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

Biodiversity offsetting is a method intended to help compensate for the detrimental impacts of development on biodiversity. Such an approach is designed to work by creating a credit based market that developers could use to offset actions deemed harmful to the environment by investing in habitat restoration for biodiversity elsewhere.

Today the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) hosted a seminar in Westminster to discuss the scope for implementing biodiversity offsetting in the UK. The talks bought together a number of expert speakers to explore the potential benefits and risks associated with introducing this market-based strategy as a conservation approach.

The discussion aimed to stimulate conversation on the subject of offsets, and further encourage response to DEFRA’s consultation on biodiversity offsetting for the 2011 Natural Environment White Paper which is due to be published this spring.

The seminar was led by presentations from Claire Lewis from the Biodiversity Offsetting Team at DERFA, Dr Jo Treweek of Treweek Environmental Consultants, Prof David Hill from the Environment Bank Ltd, and finally Michael Oxford speaking for the Association of Local Government Ecologists.

DEFRA said that they were not looking to develop a mandatory approach, (which many argue is required), but instead create a voluntary system in which to pilot offsetting following the consultation. Discussion then focused on how to proceed with implementing offsetting, and get it right by ensuring a simple standardised system is in place.

The role of both government (to lay out a national framework), and local authorities (to guide and monitor progress over the long term) was highlighted, as was the need to provide the capacity to do so. To bridge gaps in funding, it was suggested that all associated costs were reflected in the market value of habitat, and that only habitats of a similar value could be traded. It was recommended that restoration areas should be pooled to increase their size, and that these areas should represent an effective network within the UK.

There was discussion about avoiding the risk of providing developers with ‘a license to destroy’, which emphasised the underlying offset principle of ‘no net loss’ and reiterated that offsetting should only be used in cases where no alternative development sites are available, and when detrimental impacts cannot be mitigated on-site. Attention was also given to the fact that it is not possible to re-create all habitat types, and that there will often be a lag time before restoration is complete.

The seminar made clear that there is still a lot of research to be done in terms of valuing and measuring biodiversity appropriately. If we get it right however, offsets could represent a paradigm shift towards tackling issues in conservation by no longer looking at developers as the problem but the solution.

Today scientists warned that rising pressures on global resources threaten the future security of the planets food, after the results of the most comprehensive investigation into food security ever were published this morning.

Chief Scientific Advisor, Sir John Beddington emphasised the need for urgent action in response to increasing demands for food today, as the current system is failing. By 2050 the human population is predicted to reach 9 billion individuals, which when combined with climate change and the decreasing availability of land, will seriously increase the pressure on food production.

Over the next 20 years government officials need to work alongside the agricultural industry to increase the efficiency of food production and deliver approximately 40% more food, and 30% more fresh water to meet demands, and ensure future food security.

Governments now face the huge challenge of increasing production efficiency, and reducing pressures such as climate change in order to protect food security for the next generation. Failing to do so however, will mean that many more people are likely to go hungry in the future.

Member countries of the European Union should adopt plans for their own ‘Green Investment Bank (GIB)’ in order to benefit from 30% emissions reductions, according to the independent think-tank E3G. Recommendations from the report – “Building a sustainable and low carbon European recovery” – suggest creation of institutions similar to the GIB and the German national bank KfW, to provide much needed low carbon investment. These measures would function alongside a strong policy portfolio to include the development of a European smart energy grid. Improvements in European domestic energy efficiency, innovation and low carbon infrastructure – which would be funded by the GIB (or an equivalent body) -are essential to ensuring energy security, claims E3G.

E3G state that: “the most economically sensible shift to 30 per cent would prioritise investment in domestic European energy efficiency, and in the infrastructure and innovation needed to sustain reductions beyond 2020 and maintain European companies’ lead in the low carbon race,”, rather than proposals to meet the 30% targets via cheap emissions reductions credits. However, the changes have been opposed by those that claim the costs of meeting such ambitious targets are beyond the capability of many firms current economic recession. They suggest that a lower target of 20% is more realistic and economically beneficial given the current financial crisis, a point strongly denied in the report.

Whilst the final decisions on EU emisisons reductions will not be made until early 2011, it is likely that the package of measures will be influenced by outcomes at the next UN climate change summit (COP16), in which European nations will be voting as a ‘bloc’.

Up to 150,000 hectares of state-owned forests and land could be sold to private investors, under a new government strategy to raise funds towards decreasing the Budget deficit. The Environment Secretary, Caroline Spelman is expected to announce details of the plans later this week, amidst warnings from conservation organizations and opposition parties that it could be a ‘costly mistake’.

Yesterday Caroline Lucas, leader of the Green Party, said the plans would be an ‘unforgivable act of environmental vandalism’. She added that: “Rather than asset-stripping our natural heritage, government should be preserving public access to it, and fostering its role in combating climate change and enhancing biodiversity.”.

Currently, the Forestry Commission looks after around 1.85 million hectares of forest, up to half of which could be partly-privatized by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in one of the largest sales of land in British history. Landowners have expressed concerns that the most profitable land could be sold too cheaply for a quick sale. Representatives from both the RSPB and the Woodland Trust have indicated that the sale price for the ancient forests would not match its environmental and social value and that industrialists have no incentive to provide the same level of care as the Forestry Commission. RSPB conservation director, Mark Avery stated: “The future ownership and management of land that has high public value should be carefully considered. The proposed land sales are driven by the need to generate quick cash, but they must not be at the expense of protecting our natural capital, which is irreplaceable.”

However, whilst government ministers hope for up to £250m to be raised at current land values, sources in Whitehall insist that it would not be a complete sell-off of forestry land.

The Secretary of State for Energy, Chris Huhne announced on Monday that the government will abandon its plans to invest in the controversial Cardiff-Weston Barrage project, in a bid to save between £10-30 billion of taxpayers money. If the project were to go ahead, the barrage would stretch nearly 10 miles from Lavernock Point, west of Cardiff, to near Brean Down in Somerset. The plans have been ditched in favour of investment for 8 nuclear power stations, and technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), which are considered to be more “financially viable” and have greater possibilities for development and export to rapidly growing nations. In a press release from DECC , Mr Huhne said:

“The Severn Tidal Power feasibility study clearly shows that there is no strategic case at this time for public funding of a scheme to generate energy in the Severn estuary. Other low carbon options represent a better deal for taxpayers and consumers.”.

” We urgently need investment in new and diverse energy sources to power the UK”.

“We’ll need renewables, new nuclear, fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage, and the cables to hook them all up to the grid as a large slice of our current generating capacity shuts down.”

Wildlife campaigners from the RSPB, Friends of The Earth Cymru and Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, which have consistently opposed the barrage plans on the grounds of potential environmental destruction, are said to be delighted.

However, supporters of the tidal project claim that it could have met up to 5% of the UK’s electricity needs, but has been thrown off course by “environmental fundamentalism”. Senior welsh officials have spoken out on believe that scrapping the project- which could potentially provide thousands of ‘quality green jobs’- will have an equally devastating effect economically.

Some environmental groups have reacted harshly to the news, on the grounds that it jeopardizes the likelyhood of the government’s energy strategy meeting commitments to supply thousands of green jobs, and tackle future climate change. Jim Footner, senior energy campaigner for Greenpeace , added that: The economics just don’t add up. Nuclear power is hugely expensive, and there’s no way any more reactors will be built in the UK without a taxpayer hand-out.”.

However, the DECC report also indicates that the project could become financially viable in future, and as such could not be ruled out indefinitely.

Following a public consultation the government’s Chief Scientific Advisor Sir John Beddington has last week published the updated guidelines on the use of scientific advice within government.

The guidelines highlight key issues fed in by consultees, such as the importance of horizon scanning, engagement with representative bodies of the scientific community, using international sources of advice and, in particular, advice on engineering. Sir Beddington stressed the centrality of engineering in addressing today’s challenges, whilst Universities and Science Minister David Willetts spoke of the importance of making policy decisions using hard evidence.

Other recommendations to departments and policy makers included:
- identifying issues requiring advice and/or public engagement early;
- widening the range experts providing advice;
- adopting an open and transparent approach and publishing evidence quickly;
- explaining publicly the rationale behind policy decisions, especially where they are inconsistent with advice; and
- working collectively across government to adopt a joined-up approach.

More information on the work of the Government Office for Science, including Prof Beddington’s ‘Perfect Storm’ paper on the 21st century’s policy challenges, is on the BIS website.

See the British Ecological Society and Biochemical Society joint response to the consultation on the Guidelines.