Addressing scientific knowledge and environmental information challenges for biodiversity offsetting in the UK. Summary report for policy makers on the second 'Towards no net loss, and beyond' workshop, 29 September 2010

This report summarises the views and ideas expressed during a workshop to identify and assess the scientific knowledge and environmental information needed to underpin the possible large-scale implementation of biodiversity offsetting in the UK. The event involved 37 participants from a wide range of organisations. It was organised by the Natural Capital Initiative; an independent forum for discussion of policy and practice aligned with the ecosystem approach. ‘Biodiversity offsetting’ means the delivery of measurable conservation outcomes to compensate for the residual ecological impacts of development. It applies where all means of avoiding impacts, and reducing their severity, have been utilised. Biodiversity offsets can potentially be applied to development in terrestrial, freshwater, coastal or marine environments. They can take the form of ‘case by case’ (site-specific) offsets, habitat or species banking, or can proceed via in lieu fees. Increased biodiversity offsetting could be a contributor to the protection and enhancement of UK biodiversity, especially at sites not already protected by law for their biodiversity value. Key messages were derived from the workshop: 1. Good quality biodiversity data are needed to underpin the development and operation of biodiversity offsetting in the UK. Whilst the data resource available in the UK is world-leading, there are still limitations which need to be resolved. 2. The biodiversity data which currently exist in the UK are sufficient to support implementation of biodiversity offsetting now. However, these data represent only a starting point, which must be built upon if offsetting is to deliver positively for biodiversity. 3. A comprehensive assessment of data sources should be undertaken to ascertain what data exist to inform offset development, with identification of significant gaps in availability. 4. Biodiversity data must be standardised, to enable sharing between stakeholders involved in the design and development of offset sites. 5. Biodiversity offsetting has the potential to contribute to the climate resilience of the landscape in the UK. 6. The location of biodiversity offsets should be planned strategically in order to improve ecological networks and enhance the connectivity of landscapes. 7. To design effective offsets for the residual impacts of development on a site, it is necessary to understand what aspects of biodiversity need to be offset. 8. Ecological restoration projects can be very successful. There are, however, limitations to how far ecological restoration can offset the residual impacts of development on biodiversity. 9. Simple principles of ecological restoration can guide the design of biodiversity offsetting schemes. 10. Sharing practical experiences and understanding will assist in the most effective and resource-efficient creation of offset sites. Each of the key messages is described on Pages 10 to 15. These are not listed in any order of priority

Addressing practical challenges for biodiversity offsetting in the UK. Summary report for policy makers on the first 'Towards no net loss, and beyond' workshop, 22 June 2010

This report summarises the views and ideas expressed during a workshop to identify practical challenges for the further implementation of biodiversity offsetting in the UK, and to work out how these may be resolved. The event involved 41 participants from a wide range of organisations. It was organised by the Natural Capital Initiative; an independent forum for discussion of policy and practice aligned with the ecosystem approach. ‘Biodiversity offsetting’ means the delivery of measurable conservation outcomes to compensate for the residual ecological impacts of development. It applies where all means of avoiding impacts, and reducing their severity, have been used. Biodiversity offsets can potentially be applied for development in terrestrial, freshwater, coastal or marine environments. They can take the form of ‘case by case’ (site-specific) offsets and habitat or species banking, or can proceed via in lieu fees. Increased biodiversity offsetting could be a contributor to the protection and enhancement of UK biodiversity, especially at sites not already protected by law for their biodiversity value. Key messages were derived from the workshop: 1. In developing any new policy framework for effective biodiversity offsetting, carefully engage interest groups, the public and decision-makers. 2. Current methodologies, tools and evidence are sufficient to begin encouraging increased use of biodiversity offsetting. It is, however, still necessary to evaluate current scientific knowledge needs to improve the effectiveness of additional measures to increase the use of biodiversity offsetting. 3. Much can be learned from existing experience of both biodiversity offsetting and ecological restoration in the UK and internationally, alongside new pilot studies. 4. Reinforcing and integrating current public policy to manage the environmental impacts of development could enable a significant increase in biodiversity offsetting. 5. In designing biodiversity offsetting schemes, understand the capacity and role of local authorities to assist with their implementation. 6. In designing biodiversity offsetting schemes, much can be learned from existing voluntary and compulsory initiatives to protect the environment. 7. In designing biodiversity offsetting schemes, manage risks and avoid unintended consequences. 8. The potential for two or more ‘tiers’ of biodiversity offset should be investigated. 9. Measures to increase biodiversity offsetting are reliant on good quality biodiversity information. Improvements in information provision could have the added benefit of more coordinated monitoring of habitat quality and spending on conservation measures. 10. The spatial distribution and longevity of the costs and benefits of biodiversity offset schemes will require close cooperation between all interest groups, including local authorities. 11. Consider offsetting for ecosystem services in addition to biodiversity. Each of the key messages is described in more detail on Pages 4 to 9, including practical suggestions for ways forward. They are not listed in any order of priority

Links between traumatic brain injury and ballistic pressure waves originating in the thoracic cavity and extremities

Identifying patients at risk of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is important because research suggests prophylactic treatments to reduce risk of long-term sequelae. Blast pressure waves can cause TBI without penetrating wounds or blunt force trauma. Similarly, bullet impacts distant from the brain can produce pressure waves sufficient to cause mild to moderate TBI. The fluid percussion model of TBI shows that pressure impulses of 15-30 psi cause mild to moderate TBI in laboratory animals. In pigs and dogs, bullet impacts to the thigh produce pressure waves in the brain of 18-45 psi and measurable injury to neurons and neuroglia. Analyses of research in goats and epidemiological data from shooting events involving humans show high correlations (r > 0.9) between rapid incapacitation and pressure wave magnitude in the thoracic cavity. A case study has documented epilepsy resulting from a pressure wave without the bullet directly hitting the brain. Taken together, these results support the hypothesis that bullet impacts distant from the brain produce pressure waves that travel to the brain and can retain sufficient magnitude to induce brain injury. The link to long-term sequelae could be investigated via epidemiological studies of patients who were gunshot in the chest to determine whether they experience elevated rates of epilepsy and other neurological sequelae

Understanding employee resourcing in construction organizations

In recent years the literature on employee resourcing has consistently advocated the importance of adopting a holistic, strategic approach to employee deployment decision making rather than adopting a reactive needs-based approach. This is particularly problematic in construction where the multi-project environment leads to constantly changing resource requirements and to changing demands over a project's life cycle. This can lead to inappropriate decisions, which fail to meet the longer-term needs of both construction organizations and their employees. A structured and comprehensive understanding of the current project team deployment practices within large construction organizations was developed. Project deployment practices were examined within seven case study contracting firms. The emergent themes that shaped the decision-making processes were grouped into five broad clusters comprising human resource planning, performance/career management, team deployment, employee involvement and training and development. The research confirms that a reactive and ad hoc approach to the function prevails within the firms investigated. This suggests a weak relationship between the deployment process and human resource planning, team deployment, performance management, employee involvement and training and development activities. It is suggested that strategic HR-business partnering could engender more transparent and productive relationships in this crucial area

Evaluation of a Salt-Reduction Consumer Awareness Campaign Targeted at Parents Residing in the State of Victoria, Australia

From 2015 to 2020 a state-wide salt-reduction initiative was launched in Victoria, Australia, including an awareness campaign focused on parents with children <18 years of age. To evaluate the impact of the campaign on salt-related knowledge, attitudes and behaviors (KABs) we have assessed trends in salt-related KAB pre- and post-delivery of the campaign in parents, as well as within the wider adult population. Cross-sectional surveys of adults aged 18–65 years were undertaken pre- (2015: n = 821 parents; n = 1527 general sample) and post-campaign (2019: n = 935 parents; n = 1747 general sample). KABs were assessed via an online survey. Data were analyzed with regression models and adjusted for covariates. Among parents, around one-quarter of salt-related KABs shifted in a positive direction, but changes were small: there was a 6% (95% CI 2, 11%) increase in the percentage who knew the main source of salt in the diet and reductions in the percentage who reported placing a salt shaker on the table (−8% (95%CI −12, −3)) and that their child added salt at the table (−5% (95% −9, −0.2)). Among the wider adult sample, even fewer shifts in KAB were observed, with some behaviors worsening at follow-up. These findings indicate that this consumer awareness campaign had minimum impact

Improving the science-policy dialogue to meet the challenges of biodiversity conservation: having conversations rather than talking at one-another

A better, more effective dialogue is needed between biodiversity science and policy to underpin the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity. Many initiatives exist to improve communication, but these largely conform to a ‘linear’ or technocratic model of communication in which scientific “facts” are transmitted directly to policy advisers to “solve problems”. While this model can help start a dialogue, it is, on its own, insufficient, as decision taking is complex, iterative and often selective in the information used. Here, we draw on the literature, interviews and a workshop with individuals working at the interface between biodiversity science and government policy development to present practical recommendations aimed at individuals, teams, organisations and funders. Building on these recommendations, we stress the need to: (a) frame research and policy jointly; (b) promote inter- and trans-disciplinary research and “multi-domain” working groups that include both scientists and policy makers from various fields and sectors; (c) put in place structures and incentive schemes that support interactive dialogue in the long-term. These are changes that are needed in light of continuing loss of biodiversity and its consequences for societal dependence on and benefits from nature