"The Parliamentary Shadowing Scheme is brilliant and I would definitely encourage other BES members to apply in future"

Anna Renwick BES Shadowing Scheme, 2010-04-09

OPAL: a citizen science gem

Citizen science is nothing new, with many projects across the world using data collected in this way. Growing interest means that even the large corporates like HSBC are getting stuck in. Engaging people in the natural world is not too difficult (it is inherently fascinating, after all), but continuing engagement and stimulating sustained interest can be more tricky, as can ensuring training and resources are adequate. However, it looks like it can be done. Over the past 5 years, the OPAL project has worked across England to engage individuals across all ages in a range of outdoor activities to collect scientific data. The release of its first report shows just how successful it has been. This is the typical school pond-dipping trip with a difference.

The Open Air Laboratories (OPAL) project was set up in 2007 with support funding worth £14 million from the Big Lottery Fund. Led by Imperial College London, it aims to ‘create and inspire a new generation of nature-lovers by getting people to explore, study, enjoy and protect their local environment.’ A big ask, but by setting up events for schools and local communities, as well as nationwide surveys, OPAL has been able to reach a huge number of individuals across England. OPAL’s Community Environment Report, released yesterday, highlights the level of engagement the project has achieved. Over 650,000 people have been directly involved, with many others engaged through the website. The impact on participants, especially young people, has been made clear. 90% of participants in OPAL national surveys indicated they had learnt something new during the experience, and 75% said they would try to do more surveys like OPAL’s in the future.

The success of the OPAL project may be in part due to their wealth of resources, which are produced and designed by scientists. All information required to take part in an OPAL survey is accessible on their website, and includes recording sheets and detailed identification guides. In addition, all data collected and submitted is being used by researchers to piece together a picture of the soils, air quality, biodiversity and climate across England. That’s what turns the school trip into something more than a fun day out. Participants in surveys can view their contribution on an online map – see here for one showing earthworm data – and tools are available for simple analysis of some of the data.

The level of engagement achieved by the OPAL project is a real boost for science and, in particular, ecology. Ensuring that young people are confident and comfortable with scientific methods and data at an early stage is vital for the development of their science education, and well-implemented citizen science projects like OPAL can help individuals to discover where their interests lie.

The initial outreach has been made, and needs to be maintained across all age groups. As the OPAL report states: “The challenge now is to sustain this growing interest in the environment and continue to engage and reconnect more people with nature, promote the benefits that the natural world provides and its importance to our well-being.” Achieving this would lead to a greater interest in and understanding of ecology and ultimately the evidence used in policy and key decision-making.

Posted in Education, Environmental Monitoring | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Bees and neonicotinoid pesticides: acute risks identified by EU’s food safety authority

Bees are vital parts of our ecosystems in the UK, providing irreplaceable pollinator services for both crops and wildflowers. Worrying declines in the number of bee populations have been observed recently, and have been attributed to a number of causes including disease and pesticide use, particularly systemic neonicotinoid insecticides. These are currently still authorised for use in the UK despite bans in a number of European countries and a growing body of scientific evidence that highlights the risks these pose to bees. Last week however, the EU’s food safety authority concluded that these pesticides should not be used on plants that are attractive to honey bees.

In a review summoned by the European Commission, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) assessed the risks to bees associated with neonicotinoid pesticides used as seed treatment or granules. The review was commissioned in light of new scientific and technical data in addition to new monitoring data, and analysed the risks posed to bees in terms of long- and short-term effects on colony survival and development, effects on bee larvae and behaviour, and the risks posed by sub-lethal doses. From this body of evidence, EFSA concluded that exposure to neonicotinoid pesticides from pollen and nectar was only considered acceptable on crops that were not attractive to honey bees. An acute risk to honey bees from dust exposure of the pesticides was shown on crops such as wheat, maize and oil seed rape. Information for pollinators other than honey bees was limited, and so the full consequences of continued use of neonicotinoids may not yet be known.

This recent development means that the ongoing debate over the use and effects of neonicotinoids looks set to continue. Despite reviewing evidence that highlighted the effects of neonicotinoids on the bee’s foraging activities and growth rates – see our previous blog post summarising one of the key articles here – DEFRA made no changes to regulations last summer. However, a number of investigations were put in place to explore the impacts of the pesticides further and these are to be considered by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides over the next few months. DEFRA’s policy and regulations in this area are also currently being examined as part of the Environmental Audit Committee’s inquiry into Insects and Insecticides, meaning any decisions made will be thoroughly scrutinised. Joan Walley MP, chair of the committee highlighted the need for evidence-based policy in this area:

“Defra and the UK Advisory Committee on Pesticides have previously stressed their confidence in the safety of these products so they must now examine EFSA’s risk assessment carefully before deciding whether UK farmers can continue to use these chemicals on crops, such as oilseed rape.”

There is growing body of evidence and increased policy scrutiny with regards to the effects of neonicotinoid pesticides on pollinators, but does this mean we will see a number of changes in the regulations concerning their use in the future? Watch this space.

Posted in Defra, Ecosystem Services, EU, Pesticides, Pollinator, Pollinators, Select Committee, Select Committee Inquiry | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

2012: the second wettest year on record

In the UK, 2012 was the year of water. Across all seasons, periods of heavy rain dominated, with flooding events seen across the country on a number of occasions. The release of the Met Office’s 2012 records last week has confirmed for the majority of us that, yes, there was nothing average about the amount of rainfall in 2012. The UK national records show that 2012 was the second wettest year since 1910, with a total annual rainfall of 1330.7mm. Over this period, only the year 2000 has been wetter (albeit only 6.6mm so).

The effects that rainfall and flooding events have on ecological systems are huge, and can be long-lasting. Populations and their networks may be uprooted after a flooding event, and the repercussions are likely to be seen throughout communities. Flooding can introduce pollutants to freshwater ecosystems, which are likely to become a long-term detrimental addition to the habitat. Populations or individuals that cannot readily move to unaffected areas are particularly at risk. Trees, for example, will suffer from a lack of oxygen in flooded areas. This is unlikely to be heavily detrimental over a short period, but such short-term flash floods may have arisen through extreme instances of rainfall, which could have other effects on trees, such as decreased stability through the erosion of soil.

Met Office analyses showing increases in both the level of rainfall and the number of extreme rainfall events are therefore alarming. Four of the five wettest years in the UK have occurred since 2000 and longer-term trends show a 5% increase in rainfall from the 1961-1990 average to the 1981-2010 average. The number of extreme rainfall events has become more frequent over time since 1960, and as mentioned above, it is these events that could be most damaging to ecosystems.

The trend towards more extreme rainfall events is now seen worldwide, but its causes are widely unknown. Increasing global temperatures have been hypothesised as a factor, due to the ability for a warmer atmosphere to hold more moisture. Changes in sea surface temperatures from both natural cycles and a reduction in the amount of Arctic ice may be leading to increased levels of rainfall, but further research is required to ascertain their individual effects and exactly how they influence rainfall levels.

Both trends pose a threat to the natural world, and the need to understand their causes and effects fully is vital. This may not be possible in the near-future, and so actions must be taken to improve the resilience of populations and ecosystems across the UK through informed decision-making. As part of the BES’s centenary year celebrations, we will be launching an Ecological Issues focusing on the effects of extreme events on freshwater ecosystems, to be released in June 2013, which will include the effects of flooding.

Posted in Flooding, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

What do we do now: outcomes of UN Climate Change Summit, Doha

The UN Summit on Climate Change has been convened in Doha, Qatar, since 26th November with aims to forge a new strategy to tackle climate change. The Summit was set to finish Saturday 8th December but with frustrations running high (even the EU’s influence was at a reported ‘breaking point’), talks over ran as ministers struggle desperately to secure a future amendment for the Kyoto Protocol, the only legally binding plan for combating climate change.

The outcomes of the summit, although limited, included the extension of the Kyoto Protocol to 2020 and the ‘encouragement’ for developed wealthy nations to foot the bill for the damaging effects of global warming on the developing world (LEDCs). Within the eight year extension period countries signed into the agreement must lower emissions by 18% of 1990 levels. The efficiency of the Kyoto Protocol (with regard to emissions) was not tackled and present loop holes, which have hindered progress, have been carried forward into this next eight year period. Russia (responsible for 6% of global carbon emissions) has withdrawn its emission commitment so that the remaining countries account for less than 15% of global carbon emissions; EU, Australia and Greenland. Confidence in the UN’s ability to avoid the irreversible effects of a 6 degree rise in global temperatures is low. The formation of a new, more robust, legally binding agreement will be under development in this eight year extension period and will be put into action in 2020.

The acknowledgement that developed countries are responsible for the devastating warming effects on LEDCs has been quoted as a ‘historic shift’. Security surrounding the financial outcomes of this compensation has left much to be desired during the 2013-2015 period. Only a few countries, including UK, pledged finance at Doha; totalling $10 billion (~£6 billion) which is $20 billion of the official target and $50 billion off the figures quoted by NGOs and developing nations. While this is certainly a step in the right direction the response was weak, especially considering the emissions targets constantly being surpassed and the island communities that will be lost with just a 1.5 degree rise (0.7 degree increase from present scenario).

“We have transcended the era of mitigation and adaptation – this is now the new era of loss and damage. To rectify and redress the situation, developed countries have an urgent legal and moral obligation to undertake urgent and dramatic mitigation action.” Stated a consortium of NGOs (WWF, CARE and Action Aid) in a new report entitled Tackling the Limits to Adaptation.

This news comes at the same time as novel research begins to identify another human factor feeding the positive feedback cycle that is climate change. Last summer, May 2011, the freak melting of Greenland’s ice sheet was well documented in the press and this year the extensive melting in the Arctic, and its’ unprecedented pace, was once again highlighted for all to see. New research by Dr Box and colleagues has now identified another key factor, soot and ash. It is a well-established fact that darkening of snow cover reduces its reflective ability (albedo) thus making it more susceptible to melting. Satellite records of the 2011 melting event coincide with the Arctic wildfires. Modelled trajectories of the smoke and sooty aerosols were used in conjunction with satellite data, soot particles were transported to the region. The Dark Snow Project will begin the ground truthing of this phenomenon next summer; results may partly explain the 7% decline in Greenland’s albedo that occurred since 2002. If results from this research can identify the specific role of soot with the rate of climate change it may give more impotence for stricter policies, at the UN and EU level, governing the management of the fossil fuel industry. It may be possible to identify those regions having a reductive effect on polar albedo’s, which may lend a hand in the development of the next climate change agreement for 2020.

Those involved in conservation and ecology are and will continue to be constantly challenged by the effects of a warming climate. In a paper published by the Journal of Applied Ecology Dr Oliver et al., have put forward a decisive framework for the adaptation of conservation practises as a tool for those individuals and groups involved in such activities.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Ash Dieback: Control Plan and Interim Task Force report published

A new strategy to tackle Ash dieback has been published today alongside the Tree and Plant Health Task Force’s interim report. Environment Secretary Owen Paterson announced today.

The Chalara Control Plan sets out the Government’s objectives for tackling the disease and outlines what further action the Government will take over the next few months. The Government will focus its efforts on:

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

Mr Paterson said:

“We need to radically rethink how we deal with the threats to our trees. That’s why I asked Defra’s chief scientist to lead a panel of experts to identify what needs to be done to tackle the growing problem of tree diseases.

“While the science tells us it won’t be possible to eradicate this disease, we mustn’t give up on British ash. The plan I have set out today shows our determination to slow the spread and minimise the impact of Chalara.

“It will also give us time to find those trees with genetic resistance to the disease and to restructure our woodlands to make them more resilient.”

The Government has already introduced a number of control measures to reduce the speed of spread, which are in line with these objectives. A ban on import of ash trees and movement of trees around the country will remain in place. Landowners and conservation organisations will continue to work with Government agencies to check sites across the UK for signs of infected trees.

The Control Plan outlines some additional actions including:

•researching spore production at infected sites;
•working closely with other European countries which have been affected by Chalara to share data and experience on resistance to the disease;
•funding a study to accelerate the development of ObservaTREE, a tree health early-warning system using volunteer groups; and
•working with the horticulture and nursery sectors on long-term resilience to the impact of Chalara and other plant health threats.

An independent Task Force on Tree and Plant Health also published its recommendations today after it was set up by the Government to assess the current disease threats to the UK. Mr Paterson added:

“The Task Force’s interim recommendations are a robust answer to my call for radical ideas on how to protect Britain from tree and plant diseases. I’m very much looking forward to seeing the final report early next year.”

The Task Force’s interim recommendations are that the Government should:

•develop a prioritised UK Risk Register for tree health and plant biosecurity;
•strengthen biosecurity to reduce risks at the border and within the UK;
•appoint a Chief Plant Health Officer to own the UK Risk Register and provide strategic and tactical leadership for managing those risks;
•review, simplify and strengthen governance and legislation;
•maximise the use of epidemiological intelligence from EU/other regions and work to improve the EU regulations concerned with tree and plant biosecurity;
•develop and implement procedures for preparedness and contingency planning to predict, monitor and control the spread of disease;
•develop a modern, user-friendly, expert system to provide quick and intelligent access to data about tree health and plant biosecurity; and
•identify and address key skills shortages.

Welcoming the Task Force’s report, Professor Ian Boyd, Defra’s Chief Scientific Adviser, said:

“I’d like to thank the Task Force for its work so far. The report brings forward some interesting ideas and advice from experts that we will consider.

“It’s important to listen to the views of others and bring together the best ideas and advice from experts. We need the most up-to-date and robust evidence to support our decisions, and the Task Force will help us do just that.”

Issued by the Defra and Forestry Commission Press Offices.

Posted in Defra, Forests, Government, Invasive Species | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

CSaP: Bridging the Gap Between Science and Policy

Where the relationship between scientists and policy-makers works, it is due to the existence of strong networks, but this relationship fails more often than it succeeds. This was one of the conclusions of a 2008 report from the Council for Science and Technology (CST); a report which prompted, in part, the formation of the Centre for Science and Policy (CSaP) at the University of Cambridge. Dr Robert Doubleday, Director of CSaP, addressed the Policy Lunchbox network this afternoon on the work of CSaP and some of the challenges it seeks to overcome in bridging the gap between academia and policy-making.

In its report, ‘How academia and government can work together’, the CST urged Government to put greater effort into promoting networks between academics and the users of research, whilst creating greater capacity internally to both reach out to procure and to process science advice. Universities too were recognised as needing to do more to improve the way in which they interacted with Government. The report was produced against a backdrop of the development of the ‘impact’ agenda, with academics being encouraged to do more to consider how they work with stakeholders outside their institutions and how they record this, with funding beginning to be linked to the economic and social impact of the outcomes of research programmes.

In this context, CSaP was launched in 2009, funded with a £1.25 million donation, some money from the University of Cambridge and a little support from the Research Councils through funding streams for knowledge exchange activities. CSaP exists to build and sustain the links between Government and academia, whilst also seeking to build networks between academia, Government and industry.

At the core of CSaP’s work is a Policy Fellowships programme, which seeks to build the networks identified as so critical by the CST four years ago. It is undoubtedly the case that there are those in academia and in Government with negative perceptions, and possibly experiences, of engaging with one another. The Fellowships programme seeks to overcome these misconceptions and misunderstandings to develop mutual trust between the different sectors. Individuals from Government (and industry) become Fellows for two years, spending an initial five days at the University of Cambridge, participating in a series of one-to-one meetings with academics, across disciplines, from the University (predominantly, although academics from elsewhere and other professionals may also participate). Fellows may call upon subsequently the academics they have met, with these individuals then providing informal advice and expertise in relation to policy matters. The Policy Fellows often express surprise at how little the academics they meet are aware of the workings of Government and how policy is made. The scheme is therefore a valuable learning experience for both sides.

Alongside its Fellowship programme, CSaP runs events, such as seminars, lectures and conferences, focused on particular themes. A major strand of work at the moment for example is focused on understanding the future directions for scientific advice in Whitehall. CSaP is also becoming engaged increasingly in research projects, as academics begin to take the impact agenda seriously increasingly and to consider CSaP as a mechanism for enhancing the impact of their own research. As an example, CSaP has just become a major partner in an EU-funded project, EUBON, exploring how to make better use of the biodiversity data that already exists. The body of the project will focus on bioinformatics and modelling, whilst CSaP will examine how policy-makers actually use existing data and the barriers to this.

There is no doubt that the prestige attached to the University of Cambridge, along with the city’s close proximity to London and attractiveness, assists CSaP in engaging policy-makers with the work of the organisation, as Fellows or otherwise. Yet there is also no doubt that the work of CSaP provides a useful model that other universities could make use of. Others in the UK are beginning to put in place their own mechanisms to facilitate knowledge exchange. University College London for example runs a ‘Grand Challenges’ programme, identifying big questions and funding these from the top-down in an effort to coordinate research and translation across the institution.

What is clear is the with the Research Excellence Framework and other drivers behind the emphasis on impact, academics and universities need to take knowledge exchange increasingly seriously. As Rob stated in his closing remarks, it is up to learned societies, research funders and universities themselves to emphasise that operating at the science-policy interface is serious, not trivial work, which takes dedication and effort in order to make it a success.

Policy Lunchbox is an initiative organised by the British Ecological Society and Biochemical Society. Lunchbox events will return in the New Year and the programme for 2013 will be announced on the website shortly.

Posted in BES, Policy Lunchbox, Research Councils, Science Communication, Science Policy | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Do we need more scientists in policy? An initial resounding 'yes' becomes a more complex debate

With 96% of respondents to a Twitter poll voting ‘Yes’, it looked like last night’s debate ‘Do we need more scientists in Parliament?’ was going to be a foregone conclusion.

However, the event, the first in the new PolicyLates series of debates organised by the Society of Biology, turned out to be a far more nuanced discussion with some decidedly lively debate.

Arguing for an increase in the number of Parliamentarians with formal science training, were Dr Jennifer Rohn, head of a cell biology lab at UCL and an eminent science writer and editor, and Dr Phillip Lee MP, Conservative MP for Bracknell, part-time GP and Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Environment Group.

With the apparently more difficult task of arguing against the need for a greater number of scientifically qualified MPs, were Dr Evan Harris, former Lib Dem MP for Oxford West and Abingdon and an avid campaigner for evidence-based policy, and Dr Jack Stilgoe, a lecturer in science policy at UCL and member of the Government’s Sciencewise steering group.

Chairing the debate and keeping the speakers on topic was Chi Onuwurah, Labour MP for Newcastle Central, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Science and Digital Infrastructure, and a graduate of Electrical Engineering.

‘NO’: The focus should be the policies, not the people making them
Starting a round of opening statements, Dr Jack Stilgoe argued that the focus on increasing the number of scientists in Parliament distracts from the real issue; the ‘black hole’ that exists in Parliament over the issue of making sense of science. Much more focus, he argued, should be given to developing the institutions and frameworks needed to ensure scientific evidence can be properly considered within Parliament.

Dr Evan Harris echoed this stance, saying that the professional background of those in Parliament is not what matters, what matters is that the right policies are made. These ‘right’ policies, Dr Harris argued, are not always evidence based and the ability of an MP to make a choice on them is not guaranteed by a scientific background. In fact, Dr Harris stated, scientists in Parliament can sometimes be a danger, for example when the assumption is made – by other MPS, the public and the scientists themselves – that their expertise in one area make them an authority on all scientific issues.

‘YES’: Scientists are key to understanding addressing the major issues we face today
On the other side of the debate, Dr Phillip Lee MP argued that the current absence of people in Parliament with an understanding of science is a critical issue. All of the major issues facing us today – an aging population, energy production and food production – have science and technology at their core. At least a few more scientists are needed in Parliament to balance ‘all the theologians…and PPE graduates’ and ensure there is a sound understanding of the issues so that there can be effective moves made to address them.

Dr Jennifer Rohn also stressed the need for more scientists in Parliament. We don’t need benches full of them, she said, but there is a definite need for at least a few more. Science is often an invisible profession, and this is especially the case in Parliament, Dr Rohn said, but the input of scientists to policy-making is just as critical as that of theologians and business graduates. Scientists, she argued, would bring critical skills to policy debates, such as analytical and open-minded thinking, as well as a strong work ethic.

Scientific literacy, objectivity and the barriers to scientists in policy
The debate was then opened to the floor, with people querying the current state of scientific literacy in Parliament and what solutions the panel could see to improve this, whether through increased numbers of scientists or otherwise.

Dr Evan Harris answered that progress was being made, with Scientific Advisors now in every department and the language of an evidence-based approach being increasingly heard in Parliament. However, Dr Phillip Lee MP suggested that, although offered, scientific literacy training for Parliamentarians is not taken up because it is not seen as a priority. As a result, said Dr Jack Stilgoe, there remains too great a reliance on the word of what he termed ‘the great and the good’ of science – individual scientists with highly regarded opinions – rather than any progress to ensure greater scientific literacy amongst MPs. Dr Jennifer Rohn developed this idea furhter, saying that one of the key issues with the use of science in policy, is that there remains a lack of understanding of the nature of scientific evidence and research, with the result that politicians mistake debates around the evidence as an undermining of evidence. She argued that scientists within Parliament could help explain this to policy-makers.

In the next round of questioning, audience members asked whether involvement in Parliament could politicise scientists, and if this was one of the reasons there aren’t already a greater proportion of scientists in Parliament. The panel generally agreed that scientists wouldn’t be politicised by their involvement in Parliament, and Dr Rohn pointed out that even though scientists have different party politics, it has been shown that they are able to have effective and objective debates about scientific matters in relation to policy. She also felt that a major barrier causing the current lack of scientists in Parliament is the continuing influence of the traditional career structure in which it was frowned upon for someone who trained to PhD level in science to then leave academia. The effect of this thinking can still be felt, said Dr Rohn, and the move into politics from academic science is an expensive career upheaval most scientists are unwilling to make.

A change in opinion?
Drawing the discussion to a close, Ms Onwurah, who had made an admirable effort to remain an impartial chair throughout, re-polled opinion on the question ‘Do we need more scientists in Parliament?’ Although the majority still answered yes, at this count it was only about 1/3 of audience. A smaller – but notable – proportion answered ‘no’ and a further group were undecided, perhaps persuaded to re-think their opinion by the evening’s discussion?

The debate was live-tweeted by a number of attendees at #policylates. If you enjoyed following the debate, the evening’s Chair and most of the panel are on Twitter, and you can get updates further events at @Society_Biology and about the BES’s policy work at @BESPolicy

Posted in Science Communication, Science Policy | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Tackling Tree Disease in the UK

It isn’t simply Ash Dieback that’s threatening the forests and woodlands of the UK. A plethora of pests and pathogens are on the horizon, with the numbers of diseases afflicting our trees having increased markedly over the past twenty years. A panel of experts, assembled by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology for an evening event attended by the BES Policy Team on Tuesday, provided a rather gloomy overview of the challenges facing Government, land managers and the public in trying to keep the UK’s borders secure against these invaders for as long as possible.

Dr Joan Webber, Principal Pathologist at Forest Research, showed a graph at the beginning of her presentation, illustrating the almost exponential rise in tree diseases over the past decade. A bigger impact from tree diseases has been seen in this country over this time period than over the whole of the last century. Pathways for introduction include timber, wood and wood packaging, although the industry has come a long way in terms of treating this material to prevent infectious organisms being transported. Over the past 20 years the predominant means of introduction has been through the movement of plants. The expansion of global trade has accelerated these introductions: Ash Dieback, caused by Chalara fraxinea, most likely originated in East Asia (Japan and Korea).

Infected plants are extremely hard to identify, because of the sheer numbers of plants entering the UK, their complexity, heterogeneity and differences in size. Spores and symptoms can be hard to spot as these may be cryptic. The UK relies on inspection by individuals, rather than technologies to identify infected plants, rendering this a huge task.

The challenges of identifying organisms that pose a danger to our plants and trees is made more acute by the fact that damaging organisms may behave very differently in the UK than in their normal habitat. When introduced to a novel environment, the organism may be subject to different pressures, acquiring new mutations and adaptations.

Martin Ward, Head of Plant Health and the UK’s Chief Plant Officer at FERA, provided an overview of the policy context in which threats to trees can be tackled by EU Member States. It was clear that this is a complex area, which can perhaps cause confusion for land managers and others trying to understand who to work with and what to do to tackle infection. The EU is currently reviewing legislation concerning plant biosecurity for the first time since the 1970′s so it must be hoped that this streamlines policy and processes somewhat.

Whilst the UK has become better at diagnosing diseases, progress on detection is still lagging behind, with little made in 20 years. Martin Ward suggested that the UK needs to become better at using citizen science, a recommendation of the 2011 Defra and Foresty Commission Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Action Plan, and at using acoustic and other methods of detection when plants enter the country’s borders.

Dr Hilary Allison, Director of Policy at the Woodland Trust, provided an NGO perspective, focusing specifically on Ash Dieback. Seventy to 75 percent of ash trees could be lost in the UK to the disease. In Denmark, only five percent of ash remains free of symptoms, whilst in Poland 15-25 percent of trees seem to have been spared. Populations of ash could be repopulated through selection and breeding of the uninflected trees.

The largest loss of ash trees, from the perspective of the public, will be seen in hedgerows and in public parks. The complex make up of hedgerows means that here it is hard to re-establish ash trees once lost. From the perspective of organisms, many depend on ash trees for food and shelter, with veteran ash vital critical for beetles that feed on dead and decaying wood. Ash Dieback then will have long-lasting implications for our countryside from both a human and a wildlife perspective.

The Woodland Trust is responding to Ash Dieback with a large conference in 2013, to consider how this and other diseases will impact on conservation. The Trust has also called for long-term investment in UK nurseries. Believing that they were sourcing trees grown in the UK, the Woodland Trust inadvertently sourced trees with a UK provenance but that were shipped out as seedlings to be grown in the Netherlands. This may have introduced Ash Dieback to the UK countryside in some instances. Finally, in common with Martin Ward’s call for the same, the Woodland Trust will encourage the development of citizen science, with the public playing a crucial role in detection and early-warning systems.

The final speaker, Dr Steve Woodward from the University of Aberdeen, highlighted the scale of the trade in plants globally that has led to the huge increase in incidences of plant disease across Europe. Many invasive species enter Europe from North America and Asia, with the latter the current largest source because of its economic dominance. Once these organisms enter Europe there is a huge nursery trade between European countries. Tonnes of soil are transported with plants from China and elsewhere, and whatever is in the soil accompanies that plant on its onward journey. Dr Woodward criticised our desire for ‘instant landscapes’ and ‘instant plants’ preventing countries from growing their own plants to size, rather than importing fully grown trees from elsewhere.

Given the hundreds or perhaps thousands of know and unknown tree diseases that could threaten UK landscapes, it could be assumed that a large amount of research would be in train to understand and deal with these. Unfortunately, Dr Woodward said, the UK compares poorly to other EU countries in terms of the numbers of scientists researching this issue. Forest pathology research in universities in fact seems to comprise just Dr Woodward himself. Delays in understanding Ash Dieback, Dr Webber suggested, have been caused by scientists taking a little while to realise the significance of this pathogen, whilst the ‘radar of scientific research and science funding’ has had to swing across too, to this new area.

The announcement recently of a new Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Initiative, funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) could go some way to address the limited research effort that seems to be have been expended in this important area. Several millions of pounds of funding will be available over the next few years, with an announcement of opportunity expected in April 2013. What seems clear is that to tackle the diseases listed by Dr Woodward, from Oak Wilts, to Spruce Budworm, Pitch Canker in Pine and the Emerald Ash Borer, and not least Ash Dieback, will required concerted and interdisciplinary research, together with excellent governance and leadership by policy-makers in the UK, Europe and internationally.

Posted in BBSRC, Forests, Parliament, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, Research, Research Councils, Science Policy, Wildlife Disease | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Checking the Progress of Government on the Natural Environment

The Government could try harder on the natural environment. That was the conclusion of ‘Nature Check 2012′, an overview of the Government’s progress against the commitments made in the Coalition Agreement, launched by Wildlife and Countryside Link, and endorsed by the BES, on Wednesday. The BES Policy Team attended the parliamentary launch of the document, which saw Owen Paterson MP, Secretary of State for the Environment, visibly frustrated that the NGO community had awarded so few plaudits to the Government for their work on the natural environment over the course of this year.

Introducing Nature Check, Dr Elaine King, Director of Link, said that the Secretary of State ‘may be disappointed’ by the conclusions of the report as no new green ratings had been awarded to Government. As in 2011, the Government received green ratings, meaning good progress has been made, on two commitments. There were 14 amber ratings, demonstrating moderate progress, and four red ratings, showing where the Government is failing to deliver. Failing policies identified by Link include an ongoing lack of commitment to the marine environment, the lack of a scientific basis for the policy on bovine tuberculosis and badger culling and a promised ban on wild animals in circuses.

The Secretary of State, in responding to Nature Check, delivered an impassioned speech in which he started by stating that the countryside is ‘ my home, my work and my life’, stressing his strong personal connection to this agenda. His role at Defra, he said, was to boost growth in the rural economy whilst continuing to improve the countryside. The value of the natural environment must be placed at the heart of decision-making, with industry and environment groups working together to ensure that economic growth and a healthy natural environment could develop hand-in-hand. He said that he was overseeing a ‘radical restructure’ of Defra to deliver a ‘laser-like focus on growing our rural economy, improving our environment and dealing with plant and animal diseases.’

The Secretary of State disputed Link’s findings in a number of areas. He criticised Link, and the NGOs that comprise it, for taking a ‘glass half empty’ perspective. The National Planning Policy Framework, for example, represents a strong outcome for nature and biodiversity from 2012, he suggested. The Minister stated that new protections are being brought in for circus animals from January 2013, which will be followed by an outright ban in due course, rather than in ‘years’, implied by Link. He stated that he would make ‘no apology’ for taking time to get action on the marine environment right and that the Government was taking an ambitious approach to marine planning.

Perhaps the two most contentious areas, on which the Minister and the NGOs present disagreed, were reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the policy of shooting badgers to curb tuberculosis in cattle. On bovine TB, the Minister insisted that the policy had been developed on the basis of scientific evidence, stating that Link and others simply ‘did not like’ the policy. However he did agree to engage with the International Fund for Animal Welfare and other Link members on the policy outside of the meeting.

David Baldock, Institute for European Environmental Policy, questioned the Minister over EU budget negotiations concerning the CAP. A Pillar 2 proposal put forward by the President of the EU Council, Herman Van Rompuy, has been to cut the budget for pillar 2 by 15 percent on current levels. With cuts proposed to the LIFE budget too, the environment faces a substantial hit, with the UK Government not arguing that cuts to the environment are a ‘red line’ at negotiations.

In response, the Minister insisted that he would make a very strong case at a meeting in Brussels this week for support for Pillar 2, the part of the CAP budget that funds rural development, including Entry and Higher-Level Stewardship schemes in the UK. Pillar 2 funds have been instrumental to delivering nature conservation in this country since their introduction. He did not support the ‘greening’ of Pillar 1, which provides direct payments to farmers to subsidise agricultural income, describing this as ‘woolly’ and ‘greenwash’. He suggested instead that he would try to push through at EU-level the UK Government position that ‘Pillar 2 should form a larger proportion of a smaller CAP budget’.

Dr Mark Avery, an independent commentator and consultant, pressed the Minister to justify the environmental benefits that have been seen from Entry-Level Stewardship (ELS) schemes. The ‘success’ of ELS can’t be communicated to policy-makers in Europe, Mark suggested, as it has not delivered for the environment in the UK. In fact, Mark stated, ‘we have lost more farmland birds that any country in Europe, so it isn’t workng’. The Minister was insistent that he would communicate to his European counterparts that ELS works, has standards and can be used as a basis for making payments to farmers.

The exchange between the Minister and the NGOs was on the whole a constructive one. One member of the audience spoke for others when he emphasised that the ratings in Nature Check were not a reflection on the Minister’s personal record on the environment, but rather of the Government’s progress as a whole across the year. Those in the room commended the Minister’s recent leadership in tackling the outbreak of Chalara fraxinea, causing ash dieback.

Dr King, in her opening remarks, called on the Government to provide renewed political leadership on the environment, recognising the inseparable connection between the economy and the natural world. In addition she called for policy decisions to be based on good evidence, and stressed the need to ensure that the statutory agencies are well resourced and so able to provide science-based advice. Nature Check in 2013 will certainly once again be an extremely useful mechanism by which to hold the Government to account on these points and on its environmental commitments.

Posted in Agri-Environment Scheme, Agriculture, BES, Common Agricultural Policy, Conservation, Defra, Environment, Event, Government, Marine, Marine Act, National Planning Policy Framework, Planning Policy, Science Policy, UK, Wildlife and Countryside Link | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

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

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

Close