APPENDIX 4
Memorandum from the Institute of Biology
and the British Crop Protection Council, British Ecological Society,
British Society for Soil Science, Marine Biological Association,
and the Society for Experimental Biology
1. The Institute of Biology is the independent
and charitable body charged by Royal Charter to further the study
and application of the UK's biology and allied biosciences. Its
15,000 members (January 2002) and over 60 specialist, learned
Affiliated Societies make the Institute ideally placed to respond
to the above consultation. As such, this response focuses on whether
or not the UK Government has managed to foster UK scientific expertise
to carry forward its sustainability policies. The following societies
support this response: the British Crop Protection Council, British
Ecological Society, British Society for Soil Science, Marine Biological
Association, Society for Experimental Biology.
SUMMARY
2. The principal points of this response
include:
(i) A survey of leading UK biological societies
(2000) revealed that one of their top science policy concerns
was that sound science must underpin sustainability. Scientists
support policies that genuinely lead to sustainability.
(ii) However science funding of Government
Departmental policy-driven research (which includes sustainable
policies) has declined in real-terms since the mid-1980s and fallen
dramatically in terms of a proportion of the Gross Domestic Product.
(iii) Select Committee reports from both
Houses in recent years have also noted the above erosion of Departmental
research. Without Departmental research, UK innovation in sustainability
technology will be almost impossible.
(iv) At international gatherings nations
need to take collective responsibility. Given that Johannesburg
neither formally quantitatively nor qualitatively appraised progress
(or the lack of) since Rio 1992, the delegations' performance
was poor.
(v) With regard to the UK, formal detailed
assessment could have been made on UK progress towards implementing
sustainability policies. While some individual UK goals were met,
an investment programme for sustainability resources could have
been announced and targets set.
(vi) The UK is striving to develop further
as a knowledge-based economy but does not appear to be formally
using science as one of the key foundations for sustainable development.
(vii) While we recognise that there are considerable
demands on the public purse for transport, health and education,
the investment required for UK science to ensure sustainability
technology is developed is trivial by comparison. It is as if
the Government and Treasury do not grasp the connections between
sustainability, sustainability technology, economic development,
environmental quality and human well-being. Consequently we do
not believe that sustainability rhetoric is turning into reality.
GENERAL POINTS
Scientists have recently clearly indicated their
support for sustainability policies
3. The Institute of Biology in 2000 surveyed
leading UK biological societies as to their top policy concerns.
This revealed that one of their top priorities was that sound
science should underpin UK sustainability policies. Furthermore,
the Institute of Biology, Institute of Physics and other bodies
came together with the Royal Society of Chemistry to draft a Charter
from scientists to Parliamentarians prior to the last election.
This was presented to Parliamentarians at Westminster in the Spring
of 2001. Among other things, the Charter said:
"Environmental issues will increasingly
dominate the national and international agenda—including
everything from sustainability and climate change to water supply
and energy policy—and science and engineering will continue
to be an essential part of the solution to the problems that the
World faces.
The UK needs policies and principles that will
develop its role in putting sustainability into practice and increasing
its potential for sharing clean and low emission technologies
with other countries around the world or exporting them."
Both this Charter and the biological Affiliated
Societies Policy Priorities demonstrate that scientists support
policies that genuinely lead to sustainability.
Yet investment in Government's policy-driven research
has declined
4. However, despite scientists' commitment
to sustainability, not to mention other policies requiring scientific
underpinning, Government investment in policy-driven science (that
is research and development (R&D) funded by Government Departments
as opposed to the Science Base Research Councils) has declined
in real-terms overall in the past one and half decades. Indeed,
since the early-1990s it has fallen in terms of a proportion of
the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). While there has been some improvement
in Departmental funding of R&D in the past two years, levels
have not returned in real-terms to those of the mid-1980. They
are also lower in terms of proportion of GDP.
This decline is separate from that of short-term
contracts and state of university labs—the problem for sustainability
research is that it exists within a smaller pool than in the mid-1980s
5. It should be noted that the concern cited
here of real-term, one-and-a-half decades, decline in Departmental
R&D investment is sustainability related and distinct from
the decline of quality of university laboratories and short-term
contracts which are more to do with Higher Education Funding Council
support and university management. The concerns here are also
separate from, all be they related to, the decline in Government
Departments support of applied research. These last are related
because Government Departments invest in applied research as well
as policy-driven research. There is a view that industry should
fund applied research but the reality is that for the most part
industry will only fund near-market research. The demonstrable
consequence has been that the decline in Departmental applied
R&D has resulted in a parallel reduction in industry's own
R&D. Here the problem for sustainability research is that
it exists within a smaller UK departmental research pool than
in the mid-1980s.
Yet more policies require scientific underpinning
and scientific understanding is fundamental to sustainability
6. This decline is puzzling given that more
and more policy depends on scientific understanding and technology.
This is because the UK economy is becoming more technologically
dependent, both in terms of goods and in the way it operates,
and because technology springs from science. Also, given that
the UK has one of the highest population densities in the World
(around 249 persons per square kilometre), we rely on science
and technology for efficiency levels that are among the highest
in the World. These high efficiencies may be agriculturally related
(crop productivity per hectare), biomedically related (for example
in terms of human longevity) or directly environmentally related
(for example with regards to levels of industrial waste per pound
of GDP). Science is fundamental to sustainability.
Indeed how can sustainability policies be implemented
without proper investment in science?
7. Given the above sustainability concerns,
it becomes difficult to see how sustainability policy can ever
be successfully implemented without proper investment in science.
How can the UK conserve its biodiversity without ecological understanding?
How can we produce food safely in the quantity and quality we
demand of it without agricultural expertise and food science?
How can we re-condition former industrial sites without a sound
knowledge of soil science, environmental diagnostics and remediation
technologies? If we are to lower carbon dioxide emissions, while
maintaining energy consumption, then we are going to need alternatives
such as biofuels. If we are to address commercial waste with minimum
environmental impact we need to understand bio-geochemical pathways.
We could go on; the list is lengthy.
Select Committees have previously recognised the
Departmental R&D problem
8. Parliamentary Select Committees from
both Houses have recognised the problem of declining real-term
investment in Government Departmental R&D (down in real-terms
since the mid-1980s). This decline has been cited in the conclusions
of a variety of Select Committee reports including Government
Expenditure on R&D (ref 196-I, 2000) and Are We Realising
Our Potential? (ref HC200-I, 2001). However, in addition to Parliamentarian
views, three areas are of particular concern to the biosciences.
Agricultural research, systematics and university
environmental departments are of priority concern regarding sustainability
science from Johannesburg
9. There are three areas of key concern
with special regard to the biologically-related sciences and sustainability
policy-driven research that springs from Johannesburg.
(i) Agricultural research
Agricultural research in the UK is now so critically
low that we are experiencing considerable reduction in UK capability.
Ministry for Agriculture Fisheries and Food/Department of Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (MAFF/DEFRA) Departmental R&D has declined
in real-terms for well over a decade, and plummeted in terms of
a proportion of GDP. There are at least two consequences of this.
First, with fewer resources it is difficult to see UK tackling
issues of socio-political concern—such as bovine TB, Cryptosporidium,
BSE, GM crops and foot and mouth—in the depth required to
meet public concerns, safety consideration and economic needs.
Secondly, because agriculture is the economic sector with arguably
the greatest impact on the UK environment and landscape (at least
in terms of area), the nation desperately needs relevant scientific
expertise if environmental quality and production standards (both
quantitative and qualitative) are to be maintained. There are
also other sustainability-related consequences. For example, there
is the expertise we could send overseas to ensure that developing
countries can secure their own ability to produce food in a sustainable
way. (For instance, biotechnological research on salt-resistant
plants is proving to be invaluable to agriculture in marginal
lands due to salinization.) Similarly we might also train within
the UK those from overseas. The problems with DEFRA agricultural
research are not just recognised by bioscientists but by Parliamentarians:
at one Westminster meeting earlier this year UK agricultural research
was described as "orphan".
(ii) Systematics
The science of systematics is the science of
species description, classification and the evolutionary relationships
between species. It is fundamental to the conservation of biodiversity
and in turn biodiversity conservation is one of the cornerstones
of sustainable development. Hence the 1992 Rio World Summit on
Sustainable Development spent some considerable time on biodiversity
that resulted in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
This did result in the Darwin Initiative to enable UK systematic
expertise help less-developed nations with their individual country's
biodiversity action plan. The recent £7 million support given
the Initiative for the next three years is most welcome. Nonetheless,
as with MAFF/DEFRA related R&D above, UK systematics has been
eroded to critical levels so that it is now not so much a question
of how it will survive into the next decade, but if it will at
all survive much beyond one or two centres of excellence. Again
this view is not restricted to the bioscience community. In 1992
the Lords Select Committee investigation—published as the
Dainton Report—was conducted because of these very concerns.
Unfortunately while some short-term measures were taken to invest
in systematics, no long-term strategy was implemented and so a
decade later (2002) a second Lords inquiry, chaired by Baroness
Walmsey, was conducted. It concluded that: "despite signing
the CBD, grant-in-aid from successive UK governments to the major
systematic biological institutions has declined in real-terms."
This Parliamentarian view reflects those of a nation genuinely
concerned with the sustainability of biodiversity and we wholeheartedly
endorse their Lordships' conclusions. However Government investment
in research in this area simply does not chime with either the
afore Parliamentarian view or those among the broader public concerned
with biological conservation and other sustainability issues.
Lacking in Departmental investment and with no serious policy
lead, it is perhaps not surprising that the Research Councils
have distanced themselves from systematics.
(iii) University environmental science
departments
In addition to the other problems facing UK
science and the science under-pinning sustainability, as if this
were not enough, university departments undertaking environmental
research have recently experienced another blow. While the recent
assessment of university research showed (at least in terms of
the way the assessment was conducted) that university departments
had improved the quality of their research, the funding of research
from the Higher Education Funding Councils had not similarly increased.
As the recent Commons Select report, The Research Assessment Exercise
(2002), made clear, "it is very disappointing that the improvement
[in university research] is not being recognised by Government
funding allocations," and that this was some £176 million
short. However university environmental departments were disadvantaged
above and beyond this overall short-fall in funding. The environmental
scientists on the research assessment panel were predominantly
atmospheric chemists and climate change scientists. (Environmental
science is both a multi and interdisciplinary subject whose breadth
was not reflected by the sustainability panel.) This meant that
those Departments looking at other areas of environmental research
(even any aspect of sustainability research other than that related
to climate change) tended to be unfavourably assessed and with
poor assessment a reduction in research funding followed. Given
that overall university Departments were underfunded, environmental
science departments received a reduction in funding above and
beyond this. It is important to note this special case for university
environmental research as in general the other disciplines assessed
received a higher rating and so were financially penalised less.
A re-assessment with a fresh panel and a modest injection of finance
over the coming few years to the next spending review would go
far to secure this sector of university research.
From the science perspective it is difficult to
see how sustainability is being furthered
10. From the above "science-underpinning-sustainability"
perspective, it is difficult to see how the UK is furthering its
sustainability objectives. In the light of the above, we now turn
to the Select Committee's specific questions.
Committee's specific recommendations in roman
font
(a) The overall performance and strategy of the
UK delegation
Collectively at Johannesburg the performance was
poor and individually the UK must carry its share of the responsibility
11. At international gatherings nations
need to take collective responsibility. Given that Johannesburg
neither formally quantitatively nor qualitatively appraised progress
(or the lack of) since Rio 1992, the delegations' performance
was poor. The UK must carry its share of the responsibility, more
especially since much has been made of the UK Government's commitment
to Rio principles.
Was there new investment to support UK commitments
or the re-allocation of existing expenditure?
12. While the UK did make some quantitative
commitments at Johannesburg it was unclear which represented new
expenditure as opposed to the re-allocation of existing expenditure.
Formal detailed assessment could have been made of UK progress,
while some individual UK goals were met, an investment programme
for sustainability resources could have been announced and targets
set.
The UK delegation criticised those critical of
(the lack of) progress
13. The UK delegation appeared to criticise
those who were themselves critical of the lack of) progress since
Rio (1992). One statement made was:
"A decade on from Rio, for all the sneering
about summits, those who took part then can point to the real
progress there has been—millions more children educated,
millions more with safe drinking water, millions lifted out of
poverty. Rio of course did not deliver everything, neither will
Johannesburg, no summit can, but this summit can and will make
our world change for the better."
The problem with this statement is that it chastises
those who are critical and who, with the best of motives, want
to ascertain both what real progress had been made since Rio as
well as what remained undone. It puts those criticising the summits
in a Catch 22 situation in that if there is little progress then
they can be accused of failing to speak out and if they do speak
out they are criticised for being critical. But there are genuine
sustainability concerns. Global population continued to increase
since Rio, breaking the six billion level, even though global
affluence and human well-being increased. This last was accompanied
by a growth in per capita resource consumption as opposed to using
resources at existing rates more effectively. However taken together
(population and resource consumption per capita increases) these
have profound implications for global sustainability. Annual atmospheric
carbon emissions have increased, and hence greenhouse gas concentrations,
with the vast majority of countries are failing to meet existing
climate change targets. Tropical deforestation has continued and
with it the number of species lost forever. (Species need describing
and investigating as a crucial step in conservation.) The trend
globally is for fisheries to continue to be exploited over sustainable
limits. Droughts in Africa have been related to long-term climate
change and millions face starvation. Again, this list is extensive.
Clear and accurate assessments need to be made of sustainability
policy implementation. We need to know who is doing what, who
is putting in extra effort and who is not. This is not to decry,
as was suggested by the UK delegation, the good work and goals
accomplished since Rio in 1992 but to put this into the proper
context of overall progress (or lack of it if that is what really
happened).
UN/DESA only recognised one UK contribution in
its end-of-summit summary release
14. In the summary of the "Key Outcomes
of the Summit" statement from the United Nations Department
of Economic and Social Affairs (UN/DESA) key initiatives and announcements
from the summit were cited. Though the selection was UN/DESA's
it is interesting to note that four were attributable to the US,
three to the European Union, two to Japan, and one each to Canada,
Germany, Ireland, Norway and the United Kingdom. Even if the UK
had done more worthy of a mention, the delegation might have more
success in ensuring UN/DESA recognised this and reported accordingly.
(b) How far has the UK Government capitalised
on the Summit to raise awareness of sustainable development issues
at home?
Investment in sustainability science is lacking
15. Other than scientifically this Institute
and its specialist Affiliated Societies cannot comment on over
all awareness of sustainability issues in the UK. For the reasons
given in preceding paragraphs (especially paragraphs 4 to 9) the
bioscience community, though aware of the value of sustainability,
receives little sustainability investment. In terms of UK scientific
commitment, investment in sustainability science is lacking beyond
the Science Base. (The Science Base being the Research Councils
who are responsible for blue skies and fundamental research and
which in the main do a World class job). Worse, some areas of
science fundamental to sustainability are under grave threat (see
paragraph 9).
(c) How commitments made at the summit could/should
reshape existing UK policies/strategies
Halving global hunger will require agricultural
experience
16. The Johannesburg commitment to halve
the proportion of the World's people who suffer from hunger will
not only require new trading agreements that do not disadvantage
less developed nations but also agricultural expertise. This the
UK has the potential to export in terms of sending its experts
overseas or through training those from overseas in sustainable
agricultural techniques. In addition, while climate change projections
are going to benefit agriculture in North America and Siberia,
they will disadvantage agriculture in Africa. Agriculture in marginal
environments will increase, yet these environments are fragile
and it would be easy for non-sustainable agriculture to undermine
the longevity of food production in these areas. (Of course there
are other non-biological prerequisites for the reduction of hunger
such as reducing corruption in some Governments and improving
law enforcement.)
Increasing the energy share of renewables will
require research
17. The commitment to increase the global
share of renewable energy will require the development of greenhouse
neutral, sustainable energy resources and environmentally efficient
technology. The UK and Europe needs to develop such a renewables
strategy and this should include biofuels, balancing the need
for energy with food production and with regard to biodiversity
conservation. Here the UK needs to have a long-term programme
of biofuels research and not disparate piece-meal research projects.
This programme needs to foster a biofuels research programme so
that students who are among the brightest and best can see that
there is at least long-term career open to them (even if it is
not one particularly rewarding financially). At the moment there
is evidence that the best and brightest are leaving research.
At the moment the UK has negligible energy research since the
dissolution of the Department of Energy and the privatization
of the energy utilities in the 1980s. Currently, the little energy
research there is disparate and there is no sense at all of any
long-term nurturing of scientific expertise in energy related
disciplines. In terms of the biosciences (engineering, chemistry
and physics have their own contributions to make) the Biotechnology
and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) could undertake
a programme of fundamental research into the metabolic pathways
and mechanisms useful for energy crops. On the other hand, DEFRA
could invest in medium-scale trials and assess different biofuel
candidates for minimal environmental and biodiversity impact.
(There is also the potential for European research—see paragraph
28.) Having said this, one of the discussions on energy currently
led by the Chief Scientific Advisor, recommends a new energy research
centre supported by new investment. Such proposals are most welcome
and in line with our own views. Much will depend on the forthcoming
Energy White Paper.
Developing energy efficiency and conservation
technologies requires research
18. The commitment to accelerate the development
of energy efficiency and energy conservation technologies requires
R&D, but as we have discussed previously such policy driven
R&D is in decline. Biology can contribute to energy efficiency
through the development of biomaterials that are both energy efficient
but environmentally friendly in terms of their fate at the end
of their useful lifetime. Department of Trade and Industry (as
distinct from the Office of Science and Technology) might develop
a long-term research programme with DEFRA. This might also involve
the BBSRC.
Adopting an ecosystem approach requires research
19. The commitment to encourage the application
of the ecosystem approach for the sustainable development of the
oceans again requires policy-driven R&D. Ironically DEFRA
R&D that would support research into ocean sustainable yields
on an ecosystem basis continues to decline in real terms. If this
goal were to be realised one might envisage marrying the ecosystem
work that the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) does
in fundamental research on ocean ecosystems with DEFRA and its
policy-driven applied role which here would be to assess ways
of staying within maximum sustainable yield limits.
Establishing marine protected areas requires research
20. The commitment to establish marine protected
areas consistent with international law and based on scientific
information has been addressed in the DEFRA Review of Marine Nature
Conservation. The approaches defined in that Review should be
pursued to identify areas for protection of biodiversity. The
Habitats Directive leaves significant gaps in coverage of certain
habitats. In the light of the recent Communication from the European
Commission to the Council and the European Parliament "Towards
a strategy to protect and conserve the marine environment",
it is hoped that the UK will seize the opportunity to pursue a
proper appraisal of what features, including offshore, might benefit
from conservation measures. Marine protected areas could also
be used as refugia for fish stocks and serious consideration should
be given to identifying areas where wildlife conservation and
fisheries could both benefit. Marine protected areas are only
one measure that can be used to protect wildlife. The Government's
"Marine Stewardship" initiative is welcome but must
mean an enhanced duty of care throughout the marine environment.
If considering UK Overseas territories, the UK has important areas
of marine biodiversity, including coral reefs.
Oceanographic assessment requires research
21. The commitment to establish a regular
process under the UN for assessment of the World's oceans will
provide an opportunity for scientific surveillance. Again DEFRA
could commission from the Natural Environment Research Council
(NERC) an appropriate research programme through its Research
Institutes.
Reducing biodiversity loss requires research
22. The commitment to achieve by 2010 a
significant reduction in the current rate of loss in biodiversity
could in theory see an considerable UK contribution in the form
of expertise (here the Darwin initiative has been valuable), though
the erosion of UK systematics compromises this. This commitment
also demonstrates the problem in that it is accepted that biodiversity
will continue to decline. In other words, the patient will be
allowed to become more ill. The Department for International Development
could commission work directly from the two Royal Botanic Gardens,
the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, British Antarctic Survey
and the Natural History Museum. International Development could
also contract university agricultural experts and those from DEFRA's
agricultural institutes to work overseas ensuring that agricultural
practices had a minimal impact on biodiversity. The Joint Nature
Conservation Committee is working with DEFRA to co-ordinate joint
biodiversity research, though the reduction in DEFRA R&D is
not helping.
Combating HIV requires research and the DH does
not seem interested in Learned Society initiatives on anti-infectives
23. The commitment to reduce HIV prevalence
and to combat other infectives (especially malaria and tuberculosis)
by 2005 is most worthy. This Institute together with leading Affiliated
Societies representing pharmaceutical and microbiological disciplines,
and with the endorsement of a Government Department and an Agency,
as well as with the support of industry, held a two-day symposium
on this topic under the title Anti-infectives: The Way Forward.
The symposium was followed by a discussion amongst stakeholders
and a suggested summary plan of priorities was drawn up under
the title Pharmageddon Now. This was launched (in parallel with
a separate event on a similar topic in Congress) at an evening
wine reception at the House of Lords in October 2002. Though Parliamentarians
and civil servants from the Department of Health and Foreign and
Commonwealth Office were invited, only one civil servant from
Health attended (there was no Parliamentarian representative)
and nobody chose to attend from the Foreign Office. This reception
is also currently (at the time of writing this response) being
followed up by a scientific-Parliamentarian and civil servant
dinner in the House of Lords. Representatives from these Departments
have been invited and while many other stakeholders have already
accepted it will be interesting to see if these two Departments
decide to participate. Nonetheless, if independent Royal Chartered
bodies, with their constitutional standing conferred by the Privy
Council, organised an initiative involving hundreds of scientists
and several learned organizations at no expense to the tax payer,
and if this initiative directly relates to policy, it seems perplexing
that relevant Departments show little interest in at least looking
at the outcomes and suggesting ways forward. Though while perplexing,
this is not surprising. A Commons Select report, Government Funding
of the Scientific Learned Societies (2002), concluded:
"We have considered the work done by other
Learned Societies across the UK and found them impressive. They
are able to sustain a high level of activity on often limited
funding, little of which can be attributed to Government, and
we praise their efforts . . . we do not think the Government makes
sufficient use of their knowledge"
Once again we are in accord with a Select report
as the example we have just given exemplifies. There is plenty
that Government Departments could do to help with the Johannesburg
commitment on anti-infectives. Here, if it was wished International
Development could commission research from the Medical Research
Council (MRC) both in the UK and surveillance of infectives overseas
as well as to help contribute to a comprehensive programme funded
by itself, the MRC, the Department of Health (DH) (as there would
be UK benefits too), industry and the Research Councils. The Foreign
Office could also ensure that negotiations with other countries
take place encouraging the correct (non-profligate) use of anti-infectives
so as to hinder the rise of anti-infective resistance. Then there
is the question of the current restrictive patenting legislation
which discourages investment in anti-infective research as well
as the requirement to ease developing world availability: this
could be examined by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI).
Improving agricultural productivity for improved
food security requires research
24. Again the Johannesburg commitment to
improve sustainable agricultural productivity in Africa as well
as food security will require agricultural expertise to take forward.
However the decline in DEFRA R&D and its agricultural research
institutes undermines the UK ability to contribute towards this
commitment. International Development could commission much research
from DEFRA's agricultural institutes as well as directly from
universities, especially those with expertise in tropical agriculture.
The OST should have been given new resources and
support for its pan-departmental role
25. The Office of Science and Technology
(OST) might have been given new resources (as opposed to the recycling
of existing financial commitment) post-Johannesburg (or even in
the run up to it) and invited to help devise a pan-departmental
programme of sustainability science. Unfortunately, while the
OST nominally has responsibility for science across all Departments,
it appears to have difficulty in securing resources for them from
the Treasury and in pan-Departmental co-ordination. This, as far
as we are aware from our external perspective, does not seem to
be the fault of the OST. The science the OST has direct control
over is the Science Base (the research conducted by the Research
Councils) and here by a variety of standards the OST performs
extremely well. (Indeed the one dimension to the Science Base
that is arguably the weakest is the half of "dual support"
provided by the Higher Education Funding Councils from outside
the OST for university overheads. This has been allowed to slip
in real-terms relative to the university overheads have increased
in line with Research Council investment.) If the OST were positively
encouraged with new investment with which it could invigorate
Departmental R&D as well as that from the Funding Councils,
then it would be an ideal body to co-ordinate sustainability science
for the UK. Revigorating UK Government Expenditure on R&D
(GOVERD) would help restore industry's faith in the UK as a home
for science. (Industrial investment in R&D (in the main near-market
applied research) has paralleled the decline in Departmental R&D
(policy-driven and applied research) in terms of a proportion
of UK Gross Domestic Product for much of the 1990s. Certainly
defence R&D has been allowed to contract without a corresponding
increase in civil R&D. In other words Civil Departmental science
has not reaped the peace dividend as it might have. Finally, if
Governmental research had a strong sustainability theme, albeit
as part of a number of priorities, it might encourage industry
to invest in its own development in a more sustainable way.
(d) How far has the Government maintained
stakeholder dialogue post-Johannesberg to inform its implementation
of Summit commitments
Post Johannesburg little profile has been given
to the scientific community
26. Some Government Departments have made
a post-Johannesburg statement but we are not aware of any major
scientific announcement involving new investment above existing
commitments. This is to be regretted as the UK has the potential
to offer much.
(e) Dimensions to the EU strategy for sustainable
development that the UK Government might review at the Spring
European Council
European agricultural and conservation management
reform is required but not to be rushed
27. Agricultural reform and use of the European
landscape is a priority, but it must not be rushed. A strategic
and sustainable approach is required. However we note that now
is an important time as the EU is addressing the Common Agricultural
Policy and the UK must be active in Brussels. Fortunately, a framework
for the measured reform of the European environment has been established
by the European Union biodiversity strategy and its four Biodiversity
Action plans. These, in theory, put sustainable development at
the heart of Europe's economic, social and environmental policies.
They also chart a course for implementing key objectives throughout
the community through a range of instruments, including, for example,
through the water framework directive. The success of these overarching
initiatives depends, however, upon their effective integration
into national plans and policies, some of which (including those
of the UK) have been shown by a recent EU study on "complementarity"
to have significant gaps.
The momentum from the EU Energy Green Paper should
not be wasted
28. The momentum generated by the EU Green
Paper Towards a European Strategy for the Security of Energy Supply
needs to be maintained. (See also paragraph 17.)
OPENNESS
29. The Institute and co-authoring societies
in line with Government Policy on openness and Science and Society
Select Committee recommendations is pleased for this response
to be publicly available and will be shortly placing a version
on www.iob.org Should the Select Committee have any queries regarding
this response then they should in the first instance address them
to Jonathan Cowie, Science Policy and Books, Institute of Biology,
20-22 Queensberry Place, London, SW7 2DZ. Should this response
be cited in any other document then the citation to be accurate
must equally acknowledge all the co-authoring bodies namely the
Institute of Biology and the British Crop Protection Council,
British Ecological Society, British Society for Soil Science,
Marine Biological Association, and the Society for Experimental
Biology.
December 2002
| 
