Blog | British Ecological Society | Advancing ecology and making it count

Safeguarding the Jewels in the UK's Biodiversity Crown

Posted on February 22, 2013 by Policy_Team

The investment needed to conserve biodiversity in the UK’s Overseas Territories (UKOTs) is three to five times higher than that spent by the UK Government currently to protect the endemic species and threatened habitats in these unique ecosystems. That is one of the points raised in a recent briefing note from the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST). Invasive alien species, climate change, over-development and tourism, combined with patchy environmental governance are all contributing to the loss of biodiversity from these isolated island administrations.

The scope of the POSTnote is the 11 inhabited Overseas Territories. Here the OTs own governments are responsible for the protection and conservation of their natural environment. A 2012 UK Government White Paper described the OTs as having an ‘exceptionally rich and varied natural environment, containing an estimated 90 percent of the biodiversity found within the UK and Territories combined.’ The Environmental Audit Committee has also 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. Given that there are almost double the number of threatened species in the OTs as are found on the mainland UK (517 versus 194), and the large number of these that an endemic (found nowhere else), it is hard to justify why the UK Government spent only £2.97 million on biodiversity conservation in the UKOTs in 2012, compared with £495.4 million in 2011/12 in the UK.

Threats to biodiversity in the UKOTs vary with the geographical location of the territory, human population pressure and local environmental conditions. For example, in the Caribbean, which is more densely populated than OTs in some other areas, the major risks are unfettered development, with associated tourism, pollution and the over-abstraction of water. In addition, climate change and sea-level rise pose significant risks to habitats and species, causing the inundation of freshwaters, coastal erosion and ocean acidification, affecting corals. In contrast, in the less densely populated and more isolated South Atlantic, major threats are posed by invasive alien species; primarily rats, feral cats and plants. Projects run by NGOs, for example by the RSPB on the Pitcairn Islands, have been partially successful in removing plants and rats. When eradicated however it is vital that the UKOT governments have put in place biosecurity measures to prevent the re-introduction and re-establishment of these organisms.

Very few UKOTs have in place sufficient biocontrol measures, symptomatic of wider problems of environmental governance in these regions. In addition, the UK Government’s own lack of a strategic approach to environmental management in the UKOTs has been criticised by NGOs. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has overall responsibility for maintaining relationships with the UKOT governments. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is responsible then for supporting biodiversity conservation in the UKOTs and supporting their governments in meeting obligations under international agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). However, these agreements do not apply universally across the OTs (the CBD doesn’t apply to the Pitcairn Islands for example). The Environment Charters negotiated between the UK and UKOT governments set out the environmental responsibilities of the OTs but are not enforced and progress against these is not reported routinely by the UKOTs.

A ‘Strategy for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in the UKOTs’ does exist, drawn up by Defra, the FCO and Department for International Development (DfID). This provides the over-arching policy framework for action on the part of the UK Government, its agencies and the governments of the UKOTs. Yet this does not include priorities for conservation action, only headline biodiversity themes, as the actions are to be decided by the UKOT governments themselves. This lack of a strategic overview and failure to identify priorities for action hampers practical measures to tackle biodiversity loss in the OTs.

Practical measures can be difficult to implement in any case, due to a lack of baseline biodiversity data across the UKOTs. Most OTs lack basic survey data for some species. Often population-level data for vertebrates, such as seabirds, exists but that for plants and invertebrates is often based on presence/ absence only. Data for the marine environment is very patchy. Although there is no overview of biodiversity data gaps across the OTs, the FCO is currently funding the RSPB to conduct a ‘biodiversity risk assessment’ across the territories.

The POSTnote suggests that a central repository for biodiversity data from the UKOTs could be developed and maintained in the UK, along with a repository for samples. Alternatively, regional hubs or focal points holding the data and samples could be established for the OTs to access. However, the POSTnote makes clear, many OTs currently lack the capacity to access the data and to make use of it for practical conservation and management.

The acquisiton of data therefore needs to be accompanied by investment in developing the skills of individuals in the UKOTs, which may require long-term systematic support from the UK Government, possibly funding people to undertake Masters-level qualifications outside of the territories themselves.

Whilst there is no doubt that greater efforts are needed, a number of positive initiatives are underway. In addition to the eradication and other projects supported by the RSPB, efforts are underway to scope the feasibility of assessments similar to the UK National Ecosystem Assessment (UK NEA) in a number of OTs. In additon, the UK Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) and Food and Environment Research Agency (FERA) are currently involved in projects building capacity in the enforcement of fisheries and biocontrol in the UKOTs. Projects aimed at biodiversity conservation in the UKOTs can also apply to the ‘Darwin Plus’ (or ‘Overseas Territories Environment and Climate Fund‘) scheme, created by bringing together funds from the Overseas Territories Environment Programme (OTEP) and Darwin Initiative. Funding is also available to support UKOT conservation efforts through the EU BEST programme, although it is not certain whether this pilot funding mechanism will continue.

In its White Paper, the UK Government clearly acknowledges the value and importance of biodiversity in the UKOTs. As the POSTnote makes clear, this recognition now needs to be backed up by a strategic approach to biodiversity conservation in these under-resourced but internationally significant administrations, building on the positive efforts which are taking place on the part of the Government and charitable sector. Investment in the science base underpinning conservation and in the skills needed for effective terrestrial and marine management and enforcement could pay dividends for safeguarding these valuable natural assets.

Posted in Biodiversity, Conservation, Defra, DFiD, Government, Overseas Territories, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology | Tagged Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, POSTnote, UK Overseas Territories | Leave a comment

A countryside fit for pollinators

Posted on February 19, 2013 by Policy_Team

Pollinators are vital to the natural environment and economy in the UK, providing services worth over £440 million per year. Recent declines in their numbers and health are concerning, and evidence linking neonicotinoid pesticide use with these has prompted further action and discussion amongst many groups.

On 12th February, the all-party parliamentary group on agroecology met to discuss these issues, focusing on how the countryside can be managed to maximise the number and diversity of pollinators and other insects. The meeting was chaired by Caroline Lucas MP, with presentations from Professor Dave Goulson – Stirling University, Dr Nigel Raine – Royal Holloway University London (RHUL), and Dr Mark Brown – RHUL.

The declines in wildlife observed across many habitats for a number of years were highlighted by Dave Goulson. Bees have suffered as a part of these, and are facing increased losses around the world in the future. Although policy decisions can explain the declines in biodiversity in the UK from 1945-1990, their continuation into recent decades is puzzling, especially with the implementation of agri-environment schemes to boost biodiversity. Habitat loss and fragmentation through altered woodland or farmland management are not the only environmental stressors that can affect the abundance and diversity of insects, however. Pests and diseases, climate change, and pesticides are also key factors.

Neonicotinoid pesticides are the most widely used series of insecticides in the world, and have been used increasingly since the 1980s in the UK. Dave Goulson highlighted the exposure that bees and other insects may receive to these pesticides. As neonicotinoids are applied to seeds, rather than sprayed onto plants, they have a systemic coverage, and are present in pollen and nectar. Application of the pesticide through a seed coating does not necessary isolate the pesticide to the plant, with problems of leakage into the wider environment still present. Only 2% of the pesticide remains in the plant, with 1% blowing off as dust when the seed is sown, and 97% moving into the soil.

The small amounts of dust blown away from seeds can still have an effect on bees and other insects, as highlighted by lethal dosage testing. To assess the lethal levels of pesticides, LD50 is used. This is the dosage level that kills 50% of a sample population. For one neonicotinoid, imidacloprid, the LD50 is 177mg for rats, and 5mg for partridges. For honeybees, it is 4ng – that’s 0.0000004mg. As bees are lighter and smaller than partridges and rats, it would be expected that they would be more sensitive to dosages. However, although partridges are 1000 times heavier than bees, the LD50 for honeybees is a million times lower than for partridges. This makes imidacloprid 1000 times more toxic to bees than to partridges. Imidacloprid is the most studied neonicotinoid, so the effects of others in the group are not widely known.

The presence of neonicotinoids in soil is also concerning, as they can take a long time to degrade. The half life of neonicotinoids is approximately 200-500 days, with some studies showing half lives of more than 1000 days. The use of neonicotinoids in consecutive years could lead to the accumulation of pesticides in the soil, exposing pollinators to even higher levels. This was demonstrated in the Draft Assessment Report for Imidacloprid in 2006. After applying imidacloprid year on year, the levels of pesticide were assessed before each sowing. Despite accumulations of 50-60 parts per billion (10 ppb is considered a lethal level), regulators of the product concluded that “the compound has no potential for accumulation in soil.”

The effects of pesticides to the behaviour and ecology insect pollinators were outlined by Nigel Raine. Generally, pesticides act on the nervous systems of insects. Small changes here can have huge consequences on physiology and behaviour. Studies using a number of pesticides in both field and lab conditions have demonstrated their detrimental effects on walking, grooming, feeding, learning, homing and foraging. There are also effects on colony function for social bees – honey bees and bumblebees – as demonstrated in a seminal paper in Science last year, where exposure to neonicotinoids resulted in an 85% reduction in queen production.

All speakers emphasised that pesticides are just one of many stressors that can affect bees, and that these can have both additive and multiplicative effects. Pests and diseases pose great threats to species across all groups in the UK, and Mark Brown highlighted this threat for insect pollinators. Bee diseases such as deformed wing virus are already present in the UK, and future threats include trypanosomes and tracheal mites. One of the main pathways for bee disease in the UK is through the import of bees and other insects, some of which are used in integrated pest management. Current management of emergent diseases for bees is dealt with by the National Bee Unit, as part of FERA, but Mark highlighted the need for screening of imports and a national assessment of emergent diseases. A project is currently underway for the latter, with the mapping of two diseases in the UK honey bee and bumblebee populations. This type of work enables the prevalence, impact, and distribution of threats to the UK bee population to be assessed.

This meeting was relevant and timely, and highlighted the need and potential of the Environmental Audit Committee’s Inquiry into Insects and Insecticides. The final evidence sessions for this inquiry are underway, and the report is likely to be published in early March. Europe’s Food Safety Authority concluded last month that neonicotinoids pose unacceptable risks to bees, and as highlighted in our previous blog, there is sufficient evidence to put a small-scale or short-term ban of neonicotinoid pesticides in place under the precautionary principle guidelines. It may not just be pesticides that are affecting bee health and abundance, but the removal of this stressor could have huge effects.

Posted in Insects, Pesticides, Pollinator, Pollinators, Select Committee, Select Committee Inquiry | Tagged APPG agroecology, Bee Health, Bees, Caroline Lucas, Environmental Audit Committee, Insects, Neonicotinoids, Pesticides | Leave a comment

Contribute to the BES response to the Triennial Review of the Research Councils

Posted on February 13, 2013 by Policy_Team

The BES will respond through the Society of Biology to the UK Government’s Triennial Review of the seven Research Councils. The first phase is to consider the core functions of the Research Councils, to assess the need for these functions to continue and to consider the structural options for their continued delivery. If the conclusion of stage one is that the Research Councils should continue to exist, stage two will consider the corporate governance arrangements to facilitate this.

Members’ views on any or all of the six questions below would be very welcome (by the end of the day on Monday, 18th February).

Q3: How closely are and should the Research Council research objectives be aligned with those of Government?

Q4: How effective are the Research Councils in delivering their objectives?

Q5: Are the current disciplinary divisions appropriate to allow the Research Councils to foster excellent innovation in the research base?

Q10: Where do the Research Councils need to work in partnership and how good are they at doing this?

Q14: How well do you think the funding mechanisms are understood by applicants, existing and new?

Q20: How easy is it for UK businesses, individuals and policy-makers to access the research base?

The full details of the triennial review, including the full list of questions being posed by Government, is available here.

Posted in BBSRC, BES, BIS, Government, NERC, Research, Research Councils, Science Policy | Tagged consultation, NERC, Research Councils, Triennial Review, UK Government | Leave a comment

Planning for 'No Net Loss' of Biodiversity

Posted on February 8, 2013 by Policy_Team

A briefing note published by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology this week (POSTnote 429) is critical of the quality of information, local authority decision-making, monitoring and research concerning the incorporation of biodiversity into planning decisions in England. Despite the existence of the Biodiversity Duty in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act, public authorities seem to be failing in their obligation to ‘have regard to biodiversity conservation’. But, the POSTnote makes clear, local authorities are not soley to blame; the quality of many assessments undertaken by ecologists also leaves much to be desired.

The ‘mitigation hierarchy’ is included within current planning policy, aiming to halt the loss of biodiversity. The National Planning Policy Framework, consolidating planning guidance in the hope of making this easier to follow, explicitly states that ‘if significant harm cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated, or as a last resort, compensated for, planning permission should be refused’. Anticipated impacts on biodiversity must be avoided or reduced through the use of alternative development sites or designs; unavoidable impacts must be mitigated and any residual damage must be compensated for (for example by creating the same habitat off-site). It is desirable for developments to aim for a ‘net gain’ in biodiversity overall, for example by providing more habitat than needed for mitigation and compensation. Despite this however, there is little use of effective compensation measures by developers, whilst poor mitigation measures recommended by some Ecological Impact Assessments (EcIAs), undertaken by ecological consultancies and evaluating the impacts on biodiversity of a proposed project, mean that developers are hindered in implementing these.

Ecological impact Assessments are carried out as part of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), which are required only for large developments. The Government will consult this year on raising the threshold governing when an EIA is needed, meaning that fewer of these may be undertaken. Losses to biodiversity occur also on those sites where EIAs are not needed, although the absence of systematic recording means that there is a lack of evidence at the national scale regarding the relative contribution of development to biodiversity loss. There have been recent reported losses to local wildlife sites however, as local authorities do not require ‘no net loss’ of biodiversity from less protected sites. There is no doubt that biodiversity is declining across the UK, as pressures from human populations increase.

Poor resourcing at both local authorities, by central and local government, and on the part of developers is contributing to a disregard for biodiversity in planning. In 2011, only 40 percent of local authorities had an in-house ecologist. In a sample of cases from 2007, in nearly half the planning officer received neither internal nor external ecological advice; these cases had poorer outcomes for biodiversity. Restrictions to developers’ budgets and time lead to a narrow focus of many EcIAs on a few species with high legal protection and cultural value, whilst ignoring those species of local importance. Local Environmental Records Centres are also poorly resourced by central and local government, leading to a lack of infrormation about possible impacts of developments on biodiversity.

Limited record keeping and monitoring must be addressed to improve outcomes for biodiversity. There is no standard method of ecologists reporting biodiversity impacts through EcIAs to local authorities or to the public at present. In addition, poor monitoring of compensation measures put in place by developers means that it’s very hard to tell whether these measures are actually working. Often the success of these measures, such as bat or bird boxes, is judged by whether species are present, rather than by how these interventions contribute to the long-term viability of the species’ population.

Yet there are initiatives underway to address these deficiencies in the way by which biodiversity is currently considered within planning. The Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) is leading a project to improve the skills of ecological consultants, hopefully leading to more comprehensive EcIAs. A British Standard for biodiversity and planning for EcIA guidelines will be published this year. Natural England is also currently reviewing existing research and consulting ecologists on the effectiveness of measures put in place to mitigate the impacts of road and rail developments on biodiversity.

Biodiversity offsetting is currently being explored by Defra as a potential means of ensuring the development, economic growth and biodiversity conservation are compatible. Six pilot projects are running and will be evaluated in 2014. It is intended that biodiversity offsetting will address the impacts of developments on land which does not have legal protection. Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protected Areas under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives will still be subject to existing, separate, processes of ‘Appropriate Assessment’, for example. The residual impact of the development on biodiversity, once the mitigation hierarchy has been followed, is calculated using a metric, which is then used to assess the amount of habitat that must be restored to provide adequate compensation. The restoration would then be undertaken by land owners, for example working with environmental NGOs. The Environment Bank is currently in operation in England as a broker, matching developers and land-owners together to facilitate this process.

Some argue that this will lead to benefits for biodiversity, as the scale of biodiversity loss is made clear to planners and developers no longer have to provide and maintain compensation measures, for which they may lack expertise. Offsetting may also provide the opportunity to ‘pool’ compensation measures from developments, leading to restoration across larger areas of land and contributing to the development of ecological networks. Others argue that the metric is as yet untested and that limited evidence regarding the efficacy of habitat restoration or translocation schemes mean that the efficacy of offsetting is in question. Some also regard biodiversity offsetting as a ‘license to trash’, sanctioning environmentally damaging development.

There is no doubt that amendments can be made to the planning framework now to achieve benefits for biodiversity. Adequate resourcing of in-house ecological expertise within local authorities would be extremely valuable. Planning applications could also be required to state how a ‘net gain’ in biodiversity could be achieved, whilst EcIAs could be required as best practice, if not under law, for some developments. The measures currently recommended by EcIAs should also be included by local authorities in planning obligations, monitored and enforced. If the Government is committed to being ‘the greenest ever’ and to ensuring that targets to halt biodiversity loss by 2020 are met, then addressing planning policy is fundamental.

Posted in Biodiversity, Biodiversity offsetting, Defra, Development, Government, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, Planning, Planning Policy | Tagged National Planning Policy Framework, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, planning | 1 Comment

Climate Change, Agriculture and Forestry in the Pacific

Posted on February 7, 2013 by Policy_Team

Contributions are invited to a consultation from PACE-Net (the Pacific Europe NETWORK for Science and Technology) on a draft white paper on climate change, agriculture and forestry in the Pacific region. PACE encompasses the 15 member countries of the Africa Caribbean Pacific Group, including the Cook Islands, Solomon Islands, Fiji and Papua New Guinea, along with Australia and New Zealand. A number of these nations have forest cover in excess of 50 -80 percent of their land mass, with these forests of global significance in terms of their biodiversity. In addition, 65 – 85 percent of Pacific Islanders (some 10 million people) make their living from forestry, along with agriculture and fisheries. However there is a need for improved forest governance and land-use legislation in the Pacific region, to prevent the loss of this vital forest cover.

The Pacific Islands are extremely vulnerable to the effects of climate change, yet lack a coherent science and technology strategy to support the development of innovative solutions to this and other challenges facing the environment and the sectors that support the livelihoods of so many. The PACE-Net consultation seeks views on an over-arching policy framework to address the vulnerability of the agriculture and fisheries sectors in the Pacific. Comments are also sought on proposals to embark on a programme of research, development and innovation to facilitate the development of policy to safeguard natural assets in the Pacific and to contribute to the sustainable management of these natural resources.

PACE-Net is supported by the European Commission under the seventh Framework Programme. It is a three-year programme aimed at strengthening bi-regional dialogue on science and technology between Europe and the Pacific countries. PACE-Net also aims to raise awareness of the critical importance of the Pacific region to global sustainability and highlight the vulnerability of its island states.

The draft paper has been developed by PACE-Net as the outcome of a conference which was held in Brussels in March last year. Once comments have been assimilated the final white paper will be adopted by Governments in the region and used to inform the development of relevant legislation.

Posted in Agriculture, Climate Change, Consultation, EU, Forests | Tagged consultation, European Commission, Pacific Islands | Leave a comment

Bees and neonicotinoids: moving towards a Europe-wide ban?

Posted on February 5, 2013 by Policy_Team

It’s been an exciting week for bee health both in the UK and Europe. Progress towards the removal of neonicotinoid pesticides from use is advancing rapidly, with several UK companies banning these products from sale, and the European Commission setting out proposals to ban them from use across Europe by July this year.

On 16 January, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published their review of the risks that neonicotinoid pesticides pose to bees. Using scientific, technical and monitoring data, the review highlighted the acute risks of the insecticides, concluding that exposure from pollen and nectar was only considered acceptable on crops that were not attractive to honey bees. Many developments have followed on from this, as decision-makers have been able to point towards the review as a good body of evidence, where information has been collated for the first time.

Less than two weeks after EFSA’s publication, the removal of these pesticides from stores was announced by three major retailers in the UK. B&Q, Wickes and Homebase have pledged that they will no longer continue to sell products containing pesticides in the neonicotinoid family of insecticides – specifically imidacloprid, clothrianidin and thiamethoxam. These bold statements, made in the absence of UK policy, present the increasing sustainability and environmental awareness of the business world, and the fast reactions that can result from key decisions and announcements.

In the same week that the UK saw retailers banning products containing neonicotinoids from their shelves, the European Commission outlined measures for the ban of the pesticides across the European Union member states. The proposals, based on the risks highlighted by EFSA, include the prohibition of the use of neonicotinoids on crops that are attractive to bees – such as maize and oil seed rape – as well as the banning of the sale of products containing these pesticides. Implementation is proposed as July at the latest, and the policy is set to be reviewed after two years. If a majority of EU member states vote in favour of this, it could enter EU law by the end of February.

The UK government is still awaiting the results of trials implemented by Defra to assess the effects of the pesticides in field conditions and review pesticide residue levels in bee populations. Despite the build-up of evidence over the past year showing the detrimental effects and risks these pesticides pose to bees, decisions over their use in the UK still remain unannounced. This is increasingly concerning. By deciding to wait for the results of investigations into very specific effects of the pesticides, a choice has been made to not use the precautionary principle approach to implement a small-scale or short-term ban in the meantime. The precautionary principle is one of the key elements for policy decisions concerning environmental protection, as it can be applied where there are grounds for concern that an activity could cause, or is already causing, harm but the degree of risk is still uncertain.

The effects of neonicotinoid pesticides on bees are still being assessed by the Environmental Audit Committee in their inquiry into Insects and Insecticides. Pesticide giant and neonicotinoid producer Bayer appeared before MPs for the second time last week, and EFSA is to appear this week.

Posted in Insects, Pesticides, Pollinators, Select Committee | Tagged Bees, EFSA, Environmental Audit Committee, Neonicotinoid, Pesticides | 1 Comment

BES Shadowing Scheme Open for Applications

Posted on January 31, 2013 by Policy_Team

Applications are now invited for the annual BES Parliamentary Shadowing Scheme. The scheme has run each year from 2007 and provides an unprecendented opportunity for members of the Society to spend two days shadowing senior policy-makers in the UK and at the European Parliament. Past participants include the Minister for Environment, Sustainability and Housing at the Welsh Government; Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), plus a number of Members of the European Parliament and colleagues in Scotland.

The scheme is open to all members of the BES who are based at an academic insitution or similar, who have completed their PhD and who did so no more than 12 years ago.

Shadowing placements for this year have so far been confirmed with Chris Davies MEP, in Brussels, and Professor Ian Boyd and Dr Fiona Harrison (Chief Scientific Adviser and Deputy Chief Scientific Adviser), Defra. Details of further placements will be announced when confirmed, via the BES website. We expect that placements will take place in the spring and early summer.

For further details about the scheme and how to apply, please see the relevant section of the BES website. The closing date and time for applications (covering letter and CV) is 17.00 on Friday 1st March 2013.

Posted in BES, Chief Scientific Advisor, Defra, EU, Government | Tagged BES Members, BES Parliamentary Shadowing Scheme | Leave a comment

Forest estate in England to remain in public ownership

Posted on January 31, 2013 by Policy_Team

For the past two years, the future of England’s forest estate has been uncertain. Proposals to sell-off large areas of forest in early 2011 were quickly withdrawn, but not replaced by reassuring policies. The publication of the Government’s response to the Independent Panel on Forestry’s final report on the future of forestry and woodland governance today, however, provides closure on this process. The decision that the forest estate will remain in public ownership has been finalised. Proposed forestry and woodland policy to be taken up later this year is also outlined, highlighting the response to the recommendations of the Independent Panel.

Rumours of the sale of up to 150,000 hectares of forest began in late 2010, and the controversy and resistance this sparked was shown in the huge response to the consultation process early in 2011. Just 21 days after the consultation was launched, we saw its abandonment in a historic u-turn, with the acknowledgement by Government that they “got this one wrong”. The creation of an Independent Forestry Panel to advise on the future direction of forestry and woodland policy in England followed this, and their final report and recommendations were published in July 2012. Today’s report marks the response of Government to these recommendations, and proposals for their implementation.

The protection of woodlands and forests is high on the agenda in today’s report, with the threats of disease and climate change clearly understood. The policy proposals also focus on the potential that forests have to contribute to economic growth, and how best this can be realised in practice.

The key objectives in priority order are:

1) Protecting the nation’s trees, woodlands and forests from increasing threats such as pests, diseases and climate change;
2) Improving their resilience to these threats and their contribution to economic growth, people’s lives and nature;
3) Expanding them to increase further their economic, social and environmental value

Tree disease features highly in the proposals, with the announcement that £2m will be allocated to the Forestry Commission this year in recognition of the additional pressures arising from ash dieback. In addition, the need for a long-term and robust plant health regime is recognised, and recommendations from the forthcoming Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Expert Taskforce final report in spring will be reviewed for future policy amendments (see the interim report here).

The creation of an independent body to manage the resources of the forest estate was also announced, marking the sincerity of the plans over the medium-term at least. The ability for the new body to maximise its income through forest resources could help to ensure its continued existence in the future to ensure long-term benefits of forests and woodlands for people, nature and the economy.

Many of the 31 recommendations given by the Panel were accepted in full. Others, however, were shaved down considerably. It was recommended by the Panel that the Government commit to increasing the woodland cover of England from 10-15% by 2060. To achieve this goal, approximately 10,000-15,000 hectares of woodland would have to be created per year. Given current rates of forest expansion are 2000-3000 hectares per year, this would require rapid changes in policy and mind-set. Rather than embrace this challenge, Government have filtered down these recommendations, aiming for 12% forest cover by 2060 (through the creation of 5000 hectares per year) and 15% at an undefined point in the future. Although it is disappointing to see what is essentially a non-commitment to a target of 15% woodland cover in England, the outlining of 12% cover by 2060 is a good compromise. The setting of a quantitative target by a defined date means that progress can easily be tracked.

Overall, the response of Government to the Panel’s report is very good news for the future of forestry and woodlands in England and represents a first step towards the future management of England’s estate to ensure resilience and sustainability in light of future threats.

Posted in Defra, England, Forestry Commission, Forests | Tagged forest cover, forestry, Forests sell-off, Independent Panel on Forestry, tree health, trees | Leave a comment

Invasive species bans show a step in the right direction

Posted on January 30, 2013 by Policy_Team

Yesterday marked a historic day for the control of non-native invasive species in the UK. From next spring, five species of non-native aquatic plants will no longer be allowed to be sold within the UK. The ban is the first of its kind and represents the growing recognition of the impact that these species have on native species and ecosystems, as well as the economy.

Non-native invasive species have long presented problems to ecosystems in the UK. In recent years, one of the most prolific and fast-spreading of these has been Japanese knotweed, Fallopia japonica. Introduced from Japan in the mid-nineteenth century, it has become widespread across a range of habitats, from roadsides to riverbanks. Growing more than a metre per month, it outcompetes and excludes native species. The impact on other species, however, is not the only cost the Japanese knotweed has posed to the UK and huge amounts of time and resources are spent controlling and limiting its spread. A report by CABI, commissioned by Defra in 2010 (The Economic Cost of Invasive Non-native Species to the British Economy) highlights just how costly this can be. They estimate that Japanese knotweed costs the economy £166 million per year, and is the second most costly invasive species after rabbits (£263 million per year).

These individual costs for the control of one species are huge, but it is the total cost of invasive species to the economy that is most worrying. Every year, all invasive species cost the UK £1.7 billion. Direct costs, such as management control schemes and the cost increased flooding in areas with species present are relatively easy to quantify, and can be readily included in these analyses. Indirect costs, such as the knock-on effects of an invasive species in an ecosystem are not so simple to calculate, and are often excluded. This means that the true cost of invasive species to the UK could be even higher.

The 2010 report by CABI highlights the cost differences between early and late intervention when tackling invasive species. Water primrose (Ludwigia grandiflora), one of the species to be banned from sale in the UK next year, is a rapidly spreading aquatic weed originally from South America. It forms dense mats on the surface of water, affecting photosynthesis rates and oxygen levels for other freshwater plants. It is currently only present in southern England, but eradication of the species at its current level through chemical methods is estimated to cost £70 000. If the species becomes more established, however, as it currently is across the continent, eradication is likely to cost £242 million.

The benefits of intervening early in the spread of a non-native invasive species are clear. Defra’s recent announcement shows a bold step in the right direction for invasive species policy in the UK. As the environment minister Richard Benyon MP highlights, “Tough laws to curb the sale of these plants could save the country millions of pounds as well as protecting wildlife such as fish and native plants.”

In addition to water primrose, the species to be banned from sale next year are: water fern, parrot’s feather, floating pennywort, Australian swamp stone-crop (New Zealand pygmyweed).

Posted in Aquatic Ecology, Invasive Species, UK | Tagged Defra, Economic costs of invasive species, Invasive Species, Japanese Knotweed | Leave a comment

Sustainable Solutions to Global Environmental Change

Posted on January 28, 2013 by Policy_Team

On 8-9 April 2013 the British Ecological Society (BES) and the York Environmental Sustainability Institute (YESI) will be hosting a major international scientific meeting, Global Change and Biosphere Interactions , as part of our centenary and celebrating the launch of YESI.

Focused on sustainable solutions to global environmental change, the conference will feature major international speakers covering current advances in our understanding of the past, present and future consequences of human impacts on the earth system. Contributions will reach across disciplines, spanning physical, natural, social sciences and humanities to address the causes and consequences of global change and the implications for policy. There will be extensive opportunities for discussing the role of interdisciplinary research in understanding the impacts of global change and identifying new research which will allow us to mitigate and adapt to these impacts.

Early bird registration is now open until 15 February 2013 at £95 for non BES members and £75 for members, which includes all sessions, lunch and refreshments over the two days.

Posted in BES, Conference, Ecology, Event, Sustainability | Tagged BES centenary, biosphere, global change, interdisciplinary meeting, YESI, York Environmental Sustainability Institute | Leave a comment