Forestry is a long-term business – it needs foresight, with an eye for long-finance awareness and to the long-term health and wellbeing of people and sustainability of the environment. When the Natural History Museum celebrated the bicentenary of Charles Darwin in 2009 it worked with artist Tanya Kovats to create TREE, a work which involved embedding a thin section through the length of a 200-year-old English Oak into a ceiling within the listed Museum building. The age represented the years since Darwin’s birth and the oak itself the resilience of his evolutionary ideas. However there were demanding requirements for this work, and to meet them the tree was procured from a private forest. Why?

The Museum was insistent that the work, though it involved felling a live tree, should be an exemplar of sustainable management practice (and biodiversity conservation). The Museum achieved this by working with the forestry team on the private estate of Lord Bath at Longleat in Wiltshire. The Longleat forest is one of the largest tracts of English broadleaf forest surviving. Historically, post Second World War, government demands via the Forestry Commission were for rapid, low-cost timber provision. This often meant alien, fast-growing conifers planted as monocultures and harvested within just a few decades of growth.

The broadleaf forest on the Longleat Estate is an SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest), and the subject of long-term study by several universities because of its high biodiversity. Yet this forest is commercially managed. Each year something like 10,000 tons of standing timber is cut from it, of which 6,000 tons is extracted for commercial use and the remainder – around 4,000 tons of branches and thinnings - left on the forest floor to create habitats for wildlife. This commercial activity is of course important for local livelihoods and to the rural economy.

The Longleat foresters emulate natural succession processes. Trees are not clear-cut but taken as they age, leaving a ‘mosaic’ of spaces in the forest which is always changing over time. As oak is typically at its best for timber between 140-180 year, which means long-established forests (with ancient oaks left in various parts of the woods). Trees such as hazel, ash, birch and beech all come in naturally as seedlings, usually long before oak is re-established. Where the estate was once required by post-war policy to plant alien firs, these are gradually being taken out in a sympathetic way. For example fire breaks are being cut much wider so that they become more like ‘natural forest borders’ with edge species such as birch and elder providing habitats for wider species diverity.

Unusually, procuring the tree for the Museum’s project required excavating the huge 20-ton root stump (stumps are more usually left to rot which is great for invertebrates and animals of the forest floor). It was the Longleat forester’s initiative to take advantage of this opportunity and enhance the large excavated hole to turn it into a pond haven to encourage frogs and newts and other pond life. The Museum project also included planting 200 young trees in public areas around the forest, and this legacy of ‘Darwin Clumps’ has been marked on the maps of the estate.

Looking at the bigger picture, with concerns over climate it is increasingly recommended that for commercial interests forester’s have to edge their bets and create much more diverse tree-planting to optimise the chances of getting good timber crops in spite of the environmental uncertainties around the climate of the future. At the same time the wider importance of forest in securing water supply and mitigating risks such as floods or in helping to lock-up carbon to off-set some of our fossil fuel emissions is also increasingly part of what forest management must address. It is only relatively recently that the Commission began to pay attention to biodiversity and the wider services of nature provided by forests, including their importance as accessible amenities to benefit both the health and wellbeing of the public, and to provide an accessible landscape that encourages regional tourism.

In the debate about ‘who should own public forest’, the key issue is actually what will be the ground rules for their future governance? Whoever takes on the task of managing our forests must do so in line with future long-term environmental and green-economic aims, not those of the post war era. They will need to be sustainably managed and developed to anticipate and offset the risks of environmental change. Their role in accommodating wider ecosystem services (including their importance as an amenity for public health and wellbeing) will need to be part of the specification. The UK Government has just agreed with the United Nations the importance of maintaining biological diversity as it underpins the vital services which nature provides for free, and yet which contribute substantially to our economic wellbeing. To deliver our contribution to the new targets for the UN Decade of Biodiversity 2011-20 we will need to see much more of the practices exemplified in Longleat. Whether ownership is via a governmental appointed Commission or via private or community ownership what will be most important is having a management framework that will ensure that rich, diverse forests are part of our landscape for the future and that they, more than ever before, provide the full variety of services we need for our health, wealth and wellbeing.

Dr Robert Bloomfield

Head of Innovation and Special Projects

Natural History Museum, London

Helen Buckland is UK Director, Sumatran Orangutan Society

The world’s voracious appetite for palm oil - an ingredient found in up to half of all packaged supermarket products in the UK - is fuelling the destruction of some of the most biodiverse rainforests on the planet, home to countless species, including the critically endangered Sumatran orangutan (see www.orangutans-sos.org). Whilst every individual has the right to make choices about the food they eat and the cosmetics they use, I feel that a boycott of products containing palm oil is not the answer to saving Indonesia’s forests, for a number of reasons.

In order to boycott products containing palm oil, you need to know which ones to avoid – which is not easy. Palm oil is usually a hidden ingredient in food and cosmetic products, listed simply as “vegetable oil” on packaging, so it is currently almost impossible to make informed choices about what you buy at the supermarket.

Even armed with a palm-oil-free shopping list, protesting with your wallet may have some unintended consequences. Oil palms are the most productive oil seed in the world – more than 10 times as much oil is produced from a hectare of oil palms as other crops. If companies are forced to switch to alternative oils, even more land could be put at risk by increasing demand for oils which need larger plantations. Soybeans, for example, tend to be grown under a similar model to oil palms: huge monocultures, often at the expense of tropical forests in South America. We do not want to export the problem - saving the Southeast Asian rainforests from conversion at the expense of the Brazilian Amazon, swallowing up even more forest in the process. We simply want forest conversion to stop.

Palm oil is a “wonder crop” when it comes to meeting the huge global demand for vegetable oils, accounting for more than a third of the world’s supply. Countries such as India and China rely on huge palm oil imports to meet their populations’ nutritional needs, bringing billions of dollars to top producer countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia. As long as the world needs vegetable oil, there is no question that the palm oil industry will continue to grow; what we need to be concerned with how this expansion happens.

The development of new oil palm plantations does not need to entail forest destruction. While precious ecosystems are being devastated, millions of hectares of abandoned land lie idle, available for cultivation.  It is estimated that the amount of land growing oil palms in Indonesia could quadruple without impacting forests (http://www.projectpotico.org/), enabling the industry to grow whilst drastically reducing its environmental footprint.

The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil was established to create a clear set of standards for reducing the environmental impacts of the industry. Change has been slow, and it’s not a perfect system, but oil certified as sustainable according to these standards has started to trickle into the world market.

Many millions of hectares of forests have already been lost to the palm oil industry. It is absolutely critical that the conversion of forests is stopped. We need more research into how to increase output on existing plantations, as current yields are in many cases well below their potential, and this would reduce the need for cultivating more land.  Environmentally-sensitive land use planning, improved productivity, responsible investment by banks and purchasing by manufacturers and retailers are all crucial to halt the conversion of Indonesia’s forests for agricultural development.
So what can you do to help? If you know a certain product contains palm oil, and would rather not to buy it on that basis, make sure that you write to the company that makes it and tell them. You can also demand that companies use only certified sustainable palm oil, and to clearly label this on their packaging. Making your voice heard really can make a difference – several big companies have already made commitments to cleaning up their palm oil supply after hearing from their customers about this issue - see the WWF website for a list.  We can all also pressure our elected officials to make decisions that help conserve our planet's limited resources and threatened biodiversity, and save precious species, including the orangutan, from extinction.

For further information on the environmental and social impacts of the palm oil industry see: http://www.orangutans-sos.org/campaigns/palm_oil_and_biofuels/

Dr Chris Lyal studies insects in the Natural History  Museum's Department of Entomology, where his speciality is the largest  of all beetle groups, the weevils.  As well as his research work he is  the UK National Focal Point for the Convention on Biological Diversity's  Global Taxonomy Initiative and for several years worked as a Programme  Officer for the CBD Secretariat.  He has visited many different  countries both for research and while working with people on  biodiversity policy and capacity-building issues.

In an earlier blog I mentioned I’d come back to benefits from genetic resources and the CBD, so I’ll now try to grasp the nettle.

One of the three objectives of the Convention is Fair and Equitable Access to the Benefits arising out of the utilization of Genetic Resources of Biological Diversity. This is the part that receives least attention of all, and which many of the Parties to the Convention want action on. As Bob has mentioned in one of his postings, one of the three outcomes that many countries want from Nagoya is an International Regime on Access and Benefit-Sharing.  So what does this mean? One thing it means is a lot of terminology, but as so much of the discussions are terminology-heavy, I’d better go for it.

Under Article 3 of the Convention "States have … the sovereign right to exploit their own resources …".  Broadly speaking, this means that the biodiversity of a country belongs to that country, and cannot be exploited without the permission of that country. Article 15 makes it clearer: “Recognizing the sovereign rights of States over their natural resources, the authority to determine access to genetic resources rests with the national governments and is subject to national legislation.”.  So if anyone wants to get hold of a ‘genetic resource’ (“genetic material of actual or potential value”) they have to ask the government of the country in which it is found and obey its laws. In practice this may mean getting permission from a variety of bodies and people, including at very local level, to access these ‘resources’.  The general mechanism for this is to make it clear what use is going to be made of the resource and get agreement with the provider country (‘Prior Informed Consent’ - PIC) and then agree a form of contract, a ‘Material Transfer Agreement’ (MAT). This will probably have a section on how any benefits are shared. The benefits might be money, if something gets commercialised, or information, or support for conservation, or a host of other things. So far so good. However, different countries have developed legislation in different ways, and there is real lack of clarity on how legislation in one country might be applied to someone from another country who has exploited genetic material without PIC and MAT. That is part of the background for the desire for an International Regime, so that access can be regulated and compliance can be more easily monitored and enforced.

In principle that sounds OK. Stuff growing in my garden belongs to me; you can’t take genes from it without my permission, and if you make money out of those genes I want a cut. In practice, it is a touch more difficult. How does a country know what is being collected and used out, how does it manage the permits it issues, how does it monitor what happens when genetic material is being examined outside the country, and passed between different researchers? Any process put in place is likely to be expensive in time and money; should it apply only to people who are planning to utilise a genetic resource commercially, or to everybody, including those who are carrying out purely academic research with no financial implications? How do you tell which is which? Should the regime apply only to the genetic material or to derivatives (“a naturally occurring biochemical compound resulting from the genetic expression or metabolism of biological or genetic resources, even if they do not contain functional units of heredity”). Should this apply to human genetic material? Should it apply to disease organisms, where it might be important to transfer and use genetic material very rapidly? Of course, one doesn’t just take genetic material from the environment, one takes organisms and extracts the genetic material afterwards. Because of this any legislation tends to be applied to specimens that might be collected, because of the potential benefits from the genetic material within them. So should it apply to commodities, such as potatoes? How does it apply to the exotic pot plants so many of us grow at home?

The basis of the discussion is very important; countries have seen and are still seeing money being made by big companies from exploiting genetic information gleaned from organisms they have collected, but no return coming back to the country of origin. The problems in developing a regime that can protect such countries whilst not paralysing other activities in support of the Convention, and can be practically implemented, are considerable.  The proposed text of the regime to be agreed at Nagoya is still being negotiated, and as of this morning still contains much text that is bracketed, which indicates that the negotiators have not yet agreed on the appropriate wording. It is important that we have something out of Nagoya that we can take forward, so we can move forward on this area of the Convention.

Dr Bob Bloomfield has coordinated the UK response to the International Year of Biodiversity working with diverse partners from more than 400 partner organisations in the UK (www.biodiversityislife.net). Bob has an academic background in biological science but has devoted his career to science communication and public engagement around science issues including, and especially Evolution and Biodiversity.

An interesting development week is the online publication of a report following from the Global Business of Biodiversity conference in the summer. The report, GBOB - A contribution to CBD COP10, has been designed for the CBD to share with the business segment meeting (a side event at the CBD COP10 later this month in Nagoya).

As an e-publication the site also links to an easy download and print version of the report. The introduction includes a video keynote from HRH Prince Charles, and a number of extracts and features drawn from other keynote speeches including Secretary of State for Environment, Caroline Spelman. Section 2 highlights comments from the other key speakers from science, policy and industry.

However at the heart of the book is Section 1 – a summary of the feedback from delegates. It is their feedback to the CBD, to Nagoya and to international governments which is most important and interesting. This is summarised under seven themes which highlight the main issues and barriers. A strong response from governments at the COP could help address and remove these obstacles and thereby enable businesses to engage more systematically, and not be penalised, in the global market place:

• Lack of understanding
• Communication
• Markets
• Regulatory frameworks
• Reporting and accountability
• Capacity development
• Wider integration – the overarching narrative

What is most interesting about the report is that while industry is rightly in the frame for being one of the primary causes of biodiversity loss, this shows a growing interest and awareness, and a willingness to address the issues if Governments internationally can set the policy frameworks for them to operate and be regulated within.

Jonathan Baillie is Conservation Programmes Director for the Zoological Society of London and a global authority on the status and trends of threatened species. He  has played a significant role in some of the most influential documents  on the status of the world's species including the IUCN Red List of  Threatened Species, and has helped lead the development of a series of  species level global biodiversity indicators for the Convention on  Biological Diversity.

2010 is the International Year of Biodiversity and our planet is in crisis. A recent paper in Science (Butchart et al. 2010) demonstrates that indicators looking at the status of species and ecosystems continue to show declining trends while those looking at threats are rapidly increasing. It is unfortunately clear that the 2010 CBD target has not been met, as we have not reduced the rate of biodiversity loss.  ZSL research conducted in collaboration with the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and partners demonstrates that 1/4 of the world’s terrestrial vertebrates – mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians – are threatened with extinction and our initial results indicate that these patterns may be representative of biodiversity in general. ZSL research with WWF indicates that vertebrates have declined by 30 percent since 1970 and this is consistent across marine, freshwater and terrestrial systems.

The threats to biodiversity are intensifying with the impacts of climate change and the increased pressure associated with an estimated global population increase of 2.5 billion people over the next 40 years. This century is clearly presenting society with some of the greatest challenges it has ever faced. Our ability to overcome these challenges depends on whether we are capable of transitioning to a world where we manage the world’s species and ecosystems in a sustainable manner. The 2010 Convention on Biological Diversity provides an opportunity for the world’s governments to place biodiversity high on the international political agenda and jumpstart this transition process. If this does not occur, nature will find its own balance with unthinkable consequences for all species, including the humans.

Alan Brown is Countryside Officer for Clyde Muirshiel Regional Park. He has a degree in Geography and has worked teaching outdoor pursuits. A few years ago he completed a biological MPhil.

Curiosity may have killed the cat and this may not necessarily be a bad thing considering how many wee birds they consume, but is biodiversity a question of curiosity? Are we just not worried about what type grass is growing under our feet? Perhaps we’ve just stood still too long. So, why are we not curious about what’s in our back garden? I know that in my childhood I collected worms, bees, wasps and caught shrews which was all done from the safety of my parents back garden! Not so easy now under the increasing urbanisation of our gardens built to park our combustion orientated lifestyles. With over 12 million square miles of gardens concreted over in London alone perhaps evolution may soon see the rise of the concrete mite. Still, at least the car allows us to drive into the countryside and park on the tarmac and see nature. Or have we, as Joni Mitchell sang, just ” paved paradise and put up a parking lot”. Gardens can be minature paradises for species and for our understanding of nature. Our lifestyle does influence our slant on the worth of nature.

Although we no longer appear to be curious, as a species, about the 800 or so species that can be in the back garden, it’s different for shiny consumables. We all recognise more than a thousand products. However, it seems most people only learn the name of a few popular plants that have been imported from somewhere exotic. Such is the case with Rhododendron that has taken over large parts of the countryside, but is appreciated for its colourful flower displays.  Ironically, for the Rhododendron, (though this point may be lost on it) in it’s native Himalaya it has become very rare due to tourist pressure for fuelwood. Meanwhile, the Privet, a tame species of our front gardens rampages across Madagascar. So what’s the outcome for this messing with the environment. Darwin pointed out that as part of the natural process a better adapted species leads to its parents’ extinction. Has our biological tampering just eased out poorly adapted species? Will things sort themselves out or will we just be over-run with super plants proliferating like supermarkets everywhere?

It may be that we are just Douglas Adam’s Golgafrinchans, a bunch of hairdressers and telephone sanitizers abandoned on planet earth, that eventually evolved, or didn’t, into the human race? So make your choice, it’s either a world of product placement or a place for a productive life. Choose life.

Martin Spray became WWT's chief executive in 2004 but dates his passion for nature back to boyhood. His earliest memories include the thrill of finding butterfly chrysalis in the hedgerows near his London home and of charting the life cycles of frogs, newts and toads in the family’s tiny backyard pond.

Today he is building on all his past experiences to confirm the Trust as a leading international conservation organisation - protecting endangered wildlife, promoting the value of sustainable wetland management, conducting leading edge scientific research and giving people of all ages new and engaging opportunities to engage with the natural world for mutual benefit. Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust (WWT)

As we reflect on the run up to Nagoya, I think it's fair to say that it's hard to be optimistic, but optimistic we must be.

Every nation around the world has failed to deliver on the 2010 target to stem biodiversity loss and we’re now even further away from where we started out. While it is understood that we are suffering the worst recession since the 1930s, evidence shows that if we don’t invest in natural systems like wetlands now, the cost to society may soon parallel or even exceed that of the banking crisis.

This is the challenge to which the negotiators at Nagoya must rise.

There is hope though. Evidence is mounting that taking action for biodiversity works for society and, if we work wisely by aligning our interests, aims and problems to the natural world, we can achieve what we want and redress biodiversity.

The UN’s REDD+ programme links action on climate change to conservation on the ground and the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) study has grabbed the attention of business and government alike by putting a value on the benefit of building biodiversity into decisions.

To give an example from the field, I have colleagues who have been working in Koshi Tappu, Nepal, one of the most important wetlands for migratory birds in Asia. With their local partners they have helped rid the waterways of invasive plants by helping communities establish an economy based on harvesting those plants and turning them into fuel or compost.

Images: Harvesting invasive plants from waterways in Koshi Tappu, Nepal, one of the most important wetlands for migratory birds in Asia. © Matthew Simpson, WWT Consulting.

WWT’s hope is that what is agreed at Nagoya will clear the way for governments to put these initiatives into practice around the world – imagine a world in 2050 in which invasive species are fully under control, and the benefits are shared in an equitable way.

We are looking to the UK government to be a leader at the talks, but the real test will be once everyone has gone home. We will be watching closely to see whether the UK’s ambition in Nagoya is then reflected in its domestic policies. We can't keep justifying our actions based on economics without accounting for the natural world.

For example, there has been plenty of speculation that the Cardiff-Weston Severn barrage will be rejected because the economy can't support that level of investment. WWT, while supporting the need for more renewable energy generation, is not a supporter of that particular project, but wouldn’t it be disappointing if that is the sole reason for its rejection. The truth is that the economy and society more broadly can't afford the level of disruption that the barrage would cause to the natural world and that needs to be acknowledged.

Could the Nagoya agreement mean that such a destructive scheme will never be put forward in the name of climate change again?