Figures due to be released by the Marine Stewardship Council show that the number of fish and seafood products in the UK certified as ’sustainable’ has increased by 41% since 2010.

What fisheries minister Richard Benyon has described as a ’seismic shift’ in people’s attitudes towards the fish they eat has led to a significant increase in consumer demand for seafood products bearing the MSC logo. This certification ensures that products have come from sustainable fish stocks where fishing rates are controlled below the rate of replenishment so the population is not depleted. This move towards more sustainable fish consumption is welcome as currently, 85% of fish stocks globally are exploited to their maximum capacity or overfished.

Upcoming reforms of the EU common fisheries policy are also hoped to contribute to the protection of dwindling fish populations by changing EU fishing practices.

Do you know someone who’s campaigned tirelessly to protect a patch of green space?

Have you got a favourite teacher who’s inspired you to do something for nature?

Is there a famous person you admire who’s challenging the system?

If so, they could be a candidate for an Octavia Hill award, organised by the National Trust in partnership with Countryfile Magazine. The deadline for nominations is 31 January 2012.

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.

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.

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.

The IUCN UK Commission of Inquiry on Peatlands has published its report (November 2011).

The report and summary of findings are available online at www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/commission/findings (please cut and paste into your browser if you are having trouble accessing this link).

This report represents the culmination of 18 months of focused collaboration between peatland experts from land management, science and policy from across the UK, and reveals the enormous importance of our peatlands for people and wildlife.

It is of great concern that the Inquiry found that much of the UK’s peatlands have been damaged, with severe consequences for biodiversity and valuable ecosystem services. A significant amount of carbon is leaking into the atmosphere from drained and deteriorating peatlands. This is particularly alarming as a loss of only 5% of the carbon stored in peat would equate to the UK’s total annual green house gas emissions. On the other hand, healthy peatlands and those that have been restored and enhanced can make a positive contribution to tackling climate change.

The Inquiry has identified a clear strategy for action to bring our peatlands back from the brink, and points the way forward to avoid the social and environmental costs of further deterioration.

This report makes clear the multiple benefits of peatland conservation and restoration, particularly in relation to carbon savings, cleaner drinking water, wildlife conservation and historic archive preservation.

This has been an important collaborative exercise which reveals a strong community of interest in securing the future of our peatlands.

Original text: Press Release from IUCN Commission of Inquiry

The Cambridge Conservation Forum’s (CCF) Annual Symposium will take place on January 5th 2012 in Cambridge.
Tickets are on sale now.

There will be a broad range of speakers at this event, covering international items -‘Rio+ 20 – why is it important for biodiversity conservation’ to on the ground and local projects for example, ‘Nature Improvement Areas’ and ‘The work of Tiger Protection and Conservation Unit in Sumatra’.

Find out more at www.cambridgeconservationforum.org.uk.

The report of the joint Natural England – BES meeting on ‘Adapting Conservation to a Changing Climate‘ has been published. This meeting took place over two days in January 2011 and saw over 120 policy-makers, ecologists and conservation practitioners attend Charles Darwin House for lively discussion and networking.

Climate change is widely regarded as the major long-term threat to biodiversity and ecosystem services and it is essential that conservation adapts to deal with this threat. General principles have been identified and adaptation is starting to happen, but we need to step up the pace.

Effective adaptation requires a strong partnership between researchers, practitioners and policy makers. It is essential that adaptation measures are developed on the basis of sound science, combined with a rigorous assessment of their feasibility and acceptability to society.

The key messages to emerge from presentation and discussion at the conference are:

1) Climate change adaptation needs to start happening to a far greater extent than currently. It was not difficult to find research into possible adaptation strategies, assessments of vulnerability and plans for implementing adaptation. There are many fewer examples of adaptation that is actually happening.

2) Pilot studies need to be established to help address the uncertainties around determining the most effective adaptation measures, for example on the relative importance of increasing connectivity of habitat networks, compared to improving or enlarging existing sites. Good monitoring and assessment of the outcomes are essential.

3) The issues posed by climate change are different depending on the extent to which climate actually changes. To put it crudely, there is a big distinction between dealing with 2°C and 4 °C of warming. At the lower end of the scale, there is plenty of scope to increase the resilience of the landscapes and ecosystems that we currently have. At the higher end, this will not be sufficient and we need to consider much more
radical approaches and be prepared to accept species in very different places and place that look very different.

4) Climate change adaptation needs to be developed as part of a wider transformation in the approach of human societies to the natural environment, in which we understand it better and value it more.

Full details of this meeting, together with copies of speakers’ presentations, are available from the BES website.

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.

Today the BES has published our report of the Conservation Ecology Special Interest Group’s meeting into ‘Making Space for Nature’, examining the ecological issues raised by the Lawton Review, and other current topics in nature conservation.

Main points raised by the lively discussion and presentations during the day include the need for academic and applied ecologists to communicate with one another in order to develop new tools which can inform conservation planning and practical delivery. Communication between ecologists, policy-makers and the public is also fundamentally important; communicating with decision-makers is an area in which the skills of ecologists is lacking, according to a recent report by the IEEM. The report also highlights discussion at the workshop around possible tensions between a landscape-scale approach to conservation and a species-focused approach. Whilst an emphasis on ecosystem services can engage policy-makers, the public’s interest in the natural world is motivated by species (hence the 8 million-plus members of Wildlife and Countryside Link organisations). Conservationists should not forget this if wishing to engage people beyond those already involved with NGOs, as volunteer recorders and in monitoring for example, and in aiming to empower further those who are engaged, so that they can influence decision-makers.

The report includes summaries of presentations by Prof. Sir John Lawton- discussing the main findings of the Lawton Review; Dr Pete Brotherton- discussing what the Lawton Review’s conclusions might mean for Natural England and others moving forwards; Prof. Chris Thomas – highlighting a new tool he and others have developed to identify those species most at risk, and most in need of direct conservation action, in the face of climate change; Dr Paul Dolman- discussing potential shortcomings in the Biodiversity Action Plan and the need to develop a new approach to conservation based on species’ common functional requirements (so-called ‘guilds’); and Debbie Tann – discussing the work of the Wildlife Trusts in the context of their ‘Living Landscape‘ Approach. All of these presentations are available to download from the BES website.

The meeting on which the report is based was held on the 19th April this year, at the BES’s headquarters, Charles Darwin House.