despite this, there remains a great need to use nitrogen fertiliser, and demand for fossil fuel combustion. Consequently, there is now more than ever, a need to improve the efficiency of processes associated with nitrogen pollution so as not to cause unnecessary damage to the environment. The ENA report addresses these issues and suggests we minimise future damage by reducing fossil fuel emissions through investment in clean energy for homes and transport, and by reducing our demand for meat. The report discusses altering the western diet by decreasing meat consumption, in order to ease the environmental pressures associated with its production. Present figures show that in Europe people currently eat 70% more meat and diary products than required for a healthy diet and therefore reducing meat intake could be beneficial for both human health and the environment.

The report concludes that the overall costs of damage to the environment at the expense of nitrogen pollution far out-weigh the direct economic benefits of using nitrogen in agriculture alone. In light of these developments a move towards a more sustainable lifestyle by individuals, institutions and government is needed. Defra’s Chief Scientist, Professor Bob Watson, remained positive commenting that “things are going in the right direction, [the UK has reduced nitrous oxides by 60% since 1990] but we do need to move faster to avoid this environmental damage”.

Half of all fish caught in the North Sea are thrown back dead. This is due to strict fishing quotas set out by the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) that limit the number of fish landed each day. Although these quotas were originally developed with the intention to help conserve fish stocks, they are in fact doing the exact opposite and forcing fishermen to throw back thousands of dead fish, known as discard, every day.

The problem occurs because in a mixed fishery, where species other than the target fish live, non-target species get caught along with the desired catch, and are then later thrown back over-board dead. This is not only a waste of food but has absolutely no benefit to conservation.

In response, the Big Fish Fight kicked off on Channel 4 this month. The campaign aims to lobby change in EU fisheries policy in order to make fishing more sustainable, as well as encourage the public to diversify their eating habits, and increase supermarket sourcing awareness.

The high profile campaign is fronted by celebrity chefs including Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, Jamie Oliver, Gordon Ramsay and Heston Blumenthal who have been showcasing sustainable seafood recipes to the public. The campaign is also supported by conservation NGO’s such as WWF and the Marine Conservation Society, who are working to develop solutions to help make the CFP work for fish, fishermen and consumers alike.

The Big Fish Fight has already received tremendous public support, with over half a million people signing up in favor of the CFP reform in 2012. To join the fight and find out more sign up at http://www.fishfight.net

Yesterday evening, Jonathon Porritt, founder of Forum for the Future and chair of the Sustainable Development Commission, spoke at the annual Burntwood lecture, hosted by Institution of Environmental Science.

In a dynamic talk, Porritt described the so-called “growth fetish” of modern society, in which emphasis is increasingly put on economic growth, measured by Gross Domestic Product, above all other indicators of success. He also spoke on the role of human rights and development NGOs in fighting the cause for environmentalism, stating that they had failed to address the root of the problem.

Population growth, he said, was a key factor in the debate on how to achieve “a sustainable low-carbon economy”, a piece of the puzzle that had thus far been ‘missed out’. As a result, natural and economic resources would continue to be stretched to unsustainable levels, with almost every significant trend in consumption- including water, food and energy- increasing steadily. He assured that establishing a ‘real’ global price on carbon emissions was also vital, if the world is to lower its greenhouse gas emissions to at least 50% on 1990 levels by 2050, avoiding the dangerous effects of climate change. This would be equivalent to 6g of carbon dioxide per US dollar ($) of economic growth by 2050, whilst current levels are approximately 750g of carbon dioxide per dollar of growth.

Mr Porritt then suggested the essential tools needed to get us to a ‘sustainable economy’. He supported the idea that innovation and technological advancement, driven by a need for sustainable consumption, would also bring huge benefits economically. ‘Marketisation’, or valuation of natural assets including Ecosystem Services, would help to create an economic model in which preservation of natural assets remains more profitable than environmental destruction. “It’s about using nature’s wealth more sustainably”, Porritt stated. He suggested that political corruption and the rise of ‘Denialism’ were responsible for the majority of inaction on global over-consumption, which has lead to runaway environmental destruction.

Mr Porritt then called on NGOs and environmental advocates to start focussing their effort towards promoting “limits to growth”, to stop what he regarded as “the systematic betrayal of young people today”. Relentlessly increasing levels of consumption were “completely non-viable”, he added. He commented that well-known NGOs, such as Friends of the Earth and WWF, should make more effort to address the economic developmental pressures of the world today, in order to remain the “lifeblood” of the environmental movement.

A lively question and answer session followed the lecture, in which Trewin Restorick – CEO of Global Action Plan- and representatives from WWF-UK disputed Porritt’s claims that the NGOs strategy on global sustainability was “inadequate”. Mr Porritt also acknowledged the significant positive effect” that had been made by thinking and research on ecosystem services, in making biodiversity conservation more effective. He believes that understanding the “economics of natural capital” will help to further expose the irreversible costs of environmental destruction.

Other questions from the floor related to the role of innovation and technology in achieving his vision of ‘a sustainable low carbon economy’. Mr Porritt commented that innovation in ‘green technology’ did not have to come at the expense of economic recovery. He also praised leadership from “forward thinking entrepreneurs” in partnership with the private sector, for contributing to a “thriving” portfolio of low-carbon technologies, against the backdrop of political failure to establish a “price on carbon”. Further progress was being ’stunted’ by a lack of “market-based controls on carbon”, which would allow these technologies to become more economical, he said.