Monthly Archives: October 2014

FoE sues to keep Devon’s wild beavers free





Friends of the Earth has taken the first formal legal steps to a Judicial Review that could prevent the Government from capturing a family of beavers living in the wild in Devon, and placing them in captivity.
 
In papers submitted to the court this week the environment campaign group is seeking to challenge licences issued by Natural England (NE) to capture the animals, which were filmed on the River Otter earlier this year.

According to the Government department responsible for wildlife, Defra, the beavers should be captured to test them for the exotic tapeworm Echinococcus multilocularis.

But according to FoE, it is “highly unlikely” that they are infected. And in any case, it is possible to test and release them within a day, as is currently done in Scotland.

Release your evidence!

FoE has also sent a letter to Natural England demanding that it reveal whether, and how, it considered the application of the Habitats Directive, and demanding the release of the risk assessment which was carried out, within 14 days.

NE had previously asked FoE to submit a Freedom of Information Act request for the information. However the process is a slow one and FoE would not have received the information in time to challenge the beaver capture licences, which were issued without publicity on 24th July.

The lack of cooperation from NE effectively forced FoE into taking legal action. In its letter the campaign group writes: “We have grave concerns about the conformity of the decision-making process by your authority with the requirements of the Habitats Directive …

“Natural England has granted a licence, seemingly under Article 16 of the Habitats Directive which will have the effect of extinguishing the existing wild population of beaver (a European protected species) in this part of England.

“The beaver self-evidently is not in favourable conservation status and there is therefore no power to rely on the Article 16 derogation. In any event, alternative solutions (including testing and immediate release) have not been considered. Therefore no derogations can apply.

“Further, before any derogation can be applied, a precautionary approach to the conservation of the species must be undertaken. This has not occurred. The decision on its face is therefore unlawful.”

Let the beavers be!

Friends of the Earth campaigner Alasdair Cameron said:  “At a time when our wildlife is facing an unprecedented crisis, the Government should be taking steps to protect and expand the range of key native species like the beaver – not removing them from our rivers.

“We know that beavers can bring many benefits, such as boosting fish stocks, improving biodiversity and helping to prevent flooding – as well as injecting a little more joy into our landscape.

“These animals have been living and breeding in Devon for years, Ministers should work with the local community to find a sensible solution that allows them to remain in the wild.
 
“This is an opportunity to create a richer, better environment for ourselves and our children, where we can experience the beauty of animals that are an important part of our ecosystems.”

Beavers are a native species once found right across England, which were driven to extinction several hundred years ago. In recent years several populations have been re-established in Scotland.

Wildlife experts, including Natural England itself, have indicated that their reintroduction would bring many benefits to the English countryside.

 

 


 

Email the Minister: Keep Devon’s beavers in the wild.

 






FoE sues to keep Devon’s wild beavers free





Friends of the Earth has taken the first formal legal steps to a Judicial Review that could prevent the Government from capturing a family of beavers living in the wild in Devon, and placing them in captivity.
 
In papers submitted to the court this week the environment campaign group is seeking to challenge licences issued by Natural England (NE) to capture the animals, which were filmed on the River Otter earlier this year.

According to the Government department responsible for wildlife, Defra, the beavers should be captured to test them for the exotic tapeworm Echinococcus multilocularis.

But according to FoE, it is “highly unlikely” that they are infected. And in any case, it is possible to test and release them within a day, as is currently done in Scotland.

Release your evidence!

FoE has also sent a letter to Natural England demanding that it reveal whether, and how, it considered the application of the Habitats Directive, and demanding the release of the risk assessment which was carried out, within 14 days.

NE had previously asked FoE to submit a Freedom of Information Act request for the information. However the process is a slow one and FoE would not have received the information in time to challenge the beaver capture licences, which were issued without publicity on 24th July.

The lack of cooperation from NE effectively forced FoE into taking legal action. In its letter the campaign group writes: “We have grave concerns about the conformity of the decision-making process by your authority with the requirements of the Habitats Directive …

“Natural England has granted a licence, seemingly under Article 16 of the Habitats Directive which will have the effect of extinguishing the existing wild population of beaver (a European protected species) in this part of England.

“The beaver self-evidently is not in favourable conservation status and there is therefore no power to rely on the Article 16 derogation. In any event, alternative solutions (including testing and immediate release) have not been considered. Therefore no derogations can apply.

“Further, before any derogation can be applied, a precautionary approach to the conservation of the species must be undertaken. This has not occurred. The decision on its face is therefore unlawful.”

Let the beavers be!

Friends of the Earth campaigner Alasdair Cameron said:  “At a time when our wildlife is facing an unprecedented crisis, the Government should be taking steps to protect and expand the range of key native species like the beaver – not removing them from our rivers.

“We know that beavers can bring many benefits, such as boosting fish stocks, improving biodiversity and helping to prevent flooding – as well as injecting a little more joy into our landscape.

“These animals have been living and breeding in Devon for years, Ministers should work with the local community to find a sensible solution that allows them to remain in the wild.
 
“This is an opportunity to create a richer, better environment for ourselves and our children, where we can experience the beauty of animals that are an important part of our ecosystems.”

Beavers are a native species once found right across England, which were driven to extinction several hundred years ago. In recent years several populations have been re-established in Scotland.

Wildlife experts, including Natural England itself, have indicated that their reintroduction would bring many benefits to the English countryside.

 

 


 

Email the Minister: Keep Devon’s beavers in the wild.

 






FoE sues to keep Devon’s wild beavers free





Friends of the Earth has taken the first formal legal steps to a Judicial Review that could prevent the Government from capturing a family of beavers living in the wild in Devon, and placing them in captivity.
 
In papers submitted to the court this week the environment campaign group is seeking to challenge licences issued by Natural England (NE) to capture the animals, which were filmed on the River Otter earlier this year.

According to the Government department responsible for wildlife, Defra, the beavers should be captured to test them for the exotic tapeworm Echinococcus multilocularis.

But according to FoE, it is “highly unlikely” that they are infected. And in any case, it is possible to test and release them within a day, as is currently done in Scotland.

Release your evidence!

FoE has also sent a letter to Natural England demanding that it reveal whether, and how, it considered the application of the Habitats Directive, and demanding the release of the risk assessment which was carried out, within 14 days.

NE had previously asked FoE to submit a Freedom of Information Act request for the information. However the process is a slow one and FoE would not have received the information in time to challenge the beaver capture licences, which were issued without publicity on 24th July.

The lack of cooperation from NE effectively forced FoE into taking legal action. In its letter the campaign group writes: “We have grave concerns about the conformity of the decision-making process by your authority with the requirements of the Habitats Directive …

“Natural England has granted a licence, seemingly under Article 16 of the Habitats Directive which will have the effect of extinguishing the existing wild population of beaver (a European protected species) in this part of England.

“The beaver self-evidently is not in favourable conservation status and there is therefore no power to rely on the Article 16 derogation. In any event, alternative solutions (including testing and immediate release) have not been considered. Therefore no derogations can apply.

“Further, before any derogation can be applied, a precautionary approach to the conservation of the species must be undertaken. This has not occurred. The decision on its face is therefore unlawful.”

Let the beavers be!

Friends of the Earth campaigner Alasdair Cameron said:  “At a time when our wildlife is facing an unprecedented crisis, the Government should be taking steps to protect and expand the range of key native species like the beaver – not removing them from our rivers.

“We know that beavers can bring many benefits, such as boosting fish stocks, improving biodiversity and helping to prevent flooding – as well as injecting a little more joy into our landscape.

“These animals have been living and breeding in Devon for years, Ministers should work with the local community to find a sensible solution that allows them to remain in the wild.
 
“This is an opportunity to create a richer, better environment for ourselves and our children, where we can experience the beauty of animals that are an important part of our ecosystems.”

Beavers are a native species once found right across England, which were driven to extinction several hundred years ago. In recent years several populations have been re-established in Scotland.

Wildlife experts, including Natural England itself, have indicated that their reintroduction would bring many benefits to the English countryside.

 

 


 

Email the Minister: Keep Devon’s beavers in the wild.

 






FoE sues to keep Devon’s wild beavers free





Friends of the Earth has taken the first formal legal steps to a Judicial Review that could prevent the Government from capturing a family of beavers living in the wild in Devon, and placing them in captivity.
 
In papers submitted to the court this week the environment campaign group is seeking to challenge licences issued by Natural England (NE) to capture the animals, which were filmed on the River Otter earlier this year.

According to the Government department responsible for wildlife, Defra, the beavers should be captured to test them for the exotic tapeworm Echinococcus multilocularis.

But according to FoE, it is “highly unlikely” that they are infected. And in any case, it is possible to test and release them within a day, as is currently done in Scotland.

Release your evidence!

FoE has also sent a letter to Natural England demanding that it reveal whether, and how, it considered the application of the Habitats Directive, and demanding the release of the risk assessment which was carried out, within 14 days.

NE had previously asked FoE to submit a Freedom of Information Act request for the information. However the process is a slow one and FoE would not have received the information in time to challenge the beaver capture licences, which were issued without publicity on 24th July.

The lack of cooperation from NE effectively forced FoE into taking legal action. In its letter the campaign group writes: “We have grave concerns about the conformity of the decision-making process by your authority with the requirements of the Habitats Directive …

“Natural England has granted a licence, seemingly under Article 16 of the Habitats Directive which will have the effect of extinguishing the existing wild population of beaver (a European protected species) in this part of England.

“The beaver self-evidently is not in favourable conservation status and there is therefore no power to rely on the Article 16 derogation. In any event, alternative solutions (including testing and immediate release) have not been considered. Therefore no derogations can apply.

“Further, before any derogation can be applied, a precautionary approach to the conservation of the species must be undertaken. This has not occurred. The decision on its face is therefore unlawful.”

Let the beavers be!

Friends of the Earth campaigner Alasdair Cameron said:  “At a time when our wildlife is facing an unprecedented crisis, the Government should be taking steps to protect and expand the range of key native species like the beaver – not removing them from our rivers.

“We know that beavers can bring many benefits, such as boosting fish stocks, improving biodiversity and helping to prevent flooding – as well as injecting a little more joy into our landscape.

“These animals have been living and breeding in Devon for years, Ministers should work with the local community to find a sensible solution that allows them to remain in the wild.
 
“This is an opportunity to create a richer, better environment for ourselves and our children, where we can experience the beauty of animals that are an important part of our ecosystems.”

Beavers are a native species once found right across England, which were driven to extinction several hundred years ago. In recent years several populations have been re-established in Scotland.

Wildlife experts, including Natural England itself, have indicated that their reintroduction would bring many benefits to the English countryside.

 

 


 

Email the Minister: Keep Devon’s beavers in the wild.

 






Everything is connected – in nature too

You might, sometimes, have heard the phrase ‘everything is connected’. Maybe you are thinking about computers and mobile phones, but in fact this statement is particularly true in nature. For instance, we know that species are not isolated entities, instead they are part of communities in which multiple different species are interacting with each other. Some of these interspecific interactions are cooperative and positive for all interacting partners, and are called mutualistic interactions. Virtually all species on Earth are involved in one or more mutualistic interactions. Specifically, the interactions between plants and their pollinators may be some of the most studied ones, as nearly 85% of plants rely on animals for pollination service. In the last 20 years the study of pollination interactions using network analysis has been a hot topic in ecology. Networks have proven to be a useful tool to unravel patterns in plant-pollinator interactions at the whole community level. Usually, almost all plant-pollinator networks are constructed at the species-level (species-based networks), i.e. nodes in the network are plant and animal species and links represent the interactions occurring between them (e.g. flower visits). However, species are composed of populations of individuals and those individuals are the true actors establishing interactions in nature. Even more interesting is the fact that conspecific individuals are phenotypically and behaviourally diverse with respect to, e.g. size, sex, age, and social status, which also might imply that their foraging decisions become different. Most ecological networks studied to date have not considered this intraspecific variation in interactions, despite the importance of individual variation within natural populations addressed in the theory of evolution by natural selection. For that reason, moving from species-based networks to individual-based networks, to disentangle a process, which can be defined as network downscaling, is probably one of the major challenges right now in ecological network research.

 

Network downscaling. In traditional species-based networks each node represents a species (red nodes are pollinators and green ones are plants), but if we decompose a species into its constituting individuals we can obtain an individual-based network. In the figure, downscaling is only represented for the pollinator subset.

Network downscaling. In traditional species-based networks each node represents a species (red nodes are pollinators and green ones are plants), but if we decompose a species into its constituting individuals we can obtain an individual-based network. In the figure, downscaling is only represented for the pollinator subset.

 

In an attempt to fill this gap of knowledge, we got the idea of downscaling an entire pollination network to the individual level for the pollinator subset and explore network patterns at both interacting scales: species and individuals. This was possible with the study of pollen loads of insect individuals. Insect flower visitors in two mountain shrub communities from Mallorca (Balearic Islands) were captured, and later in the laboratory, pollen carried by each one was identified and quantified under the microscope. It was a highly time consuming and difficult task, but it paid well off as it provided a record of the flowering species visited by each individual pollinator over time. Data revealed that generalized species in the plant-pollinator network are composed of specialized and idiosyncratic individuals. The high heterogeneity in individual foraging behaviour and the high individual specialization of pollinators are obviously hidden in traditional species-based networks, and thus determine differences in several topological properties between species-based and individual-based networks. Particularly, the modular structure – a broadly described pattern in pollination networks which consists of densely connected groups or cliques of nodes with sparse connections to other groups– is not consistent across networks at the two scales. We found that modularity increases when downscaling networks to the individual level, and we confirmed this result using different modularity detection algorithms. In contrast to the view of modules as a set of taxonomically related species or species with convergent morphological traits in species-based networks, modules in individual-based networks are groups of functionally different pollinators distantly related but with overlapping pollen niches. Thus, interestingly, conspecific individuals are distributed in different modules. Modules showed to have a strong phenological component, and attributes related to the phenophase of plants and individuals even determined the topological roles of nodes in the network. Only when downscaling to the individual level it was possible to detect a dynamical interaction switching within-species and a module turnover throughout the flowering season, thus modules of individuals assembled and disassembled over time.

Study site. The study was conducted on two locations in Puig Major (1445 m), the highest mountain in Mallorca (Balearic Islands).

Study site. The study was conducted on two locations in Puig Major (1445 m), the highest mountain in Mallorca (Balearic Islands).

Methods. Pollinator observations were conducted in the field. Insects visiting flowers were captured and, later, their pollen loads were analyzed in the lab.

Methods. Pollinator observations were conducted in the field. Insects visiting flowers were captured and, later, their pollen loads were analyzed in the lab.

 

In conclusion, findings reported in our study, “Increasing modularity when downscaling networks from species to individuals”  (Tur et al.) highlight that network patterns differed across the individuals and the species scales, because much within-species variation exists. This implies that it is not always possible to deduce structure at one hierarchical level from information about structure at an adjacent level. Combining the study of networks at both scales offers the possibility of uncovering important properties and processes, which might influence network stability, dynamics and the outcomes of interactions.

Distribution of conspecifics into modules. One of the objectives in our study was to investigate whether individual-based networks were modular and if this was true, to analize how conspecific individuals were distributed among modules. There are two possibilities: (a) all conspecific individuals belong to the same module, or alternatively, (b) conspecific individuals belong to different modules. In most species we found ‘b’.

Distribution of conspecifics into modules. One of the objectives in our study was to investigate whether individual-based networks were modular and if this was true, to analize how conspecific individuals were distributed among modules. There are two possibilities: (a) all conspecific individuals belong to the same module, or alternatively, (b) conspecific individuals belong to different modules. In most species we found ‘b’.

 

Module turnover. When downscaling from species to individuals, a module turnover associated to seasonality was identified, so that at a given moment of the season there is predominance of a particular module of individuals. The complete individual-species network and the different slices of each month are shown in the figure.

Module turnover. When downscaling from species to individuals, a module turnover associated to seasonality was identified, so that at a given moment of the season there is predominance of a particular module of individuals. The complete individual-species network and the different slices of each month are shown in the figure.

By Christina Tur

 

 

San Francisco declares: every whale and dolphin has the right to be free





It was a day like any other at City Hall. Smartly dressed people darted in and out of offices, faint wafts of coffee trailing behind them in invisible tendrils.

San Francisco Animal Welfare and Control Commissioner Russell Tenofsky and I strode purposefully down the marbled floors, our footsteps echoing off the corridors where so many important and progressive decisions have been made before.

Today would be no exception, aside from the fact that the beneficiaries of this decision would not be humans.

The Cetacean Free and Safe Passage resolution, on the agenda for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors meeting on 21st October, is a simple enough-looking document.

Backed by Supervisor Scott Wiener and sponsored by the International Marine Mammal Project of Earth Island Institute, it outlines the ills of captivity and states that these magnificent beings ought to be protected in their environment, and resolves: 

“That the City and County of San Francisco supports the free and safe passage of all whales and dolphins in our coastal waters, including the Pacific Ocean, the San Francisco Bay, and its estuaries.”

‘Every whale and dolphin has the right to be free’

But the sentence at the very end of the document has the greatest significance, helping to shape our collective shift in morality that is already underway around the world:

“Be it further resolved that every whale and dolphin has the right to be free of captivity, and to remain unrestricted in their natural environment.”

We entered the muted chaos of the meeting room and took our seats on the hard wooden benches facing the Supervisors, who had been working their way down the long list of agenda items, inching closer to the resolution that we had come to give comments on. A glance up at the ornately carved ceiling reminded me once more of the gravity of the decisions discussed in this room.

Russell and I were representing local and national organizations, prominent scientists, and hundreds of high school students who’d written supportive letters to the Supervisors. I’d read over these letters several times, never ceasing to be inspired by their words.

“As a citizen of the United States, I am free, and as a citizen of the oceans, why can’t they be free?” asks one. “Is our amusement really more important than a dolphin’s life?”

The kids get it. But would the Supervisors?

Finally, the resolution was tabled. Supervisor Wiener stood and remarked on how powerful it is when students organize and participate in the political process, encouraging them to continue. Without much more ceremony, the resolution was unanimously passed.

The significance of stating that cetaceans have the rights to be free and to not be held in captivity cannot be understated, as it reflects a growing understanding that we humans ought to begin including other species into our calculations of what is fair and morally right.

At a time when nonhumans are still considered property, any statements indicating their right not be considered so is profound.

It might be hard to believe that granting cetaceans the right to their freedom will improve our human lives. Your mind might leap to those deemed more worthy of consideration – the trafficked child; the forgotten homeless; the hungry family. These are all serious problems, with their roots planted somewhere in the spectrum of inequality.

Freedom for one is freedom for all

However, by attempting to create a more just world for those who have arguably suffered just as much as any human, we indeed help ourselves. Abraham Lincoln once said, “In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free.” Freedom for one is freedom for all.

When a young child is brought to amusement parks like SeaWorld and exposed to the exploitation of sentient beings, those values can become entrenched within her, to be unconsciously perpetuated in myriad ways.

It is not her fault – she, like all of us, has been exposed to a value system that may have worked at one time, but that our own science has now proven as being wrong, outdated and harmful.

Thus it behooves each of us to reexamine our perceptions of and indeed, all nonhuman life. Through rigorous scientific inquiry, we now know that cetaceans are self-aware, sensitive beings, and deserve to be considered so much more than our property.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors, at least, agrees. They answered the question of whether our society should continue to mend its ways and recognize cetacean’s right to freedom with a resounding YES – one that will be heard throughout the nation and beyond.

I would expect nothing less from a city that has, time and again, paved the way for the rest of the world and is named in honor of the patron saint of animals, St. Francis.

While we now celebrate this small but significant victory, there remains much to be done. This work needs to be done within each one of us. After all, it is we who must change, we who must learn to coexist with others on this planet.

Cetaceans have figured this out millions of years ago. We can learn a thing or two from them.

 


 

Laura Bridgeman is Campaign & Communication Specialist with the International Marine Mammal Project.

 

 






Ebola: don’t blame the bats!





In an era flush with vaccines and antibiotics, when the greatest health risks in the developed world ride on the back of fried fish and hamburgers, it is easy to forget that infectious diseases still account for a quarter of all human deaths worldwide.

Although this is a burden largely carried by more impoverished nations, the unfolding Ebola outbreak is a dramatic reminder that infectious diseases, and the dangers they pose, have no respect for country borders.

Making the leap from animal to human

One of the greatest global health threats lies in emerging diseases, which have never been seen before in humans or – as with Ebola – appear sporadically in new locations.

Most emerging diseases are zoonoses, meaning they are caused by pathogens that can jump from animals into people. Out of more than 300 emerging infections identified since 1940, over 60% are zoonotic, and of these, 72% originate in wildlife.

Whereas some zoonotic infections, such as rabies, cannot be transmitted between human patients, others can spread across populations and borders: in 2003, SARS, a coronavirus linked to bats, spread to several continents within a few weeks before it was eliminated, while HIV has become, over several decades, a persistent pandemic.

The unpredictable nature and novelty of zoonotic pathogens make them incredibly difficult to defend against and respond to. But that does not mean we are helpless in the face of emerging ones.

Because we know that the majority of zoonoses pass from wildlife, we can start to identify high-risk points for transmission by determining which wildlife species may pose the greatest risk.

Searching for suspects

Of all wildlife species, bats in particular pose complex questions. The second most diverse group of mammals after rodents, they host more than 65 known human pathogens, including Ebola virus, coronavirus (the cause of SARS), henipaviruses (which can cause deadly encephalitis in humans) and rabies.

But they are also one of the mammalian groups most vulnerable to overhunting and habitat destruction, while providing indispensable ecological functions such as pest control by bats that eat insects, pollination and seed dispersal.

Whether eating their body weights in insects every night, or dispersing seeds from fruit trees across large areas, bats provide services to local economies worth billions of dollars across the world.

The loss of bats, whether from hunting or for disease control almost certainly would have far-reaching and long-lasting ecological and economic consequences.

This much we know, and yet the details of how zoonoses spill over from bats into people are vastly understudied. Understanding how humans and bats interact had, until recently, never been examined in West Africa, and only peripherally probed elsewhere in the world.

Uncovering behaviour that brings humans into contact with bats and other wildlife, and exposes people to zoonoses, could provide invaluable clues for preventing zoonotic outbreaks.

To address these questions, we put together an international network of collaborators, led in the UK by the Zoological Society of London and the University of Cambridge.

From Malaysia to Ghana, from Australia to Peru, bats are coming into contact with humans more and more frequently as people are expanding into previously virgin territories.

Bats as bushmeat – they didn’t ask us to eat them!

Fruit bats are also often attracted to orchards and gardens planted on the edge of their territories. But another human behaviour contributes significantly to the risk of zoonotic spillover from all wildlife species: hunting.

The consumption of bushmeat, or wild animal meat, is a global phenomenon on a massive scale – estimates of the combined bushmeat consumption in Central Africa and the Amazon Basin exceed 1 billion kilograms annually.

In Ghana, where fruit bats have tested positive for antibodies to henipaviruses and Ebola virus, the status of bats as bushmeat was essentially unknown until we began our investigation five years ago.

In two recent studies carried out in Ghana, we reported how many people hunt bats for both food and money. We estimated that more than 100,000 fruit bats, specifically the straw coloured fruit bat, are harvested every year.

Bat meat likely provides an important secondary source of protein for the hunters and their families, especially when other sources such as fish or antelope are scarce. Bat meat also fetches a fairly high price at markets, supplementing a hunter’s often inconsistent income.

Some people also depend on bat meat, and other bushmeat, for both their survival and livelihoods. Bushmeat hunting often occurs in remote or impoverished places, where little infrastructure exists to support alternative livelihoods or even enforcement of hunting laws.

But hunters and those who prepare bat meat for sale or consumption also place themselves at risk of exposure to bat-borne zoonotic pathogens. Such pathogens can pass through blood, scratches, bites, and urine.

Bat hunters handle live, often wounded bats and freshly killed bats, putting them into direct contact with bat blood and at risk of being bitten and scratched. Despite this, hunters are largely unaware of the risks they run.

The risks of zoonoses can be managed – but never eliminated

Understanding what risks bats pose, as little as we know, is only the beginning of the challenge. Reducing the risk of zoonoses is not simple or easy, and certainly not a simple question of stopping hunting or culling reservoir hosts.

Reducing risk sustainably and equitably will therefore likely need a combination of interventions, encompassing developmental approaches to strengthen local economies, expand job opportunities, and increase the supply of safer alternative protein sources in order to reduce the need to hunt wildlife – together with education to promote safer hunting practices.

Communities may have to change how they use land, and limit bushmeat hunting and human expansion activities to minimise the risks of spillover. At the same time, we need advances in medical technology and surveillance systems to monitor and swiftly respond when outbreaks do occur.

Such interventions can be complex and costly, but are essential. While the 2014 Ebola outbreak is the biggest to date, there will almost certainly be many zoonotic disease outbreaks in the future.

By bringing together expertise from ecology, epidemiology and social sciences, and concentrating on long-term management of risks, we hope to help communities maintain a safe and mutually beneficial relationship with their natural environment.

 


 

Alexandra Kamins is Research Analyst at the Colorado Hospital Association, and co-author of the paper ‘Uncovering the fruit bat bushmeat commodity chain and the true extent of fruit bat hunting in Ghana, West Africa’, funded by the University of Cambridge and the Gates Foundation. She works as a reacher for the Colorado Hospital Association.

Marcus Rowcliffe is Research Fellow at Zoological Society of London, and co-author of the paper ‘Uncovering the fruit bat bushmeat commodity chain and the true extent of fruit bat hunting in Ghana, West Africa’, funded by the University of Cambridge and the Gates Foundation.

Olivier Restif is Royal Society University Research Fellow at the University of Cambridge. He receives funding from the Royal Society, the BBSRC and US Federal Agencies.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 






Germany’s green power surges ahead – at a price that’s finally falling





Germany is well on its way towards having a predominantly green electricity supply.

The transition from nuclear and fossil-fuel electricity to using renewables is happening faster than anyone had anticipated. This is a success, but there is a downside: it is hugely expensive.

The energy transition is an explicit policy goal in Germany, having been made a priority project by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel.

It has four strands: reducing CO2 emissions, improving energy efficiency, promoting renewable energy and the gradual phase-out of nuclear power.

Nuclear phase-out is actually an old story that started in 2000 when the Schroeder administration first announced a 20-year timetable.

It was a bit of a ‘yes-no’ rollercoaster until the Fukushima incident, after which the decision in favour was final. This is widely supported by the German public, meaning that nuclear power is politically not an option at the moment.

Installed renewable capacity now equals demand

Yet without a doubt, the most significant development within the energy transition project has been the growth of Germany’s renewable energy sources (RES). Chart 1 (right) shows how it has developed in the past few years and where the government expects it to be by 2050.

The horizontal black line depicts the approximate maximum demand at any time, which is about 85GW (this will not change much in the future).

This shows that installed renewable capacity is now already more or less equal to maximum demand. On a very sunny and windy day, renewables are now capable of meeting the demands of the entire country.

But as we all know, the weather is notoriously unreliable and variable. So a secure system needs more renewable capacity and also more reserve capacity from conventional power plants (mainly fuelled by natural gas) to make sure it can always meet demand.

As Chart 1 (above right) indicates, installed renewable capacity in 2050 is expected to be 180GW, which is roughly twice maximum demand. By that time, the target is that 80% of electricity supply will be from renewables (basically this is how much renewable power you need to meet this level of supply on a regular basis).

Great benefits – but also high costs

In common with other countries moving in the same direction, the government has various motives for this big shift. Renewables are carbon-free and rely on no fossil fuels, so they are an essential component of meeting European emissions targets.

The government hopes for positive spin-off effects on exports, innovation and new jobs. And once the investment cost of the transition has been incurred, we would hope that electricity supply is actually quite cheap. After all, sun and wind are free. Germany sees the energy transition as an investment in the future: we pay for the next generation.

The move to renewables has been a success. It has happened at high speed since the late 1990s. The debate is no longer whether it will succeed, but rather what do we do with ‘too much’ renewable power. But behind this positive story, the dark side is the huge expense.

Early in 2013, the then minister of environment Peter Altmaier mentioned the staggering amount of €1 trillion as the potential cost of the overall transition.

This relied on a quick-and-dirty back-of-the-envelope calculation, which raises many questions and was never confirmed, but it does give a feel for the order of magnitude. The end-users – and thus the voters in Germany – are starting to feel the pain.

Since the installation costs mean that renewables currently cost more per unit of power than conventional power, they are subsidised by a surcharge on the electricity price. In other words, electricity end-users directly pay for it.

As you can see from Chart 2 (above right), the surcharge for small end-users has soared since 2009 to cope with the rapid growth of installed capacity (the step-change that year reflected a sudden big rise in solar power, which is particularly expensive).

The total subsidy is currently about €20bn / year, which amounts to €218 / year per household on top of the normal electricity bill. Whether this is still affordable is a key question in the country right now.

Corporate punishment

The energy transition has meanwhile changed the face of the electricity market, with severe consequences for traditional firms like E.ON and RWE. They are suffering badly at the moment and are having to rethink their business models completely.

In short, they face three challenges. The nuclear phase-out means they have to make very significant write-downs on their nuclear plants, at a loss to the shareholders. They are still fighting the government for compensation payments.

Second, renewable power is suppressing electricity wholesale prices – essentially because they are cheaper to run per unit of power, which under the rules for calculating the wholesale price tends to bring them down across the board.

This means that the revenues for conventional power plants are low and no longer cover the investment costs.

Third, conventional power from gas and coal is being pushed out of the market. This means that a lot of conventional power plants are largely standing idle and not making any money.

Since the future business model for such plants is looking bleak, the power companies are sitting on investments which are not going to be profitable. Of course, RWE and E.ON are adjusting their long-term strategies.

Consumer surcharge for 2015 reduced

While this has been going on, the rising costs for residential end-users have become a political problem.

In 2014 the government responded with a reform package, which slows down the energy transition in an attempt to control the costs. Basically the annual growth of new renewables has been capped to a pre-determined level.

This seems to be working. The surcharge for 2015 has been calculated at 6.17 €c / kWh, which is a small decline compared to 2014. Politically, this may well have been a wise policy, as public support for the energy transition was dwindling. It means that green energy development will happen more slowly.

So far the government appears to be standing by the same targets, perhaps because the explosion in development over the past few years had put it on an even faster track.

Whatever happens from here, one thing remains key: without public support, the energy transition will not work.

 


 

Gert Brunekreeft is Adjunct Professor for Energy Economics at Jacobs University Bremen. He does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 






Germany’s green power surges ahead – at a price that’s finally falling





Germany is well on its way towards having a predominantly green electricity supply.

The transition from nuclear and fossil-fuel electricity to using renewables is happening faster than anyone had anticipated. This is a success, but there is a downside: it is hugely expensive.

The energy transition is an explicit policy goal in Germany, having been made a priority project by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel.

It has four strands: reducing CO2 emissions, improving energy efficiency, promoting renewable energy and the gradual phase-out of nuclear power.

Nuclear phase-out is actually an old story that started in 2000 when the Schroeder administration first announced a 20-year timetable.

It was a bit of a ‘yes-no’ rollercoaster until the Fukushima incident, after which the decision in favour was final. This is widely supported by the German public, meaning that nuclear power is politically not an option at the moment.

Installed renewable capacity now equals demand

Yet without a doubt, the most significant development within the energy transition project has been the growth of Germany’s renewable energy sources (RES). Chart 1 (right) shows how it has developed in the past few years and where the government expects it to be by 2050.

The horizontal black line depicts the approximate maximum demand at any time, which is about 85GW (this will not change much in the future).

This shows that installed renewable capacity is now already more or less equal to maximum demand. On a very sunny and windy day, renewables are now capable of meeting the demands of the entire country.

But as we all know, the weather is notoriously unreliable and variable. So a secure system needs more renewable capacity and also more reserve capacity from conventional power plants (mainly fuelled by natural gas) to make sure it can always meet demand.

As Chart 1 (above right) indicates, installed renewable capacity in 2050 is expected to be 180GW, which is roughly twice maximum demand. By that time, the target is that 80% of electricity supply will be from renewables (basically this is how much renewable power you need to meet this level of supply on a regular basis).

Great benefits – but also high costs

In common with other countries moving in the same direction, the government has various motives for this big shift. Renewables are carbon-free and rely on no fossil fuels, so they are an essential component of meeting European emissions targets.

The government hopes for positive spin-off effects on exports, innovation and new jobs. And once the investment cost of the transition has been incurred, we would hope that electricity supply is actually quite cheap. After all, sun and wind are free. Germany sees the energy transition as an investment in the future: we pay for the next generation.

The move to renewables has been a success. It has happened at high speed since the late 1990s. The debate is no longer whether it will succeed, but rather what do we do with ‘too much’ renewable power. But behind this positive story, the dark side is the huge expense.

Early in 2013, the then minister of environment Peter Altmaier mentioned the staggering amount of €1 trillion as the potential cost of the overall transition.

This relied on a quick-and-dirty back-of-the-envelope calculation, which raises many questions and was never confirmed, but it does give a feel for the order of magnitude. The end-users – and thus the voters in Germany – are starting to feel the pain.

Since the installation costs mean that renewables currently cost more per unit of power than conventional power, they are subsidised by a surcharge on the electricity price. In other words, electricity end-users directly pay for it.

As you can see from Chart 2 (above right), the surcharge for small end-users has soared since 2009 to cope with the rapid growth of installed capacity (the step-change that year reflected a sudden big rise in solar power, which is particularly expensive).

The total subsidy is currently about €20bn / year, which amounts to €218 / year per household on top of the normal electricity bill. Whether this is still affordable is a key question in the country right now.

Corporate punishment

The energy transition has meanwhile changed the face of the electricity market, with severe consequences for traditional firms like E.ON and RWE. They are suffering badly at the moment and are having to rethink their business models completely.

In short, they face three challenges. The nuclear phase-out means they have to make very significant write-downs on their nuclear plants, at a loss to the shareholders. They are still fighting the government for compensation payments.

Second, renewable power is suppressing electricity wholesale prices – essentially because they are cheaper to run per unit of power, which under the rules for calculating the wholesale price tends to bring them down across the board.

This means that the revenues for conventional power plants are low and no longer cover the investment costs.

Third, conventional power from gas and coal is being pushed out of the market. This means that a lot of conventional power plants are largely standing idle and not making any money.

Since the future business model for such plants is looking bleak, the power companies are sitting on investments which are not going to be profitable. Of course, RWE and E.ON are adjusting their long-term strategies.

Consumer surcharge for 2015 reduced

While this has been going on, the rising costs for residential end-users have become a political problem.

In 2014 the government responded with a reform package, which slows down the energy transition in an attempt to control the costs. Basically the annual growth of new renewables has been capped to a pre-determined level.

This seems to be working. The surcharge for 2015 has been calculated at 6.17 €c / kWh, which is a small decline compared to 2014. Politically, this may well have been a wise policy, as public support for the energy transition was dwindling. It means that green energy development will happen more slowly.

So far the government appears to be standing by the same targets, perhaps because the explosion in development over the past few years had put it on an even faster track.

Whatever happens from here, one thing remains key: without public support, the energy transition will not work.

 


 

Gert Brunekreeft is Adjunct Professor for Energy Economics at Jacobs University Bremen. He does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 






Germany’s green power surges ahead – at a price that’s finally falling





Germany is well on its way towards having a predominantly green electricity supply.

The transition from nuclear and fossil-fuel electricity to using renewables is happening faster than anyone had anticipated. This is a success, but there is a downside: it is hugely expensive.

The energy transition is an explicit policy goal in Germany, having been made a priority project by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel.

It has four strands: reducing CO2 emissions, improving energy efficiency, promoting renewable energy and the gradual phase-out of nuclear power.

Nuclear phase-out is actually an old story that started in 2000 when the Schroeder administration first announced a 20-year timetable.

It was a bit of a ‘yes-no’ rollercoaster until the Fukushima incident, after which the decision in favour was final. This is widely supported by the German public, meaning that nuclear power is politically not an option at the moment.

Installed renewable capacity now equals demand

Yet without a doubt, the most significant development within the energy transition project has been the growth of Germany’s renewable energy sources (RES). Chart 1 (right) shows how it has developed in the past few years and where the government expects it to be by 2050.

The horizontal black line depicts the approximate maximum demand at any time, which is about 85GW (this will not change much in the future).

This shows that installed renewable capacity is now already more or less equal to maximum demand. On a very sunny and windy day, renewables are now capable of meeting the demands of the entire country.

But as we all know, the weather is notoriously unreliable and variable. So a secure system needs more renewable capacity and also more reserve capacity from conventional power plants (mainly fuelled by natural gas) to make sure it can always meet demand.

As Chart 1 (above right) indicates, installed renewable capacity in 2050 is expected to be 180GW, which is roughly twice maximum demand. By that time, the target is that 80% of electricity supply will be from renewables (basically this is how much renewable power you need to meet this level of supply on a regular basis).

Great benefits – but also high costs

In common with other countries moving in the same direction, the government has various motives for this big shift. Renewables are carbon-free and rely on no fossil fuels, so they are an essential component of meeting European emissions targets.

The government hopes for positive spin-off effects on exports, innovation and new jobs. And once the investment cost of the transition has been incurred, we would hope that electricity supply is actually quite cheap. After all, sun and wind are free. Germany sees the energy transition as an investment in the future: we pay for the next generation.

The move to renewables has been a success. It has happened at high speed since the late 1990s. The debate is no longer whether it will succeed, but rather what do we do with ‘too much’ renewable power. But behind this positive story, the dark side is the huge expense.

Early in 2013, the then minister of environment Peter Altmaier mentioned the staggering amount of €1 trillion as the potential cost of the overall transition.

This relied on a quick-and-dirty back-of-the-envelope calculation, which raises many questions and was never confirmed, but it does give a feel for the order of magnitude. The end-users – and thus the voters in Germany – are starting to feel the pain.

Since the installation costs mean that renewables currently cost more per unit of power than conventional power, they are subsidised by a surcharge on the electricity price. In other words, electricity end-users directly pay for it.

As you can see from Chart 2 (above right), the surcharge for small end-users has soared since 2009 to cope with the rapid growth of installed capacity (the step-change that year reflected a sudden big rise in solar power, which is particularly expensive).

The total subsidy is currently about €20bn / year, which amounts to €218 / year per household on top of the normal electricity bill. Whether this is still affordable is a key question in the country right now.

Corporate punishment

The energy transition has meanwhile changed the face of the electricity market, with severe consequences for traditional firms like E.ON and RWE. They are suffering badly at the moment and are having to rethink their business models completely.

In short, they face three challenges. The nuclear phase-out means they have to make very significant write-downs on their nuclear plants, at a loss to the shareholders. They are still fighting the government for compensation payments.

Second, renewable power is suppressing electricity wholesale prices – essentially because they are cheaper to run per unit of power, which under the rules for calculating the wholesale price tends to bring them down across the board.

This means that the revenues for conventional power plants are low and no longer cover the investment costs.

Third, conventional power from gas and coal is being pushed out of the market. This means that a lot of conventional power plants are largely standing idle and not making any money.

Since the future business model for such plants is looking bleak, the power companies are sitting on investments which are not going to be profitable. Of course, RWE and E.ON are adjusting their long-term strategies.

Consumer surcharge for 2015 reduced

While this has been going on, the rising costs for residential end-users have become a political problem.

In 2014 the government responded with a reform package, which slows down the energy transition in an attempt to control the costs. Basically the annual growth of new renewables has been capped to a pre-determined level.

This seems to be working. The surcharge for 2015 has been calculated at 6.17 €c / kWh, which is a small decline compared to 2014. Politically, this may well have been a wise policy, as public support for the energy transition was dwindling. It means that green energy development will happen more slowly.

So far the government appears to be standing by the same targets, perhaps because the explosion in development over the past few years had put it on an even faster track.

Whatever happens from here, one thing remains key: without public support, the energy transition will not work.

 


 

Gert Brunekreeft is Adjunct Professor for Energy Economics at Jacobs University Bremen. He does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation