"Running a BES symposium united academia, consultancy, governmental organisations and charities."

Lesley Batty Symposium Organiser

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 , , , , , , , , | 1 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

Natural Resources Wales is launched

Posted on April 3, 2013 by Policy_Team

Today marks the official launch of a new body to manage the natural environment in Wales. Natural Resources Wales brings together three previously separate organisations – Forestry Commission Wales, the Countryside Council for Wales and the Environment Agency Wales – to ensure natural resources are sustainably managed, enhanced and used, both now and in the future.

All three of these former organisations tackled some of the most difficult and diverse challenges that Wales faces today. In combining these objectives, Natural Resources Wales therefore has a broad remit, and is required to deal with energy and fuel supply, provision of jobs and income, the threats of climate change and flooding and improving people’s health and wellbeing. A tall order, but one overall body for Wales is proposed to render this achievable through more effective and efficient use of resources.

With this in mind, Natural Resources Wales have set several aims for their first year in operation:

• protect people and their homes as far as possible from environmental incidents like flooding and pollution;
• maintain and improve the quality of the environment, including the promotion of nature conservation, access and recreation;
• provide opportunities for people to learn, use and benefit from Wales’ natural resources;
• support Wales’ economy by using natural resources to support jobs & enterprise;
• help businesses understand and work with environmental, social and economic impacts when they bring forward proposals;
• help make the environment and natural resources more resilient to climate change and other pressures.

These broad aims cover what would be expected from a natural environment management body. Assessing and monitoring progress towards these will be vital, and could provide lessons for environmental management in other areas.

In England, a Triennial Review of two natural resource bodies, Natural England and the Environment Agency, is currently underway. By assessing the functions of both bodies, the review aims to ensure England has ‘sufficiently strong and resilient delivery bodies to meet [its] environmental ambitions’. The results of the assessments are set to determine how the bodies are managed in the future. Potential reforms from the review were set out in a discussion paper by Defra last year, and range from the status quo to a merger of the two bodies. With the potential for England to have an environmental management body similar to Natural Resources Wales, it is worth paying close attention to see what works, what doesn’t, and whether the merge gives more efficient and collaborative management of the natural environment.

Posted in Wales | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Defra programmes and policies: an update

Posted on March 25, 2013 by Policy_Team

Over the past year, there have been a range of new initiatives from Defra to protect and enhance the natural environment, ranging from biodiversity offsetting to reviewing their public bodies. The all-party parliamentary group on Conservation and Wildlife met on Wednesday to discuss these with Richard Benyon MP, Minister for the Natural Environment and Fisheries. The Minister was able to clarify Defra’s position on a number of issues and put them into a wider context, stressing the continued need for cross-government collaboration for the natural environment.

Wide-ranging topics were brought up by speakers at the meeting. Many were very timely, given the recent Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) Conference of the Parties in Bangkok, and the ongoing CAP reform. CITES and wildlife crime were brought up throughout the meeting and members thanked the Minister for the UK Government’s contribution to the recent success of greater protection for a number of shark species against the finning trade. This was a huge victory, but the Minister highlighted that there were many smaller successes as well. A positive ecological effect will result from stricter regulation on the use of every species of rosewood and mahogany trees from Madagascar for timber.

The protection of UK species through Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) has been a topical issue recently, with government announcing the initial creation of 31 new protected areas from a proposed 127. The Minister was keen to stress that he, unlike others, is not fussed about the numbers, but the ecological coherence that the network provides overall. The main issues behind the selection of the sites were scientific evidence and ability to enforce regulations. A public consultation on these zones and the specific protection they need is open until the end of March.

The importance of biodiversity and conservation was also highlighted when a representative of RSPB asked the Minister to outline Defra’s role in maintaining the natural environment in the UK Overseas Territories (UKOTs). There are 14 UKOTs across the world, with many possessing huge amounts of biodiversity. Alongside the Department for International Development (DFID) and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), Defra have developed a new fund for biodiversity and climate-related work in Overseas Territories. The Overseas Territories Environment and Climate Fund brings together two previous funding streams for closer cross-government working. The Minister touched upon the successes that NGOs and other bodies such as the BES have helped them work towards, and the continued work that needs to be done in this area.

On a more local level, the roles of Local Nature Partnerships (LNPs) and Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), and how they can work better together, were discussed. Local Nature Partnerships (LNPs) were developed from the 2011 Natural Environment White Paper, where it was announced that ‘effective action to benefit nature, people and the economy locally happens when the right people come together in partnership’. Currently, there are 48 LNPs across England, with the ambition of helping local areas to manage the natural environment effectively and provide input to local decision-making. Local Enterprise Partnerships are locally-owned partnerships between local authorities and businesses that try to drive economic growth and the creation of local jobs. The Minister agreed with the representative of the Wildlife and Countryside Link that these two programmes should be working together, and perhaps there is not enough close working at the moment.

Other national issue brought up was the triennial review of Natural England and the Environmental Agency. A representative from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) highlighted the need to critically review the costs and savings of any outcome of the review. Both CPRE and the BES contributed to the review’s consultation response through the Wildlife and Countryside Link, and focused on the potential costs of the exercise, and the potential detrimental effects of a merger. The preliminary conclusions of this review should be available in the next few months.

The issues of planning and protection of the natural environment were raised through both biodiversity offsetting and HS2. Biodiversity offsetting was announced in the Natural Environment White Paper as a potential method of delivering planning policy for compensating for biodiversity losses. A pilot scheme in six areas began in 2012, and will run for two years. The Minister highlighted how these will be used as bases of evidence for informing policy decisions. The chair of the APPG on Conservation and Wildlife, Angela Smith MP, spoke about the potential damage that HS2 could have in her constituency, as the proposed route cuts through three areas of ancient woodland. When asked what Defra’s role is regarding the trickier aspects of the route, such as this, the Minister answered that there would undoubtedly be damage with such a large infrastructure project, but work would be carried out to limit and mitigate this. He highlighted that such large projects require a voice across the whole of government for the natural environment.

Importantly, the Minister outlined the priorities and major responsibilities of DEFRA, which are to:
• Support and develop British farming and encourage sustainable food production
• Enhance the environment and biodiversity to improve quality of life
• Support a strong and sustainable green economy, including thriving rural communities, resilient to climate change
• Prepare for and manage the risk from animal and plant disease
• Prepare for and manage the risk from flood and other environmental emergencies.

These encompassed all issues discussed at the meeting fitted into these, highlighting that interested groups and government share a broad like-minded approach in protection and enhancement of the natural environment.

It was clear throughout that the Minister was keen to make best use of scientific evidence for decision-making. When questioned about the levels of protection required by polar bears, he stated that the bears most at risk need to be identified, and research into how hunting affects their populations needs to be carried out to make an informed decision. In addition, the reasoning behind the low numbers of Marine Conservation Zones was reiterated – the evidence provided did not justify their creation.

Posted in Biodiversity, Biodiversity Offsetting, Defra, Planning, White Paper | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Greening the Common Agricultural Policy: MEPs vote on environmental measures

Posted on March 21, 2013 by Policy_Team

As part of the wider EU budget review for the period 2014-2020, the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has been under scrutiny over the past two years. In its current state, the CAP accounts for 40% of the EU budget, and provides funding through two routes – Pillar One and Pillar Two. Reform of the CAP has been proposed for a number of years, with a view to moving away from its origins as a subsidy to a source of funding that is able to support sustainable farmland management. These changes have been developing for a long time, and proposals for the next period of CAP after 2013 were drawn up by the European Commission in October 2011. There have been a plethora of discussions and amendments across committees since, and final proposals were put before the full European Parliament for further debate and vote last Wednesday.

The debate and votes on the reforms encompassed all areas of the policy, from the allocation of payments to strengthening the bargaining position of farmers. The introduction of systems to ensure greater environmental protection and management, known as greening measures, were a key part of this. Currently, it is mainly Pillar Two that provides funding for environmental protection, but original proposals from the European Commission outlined the strengthening of Pillar One by introducing new green measures that farmers and land managers must meet.

The European Commission proposed in 2011 that 30% of direct payments could be dependent on farmers meeting criteria around crop diversity, grassland retention and ecological management. Original guidelines state that:

1) Cultivation on land over 3 hectares must be comprised of at least three different crops, with all covering 5-70%;
2) Permanent grassland or pasture should be maintained;
3) At least 7% of land must be managed as ‘Ecological Focus Areas’ (EFAs)

During the negotiations and debate, however, the specifics behind the message of greening the CAP were altered. To receive green funding, farmers still have to meet the three main criteria of crop diversity, maintenance of grassland, and management of land as EFAs, but the environmental guidelines have changed:

Crop diversity: Arable land of 10-30 hectares must be planted with at least two different crops covering 20-80% of the land. Land more than 30 hectares must be comprised of at least three crops covering 5-75% of land;
EFAs: During 2015, at least 3% of land over 10 hectares must be reserved for EFAs. From 2016, this will be expanded to 5%.

Although these are small changes on paper, these alterations have the potential to give considerably different outcomes to the original guidelines. The area of land dedicated to EFAs has been more than halved, a move which will have implications for the EU’s farmland wildlife. Farmland biodiversity has already seen declines over many years. As outlined in a previous blog, one group that has suffered as part of this are farmland birds. EFAs comprise areas such as hedgerows, ditches, ponds, or land left fallow. These can provide benefits to the greater ecological environment, especially in relation to environmental change. As recommended in the 2011 Natural Environment White Paper, for enhanced resilience and coherence of the country’s ecological network, sites need to be ‘more, bigger, better and joined’.

Although greening of the CAP does not look likely to be as ecologically rigorous as initially hoped, the creation of mandatory measures in Pillar One is still a step in the right direction. The area of EFAs remains open to review after 2016, and there will still be additional funding available through Pillar Two to farmers or land owners who want to further increase their sustainable management practices.

The debate and votes last week in the European Parliament were the first stage for the final negotiations for the CAP. European Council discussions are currently underway, and all three European bodies are due to come together to decide a final position on 11 April.

Posted in Agriculture, Birds, Common Agricultural Policy, EU, Lawton Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Assessing the impacts of ash dieback

Posted on March 15, 2013 by Policy_Team

Spring is almost upon us, and early signs of budburst mean that trees will soon be in leaf. Warmer temperatures and leafing trees will both have implications for ash dieback, the disease found last year in ash trees in the UK. The fungus that causes the disease is dormant throughout the winter, and sporulates in the spring. Leaves present vital signs of the disease, and they will help indicate the incidence of disease across the country. Effective measures to deal with both these issues are therefore necessary. A report released by Confor last month outlines the potential impacts of dieback, and follows on from work by Richard Worrell assessing the potential impacts of the disease in Scotland. The report also shows the extent of ash woodland in private ownership, highlighting the need for any actions from government to take this into account.

After oak and birch, ash is the third most common broadleaved tree species in the UK. Confor’s report estimates that woodland ash trees cover over 140 000 hectares of land in UK. In addition to this, 12 million ash trees are present outside of woods and forests, covering urban and recreational areas. The majority of forest volume in the UK is not publicly owned – out of a total forest area of 3 million hectares in the UK, only 28% is managed by the Forestry Commission. For ash, this figure is much lower, with only 3% of ash woodlands not owned by the private sector.

Ash dieback has been present in the natural environment of the UK since October 2012. Although the majority of cases are still confined to nursery sapling stock, cases have been found ‘in the wild’ in eastern England and south-east Scotland (see this Forestry Commission map for details of all reported cases). The disease is caused by the fungus Chalara fraxinea, which causes leaf loss and crown dieback in infected trees, potentially leading to the death of trees. Common ash (Fraxinus excelsior), as found in the UK, is highly affected. Saplings are particularly vulnerable, succumbing rapidly to the disease.

The direct effects of ash dieback on tree populations are clear. Infection in young trees is likely to lead to death within 10 years. High rates of infection and tree death are seen in continental Europe, where the disease is established. One of the worst affected areas is Denmark, where 90% of ash trees are infected. The loss of these trees from the landscape will alter woodland and urban environments alike. As highlighted by Professor Alan Downie, Dr Erik Kjaer and Dr Joan Webber at an online Q&A event hosted by OpenAshDieBack earlier this week, the loss of ash trees will likely lead to negative impacts in the environment. Professor Downie pointed out that ash is the sole foodplant for at least 27 species of invertebrate, and Dr Kjaer highlighted that ash has many associated species, including orchids. The loss of ash would therefore change ecosystems and biodiversity levels. In addition to these species-specific effects, Professor Downie also highlighted the general effects of losing tree cover – impact of the loss of canopy cover on ground flora and fauna, the release of nutrients from the soil, and changes in carbon sequestration.

In addition to these ecological effects, the loss of ash trees in the UK could have an impact on wider economic processes, as highlighted in the Confor report. The loss of ash as a timber tree, and the changes that would have to be made in the management of woodlands that currently have ash present would be economically detrimental. For private owners, the costs of surveying, felling, and replacing ash trees are likely to be high, and the effects of this could be long-lasting. An increase in the amount of timber in the market could also drive prices down, affecting landowners even further.

The government outlined its current actions for ash dieback in December in Defra’s Interim Chalara Control Plan. In this, four key objectives were highlighted:
• Reducing the rate of spread of the disease
• Developing resistance to the disease in the native ash tree 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

Given the high rates of private ownership for ash woodland areas, action on the third objective is vital. Dissemination of information about the disease, its spread and how land owners can react best are all necessary for an effective response across the total woodland area in the UK. For landowners to engage in monitoring ash dieback, resources must also be available for them to do so. The number of inquiries sent to the Forestry Commission’s Tree Health Diagnostic and Advisory Service has increased by 1000% over the past six months. As diseased trees come into leaf over spring, and more trees become infected when the Chalara fungus sporulates again in summer, this high workload could even increase.

The report compiled for Confor also covers the potential impacts of red band needle blight, Dothistroma, on pine populations in the UK. This highlights that it is not just ash dieback that could cause ecological and economic problems. The number of tree diseases present in the UK has risen exponentially over the past 20 years, and now, almost all tree species are under threat from at least one disease or pest. Red band needle blight and ash dieback threaten up to 18% of woodland in the UK. Combined with other diseases and pests, their effects can be greatly exacerbated. 30 million elms died of Dutch Elm disease in 1985, and the report compiled by Confor highlights that the extent of private ownership of ash woodlands needs to be taken in to account to prevent damage on this scale occurring again.

What do you think? We’d love to hear your views on this subject, whether you’re a landowner with ash, or you have an interest in policy in this area.

Posted in Biodiversity, Defra, Ecology, Economics, Forestry Commission, Forests, UK | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Environmental Stewardship and farmland birds: the evidence base

Posted on March 12, 2013 by Policy_Team

Declines in biodiversity have been observed across many habitats in the UK over recent decades. This is especially true in farmland habitats. Changes in practices have led to huge increases in productivity in farms, but this has come at the cost of biodiversity. Agri-environment schemes developed by Natural England hope to reverse this trend through changes in environmental management practices by farmers and land owners, and have recently been using research methods to understand the most effective means of achieving this.

Some of the most notable declines in farmland biodiversity have been observed in bird populations. Bird diversity and abundance on farmland have been well recorded over recent years. As birds are easy to record, and are generally at the top of the food chain, they are used as an indicator for the health of farmland habitats. The UK Farmland Bird Indicator is made up of 19 species that are dependent on farmland for survival, including grey partridge and linnet. Since 1970, the abundance of these species has, on average, declined by 48% across farmland habitats. Of course, as this is an average, there have been both winners and losers. However, 12 of the 19 species have shown a decrease in numbers, leading to an average decline in biodiversity across habitats.

These declines are worrying as biodiversity is required for resilient ecosystems that are able to buffer changes in climate or environment. Birds themselves play a key role in farmland habitats, providing vital services to farmers and landowners. Pollination, seed dispersal and predation of invertebrates are all carried out by birds. In some cases, insect pest control is highly valuable.

There is no single reason for the declines observed for farmland bird species. Instead, multiple factors have combined and interacted to give greater effects, and species have responded to these differently. The main drivers behind these declines are outlined broadly by changes in farmland and environmental management, weather, and predation. Since 1970, field sizes have increased, field drainage has improved and there have been changes in the crops grown in the UK. These have all contributed to the decline of farmland birds.

Defra’s Environmental Stewardship scheme was launched in 2005 and aims to secure widespread benefits for the countryside. It focuses on environmental management, and in contrast to previous schemes, it is open to all farmers and land managers. This agri-environment scheme could help halt and reverse the declines in farmland bird abundance and diversity through targeted payment systems. One example of this is winter bird food.

Between mid-winter and spring, farmland birds suffer from a lack of available food. This period is termed the ‘hungry gap’, and places additional pressure on populations already suffering the consequences of changed land management practices. Providing supplementary food for bird populations over this period could help tackle this gap, and ensure birds are better able to adapt to other changes in their environment. For the past five years, research work into this has been carried out at Hillesden Farm in Buckinghamshire. Preliminary results from the study highlight the benefit that winter food can have for birds, with the separate provision of food significantly increasing the number of birds surviving over the winter. These positive results have fed into the development of five new Environmental Stewardship options that became available to farmers at the start of this year. So far, almost 60 farms have signed up to deliver winter bird food.

The final results from Hillesden Farm will be available in summer 2013. From these, best practice guidelines and Environmental Stewardship options can be further developed. There is a great need for a solid evidence base to inform policy decisions, and the use of ecological studies from Hillesden Farm is exemplary. This will enable government to be confident in cost-effective decision making, and enable effective practices to be carried out.

Posted in Agriculture, Biodiversity, Birds, Defra, England, Land Use | 1 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