'World needs a barometer of life'

The world needs a "barometer of life" to prevent ecosystems and species being lost forever, scientists have warned.

Existing schemes, they said, did not include enough species from groups such as fungi and invertebrates to provide a detailed picture of what is at risk.

Writing in the journal Science, the researchers said the barometer would increase the number of species being assessed from almost 48,000 to 160,000.

The data would help identify areas in need of urgent action, they added.

The article was penned by four leading figures in conservation, including Harvard University's Edward O Wilson and Simon Stuart, chairman of the International Union for Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) Species Survival Commission (SSC).

"Knowledge about species and extinction rates remains very poor, and species disappear before we know they existed," they wrote.

To date, about 1.9m species have been described and given scientific names, but the actual number may exceed 10m.

"As scientists are better able to assess the conservation status of the species that compose an ecosystem, the more they will understand the health of that ecosystem," they continued.

"It is time to accelerate taxanomy and scientific natural history, two of the most vital but neglected disciplines of biology."

Broader coverage

Currently, the most authoritative data on the status of at-risk species is the IUCN Red List, which has been assessing the conservation status of species around the globe for more than 40 years.

Dr Stuart, who oversees the compilation of the Red List, said it provided a good insight to the health of certain ecosystems, such as forests.

"But it is very weak in its coverage of freshwater, marine and arid land species," he told BBC News.

"There are a lot of additional species that we have to bring into the Red List."

At the moment, it evaluates almost 48,000 species, but it is acknowledged that there is a bias towards higher vertebrates, which include mammals, birds and reptiles.

"The barometer would broaden the reach of the Red List to make it representative of all life, that's what it's all about," Dr Stuart explained.

The authors hope that broadening the taxanomic base of the Red List and increasing the database to 160,000 species would deliver practical benefits.

"A representative barometer would provide a solid basis for informing decisions globally," the authors suggested.

"For example, on conservation planning, resource allocation, environmental impact assessments, monitoring biodiversity trends... and enabling countries to develop national-level biodiversity indicators."

'Not acceptable'

The authors, all of whom are leading figures in their field, decided to join forces in order to voice their concerns that the rate of progress was too slow.

"The amount that we are investing at the moment in the Red List to broaden its coverage means that it would take about 20 years to get there," Dr Stuart observed.

"At a time when everything on the planet is deteriorating, having to wait 20 years before we can measure everything properly is not acceptable."

However, the scientists acknowledge that a three-fold increase in the number of species regularly monitored by a global network of biologists would come at a price - an estimated US $60m (£39m).

But they argued: "The barometer would, from an economic perspective, be one of the best investments for the good of humanity."

read more...

Why should savers use a savings bond

With the Bank of England's base rate so low at 0.5% most savings accounts with banks and building societies offer derisory rates of interest.

At the end of last year the average branch based instant access account, with a bank or building society, paid just 0.17%.

And a notice account paid barely more at just 0.33%.

However, if you look at the best-buy tables in newspapers or on comparison websites. you will notice that some of the best rates are with fixed-rate bonds.

If you are happy to tuck your money away for five years you can get more than 5% interest.

How do they work?

The growth of the investment is limited to the interest paid on the account.

Savings bonds differ from normal deposit accounts in that they have a fixed set period, usually one, two, three or five years, and the rate of interest is set at the start of the term.

The interest earned each year is rolled up into the account instead of being paid out.

Once the money has been placed on deposit savers are usually restricted on the number of times they can withdraw the money during the lifetime of the bond.

Additionally, any early encashment is often charged with a loss of interest.

Banks and building societies offer these investments with more attractive rates of interest because they want access to secure long term deposits.

So the longer the timescale the better the rate being offered.

Currently, the best five year savings bond will offer 5.1% (AA or Saga) per annum compared to the best instant access accounts offering 2.80% (Halifax).

Should you consider them?

Investors need to consider several things when deciding whether they should buy a bond and how long it should

When will you need the money?

Do not just go for the better rate but ask yourself when you might need the money.

The cost of borrowing extra cash will be greater than the return you are getting on the money in your bond, even with a good rate.

What are your expectations for interest rates? This is more difficult to call.

No one knows where interest rates will be in five years time.

But considering how low the Bank of England rate is now, savers can be more comfortable with getting good rates for just one or two years, and this gives the flexibility to reinvest again in a few years time.

What benefits do you give up for the better interest rate?

For the better return, savers do give something up - the access to their savings for a set period and access now to the interest earned.

So for savers who need an income now these products may not be suitable.

There is also the possibility of losing the chance to use the money more profitably, perhaps by investing in other assets such as equities, or paying off a mortgage.

Investment bonds

Investment bonds are fundamentally different and involve investment not saving.

The policies are typically sold by life assurance companies which allow you to invest in a variety of funds (either investment trusts or unit trusts) managed by professional investment managers.

They are usually designed for long term capital growth but can also be used to generate income.

Investment bonds can invest in a wider range of assets than savings bonds, such as UK and overseas equities, commercial property and fixed interest securities, as well as cash- like investments.

Investors are able to decide how much of their money goes into which funds and are able to change the mixture of their investments several times a year.

With-profits

In the 1990s a particular type of investment bond became more popular; with-profits bonds (WPBs).

The aim of these was to smooth out the gains and losses of the investment over the life time of the bond.

The life insurance companies had control of the investment decisions and determined what the bonuses were.

The "tech bubble" collapse in 2000 saw a lot of investors in these products lose money.

Any early encashment was met with tough exit penalties called market value adjusters (MVAs).

These were introduced to protect investors who remained in the bond from being adversely affected.

The losses made, and the introduction of MVAs, have resulted in WPBs becoming less popular.

Taxation

For tax purposes, investment bonds are treated as life assurance policies and therefore are subject to tax on the income and gain.

However, it is the life company that pays the tax at their rate of tax, which may be lower than basic rate income tax an individual would be liable to pay.

Investors are not subject to capital gains tax, or basic rate tax on gains or income.

Higher rate tax payers may be liable for any additional income tax above the basic rate (currently 20%) but only when they cash in the investment, or make partial withdrawals of over 5%.

There are special rules on insurance bonds where investors can take, or top slice, 5% of the value of the fund from the capital and take it without paying tax.

This top slicing is a deferral of income tax and the investor will be liable for tax on the whole when the investment is cashed in, but only at the time of encashment.

Points to ponder

Investment bonds may be recommended in a number of situations.

If you are a higher rate taxpayer looking for extra income, an investment bond may be suitable because the 5% annual withdrawal facility would mean there is no immediate tax liability.

The 5% withdrawal facility would be useful if you are retired and want a supplementary income.

But you would be in danger of falling into the age allowance "trap".

This is where the higher personal tax allowance you receive when you are 65-74 (£9,490 for 2009-10) is reduced if your annual income exceeds a certain level (£22,900 for 2009-10).

If you are an active investor with a large investment portfolio and you have already mopped up your annual capital gains tax allowance (£10,100 in 2009-10), you can use an investment bond to manage your investments, and you will not be liable for capital gains tax when you make switches between investments.

However, in general, investors should use their personal ISA allowance (£7,200 for those under 50 and £10,200 for those who are 50 or older by 5 April 2010) first before considering investment bonds.

The opinions expressed are those of the author and are not held by the BBC unless specifically stated. The material is for general information only and does not constitute investment, tax, legal or other form of advice. You should not rely on this information to make (or refrain from making) any decisions. Always obtain independent, professional advice for your own particular situation.

be invested for.

A savings bond is a bank account where your money is held on deposit and on which you earn interest.

read more...

Iceland: Is the UK a bully?

REYKJAVIK: On Saturday Iceland is holding a referendum. Not that you would notice it. There are no posters on the walls of Reykjavik, there are no public meetings or protest marches. It is the silent referendum. And yet many say that the country's reputation hinges on the result. Icelanders must decide whether to support or reject a deal to repay Britain and the Netherlands outstanding debts from the failed Icelandic bank Icesave.

When the online bank Icesave failed the British government covered the deposits of those who had put money in the bank. Now it is seeking to get the money back from the Icelandic government. A mere £2.3bn.

London and Reykjavik - and the Dutch - have been haggling over the terms for months. A deal was on the table but then the Icelandic president stepped in. President Olafur Ragnar Grimsson blocked the agreement. He said it contained long-lasting consequences for the Icelandic people and there had to be a national consensus. A referendum was born.

This saga (and that is what it is) has continued until just a few days ago. Indeed the chairman of the Icelandic treasury committee said they had been discussing nothing else for weeks and months. It has been the longest debate ever held in parliament. The Icelandic government has agreed that money should be repaid - the question is at what interest rate. They have argued down to the wire. The British say their "best and final offer has been turned down".

Now, as the two sides negotiated in London, there were doubts that the referendum would go ahead. Nobody knew 24 hours ago whether it was on or off. But something curious has begun in the cold-grey light of late winter. Early voting. On Thursday on the outskirts of the capital I found long queues of voters. Some were taking advantage of early voting to prevent any last-minute cancellation of the poll. They wanted their voices to be heard and counted.

Every person in the line said they would vote "no". They would reject the British offer. One poll suggests 74% could vote "no". The result could even be higher.

In the voting lines there was anger and much of it was directed at Britain. "They're bullying us," was the common complaint. Some turned on Britain reluctantly but nonetheless many fingers were pointed at London. Even the Business Minister complained that London was trying to muscle them. Only recently the Icelandic foreign ministry described the British action as "disproportionate, aggressive and highly damaging".

What incenses the people is that London used anti-terrorism legislation to freeze the assets of Landsbanki, the bank that operated Icesave's internet accounts. They also object to the rate of interest that Britain is seeking on the debt. "It smacks of profiteering," one voter told me.

I sensed that a majority still supported repaying the UK, but only if the terms were fair. Some would like to see the whole issue taken to the European Court. But a significant number of people don't want any money repaid. A fork-lift driver at the port of Grindavik said Icesave had nothing to do with him. He did not see why they should have to pay for "reckless bankers". One man said the scale of repayment was equivalent to what Germany had to pay after the war and would impose years of misery on the Icelandic people.

The British view is simple. They're not bullying; they just want their money back under international agreements.

Now there are consequences for a "no" vote. The UK financial Services Secretary Lord Myners has said that in those circumstances Iceland would in effect be saying "it doesn't want to be part of the international financial system." An IMF loan that Iceland desperately needs is dependent on it settling up with the UK and the Netherlands.

For a moment here I closed my eyes and imagined I was back in Greece. The voices and arguments were similar. There was resistance to embracing austerity. Many believed the recession was caused by greedy bankers and that working people are paying the price. The flaws in Greek accounting and the irresponsibility of Icesave are conveniently set aside. In both countries there is resentment and hostility towards the EU. In Iceland the EU is blamed for poor regulation.

So a "no" vote here in Iceland is not just a rejection of a deal, it reflects, too, a growing anger with spending cuts, wage freezes, unemployment lines, the hallmarks of Europe's time of austerity.

read more...