An evolution of biodiversity net gain standards

During this conversation, Julia and Tom touch on:

• Biodiversity net gain (BNG) policies

• Challenges and opportunities in BNG implementation

• Global biodiversity framework and COP16

• Corporate and business engagement

• Development of international BNG standards

• Future directions and hopes for biodiversity conservation

Intro: Welcome to Mott MacDonald's podcast, Nature Positive: The Inside Story. In this podcast series, our host, Julia Baker, will be talking to industry leaders and experts about nature related policy, advisory law and much more. In today's episode, Julia sits down with Tom Butterworth to discuss his hopes for COP16 and how the British standard on BNG initiated an international BNG standard. 

So don't forget to subscribe and most importantly, enjoy this episode. 

Julia: Tom welcome to our podcast.  

Tom: Thank you so much. What a pleasure to be here. Thank you, Julia. 

Julia: It's good to see you. 

Tom: Really nice to see you. 

Julia: There's lots of talk about mandatory biodiversity net gain, but actually I'd like to start with Scotland and Wales. So across the UK, we've got policies requiring development to leave biodiversity in a better state than before. Scotland's got net positive and Wales has got net benefit. I'm really excited by the approach that they're taking, by their policy narrative. And, yes, there's more to come. We're recording this at the time when Scotland's recently released their version of the biodiversity metric. The similarities being, to me it looks like it's all about habitats, you know? So development improves biodiversity through restoring habitats, creating new wildlife habitats. What excites you about their approaches in Scotland and Wales? 

Tom: What a lovely question to start with. I'm really inspired by how people are taking biodiversity net gain as a global idea and adapting it to be locally relevant. I think that's really critical and we know that the approach we've developed in England has pros and cons. It's great in some ways and doesn't deal with other issues. It doesn't deal with connectivity, it doesn't deal with some of our rarer species well. It doesn't look at certain aspects that they approach in Wales. Absolutely covers this diversity and the condition of the site and the connectivity, all part of that assessment. So I'm really excited to see how these play out. 

At the same time, I'm really keen to see how some of these more holistic approaches are able to hold people to account. Because on the other side of trying to encompass all aspects of nature into our thinking and into our assessment is the need to hold an organisation to account for delivering something on the ground. And as we widen out our assessments, it can become more difficult to say, yes, you were responsible for this and you have delivered it or you haven't. 

Julia: It's an interesting trade off, isn't it, between measurable and, I guess you having something to hold someone to account with, obviously, the statutory biodiversity metric. Wales is… I really love the narrative. It's got ecosystems, resilience and those kinds of things. And the qualitative assessment, you're right in terms of what are we getting at the end of it? 

Tom: I’ll put my hands up, one of my friends has helped develop it, but I think it's brilliant. I really do. 

Julia: It is. 

Tom: I do think that point about holding organisations to account is critical. I actually don't think they're going to have a problem because of the way they've set that out, I think they will be able to help organisations demonstrate what's happening on the ground. I think it would be much more difficult if they were based entirely on key species that are in that local area because those species may well be on that site now and you may do everything you possibly can to look after them. But if they are migratory, if they need a wider ecosystem to work within, to live within, then the impact on that species might not be entirely in the control of the organisation looking after that patch of habitat, that land. And so that species could be lost and they could say, well, it's not our fault, it's due to something else. And that could be absolutely right, or not. And that's really much more difficult to tease out. I don't think that's going to be an issue in Wales, but it is an issue for how we build out our assessments on biodiversity net gain, to widen out what we're doing to encompass species. We need to do it. We need to do it carefully. 

Julia: And also, the approach in Wales and Scotland, the policy narrative is, I think, much more linked closely, like Wales has got resilience, and Scotland, really clear links between climate and biodiversity, which is great to see. But then it's like, what is the detail that comes through with that? 

Thinking about mandatory biodiversity net gain, we’re six months in, how do you think it's going? 

Tom: Oh, six months in. I remember when my daughter, my first daughter, was six months old and people asked me how's it going? I thought, well, not getting any sleep yet. So I sort of feel we're in that stage. I think there's two ways of looking at this and I think it's really important we look at it from both angles. One from where we started, and where we started was that most of these habitats that are assessed now were ignored. Even our priority habitats very recently were not considered key issues in some of our planning applications. We now have a situation where all habitats are taken into account. So that is a massive leap forward. 

Julia: Even your favourite, the football pitches. 

Tom: Yes. Whether you can call a football pitch a habitat, I suppose it is a habitat, isn't it, for people playing football? But it's really important that we do take into account all of that because even those, from an ecological point of view, low quality grasslands are providing a whole load of benefits to water quality, to the wider ecosystem, to the ability for species to move through the landscape. So, it's really important that we do encompass that. 

The other side is where we'd like to be and we're definitely not there yet. We're definitely not in a position where biodiversity net gain is doing everything we need it to do. Is it being successfully delivered everywhere on every project? No. Is it better to have a 30-year agreement on all of the habitats than a five-year agreement on some of them? Yes. So we've got a lot of work to do to get it better, to get it right, but it's a step in the right direction. 

Julia: I think it's such a nice framing, isn't it, in terms of how's it going versus your point about, well, compared to what we had. And then, that is important to recognise, versus, compared to our hopes and dreams and our ambitions. But even just holding up to what should be, you know, I think there's a benchmark in terms of getting that right. And you're absolutely right in terms of how young it is, but how long do we let it… are we OK to say a two-year warm up, or one year? And I think it's right to ask that question and to say this should be the time now when it should be, as far as what the law states, resources and capabilities and skills and those kinds of things. 

Tom: So, I think the answer to that, in terms of when we should be holding things to account, differs depending on which bit of the biodiversity net gain work you're talking about. So, should we be including biodiversity net gain in every planning application that's going through under the Town and Country Planning Act now? Yes, absolutely. 

Julia: Just to note, apart from the exemptions. 

Tom: Apart from the exemptions, thank you. Permitted development, yes, absolutely. Should we be exploring that ready for the DCOs, the development control orders, the big developments? Yes, we should be because we're expecting that to come through soon. And it's really critical that we do hold ourselves to account on all of that, that we are producing robust and strong management plans. But can we hold people to account yet on the delivery? Well, no, ecosystems take time, habitats take time to recreate. And so, this is going to be something that we're going to have to progressively check over time. It's not, right now we're ready to look at it and check it. We're actually going to have to keep checking and keep challenging ourselves to see if we are actually delivering the outcomes that we set out. 

Julia: I think you're right, actually, that the success of biodiversity net gain has a timeline to it. You know, success of the planning applications, success of the competencies and the brilliant skills that BNG ecologists are now looking into. Where do you stand on measuring? How well are we doing at avoiding loss in the first place? 

Tom: Yeah, this is a really important issue. A lot of the narrative and the story about biodiversity net gain, before it became a requirement was, are they offsetting? Project's working? And the answer to that is mixed. I think we've got a good shot at getting them working. And again, there's that balance between what we had before, which was definitely not working, and what we have now that we're moving in the right direction. 

But none of that assessment took into account the journey that that development had gone through before it got to that offsetting stage. And that's critical, that mitigation hierarchy. That's something we've talked about to lots of people for a long time. Those steps of first avoid, then minimise your impacts, then restore on site and then move to offsetting. That avoid step is not ever part of a planning application. You don't go into the planning application and say, oh, by the way, we were thinking of destroying this piece over here and now we're not. We had an option for this road to go through this woodland and we've chosen not to. So, that data is not there to be able to tell that story. 

However, from the work I've done over the last seven years and what I've seen in the industry, that's having a massive impact. 

Julia: BNG? 

Tom: The biodiversity net gain requirement and organisations committing to biodiversity net gain before it became a legal requirement has significantly changed the approach to development. That biodiversity is upfront, it's right at the very earliest stages of the development and the cost implications of running through that woodland and having to compensate are included in those really, really early stages. So that house builders are looking at sites before they buy the land so that the cost of delivering offsetting is part of the consideration on an option for a different road route or rail route. That's seismic change. 

Julia: I work on major large infrastructure projects but I'm definitely seeing that conversation. What I've seen it, though, is be compliance-led. And the reason I'd like it to be is value-led, because BNG habitats have such value. Let's not take out that woodland because that'll weaken our resilience to climate change, you know? So it's there, absolutely, but I think we've got more work to do. 

Tom: I completely agree. Yeah, it's a great first step. 

Julia: We are recording this at a time when COP16 is just around the corner. For people who don't know COP16, how do you describe it? 

Tom: Oh, well, people have probably heard of the COPs that happen for climate change. The big international meetings where all of the governments come together and loads of businesses, loads of NGOs, loads of community groups come together to talk about climate. Well, we have exactly the same thing for nature. And two years ago in Montreal, we signed up to a new global biodiversity framework. Almost 200 countries, or 200 governments, signed up to a global biodiversity framework, the Biodiversity Plan, and that had 23 targets that each country then has to take away and embed in its policy, legislation, strategy to deliver a Nature Positive outcome for the world. So it's a huge international conference, meeting, get-together and it's got youth groups and indigenous peoples and global businesses and local organisations as well as all of the Governments coming together.  

Julia: So, in the past they've been criticised for being a bit of a talking shop, you know? I know I was excited by the global Biodiversity Framework, but part of me thought, yet again, yet again… 

Tom: Yes, this is the third… Yes, I, I used to look after the biodiversity strategy for England when I was in Government and that was trying to deliver Biodiversity 2020, it was called at the time, and it was the 2010 targets that we were trying to deliver by 2020. And, surprise, surprise, we didn't. We failed within the UK, we failed internationally, and that's what led us to setting a new set of targets. So, absolutely, there's a potential for this to be seen just as a bit of a talking shop, an opportunity for organisations to stand up and say, hey, we're great. But I don't think that's quite fair. I think that it's really critical that we come together as a global community to recognise the importance nature has. And it's really important that we tell those stories about how valuable nature is to us individually, as a community, as countries, as a global community. It's really important that we tell the stories about why we're losing nature and what we can do about it. It's almost like people coming round, a family coming round the table and telling stories about what's happening. 

It's really important that we create that community around this and raise this up the agenda. It'd be very easy for this to get forgotten, biodiversity, nature to get put on the back burner. There's so much else going on, so much else that's really critical in the world. 

Julia: Yeah, especially at this time. So you're seeing the importance of keeping nature on the agenda of our global leaders? 

Tom: And creating that global community. It creates a global narrative about nature that wouldn't be there otherwise. So, I think it's really important, but it must translate to action. So, we've got to talk. We've got to come together. It's really critical. But all of that needs to lead into action. 

Julia: So what's your hope for COP16 this year? Because you have been at that kind of line, but one on our side, directly feeding into it. What's your hope this year? 

Tom: So, I think that COP often has several different aspects to it, different faces to it. And one is the governmental commitments. And I'm really hoping that from that aspect, we see all of those almost 200 countries setting strong clear plans for biodiversity. They're meant to be producing NBSAPS, national biodiversity and species action plans. We're late, the UK is late. That's a good starting point. And it's really critical that those land, and that we can start to see that collective direction that we're taking. 

Alongside that, I'm really hoping that we'll see some new commitments around stopping deforestation. I'm really keen to see how the governments shift subsidies away from harmful activities towards positive beneficial activities for nature and people and climate. That was one of the commitments they made previously. And I'm really keen to see how governments set out requirements for businesses to disclose their impacts and dependencies on nature. That's already happened in Europe. It was one of the targets and we're hoping to see that roll through as well. 

Julia: Why do you think COP is particularly relevant? You know, we're back here in our world of infrastructure development, is COP relevant, this new latest COP, relevant for us? 

Tom: It's a really good question. And one of the other faces that COP has is that business engagement, is businesses coming together, and yes, you could argue, standing up to try and make themselves look good. But there's also real importance, actually, in CEOs and heads of sustainability from all of these large companies having that platform, having that platform next to the governments to say this is what we're doing, this is what we're driving forward. I think, as people working in business, it's critical that we take that narrative, that ambition that's set, and build that into our businesses. 

Julia: Yeah, it's interesting, isn't it, because I think it does take a certain amount of leadership within the business world to be on that platform, just because the public scrutiny that comes alongside that, and that is good and that is very welcome. And you're right, I think there's a missing piece about the importance of the community that COP really builds. But it has come to a stage when it's like, OK, so what's the actions? 

Tom: Yeah, absolutely, absolutely. And we're seeing that start to play out. Biodiversity net gain is one of the actions we need to take. And we're seeing that play out, as we've said, across the UK, but elsewhere as well, globally. That corporate disclosure piece is going to be a massive change for organisations. All of the large companies in Europe are already needing to report against their impacts and dependencies on nature, as soon as it's a material issue for them, and it will be for an awful lot of them. So, we're seeing this come through and it's going to change behaviour. 

Julia: It's amazing how reporting has such an impact, isn't it? 

Tom: Yeah. I'm seeing this happen already. We did a study for an organisation in Australia and they were taking a very small amount of aluminium, for a fit out for a building, from different mines across Australia. And we were able to map every step on that supply chain so we could see the actual location and the impact for each part of that supply chain. And when they looked at that they said, well, even though we're taking a fraction of a percent of the aluminium coming out of that mine over there, we don't want to be part of that. We don't want to be part of the story that that mine is involved with. We want to shift our supply chain. And so, it's a tiny shift, but opening that up is critical for us to be able to make those informed decisions. 

Julia: How do we scale? How do we get from global standards or global frameworks to meaningful action on the ground? 

Tom: Well, I think it's really important that we recognise that nature, that biodiversity, is very locally specific. What is important in the southwest of England is different from what's important in the northwest of England, let alone France, Columbia, or wherever it might be. So it's really important that we take these global initiatives, these global approaches, and we make them locally relevant. And that means working with the local stakeholders, local communities, very often the indigenous peoples, to shape what we're doing, to get it right for that local space. 

Julia: Yes. I think the interesting point is to be mindful of what people value with nature. There might be other parts of nature that still need love and protection. 

Tom: Yes, you're absolutely right, we need to look at this through multiple lenses, don't we? 

Julia: You mentioned BNG, we worked together on the British Standards for biodiversity net gain, which was such a moment, actually. And shout out to Nick White, it was his idea. And I always remember thinking, gosh, OK, and then the British Standard team were really welcoming, really lovely. You are now leading on the international standard. So what happened? We published our UK British Standard on biodiversity net gain. How did that move to a place where it's becoming an international standard? 

Tom: The members of that group that look after the biodiversity standards for the British Standard Institute feed into the International Standards Organisation. So, we become representatives talking about biodiversity within that wider group. And within the ISO, there's been a significant move to open up the opportunity to develop biodiversity standards. So, that allows each country to come forward and put forward proposals around what standards we think we need to develop. And we put forward a proposal based on the British Standard of biodiversity net gain to the ISO, and it went round a lot of discussions and a lot of votes, and we have people from literally, from all over the world coming together on calls and discussing how we develop these standards. And they approved it. And we are now at a public consultation on this standard. Then we'll take those comments, update it, and it'll be published probably early next year. 

Julia: That can't have been that easy, Tom. I mean, come on! 

Tom: Yeah, long journey, and I don't think it's right yet. I think it still needs work, actually. 

Julia: How on earth did you get consensus on even the first draft? 

Tom: Do you know what, the, there's huge consensus across the world. We know we need to measure and assess biodiversity better through development. There are clear requirements to do that in lots of countries already. And there's a huge history of this from the fantastic work that Kerry ten Kate and others have done with the BBOP, the business and biodiversity offsetting programme. 

Julia: Inspirational. 

Tom: So we were able to build on all of that, and the work that's been published through the IUCN on biodiversity net gain that I know that you've been involved with. And that gave an incredibly strong platform. Actually, some of the biggest challenges that I've had were about why can't we make it more reflective of what we're doing in England? 

Julia: Oh, interesting. 

Tom: Which is a real challenge because I don't think that's applicable everywhere. And there's a careful line between what a standard should say and what we can say in legislation, policy and planning requirements. So, drawing that line has been really interesting. 

Julia: Yes, we developed the British Standard before mandatory net gain and it was all about what does good look like? Then obviously, mandatory net gain sets the rules. So that was really interesting. How did you approach the whole thing about measurable and biodiversity metrics in the International Standard? 

Tom: Yeah, so that's a lovely question. So the British Standard talks about making measurable change, but it doesn't go further into metrics or anything else. And that was very purposeful at the time. What's really interesting is that, internationally, there was a huge push to be clearer about that measurable element. And so we now have a section about measuring change. It doesn't specify a specific metric, but what it does say is, that way of measuring change needs to be transparent. It needs to be the same at the beginning of a project and the end of a project, the same assessment methodology if you're impacting a site and using a different site for compensation. So there's a whole range of principles, if you like, that need to be met on that measurable element before we even get to the specifics of what the metric's actually measuring. So, we've now added that in there and I think it's actually really good. I think it's a good step forward. 

Julia: We're now moving to a place where, we've talked a little bit about this, we've talked about biodiversity net gain and mentioned Nature Positive, and corporate disclosures and Nature Positive, thinking much more about impacts on biodiversity throughout the value chain. How do we get from a project level BNG to the transition to a Nature Positive economy? 

Tom: Well, there's some really lovely estimates of the impact of a development that suggest that something above 90% of the impact is off-site, is upstream. So, doing biodiversity net gain is critical. You know, we need to look after the site that we're developing but if that's all we do, if we stop there, it's clearly not enough. So we need to think about what's happening upstream and downstream. And my example of that company in Australia, we were doing exactly that. We were starting to look upstream at each stage in that supply chain, understanding the impacts and the dependencies at each part of that. 

Now, how do you do that? Well, actually, biodiversity net gain is really useful because in each of those stages in the supply chain, we have a footprint, we have a site, we have a refinery, we have a mine, we have a forest, whatever it might be that we're drawing those materials from. And so we've got an area of land and biodiversity net gain can be a really valuable way of then understanding the benefit or the disbenefit of that site. Of what's happening at that site, how quickly is that mine growing and what compensation is being put in place? Is that forest sustainable or are they encroaching into native forests that are being lost? 

Julia: I love that idea. It's like the breadcrumb trail of BNG throughout the supply chain. 

Tom: It's not enough, though. It's a really important step, but then we have to start adding to that to think about, well, what are the pressures on biodiversity, the pollution, the invasive species and so on. How do we deal with those? And then we can start to think about things, actually, that are already encompassed in some of the work in Wales and in Scotland with connectivity, with the ecosystem function and with that wider species lens that we need to encompass as well. 

Julia: Yes, and things with climate change and society and things like that. 

Tom: Absolutely, yeah. So you can build out from this to tell a much wider story. 

Julia: I think it's so important because there is, obviously, so much focus about biodiversity net gain, but we're in a continuum, and to keep talking about the next steps, where do we want to get to as part of that? And the things like the British Standard have weight in terms of moving the agenda forward. But something to get your take on, I was thinking when we first met, actually, back in the day, do you remember that workshop? That was, where was it? 

Tom: It was in London. It was with the South East Biodiversity Forum. 

Julia: That was it. And you kindly invited me and it was just so exciting because I was business and trying to connect with conservation people. And you, kindly, in the conservation world, reached out to me. And we had this big forum and we're trying to connect business with the conservation world. And I remember leaving that, and it was a great conversation, but nothing happened, right? I mean, just nothing. And I remember at the time thinking, God, that was a failure. But I was wrong because, first of all, we made a connection, that was just brilliant, but it wasn't a failure because it was the right time to have a conversation, but too early to expect people to take action. But now, I think it's important to make sure that we're talking about the next two, three steps ahead, even though we need to get biodiversity net gain right, but not stop talking about, OK, we're heading towards a Nature Positive economy and things like that. 

Tom: I think that's really lovely way of seeing that journey. What was interesting about those discussions was, that it didn't stop because it wasn't the right thing to do ecologically. It stopped because organisations were nervous about stepping into something new. It stopped because organisations didn't want to lose what they were already doing in favour of something slightly different, even if, collectively, I think it would have been better. And I think we may be in a similar place around some other aspects. So, biodiversity net gain can start to spread, but when we start thinking about supply chains and value chains, that's a big challenge for organisations. Some are stepping into it, but there's definitely a nervousness about this. 

Julia: Yes, and our job is to make it safe. 

Tom: Biodiversity credits is a perfect example. How are we going to be able to trade in biodiversity that delivers really positive outcomes for people, climate, nature, and allows people to trade in these things? That's hugely challenging and there's definitely lots of wrong paths to take, problematic paths to take. But it's really critical we get it right as well because the finance needs to run into these areas of work. They need to deliver these positive outcomes for nature. Without that finance, we are not going to deliver the change we need to see. So that's a really good example where there's huge nervousness. But if we get it right, it will have a huge positive impact. 

Julia: And it's such a trade-off, isn't it? Because the fact that people are nervous is good. This isn't the token gesture for nature. about understanding your biodiversity footprint, as you said. And the nervousness is to do it right. But the nervousness can't take time. You know, we just don't have the luxury of time anymore. And that's a huge challenge, isn't it? 

Tom: I think this COP, one of the other things we probably see from it, is a lot of publication around biodiversity credits. We've got the International Advisory Panel on Biodiversity Credits. I sit on the measurement group of that, and that's going to be publishing at least a draft report, I think. We've got the Biodiversity Credits Alliance that are pushing out publications, and what is coming through is that we need to deliver these biodiversity credits locally, they need to be locally relevant, and that we cannot trade globally in biodiversity credits in the way that you can with carbon. We need to think differently about this. We need to deliver locally, we need to trade locally and it still can be a really important international market, but it's got to work at that local level. 

Julia: Absolutely. Tom, is there anything important we've not yet discussed? 

Tom: Oh, a million things. I think the important thing is we all keep talking and translating that into action. It's been lovely to speak with you, Julia. 

Julia: OK, to get your thoughts on a final couple of questions. There was so much excitement about nature and just extraordinary… For the moment that we first met, if you told me OK, 2024, look at everything that we have now, I wouldn't have believed it. But while there's excitement, and you talked about the nervousness of business, what's your greatest fear with this moment? 

Tom: Well, I think my greatest fear is that we don't grasp this opportunity, that we do it piecemeal, and then in… The reality is that it's not going to be black or white. It's not like a football match where you win or you lose. It's scales of grey and we'll win some things and lose others. And my greatest fear is how much we lose, how many species are lost, how much of our ecosystems are lost in this transition. I am absolutely sure that we are transitioning to a more positive world for nature. I'm absolutely sure that we're transitioning to a world where we're going to deal with climate change. But how quickly? Is it quick enough for everybody in the world? Is it quick enough for every species? And then, what runs off the back of that, is this huge risk that it's the richer communities that will cope better. 

Julia: And I think it's a really important point because they're just transition, which is a really… and I think the social community, it's such an important narrative that's for net zero, but that now equally, and it is there for nature, but I think it needs to be stronger. 

Tom: Yeah, that's my fear that, if we lose the Amazon forest, it'll be disastrous globally, culturally. But the people that will be impacted most are the people that live in, amongst and around it. You know, that is critical. It might, there were models suggesting that if we did that, it would mess up the grain belt in the States. So it's not that it doesn't have ramifications across the world, but the people that are going to suffer greatest are those that are closest to it. And that, yes, I'm really frightened for. This is why we're working so hard, so fast. 

Julia: You've had, Tom, the most incredible career. But I'm interested, who is your role model? 

Tom: I've lots of mentors and lots of support. And I think all of this is done as a community. So, all that I've done is part of a wider community. It's with friends, with a wider group of people. But there are a few people that stand out for me and one is a fantastic teacher that I had at my MSc, Stephan Harding. He was, he's died recently, sadly, he taught Gaia hypothesis, Gaia theory or Earth system science, if you want to give it it's more accepted name. And he was inspiring and would help you not just understand the science, not just understand that this living Earth we're part of is shifting and changing, but feel it, really embody it, understand it at a very physical level as well. And he did some fantastic work on Deep Time Walk, which I would love us to, if we can share the link to it, there's a web page on it. 

Julia: Yeah, of course. 

Tom: Which takes you through the history of the Earth over a walk of 4.6 something kilometres. And you work through that whole story from where the Earth is formed and the moon comes in. And then the first life comes out. And, and then you get to the last 10 centimetres and we start talking about humans, and the last millimetre, and you talk about the industrial revolution. And it puts it in perspective of what we're doing, of our part in all of this. So he was inspirational. 

Julia: Thank you for sharing that. If people are listening in and thinking, OK, I'm team nature, it can seem tricky to find a job in Nature Positive. What's your advice for people? 

Tom: I think that we can start to look about acting where we are. I think if we're working in any business, there's a space where this needs to be addressed. Whether we're working in a store or in a company, there will be people that are charged with thinking about these things. And I would knock on their door and say hello and say that you want to be part of that journey. 

The other thing I would do is knock on everybody's door that you think might be interesting to talk to, to engage with. As I said, this is a community and it's a very welcoming and supportive community. I think the opportunities are growing massively at the moment. We've got banks employing ecologists and nature specialists. You know, we wouldn't have thought about that as a possibility 20 years ago. So, that space is growing massively and the key thing to do is keep talking about it. Don't be frightened to drop them a line on LinkedIn or whatever it might be and find the next step. Don't worry about the step 20 miles down the road. Let's work out what the next step is. 

Julia: Tom, thank you very much.