Call of Interest - 3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology

The Europe Section of the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB-ES) is seeking a host and venue for its 3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology to be held in 2012.

You can download the pdf version of this document here.

After the successes of the ECCB2006 (Eger, Hungary, 1000+ participants) and ECCB2009 (Prague, Czech Republic, 1200+ participants, www.eccb2009.org), we expect that the 3rd Congress will be similarly well attended. At this stage, the Board of Directors of SCB-ES is seeking expressions of interest in holding the 3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology in 2012 (ECCB2012).

Expressions of interest should contain the following (max. 2 A4 pages):

1. The location (country, city and proposed host institution).
2. The local organisers and contact details.
3. The advantages of this location in terms of access, transport andinfrastructure; brief summary of conference facilities.
4. The attractiveness of this location from an ecological perspective.
5. Suggestion for the timing of the conference, with justification (e.g. relevance to a key theme or possibilities for holding the meeting jointly with another organisation).
6. Special accommodation possibilities to attract student participants.
7. Profit sharing will be negotiated at a later date; at this stage, however, interested host institutions must agree to take financial responsibility forthe congress in case of any loss.

Expressions of interest should be sent to András Báldi at baldi@nhmus.hu by October 31st 2009. Short-listed expressions will be invited to submit full proposals by January 31st 2010.

Great Success of attendance at the Second European Congress of Conservation Biology

News from Prague. From the 1st to the 5th September the Second European Congress on Conservation Biology took place at The Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague. More than 1200 Conservation Scientist, students, manager and policy makers from 56 countries meet for this very important event, that takes place every three years in Europe. There was a 20 % increase in attendance compared to previous meeting in 2006 in Eger, Hungary. In this way the ECCB becomes, uncontested, as the main Conservation Biology scientific meeting in Europe. Very interesting and provocative plenary talks were given by Dr. Ladislav Miko, Minister of Environment, Czech Republic, Dr. Joan Martinez-Alier, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, Dr. William Sutherland, University of Cambridge, and Dr. Petr Pysek, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.

The next ECCB (European Congress of Conservation Biology will take place in 2012. We hope to see you there.

Registration open - SCB-GSS 2009

Registration is open for those students all over Europe who wish to take part in the 2nd School of CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, organized by the Education Committee of the SCB-Europe, the University of Ioannina (Greece) and the CBCD (NGO).

Student fee is only 150€, including accommodation in the majestic village of Papingo, in the heart of Vikos-Aoos National Park (NW Greece).

Registration closes 30 August 2009.

For further info and online registration visit the Summer School web page www.cbcd.eu/gss

Economics of the ecosystems: what conservationists think about the TEEB process

Contribution of the SCB-ES and the Working Group for Ecological Economics & Sustainability Science to the TEEB Call for Evidence Phase II

Mike Larson, Rob Dietz and Martin Dieterich


Nature provides services like clear water, erosion protection and fertile soil. Although, our well-being is dependant on these services, humans intentionally or ignorantly destroy nature because of short term economic profit. Environmental services are public goods lacking a market value, and consequentially a value in the political arena. As a result, many ecosystems have already been damaged or destroyed.

The study “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB)” was launched in 2007 as a part of the so-called 'Potsdam Initiative' for biodiversity. The TEEB is designed to attribute a more realistic value to ecosystem services and biodiversity. Such valuation translates into the recognition of economic loss underlying the destruction of nature. Losses may by far surpass the cost for effective protection of biodiversity, and is an important step beyond the 2010 target.

Exploratory work in assessing current knowledge on ecosystem and biodiversity valuation (phase I of the TEEB study) was concluded with an interim report in 2008. Phase II has now been launched to achieve the following objectives:
- firm up the science and economics framework to ecosystem valuation
- evaluate and publish a recommended valuation methodology
- engage the key end-users of the valuation work
- evaluate and publish a toolkit for policy makers and administrators

See more on TEEB: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/

While in the preface to the interim report the study leader, Pavan Sukhdev, has acknowledged the need for improvement or replacement of the “economic compass” used today, the TEEB in phase I falls short of a critical assessment of underlying economic paradigms linked to the principles of strong sustainability.

The SCB-ES supported by the SCB Working Group for Ecological Economics and Sustainability Science (Mike Larson, Robert Dietz, Martin Dieterich) has produced a statement to be incorporated into the EU call for evidence to Phase II of the TEEB study:

According to the statement the TEEB strongly focuses on microeconomics (i.e. valuation methods & cost-benefit analysis). While appropriate valuation is an important first step, the TEEB focus prevents sufficient treatment of macroeconomics (e.g. size of economies and subsequent resource appropriation, policies that promote throughput growth), which in many ways is more relevant to biodiversity conservation, in order to deliver a basics for effective nature conservation as a precondition for sustainability, TEEB and similar initiatives need to go beyond a scope that is limited to valuation and other microeconomic tools.

Subsequent TEEB reports should acknowledge and be explicit that (1) increases in the human population and per capita rates of consumption of materials, which combined constitute economic growth (i.e., increasing GDP), are the ultimate causes of biodiversity loss, and (2) there is an inherent and unavoidable trade-off between economic growth and biodiversity conservation

Ecology and economics should be much more equal partners in TEEB. Ecologists should not simply provide data for economists to apply their concepts, tools, and models. Socio-economic systems are subsystems within the finite biophysical world, for which ecological concepts, tools and models may be more useful or relevant.

See the text of the whole statement here: http://www.conbio.org/sections/europe/Policy/ under Resolutions

Be a Europe Section representative in the global SCB student committee!

The SCB Europe Section is looking for a student candidate willing to
participate in the global SCB Student Affairs Committee as a Europe Section
representative. (http://www.conbio.org/Activities/Committees/) The Committee manages the student awards each year for the annual meeting; maintain and develop new web-based resources for students and have recently launched a new 'spotlight on student research' in the SCB newsletter.

The Europe Section representative is expected to actively represent European perspectives on the global committee and to regularly report to the Europe Section Board of Directors. In addition, a leading role in the establishment of a Europe Section Student Affairs Committee is expected.

The Student Affairs Committee representative is a voluntary position. If you are interested, please send your CV and a few sentences of your motives tothe europe@conbio.org address by 30th April.

EEA proposed forest biodiversity indicators fail to meet their objectives

Given the upcoming year 2010, when progress towards the 2010-target is to be assessed, relevant and credible indicators of European biodiversity are of outmost importance. On important aspects of European forest biodiversity the indicators suggested by the European Environment Agency (EEA) fails to provide the needed evaluation.

In a recent report from the EEA (Anon 2007), sets of indicators are presented for European biodiversity aiming at evaluating the 2010-target. Concerning forest biodiversity three indicators are suggested; Ecosystem coverage, Forest growing stocks and Dead wood. Of these only the last has any relevance for the biodiversity trends in European forests.

- Ecosystem coverage of 13 different ecosystem types is suggested and any kind of tree covered area is one of these indicators. The claim is that this indicator "has a high relevance for biodiversity because it indicates the area of available habitats and ecosystems across Europe". This is simply not true. We have seen major ecosystem shifts within European forests through the logging of old-growth natural forests, use of exotic tree species, fertilization, drainage and various types of pollution. A simple measure of tree covered areas masks all these factors having profound negative effects on forest biodiversity.

- For indicator “Forest growing stock” is stated that "Growing stock is an important and well‑accepted proxy for biodiversity". The increase in growing stock seen in several European countries has come as a consequence of intensive forest management including, clear-cutting, thinning, exotic tree species, fertilization, drainage and plant breeding. These activities all have negative consequences for forest biodiversity as they cause loss of natural forest habitats and genetic variation. In no respect does “growing stock” serve as a valid “proxy for biodiversity”

The clear failure to identify relevant indicators of European forest biodiversity is surprising and raises the question behind this failure. I assume that the intentions have been the very best and that something in the process has gone wrong. With due respect to the individual experts taking part in the process, I do note that with a few exceptions the experts are officials from various organizations, authorities and ministries. The limited involvement of scientist is obvious. I cannot evaluate if this is a deliberate choice of the EEA or a lack of interest from the scientific community to participate. For whatever reason, the result is that the SEB 2010 lack relevant and credible indicators on forest biodiversity and hence should not be used to evaluate the 2010-target.

Anon 2007. Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010: proposal for a first set of indicators to monitor progress in Europe. EEA Technical report No 11/2007.

ECCB 2009 Steering Commitee Meeting

The Steering Committee of the 2nd European Congress of Conservation Biology met with the Local Organizing Committee at the Czech University of Life Sciences in Prague. The meeting started at 8:00 with a visit to the venue where the congress will take place. The Committee was really happy with the facilities offered by the University Congress Center. The place looks really wonderful. There will be two rooms with around 500 people capacity that will be connected by a video conference system and that will be used for the plenary talks. The Conference Center has capacity for up to twelve parallel sessions, although we hope to be able to keep the congress with no more than 8 or 10 parallel sessions.
At 9:00 we started the formal meeting. The LOC presented how is the current situation. Abstract submission is now closed and the congress has received over 1200 abstracts. This is a 50% increase in abstract submission compared to ECCB 2006!. So we are expecting around 1500 participants in Prague. It is going to be a huge congress!
The Steering Committee meeting was very successful. The BoD was very happy with all that has been accomplished by the Local Committee. Distribution of information about the congress has been really good as can be seen from the number of different countries submitting abstracts.