"This grant has greatly developed my insights into how ecology can contribute to Kenya's welfare."

Mordecai Ogada Overseas Bursary Winner

Common Fisheries Policy: Compromise, compromise, compromise

Posted on May 15, 2013 by Policy

Common Fisheries Policy: Compromise, compromise, compromise

Further progress towards reform of the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) was made today, as negotiations between EU Fisheries Ministers over the Basic Regulation came to a close. The discussions between EU governments took place to finalise the negotiating position of the European Council in the lead up to the last CFP trilogue between all three European institutions (Council, Commission and Parliament). After all-night negotiations, member states in the Agriculture and Fisheries Council came to an agreement, potentially overcoming a large hurdle in the implementation of the policy.

The process of reform of the CFP has been underway since 2011, with proposals initially developed by the European Commission. These were put forward to member states last year, and adopted by the EU Fisheries Ministers in a close vote. Specific reform proposals were voted on by the European Parliament, with a large majority of MEPs choosing to overhaul the current CFP. A strong position on overfishing, discards and sustainability was developed in the proposals and were all voted through, despite a number of proposed amendments.

With all three European institutions on board with reform of the policy, negotiations (called trilogues) to develop a common position on specific policy points began in February. To date, there have been five trilogues, with little agreed output. A final meeting is scheduled at the end of May. In advance of this, representatives of member states met this week to develop a final negotiating position.

Negotiations amongst EU governments were challenging, due to the number of member states that initially opposed reform of the policy. Concerns about the development of a suitable negotiating position for the final trilogue were raised by a number of MEPs at the end of April. The European Parliament and Council have equal decision making powers over reform of the CFP. If EU Ministers were unable to agree upon a negotiating mandate that forms at least a halfway compromise with proposals put forward by the European Parliament, there was concern that the reform of the policy would be blocked.

Although little extra policy detail has emerged from this week’s Council discussion, the mere agreement of a position by representatives of the member states will potentially enable final trilogue discussions to go ahead. A document released this morning shows the Council’s positions on a number of specific areas within the CFP. Both the use of maximum sustainable yield to determine fishing levels, and the phasing out of discards are mentioned, but timelines and targets for these are vague, especially compared to the European Parliament proposals.

The Irish Fisheries Minister, Simon Coveney TD, was positive: “I believe that the historical package agreed this morning will prepare the way for a European wide discards ban, facilitate more sustainable fishing levels in addition to appropriate management of fleet capacity and a workable regionalisation policy.”

One of the goals of the Irish EU presidency is to reach an agreement on the CFP reform before the end of the term in June. A tall order, but it can only be hoped that this will help drive the next set of challenging negotiations with the European Parliament. Parliament has confirmed it is willing to compromise, but it remains uncertain how far each side will go. The full proposals from the Council have now been put forward to the European Parliament to decide whether or not negotiations will continue on this basis. Rushing through these last stages of CFP reform could lead to the implementation of a policy that does not offer adequate protection over fish stocks and biodiversity, but if negotiations are rejected, there is a risk that the CFP will not be reformed at all. These next few weeks will be crucial.

Posted in EU, Fisheries | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Biodiversity Offsetting: quid pro grow?

Posted on May 13, 2013 by Policy

Biodiversity Offsetting: quid pro grow?

On 9 May, Owen Paterson (Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) welcomed over 100 delegates to a Defra summit on biodiversity offsetting. Although this was a relatively short event, the level of agreement amongst speakers and the Secretary of State’s enthusiasm gave a useful indicator of the political significance of this agenda and the questions that will need to be answered as policy is developed.

Biodiversity offsetting is not a new concept, and many international examples exist – Paterson reported on his visit to Australia earlier this year, including mandatory schemes in Victoria and voluntary approaches in New South Wales. But the UK context of using such an approach to help grow the economy gives a slightly different flavour here, and newspaper headlines have warned about the risks of inadvertently producing a ‘license to trash’ in order to support economic growth.

Paterson emphasised throughout the summit that his dual interests were in growing the rural economy whilst actively improving the environment – he stressed several times that these should not be in tension, and that one should help with the other. There was an emphasis throughout that the current system is simply not delivering improvements for nature – mere protection was not sufficient now, given the depleted state of the environment in many areas.

The Secretary of State signaled that there was preliminary Cabinet Office support for exploring biodiversity offsetting, and that he wanted to publish a consultation on this area in the future, including through events such as this summit. The government is also due to respond shortly to the Ecosystems Markets Taskforce final report which includes exploration of biodiversity offsetting as a recommendation – it is reasonable to assume that the response will give further indication of what might happen next.

Speakers from the high-profile discussion panel included:

  • Dieter Helm (Natural Capital Committee), who noted the need for confidence in measuring techniques and the need to ensure that offsetting is visibly effective;
  • David Hill (Ecosystem Markets Taskforce), who felt that such a system would need to be mandatory to be effective, but could be eased through the purchase of conservation credits; the first two offset trades had been carried out as part of a pilot, which gave proof of concept;
  • Stephanie Hilborne (Wildlife Trusts), who highlighted the loss of abundance as well as biodiversity, and stressed the need to ‘get the details right’ – there would also be a huge need for ecological expertise within local authorities. She noted that approaches in marine offsetting would need to be particularly cautious given that less was known about effects here;
  • John Slaughter (Home Builders Federation), who argued that offsetting should be a positive option for developers – not just a new tax on development. There was also a need for the system to work more swiftly than current planning processes, and a possible tension with the national need for affordable housing if this became a particularly onerous process;
  • Kerry ten Kate (Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme), who explained that it was important to develop a clear set of conservation priorities to inform when developments on one kind of habitat could be offset by improvements in a very different environment. A three tier system could help to ensure that the scale of the process was proportional to the significance of the development – light-touch approaches could involve simple purchase of credits with no delay, but larger schemes would need independent review.

Discussions between the panel and the audience highlighted the following questions and areas for further thought:

  • The need for offsetting to be seen as a last resort – after avoidance and mitigation of impacts
  • The need for offsets to be relatively local to the development to support local community access to nature and avoid further areas of ‘nature deficit disorder’
  • The need to maintain offsets in perpetuity rather than re-offset again at a later date – this could perhaps be achieved through establishing trust funds
  • The need to ensure that all of the ‘pieces of the puzzle’ are in place before a scheme is made mandatory – including expertise in local authorities, and the availability of areas to use as offsets through a credit system
  • The need to ensure that there are still conservation areas that are beyond consideration of offsetting – SSSIs are priceless in this sense, and some types of habitat are simply irreplaceable on a short or medium timescale
  • The need to ensure the biodiversity metrics are appropriate

What do you think? What other issues should be explored in a consultation? How can we make sure that the aim of improving the environment is actually delivered by an offsetting scheme?

 

Posted in Biodiversity, Biodiversity offsetting, Science Policy | 1 Comment

Can governance in the UK Overseas Territories give environmental protection?

Posted on May 10, 2013 by Policy

Can governance in the UK Overseas Territories give environmental protection?

Concerns over environmental protection in the UK Overseas Territories (UKOTs) have been voiced for a number of years, with funding, development and pollution as some of the main issues. The 14 UKOTs are home to a diverse array of species and habitats, with almost twice as many threatened species as the UK mainland. Their environmental value was recognised in the Government’s 2012 Overseas Territories White Paper, and steps now need to be taken to fulfil the commitments made in this to ensure that the Territories “abide by the same basic standards of good government as in the UK”. A report released earlier this year by the RSPB and the Foundation for the International Environmental Law & Development (FIELD) provides an analysis of environmental protection legislation and policy across the UKOTs as a starting point for changes across the regions.

The 2012 OT White Paper was a welcome intervention by Government to the discussion surrounding UKOTs. In it, the Prime Minister wrote: “We see an important opportunity to set world standards in our stewardship of the extraordinary natural environments we have inherited” – strong words that need strong action. In the year preceding the White Paper, the UK Government spent £495.4 million on biodiversity conservation in the UK, compared with £2.97 million in 2012 in the UKOTs. Given the high environmental value of the Territories, this comparable spending is concerning, and is an area that needs to be addressed as part of a strategic approach to conservation across the UKOTs. The Environmental Audit Committee concluded that the largest single contribution the UK Government could make to halting global biodiversity loss would be to support to a greater extent the conservation of biodiversity in the UKOTs.

There are many threats to the environment in UKOTs, as highlighted earlier this year by a Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology briefing note. Threats vary with the geographical location of the territory, human population pressure and local environmental conditions, but usually involve tourism, invasive species and climate change. Overcoming these is challenging, especially as individual OTs governments are responsible for the protection and conservation of the natural environment in each area. In the UK, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has overall responsibility for maintaining relationships with the UKOT governments, with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) responsible for supporting biodiversity conservation and supporting UKOT governments in meeting obligations under international agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

The RSPB/FIELD report assessed two priority policy areas – biodiversity protection and development planning – against criteria accepted in the UK to be based on good environmental governance. Other relevant areas of environmental legislation and policy, such as fisheries management, biosecurity and climate change, are to be assessed in a second phase of the process.

Overall, the report highlights the significant gaps that many UKOTs have in their environmental governance that need to be urgently addressed. Small populations, a lack of capacity, and a lack of resources all provide significant barriers to improving process in this area, but the report identifies areas where most improvement is needed, showing that prioritisation can help with this. The results were not all negative, however. Territories such as Gibraltar, the British Virgin Islands and St Helena showed near-exemplary environmental governance, and were highlighted as potential models for other UKOTs.

The four specific categories focused on within the policy areas were:

Species – presence and adequacy of biodiversity protection legislation and policies

Sites – presence and adequacy of site and habitat based protection and conservation

Development control – presence and adequacy of terrestrial and marine development controls

People – involvement of civil society in decision-making, and how decisions affecting the environment are governed

Overall, UKOTs legislative and policy frameworks are best for species protection. In the other categories, there is much room for improvement. Only three Territories have strong terrestrial protected area networks, with sites selected on the basis of science-based criteria. Four OTs still have no marine protected areas. The report also found it was common across the OTs for there to be an absence of development controls, or incomplete development frameworks that do not integrate environmental considerations. In total, five OTs have no legal requirement to undertake Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) before permitting major development proposals. Another common challenge is a lack of clear political accountability in development decision-making.

The report concludes with 7 recommendations to Governments in the UK and the UKOTs in order to achieve the ambitions set out in the 2012 White Paper. Although a ‘Strategy for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in the UKOTs’ drawn up by Defra, the FCO and Department for International Development, does already exist, the implementation of this is currently limited. There is also a focus on high-level policy, and not priorities for specific and strategic action on biodiversity. The recommendations from RSPB/FIELD focus on provided dedicated support to UKOTs from UK Government Departments, through increased staffing, closer monitoring and new programmes of work.

It is not just the UK Government that needs to change, however. The report found that there are many pieces of draft environmental legislation in a number of UKOTs that would provide greater protection to their vulnerable areas. Delays, a lack of staff, and in some cases, a lack of consistency over who is able to influence legislation have all led to complications in passing vital bills.

The literature around the biodiversity value of the UKOTs is ever-increasing. Recommendations for improving the knowledge base and monitoring of the unique UKOT habitats have been provided by many. By taking a step back to assess the environmental protection frameworks in place in UKOTs, and their drivers, the RSPB/FIELD report takes a more holistic view, seeking change from within. The stage is now set for the ambitions of the White Paper to be fulfilled, and the huge biodiversity value of the UKOTs to be fully recognised and supported.

Posted in Biodiversity, Defra, DFiD, Environment, Government, International, Overseas Territories, UK, white paper | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

How well is practical science resourced in schools?

Posted on May 3, 2013 by Policy

How well is practical science resourced in schools?

Practical work is a vital part of scientific teaching and learning. By giving students the opportunity to carry out experiments and assess evidence, the use of practical work in science enables transferable skills to be developed. It also gives experience of the type of work all scientific theory and knowledge development is based on. The importance of evidence is emphasised, and can be extrapolated to use in a wider context. For students to experience this, practical work needs to be properly resourced, with access to the correct equipment and facilities. Over the past year, research into the levels of resources available in schools has been carried out. Reports released yesterday by SCORE highlight the issues of the availability of practical science resources in schools across England.

The surveys were carried out by SCORE (Scientific Community Representing Education), a collaboration of leading science organisations of which the BES is a member. Involving teachers from nearly 500 secondary schools and sixth form colleges and 400 primary schools, the data seek to represent all types of school across all areas in the UK. Resources available in schools were compared to benchmark levels set by SCORE that provide guidance on what levels of resourcing are required for a well-rounded science education.

One of the main findings of the surveys is the levels and variation in spending on sciences across all schools. For primary schools, an average of £2.89 was spent per student on sciences in 2011/12. For state-funded secondary schools and sixth form colleges, the average science spend was £8.81 per student. These figures, however, do not show the huge range in spending across schools. In primary schools, spending on science ranged from £0.04 to £19.08 per student, and in secondary schools, this range spanned £0.75 to £31.25. The differences between schools are notable, and highlight the severe lack of funding for science in many.

The figures above show overall spending on science, making the levels of spending for practical science even lower than this. In state-funded secondary schools, practical science equipment and consumables account for just 39% of spending seen above. In 80% of secondary schools, and 75% of primary schools, there is no formal allocation of the science budget to practical work. These limited budgets for practical science work have, in part, contributed to a worrying lack of sufficient equipment for basic practical science work in many schools. On average, state-funded secondary schools have just 70% of the equipment and consumables needed to teach all sciences. In primary schools, this figure is even lower; the average school has 46% of the equipment in sufficient quantities needed to teach science.

Out of all sciences, biology suffers most from a lack of equipment for practical work. At pre-16, 37% of schools do not have access to practical equipment in sufficient quantities or quality. This rises to 44% for post-16. Ecology takes a huge hit within this – nearly 50% of schools do not have sufficient ecological sampling equipment, and 45% do not have access to water baths for use in small groups.

Direct funding issues through static reduced budgets are just one of the drivers behind these low resource levels in schools. Others, such as curriculum changes and controlled assessments play a more indirect role. Unpredictability with curriculum changes lead schools to use a large portion of their budget for updating textbooks, or spend large amounts of money on photocopying if they are not able to buy books upfront. Frequent changes also lead to an inability for schools and teachers to plan ahead and make large, one-off equipment purchases.

It is not just equipment and consumables that were found to be lacking, however. Classroom and laboratory facilities are also mostly not adequate, and a lack of good technician support was shown to limit practical work in secondary schools.

At secondary level, nearly 50% of schools reported difficulty in accessing outside learning environments. For biology these include ponds, areas with trees or hedges, and grassland. Outdoor habitats are essential for ecology, and help stimulate interest and curiousity about the natural world. Limited access to outdoor areas in schools is especially concerning given the recent removal of protection over these areas by Government. Previously, schools were mandated to provide from 5000 to 35000 m2 of outdoor space for students, depending on the size of the school. This protection was removed in July last year, to enable schools to maximise capacities, or raise funds if required. Now, legislation states that ‘suitable outdoor space must be provide in order to enable a) physical education to be provided to pupils in accordance with the school curriculum; and b) pupils to play outside.’ The limited outdoor learning areas in schools highlighted by SCORE’s reports are therefore at risk of being diminished even further, pushing the practical learning facilities of some schools away from SCORE’s benchmarks.

The use of SCORE’s benchmarks as a minimum starting point for adequate practical science resources in schools is highlighted throughout their reports. SCORE recommends that these are used to determine the resourcing needs for schools, and that the adequate resourcing of practical science should form part of Ofsted inspections for both primary and secondary schools. For secondary schools and sixth form colleges specifically, SCORE urges the Department for Education to build on the report to identify the number of schools who do and do not meet the benchmarks for practical science resourcing, and subsequently propose remedial action across all schools.

What do you think? Do these findings reflect your experiences? How can SCORE and DfE build on this?

Posted in Ecology, Education, Education Policy, Government | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Fish discards banned – but what’s the catch?

Posted on April 30, 2013 by Policy

Fish discards banned – but what’s the catch?

This post is by Katherine Maltby, an MBiolSci Biology with Conservation and Biodiversity student at the University of Sheffield. Her research interests span marine ecology and fisheries management, with a particular focus on socio-ecological systems and linking ecology to policy using multidisciplinary approaches. Katherine is currently assessing the drivers behind the behaviour of fishing fleets and the implications these have for management.

Earlier this year, in the latest of EU Common Fisheries Policy reforms, the European Union Fisheries Council announced that the practice of discarding in European fisheries was to be banned. Discarding has sparked much public and political debate throughout Europe as fish that are unwanted, over quota or below minimum landing size are thrown back into the sea; a waste both economically and environmentally. Many have welcomed this move to eliminate discarding, which is due to commence firstly in industrial and pelagic fisheries no later than January 2014. However, a recent paper in the Journal of Applied Ecology raises a perhaps overlooked perspective on the impacts that such a ban could impose: the consequences for seabirds.

The review, led by Dr. Anthony Bicknell of Plymouth University, highlights the dependency that many seabirds have developed upon the discards produced by European fishing boats. Those which may be particularly vulnerable to a drop in the number of discards as a result of the ban are scavenging birds such as gulls, terns, fulmars and skuas, in addition to the critically endangered Balearic shearwater. Whilst many of these sea birds are generalist feeders and should be able to switch to eating other non-discarded foods, the paper exposed a variety of impacts that could influence these birds at both population and community levels. Altered foraging and breeding success, range shifts to inland environments and an increased reliance on perhaps limited ‘natural’ fish numbers reflect the consequences that seabirds may face as a result of the discards ban, although most are predicted to be short term. Whilst it’s not all bad news – by-catches of some seabirds could decrease as they’ll be less attracted to boats – current knowledge in some aspects of seabird ecology is hindering the ability to accurately predict the exact consequences that may result.

But what exactly can be done? Other policies surrounding seabirds and the wider marine environment could play a vital part in helping these birds. The paper, and organisations such as the RSPB, highlights a particular solution that extends far beyond just protecting seabirds; marine protected areas (MPAs). These could play a key role in ensuring seabirds are resilient to the change in discard practices. By protecting foraging habitats and supporting fish stocks that seabirds may become increasingly reliant upon, MPAs may certainly be able to help seabirds in the short term. A network of protected areas is in the process of being designated in the UK, with 31 Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) set to be created around the UK to protect both habitats and species. The level of protection this will afford, however, is questioned by leading marine scientists, and only represents a fraction of the number of areas that were originally proposed (127). This potential role that protected areas could have in supporting seabirds exposed to a drop in discards therefore shows further reasoning for the full proposed network of MCZs.

The impacts the discarding ban could pose on these birds also have direct relevance to the EU Action Plan for reducing incidental catches of seabirds in fishing gears, which was adopted last November to address the problem of accidental by-catch of seabirds. Estimates by the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) Working Group on Seabird Ecology suggest that around 200,000 seabirds are caught as by-catch every year in European fisheries, with birds particularly drawn to longline fisheries[K1] . While it is thought that on the whole by-catch of seabirds should decline in the wake of the discards ban, some specialist fish-eating species could become increasingly drawn towards longline fisheries in an attempt to get an easy meal. This often results in birds getting caught on the hooks and drowning. It’s important then that the steps outlined in the recently adopted Action Plan are implemented and enforced as soon as possible so that any future reliance of seabirds on longlines is reduced. These steps include increasing monitoring and recording of seabird by-catch by fishing vessels, ensuring that fishing activity takes place in areas/at certain times when seabird interactions will be lower (such as at night) and reducing the attractiveness of fishing lines, through the use of streamer lines which scare the birds.

The key, it seems, is helping to restore resilience in the seabird populations that have become accustomed to taking advantage of the ‘easy pickings’ that discards have provided. Whether this is through MPAs or reducing reliance on other fishing boats, it is likely that a coordinated effort between current and future policy objectives would bring about the best results in terms of reducing the impacts seabirds will face. The complexity of the issues involved may hinder this process, but through continued scientific work to bridge the knowledge gaps about seabird ecology as well as pressure to implement policy changes, hopefully the future looks bright for seabirds despite the discard ban.

Posted in Birds, EU, Marine | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Badgers: the debate continues

Posted on April 25, 2013 by Policy

Badgers: the debate continues

The threat of bovine TB to cattle is still as great as ever, with the latest statistics release from Defra highlighting its continued presence. The use of badger culling to attempt to reduce the incidence of disease across the country was first announced in 2011, and was set to go ahead in autumn 2012. After difficulties with the policy, and the realisation that the originally calculated badger numbers were not accurate, however, the culls were postponed.  Natural England reissued badger cull licences last month for Gloucestershire and Somerset and culls are now set to start from June. The policy has been seen as controversial since its inception.

A meeting of the Wildlife and Conservation all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on Wednesday brought together proponents both ‘for’ and ‘against’ the cull for a lively debate. On one side were Adam Quinney (Vice President, National Farmers’ Union) and Sir Jim Paice MP (former Defra minister), and on the other, Simon King (President of the Wildlife Trusts) and Dr Brian May (founder of Save Me).

Sir Jim Paice started the debate by highlighting the prevalence of bTB in cattle across the UK, emphasising that this was a huge issue that has knock-on effects for the whole country. To tackle this problem, Defra has proposed a ‘toolbox’ of measures over the years, with badger culling only forming a part of this. Sir Jim Paice recognised that the long-term, well-designed Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) represents the best science available to use as a base for forming policy around a badger cull. Led by Lord Krebs, the trial lasted from 1997-2007, and was overseen by an Independent Scientific Group (ISG) on bTB. As outlined in a previous blog post, proactive culling (culling across all accessible land) was seen to reduce the incidence of bTB in cattle, but this was offset by perturbation – the increased movement of badgers to other areas after their social groups are disrupted. The trial showed a net benefit of a 16% reduction in bTB incidence through badger culling over a sustained nine year period. This figure, in addition to the knowledge that cases increase after culls have stopped led the ISG to conclude that “badger culling cannot meaningfully contribute to the control of cattle TB in Britain.”

Despite these strong recommendations from an experienced body of scientists, a badger cull was scheduled to go ahead. Using the RBCT as a base, Defra altered the methods to try to reduce costs and improve efficacy. In comparison to the RBCT, the pilot culls will be industry-led, not government-led; badgers will not be cage-trapped before shooting; a wider area will be used; and culling will only be carried out in areas surrounded by hard barriers to prevent perturbation.

Adam Quinney spoke of the wildlife policies present in every country with bTB, bringing up New Zealand as a good example. The differences between both the disease and policy in the England and New Zealand are quite marked, however. In NZ, possums act as TB reservoirs. Unlike badgers, these are an invasive species and are able to be culled or even eradicated from areas. In addition to spreading bTB, they also present threats to native wildlife, justifying their control. This is not the case with badgers in England, as it is a native species. Control of possums is also carried out across the whole country. In areas where this is relaxed, opportunistic infection has been shown to enter. This is similar to the perturbation effect seen in the RBCT, and presents a problem for the pilot badger culls set to go ahead in England.

Brian May spoke of the planned cull as an “impending tragedy”, reminding all that Lord Krebs himself has called the cull “a crazy scheme.” The flaws in the interpretation of the available scientific data and the process of science by Government and others were highlighted, including Sir David King’s (the Government Chief Scientific Adviser in 2007) report from the ISG review. Here, he concluded that “a programme for the removal of badgers could make a significant contribution to the control of cattle TB…provided removal takes places alongside an effective programme of cattle controls.” Brian May noted that this was condemned by Nature and was not subject to peer-review, but still accepted by Government as an authoritative document.

May reminded all that the pilot culls are not a scientific experiment, and therefore no meaningful conclusions about the methods of culling used can be drawn from the results. Many parameters have been altered, and no control area will be used for comparison. Sir Jim did recognise this, but did not seem concerned that the pilots would simply be an isolated exercise.

May also highlighted concerns about the estimates that have been made of the sizes of badger populations. These are needed to comply with the Bern Convention, as culling activities cannot render badgers locally extinct. They also allow the total percentage of badgers culled overall to be gauged. Estimates of population sizes over the past year have varied hugely, and the lack of accurate data led the culls to be postponed last autumn. A report to Natural England at the end of February used sett surveys and hair trapping to estimate badger numbers in the pilot areas. Population estimates (with 80% confidence levels) were 2657-4079 for Gloucestershire and 1972-2973 for Somerset. These are extremely wide-ranging, and do not lead to certainty that the recommended level of 70% of badgers will be killed in culls. As Donnelly and Woodroffe highlight in a correspondence in Nature, this uncertainty could mean that 100% of badgers could be potentially removed from an area.

Simon King started by quoting the ISG report, and went on to discuss the potential for other wildlife, such as deer, to become reservoirs of bTB if badgers are culled. He highlighted the need for stricter biosecurity measures between farms to help show the effectiveness of programmes of badger vaccination carried out by regional Wildlife Trusts. The complex epidemiology of the disease was noted, and research from Lion Aid highlighted the potential need for fine-scale molecular analysis of the bacterium.

The issue of cattle vaccination was brought up throughout the debate by both panellists and questions from Parliamentarians. Currently, European legislation restricts the use of vaccines against bTB on cattle, due to the inability to differentiate between infected and vaccinated cattle. There are also concerns that the currently available vaccine (BCG) would not confer full protection. Sir Jim Paice drew attention to a letter recently received by the Secretary of State, Owen Paterson, from EU Health Commissioner Tonio Borg, that outlined the EU’s timescales for developing a cattle vaccine for bTB. A ‘tentative timeline’ shows that an implemented vaccine is at least 10 years away, if long-term trials are initiated this year. All on the panel felt this provided a block to the management of the disease in the UK, and were keen to try and push this timetable forward.

The debate was a good forum for those on both sides of badger culling to present their views. Brian May’s comments on the evaluation and of and use of data from the pilot culls were especially pertinent and highlighted the lack of scientific rigour throughout this policy.

Posted in Badgers and bTB, Conservation, Defra, England, Wildlife Disease | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Policy Internship

Posted on April 24, 2013 by Cheryl Pilbeam

Policy Internship

Applications are now open for our Policy Internship. Apply by 9 May 2013.

The British Ecological Society, the UK’s learned society for ecology, has a vacancy for a paid intern to work in the science policy team for two days a week for three months from the end of May 2013.

The Policy Intern will be paid the National Minimum Wage (£6.19 per hour).

The Policy Intern will help:

  • Monitor legislation and policy developments relevant to the science of ecology
  • Summarise policy developments for a general audience through the BES policy blog
  • Assist with the preparation of policy statements, briefing papers and responses to Government consultations
  • Assist with the organisation of policy meetings and events
  • Assist with administrative tasks

There is scope for refining the the tasks undertaken according to the experience and skills the intern would like to develop.

Qualifications and Skills:

  • Graduate (preferably in ecology, environmental science or a related subject)
  • Knowledge of ecological science
  • Knowledge of or interest in public policy
  • Excellent written communication skills
  • Excellent IT skills

Application is by CV (no more than two sides of A4) and covering letter (no more than one and a half sides of A4).

Please include in your covering letter your answer to the following question (in no more than 100 words): ‘What, in your view, is the major challenge facing the environment in the UK between now and 2020 and how can ecological science help to tackle this?’

Please submit your CV and letter via email to Policy@BritishEcologicalSociety.org.

Please include details of when you would be available to start and on which days you would be available to work.

Interviews will take place on the morning of Tuesday 14 May 2013

Posted in BES | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Government Office for Science: roles, responsibilities and programmes

Posted on April 18, 2013 by Policy

Government Office for Science: roles, responsibilities and programmes

It was all change at the top of evidence based policy in Government this month, with Sir Mark Walport replacing Sir John Beddington as Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA). This role is supported by the Government Office for Science. Chris Fleming, Head of Research Community Issues at the Government Office for Science, came to talk to the Policy Lunchbox network last week about the role of the office, and how scientists can best engage with GO-Science.

GO-Science works to support the GCSA to ensure that the best science and engineering advice is brought to bear effectively on Government policy and decision-making. A Government might require scientific advice in a variety of circumstances; Chris highlighted this could often be when the natural world asserts itself in a frightening way. Although these tend to be infrequent, Ministers need the best advice as quickly as possible. During Sir John Beddington’s period of office, this type of advice was needed for a number of events: the ash cloud that emerged from the Icelandic volcanic eruption, Fukushima, ash dieback, and pandemic flu. In these circumstances, a Scientific Advisory Group in Emergencies is convened to provide specialist evidence-based advice.

As well as tackling short term, one off events, GO-Science also works to assess topics that span a longer time period. Through their Foresight programme, issues such as obesity, flooding and mental wellbeing are tackled. These complex projects, crossing departments and disciplines, seek to provide information to policy makers through scientific evidence and futures analyses. By explaining the difficulties in modelling futures, Chris highlighted why Foresight was so important. In addition to being unable to predict the future direction of single factors with any reliability, it is also difficult to know where you sit in the bigger picture. Sometimes, sudden changes can arise without warning, no matter how much evidence you have gathered beforehand. In these cases it is better to lead research that explores a range of possibilities or outcomes to allow resilience to all possible outcomes.

Ensuring Government has the capability to respond to issues, utilising evidence and scientific information, is another challenge that GO-Science faces. Chris outlined the network of scientists within and connected to Government that can lead to the use of scientific evidence in policy making. Each year, approximately, 2000 academics engage with GO-Science, from a wider academic community of around 180 000. Within Government, there are Chief Scientific Advisers in every department, and these engage with GO-Science on cross-cutting issues. Advice on specific topics is also available to departments through Scientific Advisory Committees and Science Advisory Councils. Civil servants who have a background in science are able to come together in the Government Science & Engineering (GSE) community, which was established in 2008. From a total workforce of around 400 000, 3500 are members of GSE.

Chris highlighted the difficulties in utilising scientific evidence for policy making. A body of research including that by the Institute for Government highlights the issues that policy makers face throughout the process. Policy can easily be influenced one way or another by a myriad of drivers. Evidence is just one factor that influences policy, with policy makers also considering ethics, legality, internal politics and media coverage amongst others. Communicating evidence to Ministers and departments in a timely and accessible way also poses problems. Policy and academic timing cycles are very different, and evidence will rarely be immediately available.

Effective engagement by academics or researchers can be achieved in a number of ways. Secondments or placement schemes– the Royal Society, UCL, BBSRC, NERC, CSaP and the BES all offer these -, consultations, commissioned research, and advisory committees and councils all provide realistic ways of communicating evidence to policy makers. Chris gave a number of tips for those that do engage: do your research and review the current landscape, engage proactively, be persistent, have a strategy, and above all, expect momentum.

Chris finished the discussion by drawing attention to Professor Sir Mark Walport’s five highlevel priorities for his term in office, which focus on science for growth, and best use of evidence:

1) Promoting the contribution of science, engineering, technology and the social sciences to economic growth by linking industry, academia and government;

2) Developing the capabilities that are vital to the infrastructure that underpins our security, well-being and resilience;

3) Providing the best scientific advice in the case of emergencies;

4) Ensuring the best use of quantitative and qualitative analysis across government;

5) Providing advocacy and strong leadership for science inside and outside government.

Posted in BBSRC, BIS, Chief Scientific Advisor, Economics, Economy, NERC, Parliament, Policy Lunchbox, Research Councils, Science Policy, UK | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Defra updates Chalara policies

Posted on April 15, 2013 by Policy

Defra updates Chalara policies

With spring finally approaching, the threat of Chalara to ash across the UK is greater than ever. As mentioned in a previous post, the fungus that causes the disease lies dormant over winter, and sporulates in the spring. Increases in temperature are therefore likely to initiate further spread of the disease. Actions over the next few months will be vital, and different strategies could give very different outcomes for our woodlands and forests. An updated approach to management of ash dieback was published by Defra at the end of March, in a ‘Chalara Management Plan‘.

The plan provides an update to the interim control plan published by Defra last December. In finalising the document as a management plan, Defra have concluded that Chalara is no longer a disease that can be stopped or prevented, but one that needs to be managed and controlled carefully. Its timely publication before the potential start of Chalara spreading across the country shows that the true threat of the disease is recognised. Publishing the plan just before Parliamentary recess, however, does little to highlight the problem of tree disease to all in Parliament. This isn’t an isolated issue for Defra, and many constituency areas will be greatly affected by potential losses of trees.

The four key objectives outlined in the interim plan still remain:

  • Reducing the rate of spread of the disease;
  • Developing resistance to the disease in the native ash population;
  • Encouraging landowner, citizen and industry engagement in surveillance, monitoring and action in tackling the problem;
  • Building economic and environmental resilience in woodlands and in associated industries

Further means to achieving these have been presented, along with associated timelines. There is a focus on the implementation of resistance research through both lab and field work, and the removal and replacement of young diseased trees.

The announcement of financial assistance for landowners who will need to re-plant areas or move to different timber crops is a novel component of the plan. This type of support is rare for tree disease. In 2011, thousands of larch trees in south west England were felled, at the cost of the landowner, to try and prevent the spread of Phytophthora ramorum. Providing support for the removal and replacement of ash is one way in which to achieve both the latter objectives outlined above. This will engage landowners in the issue, and ensure that effective barriers to spread are present. This decision is especially relevant to this species, as 97% of ash woodland is in private ownership.

As of 8 April, there are over 400 cases of Chalara in the UK. 249 of these are in newly planted areas, and 19 are in nursery sites. The actions outlined in the Chalara Management Plan target these areas, rather than established sites. The plan emphasises that:

“There is currently no need to fell veteran, ancient, or mature ash trees as a result of them becoming infected with Chalara as they could take many years to die. Dead and decaying wood is also beneficial for some wildlife species that depend on ash. Veteran, ancient mature trees are also important components of a resilient woodland or landscape. They will also provide potential for resistant regeneration.”

The implementation measures in the plan relate to England only. Separate plans are being developed by each of the Devolved Administrations. Northern Ireland is working with the Republic of Ireland to give a coherent Ireland-wide plan. Both Scotland and Wales are developing plans that will complement measures taken in England.

A revised version of the management plan will be published by the end of March 2014. This will provide updates for non-woodland trees and give a longer-term view. Recommendations from the Plant and Tree Health Independent Task Force about how the threats to trees from pests and pathogens could be addressed will also be incorporated. These are due to be released next month.

Posted in Defra, Forestry Commission, Forests, Habitat Loss, Parliament | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Innovations in Marine Education

Posted on April 9, 2013 by Policy_Team

Innovations in Marine Education

This blog is by Jen Cooper, who was a BES Undergraduate Fellow in 2012. She recently completed a BSc Honours in Marine Biology at the University of Liverpool and will be starting a PhD at Sheffield in May. Jen attended a marine education workshop as a representative of the BES last month and reflects on her experiences here.

On the weekend 15-17th March, Dale Fort Field Studies Council Centre held its first “Innovations in Marine Education” workshop. The event was organised by Mark Ward at Dale Fort and was part-funded by the British Ecological Society. Aimed at teachers and educators, the event consisted of several sessions over the three days.

In attendance were several representatives from a range of organisations, including the Field Studies Council (FSC), Cheshire and Sussex Wildlife Trusts (WTs) and the National Trust (NT). In addition, there were several independents who, through art or science, were involved in marine education. The lack of mainstream educational teachers was apparent, and their non-attendance provided much debate throughout the weekend. High delegate involvement allowed the group to learn from and about each other, keeping the event interesting, dynamic and highly conductive to innovation.

It was quite surprising how little the organisations knew of each other’s work, but this did mean everyone was able to learn something new over the weekend. Delegates not aware of the school education system were able to learn about ecology fieldwork and curriculum requirements from an FSC talk. Pitfalls of the current school system for teaching ecology, including the astounding differences in ecology requirements between exam boards, were also highlighted. The implications this could have for the future generations of ecological researchers, policy makers and all others intrinsic to its functioning as a sector were clear. With some of the teaching needed to fulfil requirements seeming quite uninspired, it’s not hard to see why ecology in general isn’t seen as ‘sexy’ and why biology isn’t a ‘cool’ science. As David Attenborough’s image becomes less familiar with young people, where is ecology’s Brian Cox?

Workshops throughout the weekend proved that ecology can provide an ideal forum for fun and exploration in teaching. Unconstrained by the curriculum, organisations like the WTs and independent educators have greater scope to teach in a fun, interactive way. One really interesting concept, and one that seemed to be popular amongst all of the delegates, was the Cheshire WT’s new project, Undersea Explorers. This project, originating from the Yorkshire WT, allows children to experience the ocean in their local swimming pool. It’s a simple yet productive idea. Children are taught to snorkel and are free to explore in the safety of a swimming pool, which is filled with marine habitats and creatures (not real of course). With games that teach about food webs and human impacts this is a truly inspirational way to teach and enthuse children about the marine environment. This undoubtedly makes marine ecology fun and also accessible to those in deprived or landlocked areas. There’s also an interesting by-product; more confident swimmers!

Although the weekend was a success overall, one obvious issue was the distinct lack of teachers at the event. To ensure the future of environmental scientists, policymakers, governors and many more, it is essential that ecology, biology and environmental teachers can provide a good education. Teachers inspire children and light up future career paths, and involvement in workshops like this might be one way of achieving that. Was low attendance due to timing, with Easter round the corner and exams looming, or was it driven more by the individual, their affiliated institutes or a problem that stretches higher? Regardless of the answer it seems essential that these questions be answered.

In general, marine educators seem ready and willing to push their efforts to gain the best results. Not in the game for the money, rewards are mainly in the form of the response they get from those they educate. This event offered the space and time for people to re-connect with their passions and to formulate new and innovative ideas for how to achieve more with their work. Through events such as these it might be possible to create a coherent network of organisations, working synergistically to introduce both children and adults to the natural environment.

Posted in Education, Marine | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close