China recently of the world’s largest hydropower dam, across the Yarlung Tsangpo river in Tibet. When fully up and running, it will be the world’s largest power plant – by some distance.

Yet many are worried the dam will displace local people and cause huge environmental disruption. This is particularly the case in the downstream nations of India and Bangladesh, where that same river is known as the Brahmaputra.

The proposed dam highlights some of the geopolitical issues raised by rivers that cross international borders. Who owns the river itself, and who has the right to use its water? Do countries have obligations not to pollute shared rivers, or to keep their shipping lanes open? And when a drop of rain falls on a mountain, do farmers in a different country thousands of miles downstream have a claim to use it? Ultimately, we still don’t know enough about these questions of river rights and ownership to settle disputes easily.

The Yarlung Tsangpo begins on the Tibetan Plateau, in a region sometimes referred to as the world’s third pole as its glaciers contain the largest stores of ice outside of the Arctic and Antarctica. A series of huge rivers tumble down from the plateau and spread across south and south-east Asia. Well over a billion people depend on them, from Pakistan to Vietnam.

Yet the region is already under immense stress as global warming melts glaciers and changes rainfall patterns. Reduced water flow in the dry season, coupled with sudden releases of water during monsoons, could intensify both water scarcity and flooding, endangering millions in India and Bangladesh.

The construction of has historically disrupted river flows, displaced people, destroyed fragile ecosystems and increased risks of floods. The Yarlung Tsangpo Grand Dam will likely be no exception.

The dam will sit along the tectonic boundary where the Indian and Eurasian plates converge to form the Himalayas. This makes the region particularly vulnerable to earthquakes, , and .

Downstream, the Brahmaputra is one of south Asia’s mightiest rivers and has been integral to human civilisation for thousands of years. It’s one of the world’s most sediment-rich rivers, which helps form a huge and fertile delta.

Yet a dam of this scale would trap massive amounts of sediment upstream, disrupting its flow downstream. This could make farming less productive, threatening food security in one of the world’s most densely populated regions.

The Sundarbans mangrove forest, a Unesco World Heritage Site that stretches across most of coastal Bangladesh and a portion of India, is particularly vulnerable. Any disruption to the balance of sediment could accelerate coastal erosion and make the already low lying area more vulnerable to sea-level rise.

The Brahmaputra eventually flows into a region of fertile fields and mangrove forests. Sk Hasan Ali / shutterstock

Unfortunately, despite the transboundary nature of the Brahmaputra, there is no comprehensive treaty governing it. This lack of formal agreements complicates efforts to ensure China, India and Bangladesh share the water equitably and work together to prepare for disasters.

These sorts of agreements are perfectly possible: 14 countries plus the European Union are parties to a , for instance. But the Brahmaputra is not alone. Many transboundary rivers in the global south face similar neglect and inadequate research.

����Ӱ��ing rivers

In our recent study, colleagues and I analysed . We wanted to assess how much academic research there was on each, what themes it focused on, and how that varied depending on the type of river. We found that, while large rivers in the global north receive considerable academic attention, many equally important rivers in the global south remain overlooked.

What research there is in the global south is predominantly led by institutions from the global north. This dynamic influences research themes and locations, often sidelining the most pressing local issues. We found that research in the global north tends to focus on technical aspects of river management and governance, whereas studies in the global south primarily examine conflicts and resource competition.

In Asia, research is concentrated on large, geopolitically significant basins like the Mekong and Indus. Smaller rivers where water crises are most acute are often neglected. Something similar is happening in Africa, where studies focus on climate change and water-sharing disputes, yet a lack of infrastructure limits broader research efforts.

Small and medium-sized river basins, critical to millions of people in the global south, are among the most neglected in research. This oversight has serious real-world consequences. We still don’t know enough about water scarcity, pollution, and climate change impacts in these regions, which makes it harder to develop effective governance and threatens the livelihoods of everyone who depends on these rivers.

A more inclusive approach to research will ensure the sustainable management of transboundary rivers, safeguarding these vital resources for future generations.

, Leverhulme Early Career Fellow, Geography,
This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .

For years, nature has been blamed as a blocker of economic growth. After some ministerial about not letting get in the way of growth ambitions, the UK government released more details of its plans to .

The centrepiece of its aspirations to balance both nature and economic growth is a , to be set up in England through changes to habitat regulations. This should allow developers to stay within their legal obligations towards nature through a payment scheme without delaying their projects.

The is that, as an alternative to relocating important species or improving habitats on the site of a proposed development, a developer could pay into the nature restoration fund. This would pay for larger, more strategically located schemes to protect the species in question.

The fund simplifies and streamlines the regulations while collecting funds to promote more, bigger, better and increasingly .

Protecting nature is not just about bats and newts. According to trade association the Home Builders Federation (HBF), there are 160,000 homes being delayed by what are known as measures. These rules were a response to growing public concerns about land and water pollution caused by nutrient loads – pollutants such as nitrogen and phosphorus – associated with livestock farming and spillages from sewage works.

Government agency 74 local authorities that they should not allow any more house building in their areas unless this pollution could be mitigated. But this has led to lengthy and expensive project-by-project reviews to identify potential damage.

How will a fund help?

The fund will build on some schemes that are already known to work. One such scheme works for the protection of . Another successful scheme is project, working to protect and enhance heathland sites where rare birds such as nightingales breed. Crucially, this scheme allows new development to go ahead in adjacent areas.

The fund will be run by Natural England, which aims to draw on these experiences to unblock development at a large scale rather than at single-site level, pooling contributions from developers to pay for mitigation measures when there is a risk to nature.

If a particular “blocking” issue is identified, experts from Natural England will produce a plan, which must be approved by the environment secretary. A levy on developers will then pay for mitigation measures “in perpetuity” (often 30 years), allowing the development to get under way.

Environmental experts have the general principles and approach of the nature restoration fund. But there has also been about whether the plan is well enough thought through. There are also questions on how well it will integrate with other schemes.

A widespread worry is for the future of – which includes measures for creating and improving using biodiversity units, effectively a form of “nature market”. This approach sets a target of 10% for biodiversity improvement based upon the combined distinctness, condition and significance of affected habitats over the lifetime of the development. But these measures are only just .

The concern is that providers of sites for these habitat banks – which might be councils, landowners, charities or private businesses, for example – might get cold feet and if they can’t be certain that their plans will be compatible with the nature restoration fund.

There is concern, too, about how payments from the nature restoration fund would be calculated. These will need to be locally appropriate and not pit nature restoration and biodiversity net gain against each other if, for example, landowners are forced to choose a particular scheme for their land that they are then . With two parallel systems in play, the relationship between them must be crystal clear, otherwise shared goals could be missed.

Another question is whether Natural England can be both regulator and financial beneficiary of the new scheme. There have been calls from some of those already involved in nature markets for some form of .

And it will also be vital that the new scheme respects what’s known as the “mitigation hierarchy”. This hierarchy aims to avoid, reduce and then mitigate any impacts on nature on-site in that order. Then developers should consider off-site measures in areas where there could be greater .

But a danger here is that this could disconnect people from nature even further by mitigating ecological loss miles away from the site of the damage. This disconnection is considered to be a critical underlying cause of .

There is much to like about the nature restoration fund, but there is a risk that little will be achieved without the government showing genuine ambition and allocating enough money and staff to properly monitor and enforce it over the long term. Only time will tell whether it achieves the government’s goal of speeding up development.

At the moment, it is not clear how the fund will complement similar schemes and there is a danger of creating a complex patchwork in nature restoration funding. But if it works well, it could provide a richer funding ecosystem for nature recovery – a much-needed boost for England’s nature-depleted landscape.

, Professor, Urban and Environmental Planning and , Senior Lecturer in Planning and Environmental Management
This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .

The findings, published in the journal ,  show that these powerful flows could be capable of traveling at speeds of up to eight meters per second, carrying plastic waste from the continental shelf to depths of more than 3,200 meters.

Over 10 million tonnes of plastic waste enter the oceans each year. While striking images of floating debris have driven efforts to curb pollution, this visible waste accounts for less than 1% of the total. The missing 99% – primarily made up of fibres from textiles and clothing – is instead sinking into the deep ocean.

Scientists have long suspected that turbidity currents play a major role in distributing microplastics across the seafloor – The University of Manchester were among the first to demonstrate this through their research on ‘Microplastic Hotspots’ in the Tyrrhenian Sea, published in the journal . However, until now, the actual process had not been observed or recorded in a real-world setting.

The latest study conducted by The University of Manchester, the National Oceanography Centre (UK), the University of Leeds (UK), and the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea ����Ӱ�� provides the first field evidence showing the process.

The findings pose a significant threat to marine ecosystems and highlight the urgent need for stronger pollution controls.

Dr Peng Chen, lead author on the study at The University of Manchester, said “Microplastics on their own can be toxic to deep-sea life, but they also act as ‘carriers’ transferring other harmful pollutants such as PFAS ‘forever chemicals’ and heavy metals, which makes them an environmental ‘multistressor’ which can affect the entire food chain.”

The research focused on Whittard Canyon in the Celtic Sea, a land-detached canyon over 300 km from the shore. By combining in-situ monitoring and direct seabed sampling, the team were able to witness a turbidity current in action, moving a huge plume of sediment at over 2.5 metres per second at over 1.5 km water depth. The samples directly from the flow revealed that these powerful currents were not only carrying just sand and mud, but a significant quantity of microplastic fragments and microfibres.

Further analysis found that the microplastics on the seafloor are mainly comprised of fibres from textiles and clothing, which are not effectively filtered out in domestic wastewater treatment plants and easily enter rivers and oceans.

, Geologist and Environmental Scientist at The University of Manchester, who designed and led the research, said: “These turbidity currents carry the nutrients and oxygen that are vital to sustain deep-sea life, so it is shocking that the same currents are also carrying these tiny plastic particles.

“These biodiversity hotspots are now co-located with microplastic hotspots, which could pose serious risks to deep-sea organisms.

“We hope this new understanding will support mitigations strategies going forward.”

Dr Mike Clare of the , who was a co-lead on the research, added: “Our study has shown how detailed studies of seafloor currents can help us to connect microplastic transport pathways in the deep-sea and find the ‘missing’ microplastics. The results highlight the need for policy interventions to limit the future flow of plastics into natural environments and minimise impacts on ocean ecosystems.”

The study team are now focussing on efforts to better understand the effect that microplastics have on marine organisms, for example sea turtles and deep-sea fauna.

This research was published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology.

Full title: Direct evidence that microplastics are transported to the deep sea by turbidity currents

DOI:

Manchester is the recipient of five awards, including:

• , Senior Lecturer in Chemical Biology and Biological Chemistry of the , and , Professor of Polymer Science at the Henry Royce Institute, who are a Co-Investigators on a Mission Hub led by the University of Portsmouth. The mission Hub is looking into how engineering biology can tackle plastic waste.
• , Professor of Geomicrobiology, from the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, is involved in a Mission Hub led by the University of Kent, and also leads a Mission Award, both of which will be looking at ways to use engineering biology to process metals, including for bioremediation and for metal recovery from industrial waste streams.
• , , and of the Manchester Institute of Biotechnology, received a Mission Award for a project that will engineer biological systems to enable economical production of functionalised proteins including biopharmaceuticals and industrial biocatalysts.
• , Chair in Evolutionary Biology, from the Division of Evolution, Infection and Genomics, and Professor Patrick Cai of the Manchester Institute of Biotechnology, are looking into engineering phages with intrinsic biocontainment to develop new treatments against drug-resistant bacterial infections.

The hubs are funded for five years through UKRI and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences ����Ӱ�� Council (BBSRC) and are a collaboration between academic institutions and industrial partners. The Mission Award Projects are funded for two years. These projects will expand upon our current knowledge of engineering biology and capitalise on emerging opportunities.

Announcing the funding the Science, ����Ӱ�� and Innovation Minister, Andrew Griffith, said: “Engineering biology has the power to transform our health and environment, from developing life-saving medicines to protecting our environment and food supply and beyond.

“Our latest £100m investment through the UKRI Technology Missions Fund will unlock projects as diverse as developing vaccines…preventing food waste through disease resistant crops, reducing plastic pollution, and even driving efforts to treat snakebites.

“With new Hubs and Mission Awards spread across the country, from Edinburgh to Portsmouth, we are supporting ambitious researchers and innovators around the UK in pioneering groundbreaking new solutions which can transform how we live our lives, while growing our economy.”

Engineering biology has the potential to tackle a diverse range of global challenges, driving economic growth in the UK and around the world, as well as increase national security, resilience and preparedness.  The University of Manchester has a broad range of expertise in engineering biology across its three Faculties and is also home to the international centre of excellence, the Manchester Institute of Biotechnology.

The research, funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences ����Ӱ�� Council’s (BBSRC) strategic Longer and Larger (sLoLa) grants programme, takes the first major step towards understanding complex microbial communities and will support the move towards a more sustainable and Net Zero future.

The University is one of four institutions to receive a share of £18 million from the BBSRC to support adventurous research aimed at tackling fundamental questions in bioscience.

The project, worth £5.4 million, builds on the work of the Manchester Microbiome Network - a network that brings together the leading microbiome science expertise from across the University to deliver a step-change in understanding microbial communities, regardless of habitat.

Lead researcher, Professor Sophie Nixon, BBSRC David Phillips and Dame Kathleen Ollerenshaw Fellow at The University of Manchester, said: “Microbial communities, often called microbiomes, are found in almost every habitable environment on the planet. They exert a significant influence on each of these environments, whether that be the soil we grow our food, in the guts of animals, or even in extreme environments like geothermal springs – our target environment for this project. However, microbiomes are inherently complex and challenging to study, and their ‘rules of life’ remain obscure.

“Recent technological advances have allowed researchers to study the interactions between members of microbiomes for the first time. Yet, we have barely scratched the surface of resolving how these interactions affect the structure, function, and stability of the community as a whole.   

Over five years, the researchers from The University of Manchester and the Earlham Institute will concentrate on low-diversity communities inhabiting geothermal springs, using a powerful combination of biochemical, ‘omics, and synthetic biology approaches to uncover the rules that govern microbial life in communities.

Using a tractable model system, the team aim to engineer the microbial community both as a learning tool to test emerging hypotheses, such as the ways in which microbes depend on or hinder one another, and as a testbed for future biotechnological development.

Ultimately, the findings will facilitate the engineering of bespoke microbial communities to be used for a plethora of important applications, including new ways to bio-convert CO2 emissions into socio-economically beneficial compounds, contributing toward a more sustainable and Net Zero future. 

Professor Guy Poppy, Interim Executive Chair at BBSRC, said: “The latest investment by BBSRC’s sLoLa award programme represents a pivotal step in advancing frontier bioscience research.

“These four world-class teams are poised to unravel the fundamental rules of life, employing interdisciplinary approaches to tackle bold challenges at the forefront of bioscience.

“By fostering collaboration and innovation, we aim to catalyse ground-breaking discoveries with far-reaching implications for agriculture, health, biotechnology, the green economy and beyond.”

The University of Manchester’s research team includes seven researchers from the Faculty of Science and Engineering (five of which are based in the flagship Manchester Institute of Biotechnology), two from the Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, and one from the Earlham Institute - a life science research institute based in Norwich.