The BES Policy Officer yesterday attended the first day of a meeting in London of the British Ecological Society’s Invasive Species Special Interest Group. The topic for the meeting was “Linking Research and Practice”, with participants eager to find out how their work could better inform policy-making.

David Roy, Biological Records Centre, delivered the morning’s keynote presentation, focusing on the DAISIE (Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe) project. The project had revealed that over 11,000 species are ‘alien’ somewhere in Europe; many of these (60%) terrestrial plants. On average, one alien mammal introduction occurs in Europe each year, and data indicate that the rates of arrival of alien species in European countries are accelerating; a pattern seen for both invertebrates and vertebrates. Although there is no strategy for tackling invasive species at an EU level, a high level communique in 2008 paved the way for the introduction of a strategy in the future.

Olaf Booy, GB Non-Native Species Secretariat, discussed the GB Non-Native Species Framework Strategy, which sets out how invasive species should be tackled in Great Britain. In many respects, Olaf reported, GB is far ahead of other European countries in tackling invasive species, which can have large economic impacts and impacts on human health. The three pronged approach: prevention; detection and rapid response; limit and control populations, must also be accompanied by awareness raising amongst the public in order for the strategy to be effective. Olaf highlighted the research gaps in relation to many species, particularly regarding three key questions: can it establish?; what are the impacts?; what effect will climate change have? He called on the research community to work with policy-makers to provide the answers.

The afternoon saw the BES Policy Officer deliver a brief presentation, introducing the work of the policy team to delegates, and a workshop to consider how policy-makers and practitioners could gain better access to research information. Participants highlighted networking as very important in building trust and collaborations. Policy-makers rarely read academic journals, instead accessing professional networks for copies of papers and information. Policy-makers present at the meeting suggested that digests of current scientific evidence in relation to particular issues, with respect to invasive species, would be extremely helpful. This is something the BES could consider providing in the future.

To date, few indicators have been developed that summarise the impacts of climate change on multiple species over large areas of land. Such an indicator is much desired by policy-makers, who want to be able to see the potential impacts of climate change on biodiversity. A new EU-supported study has therefore developed an indicator of climate change’s impact on European birds, which has subsequently been used to report threats to biodiversity.

The climatic impact indicator (CII) was developed by studying 108 of the 124 species in the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme. It provides a graphic representation in the form of an index to demonstrate how climate change is affecting biodiversity. When the size of a bird’s population changes in line with predictions, the indicator goes up. The predictions come from a climate envelope model which maps changes in the environment surrounding a certain species or ecosystem under likely climate change. The indicator has been increasing since the 1980s, a pattern which matches rising temperatures in Europe and suggests that climate change is having a growing impact.

Whilst the CII incorporates both positive and negative changes in bird populations, the researchers found that 75 per cent of changes were negative. The species likely to be worst affected by climate change include the Common Snipe (Gallinago gallinago), Meadow Pipit (Anthus pratensis) and Brambling (Fringilla montifringilla), although some species, such as the European Bee-eater (Merops apiaster), are already being observed to benefit.

The CII may be able to inform environmental policy by acting as a biodiversity target, for example if a policy objective was introduced to slow the rate of increase of the CII. Such a target would of course have to recognise time lags in the impact of climate change. Separate CII indicators could nonetheless be prepared for individual countries and groups of birds in the future, as well as for many different species.

Source: Gregory, R.D., Willis, S.G. Jiguet, F. et al. (2009). An indicator of the Impact of Climatic Change on European Bird Populations.
Free to download here.

Lord Drayson, UK Science Minister, has confirmed that the Research Excellence Framework (REF), the successor to the RAE, will reward scientists for engaging with the public. Responding to the consultation on the REF early last year, via the Biosciences Federation, the BES specifically argued for public engagement, and engagement in policy, to be recognised in the REF.

Speaking at the World Conference for Scientific Journalists, and reported in yesterday’s Times Higher, Lord Drayson stated that the Government “believe(s) that scientists have a duty – particularly when they are funded by taxpayers – to engage in the public arena, to engage in communication of the challenges and the potential ethical concerns about their science, and that will be included in the REF.” He went on to say “if a scientist does a great job in this area, (it is important) that it is recognised in the assessment because at the moment we don’t have any way of showing that this is regarded as an important component of what being a scientist is about”.

Lord Drayson said that the details of how to implement this component of the REF were being worked on by HEFCE and stressed that it would not substitute for research excellence: public engagement would remain voluntary. In highlighting the types of activities that would be eligible, he gave interacting with the media, taking part in debates, and standing up to talk about science as examples. Engagement with policy work was not mentioned, as far as the BES understands.

See original article: Drayson says REF will give points for public outreach, THES, 9 July 2009

An interesting article in this week’s ‘Science for Environment Policy’ digest from the EU outlines recent research showing that crops grown specifically for bioenergy could offer a greater risk of becoming invasive than non-bioenergy crops.

In this study, the first which has quantified the invasiveness of bioenergy crops, researchers compared the risks of invasion for 40 bioenergy crops proposed for introduction to Hawaii, to a random sample of 40 non-bioenergy crops, using an established methodology known as ‘Weed Risk Assessment’. The results showed that the bioenergy crops were two to four times more likely to establish wild populations and become invasive. 70% of the bioenergy species were high risk, compared to 25% of the random sample. Bioenergy crops are more likely to be invasive as they are selected for the same traits as belong to many successful invasive species: pest resistance; high biomass or reproductive capacity; tolerance to harsh conditions; ability to thrive as a monoculture.

Some of these risks could be managed so that the benefits of planting the crops outweigh the costs. The researchers encourage governments to consider the invasiveness of bioenergy crops when granting funds or approval for these.

Original paper: Buddenhagen, C.E., Chimera, C. and Clifford, P. (2009). Assessing Biofuel Crop Invasiveness: A Case Study. PloS ONE. 4(4): e5261. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005261.

The second Policy Lunchbox meeting took place today at the Biochemical Society, London. Science Policy Officers met with Jack Stilgoe, Senior Policy Adviser at the Royal Society to discuss how their organisations and the Royal Society, the UK’s academy of science, can better work together.

Jack provided an outline of the new Science Policy Centre at the Society, which opened approximately six months ago and brings together the science policy teams and staff working with international networks such as the Inter Academies Panel. Alongside writing reports and setting the agenda with respect to emerging developments across science, the RS organises private briefings for political figures, facilitates workshops bringing scientists and policy-makers together and holds a monthly ‘PolicyLab’ meeting to extend networks across the science policy community.

The main focus of Jack’s presentation was on the new RS study: “The Fruits of Curiosity”. Aiming to outline why science matters to society, and how it can be made to matter even more over the next ten to twenty years, the report will be launched in Spring 2010. “The Fruits of Curiosity” offers an opportunity for the RS to reach out beyond its traditional community of Fellows and Learned Societies the opportunity to engage with the RS to a greater degree than previously. A call for information will be issued within the next two weeks.

The next Policy Lunchbox will be held on 5 August and we will be joined by Ottoline Leyser, Professor of Plant Development Genetics and Chair of the Biosciences Skills and Careers Strategy Panel. To register your interest in attending please email Rebecca.Smith@biochemistry.org.

The Policy Team last night attended a lecture at the Royal Society delivered by J.E.N. ‘Charlie’ Veron, a world-leading expert on corals. Charlie has spent much of his career studying corals at the Great Barrier Reef, off the coast of Queensland in Australia, but has more recently devoted his life to spreading the word about the terrible threats to coral reefs posed by climate change.

Over the course of the hour’s lecture, introduced by Sir David Attenborough, and subsequent questions, the threats to corals became clear, and frighteningly so. Corals exist at the interface between the land, sea and atmosphere: a unique and vulnerable position. Corals depend on an optimum temperature to survive: in the Great Barrier Reef system this is approximately 31 degrees celcius. An increase in temperature causes the symbiotic organisms which live inside the coral, the zooxanthellae, to over-produce oxygen, killing the coral: this is observed as a ‘bleaching’ event. Charlie said that he hadn’t observed coral bleaching before 1980 but since then it has become all too common and has now been observed in every major coral system across the globe.

Charlie presented a synopsis of the likely effect on coral as the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and hence in the oceans which absorb huge amounts of carbon dioxide, increases with time. As the concentration of carbon dioxide in the oceans increases, chemical reactions result in the increasing prodction of hydrogen ions. These hydrogens bind with carbonate ions, which are used by corals to build calcium carbonate skeletons. Disruption of this chemical reaction means that corals are no longer able to build their skeletons and so disrupts reef building.

At 350ppm, mass coral bleaching events were observed all over the world. At today’s concentration of 387ppm, there is compounding long-term degradation of the Great Barrier Reef. 450ppm, the target for the Copenhagen negotiations in December, will cause mass-bleaching most years, and at 500ppm and above shallow water corals will disappear. If the carbon concentration was to rise as high at 800ppm, those corals remaining would be askeletal and would not be associated with reefs.

The degradation of coral reefs is a huge environmental and socioeconomical issue. Not only do reefs support hotspots of biodiversity, providing habitat for up to nine million species, but they provide natural wave-breaks, protecting coastline, and support fishing and tourism industries. The livlihoods of many coastal communities depend on the ecosystem services provided by coral reefs.

Speaking at the end of the meeting, Sir David Attenborough offered a direct challenge to the scientific community. He said we all have a duty to support politicians, providing information, to make sure that their voices are as loud and as authoritative as possible at the Copenhagen negotiations. Reducing carbon emissions is paramount, and widespread geo-engineering must form part of this.

Following the lecture, members of the scientific community signed a statement setting out the results of a workshop, held earlier in the day, in which scientific consensus was reached regarding the likely impact of ocean acidification on coral reefs and the ’safe limits’ within which carbon emissions should be held to prevent widespread degradation of reefs before 2100.

Writing in yesterday’s (2 July) Times Higher, Lord Drayson, Science Minister, defended the decision to move science policy into the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), following the break-up of the old Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, in June this year. Many in the science community have expressed discontent at the move, stating that the integrity of science will be compromised by such a close relationship with business and that funding for basic research will be threatened.

Lord Drayson says that ‘BIS is the best outcome for science’ and goes on to argue that ‘the purpose of BIS is to build a dynamic knowledge economy, driven by excellence in education, strategic investment from Government and- critically – an outstanding science base’.

In the article the Minister states that the Government is commited to maintaining a ring-fenced science budget and to raising, not cutting, spend on science and technology. Lord Drayson sees BIS as the ’strongest Government department’ and argues that locating science policy here, at the heart of Government, will increase political buy-in and speed policy implementation.

Read original article: Right where it belongs: Being part of BIS means that science is now at the epicentre of Whitehall and government, says Lord Drayson

The Chair Designate of the Marine Management Organisation has been announced as Christopher Parry. Mr Parry will become Chair once the Marine Bill has passed through Parliament and received Royal Assent.

In making the announcement yesterday Defra outlined Mr Parry’s credentials to lead the MMO, the new delivery body for the Government in the marine environment. Mr Parry is a former naval officer with a career spanning 30 years. He has held Director and Director-General roles at the Ministry of Defence.

Under the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Member States must agree on common environmental targets and should establish a programme outlining how these targets will be met. Researchers have demonstrated that mussel farming may be a cost-effective way to remove excess nutrients from the marine environment, reducing eutrophication its associated algal blooms, and should thereby be a method considered by EU Member States in meeting these targets.

Working in the Baltic Sea, researchers examined the cost of nutrient removal – nitrogen and phosphorus – using mussel farms, comparing this with: increasing cleaning at sewage plants; buffer strips; wetland construction and cultivation of catch crops. Four scenarios were modelled: with and without mussel sales options and in terms of low and high cost due to growth rates and nutrient content in mussels.

In all four scenarios, mussel farming was shown to cut costs in meeting stringent environmental targets. The overall cost savings of using mussels ranged from 20 – 138 million EUR. The mussels grown in this way could be used for fish meal in poultry feed.

Expansion of mussel farming in this way could have adverse impacts on marine ecosystems and this would need to be examined further before any widespread introduction to combat eutrophication in this way. If results are favourable the researchers propose that a ‘nutrient trading’ scheme could be introduced across Europe whereby, for example, a sewage treatment plant could trade nitrogen cleaning with a mussel farm.

Original Source: EU Science for Environment Policy

Gren, I-M., Lindahl, O. and Lindqvist, M. (2009). Values of mussel farming for combating eutrophication: An application to the Baltic Sea. Ecological Engineering. 35:935-945.

Coral reefs are directly impacted by the synergistic effects of global warming and ocean acidification and are likely to be placed into a situation of irreversible decline if immediate steps are not taken to reduce CO2 emissions. In December 2009, Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will be meeting in Copenhagen to discuss and hopefully agree to greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. The scientific community has a critical role to play in informing the decision makers involved in the UNFCCC talks about the level of greenhouse gas emissions cuts required to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change and ocean acidification.

Professor J.E.N Veron is the former Chief Scientist of the Australian Institute of Marine Science and widely regarded as the world’s leading authority on coral reef ecosystems. He has extensively researched the highly synergistic threats posed to coral reef ecosystems by global warming and ocean acidification. Professor Veron will summarise these threats and the action he believes is essential at Copenhagen this December.

This presentation will be followed by a summary of the findings and recommendations of a Technical Expert Workshop held earlier in the day.

Time and date: 15.30 – 17.00 (doors open at 15.10), Monday 6th July

Location: The Royal Society, 6-9 Carlton House Terrace, London, SW1Y 5AG (HUlink to mapUH) HUhttp://royalsociety.org/UH The nearest tube station is Piccadilly Circus (5 minutes), Charing Cross (10 minutes) and Victoria (20 minutes).

This event is being organised by the International Programme on the State of the Ocean, the Royal Society, and the Zoological Society of London.

Please note seats are not reserved unless prior arrangements have been made with aylin.mcnamara@zsl.org. Doors open 20 minutes before the presentation starts.