"The Fellowship virtually opened up the way to collaborating with many scientists from the UK"

Dr Robert Kajobe Overseas Bursary and Fellowship Award Winner

What does the future hold for Scottish Biodiversity?

Posted on June 19, 2013 by Policy

What does the future hold for Scottish Biodiversity?

Scotland’s biodiversity strategy was updated today, through the publication of a report on the government’s plans for tackling the 2020 Challenge for Scottish Biodiversity. This document builds on the earlier Scottish Biodiversity Strategy which was released in 2004 to include how the strategy will address wider EU Biodiversity strategies for 2020 and the UN’s Convention on Biological Diversity ‘Aichi targets’. The two documents now complement each other to form the renewed Scottish Biodiversity Strategy, which attempts to highlight where work needs to be done to enhance and protect Scottish Biodiversity.

The original 2004 strategy, entitled ‘Scotland’s Biodiversity: It’s in your hands’, was developed by the government to lay out how Scottish biodiversity will be conserved for the health, wellbeing and enjoyment of people for now and the future. Since then, there have been numerous progress updates. In early public consultations, to which the BES formed a response, the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy: 2020 Challenge initially faced some criticisms for its vague and unclear aims and heavy focus upon economic valuations. Reaction to today’s new report will be seen in the coming days.

The initial aims laid out in the report have been updated following public consultations and they now seek to ‘protect and restore biodiversity on land and sea’, ‘connect people with the natural world’ and ‘maximise the benefits for Scotland of a diverse natural environment and the services it provides’. Whilst seeming to reflect that biodiversity should be protected for its own sake, there are strong hints throughout the report that the overall objective of the strategy is that biodiversity should be protected for the primary purpose to stimulate economic growth and provide economic benefits for Scotland.

The report first explores the need for the strategy to take an ecosystem approach in order to deliver multiple benefits and improve ecosystem health. It sets to develop a number of ecosystem indicators to measure ecosystem health. Additionally, it encourages the involvement of the public in decision-making in order to generate more appropriate plans, and better coordinate policies and government bodies to carry out management. The strategy also aims, by 2020, to conserve at least 18% of land and inland water and 10% of coastal and marine ecosystems. There are also calls to connect protected areas into a national network and expand the marine protected area network. There are clear aims for what the strategy hopes to achieve at land, freshwater and marine levels, from development of a marine plan to extending woodlands and improving river basin planning.

The role of nature in developing the Scottish economy is a strong theme throughout. The strategy considers how natural capital needs to be better valued and more efficiently used in order to sustain future resources and enhance future economic growth. In particular, peatlands are set to receive much attention due to their role in carbon capture.  The Natural Capital Asset Index is also set to be further developed to keep a better track of the state of natural capital and to create regional and terrestrial/marine indices. Along with natural capital, the value of nature for human wellbeing is also highlighted and its protection is seen as essential in order to increase the links and relationships people have with nature.

Opportunities and challenges for science in the new biodiversity strategy

To coincide with the launch of today’s report, registration is now open for a joint BES event with CIEEM and the Scottish Biodiversity Forum which will explore the opportunities and challenges for science in the new strategy. The event will be held in Edinburgh on 19-20 September 2013.

Overall, the 2020 challenge has provided a welcome update to the 2004 strategy. It documents ways in which the government hopes to improve Scottish biodiversity at a range of levels from pure nature conservation to public engagement and economic perspectives. But how can science contribute to this strategy? What do you think about the report and its attention to economic valuation of nature? Post your comments, or join us in September in Edinburgh.

Posted in Biodiversity, Biodiversity Strategy, Ecology, Environment, Government, Scotland, UK | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Can we put a price on nature?

Posted on June 18, 2013 by Policy

Can we put a price on nature?

At a time when there is an ever-increasing need to consider the economic basis for decisions, could putting a price on nature be a means to ensuring its true value is fully recognised?

Nature provides a plethora of services that are valuable to people and populations, which can be defined as natural capital. Pollination, decomposition, and the provision of clean drinking water are all ecosystem services that provide economic benefit across the globe. In some cases these benefits are not taken into account, and decisions over nature protection could therefore lead to severe consequences in the future.

The concept of valuing nature gives rise to many issues, both social and ecological. Could putting a price on nature lead to greater environmental protection? Or would there be the risk of increased commercialisation and abstraction of the natural world? Is putting a price on nature the best method of valuation? These questions and more will be discussed tonight at the joint British Ecological Society/Royal Geographical Society event ‘Putting a price on the priceless: valuing nature?’

This discussion will cover the social, geographical and ecological bases of the valuation of nature. Panel members include:

Professor Rosie Hails, Science Director at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology and a member of the UK Government’s Natural Capital Committee; Dr Tom Crompton, Change Strategist at WWF-UK and has written a number of reports assessing environmental campaigning; Dr Sarah Whatmore, Professor of Environment and Public Policy at the University of Oxford, where her research focuses on relations between people and the material world.

Follow the discussion on Twitter and put your questions to the panel using #valuingnature. A recording of the event will be made available at a later date.

Posted in BES, Event, Valuation | Leave a comment

What lies ahead for tree health in the UK?

Posted on June 13, 2013 by Policy

What lies ahead for tree health in the UK?

The health of UK trees is in serious threat as pests and diseases continue to become a prominent part of the UK environment. Cases such as ash dieback, chestnut blight and oak processionary moth are becoming increasingly common occurrences throughout our forests and woodlands. Such outbreaks have led to serious concerns over the future of UK forests and as a result the government created a Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Expert Taskforce. Their final report was released last month.

The independent taskforce is composed of academics that advise on the threats to tree health and plant biosecurity, in addition to providing recommendations on how to best manage the problems that such threats could present. Building upon their interim report in November of last year and consultations with a wider stakeholder community, their final report, based specifically on trees, highlighted a range of current and future threats of pests and diseases. They noted that current strategies in place are insufficient to tackle such problems and offered a range of recommendations at both a national and international level.

A prominent recommendation laid out was to develop a national Plant Health Risk Register. Currently there are risk assessments for individual pests and diseases, but due to a lack of a single risk register this often causes confusion and problems in how to prioritise threats. By creating a risk register that identifies and prioritises the risks that pests and diseases can pose to trees, it is hoped that it will aid in generating more effective policy decisions and better allocation of limited resources. The register would also identify the probability of entry of exotic or reoccurrence of indigenous species, which is essential for understanding the future threats that trees face.

To guide the development of mitigation plans and prioritise risks, the taskforce encouraged the appointment of a Chief Plant Health Officer. It was highlighted that despite commendable efforts surrounding the reactions to ash dieback last year, reactions and preparedness to pest and disease outbreaks can be slow and hindered by a lack of management plans. Part of the officer’s job will therefore be to increase the preparedness and contingency planning of organisations and the government to such threats in order to more effectively monitor and control the spread of pests and diseases. The report also highlighted that addressing knowledge gaps through increased research into surveillance, diagnostic tests and modelling of pests and diseases was essential for future planning against such outbreaks. This should also include using research from the EU and other regions to understand the risk and spread of pests and diseases; using such ‘epidemiological intelligence’ would prove invaluable for risk assessment and future management planning.

However, increasing research and developing more effective control measures for outbreaks at a national scale were only part of a wider set of recommendations laid out. Current governance and legislation causes confusion between organisations as to who reacts to what as well as problems with how to manage and prioritise risks. Therefore a review of legislation should take place; in particular the Plant Health Act of 1967 should be updated to include all plants and be consistent with other plant and tree legislations. Improving legislation would help to strengthen understanding of how to manage outbreaks and develop the right approach to take.

UK trees are not alone in their vulnerability to pests and disease; worldwide there are increasing cases of re-emerging diseases in addition to new and exotic threats. Taking account of this, the taskforce highlighted the importance of understanding the problems that this could pose for the health of UK trees. In particular, developing rigorous biosecurity measures for effective control of the spread of current threats in the UK, in addition to risks of new pests and diseases, is needed. Suggested biosecurity improvements at a national scale included stricter border controls and increased public awareness. At a wider scale, strengthening EU and wider international regulations needs to take place in order to monitor and reduce the risk of new strains or species entering the UK. Notably, tighter controls surrounding the trade of plants and trees for commercial and personal use is needed, although this can be extremely difficult to monitor and control. Solutions the taskforce recommended were strengthening the Plant Passport scheme, introducing quarantine controls for high risk imports and increased surveillance of threats.

Pests and diseases will continue to pose a serious threat to the UK’s trees and surrounding environment now and into the future. The creation of this taskforce is a welcome step and their first report has highlighted key issues that need to be addressed if the risk and spread of such threats are to be controlled. The recommendations laid out are in some cases extremely challenging and will rely on a coordinated effort at national, EU and international scales which may prove difficult to implement. However, if the recommendations are followed, significant steps could be taken in reducing the research knowledge gaps and improving the clarity of organisation and planning against such outbreaks. If action is taken now, there is hope for controlling the impact such threats pose to our trees.

Posted in Defra, Forests, UK | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Eradicating bovine TB: could vaccinations be the answer?

Posted on June 6, 2013 by Policy

Eradicating bovine TB: could vaccinations be the answer?

As the pilot badger culls in Somerset and Gloucestershire are set to begin imminently, controversy has once again arisen this week over the best approach for limiting the spread of bovine tuberculosis (bTB). Vaccinations of both cattle and badgers have received increasing attention as an additional method to use in limiting the spread of bTB but as yet the extent of how they can help is not fully known. Yesterday, a report by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs committee (EFRA) was released to detail current vaccination research and deliver advice over the shortcomings of current research and government approaches.

Since 1994, the government has spent over £35 million in bTB vaccination research, and plans to spend a further £20 million in the next five years. Vaccinations are being developed for both cattle and badgers, yet face many problems to overcome. Cattle vaccination requires a change in EU legislation, as the current Bacille Calmette Guérin (BCG) cattle vaccine interferes with skin tests used to determine between uninfected and infected cattle. The recent development of a ‘DIVA’ test (Differentiating Infected from Vaccinated Animals) to use alongside the BCG vaccine has been hailed as a positive step in furthering the possibility of vaccinating cattle. However, the protection such a vaccine provides is variable, and extensive field tests of the vaccine and ‘DIVA’ test are required before EU laws can be changed. Vaccinations for badgers have been available since March 2010, yet due to financial problems and determining the best way to administer the vaccine has limited their current use. Work into whether vaccines can be given orally is ongoing.

Reviewing this research, the EFRA committee have declared that vaccinations do have a part to play in resolving the bTB crisis, and welcome the ongoing work that is being done in this area. However, used alone they are not a miracle cure, and in their words is not a ‘magic bullet’. This is for many reasons, most prominently because vaccinations are expensive to deploy, are variable in the protection they offer to uninfected animals (and for infected animals they give no protection) and have limited effect in the short term. Therefore, vaccinations should be used as part of a wider solution to tackle bTB.

However, whilst the research itself has been relatively successful, the EFRA committee argues that the way the government has developed and subsequently communicated this research has been deficient. In particular, several shortcomings were highlighted:

  • A lack of clear communication with the public has led to widespread misunderstanding concerning if, how and when vaccinations of cattle and/or badgers could be introduced;
  • There has been slow progress of the government working with the EU commission regarding how EU laws can be altered to allow cattle vaccination within the UK;
  • Field trials of the ‘DIVA’ test were postponed as the government argued that legislation had to change first, which was untrue, slowing development of a cattle vaccination;
  • Cancellation by the government of five out of six badger vaccination deployment projects, as part of research into badger vaccination, reflects a missed research opportunity;
  • A lack of a clear timeline and strategy has slowed research and therefore subsequent development of when vaccinations will be available to use is uncertain.

The EFRA committee claim that such shortcomings have seriously damaged the impact research surrounding vaccinations has had, leading to confusion and uncertainty into how vaccinations could help with bTB. In particular, the report criticises the poor communication and clarity of evidence that the government has used to inform the wider public. Given the huge controversy that surrounds bTB, shortcomings such as these is detrimental and could seriously have affected how MPs, scientists and the public alike developed their opinions around such research. This is certainly a case of where poor science communication can have significant implications.

Into the future, vaccination research is still to progress and future developments will hopefully aid in tackling bTB. The EFRA committee urge that a timeline and clear strategy for such research should be developed and stuck to in order to get vaccinations used in field studies and later in farms and more badger populations. It also suggests that the government needs to move from being reactive in its research approaches to being more proactive; this should happen if a clearer timeline is produced. Most importantly perhaps is the need to communicate such research in a transparent and unbiased way in order to allow the public to make opinions developed from scientific evidence rather than misinformed facts and figures.

Posted in Badgers and bTB, England | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

BES POST Fellowship: first reflections

Posted on May 31, 2013 by Policy

BES POST Fellowship: first reflections

This post is by Rory O’Connor, who is currently carrying out a 3 month BES Fellowship at the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. Rory is a final year PhD student at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. His research assesses the ecology and behaviour of two native species of butterfly.

A month and a half ago I stepped bleary eyed and pallid out of the lab and into the world of Westminster, to start my 3 month fellowship at the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) under the sponsorship of the BES.  Suddenly (it seems) I’m over half way through. It has been an enlightening, exciting and busy experience and here I shall share with you a bit of what I’ve done and learnt so far.

POST’s remit is to provide balanced and unbiased analysis of policy issues related to science and technology to Parliament, and the main method of doing this is through POSTnotes. These are 4 sides of A4 that summarise a particular subject, which are send out to parliamentarians and are available to anyone else who wants to read them. My job while here is to produce a POSTnote on the subject of Insect Pollinator Declines. POST have already produced a note on Insect Pollination in 2010, but things have moved on apace since then so I’ve been charged with providing an update. It is no coincidence that I’m writing on this topic when pollinators, particularly bees, have recently landed squarely on top of the political agenda. This is namely because of some recent studies showing negative impacts of neonicotinoid pesticides on honey bees and bumble bees, and the EU’s subsequent decision to place a two year moratorium on three neonicotinoids.  What better time to update parliamentarians on the issues surrounding pollinator declines!

My first couple of weeks were spent reading up on the science and policy issues that surround pollinator declines (as well as enjoying the experience of having access to the Palace of Westminster). This initially involved a lot searching for scientific papers, but there are also a lot of policy and parliamentary documents out there. For instance, the week before I arrived, the Parliamentary Environmental Audit Committee published the report of its recent inquiry into Pollinators and Pesticides. If you’ve never read one of these documents before it is worth a look as it gives a great insight into what these committees do and how they collect their evidence.

So as I filled my brain with useful information on all things pollinators I made a list of people I’d like to talk to; MPs who might have an interest, scientists about their work, NGOs on their position, and stakeholders such as the farmers, bee keepers and food suppliers. A POSTnote is not just a literature review, a fundamental part of it is conducting interviews with experts and stakeholders to get their perspectives and interpretations of the issue. It’s an efficient way to get an idea of the most important issues and different stances than simply reading around. It has also been for me one of the most enjoyable aspects of my work at POST so far. When else would you get an opportunity to ask if you can chat to field leading scientists and important organisations about what they do? It’s been brilliant, and I can’t thank the people who I’ve spoken to enough for being so generous with their time (and putting up with some of my daft questions!).

So what have I learnt so far? Firstly, to use my outlook calendar properly! Gone are the days when my week could simply be remembered or made up as I went along. Second, pollinator declines is a really important and complex issue, and the focus of lots of great science. Thirdly, policy is complicated. “No proverbial Poirot” you might say, but this really has hit home since I joined POST. The science really is just one part of it, and the voices of scientists are just one group among many that policy makers have to listen to. I’ve read a lot and spoken to a lot of people, with different perspectives and agendas, that don’t necessarily match up. And to top it off even scientists disagree sometimes. The debate around pesticides in particular has been a lesson for me on how complicated these things can get. Policy makers have to take the muddle of facts and opinions (often conflicting) that are thrown at them on a given subject and decide what is the best thing to do and the best way to do it. Hopefully my POSTnote will be a tool which makes their job that little bit easier.

So now, my mind abuzz with all this information, I’m now embarking on the challenge of putting it all together in a balanced and impartial way that will help parliamentarians understand the subject.

Posted in BES, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, Pollinators, POST Fellowship, Science Policy, Select Committee | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

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 | 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

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