Search

Atmospheric nitrogen pollution has severe impacts on biodiversity, but approaches to value them are limited. This paper develops a spatially explicit methodology to value the benefits from improvements in biodiversity resulting from current policy initiatives to reduce nitrogen emissions. Using the UK as a case study, we quantify nitrogen impacts on plant diversity in four habitats: heathland, acid grassland, dunes and bogs, at fine spatial resolution. Focusing on non-use values for biodiversity we apply value-transfer based on household's willingness to pay to avoid changes in plant species richness, and calculate the benefit of projected emission declines of 37% for nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) and 6% for ammonia (NH 3 ) over the scenario period 2007–2020. The annualised benefit resulting from these pollutant declines is £32.7 m (£4.4 m to £109.7 m, 95% Confidence Interval), with the greatest benefit accruing from heathland and acid grassland due to their large area. We also calculate damage costs per unit of NO 2 and NH 3 emitted, to quantify some of the environmental impacts of air pollution for use alongside damage costs for human health in policy appraisal. The benefit is £103 (£33 to £237) per tonne of NO 2 saved, and £414 (£139 to £1022) per tonne of NH 3 saved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2011, the UK government set in motion a process to establish a formal biodiversity offsetting programme in England, as an attempt to tackle biodiversity loss as a result of development. Drawing on critical approaches to the commodification of nature, this article traces the dilemmas encountered by the UK government in its endeavours to roll out a biodiversity offsetting programme in the English planning system. Based on 34 in-depth interviews with key stakeholders, documentary analysis and participant observation at policy-focused events, the paper aims to show how the promise of reconciling development and conservation proved difficult to deliver. In government attempts to enrol sympathetic actors, disputes emerged over the purpose and fine detail of the proposals. Deeper tensions were revealed in clashes between governmental emphasis on deregulation and advocates’ calls for strong mandatory rules and well-resourced oversight, while efforts to balance complex ecology with market demands for simplicity and certainty undermined the promise of objective biodiversity metrics delivering uncontroversial hard numbers. Though the English case is in many ways context-specific, the problems experienced raise wider political questions around establishing meaningful offsetting schemes in any part of the world. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Insects provide key ecosystem services for our sustainable future, which rely upon effective conservation policies to protect insect biodiversity. To date, however, we still do not know how effective current conservation policies are for protecting insect biodiversity, opening up the possibility that policies are unfit-for-purpose. Given the considerable debate and public awareness on the potential global decline of insect species, it is important to understand whether or not current policies can protect insect biodiversity. Here, we used IUCN listing of species status and developed a quantitative framework to analyse the potential effectiveness and coverage of current conservation policies pertaining to insect biodiversity in the UK and Ireland. We contrasted this against coverage for a well-known group – mammals – as a benchmark, to find that while the vast majority of the UK mammalian species in the European IUCN red list are directly protected by current policies, insects remain largely unprotected. Moreover, for those insect species that are explicitly protected by current policies, there is a taxonomic bias whereby the majority (>50%) of insect species are Lepidopterans (moths and butterflies), while a minority are Coleopterans (beetles), and none are Hymenopterans (bees, ants, wasps). Similar trends were observed in the UK priority biodiversity lists. Based on our data, we conclude that current biodiversity policies in the UK and Ireland have significant gaps in their protection of insect biodiversity and, there is a taxonomic bias that may skew some conservation efforts toward butterflies and moths. We anticipate that our findings are likely to occur worldwide, highlighting the need for more directive policies to manage and protect insect biodiversity for the sustainability of ecosystem services. • UK policies show biases toward Lepidoptera over other large insect orders. • Policy protection of mammals shows greater uniformity between orders than insects. • Policies in Ireland lack protection for any insect species. • UK priority lists do not prioritise all insects assessed as at risk of extinction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Landscapes generate a wide range of valuable ecosystem services, yet land-use decisions often ignore the value of these services. Using the example of the United Kingdom, we show the significance of land-use change not only for agricultural production but also for emissions and sequestration of greenhouse gases, open-access recreational visits, urban green space, and wild-species diversity. We use spatially explicit models in conjunction with valuation methods to estimate comparable economic values for these services, taking account of climate change impacts. We show that, although decisions that focus solely on agriculture reduce overall ecosystem service values, highly significant value increases can be obtained from targeted planning by incorporating all potential services and their values and that this approach also conserves wild-species diversity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Wetlands have been the focus of conflicts in societal priorities throughout human history, with competing demands for water and land use delivering a range of ecosystem services but contributing to severe degradation and loss. Conservation of wetlands is a relatively recent priority, and it has seen more recent shifts from protection of remaining wetlands initially as a static biodiversity resource towards a focus on the many, formerly largely undervalued beneficial functions that these ecosystems provide to society. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA) assesses the status, trends, ecosystem services and future prospects of eight broad habitat types, including wetlands. Despite confounding factors such as an inconsistent inventory of wetlands, fragmented policy instruments and conflicts with agricultural land use, the NEA has enabled an initial assessment of the extent and condition of the current wetland resource in the UK and the degree of loss of different wetland types and their broad implications not only for biodiversity, but for the delivery of a wide range of ecosystem services. It has also highlighted some of the ways in which wetland ecosystem services can be beneficially exploited, for example as buffer zones, as a means to protect freshwater resources or in flood risk management, as well as the trade-offs inherent in different land uses. We summarise some of the findings of the NEA in relation to some key challenges of linking wetland science to policy. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Maintaining biodiversity and natural habitat are essential to achieving sustainable development. The UK's Planning Policy Statement on 'Biodiversity and Geological Conservation' (known as PPS 9) and the 'South East Plan' emphasise the need to avoid a net loss in biodiversity, with Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) enjoined to pursue ecologically sensitive options. Our research revealed serious problems hampering the local planning authorities' efforts to incorporate whole-landscape scale planning into Local Development Frameworks (LDFs). These are required under the new 'Spatial Planning' framework, enacted in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and the Planning Act 2008. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the election of the Labour government in Britain in 1997, there has been a noticeable change in the scales of governance for spatial planning for the environment. The European scale of planning for biodiversity has been reinforced, but there has been a wider shift to one in which the integration of the environment into planning is strongly influenced by global environmental issues and international obligations. This paper explores the implications of this in the areas of spatial planning for biodiversity, and spatial planning for climate change (both mitigation and adaptation). It examines how far global commitments have enabled actors at different levels of governance—national, regional and local—to increase their scope for action and influence on outcomes through appealing to different scales of framing issues and their solutions. The picture that emerges is a complex one. While the commitments to internationally agreed targets for biodiversity and energy generation have partially reinforced the centralizing tendency in national government to see spatial planning as an instrument to deliver these targets, they have also increased the scope for other actors to use networks across multiple scales to generate their own interpretation and action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

1. Horizon scanning is an essential tool for environmental scientists if they are to contribute to the evidence base for Government, its agencies and other decision makers to devise and implement environmental policies. The implication of not foreseeing issues that are foreseeable is illustrated by the contentious responses to genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops in the UK, and by challenges surrounding biofuels, foot and mouth disease, avian influenza and climate change. 2. A total of 35 representatives from organizations involved in environmental policy, academia, scientific journalism and horizon scanning were asked to use wide consultation to identify the future novel or step changes in threats to, and opportunities for, biodiversity that might arise in the UK up to 2050, but that had not been important in the recent past. At least 452 people were consulted. 3. Cases for 195 submitted issues were distributed to all participants for comments and additions. All issues were scored (probability, hazard, novelty and overall score) prior to a 2-day workshop. Shortlisting to 41 issues and then the final 25 issues, together with refinement of these issues, took place at the workshop during another two rounds of discussion and scoring. 4. We provide summaries of the 25 shortlisted issues and outline the research needs. 5. We suggest that horizon scanning incorporating wide consultation with providers and users of environmental science is used by environmental policy makers and researchers. This can be used to identify gaps in knowledge and policy, and to identify future key issues for biodiversity, including those arising from outside the domains of ecology and biodiversity. 6. Synthesis and applications. Horizon scanning can be used by environmental policy makers and researchers to identify gaps in knowledge and policy. Drawing on the experience, expertise and research of policy advisors, academics and journalists, this exercise helps set the agenda for policy, practice and research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

1. Evidence-based policy requires researchers to provide the answers to ecological questions that are of interest to policy makers. To find out what those questions are in the UK, representatives from 28 organizations involved in policy, together with scientists from 10 academic institutions, were asked to generate a list of questions from their organizations. 2. During a 2-day workshop the initial list of 1003 questions generated from consulting at least 654 policy makers and academics was used as a basis for generating a short list of 100 questions of significant policy relevance. Short-listing was decided on the basis of the preferences of the representatives from the policy-led organizations. 3. The areas covered included most major issues of environmental concern in the UK, including agriculture, marine fisheries, climate change, ecosystem function and land management. 4. The most striking outcome was the preference for general questions rather than narrow ones. The reason is that policy is driven by broad issues rather than specific ones. In contrast, scientists are frequently best equipped to answer specific questions. This means that it may be necessary to extract the underpinning specific question before researchers can proceed. 5. Synthesis and applications. Greater communication between policy makers and scientists is required in order to ensure that applied ecologists are dealing with issues in a way that can feed into policy. It is particularly important that applied ecologists emphasize the generic value of their work wherever possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In line with the tenets of sustainable development, environmental policy has privileged action at the local level. This paper explores how the local has been manifested in practice, drawing upon an extensive qualitative study of biodiversity action planning in Birmingham, UK, undertaken between 1999 and 2002. Analysis highlights the embedded and geographically uneven character of the process, and a number of local path dependencies are identified that act to both constrain and enable the process. It is concluded that environmental policy tends to accept the positive rhetoric of local action rather uncritically. In practice, the local is manifested in a number of different ways, with highly heterogeneous effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper documents research taking place in the midst of a series of shifts in biodiversity policy in the UK. It examines recent attempts to enrol volunteer naturalists and lay citizens into biodiversity action planning, suggesting that such attempts can be seen as a nascent form of environmental citizenship, which is based on the exchange of knowledge of nature among the different communities involved (policy makers, volunteer naturalists and lay citizens). By focusing on a range of knowledge practices, the paper explores the selective appropriation of some ways of knowing over others. It documents ways in which some actors involved are beginning to reflect on what it might mean for biodiversity policy to accommodate each others' knowledge and practices. The paper suggests that an increased sensitivity to the range of practices and knowledges embodied within these different domains may result in a redefinition and expansion of the category of citizen, and may in turn have implications for the way in which 'biodiversity' comes to be defined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents several environmental questions formulated by the British environmental policy makers as an exercise of role-reversing. These questions, labeled as "high policy relevance," are aimed to facilitate the process of whittling down the number of questions. Among the questions formulated are centered on the time it takes for the seabed to recover from disturbance such as dredging, wind-farm construction, and oil and gas extraction; the impacts of recreational activities on biodiversity; the effects of domestic cats on vertebrate populations in rural and urban environments; the consequences for biodiversity of changes in water quality and sedimentation in rivers; and on the reason why woodland birds declined.