Schemes to tag fishing nets so they are not lost at sea and use fungi to break down rubbish are among the winners of a £1 million fund to tackle plastic pollution.

Waitrose & Partners has revealed five projects it will be supporting through its Plan Plastic – The Million Pound Challenge initiative, with money awarded over a year to schemes which can demonstrate an impact on reducing plastic.

The scheme, which has been set up with environmental charity Hubbub, attracted 150 applications.

Mussels

The five ideas selected for funding include the Blue Marine Foundation’s Safegear initiative to stop fishing gear being lost in the ocean by attaching beacons to buoys to make nets visible and allow them to be monitored, tracked and retrieved.

The Onion Collective and Biohm are creating a plastic biorecycling facility in Somerset that will use mycelium – a vegetative part of a fungus or fungus-like bacteria – to break down synthetic plastic waste and turn it into new products.

Women’s Environmental Network is to receive a share of the fund for a “plastic-free periods” campaign with City to Sea to bring about behaviour change that reduces pollution from sanitary products.

Plymouth Marine Laboratory is running a project to develop the use of “bioreefs” – beds or rafts of mussels deployed in estuaries and coastal sites to filter out microplastics and test if they will work to reduce the problem.

Pollution

The Youth Hostel Association is installing water bottle refill stations in 60 major hostels across England and Wales, eradicating single-use plastic bottles from packed lunches, cafes, bars and vending machines.

The £1 million fund was raised from the sale of 5p carrier bags, which have now been removed from shops, and will be split between the five winners. They will each receive funding of between £150,000 and £300,000.

Tor Harris, from Waitrose & Partners, said: “It’s important for us to tackle unnecessary plastic both in our shops but also in the wider world.

“All these inspirational projects have the ability to create real impact in tackling environmental issues and encouraging behaviour change so we can collectively achieve our goal of reducing plastic pollution.”

This Author

Emily Beament is the environment correspondent for the Press Association.

Campaign group ProVeg is challenging the European Parliament’s proposal to ban the use of names such as ‘burger’ and ‘sausage’ from being used to describe vegetarian and vegan products.

The agricultural committee of the European Parliament voted in favour of the proposal on grounds that the names are misleading for consumers.

If the proposal is passed into law, then vegan and veggie burgers could instead be named ‘discs’ and sausages ‘tubes’.

Insult to intelligence

 ProVeg International has launched a campaign targeting the proposed ban with a petition calling on the soon-to-be-elected European Parliament to reject the proposal, which it describes as “unnecessary” and “irrational”. 

Spokesperson for ProVeg International, Jimmy Pierson, said: “There is no evidence to suggest that consumers are confused or misled by the current labelling of vegetarian and vegan products. 

“To suggest that consumers do not understand the meaning of the term ‘veggie burger’ and other similar terms is an insult to their intelligence.

“The use of ‘burger’, ‘sausage’, and ‘milk’ wording on plant-based products actually serves an important function in communicating characteristics that consumers are looking for when buying plant-based products, especially in terms of taste and texture.

“They’ve been used successfully for decades. Why confuse matters?”

 Get involved

Pierson continued: “The proposed restriction would also unnecessarily restrict manufacturers, producers, and the positive social and environmental changes created by the plant-based market, one of the fastest-growing and most innovative sectors in the food industry today.”

The petition will be delivered to the European Parliament ahead of the final vote. You can sign the petition here.

This Article 

This article is based on a press release from ProVeg. 

Image: Melissa, Flickr. 

Energy companies have known about the devastating effects of their products on the Earth’s climate for more than a century — but did nothing to address the problem.

Popular Mechanics and New Zealand’s Rodney and Otamatea Times both publicly addressed the fact that burning coal affects the earth’s atmosphere in 1912. The term “greenhouse gas” dates even further back, to 1896. 

But energy companies have done worse that nothing in addressing this century-old problem. Big Coal and Big Oil did their best to bury the truth, much like the disinformation campaign that Big Tobacco companies foisted upon the public. 

Profit margins

The year is now 2019. Humankind has 12 years to address climate breakdown before the changes to our planet become irreversible — and our species seals its fate.

The first question on the minds of most conservative and neoliberal politicians is “How are we going to pay for this?”, especially as ideas like “zero-emission cities” and “green new deals” gain traction.

One idea that’s gaining steam is to sue the companies responsible. To sue them into oblivion — because they didn’t just know about their impact on our one and only planet — they buried the truth to protect their profit margins.

It’s not a radical idea. We’ve already done this with tobacco companies. They, too, hid the truth. And they, too, are paying for the catastrophic damage they’ve done.

Corrective statements

The list of Big Tobacco’s lies is long indeed. Tobacco companies falsely denied manipulating nicotine levels in their products in a way that deliberately fostered addition, and they lied about tobacco’s many deleterious effects on public health — including the health of children born to mothers who smoke.

They falsely claimed that “low tar” and “lite” cigarettes are less harmful than “regular” cigarettes and they misled the public into thinking secondhand smoke is harmless.

The biggest tobacco companies spent decades fighting the truth, but 2017 marked a turning point for Big Tobacco.

Incredibly, this was the year we finally forced these companies to run “corrective statements” on television and in print media admitting the truth about the harmful nature of their products.

According to the World Health Organization, tobacco companies knew internally about the manifold dangers of smoking, including a higher risk of developing various cancers, back in the 1950s— but it took us nearly 70 years to bring them to heel.

Legal precedent

Now, of course, they’re pivoting and rebranding. Cigarettes are out, and vaping is in.

Nevertheless, these long years have produced results. Big Tobacco continues to drag its heels, but plaintiffs across the world — sometimes hundreds of thousands of them at a time— have brought lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers.

The long list of grievances includes wrongful death, negligent advertising, violation of consumer protections, negligent manufacturing, product liability and more.

The fight is far from over, but this growing body of legal precedent points the way forward when it comes to holding energy companies accountable for climate change.

Profits over people 

In the 1980s, Shell and Exxon produced internal studies which pointed unequivocally to the truth about anthropogenic climate change.

Their own scientists revealed that, by 2060, humankind would be producing greenhouse gases at double the pre-industrial level and would have pushed the planet to an inevitable 2°C rise in global average temperatures.

They did nothing.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, Shell and others failed to adequately alert their shareholders and investors of the damage their products were doing, failed to publicly renounce climate misinformation, failed to plan for a future beyond fossil fuels, and for the most part have failed to come out in support of policies which would curb greenhouse gas emissions. They put profits over people.

Now, people want to sue them for their crimes.

Monetary damages

In 2009, glaciologists in Peru sounded an alarm. The amount of water held by lake Palcacocha had increased by more than 3,000 percent over the course of a few decades.

Climate breakdown had been weakening the glaciers above the lake for many years, causing more and more frequent avalanches and putting the surrounding cities in danger of being destroyed entirely.

Regional governments declared an official state of emergency and warned that just one major avalanche could wipe out 6,000 lives and an inhabited area as large as 154 city blocks.

Fearing for his home, Luciano Lliuya decided to find “los responsables” — and set his sights on a German energy company called RWE.

In a lawsuit against the company, Lliuya and his allies argue that the company contributes 0.5 percent of all emissions presently endangering the planet and are demanding commensurate monetary damages.

A shout

Lliuya describes his campaign as “a shout.” It’s a shot across the bow of a seemingly monolithic force. He’d never even left Peru before deciding to bring the fight to an energy company based in Germany. He is far from alone.

In the United States, since 2017, nine cities and counties, plus two entire states, have launched lawsuits of their own against oil companies alleging they placed human lives unnecessarily at risk to chase profits.

One group, called Our Children’s Trust, has legal action pending in all 50 states in the US as well as more than a dozen other countries across the world.

In Colorado, companies like Suncor Energy and ExxonMobile are being forced to defend themselves in court against arguments that their products worsened heat waves, wildfires, rising water levels and infestations by invasive species, and led to losses in agricultural profits and caused lasting damage to the state economy.

Rhode Island’s attorney general, Peter Kilmartin, stood on top of a seawall in March 2019 to announce his own plans to take ExxonMobil, Chevron and others to court. 

Perilous moment

Kilmartin said: “Big oil knew for decades that greenhouse gas pollution from their operations and their products were having a significant and detrimental impact on the earth’s climate. 

“Instead of working to reduce that harm, these companies chose to conceal the dangers, undermine public support for greenhouse gas regulation, and engage in massive campaigns to promote the ever-increasing use of their products and ever-increasing revenues in their pockets.”

This is a perilous moment in world history. The fate of these many pending lawsuits is anything but certain, and signs from the Supreme Court so far indicate they sympathize more with the current US administration than with the victims of climate injustice.

Still, all of this noise is an encouraging sign of things to come. As one Yale professor of environmental history put it: “This is only the beginning.”

This Author

​​​​​​​Kate Harveston is a vegan health and sustainability writer and the editor of women’s wellness blog, So Well, So Woman.

When it comes to Sports tackling climate change, you probably wouldn’t start with Rugby League.

In the Betfred Championship, the changing landscape of the sport now means teams may have to travel halfway across the world to face Toronto Wolfpack for one of their fixtures in Canada.

In the top tier of Rugby League the trip to France to face Catalan Dragons will also clock up air miles, leaving the sport with a larger carbon footprint than many others.

Renewable energy

However, teams from across all divisions of Rugby League may soon be looking to take a leaf out of Leeds Rhinos’ book.

In 2018 the club announced a sponsorship with local renewable energy firm Planet-U Energy, a partnership which meant the club’s iconic Headingley Stadium will be powered with 100 percent renewable energy through to 2021.

In a Super League first, they’ve further decreased their carbon footprint by introducing reusable ‘eco-cups’ at games to reduce their plastic waste on matchdays.

Instead of fans consuming their drink from the common disposable plastic cup, the club now serve fans’ drinks into re-usable cups, which can either be kept by supporters as a souvenir or returned at the end of the match to be used again at the next fixture.

Grant Nicholson, founder of Planet-U Energy, is just one of the business brains behind the green revolution and he says people are seeing the Rhinos as trailblazers for a cleaner sport: “The impact of the deal we have with Rhinos has, in general, been huge.”

Climate goals

Nicholson said: “People see that Headingley Stadium has gone green and now a lot of big business people who follow Leeds Rhinos or Yorkshire Cricket think ‘if they’re doing it, why aren’t we doing it?’

“Our whole principle is that we sell 100 percent renewable energy, as it is now doable to run companies with clean energy.

“If you go back five years renewable energy was very expensive but because the infrastructure has changed in this country it is now more accessible to people and businesses.”

Although Leeds may be setting the standard in Super League, Rugby League in general is also taking steps to combat climate change.

The Rugby League World Cup which will be held in England in 2021 (RLWC2021) has joined the likes of FIFA, the International Olympic Committee and Formula E in pledging its support to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and engage fans from across the world in support of the UN Sports for Climate Action Framework which aims to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.

Tackling pollution 

Jamie Peters, an environmental campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: “There’s lots of things that sports clubs can be doing when it comes to sustainability and tackling climate change and pollution.

 “One of those things is the practical changes that organisations could be making, (i.e. changing to renewable energy and reducing the consumption of use of single-use plastics on site) and that’s exactly what Leeds Rhinos have been doing and they should be commended for that.

“But the most important thing in terms of environmental issues is the impact that these clubs have on their followers and communities.

“We’re a sports crazy society and some of the strongest relationships that people have in Britain are with sports clubs. The people in charge of those clubs can send out a strong message to their followers.

“If clubs can move beyond just operating on matchdays every two weeks and spread that message off the field then that would be huge.

“If a club was really spreading that cleaner message, then that has an impact much greater than just on a matchday. It’s about a whole community of people that really buy into the values of these clubs, so if the clubs meet the values of having a green transition then that could rub off on people.”

Persuading fans

From the point of view of the more cynical onlooker, people may wonder what difference removing plastic from Headingley Stadium might have in the wider scheme of things. However, the message it sends could have that desired effect on supporters.  

Leeds Rhinos supporter Alex Best says the club has influenced him to question his own lifestyle and make cleaner changes to his lifestyle: “I’ve been a Rhinos fan for as long as I can remember. 

“The changes that Rhinos have made have definitely made myself question the habits I’ve had concerning my use of plastics. Now, I’m trying to recycle more and try a cleaner way of life.

“I think the club have a responsibility to use their platform to educate the fans on the matter. The club are trying to persuade the fans to be more conscious about their recycling decisions and I think any such initiative will be very successful due to the fans’ loyalty.”

It’s clear to see that despite Rhinos’ cleaner way of operating being in its fledgling stages, it’s already having an effect.

Setting the standard

With Rugby League supporters from all around the country being some of the most loyal and fanatical around, it makes you wonder what effect it could have if other clubs followed in their footsteps.

Right now, it is down to individual clubs, like Leeds, to force the issue and set the standard.

It may not be long until they’re joined by others.

This Author 

Andrew Gate is a final-year sports journalism student at Staffordshire University and freelance journalist. He has recently branched out and written a number of pieces on the effects of climate change and sustainability in sport. He tweets @GateAndrew.

The great Kenyan athlete Eliud Kipchoge won the men’s London marathon in April 2019, giving a truly exceptional performance (2 hours, 2 minutes and 33 seconds). But Kipchoge had wanted to be even better.

In 2017 he attempted to break the two-hour barrier in Italy; but narrowly missed it. In the documentary Breaking  2, we see everything being carefully selected and monitored, from the course to the weather, racing strategy, clothes, nutrition and hydration. Yet one thing that was vital to good performance was overlooked – the quality of the air.

We know from research that air pollution affects everyone, including elite athletes. Inhalation of particulate matter – the worst offender, and mostly associated with incomplete combustion – is four times greater during aerobic exercise than during rest, affecting peak performance, decreasing maximum oxygen uptake and increasing inflammatory blood markers.

Chemical innovation 

The effects of air pollution are most obvious in endurance events, but even people training near busy roads or urban centres will be affected.

Our industrial history has been one of spectacular chemical innovation, but this has been accompanied by increasing levels of pollution.

Today, pollution resulting from human activity, has reached even the most remote areas of the planet. In the polar caps and high mountains, and below the ocean’s abyssal zone, in trenches over 10,000 meters deep, creatures have been found polluted with chemicals including flame retardants, paint plasticizers and water-proofers.

Regulatory efforts have barely kept pace with the thousands of new chemicals and materials produced annually, let alone reduced the use of many hazardous chemicals that have been in existence for many years.

In the case of asbestos and mercury, the deadly aftermath has taken decades to address, even though the evidence of harm was widely known from an early stage in its use in industrial processes. It took 107 years and many thousands of deaths for a ban on asbestos to be implemented and for mercury it took more than 70 years to achieve agreement on the Minimata Convention.

Water and sanitation

We already know that pollution is affecting our health and the health of other life-forms on the planet. The impacts include poisoning, reduced life expectancy, lowered mental capacity and cognitive development, cancer, asthma, and dementia.  

What is surprising is that that we are not taking urgent action on anything like the scale needed to stop pollution in its tracks. 

Why not? The real problem is that pollution is complex. Tackling pollution is not just about stopping the use of diesel cars and plastic bags, it is about rethinking the way we consume and produce goods and services, how we use pharmaceuticals and chemicals in our everyday lives, safely dispose of household waste, radioactive materials and hazardous chemicals, manage the land through biomass burning  and forest clearance, and mine for minerals which may allow heavy metals to leach into the soil or ocean.  

Pollution directly affects access to safe water and sanitation. According to the World Health Organisation, nearly 1 billion people still rely on open defecation and only 20 percent of globally produced wastewater is properly treated.

Land-based sources of pollution are affecting the health of freshwater and marine ecosystems with between 5 and 13 million tonnes of plastic in rivers entering the ocean each year, causing losses in productivity, endocrine disruption and cancers in freshwater and marine organisms. 

Human rights

Pollution is not an issue restricted to the ministries of environment; it is a matter for the whole of government.

Unfortunately, history has shown us that this represents a significant policy challenge, because even when there has been conclusive evidence of harm, international agreements on restricting or banning particular pollutants have been very slow in coming. 

The time has come for a different approach. One based on the moral responsibility we owe to each other and the planet to live in a clean environment.

The ethical case has already been made through Article 30 of the Human Rights Declaration which asserts that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security and guarantees the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being.

Governments are also supposed to take measures for children to account for the dangers and risks of environmental pollution.

#BeatPollution

In 2012 the Human Rights Council established a Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment; the latest appointee, David Boyd, is focussing on the legal and ethical basis for the human right to breathe clean air. 

Now, five leading academies from USA, Germany, South Africa and Brazil are supporting are launching a Global Call For Action on Air Pollution and Health on June 19th2019 at the United Nations.

The call is supported by unequivocal evidence of the harm that air pollution causes from the world’s leading doctors and specialists, who all concur that air pollution represents an existential threat to human life. 

It is imperative that everyone assumes some responsibility for reducing pollution and cleaning up the environment. To support the efforts of governments, citizens and business, the United Nations Environment Assemblies launched the #BeatPollution and #CleanSeas campaigns.

If met, these voluntary commitments could lead to more than 1.47 billion people breathing cleaner air, 1 in 7 people worldwide experiencing improved access to sanitation and wastewater treatment, 30 percent of the world’s coastlines being cleaned-up; lead in paint and fuels being eliminated and food systems becoming significantly less dependent on chemical inputs.

Political leadership

What we now need is strong political leadership; partnerships for a global compact on all pollution; the right policies to tackle “hard-hitting” pollutants; more sustainable consumption and production; big investment in clean production and recycling infrastructure; and advocacy for action.

Can such actions happen quickly enough to ensure Eliud Kipchoge achieves his bid later this year in London to break the two-hour marathon barrier or will the air quality in London confound the result?

For my home team of Kenya, I really hope it is the former. 

This Author 

Professor Jacqueline McGlade is environment Professor at Gresham College. She is also Professor at UCL and Maasai Mara University in Kenya. This article is based on her most recent lecture. She tweets @jacquiemcglade.

Image: Eliud Kipchoge, Wikimedia. 

The Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (APIB) is calling a boycott of companies that include  invaders of protected areas in their supply chains. 

To support this call the group has disclosed a list of foreign companies that have engaged in trade with Brazilian agribusiness agents accused of acting in areas of indigenous land conflicts and extracting resources from protected areas.

Besides the boycott, APIB’s intention is to submit the data to the European Parliament and ask it to take action.

Human rights

Eloy Terena, APIB’s legal counsel, said: “Traders in Europe and North America can help by cutting ties with these bad Brazilian actors, thus sending a clear signal to Jair Bolsonaro that the rest of the world will not tolerate his policies.”

“If these companies continue to support Brazilian companies, they must also be blamed for the destruction of tropical forests and the abuse of indigenous peoples.”

Sonia Guajajara, indigenous leader and executive coordinator of APIB, said: “We understand that sanctioning the products that are produced and bought in areas of indigenous conflicts is the only thing that can guarantee the rights constituted here in Brazil. 

“We have to charge those foreign countries and demand respect for territorial, environmental and human rights.”

Illegal deforestation

AFIB’s report lists investments made between 2017 and 2019 by European and US companies and analyses the main fines for illegal deforestation committed by 56 Brazilian companies, which were collected by the governmental agency IBAMA from 2017 to 2019.

Twenty-seven foreign companies importing commodities were identified as doing business with loggers, slaughterhouses and soy farmers, as well as donations to political parties linked to agribusiness.

A study published by the scientific journal Public Library of Science points out that between 2011 and 2012, 78 percent and 54 percent of logging in the states of Pará and Mato Grosso, respectively, were illegal.

Between 2017 and 2018, businessman Arnaldo Andrade Betzel, owner of the timber companies Benevides Madeiras and Argus, was fined $570,000 for illegal deforestation in Pará. Benevides Timber exported a total of 1,754 tons of timber to companies in Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, France, the United Kingdom and the United States.

The APIB report also cites Tradelink Madeiras, a subsidiary of Tradelink Group based in Brazil, which was fined in 2016 for the sale of illegal timber. In 2017, the company was fined 11 times for irregular deforestation, totaling $ 260,000.

In the same year, the group was still reported for using slave labor in its supply chain. Between 2017 and 2019, Tradelink exported 2,203 tons of Amazonian timber to importers from Denmark, Canada and the United States.

Livestock and soy

Among the cattle farmers mentioned in the report are Agropecuária Santa Barbara Xinguara (AgroSB), Agropecuária Rio da Areia LTDA and the three main beef processors in Brazil: JBS, Marfrig and Minerva.

AgroSB is owned by an international fund managed by banker Daniel Dantas, and received the largest fines for illegal deforestation in the Amazon in 2017, totaling $20 million. The company was fined again in 2018.

Between 2017 and 2018, another company named Agropecuária Rio da Areia was fined five times for the same reason, totaling US $1.2 million. The triad cited accounts for more than half of all slaughtered cattle in the Amazon.

According to Greepeace and Chain Reaction Research, the main drivers of deforestation in the Amazon are the livestock and soy industries.

Five companies bought about 3,000 tonnes of soybeans and other grains from farms previously embargoed by IBAMA in Maranhão, Tocantins, Piauí and Bahia in April 2018. They are: ABC Indústria e Comércio SA, JJ Samar Agronegócios Eireli, Uniggel Proteção de Plantas Ltda, Cargill and Bunge. Called “Operation Shoyo”, the lawsuit applied R $ 105.7 million in fines to companies and rural producers.

Indigenous rights

According to Funai, there are more than 400 demarcated indigenous territories across the country, or 12.2 percent of the territory, with some 500,000 inhabitants. The majority of them are located in the Amazon region and some live totally isolated.

Under Brazil’s constitution, indigenous people are not allowed to practice commercial farming on their reserves and mining is only permitted with congress’s approval.

Bolsonaro has threatened to change this. He wants to achieve indigenous societal “assimilation,” a process by which an ethnic minority group’s traditional way of life and livelihoods is erased.

The strongest advocates of indigenous assimilation are the ruralistas, rural wealthy elites and agribusiness producers, who have the most to gain via access to the timber, land and mineral wealth found within indigenous territories.

The Brazilian president was elected with their help, vowing to freeze demarcations of new indigenous reserves, revoke the protected status of others, and free up commercial farming and mining on others.

Epic proportions

Deforestation in Brazil has reached such epic proportions that an area equivalent to 1 million football pitches was lost in just one year, according to Greenpeace.

Deforestation in Brazil has major implications for the balance of CO2 in the global atmosphere. A major study released in 2015 found the amount of carbon being absorbed and stored by the Amazon rainforest had fallen by around a third over the previous decade.

Another recent study found large carbon losses in Brazil and elsewhere are contributing to tropical forests turning from a global sink to a global source of emissions.

Deforestation increased by almost 14 percent with an area of 7,900 sq km (3,050 square miles) of forest cleared between August 2017 and July 2018, according to the governmental institution of special investigations.

Amazon restoration

The Amazon rainforest represents more than half of Earth’s remaining rainforest and covers an area of 5.5 billion sq km, about 60 per cent of which is in Brazil. 

The Amazon is under threat from illegal logging as well as farming, in particular from soybean plantations and pasture land for cattle.

LULUCF accounts for around a fifth of Brazil’s emissions. Illegal and legal deforestation, driven by cattle ranching, soy production for livestock feed and logging for timber and charcoal, continues to be a significant problem in Brazil today.

Brazil pledged in its NDC to achieve “zero illegal deforestation” in the Amazon by 2030. However, this represented a step backwards from its proposal in 2008 to achieve “zero net deforestation” by 2015.

Brazil has also promised to restore 12m hectares of deforested land by 2030 – the biggest commitment of its kind ever made by a single country. But these pledges will only become reality when agribusinesses stop invading and depleting the rainforests. 

Environmental crimes

The Bolsonaro government transferred the responsibility for demarcation of indigenous reserves to Brazil’s agriculture ministry, which is controlled by members of a powerful farming lobby that has long opposed indigenous land rights.

Bolsonaro also handed control of Brazil’s cash-strapped indigenous agency Funai to a new ministry of women, family and human rights presided over by a conservative evangelical pastor.

Bolsonaro and his environmental minister, Ricardo Salles, have both publicly attacked Brazil’s environmental protection agencies and what they call “an industry” of environmental fines.

The president – who has said the indigenous communities are being exploited and manipulated by non-governmental organisations – and his Environment Minister have also strongly criticised the environmental protection agency, Ibama, in charge of policing the Amazon to stop deforestation.

Bolsonaro has said he will reduce the power to inspect and punish environmental crimes. If he does that, Amazon deforestation could explode into an unimaginable situation. 

This Author

Marianne Brooker is The Ecologist’s content editor. This article is based on a press release from AFIB. 

Image: Jay, Flickr. 

Michael Gove has invited trophy hunting campaigners and conservationists to meet with him today as concern mounts over the impact of British hunters on endangered wildlife. 

Later in the day, MPs will debate whether to ban hunting trophy imports into Britain. Over 160 MPs from across all parties have signed a motion in support of a ban. 

A new report published today by the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting shows that the number of hunting trophies being brought back to Britain has risen more than 10-fold since the 1980s. 

Government permits

An investigation by the group reveals that the government has given permits to British hunters to bring home hunting trophies of tigers, black rhinos, and a rare sea turtle. 

UK trophy hunters have also been allowed by Defra to shoot scimitar-horned oryxes, which are classed as extinct in the wild; the Addax, of which just 30-90 survive in the wild; and the dama gazelle, reduced to just 100-200 animals. 

Defra has also given the green light to hunters wanting to shoot the Arabian Oryx, which went extinct in the wild in the 1970s when the last surviving animal was killed by a hunter. 

An intensive breeding programme using animals in zoos and private collections has led to some recently being reintroduced back into the wild.

However records held by CITES – the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora – show that Arabian oryxes are once again being shot by British hunters.  

Ludicrous arguments

Britain is among the world’s worst countries when it comes to hunting elephants for ivory and other trophies, as well as for shooting ‘canned lions’ – lions that have been bred in captivity and killed in enclosures for low-cost trophies. 

Records show that UK hunters are also killing large numbers of primates including several species of monkey and baboon, as well as wild sheep and goats for ‘sport’. 

Last week, a global report warned that 1 million species face possible extinction. Up to 1.7 million trophies were taken by sport hunters over the last decade alone, including over 200,000 from threatened species. 

Eduardo Gonçalves, the founder of the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting who has been invited to meet Mr Gove on Wednesday, said: “The trophy hunting industry is using ludicrous arguments to try to convince politicians that this colonial-era sport is now being done for ‘conservation’.

“A major US Congressional study contradicts the industry’s claims that trophy hunting can benefit wildlife. The IUCN says that big game hunting ‘does not work’ when it comes to conservation.”

Devastating impact

Gonçalves continued: “Andrew Loveridge, the British scientist who famously studied Cecil the lion until his death, has told of the devastating impact of trophy hunting on protected lions in his new book. 

“I very much hope Michael Gove listens to the evidence and acts swiftly not just to ban trophies from coming into Britain, but also to help bring an end to this archaic, cruel and devastating industry. 

“Trophy hunting is one of the last remaining great social evils. It should follow legal slavery and apartheid into the history books.”

Dozens of leading public figures and wildlife groups from around the world including Africa have written to the government in support of the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting’s call for a UK ban on hunting trophies.

This Article 

This article is based on a press release from the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting. 

The ground-breaking Puffarazzi project from the RSPB is back with the charity asking for the public’s help to find out more about one of our best loved seabirds.

Visitors to puffin colonies around the UK and Ireland in spring and summer 2019 and 2020 are being asked to join the Puffarazzi by photographing these colourful seabirds with fish in their bills.

The project is now also asking for historical photos to be submitted as well to aid conservation efforts. All these images will help scientists learn more about what puffins are feeding their chicks, known as pufflings.

Nutritious

Puffins, with their colourful bills, distinctive eye markings and somewhat comical walk, are a firm favourite for many people.

Yet, these birds are in serious trouble with their numbers plummeting in former strongholds in the UK and Europe and the species is now classed as vulnerable to extinction.

This project aims to find out the causes of these UK declines which are likely to be related to a reduction in food availability caused by climate change. Scotland is one of the most important places for puffins, with 80 per cent of the UK and Ireland population breeding here.

The public response in 2017 was incredible; 602 people joined the Puffarazzi and sent in 1,402 photos from almost 40 colonies.

The photos have helped scientists identify areas where puffins are struggling to find the large, nutritious fish needed to support their pufflings. They revealed variations around the UK with some areas having far smaller fish for the puffins to feed on.

Photo album

Scientists are now looking to build on this knowledge with one big difference this time round – rather than just asking for current photos scientists also need snaps of puffins with fish in their bills from any year.

Provided the year and place of the image is known it can be submitted; there’s even a way for pre-digital photos to be included. These will help scientists to track how puffin food sources have changed over time. Images can be submitted at the Project Puffin Website

Ellie Owen, who is leading the project said: “We’re so excited that Puffarazzi is back. The response last time was overwhelming and it’s thanks to this success that we’ve expanded the project.

“Puffins are facing a bleak future and we want to change that, which is why we need to learn more about how puffin food stocks have changed over the years.

“We’re asking you to dig around in your photo albums and digital files and to send us any applicable photos you have, however old they are. However big or small the fish in the photo is it will be really useful for us.

Conservation

“Anyone can join the Puffarazzi – back in 2017 our youngest volunteer was just 11 years old – and if you took part two years ago you can do so again. Our project website has all the information on how to take part, while keeping yourself and the puffins safe.”

Guidance on the Puffarazzi website includes how to avoid disturbing puffins while photographing them such as avoiding spending more than a couple of minutes photographing a puffin carrying fish, keeping movements and noise to a minimum, not walking near or over puffin burrows, and keeping about five metres away from puffins at all times.

There is also advice on how to stay safe while taking photos of puffins, what the images need to capture for the scientific information needed by the project, and the online form for submitting the photographs.

Ellie added: “We know that many people have been inspired by the plight of these plucky little seabirds and want to help them.

“By becoming part of the Puffarazzi you’ll be filling in key knowledge gaps currently holding puffin conservation efforts back and will help shape future advice for government on how best to safeguard puffins.”

This Article

This article is based on a press release from the RSPB.

Latin America climate week is part of a series of regional summits to encourage dialogue between governments and civil society, in support of national climate pledges. The events were initially set to take place from 19 to 23 August in Salvador

The rebuke comes months after Brazil backed out from presiding over the Cop25 UN climate summit, prompting a frenzied search for alternative venues. Chile stepped in with less than a year to prepare.

 Brazil’s environment minister, Ricardo Salles, told national daily O Globo: “We do not accept hosting the event because it is an action in the run-up to Cop25. It does not make sense to host an event from the climate conference, if we are not going to hold the conference.”

Urban agenda 

The newspaper published a message from UN Climate Change saying it was seeking other options in the region, but would make no official comment until it received notification in writing. A spokesperson for the UN body declined to comment to Climate Home News.

According to Salvador City Hall, the event had been confirmed last year under Michel Temer’s interim government. André Fraga, the official charged with UN liaison, was informed of the cancellation on Friday night, in a phone call from the federal environment ministry.

Fraga told O Globo: “I have been informed that Minister Ricardo Salles was not comfortable with holding the event in Brazil. 

“He claimed what all of this government claim: that the event only serves as a platform for NGOs, that it is useless and that the environment ministry’s focus is the urban agenda, which has nothing to do with climate change.”

The environment minister denied having a problem with campaign groups, saying: “It has nothing to do with the participation or not of NGOs, it has to do with our main agenda which, as I said, is an urban environmental agenda.”

Climate disaster

Fraga continued: “We do not support a meeting organized before our administration, with a different agenda from the one we prefer, which is the issue of the urban environmental agenda and sanitation, dumps.”

Environmentalists were quick to condemn the move. Carlos Rittl of Climate Observatory tweeted that the government was a “climate disaster”.

This Author 

Natalie Sauer reports for Climate Home News. She has contributed to a variety of international outlets, including Politico Europe, AFP and The Ecologist.  This article was first published by Climate Home. 

As a society we have become disconnected from the natural world. We see Nature as some sort of middle-class lifestyle add-on rather than something we are intrinsically part of.

Somehow we forget there is no health and wellbeing on a dead planet. This has led to a collective indifference to the catastrophic demise of our natural environment.

This article was first published in Resurgence & Ecologist magazine. 

We think the world is so large we can never run out of resources. Indeed our entire economic model is based on converting more of Nature into money to keep alive the fairy tale of infinite growth.

Behaviour change

Each year in the UK, 1 in 4 of the adult population experiences a mental health problem, over the last 25 years rates of depression and anxiety in teenagers have increased by 70 percent, and 62 percent of adults and 35 percent of children aged 2–15 are overweight.

It is clear that despite all our material wealth we are not happy.

Our current medical approach to health care has its limitations. We invest most of our resources in frontline interventions for established disease and illness.

We have taught society to expect a medication or intervention for any given condition. There is reluctance from patients and clinicians to accept prescriptions for diet, exercise or lifestyle change, despite growing evidence of their value.

There has been extensive research into what influences behaviour change, which lies outside the remit of this article. I believe that, to succeed, any intervention has to speak to our values.

Health and wellbeing

From early childhood our education system slowly creates individuals with a focus on achieving material wealth. Much time is spent indoors, and children are increasingly distanced from the origins of the food they eat, the water they drink, and the air they breathe.

Our children spend far more time on screens than outdoors. Four to six hours a day is the new norm for our teenagers, despite evidence that it is not good for their health.

A Naturally Healthy approach would commit resources to connecting our children with the natural world in order to benefit their health and wellbeing and that of our environment.

Spending time being active and learning outside will help them understand their place in the world. It will improve their physical and mental health, and it will help them understand and value Nature.

Is it not reasonable to embed this in the national curriculum, to have a Naturally Healthy syllabus that develops throughout their school years? Make no mistake: this would not detract from the academic agenda. In fact, evidence shows that happy, healthy children learn better.

Local environment

Naturally Healthy is simply common sense. We must enshrine this principle in our national education strategy.

Local implementation would depend on the local environment. It could be walking a mile a day, it could be daily forest school, it could even be surfing with The Wave Project.

The specification is that it allows children to learn, engage with and value our natural world. However, it needs to be embedded, consistent and running through formal education.

For our adult population we must review our strategic health approach. Interventions that reconnect adults with Nature have benefits for physical and mental health, and can be designed to be both preventive and therapeutic.

Targeted, Nature-based interventions have demonstrated efficacy and cost-effectiveness in the management of a range of conditions, including depression, anxiety, loneliness and chronic disease, and in slowing the progression of dementia. There are also no side effects!

Cost effective

Interventions can be as simple as walking for health, as active as coasteering, or as involved as volunteering with the National Trust.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach. Feedback tells us that participants value being part of a community, learning new skills, increasing activity levels and reconnecting with the natural world.

It is important to remember that for many of these projects the evidence regarding efficacy and cost-effectiveness is very clear, so we need to be careful how we describe them.

They should not be described as ‘add-ons’ or ‘green prescriptions’, but as first-line best practice where appropriate, and commissioned accordingly. 

So why, if the evidence is clear, is this not being recognised at a national level? It is. Chapter 3 of the government’s 25-year environment plan recognises the link between the environment and health and wellbeing.

The vision is to help people improve their health and wellbeing by using green spaces, to green our towns and cities, and to encourage children to be closer to Nature both in and out of school.

Formal recognition

There is growing engagement from health-care commissioners, and interest from the Department of Health, but as yet no formal recognition. We hope in time a clear, consistent message will develop.

We believe that reconnecting our communities with the natural world offers transformative opportunities to improve health and wellbeing.

Partnership working between health and environmental organisations allows long-term strategic visions to develop that will result in a healthy population and a healthy environment.

We have a responsibility to our patients, our communities and our children to act. Will we?

Naturally Healthy May is a month of events inspiring us to get outdoors. For more information visit the campaign’s website.

This Author

James Szymankiewicz is a general practitioner and Chair of Natural Devon. He tweets at @Drjamesszy. This article was first published in Resurgence & Ecologist magazine. 

Image: Ben Lee.