Eco Primate

Part 2: Rhinoceros Conservation: An introduction

2012-01-26T07:42:00.001-08:00

If you have not read part 1 of this article (which includes descriptions of the 5 species of Rhino) I would suggest a quick read, as the following article assumes prior knowledge of rhino species/distribution/characteristics etc.

Rhinos have been driven to near extinction – the world rhino population has fallen by more than 90 percent in the past 30 years. Whereas 30 species of rhino once roamed the planet, only five species remain today, and all of them are endangered. Conservation projects exist across Africa and Asia working desperately to conserve the rhino. The main threats faced by all species of rhino are poaching for their horns, habitat loss and as populations decrease; a reduction in genetic viability with inbreeding depression.

The pointless slaughter of a rhino from South Africa for it’s horns

The most abundant of all the rhino species is the southern white rhino (Ceratotherium simum simum) (classified as near threatened) with a population estimated to between 14,500 and 18,000. However, this hasn’t always been so, at the turn of the 20th century there were fewer than 200 individuals left in the wild as a direct result of extreme poaching and habitat destruction in South Africa during the 19th century. Thanks to conservationists and researchers the Southern white rhino abundance increased significantly and continues to do so today, which offers some limited hope for other rhino species whose population numbers have plummeted in recent years. The Northern white rhino (Ceratotherium simum cottoni) has potentially already become extinct in the wild with as few as 7 individuals left in captivity. A breeding program has begun in Kenya, with the hope of reintroducing the Northern white rhino back into the wild but with such a small population remaining the odds are slim. The black rhino (Diceros bicornis)is critically endangered and is found in Botswana, Kenya, Malawi, Namibia, Rwanda, S Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Black rhino numbers have increased over the last 7 years from about 2,500 to about 4,200 as a direct result of conservation efforts by groups such as the International Rhino Foundation, however, they still remain critically endangered. Of the 4 subspecies of black rhino the Western black rhino (Diceros bicornis longipes) was declared extinct in 2011. Like all rhino they were heavily hunted during the early 20th century, however, the population began to grow in the 1930′s due to conservation work, but due to a lack of management, protection lapsed over the latter half of the century, by the 1980′s the population was down to the hundreds and with increased poaching by 2000 an estimated 10 individuals remained in Northern Cameroon. Poaching and the failure of governments and agencies led to the demise of the western black rhino and as there are no known individuals in captivity this sub-species may well be gone forever.

The following graph illustrates rhino population estimates in South Africa since 1993:

As you can see from the graph the white rhino as discussed earlier has increased significantly in population size whereas the black rhino is a far more gradual process.

The Indian Rhino (AKA greater one horned) is classified as vulnerable and (Rhinoceros unicornis) like the Southern white rhino is another success story in regards to the power of proper conservation measures and Government co-operation in bringing species back from the edge. In the early 20th century the population was estimated to be fewer than 200, however with strict co-operation coming from the Indian and Nepalese wildlife authorities the population has increased to approximately 2,850 today. However as we have seen with the Western black rhino and other animal species in the past a recovery today does not mean that the species is out of danger, as the recovery is still precarious without continued and increased support.

The video below shows one success (and the determination) of the rhino anti-poacher patrols in Kaziranga National Park, India:

The Javan rhino (Rhinoceros sondaicus) is critically endangered and is only known to be found within Indonesia’s Ujung Kulon National Park in west Java after the other population found within Vietnam (sub-species: Rhinoceros sondaicus annamiticus) became extinct when the last one was shot by a poacher in 2010. It is the rarest of all rhino species with only 27-44 individuals remaining. They are guarded 24 hours a day by armed Rhino Protection Units which when combined with establishing a second population of the species is the best hope of preventing this species from going extinct. The IUCN Asian Rhino Specialist Group recommended that the “Vietnamese” Javan rhinos should be bred with the “Indonesian” Javan rhinos to try to increase the species’ population and to preserve genetic diversity. Unfortunately, politics got in the way of saving the Vietnamese populaiton. The government of Vietnam would have to had given permission for the rhinos to be captured and translocated to another country, or the Indonesian government permission to transfer rhinos to Vietnam. Neither government was willing to do this, which is why intergovernmental co-operations is essential to conservation practices on a global scale. Politics should not be a barrier to conservation efforts! Loss of habitat, especially as the result of wars, such as the Vietnam War, in Southeast Asia, has also contributed to the species’s decline and hindered recovery

The Sumatran rhino (Dicerorhinus sumatrensis) is critically endangered and is declining faster than any other rhino species as a direct result of poaching. Population numbers have decreased by more than 50% over the last 20 years, with fewer than 200 remaining. Indonesia and Sabah, Malaysia hold the only significant populations. Sumatran rhinos exist only is protected areas where they are physically guarded from harm by Rhino Protection Units. Between 12 and 25 animals remain in Sabah, Malaysia. The remainder of the population lives in three Indonesian National Parks in Sumatra: Gunung Leuser, Way Kambas, and Bukit Barisan Selatan.

The demand for rhino horn for use in Chinese medicine (not just in china but throughout Asia) is increasing and with that comes a higher price for the rhino horn and thus an increase in poaching. More than 400 rhinos were lost in south africa last year and the number has been increasing each year. The graph below illustrates the rise in rhino poaching in south africa in over the last 11 years:

In Traditional Chinese Medicine, the horn, which is shaved or ground into a powder and dissolved in boiling water, is used to treat fever, rheumatism, gout, and other disorders. According to the 16th century Chinese pharmacist Li Shi Chen, the horn could also cure snakebites, hallucinations, typhoid, headaches, carbuncles, vomiting, food poisoning, and “devil possession.” (However, it is not, as commonly believed, prescribed as an aphrodisiac).

Historical mentions of other uses for the horns date back thousands of years. In Greek mythology, they were said to possess the ability to purify water. The ancient Persians of the 5th century BC thought that vessels carved from the horn could be used to detect poisoned liquids, causing bubbles in the presence of some poisons — a belief that persisted into the 18th and 19th centuries among the royal courts of Europe.

Modern science has more or less disproved many of the supposed uses of rhino horn in medicine and indeed come up with modern medical alternatives which are far more effective at curing the aforementioned conditions.

If the remaining species of rhino are to survive beyond the next century an increase in education about rhinos and the supposed medicinal use of the horn is necessary along with increased funds for anti poaching patrols, tougher sentences on poachers and an increase in suitable habitat, particularly for the Asian species.

Part 1: Rhinoceros Conservation: An introduction

2012-01-24T09:30:00.001-08:00

This article will be written in two parts; the first part introduces you to the various species of rhino and their characteristics; the second part will go into more detail about the conservation of the rhino. The second part will be completed shortly.

There are five species of rhino, of which, 3 are found in Asia and two are found in Africa.

Newborn white rhinoceros

Their scientific classification is as follows:

Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Class:	Mammalia
Infraclass:	Eutheria
Order:	Perissodactyla
Suborder:	Ceratomorpha
Superfamily:	Rhinocerotoidea
Family:	Rhinocerotidae

The two species native to Africa are Ceratotherium simum (white rhino) and Diceros bicornis (black rhino or hook-lipped rhino). From these two species we get a further six subspecies, two white rhino sub species; Ceratotherium simum simum (Southern whiterhino) and Ceratotherium simum cottoni (Northern white rhino). The black rhino has four sub species; Diceros bicornis minor (south-central black rhino), Diceros bicornis bicornis(South-Western black rhino), Diceros bicornis michaeli (East African black rhino) and Diceros bicornis longipes (West African black rhino). The three species native to Asia are Rhinoceros unicornis (the Indian or Greater one horned rhinoceros), Rhinoceros sondaicus (Javan rhinoceros) and Dicerorhinus sumatrensis (Sumatran rhinoceros).

The Indian Rhinoceros

White Rhinoceros:

Distribution:

Weight: Varies, but can exceed 3,500 Kg
Size: Length 3.5m-4.6m and a height of 1.8m-2m
Horns: 2 on the snout, front horn is larger and averages 90 cm in length but can reach 1.5m
Around 11,330 left in the wild
Distinguishing characteristics:

Black Rhinoceros:

Distribution:

Weight: 850kg-1,600kg
Size: Length 3.5m-3.9m and a height of 1.5m-1.75m
Horns: 2 on the snout, front horn is larger and averages 50 cm in length but can reach 1.4m. Rarely a third horn will develop.
Around 3,610 left in the wild
Distinguishing characteristics:

Indian rhinoceros:

Distribution:

Weight: 2,500kg-3200kg (Females around 1900kg)
Size: Length 3.5m-3.9m and a height of 1.75m-2m
Horns: Single horn at a size of 20cm-60cm
Around 2500 left in the wild
Distinguishing characteristics:

Javan rhinoceros:

Distribution:

Weight: 900kg-1400kg and 1,360kg-2000kg (various reports of weights due to rarity)
Size: Length 3.1m-3.2m and a height of 1.5m-1.7
Horns: Single horn at a size of up to 26cm in females no horn present or small nodule
Less than 70 left in the wild with estimates of 27-44: it is believed the last one in Vietnam was poached in 2010.
Distinguishing characteristics:

Sumatran Rhinoceros:

Distribution:

Weight: around 700kg
Size: Length 2.4m-3.15m and a height of around 1.3m
Horns: Two horns with the front being the largest 25-79cm. The males have significantly larger horns than the females.
Around 300 left in the wild
Distinguishing characteristics:

REDD: Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation

2012-01-21T02:15:00.001-08:00

I have been receiving a fair few questions of late about REDD and decided a blog entry was in order to answer many of the basic questions about the program and what it stands for. This article is only going to serve as a basic introduction to the UN-REDD program and REDD+, I will go into more detail in a future post.

“The UN-REDD Programme is the United Nations Collaborative initiative on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) in developing countries. The Programme was launched in September 2008 to assist developing countries prepare and implement national REDD+ strategies, and builds on the convening power and expertise of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).”

Excerpt from the UN-REDD Programme website

Deforestation and forest degradation are listed separately from one another so it is important that we know what we mean by the two terms and why they are indeed different from one another. Deforestation is the permanent removal of trees from an area and the removal of that land from forest use, whereas forest degradation is caused through activities that limit the forests overall productivity. Agricultural expansion, conversion to pastureland, infrastructure development, destructive logging, fires etc., are all examples of activities that are causing deforestation and degradation with the result being nearly 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions being produced. 20% is more than the entire global transport sectors emission and is only seconded by the energy sector. Due to the large volume of greenhouse gasses being produced by deforestation and degradation it is impossible to start addressing global greenhouse gases without reducing the forest sectors output. REDD+ is the current answer to this problem by attempting to offer a financial incentive for the carbon locked away in forests as well as trying to encourage developing nations in particular to reduce emissions from their forests and focus on sustainable development. REDD+ also encourages nations financially to improve their forest lands through sustainable management and increasing forest areas.

REDD+ has the potential through the cutting of greenhouse gases to supply developing nations with up to $30 billion per year which can then be put into developing that nations infrastructure and making it a more sustainable economy where being greener and focussing on the sustainable management of their forests is the ticket to financial stability rather than having to pillage their own natural resources for a lesser reward.

The [UN-REDD] Programme currently supports 42 partner countries spanning Africa, Asia-Pacific and Latin America, of which 14 are receiving support to National Programme activities. These 14 countries are: Bolivia, Cambodia, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Ecuador, Indonesia, Nigeria, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, the Philippines, Solomon Islands, Tanzania, Viet Nam and Zambia. To-date, the UN-REDD Programme’s Policy Board has approved a total of US$59.3 million for National Programmes in these 14 partner countries. These funds help to support the development and implementation of national REDD+ strategies.

What is the difference between REDD+ and the UN-REDD Programme?

REDD+ is a climate change mitigation solution that many initiatives, including the UN-REDD Programme, are currently developing and supporting. Other multilateral REDD+ initiatives include the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility(FCPF) and Forest Investment Program (FIP), hosted by The World Bank.

As you can see this topic is one that increases the questions you might have as you begin to explain it which is why I am leaving this article here as a basic introduction. I will go into more detail in a later post.

Grasslands: A global conservation priority

2012-01-18T09:26:00.000-08:00

For the average person who is perhaps not so well read in conservation/ecology they would be forgiven for wondering why grasslands? Just a general survey of my neighbours finds many are aware of rainforests as biodiversity hotspots, but when I mention temperate grasslands as also being of great importance the usual response is a complete lack of knowledge as to why. I intend with this brief article to give you, the reader, a grasp of the importance of grasslands and why they are a global conservation priority.

Photograph taken by Dennis Linghor: accessed from the American Prairie Foundation’s website

To clarify when I use the term grasslands in this article I am referring to temperate grassland which is a biome (A large naturally occurring community of flora and fauna occupying a major habitat) whose predominant vegetation consists of grasses and/ or shrubs where the climate is temperate and semi-arid to semi-humid.

Temperate grasslands were one of the world’s greatest biomes in their natural form, however, after centuries of man altering their composition through agriculture, nutrient run off, pollution, introduction of invasive plant species and removal of the land for roads/construction, this type of habitat in its original form has become one of the most endangered of all habitat types. Temperate grasslands cover 9 million sq.km (8% of the Earth’s terrestrial surface) of which 5% is now protected.

It has taken a long time for temperate grasslands to hit the mainstream conservation arena due largely to the habitat being greatly undervalued and largely misunderstood. The Northern Great Plains of North America, the pampas and campos of South America, the Kazakh steppe and the Daurian steppe and Amur River Basin of eastern Mongolia, China and Russia are the primary areas holding some of the largest areas of temperate grassland in the world. Temperate grassland exists on every continent bar Antarctica however it is also the rarest habitat type in it’s natural form on nearly every one of them especially in the Great Plains of North America, the pampas and campos of South America, the lowland grasslands of south-east Australia and the steppes of eastern Europe (see The World’s temperate grasslands map). In these regions conservation groups are working hard to try to conserve and increase this habitat, one such group The American Prairie Foundation is working hard to conserve the great plains in North America, their mission is to “…create and manage a prairie-based wildlife reserve that, when combined with public lands already devoted to wildlife, will protect a unique natural habitat, provide lasting economic benefits and improve public access to and enjoyment of the prairie landscape.” Many species of temperate grasses, including corn, wheat, rice and oats, continue to be a foundation of the world’s food supply. From a conservation perspective this productivity has come at a significant cost. Grasslands in temperate latitudes have been modified by human activity to such a degree that little remains today in a natural state – and substantially less in some form of long-term protection.

Grasslands are important habitats for many plant and animal species, including many that have now become rare or extinct due to a loss and fragmentation of this habitat type. They are indeed a rarer ecosystem than rainforests yet have only recently had their importance realised. They are in their natural state a highly biodiverse ecosystem which has a great conservation and economical value attached to it. With many Governments pledging to increase the biodiversity levels of their countries temperate grassland habitat has to be a priority for conservation the planet over.

Find below a youtube video with some information and photographs of temperate grassland in North America AKA prairies:

Can you guess what this image is of?

2012-01-18T07:47:00.001-08:00

Clue: It was taken through a microscope at 110-250X magnification

Agroforestry: Fight climate change, poverty and conserve at the same time

2012-01-15T10:51:00.000-08:00

Agroforestry: "Agriculture incorporating the cultivation and conservation of trees"

We are all aware of the current threats that climate change, poverty, intensification of food production and increasing energy demand are causing along with their effects upon land use. However, there is little integration or cohesion in practice, policy or projection;

the rush to produce biofuels and biomass for energy has created a "food or fuel" conflict;
the likelihood of further intensification of land use threatens the gains recently made in agricultural biodiversity;
the need to use land for carbon sequestration could reduce capacity for food production
whilst the fact that creating systems of land use which are adaptable and robust in the face of climate change will require radical changes is barely acknowledged in mainstream thinking.

Agroforestry is one practice that can integrate methods for food, energy and water production as well as carbon sequestration and a means to increase biodiversity. The land use system integrates trees and shrubs with crops and/or livestock production with the potential to also incorporate energy production (wind + solar). It builds on the idea of ecological design to optimise beneficial interactions between the various compartments on the land i.e. the use of nitrogen fixing tree species to aid in the nitrification of the soil which is beneficial to crop production etc.

These interactions can lead to higher productivity compared to conventional monocultural systems, and provide a wide range of ecosystem services including soil management, microclimate modification, weed control, natural fencing, carbon sequestration and nutrient recycling.

Agroforestry comes in four main types:

Silvopasture: combines livestock grazing on forage crops or pasture within actively managed tree or shrub crops.
Silvoarable: mixes trees amongst arable or horticultural crops
Forest Farming: also known as 'shade systems', is the sustainable, integrated cultivation of both timber and non-timber forest products in a forest setting.
Forest Gardening: is a food production and land management system based on woodland ecosystems, but substituting trees (such as fruit or nut trees), bushes, shrubs, herbs and vegetables which have yields directly useful to humans.

Potential impacts for humans of agroforestry can include:

Reducing poverty through increased production of agroforestry products for home consumption and sale
Contributing to food security by restoring farm soil fertility for food crops and production of fruits, nuts and edible oils
Reducing deforestation and pressure on woodlands by providing fuelwood grown on farms
Increasing diversity of on-farm tree crops and tree cover to buffer farmers against the effects of global climate change
Improving nutrition to lessen the impacts of hunger and chronic illness associated with HIV/AIDS
Augmenting accessibility to medicinal trees, the main source of medication for 80% of Africa's population

Agroforestry practices may also be employed to realize a number of other associated environmental aims, such as:

Carbon sequestration
Odour, dust, and noise reduction
Waste water or manure management (e.g. utilizing urban waste water on intensive, short rotation forests for wood fibre production)
Green space and visual aesthetics.
Enhancement or maintenance of wildlife habitat.

Find below a video of a forest garden project being used as a model for resilient local food growing

Environmental Law and Construction in the UK

2012-01-14T05:41:00.000-08:00

By Paul Michael Reynolds

Note: I wrote part of this article during my first year of my undergraduate degree (2006), and the pictures were added for the purposes of this blog article.

1.0 Introduction

The following report outlines the possible impacts upon building developments (and other areas) where flora, fauna and habitats which are protected by both UK and European law are present. The report will explain how these various laws are implemented in the UK and how they must be taken into consideration along with relevant case law when local authorities consider planning applications. One must be careful to observe the law in full so to ensure that neither UK nor European law is violated. All proposed sites of development must be assessed to ensure they do not conflict with any laws safeguarding flora, fauna and habitats.

2.0 Legislation concerning the conservation of flora and fauna

2.1 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

This Act consolidated and amended existing UK legislation so to implement the Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora as well as Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds.

According to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Section 1 paragraph 1-

(1)Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person intentionally—

(a)kills, injures or takes any wild bird;

(b)takes, damages or destroys the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use or being built; or

(c)takes or destroys an egg of any wild bird,

he shall be guilty of an offence.

Therefore if a nest should be found at the site to which the property is to be developed it is against the law to move the nest and it may be necessary to halt development or suspend granting of a planning application until the nest is no longer in use. Paragraph 5 of Section 1 states-

(5)Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person intentionally—

(a)disturbs any wild bird included in Schedule 1 while it is building a nest or is in, on or near a nest containing eggs or young; or

(b)disturbs dependent young of such a bird,

he shall be guilty of an offence

Thus it is important that the site is inspected by a relevant body to ensure that there are no nesting birds within the proposed development site or within a distance of the site that heavy construction may cause a disturbance to the nesting bird so to ensure one is not in violation of the law.

In Section 9 paragraph 4 it states-

4)Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person intentionally

(a)damages or destroys, or obstructs access to, any structure or place which any wild animal included in Schedule 5 uses for shelter or protection; or

(b)disturbs any such animal while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for that purpose,

he shall be guilty of an offence.

Thus if the site of development has any other wild animals present which are listed in Schedule 5 it would be against the law to disturb the animal or damage its route in or out of the area so the relevant body (Natural England/ DEFRA) must be contacted for advice in removing or dealing with the animals in such a way that complies with Section 9 paragraph 4.

One must also be aware of the flora present at the development site as according to section 13 paragraph 1-

13 Protection of wild plants

(1)Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person—

(a)intentionally picks, uproots or destroys any wild plant included in Schedule 8; or

(b)not being an authorised person, intentionally uproots any wild plant not included in that Schedule,

he shall be guilty of an offence.

There have been cases of people being prosecuted for violating this Act I shall refer to-

Natural England v. Talyor Woodrow development limited [2007]

Where a development site in Essex had destroyed a place of habitation for the Great Crested Newt which are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as well as section 39 of Habitat Regulations 1994. The developer was found guilty.

2.2 Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (c. 51)

The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 ensures the protection of Badgers and their setts so for planning purposes it is important to ensure the proposed site is free of occupied badger setts so not to conflict with the law. The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 section 3 states-

3 Interfering with badger setts

A person is guilty of an offence if, except as permitted by or under this Act, he interferes with a badger sett by doing any of the following things—

(a) damaging a badger sett or any part of it;

(b) destroying a badger sett;

(c) obstructing access to, or any entrance of, a badger sett;

(d) causing a dog to enter a badger sett; or

(e) disturbing a badger when it is occupying a badger sett,

intending to do any of those things or being reckless as to whether his actions would have any of those consequences.

Thus it is important so not to conflict with the law that the proper persons check the proposed site and if there are badgers present occupying sets that they are either left until they occupy the sets no longer or a licence is granted for the removal/translocation of the badger set from the appropriate body as stated in section 10 of The Protection of Badgers Act 1992-.

(1) A licence may be granted to any person by the appropriate Conservancy Council authorising him, notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Act, but subject to compliance with any conditions specified in the licence—

(a) for scientific or educational purposes or for the conservation of badgers—

(i) to kill or take, within an area specified in the licence by any means so specified, or to sell, or to have in his possession, any number of badgers so specified; or

(ii) to interfere with any badger sett within an area specified in the licence by any means so specified;

(b) for the purpose of any zoological gardens or collection specified in the licence, to take within an area specified in the licence by any means so specified, or to sell, or to have in his possession, any number of badgers so specified;

(c) for the purpose of ringing and marking, to take badgers within an area specified in the licence, to mark such badgers or to attach to them any ring, tag or other marking device as specified in the licence;

(d) for the purpose of any development as defined in section 55(1) of the [1990 c. 8.] Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or, as respects Scotland, section 19(1) of the [1972 c. 52.] Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972, to interfere with a badger sett within an area specified in the licence by any means so specified;

(e) for the purpose of the preservation, or archaeological investigation, of a monument scheduled under section 1 of the [1979 c. 46.] Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, to interfere with a badger sett within an area specified in the licence by any means so specified;

(f) for the purpose of investigating whether any offence has been committed or gathering evidence in connection with proceedings before any court, to interfere with a badger sett within an area specified in the licence by any means so specified.

People have been prosecuted for violating the law in regards to the protection of badger sets I refer to-

David Green, Ian Reynolds, David Rowbotham and Martin George Trench v. Stip Stipendiary Magistrate for the County of Lincolnshire [2000] Env LR 295.

This case looked at what the definition of a badger sett actually is and ruled that a badger sett did not include the area up to and including surface area above the systems of tunnels and chambers that make up the badger sett. (Rees, P, 2002)

3.0 Legislation concerning the environment

3.1 Environment Act 1995 (c. 25)

Some hedgerows are protected under section 97 of the Environment Act 1995 thus before any removal or modification to existing hedgerows it is important that the appropriate bodies are contacted prior to any decision being made as stated in section 97 paragraph 6 -

(6)Before making any regulations under this section the appropriate Ministers shall consult—

(a)such bodies appearing to them to be representative of persons whose business interests are likely to be affected by the proposed regulations,

(b)such bodies appearing to them to be representative of the interests of owners or occupiers of land,

(c)such bodies appearing to them to be representative of the interests of local authorities,

(d)such bodies whose statutory functions include the provision to Ministers of the Crown of advice concerning matters relating to environmental conservation, and

(e)such bodies not falling within paragraphs (a) to (d) above,

as the appropriate Ministers may consider appropriate.

In this case being England the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would be consulted.

The Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora caused member states to implement Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs) as to maintain habitat diversity. In the UK The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 transposes Council Directive 92/43/EEC into UK national law and was implemented in 1994 and was amended in 1997 and 2000 with additional species and habitats added. All species listed in Annexes I and II of the Habitats Directive are protected by both national and European law thus development is subject to assessment by the local authority to ensure it does not conflict with the habitat and/or the protected species present. The areas which have this classification are usually natural or semi natural habitats which are in decline or contain species deemed in need of protection such as certain woodlands, meadows or wetlands.

Taiji Cove Dolphin Hunt

2012-01-13T09:21:00.000-08:00

This blog entry is essentially a collection of various pieces of information about the Taiji Cove dolphin hunt including videos and links to further information.

For those of you who are unaware of Taji Cove, what it is? Where it is? And finally what the controversy is about let me start off with a brief summary:

Taiji (太地町) is a town located in Higashimuro District, Wakayama, Japan.
Taiji has been well known as a whaling town and is considered as the birth place of Japan's modern whaling method. Taiji's annual dolphin hunt is the subject of continued pressure by protest groups
The dolphin drive hunt takes place every year from September to April. According to the Japanese Fisheries Research Agency, 1,623 dolphins were caught in Wakayama Prefecture in 2007 for human consumption or resale to dolphinariums, and most of these were caught at Taiji. The annual dolphin hunting provides income for local residents, but has received international criticism for both the cruelty of the dolphin killing and the high mercury levels of the dolphin meat.

Below is youtube video taking from the hunt in January 2011: it does contain graphic scenes of the senseless killing of dolphins:

Please sign the petition at the link below "The Cove: Help Save Japan's Dolphins"

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/724/210/624/

A documentary film has been made about the hunt by activists who actively campaign to try stop and disrupt the annual hunt, it is called "The Cove" (winner of the Academy Award for Best Documentary). A extended clip from the film can be viewed below:

The film can be purchased from Amazon.co.uk (or your countries domain) at http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cove-DVD-Louie-Psihoyos/dp/B002UEX132

There are several key players who actively take part in campaigning against the hunt as well as campaigning for marine conservation in other areas the following links lead to their websites:

You can also follow on Twitter:

@SeaShepherd
@OmarSeaShepherd
@seashepherd_uk
@SJDolphins
@Oceana

Alexander Pope's Epistles to Several Persons

2012-01-06T10:05:00.000-08:00

The following is two verses from Alexander Pope's Epistles to Several Persons: Epistle IV 1731.

These verses are my favourite of any piece of literature due to their relevance to ecology and life today the line " In all, let Nature never be forgot." should be inscribed on every single page of planning legislation the world over. A beautiful piece of work in it's entirety however I have posted just my two favourite verses for their relevance as it is a long piece of work.

"To build, to plant, whatever you intend,

To rear the column, or the arch to bend,

To swell the terrace, or to sink the grot;

In all, let Nature never be forgot.

But treat the goddess like a modest fair,

Nor overdress, nor leave her wholly bare;

Let not each beauty ev'rywhere be spied,

Where half the skill is decently to hide.

He gains all points, who pleasingly confounds,

Surprises, varies, and conceals the bounds.

Consult the genius of the place in all;

That tells the waters or to rise, or fall;

Or helps th' ambitious hill the heav'ns to scale,

Or scoops in circling theatres the vale;

Calls in the country, catches opening glades,

Joins willing woods, and varies shades from shades,

Now breaks, or now directs, th' intending lines;

Paints as you plant, and, as you work, designs."

The landscape, ecology a future of Slapton Ley

2012-01-04T06:22:00.000-08:00

Slapton Ley National Nature Reserve is a 214 Ha site which includes the largest natural lake in South-West England, Slapton Ley. It is managed by the Field Studies Council (FSC) alongside Whitley Wildlife Conservation Trust, Natural England (NE) and South Hams District Council. The site holds two designations the first being as a Site for Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and the second designation as a National Nature Reserve (NNR). The site consists of a diverse range of habitat which includes open water, sea shore, woodland, shingle ridge, wetlands, grassland, headlands and cliffs (Trudgill et al. 1996). Figure 1 illustrates the general layout of the nature reserve.

Figure 1 Map of Slapton Ley NNR

(Unknown 2010)

The landscape of Slapton Ley NNR

The key feature in the landscape of Slapton Ley NNR is the Ley itself and is effectively split into two parts, the upper and lower Ley. The lower Ley being the largest open water area is about 1 ^½Miles long with the upper Ley being more or less completely filled in with silt which supports areas of reed swamp and carr woodland (Benson-Evans et al 1967). The Ley although situated right on the coast is fresh water and acts as a sink for surrounding streams including the River Gara (Mercer, I.D.,1966). These inflows of freshwater along with direct rainfall maintain water levels in the ley and on occasion cause it to overflow, with rainfall being the biggest factor in the variation of the depth of the Ley over the year (Benson-Evans et al 1967). The NNR is broken up into approximately 43Ha of Woodland, 98Ha of freshwater habitats, 34Ha of Shingle and what’s left of the 214Ha site is made up of fields (Brookes & Burns 1969). The woodland is fragmented in and around Slapton Ley NNR and as Figure 1 illustrates there are three main areas of woodland: Slapton Wood, France Wood and Hartshorn Plantation. Slapton Wood has a small tributary of the River Gara known as the Slapton Wood Stream running through it and the woodland is classed in part as ancient woodland with no evidence of it having been agricultural land at any point (Mercer 1966). Slapton Wood is dominated by Quercus robur (Pedunculate Oak), Castanea sativa (Sweet Chestnut) and Fagus sylvatica (European Beech). France wood used to be agricultural land pre 19^th Century as maps from the 18^th Century clearly show no woodland and only fields in this area. The wood is dominated by Quercus robur (Pedunculate Oak), Castanea sativa (Sweet Chestnut) and Carpinus betulus (European Hornbeam). Hartshorn Planation is dominated by Pinus sylvestris (Scots Pine) and Acer pseudoplatanus (Sycamore).

The fields found in and around Slapton Ley NNR are used for arable and livestock farming with some partaking in various Agri-Environment schemes. These schemes are voluntary on the farmer’s behalf but promote sound environmental practices which then allow the farmer to be paid for doing so. The main schemes come in two modern forms as Entry Level Stewardship and then Higher Level Stewardship with two main older types Countryside Stewardship Scheme and Environmentally sensitive areas (ESA). The Countryside Stewardship Scheme was replaced by the higher and lower level schemes however those who signed up to the original scheme still operate under it until it expires. One of the farms right next to the Slapton Ley Field centre is on this scheme which expires shortly and as a result receives payments for using environmentally sound methods such as set aside, leaving field margins unmanaged and actively promoting wildlife within the farmland itself (Little etal 1998). This particular farm achieves the promotion of wildlife by encouraging Emberiza cirlus (Cirl Buntings) on the land through the use of set-aside, leaving field margins to grow, and the use of mixed farming i.e. a mixture of arable and livestock farming. The farm also works alongside the Slapton Ley FSC Study Centre to aid in the education of students and enthusiasts alike in conservation and good farming practice.

A view of the ley

The landscape of Slapton Ley and its surrounding areas has changed throughout the centuries as has the demands that man has put on the area. It appears from various studies that man began to turn woodland in the Slapton Area into farmland during the mediaeval period (Foster, et al 2000) and gradually began to intensify in agricultural use over the centuries. During the mediaeval period field sizes were generally large and open however were worked or rather rented in small strips by farmers (Titow 1965) who worked a particular strip of land with live stock usually being communally grazed by commoners on common land (Titow 1965) as we progress through the centuries and the old mediaeval feudal manorial system becomes extinct, farmers begin to own their own fields and further intensify production in fields.

Shooting ahead to the early to mid 20^th century and farmers begin to focus on single products for a field focussing on productivity and getting the absolute most out of each field (Leeuwis 2004) with little regard for the environmental consequences of such actions which has led to the decline of a number of species such as the aforementioned Emberiza cirlus.

This intensification during the 20^th century led to a massive increase in the use of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides which have seriously affected and altered the ecology of areas such as Slapton Ley over the years however, with the introduction of Agri-Environmental laws and policies to attempt to curb the environmental decline and indeed reverse it things have taken a turn for the better in and around Slapton Ley NNR as farms which have signed up to various agri-environmental schemes have increased the conservation function and value of their land.

The Ecology of Slapton Ley NNR

Slapton Ley NNR with its Mosaic of habitats from wetland to woodland to grassland and shingle is home to a variety of model ecosystems. Slapton Ley NNR is also home to a variety of rare species such as Emberiza cirlus (Cirl Bunting), Trifolium scabrum (Rough Clover), Muscardinus avellanarinus (Hazel Dormouse) and Corrigiola litoralis (Strapwort).

Slapton Ley: view from the sea

The Slapton Sands Shingle Ridge (see Fig 1) is an area of ecological interest to many due to its proximity to both the ocean and the ley which provides a unique and rich habitat for a variety of rare plant species. T.Scabrum was rarely found on the shingle ridge pre 1971 but after management was carried out to prevent cars parking on the ridge as well as sealing off area of vegetation on the shingle ridge it has since become established (Burns 1996). Another species T.striatum (Knotted Clover) was absent pre the beginning of management in 1971 and is now classed as “occasional” in abundance on the ridge (Burns 1996). The shingle ridge that was once fairly devoid of vegetation due to mismanagement is now mostly covered in vegetation and requires both scrub management and mowing to help maintain the botanical value of the ridge (Burns 1996).

Strapwort in flower

The ley itself is home to a diverse range of flora and fauna both within the ley and around it. Around the ley the rare plant C.littoralis can be found although its distribution was very localised around the ley as a result of scrub encroachment and the restriction of cattle around the ley itself (Burns 1996) it is now increasing in abundance thanks to efforts by Natural England and the management team (plus Kew Gardens for providing seeds) and it is hoped the abundance will increase further in the coming years (Burns 1996). Both Lustra lustra (European Otter) and Neovison vison (American Mink) are found in and around the Ley. Studies on the prey of both species by Riley (1996) show that while L.lutra take Cyprinids, Eel, Perch and Pike, N.vison is responsible for taking a majority of lagomorphs, Rodentia and birds. Myotis daubentonii (Daubenton’s Bat) are regularly found skimming food off of the ley surface along with about 7 other bat species recorded at the NNR itself (Riley 1996) including a roost of the rare Rhinolophus ferrumequinum (Greater Horseshoe bat) found within the Slapton Village.

Greater horseshoe bat

Within the woodland and grassland areas a variety of mammal species have been recorded including Vulpes vulpes (Red fox), Myodes glareolus (Bank Vole), Microtus agrestis (Field Vole), Microtus arvalis (Common Vole), Micromys minutes (Harvest Mouse), Apodemus sylvaticus (Wood Mouse), Lepus europaeus (European Hare), Meles meles (European Badger) and various Artiodactyla species.

Slapton Ley NNR is home to four species of amphibian and four species of reptile. This includes Lissotriton helveticus (Palmate Newt), Lissotriton vulgaris (Common Newt), Natrix natrix (Grass-snake), Zootoca vivipara (Common Lizard), Vipera berus (Adder) and Anguis fragilis (Slow worm) (Riley 1996).

Grass snake hunting by a pool of water

Both freshwater and terrestrial invertebrates abound at Slapton Ley NNR, however research is lacking on the freshwater invertebrates (Riley 1996).

Lepidoptera have been extensively studied at Slapton Ley due to their abundance in both the south of England as well as at the Nature Reserve itself (Riley 1996). A new species of Millipede was discovered in Slapton Wood by Gregory et al (1993).

The Future of Slapton Ley NNR

The future of Slapton Ley NNR is based around future policy both local and national in regards to conservation and planning as well as changes in the climate as a result of climate change.

Areas of consideration for both present and future scenarios relate to the impact of tourism on the NNR, sea level rise, pollution, management and maintaining biodiversity on the site.

There are problems and concerns for the future in regards to the intensification of farming in the area which can both result in a reduction of biodiversity as well as the current and future problem with nutrient leaching into the wetland areas, in particular the Slapton Ley. Trudgill et al (1991) talks about the problems associated with nutrient leeching into the wetlands of the Slapton ley NNR and the end result in increasing Hypertrophy within the ley itself. The River Gara which flows into the Ley has a catchment area that consists mostly of intensively farmed land which has free draining soils and banks which often have steep slopes which increases the problem of nitrates leaching into the water (Burt et al 1988). According to Trudgill (1996) the Slapton Ley conservation priorities for the future include the maintenance of the aquatic habitats to prevent pollution and water level change, to maintain and increase the populations of rare species, to maintain biodiversity for both flora and fauna, to maintain public rights of way, to maintain good relations with neighbours and to control succession at a favourable level.

As pressure on farmers increases as a result of Government policies and market changes there will be an increased need for farmers to either intensify on their land or diversify their practice/business which may come into conflict with conservation priorities for the area. The Agri-environmental schemes run by Natural England and funded by the UK Government and European Union which encourage farmers and also make it financially possible for them to use more environmentally sound methods for farming at their current state run until 2013 (Natural England 2009) and after that it will be up to the relevant authorities on how and if it is to be funded from there onwards or if new schemes will be created and implemented.

The future of these schemes, climate change and the intensification of farming will have a direct impact on the future management of Slapton Ley NNR.

References

Benson-Evans, K, Fisk, D, Pickup, G & Davies, P.,1967.The Natural History of Slapton Ley Nature Reserve II:Preliminary Studies on the freshwater Algae. Field Studies, 2,pp.493-519

Brookes,B.S & Burns,A.,1969.The Natural History of Slapton Ley Nature Reserve III: The Flowering Plants And Ferns. Field Studies, 3(1),pp.125-157

Burns,A.,1996.The Vascular Plants:An update.Field Studies,8.pp.663-664

Burt, T.P, et al.,1988.Stream Nitrate levels in a small catchment in South West England over a period of 15 years (1970-1985).Hydrological Processes,2,pp.267-284

Foster,I.D.L.,et al.,2000. Evidence for Mediaeval soil erosion in the South Hams region of Devon, UK.The Holocene,10(2), pp.261-271

Gregory,S.et al.,1993.A new species of Millipede (Myriapoda:Diplopoda:Chordcumatida) from the British Isles.Journal of Natural History.28.pp.47-52

Leeuwis.C.,2004. Communication for Rural Innovation Rethinking Agricultural Extension.3^rd Ed.Oxford.Blackwell Science

Little, W, Short, C, Curry, N,Carey, P & Finch, C., 1998 Monitoring and Evaluation of the Countryside Stewardship Scheme: Methodology Report. Report by ADAS, CCRU and CEH to Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. MAFF: London

Mercer, I.D.,1966.The Natural History of Slapton Ley Nature Reserve. Field Studies,2(3), pp.385-405

Morey,C.R.,1976.The Natural History of Slapton Ley Nature Reserve.Field Studies,4,pp.353-368

Natural England.,2009.Agri-Environment Schemes in England 2009: A review of results and effectiveness.London.Natural England.

Riley.C.,1996.Mamals and Other animals.Field Studies,8.pp.665-676

Titow,J.Z.,1965.Mediaeval England and the Open Field System.Past & Present.32,pp.86-102

Trudgill,S.T.,1990.Barriers to a better Environment:What stops us from solving environmental problems? Belhalven Press.

Trudgill,S.T, et al.,1991.The Natural History of Slapton Ley Nature Reserve XIX:A Preliminary Study on the control of nitrate and phosphate pollution in wetlands.Field Studies, 7, pp.731-742

Trudgill,S, et al.,1996. Education and Conservation Issues in the Slapton Ley NNR.Field Studies,8, pp.727-741

Unknown.,2010.Slapton Ley National Nature Reserve: Walks and Trails.Devon.FSC

The application of ecology in Environmental Impact Assessment and development mitigation

2012-01-03T00:09:00.000-08:00

By Paul Michael Reynolds

1.0 Introduction

During the 1960’s interest in the environment began to increase and has continued to do so ever since with particular attention being paid to the negative impact that human society has on the global environment (Welford 1995). It is with this in mind that we shall take a brief look at what Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is and the history of Environmental Impact assessment.

1.1 EIA origin and legal implementation

EIA is a procedure which essentially gathers information about the potential environmental impacts of a particular planned development and aims to inform the relevant authorities/bodies and public about these so that an informed decision can be made as to granting permission for the proposed development (Carroll and Turpin 2002).

The requirement to have an EIA in the UK for projects that require planning permission (under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 however other projects not under this Act are also applicable i.e Nuclear Power Stations) came from the 1985 European Union Directive on the Assessment of certain Public and Private projects on the environment (Directive 85/337/EEC which shall be referred to from now as the EIA Directive) which was amended in 1997 (Directive 97/11/EC) and 2003 (Directive 2003/35/EC) (Circular 02/99: Environmental impact assessment).

The EIA directive lists two schedules where the regulations of the directive apply-

· Schedule I projects for which an EIA is always needed i.e Nuclear Power stations

· Schedule II projects for which an EIA may be needed depending on whether or not the project is likely to have significant environmental impacts.

These two schedules are used as a means to gauging whether or not a project by law will require an EIA. (DCLG 2006)

It is important to note that an EIA does not determine whether or not planning permission is granted but rather seeks to inform the decision makers of the relevant authority as to the environmental impacts of the proposed project so that they can then make a more informed decision in regards to granting planning permission (Carroll and Turpin 2002).

1.2 The EIA Process

The diagram below summarises the EIA process from the initial screening to the post development auditing.

Diagram Summarising the EIA Process

Figure 1.0 the EIA Process (Harmer 2005)

Although this is the general process for EIA and encompasses all of the processes linked to an EIA it is up to the relevant planning authority as to the exact layout of the EIA, which processes are to be completed and when, including the level of public consultation and participation (Lawrence 2003).

The initial screening process is the stage in which the planning authority determines whether or not an EIA will be necessary both legally and or in the public interest. It is important to note at this point that public participation and consultation is desirable at each stage of the EIA so to establish potential problems early on both with public support and potential input from the public in regards to the proposed development (Glasson et al 2005). Scoping is normally carried out by environmental/ecological consultants and is defined by the European Commission Environmental Resources Management guidance literature as “…the process of determining the content and extent of matters that should be covered in the environmental information to be submitted to a competent authority or other decision making body” (ERM 2001). The ecological consultant can swiftly and accurately assess an area briefly to compare existing records of a site for accuracy or to validate features on a map or indeed if necessary carry out field surveys on the site. (Morris 2009) This will enable them to gain an idea of potential impacts to the site and surrounding area before any major decisions are made hence why it is useful for an EIA when required to be completed early on in the developers planning schedule as it may turn out as a result of the initial scoping and subsequent surveying that the site of interest is going to require very expensive mitigation or is not a suitable location and thus will not be granted planning permission.

Consideration of Alternatives is essentially the process where by alternative sites may be selected or briefly inspected to see if they are more suitable. The baseline environment is the environment as it would be without the proposed development and is used as a means to assess the impacts i.e an area of grassland in 2013 without a proposed car park versus the area with the car park taking into account all environmental considerations etc (IEEM 2006). The prediction of impacts comes after the description of the baseline environment as reasoned above so the impacts on the environmental resources can be matched against the baseline environment and as the name suggests is the predicted outcome for the impacts as a result of the development.

The evaluation of the significance of the impacts is carried out by ecological consultants (discussed later) and is the process by which impacts are assessed to rank their significance for the site. Mitigation measures are then outlined as a way to counter the impacts assessed in the previous stage and written up into the Environmental statement which is then reviewed and handed over to the relevant planning authority so that a decision can be made. However post the decision being made (and planning permission granted) the site is monitored to ensure that the developer sticks to the pre-agreed mitigation and also to ensure that the mitigation measures outlined are actually effective. Ultimately everything is handed over to the planning authority and the EIA goes towards influencing the decision as to whether or not the project will be granted planning permission and under what terms (if any) are to be agreed.

2.0 Ecological Consultants and EIA

Ecological consultants play a key role in the EIA process at multiple stages as they are responsible primarily for the Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) whereby impacts upon ecology as a result of a proposed development are assessed. This means that ecological consultants can take part in the entire EIA process from the initial project design to screening, scoping, impact assessment, evolution of project design and mitigation to the final follow up and monitoring (post decision monitoring and auditing). The EcIA is used as a means of identifying, predicting and evaluating the ecological impacts to a proposed development taking place from a local to regional level (Treweek 1999). Although the processes of EIA were briefly outlined earlier in section 1.2 we can now look at that them in more detail with regards to the role of the ecological consultant at each stage. Screening as discussed earlier is essentially the process by which a project is assessed under the EIA regulations to see if an EIA is necessary the ecological consultant may play a role if a formal screening opinion is sought for by the developer or relevant authority to assess a projects potential for ecological impact (IEEM 2006). The ecological consultant plays a key role in scoping for this process requires the trained personal in the form of both ecological and environmental consultants. It is at this stage that the key ecological issues are discussed along with any survey plans etc so that they can be incorporated into the projects plans and due to changing legislation within the UK (and the EU) there is a growing requirement for projects to take into consideration biodiversity in a positive sense rather than just avoiding the impacts (IEEM 2006) ergo the use of ecological consultants at this stage allows more dialogue with the developer to allow them to take into account these issues and attempt to incorporate them into the design so to meet local, regional and national policies thus increasing the likelihood of the project being granted permission (a benefit from the developers point of view) and of course being of benefit to biodiversity in the long run. The ecological consultant will be required to gather information from the projects designers regarding the project so they can begin to predict potential impacts upon the local ecology such as the size of the project, project life time, biodiversity enhancing activities/designs etc. The results of the scoping process are often put into a report known as an EcIA report or the Environmental Statement (ES) (IEEM 2006). By the end of the scoping process the ecological consultants/relevant consultants should be able to predict more accurately potential impacts from the site and have concluded what further surveys and studies will be needed (IEEM 2006). As the EIA process is more cyclical than a clear cut linear process (Harmer 2005) it is important to note here that as more information becomes available it can be fed back into the scoping process and EcIA reports/ES.

The ecological consultant plays a key role in both the Impact Assessment stage of EIA as well as the assigning of values to what is actually found within the proposed site. It is of course essential to be aware of the ecological value of a site (as well as other values such as a socio-economic etc) so that the impact assessment can be carried out properly.

The ecological consultants will also be responsible for carrying out the various surveys both habitat and species surveys which will be necessary to accurately assess the ecological value of the site. Surveys such as a Phase-1 Habitat survey and extended surveys such as species specific surveys like Badger Surveys, Bat Surveys etc will also be carried out so that appropriate mitigation can take place as a result of legal/legislative issues i.e presence of badger setts under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 means that interfering with setts (i.e during construction blocking or damaging them) would be breaking the law thus appropriate mitigation would involve a licensed ecologist moving the setts to another location etc.

3.0 Mitigation

A three-step process of mitigation can be applied to relate the hierarchy of elements to the stages of the EIA process when they are typically applied

Section IV of Part I of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (the EIA Regulations) sets out the requirement for “a description of measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and, where possible, offset any significant adverse effects on the environment” to be presented in the ES (DETR 1997) ergo mitigation is required by both UK and EU legislation (the UK legislation being based on the requirement from the EIA directive). There are five key components to the process of mitigation which are termed “The Mitigation Hierarchy” (DCLG 2006) and are set out as follows-

1- Avoidance

2- Reduction

3- Compensation

4- Remediation

5- Enhancement

“The Mitigation Hierarchy” essentially summarises the entire mitigation process as each mitigation point is a key principle of mitigation. Avoidance is the initial and key point to mitigation which is achieved in the earliest part of the project whereby the design of the project can be altered to accommodate any potential impacts or indeed change the location of the proposed site. For example if the run off from a road is likely to flow into a nearby water course and thus result in pollution of said watercourse then a drainage system can be incorporated into the design to avoid this particular negative impact. Reduction refers to reducing the negative impacts which cannot be avoided. Compensation is the process by which impacts that can neither be reduced or avoided are offset elsewhere for example the draining of a pond on the project site can be compensated by creating another pond elsewhere or indeed multiple ponds as is the rule of thumb for such measures. A real world example of compensation mitigation is present from an assessment carried out by Ecology Consultancy Ltd (ECL) commissioned by Indigo Planning Limited in 2007 for the creation of a housing site that was deemed to impact upon the wildlife of the locality and result in the loss of an above average species diverse grassland area. The compensation mitigation proposal was to plant a wildflower meadow in response as this would also act as an enhancement measure to increase biodiversity (Ecological Consultancy 2007). Remediation is similar to reduction in so much as where negative impacts cannot be avoided they are managed in such a way as to reduce their influence for example should a project result in the increased growth of species poor grassland through increased fertilizer a remediation mitigation could be allowing for a grazing management plan to be set up to help ensure greater species diversity. Enhancement is as the name suggests the part of the process whereby the project is changed in someway to increase the positive effect upon the site for example the addition of green roofs and non sealed surfaces would enhance a buildings biodiversity value and thus be an enhancement mitigation measure (DCLG 2006).

4.0 Does EIA deliver a good result for biodiversity?

EIA in theory sets out a framework to ensure that the natural (and anthropogenic) environment is taken into consideration at each step of the planning process from initial design to the planning decision which at an initial glance may appear as a good result for biodiversity in general however being that the EIA Directive does not set out a clear and rigorous methodology for EIA using a scientific approach (Lawrence 2003) there are significant variations (Harmer 2005) between various authorities methods for delivering an EIA and the degree to which it is carried out not just within the UK but around the world with different countries using different methodologies (Lawrence 2003). On one hand providing the EIA is carried out effectively and the planning authority pays proper attention to the results and insists upon the right mitigation measures being fulfilled along with the fulfilment of enhancing biodiversity measures then EIA in practice ensures a better result for biodiversity than had there been no EIA at all however as mentioned above due to the nature of EIA and the multitude of practices and interpretations the opposite can also be true whereby appropriate mitigation is overlooked and a proposal given the go ahead based upon other requirements such as socio-economic benefits as the enhancement of biodiversity although desirable is not a legal requirement for an EIA. Although EIA legislation is routinely reviewed and the guidance updated for it to be truly classed as delivering a good result for biodiversity as a general rule, then the enhancement of projects to ensure an increase in benefit for biodiversity should become a mandatory requirement for all projects requiring planning permission rather than it merely being a desirable easily overlooked aspect of a project more focussed on reducing the negative impacts than increasing the potential for positive impacts.

See below a video by The E.N.i.M.S. ecology team demonstrating part of what could take place in an EIA for a given area.

5.0 References

Carroll, B. and Turpin, T. (2002) Environmental Impact Assessment: A Practical Guide for Planners, Developers and Communities, Thomas Telford, London

Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG).1999. Circular: Environmental impact assessment.(Circ 02/99) London HMSO

Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), 2006.Environmental Impact Assessment: A guide to procedures.[ Good practice and guidance][Online] Available at < http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/151087.pdf >

[Accessed 07/01/2011]

DETR, 1997. Mitigation Measures in the Environmental Statements. Department

for the Environment Transport and the Regions, TSO, London

Ecology Consultancy., (2007) Barley House, Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Protected Species Assessment. [Online] Available at- <http://www.crawley.gov.uk/stellent/groups/public/documents/plappother/int138927.pdf>

Environmental Resources Management (ERM)., (2001). Guidance on scoping. European Commission. Edinburgh.

Glasson, J. Therivel,R and Chadwick, A.,(2005) Introduction to environmental impact assessment. Taylor & Francis. 3^RD ed.Oxon

Harmer,C.,2005 s Improving the Effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment in the

Dependent on the Use of Follow-up? Views of Environmental Consultants.MSc. University of East Anglia

IEEM,.(2006). Guidelines for Ecological impact assessment in the United Kingdom.Institute of environmental management & assessment.Hampshire

Lawrence, DP., (2003).Environmental impact assessment: practical solutions to recurrent problems. John Wiley and Sons: New Jersey, USA

Morris,P., (2009) Methods of environmental impact assessment. Taylor & Francis. Oxon

Morrison-Saunders, A. and Arts, J., (2004)Assessing Impact: Handbook of EIA and SEA Follow-up, Earthscan, London

Treweek,J.,(1999) Ecological Impact Assessment. Wiley-Blackwell

Welford, R. (1995) Environmental Strategy and Sustainable Development: The Corporate Challenge for the 21st Century, Routledge, London

Plastic Pollution in the World’s Oceans

2012-01-02T13:37:00.001-08:00

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, also described as the Pacific Trash Vortex, is a gyre of marine litter in the central North Pacific Ocean located roughly between 135°W to 155°W and 35°N to 42°N. The patch extends over an indeterminate area, with estimates ranging very widely depending on the degree of plastic concentration used to define the affected area.

Let’s start off with a definition-

Marine Debris: Solid materials, typically waste, that has found its way to the marine environment. It is known to be the cause of injuries and deaths of numerous marine animals and birds, either because they become entangled in it or they mistake it for prey and eat it.

Take a look around you; most of what we eat, drink, or use in any way comes packaged in petroleum plastic, a material designed to last forever, yet used for products that we then throw away. This throwaway mentality is a relatively recent phenomenon. Just a generation ago, we packaged our products in reusable or recyclable materials – glass, metals, and paper, and designed products that would last. Today, our landfills and beaches are awash in plastic packaging, and expendable products that have no value at the end of their short lifecycle.

At least 267 different species are known to have suffered from entanglement or ingestion of marine debris including seabirds,turtles, seals, sea lions, whales and fish. The scale of contamination of the marine environment by plastic debris is vast. It is found floating in all the world’s oceans, everywhere from polar regions to the equator.

Of the over 31 billion bottles of water sold a year, only about 10% are recycled. That means that 27.9 billion plastic bottles end up in landfills and oceans every year.

It is the very properties that make plastics so useful, their stability and resistance to degradation, that causes them to be so problematic after they have served their purpose.These materials persist in the environment and are not readily degraded or processed by natural biological mechanisms. However plastics in the ocean are weathered; broken up either mechanically or by the action of sunlight into smaller and smaller fragments. Eventually, fragments are reduced to into tiny pieces the size of grains of sand.These particles have been found suspended in seawater and on the seabed in sediments. Even such tiny particles may be causing harm to the marine environment since they have been shown to be ingested by small sea creatures and may concentrate persistent organic pollutants (POPs) present in the seas.

Though ocean-borne plastic trash has a reputation as an indestructible, immortal environmental villain, scientists announced yesterday that some plastics actually decompose rapidly in the ocean. And, the researchers say, that's not a good thing. The team's new study is the first to show that degrading plastics are leaching potentially toxic chemicals such as bisphenol A into the seas, possibly threatening ocean animals, and us. Scientists had previously thought plastics broke down only at very high temperatures and over hundreds of years. The researchers behind a new study, however, found that plastic breaks down at cooler temperatures than expected, and within a year of the trash hitting the water. All the water samples from the study taken all over the world were found to contain derivatives of polystyrene, a common plastic used in disposable cutlery, Styrofoam, and DVD cases, among other things, said Saido, who presented the findings at a meeting of the American Chemical Society in Washington, D.C., today. Plastic, he said, should be considered a new source of chemical pollution in the ocean. The toxic compounds the team found don't occur naturally in the ocean, and the researchers thought plastic was the culprit. The scientists later simulated the decomposition of polystyrene in the sea and found that it degraded at temperatures of 86 degrees Fahrenheit (30 degrees Celsius). Left behind in the water were the same compounds detected in the ocean samples, such as styrene trimer, a polystyrene by-product, and bisphenol A, a chemical used in hard plastics such as reusable water bottles and the linings of aluminum cans. Bisphenol A (BPA) has been shown to interfere with the reproductive systems of animals, while styrene monomer is a suspected carcinogen.The pollutants are likely to be more concentrated in areas heavily littered with plastic debris, such as ocean vortices, which occur where currents meet.

Ocean micro-plastic: These samples were collected from the surface water of the North Pacific Ocean by the SUPER expedition in 2008.

About 44 percent of all seabirds eat plastic, apparently by mistake, sometimes with fatal effects. And 267 marine species are affected by plastic garbage—animals are known to swallow plastic bags, which resemble jellyfish in mid-ocean, for example—according to a 2008 study in the journal Environmental Research by oceanographer and chemist Charles Moore, of the Algalita Marine Research Foundation.Now, it seems, they also face the invisible threat of toxic, plastic-derived chemicals.Once Styrofoam, for example, breaks down, the tiny polystyrene components start to sink, because they're heavier than water, Moore said. "So it's likely that this styrene pollutant is prevalent throughout the water column and not just at the surface." Plastic hits marine creatures with a double whammy, Moore said. Along with the toxic chemicals released from the breakdown of plastic, animals also take in other chemicals that the plastic has accumulated from outside sources in the water. "We knew ten years ago that plastic could be a million times more toxic than the seawater itself," because plastic items tend to accumulate a surface layer of chemicals from seawater, Moore said. "They're sponges."Moore worries about the plastic-derived chemicals' potential damage to wildlife. The chemicals can potentially cause cancer in humans, he said, and simpler life-forms "may be more susceptible then we are."Pollutants also become more concentrated as animals eat other contaminated animals—which could be bad news for us, the animals at the top of the food chain.

Although this only touches on the surface of what plastic pollution does to the marine environment please bear it in mind next time you go to throw your plastic bottle in the trash or choose to buy products with non recyclable plastic packaging. Please Recycle and do your part to educate others on this issue.

“The Garbage Patch”: Plastics in our oceans

Green Infrastructure Report

2012-01-02T07:16:00.000-08:00

The approaches to modifying the biodiversity value of buildings and sealed surfaces in urban areas. including an analysis of the wider environmental value of biodiversity and its importance in tackling issues such as air pollution, climate change, and human health.

By Paul Michael Reynolds

1.0 Introduction

The urban environment differs from the rural environment significantly in both its biotic and abiotic features. This is primarily to do with the general unnatural construction of urban areas which forces the majority of natural processes to be obstructed, stopped or changed to some degree, for example the changing of the natural hydrological cycle with increased surface run-off of rain due to masses of impermeable surface (Gills et al., 2007). Since urbanisation began there has been little consideration given to the biodiversity value of urban areas along with the potential for urban areas to be improved through “greening”/the use of green infrastructure (by greening I refer to the process of making the urban environment more natural/utilising natural processes as a means of improving urban areas biotic and abiotic functions to help combat climate change, improve human health and reduce pollution). However, the Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has essentially linked human activity to causing global environment change and that this will continue to cause further change in the earth’s climate leading to increased average temperatures and sea level rises for a long time to come (IPCC 2001). The revelations about climate change and it’s potential effects upon the planet have bought the impacts of the urban environment on climate change (i.e emissions from urban areas) into mainstream science but also more importantly how the urban environment can be changed to both help reduce emissions and to also reduce the impacts that climate change will have on urban environments (i.e temperature rises and decreased precipitation in the UK) and the humans that dwell within.

Green infrastructure has a variety of definitions to different people depending on your profession but for the purposes of this work it is an interconnected network of green space that conserves natural ecosystem values and functions and provides associated benefits to human populations (Benedict& McMahon 2002) further to this definition I will add buildings, pavements, roads that have/can be modified to be greener. It is this green infrastructure that needs to be utilised as a means of “greening” urban areas. According to Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9) local authorities should aim to maintain green space networks and protect them from development or where possible integrate the two (Anonymous 2005). So according to planning guidelines developments within the urban environment should already be seeking ways to integrate green space i.e green roofs into their design thus creating a means for species to disperse and live across the urban environment.

Traditionnal buildings with green roofs at Norðragøta on Eysturoy, Faroe Islands Photo by Erik Christensen, Porkeri

2.0 Approaches to modifying the biodiversity value of buildings and sealed surfaces in Urban Areas

There are a variety of methods for modifying buildings and the urban area in general to help increase the biodiversity value of such areas as well as creating a positive effect on the local environment which in turn can help negate the impact of climate change on urban areas as well as reduce pollution and improve human health both mental and physical.

2.1 Green Roofs and Walls

Urban areas produce a greater quantity of rainwater run-off than their rural equivalents for example a typical city block generates more than five times as much run off than a wooded area of the same size (USEPA 2003) this is due to a greater percentage of impermeable surfaces that prevent water from permeating into the ground or being evapotranspired by vegetation (VanWoert, et al 2004 & Gills et al 2007) the majority of studies on green roofs are focused upon this particular aspect (Liptan 2003) which is indeed one of the key benefits of green roofs in an urban environment with the majority of studies concluding that a vegetated roof is far more efficient at absorbing (thus reducing) rainwater flow as well as slowing down the time it takes to reach ground flow (Liu & Minor 2005). Not only do green roofs absorb and slow down water flow but they also filter out the pollutants that often get washed into watercourses from urban environments according to Graham & Kim 2003, who also concluded that if every building in Vancouver had a green roof fitted then over the next 50 years the overall health of the watershed could be restored to natural conditions. Although this conclusion was obtained through modelling it serves as a good example of the potential benefits to adapting urban areas to have green roofs and it would be interesting to see a similar study of other major cities throughout the world to see if the same principle still applies. One of the main reasons green roofs are so useful in creating green space within an urban environment is land is both expensive and hard to come by within the confines of an urban area thus roofs offer a cheaper and easier approach to the problem (Mentens, Raes, Hermy 2005). Carter and Keller (2008) explain that there are two main types of green roof one termed extensive and the other intensive. According to their description extensive Green roofs are lightweight and designed to be easily fitted onto existing roofs as they contain only a thin growing media of approximately 2-6 inches and typically support small drought resistant plants while intensive green roofs are generally more extravagant with growing media depths exceeding 6 inches and supporting a great range of plant life although they are more expensive and cost more to maintain. So in many urban areas when it comes to retrofitting green roofs it is the extensive green roofs that will be most practical for the majority of buildings with new developments (or those with more money to spend on retrofitting) taking on the intensive green roofs. Dunnett and Kingsbury (2004) point out that in some European countries it is a legal requirement to build green roofs as a matter of getting planning permission in the first place something which one would assume in the current climate should be the norm in most countries especially the UK however there is little literature on how this could be implemented in the UK. Green roofs and walls are proven to reduce the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect significantly (Woodruff 2009, Takebayashi & Moriyama 2007, Kumar & Kaushik 2005, Lazzarin, Castellotti & Busato 2005) as they are able to hold water and thus remove heat through evaporation as well as reflect some heat energy as well (Takebayashi & Moriyama 2007) whereas standard urban roofs often constructed of cement absorb heat and radiate it heating the air around it throughout the day and night causing the UHI effect whereby Urban areas remain hotter than their rural counterparts (Landsberg 1981). A lot of the work published on the Urban Climate and ways to mitigate such effects as the UHI prove that green roofs and walls are the best option (Woodruff 2009, Takebayashi & Moriyama 2007, Kumar & Kaushik 2005, Lazzarin, Castellotti & Busato 2005, Benedict & McMahon 2002, Gills,S.et al 2007, Liptan 2003, Liu & Minor 2005).
Green Walls can be created in a variety of ways from the use of climbing plants to actively climb up (and attach themselves) the building, specialist wall garden systems and trellising (which can be bother free standing or attached to the wall). There is little in regards to literature on green walls directly however they are often covered in literature on green walls as essentially they complete the same services in principle with the addition of green walls being used indoors although they are designed differently. There are two types of green wall- Green Facades and Living Walls. Green facades generally involve climbing plants either on the wall themselves or attached to special screens/trellising. Whereas living walls are more complex structures that involve vegetated panels being attached to a wall usually in blocks and due to their vertical nature are watered from the top either by hand or through irrigation systems, when built indoors these can improve the air flow and quality within a building (Woodruff 2009). Dunnet and Kingsbury (2004) describe modular wall systems which follow the same principle as above with plants in blocks stacked one on top of the other to form a wall.

A by product of the research into green roofs (and walls) and their enforcement in some parts of Europe has shown that they can offer habitat compensation for rare and endangered species affected by land use changes providing they are built correctly (Brenneisen 2006). Miller (2005) provides an example of this whereby a city hall in Chicago has a green roof that consists of over 20,000 individual plants made up of over 150 different species over a 2000M²area which in-turn has been colonised by a diverse array of native invertebrates and birds thus proving that a green roofs value is not just in controlling the urban hydrological and heat energy cycles but also in their biodiversity value.

Ronald Lu & Partners Green Wall, Hong Kong 2010 Photograph by Ronald Lu & Partners

2.2 Sustainable Urban Drainage

In 21^st Century society sustainability is at the top of the agenda as resources become more expensive, space more limited and demands for services higher. The old methods of urban drainage are largely accepted to be outdated, destructive and wasteful (Ashley et al 2004). Drainage was originally created in urban areas to transport all excess waters (both polluted and non polluted) as swiftly and efficiently as possible out of the urban area into receiving waters i.e rivers to avoid flooding within the urban area (Boller 1997) however as the climate changes and the population grows the old methods of bringing drinking water into urban areas and removing excess water/sewage are becoming more costly and technical which is where Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) come into play as a natural and cost effective method to both reducing the treatment cost and time of waste water and slowing the run off of water out of urban areas giving time for pollutants to be removed as well as reducing the risk of flooding of the receiving waters. Changes in the law both EU and domestic now require sustainability and environmental protection to be at the top of the list in regards to planning with specific legislation aimed at water and it’s treatment along with acceptable levels of pollutants within waterways and surrounding coastal waters (Ashley et al 2004) The EC Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) being the primary piece of legislation which is ensuring that European nations set up legislation to ensure the above. Mansell (2003) lists the main advantages of SUDS as being able to enhance water quality, provide aquatic habitats for flora and fauna within the urban environment and aid in recharging natural ground water levels, he also points out that for these reasons SUDS are becoming more and more common in new developments. However, Mitchell (2005) points out that much of the pollution entering waterways from urban areas comes from existing developments thus even though the integration of SUDS with new developments was a good thing it would not have an effect upon the pollution already coming from existing areas and due to a lack of research on the implementation of SUDS into existing built up areas it was a problem.

The purpose of SUDS are to act as a means to emulate the natural hydrological cycle and preserve natural drainage patterns (Parkinson & Mark 2005) which in-turn brings benefits to the urban environment such as reduced risk of flooding.

One basic form of sustainable urban drainage is in the form of permeable pavements that is rather than having the standard cement/paving block pavements within the urban area (which allow for very little- to no water penetration). A study by the Environmental and Resources Institute (2007) tested standard asphalt surface against permeable pavement in regards to water permeation and subsequent peak flow times with the results showing that the permeable pavement delayed the onset of runoff by 2.4 hours on average and decreased the total peak flow by 83%. This is a phenomenal reduction in the overall volume of water which shows that permeable pavements could significantly aid in urban hydrological control. The Environmental and Water Resources Institute (2007) also found that the permeable pavements reduced pollutant mass by 58-96% depending on the pollutant which is an important feature of permeable pavements for the increasing of water quality leaving urban areas into rivers etc. Roesner et al (2001) discuss the use of detention ponds as a means of both controlling water volume leaving an urban area and also as a means of removing pollutants before it leaves the site as the pond fills with water it naturally prevents the water moving on down the system immediately with the vegetation both within and around the pond responsible for removing pollutants such as heavy metals (wetlands and swales also serve the same purpose) and taking up some of the water to be lost through evapotranspiration thus reducing the overall water volume. Ellis et al (2002) expand upon the use of such methods of SUDS to include the added benefits to local biodiversity increasing the numbers of aquatic invertebrates, flora and associated fauna both terrestrial and aquatic.

An example of technology used as part of SUDS Diagram by Greenfix Soil Stabilisationand Erosion Control Ltd

2.3 Urban trees

Trees within the urban environment play a key role both aesthetically and for maintaining the microclimate found within urban areas. Urban trees are often chosen for their beauty but also have value in shading, cooling the local climate, removing green house gases (Dwyer et al 1991, Akbari 2002) and also removing toxic particulates out of the air. Nowak (1994) and Nowak (2006) state that tree transpiration and canopies can affect air temperature, radiation, wind speed, relative humidity, and turbulence, all of which are essential in determining the microclimate of urban areas and can indeed serve in their own right to reduce pollution levels. The effect of shading by Urban trees means that air conditioning demand is reduced which combined with their action of absorbing carbon dioxide makes them a very good tool in the fight against climate change thus delaying global warming (Akbari 2002). Urban trees and forests do not only serve as a natural means to control climate and air quality but also act as habitat islands and corridors allowing species to live in and move around (and in some cases into and out of) urban areas promoting biodiversity (Carreiro 2008). Trees often get a large amount of public support as well primarily for their beauty but also for their aforementioned properties in shading etc and a study conducted by Lohr et al (2004) which involved a survey backed up this view and added that any potential problems envisaged by urban trees were not believed to justify not having the trees and these views have been echoed in various other surveys (Westphal 1993, Austin 2002 and Sommer et al. 1994)

An example of trees within the urban environment photograph taken by the USDA

2.4 Urban Green spaces

Urban green spaces can include cemeteries, parks, allotments and gardens all of which can act to improve urban environments both aesthetically and from a biodiversity and pollution control perspective. Green spaces of a good quality increase the urban environment life and ultimately contribute to legislative goals in regards to pollution controls, air quality, quality of life (human) and sustainability (Enhancing Urban Green Space 2005/6 and Miller & Patassini 2005). Urban green spaces tend to be valued for their intrinsic nature (Miller & Patassini 2005) however they are also of an economic value as they make the city more attractive (thus bring in more tourists, people wanting to live and work etc) and through their effects of reducing pollution and increasing human health. Maas et al (2006) concluded that the percentage of greenspace in people’s living environment had a positive correlation with the perceived general health of residents which in turn of course means people are less likely to be ill and take time off of work further strengthening the economic argument for green space rather than it just being a matter of aesthetics this was also backed up by Takano.T, Nakamura.K and Watanabe.M (2002) who also concluded that the availability of green space increased the longevity and health of senior citizens. An increase in green space also aids in physical activity (walking, running, cycling etc) of those living nearby within urban areas which further supports Maas et al (2006) and Takano.T, Nakamura.K and Watanabe.M (2002) assessment of people’s general well being in association with green space. Green spaces and parks also have value in regards to education, naturalist activities, wildlife habitat and community gardens (Roseland and Connelly 2005). As a wildlife habitat just like urban trees and forests they can act as habitat islands and corridors allowing species to move between other islands and in some cases both into and out of the urban area (Roseland and Connelly 2005).

3.0 Conclusion.

The biodiversity of urban areas is of the upmost importance in the 21^st Century as the population in urban areas increases along with the impacts of climate change threatening the very nature of life in these areas (Savard, Clergeau & Mennechez 2000). To increase the biodiversity value of urban areas is to increase the use of: green roofs and walls, sustainable urban drainage, urban trees/forests and green space in general such as cemeteries, parks and allotments (Benedict & McMahon. 2002). This will in-turn bring a wealth of benefits to the urban environment (Roseland and Connelly 2005) by decreasing energy costs for example properly positioned trees can reduce energy bills by up to 25% (Department of Energy 1995), reducing the urban heat island effect through the use of green roofs/walls, urban forests etc, decreasing water demand through the use of sustainable drainage and water use as well as by planting native species adapted to local climates, increase the absorption of pollutants through particulate entrapment by trees and uptake by vegetation and increase urban wildlife habitats (Roseland and Connelly 2005). The studies mentioned earlier by Maas et al (2006) and Takano.T, Nakamura.K and Watanabe.M (2002) prove a positive correlation between access to greenspace as well as it’s quantity within urban environments and increased health/longevity of those who live within the urban environment. This of course is also aided by the fact that the very greenspace that encourages physical exercise also helps to remove pollutants from the air (Dwyer et al 1991, Akbari 2002, Nowak 1994 & 2006) which also includes carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases attributed to Climate Change (Akbari 2002, Nowak 1994 & 2006, IPCC 2001, Gills et a, 2007). The majority of the research literature on green infrastructure is found from the year 2000 onwards as climate change and sustainability have really entered the mainstream and it has become even more apparent how important it is going to be as a tool in dealing with the consequences of climate change. As is evident from the literature increasing biodiversity through green infrastructure in urban areas is both economically and practically viable as well as ultimately essential to the future of mans habitation en masse in artificial urban environments.

4.0 References

Anonymous (2005) PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. ODPM, London

Akbari.H.,2002. Shade trees reduce building energy use and CO2 emissions from

power plants.Environmental Pollution.116.PP.119-126

Ashley R M., Blackwood D J., Butler D., Jowitt P. (2004).Sustainable water services: A procedural guide. International Water Association

Austin, M.E., 2002. Partnership opportunities in neighborhood tree planting initiatives: Building from local knowledge. Journal of Aboriculture. 28 PP.178–186

Benedict, M.A. & McMahon, E.T. (2002) Green Infrastructure: Smart Conservation

for the 21st Century. Renewable Resources Journal, 20(3), pp. 12-17.

Boller.M.,1997.Tracking Heavy Metals Reveals Sustainability Deficits Of Urban Drainage Systems. Water Science and Technology.35(9),PP.77-87

Brenneisen.S.,2006. Space for Urban Wildlife: Designing Green Roofs as Habitats in Switzerland.Urban Habitats, 4(1), PP.27-36

Carter.T & Keller.A.,(2008) Life-cycle cost–benefit analysis of extensive vegetated roof systems.Journal of Environmental Management.87, pp.350-363

Carreiro.M.,2008. Ecology, planning, and management of urban forests:

international perspectives.Springer.New York

Department of Energy.,1995.Landscaping for energy efficiency.DOE/GO-10095-046.

Dunnett, N., Kingsbury, N., (2004). Planting Green Roofs and Living

Walls. Timber Press, Portland

Dwyer.J, Schroeder.H and Gobster.P.,1991.THE SIGNIFICANCE OF URBAN TREES AND FORESTS: TOWARD A DEEPER UNDERSTANDING

OF VALUES The Journal of Arboriculture.17(10).PP.276-284

Ellis.J, D’Arcy.B.J and Chatfield.P.R.,2002. Sustainable Urban-Drainage Systems and Catchment Planning.Water and Environment Journal.16(4).PP.286-291

Enhancing Urban Green Space: Fifty-eigth Report of Session 2005-06 Report Together With Formal Minutes Oral and Written Evidence, House of Commons Papers 1073 2005-06

Environmental and Resources Institute.,2007.Low impact development: new and continuing applications : proceedings of the second National Low Impact Development Conference, March 12-14, 2007, Wilmington, North Carolina

Gills,S.et al.,(2007). Adapting Cities for Climate Change: The Role of The Green Infrastructure.Built Environment, 3(1),pp.115-133

Graham, P.and M. Kim., 2003. Evaluating the stormwater management benefits of green roofs through water balance modeling. p. 390–398. In Proc. of 1st North American Green Roof Conf.: Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities, Chicago. 29–30 May

IPCC., (2001) Climate. Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kumar.R and Kaushik.S.C.,2005. Performance evaluation of green roof and shading for thermal protection of buildings.Building and Environment, 40(11), pp.1505-1511

Landsberg, H. E. (1981). The Urban Climate. New York: Academic Press.

Lazzarin.R.M, Castellotti.F and Busato.F.,2005. Experimental measurements and numerical modelling of a green roof.Energy and buildings, 37(12),PP.1260-1267

Liptan, T., 2003., Planning, zoning and financial incentives for ecoroofs in Portland, Oregon. p. 113–120. In Proc. of 1st North American Green Roof Conf.: Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities, Chicago. 29–30 May 2003. The Cardinal Group, Toronto

Liu.k & Minor, J.,2005.Performance Evaluation of an Extensive Green Roof. Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities.Washington D.C.pp.1-11

Lohr.V et al.,2004. HOW URBAN RESIDENTS RATE AND RANK THE

BENEFITS AND PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH

TREES IN CITIES.Journal of Arboriculture.30(1).PP.28-35

Maas.J, et al.,2006. Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation?.Journal of epidemiology & community health.60.PP.587-592

Mansell.M.,2003.Rural and Urban Hydrology.Thomas Telford.London

Mentens,J, Raes,D, Hermy.M.,2005. Green roofs as a tool for solving the rainwater runoff problem in the urbanized 21st century?.Landscape and Urban Planning.77, pp.217-226

Miller.D and Patassini.D.,2005. Beyond benefit cost analysis: accounting for non-market values in planning evaluation.Ashgate Publishing LTD.Vermont, USA

Miller.J,R.,2005. Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience.Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20(8),PP.430-434

Mitchel,G.,2005.Mapping Hazard from Urban non-point pollution: A screening model to support sustainable urban drainage planning. Journal of Environmental management, 74(1).PP.1-9

Nowak, D.J. 1994. Air pollution removal by Chicago's urban forest. In: McPherson, E.G, D.J. Nowak and R.A.Rowntree. Chicago's Urban Forest Ecosystem: Results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NE-186. pp. 63-81.

Nowak, D.J.2006. Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States.Urban Forestry and Urban Greeing.4(3-4).PP.115-123

Parkinson,J, Mark.O.,2005.Urban stormwater management in developing countries. IWA Publishing.London.

Roseland.M and Sean Connelly.,2005.Toward sustainable communities: resources for citizens and their governments.New Society Publishers.Canada

Roesner, L.A., Campbell, N. and D’Arcy, B.J. (2001). Master planning stormwater management facilities for the Dunfermline, Scotland, Expansion Project. Proceedings of Novatech 4th International Conference on Innovative Technologies in Urban Storm Drainage, Lyon, France

Savard.J,P, Clergeau.P and Mennechez.G.,2000.Biodiversity concepts and urban ecosystems.Landscape and Urban Planning. 48 (3-4). PP.131-142

Sommer, R., F. Learey, J. Summit, and M. Tirrell. 1994. The social benefits of resident involvement in tree planting. Journal of Arboriculture. 20 PP.170–175.

Takano.T, Nakamura.K and Watanabe.M.,2002. Urban residential environments and senior citizens’ longevity in megacity areas: the importance of walkable green spaces.Journal of epidemiology & community health.56.PP.913-918

Takebayashi.H and Moriyama.M.,2007., Surface heat budget on green roof and high reflection roof for mitigation of urban heat island.Building and Environment, 42(8), pp.2971-2979

USEPA., 2003. Protecting water quality from urban runoff. EPA 841-F-03-003. USEPA, Washington, DC.

VanWoert, N.D, et al.,2004. Green Roof Stormwater Retention: Effects of Roof Surface, Slope, and Media Depth.Journal of Environmental Quality, 34(3), pp.1036-1044

Westphal, L.M. 1993. Why trees? Urban forestry volunteers values and motivations, pp 19–23. In Gobster, P.H. (Ed.). Managing Urban and High-Use Recreation Settings. General Technical Report NC-163. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. St. Paul, MN

Woodruff.E.,2009.Green Facilities Handbook: Simple & Profitable Strategies for managers.Georgia.The Fairmount Press

Introduction

2012-01-02T02:01:00.000-08:00

Hello Everyone!

After tweeting and reading other peoples blogs for quite a while now I have decided to start my own blog, which will focus on current news in ecology, conservation, sustainable technology and green news as well as other related areas. There will also be the occasional post about my personal life along with the trials in securing a job/PhD after finishing my ecology/conservation MSc.
I welcome all comments both positive and negative and love nothing more than to engage in sensible debate.

For more information about me check out my profile.

Adde parvum parvo magnus acervus erit (Ovid)