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

The Rio +20 Earth Summit, taking place in Rio de Janeiro in June 2012, needs to build upon the momentum begun by the last round of UNFCCC climate change negotiations in Duban, South Africa. That was the message of an event in Parliament yesterday evening, organised by the Aldersgate Group (co-sponsored by WWF) and attended by the BES Policy Team.

Chris Huhne MP, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, gave the opening speech, emphasising the positives which had emerged from the climate change negotiations; primarily from the ‘huddle’ called on the conference floor at the eleventh hour by the South African delegation. Using the analogy of the film ‘Sliding Doors’, where each of two realities were equally possible depending on the choices made in an instant, Chris Huhne suggested that the outcomes of the talks could have been very different, if it wasn’t for strong leadership by a number of countries.

Outcomes from Durban included an extension to the Kyoto Protocol and a commitment to develop a successor- an international legally-binding framework to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases – no later than 2015, to come into force in 2020. Parties to the negotiations have also recognised the need for greater urgency and ambition in tackling emissions; acknowledging that the timetable for action and the pledged emissions cuts lag someway behind the necessary momentum suggested by climate science.

One of the important commitments to emerge from Durban is to a Green Climate Fund, which will assist developing countries in their efforts to establish clean energy mechanisms. Member countries of the UNFCCC are required to contribute to the fund, although the Secretary of State and others at the Aldersgate Group event recognised that public money will need to be used to leverage significant amounts of private funding for the mechanism to be a success; there were questions around whether and how, this would be possible. The Green Climate Fund builds on the pledges made at the Copenhagen negotiations in 2009, to mobilise $100 billion per year for clilmate change adaptation and mitigation.

In a question and answer session to follow the Secretary of State’s speech, one delegate challenged the Government to be yet more ambitious during international negotiations, inviting Chris Huhne to give his view on innovative approaches that can really help to move the international community towards a ‘paradigm shift’ and new political reality. To this, Chris Huhne replied that investment in science and innovation would be key; an interesting statement given the extensive analysis in recent months by the Campaign for Science and Engineering that the UK science budget is actually going to decline in real terms to 2015, whilst other countries are investing in R and D as a way out of recession.

David Nussbaum, CEO of WWF UK, speaking later in the evening, emphasised the importance of Rio +20 leading to action, not rhetoric and to a vision of human development proceeding in parallel with conservation of the planet’s ‘life support systems’ (ecosystem services). Consistency across the UK Government will be vital. A speaker from the Aldersgate Group echoed this point when calling for the Prime Minister to vest genuine responsibility in the negotiating team from Defra who will be sent to Rio; allowing substantial pledges to action to be made.

Finally, a speaker from Philips stressed the need for Rio +20 to build on the momentum and atmosphere of change which he felt was in evidence at Durban. To make genuine progress: efforts to advance technology must be continued; policy frameworks must be developed (a global treaty); innovative financing mechanisms are needed to take care of the upfront investments that will be necessary, along with changes to budgeting practice – emphasising that upfront costs may be high but long-term, this investment will reap dividends. Finally, it is vital to communicate the ecological benefits of clean energy and a decarbonised, sustainable economy to the public at large but, beyond this, the social benefits of this transition. Ultimately, this will translate to changes in individuals’ mindsets and so onwards to voting choices, consumer behaviour and to business decisions.

The final speaker, from the Aldersgate Group, was pragmatic, saying that ‘Durban teaches us that we must manage our expectations for Rio’; the pace of political negotiations and of change can be achingly slow. Alongside international negotiations, he suggested, we must develop a pluralistic consensus on the need for change.

An Aldersgate Group event on 16th May will see Secretary of State for the Environment, Caroline Spelman MP, deliver a speech looking forward to Rio +20 and outlining the UK Government’s position on the Summit.

According to a recent study by Cambridge University researchers, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is too high to allow the onset of a potentially overdue ice age. The period between the end of an ice age and the beginning of the next is typically about 11,000 years due to natural cycles related to the Earth’s orbit. The last ice age ended 11,600 years ago and researchers estimate that glacial inception, an early sign of the onset of an ice age, should start in the near future. However, an ice age would only be able to begin if the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere were to fall, from current levels of approximately 390 ppm, to roughly 240ppm or lower.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation said the study demonstrated that man-made carbon dioxide emissions were preventing a “global disaster”. The think tank, set up by Lord Lawson, cited a theory proposed by Sir Fred Hoyle and Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe in 1999 which said we “must look to a sustained greenhouse effect to maintain the present advantageous world climate.”

Dr Luke Skinner, who led the recent study, told the BBC such an argument would be “missing the point” that man-made climate change will heat the planet much more than current temperatures, and that failing to slow the rate of carbon emissions could have “huge consequences.”

Today is the first day of a plenary meeting to discuss and decide upon the formation of the Integovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), convened by the UN Environment Programme. Representatives from the United Nations, and observers from NGOs and other bodies, have assembled in Nairobi, Kenya, to consider how IPBES will operate and, amongst other decisions, determine where the IPBES secretariat will be located.

On the eve of the meeting, Prof. Bob Watson, Defra’s Chief Scientific Adviser, gave an interview to the Independent newspaper, in which he outlined his hopes for IPBES. Prof. Watson suggested that the only way in which IPBES can function effectively will be if developing nations have ownership over any in-country ecosystem assessments which are conducted, and if these are conducted by scientists from that nation – similar to the UK National Ecosystem Assessment. “If they think that this is just the white world, the developed world, telling them what to do, that’ll be the end of it.”

The BES, together with the UK Biodiversity Research Advisory Group (UK BRAG) organised a session at the BES Annual Meeting in Sheffield last month which introduced the IPBES to the assembled ecologists. Dr Andrew Stott, Defra’s representative to IPBES from the civil service, outlined the role of IPBES, as agreed at a meeting in Busan, South Korea, in 2010. A copy of Dr Stott’s presentation is available from the BES website.

As outlined by Dr Stott, IPBES will:

- Generate new knowledge: identifying information needed for policy; catalysing research and surveying
- Conduct regular and timely assessments: at global, regional and sub-regional scales; and on thematic and ‘new topics identified by science’.
- Provide support for policy formulation, through promoting access to policy-relevant tools and methods;
- Have a capacity building function: identifying needs; supporting the highest priority needs; catalysing funding.

IPBES is intended as an ‘IPCC for biodiversity’; a credible, scientifically independent body which is policy relevant but not policy prescriptive (similar to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

At the plenary meeting over the next few days decisions will be made about how the IPBES is structured; whether, for example, a scientific advisory group is formed which can advise the Plenary – the IPBES decision-making body- on scientific and technical aspects of the work programme and which can approve specific scientific procedures related to how ecosystem assessments are conducted. A further meeting in Nairobi, in March/ April 2012, will see delegates decide on further aspects of how the IPBES will work, including its work programme.

As IPBES develops, there are likely to be opportunities for ecologists and others to get involved with the conduct of assessments and with capacity building, although questions remain about how to incentivise scientists to take part in these activities (for example, through university reward structures such as the Research Excellence Framework). Ecologists and others in the UK who would like to find out more about IPBES and who would like to remain fully engaged with the development of the Platform, can join the UK Stakeholder Group, maintained by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC).

An incredibly diverse and busy programme of sessions at the BES Annual Meeting this year means that I am only now able to find the time to report on Prof. Bill Sutherland’s Monday afternoon plenary; ‘Twelve months in Ecology’. Since Bill’s talk, we have also seen a fantastic plenary from Professor Jules Pretty, University of Essex – discussing the importance of social capital in ensuring ’sustainable intensification’ of agriculture – which you can now read about on the BES Annual Meeting blog. We have also had a fantastic, and packed, session on ‘What next for the UK National Ecosystem Assessment and IPBES?’, which I hope to find the time to report on tomorrow.

But for now, back to Prof. Sutherland’s review of the past year and some of the major changes which have taken place in policy impinging upon – or informed by – ecological science. One recurring theme which has come across in the sessions I have attended this year (apart from soil, which seems to have been a hot topic at this meeting) is that the past few months have seen a ‘paradigm’ shift in how the UK Government considers biodiversity and ecosystem services. First the Lawton Review of England’s protected area network, then the National Ecosystem Assessment, and latterly the Natural Environment White Paper: late 2010 and 2011 to date have seen the publication of some potentially highly significant reports and policy papers likely to have a major effect on the direction of environment policy for some time to come. But, Prof. Sutherland highlighted, the most important test – implementation – is still to come and there are some signs that the good intentions propounded in the White Paper will not be carried through easily into other areas of Government policy.

Bill’s talk was inspired by a visit to a conservation biology conference, where despite the blanket coverage of the ‘deepwater horizon’ oil spill in newsagents outside the conference centre, very little mention was made of the significance of this news within the meeting sessions. The BES, and other learned societies, Bill argued, must consider issues of importance and signficance within wider society. Hence his whistlestop tour through the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Nagoya conference in October 2010, and subsequent ‘Aichi Targets’ and strategic plan for tackling biodiversity loss worldwide; his examination of the Copenhagen climate change summit in 2010 – a cause for pessimism, Bill suggested, not to mention the policy documents which have come out of the UK this year. Badger culling and the sale of national nature reserves and the Government’s U-turn over the sale of the Forestry Commission estate were also mentioned.

Bill urged members of the BES to engage with policy-makers as these and other issues are taken forward. Sound science is needed in policy debate and Bill urged the Society to engage even more clearly and in an even more relevant fashion with policy development. Issues which members should be aware of in the future, rising up the agenda, Bill suggested, are Arctic exploration for oil – and what the opening up of the Arctic may mean for biodiversity – reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (suggesting a possible shift back to a focus on food production, away from recent rhetoric on the incorporation of ecosystem services), REDD+, an increase in the use of biodiversity offsetting in the UK and the formation of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

Bill started on a note of pessimism, but finished optimistically, highlighting good news around recent species recovery, with peregrines breeding in London, salmon returning to many rivers, otters now found in every county in England and the near eradication of the ruddy duck as examples. Bill also suggested that there has been a shift in recent months towards policy-makers using evidence as a basis for a decisions to a greater extent.

Whilst I agree with much of what Bill had to say, and don’t think that his optimism is misplaced, I would say that the recent National Planning Policy Framework and Red Tape Challenge suggest that there is much more that ecologists and those who care about the environment must do before we can consider Government really ‘get’ the importance and significance of biodiversity. The NPPF was an opportunity for the Government to demonstrate that it had really taken the sentiments within the White Paper on board, and were prepared to integrate environmental concerns across all areas of decision making. There is little evidence that this is in fact the case, with a presumption in favour of sustainable development (economic growth is the major driver) throughout the document. The Red Tape Challenge too could pose a serious threat to environmental protection and should not simply be dismissed, as discussed elsewhere on this blog.

Prof. Sutherland’s talk was a useful clarion call for action on the part of the the BES and I for one hope that this will galvanise interest and engagement with policy issues amongst the membership.

The creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) was one of the most significant actions to come out of the 10th Conference Of Parties to the Convention of Biological Diversity held in Nagoya, Japan. The IPBES is a panel based in part on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It aims to amalgamate evidence for future biodiversity policy, and is expected to become a focal point for public and media awareness of biodiversity issues.

Since its beginnings a number of meetings have been held including a key workshop between Defra and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) in July 2011. The workshop explored how best to engage government with science-policy and coordinate UK Government, scientists, NGO’s and business.

The BES is also holding a session on the IPBES at the BES Annual Meting in Sheffield entitled ‘Where next for the UK National Ecosystem Assessment and IPBES?’ on Tuesday 13th September at 11.15am. To attend the Annual Meeting and book a place at the session visit the BES website.

Such events are in preparation for the first international plenary of the IPBES due to be held in Nairobi, Kenya in October 2011. At the plenary government representatives will consider the draft principles and procedures governing the work of IPBES, the initial elements of the work program, processes for nomination and selection of host institution(s) and host country for the platform.

The British Medical Journal is organising a briefing event for a small audience on the ‘Health and Security Risks of Climate Change’. This event, organised in partnership with the Climate and Health Council, will take place at BMA House on 17th October.

Advertising the event, Dr Fiona Godlee, Editor of the BMJ says: “Whilst the fiscal impacts of climate change are increasingly discussed, less attention is paid to its human impacts.

“These are increasingly recognised to be both imminent in their emergence, and grave in their consequence. Such is the opinion of the medical community, but also of the military and security establishment.

“Indeed, the direct health impacts of climate change will threaten security and promote conflict – factors which themselves threaten human health. Such issues were bluntly clarified in a recent editorial, published in the BMJ (British Medical Journal)”.

At the event, Dr Godlee explains, “these issues will be discussed in greater detail by experts in their fields – ranging from economists, policy makers, and influential members of the business community.”

To find out more or to apply for a place email climatechange@bmj.com before the 1st August 2011, providing your name, job title, organisation and email address.

On the 25th July 2011 the draft National Planning Policy Framework was published by Government. After the release of the Natural Environment White Paper in June this year conservation organisations have been highly anticipating the publication of the Framework, which represents the next step in terms of implementing the declarations of the White Paper.

The document, which integrates the Government’s economic, environmental and social planning policies for England, was issued alongside a statement from the Environment Secretary, Caroline Spelman, who said “It will give local communities the power to protect green spaces that mean so much to them, while still giving the highest protection to our treasured landscapes such as national parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It will also ensure that development needed to grow the economy is carried out in a sustainable way.”

The Government’s objective as stated in the Framework is that planning should help to deliver a healthy natural environment for the benefit of everyone and safe places which promote wellbeing. To achieve this objective, the document states that the planning system should aim to conserve and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting valued landscapes, minimise impacts on biodiversity and provide net gains where possible. The report also makes the statement that planning permission should be refused if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated, or as a last resort, compensated for.

The Framework goes on to support the Lawton Review and the White Paper with its goals to minimise impacts on biodiversity by stating that planning policy should take into account the need to plan for biodiversity at a landscape-scale as well as identify and map components of the local ecological networks, including international, national and local sites. In line with EU targets the Framework states that planning will promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the recovery of priority species populations.

In terms of climate change the Government’s objective is that planning should fully support the transition to a low carbon economy in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change. To achieve this objective, the planning system should aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, support energy efficiency improvements to existing buildings, deliver renewable and low-carbon energy infrastructure and provide resilience to impacts arising from climate change.

The Planning Framework is now open for consultation until the 17th of October 2011 and followed by a series of events taking place across the UK. Read the full document here.

This week the Welsh Government held a climate change and sustainability exhibition hosted by Professor Noel Lloyd, Chair of Higher Education Wales and John Griffiths AM, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development. The exhibition showcased the work of Wales’ leading university research teams in issues relating to climate change, sustainability and associated technology.

Projects from a range of research areas including technology and climate change were exhibited including a particularly interesting collaborative project between Aberystwyth University and the investment company Compton Group. This project aimed to investigate methods for reducing methane production by cattle whilst increasing milk and meat production by adding sandalwood to the animals’ feed. Sandalwood inhibits the growth of methane producing bacteria in the stomachs of ruminants, diverting the energy normally used to produce methane to growth and higher milk production.

The exhibition was also attended by the Environment Minister John Griffiths AM who spoke about the important role of universities in tackling climate change. He said “Climate change is a critically important issue and one the Welsh Government is committed to tackling. Today’s showcase demonstrates that Welsh universities are taking forward some truly ground breaking work on this issue – work that will be key to helping us, the Welsh Government, to deliver on the targets we have set out in our Climate Change Strategy. It provides a real and tangible example of how, through the academic community, Wales is leading the way on climate change research and innovation as well as demonstrating how we in Wales are working together to solve business questions and environmental issues.”

This week a report detailing the risks of overseas impacts of climate change for the UK economy was released as a first step towards a UK Climate Change Risk Assessment. On examining the evidence the Government Office for Science and Foresight Programme team led by Chief Scientific Advisor Professor Sir John Beddington found that climate change overseas will most likely be just as important for the UK as the direct impacts of climate change on the UK.

A key threat resulting from overseas climate change is the risk of international instability resulting from water stress, food shortages and extreme weather events. Climate change is likely to have the greatest effect in developing countries. Pressures on ecosystem services are also likely to be more serious in developing countries due to high rates of land use change and deforestation. If the UK cannot respond to these challenges there is an increased risk of states failing, higher levels of terrorism and an increased probability of war. In the future the UK government can expect increased pressure on the aid budget and allocation to the UN peacekeeping budget

Changes in disease prevalence and intensity could also result from increased temperature, water shortages and extreme weather events such as flooding. This could place extra stresses on the UK health aid budget. Certain infectious diseases may also spread across Northern Europe from Southern Europe and Africa which may present a novel challenge for healthcare in the UK.

The report also details possible adverse impacts of overseas climate change on business. According to the report UK businesses have over £1.2 trillion worth of overseas assets which are not currently properly protected and insured against climate risks. The UK economy is also highly dependent on overseas resources and infrastructure for food production, energy, extraction of raw materials. In addition the UK communications industry is highly reliant on countries with high probability of extreme weather events for communications infrastructure.

An important point stressed throughout the report is that climate change does not act alone, and the combined effects of climate change, ecosystem service degradation and resource scarcity must be considered by policy makers at all stages.

International leadership will be crucial in adapting to and managing these threats. The Government is already showing leadership in reducing and mitigating the impacts of climate change by signing a legally binding commitment to reduce emissions by 50% of 1990 levels by 2025. The government have also shown commitment to reducing biodiversity loss and ecosystem service degradation in the recent Natural Environment White Paper. Detailed monitoring will be needed to ensure the government meets it’s commitments. Close cooperation both internationally and between business and government within the UK will also be vital to success in this area.

Another crucial step for the government is to promote behavioural change in the UK. By raising awareness of climate impacts overseas and the risks this poses to quality of life and security in the UK the government can highlight the need for action.

Although climate change is a long term and uncertain phenomenon there is no doubt that the above challenges will arise in one form or another. Uncertainty only surrounds how severe the challenges will be and how fast they will arise. The new report draws attention to the global effects of climate change impacts on other countries and the need for urgent action to plan for and mitigate future challenges.