An editorial in this week’s Nature argues that the post of Chief Science Adviser to the Europe, created at a meeting of European Commissioners on 17 February, must have real teeth and the support needed to deliver effectively.

In an article on p326 (’Setting the bar’), Nature reveals that there has been pressure within the Commission to bury the post in beaurocracy, which would have resulted in a lack of power, authority and independence for the occupant of the role. The Commission has now rejected this, making clear that the Chief Scientific Advisor will report directly to the President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, and be supported by the Bureau of European Policy Advisors, a government think-tank close to the President.

The role of the Chief Scientific Adviser is likely to be to deliver science advice across the board, not just on matters related to the funding of scientific research in Europe, a welcome development given Barrosso’s comments last year when he pledged to fill the gap relating to the provision of high-quality, independent scientific advice at EU level. The editorial argues that the post-holder must be adequately supported, highlighting the example of the Office of Science and Technology in the U.S., headed by President Obama’s CSA, John Holdren. The OST has a team of 70 dedicated experts and similar should be created for the European CSA.

Highlighting the UK Government’s current efforts to develop principles on the use of independent scientific advice by ministers and civil-servants, the piece argues that similar priniples should be developed in Europe. The Commission should draw up guidelines to govern the relationship between Commissioners and the CSA, to ensure that independent science advice is intelligently procured and utilised.

See the BES and Biochemical Society’s joint response to the UK Government consultation on Guidelines for the Use of Scientific Analysis in Policy-Making.

Habitat banking describes the trade in habitat or biodiversity ‘credits’, i.e. areas of land where environmental restoration has taken place that can be bought to compensate for unavoidable habitat destruction through development. This concept has been in practice in the form of wetland mitigation banks in America since the 1980s, and its use is spreading as a means for governments to reduce the biodiversity loss associated with economic growth and development.

A report launched today by the organisation Ecosystem Marketplace provides a summary of the existing schemes around the world, listing 39 such projects in operation and another 25 planned in various countries. It calculates a market of between $1.8 billion and $2.9 billion per year alone from the 20% of projects that provide figures, resulting in the additional conservation management or protection of 86,000 hectares of land per year. There is increasing interest within the EU and the UK of adopting a more formalised habitat banking system, and both the EC and Defra have recently published scoping reports (available here and here) on the subject.

Download “The State of Biodiversity Markets: Offset and Compensation Programs Worldwide” report.

A report published by the UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management has outlined recommendations to make the future production of biofuels more sustainable. The report concentrated on first generation biofuels, such as ethanol and sugar cane, analysing the life cycle of their production. The authors found that the way in which biofuels are produced and managed can determine if they benefit society, the economy and the environment, but that more information is needed on the impact of biofuel production on water and biodiversity.

The report found that some biofuels can contribute to a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions; the production of ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil for example saves 70 – 100% of greenhouse gas emissions compared to fossil fuel use. However, others can substantially increase greenhouse gas emissions compared to fossil fuels; land clearance for the growth of oil palms for biodiesel results in a 2000% increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

17 billion litres of bioethanol were produced in 2000 and by 2007 this had grown to 52 billion litres. Such growth neccessitates increasing the amount of land put aside for the growth of crops for fuel: 2.3% of global cropland was covered by biofuel crops in 2008, up from 0.9% in 2004.

The report’s authors recommend reducing the environmental pressures of biofuel production through:
- enhancing the efficiency of biofuel production through increased yields and improvements in agricultural technology;
- growing biofuels on degraded, marginal and abandoned land;
- using waste from municipal, agricultural and forestry sectors to provide biomass for fuel;
- the use of biomass residue (left over from biomass processing) to produce electricity and heat.

In addition, biofuel policies should limit quotas and targets to levels which can be supplied sustainably. Productivity could be increased through reforming subsidies for fossil fuels.

Original source: European Commission – Science for Environment Policy
Download the report:Towards sustainable production and use of resources: Assessing Biofuels

New research shows that concentrations of pollutants in the environment and atmosphere may increase with global warming, as melting glaciers release pollutants which became trapped in their ice at the end of the twentieth century.

A team of researchers working in Switzerland has found that the concentration of pollutants, including DDT and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenols) in a glacier-fed lake – Lake Oberaar – is higher than in lakes which do not receive meltwater from glaciers, indicating that the pollutants are entering the lake from the glacier, rather than from direct deposition from the atmosphere.

From the 1950s – 70s remote glaciers in the Swiss alps were affected by atmospheric deposition of pollutants. Persistent pollutants such as PCBs and DDT can travel long distances in the atmosphere and can persist for many years in the environment, accumulating in food chains. Analysis shows that from the 1960s – 70s, the accumulation of pollutants in the sediment of Lake Oberaar was rapid, whilst this dropped in the 1980s – 90s due to tighter regulation and the banning of particular products, such as DDT. Now, the researchers have shown, the input of organic chlorines into the lake is as high as the peaks in the 60s and 70s.

The researchers conclude that increased warming will cause the further release of pollutants, leading to the increased exposure of wildlife and fisherman to these compounds, and contamination of water used for drinking and irrigation.

Original research: Bogdal, C., Schmid, P., Zennegg, M. et al. (2009). Blast from the Past: Melting Glaciers as a Relevant Source for Persistent Organic Pollutants. Environmental Science and Technology. 43: 8173-8177.

Source: EU Science for Environment Policy

New research conducted under the EU-funded ALARM project (Assessing LArge scale environmental Risks for biodiversity with tested Methods) has identified land-use practices and agrochemical use as the main pressures causing a decline in pollinating insects, including bees, in Europe. It is estimated that 84% of European crop species depend on insect pollination to some extent.

The researchers analysed links between agriculture and pollinators using the ‘Driving forces – Pressures – State – Impact – Response’ (DPSIR) framework. They identified five major pressures on pollinators: land-use; agrochemicals; parasites/ diseases; competition between species (caused by humans) and climate change. Bees were the most affected by all of these pressures, apart from climate change, which had the greatest impact on butterflies.

EU land-use practices are driven most strongly by the CAP. Although environmental policies have recently become more integrated into the CAP, Agri-environment measures form only 8% of the total CAP budget to 2013; despite the influence of these schemes in supporting specific farming practices which protect the environment and maintain the countryside.

To boost pollinator numbers, the researchers call for an increase in the funding provided for agri-environment schemes under the CAP, for an increase in the areas of flower-rich natural grassland and croplands with leguminous plants and for a decrease in the use of agrochemicals, all of which would foster a greater diversity of organisms and landscapes, necessary for bee survival.

Orginal article: Science for Environment Policy

Original research: Kuldna, P., Peterson, K. Poltimäe, H. & Luig, J. (2009). An application of DPSIR framework to identify issues of pollinator loss. Ecological Economics. 69:32-42.

The BES ran an event at the British Science Festival in 2009, focused on bumblebees and the importance of providing a haven for pollinators in your garden. Find out more and see some of the press coverage we generated.

New research showcased in last week’s ‘Science for Environment Policy‘ digest, produced by the European Commission, suggests that the ‘Species at Risk’ (SPEAR) system could provide an accurate and cost-effective means of assessing the effects of pesticides in streams. Under the Water Framework Directive, all water bodies should achieve ‘good ecological status’ by 2015. SPEAR (pesticides) provides a means to measure the ecological status of a waterway, in respect to the impacts of pesticides on organisms.

SPEAR assesses the impact of stressors on at-risk invertebrates, with SPEAR (pesticides) specifically examining the effects of this one particular stressor. In an analysis carried out under the European Commission’s INTERACT project, researchers applied SPEAR (pesticides) at the level of the family and at the species level at 48 small sites on streams in Finland, Germany and France. The results were then compared. Only five species were found to have SPEAR values that were significantly different at the species and at the family level, including the caddisfly (Anabolia nervosa) and mayfly (Baetis vernus); species-level results indicated that the species were not at risk from pesticides, whilst family-level results indicated that the organisms were at risk.

Overall the results indicate that SPEAR (pesticides) could be used at the family level – which is less costly and time consuming than conducting analysis at the level of the species – and across borders. This methodology can contribute to researchers’ ongoing efforts to examine the ecological status of waterways.

Original research: Beketov, M.A., Foit, K., Schäfer, R.B. et al. (2009). SPEAR indicates pesticide effects in streams. Comparative use of species- and family-level biomonitoring data. Environmental Pollution. 157:1841-1848.

José Manuel Barroso, the newly re-elected European Commission president, has promised to review the use of scientific advice by the Commission. He has also announced that he will create a new post of Chief Scientist for Europe. The Chief Scientist will have “the power to deliver proactive, scientific advice throughout all stages of policy development and delivery”.

The commitment follows a campaign by John Beddington, the UK government’s chief scientist, and other research advocates, for the EU to have a scientific adviser who could act across the commission’s various directorates-general.

For further information, please see the Financial Times.

Water quality in England and Wales has improved for the nineteenth year in a row the Environment Agency announced today. Seven out of 10 English rivers and nine out of 10 Welsh rivers achieved what is termed “very good” or “good” status in terms of chemical and biological water quality in 2008. Wildlife has been returning to some of these rivers. 50 years ago, no salmon were seen on the River Tyne, but already this year more than 10,000 have been recorded migrating up river. Meanwhile otters have this year been recorded in both Greater Manchester and the lower Thames for the first time in 40 years. After moving into Sussex this year, otters can now once again be found in every English county.

However, only five of the 6,114 rivers in England and Wales are in pristine condition, and more than three-quarters are expected to fail new European quality standards. The European Water Framework Directive, which became law in the UK in 2003, sets even higher quality standards, using a wider and more sophisticated range of more than 30 different measures. Only 26% of rivers in England and Wales are classified as “good” under the new requirements, and only five satisfy the highest standards. These are in remote areas of Northumberland and Wales.

Under the new standards, 117 rivers are classified as being in bad condition, ranked on a par with the dirtiest rivers in eastern Europe, a further 742 are considered to be in “poor condition” and 3,654, or 60%, are in “moderate” condition. This presents a headache for the government because it is legally required by Europe to ensure that 95% of all British rivers are in “good” ecological condition by 2015. At the present rate of improvement, only a further 5% will meet the conditions by 2015. This could eventually leave Britain open to unlimited fines and court cases on a European level.

Lakes are faring no better, with only one out of 762 English and Welsh lakes considered to be of high status, and seven considered “bad”. None were named by the agency but it admits nearly 70% of lakes are in line to miss the targets.
It is estimated that it could cost £9bn to get 95% of UK rivers to “good” status by 2015. If, as expected, this proves impossible, the EU allows interim targets to be set for 2015 and 2021.

The government is currently preparing its River Basin Management Plans, which will be published on 22 December 2009. These will outline the targets and methods used to improve water quality in 11 catchment areas. A six-month consultation took place on the proposed plans earlier in the year. A coalition of major NGOs declared that the proposals showed ‘an unacceptably weak level of ambition’. Perhaps the EU will help the UK become more ambitious.

For further details, visit the ‘Our Rivers’ website.

A fascinating Special Report in Nature this week highlights the position of science at a European level. It notes that the EU has done much to support science, budgeting €50 billion for scientific research under the current 7th Framework Programme (FP), which runs from 2007-2013 and dictates which areas of research will get funding. There is also talk at the moment of creating a new position of Chief Scientific Adviser for Europe, to inform policy on contentious science-related issues.

Nonetheless, there are still concerns that scientists are not speaking with a sufficiently unanimous voice when dealing with the Commission, and thus having less of an impact than they should. When drawing up a new FP, the Commission has to accommodate a wide variety of competing views, including different national and political priorities as well as the wishes of scientists and industry. However, as there is no authoritative body through which scientists can speak with one voice, their input can get somewhat lost.

At present, the annual work programmes of the FP receive input from fourteen permanent science advisory groups, each covering a different research area. However, the remit and relevance of these groups varies hugely, with some genuinely influencing the direction of research and others feeling like they do little more than tick boxes. The main reason for this is that different sections of the Commission are more proactive in seeking advice than others. Particular bureaucratic cultures are also reflected in the fact that successive FPs have been dominated by ‘historical inertia’, with research programmes which have once been added in tending to stay in indefinitely.

One potential answer might be developing however. Last month a pilot forum brought together key EU and scientific and academic bodies, including the European Research Area Board (ERAB), a group of the heads of European research councils (EUROHORCs) and the European University Association amongst others. The forum discussed a vision for the European Research Area and the next FP, and there is strong support for making it a more permanent body. Europe’s many disparate science voices might therefore be able to come together as one single and more powerful voice.

For more information, please see Nature Vol. 460, 6 August 2009.

According to the European Environment Agency, nearly 3,000 Londoners die every year from inhaling particulates, airborne particles emitted mostly by car exhausts. Six months ago, the European Commission gave formal notice that it was prosecuting Britain for failing to meet a limit for particulates that the Government agreed 10 years ago, and which came into force in 2005. Levels of particulates were meant to be decreasing, but have instead gone up.

The Government has responded by asking for a grace period to get levels down in the most polluted bits of the country – identifying parts of Glasgow, Swansea, the West Midlands, West Yorkshire, Yorkshire and Humberside, Eastern England and Brighton, as well as London.

The Commission will decide by February whether it will grant such an extension. The EC sets three criteria for leniency, and whilst most of these areas will probably qualify, it seems unlikely that London will meet the criteria. And even if London does get an extension, it will run out in 2011. On present trends, the capital is still unlikely to have cleaned itself up by then, and the Telegraph has suggested this could set up a huge potential embarrassment at the Olympic Games, with athletes complaining of the conditions and the media harking back to the days of the pea-soupers.

Moreover, by 2012 the country is also likely to be facing prosecution for a second pollutant, nitrogen dioxide. More than 100 towns and cities across the UK exceed the legal limit due to come into force next year, while average levels of the gas at roadsides in inner London are double it, giving London the honour of being the most polluted capital city in Europe.

If the Government is successfully prosecuted over either pollutant, let alone both, the country will face an unlimited lump-sum penalty, plus daily fines while it remains in breach of the limits. These fines, combined with the pressure of hosting a ‘green’ Games, may finally galvanise action.

For further details, please see The Telegraph.