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

Natural England Issues First Badger Cull License

Posted on September 18, 2012 by Policy_Team

Natural England yesterday issued the first license to cull badgers, under the Coalition Government’s controversial plan to allow free-shooting of the animals by consortia of farmers. Rather than vaccinate badgers, as is being trialled in Wales, in England the Government plans to issue licenses in two pilot areas, Somerset and Gloucestershire, to assess the success of culling up to 70% of badgers in infected zones. Eventually, an article in the Guardian on Sunday suggests, this could lead to up to 100,000 badgers being killed across infected areas in England; a third of the UK population. The purpose of the cull is to prevent the spread of tuberculosis from badgers to cattle: bovine TB resulted in 26,000 cattle being slaughtered in 2011.

A consortium of farmers in a 300 square kilometre area in West Gloucestershire has been granted permission to shoot 70% of badgers on their land, over a continuous period of six weeks and for up to four years in a row. The 10-year Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT), led by Lord Krebs, found that trapping and shooting badgers led to a reduction in incidences of bovine TB by 16% in infected areas. However, the efficacy of free shooting, favoured by the Government as it is cheaper, has not been tested before as a means of controlling the spread of bovine TB from badgers to cattle.

At least 70% of badgers in an affected area must be killed over a sustained period to prevent the incidence of the disease actually increasing through ‘perturbation‘; the spread of TB between badger populations due to the dispersal of animals from disrupted social groups. For this reason, the areas for which licenses are issued must also be surrounded by ‘hard’ barriers such as roads or rivers; although at a meeting attended by the BES in 2008, a leading scientist, Dr Chris Cheeseman, suggested that even these barriers may not be impermeable to the spread of the animals.

Lord Krebs, speaking to the BBC yesterday, described the Government’s culling plans as ‘crazy’, suggesting ‘I would rather go down the vaccination and biosecurity route rather than this crazy scheme that may deliver very small advantage’. Lord Krebs has previously criticised the Government for ‘ignoring’ scientific advice in sanctioning a cull. The badger cull is likely to be very costly for farmers, due to the need for additional security against protests when culling is taking place, along with the need to pay professional marksmen to shoot the animals. The Government’s impact assessment concluded that the cull was likely to cost the farmers more money than simply bearing the loss of cattle to bovine TB.

A report produced by the Independent Scientific Group assessing the RBCT concluded in 2008 that badger culling was likely to be an uneconomical solution to the control of bovine TB. A study commissioned by Defra and produced by Imperial College and the Zoological Society of London in 2010, examining the aftermath of the RBCT found that the benefits of culling were unlikely to be sustained over the longer term, with any beneficial effects disappearing four years after the culling ended.

In response to a successful legal challenge by the Badger Trust the Welsh Government cancelled its plans for a badger cull and is instead developing vaccines. According to the Guardian, the Labour Government in the UK suggested that a vaccine would be ready by 2015. On taking office, the Coalition cancelled five out of six vaccine development programmes. Further legal challenges to the issuing of licenses by Natural England, including in the European courts, are likely to be on the horizon.

Posted in Badgers and bTB, Defra, England, Government, Science Policy | Tagged badgers, Bovine TB, Coalition Government, Defra, Lord Krebs, Randomised Badger Culling Trial | Leave a comment

Lessons from the past: science-policy through history – Policy Lunchbox

Posted on September 13, 2012 by Policy_Team

The role of science in informing policy-making is not a new phenomenon, as the research of Dr William Thomas, Junior Research Fellow at Imperial College London and speaker at yesterday’s Policy Lunchbox, reveals.

There is a long history of various actors working to promote the voice of science in critical government decisions, including key scientific advisors who helped inform some of Winston Churchill’s strategic decisions during World War Two. Analysing how policy decisions were reached and the impacts that implemented measures had can provide valuable context to assess the suitability of a proposed policy in modern times and offer important insights for modern scientists working to influence the policy-making process.

Dr Thomas outlined three main ways in which history can inform current science-policy interactions:

1. Using Data Points
Examining data records can reveal the quantitative impact of policy measures implemented in the past and is one of the simplest ways to assess the likely outcome of policy decisions. For example, policy to promote Research and Development may have measurable impacts on the number of new research facilities built, or the amount of research produced measured by the number of new PhDs and patents.

However, there are drawbacks to this method of analysis; obtaining, seeking out and interpreting historical data specifically in the context of modern policy decisions means making implicit assumptions about the data’s provenance and the patterns it shows. Additionally, simply comparing the impact of past policy decisions and the predicted impacts of present policy decision ignores the issue of what might be the most appropriate policy decision in modern contexts.

Data like this is best used in combination with qualitative records which provide important context.

2. Science-policy history as a morality tale
Throughout science-policy history, there has been discussion over what the role of science and scientists should be in the policy-making process and World War Two (WW2), Dr Thomas stated, is ‘Britain’s Great Morality Tale’ for science-policy, with intense debate taking place between prominent scientists and government ministers over how strong the voice of science should be in influencing policy, who this input should come from and in what form.

C.P. Snow, a respected chemist with important positions within the government, recounts the very different approaches of two influential scientists informing WW2 policy in his book Science and Government. Frederick Lindemann was the government’s leading scientific adviser and provided direct input to policy decisions by working in a small exclusive team to collate statistical data as a basis for Winston Churchill to make rapid judgments on issues such as food rationing.

Also prominent at the time was Sir Henry Tizard, a chemist and inventor, who took a very different – and widely praised – approach to policy development; as chairman of a Committee for the Scientific Study of Air Defence he formulated a successful defence against heavy blitzing by gathering the opinion and expertise of fighter pilots, Air Marshals, radar designers and administrators. This engagement of a variety of actors was a pioneering approach to informing government strategies and policy decisions.

Snow concludes that a ‘scientific overlord’ like Lindemann should ‘never (be) tolerate(d)’ – a statement which still informs debate about how science feeds into political decisions today.

3. History as precedent
The history of the way in which policies have been successfully influenced and enacted in the past can be very useful in informing the enactment of modern policies, providing real example of ideas put into practice rather than relying on the interpretation of isolated data points or policy-makers’ advocations.

The long history of integration of agricultural research and practice, Dr Thomas argued, is a precedent which could be used to inform the integration of science and research in other areas of policy-making.

Agricultural research has always been engaged with issues of agricultural practice. Prior to WW2, this was through county-level connections between farmers, other industries, education and research institutions, and civil services. Following WW2, this approach was formalised by the creation of the Agricultural Improvement Council.

The Council was formed of prominent figures across a range of sectors; professors of agriculture and related subjects, representatives of farmers’ unions, prominent farmers from a number of regions, and the secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (now Defra). This diverse group established dedicated Experimental Stations to test the implementation of policy measures in different regions before they were finalised and set a precedent for collaborative work in policy formation.

The session provided a fascinating insight into an aspect of science-policy perhaps not often considered by those working at the modern science-policy interface, but nevertheless critically important to understanding how best to influence the modern policy-making process.

The presentation slides are available at the Biochemical Society website.

This session was part of the Policy Lunchbox initiative, run jointly by the BES and Biochemical Society. Throughout the year, guest speakers present at a lunchtime session on a range of pertinent issues for an audience of those who work in science policy. To find out more and book your place on the next session, visit: http://www.biochemistry.org/SciencePolicy/Events/PolicyLunchbox.aspx

Posted in BES, Event, Policy Lunchbox, Science Policy | Tagged History, Policy Lunchbox, science policy | Leave a comment

New POSTnote encapsulates land sharing vs land sparing debate

Posted on September 7, 2012 by Policy_Team

A POSTnote from the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology ‘Balancing Nature and Agriculture’ published online this week outlines the ongoing debate over land sparing versus land sharing in sustainable management of agricultural land for biodiversity conservation.

Much biodiversity is dependent on appropriate agricultural management and in turn, agricultural production depends on ecosystem services including pollination, pest-control and nutrient cycling. However, current intensive agricultural management are causing widespread destruction of habitat and a significant decline in biodiversity undermining these important processes.

Appropriate management of agricultural land is essential, but there is much debate over how best to do this.
The POSTnote outlines current thinking on both sides of what has become known as the land sharing versus land sparing debate and some of the more nuanced details of the ongoing argument.

Land sharing is management which attempts to meet both agricultural and conservation needs within the same area, aiming to make existing farmland as hospitable as possible for wildlife. This includes reducing pesticide and fertiliser use and retaining habitat features such as trees, hedges and ponds. Current agri-environment schemes under the EU Common Agricultural Policy are an example of land sharing – farmers adopt subsidised management options within their farmland, incorporating planted field margins and sympathetically managed hedgerows into the landscape.

Land sparing, on the other hand, involves measures to sustainably increase yields on some areas of agricultural land – ‘sustainable intensification’ – allowing other, potentially large and continuous, areas of land to be put aside and protected for nature conservation. The network of designated areas protected under current legislation – including Natura 2000 sites and SSSIs – are a manifestation of the land sparing approach, creating areas in which agricultural production is restricted in order to maintain natural habitats.
However, as the POSTnote recognises, there is some debate over what management constitutes land sharing and what constitutes land-sparing, and related to this, the scales at which this should be measured and implemented.

Available research paints a complex picture about whether land sparing or land sharing may be the optimum approach. It is suggested that whilst land sharing will benefit widespread generalist species and those adapted to semi-natural agricultural habitats, land sparing is more likely to benefit habitat specialists and may better provision ecosystem services such as carbon storage and water regulation.

The POSTnote considers the debate in are European and UK context and identifies some potential policy tools which may lend themselves to delivering the two approaches.

The publication is available to download from the UK Parliament Publications page.

Posted in Agri-Environment Scheme, Agriculture, Biodiversity, Conservation, Environment, Habitat Loss, Land use, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology | Tagged Agriculture, Biodiversity, Conservation, Habitat management, Land sharing, Land sparing, Land use, sustainable intensification | Leave a comment

1 in 5 invertebrate species threatened with extinction

Posted on September 6, 2012 by Policy_Team

That is the shocking headline from a report by the IUCN, IUCN Species Survival Commission and the Zoological Society of London, due to be presented at the IUCN World Conservation Congress in Jeju, tomorrow (7th September). ‘Spineless: Status and Trends of the World’s Invertebrates‘ suggests that nearly 20% of invertebrates – which comprise nearly 80 percent of the world’s species – are threatened with extinction.

Scientists reviewed 12,000 invertebrates from the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species to assess the levels of threat facing invertebrates. The results reveal that invertebrates are threatened to the same extent as vertebrates and plants across the globe.

Freshwater invertebrates appear to be the most threatened group of species, at risk due to pollution, for example from agricultural run-off, domestic sewage and industrial waste. Damming, and the consequent effect of this on water quality, also poses a challenge. Across all invertebrate species those which are less mobile and are localised in distribution are threatened to a greater extent than those more mobile. This reflects the levels of threat facing vertebrates: for example, fresh water molluscs are threatened to a similar extent to amphibians (a third of species threatened), whilst those invertebrate and vertebrate species that can shift their range to a greater extent (butterflies, dragonflies, birds) are threatened to a lesser degree (a tenth of species threatened).

The IUCN Species Survival Commission has called for an expansion in the number of invertebrate species assessed, in order to raise the conservation profile of these organisms. For example, only 1% of marine invertebrates (species described) are included in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, making an assessment of the threats facing these species (approximately 35% of species threatened) less robust than for other groups.

Posted in Biodiversity, International | Tagged invertebrates, IUCN, IUCN Red List, World Conservation Congress 2012 | Leave a comment

Better communciation of science to the public is critical to tackling major environmental challenges

Posted on August 30, 2012 by Policy_Team

There is a pressing need for researchers to better communicate science and technology developments to the general public, says Alan Leshner, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in a publication last week.

Currently, public engagement tends to be an afterthought, says Mr Leshner, meaning that the general population and, critically, policymakers, frequently “misunderstand, misrepresent or disregard” complex issues such as climate change and GM food.

Improving public understanding and involvement in these issues is critical, as solutions to tackle them often depend on a strong policy response and widespread buy-in from the general population. GM foods, for example, cannot be successfully introduced without the support of the public, as was demonstrated by the rejection of a genetically-modified aubergine variety in India in 2010.

To help researchers with the challenge of communicating often complex scientific findings, Mr Leshner points to recent empirical research which reveals information about how public attitudes to scientific knowledge are shaped.

He also stresses the importance of ‘issue-framing’ in determining the reaction of the public and policy-makers and suggests scientists can learn from ‘antiscience forces’ which often significantly simplify the information in order to tell a convincing story. People care most about issues that might affect them personally, so the strongest tool in effective science-communication may be tailoring the message to a particular audience’s concerns.

However, in adopting this approach, Mr Leshner stresses, science faces a particular challenge; researchers must make sure to always “stick to the facts” so as not to in fact counter-productively undermine science’s credibility in the public eye.

The original article was published on www.sciencemag.org on 22nd August 2012

Posted in Climate Change, GM, Public Engagement, Research, Science Communication, Science Policy | Tagged evidence-based policy, policy making, Public Engagement, public trust in science, Science Communication, science policy | Leave a comment

Environmental Stewardship Delivers Ecosystem Services Underpinning Food Security

Posted on August 29, 2012 by Policy_Team

The relationship between agriculture and ecosystem services is a strong one. Farming can contribute to critical services including food security and economic growth, maintenance of cultural landscapes, rural employment and (when managed correctly) provision of valuable habitat for a significant proportion of the UK’s species.

In turn, agriculture is critically reliant on services provided by ecosystems. Good soil fertility and structure, for example, are dependent on the input and recycling of organic matter by plants and soil-dwelling organisms, whilst over 80% of crop species in Europe are at least partially reliant on insect pollinators to produce a healthy crop.

This interdependence between farming and ecosystem services is the message behind a recent report commissioned by Natural England which investigates how the use of Environmental Stewardship (ES) schemes on farmland might foster the environmental processes critical to food production.

Ecosystem Services from different Environmental Stewardship options
Assessing the relative ecosystem service value of different Stewardship options, the authors find that measures including winter cover crops, grassland creation and seasonal livestock removal can contribute to services including soil formation, nutrient cycling, carbon sequestration and water regulation. Planting of pollen and nectar seed mixes, which contain a high proportion of nitrogen-fixing legumes, can also enhance soil fertility, as well as providing critical food sources for valuable pollinating insects.

In addition to these pollen sources, pollinators including bees, hoverflies, thrips, beetles and butterflies require suitable nesting sites and landscape-wide habitat connectivity. These are provided by ES options including hedgerow and ditch management, uncropped cultivated margins and creation of species-rich grassland.

Such measures are also found by the authors to boost important pest-regulating species such as predatory beetles and insectivorous birds which can be further enhanced by specifically designed ES options; beetle-banks and wild bird seed mix.

In many cases, the report suggests that ‘bundles’ of these different ES management measures will provide the greatest variety of ecosystem services and meet the whole range of requirements of valuable species. For example, the combination of sympathetic hedgerow management next to a planted flower margin, field buffer strip and adjoining beetle bank will boost natural pest regulation and insect pollinators, as well as creating benefits for soil fertility and structure.

Current distribution of ES schemes and delivery of ecosystem services
The report’s authors also attempt to map the relative delivery of ecosystem services from Environmental Stewardship schemes across the UK.

Using a scoring system, the authors rank ES options by their relative delivery of ecosystem services identified as ‘key’ to agricultural production. These scores are combined with data on the distribution of the various options across the UK, producing maps showing where ES options are delivering ecosystem services.

These projections reveal that there is an apparent positive association between the level of key ecosystem services being delivered by ES options and the rate of arable and dairy farming in a region. However, in some areas with high levels of arable and horticultural production, pollination services appear disproportionately low. The authors suggest improved targeting of options to boost pollinator populations could be beneficial.

Main messages and conclusions
The report concludes that Environmental Stewardship schemes have significant potential to enhance a range of ecosystem services of benefit to agricultural production. However, relatively few options have been specifically designed with this in mind and there is significant scope for further development of options to extend their delivery of ecosystem services.

There is also a critical need for further research to provide quantitative evidence of the ES benefits of Stewardship options, building on existing work and addressing current knowledge gaps. In this way, the full value of Environmental Stewardship schemes, for the environment as well as agricultural production, can be realised.

Posted in Agri-Environment Scheme, Agriculture, Biodiversity, Ecology, Ecosystem Services, Pollinator | Tagged Agriculture, CAP, ecosystem services, Environmental Stewardship Scheme, Farming, Food Security, Natural England | Leave a comment

NERC internships with business, policy and the third sector

Posted on August 17, 2012 by Policy_Team

The Natural Environment Research Council has launched a call for internships, inviting existing researchers to apply for projects of up to four months, based in businesses, policy or third sector organisations. Interns will explore and demonstrate how business, policy or third sector partners in the area of Marine Renewable Energy can make use of scientific knowledge, data, models or other tools to understand and manage their impacts and/or dependencies on the environment. The internships offer appointees an excellent opportunity for extending their research experience into business, policy or other settings. Applications to the NERC internships will be accepted on a rolling basis, until the funding has been allocated or by 5pm on 26 October 2012.

For more information please see: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/business/ao-business-internship.asp.

Posted in NERC, Research Councils, Science Policy | Tagged Internships, Marine Renewable Energy, NERC, Policy Placement | Leave a comment

Science has an important role to play to tackle food insecurity in a changing climate

Posted on August 16, 2012 by Policy_Team

The input of research scientists will be essential in addressing the issue of food insecurity in the face of a rapidly changing climate. This is the message from a new article produced by members of the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change this week.

The group outlines a shortlist of key areas in the food security debate requiring further research focus. Sustainable agricultural intensification, for example, has been much emphasised as the way forward for food production (eg by the Royal Society and the UK government) but remains poorly defined and understood. Scientists are needed to help ‘define the practical meaning of sustainable intensification’ and find ‘forms of low emissions agriculture’ which ensure long-term productivity with minimal climate and environmental impacts. Already, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research has undertaken research analysing the success of agricultural carbon projects benefiting poor farmers in regions of Africa.

Related to this, research should also focus on identifying and assisting those populations and sectors most vulnerable to climate changes, the article says. Groups including North Kenyan pastoralists increasingly require some form of insurance to support them when their livestock are lost due to climate events such as drought. Researchers have a role to play in helping design insurance schemes which will work for the rural poor.

Critically, the article acknowledges that food security is not just about agricultural yields, a fact which is often side-lined in the debate. The authors recommend reshaping food access and altering consumption behaviours to ensure basic nutritional needs are met in all continents. Research is needed to understand the relative impact and cost-effectiveness of different innovations when they are introduced. For example, feedback on the rate of adoption and nutritional impact of a vitamin-A rich orange sweet potato, promoted by CGIAR’s HarvestPlus programme in Uganda and Mozambique, will help identify the best methods of encouraging uptake of nutritionally beneficial food innovations.

The article, entitled “The role for scientists in tackling food insecurity and climate change” (open access), has been published in time for the second Global Conference for Agricultural Research for Development. Here, the authors will present their message to the leaders in the global agricultural research world, contributing to the conference’s aim to harness research innovations in the realm of food security and transform them into real development impacts.

Download and read the full article: Beddington JR, Asaduzzaman M, Clark ME, Fernández Bremauntz A, Guillou MD, Jahn MM, Lin E, Mamo T, Negra C, Nobre CA, Scholes RJ, Sharma R, Van Bo N, Wakhungu J. 2012. The role for scientists in tackling food insecurity and climate change. Agriculture and Food Security, 1:10. DOI:10.1186/2048-7010-1-10 (open access)

Posted in Agriculture, Climate Change, Development, Emissions, Food Security, Research | Tagged Agriculture, Climate Change, Development, Drought, food, Food Security, Poverty, research, Science | Leave a comment

Arctic could be free of sea ice in the summer 'in a decade'

Posted on August 15, 2012 by Policy_Team

Sea ice in the Arctic is disappearing at a rate 50% faster than projected by scenarios prepared by polar scientists according to new data from the CryoSat-2 probe. The probe, the first purpose built satellite to study the thickness of the polar ice caps has revealed that in areas north of Canada and Greenland, the thickness of summer ice has dropped to one to three metres, from five to six metres a few years’ ago.

Scientists analysing the data at University College London commented to the Guardian that the results suggest that ‘very soon’ the Arctic could be completely free of ice during the summer. In 2004, there was 13,000 cubic kilometres of ice in the Arctic in the summer. Now, eight years later, the figure is 7,000 cubic kilometres. If the annual rate of loss of 900 cubic kilometres of ice continues, the Arctic could be free of ice in the summer in a decade.

The melting of the Arctic ice cap is likely to have tremendous consequences for world weather patterns, sea-level rise and greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. For example, a reduced temperature gradient from the Arctic to the equator could lead to instability in the jet stream in the upper atmosphere, leading to increased volatility in the weather at lower latitudes. A reduction in the albedo of the Arctic, caused by lower ice cover, means that less solar radiation is reflected by the Earth’s surface, leading to increased warming. As the ocean at the poles warms, methane deposits (clathrates) on the ocean’s floor melt, releasing plumes of methane (which is a greenhouse gas with a stronger effect than carbon dioxide).

Calibration of the data collected by CryoSat-2, through experiments by scientists in the Arctic, low-flying planes and underwater sonar, has revealed that the data on ice thickness are correct to within 10 cubic centimetres. CryoSat-2 is a project funded by the European Space Agency (ESA).

Source article: Rate of Arctic summer sea ice loss is 50% higher than predicted. Robin McKie, 11th August 2012, the Guardian.

Posted in Climate Change | Tagged Arctic, CryoSat-2, European Space Agency, Ice, Remote Sensing | Leave a comment

Information for Innovation: Building better channels for knowledge exchange in environmental science

Posted on August 2, 2012 by Policy_Team

The British Library and the Environmental Sustainability Knowledge Transfer Network (ESKTN) are organising a free one day workshop on 28th September to explore how knowledge exchange can be improved in the environmental sector.

What is lost in translation between the researcher and the innovator? Is information access a barrier to innovation in environmental sciences? The workshop will look at the medium and the message, identifying barriers to the flow of information, and examining ways in which knowledge exchange is facilitated in different parts of the environmental sector. The workshop will develop case studies of good practice and identify ways to achieve a more joined-up landscape for environmental science information.

The organisers are particularly interested in looking at the role that information access plays in the knowledge exchange process, and are thus keen to work with audiences, such as SMEs, local authorities, and charities who are often at the ‘receiving end’ of knowledge transfer—and who often have considerably less traditional access to information than academics. The aim is to produce a report with case studies of good practice and recommendations for stakeholders and policymakers; the organisers have also been invited to present on these findings at the Living with Environmental Change (LWEC) conference in November.

Access further information and register for this event here.

Posted in Environment, Event, Workshop | Tagged British Library, Environmental Sustaina | Leave a comment