Search

Bex Gray introduces the upcoming Dasgupta Review, which presents a new framework for economic policy and its relationship with Nature. In 2019, HM Treasury commissioned a global, independent Review on the Economics of Biodiversity, led by Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta. The Review presents a new and comprehensive economic framework, grounded in ecology and earth sciences. It offers a way to understand the sustainability of humanity’s engagement with Nature and sets out the options for change available to decision makers as they look to restore nature, build prosperous economies and enhance our wellbeing. After a lot of hard work, the Review team are delighted to announce that it is now ready to launch. Why is biodiversity so important? When confronted with the idea of biodiversity loss, many people instinctively think about the destruction of the world’s rainforests, or the bleaching of once vibrant coral reefs. The desolation of faraway tropical ecosystems is a very real and concerning problem, but the challenge is far more pervasive. Our economies and wellbeing all fundamentally depend on Nature. We are entirely reliant on the natural environment to provide us with food, water, oxygen to regulate our climate and provide us with spiritual fulfilment and recuperation. Put simply, Nature is our most precious asset. Biodiversity is essential to the provision of these vital goods and services. Just as diversity within a financial portfolio reduces risk and uncertainty, diversity within a portfolio of natural assets – biodiversity – increases Nature’s productivity and its resilience to shocks. How does this relate to the Review? Despite the importance of Nature to our wellbeing and economies, numerous scientific studies have made it unequivocally clear that we are destroying the natural world at an alarming rate. The Review explores the underlying causes of this disruption, and constructs a robust economic framework which sets out how policymakers should account for Nature in decision-making. The Review argues that mainstream economic theory and practice has ignored what we know about how ecosystems function, and how they are affected by our economic activities. In particular that our economies are embedded within Nature, not external to it. This has profound consequences for the demands we make on Nature versus what it can supply. In 2020, it was estimated that we now require 1.6 Earths to maintain the world’s current living standards. This is clearly unsustainable and poses serious risks to our livelihoods and wellbeing. Building on the Review’s Interim Report, published in April, the final Review – published next week – will set out the options we have to enhance both our prosperity and the natural environment. Still interested? The Dasgupta Review’s official launch event will be livestreamed on the Royal Society’s YouTube channel on Tuesday 2nd February 2pm GMT. Join the livestream to hear Professor Dasgupta (and special guests!) speak about the Review and the actions we need to take to live more sustainably. The full report will be available on GOV.UK on 2nd February, along with an Abridged Version and our Headline Messages. And finally… At the beginning of the first lockdown, the Dasgupta Review team started to pull together a regular photo board of our daily interactions with Nature. We’ve managed to keep up this little tradition (with thanks to fellow CSEN member Vicky for collating!) and I’d like to share a selection with you here. It’s hard to underestimate how important finding time to spend in Nature has been for our physical and mental well-being. Nature’s value has, for many of us, been thrown into much sharper focus over the past 11 months. Nature is our home. And good economics demands that we manage it better. Bex Gray works in the Dasgupta Review team at HM Treasury. Contribute to the CSEN Blog If you're interested in contributing to the CSEN Blog, get in touch with us at environment.network@faststream.civilservice.gov.uk. We'd love to hear your ideas!

Jake Billingham argues despite the UK's impressive wind power potential, the government faces an uphill battle to deliver the green energy kingdom it has promised. We have all become familiar with this soundbite: a growing favourite in Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s repertoire. It featured in his speeches at last year’s UN Climate Change RoundTable, the Conservative Party Conference, and the Climate Ambition Summit. However good it sounds, the phrase is a long way from the action that the climate crisis demands, leaving a lot of unanswered questions. What does it actually mean? Let’s start in terms of power. Saudi Arabia produces 10 million barrels of oil per day [1], equivalent to a whopping 16.4 billion kWh [2], not to mention over 4 million tonnes of CO2 [3]. That’s enough to allow 8.9 billion people (more than the world’s population) to simultaneously watch Netflix [4]. This represents about 12% of global oil production [5], and is actually slightly less than the oil produced by the USA. It seems strange that the Prime Minister would aspire to make the UK the world’s second best in wind energy. Perhaps he was actually alluding to Saudi Arabia’s exports: around three quarters of the oil leaves the country, which is more than any other nation [1]. At least one of these metrics would surely have to be matched to fulfil the commitment. But is that actually possible? Saudi Arabia has huge, accessible, and high quality oil reserves. Without similar natural resources Britain wouldn’t stand a chance. Luckily the UK has some of the world’s windiest seas, as shown in in the map below. A 2016 study estimated there is potentially 675GW of economically viable wind resource in British waters [6]. That’s another 8.8 billion Netflix viewers, on par with Saudi Arabia’s oil output! It makes sense then, that the UK leads the world in offshore wind, contributing a third of global generation. This is achieved by an installed capacity of just 10GW, due to the juvenile state of the industry [7]. Moreover, ten-fold growth in the wind sector is predicted by 2030, mostly in Asia. This means that the 30GW increase set out in the UK Government’s Ten Point Plan would leave us with a decreased share of around 17%, only second to that of China [7] - but checking the Saudi Arabia comparison box. Like oil, wind energy can be exported; the UK is currently connected to its neighbours by five undersea cables. Since 2010 we have been a net importer. But considering that British electricity demand in the last 12 months peaked at around 57GW [9], the UK could match the export ratio of Saudi Arabia by utilising 34% of our wind resource (about 230GW). This doesn’t, however, account for the predicted consumption rise as the country electrifies. Reaching that 230GW figure would require an area roughly 2.5 times the size of Wales to be covered by wind farms [6], which is no small feat. If anything like that level is to ever be approached, then the wind energy industry must be firing on all cylinders. What is stopping us? Historically, offshore wind has been inhibited by large initial costs and intensive maintenance, leading to high energy prices. But sweeping technological advancements and government commitments has meant that offshore wind contracts are now being awarded at prices lower than existing gas plants [10]. With economics on the side of wind power, only a few obstructive factors still remain: Manufacturers are hindered by a lack of deep water ports, antiquated grid connection requirements, and the inefficient process of obtaining sea bed rights. Electricity provided by wind is transient, requiring additional mechanisms to ensure that demand can be consistently met. Exports are limited by undersea cable capacity, which currently totals just 5GW. However, a further 26GW is under construction or consideration [11]. So, what comes next? There is surely no better opportunity than the COVID-19 recovery period to invigorate this emerging behemoth of an industry. The creation of new jobs and expertise has never been more pressing than now, with the uncertainty - brought on by EU Exit - surrounding the involvement of overseas developers. The Ten Point Plan has already taken steps to counteract some of these problems, for example investing £160 million in modern ports. Whilst the recent Energy White Paper outlined plans for new technologies to combat the transience of wind energy including battery, cryogenic, and pumped hydro storage. With the advent of floating turbines promising even more generation, it seems that the potential exists for Britain to become the ‘Saudi Arabia’ of wind. It remains to be seen whether there is sufficient ambition to realise this green energy kingdom. Jake Billingham works in Operational Research at the Department for Work and Pensions, and is interested in climate change, sustainability, and renewable energy. Contribute to the CSEN Blog If you're interested in contributing to the CSEN Blog, get in touch with us at environment.network@faststream.civilservice.gov.uk. We'd love to hear your ideas! Bibliography [1] 'Saudi Arabia has been exporting more crude oil to China, less to the United States, https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=40172. [2] Energy Calculator, https://www.norskpetroleum.no/en/calculator/about-energy-calculator/. [3] N. A.Azzolina, 'How green is my oil? A detailed look at greenhouse gas accounting for CO2-enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR) sites', International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, vol. 51, pp. 369-379, 2016. [4] G. Kamiya, 'Factcheck: What is the carbon footprint of streaming video on Netflix?,' Carbon Brief, https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-is-the-carbon-footprint-of-streaming-video-on-netflix#:~:text=Taken%20together%2C%20my%20updated%20analysis,in%20the%20chart%2C%20below%20left. [5] 'What countries are the top producers and consumers of oil?', https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=709&t=6. [6] S.Cavazzi and A.G.Dutton, 'An Offshore Wind Energy Geographic Information System (OWE-GIS) for assessment of the UK's offshore wind energy potential', Renewable Energy, vol. 87, pp. 212-228, 2016. [7] 'Global Offshore Wind Report', Global Wind Energy Council, 2020. [8] Map and data obtained from the Global Wind Atlas 3.0, a free, web-based application developed, owned and operated by the Technical University of Denmark (DTU). The Global Wind Atlas 3.0 is released in partnership with the World Bank Group, utilizing data provided by Vortex, using funding provided by the Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP). For additional information: https://globalwindatlas.info [9] C. Best, '2019/20 GB Peak Power Demand,' 2020. [10] S. Evans, 'Record-low price for UK offshore wind cheaper than existing gas plants by 2023', Carbon Brief, 2019. [11] 'Grid-access Technologies for GB Offshore Wind Industry', Offshore Wind Industry Council, 2020.

This blog post gives an insight into a day’s volunteering with City Harvest, directly from Julian, a member of CSEN . We will be offering monthly volunteering dates with City Harvest in the new year so please do keep an eye out in the newsletter and sign up if interested! You can sign up to our newsletter here . Our day with City Harvest was brilliant – a welcome change of pace from the recent monotony of working from home. When we arrived in the morning, we were immediately greeted with warmth and enthusiasm by the office team. They gave us a quick tour of the site, before setting us up in one of their two warehouses, packed to the rafters with food supplies, all donated by supermarkets and Amazon Fresh. There, our main task for the day was putting together meal boxes containing a variety of foods – basics like pasta and tinned vegetables, but also some more niche donated items like Nando’s hot sauce! We chatted and had the radio on while putting together the meal boxes, getting to know more about City Harvest’s work by speaking to staff and some of the regular volunteers. I had the opportunity to help one of the drivers, Alwin, with a delivery run to food banks and homes nearby. It was rewarding to see first-hand the difference our efforts that day were making. I was shocked by how many food banks there were in just one small area of London, but also inspired by the amazing people running them. I couldn’t help but feel, though, that their work should not be necessary in a society as wealthy as ours. If you want a change of scenery from your home office and to spend a day doing something impactful in the capital, I would definitely recommend volunteering with City Harvest!

This month marks our fourth careers blog, 'Take a leaf out of my book', where we ask people who work in an environmental area to write about their career journey to date: highs and any low points, challenges and accomplishments. Our fourth post is from Sofia Poni who heads up the Evidence team for International Climate Finance (ICF) at Defra. An economist by background, Sofia's portfolio ranges from sustainable mangrove management in Madagascar to avoiding deforestation in Brazil - she talks about joining the environment sector from a technical perspective, and gives advice to those wanting to pursue an environmental civil service career. Background I head up the Evidence team for Defra’s International Climate Finance (ICF). ICF is part of the UK’s Official Development Assistance: we fund and support climate change mitigation and adaptation projects in low and middle income countries, with a focus on nature. From community-based sustainable mangrove management in Madagascar to avoiding deforestation in Brazil, it’s a very exciting portfolio! I’m an economist by background, but this is a varied role with a big, multi-disciplinary team. We cover three strands of work: value for money / appraisal, Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) and Strategic evidence. What initially sparked your interest in the environmental sector? I’ll be honest: my understanding of the environmental sector was very vague before taking this job, so I think it’s the job itself that sparked my interest! Having a deep understanding of the global evidence base on the combined climate and environment emergency is both terrifying and highly motivating! How did your previous career and/or experience help you achieve your current role? All my roles have been very different - I really believe that the skills of an economist (and other specialist professions) can be applied to a variety of roles without a huge amount of background in the specifics. I did find coming into the environment sector challenging from a technical perspective: there is so much to know, so much new evidence being generated all the time. At the same time, it’s so interesting that new information really sticks and I’ve been surrounded by the very passionate and expert Defra ICF team who have made it easy to get settled! What advice would you give someone wanting to pursue an environmental Civil Service career? There are many different kinds of environment-related jobs! Don’t be afraid to try different roles in different departments because each will offer learning that you couldn’t get anywhere else. The Civil Service is really amazing for giving us the opportunity to have such varied careers and we should be making the most of it. How important has networking been in finding suitable roles? The Civil Service is very good at transparent recruitment, and I’m all for that! So for me, networking is more a way to succeed in a role. I am proud to say I have a wide and very supportive network from which I can gather pearls of wisdom in challenging times. I will say though when applying for a job I definitely recommend chatting with the post- holder and recruiting manager. It’s a chance to understand whether it’s really a role you want, plus you’ll be less nervous at interview! How do you connect with nature? I’ve lived in a few different places growing up and I travel a lot. The common thread between where I feel most connected with nature is water. Whether it’s the bustling seaside in my hometown in Greece, the flawless surface of Lake Geneva or the sparkling waves of the Caribbean, nothing brings me more peace. How amazing to work in a sector that enables us to protect that! If you want to get in touch with Sofia Poni to ask any further questions, you can email her at Sofia.poni@defra.gov.uk or Sofia Poni on LinkedIn

This month marks our third careers blog, 'Take a leaf out of my book', where we ask people who work in an environmental area to write about their career journey to date: highs and any low points, challenges and accomplishments. I’m Deputy Director for Domestic Fisheries and Reform at Defra. It’s a fabulous, wide-ranging job, covering policy on how we manage our fisheries now and after we leave the Common Fisheries Policy. There’s a heavy EU Exit focus at present. Amongst other things, I am responsible for the Fisheries Bill, stopping scallop wars, allocating fishing quotas, licensing fishing boats, managing discards, recreational angling policy, lots of stakeholder management and engagement with the Devolved Administrations. Never a dull moment! My career has been very varied. The experience that variety has brought has played a key part in getting me to where I am. I have gone from AO to Deputy Director through every grade, largely through spotting opportunities and sometimes taking risks (e.g. going for roles outside my comfort zone). I’ve loved pretty much every role and learned from each of them and from those I’ve worked with. Whether that was about subject matter (e.g. who would have thought that septic tanks can impact water quality, or milk is one of the worst pollutants if it gets into water courses?) or new skills (leading teams, improving personal resilience, or how to work with scientists and stakeholders). I ended up doing roles with an environmental tinge courtesy of the machinery of government change when Defra was created. I started in the Intervention Board as an Administrative Officer paying whisky export refunds and then administering some other of the rather unpalatable aspects of the Common Agricultural Policy, including milk quotas and beef mountains. All of these schemes were introduced because the original objectives of the CAP (to ensure food supply and a guaranteed income for farmers) had unintended consequences (creating surpluses). This experience in delivery has been helpful during my career. Ensuring our policies are deliverable and will have the impact that we intend has been a key lesson. I worked in the European Commission for a year, which helped me in a number of subsequent roles about working and negotiating in a multi-national environment. Again, this has been a key skill as we cannot deliver our environmental objectives on our own. In MAFF/Defra, my roles have covered policy areas as diverse as cattle identification, organic farming and water quality. I’ve done roles that were more delivery or corporate in focus, like delivering affordable flood insurance, or helping to set up the Marine Management Organisation, or sponsoring bodies such as Natural England and Kew Gardens. All these have helped me develop a rounded set of skills that I can take to any role: leadership, problem-solving, analysis, working with Ministers, navigating the Whitehall machine etc. In a number of these (including my current role), a significant challenge has been to manage the trade-offs that have to be made. So currently we are grappling with how to make fishing truly sustainable – environmentally, economically and socially. Its been important to set a clear trajectory (through the Fisheries Bill) and then work with industry, stakeholders and scientists openly but carefully, whilst managing expectations about pace of change and effects. If you want to get in touch with Anne to ask any further questions, you can email her at anne.freeman@defra.gov.uk

This month marks our second careers blog, 'Take a leaf out of my book', where we ask people who work in an environmental area to write about their career journey to date: highs and any low points, challenges and accomplishments. Our second post is from Yasmin Ali who works in the Science and Innovation for Climate and Energy Directorate in BEIS. Yasmin talks about finding suitable roles, making the switch from the private sector to the civil service – and how an engineering background took her to the middle of the North Sea and the Algerian Desert. I am an energy innovation project manager in the Science and Innovation for Climate and Energy (SICE) Directorate in BEIS. I use my chemical engineering background and previous experience in the private energy sector to design and run energy innovation competitions. My main focus is on low carbon hydrogen supply, and industrial energy efficiency. I also do as much as possible (writing, presenting, mentoring…) to encourage others into STEM careers! Why did you take this job? After working for the private energy sector for seven years, in coal and gas fired power stations, oil and gas exploration and production, and district heating, I decided to quit my job and do something that gave me a wider overview of the sector. I also wanted to contribute to a more sustainable energy future. After a bit of time off, and much job searching, I found a role at BEIS. I didn’t know what it would be like but took a chance and it turned out to be exactly what I wanted. What has been your career highlight so far? Being an engineer has taken me to some amazing, unique places. Working in oil and gas, I spent time on oil and gas platforms in the middle of the North Sea and visited a rig in the Algerian desert. As a control room manager for a district heating business, I was based at Citigen power station, opposite Smithfield Market in the heart of London. I loved knowing the routes of the underground hot water piping – there is an entire other world underneath our feet! Another highlight for me is hearing from people I have hosted for work experience or given career advice, who get in touch to tell me they are now studying engineering or working as engineers. How important has networking been in finding suitable roles? Networking has been important; I would not be here without it. A few years ago, through a volunteering role for my professional institution, the Institution of Chemical Engineers, I met someone who worked in the Civil Service. When I was looking for new roles, I reached out to him and he helped me to navigate the complex Civil Service recruitment structure, and I was able to find my way into the energy innovation world in BEIS. I try to pay this back by telling others about my job and giving career advice. If you could visit one habitat on earth, where would it be? I’m very curious about the deep sea and the amazing creatures that live in the harsh environments down there, so that is one habitat I’d like to see for myself. If anyone else is interested in this area, I would recommend reading Helen Scales’ books and articles on the subject. If you want to get in touch with Yasmin to ask any further questions, you can email her at Yasmin.ali@beis.gov.uk

Mentor Match – try it for free as a WIG offer exclusive to you During these times we need trusted support and guidance more than ever. Faced with a constantly changing landscape and challenges in both professional and personal life, resilience is paramount and coping mechanisms are being tested like never before. As a member of the Civil Service Environment Network, we are delighted to invite you to be part of an exclusive complimentary 6-month pilot to trial WIG’s new mentoring service, Mentor Match. Mentor Match provides a safe space to meet with a mentor or support a mentee, discuss challenges you are both facing in the current climate, as well as celebrate successes and set objectives for the next six months. Based on your profile, you will be matched with fellow sustainability focused and environmentally conscious peers, like-minded professionals to add value to your thinking and test you in a constructive but supportive way. They will also enhance your perspective by being from outside your sector, true to WIG’s charitable purpose. If this sounds like something you would benefit from, it only takes two minutes to register your interest and we will notify you as soon as the pilot platform goes live. The next steps will be to create your profile, allowing you to explore and manage your own cross-sector mentoring relationships directly through the portal. You will be able to refine your objectives, view prospective matches, request a mentor or mentee (or both) and kick off a new relationship. This offer is exclusive to 50 members of CSEN and the first six months are offered at no cost, so don’t miss this opportunity to expand your network across the sectors. All grades are welcome to apply. Register your interest here. Should you have any questions about the platform, please do email us directly. We look forward to hearing how you get on. Sign up here for the pilot The Whitehall & Industry Group (WIG), set up over 35 years ago, exists to increase trust, understanding and collaboration between all sectors to enable improved outcomes and solutions for the benefit of society as a whole. Our vision is a cultural shift, where learning, mutual understanding and collaboration are at the heart of how business, government and the not-for-profit sector engage with each other for their own and the greater good. WIG is a corporate membership organisation as well as an independent charity. Since all government departments are members of WIG, that means all members of CSEN are too.

Read on to find out how to make the most of the CSEN Online members directory. Our members directory shows you the other members of CSEN Online who have chosen to share their details. This short guide will show you how to add your details to your profile so that you appear in the members directory. Adding your details is a great way to connect with other CSEN members and build your professional network. Instructions 1. Navigate to your profile by clicking on the dropdown menu in the top right-hand corner of the page and selecting Profile. 2. When your profile loads up, click on the paragraph of text in the About section to edit it and add your details. It's up to you what information you choose to share with other CSEN members, but you may want to include your: Location Department Profession Job title Interests LinkedIn profile 3. Click the Edit button in the left panel to change your username and profile picture. 4. Once you have finished adding your details, click the Publish button to save your changes and make them visible to other CSEN Online members. 5. Now that you have added your details, why not browse the directory to see if there is anyone working in a similar area who you could connect with? You can also follow other members to receive notifications about their activity on CSEN Online.

By David Hill, Director-General Environment, Rural and Marine, Defra CSEN Senior Network Sponsor The challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss, and poor environmental outcomes affect everyone. And they are stark. To give just a few examples, we have committed to improving at least 75% of our waters to be as close to their natural state as soon as practicable; yet currently only 16% of our waters are in a high or good condition status, and this percentage is declining. We have committed to restoring 75% of our protected sites to favourable condition; the figure currently stands at 39%, having increased by just 2.2% since 2013. We must meet legally binding targets to reduce emissions of five damaging air pollutants by 2030, to halve the effects of air pollution on health. The Government has made some ambitious commitments: to achieve net zero by 2050; the 25 Year Environment Plan which commits that this generation will leave the environment in a better state than it inherited, including long-term goals on air quality, water, nature recovery, and waste. And in September 2020, the Prime Minister signed the Leaders’ Pledge for Nature, joining a high-ambition coalition of 70 countries to commit to address global biodiversity loss, and committing at the same time to protect 30% of UK land for nature recovery by 2030. These are bold long-term commitments with the potential to transform our environment for the better. Translating these commitments into effective action requires a whole-of-Government effort, working in partnership with business, non-governmental organisations, local authorities, farmers, local communities and many more. The solutions don’t lie in any one single department – nature recovery for instance requires us to think through how all departments use their land holdings; how we plan new communities and infrastructure in ways that promote biodiversity; the links between nature and public health; how we harness green private finance, and utilise science and data. So it’s vital to build a clear understanding across Government of how multiple departments and agencies can play their part. Building a community of interest right across the Civil Service on environment challenges is essential if we are to develop creative solutions to environmental problems and a genuinely systemic approach. That’s one reason why I see the work of the Civil Service Environment Network as so important. Building a community of interest right across the Civil Service on environment challenges is essential if we are to develop creative solutions to environmental problems and a genuinely systemic approach. Our Joint Air Quality Unit – a joint team across Defra and DfT leading a programme with over 40 local authorities to reduce roadside NO2 emissions is one example of what I mean, but we need much more of this integrated approach right across the full spectrum of environmental challenges we face. Harnessing the insights and perspectives of colleagues from right across the civil service is a great place to start, and the ideas, challenge and insights of the network can genuinely help us make a difference. Cover photo by Bill Oxford on Unsplash

This month marks our first careers blog, 'Take a leaf out of my book', where we ask people every month who work in an environmental area to write about their career journey to date: highs and any low points, challenges and accomplishments. Our first post is from Ben Robey who leads the Clean Growth team in the Department for International Trade. Ben talks about the appeal of working on a new area for the department, interesting conversations with an MP that sparked an interest in the sector, and advice on finding roles that match your interests. I have led the Clean Growth team in the Department for International Trade since December 2019. The team’s role is to build on existing work, which has traditionally focused on energy decarbonisation, to support and drive the clean growth agenda across DIT. Clean growth is about maximising the economic opportunities from the global decarbonisation agenda and trade and investment are critical tools to achieving the UK’s domestic Net Zero target and global climate ambitions. Why did you take this job? After studying a masters in global environmental policy, I looked for roles in the international climate policy space. At first, I was dubious about taking a climate-related role in DIT given the tensions between trade and climate. However, when the role in DIT’s clean growth team was advertised, I was inspired by the opportunity of shaping a brand new direction for the department and potentially having real impact. Climate is still a very new area for DIT. This gives us the opportunity to be creative, which excites me. What initially sparked your interest in the environmental sector? During my university studies, I worked part-time for my local MP. Fracking was a big issue at the time and there were plans for exploratory sites in the constituency, which the MP supported. On behalf of the MP I drafted responses to letters from angry constituents where I found myself agreeing with a lot of the environmental concerns raised. It made for some interesting conversations with the MP! What advice would you give to someone wanting to pursue an environmental Civil Service career? You are not going to solve the biggest issues of our time like climate change or biodiversity loss alone. Be prepared to navigate a complex landscape and welcome the debate. I learned very quickly that there is always going to be someone with more expertise and experience than you, and that’s great! This is a complex area and there are no easy answers, but people working in this space have such genuine passion and intelligence that solutions can be found. Looking back, what career advice would you give to yourself 10 years ago? There are a lot more careers out there than doctor, lawyer, teacher ... I make a real point of not asking children ‘what do you want to be when you grow up?' This question haunted me as a child. You don’t (and probably shouldn’t) find a ‘civil servant’ costume in the fancy dress box! 10 years ago I was focused on finding a ‘career’ rather than narrowing down what I enjoyed and was passionate about. Once I figured out my interest in environmental policy, the ‘career’ seems to come a lot more naturally. How did you go about finding roles that matched your skills/interest? For me, I’ve taken the opposite approach. In the past I would see ‘dream’ roles on Civil Service Jobs but which I knew I didn’t quite have the right skills/knowledge for at the time. Instead of pursuing a promotion or a new job that matched my current skills, I made the decision to take on opportunities to develop new skills and experience relevant to those dream roles. This ultimately led me to undertake a masters part-time, when I became really serious about wanting to work in environmental policy. How do you connect with nature? The concept of ‘wilderness’, particularly in the USA, really fascinates me. I’m always looking for spaces in nature where I cannot see or hear anything man-made, like kayaking in the Manchac swamps in New Orleans, walking in the Lake District, or swimming in the sea. However, like most millennials, most of the time I have to settle for the plants that fill my small London flat! If you want to get in touch with Ben to ask any further questions, you can email him at ben.robey@trade.gov.uk

Olivia Herford writes about her experience volunteering for the charity Size of Wales through the Government Statistical Service Analytical Volunteer Programme. Firstly, this probably isn’t your typical environment-related volunteering experience - unfortunately I didn’t get to do any tree-planting myself! As someone who doesn’t work in an environment-focused role, I try to seek opportunities aligned with my interests in other ways. This opportunity came along and ticked so many boxes for me. I first became aware of Size of Wales through the Government Statistical Service Analytical Volunteer Programme, whereby charities apply for analytical help on projects they may not have the in-house technical knowledge or capacity to complete themselves. The fact that I was able to use this as my Fast Stream corporate objective was an added bonus. Who are Size of Wales? Size of Wales is a Welsh climate change and educational charity which started out as a Welsh Government initiative in November 2009, before becoming a registered charity in May 2011. In a two-phase plan, Size of Wales initially aimed to protect 2 million hectares of tropical forest – the geographical 'size of Wales' is a term often used to describe the annual rate of forest destruction (sadly it is now more akin to the size of the UK [1]). After successfully achieving this, the second phase aim, beginning in April 2013, saw the target increase to 4 million hectares - a feat which was achieved in 2016/17 and has been maintained thus far. Size of Wales’ role is to facilitate engagement between charitable organisations engaging in suitable projects and the wider community, with a view to providing financial and other support for the projects. They currently have 9 flagship projects running; however, they have supported 22 projects across 17 different countries spanning Africa, South America and south-east Asia. The forest projects aim to tackle forest loss using the following approaches: Establishing land rights for indigenous peoples Supporting sustainable community forest management Strengthening protected area management by engaging local populations Planting trees to stabilise soils and increase local incomes On the educational side, Size of Wales highlights the issues of climate change through their education programme, awareness raising events and online presence, while equipping the people of Wales with the tools and knowledge to take action to tackle climate change. By teaching and empowering the people of Wales, they help them to understand the impacts of their day to day life on our global climate, and importantly, what steps they as individuals and small groups can take to tackle this global problem. Why is their work important? Forests are key to mitigating against the impacts of climate change by absorbing the carbon dioxide humans emit. Despite this, a recent report has found that up to 26 million hectares of forest are destroyed each year[1]. South America, south-east Asia and Africa, where the forest projects are based, contain the world’s major regions of irreplaceable tropical rainforest vital for biodiversity and carbon storage, but annual tree cover loss remains persistently high here [2]. These projects are tackling a major driver of climate change – carbon dioxide emissions through deforestation. Although estimates vary, forests are thought to store approximately 30% of current global carbon emissions [3] and are widely recognised as important global carbon sinks. Each of the projects works closely with the indigenous communities who live in and depend upon the forests for their livelihoods. Indigenous peoples often have a sacred connection to these forests and have lived sustainably with the forests for centuries, making them the best conservationists of all. The projects work to empower these communities in a way that enables them to protect these precious forests. What did I do? The ask was to produce a 10-year anniversary report covering the excellent work Size of Wales has done over the last decade. It was a real celebration of the work done to protect tropical rainforests, support indigenous communities, and educate children in Wales to the importance of climate change. This encompassed looking into and presenting key statistics including; school children attending workshops, social media reach and funding for forest projects, alongside those directly relating to the forest projects. Admittedly, a highlight was learning about the various forest projects Size of Wales has supported, what their key challenges and aims have been and how many hectares of rainforest they help to protect. Examples of specific aims include: training and equipping community teams to carry out biomonitoring of forests in DRC; legally securing land rights of ancestral land for the forest-dwelling Wapichan community of Guyana; or planting 10 million tress in Mbale, Uganda (the target was achieved in 2019 and has now been upped to 25 million by 2025!). I enjoyed the experience so much I plan to stay on and continue helping in any way that I can, be that in an analytical capacity or otherwise. One day I hope to visit some of the forest projects in person! Image credits: Size of Wales/Community Carbon Link, Kenya Bore Community Forest Project, 2019 Contribute to the CSEN Blog If you're interested in contributing to the CSEN Blog, get in touch with us at environment.network@faststream.civilservice.gov.uk. We'd love to hear your ideas! Bibliography [1] Progress on the New York Declaration on Forests, Protecting and Restoring Forests: A Story of Large Commitments yet Limited Progress (2019). [2] World Resources Institute and Global Forest Watch (2019). [3] Pan, Y. et al. Science (2011).

Laura Green writes about how we can apply insights from behavioural science to encourage behaviours that are good for the environment. Behavioural insights is the use of research from behavioural science and psychology to inform the design of interventions to influence people’s behaviour. How can an understanding of behavioural science help us to encourage people to make better choices to protect the environment? This blog post focuses on two examples of where behavioural science could be applied to encourage pro-environmental behaviour: energy consumption and sustainable food choices. Encouraging people to reduce their energy consumption Providing people with comparisons between their energy consumption and that of others can encourage people to reduce their energy consumption, harnessing people’s desire to conform to social norms. A field experiment in the US [1] found that sending households information about how their consumption compared to the average for their neighbourhood reduced energy consumption in households with above average energy consumption. But, crucially, in households who were already below the average, energy consumption increased, showing what is known as the ‘boomerang effect’. People’s desire to conform to the social norm could actually increase their energy usage. However, when the message was combined with an emoticon (a smiley face for those below average and a sad face for those above average) the boomerang effect disappeared. For low-consumption households, receiving a smiley face signalled that other people approved of their low energy consumption and encouraged them to keep it low. This example demonstrates that whilst behavioural insights can be useful in encouraging sustainable behaviour, interventions must be carefully designed and evaluated, otherwise they could be producing undesired effects. Encouraging people to make more sustainable food choices A key theory in behavioural science is nudge theory, where interventions are used to encourage people to make better choices whilst maintaining freedom of choice. One of the nudges that Thaler and Sunstein identify in their book Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness is changing the default option, as people are biased towards the default option when making a choice. This has been applied in encouraging people to make more sustainable food choices by choosing vegetarian options instead of meat options. A study in Denmark [2] found that making the vegetarian buffet the default option at conferences (meaning people had to specifically request the non-vegetarian option) increased uptake of the vegetarian option to 87%, compared to just 6% when the non-vegetarian buffet was the default. This demonstrates how simple changes in the way a choice is set out can influence people’s behaviour. However, nudging to encourage more sustainable food choices in all aspects of life poses a bigger challenge, as there may not be a default option in many food choice situations. It may be possible to use this approach in some other situations where there is a limited range of food options available, such as school lunches. Want to learn more about applying behavioural insights? Apolitical is currently running an online boot camp for public servants on behavioural insights. The Behavioural Insights Team website has loads of great resources from their work on applying behavioural insights to public policy. An interesting read is their 2019 report Behaviour Change for Nature, produced with the conservation charity Rare. References [1] Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological science, 18(5), 429-434. [2] Pelle G Hansen, Mathilde Schilling, Mia S Malthesen, Nudging healthy and sustainable food choices: three randomized controlled field experiments using a vegetarian lunch-default as a normative signal, Journal of Public Health, fdz154. Photo credits: Tom Rumble on Unsplash and Ye Chen on Unsplash.

Charlie Speller shares his ideas for an alternative, joined-up governance structure that could help the UK reach net zero emissions. Disclaimer: the views expressed in this blog post are the views of the author and do not represent the views of the Civil Service or the Civil Service Environment Network. In 2019, the Committee for Climate Change recommended that meeting net zero would require “changes to the Government’s overall approach to driving down emissions. For example, the PM could chair regular meetings of a Climate Cabinet that includes the Chancellor and relevant SoS, with transparent public reports of progress and plans.”[1] Rather unfortunately it required the protests of the recently removed COP26 President, Claire O’Neill, to subsequently highlight that the committee had not yet met 5 months after its announcement. The inability and the implied lack of importance demonstrated by the lack of urgency given to this committee’s formation highlights that whilst undoubtedly an important instrument to raise the profile of environmental issues in Whitehall, a glamorous new Cabinet may not necessarily be the answer to all climate related dilemmas. Much more needs to be done and, in this blog, I will share some ideas for how a more joined-up Government could help tackle the environmental crisis. I have written a more extensive paper if you wanted to talk about this in more depth but thought it best to keep it short for this platform. The below diagram gives an indication of what a more effective governance structure might look like. Central bodies Recommendation A - Cabinet Office Team - National Resilience Unit There needs to be greater central authority if environmental principles are to underpin government policy and match the ambitions of political leaders. A recent report critiquing the Draft Environment Bill called on the Cabinet Office to issue guidance to ensure Departments commit to achieving delivery of the targets and milestones in their single departmental plans.[2] There are multiple reasons why Cabinet Office (CO) is the right place to guarantee results; Authority – power lies at the heart of government and if given the responsibility to challenge departments to come up with answers, it has more chance of being effective from CO rather than Defra/BEIS. Experience – the CO is used to dealing with functions and issues that cut across government. The Social Exclusion Unit is an example of successful join up using CO expertise. Experience of coordinating complex departments will be essential criteria for the senior civil servants chosen to lead the unit. Symbolic – placing the function for a governmental priority, an issue which is viewed as the second most important problem for young people and the third most for the whole UK population, in the hands of a government department that is seen to be relatively junior in terms of ministerial reshuffles sends the wrong message to the market, businesses, citizens and the international community. It reinforces that environmental issues are one department’s problem rather than a series of issues that affect the economy, quality of life and health and wellbeing, to name a few. Confusion – “I am getting lost in the fog of consultations and mechanism…where does accountability lie?”[3] There is undoubtedly confusion regarding who owns what and why. Having a central figurehead with clear cross-department responsibility would help clarify ownership. A National Resilience Unit (NRU) led by senior civil servants within Cabinet Office could be based upon the Civil Contingencies Secretariat (CCS). The CCS is responsible for emergency planning and works with other departments to anticipate, assess, prevent, respond and recover from short term crises. The NRU could have a similar remit but with a long-term view and an environmental lens by seconding in the relevant environmental experts from across government. Its role could include co-ordinating government departments, setting the agenda for the environmental cabinet, behaving as the internal driver of the primordial nature of environmental issues and streamlining objectives across government. Its ability to forge meaningful links with each government department would determine its success. They may choose to organise themselves into specialist topic areas such as Biodiversity and Air Quality, general themes like Adaptation and Mitigation or by government department. This could be done in a similar way to The Social Exclusion Unit. Recommendation B - Cabinet-level involvement Having a high-level environmental cabinet could work in tandem with a more effective structure below it. It would give political weight and impetus to the environment; it would ensure sustained political support; it would allocate responsibility to senior Ministers; and, it would compel cross-government thinking. Combined, these factors could propel the rest of government into positive action especially if the hub of expertise that would be the NRU plays a significant role in the content of these meetings. Recommendation C - The Treasury The Treasury has to be involved further in the drive for greater environmental consideration across government. It has the ability to apply real sanctions to government departments and is used to working closely with all government departments. HMT has shown leadership recently in announcing an end to gas heating in new homes and it is encouraging that The Dasgupta Review will be delivered by October 2020, analysing the relationship between economics and biodiversity. That said, much more can be done and ought to be done as controlling public spending and taxation will be fundamental in driving the transition to Net Zero. Options that would complement my recommendations include: The creation of a Nature Fund - A stronger Office for Environmental Protection with the ability to hold governmental departments to account could ring-fence funds that could be used to ensure departments hit their environmental targets in way that results in value for money. Chancellor chairing Environmental Cabinet - The Chancellor could chair the Environmental Cabinet to ensure central government buy in and an economic eye is cast over the proposals in play. This would provide the senior political leadership necessary as well as the financial might. Environmental Spending Review - Scrutinises departmental spending periodically to determine whether sufficient funds have been allocated to meet policy aims. Members of the Environmental Cabinet and/or the NRU could be accountable to this spending review for their departments’ spending commitments. The independent bodies Recommendation D - Modifications to the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) - Review + Enforcement The OEP is necessary to fill the governance gap that will be left by the EU. Its clear remit ought to be monitoring of targets and enforcement of non-compliance. However, its current terms of reference lack teeth and to be truly effective it needs to be strengthened to resemble The Office for Budget Responsibility. There are three fundamental changes that would strengthen its ability to influence government as an independent watchdog responsible for enforcement of environmental targets. Truly Independent – At the moment, the chair person and the non-executive members of the OEP will be appointed by The Secretary of State for Defra. In addition, its funding will be set by the same Minister. This does not lend itself to being an authoritative and independent body. Add Climate Change – In the same vein that it will currently monitor and enforce the 25YEP, it should have a similar focus on the Net Zero promise in terms of emissions. These issues are inherently intertwined. To name but a few examples, the restoration of peat bogs can conserve local biodiversity whilst also sequestering carbon from the atmosphere; electric vehicles reduce both local air pollution and carbon emissions; environmental regulations can significantly overlap with CC outcomes in farming, afforestation, flood management, onshore and offshore fossil fuel development, planning consents, soil management, land use and forestry. The CCC recently stated that “mitigating and adapting to CC forms an essential component of progress which cannot be disentangled from a wider assessment of the state of the natural environment.”[4] Stronger Enforcement – The OEP needs to have the necessary powers to pursue legal measures that will ensure governments are developing and delivering timely strategies. Is judicial review the best way to do this? These can sometimes be long and expensive. Its ability to enforce effectively will act as a motivator for departments’ compliance. There may be scope for a fining mechanism, of which funds received would be ring-fenced by Treasury for spending on green policies as part of a Nature Fund sitting at the heart of HMT. (See Recommendation C) Recommendation E - Climate Change Committee - Advice, Research + Strategy The CCC needs to retain its strict focus on advising government strategy in terms of climate change. However, the whole could be more effective if it expanded its remit to do this for environmental protection issues as well as emissions. When changed alongside the OEP, you would create two clearly defined independent bodies one advising and strategizing, the other reviewing and enforcing. Recommendation F - A new appraisal mechanism Government should put the Natural Capital Committee (NCC) on a firm footing to continue to allow it to co-ordinate a programme of environmental data monitoring. It should become responsible for: Making environmental appraisals available for departments across government; Building capability within departments to understand and use the metrics effectively; and, Oversight of the maintenance and improvement of the metrics themselves. As a truly independent body, it could work in tandem with bodies like the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and reviews like the Dasgupta Review to provide the basis for high quality environmental appraisal in every department. Moreover, it could take responsibility for building capacity within departments by upskilling civil servants to learn about natural capital and how to incorporate its metrics into policy development at the early stages rather than retrospectively. Recommendation G - Strategic review of government machinery/the wider DEFRA family There’s an argument that environmental progress has been hampered by the mass of different institutions that have developed separately from one another. This can be negative because of confused responsibilities and/or duplication of work which causes inefficiencies. Moreover, institutional competition must be protected against as not only will these bodies look to further an issue, but they are also motivated by their desire for influence and budgets which incentivise them to compete with other environmental bodies rather than working with them. A deep dive strategic review into the roles and responsibilities of all the current bodies should be undertaken with the view to attributing precise purposes to each one, ensuring that objectives do not overlap. Dieter Helm has argued that government needs to start with a fresh piece of paper telling the EAC that “chaotic institutional structures have emerged in a piecemeal fashion in the last two decades with little or no thought being given to the overlapping duties of various regulators, agencies and public bodies.”[5] Limitations of Select Committees “You have to work with departments to understand circumstances otherwise you are producing reports on information that doesn’t even exist”[6] The EAC plays a vital role in holding government to account and does some fantastic work, however it feels as if government is too reliant on its role to help drive the agenda. There is a distinction between scrutiny that assists government to either improve performance or transparency and scrutiny that aids accountability. The latter is covered by Select Committees and this should not be used as a replacement for the former. If caught earlier in the process, fewer mistakes would be made and negative environmental performance minimised. Moreover, being dragged in front of a select committee can reinforce an inherent defensive nature amongst ministers and civil servants. Internal scrutiny can get better results as it takes leaders away from the public gaze. That said, if those structures are not in place then the role of the EAC and other committees is essential in scrutinising government. References [1] CCC, Progress Report, 13. [2] Read more - https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmenvaud/1951/195102.htm [3] Burke quoted in Environmental Audit Committee, The Structure of Government and the challenge of Climate Change – Ninth Report of the Session 2006-07, (House of Commons, 2007) Ev43-44. [4] CCC Report, Progress Report, 3. [5] Environmental Audit Committee, The Structure of Government, Ev 22 [6] Environmental Audit Committee, Embedding Sustainable Development, 25.

Helen Tomlinson writes about why she set up an environment network in the Civil Service. A big part of our job as civil servants is finding solutions. The problems and issues we try to find solutions to vary and are framed differently depending on the political inclinations and priorities of the government of the day, but the basic focus remains. These problems and solutions are and increasingly will be connected to the environmental crises of our time: a rapidly changing climate; degradation of natural habitats and collapsing biodiversity; the diminishing capacity of the earth’s ecosystems to regulate and sustain life. One of the solutions is to mainstream the natural environment and our impact on it into our everyday policy decisions, to make thinking about nature second nature. For us, as civil servants, one of the solutions is to mainstream the natural environment and our impact on it into our everyday policy decisions, to make thinking about nature second nature. This includes policy areas where these ‘issues’ might seem unconnected or only very tenuously linked. In the UK, the cornerstones of this approach have been laid with the enactment of a commitment to net-zero emissions by 2050 and the forthcoming HM Treasury review on the economics of biodiversity. But hardwiring this approach into how we work will take a sustained, concerted effort across the piece. We’ve established this network to learn from colleagues, share knowledge and experience, and promote exposure to the latest thinking by specialists. The aim is that we all collectively benefit from the cross-fertilisation of ideas that happens when people from different parts of government start talking, and thinking, together. There is strength in numbers and strength in breaking down silos. If you are a UK civil servant – in a government department, a non-departmental public body, an agency or a devolved administration – please join us. We are open to everyone – any job, any grade, anywhere. And if you work for a government administration in another country and are doing some similar to us or want to find out more, please get in touch – we’d love to hear from you and swap ideas! Contribute to the CSEN Blog If you're interested in contributing to the CSEN Blog, get in touch with us at environment.network@faststream.civilservice.gov.uk. We'd love to hear your ideas!

Carbon footprints are talked about a lot, but do we really understand what they mean? Rachel Dunne explains why carbon footprints may not be as simple as they seem. ‘The carbon footprint of milk is 1.39kgCO2eq…’ [1] is a seemingly simple statement which in fact requires a number of important questions to be answered before its meaning is clear. Here I’d like to run you through a few of these questions, and hopefully therefore convey just how much is hidden in a carbon footprint. 1 - What is the functional unit? The functional unit associated with a carbon footprint is the amount of the relevant product that causes the stated greenhouse gas emissions over its life cycle. For example, the above carbon footprint of 1.39kgCO2eq for milk has a functional unit of 1kg milk, meaning that producing 1kg of milk emits 1.39kgCO2eq. Functional units allow the useful comparison of products. The obvious functional unit is 1kg by mass of product, e.g. 1kg beef might be compared to 1kg chicken in terms of their carbon footprints. There are other options, however. For example, in the case of beef and chicken you might compare them per kg protein. This would mean that the functional unit would be 1kg protein’s worth of the meat instead of just the simple 1kg of mass. If chicken contains 10% protein and beef 20% (made up figures!) then this would require comparing the carbon footprint of 10kg chicken to that of 5kg beef. 2 - What are the system boundaries? The system boundaries of a carbon footprint calculation define the processes in a product's life cycle that are included. Therefore the system boundaries can make a big difference to the calculated carbon footprint of a product. If a process in the product’s life cycle that emits a lot of greenhouse gases is not included in the system boundaries this could lead to a considerable under-estimation of its carbon footprint. It is particularly important when two products are to be compared that the system boundaries used for each product are as similar as possible. Often we consider either cradle-to-gate or cradle-to-grave system boundaries. The former only considers the life cycle of a product up to factory gate, while the latter additionally considers its sale, use and disposal as well as any associated transportation. 3 - Which allocation method was used? The allocation method used in the calculation of a carbon footprint is the rule used to apportion greenhouse gas emissions between multiple outputs of the same process or set of processes. For example, the rearing of dairy cattle may result in both milk and beef being produced. The greenhouse gas emissions of the rearing, slaughtering etc… can be calculated, but how is this allocated between the final milk and beef produced? Options include allocation according to the mass of each product produced, allocation according to the energy content of each product (if they are food or fuel), or allocation according to the prices at which the products will be sold at. The allocation method used in the calculation of a carbon footprint can significantly impact the result. This means that in particular when comparing products it is important to use the same allocation method in both cases. 4 - And the rest? The more information that is known about the calculations behind a stated carbon footprint the better. Further details to seek might firstly include the database used for any background data. A number of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) databases exist such as EcoInvent and Agri-Footprint, though most have to be paid for. Free options include Agribalyse and ELCD. It is also useful to know the impact assessment method used to calculate a carbon footprint. A given impact assessment method may use different global warming potentials (GWPs) for certain greenhouse gases. GWPs are the conversion factors from kg of gas emitted to kg CO2 equivalent emitted. There is still considerable scientific debate around their values. It depends in part on how far into the future you are looking as some of these other greenhouse gases are much less long-lived than others and therefore will only have their warming effect for a limited amount of time before they react to form a different chemical. The GWPs used in the calculation of a carbon footprint will affect the result, potentially changing how two products compare if they emit differing amounts of various greenhouse gases. What does this mean for me? It is important for civil servants working on the climate crisis to understand that carbon footprint statements are not as simple as they first appear. Although phrases like ‘high carbon footprint’ are in common parlance, they don’t hold a clear meaning for most people, even when quantified in kg CO2 equivalent. If possible, it is best to aid understanding by comparing one carbon footprint to that of another well-known or comparable item, for example ‘the carbon footprint of oat milk is considerably lower than that of cow’s milk...’ [2] as this has a clear, actionable message. References [1] Clune, S., Crossin, E. and Verghese, K. (2016). Systematic review of greenhouse gas emissions from different fresh food categories. Journal of Cleaner Production 140(2) pp.766-783. [ 2] Carbon Cloud. Assessment of Carbon Footprint of Oatly products by CarbonCloud. Available at: https://www.oatly.com/uploads/attachments/cjz9msu5wa1g439qrdjuycbgd-carbon-footrpinting-for-oatly-20190808.pdf [Accessed 24th August 2019].

Sebastien Lechanoine writes about his role at the Office for Low Emissions Vehicles. Disclaimer: the views in this blog post are those of the individual and do not represent the views of HM Government. Photo by Andrew Roberts on Unsplash In 1879, Karl Benz patented the first reliable two-stroke internal combustion engine. Since then, despite some huge leaps in engineering and engine performance, the basic principles of vehicle engines have not changed that much – they remain internal combustion engines. Yet we are progressively starting to see a transition in how we drive and fuel our vehicles, which I believe is driven by a greater understanding of the dangers of climate change and greenhouse gases. At a local level, this is also driven by a much more tangible concern– air quality. In 2019, the UK officially set a net-zero emissions target by 2050, making history in the process. The year before, transport emissions accounted for around 28% of domestic UK greenhouse gases and became the largest emitting sector. Therefore, decarbonising all forms of transport is essential if we are to become a net zero country, and this has become a major priority for the Department for Transport. It’s quite exciting to be involved in this effort. I work at the Office for Low Emission Vehicles (OLEV as we love acronyms in Government) which is a joint unit reporting to both DfT and BEIS ministers. Our purpose is to support the decarbonisation of road transport – and to say there is plenty to do would be an understatement. Currently, the focus is very much on Electric Vehicles (EVs) – Government is currently consulting on bringing forward the end to the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles to 2035, or earlier if a faster transition appears feasible, as well as including hybrids for the first time. My role sits within the EV infrastructure policy team – if everyone who owns a car will be owning an EV in future, they will need to be able to charge their vehicles, and charging an EV is very different to filling up at a petrol station. It’s more similar to charging your mobile phone, with a range of charging options depending on your needs. Need a quick charge? Go to a rapid station. Want to charge slowly but in the convenience of your home? Just roll into your driveway, plug in and enjoy your evening at home. But what if you don’t have a driveway, as around 40% of UK households don’t? Then what? The ‘on-street’ issue is what I work on specifically and I could write pages about it (in fact I often do at work). It has also taught me a huge amount about ‘environmental’ policy – here are some of the key things I have learned: Re-define what you think counts as ‘environmental’ policy. I’ve had to grapple with the intricacies of local government planning systems and the complexities of the energy system in my role, and at times it’s easy to lose sight of the wider picture. Like electrifying boilers, it may not always sound sexy but it is important – the ‘boringly transformative’ as Michael Gove has recently said. Tug on one string and you will find it attached to many other things, to botch a well-known quote. Who knew that building regulations could play such a key part in supporting EV uptake? How do we make sure we are getting people walking and cycling as well? As we transition towards a net zero economy, we will need a greater understanding of the various interconnections that exist today, and how to ensure that policies in one area do not lead to perverse effects elsewhere. Central government can’t do everything. It can provide leadership, but local government, companies small and big, private investors, charities and not-for-profits are all needed to reach our wider goals. How do you make sure that Government is providing the right level of support? With net zero high on the government agenda, it’s a fascinating time to be working in decarbonisation. Change can come in surprising ways and being able to embrace this and listen to those on the ground is key in my role. It’s not about going for what may seem easiest, but gaining an understanding of what could work for all involved – and doing all this at pace. It’s a great place to be, and I encourage you to join if you want – we’re not short of work! Contribute to the CSEN Blog If you're interested in contributing to the CSEN Blog, get in touch with us at environment.network@faststream.civilservice.gov.uk. We'd love to hear your ideas!

In October 2019, we launched the Fast Stream Environment Network. We hosted Nick Bridge, Special Representative for Climate Change, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Dr Ben Caldecott, Director of the Oxford Sustainable Finance Programme, Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, Oxford University, and Dr Gemma Harper, Deputy Director Marine, Defra. You can find slides from the event here. Event Slides Upcoming events Browse our Events Calendar to watch more events like this and to register for future ones.

As part of this month's focus on Climate Justice, CSCEN's Emilio Risoli unpacks a recent study on climate-related compensation by Dr. Andrew Fanning, from the Sustainability Research Institute at the University of Leeds, and Dr. Jason Hickel, from the International Inequalities Institute at the London School of Economics. Find the full article, published in June 2023, here. A recent research article in the scientific journal Nature Sustainability concludes that the countries of the global South are owed a total of $192 trillion in compensation for climate-related damages. $170 trillion of this is owed by countries from the global North, the researchers find. This study provides a significant contribution to debates over climate compensation and reparations, after delegates at the 2022 COP27 agreed to establish a loss and damage fund for the countries most affected by climate change. It offers an evidence-based compensation scheme, using historical data and forward-looking projections to calculate fair and accurate compensation figures. This, they argue, would help facilitate the decarbonisation of global South economies. Methodology To empirically establish who owes, and who is owed, compensation (and how much), Andrew Fanning and Jason Hickel: work out each country’s ‘fair share’ of the total global carbon budget, based on population size; assess each country's historical cumulative emissions alongside their projected future use of carbon budgets; establish how much each country exceeds/remains under their fair share of the carbon budget according to these projections; use carbon prices from the latest IPCC scenarios to then put a monetary value on emissions, in order to quantify what is owed. According to this methodology, the bigger the emitter, the larger the share of the compensation they owe. This compensation is allocated to the low-emitting countries according to how much of their ‘fair share’ allocation has been appropriated. Results The researchers make projections for a net zero scenario, in which all countries decarbonise by 2050, as well as a business-as-usual scenario, in which countries continue on their emissions trajectory. They then divide the data up according to region. As you can see in figure 1 (below), the study finds that the 39 global North countries – including the US, the whole of Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Israel – have already exceeded their collective fair share of both the 1.5°C and 2°C carbon budgets. Even in the net zero scenario, the global North’s cumulative emissions would total nearly three times more than its 1.5 °C fair share. Moreover, they find that every global North country overshoots its fair share of the carbon budget. Figure 1: World and regional cumulative CO2 emissions with respect to fair shares of global carbon budgets, historical trends (1960–2019) and scenario trends (2020–2050). They then cast their eyes to the 129 global South countries, which make up 80% of the world’s population. They find that, in the business-as-usual scenario, this group of countries would remain within their fair share of the 2 °C carbon budget by 2050, but would likely overshoot their fair share of the 1.5 °C carbon budget in 2048. If they were to collectively achieve net zero by 2050, however, they would only have used 50% of their fair share of the 1.5 °C carbon budget. In other words, in a world that achieves net zero, around half of the global South’s fair shares would be appropriated in the process, to balance the excess emissions of overshooting countries. Using their monetary calculations, they conclude that cumulative financial compensation for this can be valued at $192 trillion, which is $6.2 trillion a year (8% of the world’s GDP in 2018). Who owes what Global North countries owe around $170 trillion of this total. The graph below (figure 2) provides a visual overview of who owes what. The US owes the most ($80 trillion), and India are owed the most ($57 trillion). They also adjust the start date – conducting parallel analyses starting at 1850, 1960 and 1992 – to see how the data responds. Irrespective of this start date, they find that “the United States, the European Union and the United Kingdom owe around two-thirds of the total financial compensation from overshooting countries”. Specifically, they find that (from a 1960 start date) the UK owes $7.7 trillion, which is less than Germany’s $11.8 trillion, but higher than every other EU country (next is France, who are found to owe $4.8 trillion). The “global South overshoot” on the graph refers to the higher-emitting global South countries who owe compensation, a group that includes South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE and Qatar, among some others. Figure 2: Cumulative compensation due from overshooting country groups to undershooting country groups (relative to 1.5 °C fair shares) based on data from 1960-2019 and projections for 2020-2050. Why is this significant? In short, as Fanning and Hickel put it, carbon budgets are being depleted, and “not all countries are equally responsible” for this. “Some nations have contributed more to causing this crisis than others”, they contend, and “this disproportionate historical responsibility is problematic from a climate justice perspective that recognizes the atmosphere as a shared commons, to which all people are entitled to a fair and equitable use”. And, more specifically: “If some countries appropriate more than their fair shares of the carbon budget, this has important implications. It means…that other countries must effectively forgo the full use of their own fair shares to keep the world on track for 1.5 °C, mitigating more rapidly than would otherwise be required.” To the researchers, therefore, this compensation is a prerequisite for any form of climate justice. Indeed, it’s also a prerequisite for international cooperation on climate change: “acknowledging issues of equity is essential to establishing trust and buy-in to the negotiation process”, they assert. Loss and Damage Fund This is important to bear in mind, as each country sends delegates to COP28 in the UAE this month. It is especially relevant in light of recent difficulties experienced during loss and damage discussions. As reported by the Guardian, talks between governments “started in March but broke down in rancour” in October. Following the breakdown, countries reconvened in Abu Dhabi in early November, in what was reported as “a tense two-day meeting”. At these talks, report the Guardian, governments drew up the blueprint for the fund, with developing countries making key concessions such as agreeing to the fund being managed by the World Bank (something that richer countries, including the US, pushed hard for). However, the Financial Times describes the agreement as “tentative”, and predicts that a “fight” over the fund is set to play out at COP28. A key point of contention concerns the nature of the donations, with the US proposing that contributions to the fund remain voluntary rather than obligatory. Fanning and Hickel hope that their results “may be useful inputs to inform the ongoing dialogue”. Conclusion and forward look This study shines a light on how the countries of the global North have already appropriated more than their fair share of the global carbon budget. As this overshoot is irreversible, even if net zero targets are met, Fanning and Hickel argue that financial compensation is owed to the countries of the global South. This, they add, would be separate to (and would not preclude) other forms of payment that might aid the global transition to net zero and help improve climate resilience. Other such forms might include IMF financing of the kind proposed by former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz.[i] This comes alongside other calls for climate justice and an increasing body of research on the topic. A recent Oxfam report, for example, finds that the richest 1% of the global population produced as much carbon pollution in one year as the 5 billion people who make up the poorest two-thirds. We have come a long way in this regard, however: at the 2009 iteration of COP the concept of climate debt was flatly rejected by American delegates. This time, questions of climate justice are sure to be at the centre of the discussions, and it is hoped that COP28 will see the commitment to the loss and damage fund crystallised. The next challenge, if we get there, is working out how to deliver this financing effectively, and establishing just structures that can direct resources to the right projects. [i] Stiglitz argues for an Inflation Reduction Act-style financing package to aid poor countries in transitioning their economies. This would include grants and subsidies designed to promote green growth and jobs, and would take the form of investment rather than compensation. Contribute to the CSCEN Blog If you're interested in contributing to the CSCEN Blog, get in touch with us at environment.network@energysecurity.gov.uk. We'd love to hear your ideas!

How does digital technology contribute to environmental issues? Simon Doxford examines the costs and opportunities that digital technology can bring when tackling climate change. For many of us, digital technology has become an ever-present feature of our lives both at work and at home. It’s become second nature to browse the news, contact friends, stream videos and be permanently online and connected through our smart devices, wherever we are. The lifeblood of digital technology is data. It’s generated in a myriad of ways then captured, stored and moved around by a vast infrastructure of data centres. Videos, images and other media all exist in a physical format somewhere, and, when you access them, they are effectively chopped into tiny pieces and sent your device as streams of data. All these data processes use energy – i.e. electricity. Digital Technology and Climate Change Digital technology provides many opportunities to address the effects of climate change, contributing to efforts at all levels of society, from government policy making through to individual actions. For governments and organizations, digital tools contribute to understanding the environmental impact of policies and high-quality datasets inform decision-making for direct action on climate change. For individuals, digital communication can reduce the need to travel; email is more sustainable than physical letters and smart technology helps appliances run more efficiently at home – there are many more examples like these. The Cost of Digitalisation The flip side to this is that digitalisation, like any other sector, comes with its own resource costs. There are substantial CO2 emissions from the production and use of digital devices and the data centres and networks required to support them. A recent estimate by the   Boston Consulting Group suggests the digital sector accounts for around 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions and that this figure is set to grow – this puts digital CO2 emissions on par with those of the aviation sector. After all, only a small proportion of the global population will get on a plane each year, but more than 5 billion people own a smartphone, which they probably use every day. Streaming online content accounts for a big chunk of overall internet traffic and therefore the CO2 emissions associated with this. While cloud storage and streaming are efficient ways of storing and transferring data, there is some interesting accounting to be done when comparing the impact of these with local storage and even physical copies. If you’re in the habit of playing your favourite song on repeat, then it may be more sustainable to own a physical copy! In the Balance Technological solutions will clearly help us combat climate change, but we need a holistic approach that accounts for our digital carbon use as well. If you’re interested in learning more about a sustainable approach to digital technology, we’ve put together a list of key takeaways from sources across the internet – see more at: the World Economic Forum, International Energy Agency and Unicef. 1. Opportunities: Embrace the opportunities digital technology and data provide for adapting to and mitigating climate change. Use digital tools and data to assess the environmental impact of your work. 2. Turn off your video when you can: Turning off video and using audio only can reduce carbon impact by around 95% as it is much less data intensive. 3. Email judiciously: Sending an email uses a tiny amount of energy - but we send a lot of emails and this still mounts-up. Avoid unnecessary emails by skipping the thankyous and other pleasantries where you can (also delete old emails and unsubscribe from mailing lists you don't need). 4. Reduce e-waste: Before they’re even switched on, the production of electronic devices accounts for about 80% of their total lifetime carbon emissions. Use devices for as long as you can and repair/ recycle equipment to extend its total lifetime. 5. Keep on top of your cloud: Cloud storage is very efficient but still generates carbon emissions. Regularly clean out the cloud service you use, deleting files you no longer need. After all the cloud is really a not-so-light-and-fluffy data centre full of computer servers. 6. Limit unnecessary streaming: Turn off autoplay to reduce unwanted streaming and use lower resolution settings to save data – you won’t notice the difference, especially on a small screen. Contribute to the CSCEN Blog If you're interested in contributing to the CSCEN Blog, get in touch with us at environment.network@energysecurity.gov.uk. We'd love to hear your ideas!

A recent pilot from the Food and Farming Countryside Commission (FFCC) explores best practice for land management around rivers to prevent pollution and floods. Paula Daina sets out key findings from the pilot. The demand for land is ever increasing: the Royal Society estimates that in the UK, to meet the current net zero and biodiversity targets, additional land twice the size of Wales is needed by 2050. In 2022, England committed to a Land Use Framework in the National Food Strategy to ensure carbon neutrality is met and farmers are supported when adapting to climate change. While the Land Use Framework is yet to be published, the Food, Farming, and Countryside Commission (FFCC), a charity promoting sustainable land use in the UK, developed a pilot to test land management at a local level. Together with the British Geological Society, the Geospatial Commission, and multiple stakeholders, FFCC delivered a Local Land Use Framework in Devon and Cambridgeshire to explore how to better manage land around rivers and prevent pollution and floods. The key area of the project involved investigating how land use decisions were made. This included understanding if spatial data and modelling were used before deciding the purpose of specific plots of land. With the importance of spatial data in mind, in the Cambridgeshire area, the model was used to develop a visual tool identifying where flood risks existed to understand which areas were best suited for agricultural or housing use, and what the flood risk was overall. The prototype developed in Devon allowed users to simulate decisions on how to use a specific land and showed the effect of different types of use on carbon sequestration and storage. This approach is likely to contribute to more effective decisions on how to optimise carbon sequestration and storage, together with encouraging better land management. A Multifunctional Land Framework Thanks to the two pilots, FFCC tested its Multifunctional Land Use Framework (MLUF), based on 6 main pillars, described in the image below, including: Land use is to ensure that land is used for what is best suited (land-led) and is adaptive and resilient. People are at the centre and local stakeholders are included in the decision-making. Public value is considered, and the land is multifunctional to meet the needs and challenges of the local communities. These principles are supported by an assessment framework providing guidance and clear questions to measure how the framework is being applied and its outcomes. In terms of governance, the FFCC suggests MLUF could be led by an independent body that works across government departments and provides national leadership while also supporting setting targets and priorities that apply at a local level by collaborating with arms-length bodies, local authorities, and regulated sectors. Forward Look FFCC suggested some lessons learnt that could support in the development of the Land Use Framework include: The need to involve locals and stakeholders from the start of the data collection. Using the same land for the production of multiple goods and functions. Creating a ‘Land Use Analysis Taskforce’. This measure is currently brought forward through the creation of the  “Land Use for Net Zero” (LUNZ) Hub, intended to provide all four UK administrations with strong evidence to develop policies for the land transformation required to achieve net zero by 2050. The hub is transdisciplinary and is aimed at bridging the gap between science and policy to achieve net zero through land use changes. Contribute to the CSCEN Blog If you're interested in contributing to the CSCEN Blog, get in touch with us at environment.network@energysecurity.gov.uk. We'd love to hear your ideas!