New year, new me! Why i'm going to try to make 'flexitarianism' work for me in 2017

It's that weird time of year... the few days between Christmas and the New Year when everything is a bit odd and nothing seems to operate as per usual. A great time for thinking up some new year's resolutions!

I'm met with eye-rolls when I mention 'flexitarianism' and I admit I use it with a fair amount of irony (but hey, it’s had a guardian article written about it, so it must be a thing). But essentially it’s being semi-vegetarian - I'm trying to be realistic with my ability to cut out something I'm so used to having in my diet, whilst also making sure my mum doesn't think I'm going to waste away from lack of meat (I'm sure the veggies I know have tried in vain to argue that point with concerned relatives). I tried going full vegetarian in 2016 and I failed not long after starting - I blame my poor cooking skills for several failures in the cooking vegetable curry area that have made me dread using sweet potatoes. So my aim for 2017 is to eat a higher proportion of vegetarian meals, and if possible to limit myself to 2 portions of meat and 1 portion of fish per week. After being introduced to the wonders of coconut milk chocolate mousse, I’m also motivated to try and use non-dairy alternatives where possible. In terms of the meat I am eating, my intention is to stay far away from water and energy intense beef, the food with the highest environmental impact.

My personal opinion is that including meat in our diets is not an inherently bad thing - my issue with our carnivorous diet is the excess to which society has taken it. The cruelty in the meat industry is a response to demands for enormous amounts of cheap meat, and the environmental costs associated with this are high. As with many things, I believe that small steps taken by many can make a big impact, and from developing a greater understanding of the risks posed to global biodiversity by climate change I am more convinced than ever that society has a responsibility to act on global environmental change.

The environmental argument for cutting down on the meat in our diets is present in literature. Globally, annual meat consumption increased by 23 kg per person from 1950 to 2005 (ref), rising in accordance with many of the other measures of anthropogenic change, and an increased consumption of beef has also been linked to regional and global climate change. According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), livestock is responsible for a higher proportion of global greenhouse gas emissions than transport. Yet the majority of environmental activism encourages us to use the bike rather than a car but not to cut down on how much beef we eat.

In terms of freshwater use, meat consumption is known to be a significant contributor to water footprints, accounting for 41-46% of overall water consumption, compared with the 8% consumed for domestic use. Rising irrigation has been linked to increasingly frequent incidences of water scarcity which threatens to leave staggering numbers at risk in the future. With around 34% of agricultural land used to produce feed for livestock there is no doubt that meat consumption has played a large role in this.

Switching to a more plant-based diet would help to reduce these environmental impacts. Westhoek et al found that reducing meat, dairy and egg consumption by half in the European Union would lead to a reduction of 40% in our nitrogen emissions and 25-40% in our greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, nitrogen use efficiency of our food production would increase by up to 30%. These are not insignificant figures, and point to a large positive impact from more vegetarian diets.

But it’s not just emissions that are the issue, land degradation that reduces the available habitat for biota is in great part caused by the rearing of livestock for meat. 26% of ice-free land is used for grazing, and FAO outline the increased numbers of livestock as a key factor in deforestation. Even more shocking, they report that almost a third of terrestrial ecoregions consider livestock as a threat to biodiversity. If we want to protect more land for biodiversity and conserve species at risk, then cutting down on the amount we use for livestock is a sensible, and plausible, option.

There’s a lot of evidence stacked against meat consumption, and I’m going to try and keep this in mind every time I do my weekly shop.

Wish me luck!

Climate related extinctions - future fear or the present state?

Determining what exactly will happen under climate change scenarios, and whether what is happening currently is attributable to climate change, is extremely difficult but very interesting subject. Pounds et al in 1999 reported a loss of an endemic toad species in Costa Rica (Bufo periglenes) due to an increase in sea surface temperatures, the first species extinction attributed to climate change. Since then great losses in population abundances have been linked to the increased stress anthropogenic activity has placed on the planet.

The exact effects of climate change on species and proposed extinction rates are inherently uncertain and difficult to predict due to the many variables involved, and the attribution of losses to climate change is problematic as all correlation/causation arguments are. One of the most discussed effects of climate change is range shifts leading to declining population abundances, in which species migrate to a different latitude to maintain their environment at the right climate (Thomas et al, 2004). This recent paper from John Wiens indicates that climate-related local extinctions have indeed been happening in a number of species. Through an examination of studies focusing on range shifts as a response to warming climate, Wiens finds climate-related extinctions in 47% of the 976 species studied. Findings also showed more frequent impacts of climate on biodiversity in tropical areas.

Minimum change scenarios for climate change predict extinctions of 18% as a direct impact of climate change with maximum change scenarios leading to extinction of ~35% (Thomas et al 2004), but as discussed the expected losses in species populations are much greater than this. Whilst declines in population abundances does not equal extinctions, it obviously makes them a lot more likely.

Limited physiological tolerances to temperature is perhaps one of the most obvious factors leading to species loss, but according to this paper, very few studies suggest a direct relationship between temperature tolerance and local extinction. So whilst Wiens details a worrying account of current local extinctions, perhaps he is missing the bigger picture. Studies investigated by Cahill et al in 2012 indicate extinctions directly caused by species interactions leading to a loss of prey and disease, and extinctions directly caused by stress of abiotic factors leading to desiccation in trees and oxygen limitation in aquatic species.  As such it appears for these assessments at least to not be a straightforward correlation between temperatures and biodiversity loss as a result of climate change, more a complex chain of events triggered by the alterations in global climate. 4 studies even reported extinctions being the result of ‘natural climatic oscillations’, a phenomenon which occurs anyway without the influence of the human race, but which could also be subject to change through anthropogenic activity.

This range of extinction mechanisms causes only furthers the unpredictability of climate change induced extinctions. The complex nature of species interactions and ecosystem functions results in a wealth of different trajectories for biodiversity. Furthermore, whilst extinctions may be caused by human habitat modification, the presence of climate change as an exacerbating variable can’t be ignored. 

Biodiversity on the TV - Planet Earth II

Like 9.2 million other people over the last 6 weeks, my Sunday evenings consisted of sitting in front of the TV, watching BBC’s Planet Earth II – a look at the Earth’s wildlife, 10 years on from the original series. The series has captured public imagination in a way that very few documentaries manage to, and from regular scans through my twitter feed it’s clear that many others have found themselves becoming as invested in the fate of the species profiled as I have. 

What I found most interesting in the series was the episode on wildlife in cities which presented a startling look at how species have been affected by urban land use encroaching on natural habitats. But rather than just showing animals pushed out of their habitat, the approach of this episode was to show how wildlife had continued to persist in spite of urban development. It included monkeys benefiting from human presence through foraging in fruit markets in India, as well as human activity making life harder for wildlife, in heart-breaking scenes of baby turtles disorientated by lights coming off-shore.

Sir David Attenborough said in an inspirational moment in the closing scenes of the last episode “It is surely our responsibility to do everything in our power to create a planet that provides a home not just for us, but for all life on Earth”. Programmes like this leave us awestruck at the biodiversity of the world, but the real hope would be that they also show people the importance of conserving the species they are watching. Research has shown an increased environmental sensitivity in students watching nature documentaries, but there is doubt that this sensitivity carries on into action. (edit: the view that the importance of conservation often takes a back seat in such documentaries was recently commented on in the guardian here)
Such programmes need to inspire and encourage local environmental action, and an appreciation of the wildlife around us, since in reality, there is no Planet Earth two.

If anyone reading hasn't watched the series yet, i'd whole-heartedly recommend it
Here's a teaser of one of the most memorable moments from this series - an amazingly filmed scene between iguanas and snakes, the first time such activity has been caught on camera.

Some musings on insects...

The UCL Conservation Group’s ‘Insect Insights II’ which happened this week got me thinking about the smaller organisms we share the planet with. Whilst I’m not sure they’re any less likely to go out of the window when I come across them in my bedroom (sorry, arachnophiles, learning about their ecological roles has made me appreciate them a bit more. Conservation does seem to focus on characteristic fauna and larger organisms, quite obviously since they provide more visible action to be taken, and also are easier to track in case of loss.

But insects have an important role in global biodiversity, making up a massive proportion of global species - they account for more than 2/3 of terrestrial species. And like other terrestrial species, their decline is significant and concerning – with this study reporting losses in 71 species of more than 30% in the last decade, which would cause them to be considered as ‘threatened’ using IUCN definitions.

Bees are the posterchild of insect conservation, perhaps due to their significant contribution to ecosystem services, but their risk from climate change is very high. Changing phenology of plants and flowers associated with shifts in temperature risks causing difficulties for these crucial pollinators. Despite the speed of climate change, many species around the world have been able to shift their range in an attempt to adapt, but the humble bumblebee (Bombus) has shown an inability to respond to changing temperatures by altering its northern and southern ranges (Kerr et al 2015). Human land use is further damaging their ability to adapt, with the use of pesticides and removal of natural land contributing to species declines. The potential loss of bumblebees is worrying both in terms of their importance as pollinators in symbiotic relationships with plants, and also in terms of their role in ecosystem services that aid agriculture – a role that we take for granted, but is essential with 84% of Europe's crops having some dependence on pollinators.

Furthermore, insects are a key example of one of the caveats to measuring and monitoring biodiversity. It’s difficult to accurately say how many terrestrial mammals we are losing as we can’t be 100% sure how many there are, and with insects this is only magnified, with an estimated 10 quintillion (10,000,000,000,000,000,000) individuals present. Each year 15,000 new species are reported and due to the size of insects it’s likely there are many that we haven’t yet discovered.

We have little quantitative data for insects and so conservation is difficult, with the only practical solutions being to maintain known habitats. Perhaps it’s likely that insect biodiversity loss will be just another consequence of climate change that we underestimate.

Beavers - a biodiversity boost for Britain

credit: animalsadda.com

Beavers may be the new front line troops in the war against biodiversity loss (well, at least they may be in Scotland). 400 years after their extinction in the UK, the species has been formally recognised as nativein Scotland following a five year trial phase of reintroduction. Beavers have existed in small numbers in Scotland for a while through a mixture of legal and illegal introductions, but their official designation as native creates the opportunity for the species to grow in abundance in the UK, now being allowed to expand its range naturally – a development that has generated excitement amongst proponents of rewilding and reintroduction.

It was probably around this time last year that I first heard of the concept of rewilding and reintroduction of species. In a talk by George Monbiot echoing many of the themes in this article, I learned of the dearth of keystone species in the UK and the importance of these “ecological engineers” in creating a dynamic and diverse ecosystem, as well as their potential to conserve current species at risk. The IUCN has proposed reintroduction as a strategy for conservation since 1987 but it is with increasing knowledge of the importance of ecosystem structures that the idea is gaining traction, whereas before the decision to act on reintroduction was more political than scientific (Sarrazin & Barbault 1996). There is increasing consensus that trophic downgrading, suggested by Estes et al 2011 as the process of removing apex predators from nature, can be linked to reduced herbivore populations, influxes of disease, invasions of non-native species and the collapse of biodiversity.  Such is some of the impetus for conserving the large charismatic fauna that are at risk globally.

So this beaver news could be a positive development for biodiversity, with the Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT) hailing it as a ‘major success story for conservation’, welcoming their constructive role in creating new wetlands that could provide habitat for many other species and coppicing woodland thereby increasing woodland diversity.

The SWT hopes that this will set a precedent for more species reintroductions. In developed countries where popular opinion is becoming increasingly geared towards the protection of nature rather than its continued exploitation, there may well be further opportunities- personally I’d love to see the lynx return to the UK. With the arguments for reintroduction set out as they are, in a time where our future conservation decisions have a lot riding on them, I think there could well be an argument for strengthening and diversifying the ecosystems we can to potentially mitigate loss through future climate change. The addition of keystone species also creates an incentive for creating protected areas, creating both economic benefits in the form of tourism and environmental benefits through the safeguarding of land from urban encroachment.

Despite this potential, research and action on rewilding and reintroduction seems to focus almost completely on the developed regions of the world such as Europe and North America, with little incentive or possibility for the expansion of species reintroduction into habitats in developing countries. Potentially the cost of such action would be too high to justify, especially where apex predators already frequently clash with the interests of agriculture and urban development. But as an action to improve the biodiversity of the United Kingdom at least, the option is there.

The water's warm...

Tigers, rainforests, polar bears - when considering the big focuses of international conservation, I feel that marine ecosystems often get a bit left out. Since ocean biodiversity and its reaction to climate change is something I admit to knowing very little about, I thought I’d take the chance this week to delve into a different aspect of biodiversity loss.

Marine ecosystems are typically affected by anthropogenic use in more indirect ways than terrestrial systems. This year has seen the reports of increasing bleaching of coral reef ecosystems, with particularly high-profile reports that climate change had induced bleaching in coral of the Great Barrier Reef to an extent that many scientists were declaring it beyond help. Coral bleaching is no new thing – but for many ocean areas the phenomena is reaching a critical point.

What is coral bleaching? 

Stressed coral (credit: wikipedia)

Coral reefs are highly diverse, in fact containing the highest concentration of biodiversity of all marine habitats. The coral itself is host to algae called ‘zooxanthellae’, the coral’s main source of energy. Increased ocean temperatures or pollution causes the algae to leave the coral’s tissue. The result of this is coral left without its food source and more vulnerable to disease. The lack of algae also means it turns very pale or white (“bleached”). This means that coral reef ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to climate induced warming. Their death can lead to the collapse of the whole ecosystem with the many species dependent on the habitat for nutrients or shelter being thrown into peril.

Research has for several years now suggested that current warming scenarios will lead to long-term degradation of coral reefs, but the news that 25% of the Great Barrier Reef’s coral has died following a mass bleaching event shocked the world in the way that only a catastrophe in a charismatic habitat could.

Despite this, there is hope in the ability of these ecosystems to recover. A word associated with coral reefs in many publications is ‘resilience’ – the reefs themselves embody this key anthropocenic buzz word. According to Hughes et al the variability in gene flow in coral species implies a differentiating ability to result to climate change, and they suggest that rather than see a destruction of coral reefs in the future, we may well instead see a change in their structure and species composition.  Reef recovery is helped greatly by interconnection of reef ecosystems (benefits of habitat connectivity again showing up), but there is evidence that long-distance dispersal of species could also play a significant role. Crucially, coral reefs also present a case where local conservation efforts can play a large role, with the development of no-take areas already proving to help preserve fish stocks and reduce some pressure on the ecosystem under stress.

When looking into coral reef ecosystems I wasn’t expecting to come across geo-engineering solutions, but it turns out there have been suggestions of such measures  – like a ‘shade cloth’ to protect reefs from heat stress (think a giant sun umbrella), and even more drastic measures such as genetic engineering to ‘assist evolution’ of coral species.  

The topics in this blog – biodiversity loss, extinction, climate change – can seem a bit negative and depressing at times, so it’s nice to see efforts to turn the cynical news on coral reefs into something more motivating that could get people past the 'we're all doomed' state and onto practical action that can be taken to aid conservation. Whilst I am sceptical on the potential of geoengineering solutions, the sense I get from research and news media a few months on is that whilst prospects for coral reefs are dire if climate change continues at its current rate, there is potential to conserve these ecosystems if we act appropriately and allow them to recover through removing the stresses we place upon them. 

Protected Areas: Pointless or Potential?

credit: http://henrico.us/works/engineering-environmental-services/chesapeake-bay-preservation-areas/environmental-protection-area-sign/

Today there are over 150,000 protected areas in the world, and that number is consistently growing, with designated areas of land and sea increasing in the name of conservation and preservation of habitats. The Convention on Biological Diversity's Aichi target #11 stresses the necessity of protected areas, setting out a goal of 17% of terrestrial and inland water to be designated as such. With under 4 years to go we’re currently closer to 12% but there has been considerable progress in the amount of land we are protecting from human land use.

But wait – biodiversity is decreasing, isn’t it? That is the point of this blog after all. We’re continuing to experience habitat and species loss and humans continue to occupy a large portion land surface. So is this prolific designation of protected areas actually doing anything? Or is the designation of land as 'protected' a purely descriptive act?

There is a growing sense amongst some conservationists that the use of protected areas as a strategy against biodiversity is without merit, and arguments of the ineffectiveness of individual PA are prolific. For example, habitat conversion rates in protected areas of South Asia are almost identical to unprotected areas. Despite a classification that seems to be all encompassing and binding, the systems inside many of these areas have continued to be modified, and are therefore not the pristine, natural systems that we would like. Potentially this is an issue of poor governance – the effectiveness of a protected area is surely in great part down to the people who manage it and the strategies in place to secure proper use of the area and ensure concerted effort from all stakeholders. Aichi Target 11 aims for “effective and equitable management”, but the historic failures of conservation will remind us that this is something that requires much work and state support.

With all this, protected areas seem a bit pointless. But it’s important to consider that there are successes – but this success is variable and dependent on a number of factors. Another key issue to consider with protected areas is the health of what is effectively left behind. As Laurence et al. set out, it has been noted that the neighbouring area immediately outside the designated area is frequently more degraded than the protected area may have been had it not been. This points to the importance of habitat connectivity – with large, interlinked areas providing greater benefit than separate smaller areas.

The hope for protected areas, I think, lies in connectivity – something that has been readily taken up by conservation organisations such as Panthera, whose Jaguar Corridor Initiative has tried to provide links between patches of forest in Costa Rica to enable jaguars to move around the country, and is beginning to see positive results in the numbers of jaguars present and the health of individuals.

So if connectivity is key, then maybe larger protected areas are the answer? In the last few weeks the Ross Sea in Antarctica joined the growing list of marine protected areas, becoming the largest of its kind at almost 1.57 million km2 and containing a no-take zone that prohibits commercial fishing in the area for 35 years in an attempt to conserve the ecosystem and its inhabitants. Of course, we’re yet to see the results of this designation and it is too early to tell whether the action will be positively enforced, but I can’t help being more hopeful for this protected area, one that provides a large, connected area for the wildlife it contains to move about in at their will, potentially removing one of the common limitations of marine protected areas as being unable to encompass migrating species. As noted in the BBC article linked, “Some countries are concerned that a marine protected area in the high seas around Antarctica would set a precedent for the rest of the world”. Maybe we should hope that it does.