The European Ecological Federation has today launched the website for its 12th Congress, taking place in Avila, Spain, on 25 – 29 September 2011. The meeting is being organised jointly by the Spanish Association of Terrestrial Ecology (AEET) and Portuguese Ecological Society (SPECO), on behalf of the EEF.

The EEF plan to organise a workshop as part of this meeting, engaging policy-makers from the European Commission. Further details will appear on the EEF website when available.

The European Ecological Federation encourages all ecological societies and colleagues to develop topics for symposia and/or workshops for the 12th EEF Congress: Deadline 12th November.

Four years ago the European Commission’s annual ‘Green Week’ conference examined the progress towards the target of halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010, carrying a positive “Biodiversity is Life!” strapline. Speaking for the UK’s Labour Government, the then Minister in charge of biodiversity, Barry Gardiner MP questioned the general public’s awareness of biodiversity loss, not to mention the apparent lack of understanding of what the term actually meant. Four years on, in the context of the International Year of Biodiversity, this year’s ‘Green Week’ fittingly brings biodiversity back into the spotlight. The conference provides a forum for a week of investigation into how to take the EU’s biodiversity policy forward post-2010.

Three days of discussion will address the pressing issues affecting Europe’s nature – what new policy responses are needed? How can the EU best value the remaining resource and measure the ecosystem services the continent’s nature provides? How can it properly maintain and expand its now long-established Natura 2000 network? 3,800 delegates from the public, charity, scientific, academic and business communities are joining representatives from the EU institutions to answer these questions.

Amongst the opening presentations was a speech by the European Environment Agency’s Executive Director Dr Jacqueline McGlade, who unveiled a new Biodiversity Information System for Europe (BISE), which centralises information about European biodiversity in a new web portal. Combined with the new Biodiversity Baseline, which provides a shapshot of the current state of biodiversity, the EEA and European Commission hope this partnership project will make the monitoring of progress towards renewed efforts to halt biodiversity loss a lot easier.

To catch up on the week’s activities, the Green Week 2010 website has details of the thirty sessions taking place, with video links to many of the proceedings.

The Policy Lunchbox network was today joined by Sirini Withana, Policy Analyst at the Institute of European Environmental Policy. Sirini led a fascinating discussion to explain the structures and processes of policy-making in the European Union. The EU has grown from a loose organisation of six Member States in the 1950’s, established to deal with economic issues, to a coalition of 27 Member States which now generates over 80% of the UK’s environmental policies.

Sirini began by outlining the three main structures of the European Union: the European Commission; the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

The European Commission
The European Commission is essentially the ‘civil service’ of the EU, politically independent and in charge of initiating European community policy. The Commission comprises the ‘College of Commissioners’ and ‘Commission’s Services’. Within the College each Member State is represented by one Commissioner, appointed for a five-year term. The UK Commissioner is Lady Catherine Ashton, also HIgh Representative of Foreign Affairs. The Commission’s Services is the permanent apolitical administration for the the Commission, charged with preparing policy proposals. The Commission’s Services is organised into Directorates, such as DG Environment and DG Research. Within DG Research, the Joint Research Centre provides scientific and technical advice to the Directorates.

The European Parliament
The European Parliament meanwhile is composed of 736 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), directly elected by the electorate in Member States. Of these, 72 MEPs are from the UK. Each MEP has a five-year term of office. MEPs organise themselves into political groups within the Parliament, of which there are currently seven, with the European People’s Party (EPP), a centre-right group, currently the largest and most powerful.

The European Parliament shares the power to make laws and control over the EU budget with the Council of the European Union.

Legislation proceeds through the work of specialist Parliamentary Committees, of which there are 20. Once a proposal has been put forward by the Commission, a lead Committee is identified to take this forward, with an MEP from this Committee appointed to act as a ‘rapporteur’, leading the work on this area of legislation by the Committee. Once the Committee has considered the proposal and collated information a report will be presented and voted on at a plenary session of all MEPs.

The Council of the European Union
As already mentioned above, the Council of the European Union passes legislation and has control of the EU budget, jointly with the European Parliament. The Council meets in nine different ‘formations’, one of which is the ‘European Council’, which represents Member States’ interests and comprises the Heads of State of each EU member country. The current (first) President of the European Council is Herman Van Rompuy. The Presidency (Chair) of the other eight ‘formations’ of the Council of the European Union rotates between Member States, once every six months.

Decision-Making: European Parliament and Council of the European Union
Decision-making usually occurs via a process of ‘Ordinary Legislative Procedure’. The European Commission tables a proposal which is then allocated to one of the nine ‘formations’ of the Council of the European Union. The Parliament and Council then take it in turns to consider the proposal and issue a formal opinion upon it. If both bodies disagree at this stage, a ’second reading’ of the proposal takes place. If there is still no agreement after this stage a ‘Concilliation Committee’ is formed. If after the process of Concilliation the two parties still do not agree the proposal is dropped.

The UK feeds into this process through the UK Permanent Representation to the EU (UKRep), which receives its negotiating mandate from the UK Government.

Following this very useful overview, Sirini offered a few tips for how best to influence policy-making in the EU:

- Keep track of upcoming developments: review the annual strategy and work programme for the EU, one launched in March and the other in the autumn each year;
- Influence the development of proposals: identify the desk officer working on a particular proposal and engage with them; respond to open consultations;
- Exercise influence during the legislative process: engage with the rapporteur (MEP) leading the development of legislation for a particular Parliamentary Committee and engage too with other MEPs on that Committee. Many will not be specialists in the area they are reviewing and will welcome input;
- Influence the UK Government, thereby influencing the negotiating position put forward by UKRep.

Overall, Sirini encouraged us to ’stay ahead of the game’, influencing policy at the earliest opportunity. Identifying and building relationships with key people in Brussels, including through receptions and events, is important, as is providing clear, concise and evidence-based input. Being clear about the steps in the EU decision-making process will help organisations to target their input in the most effective way.

Policy Lunchbox is a network for policy professionals maintained by the Biochemical Society and British Ecological Society. For details of forthcoming events please see the Policy Lunchbox webpage on the Biochemical Society website.

The EU Environment Council reached an agreement on aims and ambitions for managing biodiversity loss across Europe on 15 March this year when it adopted the following conclusions:

“[The Council] AGREES on a long-term vision that by 2050 European Union biodiversity and the ecosystem services it provides – its natural capital – are protected, valued and appropriately restored for biodiversity’s intrinsic value and for their essential contribution to human wellbeing and economic prosperity, and so that catastrophic changes caused by the loss of biodiversity are avoided;”

“For this vision to be achieved [the Council] AGREES further on a headline target of halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020, and restoring them in so far as feasible, while stepping up the EU contribution to averting global biodiversity loss;”

These resolutions appeared on page three (paragraphs one and two) of the following document; “Council conclusions on biodiversity post-2010 – EU and global vision and targets and international access and burden sharing regime“.

These conclusions were later supported by the EU Council of Ministers, in the published conclusions of a meeting held on 25/26 March:

“There is an urgent need to reverse continuing trends of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation. The European Council is committed to the long term biodiversity 2050 vision and the 2020 target set out in the Council’s conclusions of 15 March 2010.” (Page nine, paragraph 14).

The declaration of the EU target will no doubt inform discussions upon a formal successor to the target to slow biodiversity loss (to halt this decline in Europe), at the Convention on Biological Diversity meeting this October in Nagoya, Japan.

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.