By Henrietta Appleton, GWCT Policy Officer (England)
The GWCT is all about science (indeed our charitable objectives include educating the public as to the outcomes of our science) and we regularly call for policy to be based on sound science. In the first quarter of 2023 the England policy team has sought to emphasise that message.
Firstly, it is important that the scientific evidence used to formulate policy is robust. The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (REUL) includes a clause which gives Ministers and devolved authorities the power to update legislation based on changes in technology and scientific understanding. If we are to embed scientific understanding in primary legislation, it is vital that future regulations are based on a proper assessment of the ‘best science available’.
The GWCT, as a charity undertaking conservation science, is concerned that aspects of environmental policy have been and are being formulated on evidence that is questionable in terms of its methodology and therefore reliability. Evidence needs to be assessed using standardised approaches to ensure legislation is based on robust science.
Secondly, it is important that science can be translated into practical outcomes. This is particularly important when it comes to conservation. In our response to the EFRA select committee inquiry on soil health we emphasised the importance of benchmark metrics that land managers and farmers can easily adopt rather than necessarily trying to achieve the perfect outcome given the complexity of soil biology. This is also a key attribute of our Allerton Project where on-farm scientific trials into food production systems and wildlife management combine with a commercial farming operation.
Thirdly, when it comes to the environment, the nature of ecological cycles means that timescales can have a significant bearing on the evidence produced by scientific studies. The 10-year results from a York University study on moorland management demonstrate this clearly and emphasise our concerns about some of the socio-politically motivated information that exists around the role of management in our uplands. Management has become a dirty word and rewilding the new buzz word. Yet to date there is little evidence that rewilding can deliver the same level of goods and services as existing upland land uses.
For example, back in January we hosted a wildfire workshop to which we invited a range of stakeholders from academics and the fire service to officials from Defra and the Climate Change Committee. The workshop concluded that action was needed now to manage fuel loads and identify risk, a message which was reflected in the recent Climate Change Committee’s Progress report to Government. In the uplands, vegetation management is particularly important given the risks that wildfire poses to carbon stores and biodiversity.
Finally, there is the question of the role of Citizen Science. There is no doubt that this will play an important role in monitoring aspects of policy but the results need to be seen in context and the approach needs to follow good practice (see for example guide-to-citizen-science).
There are a number of excellent initiatives in this field aimed at all levels of interaction from the Garden BirdWatch to working alongside ecologists at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology or the British Ecological Society. The GWCT has also led a number of citizen science initiatives such as the Partridge Count Scheme (which has its 90th birthday this year) and the Big Farmland Bird Count. These are vital in demonstrating the conservation work done by land managers as well as providing feedback to those involved on what is working and what is not.
Science is key but it is important that the resulting evidence is correctly assessed in terms of quality and robustness so that its application is appropriate and proportionate.