New research published in the journal Science shows that efforts made to rebuild depleted fish stocks are worthwhile and can be successful. An international team of researchers evaluated the condition of marine fisheries and the effects of fishing in ten of the world’s largest marine communities. In five of the ten ecosystems they found that fishing levels had been substantially reduced and clear signs of rebuilding could be seen.

Of the ten areas studied, 63% need to be rebuilt. 14% of the assessed stocks had collapsed by 2007, although this varied regionally (60% of the assessed stocks in Eastern Canada, for example, had collapsed).

In Kenya, a successful management strategy, involving co-operating with local communities, restrictions on damaging fishing gear and the introduction of protected areas, has led to an increase in fish stocks, in the size of caught fish and in the income gained from fishing.

The researchers conclude that fish stocks can be rebuilt if strategically placed fishing closures are combined with gear restrictions, ‘ocean zoning’ – separating areas for fisheries and conservation – with catch quotas and local management. They recommend that countries take early action, before overexploitation becomes apparent, and that nations adopt a culturally sensitive approach to rebuilding fish stocks. Closing fisheries will involve short-term losses, in yield and of jobs, and so will have a disproportionate effect on those in the developing world who may rely soley on fishing for protein and for income.

Original research: Worm, B., Hilborn, R., Baum, J. et al. (2009). Rebuilding global fisheries. Science. 325: 578-585.
Source article: Science for Environment Policy, EU

The UK Government Office for Science (GO Science), yesterday published a document setting out the Government’s approach to the management of science and engineering advice in the face of major global challenges, including climate change, food and energy security. The document, “Science and Engineering in Government: an overview of the Government’s approach”, hails advice from science and engineering as the foundation of good government, underpinning economic success and social justice. The document also outlines the Government Chief Scientific Advisor’s (CSA) role as the ‘Head of the Science and Engineering Profession in Government’.

Speaking on the launch of the report Professor John Beddington, the current Government CSA, said: “I am delighted that every major science-using department now has its own CSA. This, together with the community of Government scientists and engineers I’m developing will ensure that all levels of the policy-making process are supported by the best science and engineering.”

Despite steps made to appoint a CSA to many Government departments, a CSA is still conspicuously absent from HM Treasury, a department absolutely fundamental to Government decision-making. It is somewhat disappointing that the Government does not include HM Treasury in its considerations of “major science-using” departments.

Last night the BES and the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) held an evening reception in Parliament to launch their new position paper- ‘Conserving & Managing Biodiversity Beyond 2010‘. Together with Countdown 2010 and in association with the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) and the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum (UKOTCF), the reception aimed to highlight the importance of biodiversity to MPs, policy-makers and NGOs, review the success of the 2010 biodiversity target, and influence debate on its replacement.

The reception, which was kindly hosted by Lord Selborne, was attended by over 100 guests, comprising a diverse range of MPs, Lords, academics, policymakers, NGO representatives and professional ecologists. After the launch of the Position Paper, excellent speeches were given by Sarah Robinson, IUCN-UK National Committee; Pavan Sukhdev, Leader of The Economics of Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity (TEEB) study, and Professor Bob Watson, Chief Scientifc Advisor at Defra. One recurring theme was the importance of generating widespread recognition of the true value of biodiversity and ecosystem services amongst the wider public, as well as the need for a radical departure from a ‘business-as-usual’ approach. Speeches were followed by a stimulating question and answer session with the speakers, before the continuation of the wine reception and an opportunity for further networking.

To download a copy of the new Position Statement, which details the ecological and conservation community’s view on actions that need to be taken post 2010 to halt biodiversity loss in the UK, please see here. If you would like further information on the policy work of the BES, or want to be involved in the future, please see here.

Speaking at the tenth annual Darwin Initiative lecture last night (see post below for further details), Hilary Benn announced that Professor Sir John Lawton, ex-President of the BES, has been appointed to chair the review of England’s wildlife network.

The review will explore if England’s collection of wildlife areas represents a coherent and robust ecological network that will be capable of responding to future pressures such as climate change. Commenting on his appointment, Professor Lawton said that “Climate change poses a major challenge for England’s wildlife, but it is by no means the only threat. We need to ensure that the existing protected-area network is fit for purpose, and if it isn’t, what we do about it.” The review will publish its findings in June 2010.

Delivering the tenth annual Darwin Initiative lecture in London last night, Secretary of State Hilary Benn argued that we take our natural capital for granted at our peril, and that only by putting a monetary value on ecosystems and biodiversity will we succeed in advocating for and protecting nature.

Fluently making the human case for protecting ecosystem services, Mr. Benn pointed towards the ongoing TEEB report (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) as potentially representing a turning point in wider attitudes to nature conservation. He expressed the belief that whilst 2009 has become the year of climate change, 2010 really would be the year of biodiversity, with widespread progress being made on multiple fronts.

Looking forward, the Minister argued for the creation of an IPCC-equivalent for biodiversity and expressed the UK’s strong support for current discussions regarding the establishment of a biodiversity and ecosystems services-focussed international scientific organisation. He called for a credible new biodiversity target, not only underpinned by science but also measurable by science, the importance of including biodiversity, especially forests, in any global climate change deal, and the need for a new system of marine governance. Above all however, he stated the need for better-informed policies across government, pointing towards the TEEB as a crucial means of encouraging other government departments and public bodies to take account of the true long-term costs of not conserving our natural capital.

The head of the Russell Group of universities, Professor Michael Arthur, has argued that 90% of funding to be allocated in the Research Excellence Framework should be concentrated in 25 – 30 institutions. Commenting at a Times Higher Education conference at the Royal Society this week Prof. Arthur, who is also vice-chancellor of Leeds University, argued that HEFCE’s plans to distribute £1.5 billion of research funding to excellent research “wherever it takes place”, will lead “a progression to mediocrity”. In times of fiscal constraint, he said, spreading the pot of research funding thinly will lead to a potential loss of international excellence.

The Government is expected to announce a policy of concentration of research funding, in some form or another, within the next few weeks.

Prof. Arthur also criticised HEFCE’s plan to award 25% of the overall assessment of a Department’s research quality on the basis of the economic and societal impact of the research. This could mean £400 – £500 million of funding will be determined on the basis of impact. Professor Arthur highlighted the practical difficulties in measuring impact (variable time lags before the impact is apparent, variability among disciplines and the real concern of the humanities and social sciences), and suggested that basing 10% of the allocation on impact would be more appropriate.

Separately, the Times today reports that hundreds of scientists, including six Nobel laureates and Professor Richard Dawkins, have signed a statement condemning HEFCE’s plans to make funding conditional on social and economic impact, stating that this will be counterproductive. “The REF proposals are founded on a lack of understanding of how knowledge advances. It is often difficult to predict which research will create the greatest potential impact, ” the statement says. The researchers argue that the plans for the REF will mitigate against basic research and could lead to an intellectual ‘brain drain’ to the USA.

Meanwhile, Professor John Beddington, UK Government Chief Scientific Advisor, welcomes HEFCE’s plans to recognise the engagement in policy by academics as part of the REF, writing an opinion piece in the Times Higher. Prof. Beddington supports efforts to recognise and reward the contribution made by excellent research to Government policy-making and welcomes HEFCE’s plans explicitly to recognise work that leads to “better informed policy-making or improved services”. “The role of academic advice is to promote sound evidence, to challenge assumptions and subject claims to critical scrutiny”, Prof. Beddington states. “It is essential that Government gets the best advice on pressing issues of the day, but it is also important to promote a wider culture in which engagement between academics and government is the norm in policy delivery”.

For more information about the British Ecological Society’s policy work and opportunities to get involved visit www.britishecologicalsociety.org/policy

Scientists at the Institute for Applied Ecology at the University of Canberra, Australia, have found a turtle that does better in a suburban habitat than it does in nature reserves. Eastern long-necked turtles (Chelodina longicollis) living in the suburbs of Canberra occupy home ranges nearly three times larger than turtles in the nature reserves. They are better able to cope with periods of drought, have higher population abundances and growth rates, and at last equivalent recruitment levels.

Eastern long-necked turtles, common across much of south eastern Australia, can be found in many freshwater habitats in the wild and in towns and cities. The researchers compared turtles that lived in the suburbs of Canberra to those in adjacent nature reserves, attaching miniature radio transmitters to the turtles in each habitat and following their weekly movements over the course of a year. Both turtle populations made long journeys of up to two and a half kilometres between bodies of water. It was expected that given their extensive movements, the suburban turtles would have a high rate of encounters with vehicles on roads, and thus fewer would survive. In fact, suburban turtles did not suffer appreciably higher mortality than their counterparts on reserve lands, only one of the 36 radio tracked turtles being hit by a vehicle. Vegetated drainage lines and drainage culverts running under roads protected the turtles.

Given the severe droughts that have been affecting much of Australia, the different populations’ response to drought was also notable. Turtles in the nature reserves responded to the drying up of the wetlands by lying dormant buried under leaf litter. However, suburban turtles were able to maintain aquatic activities throughout periods of drought as suburban water bodies remained flooded. Suburban landscapes, despite their unique challenges, may therefore be higher quality habitats than nature reserves for turtles during drought. The researchers hope to further evaluate whether well-designed urban areas hold any promise as long term drought refuges for some turtle populations.

For further information, please see here.

A new report published today by the National Science Learning Centre shows that ‘Project Enthuse’, a £30 million partnership between Government, industry and the Wellcome Trust, has had a positive impact on science teaching in the UK.

Project Enthuse provides bursaries of up to £1800 to support science teachers and science technicians attending residential courses at the Regional and National Science Learning Centres. The bursaries cover the cost of fees, travel and accomodation but also the cost to the teacher’s school of providing lesson cover; a major factor cited by schools and teachers as prohibiting staff accessing Continuous Professional Development (CPD) opportunities.

90% of those who have attended courses since the launch of Project Enthuse in 2008 have indicated that the experience has had a positive impact on themselves, on their schools or on their pupils. If more heads allowed teachers to attend, the report indicates, science exam grades and the number of students opting for post-16 and triple-award science could receive a dramatic boost.

An increase in tuition fees to maintain the science base…

Speaking at the launch of the report, Professor John Holman, Director of the National Science Learning Centre and Director of Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) at the Department for Children, Schools and Families, commented that the cap on university student tuition fees must be lifted to provide the high quality scientists needed by the UK. He said that it was difficult to see how the quality of education in universities could be maintained if a significant financial boost was not provided. The UK Government is due to launch a review of student tuition fees later this year, which will report following the next general election.

Source: Wellcome Trust and the Independent

After quite a few years in the background after talk of ‘Frankenstein foods’ and the suchlike, genetically-modified (GM) crops appear to be re-emerging onto the political agenda. Professor John Beddington, the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, has said that the only way the world will produce the 50 per cent more food required to feed the growing population by 2030 is to grow more crops on less land by using the latest scientific innovation, and that GM will have to be a part of the solution. “This is such a problem that you cannot say we will not use GM technology – that would be really unwise,” he said at a global food summit organised by CABI, an environmental research centre.

His comments come as a new Royal Society report, entitled ‘Reaping the Benefits: Towards a Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture’, also recommends GM crops to tackle the impending food crisis. Furthermore, the first trial in a year was recently re-started in Leeds, with the Government’s support, and a recent report on food security from the Defra backed further research into the technology.

It thus seems likely that public debate over GM in the UK may soon be restarted.

Scientists at the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) have proposed that diatoms, a type of algae, could be used as a biofuel. Diatoms contain oil droplets within their cells and the researchers estimate that one hectare of diatom cultivation could produce 100 – 200 times the oil produced by equivalent soybean cultivation.

Diatoms secrete silica outwith their cell walls. The scientists propose that the algae could be genetically modified to do the same with diatom oil, which could then be harvested. The algae could be suspended within a nutrient-rich solution, within a solar panel. The diatoms would then secrete the oil when exposed to sunlight. Prof. T.V. Ramachandra, a member of the research team, has been quoted as saying that it may be possible to “milk diatoms for oil just as we milk cows”.

Experts have greeted the proposal with enthusiasm but warn that it is too early to say if it is feasible or the costs prohibitive.

Source: SciDev.net
Original Article: Scientific American