Beavers are back in the wild in Scotland for the first time in 400 years. Following a period of controversy, which saw the project vetoed by Scottish Ministers in 2005, two beaver families have finally been released into the wild in the Knapdale Forest, Argyll. A final family will be released tomorrow by Roseanna Cunningham, Scottish Government Environment Minister.

The beavers will be carefully monitored over the coming months, as will their impact on, amongst other things, water plants, river habitats, woodland, dragonflies and freshwater fish.

The project initially met resistance from landowners and the salmon fishing industry, concerned that beavers’ dams could block access by fish to their spawning grounds and could flood economically valuable woodland.

Speaking in advance of the release of the beavers, Roseanna Cunningham said: “Welcoming beavers back to Scotland marks a historic day for conservation. These charismatic creatures are not only likely to create interest in Scotland from further afield but crucially can play a key role in providing good habitat for a wide range of wetland species”. By thinning the forst canopy and creating lagoons next to watercourses, beavers can help to create wetland habitat.

Wales and England are planning beaver introductions within the next few years. Natural England began a consultation on suitable sites for beaver release in March this year, whilst Wales hopes to reintroduce beavers to the wild in two to three years time.

Science policy professionals met in London today for the first ‘Policy Lunchbox’ seminar, organised by the Biochemical and the British Ecological Societies. Nick Dusic, Director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE), led a discussion on ‘How to engage with the opposition and with manifesto development in the run up to the 2010 election?’

CaSE has canvassed major and minor political parties alike in the run up to the European Elections on 4 June, asking them to provide details of their science and technology policies. The organisation plan to do the same over the next few months, trying to ensure that science, engineering and technology are a key part of each party’s manifesto in the run-up to the general election expected in spring 2010.

Nick urged the learned societies and academies represented around the table to work together to influence the development of party manifestos, creating a clear statement about what science and technology policy should aim to deliver over the coming years. The election offers an opportunity to engage new people with science policy: and one which the scientific community can sieze adequately only by working together.

Hustings featuring the spokespeople for the major political parties could offer one means for the scientific community to openly question politicians about their parties’ policies on research and development, science education and skills needs. Nick singled out the ‘Science ‘08” debate, called for by the science academies and universities in America during the US Presidential Election, as an effective way to raise the profile of science, engineering and technology and to encourage candidates to make their positions clear.

Overall, Nick encouraged the science community to work together – and work with CaSE – to make sure that whichever party is called on to form a new Government in 2010 demonstrates a strong commitment to science, engineering and technology.

Policy Lunchbox is an informal network of individuals working in science policy. Find out more about the network and future events we have planned.

The Marine & Coastal Access Bill, potentially the most important and far-reaching marine legislation ever passed in the UK, is continuing its slow but methodical progress through the House of Lords, where it is currently at report stage (the penultimate stage required before it can be sent to the Commons). The BES has been closely monitoring developments in the Bill, and it is a pleasure to be able to share some good news.

There were widespread concerns that the Marine Management Organisation (MMO), the new body which the Bill will establish to manage the UK marine environment, was going to have an insufficient focus on marine science in its decision-making processes. However, the Government has responded to our concerns by agreeing to several key new amendments.

Most importantly, the MMO will now have to employ a Chief Scientific Advisor at all times, and is under a new obligation to take account of all relevant scientific evidence when carrying out its duties. This comes on top of the Government’s recent undertaking that they would establish a science advisory committee for the MMO, and goes a long way to reassure us that the MMO will follow an evidence-based approach in its work.

The BES is still working to ensure that other parts of the Bill, particularly that establishing a network of marine reserves in UK waters, attach equal importance to the use of sound marine science. Nevertheless, the changes to the MMO represent a clear move in the right direction and are a significant improvement to the Bill.

If you are interested in the Society’s work on UK marine issues and would like to get more involved, we are currently in the process of responding to the Government’s draft strategy on the designation of marine protected areas. Please e-mail the Policy Team at policy@britishecologicalsociety.org if you would like to contribute to our response.

Various techniques have been developed for valuing ecosystem services and in a recently published paper in the Journal of Applied Ecology seven methods of valuing nature conservation interest have been assessed and compared by a team consisting of members from The Open University, Cranfield University and the Institute for European Environmental Policy.

The ecosystem approach is gaining increased attention from policy makers and as a result ecologists are frequently being asked to place values on ecosystem services. Valuing ecosystem services allows comparisons between sites and management regimes, however ecosystem services which do not provide direct provisions such as food, are notoriously difficult to value due to a lack of direct monetary worth.

In the Journal of Applied Ecology, Rouquette et al. determined the current land use of five lowland floodplain sites in England and developed four different scenarios of future management. Seven methods of determining value of the land-use and habitats predicted under each scenario were assessed. Methods were based on predefined priorities (Environmental Impact Assessment criteria, UKBAP target achievement and reserve selection criteria), stated preferences of stakeholders and monetary values (agri-environment scheme valuation and contingent valuation; a willingness of people to pay for ecosystem services).

The outcome of each valuation method was generally consistent however each method empathised different aspects of conservation value. For example, contingent valuation placed a high value on wetland habitats whereas the agri-environment scheme placed a low value on this habitat. The advantages and disadvantages of each emphasis between these current methods are discussed. The authors are encouraged by the general consensus between methods and believe that as interest continues in valuing ecosystem services a preferred method will emerge for each type of situation.

For further information please see Rouquette, J. R. Posthumus, H., Gowing, D. J. G., Tucker, G., Dawson, Q. L., Hess, T. M. and Morris, J. (2009) Valuing nature-conservation interests on agricultural floodplains. Journal of Applied Ecology. 46(2): 289-296.

19 – 20 June saw members of the BES and NERC-funded researchers gather in Reading for training in how to engage with policy-makers. Over the course of two days, the group of 30 PhD students and early-career researchers carried out group exercises and activities to explore barriers to ecologists and environmental scientists engaging with science policy, and how these can be overcome.

The energy and enthusiasm amongst the researchers was obvious and it was great to see such interest from ecologists, and others, in sharing their work with both policy-makers and the public. Barriers suggested by participants included; problems identifying relevant contacts in Government Departments and Agencies; issues around communicating complex messages to a lay audience in a limited time; how to communicate uncertainty in an understandable, and not offputting, way; a lack of time and incentives to engage in policy-making if you’re pursuing an academic career.

Activities on day one included presentations from policy experts from Defra and the Environment Agency, examining how policy-making works and how scientists can inform this process. Groups were then asked to consider how they would communicate information to policy-makers in relation to a particular issue, and were given feedback on their presentation style and content by the policy-experts. Mentors with experience of the science – policy process were on hand to address participants’ queries and questions. Finally, day two saw targetted workshops on writing for a policy audience, and on influential oral communication skills.

At the end of the workshop, participants were asked what they had learned over the course of the two days. Many recognised the importance of communicating clearly, succinctly and precisely. Others highlighted the importance of people skills and networking in forming key contacts with policy-makers; building a personal relationship was highlighted by one of our policy experts as fundamental to ensuring continued communication between a scientist and a policy-maker. Finally, participants were enthusiastic about engaging with the BES and NERC Knowledge Exchange Team to help them in making links with policy-makers and in maintaining a network of contacts from the workshop who could help one another and share experiences.

This workshop was organised by the BES, NERC Knowledge Exchange Team and Environmental Research Funders’ Forum (ERFF), in partnership with the Defra Innovation Centre.

The Policy team were rather spoilt yesterday, as one of us also got to attend a second discussion meeting, this one organised by the Parliamentary & Scientific Committee, who were discussing ‘Taking Science to the Street’.

Some of the most interesting contributions came from Dr. Daniel Glaser, who is the Head of Special Projects in the Public Engagement Department of the Wellcome Trust. He started by differentiating between ‘public understanding of science’, which is the term most often used in the US for his type of work, and the British term ‘public engagement’. He argued that the latter term is more nuanced, reflecting a more positive attitude towards the general public as being both willing and able to get involved with guiding the direction of scientific research. He argued that ‘public understanding’ meanwhile saw its role more as one of explaining scientific results to a public who lack scientific knowledge. Whilst he conceded that many people who apply for public engagement grants from the Wellcome Trust intended to do old-fashioned public understanding, he pointed towards such projects as Cafe Scientifique as a good example of engaging the public.

He proceeded to argue that Wellcome Trust surveying had shown that the public were in fact very keen on scientific information and getting more of it, and that they were also quite keen on consultations (though here their keeness depended upon what importance was going to be attached to the results of the consultation). One issue with this however is that many scientists do not trust what the public think and say about science, and view their input and beliefs as largely irrelevant. He therefore concluded that there is a power struggle going on at the moment: scientists who do not want to open up their research to public involvement on the one side, faced on the other side by a public who are keen to get involved and have a say both in what research is done and how scientists go about doing it.

The policy team yesterday attended a very interesting talk delivered by Professor Adrian Smith, Director General of Science & Research at the Department for Innovation, Universities & Skills (DIUS).

He started off on an optimistic note, arguing that the UK research base has been living through a golden age since 2000- government research expenditure, which had been hovering at just under ₤3 billion a year for over 15 years before that date, had grown to well over ₤5 billion a year by 2008. He argued that the results were clear, with the UK still punching well above its weight in world-class research, receiving 12% of world citations despite having only 1% of the world’s population, and remaining the “most productive & efficient’ research nation in the G8.

However, this decade of growth is now at an end, and he highlighted the major implications for the research base. Renewed stress will be placed on demonstrating the value of research to the economy, and the new funding expectations amongst researchers which have developed in the boom times will now have to be replaced by more constrained ambitions. He did note that the ring-fence around science funding had been maintained in the last budget, and explained that lessons had been learnt from the decline of the nuclear research base in the country: research funding cannot simply be switched on and off, as researchers will depart for abroad during any funding break.

His conclusion was that some tensions certainly did exist between funding short-term ‘economy-building’ research and longer-term blue-sky research, and that some prioritisation around areas where the economy can be strengthened was inevitable. He was optimistic however that the argument for longer-term science funding could be successfully made, and felt that policy makers were well aware of the damaging long-term effects and potential brain drain which could result from cutting funding. He concluded that making the argument for the value of scientific research was therefore as important as ever it has been, and told the audience he expected them to be out there making that case.

At the ‘Lakes for Living, Lakes for Life’ conference being held on the shores of Lake Windermere this week, the Environment Agency has announced that it will assess the 730 most important lakes in England & Wales which need to meet the high standards of the Water Framework Directive.

Whilst river water quality has improved dramatically over the past 20 years, lakes have often continued to deteriorate in the face of more complex environmental challenges. Numerous iconic lakes are threatened by a range of problems. Pesticides and fertilisers from farming are contributing to regular blue-green algal blooms in the Lake District, which prevent people from going into the water. Meanwhile introduced species, such as the New Zealand Pigmyweed, have escaped into lakes like Windermere and are now out-competing many native species. Climate change is also forecast to bring severe problems, with more intense storms creating the potential for increased soil and pollution to be washed off the land into our lakes.

The Environment agency is currently developing plans to improve the condition of lakes and rivers across England and Wales. Under the Water Framework Directive, plans must be approved by the end of 2009 outlining how all our water bodies will be restored to health. Currently 85% of our lakes are failing to meet ‘Good Ecological Status’ (GES).

The draft plans published by the Environment Agency in December 2008 suggested that we would only aim to achieve a 4% increase in GES in rivers, while there is no planned improvement at all for lakes, estuaries and coastal waters. The Environment Agency and Defra have acknowledged that this is an unacceptably weak level of ambition, and that more must be done. They are asking for public input as to how this will be achieved.

Consultation is therefore now under way, and runs until the 22nd June 2009. If you would like to participate in this very important consultation, which will dictate freshwater management until 2015 and beyond, please visit the environment agency website.

A coalition of environmental NGOs have also launched a very useful website which will feed into the consultation. Visit the Our Rivers website.

A new study mapping the distribution of European butterfiles has revealed that, even under the best-case scenario, climate change will mean that much of the land occupied by many different butterfly species will become too warm for their survival.

The researchers from the Mapping European Butterflies project used scenarios developed within the ALARM project (Assessing LArge-scale environmental Risks for biodiversity using tested Methods), funded by the European Commission under the 6th Framework Programme:

1. SEDG – ‘Sustainable European Development Goal’
2. BAMBU – ‘Business as Might Be Usual’
3. GRAS – ‘Growth Applied Strategy’ – driven by economic imperatives such as free-trade and globalisation.

Under the GRAS strategy, the researchers’ model predicted that the average European temperature would increase by 4.1C by 2080, and over 95% of the land currently occupied by 70 different butterflies would become too warm for them to survive. Even under the SEDG scenario, Europe would warm by, on average, 2.4C, leaving 50% of the area occupied by 147 butterfly species uninhabitable for them; 9 species would be unable to occupy 95% of their current range.

To mitigate such effects on butterflies, important indicators of impacts on biodiversity, policy should aim to maintain large populations in diverse habitats, creating a permeable landscape to allow species to move as the climate changes. They propose better resourced and more targetted agri-environment schemes, and sustainable management of Natura 2000 sites, as possible tools.

The Our Rivers campaign has recently been launched by the WWF, RSPB, Angling Trust and the Association of Rivers Trusts and is calling on the Government to be more ambitious if it is to deliver the positive change needed to protect Britain’s rivers.

The campaign’s website features an interactive map of the UK’s rivers allowing users to highlight the issues facing their local waterway. It enables people to submit their views and to campaign at a local level.

Supporting the campaign is TV conservationist and RSPB vice president Chris Packham : ‘Our rivers are under pressure from so many sources, yet their health is vitally important to us all. Clean, healthy rivers, teeming with life are what we all want to see and what the Our Rivers campaign is all about.

The Environment Agency (EA) will decide the fate of every river in the country through one of eleven river basin management plans which are currently in public consultation. The plans are a requirement of the Water Framework Directive, which broadly, demands an improvement in the ‘ecological status’ of waters by 2015. Final plans will be signed off by the Secretary of State at the end of the year.

The consultation taking place across the country has been criticised for failing to engage many of those who hold vital information about our rivers: anglers who have fished the same stretch for years, community groups who look after their local river and those who rely on the river for their business.

The launch of Our Rivers aims to address this concern by providing a far more straightforward way for people to pass on their unique local knowledge to the EA. The content of the management plans must be informed by those who know and care about their rivers; those who live and work on them.

The consultation ends on 22 June; comments made on the Our Rivers website will feed directly into the EA consultation.