In an Efra Select Committee hearing on Wednesday (18th April), Richard Benyon MP Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Environment and Fisheries answered the panel’s queries into the measures outlined in the Government’s Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP), published last June.

The Committee Chair started the session praising the White Paper but asking how such an ambitious strategy could now be put into practice, Mr Benyon stated that although the NEWP is a broad framework for environmental protection, it also comprises 92 very specific recommendations. Already, he said, 10 have been set-up – including the designation and funding of 12 Nature Improvement Areas (NIA) – whilst action is underway on 80 more. Defending Defra’s decision not to publicly publish an Action Plan on delivering the NEWP, the Minister said that the body felt that it would not be productive to be held to a rigid time-line for action. Instead, Defra is sending quarterly newsletters to all stakeholders detailing the progress made, such as the measurable milestones of establishing NIAs and Local Nature Partnerships (LNPs).

Turning words into action
Nevertheless, a number of the panel’s questions considered how the impressive rhetoric of the Paper would be converted into real action and results. The Minister said that Defra had recognised the challenge in this and that the ‘last thing [they] want is ‘talking shops’’. To address this, all working groups – such as the Ecosystem Service Market Task Force – have been provided with remits that provide a clear outline of the actions they should take, ensuring they will be well-led and ‘effective in bringing about the intended changes’. One of the areas identified as most at risk of remaining theoretical with little effective action was the intended creation of ecosystem service markets. However, Mr Benyon stated that the government has already taken real steps in this direction through work with the independent regulator Ofwat which has undertaken projects to engage land managers in the protection of upstream water sources, rewarding them for the effective prevention of pollution. The Minister stated that the Government intends to continue this route of indirect engagement through regulators and companies as, often, direct attempts by Governments to create markets can ‘cause issues’ and the immense complexity of market dynamics mean the expertise of businesses are invaluable. In order to help with the integration of the natural capital approach across all government departments, Defra is producing a ‘Green Book’ providing guidance on the necessary changes, and is due to publish an Action Plan to identify and address the various institutional and informational barriers to adopting this approach.

A funding shortfall?
A member of the panel quizzed the minister on the apparent mismatch between Sir John Lawton’s estimate of £1.1 billion needed for environmental protection (made in his paper, Making Space for Nature, published in 2010) and the £8 million total spend allocated in the NEWP. Mr Benyon pointed out that the lower limit of Sir John’s estimate is actually £600 million and that the £8 million sum referred only to direct Government funds. In reality, the minister noted, numerous other funding streams will feed into work under the NEWP, including roughly £450mn spent through agri-environment schemes, a sum of £92 million newly allocated by Defra to catchment management schemes, £7.5 million to be divided between the identified NIAs and a further £1mn designed to get LNPs up and running. When these are taken into account, the money allocated is approaching Sir John’s ballpark figure, the minister stated, and this is before the huge value of voluntary action through schemes such as the Campaign for the Farmed Environment, and by naturalist groups and NGOs, is included.

Mr Benyon expanded this point, stressing that in fact most of the recommendations in the NEWP are not just for government to carry out, but will instead be realised through the cooperation of a wide range of environmental bodies and the harnessing of the considerable enthusiasm of local groups and communities. The minister said he has observed enormous enthusiasm for the new approach of the NEWP from the very start of the process, as evidenced by the unprecedented response to consultations from all stakeholder groups. The degree of local enthusiasm shown in the applications for NIAs was felt by the minister to demonstrate an energy which can be harnessed to ensure the effective implementation of many of the NEWP’s proposed measures.

The role and place for Nature Improvement Areas
Answering a concern from the panel as to how the NIAs – 12 of which have been recently designated – will fit with existing nature protection sites such as SSSIs and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Mr Benyon stressed that Defra did not want to create a new tier of activity which ‘tramples all over existing designations’. Instead, he stressed, the idea is that NIAs will harness and coordinate the various protections and conservation activities already in an area. The minister said he had witnessed in the selection of the 12 initial NIAs, an ‘incredible degree of enthusiasm’ from land managers, naturalist groups and local communities which, he felt, means the administration and management of NIAs sits in a ‘different place’ to AONB Boards and National Park Authorities. The NIAs are not due to have a statutory status of their own, Mr Benyon clarified, but they will be visible in the local plans and the weight given to them will be decided by local communities, using the powers given to them in the Localism Act 2011, and the recently reviewed National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

The National Planning Policy Framework and the NEWP
This mention of the NPPF sparked further discussion. Mr Benyon said he felt the drafting process had been very thorough and inclusive, involving very close working between ministers across all government departments. He welcomed what he saw as strong commitments to biodiversity in the wording of the final document, including consideration given to ‘future proofing’ i.e. accounting for the intensifying challenges to nature protection resulting from factors including climate change. A member of the committee inquired as to why the renewed NPPF does not mirror the emphasis on biodiversity offsetting (creation of compensatory nature areas by developers when projects involve landscape destruction) made in the NEWP. Mr Benyon stressed that biodiversity offsetting is still in its infancy and is a very complex concept to put into practice, so at the moment, Defra is trialling six pilot studies to see how successful different approaches are in achieving net gain for the environment. Asked how it will be monitored, the minister emphasised that the process must be transparent and clear so that developers know exactly what they are required to provide and the public know that it is not a ‘licence to trash’ but is a process that provides real net gain for the natural environment. At the moment, he said, there was misunderstanding, perpetuated by the media, of how ‘offsetting’ will be measured – it will not be a case of ‘comparing the value of an otter against the value of a hedgehog’, but a much more holistic and comprehensive process, the details of which will become clear over the course of the pilot studies.

Peat and peatlands
In the final question, the panel challenged the minister on the NEWP’s objective to phase out the use of peat by 2030, suggesting the target shows an ‘extraordinary lack of ambition’. Mr Benyon stated that he had also received criticism to the opposite effect – that 2030 is too soon to achieve a complete phasing out of peat. He pointed out that this target is just one aspect of a step-approach; by 2015, the government will have ‘got their own house in order’ and public sector’s direct procurement of peat will have ended. By 2020, Defra wants to see the phasing out of peat use by amateur gardeners, which will rely on a significant degree of voluntary engagement. The ultimate 2030 target is aimed at professional growers who, Mr Benyon recognised, want a clear direction from government, after which, business tends to be a fast responder. The minister stated that Defra recognises the significant importance of peat in sequestering carbon and as a valuable habitat, and is due to report soon with suggestions for action to put work towards these targets in motion. Already, he said, there are ‘huge advances’ taking place in terms of technologies and methods for reducing peat use through recycling and the creation of other growing media, and he is confident that business will cope within the given timetable. However, although Defra is providing support for this research, it is also aware that many of the largest peat users are commercial food producers, who must be able to continue producing food in the current climate of food insecurity and global competition.

Watch the evidence session and find more information about the Efra Committee’s inquiry into the NEWP at the Parliament website.

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.

Climate change and the continual rise in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are well established in the environmental policy agenda. However, although the general scientific evidence for climate change is now rarely refuted, the issue continues to be a very large, complex and wide-reaching challenge and there is still significant ongoing research in the field. These studies often produce novel findings with implications for the policy response to climate change.

The importance of nitrogen
In the current climate change forum, discussion of GHG emissions more often becomes a discussion of carbon emissions and the carbon cycle. However, the European Nitrogen Assessment produced last year by a team of scientists led by Mark Sutton and Clare Howard, stresses that human disruption of the nitrogen cycle has been just as severe and could have consequences just as serious as those related to carbon.

In its natural state, nitrogen exists mainly in the form of stable nitrogen gas. However, over the past century, intensive fertiliser production and burning of fossil fuels have led to a doubling of the rate at which more reactive nitrogen is formed. This has resulted in increased formation of the GHG nitrous oxide as well as other gases and particulate matter harmful to human health. Deposition is also leading to a change in soil fertility, altering plant growth rates and community composition.

Nitrogen presents a unique challenge to policy as the cycle is very complex meaning that a response will require cooperation between actors from a wide range of disciplines. However, within Europe, progress in addressing this challenge has already been made with the establishment of NitroEurope which brings together 64 institutions to collaborate on understanding and addressing the impact of nitrogen on the GHG balance. The result of this work is the European Nitrogen Assessment which has now been adopted as an activity under the international Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution.

Critically, the ENA estimates the economic cost of nitrogen damage – increasingly seen as the most effective way to communicate environmental issues to policy makers and industry – which it puts at €70-320 billion/year in the EU, making a compelling argument for urgent attention. Recommended actions for policymakers to pursue include improving the efficiency of agriculture, improving fossil fuel combustion methods, and reducing consumption of energy and animal products.

Link between emissions, ocean temperatures and ‘extreme’ weather
The link between industrial emissions and climate change is now widely accepted, but a study published in Nature this month is the first to clearly show a link between industrial air pollution and recorded variations in ocean temperature.

Findings of the study, which used a state-of-the-art Met Office climate model to simulate physical processes in the Earth’s atmosphere, show a link between aerosol pollution in the atmosphere and changes in the pattern of temperature shifts in the Atlantic Ocean. These shifts, known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, see warm and cold fluctuations in the ocean’s temperature over several decades and are widely believed to result in changes to hurricane activity in the North Atlantic and rainfall patterns in Africa, South America and India, often leading to humanitarian disasters.

The new study is significant as, until now, these fluctuations were thought to be due to natural variability but, according to Ben Booth, a Met Office climate processes scientist and lead author of the research, the findings now suggest that ‘natural disasters…such as persistent African drought…may not be so natural after all’.

The model shows a clear correlation between Atlantic variations and industrial pollution levels; peaks in emissions coincide with cooler ocean temperatures whilst the introduction of clean air policy in the 90s resulted in warming of the seas. This has significant implications for climate change and emission policy of the future as it shows a clear link between air pollution, regional climate variability and natural disasters.

Warning that biomass may increase rather than reduce EU carbon emissions
A call was made to policymakers at the European Parliament at the end of March for Brussels to rethink its carbon accounting rules for biomass energy, stating that the current EU definition of wood biomass as a ‘carbon neutral’ fuel is inaccurate.

Currently, wood makes up the bulk of the EU’s biomass energy – alongside agricultural crops and residues, and vegetation waste – and is awarded subsidies, feed-in tariffs and electricity premiums in order to encourage its adoption as one of the EU’s main sources of renewable energy.

However, groups including the European Environment Agency’s independent Scientific Committee, have warned that the time lag between the carbon debt created when a tree is felled, transported and combusted as fuel, and the carbon credit gained when a new tree has grown to absorb carbon in place of the old one (‘bio-recovery time’), will result in a rise in CO2 concentrations in the interim. More critically, the carbon balance will depend on what is grown to replace felled forests – under the current accounting rules of the EU, energy crops can be grown on the footprint of previous woodland, even though these tend to absorb and store less CO2 with the result that net carbon emissions may in fact increase.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that biomass can only be classified as carbon neutral if all land use impacts have been considered, something which the EU has acknowledged with proposals for binding criteria designed to identify truly carbon-neutral biomass sources.

These proposals are due to be released later this year but have been repeatedly postponed due to opposition from countries including forest-rich Finland and Sweden. According to sources quoted by EurActiv, there is an apparent lack of enthusiasm amongst the EU’s energy directorate to pursue these criteria, and it is possible their release could be put back yet again.

Implications for environmental policy
Such advances in climate change and emissions research can reveal current environmental policy to be ineffective in tackling the issues they are designed to address, or – such as in the case of biomass energy – even unintentionally damaging. Ensuring ongoing research and effective communication across the science-policy interface within the field of climate change is therefore critical.

The persistent dry weather which has led to the current hosepipe ban in South East England is also threatening the future of one of Britain’s rarest amphibians, the natterjack toad.

With fewer than 50 breeding populations remaining in mainland Britain, the natterjack is highly vulnerable to the drying-out of the shallow coastal dune slacks it relies on as breeding habitat. Low rainfall for the past two years means that these wet hollows have begun disappearing before natterjack tadpoles have metamorphosed into toads, causing a significant drop in breeding success.

In response, Natural England has introduced a programme of water saving techniques and pond management across a number of its National Nature Reserves (NNRs), which support a large proportion of the remaining natterjack population. For example, at Saltfleetby Theddlethorpe Dunes NNR in Lincolnshire, staff have created captive pools in which water levels are controlled to allow tadpoles to mature before being they are allowed to escape into the surrounding dunes. Dr Pete Brotherton, Natural England’s Head of Biodiversity is optimistic about the success of the scheme saying ‘we are confident that the toad can bounce back if conditions prove wetter next year’.

Further afield, targeted conservation interventions to protect amphibians are also taking place in Central America. In this region, in addition to the threat of a changing climate, species of frog are being severely impacted by the spread of ‘chytrid’ – a virulent fungal disease. In some regions, the fungus is spreading at a rate of around 20 miles a year and can reduce frog populations by up to 90%. In response, scientists have started a programme of collecting healthy frogs from their forest habitats and transporting them to specially designed ‘arks’ to be held until ongoing research provides a solution to eradicate the fungus. Such a seemingly drastic response is partly due to the considerable potential value of amphibian diversity for human health. For example, a species of tree frog from Australia has been found to produce compounds that destroy HIV cells, whilst the phantasmal poison frog produces a painkiller 200 times more powerful than morphine. Already, the gastric-brooding frog – thought to offer a possible cure for peptic ulcers – has gone extinct.

In order to prevent the loss of further amphibian species with significant human, ecological and intrinsic value, such conservation efforts may need to be become more widely applied in the future.

For more on the natterjack toad, see Natural England’s press release on the subject. Further detail on amphibian conservation and the chytrid fungus can be found on the BBC news website.

The Government has announced the formation of a new cross-government unit to improve implementation of the Habitats and Wild Birds Directives. The new ‘Major Infrastructure and Environment Unit’ is designed to help developers ensure that large infrastructure projects promote sustainable development and protect our most valued habitats and species.

The Unit is one of the key recommendations to come out of a recently published Government report which re-evaluates the way the Nature Directives are currently applied in England. This review was undertaken in response to the Treasury’s ‘Red Tape Challenge’, designed to cut unnecessary regulation to improve economic efficiency.

Announcing the review in last year’s Autumn Statement, Chancellor George Osborne suggested that simplifying the implementation of the nature Directives could help save businesses more than £1billion over five years. However, environmental groups raised concerns that the move would significantly weaken nature protection and lead to a presumption in favour of development.

Caroline Spelman, the Environment Secretary, defended the review, stressing that it was ‘about getting better rules, not weaker ones’ and would be ‘good for the environment and good for business, because…[it makes] it easier for people to do the right thing, by making rules clearer’.

The review report also announces the intention to publish new guidance explaining to developers and regulators in much clearer terms what needs to be done to comply with the nature Directives.

The recommendations are designed to reduce the burden that the Directives currently place on businesses while maintaining and, where possible, enhancing the environment.

The full review report can be found on the Defra website.

A new £1 billion competition has been announced by the UK Government to support the development of industrial scale Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology. So far CCS has been developed on small scales but no commercial scale test of the technology has ever been undertaken.

The Government’s previous attempt to incentivise the development of commercial-scale CCS collapsed in October 2011 following the withdrawal of all nine companies participating in the scheme, citing concerns over the financial viability of the programme.

Changes have now been made, meaning that the competition announced today will accept applications from schemes that trap carbon dioxide pre-combustion, as well as post-combustion, and will also be open to both gas as well as coal fired power plants.

One or more demonstration plants will be funded and it is anticipated that the selected projects will be up and running by 2016 – 2020. By the end of the 2020’s the Government expects 12 – 20 new plants to be fitted with the technology.

Alongside the £1 billion fund, Ministers have also announced £125 million to support research and development of CCS, including a new £13m CCS Research Centre; a virtual network coordinated by the University of Edinburgh. Ministers will also announce shortly the details of how the technology can be supported in the long-term. One approach that the Government favours is believed to be to encourage ‘clusters’ of power plants to develop, with these then supporting each other and sharing best practice in the development and utilisation of CCS.

Original articles:
Fiona Harvey, the Guardian, 3 April 2012 – New push for carbon capture and storage with £1 bn competitionDavid Shukman, BBC, 3 April 2012 – New UK attempt to capture carbon

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 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 ongoing decline in wild bumblebee populations has caused worldwide concern, with evidence suggesting that the loss of critical pollination services could lead to a decrease in crop yields and the loss of many wildflower species. A number of reasons for the decline have been suggested and debated, but research from the University of Stirling, published in the journal Science last week, provides new evidence that pesticides used on flowering crops are having a significant effect.

The study, carried out by Dr Penelope Whitehorn and Steph O’Connor and supervised by Professor Dave Goulson at the University of Stirling, investigated the effects of neonicotinoid insecticides used as a seed dressing on flowering crops such as oilseed rape and sunflowers. These insecticides are systemic, travelling through the plant and occurring at low levels in nectar and pollen.

Findings reveal that bumblebee nests exposed to these low levels for just two weeks grew more slowly as a result, and showed an 85% reduction in the number of new queens they produced. Prof Goulson notes “Our work suggests that trace exposures of our wild bees to insecticides is having a major impact on their populations. Only queen bumblebees survive the winter to build new nests in the spring, so reducing the number produced by 85% means far fewer nests the following year. Repeated year on year, the long term cumulative effects are likely to be profound.”

Neonicotinoid insecticides are the best-selling insecticides worldwide and used broadly on a wide range of crops. As bumblebees often forage over a kilometre from their nest to find food, the study suggests that most nests in agricultural landscapes are likely to be exposed to these compounds. With insect pollination worth an estimated €22 billion a year to European agriculture, and many species of wildflower entirely dependent on bumblebees for pollination, Dr Whitehorn states “There is a clear need to re-evaluate the safety of these chemicals”.

This research is published as Whitehorn PR, O’Connor S, Wackers FL & Goulson D. Neonicotinoid pesticide reduces bumblebee colony growth and queen production and appears in the journal Science online and at the Science Express website.

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.