Sea-level rise is a well-studied climate change phenomenon. General explanation is that thermal expansion of water and water from melting ice caps and glaciers are responsible for the rise. Global sea-level rose about 1.8 millimetres every year in the last decades. 1.1mm from the 1.8 is explained by melting ice and ocean expansion combined which leaves 0.7mm unexplained. New study in Nature Geoscience suggests an additional component which can help to solve this equation: human use of terrestrial water.

The researchers state that human impacts on terrestrial water storage could account for as much as 0.77 millimetres per year, or 42%, of the observed sea-level rise between 1961 and 2003. They used an integrated model to estimate sea-level rise caused by human use of terrestrial water (e.g. irrigation, industrial use, reservoir management). Most of the extracted subsurface water is not restocked because it either evaporates or flows into rivers ending up in seas eventually. They found that unsustainable groundwater use, artificial reservoir water impoundment, climate-driven changes in terrestrial water storage and the loss of water from closed basins are the main drivers of rising sea levels. From those drivers, unsustainable groundwater use represents the largest contribution. Even Taikan Oki, one of the researchers, was surprised by their results: “I didn’t expect that human extraction of groundwater would matter so much”.

Groundwater provides up to 80% of public water supplies for large areas of England. The current drought and hosepipe bans in England already drew attention to this precious resource and the need for its sustainable use. Findings of this new research underline this need for the sake of mitigating sea-level rise.

Yadu N. Pokhrel, Naota Hanasaki, Pat J-F. Yeh, Tomohito J. Yamada, Shinjiro Kanae & Taikan Oki 2012 Model estimates of sea-level change due to anthropogenic impacts on terrestrial water storage. Nature Geoscience. doi:10.1038/ngeo1476

Europe is not doing enough to prepare itself for an uncertain future for the continent’s water sources, according to a report published by the Lords Select Committee today.

The report, An Indispensable Resource: EU Freshwater Policy, is timely, as the UK continues to suffer the worst drought since 1976, and areas throughout Europe are feeling the effects of a signfiicant lack of rain.

In it, the Committee calls for urgent action to safeguard the quality and long-term availability of the UK’s water sources, and recommends that all EU Member States should be required to develop national water scarcity and drought management plans. It warns that the UK Government’s current schedule for reforming water abstraction regulations fails to respond to the urgency of the situation; despite acknowledging that 10% of rivers are already abstracted to an extent that may damage water ecosystems, the government has set the target of the mid to late 2020s to begin reforming the regime. The Committee warns that this may be too late.

Other recommendations in the report include a push for the government and European Commission to strongly promote catchment level governance in the Blueprint for Europe’s water resources, due to be published later this year. This will require a much greater emphasis on engaging local stakeholders – such as river trusts, farmers and anglers – in decisions relating to river catchment issues, in order to reconnect people with the value of water. Already, the UK government has expressed support for a number of ‘catchment management’ pilot schemes, and Defra has a launched a ‘Love your River’ campaign aimed at raising awareness of the importance of healthy river systems.

The report also contains a warning for the government that where other solutions to water scarcity have failed, the potentially unpopular choice to raise water prices may have to be taken. As Chair of the Committee, Lord Carter of Coles says “Governments…need to act decisively, and grasp the nettle of allowing the cost of water to rise”. However, he suggests that commitment by the government to a programme of publc and stakeholder engagment will help ease the introduction of this necessary price rise, as people gain a better understanding of what they are paying extra for.

The report is the outcome of an inquiry by the Committee into EU Freshwater Policy.

Voting in two resolutions last week, MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) called for the European Commission to introduce a Seventh Environmental Action Programme and for higher political priority to go to preserving and restoring damaged ecosystems.

The Seventh Environmental Action Programme (7th EAP) will be Europe’s next flagship environmental policy. The sixth EAP is due to expire in July this year. MEPs have called for the 7th EAP to mainstream climate change and other environmental objectives across all policy areas, whilst also reflecting the need for binding targets for greater energy efficiency. The EAP should also lead to an overall reduction in waste generation, along with ambitious prevention, re-use and recycling targets for waste.

In addition, MEPs have called for the 7th EAP to incorporate targets to ensure the sustainable use of land and to address emerging threats to human and animal health, such as nanomaterials, endocrine disruptors and the combined effects of chemicals in the environment. MEPs also urge Member States to implement fully and effectively existing rules on water. MEPs also used the resolution to encourage the European Commission to introduce sustainability criteria for biofuels and biomass.

MEPs sitting on the Environment Committee of the European Parliament voted on a second resolution to call for more ambitious targets to restore damaged and degraded ecosystems, whilst also highlighting the economic damage caused by biodiversity loss. The loss of biodiversity, they stated, ‘leads to devastating economic costs to society which until now have not been sufficiently integrated into economic and other policies’. Reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and Common Fisheries Policy, along with reforms to the Multi-Annual Financial Framework (MFF) – the EU budget from 2014-2020- are necessary to tackle this, they state.

For example, payments under the CAP should be underpinned by cross-compliance measures that contribute to the preservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services. In addition, at least 1% of the total MFF should be devoted to environmental protection. The Common Fisheries Policy should guarantee an ecosystem approach to fisheries management.

The Environment Committee calls for the target to restore at least 15% of degraded ecosystems by 2020, agreed at the UN’s 10th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Nagoya, in 2010, to be seen only as a ‘minimum’, with the EU going beyond this to tackle environmental degradation. In addition, the MEPs call for detailed EU and national level plans to be developed to phase out all environmentally harmful subsidies by 2020.

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.

80% of European rivers are affected by water pollution, water removal for hydropower and irrigation, structural alterations and the impact of dams, with 12% suffering from impacts of all four. There is no doubt that human activities have harmed marine environments, however there are a number of conservation success stories where ecosystems have recovered from serious degradation. What isn’t always clear is how long recoveries took, how much of the damage was repaired and what factors helped drive the recovery.

A study, partly funded by the EU THESEUS project has identified five strategies for successful recoveries: raising public and political awareness, legal action and enforcing management plans, reducing human impacts, protecting or restoring biodiversity and complex ecosystems, and long term planning, as recoveries can take many decades.

The researchers found that between 10 to 50% of marine species and ecosystems showed some sign of recovery, although rarely to former levels of abundance. Recoveries tended to take longer for longer-lived species and for more complex ecosystems. For instance, many finfish and invertebrate stocks take three to 30 years to recover after depletion and slower-growing corals and sponges can take up to eight years to recover after bottom-trawling has ceased, compared to less than one year for faster-growing polychaete worms. Recovery can also take much longer if a species or ecosystem had been completely lost from an area, and sometimes depends on managed reintroductions to be successful.

Source: Lotze, H. K., Coll, M., Magera, A. M., Ward-Paige, C., & Airoldi, L. (2011). Recovery of marine animal populations and ecosystems. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 26(11): 595-605.

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.

Living with Environmental Change(LWEC), a consortium of 22 organisations that fund, carry out and use environmental research and observations, has launched a new strategy to drive collaborative research into how to manage the risks to life and property posed by flooding and coastal erosion in the UK. Across the country, it is estimated that 6 million properties are at risk from all sources of flooding or from coastal erosion; this number is only likely to increase due to climate change and extreme weather events. The LWEC ‘UK Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Research Strategy’ marks, as stated by the document, ‘a major shift’ in the UK’s approach to tackling this significant economic, social and environmental issue.

Research priorities are grouped under three themes within the document: ‘understanding risk’; ‘managing probability’; and ‘managing consequence’. To take the first: managers of risks from flooding and coastal erosion need to synthesise data from multiple sources and assess the quality of these data in order to make informed decisions. The development of decision-support tools will be necessary. Secondly, the management of engineered and natural flood and coastal defences (see the blog post on Natural Flood Management from earlier this week for a brief overview of natural flood defences and the potential issues in making greater use of these) can be improved by research. This is an area where a small amount of investment may yield dividends for the UK. Finally, raising awareness and understanding of flood risk in order to influence the behaviour of individuals and communities in response to flooding and coastal erosion events is important, and an area where research into behaviour change can contribute. Also included within ‘managing consequence’ is the need for greater research so that forecasting and early-warning systems can be improved, alongside multi-agency emergency planning.

The LWEC strategy, it is anticipated, will lead to greater coordination of research effort amongst LWEC partners, whilst efforts will be made to translate the outputs of research into practice. LWEC will commission collaborative research projects, including at local scales, and will promote early collaboration between academics, industry researchers, service providers, the beneficiaries and end-users of research. Over the next 20 years (the timescale considered by the Strategy), the outcome should be the improved understanding and management of flood and coastal erosion risk for the benefit of millions of people.

More natural means of managing flooding are desirable and should be brought foward by the Government in a new White Paper on water. So commented Anne McIntosh MP, Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Select Commmittee and of the All Party Group on Flood Protection, at a parliamentary event attended by the BES Policy Team yesterday evening. The well-attended meeting was organised by Oliver Pescott, the most recent BES-funded Fellow at the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST), to launch the POSTnote he authored on ‘Natural Flood Management’.

Natural flood management (NFM) is defined in the POSTnote as ‘the alteration, restoration or use of landscape features’. One of the four speakers, Dr Paul Quinn, Newcastle University, made it clear that NFM is not about taking a system back to a natural state but working with and engineering natural processes. Dr Quinn presented work in which he had been involved within the town of Belford, in which residents have faced six major flooding events within the course of seven years. During extreme events, huge amounts of rainfall can be observed running off farmland; this can be tackled effectively, Dr Quinn suggested, by ‘catchment systems engineering’, which seeks to ’slow, store and filter’ water. Farm tracks, specially engineered to store water behind them; dams which ‘leak’ slowly to control water flow; and the use of woody debris (’beaver dams’) to perform a similar function can all help to attenuate run-off.

Dr Wendy Kenyon, James Hutton Institute, highlighted the importance of working with land-managers if those wishing to control flooding wished to work with natural processes as stated. Dr Kenyon’s team have conducted a number of semi-structured interviews with farmers, revealing that first and foremost, farmers are concerned with the viability of their businesses. Dr Quinn had presented results showing that 10 – 20 storage ponds could make a significant difference to the peak water flow; Dr Kenyon argued that the presence of this number of ponds on agricultural land could begin to have a significant effect on the farmer’s bottom line and so the viability of this proposal would need to be considered carefully.

It is important to ensure too that farmers are able to access funding to support their efforts to implement NFM. Fifty eight percent of farmers questioned by Dr Kenyon said that they would be encouraged to introduce NFM measures if there was more funding available to do so and if it could be applied for easily. This is significant as under the Common Agricultural Policy, money is already available to support NFM but, according to Dr Kenyon, farmers have not been accessing this as a source of funds. We need, Dr Kenyon suggested, to work with farmers to find out why.

The issue of the scale at which experiments are undertaken and from which conclusions can be drawn is a highly significant one. It became clear through the presentations that there is a great deal of uncertainty concerning the robustness of conclusions which can be drawn about flood attenuation at the catchment-scale through NFM, based on small-scale experiments. Dr Neil McIntrye, Imperial College London, suggested that although strategic tree-planting can have an affect on ameliorating flooding at a local scale, this beneficial effect is likely to be marginal at regional to larger scales. The true benefits of such interventions are only likely to become apparent, Dr McIntyre suggested, once further research has been undertaken to understand catchment-scale interactions.

The case was therefore made for greater investment in field experiments and better modelling to understand the benefits of NFM. Anne McIntosh MP questioned why the science had not yet revealed these benefits, to which the scientists responded that the high cost of studying natural processes over time and the uncertainty created by extrapolating the results from one study site to another, where geomorphology and hydrology may be very different, constrain the ability to draw robust conclusions. Dr Quinn suggested that scientists would do best to measure at an appropriate scale and then build confidence in extrapolating conclusions, for example through better models.

Funding the necessary experiments and modelling approaches, alongside funding NFM interventions will be a challenge. Anne McIntosh suggested that there was little appetite in Government to pass the cost of NFM projects, including efforts to monitor the efficacy of these projects, onto the consumer through higher water bills. Ms McIntosh, and others, suggested that Payments for Ecosystem Services could be one mechanism of paying for NFM, although here the beneficiaries (presumably the consumers) would still need to pay for the NFM interventions implemented by land-managers (the providers of the ecosystem service of flood alleviation).

There should be scope to deliver NFM alongside other services as part of a framework of multi-functional land-use. Speakers did not touch on this to a great extent and it would have been interesting to have heard more from this perspective. Dr Quinn mentioned that buffer strips planted at the sides of agricultural land can slow the flow of run-off, indicating both a biodiversity and a NFM benefit. Dr Quinn also mentioned the need for multiple stakeholders to come together (eg as in Belford), including ecologists, land-managers and residents, to discuss and agree a shared vision for a catchment. South West Water is investing a great deal of money in NFM measures but for water quality reasons (eg reducing sediment load in the watercourse), with consequent benefits for river ecology. However, overall there was little discussion of the ecological benefits, or disbenefits, of NFM approaches.

In opening the meeting, Anne McIntosh informed attendees that in a meeting of the Liaison Committee (involving all Chairs of Parliamentary Select Committees), members had extracted from the Prime Minister an undertaking that a Water Bill would be published early in the next Parliamentary session. The BES will watch with interest to see whether NFM is incorporated into the Bill when drafted.

Applications for the next BES Fellowship at POST are now open and close on Thursday 5th April. If you are in the second or third year of your PhD in ecology at a UK institution, consider applying. Find out more from the BES website.

Oliver Pescott, current BES Fellow at the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, has published a POSTnote on ‘Natural Flood Management’. This will be available shortly on the BES website.

Flood risk management today uses a range of approaches to reduce risk, including structural works, such as hard flood defences, and non-structural approaches, such as improving flood warning systems and land-use planning. The restoration, alteration and use of natural landscape features are also receiving attention as potentially cost-effective ways of reducing flood risk that can provide other environmental benefits, such as water quality improvements or carbon storage.

The POSTnote will be launched formally in Parliament on Tuesday 17th January, from 4 – 6pm. The event will be chaired by Anne Macintosh MP, Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Flood Protection and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee. Presentations from a number of speakers will discuss key issues in Natural Flood Management:

– Martin Whiting, Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management, Rivers & Coastal Group Chair
- Dr Neil McIntyre, Reader in Surface Water Hydrology, Imperial College London
- Dr Paul Quinn, Senior Lecturer in Catchment Hydrology, Newcastle University
- Dr Wendy Kenyon, Senior Researcher, James Hutton Institute (Land and Natural Resource Use Research)

To register your interest in attending, please email postevents@parliament.uk or call 020 7219 8377.

Aquaculture is the fastest growing food production sector but there is still a great deal of uncertainty surrounding it’s environmental impact and how this is likely to change into the future as the sector expands to meet global food demands. A new report published by Conservation International and the WorldFish Centre investigating the aquaculture sector has identified some of the challenges in ensuring that the sector minimises adverse impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services whilst maintaining high growth to respond to global food shortages as population size increases.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation estimate that around 84% of the world’s fish stocks are already over exploited indicating that fisheries will not be able to meet the protein demands of a rapidly growing population. Fish farming is becoming increasingly common (the sector has grown by 8.4% per annum since 1970) particularly in Asia and Africa, and now accounts for around half of all the fish we consume reducing pressure on natural fish stocks.

To identify the main sources of environmental damage in the industry and establish opportunities for increasing sustainability into the future the researchers investigated several different methods of aquaculture, measuring their inputs (fertilizers, energy, land and water) and outputs (carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and phosphorus) and then estimated the impact of the enterprise on ecosystems and biodiversity (acidification, eutrophication, and climate change).

Perhaps unsurprisingly the enterprises producing the largest quantity of fish had the highest environmental impact. The type of fish reared also has implications for the sustainability of the fishery, for example rearing carnivorous fish such as salmon and rearing shrimps and prawns which are highly dependent on temperature control decreases the efficiency of the enterprise and increases emission of nitrogen and green house gases. Seaweeds, oysters and mussels were found to have the lowest environmental impact.

A comparison between sectors was also included in the report, showing that aquaculture has a much smaller demand on fresh water and energy than poultry, pig and cattle farming, and has lower outputs of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus.

By 2030 the sector is expected to double in size, producing 110 million tonnes of fish and seafood and the associated environmental impact is also expected to double. The report makes a series of research and policy recommendations to ensure that the sector is sustainable in the future, whilst simultaneously meeting the global demand for meat.

These include research into innovative methods to increase sustainability and improve efficiency, establishing regional networks to help improve efficiency in developing countries and promote best practice, and a variety of legislative measures to monitor the sector and promote compliance with environmental standards. The report also emphasises the importance of preventing new enterprises from establishing in important carbon sinks such as mangrove swamps

The report suggests that aquaculture may be the best solution to the global demand for meat as requirements for energy water and land are only a fraction of that for pig, cattle and poultry farming. Aquaculture will most likely be able to produce the most meat for the least demand on ecosystems, and the report indicates that fish farming should be promoted in policy to slow expansion of the other meat production sectors.