Cost-effective suppression and eradication of invasive predators

Introduced predators can have pronounced effects on naïve prey species; thus, predator control is often essential for conservation of threatened native species. Complete eradication of the predator, although desirable, may be elusive in budget-limited situations, whereas predator suppression is more feasible and may still achieve conservation goals. We used a stochastic predator-prey model based on a Lotka-Volterra system to investigate the cost-effectiveness of predator control to achieve prey conservation. We compared five control strategies: immediate eradication, removal of a constant number of predators (fixed-number control), removal of a constant proportion of predators (fixed-rate control), removal of predators that exceed a predetermined threshold (upper-trigger harvest), and removal of predators whenever their population falls below a lower predetermined threshold (lower-trigger harvest). We looked at the performance of these strategies when managers could always remove the full number of predators targeted by each strategy, subject to budget availability. Under this assumption immediate eradication reduced the threat to the prey population the most. We then examined the effect of reduced management success in meeting removal targets, assuming removal is more difficult at low predator densities. In this case there was a pronounced reduction in performance of the immediate eradication, fixed-number, and lower-trigger strategies. Although immediate eradication still yielded the highest expected minimum prey population size, upper-trigger harvest yielded the lowest probability of prey extinction and the greatest return on investment (as measured by improvement in expected minimum population size per amount spent). Upper-trigger harvest was relatively successful because it operated when predator density was highest, which is when predator removal targets can be more easily met and the effect of predators on the prey is most damaging. This suggests that controlling predators only when they are most abundant is the "best" strategy when financial resources are limited and eradication is unlikely. © 2008 Society for Conservation Biology.

Managing moose harvests by the seat of your pants

Moose populations are managed for sustainable yield balanced against costs caused by damage to forestry or agriculture and collisions with vehicles. Optimal harvests can be calculated based on a structured population model driven by data on abundance and the composition of bulls, cows, and calves obtained by aerial-survey monitoring during winter. Quotas are established by the respective government agency and licenses are issued to hunters to harvest an animal of specified age or sex during the following autumn. Because the cost of aerial monitoring is high, we use a Management Strategy Evaluation to evaluate the costs and benefits of periodic aerial surveys in the context of moose management. Our on-the-fly "seat of your pants" alternative to independent monitoring is management based solely on the kill of moose by hunters, which is usually sufficient to alert the manager to declines in moose abundance that warrant adjustments to harvest strategies. Harvests are relatively cheap to monitor; therefore, data can be obtained each year facilitating annual adjustments to quotas. Other sources of "cheap" monitoring data such as records of the number of moose seen by hunters while hunting also might be obtained, and may provide further useful insight into population abundance, structure and health. Because conservation dollars are usually limited, the high cost of aerial surveys is difficult to justify when alternative methods exist. © 2012 Elsevier Inc.

Monitoring does not always count

The gross under-resourcing of conservation endeavours has placed an increasing emphasis on spending accountability. Increased accountability has led to monitoring forming a central element of conservation programs. Although there is little doubt that information obtained from monitoring can improve management of biodiversity, the cost (in time and/or money) of gaining this knowledge is rarely considered when making decisions about allocation of resources to monitoring. We present a simple framework allowing managers and policy advisors to make decisions about when to invest in monitoring to improve management. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd.

Optimal allocation of conservation effort among subpopulations of a threatened species: How important is patch quality?

Money is often a limiting factor in conservation, and attempting to conserve endangered species can be costly. Consequently, a framework for optimizing fiscally constrained conservation decisions for a single species is needed. In this paper we find the optimal budget allocation among isolated subpopulations of a threatened species to minimize local extinction probability. We solve the problem using stochastic dynamic programming, derive a useful and simple alternative guideline for allocating funds, and test its performance using forward simulation. The model considers subpopulations that persist in habitat patches of differing quality, which in our model is reflected in different relationships between money invested and extinction risk. We discover that, in most cases, subpopulations that are less efficient to manage should receive more money than those that are more efficient to manage, due to higher investment needed to reduce extinction risk. Our simple investment guideline performs almost as well as the exact optimal strategy. We illustrate our approach with a case study of the management of the Sumatran tiger, Panthera tigris sumatrae, in Kerinci Seblat National Park (KSNP), Indonesia. We find that different budgets should be allocated to the separate tiger subpopulations in KSNP. The subpopulation that is not at risk of extinction does not require any management investment. Based on the combination of risks of extinction and habitat quality, the optimal allocation for these particular tiger subpopulations is an unusual case: subpopulations that occur in higher-quality habitat (more efficient to manage) should receive more funds than the remaining subpopulation that is in lower-quality habitat. Because the yearly budget allocated to the KSNP for tiger conservation is small, to guarantee the persistence of all the subpopulations that are currently under threat we need to prioritize those that are easier to save. When allocating resources among subpopulations of a threatened species, the combined effects of differences in habitat quality, cost of action, and current subpopulation probability of extinction need to be integrated. We provide a useful guideline for allocating resources among isolated subpopulations of any threatened species. © 2010 by the Ecological Society of America.

Optimal eradication: When to stop looking for an invasive plant

The notion of being sure that you have completely eradicated an invasive species is fanciful because of imperfect detection and persistent seed banks. Eradication is commonly declared either on an ad hoc basis, on notions of seed bank longevity, or on setting arbitrary thresholds of 1% or 5% confidence that the species is not present. Rather than declaring eradication at some arbitrary level of confidence, we take an economic approach in which we stop looking when the expected costs outweigh the expected benefits. We develop theory that determines the number of years of absent surveys required to minimize the net expected cost. Given detection of a species is imperfect, the optimal stopping time is a trade-off between the cost of continued surveying and the cost of escape and damage if eradication is declared too soon. A simple rule of thumb compares well to the exact optimal solution using stochastic dynamic programming. Application of the approach to the eradication programme of Helenium amarum reveals that the actual stopping time was a precautionary one given the ranges for each parameter. © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd/CNRS.

Subpopulation triage: How to allocate conservation effort among populations

Threatened species often exist in a small number of isolated subpopulations. Given limitations on conservation spending, managers must choose from strategies that range from managing just one subpopulation and risking all other subpopulations to managing all subpopulations equally and poorly, thereby risking the loss of all subpopulations. We took an economic approach to this problem in an effort to discover a simple rule of thumb for optimally allocating conservation effort among subpopulations. This rule was derived by maximizing the expected number of extant subpopulations remaining given n subpopulations are actually managed. We also derived a spatiotemporally optimized strategy through stochastic dynamic programming. The rule of thumb suggested that more subpopulations should be managed if the budget increases or if the cost of reducing local extinction probabilities decreases. The rule performed well against the exact optimal strategy that was the result of the stochastic dynamic program and much better than other simple strategies (e.g., always manage one extant subpopulation or half of the remaining subpopulation). We applied our approach to the allocation of funds in 2 contrasting case studies: reduction of poaching of Sumatran tigers (Panthera tigris sumatrae) and habitat acquisition for San Joaquin kit foxes (Vulpes macrotis mutica). For our estimated annual budget for Sumatran tiger management, the mean time to extinction was about 32 years. For our estimated annual management budget for kit foxes in the San Joaquin Valley, the mean time to extinction was approximately 24 years. Our framework allows managers to deal with the important question of how to allocate scarce conservation resources among subpopulations of any threatened species. © 2008 Society for Conservation Biology.

Using conservation evidence to guide management

Almost 10 years ago, Pullin and Knight (2001) called for an “effectiveness revolution in conservation” to be enabled by the systematic evaluation of evidence for conservation decision making. Drawing from the model used in clinicalmedicine, they outlined the concept of “evidencebased conservation” in which existing information, or evidence, from relevant and rigorous research is compiled and analyzed in a systematic manner to inform conservation actions (Cochrane 1972). The promise of evidencebased conservation has generated significant interest; 25 systematic reviews have been completed since 2004 and dozens are underway (Collaboration for Environmental Evidence 2010). However we argue that an “effectiveness revolution” (Pullin & Knight 2001) in conservation will not be possible unless mechanisms are devised for incorporating the growing evidence base into decision frameworks. For conservation professionals to accomplish the missions of their organizations they must demonstrate that their actions actually achieve objectives (Pullin & Knight 2009). Systematic evaluation provides a framework for objectively evaluating the effectiveness of actions. To leverage the benefit of these evaluations, we need resource-allocation systems that are responsive to their outcomes. The allocation of conservation resources is often the product of institutional priorities or reliance on intuition (Sutherland et al. 2004; Pullin & Knight 2005; Cook et al. 2010). We highlight the NICE technologyappraisal process because it provides an example of formal integration of systematic-evidence evaluation with provision of guidance for action. The transparent process, which clearly delineates costs and benefits of each alternative action, could also provide the public with new insight into the environmental effects of different decisions. This insight could stimulate a wider discussion about investment in conservation by demonstrating how changes in funding might affect the probability of achieving conservation objectives. ©2010 Society for Conservation Biology

The Why, What, and How of Global Biodiversity Indicators Beyond the 2010 Target

The 2010 biodiversity target agreed by signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity directed the attention of conservation professionals toward the development of indicators with which to measure changes in biological diversity at the global scale. We considered why global biodiversity indicators are needed, what characteristics successful global indicators have, and how existing indicators perform. Because monitoring could absorb a large proportion of funds available for conservation, we believe indicators should be linked explicitly to monitoring objectives and decisions about which monitoring schemes deserve funding should be informed by predictions of the value of such schemes to decision making. We suggest that raising awareness among the public and policy makers, auditing management actions, and informing policy choices are the most important global monitoring objectives. Using four well-developed indicators of biological diversity (extent of forests, coverage of protected areas, Living Planet Index, Red List Index) as examples, we analyzed the characteristics needed for indicators to meet these objectives. We recommend that conservation professionals improve on existing indicators by eliminating spatial biases in data availability, fill gaps in information about ecosystems other than forests, and improve understanding of the way indicators respond to policy changes. Monitoring is not an end in itself, and we believe it is vital that the ultimate objectives of global monitoring of biological diversity inform development of new indicators. ©2010 Society for Conservation Biology.

Wastewater pollution abatement in China: A comparative study of fifteen industrial sectors from 1998 to 2010

This study analyzes the management of wastewater pollutants in a number of Chinese industrial sectors from 1998 to 2010. We use decomposition analysis to calculate changes in wastewater pollutant emissions that result from cleaner production processes, end-of-pipe treatment, structural changes in industry, and changes in the scale of production. We focus on one indicator of water quality and three pollutants: chemical oxygen demand (COD), petroleum, cyanide, and volatile phenols. We find that until 2002, COD emissions were mainly reduced through end-of-pipe treatments. Cleaner production processes didn’t begin contributing to COD emissions reductions until the introduction of a 2003 law that enforced their implementation. Petroleum emissions were primarily lowered through cleaner production mechanisms, which have the added benefit of reducing the input cost of intermediate petroleum. Diverse and effective pollution abatement strategies for cyanide and volatile phenols are emerging among industries in China. It will be important for the government to consider differences between industries should they choose to regulate the emissions of specific chemical substances.

Climate-ready crops: Intellectual property, agriculture, and climate change

In The Climate Change Review, Ross Garnaut emphasised that ‘Climate change and climate change mitigation will bring about major structural change in the agriculture, forestry and other land use sectors’. He provides this overview of the effects of climate change on food demand and supply: ‘Domestic food production in many developing countries will be at immediate risk of reductions in agricultural productivity due to crop failure, livestock loss, severe weather events and new patterns of pests and diseases.’ He observes that ‘Changes to local climate and water availability will be key determinants of where agricultural production occurs and what is produced.’ Gert Würtenberger has commented that modern plant breeding is particularly concerned with addressing larger issues about nutrition, food security and climate change: ‘Modern plant breeding has an increasing importance with regard to the continuously growing demand for plants for nutritional and feeding purposes as well as with regard to renewal energy sources and the challenges caused by climate changes.’ Moreover, he notes that there is a wide array of scientific and technological means of breeding new plant varieties: ‘Apart from classical breeding, technologies have an important role in the development of plants that satisfy the various requirements that industrial and agricultural challenges expect to be fulfilled.’ He comments: ‘Plant variety rights, as well as patents which protect such results, are of increasingly high importance to the breeders and enterprises involved in plant development programmes.’ There has been larger interest in the intersections between sustainable agriculture, environmental protection and food security. The debate over agricultural intellectual property is a polarised one, particularly between plant breeders, agricultural biotechnology companies and a range of environmentalist groups. Susan Sell comments that there are complex intellectual property battles surrounding agriculture: 'Seeds are at the centre of a complex political dynamic between stakeholders. Access to seeds concerns the balance between private rights and public obligations, private ownership and the public domain, and commercial versus humanitarian objectives.' Part I of this chapter considers debates in respect of plant breeders’ rights, food security and climate change in relation to the UPOV Convention 1991. Part II explores efforts by agricultural biotechnology companies to patent climate-ready crops. Part III considers the report of the Special Rapporteur for Food, Olivier De Schutter. It looks at a variety of options to encourage access to plant varieties with climate adaptive or mitigating properties.

Biophilic urbanism: Contributions to holistic urban greening for urban renewal

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to consider how biophilic urbanism complements and potentially enhances approaches for the built environment profession to holistically integrate nature into cities. Urban nature – also referred to as urban greening and green infrastructure – has increasingly been considered from many perspectives to address challenges such as population pressures, climate change and resource shortages. Within this context, the authors highlight how “biophilic urbanism” complements and may enhance approaches and efforts for urban greening. Design/methodology/approach – The paper provides a review of existing literature in “urban nature” to clarify and discuss the concept of biophilic urbanism. Drawing on this literature review, the authors present a systematic clustering and scaling of “biophilic elements” that could facilitate responding to twenty-first century challenges. Findings – Biophilic urbanism can be applied at multiple scales in urban environments, through a range of multi-functional features that address the pervasive false dichotomy of urban development and environmental protection. Biophilic urbanism can complement urban greening efforts to enable a holistic approach, which is conducive to comprehensive, intentional and strategic urban greening. Originality/value – This paper situates the emerging concept of biophilic urbanism within existing research from multiple disciplines, providing insight for how this can be applied in practice, particularly to the topical challenge of “urban renewal”.

Greenwashing the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Fossil fuels, the environment, and climate change

There has been much controversy over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – a plurilateral trade agreement involving a dozen nations from throughout the Pacific Rim – and its impact upon the environment, biodiversity, and climate change. The secretive treaty negotiations involve Australia and New Zealand; countries from South East Asia such as Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, and Japan; the South American nations of Peru and Chile; and the members of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Canada, Mexico and the United States. There was an agreement reached between the parties in October 2015. The participants asserted: ‘We expect this historic agreement to promote economic growth, support higher-paying jobs; enhance innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raise living standards; reduce poverty in our countries; and to promote transparency, good governance, and strong labor and environmental protections.’ The final texts of the agreement were published in November 2015. There has been discussion as to whether other countries – such as Indonesia, the Philippines, and South Korea – will join the deal. There has been much debate about the impact of this proposed treaty upon intellectual property, the environment, biodiversity and climate change. There have been similar concerns about the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – a proposed trade agreement between the United States and the European Union. In 2011, the United States Trade Representative developed a Green Paper on trade, conservation, and the environment in the context of the TPP. In its rhetoric, the United States Trade Representative has maintained that it has been pushing for strong, enforceable environmental standards in the TPP. In a key statement in 2014, the United States Trade Representative Mike Froman insisted: ‘The United States’ position on the environment in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations is this: environmental stewardship is a core American value, and we will insist on a robust, fully enforceable environment chapter in the TPP or we will not come to agreement.’ The United States Trade Representative maintained: ‘Our proposals in the TPP are centered around the enforcement of environmental laws, including those implementing multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) in TPP partner countries, and also around trailblazing, first-ever conservation proposals that will raise standards across the region’. Moreover, the United States Trade Representative asserted: ‘Furthermore, our proposals would enhance international cooperation and create new opportunities for public participation in environmental governance and enforcement.’ The United States Trade Representative has provided this public outline of the Environment Chapter of the TPP: A meaningful outcome on environment will ensure that the agreement appropriately addresses important trade and environment challenges and enhances the mutual supportiveness of trade and environment. The Trans-Pacific Partnership countries share the view that the environment text should include effective provisions on trade-related issues that would help to reinforce environmental protection and are discussing an effective institutional arrangement to oversee implementation and a specific cooperation framework for addressing capacity building needs. They also are discussing proposals on new issues, such as marine fisheries and other conservation issues, biodiversity, invasive alien species, climate change, and environmental goods and services. Mark Linscott, an assistant Trade Representative testified: ‘An environment chapter in the TPP should strengthen country commitments to enforce their environmental laws and regulations, including in areas related to ocean and fisheries governance, through the effective enforcement obligation subject to dispute settlement.’ Inside US Trade has commented: ‘While not initially expected to be among the most difficult areas, the environment chapter has emerged as a formidable challenge, partly due to disagreement over the United States proposal to make environmental obligations binding under the TPP dispute settlement mechanism’. Joshua Meltzer from the Brookings Institute contended that the trade agreement could be a boon for the protection of the environment in the Pacific Rim: Whether it is depleting fisheries, declining biodiversity or reduced space in the atmosphere for Greenhouse Gas emissions, the underlying issue is resource scarcity. And in a world where an additional 3 billion people are expected to enter the middle class over the next 15 years, countries need to find new and creative ways to cooperate in order to satisfy the legitimate needs of their population for growth and opportunity while using resources in a manner that is sustainable for current and future generations. The TPP parties already represent a diverse range of developed and developing countries. Should the TPP become a free trade agreement of the Asia-Pacific region, it will include the main developed and developing countries and will be a strong basis for building a global consensus on these trade and environmental issues. The TPP has been promoted by its proponents as a boon to the environment. The United States Trade Representative has maintained that the TPP will protect the environment: ‘The United States’ position on the environment in the TPP negotiations is this: environmental stewardship is a core American value, and we will insist on a robust, fully enforceable environment chapter in the TPP or we will not come to agreement.’ The United States Trade Representative discussed ‘Trade for a Greener World’ on World Environment Day. Andrew Robb, at the time the Australian Trade and Investment Minister, vowed that the TPP will contain safeguards for the protection of the environment. In November 2015, after the release of the TPP text, Rohan Patel, the Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, sought to defend the environmental credentials of the TPP. He contended that the deal had been supported by the Nature Conservancy, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, the World Wildlife Fund, and World Animal Protection. The United States Congress, though, has been conflicted by the United States Trade Representative’s arguments about the TPP and the environment. In 2012, members of the United States Congress - including Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and John Kerry (D-MA) – wrote a letter, arguing that the trade agreement needs to provide strong protection for the environment: ‘We believe that a '21st century agreement' must have an environment chapter that guarantees ongoing sustainable trade and creates jobs, and this is what American businesses and consumers want and expect also.’ The group stressed that ‘A binding and enforceable TPP environment chapter that stands up for American interests is critical to our support of the TPP’. The Congressional leaders maintained: ‘We believe the 2007 bipartisan congressional consensus on environmental provisions included in recent trade agreements should serve as the framework for the environment chapter of the TPP.’ In 2013, senior members of the Democratic leadership expressed their opposition to granting President Barack Obama a fast-track authority in respect of the TPP House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said: ‘No on fast-track – Camp-Baucus – out of the question.’ Senator Majority leader Harry Reid commented: ‘I’m against Fast-Track: Everyone would be well-advised to push this right now.’ Senator Elizabeth Warren has been particularly critical of the process and the substance of the negotiations in the TPP: From what I hear, Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, telecom, big polluters and outsourcers are all salivating at the chance to rig the deal in the upcoming trade talks. So the question is, Why are the trade talks secret? You’ll love this answer. Boy, the things you learn on Capitol Hill. I actually have had supporters of the deal say to me ‘They have to be secret, because if the American people knew what was actually in them, they would be opposed. Think about that. Real people, people whose jobs are at stake, small-business owners who don’t want to compete with overseas companies that dump their waste in rivers and hire workers for a dollar a day—those people, people without an army of lobbyists—they would be opposed. I believe if people across this country would be opposed to a particular trade agreement, then maybe that trade agreement should not happen. The Finance Committee in the United States Congress deliberated over the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations in 2014. The new chair Ron Wyden has argued that there needs to be greater transparency in trade. Nonetheless, he has mooted the possibility of a ‘smart-track’ to reconcile the competing demands of the Obama Administration, and United States Congress. Wyden insisted: ‘The new breed of trade challenges spawned over the last generation must be addressed in imaginative new policies and locked into enforceable, ambitious, job-generating trade agreements.’ He emphasized that such agreements ‘must reflect the need for a free and open Internet, strong labor rights and environmental protections.’ Elder Democrat Sander Levin warned that the TPP failed to provide proper protection for the environment: The TPP parties are considering a different structure to protect the environment than the one adopted in the May 10 Agreement, which directly incorporated seven multilateral environmental agreements into the text of past trade agreements. While the form is less important than the substance, the TPP must provide an overall level of environmental protection that upholds and builds upon the May 10 standard, including fully enforceable obligations. But many of our trading partners are actively seeking to weaken the text to the point of falling short of that standard, including on key issues like conservation. Nonetheless, 2015, President Barack Obama was able to secure the overall support of the United States Congress for his ‘fast-track’ authority. This was made possible by the Republicans and dissident Democrats. Notably, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden switched sides, and was transformed from a critic of the TPP to an apologist for the TPP. For their part, green political parties and civil society organisations have been concerned about the secretive nature of the negotiations; and the substantive implications of the treaty for the environment. Environmental groups and climate advocates have been sceptical of the environmental claims made by the White House for the TPP. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, the Australian Greens and the Green Party of Canada have released a joint declaration on the TPP observing: ‘More than just another trade agreement, the TPP provisions could hinder access to safe, affordable medicines, weaken local content rules for media, stifle high-tech innovation, and even restrict the ability of future governments to legislate for the good of public health and the environment’. In the United States, civil society groups such as the Sierra Club, Public Citizen, WWF, the Friends of the Earth, the Rainforest Action Network and 350.org have raised concerns about the TPP and the environment. Allison Chin, President of the Sierra Club, complained about the lack of transparency, due process, and public participation in the TPP talks: ‘This is a stealth affront to the principles of our democracy.’ Maude Barlow’s The Council of Canadians has also been concerned about the TPP and environmental justice. New Zealand Sustainability Council executive director Simon Terry said the agreement showed ‘minimal real gains for nature’. A number of organisations have joined a grand coalition of civil society organisations, which are opposed to the grant of a fast-track. On the 15th January 2013, WikiLeaks released the draft Environment Chapter of the TPP - along with a report by the Chairs of the Environmental Working Group. Julian Assange, WikiLeaks' publisher, stated: ‘Today's WikiLeaks release shows that the public sweetener in the TPP is just media sugar water.’ He observed: ‘The fabled TPP environmental chapter turns out to be a toothless public relations exercise with no enforcement mechanism.’ This article provides a critical examination of the draft Environment Chapter of the TPP. The overall argument of the article is that the Environment Chapter of the TPP is an exercise in greenwashing – it is a public relations exercise by the United States Trade Representative, rather than a substantive regime for the protection of the environment in the Pacific Rim. Greenwashing has long been a problem in commerce, in which companies making misleading and deceptive claims about the environment. In his 2012 book, Greenwash: Big Brands and Carbon Scams, Guy Pearse considers the rise of green marketing and greenwashing. Government greenwashing is also a significant issue. In his book Storms of My Grandchildren, the climate scientist James Hansen raises his concerns about government greenwashing. Such a problem is apparent with the TPP – in which there was a gap between the assertions of the United States Government, and the reality of the agreement. This article contends that the TPP fails to meet the expectations created by President Barack Obama, the White House, and the United States Trade Representative about the environmental value of the agreement. First, this piece considers the relationship of the TPP to multilateral environmental treaties. Second, it explores whether the provisions in respect of the environment are enforceable. Third, this article examines the treatment of trade and biodiversity in the TPP. Fourth, this study considers the question of marine capture fisheries. Fifth, there is an evaluation of the cursory text in the TPP on conservation. Sixth, the article considers trade in environmental services under the TPP. Seventh, this article highlights the tensions between the TPP and substantive international climate action. It is submitted that the TPP undermines effective and meaningful government action and regulation in respect of climate change. The conclusion also highlights that a number of other chapters of the TPP will impact upon the protection of the environment – including the Investment Chapter, the Intellectual Property Chapter, the Technical Barriers to Trade Chapter, and the text on public procurement.

Predicting the temporal response of seagrass meadows to dredging using Dynamic Bayesian Networks

Predicting temporal responses of ecosystems to disturbances associated with industrial activities is critical for their management and conservation. However, prediction of ecosystem responses is challenging due to the complexity and potential non-linearities stemming from interactions between system components and multiple environmental drivers. Prediction is particularly difficult for marine ecosystems due to their often highly variable and complex natures and large uncertainties surrounding their dynamic responses. Consequently, current management of such systems often rely on expert judgement and/or complex quantitative models that consider only a subset of the relevant ecological processes. Hence there exists an urgent need for the development of whole-of-systems predictive models to support decision and policy makers in managing complex marine systems in the context of industry based disturbances. This paper presents Dynamic Bayesian Networks (DBNs) for predicting the temporal response of a marine ecosystem to anthropogenic disturbances. The DBN provides a visual representation of the problem domain in terms of factors (parts of the ecosystem) and their relationships. These relationships are quantified via Conditional Probability Tables (CPTs), which estimate the variability and uncertainty in the distribution of each factor. The combination of qualitative visual and quantitative elements in a DBN facilitates the integration of a wide array of data, published and expert knowledge and other models. Such multiple sources are often essential as one single source of information is rarely sufficient to cover the diverse range of factors relevant to a management task. Here, a DBN model is developed for tropical, annual Halophila and temperate, persistent Amphibolis seagrass meadows to inform dredging management and help meet environmental guidelines. Specifically, the impacts of capital (e.g. new port development) and maintenance (e.g. maintaining channel depths in established ports) dredging is evaluated with respect to the risk of permanent loss, defined as no recovery within 5 years (Environmental Protection Agency guidelines). The model is developed using expert knowledge, existing literature, statistical models of environmental light, and experimental data. The model is then demonstrated in a case study through the analysis of a variety of dredging, environmental and seagrass ecosystem recovery scenarios. In spatial zones significantly affected by dredging, such as the zone of moderate impact, shoot density has a very high probability of being driven to zero by capital dredging due to the duration of such dredging. Here, fast growing Halophila species can recover, however, the probability of recovery depends on the presence of seed banks. On the other hand, slow growing Amphibolis meadows have a high probability of suffering permanent loss. However, in the maintenance dredging scenario, due to the shorter duration of dredging, Amphibolis is better able to resist the impacts of dredging. For both types of seagrass meadows, the probability of loss was strongly dependent on the biological and ecological status of the meadow, as well as environmental conditions post-dredging. The ability to predict the ecosystem response under cumulative, non-linear interactions across a complex ecosystem highlights the utility of DBNs for decision support and environmental management.

Introduction: Sustainability reconsidered

Indeed this is still a common interpretation of sustainability and sustainable development. in actual fact the report highlighted three fundamental components to sustainable development: environmental protection, economic growth, and social equity. It stated that the environment should be conserved and our resource base enhanced, by gradually changing the ways in which we develop and use technologies. Moreover it was clear that developing nations must be allowed to meet their basic needs of employment, food, water, energy, ...