The sale of ivory is only legal providing that it is from an elephant that died before 1947. The difficulty in enforcing this law is that it is very difficult to date ivory and forgers have become adept at faking modern carvings to make them look old. However scientists have recently used radiocarbon dating to date confiscated ivory and last week the results were used as evidence in a court case.

Normally radio carbon dating is used to tell the age of ancient bones or rocks; the technique measures the levels of Carbon-14 a radioactive isotope of carbon that decays over time, and compares it with the level of normal carbon (which doesn’t decay). However during the 1950s and 60s the fallout from nuclear bomb testing bolstered the levels of Carbon-14 taken up by organisms and produced a spike in the ratio of Carbon-14 to normal carbon in those organisms alive at the time. Finding the spike in a piece of ivory clearly identifies that the elephant was alive after 1950.

Luckily, that corresponds nicely with the date for the age of ivory that can be legally sold. The ‘nuclear bomb’ effect could prove very effective in helping to tackle other illegal wildlife trades like that in tiger body parts, rhino horn and scrimshaw.

The potential of the technique was realised by TRACE Wildlife Forensics Network who contacted scientists in Scotland who specialise in radio carbon dating. For more information see the report on the Channel 4 news site and the TRACE website.

A team of scientists has warned that there will only be “one winner, 1000 losers” as the Harlequin ladybird continues its spread through the UK. Introduced to Holland to control aphid numbers there, the ladybird spread to the UK in 2004, carried on the wind across the English Channel or transported on fruit and flowers. Since its arrival it has spread around the UK: it has been found as far north as Orkney but is most prevalent in London and South East England.

Helen Roy, a member of the BES and a researcher at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, and a team of others are exhibiting on the dangers of the Harlequin at this week’s Royal Society Summer Science Exhibition. Dr Roy says of the Harlequin: ” “It’s a big and voracious predator, it will eat lots of different insects, soft fruit and all kinds of things.” Because of its varied diet, and because it does not need a cold winter to reach sexual maturity, the Harlequin has an advantage over other ladybirds. The scientists fear that the Harlequin will push out rivals through competition for food.

Various means are being considered to tackle this invasive species, including encouraging the transmission of a sexually transmitted mite, making some harlequins infertile.

Read more in today’s Guardian

A new study published in Food Policy and reported in this week’s EU science policy digest; ‘Science for Environment Policy’, suggests that subsidies from Governments could play a key role in helping to reduce the ‘ecological footprint’ of food production.

Taking a case-study approach, focusing on Australia, the authors examined the energy inputs needed to produce food. The aim of the study was to identify the main pathways by which the human demands on ecosystems: the ecological footprint, relating to food production could be reduced. Demands on food production will only increase into the future as the human population grows; creating stresses which will be exacerbated by climate change.

The researchers analysed water and energy inputs, along with agrochemical energy inputs in the form of fertilisers and herbicides, needed to grow a number of crops. All inputs were converted into KWh per hectare to allow comparison.

The results show that wheat production is more efficient than rice production in terms of water and energy inputs and the ratio of agrochemical energy to total energy. However, rice has the highest financial return: a benefit to production which it will be difficult to overcome in terms of changes to crop growth. The authors find that the most effective way to lower the ecological footprint of food production would be to increase energy efficiency and boost water productivity. Changing cropping patterns and crop varieties could play a role, and would also impact on agrochemical inputs needed.
Furthermore, the researchers propose that Government subsidies for technology to improve efficiencies could play a key role in ameliorating the ecological footprint of the food chain.

Khan, S., Khan, M.A., Hanjra, M.A. et al. (2009). Pathways to reduce the environmental footprints of water and energy inputs in food production. Food Policy. 34: 141-149.

A quick update to let you know that the Marine Bill had its second reading in the House of Commons yesterday. The second reading debate is unusual as it is not the time for detailed changes to be made to a Bill, but is rather an opportunity to debate the aims, principles and big issues surrounding a piece of legislation. On the basis of this, the results were encouraging.

The debate was very well-attended, with numerous MPs expressing their deep interest in Bill, as well as the notably high interest that had been expressed to them by many of their constituents. The debate also focused largely on the nature conservation aspects of the Bill, which are undoubtedly seen as its core component. A significant number of contributors did however express concern over whether science was really going to play a sufficiently important role in the designation of the marine protected area network. The Bill now proceeds onto the Committee Stage, where the contents of the Bill are discussed and amended in fine detail. The promising tone of the Second Reading would suggest that the nature conservation measures of the Bill will hopefully be further improved upon.

The BES this afternoon attended the Annual Lunch Reception of the All Party Parliamentary Environment Group at the Houses of Parliament. The purpose of the reception was to facilitate networking between the disparate members of the group: from Learned Societies and environmental NGOs to the buildings and aggregates sectors. The reception also saw the launch of a report commissioned by the APPEG: ‘The future of EU environmental policy: challenges and opportunities’. The report had been prepared for the Group by the Institute of European Environmental Policy: the Institute’s Director, David Baldock, delivered a speech following lunch.

Outlining the contents of the report, David Baldock stressed the influence of the EU on the UK’s environmental legislation: around 80% of UK environmental policy is actually made in Europe. Over the next few years, climate change will pose a major challenge for the EU, which has demonstrated international leadership with respect to stringent targets to reduce emissions and continues to work hard to influence behind-the-scenes negotiations in the run-up to Copenhagen in December. Implementing the measures needed to meet the targets will be difficult however.

MEPs have not only to tackle policy areas such as climate change, CAP reform, waste, water and energy but within the next parliament also have to make major decisions about the strategic direction of the European Union. Should the EU Sustainable Development Strategy be incorporated into the Lisbon Treaty – a commitment to enhance the jobs available in and competitiveness of the EU internationally – or will this water down the Sustainable Development Strategy’s own impact?

During the question and answer session a member of the Group raised the importance of pollinators to food security, health and well-being in Europe: were policy-makers aware of this issue? David Baldock said that yes, this issue is being considered at a European level, although how to tackle pollinator declines tends to be national policy. Pollination was being considered as part of the wider ecosystem services agenda, which David Baldock felt would grow in prominence in European policy-making with the passage of time. The IEEP is currently drafting a report on the connection between public money and public goods: something which can inform discussions on ecosystem service valuation currently ongoing in Brussels.

Overall this was a useful event and a good opportunity for the BES to engage with the industrial sector. The report provides a very useful overview of the main challenges facing European policy-makers: a helpful aide as the BES works with the European Ecological Federation in engaging with the European Commission and with the Natural Capital Initiative to influence an ecosystem approach to policy-making. To order a copy of the report, contact the APPEG Secretariat.

Videos from last Monday’s ‘Sustainable Cities’ evening event at the British Library are now available on You Tube. Prior to the event, jointly organised by the Natural Capital Initiative, Science Council and British Library, our four speakers were asked:

- What is the biggest challenge facing sustainable urban development during the next ten years?
and
- How can science inform policy with respect to sustainable urban development?

See the answers of Peter Wilder (Landscape Institute), William Bird (Natural England), Malcolm Smith (ARUP), Lorna Walker (CABE) and Ken Livingstone (Progressive London) here.

Today (18th June) the UK Climate Projections 2009 report (UKCP09) was launched by Hilary Benn MP (Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). The primarily Defra-funded report allows us to understand how the UK’s climate (temperature, rainfall, sea-level, humidity, cloud, and radiation), marine and coastal environments (sea level rise, storm surge, sea surface and sub-surface temperature, salinity, currents, and waves) will change during the 21st century. The Met Office, who led the study, has used the latest climate science to develop the projections, which also indicate the probability of any changes. The BBC reported the UK Met Office, as saying the UKCP09 is the “most comprehensive set of probabilistic climate projections at the regional scale compiled anywhere in the world”.

Results are provided for three different greenhouse gas emissions scenarios (high, medium and low) and for seven time periods up to 2099. The information will allow companies, local governments and Government bodies to plan for change and develop a resilient infrastructure.

The key findings from UKCP09 are as follows:
• All areas of the UK get warmer, and the warming is greater in summer than in winter.
• There is little change in the amount of precipitation (rain, hail, snow etc) that falls annually, but it is likely that more of it will fall in the winter, with drier summers, for much of the UK.
• Sea levels rise, and are greater in the south of the UK than the north.

Hilary Benn said “There is no doubt about it – climate change is the biggest challenge facing the world today. Climate change is already happening – the hottest ten years on record globally have all been since 1990. This landmark scientific evidence shows not only that we need to tackle the causes of climate change but also that we must deal with the consequences.”

See more on The Met Office website, Defra’s website and on the UK Climate Projections website.

This week saw the 25th anniversary of the reintroduction of the Large Blue butterfly (Maculinea arion) to Britain after it was declared extinct in 1979. In 1983, researchers began introducing Large Blue butterflies from Sweden. In 2008, the species occupied 30% more colonises than it did in the 1950s. The research led by Professor Jeremy Thomas (University of Oxford & CEH) will be published online on 18th June by Science at the Science Express.

Understanding the ecology of the Large Blue butterfly has been critical in the success of the reintroduction. At the start of the decline it was believed that butterfly collectors were to blame. Then in the 1970s, Professor Jeremy Thomas discovered that the Large Blue was highly dependent upon a species of red ant (Myrmica sabuleti). The Large Blue caterpillars trick the red ants into believing it is a queen ant grub by secreting a fluid. The ants then take the caterpillar to their nest where the caterpillar feasts on ant grubs for ten months before emerging as a butterfly.

After determining this dependence it was then realised that due to a reduction in cattle grazing and myxomatosis infection in rabbits, the grass in the ant’s habitat had become overgrown. These overgrown hillsides had caused the soil to cool to a level below that required by the red ants. As the red ant populations dwindled so did the Large Blue butterfly populations. Unfortunately, all this work was completed too late to save native Large Blue populations. In the 1980s however, conservationists could then use scientific data produced by Thomas and colleagues to restore the ant’s habitat to allow the successful reintroduction of the Large Blue.

Professor Lord May of Oxford, recent President of The Royal Society and former Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government, said: “The recovery of the Large Blue butterfly is the world’s largest-scale, longest-running successful conservation project involving an insect. It illustrates perfectly how the application of sound science can be used to solve some of the apparently intractable problems that face conservationists worldwide today.”

Source of information: CEH news

Last night saw the second event organised by the Natural Capital Initiative, a joint partnership between the BES, the Institute of Biology and the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology. The topic under discussion was ‘Sustainable Cities’, with high-profile speakers presenting their arguments before a large audience of policymakers, urban designers, ecologists, students and members of the public.

Dr. William Bird, a practising GP and Strategic Health Advisor to Natural England, opened proceedings by reminding the audience of the oft-overlooked health benefits of green spaces. This was a particularly valuable way of contextualising the ensuing debate, giving the lie to any idea that green spaces are simply an abstract indulgence of the well-off, and instead clearly demonstrating that greening a city is a human welfare issue. Numerous studies have shown that when we see green areas and trees our blood pressure decreases, our heart rate drops and our brainwaves change to relaxed alpha waves. As a result, global studies have shown a clear link between obesity levels and areas with fewer green spaces. People have also been shown to live longer if they live by green spaces, though intriguingly, this effect is particularly noticeable amongst the poorest sectors of society. Green spaces can therefore serve to close the currently-widening gap between rich and poor levels of health and life expectancy, further highlighting the fact that greening cities is an important welfare issue.

Ken Livingstone, former Mayor of London, harked back to the great reformers of the Victorian Age who worked on issues such as disease, poverty and labour conditions, pointing out that these problems were worked upon and largely solved in the cities. He argued that it is the same again today, with 70-80% of the world’s carbon emissions coming from cities, leading to the conclusion that if we can achieve sustainable urban environments, we can basically sort climate change. He saw local power generation as an important factor in achieving this, pointing out that there is still only one power station at present in the whole of London. As a high-profile politician with excellent networks, it was sad to hear him so pessimistic about the world’s current efforts to combat climate change. He also reminded us of the sobering point that whilst the UK could be dramatically affected by climate change, as an island nation in the temperate zone it will avoid the worst ravages of climate change- it is the poorest and least resilient in developing nations who in fact will be most affected.

Peter Wilder, a prominent landscape architect, meanwhile outlined the need for ‘green infrastructure’, such as biofiltration systems, and a return to stewardship, whilst Malcolm Smith, a director at Arup, highlighted the fact that retro-fitting is the main answer when it comes to looking for solutions. Despite our great attraction to the glamour and spectacle of the new, he argued that 95% of the city is out there already, and so any meaningful solution has to be focused on the comparatively unsexy work of making existing homes and offices more sustainable. Finally Lorna Walker, an urban design consultant, argued that it is imperative to remember that individual people are at the centre of any solution to greening a city, and that technological change cannot simply be relied upon. Rather, it is imperative to ensure that the population is engaged with rather that turned off by anti-climate change measures. She also added that in London we already have a great starting point from which we can lead by example- 37% of the capital is designated green space (and astonishingly, that figure does not include gardens), and there is plenty of potential for inspirational improvement given the right leadership.

A high quality and wide-ranging debate with the audience followed, after which drinks and nibbles, as well as some excellent posters from PhD students, provided a relaxed opportunity to discuss some of the evening’s issues and to meet with other relevant actors in the urban environment sector.

For more details on this and future events of the Natural Capital Initiative, please visit here.

On 5th June the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS) and the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) merged to form the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. As certain select committees are directly linked to government departments it is expected that the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills (IUSS) Committee and the Business and Enterprise Committee will cease to exist and a Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) Committee be created.

The IUSS committee has outlined its concerns in relation to the potential loss of science scrutiny due to this probable merger of committees in special report “The future of science scrutiny following the merger of DIUS and BERR.”

When the IUSS Committee was established in 2007 it succeeded the Science and Technology Committee and was originally named the Innovation, Universities and Skills (IUS) Committee. This change in committee was thoroughly opposed by both members of the Science and Technology Committee and the scientific community who felt it may downgrade or reduce the scrutiny of cross-cutting science issues within Parliament. To allay fears the IUS committee was established with 14 rather than the normal 11 members and the word science was added to the committee name in 2008.

The current IUSS committee feel however, that their fears were founded and deem that cross-departmental science scrutiny has lost out. They believe that the probable merger with the BIS committee will make this scrutiny harder again due to the increased departmental remit. The committee additionally report Lord Mandelson’s recent comment that “The future competitiveness of this country depends on the excellence of its science” yet the committee note that there is only a part-time Minister for Science and Innovation within the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which may result in basic science being neglected.

In the report the IUSS committee conclude “We call on the Leader of the House to propose the creation of a Science and Technology Committee alongside the new Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. We urge the Leader of the House to bring forward the necessary Standing Order changes and let the House decide the matter.”