ecosystem services – Cabot Institute for the Environment blog

IPCC blog series – Working Group 2 – Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability

Posted on July 28, 2022March 29, 2023 by janet.crompton

This blog is part of a series from the Cabot Institute for the Environment on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s recent sixth Assessment report, with this post covering the output of Working Group 2 and the impacts of climate change on society and ecosystems. This article also features a chat with Prof Daniela Schmidt, a Professor at the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol, and a Lead Author on the IPCC’s AR6 report. For links to the rest of the series, see the bottom of the post.

Welcome to the next post in this series on the IPCC sixth Assessment Report (AR6). Now that we’ve covered the background science to climate change, the next phase looks at the impacts on society, ecosystems, and the intricate fabric of everything in between – combining the science and aiding the transition of translating to policies that governments can implement to better the planet and mitigate the impacts.

This report is, in my opinion, the most alarming of the bunch – some scientists referring to this as the “bleakest warning yet”. Here are the key points:

The increased frequency of Extreme Weather and Temperature will have a cataclysmic impact – Everywhere will be affected

There is no inhabited region on earth that escapes the impacts of climate change. It’s estimated that over 3.3 billion people are living in areas highly vulnerable to climate change effects – largely extreme temperatures, leading to food insecurity and water shortages. Extreme weather events, such as tropical storms and flooding, are also set to increase in both frequency and severity.

As we’ve seen in recent years, wildfires have become more common (Australia and California making international news) and will continue to rise in frequency – wreaking devastation on communities and wildlife. This, along with the retreat of glaciers and polar ice caps, also results in a release of even more carbon to the atmosphere as the Earth’s natural carbon sinks continue to be dismantled. The ensuing feedback loop amplifies the warming, only serving to increase the severity of these events.

However, the impacts of climate change won’t be experienced uniformly across the planet…

The Impacts of Climate Change will not be experienced equally

This is one of the most important statements from all three Working Groups. It’s been well reported that sea level rise will be existentially cataclysmic for atoll island nations such as Kiribati and the Maldives, but there are other effects of climate change that will be unequally experienced. At the other end of the scale, Britain and other western European nations will see less drastic impacts, despite having some of the greatest contribution to the emissions at the root of the climate crisis. In summer, some parts of the globe are already becoming unliveable due to the extremely high temperatures. In India and Africa for example, where temperatures can exceed 40 degrees C, the number of deaths due to heat are increasing year on year. Poorer communities, especially those who work outdoors, are disproportionately affected as their occupation puts them at greater risk.

Some of the nations with the lowest development and therefore lowest contribution to climate change will experience the impacts more than some of the greatest contributors.

A Climate Crisis exacerbates other ongoing Crises

The effects of a climate crisis add an extra layer of complexity to all sorts of problems the world is already facing. Threats to food and water security because of climate change will increase pre-existing geopolitical tensions as resources become more and more scarce. Therefore, the likelihood of conflict and war increases – which in turn shift focus from fighting climate change. To some extent, we are seeing this already with the war in Ukraine, for example. In summary, climate change can increase severity of a crisis and limits the efficacy of response.

Impacts on ecosystems are already happening as well

Mass die-offs of species are well underway, particularly in oceanic ecosystems as sea temperatures rise and ocean acidification takes place. Deforestation and wildfires are destroying ecosystems.

When I spoke to Professor Daniela Schmidt, a lead author on the WGII report (more from her at the end of the article), she was quick to point out and stress the connections between nature and society, links often underestimated – “Negative impacts on nature will negatively impact people”. Nature, land-use, and conservation will be some of the key tools in helping mitigate the effects of climate change.

This is something to explore further with the next blog in this series on Working Group 3: Mitigation of Climate Change.

Insight from IPCC AR6 Lead Author Professor Daniela Schmidt

Daniela Schmidt is a Professor of Palaeobiology, Cabot Institute member and a key author on the IPCC’s WG2 report.

How did you get involved with IPCC AR6 and Working Group II in particular?

“I was a lead author on the fifth assessment report, working on the ocean chapter. I have since worked on reports for the European Commission on food from the ocean. I volunteered for this cycle with the expectation of working with WGI but I was assigned work on WGII, which was challenging because it was way out of my comfort zone. Working on this report has changed the way I will conduct research in the future, and has taught me to be more open to the complexities of life”

What’s one key point you’d like to get across from the WGII report?

“The official key strapline from AR6 is that the evidence is clear, climate change is real and happening right now. It’s a rapidly closing window of opportunity to do something about it.”

“One of the main things I like to communicate is that if we don’t hit 1.5 degrees C targets, then 1.7 degrees C is still better than for 2 degrees C example. The point is that every increment matters and that we can’t give up if we miss targets. I think it’s important to tell people that if we are overshooting 1.5 degrees C, yes, there will be consequences, some of which are irreversible, but we can still come back.”

“I also try not just to talk about climate change. Much of the adaptation action for climate change incidentally will, in my view, help to make the world a better place – providing clean drinking water, clean energy, habitable homes and ensuring there is nature surrounding them”

———————-

We recommend taking a look at the IPCC’s full reports and report summaries for yourself if you seek to further understand the evidence and reasoning behind their headline statements.

Going further, potential solutions and climate change mitigations will be covered in greater detail in our summary of WG3’s report titled “Mitigation of Climate Change”, will be the next blog in this series, featuring a chat with IPCC AR6 Lead Author Dr. Jo House and contributor Viola Heinrich.

————————–

Andy Lyford

This blog was written by Cabot Communications Assistant Andy Lyford, an MScR Student studying Paleoclimates and Climate modelling on the Cabot Institute Master’s by Research in Global Environmental Challenges at the University of Bristol.

Looking back over a decade of Urban Pollinating in Bristol

Posted on October 11, 2021March 30, 2023 by janet.crompton

Two bumble bees on Teasel. Credit: crabchick

As the UK prepares to host the UN Climate Change Conference COP26 (31 October – 12 November) and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity COP15 takes place online (11-15 October), I have been looking back over a decade of urban pollinating in Bristol.

One of the four COP26 goals is ‘adapt to protect communities and natural habitats’ which includes Nature Based Solutions (NBS). These are answers to global environmental challenges which are created or inspired by natural processes based on or utilising the functions of nature. For this purpose, the Urban Pollinator Project established first here in Bristol, demonstrates perfectly how natural resolutions can benefit our ecosystems on a local, national, and global scale.

Urban Pollinators

Before 2011 an extraordinarily little amount was known about the ecology of urban pollinators in the UK. Despite pollinators maintaining a vital role in protecting our biodiversity and upholding crucial ecosystems, their role in our ever-expanding cityscapes had yet to be examined.

Only a few plants are able to self-pollinate, and as a result they are reliant on insects, birds, bees, wasps, wind, and water to keep the cogs of pollination turning. Yet, since the 1930s 97% of wildflower meadows, home to many the many species of pollinators, have been lost. As a result of this drastic loss of habitat, a recent report found that a quarter of known bee species have not been sighted since the 1990s. Certainly, an increase in urbanisation and expansion of cities and towns into wilder areas has contributed to such a dramatic decline. And so, the question was posed – how can we make pollinating insects more resilient and adapt to our increasingly urban landscapes?

In 2011 Dr Katherine Baldock, a researcher at the University of Bristol, set out to answer these questions. Leading teams from the University of Reading, Leeds, Edinburgh, and Bristol they embarked on a four-year nationwide initiative researching insect pollinators in urban habitats in the first study of its kind – The Urban Pollinator Project.

Findings

In Bristol, university researchers from the project examined the introduction of wildflower meadows alongside the M32 in July and August 2011. Over half of the species on Bristol’s Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Species List are in fact pollinators, and so not only was the Urban pollinators research unique, but vital to the future of our city’s ecology.

The findings from the study were able to report no significant difference between an abundance of pollinators and rare species in these urban wildflower meadows when compared with farms, wild areas, and nature reserves. They were also able to locate “hot spots” of pollinator diversity in cities and most importantly they were able to provide practical advice to the government, wildlife organisations, city councils and local individuals as to how to increase and improve pollinator biodiversity in urban habitats. (report)

In 2014, researchers from the Urban Pollinators Project went on to work alongside the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) using their findings to provide practical advice to the UK as part of the National Pollinator strategy, using Bristol as an example of where urban pollinating strategies had already been implemented.

Local impact

Locally, the team of urban pollinators have left a big impression on the Bristol community. The research conducted by the urban pollinators has gone on to have a significant impact on local wildlife trusts, businesses, individuals, and policies, influencing and advising on many successful conservation initiatives across the city.

At the University of Bristol, students in 2012 and 2013 planted wildflower meadows across the campus, creating a 30 square metre pollinating zone which in addition to its ecological benefits, looked great too. Many other organisations followed suit and urban wildlife zones cropped up across Bristol localities making room for pollinating insects and raising awareness for their protection throughout different communities.

In 2014, the Get Bristol Buzzing initiative was formed in yet another first of its kind. In a partnership between Avon Wildlife Trust, Bee Bristol, Bristol City Council, Bristol Friends of the Earth, Buglife, South Gloucestershire Council and the University of West England they all united, dedicated and determined to protect and increase pollinating habitat across Bristol. Similarly, they committed themselves to raising awareness for the importance of insect pollinators and spread the word around local communities, organisations, and businesses. (report)

In 2015 the University of Bristol led “The Greater Bristol Pollinator strategy” which in 2017 was able to report an increase in pollinators in the Greater Bristol area.

Global impact

The decline in pollinating insects is occurring globally, and at a rapid rate. To help to protect global biodiversity the blueprint established in Bristol could certainly provide a nature-based solution in the face of future global environmental challenges.

Today the impact of pollinators is no longer just being investigated in urban environments across the UK. Current project-lead and original member of the Urban Pollinators Project Professor Jane Memmott has recently been examining the role of pollinators in protecting food chains in Nepal. Her dedication to improving ecological networks and pollinating systems has most recently led her to a pioneering discovery that pollinating animals can improve nutrients in food in developing countries.

The project today

This year, continuing their excellent work, Professor Jane Memmott and the Urban Pollinator Project discovered that urban gardens are vital for protecting pollinating insects. Published in the Journal of Ecology, this research found that city gardens account for an impressive 85% of nectar produced in Urban areas generating the most nectar per unit area of land. With 29% of land in cities made up of domestic gardens, it truly is vital that we seek to cultivate thriving urban environments to protect our pollinating ecosystems.

Thanks to these dedicated ecologists it has been a remarkable decade for the Bristol bees, hopefully the next decade will be even better.

So, what can you do to turn your garden into a pollinating haven?

(1) Plant for our pollinators:

Bees, wasps, butterflies, and other pollinating insects love nectar and pollen rich flowers and trees. Try filling your garden, allotment, porch, windowsill, or any available space with the flowers they love!

(2) Leave areas to go wild:

Save yourself from gardening and allow plants to grow freely, the wilder the area the more pollinators it will attract.

(3) Ditch pesticides:

Many pesticides can be harmful if not kill pollinating insects. Abandoning pesticides will increase the chances of making your area a pollinating zone!

(4) Mow your lawn less:

Research published in the Biological Conservation Journal found that by mowing your lawn once every two weeks instead of one increases the number of bees in that area by a huge 30%.

(5) Make a bee house:

Make a bee house of bamboo sticks to give your local bees somewhere to lay their eggs and protect themselves from harsh weather conditions.

—————————-

This blog is written by Lois Barton, Cabot Institute for the Environment Global Environmental Challenges Master’s student and temporary Comms Assistant. Lois’s research explores the role of the arts in ecological movements in Chile, specifically surrounding how visual culture increases visibility for environmental causes.

Interested in postgraduate study? The Cabot Institute runs a unique Master’s by Research programme that offers a blend of in-depth research on a range of Global Environmental Challenges, with interdisciplinary cohort building and training. Find out more.

CAP should be replaced by a sustainable land-use policy

Posted on April 5, 2018April 4, 2023 by janet.crompton

Wheat harvest by Jim Choate

Whatever your thoughts about Brexit, one thing most agree on is that it offers an opportunity to rethink how we in the UK look after our agricultural land. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has long been a source of resentment. It accounts for 40% of the EU budget yet has systematically failed to address, in some cases even exacerbated, the biggest concerns in European agriculture. Unlike most transnational sectoral market correction schemes, even much of the general public are aware of its shortcomings.

CAP is formed of 2 pillars. Pillar 1, which accounts for the 70% money spent, is simply a payment for land owned. The more land you own, the more money you get. This promotes large-scale mono-cropping, and acts as a rigid barrier to entry for young would-be farmers. Pillar 2 makes up the rest of CAP’s budget and consists of agri-environment schemes. Whilst well intentioned, Pillar 2 promotes an agricultural divide, where some land is responsibly stewarded while other land is intensively farmed. It is not the most efficient or effective means of improving the state of our land.

Public money for public goods

Michael Gove made a lot of enemies whilst at the Department for Education. However, since being appointed Minister for the Environment, he appears to have bucked the trend of expert-bashing. The government’s 25 Year Green Plan talks a very good talk – it’s a re-affirmation of the government’s laudable aim of leaving the environment in a better state than they found it, following on from the Lawton principles – but fails to walk the walk. There is much rhetoric, but very little explanation as to how goals will be met.

One consistent theme is that of spending public money on public goods. What this means is that tax-payers money should only be used to pay for the goods and services which are ‘consumed’ but for which there is currently not market. It is a way of addressing the tragedy of the commons argument, whereby, in pursuit of personal gain, individuals neglect that which they rely on for that gain, to the detriment of all.

Lake District by Les Haines

The Lake District as we know it has been shaped by generations of upland sheep farming. This practise offers extremely marginal returns, but many would agree there is a huge (but hard to quantify) value to the landscape of the Lake District. Public money should be spent to support such farmers.

In a post-Brexit landscape, there will be many competing demands on the public purse. The challenge, then, is to find alternative sources with which to finance the provision of these services provided by natural ecosystems.

Payments for Ecosystem Services

It is exceptionally difficult to put a value on nature. A market is needed through which farmers can ‘sell’ the services the land they own is able to provide, and beneficiaries of these services can purchase them. In many cases, one service may be provided by many land-owners, a single piece of land may provide many services, and there may be many consumers of each of these services. Clearly, this represents a complicated market structure.

But we can’t shy away from the task. The West of England Nature Partnership, as well as Green Alliance and the National Trust, have conceptualised a system through which such transactions can take place. Functioning as a sort of Green Investment Bank, an institution will package the suggested provision of a consortium of land-owners (for instance, the planting of woodland) for sale to a consortium of buyers. This might include water companies who benefit from cleaner water, Wildlife Trusts with a remit of improving the local access to nature, and developers with a requirement to offset/mitigate the impacts of their development.

In a similar light, Wessex Water have an online platform via which farmers can bid for money in return for adopting more sustainable farming practices. This system directly reduces the cost of water purification for the Water Company, acts as an incentive for good practice to the landowner, and provides landscape and wildlife benefits for the local population – a win-win-win.
Clearly its easier to pay farmers per hectare of land owner. But with the growing demands placed on our environment, and an increasing understanding of our reliance on it, such a system as described here could radically alter the terminal decline of Britain’s natural capital.

————————
This blog was written by Matthew Whitney who is currently studying an MSc in Environmental Policy and Management at the University of Bristol.

Matthew Whitney

The EU, Brexit and nature conservation law

Posted on April 26, 2016April 13, 2023 by janet.crompton

In the lead up to the sold out Brexit debate at the University of Bristol on Friday 29 April 2016, we are posting some blogs from our Cabot Institute members outlining their thoughts on Brexit and potential implications for environmental research, environmental law and the environment.

The EU plays a fundamental role in shaping the environmental law regimes of its Member States and that of the UK is no exception. A significant proportion of current domestic environmental law derives from EU Regulations (that automatically become part of English law) and EU Directives (that are implemented through national legislation).

Nature conservation law, i.e. the legal regime used to protect environmentally significant habitats and species, is a case in point and the focus of this blog. Conserving nature is key not only from a purely biodiversity standpoint but also from an ‘ecosystem services’ perspective. Ecosystem services are the benefits nature brings to the environment and to people, including supporting services (e.g. nutrient cycling), provisioning services (e.g. food), regulating services (e.g. carbon capture) and cultural services (e.g. recreation).

Site designation and management is a favoured technique of nature conservation law. The well-known Natura 2000 network, would not be there if it were not for EU Directives, namely the Habitats (92/43/EEC) and Wild Birds Directives (2009/147/EC), implemented in the UK by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Under Article 3 of the Habitats Directive, Member States are indeed required to set up the Natura network composed of Special Areas of Conservation (sites hosting the natural habitat types listed in Annex I and habitats of the species listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive) and Special Protection Areas (sites for the protection of rare and vulnerable birds as listed in Annex I of the Wild Birds Directive and for regularly occurring migratory species).

Greenfinch by Mschulenburg – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0

In the UK, there are a substantial number of European protected sites: 652 Special Areas of Conservation (including candidate Special Areas of Conservation[1] and Sites of Community Importance[2]) and 270 Special Protection Areas, covering a total of 8,013,467 ha (JNCC statistics as of 28 January 2016).

Has the establishment of Natura 2000 made a difference to biodiversity protection?

As part of its Smart Regulation Policy, the Commission has initiated a fitness check of the Habitats and Wild Birds Directives to evaluate their effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and added value. Though the final Commission report on the results of the fitness check will be available only later this year, the draft emerging findings prepared by a consortium of experts do suggest that the Habitats and Wild Birds Directives have substantially contributed to the conservation of nature and to meeting the EU’s biodiversity target.

It is fair to note that, prior to the EU Directives on nature conservation, the UK did have its own system for habitat protection, most notably based on the designation of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). Introduced in the post-war period by the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, the law governing SSSIs has been strengthened over the decades by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, amended by Schedule 9 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. However, the management measures in place for SSSIs are not as stringent as those for the protection of Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas.

Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) were introduced in the post-war period in the UK to help manage habitat protection.

It is also fair to note that in the marine environment, the UK has taken important steps domestically: the passing of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 in England and Wales (and similar Acts in the devolved administrations) has brought in new domestic marine conservation zones that contribute to the establishment of an ecologically coherent network in UK waters. But the building of such a network is not so disentangled from EU law, considering Art 13(4) of the EU Marine Strategic Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) requires the formation of marine protected areas’ networks in the marine environments of Member States.

Clearly therefore, EU law has contributed much to the development of nature conservation in the UK. Moreover, being part of the EU means that the Commission can exercise its power to bring infringement proceedings against Member States for incomplete or ineffective implementation of EU law, thereby exercising an external check on implementation (for nature conservation, see Commission v UK, Case C-06/04 [2005] ECR I-9017).

What would Brexit mean for the future of nature conservation law?

What is unknown however is what would Brexit mean for the future of nature conservation law in the UK because much depends on the type of post-Brexit EU-UK relationship and the agreement that will be negotiated. However, it could be argued that compared to other environmental sectors (such as waste and water) nature conservation may be more at risk.

Indeed, even in the not-too-radical scenario in which the UK chooses to stay within the EEA, the future of nature conservation law will depend on whether there is political willingness to continue to abide by existing commitments, rather than legal obligations stemming from the EEA agreement. This is because, though the EEA agreement does contain many environmental provisions, nature conservation is excluded (Annex XX of the EEA agreement excludes the Habitats and Wild Birds Directive). Consequently, the future of nature conservation law is very uncertain in a post-Brexit world, even in the event of EEA membership.

[1] Candidate Special Areas of Conservation are sites that have been submitted to the European Commission, but not yet formally adopted.

[2] Sites of Community Importance are sites that have been adopted by the European Commission but not yet formally designated by the government of each country.

————————————————–

This blog has been written by Cabot Institute member Dr Margherita Pieraccini, a Lecturer in Law at the University of Bristol.