DOCSLIB.ORG

Economic Reasons for Conserving Wild Nature Andrew Balmford,1* Aaron Bruner,2 Philip Cooper,3 Robert Costanza,4† Stephen Farber,5 Rhys E

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Economic Reasons for Conserving Wild Nature Andrew Balmford,1* Aaron Bruner,2 Philip Cooper,3 Robert Costanza,4† Stephen Farber,5 Rhys E S CIENCE’ S C OMPASS ● REVIEW REVIEW: ECOLOGY Economic Reasons for Conserving Wild Nature Andrew Balmford,1* Aaron Bruner,2 Philip Cooper,3 Robert Costanza,4† Stephen Farber,5 Rhys E. Green,1,6 Martin Jenkins,7 Paul Jefferiss,6 Valma Jessamy,3 Joah Madden,1 Kat Munro,1 Norman Myers,8 Shahid Naeem,9 Jouni Paavola,3 Matthew Rayment,6 Sergio Rosendo,3 Joan Roughgarden,10 Kate Trumper,1 R. Kerry Turner3 matched estimates of the marginal values of On the eve of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, it is timely to assess goods and services delivered by a biome progress over the 10 years since its predecessor in Rio de Janeiro. Loss and degradation when relatively intact, and when converted of remaining natural habitats has continued largely unabated. However, evidence has to typical forms of human use. To ensure been accumulating that such systems generate marked economic benefits, which the we did not neglect private benefits of con- available data suggest exceed those obtained from continued habitat conversion. We version, studies were only included if they estimate that the overall benefit:cost ratio of an effective global program for the covered the most important marketed conservation of remaining wild nature is at least 100:1. goods, as well as one or more nonmarketed services delivering local social or global benefits. We cross-validated figures for in- umans benefit from wild nature (1)in per hectare for each of 17 services across 16 dividual goods and services with other es- very many ways: aesthetically and cul- biomes and then extrapolating to the globe by timates from similar places. Finally, we Hturally; via the provision of ecological multiplying by each biome’s area, the Costanza checked that the comparisons across differ- services such as climate regulation, soil forma- team estimated the aggregated annual value of ent states of a biome used the same valua- tion, and nutrient cycling; and from the direct nature’s services (updated to 2000 US$) to lie tion techniques for particular goods and harvest of wild species for food, fuel, fibers, in the range of $18 trillion to $61 trillion (1012), services. Our survey uncovered only five and pharmaceuticals (2). In the face of increas- around a rough average of ϳ$38 trillion. These examples that met all these criteria. Here, ing human pressures on the environment, these figures are of similar size to global gross na- we summarize their findings, with all fig- benefits should act as powerful incentives to tional product (GNP), but have been criticized ures expressed as net present values (NPVs, conserve nature, yet evaluating them has by some in the economic community (5–9). in 2000 US$ haϪ1), and using the discount proved difficult because they are mostly not One problem is that such macroeconomic rates considered by the authors [see Fig. 1 captured by conventional, market-based eco- extrapolations are inconsistent with microeco- and supplemental online material (10) for nomic activity and analysis. nomic theory: extrapolation from the margin to further details]. In 1997, Costanza et al. published a synthe- a global total should incorporate knowledge Two studies quantified net marginal ben- sis (3) of more than 100 attempts to value about the shape of the demand curve (3, 5–8). In efits of different human uses of tropical forest ecosystem goods and services using a range of practice, it is very likely that per-unit demand areas. Kumari compared the values obtained techniques including hedonic pricing, contin- for nonsubstitutable services escalates rapidly as from timber plus a suite of nontimber forest gent valuation, and replacement cost methods supply diminishes, so that simple grossing-up of products (NTFPs), as well as the values of (4). Using case studies to derive average values marginal values (as is also done in calculating water supply and regulation, recreation, and GNP from prices) will probably underestimate the maintenance of carbon stocks and endan- true total values. On the other hand, high local gered species, for forests under a range of 1Conservation Biology Group, Department of Zoology, values of services such as tourism may not be management regimes in Selangor, Malaysia 2 University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK. Cen- maintained if extrapolated worldwide. In addi- (11). Compared with two methods of re- ter for Applied Biodiversity Science at Conservation In- ternational, 1919 M Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington, tion, while some policy decisions are made us- duced-impact logging, high-intensity, unsus- DC 20036, USA. 3Centre for Social and Economic Re- ing macroeconomic indicators, many others are tainable logging was associated with greater search on the Global Environment (CSERGE), School of made at the margin, and so are more appropri- private benefits through timber harvesting (at Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Nor- ately informed by marginal rather than total least at high discount rates and over one wich NR4 7TJ, UK. 4Center for Environmental Science, Biology Department and Institute for Ecological Eco- valuations (9). harvesting cycle), but reduced social and nomics, University of Maryland, Box 38, Solomons, MD Another problem with the original estimate global benefits (through loss of NTFPs, flood 20688, USA. 5Graduate School of Public and Internation- is that landscapes can yield substantial (albeit protection, carbon stocks, and endangered al Affairs, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, rather different) flows of goods and services species). Summed together, the total econom- USA. 6The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire SG19 2DL, UK. 7UN Environ- after, as well as before, conversion by humans ic value (TEV) of forest was some 14% ment Programme–World Conservation Monitoring Cen- (which is of course why people convert them). greater when placed under more sustainable tre (UNEP-WCMC), 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge A clearer picture of the value of retaining habitat management (at ϳ$13,000 compared with CB3 ODL, UK. 8Green College, Woodstock Road, Oxford in relatively undisturbed condition might there- $11,200 haϪ1). OX2 6HG, UK; and Upper Meadow, Old Road, Heading- fore be obtained by estimating not the gross A study from Mount Cameroon, Cam- ton, Oxford OX3 8SZ, UK. 9Department of Zoology, University of Washington, 24 Kincaid Hall, Box 351800, values of the benefits provided by natural bi- eroon, comparing low-impact logging with Seattle, WA 98195–1800, USA.10Department of Biolog- omes, but rather the difference in benefit flows more extreme land-use change again found ical Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, between relatively intact and converted versions that private benefits favor conversion, this USA. of those biomes. time to small-scale agriculture (12). Howev- *To whom correspondence should be addressed.E- er, a second alternative to retaining the forest, mail: [email protected] Net Marginal Benefits conversion to oil palm and rubber planta- †Address after Sept.2002: Gund Institute of Ecolog- ical Economics, The University of Vermont, Burling- To address these concerns, we reviewed tions, in fact yielded negative private benefits ton, VT 05405, USA. more than 300 case studies, searching for once the effect of market distortions was 950 9 AUGUST 2002 VOL 297 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org S CIENCE’ S C OMPASS removed. Social benefits from NTFPs, sedi- did sustainable fishing (15). The social ben- vices outweighs the marketed marginal ben- mentation control, and flood prevention efits of sustainable exploitation, arising from efits of conversion, often by a considerable were highest under sustainable forestry, as coastal protection and tourism, were also lost amount. Across the four biomes studied, were global benefits from carbon storage upon dynamiting reefs. As a consequence, mean losses in TEV due to conversion run and a range of option, bequest, and exis- the TEV of retaining an essentially intact at roughly one-half of the TEV of relatively tence values. Overall, the TEV of sustain- reef was almost 75% higher than that of intact systems (mean ϭ 54.9%; SE ϭ able forestry was 18% greater than that of destructive fishing (at ϳ$3300 compared 13.4%; n ϭ 4). This is certainly not to say small-scale farming (ϳ$2570 compared with $870 haϪ1). that conversion has never been economical- with $2110 haϪ1), whereas plantations had One clear message from our survey is ly beneficial; in most instances, past clear- a negative TEV. the paucity of empirical data on the central ance of forests and wetlands for prime Three other biomes yielded single studies question of the changes in delivery of agricultural land and other forms of devel- meeting our criteria. Analysis of a mangrove goods and services arising from the conver- opment probably benefited society as a system in Thailand revealed that conversion sion of natural habitats for human use. For whole. But unless the present case studies for aquaculture made or the range of ser- sense in terms of vices and biomes short-term private examined in the lit- benefits, but not once erature are extreme- external costs were ly unrepresentative factored in (13). The (and we know of no global benefits of reason why this carbon sequestration should be the case), were considered to be our synthesis indi- similar in intact and cates that at present, degraded systems. conversion of re- However, the sub- maining habitat for stantial social bene- agriculture, aquac- fits associated with ulture, or forestry the original man- often does not make grove cover—from sense from the per- timber, charcoal, spective of global NTFPs, offshore sustainability. fisheries, and storm protection—fell to Continuing Losses almost zero follow- These results there- ing conversion. Sum- fore provide a clear ming all measured and compelling eco- goods and services, nomic case, alongside the TEV of intact sociocultural and mangroves exceeded moral arguments (16– that of shrimp farm- 18), for us to strength- ing by around 70% en attempts to con- (ϳ$60,400 com- serve what remains of pared with $16,700 natural ecosystems.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Local Costs of Conservation Exceed Those Borne by the Global Majority
    This is a repository copy of Local costs of conservation exceed those borne by the global majority. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/129794/ Version: Published Version Article: Green, Jonathan Michael Halsey orcid.org/0000-0002-5003-0203, Fisher, Brendan, Green, Rhys E. et al. (6 more authors) (2018) Local costs of conservation exceed those borne by the global majority. Global Ecology and Conservation. e00385. pp. 1-10. ISSN 2351-9894 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2018.e00385 Reuse This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND) licence. This licence only allows you to download this work and share it with others as long as you credit the authors, but you can’t change the article in any way or use it commercially. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Global Ecology and Conservation 14 (2018) e00385 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Global Ecology and Conservation journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/gecco Original Research Article Local costs of conservation exceed those borne by the global majority Jonathan M.H. Green a, b, *, Brendan Fisher c, Rhys E. Green a, d, Joseph Makero e, Philip J.
    [Show full text]
  • Science for Defra: Excellence in the Application of Evidence
    ©grafxart8888 Science for Defra: excellence in the application of evidence 29 – 30 March 2017 Held at the Royal Society This two-day conference will bring together academics, government scientists and policymakers for an open and collaborative discussion about how science and technology can best inform environmental, food and rural policy. Defra and the Royal Society aim to showcase the best in both academic and government science, identify evidence gaps and research priorities, and enrich the dialogue between academic and policy communities. The conference will cover a range of Defra’s areas of interest, including food and farming, animal health, environmental quality, and the provision of services from the natural environment. Science for Defra: excellence in the application of evidence 29–30 March 2017 The Royal Society, 6–9 Carlton House Terrace, London. Contents 1. Summary and General Introduction 1 2. Conference Agenda 4 3. Session Summaries and Speaker Biographies 12 4. Defra Science Showcase Abstracts 31 5. Attendee List 57 6. Defra Organogram 65 7. Defra’s Areas of Research Interest 66 8. Defra Evidence Plans 70 Conference Summary This two-day conference will bring together academics, government scientists and policymakers for an open and collaborative discussion about how science and technology can best inform environmental, food and rural policy. Defra and the Royal Society aim to showcase the best in both academic and government science, identify evidence gaps and research priorities, and enrich the dialogue between academic and policy communities. The conference will cover a range of Defra’s areas of interest, including food and farming, animal health, environmental quality, and the provision of services from the natural environment.
    [Show full text]
  • AUTUMN 2012 8/10/12 13:17 Page 1
    sip AUTUMN 2012 8/10/12 13:17 Page 1 SCIENCE IN PARLIAMENT A proton collides with a proton The Higgs boson appears at last sip AUTUMN 2012 The Journal of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee www.scienceinparliament.org.uk sip AUTUMN 2012 8/10/12 13:17 Page 2 Physics for All Science and engineering students are important for the future of the UK IOP wants to see more people studying physics www.iop.org / 35 $' 3$5/, $ LQGG sip AUTUMN 2012 8/10/12 13:17 Page 3 Last years's winter of discontent was indeed made SCIENCE IN PARLIAMENT glorious summer by several sons and daughters of York. So many medals in the Olympics were won by scions of Yorkshire that the county claimed tenth place in the medals table, something hard to accept on my side of the Pennines! As well as being fantastic athletic performances the Olympics and Paralympics were stunning demonstrations of the efficiency of UK engineering, and sip the imagination of British science. The Journal of the Parliamentary and Scientific Surely we have good reason to be all eagerly awaiting Andrew Miller MP Committee. Chairman, Parliamentary The Committee is an Associate Parliamentary the announcements from Stockholm of this year's Nobel and Scientific Group of members of both Houses of Prizes? Surely the Higgs boson will be recognised? John Committee Parliament and British members of the European Parliament, representatives of Ellis recently eloquently described the "legacy" of the scientific and technical institutions, industrial hadron collider and we would be missing an important organisations and universities.
    [Show full text]
  • Trade-Driven Trapping Dampens the Biodiversity Benefits of Forest Restoration in Southeast Asia
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.20.457106; this version posted August 20, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 1 Title of the paper: 2 Trade-driven trapping dampens the biodiversity benefits of forest restoration in Southeast Asia. 3 4 5 Author Information: 6 H S Sathya Chandra Sagar 1,2, James J. Gilroy 1, Tom Swinfield 3,4, Ding Li Yong 5, Elva Gemita 6, 7 Novriyanti Novriyanti 7, David C. Lee 8, Muhammad Nazri Janra 9, Andrew Balmford 2, Fangyuan Hua 8 2,10 9 10 Author affiliations: 11 12 1. School of Environmental Science, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, 13 Norfolk, NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom 14 2. Conservation Science Group, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 15 3QZ, United Kingdom 16 3. Department of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge Conservation Research Institute, 17 Cambridge, CB2 3QZ, United Kingdom. 18 4. Centre for Conservation Science, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Cambridge, CB2 19 3QY, United Kingdom 20 5. BirdLife International (Asia), 354 Tanglin Road, #01-16/17, Tanglin International Centre, 21 Singapore, 247672, Singapore 22 6. PT Restorasi Ekosistem Indonesia, Jl. Dadali No. 32, Bogor 16161, Indonesia 23 7. Department of Forestry, Faculty of Agriculture, Universitas Lampung, Jl. Prof. Dr. Ir. Sumantri 24 Brojonegoro, RW.No: 1, Gedong Meneng, Kec. Rajabasa, Kota Bandar Lampung, Lampung 25 35141, Indonesia. 26 8. School of Applied Sciences, University of South Wales, Pontypridd CF37 4BD, United Kingdom 27 9.
    [Show full text]
  • Land for Food & Land for Nature?
    Land for Food & Land for Nature? Andrew Balmford, Rhys Green & Ben Phalan Abstract: Opinions on how to limit the immense impact of agriculture on wild species are divided. Some think it best to retain as much wildlife as possible on farms, even at the cost of lowering yield (production per unit area). Others advocate the opposite: increasing yield so as to limit the area needed for farming, and then retaining larger areas under natural habitats. Still others support a mixture of the two extremes, or an intermediate approach. Here we summarize a model designed to resolve this disagreement, and review the empirical evidence available to date. We conclude that this evidence largely supports the second, so-called land-sparing approach to reconciling agriculture and biodiversity conservation, but that important ques- tions remain over the generality of these ½ndings for different biota and for ecosystem services, how best to increase yields while limiting environmental externalities, and whether there are effective, socially just, and practical mechanisms for coupling yield growth to habitat retention and restoration. Cultivating crops and keeping livestock have radi- cally transformed the scale and complexity of human society, and have had greater impacts on the rest of the planet than any other human activity.1Crop pro- duction and permanent pasture now cover a com- bined 38 percent of Earth’s ice-free land surface, in- cluding around half of all former temperate decidu- ous forests and savannas, and almost three-quarters of the world’s grasslands. Continued conversion for ANDREWBALMFORDis Professor farming is the leading cause of tropical deforestation of Conservation Science in the De- by a considerable margin.
    [Show full text]
  • The Conservation Business Henry Nicholls
    Open access, freely available online Feature The Conservation Business Henry Nicholls he language of conservation organisations, national governments, ‘The costs of conservation fall is changing: protecting and international bodies, and there disproportionately on local people, Tbiodiversity is no longer just need to be better ways to spend this whereas the benefi ts are dispersed,’ about ethics and aesthetics; the latest money if conservation is to be effective, says Andrew Balmford, a conservation buzzwords are commodities and they say. Biodiversity is a commodity biologist at the University of Cambridge consumers. Traditionally, conservation that can be bought and sold. We are in the United Kingdom. National initiatives have talked up the consumers and must pay. and global communities stand to benefi ts they will bring to the global benefi t from conservation of tropical community—saving species, habitats, Costs and Benefi ts biodiversity, but they must pay if they ecosystems, and ultimately the planet. Kenya boasts one of the world’s want to realise that benefi t, he says. But conservation also has its costs, most spectacular networks of national Conservation expenditure in the and these are usually borne by local parks and reserves covering around developed world is only about a third of people prevented from exploiting the 60,000 km2 of the country (Figure what is needed for effective protection resources around them in other ways. It 1). But devoting such a vast area to of 15% of the earth’s terrestrial is unfair to expect a localised minority conservation has its drawbacks. It has to pick up costs that ultimately benefi t a been estimated that were this land Citation: Nicholls H (2004) The conservation business.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity Loss, Climate Change, and the Law
    Indiana Law Journal Volume 93 Issue 2 Article 2 Spring 2018 The Fragile Menagerie: Biodiversity Loss, Climate Change, and the Law James M. Chen Michigan State University College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Agriculture Law Commons, Animal Law Commons, Environmental Law Commons, Land Use Law Commons, and the Natural Resources Law Commons Recommended Citation Chen, James M. (2018) "The Fragile Menagerie: Biodiversity Loss, Climate Change, and the Law," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 93 : Iss. 2 , Article 2. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol93/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Fragile Menagerie: Biodiversity Loss, Climate Change, and the Law* JAMES MING CHEN† I. THE HIPPODROME OF THE GODS: RACING AGAINST ECOLOGICAL AND EVOLUTIONARY APOCALYPSE ....................................................................... 304 II. ACROSS THE APOCALYPSE ON HORSEBACK: LEGAL RESPONSES TO BIODIVERSITY LOSS .................................................................................... 310 A. OVERKILL ........................................................................................... 310 B. ALIEN INVASIVE SPECIES ....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Abstract Book
    ABSTRACT BOOK 28TH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY (ICCB) 28TH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY ICCB 2017 brought together knowledge from the natural and social sciences that can transform our work and relationship with the urban and natural world, allowing us to move toward a more sustainable future. There were 1,268 accepted abstracts, including 234 posters, 40 lunchtime workshops, 60 symposia, 56 knowledge cafes, 139 four-minute presentations and 373 twelve-minute presentations, as well as 1,480 participants from 71 countries. The plenaries, talks and discussions challenged how we think about conservation, highlighting the importance of understanding impact, working strategically for a variety of conservation actions and inspiring others. We have no doubt that ICCB 2017 will be remembered in the Society for Conservation Biology as the most diverse, inclusive and interdisciplinary conference to date. We hope all that attended will keep this spirit alive. We are honored to have chaired the Scientific Committee and incredibly grateful to the members of all the committees and volunteers who contributed their time and ABOUT THE SOCIETY FOR energy to making this conference a success. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY (SCB) Morena Mills, Kartik Shanker, and Ximena Rueda Fajardo SCB is a global community of conservation professionals with members working in more than 100 countries who are dedicated to advancing the HOW TO CITE THE ICCB 2017 ABSTRACT BOOK science and practice of conserving Earth’s biological diversity. The Society’s membership comprises a wide TO CITE THE ABSTRACT BOOK range of people interested in the conservation and study of biological diversity: resource managers, Mills M., Rueda Fajardo X., Shanker K.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal the Journal of the Foundation for Science and Technology
    fst journal The Journal of the Foundation for Science and Technology Volume 20, Number 2, December 2009 Higher Education Higher Ambitions for education Sir Alan Langlands: The future of Higher Education in England Professor Michael Arthur: Maintaining our position in the world Sir John Chisholm: A business viewpoint Transport emissions Professor Brian Collins: Understanding the full picture Professor Dan Sperling: The three-legged stool of transportation reform Professor Neville Jackson: Reducing carbon emissions from transport Biodiversity Professor Bob Watson: Can a value be put on biodiversity? Pavan Sukhdev: Safeguarding the treasury of the poor Lord May: The ethical dimension in valuing diversity Medical research Sir Leszek Borysiewicz: From bench to bedside – strategic aims of the MRC Sir John Bell: Supporting and coordinating medical research Sir David Cooksey: Economic challenges in drug discovery Cities and science Boris Johnson: Can city managers make better use of science? Sir Alan Wilson: Social sciences in the city – think big! Professor Tim Allen: Science and technology in local government Financial models Professor John Kay: The role of models in directing economic activity Paul Sharma: The problems of mathematical modelling Professor David Hand: Did over-reliance on mathematics create the financial crisis? Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lecture Lighting up the brain T H E F O U N D A T I O N F O R S C I E N C E A N D fs t TE C H N O L O G Y THE FOUNDATION The Foundation for Science and Technology FOR SCIENCE AND 10 Carlton House Terrace TECHNOLOGY London fst SW1Y 5AH Telephone THE FOUNDATION FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 020 7321 2220 Registered Charity No: 274727.
    [Show full text]
  • MIT-CSIS ENERGY-WATER-LAND NEXUS WORKSHOP May 6–7, 2013
    An MIT Energy Initiative Workshop Report MIT-CSIS ENERGY-WATER-LAND NEXUS WORKSHOP May 6–7, 2013 An MIT Energy Initiative Workshop Report MIT-CSIS ENERGY-WATER-LAND NEXUS WORKSHOP MIT Energy Initiative Report on MIT-CSIS Energy-Water-Land Nexus Workshop | May 6–7, 2013 1 2 MIT Energy Initiative Report on MIT-CSIS Energy-Water-Land Nexus Workshop | May 6–7, 2013 PREFACE About the MIT-CSIS Energy-Water-Land Nexus Workshop The availability of water and land resources is increasingly recognized as one of the next big issues facing the energy industry. On May 6 and 7, 2013, the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI) held an Energy-Water-Land Nexus Workshop at the Center for Strategic International Studies in Washington, DC. The goal for the workshop was to develop a research agenda around the energy-water-land nexus, and to identify the important challenges to be addressed through university, industry, and government collaboration. The workshop was hosted by MITEI’s Director, Professor Robert Armstrong, and Dr. Francis O’Sullivan, MITEI Director for Research and Analysis. The workshop brought together the expertise and insights of nearly 200 researchers from many of the 13 universities that have been partners in BP’s Energy Sustainability Challenge (ESC) program, along with other leading experts with knowledge and understanding of the technology, economics, policy, and systems issues that accompany the energy-water-land nexus. This event grew out of the ESC program, a multi-year, multi-university research program, funded by MITEI Founding Member BP. About the ESC In 2010, BP initiated the ESC Program to study the linkages between energy production, energy use and natural resources — particularly water, land, and minerals.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 Annual Report
    Centre for Science and Policy Networks of Expertise and Evidence for Public Policy Annual Report December 2013 To respond effectively to the ever more complex We are all affected in our day-to-day lives by “Networks of evidence and questions they face, civil servants need to be policies drafted in Whitehall, and these are often able to apply the best analytical approaches informed by research and advice from lecture and the most robust evidence. More broadly, halls and laboratories around the country. expertise for public policy can governments need to adapt their systems to be able to draw on relevant expertise when Science and technology also have a vital role make a real difference to how and where it is needed. to play in helping to drive forward the recovery, contributing to the long-term economic plan. This is the opportunity which is now presented The Government’s Science and Innovation government meets the biggest to our leading universities: to help improve Strategy, to be published in 2014, will consolidate the quality of the policy process, both through our long-term commitment to research and challenges we face today. ” teaching and research, and by producing insights innovation. Those of you working in this field which address the needs of policy makers. should be in no doubt as to the immense value The University of Cambridge, home to world- this Government places on your efforts. leading research across the whole spectrum of disciplines, is uniquely well placed to respond I congratulate the Centre for Science and Policy to these needs.
    [Show full text]
  • Part II Zoology
    Part II Zoology 2020-21 Why choose Part II Zoology or Part II BBS Zoology? If you have enjoyed subjects that include animal behaviour, conservation science, ecology and evolution during your time at Cambridge, then you might well have already decided that Zoology is the Part II subject for you. But we also provide outstanding teaching in cell and developmental biology and each year we attract students that specialise in these subjects alone, and go on to study for a higher degree in these research areas. Our uniquely flexible course is also ideal for NST students that enjoy both cellular and organismal biology, because you can take a combination of our diverse modules. If you are taking the MVST, then we can enhance your training in several ways: by showing you how healthy bodies develop and function; by teaching you more about the processes that trigger cancer; by explaining how evolutionary principles underpin the design of a new flu vaccine, and account for constraints on immune function; by revealing the evolutionary history of humans and their domesticated animals; and by highlighting how rapid man-made changes in our world have substantial implications for human and animal the health of living things and their environments. We will provide a nurturing and stimulating environment for your Part II studies. Part II students are valued members of the Department, have their own dedicated computer facility, are invited to research seminars, and can join members of staff in the tea room and at our Happy Hour. We want you to excel in your third year at Cambridge, so we provide additional training in understanding the scientific process, essay-writing, reading a research paper, preparing a research project or dissertation, and giving a research talk.
    [Show full text]