The government’s response to the Natural Capital Committee’s third State of Natural Capital report

This is the final version. Available from Defra via the link in this recordThis response sets out how we will act on the recommendations in the Natural Capital Committee’s third State of Natural Capital report. This includes working with others to develop a strategy and 25 year plan for protecting and improving the benefits we get from our natural resources. We have also committed to extend the life of the Committee until at least the end of this Parliament. We will draw on NCC’s advice when developing policy and particularly in the development and delivery of the 25 year plan

The state of natural capital: protecting and improving natural capital for prosperity and wellbeing

This is the final version. Available from Defra via the link in this record.This is the Natural Capital Committee’s (NCC) third report to government. The report sets out recommendations to achieve government’s vision, ‘to be the first generation to leave the natural environment in a better state than it inherited’. The Natural Capital Committee is an independent advisory body to governmen

Improving natural capital: an assessment of progress

This is the final version. Available from Defra via the link in this record.This report sets out the work done by the committee since March 2016. It also makes a series of recommendations to government on developing the 25 year environment plan. The Natural Capital Committee is an independent advisory body to government

Implementing natural capital credit risk assessment in agricultural lending

Agriculture has critical impacts and dependencies on natural capital, and agriculturallenders are therefore exposed to natural capital credit risk through their loans tofarmers. Currently, however, lenders lack any detailed guidance for assessing naturalcapital credit risk in agriculture and are challenged by the fact that the relevant material risks vary considerably by agricultural sector and geography. This paper developsa natural capital credit risk assessment framework based on a bottom‐up review ofthe material risks associated with natural capital impacts and dependencies forAustralian beef production. It demonstrates that implementing natural capital creditrisk assessment is feasible in agricultural lending, using a combination of quantitativeand qualitative inputs. Implementation challenges include the complexity and interconnectedness of natural capital processes, data availability and cost, spatial data analytical capacity, and the need for transformational change, both within lendingorganisations and across the banking sector

Using conservation science to advance corporate biodiversity accountability

Biodiversity declines threaten the sustainability of global economies and societies. Acknowledging this, businesses are beginning to make commitments to account for and mitigate their influence on biodiversity, and report this in sustainability reports. The top 100 of the 2016 Fortune 500 Global companies' (the Fortune 100) sustainability reports were assessed to gauge the current state of corporate biodiversity accountability. Many companies acknowledged biodiversity, but corporate biodiversity accountability is in its infancy. Almost half (49) of the Fortune 100 mentioned biodiversity in reports, and 31 made clear biodiversity commitments, of which only 5 could be considered specific, measureable and time?bound. A variety of biodiversity?related activities were disclosed (e.g., managing impacts, restoring biodiversity, and investing in biodiversity), but only 9 companies provided quantitative indicators to verify the magnitude of their activities (e.g., area of habitat restored). No companies reported quantitative biodiversity outcomes, making it difficult to determine whether business actions were of sufficient magnitude to address impacts, and are achieving positive outcomes for nature. Conservation science can help advance approaches to corporate biodiversity accountability through developing science?based biodiversity commitments, meaningful indicators, and more targeted activities to address business impacts. With the “biodiversity policy super?year” of 2020 rapidly approaching, now is the time for conservation scientists to engage with and support businesses to play a critical role in setting the new agenda for a sustainable future for the planet, with biodiversity at its heart

To what extent has Sustainable Intensification in England been achieved?

Agricultural intensification has significantly increased yields and fed growing populations across the planet, but has also led to considerable environmental degradation. In response an alternative process of ‘Sustainable Intensification’ (SI), whereby food production increases while environmental impacts are reduced, has been advocated as necessary, if not sufficient, for delivering food and environmental security. However, the extent to which SI has begun, the main drivers of SI, and the degree to which degradation is simply ‘offshored’ are uncertain. In this study we assess agroecosystem services in England and two contrasting sub-regions, majority-arable Eastern England and majority-pastoral South-Western England, since 1950 by analysing ecosystem service metrics and developing a simple system dynamics model. We find that rapid agricultural intensification drove significant environmental degradation in England in the early 1980s, but that most ecosystem services except farmland biodiversity began to recover after 2000, primarily due to reduced livestock and fertiliser usage decoupling from high yields. This partially follows the trajectory of an Environmental Kuznets Curve, with yields and GDP growth decoupling from environmental degradation above ~£17,000 per capita per annum. Together, these trends suggest that SI has begun in England. However, the lack of recovery in farmland biodiversity, and the reduction in UK food self-sufficiency resulting in some agricultural impacts being ‘offshored’, represent major negative trade-offs. Maintaining yields and restoring biodiversity while also addressing climate change, offshored degradation, and post-Brexit subsidy changes will require significant further SI in the future