c



 


    
   
While new international targets have been agreed, previous failures demonstrate
that it is cash that is needed

Unfortunately and coincidentally, as the UN-led International Year of Biodiversity was coming to
its end late last year, it was confirmed that 2010 targets to halt biodiversity loss across Europe
and significantly reduce the rate of biodiversity loss internationally had not been reached.

The failure of these targets to galvanize action at the scale and pace needed to protect and
restore biodiversity has not prevented new 2020 targets being created. The EU has again agreed
another target to halt biodiversity loss in Europe, but this time by 2020, while the latest
international conference on biodiversity held in Nagoya, Japan, agreed various new international
targets, including at least halving the rate of loss of natural habitats by 2020.

These new targets mean that we will continue to have legally binding international targets in
place, but this by itself is insufficient to avoid repeating the failures and disappointments of the
last decade. To succeed in the present decade and beyond, we must do something for the first
time: actually stump up enough cash to deliver our biodiversity objectives.

Given the developed world's fiscal crisis, this will necessitate novel approaches to raising and
deploying capital. The way money has been raised historically ± primarily through public sector
expenditure or voluntary donations to charities ± while important, is unlikely to generate the scale
of capital needed to finally halt the loss of biodiversity, or turn the tide through ecological
restoration. Progress will require us to rapidly increase the money available for biodiversity
protection and restoration from all sources and in particular, this means raising the private
sector's contribution.

Habitat banking and biodiversity credits are one set of critically important tools for increasing
private sector investment in the protection and restoration of our natural world. In a joint report I
set out with others how we could introduce a successful habitat banking and conservation credit
system.
In the report we focus on Britain, and specifically England, because the coalition government has
said that it will introduce new ways to protect biodiversity in the forthcoming natural environment
white paper due this spring. In the Conservative party's general election manifesto there was
also a pledge to "pioneer a new system of credits to protect habitats". As a result of these
commitments, there is a unique opportunity to successfully render a working and effective
system in the UK that could be replicated, improved and expanded across Europe and
throughout the world.

Habitat banking is defined as a market where biodiversity credits from actions that benefit
biodiversity can be purchased to offset environmental damage. Actions that benefit biodiversity
might include restoring a habitat or avoiding biodiversity loss in the first place. Credits can be
produced in advance of need and stored over time. Simply, they create a means to pay for and
finance biodiversity conservation by making those who damage the environment pay for fixing it.

Biodiversity credits are not a license to trash. Credits should only be available to compensate for
damage that is unavoidable and the aim of credits must be to provide a new and additional layer
of protection for biodiversity above and beyond what is provided through existing national and
international protection.
'or habitat banking to deliver the scale of private investment required, there also needs to be
enough supply and demand for credits in the market. So in addition to establishing biodiversity
credits and defining robust rules and standards to govern a new market, government also needs
to establish visible long-term demand for credits. Without this, investment in the projects that
generate credit supply will not occur at any meaningful scale.

One way to create demand for credits would be to enshrine a legal commitment to no net loss of
biodiversity and move towards net gain. To achieve this objective new obligations to purchase
biodiversity credits for those that directly or indirectly harm biodiversity and habitats should be
introduced. At the start this might apply to property developers and the agricultural sector only,
but over time there is no reason why other actors in the economy, whether public or private,
should not pay for the inevitable and unavoidable damage to biodiversity that many economic
activities directly or indirectly cause. Ramping up demand for credits over time would translate
into credit creation and the scale of investment we need on the ground to tackle biodiversity loss.

To kick start a deep and liquid market in conservation credits in the short term, government could
support the development of the market in other ways as well. 'or example, corporation tax relief
on the costs to the buyer of purchasing credits that deliver net gains to biodiversity would be a
powerful incentive to encourage investment. Another way to support the development of a vibrant
market would be for government to underwrite a fixed number of early credits at a set minimum
price. This would create a forward price curve for biodiversity credits, which would immediately
encourage private investors to deploy capital into credit supply generation, without waiting for the
growth of a market.

By creating a new means to finance the protection and restoration of our natural world and make
those who damage the environment pay for fixing it, we can finally address the perennial problem
with delivering our biodiversity targets and objectives: a lack of means. Conservation credits
would also allow us to price the value of habitats and biodiversity into decision making
throughout the economy. Achieving all this will not be easy, but the benefits of success are
substantial and long term. Getting a system right in the UK could, hopefully, transform the way
we value nature and finance its protection globally and this is a rare and exciting opportunity the
government should not pass up.

á

  
     
  
 
   !"#

°

 

  
 
  
 
 

 
 
  

 


 

  


   
    

° 
 
 
  
 

     

 

   

°



 
 
 
      


 


 


       

     

 

   


   



#
— 
   



 
   

The UK is the 'lazy man of Europe', and should follow example of other countries,
according to the Soil Association

Successive British governments have failed to support and promote the

organic food and farming sector, according to a damning report. Their failures have left the UK
an isolated "lazy man of Europe".
Research from the UK's biggest organic body highlights the low priority given to the sector by
"diffident" policy-makers, which it claims led to sales of organic food and drink slumping in the
recession while other major European organic markets successfully weathered the storm.
The report, The Lazy Man of Europe, will be published by the Soil Association today at the start
of its annual conference in Manchester, and will urge the government to follow the example of
other European countries. In Denmark, which has the largest organic market in Europe, the
Netherlands, 'rance, Sweden, Italy, Germany and Austria, governments explicitly support
organic. They provide more support in payments to organic farmers and have also launched
major marketing initiatives to boost sales.
The report highlights the contrast: "We have found that most European countries have acted
confidently to normalise and champion organic food and farming as a pioneering, sustainable
and environmentally friendly way to produce food. In contrast, UK governments have been
diffident, if not lazy on the subject. When it comes to thinking in a truly sustainable way about the
future of food and farming, successive UK governments have preferred to sit back and snooze."

The UK lags at or near the bottom of every European league table for investment in organics.
And in countries where there is greater investment in and awareness of the organic sector, the
value of organic food consumed per capita is far greater, and in some cases around four times
more than in the UK - Denmark (¼139); Switzerland (¼132); Austria (¼104); Germany (¼71);
'rance (¼47), compared with only ¼34 in the UK.
After a surge in popularity in the 1990s, organic food has become a common feature of almost all
supermarkets and food retailers in Britain and organic cafes have thrived. But total organic sales
have remained a small niche of Britain's annual shopping bill, and the sector has been viewed
with suspicion by the scientific community.

Globally, the organic market was worth $55bn in 2009, an increase of 8% on the previous year.
Europe achieved 10% growth in 2008, increasing its value to ¼18bn euros. But while demand
remained stable in Germany and continued to grow in 'rance and Italy, in 2009 ± as a result of
the recession± the total value of the organic market in the UK dropped by 13.6% against 2008
levels.

Doubts about claims that organic products were tastier and healthier have increased in recent
years. In 2007, former environment secretary David Miliband upset the organic food industry by
saying that there was no "conclusive evidence" about the health benefits of organic food and that
buying it was "a lifestyle choice". And figures last year confirmed the recession made consumers
more wary of paying higher prices, leading to a year-on-year 12.9% drop in 2009 sales of organic
food, drink and other products after producers battled against the worst trading climate for 20
years.
The report highlights Miliband's comment, claiming that it summed up "his department's laissez-
faire approach to organic agriculture". It goes on: "The Cameron-Clegg coalition has so far
shown no greater enthusiasm."
Peter Melchett, the association's policy director, said: "The organic sector is a small sector but it
is growing rapidly and creating new jobs. The situation we have now is the legacy of previous
governments and we challenge the new administration to be more proactive. It is amazing how
well we are doing given the lack of support."

The conference will be addressed this morning by the environment secretary, Caroline Spelman.
But a Department for Environment, 'arming and Rural Affairs spokesperson made it clear that no
special treatment would be given to the sector: "Organic farming is one of the pioneering
approaches to sustainable production and remains influential but it's not the only one and it
would not be right to increase taxpayer support for one particular sector.

"The 'oresight report was clear that we need a range of approaches to sustainability and for food
security. Many consumers make some purchases of organic produce. It commands a premium
price but it represents less than 2% of the market. The opportunity is there for organic suppliers
to build their market share by being competitive and customer-focused."

á

       
  !"#$
#

°

  

 
 
 

         
 

 



°         

 
!
 !  
      
   
 

 
 
°  

  
  
    

    
 

  
 

  
 
  


  

#
#

@

  




 
 
A spike in global food prices has pushed millions more into poverty since last
summer, said World Bank president Robert Zoellick
#

The World Bank has given a stark warning of the impact of the rising cost of food, saying an
estimated 44 million people had been pushed into poverty since last summer by soaring
commodity prices.
Robert Zoellick, the Bank's president, said food prices had risen by almost 30% in the past year
and were within striking distance of the record levels reached during 2008.

"Global food prices are rising to dangerous levels and threaten tens of millions of poor people
around the world," Zoellick said. "The price hike is already pushing millions of people into
poverty, and putting stress on the most vulnerable, who spend more than half of their income on
food."

According to the latest edition of 'ood Price Watch, the World Bank's food price index was up by
15% between October 2010 and January 2011, is 29% above its level a year earlier, and only
3% below its 2008 peak.

Wheat prices have seen the most pronounced increases, doubling between June last year and
January 2011, while maize prices were up 73%.

The bank said that fewer people had fallen into poverty than in 2008 because of two factors ±
good harvests in many African countries had kept prices stable, and the increases in rice prices ±
a key part of the diet for many of the world's poor ± had been moderate.

It added: "Measures to address the recent round of food price spikes include expanding
nutritional and safety net programmes in countries where food prices are rising fastest, avoiding
food export restrictions, and finding better information on food stocks. More investments in
agriculture, the development of less food-intensive biofuels and climate change adaptation are
also needed."

Announcing the latest findings, the bank said its Global 'ood Crisis Response Programme was
helping some 40 million people in need by providing $1.5bn (£930m) of support. "To date, over
40 low-income countries are receiving or will receive assistance through new and improved
seeds, irrigation, and other farm support and food assistance for the most vulnerable people. 'or
example, in Benin, fertilizer provided through these resources led to the production of an extra
100,000 tonnes of cereal."

In the longer term, the bank said it was boosting its spending on agriculture to $6-8bn a year
from $4.1bn in 2008.

Zoellick also said rising global food prices were an "aggravating factor" but not the main reason
for violent protests that toppled leaders in Egypt and Tunisia. He said Egypt's financing situation
"is one that should be able to be managed," suggesting the country may not need additional
World Bank loans. A team from the bank is currently in Tunisia assessing its transition and
possible financing needs.

á

 $%&&'&( 
  '


  !"#
#

°

   
  
 
° "#  


 






 


 
  


$
 
!  
  
  
 
 
 

 
 "
  


 !  
 % 
  $
  



 

 
        !  
   &'

 
 
#

—   
   
 
 

 
 


 
Without a substantial strategy, the UK risks a growing dependence on imports, Peter
Kendall tells conference

Rising food prices, a growing population and increasing pressure on natural resources mean the
UK is in urgent need of a food strategy, the leader of the biggest farming organisation said on
Tuesday.
"Where is the food plan? Where is the food white paper that reflects the challenges?" Peter
Kendall, president of the National 'armers Union (N'U), demanded at the opening of its annual
conference in Birmingham. "We need more than just a biodiversity white paper, more than just a
water white paper. We need a food plan."
He criticised the government for having consigned food policy to "a one-line objective in the
business plan" of the Department for Environment, 'ood and Rural Affairs (Defra). "Unless there
is something more substantial, more thought-through", he said, the UK risked a growing
dependence on food imports.
Caroline Spelman, secretary of state for the environment, pointed to a partial strategy document
drawn up by the previous government, but said: "It has not been at the top of my agenda." She
stopped short of saying it would be the basis of a new food strategy.

She also stood up for subsidies to farmers under the EU's common agricultural policy (CAP), a
stance she contrasted with the previous government's proposals to phase out direct payments
over a decade.

"We need direct payments to be part of the reformed CAP," she said. "In the long term, you can
see a time coming when they may not be needed at the level or form of today, but I can't predict
when that will be."

She said this policy was more "realistic" than the previous government's.

This marked a change from Spelman's stance earlier this year, when she emphasised that world
food prices made it possible to plan for the abolition of direct payments to farmers.
Kendall also pointed to the difficulties faced by dairy farmers, currently forced to sell milk at less
than it costs them to produce it, and "abusive practices in the markets". He hit out
at supermarkets for driving down prices to unsustainably low levels, and for practices including
forcing farmers to offer rebates on their produce.
A new supermarket ombudsman should do more than name and shame the supermarkets
involved, he said. "We need fines that hurt for abuses that hurt."
Kendall also rejected the suggestion that the UK could rely on global markets for food. He
defended the food export bans that some countries have sought to put in place following record
rises in food prices this year, partly as the result of fires in Russia and floods in Australia.
"I honestly believe that a country short of food trying to protect its own people's supplies by
banning grain exports is nothing compared to rich countries allowing their agriculture to decline
and then expecting the rest of the world to feed them," he said.

á

   $%&&'&('

 '  
 !"#

°

 
  

  

 
 
  !

 
 

!
  
  
 

  
 
 
°

 
 
  
   

 


  

°