Wildlife and Countryside Link (‘Link’) have produced a report entitled ‘Targeting Nature’s Recovery’ outlining the group’s analysis of the UK’s progress against its 2010 targets for the conservation of priority habitats and species.

These targets were agreed in 2006, based on a list of priority species identified under the original UK Biodiversity Action Plan from 1999, and gave desired outcomes for 2010, 2015 and longer timescales. Targets were either maintenance targets aimed at ‘holding the line’ – sustaining the size and distribution of existing populations – or expansion targets for ‘restoring lost nature’ – increasing numbers and/or range, restoring former status or making population more resilient to external threats.

Link states that measuring progress towards the 2010 aim of these targets should have been a key way for UK Government’s to assess its achievements against its international commitment under the Convention in Biological Diversity to halt biodiversity loss by 2010. However, the group has been disappointed with the Government’s lack of action on measuring the conservation progress on these individual species targets.

Consequently, Link members decided to carry out their own assessment of progress on targets for a selection of BAP species; looking at 150 targets covering 69 of the original 303 BAP priority species, the group concludes that progress has been patchy:
• Although populations and range are being maintained for 63% of the species assessed, 30% are still declining
• Expansion targets have been achieved for 21% of species assessed, and at least some progress had been made for a further 46% of species. However, for one quarter of species, there has been no progress against targets.

As Link acknowledges, this assessment is not based on a random sample and may not be fully representative of the overall state of all BAP priority species; the group compares its findings to species trend assessments made during a BAP reporting round in 2008, and suggests that their analysis may actually paint a more positive picture than is the true status of all BAP priority species.

Concluding the report, Link stresses the need for urgent implementation of recommendations it made in its response to the revised England Biodiversity Strategy – Biodiversity 2020 – published in 2011:
1. The Biodiversity 2020 implementation plan should include actions to improve the status of all UK priority species
2. Statutory agencies – including Natural England – must proactively adapt their programmes to integrate the needs of priority species into site and habitat conservation activity
3. Assessments should be undertaken for all landscape-scale conservation initiatives and Local Nature Partnerships to identify which priority species will benefit
4. A clear programme of species-specific action must be outlined for priority species most at risk of extinction and/or unlikely to be adequately conserved through a habitat-focused approach
5. Monitoring programmes should be modified or designed to measure progress on priority species.

Link are currently working on producing a list of actions required to achieve these recommendations. For more information on this and Link’s other work, see the website.

An All-Party Parliamentary Group for International Development & the Environment (APPG IDE) meeting was held today in Westminster to discuss challenges facing policy-makers ahead of the UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in June this year. The APPG IDE is a forum for MPs and Peers to discuss the links between poverty and natural resources, and engage with interested people and organisations outside parliament.

The event was chaired by Jon Snow and had a panel consisting of:
Mark Simmonds MP: Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford MP: Scottish National Party spokesperson on International Development.
Dr Caroline Lucas MP: leader of the Green Party.
Martin Horwood MP: Co-chair of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Committee on International Affairs.
Tony Cunningham MP: Shadow Minister for International Development.

Jon Snow welcomed the meeting by pointing out that things have certainly happened during the last 20 years in the UK since the first Rio Earth Summit in 1992. He brought up the UK Climate Change Act and the announcement of the draft Energy Bill today as examples. After this, previously submitted questions were addressed to the panel by the audience.

The first questioner wanted to know how committed the UK Government is towards the outcomes of the Rio+20 Summit and what the key issues are. Mark Simmons listed three main issues that need to be addressed in Rio: sustainable development, GDP+ and a bigger contribution from businesses and the private sector. Eilidh Whiteford emphasised the need to transfer our technology and knowledge to the rest of the world, while Tony Cunningham mentioned poverty eradication as the bottom line of all the main issues which need to be addressed. Caroline Lucas added that human population has to admit its responsibility for the current problems and highlighted the need for financial commitment. Finally, Martin Horwood called for a holistic view to look at environmental problems at the Rio+20 Summit, rather than focusing on climate change to the exclusion of biodiversity loss and other considerations. Although the panellists pointed out slightly different issues they all agreed that the UK has to show leadership in Rio by the Prime Minister leading the delegation. At present, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg MP is due to attend, along with Secretary of State for Defra, Caroline Spelman.

Another question focussed on the North-South difference and poverty issues. The MPs agreed that social justice and sustainability should be at the heart of the new Sustainable Development Goals expected to be discussed in Rio.

The next questioner wanted to know how the global economy can provide the finances needed to meet the successors to the Millennium Development Goals and any new Sustainable Development Goals. Mr Horwood set out the UK government as a good example, applauding its decision to allocate 0.7% of the budget to international development projects. This is particularly impressive in a time of financial austerity, when it would have been easy to cut back on this spending. Mr Simmonds pointed at businesses and the private sector that need to be involved in the funding of the developmental goals. Caroline Lucas suggested that a ‘financial transaction tax’ could be levied on businesses and that a tax on greenhouse gas emissions from shipping could be a further mechanism. Mark Simmonds disagreed, stating that economic considerations are drivers for business and that business leaders will respond when they recognise that sustainable development makes good business sense, not when taxed to do so. Ms Lucas argued however that we cannot afford to wait for the majority of businesses to recognise this; instead Government needs to hold up examples of good practice to business, demonstrating that it is possible to behave sustainably and make a profit.

Then the discussion moved on to the ‘green economy’ and what the MPs think about it. The panellists agree that green economy is not equal to green growth and that there are parts of the world which still need growth but other parts should move towards a steady state economy. Therefore general global goals will not perform well due to differences in countries and regions. Ms Lucas also wondered what impacts would ‘advertisement-free zones’ have on our consumption pattern if these were widespread.

Another question which brought consensus amongst the panellists was about biofuels. They all agreed that biofuels are not all bad and there are some room for them within sustainable development but it is crucial to prioritise regarding to food security, society and environment. Martin Horwood added that the UK Government need to keep the pressure on EU renewable targets to make sure that they are really sustainable.

The last question asked the MPs’ opinion on setting up a new high commission for future generation issues. All of them, except Mark Simmonds, would like to see a new body focussing on future generations. Caroline Lucas brought up Hungary as a good example; Hungary has a Deputy-Commissioner responsible for the protection of the interests of future generations. On the other hand, Mark Simmonds would like to see existing institutions work better rather than introducing a new one. He was also wary about separating sustainable development considerations from mainstream policy, arguing that the UK Government already has a commitment to incorporating sustainable development considerations throughout the Government’s agenda.

The panellists mentioned several times that best practice has to be shared widely and the successes discussed. However, negative lessons learnt from the past could be just as important to share.

At the end of the meeting Jon Snow summarised the three most important points to emerge from the meeting:
- we should brag about our successes;
- the UK should be proud about the allocation of 0.7% of its budget to development goals and similar action by other countries should be pushed in Rio;
- and, most importantly, the Prime Minister should lead the UK delegation to the Rio+20 Earth Summit.

Sea-level rise is a well-studied climate change phenomenon. General explanation is that thermal expansion of water and water from melting ice caps and glaciers are responsible for the rise. Global sea-level rose about 1.8 millimetres every year in the last decades. 1.1mm from the 1.8 is explained by melting ice and ocean expansion combined which leaves 0.7mm unexplained. New study in Nature Geoscience suggests an additional component which can help to solve this equation: human use of terrestrial water.

The researchers state that human impacts on terrestrial water storage could account for as much as 0.77 millimetres per year, or 42%, of the observed sea-level rise between 1961 and 2003. They used an integrated model to estimate sea-level rise caused by human use of terrestrial water (e.g. irrigation, industrial use, reservoir management). Most of the extracted subsurface water is not restocked because it either evaporates or flows into rivers ending up in seas eventually. They found that unsustainable groundwater use, artificial reservoir water impoundment, climate-driven changes in terrestrial water storage and the loss of water from closed basins are the main drivers of rising sea levels. From those drivers, unsustainable groundwater use represents the largest contribution. Even Taikan Oki, one of the researchers, was surprised by their results: “I didn’t expect that human extraction of groundwater would matter so much”.

Groundwater provides up to 80% of public water supplies for large areas of England. The current drought and hosepipe bans in England already drew attention to this precious resource and the need for its sustainable use. Findings of this new research underline this need for the sake of mitigating sea-level rise.

Yadu N. Pokhrel, Naota Hanasaki, Pat J-F. Yeh, Tomohito J. Yamada, Shinjiro Kanae & Taikan Oki 2012 Model estimates of sea-level change due to anthropogenic impacts on terrestrial water storage. Nature Geoscience. doi:10.1038/ngeo1476

Applications are invited for a nine-month policy placement secondment opportunity based in EA Bristol offices to work on the use of transient and steady state climate change information to improve decision making for climate change adaptation.

This is an excellent opportunity to contribute to the methods used to underpin adaptation decision-making in some of the most important sectors for the UK. The fellow will also support existing NERC climate adaptation activities in Living With Environment Change (LWEC) and Environmental Science to Services Partnership (ESSP).

The post is part of the NERC Knowledge Exchange Policy Placement Fellowship scheme which allows researchers to work closely with policy-makers within government. The aims of the scheme are to enable access to scientific research to inform UK policy-making and provide researchers with a wider context for their work and opportunities for career and skill development.

Closing date: 12 June 2012
Application form
Guidance Notes to applicants

Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman last week announced the appointment of five members to the recently formed independent Natural Capital Committee.

The members are experts in the fields of natural science and economics, with a considerable range of specialist knowledge and experience:
Professor Ian Batemen of University of East Anglia served as Head of Economics for the UK National Ecosystem Assessment and is a Member of Defra Science Advisory Council
Dr Giles Atkinson is Head of the Environmental Economics and Policy Cluster at London School of Economics
Kerry ten Kate is Director of Business and Biodiversity at Forest Trends and is currently working on the Valuing Nature Network
Robert Smale is Director and Founder of Vivid Economics Ltd and has led projects including an analysis of the scope for a Green Investment Bank in the UK
Rosemary Hails has an MBE for services to Environmental Research and is chair of the Natural Capital Initiative (of which the BES is a partner).

The Committee was created as an outcome of last year’s Natural Environment White Paper (The Natural Choice: Securing the Value of Nature) and will provide independent expert advice on the state of England’s natural capital, reporting directly to the Economic Affairs Committee, chaired by Chancellor George Osborne.

The group’s aim is to ensure that the Government has a good understanding of the value of Natural Capital and that the decisions it takes support and improve the UK’s natural assets. By reporting directly to the Chancellor and Economic Affairs Committee – who advise the Government on economic decisions – the Natural Capital Committee has a real opportunity to influence economic policy for the good of the UK’s natural environment.

The Committee is chaired by Professor Dieter Helm, an economist with considerable influence and experience in the field of European economic and environmental policy, and membership will be complete with the appointment of two further members.

Equality and diversity in science was the focus of last week’s Policy Lunchbox, run monthly at Charles Darwin House by the BES and the Biochemical Society.

Sarah Hawkes, Head of Scientific Engagement at the Royal Society, gave a presentation on her work under the Society’s new 4 year programme focusing on removing the barriers to increasing diversity in the scientific workforce.

The science sector in the UK, and the Royal Society itself, have been the subject of criticism for the notable lack of women amongst their ranks, particularly in more senior positions. In the UK, men are six times more likely than women to work in science, technology, engineering or maths (STEM) subjects, and of the 46 Fellows appointed at the Royal Society in 2012, only two were women.

The RS’s new programme, funded by the UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, aims to address this gender imbalance – as well as tackling other issues of diversity incorporating ethnicity, disability and socio-economic status – across both academia and industry. The idea is to learn from and build upon the number of equality initiatives which already exist to work towards three objectives:
1. Defining and understanding the scientific workforce;
2. Identifying barriers to entry and progression within the scientific work force, which a view to removing them, and;
3. In the long-term, increasing the diversity of the scientific workforce
The programme will involve data gathering and a large scale policy study, significant work to engage with the scientific community, organising diversity events and activities, and engaging with the ATHENA swan initiative and actors within education.

The scheme has strong backing from Sir Paul Nurse, President of the Royal Society, who made a statement recently saying that ‘we must have an environment in which all scientists, including those from previously underrepresented groups, have an equal chance to excel’.

Much of the work so far has been to establish the programme and begin to embed it within the Royal Society’s work. An initial scoping study has been carried out to identify existing data on the diversity of the scientific workforce and knowledge gaps that need to be filled. As part of this work, the programme is exploring the possibility of joining up existing datasets to generate long-term trends which may indicate whether the suggestion of some commentators – that it is ‘just a matter of time’ before equality will come about in science anyway – is true.

A consultation and engagement conference held at the end of March also provided vital feedback from the scientific community identifying the barriers and issues people working in the field experience. Areas including careers guidance, career trajectories, improving awareness of STEM careers, the importance of role models and widening Athena SWAN were suggested and will be adopted to shape the RS programme’s work. Further consultation and a large scale policy study this summer will also investigate whether the diversity issues in science are replicated in other sectors and help identify evidence to make a ‘business case’ for improving diversity, such as an MIT study in America which suggested greater team diversity led to better innovation.
Consideration will also be given to different measures of ‘excellence’ within science, as women in particular find it challenging to maintain a reputation through publications due to factors including taking time off for maternity leave and loss of association with their publication record if they change their name when they get married.

The programme will focus initially on the academic sector, but, building on Ms Hawke’s previous experience working on the Athena SWAN Charter, it is hope the RS programme will collaborate with the Charter to broaden its scope beyond universities to pilot work within research institutes and, perhaps in the future, industry.

Of course, in addition to reaching out to pursue diversity externally, the Royal Society must address the significant gender imbalance within its own Fellowship which in the last 10 years, has elected only 43 women as Fellows out of a total of 438. Although low, this is an improvement compared to recent decades, and now with the significant support of the President Paul Nurse, Ms Hawkes feels progress will move faster. A major barrier to overcome is the fact that Fellows are elected based on nominations by existing Fellows, which means the demographic is likely to perpetuate without interventions.

Ms Hawkes suggested that Learned Societies can help the RS programme, and more broadly make progress with addressing diversity issues, by participating in satellite expert groups which the programme is hoping to establish and informing Ms Hawkes of their own diversity initiatives, or providing examples of role models and case studies. There may also be the opportunity to work collaboratively, to run joint mentoring schemes for example, and the RS may provide some funding for this.

See the BES website for information on the BES’s own Mentoring Scheme for Women in Ecology. More details of the Royal Society’s work on equality and diversity are available on their website.

The rising level of atmospheric CO2 has led to several studies focussing on changes in terrestrial and water ecosystems that might occur as a consequence. Ocean acidification, which is caused mainly by the increasing amount of CO2 dissolved in sea water, is at the forefront of marine research topics. However, most of the studies focus on calcifying organisms (e.g. corals, crustaceans) and only a few looked at fish and changes in fish behaviour so far.

A recently published paper in Functional Ecology, a British Ecological Society journal, is aiming to fill in a knowledge gap by examining the links between ocean acidification and changes to coral reef fish behaviour based on visual effects. Behavioural studies have demonstrated already that elevated CO2 levels can cause chemosensory and auditory impairment.

Fish use various information to avoid predators. Coral reef fish use auditory and chemosensory cues to decide where to settle. Once settled, chemical and visual information become more important. The study by Ferrari et al. tested the changes in visual risk assessment by exposing juvenile damselfish to the sight of a predator, a spiny chromis. The chromis was put into a watertight bag to avoid the damselfish receiving chemosensory signals.

The researchers found that damselfish showed reduced antipredator behaviour when exposed to 850 µatm CO2 which is equivalent to the CO2 level projected by the end of this century. However, no difference in behaviour was detected for smaller amounts of CO2 (440, 550, 700 µatm) in this study; previous studies showed altered chemosensory and auditory responses at 700 and 600 µatm, respectively. This led to an interesting conclusion that visual risk assessment cannot entirely compensate for the loss of chemosensory or auditory assessment.

Current projections indicate that atmospheric CO2 will reach 500 µatm by mid-century and 850 µatm by the end of this century. This study shows therefore that the latter concentration can alter the behaviour of coral reef fish and may eventually change the dynamics of predator-prey interactions and biodiversity of coral reefs.

The researchers highlight the need for longer term experiments to answer questions about adaptation and selection. However, they proved an extra point on why we should act immediately on reducing CO2 emissions.

Ferrari, M.C.O., McCormick, M.I., Munday, P.L., Meekan, M.G., Dixson, D.L., Lonnstedt, O. & Chivers, D.P. 2012 Effects of ocean acidification on visual risk assessment of coral reef fishes. Functional Ecology. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2011.01951.x

The original Open Access paper can be downloaded here.

The Marine Climate Change Impacts Partnership (MCCIP) launched its latest Report Card on 8th May at the World Fisheries Congress in Edinburgh. It focuses on how climate change is affecting the fish and shellfish we find in our seas, providing both opportunities and threats, and what the social and economic consequences could be.

Key findings in the 2012 MCCIP Report Card include:
• There are clear changes in the depth, distribution, migration and spawning behaviours of fish – many of which can be related to warming sea temperatures.
• Cultivated fish and shellfish are both susceptible to climate change, although fish farming technologies offer good potential for adaptation.
• Controlled or closed fishing areas (a type of protected area) that can be adapted in response to climate change have the potential to help protect commercial and vulnerable fish stocks.
• Recreational sea fishing is an important socio-economic activity that could be positively affected by climate change, due to the increasing abundance of species that are of interest to anglers.
• Shifting distributions of fish have led to a series of international disagreements and will continue to have implications for fisheries management across international boundaries.

Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Environment Richard Lochhead said:
“Climate change is affecting us all and understanding the impact on the marine environment is hugely important. Fisheries and aquaculture are vital to our economy – worth over 1 billion – and clear science is critical to secure the future of our valuable food industries. That is why I welcome the collaborative work of the MCCIP – the report card provides significant and robust scientific data which will help inform future policies to tackle climate change.”

UK Minister for the Marine Environment, Richard Benyon, said:
“I would like to thank the scientists who have contributed towards this valuable report and believe we have come a long way in a short time in understanding the impacts of climate change on the marine environment.
“The truth is that climate change is having a big impact on distribution of fish stocks and this is going to present some significant challenges for policy-makers, fisheries managers and for fishing industry itself.
“The Government will develop a National Adaptation Plan in response to the Climate Change Risk Assessment in which issues affecting the marine environment will be addressed.”

The 12-page report card is available here.

The report card draws on four Open Access reviews published in Aquatic Conservation this week and available here.

Blog post by Dr Davy McCracken, Team Leader, Scottish Agricultural College.

A workshop which brought together economists and ecologists, and organised by the Natural Capital Initiative, took place yesterday at Charles Darwin House. The aim of the event was to facilitate conversation between experts of the two disciplines to discuss how to integrate the knowledge of the participants to inform decision making. The workshop focused on a case study of sustainable agriculture and attracted about 50 economists and ecologists altogether.

The event was chaired by Peter Costigan from Defra and started with a welcome note from the Chief Executive of NERC, Professor Duncan Wingham. To stimulate discussion, the morning continued with keynote presentations focusing on methods of incentivising farmers to adopt environmentally sustainable agricultural practices; Professor William Sutherland of the University of Cambridge provided the ecological perspective, and Professor Ian Bateman of the University of East Anglia gave the economists’ point of view. This was followed by a discussion involving a panel consisting of Mr Costigan, Prof Sutherland and Prof Bateman, as well as Prof Tim Benton of the University of Leeds, Dr. Salvatore Di Falco of the London School of Economics, Prof Charles Godfray of the University of Oxford, and Dr Paul Morling of the RSPB. Members of the panel each gave their ideas of the key issues which need to be addressed in order to facilitate progress towards sustainable agriculture in the UK, and, after questions and comments from the audience, these were summarised into a list to inform the afternoon’s break-out sessions.

After lunch and a chance to network, the audience was split up to 6 groups and each of the groups had to focus on one key issue to develop further, proposing activities which could be undertaken to explore or resolve this issue. Some interesting proposals came from these group discussions:

Issue 1: What is the best way to spend pillar II funds?
Proposal: This proposal aimed at bringing together ecological, economic and social knowledge to inform policy with the aim of reassessing the best way to spend CAP money to ensure farmers ‘do the right thing in the right place’.

Issue 2: How do we incentivise land managers to ‘do the right thing’ in the right place?
Proposal: Similarly to the first proposal, this group also focused on what management should be done where, but considered the issue from a different angle, suggesting that ecosystem services will be protected most effectively by combining top down and bottom up processes. A change to the structure of how funds are allocated to land managers were proposed, including a ‘bidding process’ and regional control of the ‘pot of money’.

Issue 3: Behaviour change to enhance resilience to shocks
Proposal: This group suggested a comprehensive study of farmer and consumer behaviour across different regions and farming types designed to identify the gap between desirable farm management and current behaviour and possible reasons for this. This would allow suitable incentives to be identified and employed.

Issue 4: Achieving a spatial balance of management activity on farmland
Proposal: This proposal aimed to change farmers’ behaviour by organising consultations and testing how land managers’ responded to different possible farming incentives.

Issue 5: ‘Better choice of choice’
Proposal: This group focused on product labeling and the possibility of integrating ecosystem services into existing certification schemes (e.g. Fairtrade, FSC, MSC).

Issue 6: Where do we need bees? A case study of spatial targeting of agriculture
Proposal: The final group’s idea was to better target agricultural incentives spatially by collecting existing knowledge, filling knowledge gaps and developing a GIS tool to help decision making for farmers. They demonstrated the idea through a case study on pollination services.

All of the proposals were strongly built on interdisciplinary or even intersectoral co-operation between ecologists, economists and other stakeholders. Four out of the six plans focused on spatial arrangements of agricultural incentives, suggesting that ecologists and economists alike think a critical problem with current initiatives lies in a lack of spatial planning and targeting of farmland management measures.

At the end of the workshop, the proposals were rated by participants based on their importance and feasibility. It was interesting to see that proposals which got more votes for importance generally got fewer votes for feasibility and vice versa. The winning scheme for importance was proposal 2, which focused on how to encourage farmers to “do the right thing in the right place”, whilst the most feasible proposal was voted to be proposal 6 on spatial planning with the case study on bees.

The feedback from participants was that it was a day of interesting and fruitful discussions, and hopefully some seeds of ideas for further research and co-operation between ecologists and economist were planted yesterday.

Additional information on the workshop and the full program can be downloaded from the workshop’s webpage.

Sense About Science will be holding a Standing up for Science media workshop at Charles Darwin House (headquarters of the British Ecological Society) in London on Friday 15th June. This full day event is free and for early career researchers in all life, medical and bioengineering sciences (PhD students, post-docs or equivalent in first job).

During the workshop Sense about Science combine discussion about science-related controversies in media reporting with practical guidance and tips for how to deal with the media. Please find further information at http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/VoYS_Workshop_SOB_15th_Jun_2012.pdf
These workshops are very popular and places are limited. To apply send a CV and cover letter explaining your reasons for applying to Victoria Murphy. If you are a member of a Sense about Science sponsor organisation, please state in your application – sponsors hold five priority places.

Closing date for applications is Friday 1st June.