Home Blog Page 785

Cyber Security Top 10

© Wrightstudio cyber
Cyber security, Data protection, information safety and encryption. internet technology and business concept. Virtual screen with padlock icons.

Elaine Munro, BSI’s Head of Portfolio Management outlines the cybersecurity must-dos for business success

The impact on business for larger organisations has been well documented in recent times, and a greater understanding of information security has been reached. This is a matter of concern for businesses of all sizes and sectors being targeted by cyber criminals.

The risks to personal data has set off a wave of regulatory compliance with heavier penalties for personal data breaches in the UK. At the same time, there has been increased activity by the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) at a national level, the European Commission is proposing a major reform of EU data protection laws.

What can be done to help businesses to maintain trust, protect their reputations, and improve their bottom line?

Don’t be fooled

The first step starts with awareness and not being complacent to the problem, and don’t think size can exempt you from a breach, since targeting SME’s hackers can gain access to larger companies. Don’t leave yourself open and do not assume you are safe.

Know your enemy

Security threats come from a wide range of sources with most data breaches being caused by bad business practices. Poor physical security, lost memory sticks, non-password protected devices, unencrypted laptops and loose talk can contribute to breaches.

Look inwards

All businesses regardless of size must consider the risks to information and understand what they are trying to protect. So, are existing security measures effective? Have controls to mitigate identified risks been determined?

Get an ISMS

After identifying information security risks, the next step is knowing what to do and how to do it. This is where an ISMS or Information Security Management System such as ISO 27001 can help. It provides a framework to help identify and manage information security risks in a cost effective way, putting appropriate controls in place to help reduce the risk of security threats, and help prevent weaknesses in systems from being exploited.

Find your Achilles’ Heel

Research has shown that human error is now a leading cause of cyber breaches with trusted insiders playing a key role in many breaches. The most serious breaches are due to multiple failings in people, processes, procedures and technology. ISO 27001 addresses this by requiring organisations to ensure that all relevant personnel have undertaken security awareness training.

Get personal

Encouraging staff to make their personal information security a natural part of their routines, can help businesses to secure corporate information too. Training and awareness activities alert staff of the importance of taking as much care with business information as they would their own personal information. Being vigilant when using devices or carrying paperwork on public transport and avoiding having confidential conversations in public are a couple of ways to protect data.

Be social media savvy

Social media is an inexpensive way of gathering information about people. It enables access to e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, location settings, and details of family and friends, if it is not properly secured. With this information, passwords become easier to crack as people tend to use things that are easy to remember. ISO 27001 includes controls around password use to ensure they are regularly changed and more difficult to break.

Get to grips with mobile devices

In their haste to adopt new technology and work practices, businesses sometimes overlook the inherent risks and fail to put appropriate security measures in place. Do you allow staff to bring their own devices to work, and access your network? Can you be confident that family members are not also using it? Are you aware of the malicious code being added to free apps downloaded onto mobile devices? If not, you need a policy in place for this. ISO 27001 features controls around authentication for external connections that can help.

 Look outwards

Many businesses share sensitive information across and between organisations. If information is shared with a supplier, then the company would be failing in its duty of care if the supplier’s handling of that information was insecure. What information needs to be shared? What safeguards do they have in place to protect confidential data? ISO 27001 features controls around supplier relationships.

Cloud security

Security risks can take a variety of forms, encompassing everything from human error to malicious insiders, data loss or leakage to account or service hijacking. By requiring that, providers of your cloud services are ISO 27001 certified and operating in compliance with the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) STAR certification requirements, businesses can reassure themselves that their cloud service provider has the appropriate security measures in place to protect customer data.

 

Elaine Munro

Head of Portfolio Management

BSI Group

www.bsigroup.com

Becoming a digital services hub

© Valerii Brozhinskii cloud
Abstract world map with digital binary continents, cities and connections in the form of a printed circuit board, well organized layers

Richard Godfrey, Assistant Director of Digital Peterborough details how Peterborough City Council is addressing key challenges through better use of cloud technology solutions

As the UK’s local authorities continue to battle the ever-present financial, productivity, and modernisation challenges of governing today, many have turned to IT – and cloud computing in particular – as a way to gain an edge. Promising to extend the scale, scope and sophistication of their operations, cloud computing may seem a magic bullet to some, but how many have seen such promised rewards actually materialise?

Peterborough City Council is often heralded as a leading light in digital cities have spent the last 2 years undergoing a dramatic digital evolution – as it shifts everything from HR to customer service into the cloud.

This article will guide you through Peterborough City Council’s ongoing journey to implementing a digital services hub, addressing key challenges it set out to solve through smarter use of cloud technology solutions.

A single holistic view

When we started our transformational journey the overarching goal was one of making better connections – of our disparate services, to our community, between issues etc. The council needed a modern streamlined solution which was ready to meet the evolving demands of our communities and allowed us to work as smartly, and efficiently as possible.

To be as responsive as possible, this meant implementing a front-to-back integrated service – where all the products and technologies worked together seamlessly. In an increasingly data-driven world, the service also needed to deliver information in a format which could be cross-matched and used for deep-dive analysis.

With the implementation of a core set of cloud applications, including Salesforce, and an XCD HR system, the council now has systems which work together, giving not only the required front-to-back overview but one that spans left-to-right as well.

For the first time, council employees have been able to see a holistic picture of our services. Three issues that might previously have been viewed and solved in isolation, for example, can now be linked to a single underlying factor and solved as one, saving on resources and time. Being able to mine data through the platform is changing the way we deliver services – enabling predictive analysis and early intervention – the ultimate aim is to get so good at spotting the warning signs that people no longer need to come to the council in the first place.

Adding value not fire-fighting

Implementing new systems in the cloud will fundamentally change the way IT works within the council. Having technology systems that update automatically and communicate with each other seamlessly is removing much of the backend fire-fighting and maintenance activity that took up the IT department’s time. With such tasks increasingly taken care of, the focus for the team can instead turn to add value – spending time within departments to help identify and roll out tools to improve their service, or working with the performance team to make sure it is able to best understand and action the captured data. My vision of IT in the council in the future is of it functioning more as a commissioning service, buying in services and acting as advisers to departments rather than having its current execution role.

Community empowerment

Peterborough has one of the most passionate communities around – something that was a hugely untapped resource until recently. Another goal of our move to the cloud is to find a way to empower local communities, leaning on their strong sense of pride and making it as easy as possible for them to get involved in the day-to-day running of their area.

In the future, we hope to push the community’s involvement even further – using volunteers perhaps to visit some of our lonely elderly residents. In that way, we free up social care to concentrate on those with more immediate needs.

Smarter resourcing through self-service

The final piece of our digital service hub has been the implementation of a central knowledge base to help with consistent communications and drive more automation and self-service amongst residents.

With approximately 300,000 calls coming into the council annually from residents, the pressure to manage each enquiry in a timely and consistent manner was rapidly becoming unsustainable.

The Transversal FAQ system now gives our staff access to a vast knowledge base of information, allowing them to respond to queries quickly and accurately.

It has also been integrated into the website, enabling residents to self-serve rather than having to pick up the phone. We’ve been able to clean up the rest of the website, reducing the number of pages by 75% due to the fact that all the content is being funnelled into the FAQ section.

While the knowledge base won’t stop all calls coming into the council, it should ensure our resource is focused more on complex matters, than (day-to-day) questions.

Summary

It has been a long but highly rewarding journey for the council. Despite the various technical challenges along the way, the main stumbling block we’ve come up against has been the change in mindset needed to go with the new system. Knowing we’re leading the way for other authorities has also brought with it some sleepless nights! In the end, the journey continues to be about making the council as efficient as possible – and the process is always evolving.

 

Richard Godfrey

Assistant Director of Digital Peterborough

Peterborough City Council

www.peterborough.gov.uk

Procurement qualifications: QCF procurement diplomas or exams?

procurement
Definition of "Qualification" in a Dictionary.

Stefan Thresh, Managing Director of Qube Vocational Development Ltd gives an evaluation of the benefits of procurement vocational qualifications compared with traditional academic forms of study

The procurement diplomas are competency-based qualifications which require learners not only to prove their knowledge and understanding but also to demonstrate the application of knowledge in the workplace by carrying out the practical activities contained within the units of competence. This is achieved by putting a portfolio together using outputs of the learner’s work e.g. tender docs, emails, contract docs, spreadsheets etc.

The qualifications are very practical as the learner is expected to demonstrate their procurement skills and their procurement organisation will be effectively benchmarked against the qualifications which represent the latest procurement/supply chain practice. If there are any gaps in systems and procedures, these will be highlighted. These qualifications can also be used as an effective personal development tool i.e. by selecting optional units for activities which may be currently outside the learner’s current role with the organisation providing the appropriate opportunities for them to gain the required experience to prove their competency for these units.

Who are these qualifications suitable for?

These work-based qualifications are suitable for procurement/supply chain practitioners at all stages in their career, from trainee buyers to heads of procurement, who wish to prove their competency and demonstrate the application of knowledge and understanding in the workplace instead of perhaps taking knowledge-based exams only. These qualifications have the support of major UK employers both in the public and private sector and provide a significant amount of knowledge, understanding and skills development that underpins occupational competence in the procurement and supply chain sector.

How do the QCF Procurement Diplomas compare to exam-based qualifications?

The QCF Procurement Diplomas are considered to be much more user-friendly than studying for exams as they facilitate a healthier lifestyle balance as it is about what the learner does in the workplace and they are outcome focussed rather than memorising knowledge which is tested in a written examination. Many learners and their employers complain about the difficulties of finding time to attend evening classes at college, attend exam revision courses and the lack of relevance to their current job role or organisation etc.

What about Professional Accreditation?

Levels (NQF) 4 or 5 of the former Supply Chain Management NVQs, together with appropriate experience, used to be accepted for full membership of the Chartered Institute of Procurement and Supply (MCIPS). For over 15 years there has been a competency route to MCIPS available, until now. It is disappointing, therefore, that following a so-called mapping exercise to compare their academic qualifications with the QCF Procurement Diplomas, CIPS have decided not to accept these NVQ replacements for membership. Their decision has effectively disenfranchised many procurement practitioners who are unable for various reasons to take their examination route to obtain full membership. The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (CILT) has confirmed they will accept specific QCF levels for certain grades of membership:

Membership (MILT):

Level 3 or 4 Diploma in Procurement plus 3 years of relevant experience.

Level 5 Diploma in Procurement plus 1 year’s relevant experience.

Chartered Membership (CMILT):

Levels 5 and 6 Diploma in Procurement plus 5 years experience.

The Institute of Supply Chain Management (IoSCM) will also accept the new QCF Procurement Diplomas for the following grades of membership:

The International Institute for Advanced Purchasing & Supply (IIAPS) has confirmed that “after reviewing the comprehensive and extensive materials” submitted to them,“ someone with the Level 6 Diploma in Procurement (QCF) (assuming they have over 3 years work-related experience) will satisfy the IIAPS entry requirements for participation in the International Green Belt in Advanced Purchasing and Supply Programme”.

Whilst professional accreditation is desirable it should not be seen as essential as it is the level of qualification achieved that is relevant. A commitment to continuous professional development (CPD) is now the norm for most people contemplating the advancement of their career. It is essential, therefore, that both employers and employees alike choose educational pathways that best suit the individual and also the wider training and development objectives of the organisation. For many individuals and employers, work-based qualifications offer the ideal solution owing to their flexibility and practical nature which not only confirms knowledge and understanding but also the practical application of procurement skills.

 

Stefan Thresh

Managing Director

Qube Vocational Development Ltd

www.qube.uk.com

Change management

Why is it difficult to make it part of business as usual?

Change Management is not well understood amongst business leaders plus the skills to perform it do not occur in many businesses as a norm. Sometimes people expect IT solutions to provide the silver bullet to cure this but it does not and ends up transferring the problem from the business to IT.

In many cases resistance to change is under estimated, for example key performance indicators built into the existing systems can be counter-productive to change; businesses do not identify the benefits associated with change and do not monitor whether the change has been implemented and is sustainable.

So how can we change this? Why should we change this?

Change is a way of life and the two quotes that underline this: J F Kennedy said:

“Change is the law of life and that those that look only at the past or the present will miss the future.”

Whilst Winston Churchill said:

“To improve is to change, to be perfect is to change often.”

So what do we mean by Change Management and who is involved?

This is the transformation of a way a company does business and facilitates the removal of waste and poor practice. It needs a change of behaviour at all levels from Senior Executives and Departmental Managers, to front line staff.

Why is it so hard?

First of all any change requires a goal and a vision and staff in a business need to be able to see their own benefits as well as the corporate ones to participate in any change that is required. Change is the movement from the known to the unknown with the resultant fear of it. Change will require clarity and consistency in a person’s role, how they will be measured, and decision making skills that they will need. This will identify the gap between their present skills and those required to make the change a success.

So what are the key elements that are required to be understood to make change successful?

The first of these is the development of a vision. There are a number of tools to help companies do this, such as Target Operating Models that enable senior managers to articulate the vision. Done well these define the future state in terms of processes, business rules and job roles; leading to a change agenda covering organisation, roles and processes.

If we get this right then change is not guaranteed to be successful, but it certainly lays the groundwork for it to be.

What are the benefits and what follows on behind a change programme?

A better ability to measure and manage processes, the embedding of change skills and the mind-set can ensure that continuous of business as usual. This avoids the problem that change has not been tackled for such a long time irrespective of many changes in technology, mergers and acquisitions or growth, requiring huge jumps making change painful and quite scary.

A number of quantifiable benefits such as increased business performance, bottom line performance growth and better agility within the market place can be achieved. Increasing the staff contribution by getting them to be enthusiastic about embracing change and moving the business forward. Improving measurements can enable staff to contribute effectively to business performance, they can also potentially reduce external support costs, avoiding handing the change programme to external agencies.

At H3 Partners what we do is provide both the facilitation and mentoring of internal change teams and management teams as well as leaving our customers with the tools, techniques and the confidence to sustain improvement is buried and becomes a part change going forward. Successful change programmes are fun to be engaged in and leave many of the participants with a real array of new skills and able to make a better contribution to the business.

 

Rod Horrocks

CEO and Founder

H3 Partners Ltd

Tel: +44 (0) 777 211 4896

Tel: +44 (0) 845 118 0072

rod@h3partners.co.uk

www.h3partners.co.uk

Winning Support for Continuous Improvement Projects

Your quick step-by-step guide

Gaining support to implement and sustain a continuous improvement program is an oft-voiced concern within organisations. These concerns reflect frustration in both senses of the term – feeling frustrated personally and encountering attitudes that frustrate the effectiveness of the program.

Three sets of skills and methods have shown success in gaining buy-in. They are:

  • Using a proven step-by-step process for leading change.
  • Recognising and overcoming resistance to change.
  • Applying influence principles to engage resistant stakeholders.
  • Step-by-Step Process for Leading Change

Step 1: Establish a Sense of Urgency – Confronting Reality

People tend to feel comfortable with their current situation and naturally resist change – unless there is a good reason for change. The outcome of Step 1 is, in effect, a compelling business case for change. Why is this change necessary? Articulating that compelling reason – the issues with the current reality that drive an individual, a group or a company to drive others – is a critical first step.

For an individual project, the project charter – approved and supported by key stakeholders – can provide this compelling reason, this urgency. For a broader initiative, such as implementing an entire Lean Six Sigma (LSS) program, the substantial effort might be required to identify major issues holding the organisation back, and thus provide compelling motivation for change.

Step 2: Form a Guiding Coalition – Early Stakeholder Engagement

Implementing change by yourself is not only lonely and frustrating – it is also ineffective. It may be appropriate to combine Steps 1 and 2 to form a guiding coalition that shares your sense of urgency and then brainstorm ways to clearly articulate the “burning platform.”

For an individual project, the team is the obvious coalition – with the addition of a management sponsor or

Champion committed to the success of the project. For a LSS program, key stakeholders such as management sponsors or Champions would make a good guiding coalition – especially if the LSS program can be shown to align with achieving their own goals, the organisation’s “must-do’s” going forward. In that sense, the LSS program provides the how for achieving the goals.

Step 3: Define the Vision

Defining the vision for improving a process or developing a new product can be a team-building activity that leads to a vital deliverable: for a smaller-scope project, a compelling business case for the project; for a larger-scope program, the compelling vision that the stakeholders (the guiding coalition) would share with the larger organisation for how the LSS program aligns with achieving the goals of the organisation.

Team building with the guiding coalition is part of the desired outcome, and the development of the vision should involve the stakeholders so that they feel ownership of that defined vision. The vision could include such concepts as doing things right the first time, dramatically reducing new product development time or ensuring that the voice of the customer (VOC) is heard and heeded.

For a smaller-scope project, the vision can initiate and establish the project charter. For a larger-scope project, an effective set of steps for defining the vision could be:

– The senior manager/executive clearly articulates the burning platform. The stakeholders then brainstorm the issues, starting with the issues from Step 1.

– brainstorm keywords, phrases and terms that seem to capture the direction they would like to take.

– Either the team begins to construct a first-pass vision statement, or a stakeholder or a pair of stakeholders volunteer to work on a first draft of the vision statement for the team to review, amend or replace.

– The team reviews, edits, modifies and finalizes the vision. The vision should be easily remembered, brief, clear and compelling – powerful!

Step 4: Communicate the Vision

If the vision has been polished so that it is brief, clear, compelling and easily remembered, then it has fulfilled the first part of the equation: Quality x acceptance = effectiveness

This equation explains that the effectiveness of a proposed change within an organisation depends not only on the quality of the change and the preparation for the change, but also on the receptiveness of the organisation to accepting and even embracing the change.

Some key elements required for communicating a vision well include the following:

– Simplicity

– Analogies and examples

– A variety of media: meetings, memos, lunches, emails and newsletters.

– Some of these allow for a two-way communication, which is more powerful than simply talking “at” people and allows messengers to address questions and concerns.

– Repetition

– Leadership by example. Nothing undercuts a vision like having leaders undercut the message by inconsistent behaviors or snide or counter-message remarks. Even expressions of lukewarm or contingent support undermine the credibility of the message, and subsequently its acceptance. Communicating the vision is a time to show leadership, not hesitancy.

– Addressing of seeming inconsistencies, which otherwise might also undermine the credibility of said vision.

Step 5: Empower Others to Act on the Vision

The term frustration is unusual in that it defines both the symptom and the cause. If people begin to feel frustrated and discouraged, it probably means that something seemingly or actually beyond their control is preventing them – frustrating them – from accomplishing the goals.

The Champion’s role is to help individual project leaders and Lean Six Sigma ‘Belts’ remove roadblocks in their projects.

Step 6: Generate Short-term Wins

Short-term wins help a team in a multitude of ways. They:

– Provide evidence that supports and provides justification for the project or program.

– Deliver a sense of accomplishment.

– Convey helpful feedback for the leadership team.

– Undermine cynics and critics.

– Strengthen support from the managers.

– Help build momentum.

DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyse, Improve, Control) Lean Six Sigma projects lend themselves to low-hanging fruit. They find opportunities for quick wins in the Define and Measure phases through process mapping and the identification of non-value-added activities. Beyond that, team-building activities such as brainstorming and fishbone diagramming can achieve visible, if small-scale, success. From small acorns grow…

Steps 7 and 8: Consolidate Gains and Anchor the New Approach in the Culture

People rise to challenges if they trust that:

– Leaders care about the project.

– The team will be supported.

– Individual successes and the full team’s success will be recognized.

People also feel recognised when they are encouraged to share their successes, through presentations to management and elsewhere within their organisations as well as through presentations to other organisations. Media such as staff meetings, newsletters, bulletin boards, posters and banners can be used to recognize people and teams and celebrate success.

 

Keith Parsons

Managing Director

Dembridge Lean Six Sigma Training and Consulting

Tel: 0870 034 2203

+44 (0)190 551 3015

enquiries@dembridge.co.uk

www.dembridge.co.uk

Tackling our productivity gap requires a shift in thinking

Mark Beatson, Chief Economist at CIPD (the professional body for HR and people development) outlines what needs to be done in order to boost productivity in the UK

The UK’s poor productivity was highlighted by the Chancellor as perhaps the biggest economic problem facing the government during its term of office. In July, the Treasury produced a 15 point plan for tackling the UK’s productivity gap. But that’s only the start of what will need to be a wide-ranging and sustained campaign across all layers of government if we are to see measurable progress made.

Although it’s critical to improving living standards over time, productivity is not a term widely used in day-to-day conversation. We may not always understand ‘profit’ or ‘revenue’ in the same way as an accountant does, but we have a pretty good idea of what is being measured. When it comes to productivity, the natural definition – output per unit of input – doesn’t appear to be widely understood.

Last year, one of CIPD’s regular quarterly surveys of employers 1 asked them whether ‘productivity’ was a term widely used in their business when talking about how to improve performance. Only two-thirds said it was and only two thirds – not always the same organisations – said they measured their productivity. We then asked these businesses to describe, in their own words, how they measure productivity. The understanding was mixed, to say the least. Some organisations did talk about measures which looked at value creation per unit of time or labour – such as how many hotel rooms were cleaned in a shift – but many conflated total output or sales with productivity, making no allowance for the time or effort being put into the process. Many talked blandly about KPIs, which is fine if the KPIs make sense in a business context. Some respondents clearly must have wished they had never ticked the box saying they measured productivity, my favourite quote being “I work for a utility company, for goodness’ sake.”

It’s not just businesses either. Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt created a stir at last month’s Conservative party conference 2 when he asked “… are we going to be a country that is prepared to work hard in the way that Asian economies are prepared to work hard, and in the way that Americans are prepared to work hard.” Much of the reaction to his remarks centred on the fact that, on average, employees in China and the USA work for more hours each year than British workers do, because of longer working days and less vacation time, with the conclusion being drawn – somewhat lazily – that we can only compete with China and America in the long term if we copy their working hours. Yes, we could become richer as a nation if we work longer each day or each year. But we can also become richer by raising the productivity of each hour worked. This can be done through working harder, or more intensely, although 9 in 10 UK employees already feel their job requires them to work very hard. But the way we will compete for long-term with other nations is by working smarter – changing how we work to make the best use of our skills and investing in the technology and systems that give people the tools they need to work more efficiently.

Research published by the CIPD on September 3 suggests that some employers lost some of their drive for improvement – for working smarter – during the recession. We found that 21% of UK employers belonged to a group we called ‘survivors’. They had been in survival mode for the last few years, focused on the short term, and had struggling to think about, let alone invest in, the long-term. We contrasted them with 25% of UK employers who we called ‘balanced investors’. These had continued to invest in both technology and people throughout and since the recession. Their fortunes could hardly be more different. Many survivors appear stuck in a vicious circle of falling investment and growth, which means they have fallen further behind over time. In contrast, balanced investors have expanded, creating opportunities and resources for more investment. Indeed, our research found that differences in what we called ‘mindset’ were the single biggest factor accounting for productivity differences across employers.

The government’s efforts to raise productivity, therefore, requires a change in mindset in some businesses. This won’t be easy. A growing economy helps, as well as access to financial support for investment and training. But it also needs an underlying shift in ambition and an enhanced sense of what is both possible and achievable. This isn’t just a question of willpower, of making a different choice. Organisations need both the vision, management and leadership capability to turn vision into reality. It will be a particular challenge for central and local government: our research found that 37% of employers in this sector were survivors and just 2% were balanced investors. How will they improve their productivity if the gains from doing the same with less (and less) start to run out?

1 https://www.cipd.co.uk/publicpolicy/policy-reports/productivity-getting-best-out-of-people.aspx

2 http://metro.co.uk/2015/10/06/what-jeremy-hunt-actually-saidabout-brits-working-as-hard-as-the-chinese-5423501/

3 https://www.cipd.co.uk/publicpolicy/policy-reports/investing-productivity-unlocking-ambition.aspx

 

Mark Beatson

Chief Economist

CIPD (the professional body for HR and people development)

www.cipd.co.uk

Cutting to the chase

Hydraulic

Antoon Burgers, Program Manager at Holmatro Special Tactics Equipment outlines the advantages of using hydraulics to speed up special tactics operations

Speed is essential in special tactics operations. You do not want to waste time in getting to your subjects, with the risk of having them destroy evidence, or even escaping. However, SWAT teams and Special Operations Forces these days encounter more and more reinforcements on doors, windows, fences, etc. They find themselves faced with re-bars, padlocks and chains of hardened steel, which cannot be swiftly and easily removed. These materials are not only found when breaching and entering a building, but also when removing objects in the street for security reasons, or when cutting free activists who have chained themselves to an object

When encountering these obstacles, special tactics teams tend to fall back on conventional tools like grinders, bolt cutters, rams, sledgehammers or hooligan tools, but often not with the desired result. Why? The material is too hard and cannot be broken, it takes too long to open the object or the tools simply make too much noise, warning possible criminals inside. These conventional tools may also endanger the safety of the person that has to be cut loose. You need a tool that is safe and easy to use, can cut through the hardest and toughest materials and offers you the possibility of silent operation.

Hydraulic force

The strength that is required to cut hard and solid materials can be supplied by hydraulics. This technology has been used for years in creating rescue equipment. Now a special materials cutter has been developed for special tactics operations. Because this tool is powered by high-pressure hydraulics it can generate a high cutting force (up to 193 kN/19.7 t). Combined with a special blade and jaw design the special materials cutter can cut through extremely tough and hardened material, even up to 60HRc.

Regular cutters can only cut these materials while suffering severe blade damage, if at all. As the blades of the special material cutter are designed with hardened steel inlays they will not damage quickly but can be easily replaced if needed.

Since the special materials cutter is powered by hydraulics and has a high cutting force it is fast to operate, saving precious time. Another advantage is that it can be used with a hydraulic hand pump, making it suitable for silent operations. The compact design of the special materials cutter allows you to use it in confined spaces. Its adjustable and rotating handle gives you the possibility to cut in various angles when the cutting area is difficult to access.

Ultimately, this special materials cutter allows you to speed up your special tactics operations safely and silently.

 

Antoon Burgers

Program Manager

Holmatro Special Tactics Equipment

www.holmatro.com/en/special-tactics

Engineering a cleaner future for UK fossil fuels

© Calyx22 UK

Leadership and clear decisions are needed to drive cleaner energy infrastructure forward, according to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers’ Dr Jenifer Baxter

As we near the UN Climate Change talks in Paris later this month, the focus is quite rightly turning to how we reduce the impact of global warming and how the UK will meet its ambitious carbon reduction targets.

Renewables have been hailed by many, particularly by some green NGOs, as the silver-bullet solution, but the reality is that their expense and intermittency mean we cannot meet our targets using current renewables alone.

In terms of the electricity sector, our focus needs to be on winding-down coal-fired power generation and replacing it with lower carbon alternatives such as gas-fired power, which produces around half the amount of carbon. In the short to medium term, a new ‘dash for gas’ is the quickest, cheapest and most viable solution to reduce the country’s carbon emissions, while meeting the country’s energy demands. However, it is vital that we reduce the number of methane emissions from the extraction, storage and transportation of natural gas, ensuring that all greenhouse gas emissions are reduced as far as possible.

Looking further ahead, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) could hold much promise, but concerns remain over the affordability of this technology. The £1 billion Government Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Commercialisation scheme has been plagued by delays, largely as a result of concerns over costs. We will only be able to properly assess the viability of UK CCS upon the successful delivery of a demonstration project, although with Drax’s recent withdrawal from the White Rose coal CCS project, the delivery of any large-scale CCS demonstration project in the UK looks in doubt.

In the transport sector, the Volkswagen crisis has done much damage to the profile of diesel cars. However, while it is vital that a new testing regime that more accurately reflects driver behaviour is introduced quickly, we should not be rushing to scrap these types of cars. Diesel cars make a huge contribution to reducing carbon emissions. If all new fossil fuel cars were to be solely petrol tomorrow, for example, our average carbon emissions would increase by 16%. That cannot be in our interests.

Electric vehicles are also becoming increasingly accessible, with great strides being made to make them more affordable and provide more charging points around the country. However, the ability of our power infrastructure to generate enough electricity to meet demand is critical. The electricity capacity margins are shrinking and the UK’s demand is growing across the domestic, commercial and transport sectors. To ensure that the UK can provide security of supply to all users will mean the active use of fossil fuels in the short term as well as additional baseload generation from nuclear, with renewables and energy storage filling the emergency demand gap.

What we need now are clear decisions on large infrastructure projects, combined with leadership in energy policies, which would reduce uncertainty and increase private investments. We need to remove energy infrastructure projects from the political cycle in order to stabilise the sector and create opportunities for skills, investment, innovation and economic growth.

Dr Jenifer Baxter

Head of Energy and Environment

Institution of Mechanical Engineers

www.imeche.org

Realising the CCS Ambition

Judith Shapiro, Policy and Communications Manager at The Carbon Capture and Storage Association (CCSA) asks whether the government will consider CCS in the 2015 Energy Bill

When this publication last looked at CCS, the new Conservative majority government had just been elected. In the months since this government has been in power, changes have taken place in some industries, whereas in others – things remain the same. For CCS, we are drawing ever closer to the decision point for the projects in the competition – the first key date to watch out for is the 25th of November when the Chancellor will publish the Spending Review 2015. In this Spending Review, all government spending will be scrutinised, which means the £1bn allocated to the CCS competition could be in danger. So all efforts are focussed on making sure the government retains this £1bn which will be essential to ensuring that both CCS competition projects can be built.

Whilst we wait for the 25th November, it is worth turning our attention to the current Energy Bill 2015, which has just completed its passage through the House of Lords. The main purpose of this Bill is to introduce the primary legislation for the new Oil and Gas Authority (OGA). The OGA was established in 2014 in response to the Wood Review which looked into actions to maximise economic recovery of oil and gas in the UK Continental Shelf. The OGA will essentially be the regulator for onshore and offshore oil and gas operations in the UK – however, what is perhaps less known is that the OGA will also have a regulatory and technical advisory role for CCS. There are obvious synergies between oil and gas and CCS such as the re-use of infrastructure, combining CCS with Enhanced Oil Recovery and using the existing skills and expertise of our world-class oil and gas industry for CCS. However, despite these synergies, the original Energy Bill contained almost nothing on CCS. The Bill has now been through first reading in the Commons, and the government has put forward a number of positive amendments regarding CCS, and it remains to be seen whether the Commons will develop CCS further within the Bill.

Earlier this year, the CCSA published a report on “Delivering CCS – Essential infrastructure for a competitive, low-carbon economy” 1. In this report, we set out the 3 key actions that would enable the UK government to deliver cost-competitive CCS in the 2020s:

Action 1:

It is absolutely critical that the UK delivers 2 projects in the CCS competition – this will lay the foundations for a UK CCS industry and develop essential infrastructure to decarbonise both power and industrial emitters during the 2020s. Failure to deliver 2 projects will seriously damage the development of CCS in the UK, setting the industry back by a decade or more.

Action 2:

We urgently need to implement the framework that will enable the second phase of CCS to be developed – in both the power and industrial sectors. This second phase will be vital if the UK wishes to have cost-competitive CCS in the 2020s. Importantly, the second phase of CCS must be developed in parallel to the two competition projects – we cannot afford to wait until the first 2 projects have been operating for a few years, as this would mean that second phase projects may not be operational until the back end of the 2020s, preventing the UK from developing a CCS industry at scale by 2030. This would have serious impacts on the ability of the UK to meet its climate change objectives at least cost.

Action 3:

To ensure sufficient storage capacity is available to support the deployment of CCS during the 2020s, there is a need for additional funding of around £100m to bring forward fully appraised and bankable storage sites. Investing in storage appraisal will provide the necessary confidence to power and industrial emitters looking to develop CCS that storage capacity will be available when necessary.

It will be interesting to see if and how the UK takes forward these actions. The Energy Bill is due it’s second reading in the Commons soon, and the onus is now on industry and government to work together to ensure the Bill can make a meaningful contribution to delivering a thriving CCS industry in the next decade.

1 http://www.ccsassociation.org/index.php/download_file/view/918/481/

 

Judith Shapiro

Policy and Communications Manager

The Carbon Capture and Storage Association

Tel: +44 (0)20 3031 8750

www.ccsassociation.org

Power On Connections – self service is great news for customers

Finally, following years of lobbying, Ofgem has introduced legislative changes that will change the face of Competition in Electricity Connections forever, finally creating a truly competitive and open market that will offer customers improved service and reduced costs.

These changes have the potential to revolutionise the customer experience by allowing Power On to deliver an end to end connection service to customers without any reliance upon the DNO.

Self Service for Power On

The new Competition in Connections Code of Practice was formally approved by Ofgem on 16 July of this year. The objectives of the Code of Practice can be summarised as follows: Distribution Network Owners (DNO) must, as far as reasonably practicable, minimise their involvement in the provision of new connections by Independent Connection Providers (ICP’s) to their customers.

Should an ICP require a service from the DNO to enable it to provide connections for its customer(s) then the DNO must provide the service on an equivalent basis as it would to its owns connections business.

Finally, DNOs must work to harmonise their processes and procedures relating to Competition in Connections in line with industry best practice thereby allowing ICPs to freely and easily operate across DNO boundaries.

Legally enforceable

The Code of Practice becomes legally enforceable through the new Electricity Distribution Standard License Condition 52 that comes into force on 30 October 15. The license mandates that the DNO must adhere to their Code of Practice which shall be published and maintained through regular review. In addition to the Incentive on Customer Engagement (ICE) that came into place at the beginning of the latest Electricity Distribution Price Control (ED1), the Code of Practice is a further incentive on DNOs to take a more positive and proactive approach towards Competition in Connections.

When Ofgem completed their review of the electricity connections market in 2014, they concluded that the most appropriate way to further develop the market was to remove the DNO from the critical path of their competitors that are offering connection services to their own customers. As a result, the Code of Practice has a strong focus on DNOs empowering their competitors to undertake previously non-contestable activities themselves much like the gas connections market which has successfully operated for the last 10 to 15 years.

Ofgem set out these minimum requirements which have now been incorporated into the Code of Practice.

This means that Power On in future will be able to liaise directly with their prospective customers to obtain all of the necessary information to:

– Undertake the study of the Distribution Network to determine the most appropriate point of connection;

– Complete the design for the network extension and any required reinforcement; and

– Carry out all of the works including the final connection and network reinforcement.

When approving the Code of Practice, Ofgem added an absolute requirement for the DNOs to propose changes to the Code by 15 January 2016 to make the processes for self-determination of point of connections to, and design approval of DNO networks adaptable networks more definitive, following the completion of further process trials and stakeholder consultation by the DNOs.

Power On has built its business on a commitment to, and proven track record of delivering first-class customer service in the provision of connections. Our sole focus is to deliver connections in a timely and cost-effective manner.

The challenge that now lies ahead is bringing all of this into business as usual. DNOs must provide Power On the same level of access to their network information as to their own equivalent connections business or service providers.

For many DNOs this will require changes to their IT systems and processes. Those who were not ready for the October deadline will be making this information available on CDs and other similar media to ensure that we have the opportunity to hit the ground running so that we can identify our own points of connection.

Many DNOs are still running pilot or proof of concept schemes to ensure the seamless transition to this new way of working. Power on, through its leadership of the Metered Customer Connections Group (MCCG), continue to work alongside its BUUK sister company GTC to lead the way, assisting DNOs to understand the requirements of the detailed processes for Self Determination of Points of Connections, Self-Approval of Designs and Self -Connection including the associated operational activities.

Power On has built its business on a commitment to, and proven track record of delivering first-class customer service in the provision of connections.

Next Steps…

The first draft of the Code of Practice set out at a high level what the DNO must undertake to enable Self Service to take place for ICPs. Changes are required to add some more detail and to address other issues that were excluded from the first version of the Code approved by Ofgem.

These changes will be made through the governance arrangements set out the SLC52 which outlines that any future changes need to be put to the Code of Practice governance 12 member panel comprising an equal split of DNO and Competitor electricity connections market experts.

Future proposed changes will be tested against the objectives of the Code of Practice. Where a proposed change is shown to have the potential better meet the objectives of the Code, a working group will be established by the Code governance panel to take the proposal forward. The working group will be tasked with creating a Change Report for presentation to Ofgem for their decision on where or not to direct the DNOs to update the Code of Practice with the proposed changes.

It is anticipated that the early proposals will look to mandate that DNOs provide IDNO customers with emergency response services and the ability to trade unmetered supply inventories under the DNO’s MPAN. Such changes will help support the development of IDNO networks; which in itself promotes Competition in Connections as many ICPs construct assets for adoption by IDNOs.

Finally after 15 years since its inception and following the full implementation of the COP can a truly open and competitive market place for new connections being considered as being realised.

This provides the customer with real choice and for Power On the opportunity to continue to be the national provider of choice. We look forward to the challenges of providing the additional enhanced services that we have been long fought for.

We believe that having control of the entire process will enhance our service offer and deliver improved customer service and experience all of which support our mission statement. “To deliver consistently high-quality service to customers to earn their long term loyalty”.

 

Bob Theobald

Managing Director

Power On Connections

Tel: 0845 2300 116

Mob: 07557 430558

bobtheobald@poweronconnections.co.uk

www.poweronconnections.co.uk

Maintaining momentum in the North Sea

© Denis7563 north sea oil

There is plenty of life left in the North Sea oil and gas industry, insists UK Minister of State for Energy, Andrea Leadsom MP

The oil and gas industry is an essential part of the Government’s plans to provide a secure, reliable energy source to UK homes for decades to come and we are committed to backing it. I know how important this industry is to the UK. It supports 375,000 jobs, contributes around £35 billion each year to our economy and is essential to our energy security. This year, despite the challenges, there has actually been a rise in the amount of oil being produced from the North Sea. This is why we are determined to do everything we can to revitalise it.

In March, in response to the reduction in global oil prices, we took action to support the industry by cutting tax rates on North Sea oil and gas production, a measure that could be worth £1.3 billion and could boost production by 15 per cent over the next five years. We’ve also taken forward the rapid implementation of the Wood Review, quickly establishing the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) so it can maximise the economic recovery of the industry. Now up and running, the OGA is already moving ahead with key projects like the £20 million Government-funded seismic survey to acquire new high-quality data in under-explored areas of the North Sea.

The £3 billion investment in the North Sea by Maersk Oil to develop its Culzean discovery announced at the end of August demonstrates that there is plenty of life left in this vital industry. The project will create 6,400 jobs, providing financial security for more hardworking people and their families, and increase our energy security. This is the largest discovery in the UK North Sea for a decade and further discoveries like this in the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS) are possible, though there is no doubt that it’s getting tougher.

This investment is a very welcome boost when the decline in global oil prices has created many challenges for this critical sector of our economy. It means that the North Sea can continue to compete globally on a level playing field. Many companies across the UK have benefited from Culzean already, and many more will benefit over its lifetime.

There are still plenty of opportunities in the UKCS. Around 42 billion barrels of oil and gas have been produced so far, and some 20 billion more might be produced, so we need to maintain momentum. We will continue to work with the OGA and the industry to ensure that we maximise the potential of the North Sea. I’m confident the sector will remain strong for many years to come.

 

Andrea Leadsom MP

Minister of State

Department of Energy and Climate Change, UK Government

www.decc.gov.uk

Lower bills and healthier homes

fuel
Refueling the car at a gas station fuel pump

Maria Wardrobe, Director of External Affairs at National Energy Action outlines the importance of tackling fuel poverty in the UK

Fuel poverty remains a bigger killer across the UK than road accidents, alcohol or drug abuse combined. In our UK Fuel Poverty Monitor 2014-2015, we estimated that in addition to 125,000 needless deaths, over the next 15 years national health services could be forced to spend £22bn treating cold-related morbidity.

Current resources remain less than half of what is required to tackle the problem. The Committee for Climate Change (CCC) estimates that £1.2 – £1.8bn per annum is needed to meet the government’s Fuel Poverty Strategy in England. In addition, across the UK as a whole, there are 6 million low-income households living in properties which could be fatal, damage living standards or are simply too expensive to heat. The next few months will be of critical importance if we are to help. The UK government must ensure current schemes are better targeted towards those that need the most support; expand energy bill rebates so the poorest working households benefit for help automatically and secure non-departmental capital funds to improve domestic energy efficiency within the upcoming Comprehensive Spending Review.

The latter would ensure energy efficiency activity moved away from being funded solely by energy consumers or one departmental budget to become a joint capital funded initiative supported by other government departments but paid for by current infrastructure budgets. Key to this new approach is recognising domestic energy efficiency investments provide energy capacity cheaper than investment in new generation has done historically. In the process this can create local jobs and significant economic growth, while reducing gas imports and carbon emissions. Currently, despite the benefits, not £1 of the annual c. £25bn UK infrastructure budget has ever been spent on this type of initiative.

The need is great and the funds are available. If we finally get this right, not only can we reduce costs from cold-related hospital admissions and stop needless deaths, we can encourage economic growth while making homes warmer and healthier. With more than 30 years’ experience, National Energy Action (NEA) works to increase strategic action against fuel poverty, while improving access to energy efficiency and related programmes. Responding to pressure from the cost of excess winter deaths and treating morbidity, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recently identified key recommendations for commissioners and health and social care practitioners in providing support to vulnerable people living in cold homes. Having given evidence to the NICE committee, NEA is well placed to help local authorities and the health sector:

– Train staff on the health impacts of fuel poverty;

– Develop and implement affordable warmth strategies;

– Deliver practical installations of energy efficiency;

– Provide localised profiling and fuel poverty mapping;

– Facilitate community engagement and public awareness;

– Review ventilation and other technical building Standards.

For more information please email: partnerships@nea.org.uk or telephone 0191 2615677 (option 8)

 

Maria Wardrobe

Director of External Affairs

National Energy Action

www.nea.org.uk

Volcanic hazard assessment and risk management

hazard

The impact of a natural event such as a volcanic eruption can significantly disrupt human life. The long periods of quiescence that are quite common in many volcanic areas often lead to a fall in vigilance whose consequences may include a lack of preparation for dealing with a volcanic crisis. In some cases in which the volcanic area is considered as non-active due to the lack of historic eruptions, the hazard may be completely ignored. Thus, it is important to evaluate the possible hazards that could affect a volcanic area and develop appropriate hazard and risk maps. Volcanic hazard assessment is one of the scientific tasks that should be conducted in an active volcanic area where the human population could be placed at risk by an eruptive episode. Possible future volcanic activity can be understood and predicted via the analysis of past eruptive behaviour and the study of the geological record.

Understanding the potential evolution of a volcanic crisis is crucial for designing effective mitigation strategies. This is especially the case for volcanoes close to densely-populated regions, where inappropriate decisions may trigger widespread loss of life, economic disruption and public distress. An outstanding goal for improving the management of volcanic crises, therefore, is to develop an objective, real-time methodologies for evaluating how an emergency will develop and how scientists communicate with decision makers. In modern volcanology it is fundamental to develop models that combine the hazard and risk factors that decision makers need for a holistic analysis of a volcanic crisis. Final products are eruptive scenarios and their probabilities of occurrence, vulnerability analysis, and costs estimate of false alarms and failed forecasts. Probabilistic methodologies have a prominent role in volcanic hazard assessment, so that it is necessary to develop methodologies and protocols with which to provide better risk-informed support for authority decision-making.

At the Institute of Earth Sciences Jaume Almera, CSIC, of Barcelona (Spain), the Group of Volcanology of
Barcelona (GVB-CSIC) lead by Prof. Joan Martí carries out volcanic hazard assessment through the development of new tools specially designed to assess and manage volcanic risk. The group includes experts in geology, physics, statistic and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and aims to evaluate volcanic hazard and to develop new approaches to manage volcanic risk, as well as to design new databases to collect data necessary to assess it. The main focus of the group is to offer the basis on which to build the strategies that are required to successfully face up to and minimise the impact of future volcanic eruptions on volcanic areas in a homogeneous and systematic way. The approach is based on the history of the volcano being deduced from the geological record, which allows determining how, where, and when the next eruption could be. Their methodology uses free tools that have been developed to contribute to the long- and short-term hazard assessment, both in spatial and temporal analyses, to create scenarios of different kind of hazards such as lava flows, PDCs and ashfall, and susceptibility and cost-benefit analyses.

Moreover, the group is involved in a new project, VETOOLS (Development and Implementation of e-tools for volcanic hazard assessment and risk management), funded by the European Commission – Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Unit, to develop specific software for hazard assessment and risk management. This project also aims at improving and developing volcanic risk assessment and management capacities in active volcanic regions; developing universal methodologies, scenario definitions, response strategies and alert protocols to cope with the full range of volcanic threats; improving quantitative methods and tools for vulnerability and risk assessment; and defining thresholds and protocols for civil protection.

GVB aims to promote the interaction and cooperation between scientists and Civil Protection Agencies in order to share, unify, and exchange procedures, methodologies and technologies to effectively reduce the impacts of volcanic disasters by improving assessment and management of volcanic risk. The application of the tools developed includes volcanic fields around the world. Their studies help to identify the gaps between strategies adopted in different regions and, consequently, to propose a unified set of procedures and requirements that any volcanic risk management strategy should incorporate at the minimum, regardless of local specific features.

 

Prof. Joan Marti Molist
Professor of Research
Spanish Research Council (CSIC)
Group of Volcanology of Barcelona
Tel: +34 9340 95410
joan.marti@ictja.csic.es
www.gvb-csic.es
www.vetools.eu

Let us take stock of our situation regarding Earth’s climate

cimate
global warming theme human hands defending green grass sprout rising from rainless cracked ground

1. Climate change is not a hoax. It is real and is happening now. The global average temperature is steadily increasing and there is no doubt that the most significant cause of this warming is the increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

2. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that emissions from fossil fuel combustion by humans have caused the CO2 level in the atmosphere to increase from its steady average at 275 parts per million (ppm) to over 400 ppm in the last 215 years. There is no mystery here. James Watt patented his steam engine driven by fossil fuel 246 years ago.

3. Forecasts based on fairly robust atmospheric models indicate that a 450 ppm CO2 level will correspond to a +2°C rise in temperature from that present prior to the industrial revolution. This is a very significant temperature increase that will cause enormous problems for Earth and its inhabitants: coastal flooding due to sea rise; an increase in the frequency and intensity of storms, which will cause droughts in some areas and extensive flooding in others; adverse effects on the reliability of food production; huge increases in human refugees from affected areas; and increases in disease propagation.

4. Sea level rise is caused by the melting of ice located at Earth’s poles and glaciers. We already have extensive data showing the loss of such ice. The Arctic is particularly sensitive because ice there forms on water. While Arctic ice was 6 feet deep in the mid-20th century, it now averages only 3 feet deep. Its areal extent is decreasing rapidly and indications are that the Arctic will be completely ice-free all through the year by 2033.

5 Greenland’s ice fields are melting rapidly. When all of this ice has melted, it will add 20 feet to sea level. Over 100 million people live no more than 3 feet above the current sea level.

6 Antarctica has the largest amount of ice. It too is melting. Somewhat confusing is that there are two different kinds of ice in Antarctica: ice that forms on water (sea ice), which is quite thin; and ice that forms on land, which is often kilometres thick. Sea ice can appear to increase in areal extent during a year and some have argued that this increase shows the warming trend is false. This is incorrect. When one accounts for the total volume of ice at Antarctica, one sees a steady diminution of its volume over time. Both poles are suffering warming trends and adding water to the sea.

7 There is no uncertainty about why CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing Earth’s atmospheric temperature. It is a well-known fact that CO2 is transparent to ultraviolet radiation coming from the sun, but

CO2 strongly absorbs infrared radiation that comes from Earth. CO2 permits energy to come through the atmosphere but prevents considerable amounts of energy from leaving. This has been known for decades. Also known is the amount of radiation that can be absorbed by CO2. Thus, by knowing the concentration of CO2 and the volume of the atmosphere, it is possible to calculate using well-known laws of physics how much energy will be absorbed by CO2 and retained as heat. It turns out that the 2 ppm increase in CO2 (from 398 to 400 ppm in 2014) captured an additional 380 billion megawatt-hours of energy over what was captured in 2013. This energy increase is more than 10 times the energy needed to melt the 300 m3 of ice that was observed to have disappeared in the Arctic in 2014.

8 Humans need to find an alternative energy source and do it quickly. Much of the known reserves of fossil fuel must never be burned or must be burned in a way that CO2 emissions will not occur. If we do burn them without emission controls, then Earth will spiral into a severely baked planet accompanied by catastrophic suffering of flora and fauna (including humans).

9 With our current rate of increase in CO2 emissions per year, it is clear that our atmosphere will contain 450 ppm CO2 by 2035 and 550 ppm (corresponding to a +3°C warming) by 2100. Something is urgently needed very soon.

10 A problem most people have with cutting back fossil fuel use is that they believe it will adversely impact our prosperity and economic growth. What they fail to understand is that our prosperity and economic growth are guaranteed to be horribly affected by continuing on our current road.

The only way to have our global civilisation remain relatively sustainable is for us to control CO2 emissions.

11 World leaders have met several times in recent decades to try to come to some sort of global consensus about what must be done by each country. Virtually all of them have failed because of lack of commitment to the agreements (Kyoto) or to watered-down commitments (Copenhagen). We are collectively running out of time.

12 In Paris, in December of 2015, there will be a meeting of over 200 United Nation’s countries trying to negotiate fair and on-going national commitments to stem increasing CO2 emissions. Most political and environmental experts say this is the last chance the world has to act in a manner that will effectively limit global warming to less than +3°C compared to pre-industrial temperatures. Already negotiations are underway. Critical leadership is being found. The G7 nations agreed in June to end combustion of fossil fuels by 2100 and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40-70% by 2050 compared to 2010 emission levels.

13. All governments must be committed to this action. All people must make sure their governments are held to high standards and ethical behaviour. This is the fight of our lives. It is also a fight for our grandchildrens’ lives.

 

Bruce R. Conard

President

BRConard Consulting, Inc

bconard@sympatico.ca

Mountains and Climate Change

climate change
Gasherbrum mountain massif in Karakoram range, K2 trek, Pakistan, Asia

It is well known that the current rate of warming in response to increasing ‘greenhouse-gas’ concentrations (e.g. CO2) is amplified at high latitudes and with increasing elevation in mountains. This rapid warming has important implications for ecosystems, human activities, and alpine biota. Linked to this warming are a glacial retreat and upward shift of tree-lines, creating further threats to alpine biodiversity.

Alpine plants grow above the tree-line in mountains globally. They occur in areas with low temperatures, very low night-time temperatures, frost, short growing season, and high winds or extended snow-lie. Many grow very slowly; some living for 100+ years. They inhabit such extreme habitats because of their physiological tolerances and inherent requirements for cold and/or intolerance to competition from taller, rapidly growing plants of lower elevations. Some alpines, but not all, can be grown in lowland gardens in the absence of competition. Because of their ecological specialisation, alpines are potentially sensitive to climate change.

In the absence of long-term permanent recording plots, studying how alpines are responding to climate change requires (1) reliable botanical records from the past 100 years, (2) a repeat survey today using identical methods as the original survey, and (3) a critical comparison of past and present species occurrences.

Investigations in the European Alps show increased species richness on high (>3000 m) summits during the last 100–150 years. Kari Klanderud showed that richness between 1600– 1800 m elevation had increased since 1930 by 8–14 species and between 1800–2000 m by 5–8 species, but that richness above 2000 m showed little change in the Jotunheimen mountains (central Norway). Grasses and dwarf-shrubs (e.g. mountain heath, crowberry; figure 1) have expanded their elevational limits by 200–300 m since 1930. No high-alpine summit species such as the glacier buttercup or tufted saxifrage (figure 1) have gone extinct.

Many such resampling studies have now been done in Europe, the Caucasus and Ural Mountains, parts of East Africa, and the Americas. John-Arvid Grytnes has synthesised the results of 114 resurveys of European mountains to test competing hypotheses about the causes of species shifts – atmospheric nitrogen-deposition, precipitation, temperature, land-use changes, etc. Seventy per cent of species showing detectable changes in their upper limits has moved upwards. The same species tended to move up on different mountains. There were large differences between mountains in the proportion of species shifting upwards. This proportion is not related statistically to temperature changes. Species associated with late snow-lie have become commoner on summits. These findings suggest that plants are partly responding to climate through elevational changes in snow lie resulting from a complex of temperature and precipitation changes. Such changes allow more competitive plants to expand upwards. This synthesis suggests that recent climate change is affecting alpine plants but that the link is more complex than a simple species response to increasing temperatures.

These field-based results contrast with predictions about impacts of future climate change on alpines from species–climate ‘niche’ models. The models suggest drastic changes with many species going extinct by the next century, but, caution is needed because their coarse spatial scale (e.g. 50´50 km) fails to capture the fine-scale topographic and microclimatic variations so characteristic of alpine landscapes.

One important result of the resurveys is that there is little evidence for local extinctions, especially at the highest elevations where climate warming would be expected to have the greatest impact. Daniel Scherrer and Christian Körner (Basel) have shown that there is great variation in soil and surface temperatures due to numerous microhabitats within an alpine landscape created by high topographical variation (ridges, hollows, streams, etc.). Local-scale variations (7.2K for mean growing-season soil temperature,) exceed IPCC warming predictions for the next 100 years. A 2K regional regional scale warming leads to a 3% loss of the currently coldest microhabitats in their study areas. Such cold microhabitats will not be lost altogether. Warm microhabitats will become more frequent and new warmer microhabitats may develop. The observed increases in plant richness seen on European mountains are likely a response to increased microhabitat diversity. Rugged alpine terrain is a ‘safer’ place to live under conditions of rapid climate change than flat terrain that offers no nearby ‘escapes’ from new thermal regimes.

Are entire alpine ecosystems changing in response to recent environmental changes? Studies of algae and animals show that major biological changes have occurred in alpine lakes during the last 100 years. These changes may result from increased atmospheric nitrogen deposition, acid-rain, or climate change, or interactions between these drivers. However, the nitrogen and acid-rain hypotheses are unlikely to be driving changes in remote lakes in the Andes studied by Neal Michelutti, Andrew Labaj, and colleagues (Kingston). Such studies demonstrate the recent development of new ecological states in remote alpine lakes, just as there have been major shifts in many arctic and temperate alpine lakes and in arctic and alpine floras.

Although alpine habitats and their biota are often thought of as ‘pristine’, they are being increasingly impacted, to varying extents, by climate change, nitrogen-deposition, tourism, hydroelectricity development, land-use changes, introduced species, and over-exploitation leading to erosion and landscape degradation.

Mountains cover 24% of the Earth’s land surface and 26% of the world’s population lives in or by mountains. They provide water for over half of mankind directly or indirectly as mountains hold about 66% of the world’s freshwater as snow or ice. Stephen Venables recently wrote, “Mountains are the ultimate litmus test of what is happening on our planet.” Alpine plants and their recent changes are an important part of this ‘litmus test’. They warrant greater study as they have much to tell us about biodiversity responses to future changes.

 

H John B Birks

Professor Emeritus

Ecological and Environmental Change Research Group (EECRG)

Department of Biology

University of Bergen

Norway & Environmental Change Research Centre (ECRC)

University College London, UK

Tel: +47 5558 3350

john.birks@uib.no

www.eecrg.uib.no/Homepages/John-Birks.htm

Addressing the energy storage bigger picture – The Interreg IVA SPIRE Project

The Interreg IV project SPIRE (Storage Platform for the Integration of Renewable Energy) managed by the Special European Union Projects Body provided £2.9M to address scales of energy storage required in the Ireland/Northern Ireland Cross Border Region. The project led by Ulster University’s Centre for Sustainable Technologies brought together the Centre for Renewable Energy at Dundalk IT (CREDIT) and through an Official Journal of the European Community tender process, Gaelectric Energy Storage Ltd.

The aim of the project was to assess the likely volumes of energy storage required by the all-Ireland Single Electricity Market (SEM) given its likely high penetration rate (>40% by 2020) of non-dispatchable, variable wind energy. A series of scenarios examined the impacts of wind energy on the SEM developed in 2050 and incorporated alternative technologies such as advanced gas turbines and CCGTs and interconnection to other markets.

The scenarios are supported by a series of research initiatives examining different scales of energy storage, namely a) Large utility-scale (represented by Compressed Air Energy Storage – CAES); b) Industrial site scale (through flow batteries and ice banks) and c) Domestic scale (through heat pumps and energy thermal storage).

CAES would be incorporated into local salt deposits at Larne, Northern Ireland, UK and proposed compressions of air to >100bar during periods of excess wind capacity. Solution mining of a cavern at depths of about 1700m would provide 200-300MW of storage capacity and the air would be used to offset combined cycle gas turbine air compressors, thus increasing local power station efficiency.

A program of test drilling was initiated and results indicated that salt deposits at shallower depths (~900m) had greater geological complexity than first anticipated. The salts at greater depths were more suitable. CAES systems appear to be more cost-effective than other large scale storage systems.

Intermediate scale energy storage supports wind turbines operating on large sites. Dundalk Institute of Technology used its 850kW wind turbine coupled with an ice-bank for cooling computer laboratories and 500kWh flow battery to evaluate system performance. The complexities of urban installations of wind turbines were evaluated through the novel deployment of lidar technologies to examine the variable air flows around buildings. Results indicated that electricity and heat combinations worked well for building applications.

Ulster University developed a heat pump and thermal storage facility on its “Terrace Street” test houses. These are fully instrumented Victorian terraced houses lived in by families that are now converted successfully from gas boilers to high-temperature heat pumps and 600 litres of water-based thermal storage. Initial results are promising with thermal comfort being maintained, running costs reduced and pricing signals from the electricity system operator integrated to optimally utilise the storage when electricity demands are high and charge when electricity demands are low.

Finally, these three sets of performance characteristics were integrated into the SEM electricity market model developed in PLEXOS which indicated through a series of scenarios, the likely scales, costs and benefits on the SEM of different combinations of storage up to 2050. Demand-side management with heat pumps and energy storage coupled with CAES looked promising but the overall conclusion was that there is capacity for many different approaches provided that they were assisted in their deployment through payments under ancillary services.

The author would like to thank staff, partners, Steering Committee Members (DCENR, Invest NI, Eirgrid) and the Special European Union Projects Body for their support through this challenging but fulfilling project.

 

Professor NJ Hewitt BSc DPhil

CEng CPhys MInstP MInstR MEI

Director

Centre for Sustainable Technologies Ulster University

Tel: +44 (0) 28 903 68566

Fax: +44 (0) 28 903 68239

nj.hewitt@ulster.ac.uk

www.cst.ulster.ac.uk

Transforming Europe’s energy system

Research and innovation could accelerate Europe’s energy transformation, as outlined by EU Commissioner for Energy, Miguel Arias Cañete in a speech at the SET-Plan Conference

A rapidly changing energy and climate landscape require a realignment in the way we work. That is why the vision we have for the SET-Plan is one based on 3 principles:

Firstly, a simpler, more focused approach. We need to bring the SET-Plan up to speed with 2020/2030 goals by focusing on the priorities with the greatest potential to help us meet the objectives we have set in our Energy Union.

Second, more integration, transparency and accountability. That means putting an end to technology tribalism: innovation breakthroughs in one sector or one country should be shared across the EU energy system.

And thirdly, it needs to be powered by smart financing to make sure investment is directed to where it is needed. If we want to fully exploit the potential of European innovation we have to look horizontally at the whole energy system across Europe. And that doesn’t mean reinventing the wheel.

In fact it is about maximising the potential of the great work already happening by better linking it together. Europe needs to be as strong as the sum of all of its research parts. That will need more cross-border, cross-sector integration.

This is why the SET-Plan process will not be a standalone one. Together with the Strategic Transport Research and Innovation agenda and with the Global Technology and Innovation Leadership Initiative, they will represent the 3 strands that will contribute to the research and innovation competitiveness strategy to be presented as of part of the State of the Energy Union in 2016.

More targeted approach

Getting back to the 3 principles for the new SET-Plan, allow me to start with the need for a more targeted approach. The current SET-Plan no longer quite fits with today’s rapidly changing energy system. Nor has it kept speed with our ambitious climate and energy commitments.

Let me put that into context:

In just a few months we will head to Paris to secure a legally binding, ambitious global climate agreement. As you know our side of the bargain is a 40% cut in emissions, a minimum share of 27% of renewables in our energy system and a 27% improvement in our energy efficiency – all by 2030.

That’s backed up by the Energy Union which explicitly commits us to becoming world leader in renewables. All of that in a changing energy system made up of more and more active prosumers, increasingly decentralised production patterns and more flexible demand. The good news is that thanks to the SET-Plan – and we’ve started moving in the right direction.

Thanks to advances in European technology, the cost of photovoltaic (PV) systems has fallen by 50% in the last 4 years, while wind turbine prices fell by almost a third over the same period.

The reason that costs are going down is that we are constantly innovating. Our researchers are developing cleaner energy technologies which help us do more for less.

That work has helped renewables get up to 15% of our final energy consumption, 26% in the electricity sector. That’s good but it’s still a long way off where we need to be.

In fact we need to step up our game across the board if we are to reach our targets. Consider this:

– Three-quarters of our housing stock is still energy inefficient;

– European buildings are responsible for more than one-third of the EU energy-related CO2 emissions;

– We still have millions of European homes relying on century-old analogue metering; and,

– We have a transport system responsible for a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions.

Research and innovation will be key to the big transitions we’ll need across each of those areas. That is why our vision is for a SET-Plan that focuses on a small number of big priorities. The 4 core research and innovation priorities we have highlighted are:

– Reducing the cost of renewable energy technologies to ensure Europe is world leader in the field;

– Developing smart grids that can reply to the need for energy consumers and prosumers;

– New technologies to improve energy efficiency, in particular of the building stock;

– And, increasing the sustainability of the transport system, for example through electric vehicles or reducing the cost of batteries.

In addition, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and Nuclear, can be added for those member states interested in those technologies. In our communication, we have highlighted a series of 10 actions to support those priorities.

More integration, transparency, accountability

Setting priorities and actions is the easy bit. Now we have to make it happen. We cannot do it without Member States’ full commitment to working together and take ownership of the SET-Plan.

In the past, it has been said that the Commission was too prescriptive with its priorities, that it made life more difficult by not joining up its research arm with its energy or transport policies. We listened to that. This time around we worked for the last 2 years with the Member States and with industry to define the SET-Plan’s priorities in a bottom-up way.

That is how we came up with the 10 actions and we will work with Member States and all stakeholders to define:

– the level ambition (in terms of priorities and funding),

– the modalities for the implementation and

– the timing for the delivery of results.

With the stakes so high we now need greater transparency. It is crucial that Member States know what initiatives other countries are working on so as to avoid duplication. They need to take a far more “open data” approach to the results of our work. We believe that that transparency will breed accountability.

We will establish clear performance indicators to measure progress and take a results-orientated approach. But in return for greater integration, transparency, and accountability we have to make sure that the projects with the greatest potential have access to the investment they need.

Smart Financing

We have all seen the results of what targeted investment can do.

Take for example of the Gemini offshore wind farm off the North Sea coast of the Netherlands. It is the largest farm of its kind in the world. Its 600MW will supply renewable electricity for more than 1.5 million people and 785,000 households!

That’s equivalent to a 1.25m ton reduction of CO2 emissions. Not to mention the jobs and income it will bring to the region.

But, offshore wind farms are expensive – €2.8bn in this case. The truth is that large scale projects of this kind are often viewed as risky. We have to look at new ways to fund these projects – clearly, public money will never be enough.

Our strategy is to leverage as much private investment as possible from as little public funding needed. With the Gemini project, for example, the European Investment Bank invested €587m of EU public money. That investment acted as a guarantee and encouraged a number of other public and private actors to invest the remaining money needed.

That is exactly the thinking behind the new €315bn European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI). Public institutions must act as a guarantor to incentivise private funding and allow financial institutions to offer long-term financing to projects with a higher risk profile.

To support that we have doubled the funding for energy research from 2014 to 2020 and we have ring-fenced 35% of all research money for climate technologies. In fact we are investing in clean energy technologies in all parts of the EU budget – from regional to maritime funds.

There are plenty of funding opportunities at EU level. But the same spirit of collaboration of the SET-Plan applies to investment. Regional approaches might provide common investment needs: where we have common challenges we need to pool together our resources.

Conclusion

That is the foundation for our new vision for the SET-Plan. We have common energy and climate goals. We have world-leading research institutions and some of the world’s top innovators. EU companies already hold 40% of global patents for renewable energy technologies. We now need to bring all of that together.

– The new political approach to SET Plan will prioritise the areas with the greatest potential to help us achieve our objectives.

– The new structure will ensure more cross-border, cross-sector integration, more transparency, and more accountability.

– And the range of smart financing tools at our disposal will help us direct investment where it is needed.

Discussions with Member States will continue up to and beyond Paris where I hope we can review our level of ambition upwards. That will then feed into the Commission’s Strategic Communication on Research and Innovation due before the end of 2016. We have a lot of work ahead of us but I am more confident than ever that we can make it happen.

This article is taken from a speech – http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-15-5695_en.htm

 

Miguel Arias Cañete

Commissioner for Energy and Climate Action

European Commission

http://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/arias-canete_en

 

Agriculture and climate change

Agriculture both contributes to, and is affected by climate change. The EU needs to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions from agriculture and adapt its food-production system to cope. But, climate change is only one of many pressures on agriculture, The European Environment Agency explains further

Faced with growing global demand and competition for resources, the EU’s food production and consumption need to be seen in a broader context, linking agriculture, energy, and food security.

Food is a basic human need, and a healthy diet is a key component of our health and wellbeing. A complex and increasingly globalised system of production and delivery has developed over time to meet our need for food and for different flavours. In today’s world, a fish caught in the Atlantic might be served within days in a restaurant in Prague alongside rice imported from India. Similarly, European food products are sold and consumed in the rest of the world.

Agriculture contributes to climate change

Before reaching our plates, our food is produced, stored, processed, packaged, transported, prepared, and served. At every stage, food provisioning releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Farming in particular releases significant amounts of methane and nitrous oxide, 2 powerful greenhouse gases. Methane is produced by livestock during digestion due to enteric fermentation and is released via belches. It can also escape from stored manure and organic waste in landfills. Nitrous oxide emissions are an indirect product of organic and mineral nitrogen fertilisers.

Agriculture accounted for 10% of the EU’s total greenhouse gas emissions in 2012. A significant decline in livestock numbers, more efficient application of fertilisers and better manure management reduced the EU’s emissions from agriculture by 24% between 1990 and 2012.

However, agriculture in the rest of the world is moving in the opposite direction. Between 2001 and 2011, global emissions from crop and livestock production grew by 14%. The increase occurred mainly in developing countries, due to a rise in total agricultural output. This was driven by increased global food demand and changes in food-consumption patterns due to rising incomes in some developing countries. Emissions from enteric fermentation increased by 11% in this period and accounted for 39% of the sector’s total greenhouse-gas outputs in 2011.

Given the central importance of food in our lives, a further reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture remains quite challenging. Nevertheless, there is still potential to further reduce the greenhouse gas emissions linked to food production in the EU. Better integration of innovative techniques into production methods, such as capturing methane from manure, more efficient use of fertilisers, and greater efficiency in meat and dairy production (i.e. reducing emissions per unit of food produced) can help.

In addition to such efficiency gains, changes on the consumption side can help to further lower greenhouse gas emissions linked to food. In general, meat and dairy products have the highest global footprint of carbon, raw materials, and water per kilogramme of any food. In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, livestock and fodder production each generate more than 3 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent. Post-farm transport and processing account for only a tiny fraction of the emissions linked to food. By reducing food waste and our consumption of emission-intensive food products, we can contribute to cutting the greenhouse-gas emissions of agriculture.

Climate change affects agriculture

Crops need suitable soil, water, sunlight, and heat to grow. Warmer air temperatures have already affected the length of the growing season over large parts of Europe. Flowering and harvest dates for cereal crops are now happening several days earlier in the season. These changes are expected to continue in many regions. In general, in northern Europe agricultural productivity might increase due to a longer growing season and an extension of the frost-free period.

Warmer temperatures and longer growing seasons might also allow new crops to be cultivated. In southern Europe, however, extreme heat events and reductions in precipitation and water availability are expected to hamper crop productivity. Crop yields are also expected to vary increasingly from year to year due to extreme weather events and other factors such as pests and diseases.

In parts of the Mediterranean area, due to extreme heat and water stress in summer months, some summer crops might be cultivated in winter instead. Other areas, such as western France and south-eastern Europe, are expected to face yield reductions due to hot and dry summers without the possibility of shifting crop production into winter.

Changes in temperatures and growing seasons might also affect the proliferation and the spreading of some species, such as insects, invasive weeds, or diseases, all of which might, in turn, affect crop yields. A part of the potential yield losses can be offset by farming practices, such as rotating crops to match water availability, adjusting sowing dates to temperature and rainfall patterns, and using crop varieties better suited to new conditions (e.g. heat- and drought-resilient crops).

Land-based food sources are not the only food sources affected by climate change. The distribution of some fish stocks has already changed in the Northeast Atlantic, affecting the communities relying on these stocks throughout the supply chain. Along with increased maritime shipping, warmer water temperatures can also help facilitate the establishment of invasive marine species, causing local fish stocks to collapse.

Some EU funds, including the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), and loans from the European Investment Bank, are available to help farmers and fishing communities to adapt to climate change. There are also other funds under the CAP aimed at helping to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions from agricultural activities.

The global market, global demand, global warming

In line with projected population growth and changes in dietary habits in favour of higher meat consumption, the global demand for food is expected to grow by up to 70% in the coming decades. Agriculture is already one of the economic sectors with the largest environmental impact. This substantial increase in demand will unsurprisingly create additional pressures. How can we meet this increasing global demand while at the same time reducing the impacts of European food production and consumption on the environment?

Reducing the amount of food produced is not a viable solution. The EU is one of the world’s largest food producers 1, producing around one-eighth of the global cereal output, two thirds of the world’s wine, half of its sugar beet, and three-quarters of its olive oil. Any reduction in key staples is likely to jeopardise food security in the EU and in the world, and increase global food prices. This would make it harder for many groups around the world to access affordable and nutritious food.

Producing more food out of the land that is already used for agriculture often requires heavier use of nitrogen-based fertilisers, which in turn release nitrous oxide emissions and contribute to climate change. Intensive agriculture and fertiliser use also release nitrates to the soil and to water bodies. Although not directly linked to climate change, high concentrations of nutrients (especially phosphates and nitrates) in water bodies cause eutrophication. Eutrophication promotes algae growth and depletes oxygen in the water, which in turn has severe impacts on aquatic life and water quality.

Whether in Europe or the rest of the world, meeting the growing demand for food by using more land would have serious impacts on the environment and the climate. The area’s most suitable to agriculture in Europe are already cultivated to a large extent. Land, especially fertile agricultural land, is a limited resource in Europe and across the world.

Converting forest areas into agricultural land is also not a solution as this process is a source of greenhouse- gas emissions. Similar to many other land-use changes, deforestation (currently occurring mainly outside the European Union) also puts biodiversity at risk, further undermining nature’s ability to cope with climate change impacts (such as absorbing heavy rainfall).

Competing demands

It is clear that the world will need to produce more food and that key resources are limited. Agriculture has high impacts on the environment and the climate. Moreover, climate change effects – and will continue to affect – how much food can be produced and where.

Who gets to produce what and where is a socio-political question and is likely to become more controversial in the future. The global competition for these essential resources, especially with the pending impacts of climate change, is driving developed countries to purchase large patches of agricultural land in less-developed countries. Such land purchases and climate change impacts raise questions about food security in developing countries in particular. Food security is not only a matter of producing sufficient quantities of food but also of having access to food of sufficient nutritional value.

This complex problem requires a coherent and integrated policy approach to climate change, energy, and food security. Faced with climate change and competition for scarce resources, the entire food system will need to transform itself and be much more resource efficient while continuously reducing its environmental impacts, including its greenhouse-gas emissions. We need to increase yields while reducing our dependence on agrochemicals, to reduce food waste, and to reduce our consumption of resource-intensive and greenhouse gas-intensive foods such as meat.

In doing this, we must also remember that farmers can play a key role in maintaining and managing Europe’s biodiversity. They are also a critical component of the rural economy. Therefore, policy measures to tackle this highly complex problem of food and the environment should take into consideration agriculture’s impacts on the environment and its socio-economic importance for many communities.

1 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agricultural_production_-_crops

 

The European Environment Agency

Tel: +45 33 36 71 00

www.eea.europa.eu

 

Profile: Factitious foods to reduce production costs of beneficial insects

Factitious Prey for Production of Stinkbug Predators for Biological Control of Agricultural Pests – Juan A. Morales-Ramos and M. Guadalupe Rojas

Stinkbug predators (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) are among the most efficient biological control agents against many agricultural pests including caterpillars, rootworms, and particularly the Colorado potato beetle. At least one species of stinkbug predator, Podisus maculiventris, also known as the spined soldier bug, is commercially available in the U. S. and Europe. Studies of prey preference and suitability for growth and development of P. maculiventris have determined that the cabbage looper, Trichoplisia ni, is the best prey item for this predator. However, rearing the cabbage looper in large numbers is expensive and technically complicated. The high cost of producing the prey results in high prices of commercially produced predators, making biological control an expensive alternative to other less environmentally friendly methods of pest control.

One way to reduce the costs of producing stinkbug predators is by using factitious prey species that are easier to produce or are already commercially available. Relative success has been achieved producing P. maculiventris using the greater wax moth larvae, Galleria mellonella, as prey. Other species of commercially available insects like the yellow mealworm, Tenebrio molitor, have been less successful as factitious prey items for P.maculiventris. The yellow mealworm is a highly desirable alternative because of its low cost and wide-spread availability. Many studies on the suitability of T. molitor as prey have been focused on using the larval stage of the beetle, but recent work conducted in the USDA-ARS National Biological Control Laboratory has been more successful using the pupal stage of T. molitor as prey for P. maculiventris.

Studies showed that the nutritional contents of T. molitor drastically change during metamorphosis making pupae more suitable prey items for P. maculiventris. The content of protein increases and lipid content decreases three days after pupation had occurred. Younger pupae retain the nutritional characteristics of the larvae. A colony of P. maculiventris has been maintained in culture for 3 years using exclusively T. molitor pupae as food for the predators with no significant impact on life cycle parameters or fecundity.

Other stink bug predators like Brontocoris tabidus, Podisus nigrispinus and P. distinctus have been reared successfully using T. molitor pupae and the housefly, Musca domestica, larvae in Brazil. In China, the stinkbug predator Arma chinensis is being produced using silkworm, Antheraea pernyi, pupae as prey item. Other important stinkbug predators, like Perillus bioculatus, are yet to be successfully produced in factitious prey. These predators are highly selective and it is difficult to rear them using alternative prey species. Future research will focus on discovering alternative, easy to produce, prey species to mass produce these selective predator species.

Factitious Food for Ladybird Beetles: Nutritional Route to Cost-Effective Mass Rearing for Augmentative Biological Control – Eric W. Riddick, PhD

Ladybird beetles (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) have a distinguished record as predators of plant-feeding insects and mites throughout the world (Hodek and Evans 2012). Because of their potential to suppress insect pests, research efforts to propagate or mass rear ladybirds for augmentative biological control in greenhouses, high tunnels, and plantscapes have been ongoing. One impediment to mass rearing ladybirds in the large quantities necessary for augmentative biological control is the cost associated with rearing natural prey (e.g., aphids) as food for many ladybird species. As a strategy to reduce costs, researchers have been using several alternative food sources (i.e., factitious foods), in lieu of natural prey

(Riddick 2009). Natural prey (aphids) require rearing live host plants as food. Factitious foods can be reared on grain and other stored products.

Exemplary factitious foods, including the ladybird species tested against, are listed in Table 1. Despite several decades of research, only several foods have been found suitable, to some extent, for rearing ladybirds (Riddick 2009, Riddick and Chen 2014). For example, eggs of the Mediterranean flour moth Ephestia kuehniella (Lepidoptera: Phycitidae) is an effective food source that supports normal development and survival, but not fecundity, in some coccinellids, such as Cryptolaemus montrouzieri (Attia et al. 2011; Table 1). On the other hand, E. kuehniella does support normal fecundity in the coccinellid

Hippodamia convergens and increased fecundity, in comparison to natural prey, in the coccinellid Harmonia

axyridis (Kato et al. 1999). Nevertheless, E. kuehniella eggs are rather expensive to mass produce; an alternative, more cost-effective factitious food is necessary (Riddick et al. 2014). As a more cost-effective alternative to E. kuehniella, eggs of brine shrimp Artemia franciscana Kellogg (Anostraca: Artemiidae) have been tested in the laboratory, with somewhat promising results (Table 1). Adalia bipunctata can develop and have normal fecundity when fed A. franciscana eggs with plant pollen (Bonte et al. 2010). Coleomegilla maculata can develop normally but have reduced fecundity when fed A. franciscana eggs. Interestingly, fecundity improved two-fold when A. franciscana eggs were blended into a very fine dust-like powder (Riddick and Wu 2015). Clearly, more research on the utilisation of A. franciscana as food for C. maculata and other ladybird beetles is necessary. The potential of using feeding and/or oviposition stimulants in combination with powdered A. franciscana eggs appears promising (Riddick and Wu 2015) and ripe for follow-up investigations.

Further reading:

De Bortoli, S. A., Otuka, A. K., Vacari, A. M., Martins, M. I. E. G., and Volpe, H. X. L. 2011. Comparative biology and production costs of Podisus nigrispinus (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) when fed different types of prey. Biological Control 58: 127-132.

De Clercq, P., Merlevede, F., and Tirry, L. 1998. Unnatural prey and artificial diets for rearing Podisus maculiventris (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae).

Biological Control 12: 137-142. Legaspi, J. C. and Legaspi, B. C. 2004. Does a polyphagous predator prefer prey species that confer reproductive advantage?: case study of Podisus maculiventris. Environmental Entomology 33: 1401-1409. Lemos, W. P., Ramalho, F. S., Serrão, J. E., and Zanuncio, J. C. Effect of diet on development of Podisus nigrispinus (Dallas) (Het., Pentatomidae), a predator of the cotton leafworm. Journal of Applied Entomology 127: 389-395.

 

Dr Juan A. Morales-Ramos

USDA ARS SEA BCPRU

Stoneville, MS 38776

Tel: 662 686 3069

Juan.MoralesRamos@ars.usda.gov

Organic farming isn’t bad, but sustainable agriculture is better

agriculture
sustainable agriculture concept made of cardboard

Gavin Whitmore, Senior Manager – Biodiversity at the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) looks at how integrated pest management supports the sustainable intensification of agriculture

Society is increasingly aware of the dual challenge of feeding a growing population whilst protecting the environment. Organic agriculture is often marketed as being an environmentally sound alternative to conventional agriculture, and there are surely examples where this is true. However; we need to guard against the false notion that the pesticides and practices used by organic farmers are better for the environment than those employed by farmers using modern agricultural practices.

A farmer has the very difficult task of safeguarding both the environment and future harvests. The good news is, these are not incompatible objectives.

To protect the environment farming must make efficient and sustainable use of natural resources; to achieve this harvests must be protected. Inefficient and underproductive agriculture compromises efforts to protect biodiversity because more land is required to produce the same amount of food, it wastes the scarce natural resources used to grow a failed crop, and at the global level, it jeopardises food security and in-turn political stability.

Two additional challenges – population growth and climate change – will also keep farmers busy. Global population rise means we will have to produce food for an additional 2 billion people by 2050. To minimise the environmental impact of this we must minimise the expansion of the agricultural land base; this means we will have to farm the farmland we have available more intensively.

Climate change only adds to this pressure; severe weather events and increased water scarcity will become an all too familiar part of the food supply challenge. Here again, agriculture can bring benefits, including efficient production methods and practices that contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing carbon storage and reducing the impact of extreme weather.

Intensive production plays a leading role

Exaggerated and sometimes false claims about the environmental and health benefits of organic agriculture contribute to polarising the debate on sustainability. The organic lobby has worked hard to portray organic production as antithesis and antidote to the evils of ‘industrial’ agriculture.

The polarised debate on sustainable agriculture has not been kind to the term ‘intensive production’ which is unfortunately used alongside ‘industrial agriculture’ and other terms derogatory of practices that do not adhere to organic standards. This is unfortunate because the world cannot live on organic agriculture alone; sustainable intensive production will play a leading role in feeding the world and supporting environmental protection.

Integrated Pest Management – protecting crops and the environment

Highly productive agriculture requires that crops are protected from insect and animal pests, weeds and diseases; without protection, 40-80% of potential harvests can be lost: this is unacceptable in a sustainable system. Pesticides help improve the efficiency of agriculture by minimising the negative impacts of biodiversity on our future harvests; but in order to be truly sustainable, we must protect crops whilst minimising unwanted impacts on biodiversity, water and soil. It is about finding a balance, and for this, Integrated Pest Management (IPM) offers an important framework for action.

IPM is not a method of organic production

A requirement for pest management in the EU since 2014, IPM supports sustainable crop protection with a combination of cultural, physical, biological and chemical measures to protect crops from pests and disease. Recognised as an environmentally sound and cost-effective method for pest management, IPM encourages the best practice of using pesticides only when necessary.

IPM is compatible with organic production practices, but it is not a method of organic production; it is a means to guide sustainable crop protection practices. The pesticides approved for use in organic agriculture can have negative impacts on human health and the environment and are therefore subject to the same policy that guides the use of synthetic chemical pesticides; they should always be used with due care, and only when necessary.

A wider framework of good agricultural practices

Whilst IPM strategy provides conventional and organic farmers with a coherent strategy to balance the protection of crops with the protection of the environment it is not a silver bullet for sustainable agriculture.

One of the real strengths of IPM is that it enables farmers to look beyond the unhelpful polarised debate around conventional and organic agriculture and consider optimised protection of crops and the environment. IPM allows sustainable practices because it does not exclude the use of the crop protection solutions most effective at avoiding the waste of failed crops and the indiscriminate environmental impact of chemicals not specifically formulated to manage pests. This is where true sustainability lies; farming has to be more productive and less demanding of natural resources and the environment. Farmers are challenged to achieve high productivity with minimum waste, to increase production with less land and lower environmental impact, to manage predictable yields in an erratic climate and to maximise space for nature where competition for productive land is high. Within a wider framework of good agricultural practices, IPM and modern pesticides are part of the solution; research and development, innovation, and the safe and sustainable use of pesticides can help ensure a safe and affordable supply of food for generations to come.

 

Gavin Whitmore

Senior Manager – Biodiversity

European Crop Protection Association (ECPA)

gavin.whitmore@ecpa.eu

www.ecpa.eu

1...784785786...824Page 785 of 824

Follow Us

Advertisements

Open Access Government

Open Access Government produces compelling and informative news, publications, eBooks, and academic research articles for the public and private sector looking at health, diseases & conditions, workplace, research & innovation, digital transformation, government policy, environment, agriculture, energy, transport and more.

Follow Us

Resources

Quick Links

Legal & Marketing

As a Crossref Sponsored Member we are able to connect your content with a global network of online scholarly research, currently over 20,000 other organizational members from 160 countries. Crossref drive metadata exchange and support nearly 2 billion monthly API queries, facilitating global research communication.

© Adjacent Digital Politics Ltd