We all suffer stress and anxiety to some degree and reported stress levels are generally increasing.  The Mental Health Foundation recently found that three quarters of people in the UK had felt so stressed in the past year that they were overwhelmed or unable to cope.

It would be in everyone’s interest to tackle the various causes of stress.  Many are related to work situations, many to personal and financial circumstances, but a proportion is attributable to environmental noise. Noise can be defined as unwanted sound. The descriptor “unwanted” immediately suggests that there will be an emotional or psychological response to the intrusion of noise into our lives.

Recent research is beginning to suggest that we need to take noise more seriously.  

Noise impact 

In 2015 a German study reported that there was a 25 percent higher rate of depression in areas with high traffic noise compared to quieter neighbourhoods, allowing for other socioeconomic factors.  The complexity of noise impact is evident in the finding that the highest rates of depression were found in areas where intermediate noise was being experienced for 24 hours each day – not in the areas with the highest noise levels.  It was postulated that in the particularly noisy areas, people take measures to block out the noise

The mechanisms for noise impact on human health and wellbeing remain uncertain.  Noise will cause both psychological and physiological distress, disturbing homeostasis and increasing allostatic load.  That means the internal balance within the human body, controlled by the nervous system and by hormones, is thrown out, resulting in elevated or fluctuating endocrine and nervous responses.

There can be constriction of blood vessels, tightening of muscles, increased heart rate and raised blood pressure.  In turn these can have very evident effects, causing annoyance, anxiety, hypertension, sleep disturbance and cardiovascular disease. 

Persistent hypertension, or high blood pressure, can increase the risks of heart attack, stroke and kidney disease. There is some evidence of reduced cognitive performance in children. Many people can tune out noise, to varying degrees, but that doesn’t mean to say that the purely physiological responses are eliminated.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has recently issued a set of guidelines and thresholds for environmental noise.  For example, it is recommended that human exposure to road noise should be limited to no more than 53 dB as an average.  Above that level then there will be negative health impacts. At night, the level should not exceed 45 dB in order to maintain relatively healthy sleep patterns.  For rail noise there are marginally different thresholds, 54dB and 44 dB respectively.  Of course, industrial noise is already regulated by existing legal controls so should not be creating additional problems to any significant extent.

Ambient noise 

The dB, or decibel, is not a measure most of us are very familiar with. It attempts to reflect the loudness of a noise as we hear it but, in technical terms, is a logarithmic scale because the human ear is capable of responding to an enormous range of powers of sound waves.  

Zero, of course, is set at the threshold for healthy hearing to first detect any sound at all. So, just as examples, I’m sitting writing this article at my desk, beside a window which overlooks a fairly quiet road at the bottom of a 20m garden – perhaps 10 cars or trucks passing each minute at the moment.  In this room I have secondary glazing which is very effective at reducing sound.  In the room itself there are a couple of PCs, screens, and a central heating radiator that probably makes some noise.  Today there is no wind at all. Otherwise, just the background sounds of any house. 

The noise sensor right beside me nearly always shows about 35 or 36 dB.  If I put the radio on fairly low, so that I can listen in to the news, but not be so disturbed that I can’t block it out and write, then the noise level increases to 55 dB roughly.  If I put the vacuum cleaner on, then the noise level is 66 dB and I can’t really think very rationally and, after more than a few minutes, it becomes quite annoying. An increase of 10 dB is likened to a doubling in the loudness of a sound to the human ear. 

The European Union adopted a Directive on environmental noise in 2002. It stipulates that measurements must be taken of ambient noise, the results must be made publicly available, and action plans for noise reduction must be agreed.  As yet there are no fixed target noise levels.

Major problem 

The measurements provided under the Directive make interesting reading. In Scotland, within the four main cities of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee, there are over 1 million people exposed to 24-hour noise levels in excess of 55 dB (so slightly higher than the WHO recommended maximum exposure level of 53 dB) while there are almost 800,000 exposed to night-time noise levels in excess of 50 dB (well above the WHO recommendation of 45 dB).  

In England, across 65 urban areas, it was reported in early 2014 that there were 7.4 million people living in areas with road noise levels in excess of 55 dB as an average, while there were almost 5 million living with night-time road noise above 50 dB. Adding in exposure to rail noise as well, the figures increase to 8.4 million and 5.6 million respectively.  

It has been suggested that 10 percent of people in England & Wales live with day-time noise in excess of 65 dB, and 16 percent with night-time noise in excess of 55 dB.  These exposures seem to be fairly stable, with little change either for better or worse over time.  However, complaints about noise have certainly been increasing over the past 20 years.  As you would expect, there is also an inherent equalities issue since more deprived communities are more likely to be exposed to a combination of both greater noise and air pollution. 

You would think there would be good reason to be very concerned. Opinion surveys across Europe in 2016-17 revealed that one third of citizens said they experienced problems with noise, and in cities this proportion rose to half.  Another poll indicated that 15 percent of people place noise pollution in the top 5 environmental issues that worry them.  

In the UK, 4 percent of respondents have a major problem with noise, and 22 percent a moderate problem.  There is evidence that the trend is towards increasing public concern.

Premature deaths

Admittedly, there are many ways to combat noise – sound insulation in homes, double-glazing, sleeping in the quietest part of the house.  So individuals will personally experience a noisy environment in very different ways.

However, overall, the European Environment Agency stated in 2014 that there were 10,000 premature deaths caused by noise pollution in Europe, 43,000 hospitalisations and 900,000 cases of hypertension.

It is also reckoned that 1 million DALY are caused every year in Europe (a DALY is a disability adjusted life year) from traffic noise.  This suggests that there is a very considerable burden placed on people across Europe, principally through annoyance and sleep disturbance.  

Each DALY can be costed.  In Netherlands a cost of Euros 77k has been calculated, while in the UK it has been valued at £20k to £30k, and in the USA between $50k and $100k.  Taking a middle figure of £50k, then the total cost of noise-related disability in Europe could be about £50 billion per year.  A fairly recent estimate put the annual cost of obesity in Europe at £70 billion.

Green solutions

So what is being done?  Well, the European 7th Environmental Action Programme commits to noise pollution being significantly reduced by 2020 and moving closer to the WHO levels. Additionally, the European Union has set standards for engine noise in cars and heavy vehicles.  

Obviously, the routine annual MoT test requires silencers and exhaust systems to be maintained. It has also set improving standards, since 2005, for noise created by vehicle tyres.  Opportunities can be taken to improve road surfaces by laying low-noise coatings.  Many indoor and outdoor appliances now have noise standards applied.  Certainly, there are ongoing business innovations in devising better sound insulation building materials and products.  

At the more local level, noise impact assessments are required of new road infrastructure, while controls can be exercised in construction of new housing, and in baffling from noise by built or green infrastructure.  It’s been shown that a planted stand of trees and shrubs 30m wide can reduce noise levels by 10 dB, effectively a halving of the perceived noise level, and this provides a significant benefit when a typical noise level beside a motorway might be around 70 dB.  A tree or shrub barrier can also reduce air pollution by half.

There are clearly multiple benefits to be derived from green solutions to climate change, poor air quality and excessive noise – in terms of tree planting, green roofs, green walls, and increased walking and cycling, as well as use of public transport, in place of private vehicles.  Overall, however, there is very poor centralised collection of information or data in the UK  on how much effort is going into any of these local remedial actions.

Harming biodiversity 

The impacts of noise pollution on biodiversity are, perhaps, even less well established.  There have been many laboratory tests which indicate significant physiological responses for various species but impacts in the natural environment are poorly understood.

A study was undertaken across all the protected areas in the USA, amounting to 14 percent of the total land area, which found that intrusive man-made noise reduced the area in which only natural sounds could be heard by between 50 percent and 90 percent, depending on location.  This means that natural sounds that could normally be heard at a distance of 50m could only be heard at 25m.  Overall 63 percent of the land area experienced twice as much sound as it should.

Clearly unnatural noise will impact on many species.  Animals rely on sound for communication, navigation, finding food and avoiding danger. For example, it’s been shown that foraging efficiency of owls is adversely impacted by traffic noise.  There is much less bat activity in noisy places.  There is evidence of impact on breeding bird communities through a change in composition of the community and a reduction in nesting species richness.  

However, some species clearly get an advantage in noisy places through reduced competition and predation.  There have been studies of wild populations of species as distinct as rats and deer showing avoidance behaviour of noisy places, causing behavioural and social changes which can result in disturbed and reduced feeding.  

There have been many studies of the effect of aircraft noise on wild species.  This distinct type of noise can be very loud and very sudden, possibly even causing panic and injury and abandonment of young.   

On the other hand, studies have also shown that roadside verges can be refuges for many insects, butterflies, moths and bees – so it would appear the relative lack of physical disturbance is a benefit compared to the possibility of some relatively minor disbenefits from noise.  However, it is recognised that good inter-comparison studies between similar noisy and quiet locations are needed. 

The future 

Accepting that we will have to continue living with noise, despite ongoing efforts to tackle the problem at source and make various technologies quieter, then we should be working hard to disrupt the pathways for noise transmission.

What does the future hold?  The existing European directive on environmental noise has the feel of a preliminary exercise to gather evidence and to prepare member states for more prescriptive action later.  This is confirmed by the commitment in the 7th environmental action programme.  

It’s clear there are potentially great benefits to be gained by properly aligning green interventions to enhance climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, infrastructure resilience, air pollution reduction, biodiversity enhancement, local amenity, and noise reduction.  

Perhaps the best approach would be to build on the existing 2013 EU green infrastructure strategy and to agree an EU framework directive on green infrastructure, designed to deliver all those well-established multiple benefits that would improve our own lives and physical and mental wellbeing.

This Author 

Professor James Curran retired recently as Chief Executive of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.  He researches, writes and talks on climate change, sustainability, air pollution and biodiversity.

Image: A PV sound barrier near Munich airport with solar panels incorporated, Wikimedia. 

Within England’s National Parks more than a quarter of land is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) meaning that it should provide refuge for the country’s rarest wildlife.

On average, just one in four SSSIs in National Parks are in an acceptable condition – far worse than those in the wider countryside. 

Failure to protect national parks is having a devastating effect on iconic British birds such as lapwing, dunlin and snipe, whose numbers are declining faster in the Peak District than elsewhere – despite being ‘priority species’.

Worsening condition

In Exmoor National Park, curlew and kestrel numbers have dramatically fallen while the ring ouzel or ‘mountain blackbird’ has become locally extinct.

Kevin Cox, chairman of RSPB criticised the “dismal performance” of these protected zones: “SSSIs protect some of our most nationally important wildlife, and you would expect these sites to be thriving within National Parks.

“The fact that these sites are, on average, in worse condition inside National Parks than outside is therefore extremely concerning.” Habitats elsewhere within the parks could be in even worse condition.

Using 2017 Natural England data, RSPB researchers found that on average 26 per cent of SSSIs within English National Parks are in a favourable condition.

The North York Moors came in lowest, with just 11 per cent of SSSIs in good condition. The same protected zones were doing four times better in the wider countryside, according to the RSPB report in British Wildlife.

Isobel Mercer, a Senior Site Conservation Policy Officer at the RSPB, said: “People want to experience a countryside rich in plants and animals rather than barren moorland. National Parks are national assets that have a duty to protect and enhance our wildlife. However, evidence at the moment shows this just isn’t happening.

Stanford Principle

Sharp declines in biodiversity have raised questions over whether National Parks still merit their Category V protected landscape status.

In 1951 when the first National Park (the Peak District) was created the government drafted the ‘Stanford Principle’. This stated that when conservation and public enjoyment clash, conservation should take priority. One of the primary objectives of these parks was to provide refuge for threatened species which were once common across the English countryside.

However, human interests seem to be trumping conservation which is putting many species at risk, particularly upland waders, farmland birds and birds of prey.

Seven out of ten of England’s National Parks are upland in nature. Grouse shooting in the Peak District, the North York Moors, Northumberland and the Yorkshire Dales is one of the main reasons for wildlife decline in the uplands. Burning moorland to provide fresh shoots of heather for grouse as well as the illegal persecution of birds of prey were found to be particularly damaging.

The intensification of agriculture has also negatively impacted biodiversity. In the Peak District, the number of sheep grazing has increased fivefold since 1900 which has resulted in a loss of vegetation, increase in soil erosion and flooding incidents downstream.

Misleading statistics 

The North York Moors’ freshwater pearl mussel – which can live to more than 100 – has not bred for twenty years at least and is now on the verge of extinction. Populations of wood warbler, pied flycatcher and salmon are also sharply declining.

Andy Wilson, chief executive of the North York Moors National Park agreed there were real issues facing wildlife in England’s parks but criticised the RSPB for making “partial and misleading use of statistics”.

In June it was revealed in Parliament that 47 percent of SSSIs had not had an assessment by Natural England in the past six years. Wilson condition: “So the data may have been published in 2017 but only a small proportion will have been collected recently.  It’s not up to date.” He said the most pressing issues facing National Parks are climate change, extreme weather events and tree disease.

A spokesperson for Peak District National Park said the recovery of SSSIs could take decades: “UK upland SSSIs – in particular those of the Dark Peak area of the Peak District – have experienced significant historical damage from industrial air pollution, over-grazing and erosion, amongst other factors.

“This has taken place over centuries, and indeed prior to the designation of National Parks from the 1950s onwards.”

Wildlife is plummeting all over the country and the 2016 State of Nature report found 56 percent of UK species declined between 1970 and 2013. The intensification of agriculture was the most significant driver of biodiversity loss.

Huge potential 

The RSPB has called for more funding to improve monitoring of wildlife within the parks and welcomed the government’s National Parks review.

Cox said: “This review of England’s designated landscapes is a key opportunity for the UK Government to deliver on the ambitions set out in its 25 Year Plan for the environment. Ensuring that protected nature sites like SSSIs are in good condition should be at the heart of plans to improve National Parks for wildlife.”

Mercer said these areas had “huge potential” to halt and reverse biodiversity loss in England.

Caroline Cotterell, Natural England’s Director for Nature and Landscapes said she is “committed to working with the owners and managers of SSSIs in England to safeguard and improve them. This is underlined in the Government’s 25 Year Environment Plan, as we work to make sure we leave our environment in a better state than we found it.”

This Author

Phoebe Weston is a freelance science and environment journalist. She grew up on an organic farm in Kent and is interested in rural land use, wildlife and farming. Read her blog Rewilding London here. 

Image: Exmoor National Park. Shrinkin’violet, Flickr. 

Adam Kidega, 45, recalls returning to the lake shore after a night fishing with his boat full of fish. In his younger years, he says: “It was always a bonanza.”

Today it is a different story. One can spend long nights on the lake and return empty handed.

If “very” lucky, Kidega says, he returns to Dunga fishing village with a handful of fish – two or three – and if unlucky, none at all. “That is how bad things have become.”

Parliamentary

This part of Lake Victoria, near Kisumu in western Kenya, is choked with water hyacinth, putrid algae and other invasive plants. They flourish in the organic waste that drains in from cities and farms, creating poor conditions for fish to breed. Climate change intensifies the problems.

It is the “deadest part of the lake,” according to executive secretary of the Lake Victoria Basin Commission (LVBC), Ally Said Matano, who blames the population density of the catchment. “The higher the number of people you have in a catchment area the more the pollution and the more problems you get.”

LVBC is an inter-government body of the five East African countries sharing the Lake Victoria basin, home to 40 million people.

The world’s largest tropical lake, Victoria is an important source of water and hydropower, a reservoir of biodiversity and a medium for transport across three main basin countries: Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania.

Christine Kaaya, the programmes coordinator for Uganda’s parliamentary forum on climate change, says each of the major rivers, streams and wetlands feeding the lake is under some level of threat.

Third phase

“Degradation of the catchment area is the main problem across the board, and with time the effects will catch up with the lake,” says Kaaya. “Already we have been warned about the ecosystem being badly damaged.”

A 2018 study by the Swiss-based International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) found that freshwater ecosystems in the lake were inadequately protected.

“Freshwater biodiversity in the Lake Victoria Basin is in decline and the risk of species extinctions is increasing, with the major drivers of threat identified as: pollution; biological resource use, primarily overfishing; agriculture; and invasive species, particularly Nile Perch and water hyacinth,” the study says.

Climate change is an ongoing and future threat to freshwater species, especially fishes, which are shown to be particularly vulnerable, the report adds.

The biggest initiative to tackle the problem has been the Lake Victoria Environmental Management Project, first approved in 1996. Last year, the World Bank approved a $240m loan for the third phase of the project.

Badly degraded

Results from the Kenyan part of phase one were judged “unsatisfactory” in a 2006 evaluation. The entire government team responsible was dismissed in 2002 “due to heightened dissatisfaction with observed performance”.

An NGO source, who asked not to be identified because he relied on government funding, gives the example of public flushing toilets. Several were installed, as an alternative to people defecating on riverbanks. But they were quickly vandalised and raw sewage continued to pollute the lake.

Uganda and Tanzania fared slightly better, with “moderately satisfactory” outcomes. A spokesperson for the World Bank in Uganda declined to comment on specific criticisms, deferring to the government.

Alfred Okot Okidi, a top official at Uganda’s ministry of water and environment, said the next phase would learn from previous efforts. It involves regenerating “badly degraded” swamps and riverbanks in southwestern Uganda.

“What we want to do is to restore the catchment area, including through pulling people out of the swamps and give them alternative livelihoods,” Okidi says. Other interventions include planting trees and containing sewerage from urban hotspots like Ugandan capital Kampala.

This Article

This Article first appeared on Climate Home News and was produced as part of an African reporting fellowship supported by Future Climate for Africa.

The British government’s proposals for a post-Brexit environment law and watchdog are modelled on the European Commission system they are meant to replace, environment secretary Michael Gove told MPs on Wednesday. 

As a prominent advocate for leaving the European Union, Gove has long argued that Brexit will allow the UK to strengthen its environmental protections and set policies more effectively.

But when it comes to the commission’s role in making sure governments fulfil policies, the “easily understandable process” in Brussels sets a good example for Britain’s Environment Bill, he told the House of Commons’ Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

Loopholes

“There are lots of other things where we wish to do things differently,” Gove said. 

“But given that we will have had a degree of confidence in the process – whereby the commission can give an opinion and then if necessary go with infraction proceedings – people have a high degree of confidence that – whatever else are the defects of the EU – that is a good working model. And therefore we’ve sought to replicate it.”

The same goes for the government’s plan to establish environmental principles to guide policymaking.

The treaty that created the EU includes commitments to, for example, ensure that a polluter always pays. Legal experts told MPs last week that the UK’s draft would create loopholes for lawmakers to avoid following them.

Open-minded

Broadly, the EU principles are “well understood”, Gove told MPs.

“The logic… is, you say what the principles are on the face of the bill, and then the government goes to parliament and says this is how we’re going to put the principles into effect and then you of course have regards to those principles when you’re shaping new legislation.”

Environmental advocates, MPs, the National Audit Office and others have expressed concerns that the draft Environment Bill fails to give the watchdog enough independence and power to hold the government to account for its shortfalls.

In response to criticism, Gove said repeatedly on Wednesday that his department is still “open to suggestions” and “open-minded” as it prepares to release the final version this year.

This Article

This Article first appeared at Climate Home News.   

Turkey’s highest administrative court has blocked a major coal power plant on the Black Sea coast, in a victory for campaigners.

The Council of State ruled on 21 February Hema Elektrik’s environmental impact assessment for the 1,320 megawatt project in Amasra district, Bartin province, was inadequate.

It was responding to a lawsuit filed by more than 2,000 local people – a record number of individual plaintiffs for an environmental court case in Turkey, according to a local news report.

Employment

“This decision represents a great victory for us,” said Erdogan Atmis, of the grassroots campaign group Bartin Platform.

Campaigners have fought the project in various guises since 2005, citing concerns about its impact on health, ecology and tourism in the area. Hema’s owner Hattat Holding has responded to previous setbacks by reapplying for permits under a new subsidiary.

“After this rejection, they can try it again,” said Atmis, “but no matter what they do, they won’t be successful, because they will find the people of Bartin and Amasra to be an obstacle.”

Ozlem Katisoz of the Turkish Foundation for Combatting Soil Erosion (Tema), a campaign group not directly involved in this case, said the level of public opposition was striking because Bartin is a coal region.

“Coal is a cultural issue, it is a source of employment,” she said. “Coal is something people are proud of.” What swung public opinion against this plant was that it was set to use imported, not domestic, coal, she said.

Anticipated

Tema, which is primarily concerned with agriculture, is involved in legal challenges and lobbying against a number of other coal projects because of their impacts on farming.

Turkey has the third biggest pipeline of coal power plants in the world, with 37GW of capacity in various stages of planning, according to the latest CoalSwarm data.

The government energy policy backs coal mining and power production as a way to reduce reliance on fuel imports.

Despite that backing, implementation of these plans has slowed to a trickle, in the face of public opposition, legal challenges and investor nerves. Only four generating units are currently under construction, while 62 have been cancelled and 31 shelved since 2010.

“Overall, what this shows is that the the wave of new coal plants that had been anticipated several years ago in Turkey is not materializing, at least so far,” said Ted Nace, director of CoalSwarm.

Coal is one of the biggest sources of climate pollution worldwide and climate activists are urging countries like Turkey to back renewable energy instead.

Tema’s Katisoz said the first priority should be energy efficiency, with “huge potential” for savings in buildings and heavy industry. Better strategic planning is needed, she added, as the projections for electricity demand are uncertain. Then there is scope to scale up solar and wind power.

This Article

This Article first appeared at Climate Home News.

Microplastic pollution has been found in some of Britain’s most iconic and remote rivers and lakes – including Llyn Cefni Reservoir in Anglesey and Afon Cegin, a river in North Wales.

The new research by Bangor University and Friends of the Earth is believed to be the first of its kind. It looked at ten sites – including lakes in the Lake District, waterways in the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park, and a wetland as well as the Welsh reservoir – and found microplastics in all of them.

Dr Christian Dunn, of Bangor University,  led the research and confirmed the findings suggest that microplastics should now be considered as an emergent contaminant – and that routine monitoring of all UK waters must now take place.

Investigate

Researchers were able to identify and count microplastic pollutants – less than 5 mm in size, such as plastic fragments, fibres and film – per litre of water using a fluorescence lighting system. 

The preliminary findings revealed microplastic pollution levels ranging from over a 1,000 pieces of plastic per litre in in the river Tame in Greater Manchester, to 2.4 pieces per litre in Loch Lomond.

Last year, a report by Eunomia for Friends of the Earth estimated that huge quantities of microplastic pollution are entering UK waterways from a number of sources every year.

The key sources of pollution include car tyres (7,000-19,000 tonnes), clothing (150-2,900 tonnes), plastic pellets used to make plastic items (200-5,900 tonnes) and paints on buildings and road markings (1,400-3,700 tonnes).

Further work is now essential to fully investigate any health risks from microplastics – to humans and ecosystems – so that “safe” levels can be ascertained, and removal and mitigation processes can be put in place.

Dangers

Dr Christian Dunn, of Bangor University, said: “It was more than a little startling to discover microplastics were present in even the most remote sites we tested, and quite depressing they were there in some of our country’s most iconic locations.

“I’m sure Wordsworth would not be happy to discover his beloved Ullswater in the Lake District was polluted with plastic.

“These initial findings, from our team at Bangor University with Friends of the Earth, show that we have to start taking the issue of plastic in our inland waters seriously.

“Plastic is polluting our rivers, lakes and wetlands in a similar way as pollutants such as so-called ‘emerging contaminants’ like pharmaceutical waste, personal care products and pesticides.

“As with all emerging contaminants we don’t yet fully know the dangers they present to wildlife and ecosystems, or even human health, and to what levels they occur in all our water systems.

Devolved

“But it’s now clear that microplastics should be considered a serious emerging contaminant and there needs to be a concerted effort to regularly monitor all our inland waters for them.

“Our method provides a straightforward and low-cost way of doing this so we now need to roll it out and see if our preliminary results are just the tip of the iceberg.”

Julian Kirby, plastics campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: “The widespread contamination of our rivers and lakes with microplastic pollution is a major concern, and people will understandably want to know what impact this could have on their health and environment.

“Plastic pollution is everywhere – it’s been found in our rivers, our highest mountains and our deepest oceans.

“The onus is now on Westminster and on devolved governments in the UK to introduce legislation to drastically reduce the flow of plastic pollution that’s blighting our environment.”

Although there have been a number of studies on plastic pollution in the marine environment and some on the sediment of waterways, less research has been conducted on microplastic pollution in actual water samples from inland systems in the UK.

The methodology used in this study offers a simple low-cost way of collecting and analysing samples, allowing regular nationwide monitoring of waterways.

This Article

This article is based on a press release from Friends of the Earth.

A research project aiming to inspire international action on marine plastic pollution at the University of Stirling has been awarded a share of £850,000.

The Economics of Marine Plastic Pollution: What are the Benefits of International Cooperation? will calculate the economic costs of the environmental damages associated with marine plastic and the benefits of a cross-country coordinated clean up.

Frans de Vries, Professor of environmental economics at the University’s Stirling Management School, (pictured) said: “We know plastic pollution is a global phenomenon and has a significant, detrimental impact on the marine and coastal environment.

Joined-up

“The transboundary nature of marine plastic pollution reduces the incentive for any single country to take action. Through this project, we aim to identify and prove the value of international cooperation in tackling the issue.”

The three year study, which involves academics from the University of Stirling, University of Glasgow, Plymouth Marine Laboratory and Clark University in America, will focus on collecting data from eight countries bordering the North Atlantic Ocean.

Researchers will seek to map the spatial distribution and movement of marine plastic; calculate the costs of reducing both the stock and flows of plastic in and into the marine environment; develop a framework to determine the economic benefits of different levels of international cooperation in reducing plastic waste; and identify incentives that might encourage a joined-up approach.

De Vries added: “Despite increasing worldwide recognition of the problem of marine plastic, a lack of coordinated and effective control persists.

Preservation

“Our research will contribute to discussions around the introduction of an international agreement on plastics in the marine environment, and we are hopeful our findings will inspire international efforts towards solving this massive environmental problem.”

The research has been funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC).

Helen Rogers, senior portfolio manager at ESRC said: “ESRC is delighted to be funding to this project, with contributions from NERC and as part of UK Research and Innovation, we are well placed to foster research that can help solve the pressing issue of the plastic waste problem.

“Humanity’s shared environment is at risk and Prof de Vries’ work will contribute to its preservation.”

This Article

This article is based on a press release from the University of Stirling.

A unique rewilding training scheme in the Highlands, run by conservation charity Trees for Life and backed by the National Lottery Heritage Fund, is aiming to boost young people’s skills and employability in the rural economy.

Applications are open this month for the award-winning charity’s Skills for Rewilding programme, which is offering five people the chance to spend a year learning practical skills in landscape management, horticulture, community engagement, and estate management.

Mainly based at Trees for Life’s acclaimed Dundreggan Conservation Estate in Glenmoriston, the successful applicants will be able to develop skills in rewilding – helping damaged ecosystems return to a natural state – that will also be transferable to other organisations.

Hands-on activities

“We’re looking to train young people who haven’t found their niche yet, or who are looking to change careers. It’s an exceptional opportunity to gain the practical experience which is highly sought after by employers, whilst being based in a spectacular setting,” said Paul Greaves, Trees for Life’s Skills for Rewilding Manager.

Trees for Life is restoring the globally important Caledonian Forest and its wildlife. The forest once covered much of the Highlands, but after centuries of deforestation, only around 1% now survives.

So far Trees for Life’s volunteers have established 1.6 million trees, and the charity is also successfully reintroducing red squirrels to fragments of suitable forest across the Highlands.

Focusing on work experience rather than academic learning, the trainees will work alongside Trees for Life’s team – carrying out hands-on activities such as growing native trees from seeds, landscape management, helping volunteers plant trees, engaging with communities and schools, and ecological monitoring.

Traineeships

They will gain accredited qualifications, including some from the University of the Highlands and Islands, and will also get the chance to broaden their experience by going on placements with organisations such as the RSPB and Scottish National Heritage.

Last year’s programme attracted more than 100 applicants. Those taking part came from backgrounds including education, painting and decorating, and the hospitality sector.

Trees for Life hopes to attract people from groups poorly represented in nature conservation, including younger local people, women, and individuals hoping to make a career change later in life.

Applicants must be UK nationals and at least 18 years old when the traineeships start in July. The programme covers living expenses, and is funded by The National Lottery Heritage Fund.

This Author

This article is based on a press release from Trees for Life. Applications are open from March 1 to 9am on Monday 18 March. To register interest, email traineeships@treesforlife.org.uk. See www.treesforlife.org.uk or call 01309 691292.

Pictured: Last year’s Trees for Life Skills for Rewilding trainees (left-right) Nick Kinnegan, Callum Fraser, Tim Buchan, Rhona Duncan at Dundreggan Conservation Estate © Alex MacLeod, Trees for Life

Recent European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) opinions published earlier this year (2019) deal with two approval applications for maize developed through cross-breeding to combine several genetically engineered traits.

The plants are resistant to up to four groups of herbicides – glyphosate, glufosinate, 2,4-D and AOPP – and produce up to six insecticides.

The genetically engineered maize is a crucial element of a business strategy that couples the marketing of patented seeds with herbicides.

Combinatorial effects

This concept has serious consequences for the protection of health and the environment: the plants inherit resistance to several herbicides and can therefore be sprayed with high dosages and mixtures of specific herbicides.

Consequently, the residues from spraying will be present in the harvest, as will the insecticidal toxins produced in the maize.

In previous decision making the EU Commission has already approved several maize variants with similar characteristics. None of these were ever tested for combinatorial effects on health from mixtures of the toxic constituents in the respective food and feed products.

The EU Commission, EFSA and industry are of the opinion that detailed investigations of the combinatorial effects are not necessary.

However, this assumption is highly questionable. Just recently, documents were published showing that EFSA had not correctly assessed immune system responses to Bt toxins. Currently, it cannot be ruled out that Bt toxins trigger allergies and other immune responses.

Health risks

Very high concentrations of Bt toxins can be found in some products derived from the maize. In addition, the health risks from the residues of spraying are still being discussed by scientists, and crucial data needed to conclude on safety are missing.

Christoph Then for Testbiotech said: “Instead of giving priority to the protection of health and the environment, EFSA is paving the way for international trade and corporate interests. 

“And despite the majority of EU Member States and the EU Parliament repeatedly voting against imports of these crop plants, it is highly likely that the EU Commission will again give its approval.”

Currently, Testbiotech is aiming to make more detailed investigations mandatory for genetically engineered plants in a case brought before the EU court (case C-82/17 P).

Unfortunately, as stated by the Attorney General in 2018, the EU Court does not seem to be in a position to request a further, more detailed risk assessment. The final decision of the court is expected in 2019.

This Article 

This article is based on a press release from Test Biotech, the Institute for Independent Impact Assessment of Biotechnology. 

Geoengineering tends to get short shrift from environmentalists, seen as a distraction from the hard and necessary work of cutting emissions – at best.

All the same, it is increasingly hard to see the world avoiding dangerous warming without it – and research is proceeding, whether they like it or not.

Switzerland is calling on the UN Environment Programme to consider international governance options, in a draft resolution for this month’s summit obtained by Sara Stefanini.

Because as reader Felix Schenuit points out, more science cannot resolve the political dilemmas involved: debate is needed on the values and interests at stake.

GCF boss

The Green Climate Fund has named Yannick Glemarec as its next executive director, to lead the institution through a fundraising drive. He will coordinate with economist Johannes Linn, facilitator of the replenishment process.

With no shade on either appointee, who by all accounts are smart and competent, you have to ask how an institution drawing from an international pool landed on two white men.

Particularly when the highly qualified Mafalda Duarte was in the running. Maybe the 7:1 male to female ratio on the selection panel goes some way to explain it…

Meanwhile cracks showed in developing world unity at a board meeting in Songdo, as Saudi and Seychellois members clashed over governance reform.

Cool trillion

French experts, backed by Paris Agreement architect Laurent Fabius, are promoting a trillion-euro EU climate finance pact, Natalie Sauer reports.

At a launch event in Paris, they outlined plans for a new bank and fund to mobilise cash on a large scale. Proponents hope to put it on the agenda of a summit on the future of Europe this month and European Parliament elections in May.

Big oil on defence

International Petroleum Week this year coincided with a winter heatwave in London. As activists superglued themselves to the doors, inside were some signs of humility from the oil majors.

Saudi Aramco chief Amin Nasser took a strikingly defensive tone, revealing that top financiers and policymakers had told him his industry had little future.

He begged to differ, unsurprisingly, arguing for better PR rather than a wholesale shift to clean energy – but there’s no denying the sector is rattled.

For all the talk of carbon pricing, some were kicking it old school: Financial Times correspondent Anjli Raval spotted a delegate wearing an I❤FossilFuels pin.

CR 4 EVs

Costa Rica launched a 2050 climate strategy, covering all sectors of the economy. This small central American country switching to electric vehicles may not make Nasser tremble on its own, but advocates hope it can be an example to others.

Brexit loopholes

With four weeks to the Brexit deadline, UK lawmakers scrutinised plans to replace EU environmental laws – and found them wanting.

The draft bill contains “too many get-out-of-jail-free cards”, warned Environmental Audit Committee chair Mary Creagh.

This Article

This Article first appeared on Climate Home News.