An All-Party Parliamentary Group for International Development & the Environment (APPG IDE) meeting was held today in Westminster to discuss challenges facing policy-makers ahead of the UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in June this year. The APPG IDE is a forum for MPs and Peers to discuss the links between poverty and natural resources, and engage with interested people and organisations outside parliament.

The event was chaired by Jon Snow and had a panel consisting of:
Mark Simmonds MP: Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford MP: Scottish National Party spokesperson on International Development.
Dr Caroline Lucas MP: leader of the Green Party.
Martin Horwood MP: Co-chair of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Committee on International Affairs.
Tony Cunningham MP: Shadow Minister for International Development.

Jon Snow welcomed the meeting by pointing out that things have certainly happened during the last 20 years in the UK since the first Rio Earth Summit in 1992. He brought up the UK Climate Change Act and the announcement of the draft Energy Bill today as examples. After this, previously submitted questions were addressed to the panel by the audience.

The first questioner wanted to know how committed the UK Government is towards the outcomes of the Rio+20 Summit and what the key issues are. Mark Simmons listed three main issues that need to be addressed in Rio: sustainable development, GDP+ and a bigger contribution from businesses and the private sector. Eilidh Whiteford emphasised the need to transfer our technology and knowledge to the rest of the world, while Tony Cunningham mentioned poverty eradication as the bottom line of all the main issues which need to be addressed. Caroline Lucas added that human population has to admit its responsibility for the current problems and highlighted the need for financial commitment. Finally, Martin Horwood called for a holistic view to look at environmental problems at the Rio+20 Summit, rather than focusing on climate change to the exclusion of biodiversity loss and other considerations. Although the panellists pointed out slightly different issues they all agreed that the UK has to show leadership in Rio by the Prime Minister leading the delegation. At present, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg MP is due to attend, along with Secretary of State for Defra, Caroline Spelman.

Another question focussed on the North-South difference and poverty issues. The MPs agreed that social justice and sustainability should be at the heart of the new Sustainable Development Goals expected to be discussed in Rio.

The next questioner wanted to know how the global economy can provide the finances needed to meet the successors to the Millennium Development Goals and any new Sustainable Development Goals. Mr Horwood set out the UK government as a good example, applauding its decision to allocate 0.7% of the budget to international development projects. This is particularly impressive in a time of financial austerity, when it would have been easy to cut back on this spending. Mr Simmonds pointed at businesses and the private sector that need to be involved in the funding of the developmental goals. Caroline Lucas suggested that a ‘financial transaction tax’ could be levied on businesses and that a tax on greenhouse gas emissions from shipping could be a further mechanism. Mark Simmonds disagreed, stating that economic considerations are drivers for business and that business leaders will respond when they recognise that sustainable development makes good business sense, not when taxed to do so. Ms Lucas argued however that we cannot afford to wait for the majority of businesses to recognise this; instead Government needs to hold up examples of good practice to business, demonstrating that it is possible to behave sustainably and make a profit.

Then the discussion moved on to the ‘green economy’ and what the MPs think about it. The panellists agree that green economy is not equal to green growth and that there are parts of the world which still need growth but other parts should move towards a steady state economy. Therefore general global goals will not perform well due to differences in countries and regions. Ms Lucas also wondered what impacts would ‘advertisement-free zones’ have on our consumption pattern if these were widespread.

Another question which brought consensus amongst the panellists was about biofuels. They all agreed that biofuels are not all bad and there are some room for them within sustainable development but it is crucial to prioritise regarding to food security, society and environment. Martin Horwood added that the UK Government need to keep the pressure on EU renewable targets to make sure that they are really sustainable.

The last question asked the MPs’ opinion on setting up a new high commission for future generation issues. All of them, except Mark Simmonds, would like to see a new body focussing on future generations. Caroline Lucas brought up Hungary as a good example; Hungary has a Deputy-Commissioner responsible for the protection of the interests of future generations. On the other hand, Mark Simmonds would like to see existing institutions work better rather than introducing a new one. He was also wary about separating sustainable development considerations from mainstream policy, arguing that the UK Government already has a commitment to incorporating sustainable development considerations throughout the Government’s agenda.

The panellists mentioned several times that best practice has to be shared widely and the successes discussed. However, negative lessons learnt from the past could be just as important to share.

At the end of the meeting Jon Snow summarised the three most important points to emerge from the meeting:
- we should brag about our successes;
- the UK should be proud about the allocation of 0.7% of its budget to development goals and similar action by other countries should be pushed in Rio;
- and, most importantly, the Prime Minister should lead the UK delegation to the Rio+20 Earth Summit.

The Marine Climate Change Impacts Partnership (MCCIP) launched its latest Report Card on 8th May at the World Fisheries Congress in Edinburgh. It focuses on how climate change is affecting the fish and shellfish we find in our seas, providing both opportunities and threats, and what the social and economic consequences could be.

Key findings in the 2012 MCCIP Report Card include:
• There are clear changes in the depth, distribution, migration and spawning behaviours of fish – many of which can be related to warming sea temperatures.
• Cultivated fish and shellfish are both susceptible to climate change, although fish farming technologies offer good potential for adaptation.
• Controlled or closed fishing areas (a type of protected area) that can be adapted in response to climate change have the potential to help protect commercial and vulnerable fish stocks.
• Recreational sea fishing is an important socio-economic activity that could be positively affected by climate change, due to the increasing abundance of species that are of interest to anglers.
• Shifting distributions of fish have led to a series of international disagreements and will continue to have implications for fisheries management across international boundaries.

Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Environment Richard Lochhead said:
“Climate change is affecting us all and understanding the impact on the marine environment is hugely important. Fisheries and aquaculture are vital to our economy – worth over 1 billion – and clear science is critical to secure the future of our valuable food industries. That is why I welcome the collaborative work of the MCCIP – the report card provides significant and robust scientific data which will help inform future policies to tackle climate change.”

UK Minister for the Marine Environment, Richard Benyon, said:
“I would like to thank the scientists who have contributed towards this valuable report and believe we have come a long way in a short time in understanding the impacts of climate change on the marine environment.
“The truth is that climate change is having a big impact on distribution of fish stocks and this is going to present some significant challenges for policy-makers, fisheries managers and for fishing industry itself.
“The Government will develop a National Adaptation Plan in response to the Climate Change Risk Assessment in which issues affecting the marine environment will be addressed.”

The 12-page report card is available here.

The report card draws on four Open Access reviews published in Aquatic Conservation this week and available here.

Blog post by Dr Davy McCracken, Team Leader, Scottish Agricultural College.

Defra together with the Northern Ireland Executive, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government launched the consultation on the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in March. One and a half months are left to submit thoughts on the implementation of the Directive till the end of the consultation on 18th June.

The main goal of MSFD is to achieve and maintain Good Environmental Status (GES) of all EU seas by the end of the decade. GES means that marine ecosystems are protected, restored and their degradation is prevented while used sustainably. The Directive includes 11 descriptors of GES covering a wide-range of aspects from biodiversity through food webs to underwater noise.

Current consultation aims to draft an initial assessment of the state of the UK’s seas, customise general GES criteria to UK seas and propose more detailed measures and indicators of GES. There will be further consultations on measures and monitoring of achieving GES of UK marine environments.

Consultation materials and information on how to take part can be found on the Defra webpage.

The UK Government’s new Bioenergy Strategy released last week aims to accelerate the use of renewable energy generated sustainably from biomass. Bioenergy is stated in the strategy as ‘one of the most versatile forms of low carbon and renewable energy’ and is proposed to be used for heating, electricity and transport fuel.

The Government’s overall goal is to meet the renewables target by 2020 and the carbon reduction targets by 2030 and 2050. To achieve this, the focus has to be on new technologies (e.g. wind, solar) and biomass energy as well. The strategy predicts that 11 per cent of all UK energy will come from biomass by 2020. This number can be achieved sustainably using domestic and international biomass resources and be sustained in the long term in spite of the expected emergence of international demand for biomass feedstock.

The Government also recognise the risks of bioenergy, emphasised by many green organisations. To address the concerns (e.g. food security, biodiversity) the Government states that sustainability and affordability are the highest importance and the strategy sets a framework of principles to guide UK bioenergy policy in the future. Amongst others the principles state that the biomass used for bioenergy has to deliver genuine carbon reductions over its full lifecycle and future bioenergy policies must assess risks to food security and biodiversity.

Alongside the strategy the government released several reports on issues relevant to or affected by the proposed bioenergy strategy. For instance, a report on the UK jobs in the sector highlights that increased use of bioenergy would create around 50,000 jobs by 2020. Analyses on the bioenergy feedstock suggest that the amount of waste going to landfill at the moment would decrease by using it for bioenergy.

The Government used a holistic approach in preparing this strategy but did not seek to answer all the questions about the issue. One thing is perfectly clear though that the Government wants sustainable and affordable bioenergy to be an integral part of UK’s energy production in the future.

At the Natural Capital Initiative Steering Group meeting this morning we received a very interesting talk about GLOBE International’s work.

GLOBE International was founded in 1989 with the aim to tackle pressing environmental challenges through legislation by creating an international and cross-party platform for legislators. Since then they have been actively working on facilitating dialogue in four major policy themes: climate change, natural capital, forestry and marine environment.

GLOBE, together with ZSL, organised a side event on ‘Legislative approaches to recognising the value of biodiversity and natural capital’ at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 10th Conference of Parties (COP10) in Nagoya in 2010. On that event they tried to find answers on why the 2010 Biodiversity targets were not met. One of the possible problems according to GLOBE was ‘the real missing link is the political leadership that is necessary to integrate these [natural capital] values into policy decisions at the local and national level’. Their Natural Capital Initiative and Action Plan, which was launched in Nagoya, tries to tackle this problem by suggesting the creation of Ministerial Natural Capital Committees to stream the Natural Capital approach into other policies. The UK took on this initiative and is setting up such a Committee at the moment.

This year GLOBE is focussing on another big challenge by organising the 1st World Summit of Legislators before the Rio + 20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development. This event will be attended by high profile experts and politicians. The goal of the meeting is to inform legislators about relevant issues. GLOBE is preparing a publication on different Natural Capital Approaches within the EU at the moment. The other important outcome of the Summit will be to ‘negotiate and agree a legislators’ protocol to be ratified in the legislatures of the participating parliaments’.
If GLOBE’s initiative succeeds we can expect strong outcomes of the Rio + 20 Conference.

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 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.

Welsh Environment Minister John Griffiths yesterday launched the Welsh Government’s Strategic Framework for Bovine TB Eradication, which outlined a programme of badger vaccination to be introduced in the Intensive Action Area.

The Minister said the decision to pursue vaccination as opposed to culling of badgers was made based on ‘the evidence provided…including scientific and legal advice’ and that, at present, he is ‘not satisfied that a cull of badgers would be necessary to bring about a substantial reduction in cases of TB in cattle’.

A five year programme of vaccination is to be designed by the Chief Veterinary Officer and the Strategic Framework outlines a comprehensive longterm plan including measures for improved management of persistent cases of TB, piloting of an audit technique to assess TB testing, a voluntary scheme to facilitate the sharing of bovine TB data between neighbouring farms, and an advisory service for farmers whose herds are affected by the disease.

In his launch speech, Minister Griffiths emphasised that TB eradication will require longterm commitment and the use of new technological and scientific advances as they become available. A working group of experts, led by the Chief Veterinary Officer, will be created to develop the vaccination strategy.

The full Strategic Framework can be found on the Welsh Government 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 2012 conference of the IUCN UK National Committee is taking place on Thursday 26th April, considering the theme of protected areas in the United Kingdom.

“A platform for 21st Century protected area managers and policy makers to share best practice and consider existing and new policy and systems, opportunities and challenges. Development, climate change, economic constraints, and the needs of nature and people are all issues affecting the work of the protected areas community. This is a superb opportunity for protected area practitioners and policy makers from across the UK to come together, share and debate new and innovative ideas.”

Registration is £50 and further details are available from the IUCN UK website.