The Scottish Biodiversity Strategy, ‘Scotland’s Biodiversity: It’s in Your Hands‘ is currently undergoing a review and a pre-consultation draft of the new strategy was published on the 15th February.

The Scottish Government published the first Biodiversity Strategy in 2004 with the aim of conserving biodiversity ‘for the health, enjoyment and wellbeing of the people of Scotland now and in the future’. It fulfilled Scotland’s obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity and to the UK BAP, and is intended to cover the period up to 2030.

The current review will update the Strategy to meet the new challeneges and targets for 2020 as set out in the UN ‘Aichi’ targets and the European Biodiversity Strategy. Consultation on the proposed changes will be ongoing over the summer.

The draft strategy review is available from the Scottish Natural Heritage website, and updates on the consultation will be published by The Scottish Government.

Kennedy Warne, author of “Let Them Eat Shrimp: The Tragic Disappearance of the Rainforests of the Sea”, answered a few questions, posed by The Ecologist, about the importance of mangroves, the devastation caused by shrimp farming and his experiences researching his book.

You call mangroves the “rainforests of the sea”. While most people know about rainforests, most don’t know about mangroves. Why is that and why are they important?

Kennedy Warne: Mangroves tend to be associated with mud, and most people don’t like mud. (With the possible exception of potters). They also tend to harbour mosquitoes, and very few people (apart from entomologists) like mosquitoes. So there are a couple of reasons straight off the bat why mangroves have been maligned and disrespected – or simply ignored. While terrestrial tropical rainforests aren’t exactly fun places to be, with their torpid heat, abundance of bugs, high rainfall and other challenging attributes, people still recognise their importance and endorse efforts to prevent their destruction. Why aren’t mangroves higher on the environmental priority list? I don’t know. Their contribution to the planet and to humankind is immense. As I write in the book, they serve as coastal barricades and land stabilizers; they supply nutrients to the sea and nursery grounds for marine life; and they provide homes and livelihoods for millions of people across the tropical world.

In the book you detail the devastation caused by shrimp aquaculture. How has the western taste for massive amounts of this “luxury” food at a cheap price played a role?

The problem with shrimp aquaculture is that in the industry’s pioneering years, during the 1970s and 1980s, the ideal site for a shrimp pond happened to be at about the same position on the shore that mangroves flourish: low enough to get occasional tidal flow, but high enough not to be affected by tides all the time. Because mangrove forests tended to be public lands occupied by subsistence communities, they were readily appropriated by a combination of commercial aggression and governmental compliance.

Governments in developing countries became keen backers of shrimp farming because shrimp fetched a high price in the West, and was therefore a reliable source of foreign exchange. It was relatively easy for aquaculture corporations to clear mangroves and build shrimp ponds, the land was cheap to rent and there was plenty of it, so the cost of farming shrimp was low. Probably the most odious part of the early years of shrimp farming was that when one pond was nutritionally exhausted, the company would abandon it and bulldoze some more mangroves to build a new one. So the forests gave way to ever-expanding swathes of ponds. And all the while, consumers in the West couldn’t believe their luck, that such a tasty seafood was flooding into supermarket freezers and on to restaurant menus for such a cheap price. They never made the connection between cheap shrimp and disappearing mangrove forests.

As you travelled, you say first-hand the devastation caused by shrimp aquaculture and massive coastal development. How has this impacted both the environment and the local communities?

When you read statistic of how much mangrove forest individual countires have lost – 50 per cent, 60 per cent, 70 per cent – it can be very hard to get a picture of what those coastlines would have looked like if they had been left alone. But then you go to a place like the Sundarbans, the largest tract of mangrove in the world, and it starts to dawn on you the magnitude of what has been lost. And because mangroves are among the most biologically diverse forests on earth, you also realise that many species that rely on mangroves have disappeared too. Australian writer Tim Flannery wrote a book called A Gap in Nature, and that is what mangrove clearance caused: a very large, unfillable gap in nature.

Initially, my interest was focused on the natural history of mangroves. But then I started to meet people whose lives had been disrupted – more than most, catastrophically damaged – by mangrove deforestation, and I started to turn my attention to the impact mangrove loss was having on coastal communities. They were losing a physical resource, of course – source of timber, thatch, medicine, food – but they were also losing a defining part of their identity as forest dwellers. It would be like living next to a river and waking up one morning and finding the river was gone. They plight affected me deeply.

The full article appeared in The Ecologist, February 17th.

Over the past 40 years the EU has set up a relatively comprehensive and dense body of environmental legislation which, although far from perfect, is certainly a success story. Times are changing and increasing complexity of inter-linkages between policies on climate change, biodiversity and natural resources, coupled with financial and political volatility mean EU policy is likely to move in a new direction in the coming decade. That is the suggestion made by the recent report produced by the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) and commissioned by the All Party Parliamentary Environment Group (APPEG). Here are some of the key areas of EU environmental policy that the IEEP has identified as being high on the agenda over the next few years.

Climate Change and Energy

Despite being among some of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the world, EU member states are also among the most active in seeking to address the issue. The Kyoto Protocol commits the EU-15 to reducing average GHG emissions by 8 per cent below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. In 2009 the EU implemented the 20-20-20 target, which aims to reduce GHG emission by 20 per cent, increase the share of renewable energy by 20 per cent and reduce energy consumption by 20 per cent, all by the year 2020. Progress towards these targets is mixed with the steady rise in the share of renewable energy sources in stark contrast to the energy saving estimates. A number of studies have demonstrated that more ambitious climate mitigation polices are needed in Europe which could modernise the EU economy and infrastructure, create jobs and enhance competitiveness in fast growing global markets for low-carbon goods and services.

Transport

Emissions from transport are a major source of the EU’s GHG emissions, in 2010 it accounted for more than a fifth of GHG emissions from the EU. Increasing demand has offset potential gains from improvements in the energy efficiency of new vehicles. Further impacts of transport include problems with poor air quality, noise and transport infrastructure also puts huge pressure on Europe’s ecosystems and biodiversity. Currently there is a major effort to promote the use of biofuels and accelerate the process of electrifying road vehicles, however, many challenges exist in ensuring that these alternative fuels and energy sources are sustainable and are in fact low carbon.

Water

The EU environmental policies regarding water pollution have improved freshwater quality for many of its member states, including the UK. There are, however, growing problems in relation to water quantity, in particular in the south of Europe. EU water policy provides a comprehensive legislative framework that aims to address issues related to water quality as well as water demand and availability. 2012 will be an important year for EU water policy with the current “fitness-check” being undertaken by the Commission.

Biodiversity

Despite the establishment of a European network of protected areas (Natura 2000) and wide ranging regulatory framework, biodiversity continues to decline. 2010 targets of halting biodiversity loss within the EU were not met, mainly due to continuing increases in key pressures such as intensification of agriculture and habitat fragmentation. Over the last few years there has been increasing recognition of the economic value of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the policy process. A new EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 was produced in 2011 which sets out six main targets relating to: full implementation of the birds and habitats Directives, maintaining and restoring ecosystems and their services, increasing the contribution of agriculture and forestry to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity, ensuring the sustainable use of fisheries resources, combating invasive alien species and helping to avert global biodiversity loss.

A conference of more than 100 scientists and decision makers at the University of Copenhagen last week concluded that “the biodiversity crisis…is probably a greater threat than climate change to the stability and prosperous future of mankind on Earth”.

However, the talks signal a positive step towards addressing this pressing global issue as attendees discussed the future direction of the recently formed Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), created to coordinate international efforts to address the biodiversity crisis. IPBES is designed to be a global-scale interface between the scientific community and policy-makers, collecting and synthesising scientific research in order to strengthen its contribution to policy making.

Text adapted from original article at physorg.com

A study due to be published in Nature Climate Change journal (released to press) suggests that the current rate of ocean acidification, caused by increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, could be up to two orders of magnitude greater than that at the end of the last Ice Age. This has serious implications for ocean ecology, contributing to the ‘bleaching’ of coral reefs as well as apparent physiochemical effects on fish.

However, despite the severity of its potential impact, ocean acidication is relatively poorly covered in international policy. It had not yet emerged as an issue when the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992 and, consequently, is absent from its contents. Meanwhile most treaties concerning the ocean focus on matters such as shipping access, fisheries and localised pollution.

The upcoming Rio+20 conference could provide an important platform to redress this policy gap and actors including Unesco’s International Oceanographic Commission are pushing for ocean acidification to be made a priority issue on the agenda. The first draft of the conference agenda – the ‘zero draft’ – is available to view online.

Text based on original article by Richard Black, Environment Correspondent for the BBC

Earlier today the All Party Parliamentary Environment Group (APPEG) launched a report, produced by the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), entitled “The future for EU Environmental Policy: Challenges and Opportunities”.

The independent report considers environmental challenges facing the EU and the priorities for future development of EU environmental policy.

A fusion of economics and ecology is required to properly measure and capture the value of biodiversity. That was the message of an event at Parliament earlier today organised by Biodiversity, the UK all party parliamentary group, chaired by Barry Gardiner MP, and attended by the BES Policy Team.

Lord Deben, president of GLOBE International, began proceedings emphasising the need for an optimistic outlook by ecologists with regards to biodiversity, saying “misery never convinces” and that we should “celebrate 30 years of growing awareness for environmental issues”. Lord Deben went on to highlight the importance of establishing a method for the valuation of natural capital as quickly as possible so that biodiversity impoverishment “can no longer be avoided on the political agenda”.

Professor David Hill of the Environment Bank went on to discuss the need for moving away from seeing the environment as a “charitable exercise”, and to support the establishment of policies that enable financial markets to properly value ecosystems. Professor Hill echoed Lord Deben’s calls for action stating “don’t start, don’t go”.

Dr Tim Jenkins, director of the Great Transition Initiative suggested that well-being and not wealth needs to be the measure of progress within society and that the value of natural capital may be at a critical threshold. Dr Giles Atkinson, of the London School of Economics, agreed that wealth should be measured in more depth than from a purely financial point of view and joked that economists were “worried about adding together, literally, apples and oranges”.

Dr Roddy Farley of the Scottish Natural Heritage presented cause for optimism in his assessment that Scottish natural capital was on the rise but reinstated the need for a transparent, readily available measurement for the value of biodiversity which can be used on policy time frames.

The final speaker was Pandev Sukhdev, author of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, who highlighted the problem of the economic invisibility of nature and how this can result in short term private profits but far more damaging long term public losses. He sited an example of shrimp farms in south Thailand where the initial short-term profit was grossly out weighed by the long-term cost when natural capital losses were factored in.

Interested in discussing the challenges facing Scotland’s biodiversity to 2020 and helping to inform the development of Scotland’s draft Biodiversity Strategy? Come along to a meeting in Edinburgh on 8th – 9th March 2012. BES members can attend for FREE (but must register in advance).

The BES is working with the British Society of Soil Science and the Scottish Government’s Biodiversity Science Group to organise a one-day conference (9th March), an evening lecture, reception and dinner (8th March) at the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh. The meeting will:

•Introduce the science community in Scotland to the revision of Scotland’s Biodiversity Strategy;
•Explore the scale of the challenges facing the implementation of an ecosystem approach in Scotland;
•Provide an opportunity for the science community to find out about the needs of policy-makers;
•Provide an opportunity for networking between the science and policy communities.

The evening reception will celebrate the launch of the BES Scotland Policy Group, a new initiative from the Society that aims to link members of the Society in Scotland who are interested in informing policy development and through this to assist the Society’s policy team in doing the same.

Confirmed speakers for the 9th of March include: Colin Moffatt, Head of Science at Marine Scotland; Ken Norris, biodiversity theme leader at NERC and biodiversity chapter lead in the National Ecosystem Assessment; Helaina Black, James Hutton Institute; and Chris Quine, Forest Research.

Poster abstracts are invited upon registration. We particularly welcome registration by students to this meeting and will be offering a prize for the best poster.

Full details of the programme and how to register are available from the BES website.

Findings published in the journal Biological Conservation suggest habitat fragmentation and climate change are threatening seed dispersal around the globe.

Dr Prasad, who led the international team of scientists, found that factors identified as the main contributors to biodiversity loss, such as habitat fragmentation, invasive species and climate change, were altering seed dispersal patterns.

“If there are species that cannot adapt to the new conditions, then they have to shift their range. However, today, they live in a very fragmented world so the dispersal network has been disrupted by the human-modified landscape”

The study concluded “We recommend that the conservation status of functionally unique dispersers be revised and that the conservation target for key seed dispersers should be a population size that maintains their ecological function, rather than merely the minimum viable population.

Four out of five adults believe that farmers have a responsibility to look after the landscape and wildlife for future generations, according to a new survey commissioned by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE). Fewer than a fifth of British adults would accept a more industrialised farming sector and an overwhelming 78 per cent of people want farmers to get more support to carry out environmentally sustainable farming practices.

The CPRE published an accompanying report describing their farming vision where farmers who adopt new environmental sustainability standards benefit from a price premium that recognises the additional environmental measures they are taking. For example, replanting of the countryside’s diminishing numbers of hedgerows.

Increasing global population and a changing climate have increased the pressures on food production. Agricultural intensification across Europe, particularly in the West, has simplified landscapes leading to a loss in biodiversity. However, Ian Woodhurst, senior farming campaigner for CPRE, believes that the public are aware of and understand the challenges of producing affordable food for a growing population and says “It’s great to see that people clearly want the environmental sustainable future for farming set out in our vision. There are huge challenges, including growing populations, increasing demand for land and natural resources, and pressures due to climate change. But we must find ways to cope with these challenges if we are to secure a living, thriving rural landscape”.

Source: Flohre, A., Fischer, C., Aavik, T. et al. (2011) Agricultural intensification and biodiversity partitioning in European landscapes comparing plants, carabids, and birds. Ecological Applications. 21: 1772-1781.