India’s Prime Minister has today announced that India will boost its contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Indian Network for Climate Change Assessment (INCCA) will provide research findings to the IPCC by November 2010, informing its next Assessment Report, due in 2014. The involvement of INCCA will represent the first time that Indian scientists have contributed to the IPCC at an institutional level.

The focus of INCCA’s work will be on measuring, modelling and monitoring to assess the impact of climate change on ecosystems, biodiversity, health and agriculture, amongst other key sectors.

Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh commented that this development would bring science “back into the mainstream” of the Department’s work and decision-making.

SciDev.Net, 8 February, India boosts climate data contribution to IPCC, T. V. Padma

Defra has launched a new Evidence and Investment Strategy: 2010 – 2013, building on its previous strategy, which ran from 2005 – 2008. The purpose of the Strategy is to prioritise and manage Defra’s investment in evidence to 2013, focusing on three major areas: climate change, securing a sustainable food supply and protecting ecosystems.

Commenting on the launch of the strategy, Professor Bob Watson, Chief Scientific Advisor at Defra, said “it is absolutely essential that all the policies that we formulate are based on sound evidence…there has never been a time when there was a greater need for good quality evidence to contribute to policy-making and sound decisions”. An interview with Professor Watson is available as a video on the Defra website.

At present Defra spends approximately £240 million per annum on evidence to underpin policy formulation. In commenting on the launch of the Strategy Prof. Watson emphasises the importance of a ‘joined up’ Defra to make sure that this money is well spent and appropriately focused. Those working in the areas of food security, climate change and ecosystem services need to work together. These issues are also not simply domestic concerns, hence Defra must work with the Department for International Development. Finally, Defra must work closely with the Research Councils on delivering on these priorities.

The Strategy emphasises the importance of Defra possessing an adequate skills base to deal with the results of research and commission and procure good quality evidence. In his interview, Prof. Watson emphasises the importance of Defra staff becoming “intelligent customers of evidence”. Following the launch of the Strategy, an implementation plan is to be drawn up to make sure that the key points of the Strategy are translated into practice and that the Strategy’s concerns become embedded in the culture of the Department.

According to a report published on 4th February by the Centre for Hydrology and Ecology and Pond Conservation, 80% of ponds in England and Wales are in a ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ condition, thus failing to provide vital habitat for aquatic plants and animals. These findings are particularly worrying given that reports by the Environment Agency last autumn showed that 75% of UK rivers will fail to meet new European biological standards. Although large numbers of new ponds are created each year in the UK, many of these ponds are located in agricultural areas and suffer from pollution by nutrient run-off. This eventually results in overgrowth of vegetation and stagnant water. In contrast, the report found that ponds close to rivers, streams and other wetlands are in much better condition. These results highlight the importance of developing future ponds in areas that are protected from pollution, in order to protect Britain’s future freshwater biodiversity.

Pond Conservation Press Release: First national survey shows Britain’s wildlife ponds are in a ‘terrible state’

Executive Director of the Ecological Continuity Trust
(18 month contract initially)
London
Salary £40k – £50k

Announcing a major new executive position in UK ecology:

Ecological Continuity Trust (ECT) was established as a UK-registered charity in 2008 to address vital ecological issues of today and the future by supporting long-term, experimental field studies. An important aspect of this is to raise awareness of the importance of long-term scientific research as a critical component of the protection and enhancement of healthy ecosystems.

ECT’s board has developed the charity from the concept stage to a point where it can begin operations. A challenging new opportunity has arisen for an entrepreneurial Executive Director to build on these foundations and fulfil ECT’s vision through leading the charity during this exciting and formative first phase.

Using your energies and leadership skills, you will focus on raising the profile of long-term studies in ecology significantly in the public and policy environments. Building on the Board’s dialogues with potential partner organisations, you will build the resources to support existing and create new sites for long-term ecological experimentation and monitoring, initially in the UK. Proactive in your approach, you will build a network of ecologists and other academics that will contribute to the fulfilment of ECT’s objectives.

We are looking for a resourceful and self-motivated individual with all-round skills, determination and an ability to communicate clearly, both within the ecology community and in the public and policy environments. With a passion for delivering on the goals of the charity, you will need to demonstrate an understanding of the fundamental objectives of the ECT. A formal academic background in ecology is not mandatory: ECT welcomes applications from candidates with a proven leadership record in other fields, alongside an evident personal interest and commitment to the science of ecology and conservation.

With a fundraising background and experience of developing and working in partnerships with other organisations, you will have previously run programmes or campaigns that have educational, awareness raising and influencing objectives.

Closing date: Sunday 21st February

For further details and to apply Click here

Natural England and the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) published their joint report on environmental state of Green Belt land in England and the benefits it provides for people and wildlife on 28th January.

Green belts are areas of wild or agricultural land surrounding urban areas, where development is prevented in order to stop urban sprawl into the countryside and retain open spaces for the population. England has 14 green belt areas, covering 13% of the country and providing important cultural services such as recreational space for the 30 million or so people that live near these areas. They also contain a third of England’s local nature reserves, and support more than 260,000 hectares of high quality agricultural land.

The report is positive about the contribution that green belt land has made towards improving the state of the countryside and well-being of the population, however, warns of challenges facing it with increasing pressure from development and the growing population. It urges

- better and more coordinated land management of these areas

- more investment to improve its resources (for recreation, production and nature conservation)

- better connectivity of green belt areas to help cope with climate change and improve recreational networks.

Download ‘Green Belts: a Greener Future’.

Hilary Benn MP, Secretary of State for the Environment, has called for world leaders to identify a way to price the impact of their decisions on biodiversity. The Guardian reports that, in a speech outlining Labour manifesto thinking, Mr Benn praised the TEEB review (the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) currently being prepared by a team led by Pavan Sukhdev of Deutsche Bank, as making a vital contribution to our understanding of the natural world and how to conserve it; “the report presented by Sukhdev can do for our understanding of the natural world what Nick Stern did for the understanding of climate change”, said Mr Benn, alluding to the report by Lord Stern into the economics of climate change.

Mr Benn’s speech encouraged politicians to think about the most effective mechanism for taking account of the economic decisions we make in relation to their impact on biodiversity. He called for society to begin to live within environmental limits and stressed the need for a body equivalent to the Independent Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for biodiversity. The scientific and policy communities are already advanced in thinking about what such a body, the Independent Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) might look like.

In a speech today to Progress Mr Benn is expected to say that the world is going through its sixth major extinction event, but that this is going largely unnoticed. He will call for greater optimism in man’s ability to tackle the environmental challenges we face and to improve the environment.

Original article: Benn to call on world leaders to adopt biodiversity pricing, Patrick Wintour, 25 January 2010

Can GM technology cure the world’s growing pains? On Thursday, 21 January, the BES attended an evening meeting at the British Library at which members of the public, academics, industry representatives and food producers gathered together to discuss this question, considering the contribution which GM crops might make to securing the world’s food supplies. The ‘cafe scientifique’ style event, the latest in the ‘Talk Science’ series organised by the Library’s science, technology and medicine division, was led by Prof. Rosie Hails, CEH and Chair of the Natural Capital Initiative.

Prof. Hails’ main point, in an opening talk which focused on the relationship between agriculture and the environment, was that assessments of the costs and benefits of GM crops have focused too rigidly on biodiversity as an indicator of environmental impact, at the expense of considering other parameters. In assessing these crops, a more holistic viewpoint should be adopted, with consideration of a whole suite of ecosystem services.

Prof. Hails outlined the results of farmscale evaluations, set up in the UK to assess the impact of GM crops on biodiversity. The trials had shown that growing herbicide resistant GM crops did have an impact on biodiversity, as competing weeds were removed. However, if other ecosystem services are taken into consideration, on balance it might be worth adopting these crops and mitigating the impacts on biodiversity in some way – through the introduction of diverse field margins for example. Herbicide resistant crops might be more compatible with low tillage systems and the consequent benefits of these systems for soil structure, nutrient, water and carbon retention may mean that these crops have an overall environmental benefit compared to standard methods of growing crops. Greater data is needed on the environmental impact of GM crops, taking this more holistic view.

Prof. Hails made another important point, not often raised in debates around GM: that GM crops are introduced into variable economic and social conditions. For example, evidence supports the conclusion that those who grow Bt cotton in China (engineered to express a protein toxic to the cotton borer) spray less insecticide. However, it is also possible that because Bt cotton seed is more expensive than non-GM seed, some farmers may adopt a highly protective attitude to their crop and spray it regardless. Prof. Hails stated that ACRE (Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment) has developed a matrix which assesses a suite of costs and benefits, including social factors, in more detail.

During the course of the ‘Question Time’ style discussion which followed Prof. Hails’ presentation a number of points were put to an audience member representing Monsanto. It was clear that protectionism and monopoly of GM technology by a few large agrochemical companies was a point of contention and source of unease for many. The point was made that EU regulations, currently very strict, should be relaxed to allow small and medium sized businesses to capitalise on GM technology and develop competing products.

The Policy Lunchbox network was this afternoon joined by Matt James, Associate Director of BioCentre, a British think-tank focusing on emerging technologies and their ethical, social and political implications. Matt delivered a fascinating presentation, introducing the work of BioCentre before focusing on ‘NBIC’; Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science, and what these emerging technologies might mean for human existence in the future.

The Centre was originally established in 1984 in response to public concern over fresh challenges to ethics and policy resulting from emerging technologies. BioCentre is a cross disciplinary network of scientists, physicians, ethicists, lawyers, researchers and others, who share a common concern that, in welcoming new developments in technology, the dignity of the individual and the uniqueness of human nature is asserted from a UK, European and global perspective. The philosophy of BioCentre was summed up by Matt as wanting to see technologies contribute to a ‘hyper human’ future. He distinguished this from another school of thought in bioethics, that the exponential growth in technologies will lead to a ‘trans-human’ future by 2045: that man and machine will become one. Instead, BioCentre promote the idea that technologies can help to maximise human life, bringing tremendous advantages and benefits.

Of the discussion points raised during the presentation, two had probably the most relevance to ecology: the development of nanotechnology and synthetic biology. The consequences of the release of nanoparticles into the environment are poorly known. A growing number of laundry products and items of clothing now incorporate nano-silver as a microbicide to enhance cleaning but the implications of the introduction of this material into water courses are poorly understood, for example. Synthetic biology – at its most extreme the creation of new organisms in the laboratory – could have tremendous implications for ecosystems. Matt characterised these as creating new life for “bio terror and bio error”; what happens if these life forms are released into the environment maliciously or otherwise?

Although many of the developments highlighted by Matt seem to belong to the realms of science fiction he assured us that these were, or were likely to become, science fact, raising key questions for ethicists to answer. As robots are developed and become increasingly more sophisticated will society need a robot ethic, governing how robots are treated and how humans interact with them? Debates will rage over whether we want to have an ‘off switch’ for our robot companions or whether we wish to see them interact with us as other humans would, without these controls. The development of ‘e-carers’ in Japan, substituting for absent family members, may raise such issues, for example.

A key area of controversy, featuring heavily in the media last year, is the development of cognitive-enhancing drugs. Ritalin is one such drug, being used to treat the 4 – 10% of the world’s children who suffer with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Ritalin is also the most stolen drug from those prescribed it amongst students however, used to boost the performance of scholars at universities. Interesting questions are raised for both children and adults: when does the use of this and other cognitive enhancing drugs in children move from being a helpful medication to a form of social control? What are the implications for society if students, shift-workers, soldiers and others who might use these drugs to stay alert and active for longer increasingly depend on them; will we move to a ‘24/7 society’ and what might this mean?

Overall, this was a fascinating and wide-ranging presentation and discussion session which gave many of those present the opportunity to consider issues outside of our usual realm of experience. BioCentre works closely with the Horizon Scanning Centre within the Government’s Foresight programme, alerting policy-makers to these emerging issues. Engaging the wider policy community and society at large with these developments will take time but is an essential step in ensuring debate and proper consideration of their ethical implications, and steps which may need to be taken to regulate their use.

Policy Lunchbox is a joint initiative between the Biochemical Society and the British Ecological Society. Throughout the year, a series of lunchtime events are held which bring together guest speakers with those who work in science policy. Our next event will be on Wednesday 3rd March, where we will be joined by Annette Williams, Director of the UK Resource Centre for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology.

Yesterday afternoon saw the official launch of POSTnote 348, on ‘Insect Pollination’, written by the 2009 BES POST Fellow Rebecca Ross. The note summarises the causes and consequences of the declines in UK insect pollinators: a subject that has received growing attention in recent years, as demonstrated by the large audience crowding the seminar room in Westminster.

Chaired by John Penrose MP, the seminar began with a presentation from Dr Liz McIntosh of the Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera), promoting BeeBase, the Government initiative to register all beekeepers. The ex-President of the British Beekeepers Association Ivor Davis then spoke, pointing at the lack of professional teaching available to beekeepers for the decline in the number of honey bees in the UK – a view echoed by comments from other beekeepers in the room. Whilst welcoming the Government’s pledge to invest £10.5 million into bee research, he expressed concern that it would all be spent on high level research rather than achieving practical, immediate goals.

Dr Simon Potts of the University of Reading then discussed the consequences of pollinator decline. Pollinator services in the UK are valued at around £440 million, or 13 % of the total value of agriculture. As only 10% of this is provided by domestic honey bees, Dr Potts highlighted the economic sense of protecting wild pollinators, at a fraction of the cost that would be incurred trying to replace them. This was theme continued by Dr Claire Carvel of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in her presentation on research into using field margin strips in Countryside Stewardship agri-environment measures to support pollinators. Comments from the floor questioned the practicalities of planting such pollinator friendly margins, for example whether regional eco-types would be considered, and challenged researchers and policy-makers to improve the implementation of these schemes amongst farmers.

Find out more about the BES POST Fellowship: applications for the 2010 scheme will open in February.

The EFRA Select Committee has today released a report criticising Defra’s waste policy, stating that the Department’s strategy has no clear targets for the reduction of England’s waste and instead concentrates efforts on improving recycling rates for domestic waste, which accounts for only 10% of total waste produced.

Commenting on the launch of their report on the Waste Strategy for England 2007, the Chair of the EFRA Committee, Michael Jack MP, said “Defra must…encourage companies to take a completely new view of waste and see it as a valuable source of raw material which must not be squandered in these difficult economic times.”

The report praises householders for increasing their recycling levels to nearly 37% and urges the Government to set stringent recycling targets of 50% by 2015 and 60% by 2020. To facilitate this, Councils must explain clearly to the public what it costs to collect and dispose of each bin, bag or wheelie bin of waste. The benefits that arise from households reducing their waste volumes must be explained to them.

Amongst other measures, the report urges Government to set a target for the mandatory collection of food waste and supply advice, education and practical support to householders in managing food waste – for example by encouraging composting and supplying low-cost composting equipment to facilitate this. The report also calls for Government to re-examine the case for imposing lower levels of duty on waste-derived fuel oil. Finally, the Committee suggests that the Government evaluate the practicalities of imposing a small ‘clean up’ duty on products such as cigarettes, whose packaging contributes the largest volumes of litter, to support work by local authorities to clean up their neighbourhoods.