On the 25th July 2011 the draft National Planning Policy Framework was published by Government. After the release of the Natural Environment White Paper in June this year conservation organisations have been highly anticipating the publication of the Framework, which represents the next step in terms of implementing the declarations of the White Paper.

The document, which integrates the Government’s economic, environmental and social planning policies for England, was issued alongside a statement from the Environment Secretary, Caroline Spelman, who said “It will give local communities the power to protect green spaces that mean so much to them, while still giving the highest protection to our treasured landscapes such as national parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It will also ensure that development needed to grow the economy is carried out in a sustainable way.”

The Government’s objective as stated in the Framework is that planning should help to deliver a healthy natural environment for the benefit of everyone and safe places which promote wellbeing. To achieve this objective, the document states that the planning system should aim to conserve and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting valued landscapes, minimise impacts on biodiversity and provide net gains where possible. The report also makes the statement that planning permission should be refused if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated, or as a last resort, compensated for.

The Framework goes on to support the Lawton Review and the White Paper with its goals to minimise impacts on biodiversity by stating that planning policy should take into account the need to plan for biodiversity at a landscape-scale as well as identify and map components of the local ecological networks, including international, national and local sites. In line with EU targets the Framework states that planning will promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the recovery of priority species populations.

In terms of climate change the Government’s objective is that planning should fully support the transition to a low carbon economy in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change. To achieve this objective, the planning system should aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, support energy efficiency improvements to existing buildings, deliver renewable and low-carbon energy infrastructure and provide resilience to impacts arising from climate change.

The Planning Framework is now open for consultation until the 17th of October 2011 and followed by a series of events taking place across the UK. Read the full document here.

Scientists fear cuts to the EU budget could threaten the continued persistence of wildlife on agricultural landscapes. Up to £400 million worth of funding provided through the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) could be stopped as a result of government spending cuts. Conservation groups are warning such action could prove disastrous for some farmland species, and threaten the recovery of those already endangered such as the cirl bunting and turtle dove.

Under the current terms of the CAP, farmers are able to receive payments in return for developing projects on their land that are designed to encourage local biodiversity. Such incentives have seen great success, and played a vital role in the conservation of species sensitive to agricultural practices that may have otherwise experienced a population decline. However as part of the current CAP reform ‘Pillar 2’ funding – the money available to farmers who practice methods beneficial to the environment and biodiversity could be scrapped.

Martin Harper, Conservation Director of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) said he was “staggered” by the idea, fearing that wildlife corridors such as hedges and water ways could also be affected.

The government has however stated that the current biodiversity subsidies in place are ‘good value’ and that cuts should be targeted towards CAP subsidies assigned for food production instead. Proposals for the new EU budget will be announced later this month on 29th June.

The Royal Society of Medicine hosted the Sense About Science Annual Lecture yesterday evening. The lecture, entitled ‘Epidemics and refuseniks: the birth of state responsibility’ was led by Professor Richard Evans, a historian from the University of Cambridge and attended by 250 delegates from relevant disciplines. Prof Evans talk discussed the most effective way to “contribute to the communication of common sense about science” and noted the mistrust between scientists and politicians by using a number of illustrative case studies on public health.

The first example was that of the 19th century cholera outbreak, which was facilitated by the opposing beliefs about the cause of the disease. Some were convinced cholera was caused by an infection, while political influence led others to believe it to be the result of a vapor. Prof Evans then went on to discuss the failure of South African government to acknowledge and tackle Aids by initially claiming that medication actually caused Aids, invoking public skepticism and hindering treatment. Since then, the number of retro-viral treatments given to those infected can be indicative of political circumstances and beliefs. In Britain, Evans explored how those advising action on BSE (Mad Cows Disease) in the 1980’s were slow to respond due to the demand for a high level conviction in their research results from politicians, which was at the time, not possible. This created a “massive public distrust in scientific opinion”, and created scope for future misplaced opinions such as the perceived health risks associated with being given the measles, mumps and rubella (MRR) vaccine in 1990’s. The case of MMR was exuberated by media reports which focused on worst case scenarios that were still scientifically uncertain, and have since been showed to be false. The result was a decrease in the number of children being given the vaccine, and a subsequent increase in MMR (1348 cases) resulting in 2 documented deaths which may have been preventable.

These case studies demonstrated that scientific uncertainty, political agenda, and the media’s pursuit of a good story often hinder attempts to explain scientific research. The complex relationship between government, science and society can result in politicians choosing to support science that suits their own ideology, scientists that expect people to trust them despite uncertainty, and society being caught between the two. The influence of the media on the public also contributes to a lack of trust and understanding as journalists are most likely to base their reports on the worst case scenario of a predicted event, making for a more high impact story which can sometimes lead to unnecessary panic. It was clear from the lecture that scientists need to continue to improve communication between science, policy and the media, and that the way in which those parties deal with uncertainty needs to be addressed.

On the 5th of May last week voters from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland took to the polls to vote in the devolved elections. The results have been announced over the past few days and are as follows:

Scotland
The Scottish National Party (SNP) led by Alex Salmond were elected with a landslide vote in Scotland, gaining their first ever majority. The SNP unseated several Labour Members of Scottish Parliament (MSP’s), picking up five constituency seats in Glasgow, and a further two on the regional list winning an overall total of 23 seats.

Wales
Carwyn Jones led Welsh Labour to power following the votes with the gain of a further 4 seats. The vote however left Labour hanging 1 seat away from the majority, leading to speculation of the formation of a future coalition within the Welsh Assembly between Labour and either the Liberal Democrats or Plaid Cymru.

Northern Ireland
With results still coming in until Tuesday elections have not yet passed in Northern Ireland. However, the Democratic Unionists Party (DUP), led by Peter Robinson and Sinn Féin led by Gerry Adams are well ahead of their rival parties. The DUP and Sinn Féin had of yesterday, won the most seats in Northern Ireland, with 38 and 29 respectively. This result if unchallenged will allow both groups to retain their positions as the two major parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

What these results mean for the environment is indicated in each party’s 2011 manifesto:

• The SNP manifesto features chapters on low carbon ambitions, climate change targets and the rural agenda.
• The Welsh Labour manifesto includes a chapter on the environment and sustainability and another on rural communities.
• The manifesto of the DUP features a section on the environment and another regarding agrifood.

All 278 of Britain’s green laws, originally put in place to safeguard the natural environment, have been included on the list of red tape regulations to be considered for the axe by the public as part of the ‘Red Tape Challenge’. The proposed deregulation is a corwdsourcing exercise launched by government to assess which of the current regulations restrict growth of the economy and scrap unnecessary red tape.

Environmental laws including; the Wildlife and Countryside Act, National Park Act, Clean Air Act and the Climate Change Act could now all be scrapped by government as they fall under ‘general regulations’ outraging environmental campaigners.

If green laws such as the Wildlife and Countryside Act – which governs the protection of animals and plants in Britain – were axed as a result of the ‘Red Tape Challenge’ national parks, marine reserves and sites of special scientific interest (SSSI’s) would no longer be protected by law.

Additionally, the retraction of the Climate Change Act – which was the first of its kind – would mean the release the secretary of state from duties to reach climate change targets such as to reduce the UK’s carbon emissions by at least 80% below 1990 levels by the year 2050.

The Government’s ‘Red Tape Challenge’ website invites comments either as an individual or as an organisation about red tape regulations, with Ministers facing the presumption that laws and regulations listed in the ‘Red Tape Challenge’ should be scrapped unless argued otherwise. You can comment on environmental regulations threatened to be axed by the scheme over a number of subject areas including:

• Air quality
• Biodiversity, wildlife management, landscape, countryside and recreation
• Energy labelling and sustainable products
• Industrial emissions and carbon reductions
• Noise and nuisance
• Waste
• Environmental permits, information and damage

After receiving public comments Ministers will then have three months to work out which regulations they want to keep and why.

The Green Investment Bank (GIB) – proposed as part of government’s strategy to tackle climate change through the promotion of investment in environment and clean energy projects, is not the most controversial topic to spring to mind. Yet the subject of how to proceed with plans for the GIB has however been one of hot debate.

The GIB hopes to raise £200 billion in the long term to help renew the UK’s energy grid. At present, the government has pledged £1 billion towards the bank, which critics argue is simply not enough. The pinnacle of the controversy however arises over how to proceed with the GIB; as an investment bank or fund.

If the GIB were classified as a bank by the National Statistics Office, (whether independent or publicly owned), it would have the ability to raise additional capital and borrow money. If however the GIB were to take on the form of a fund it would not be granted these borrowing rights, and would therefore be expected to fall far short of government climate change targets due to a lack of funds.

It is subsequently argued that the GIB should adopt the form of a public sector investment bank, as a government backed bank would have a higher rating than an independent one. The major obstacle to this lies in the reluctance of the treasury to back the GIB as this would mean that government would have to accept all future liability, which in turn could threaten to undermine plans to reduce the deficit. If the GIB were to alternatively become a fund, the UK could miss out on the opportunity to attract billions of pounds worth of green investment to assist economic growth.

If climate change targets are to be reached with additional potential for economic growth there is a strong case to designate the GIB a public bank. Nonetheless, considering the current economic climate, uncertainty, and resulting caution this is a subject that will continue to be debated. Plans concerning the future role of the GIB are due to be released at the end of May.

“It’s essential that the forthcoming Budget sets out a clear framework for science funding well beyond the current spending period, and ideally for a 10-year period.” MP John Denham, Shadow Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills, said at the Campaign for Science and Engineering in the UK (CaSE) Annual Lecture last week.

The lecture entitled ‘Science and Growth’, held at the Royal Institution of Great Britain came after the government’s decision to abandon commitments to a decade long science investment strategy, in favor of a move to short term investment branded ‘short-termism’. Denham warned that following the move ‘there is a real danger of the UK losing its leading position in world science”. The Shadow Secretary went on to emphasise the need for Britain to continue investing in the discipline not only because of its own importance, but for the growth of the economy.

During his speech MP Denham said that British science faced two challenges in the immediate future; to effectively reinstate research in science and engineering as a case for government investment, and ensure that research findings are effectively used.

Despite the governments change in investment strategy Denham remained positive stating “it remains the case that we have real strength in science” and listed some promising figures to come out of Britain:

“We [Britain] are the most productive science nation in the G8, per researcher, per public pound spent; the UK produces 12% of the world’s academic citations, with a 14.4% share of the top 1% most highly-cited papers, ranking second only to the USA; … first degree graduates from STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics] subjects increased by 15% between 2002 and 2008; overall, the number PhD graduates also increased by 19% over the same period”.

Accompanying the CaSE lecture, the BIS (UK Department for UK Business, Innovation and Skills) funded National Science and Engineering Week was launched at the 2011 Big Bang Fair in London’s ExCel Centre last Friday. The 10 day programme – which runs until 20th March, is a celebration of science, engineering, and technology aimed to inspire young people to build career in science.

On Thursday 17th February 2011 it was announced that the consultation into the future ownership and management of England’s Public Forest Estate will be halted, and that and all forestry clauses in the Public Bodies Bill will be scrapped.

In response to over half a million people protesting against the privatisation of up to 258,000 hectares of public forest, the Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman, made a statement in the House of Commons yesterday declaring the end of the consultation, saying that the government had “got this one wrong”.

Mrs Spelman further announced the establishment of an independent panel to advise on the future direction of forestry and woodland policy in England, and consider the role of the Public Forest Estate and Forestry Commission. The new panel will include representatives from key environmental, forestry, and access organisations, and will report its findings to the Secretary of State in autumn.

In her speech Mrs Spelman said “we have listened to people’s concerns … if there is one clear message from this experience, it is that people cherish their forests and woodlands and the benefits they bring.”

Last week EU leaders put the subject of research and innovation at the top of the political agenda by dedicating one of their summit meetings specifically to the issue. Today the European Commissioner for Research Innovation and Science, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, conducted a keynote speech highlighting the importance of research and innovation at the Royal Society, London.

Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn’s speech opened with her agreement with the Royal Society; to “put science and innovation at the heart of a strategy for long-term economic growth”. She revised that we need to efficiently prioritise resources, and drew attention to the need for continued investment in research and innovation in order to create future jobs, warning that cuts to the sector could jeopardise economic growth. This opinion is supported by economic research, which indicates that reaching the EU’s target of investing 3% of GDP in the sector could create nearly four million jobs in Europe and increase annual GDP by €700 billion by 2025.

The talk was held prior to the release of the Green Paper on future EU funding for research and innovation by the European Commission this week. Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn explained that there have been seven previous Framework Programmes. Rather than creating an eighth however, she proposed a new instrument – a Common Strategic Framework, that would bring together all of the relevant EU tools. This approach, as outlined in the Green Paper, would be supportive of EU policy objectives, and therefore operate on a scale at which major European societal challenges could be dealt with effectively. The Common Strategic Framework would aim to raise scientific excellence in Europe by increasing support and investment to create an attractive environment in which to harness scientific talent. Additional to this, the framework would be simple, with less red tape, allowing scientists to spend more time in the lab and innovators to innovate.

The second speaker of the day, Professor Adrian Smith, Director General for Knowledge and Innovation at the Department of Business Innovation and Skills, agreed with Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn. He stated that directing funding streams toward research and innovation was vital to deliver added value, and that and collaboration between all EU members would be required for success.

In light of today’s talks on research and innovation one thing stands out; it is now time to get focused, get united, and get ahead.

At present, England’s forests are managed by the Forestry Commission on behalf of the Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. Ministers however, are now proposing to reform ownership and management of the estate by selling off large quantities of woodland to the private sector in an attempt to help tackle the deficit.

Current proposals suggest the introduction of a ‘mixed model approach’ to future management. This strategy suggests selling the most commercially valuable forests to timber companies on a long lease. Additionally, the reform aims to create a far greater role for civil society, businesses, and individuals when it comes to managing the environment by allowing communities, charities, and local authorities to buy and manage forests themselves; an approach in-keeping with the coalition government’s commitments to shift the balance in power from ‘Big Government’ to ‘Big Society’.

Plans to sell off England’s forests have caused controversy over worries that privatisation will create opportunities for timber and tourism development industries to move in, compromising both wildlife conservation and public access. The Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman however reassured that ancient woodlands such as the Forest of Dean and New Forest will be exempt from sale to commercial organisations, and that biodiversity and public access would not be compromised as environmental safeguards and rights of way would be maintained where possible.

The governments approach to forestry will be outlined in the 2011 Natural Environment White Paper due to be published this spring. The current consultation is open for response until 21st April 2011 through both the Defra and Forestry Commission website. A debate concerning the matter will be held at the Houses of Parliament tomorrow afternoon, of which the proceedings will be broadcast online at www.parliamentlive.tv