The government has quietly abandoned efforts to meet a longstanding target to improve England’s most important wildlife sites, according to a leaked document seen by Unearthed.

The document also warns that Natural England, the government’s nature regulator, is too stretched to prevent “further human-induced extinctions of known threatened species”.

The environment department (Defra) had an official target, set by the Coalition government in 2011, to conserve 50 percent of England’s sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs), by area, by 2020.

Conserved and enhanced

But a leaked internal Natural England action plan shows that the agency is actually working towards a target of ensuring 38.7 percent of SSSIs are in “favourable” condition – the top grade of the six-point scale Natural England uses to assess sites.

The new target is just 0.07 percent higher than the current level.

An insider at Natural England, which has faced significant budget cuts in recent years, told Unearthed they “would be surprised if we even meet that”.

Labour environment spokeswoman Sue Hayman described the news as “extremely concerning”, while the RSPB said the plan seems “desperately weak”.

The leaked plan, which was signed off by Defra, comes eight months after Theresa May launched the government’s 25 year environment plan, which pledged to ensure protected areas are “not only conserved but enhanced” and introduced a new target to conserve 75 percent of SSSIs within the lifetime of the plan.

This plan feels like the moment of impact between aspiration and reality

Commenting on the story a spokesperson for the government’s conservation watchdog said the agency had not reduced any targets – insisting these were set by central government.

A Natural England spokesperson told Unearthed: “We are working to meet our ambition of achieving 75 percent favourable condition on SSSIs as part of the 25 Year environment plan. We do not comment on leaked documents.”

Protected areas

The law requires the government to “further the conservation and enhancement” of SSSIs, under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

They protect England’s most important areas for biodiversity, from the Lake District to the Pennines to Exmoor. Unearthed has found parts of all of these areas that were recorded as being in “unfavourable” condition when they were last assessed. 

Natural England ranks sites as “favourable”, “unfavourable – recovering”, “unfavourable – no change”, “unfavourable – declining”, “partially destroyed” or “destroyed”.

But a source at Natural England told Unearthed the agency could even slide backwards on its target to conserve sites.

“We don’t really know what’s happening,” the insider said. “There is very little monitoring going on and when this is combined with little to no proactive management work, there is very little hope of any gains. We could go backwards on the the target but in reality we are unlikely to know as the site condition hasn’t been checked. It is pretty shocking.”

Three weeks ago, a parliamentary question from Caroline Lucas, co-leader of the Green party, revealed that almost half of England’s SSSIs have not been monitored in the last six years, as is required by national guidelines.

Labour’s Sue Hayman told Unearthed: “SSSIs protect our most precious natural environment. If ministers are serious about their green credentials, then they need to prioritise protecting our environment.”

Natural England’s budget has nearly halved in the past decade.  In 2017/18 it was £112m, down from £200m in 2006/7, its chairman Andrew Sells told parliament in December.

The agency has recently consulted on new plans to use local enforcement powers to crackdown on damaging activities on SSSIs.

Extinctions

The report lays out key risks that Natural England is facing, alongside measures that will be taken to combat them.

These include a “high” likelihood that “resources, and thus actions, are inadequate to meet the Biodiversity 2020 target to secure an overall improvement in the status of our wildlife and to prevent any further human-induced extinctions of known threatened species”.

The impact of this risk would be “high”, the document states.

Natural England’s plan to combat these risks is to “engage with partners to commit resources”, which could mean NGOs, businesses or other public bodies.

Matt Shardlow, CEO of nature charity Buglife, said this mitigation strategy “is not going to be enough to halt and reverse the huge declines of biodiversity – ever, let alone by the global target of 2020.”

He told Unearthed: “This plan feels like the moment of impact between aspiration and reality.  The clear desire to leave the natural environment in a better condition than we inherited it rests uncomfortably askew atop a jagged heap of colliding aims and financial realities.”

More than one in ten of the UK’s wildlife species is threatened with extinction, making it “among the most nature depleted countries in the world”, according to a major report published in 2016. Atlantic puffins, European turtle doves and wildcats are among the species at risk of extinction in the UK.

Planning

Natural England’s role advising on planning proposals and wildlife licences, which permit culling, disturbance or handling of species, also looks set to change.

The report warns of a high risk that “turn around targets” for this work will be missed.

In response the agency will bring in the “introduction and expansion of chargeable services” – presumably for licences and permits – and “continue to work on longer term reforms” and standardise its responses to casework.

The RSPB, the country’s largest conservation charity, said that standardised responses could be “a useful tool to speed up consenting processes or pose a very real threat to wildlife, depending on how they are used.”

It could also lead to increased charges, less robust advice and leave some unable to pay for it, they said.

Chris Corrigan, RSPB’s director for England, told Unearthed: “Gove and May both signed up to an ambition to leave the environment in a better state than they found it and there was great ambition in the 25 year environment plan.

“But here for the first time there is something tangible that shows how the government is implementing that vision – and it all feels desperately weak.”

This Article

This article first appeared at Unearthed, from Greenpeace.

The government has quietly abandoned efforts to meet a longstanding target to improve England’s most important wildlife sites, according to a leaked document seen by Unearthed.

The document also warns that Natural England, the government’s nature regulator, is too stretched to prevent “further human-induced extinctions of known threatened species”.

The environment department (Defra) had an official target, set by the Coalition government in 2011, to conserve 50 percent of England’s sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs), by area, by 2020.

Conserved and enhanced

But a leaked internal Natural England action plan shows that the agency is actually working towards a target of ensuring 38.7 percent of SSSIs are in “favourable” condition – the top grade of the six-point scale Natural England uses to assess sites.

The new target is just 0.07 percent higher than the current level.

An insider at Natural England, which has faced significant budget cuts in recent years, told Unearthed they “would be surprised if we even meet that”.

Labour environment spokeswoman Sue Hayman described the news as “extremely concerning”, while the RSPB said the plan seems “desperately weak”.

The leaked plan, which was signed off by Defra, comes eight months after Theresa May launched the government’s 25 year environment plan, which pledged to ensure protected areas are “not only conserved but enhanced” and introduced a new target to conserve 75 percent of SSSIs within the lifetime of the plan.

This plan feels like the moment of impact between aspiration and reality

Commenting on the story a spokesperson for the government’s conservation watchdog said the agency had not reduced any targets – insisting these were set by central government.

A Natural England spokesperson told Unearthed: “We are working to meet our ambition of achieving 75 percent favourable condition on SSSIs as part of the 25 Year environment plan. We do not comment on leaked documents.”

Protected areas

The law requires the government to “further the conservation and enhancement” of SSSIs, under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

They protect England’s most important areas for biodiversity, from the Lake District to the Pennines to Exmoor. Unearthed has found parts of all of these areas that were recorded as being in “unfavourable” condition when they were last assessed. 

Natural England ranks sites as “favourable”, “unfavourable – recovering”, “unfavourable – no change”, “unfavourable – declining”, “partially destroyed” or “destroyed”.

But a source at Natural England told Unearthed the agency could even slide backwards on its target to conserve sites.

“We don’t really know what’s happening,” the insider said. “There is very little monitoring going on and when this is combined with little to no proactive management work, there is very little hope of any gains. We could go backwards on the the target but in reality we are unlikely to know as the site condition hasn’t been checked. It is pretty shocking.”

Three weeks ago, a parliamentary question from Caroline Lucas, co-leader of the Green party, revealed that almost half of England’s SSSIs have not been monitored in the last six years, as is required by national guidelines.

Labour’s Sue Hayman told Unearthed: “SSSIs protect our most precious natural environment. If ministers are serious about their green credentials, then they need to prioritise protecting our environment.”

Natural England’s budget has nearly halved in the past decade.  In 2017/18 it was £112m, down from £200m in 2006/7, its chairman Andrew Sells told parliament in December.

The agency has recently consulted on new plans to use local enforcement powers to crackdown on damaging activities on SSSIs.

Extinctions

The report lays out key risks that Natural England is facing, alongside measures that will be taken to combat them.

These include a “high” likelihood that “resources, and thus actions, are inadequate to meet the Biodiversity 2020 target to secure an overall improvement in the status of our wildlife and to prevent any further human-induced extinctions of known threatened species”.

The impact of this risk would be “high”, the document states.

Natural England’s plan to combat these risks is to “engage with partners to commit resources”, which could mean NGOs, businesses or other public bodies.

Matt Shardlow, CEO of nature charity Buglife, said this mitigation strategy “is not going to be enough to halt and reverse the huge declines of biodiversity – ever, let alone by the global target of 2020.”

He told Unearthed: “This plan feels like the moment of impact between aspiration and reality.  The clear desire to leave the natural environment in a better condition than we inherited it rests uncomfortably askew atop a jagged heap of colliding aims and financial realities.”

More than one in ten of the UK’s wildlife species is threatened with extinction, making it “among the most nature depleted countries in the world”, according to a major report published in 2016. Atlantic puffins, European turtle doves and wildcats are among the species at risk of extinction in the UK.

Planning

Natural England’s role advising on planning proposals and wildlife licences, which permit culling, disturbance or handling of species, also looks set to change.

The report warns of a high risk that “turn around targets” for this work will be missed.

In response the agency will bring in the “introduction and expansion of chargeable services” – presumably for licences and permits – and “continue to work on longer term reforms” and standardise its responses to casework.

The RSPB, the country’s largest conservation charity, said that standardised responses could be “a useful tool to speed up consenting processes or pose a very real threat to wildlife, depending on how they are used.”

It could also lead to increased charges, less robust advice and leave some unable to pay for it, they said.

Chris Corrigan, RSPB’s director for England, told Unearthed: “Gove and May both signed up to an ambition to leave the environment in a better state than they found it and there was great ambition in the 25 year environment plan.

“But here for the first time there is something tangible that shows how the government is implementing that vision – and it all feels desperately weak.”

This Article

This article first appeared at Unearthed, from Greenpeace.

The government has quietly abandoned efforts to meet a longstanding target to improve England’s most important wildlife sites, according to a leaked document seen by Unearthed.

The document also warns that Natural England, the government’s nature regulator, is too stretched to prevent “further human-induced extinctions of known threatened species”.

The environment department (Defra) had an official target, set by the Coalition government in 2011, to conserve 50 percent of England’s sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs), by area, by 2020.

Conserved and enhanced

But a leaked internal Natural England action plan shows that the agency is actually working towards a target of ensuring 38.7 percent of SSSIs are in “favourable” condition – the top grade of the six-point scale Natural England uses to assess sites.

The new target is just 0.07 percent higher than the current level.

An insider at Natural England, which has faced significant budget cuts in recent years, told Unearthed they “would be surprised if we even meet that”.

Labour environment spokeswoman Sue Hayman described the news as “extremely concerning”, while the RSPB said the plan seems “desperately weak”.

The leaked plan, which was signed off by Defra, comes eight months after Theresa May launched the government’s 25 year environment plan, which pledged to ensure protected areas are “not only conserved but enhanced” and introduced a new target to conserve 75 percent of SSSIs within the lifetime of the plan.

This plan feels like the moment of impact between aspiration and reality

Commenting on the story a spokesperson for the government’s conservation watchdog said the agency had not reduced any targets – insisting these were set by central government.

A Natural England spokesperson told Unearthed: “We are working to meet our ambition of achieving 75 percent favourable condition on SSSIs as part of the 25 Year environment plan. We do not comment on leaked documents.”

Protected areas

The law requires the government to “further the conservation and enhancement” of SSSIs, under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

They protect England’s most important areas for biodiversity, from the Lake District to the Pennines to Exmoor. Unearthed has found parts of all of these areas that were recorded as being in “unfavourable” condition when they were last assessed. 

Natural England ranks sites as “favourable”, “unfavourable – recovering”, “unfavourable – no change”, “unfavourable – declining”, “partially destroyed” or “destroyed”.

But a source at Natural England told Unearthed the agency could even slide backwards on its target to conserve sites.

“We don’t really know what’s happening,” the insider said. “There is very little monitoring going on and when this is combined with little to no proactive management work, there is very little hope of any gains. We could go backwards on the the target but in reality we are unlikely to know as the site condition hasn’t been checked. It is pretty shocking.”

Three weeks ago, a parliamentary question from Caroline Lucas, co-leader of the Green party, revealed that almost half of England’s SSSIs have not been monitored in the last six years, as is required by national guidelines.

Labour’s Sue Hayman told Unearthed: “SSSIs protect our most precious natural environment. If ministers are serious about their green credentials, then they need to prioritise protecting our environment.”

Natural England’s budget has nearly halved in the past decade.  In 2017/18 it was £112m, down from £200m in 2006/7, its chairman Andrew Sells told parliament in December.

The agency has recently consulted on new plans to use local enforcement powers to crackdown on damaging activities on SSSIs.

Extinctions

The report lays out key risks that Natural England is facing, alongside measures that will be taken to combat them.

These include a “high” likelihood that “resources, and thus actions, are inadequate to meet the Biodiversity 2020 target to secure an overall improvement in the status of our wildlife and to prevent any further human-induced extinctions of known threatened species”.

The impact of this risk would be “high”, the document states.

Natural England’s plan to combat these risks is to “engage with partners to commit resources”, which could mean NGOs, businesses or other public bodies.

Matt Shardlow, CEO of nature charity Buglife, said this mitigation strategy “is not going to be enough to halt and reverse the huge declines of biodiversity – ever, let alone by the global target of 2020.”

He told Unearthed: “This plan feels like the moment of impact between aspiration and reality.  The clear desire to leave the natural environment in a better condition than we inherited it rests uncomfortably askew atop a jagged heap of colliding aims and financial realities.”

More than one in ten of the UK’s wildlife species is threatened with extinction, making it “among the most nature depleted countries in the world”, according to a major report published in 2016. Atlantic puffins, European turtle doves and wildcats are among the species at risk of extinction in the UK.

Planning

Natural England’s role advising on planning proposals and wildlife licences, which permit culling, disturbance or handling of species, also looks set to change.

The report warns of a high risk that “turn around targets” for this work will be missed.

In response the agency will bring in the “introduction and expansion of chargeable services” – presumably for licences and permits – and “continue to work on longer term reforms” and standardise its responses to casework.

The RSPB, the country’s largest conservation charity, said that standardised responses could be “a useful tool to speed up consenting processes or pose a very real threat to wildlife, depending on how they are used.”

It could also lead to increased charges, less robust advice and leave some unable to pay for it, they said.

Chris Corrigan, RSPB’s director for England, told Unearthed: “Gove and May both signed up to an ambition to leave the environment in a better state than they found it and there was great ambition in the 25 year environment plan.

“But here for the first time there is something tangible that shows how the government is implementing that vision – and it all feels desperately weak.”

This Article

This article first appeared at Unearthed, from Greenpeace.

The government has quietly abandoned efforts to meet a longstanding target to improve England’s most important wildlife sites, according to a leaked document seen by Unearthed.

The document also warns that Natural England, the government’s nature regulator, is too stretched to prevent “further human-induced extinctions of known threatened species”.

The environment department (Defra) had an official target, set by the Coalition government in 2011, to conserve 50 percent of England’s sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs), by area, by 2020.

Conserved and enhanced

But a leaked internal Natural England action plan shows that the agency is actually working towards a target of ensuring 38.7 percent of SSSIs are in “favourable” condition – the top grade of the six-point scale Natural England uses to assess sites.

The new target is just 0.07 percent higher than the current level.

An insider at Natural England, which has faced significant budget cuts in recent years, told Unearthed they “would be surprised if we even meet that”.

Labour environment spokeswoman Sue Hayman described the news as “extremely concerning”, while the RSPB said the plan seems “desperately weak”.

The leaked plan, which was signed off by Defra, comes eight months after Theresa May launched the government’s 25 year environment plan, which pledged to ensure protected areas are “not only conserved but enhanced” and introduced a new target to conserve 75 percent of SSSIs within the lifetime of the plan.

This plan feels like the moment of impact between aspiration and reality

Commenting on the story a spokesperson for the government’s conservation watchdog said the agency had not reduced any targets – insisting these were set by central government.

A Natural England spokesperson told Unearthed: “We are working to meet our ambition of achieving 75 percent favourable condition on SSSIs as part of the 25 Year environment plan. We do not comment on leaked documents.”

Protected areas

The law requires the government to “further the conservation and enhancement” of SSSIs, under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

They protect England’s most important areas for biodiversity, from the Lake District to the Pennines to Exmoor. Unearthed has found parts of all of these areas that were recorded as being in “unfavourable” condition when they were last assessed. 

Natural England ranks sites as “favourable”, “unfavourable – recovering”, “unfavourable – no change”, “unfavourable – declining”, “partially destroyed” or “destroyed”.

But a source at Natural England told Unearthed the agency could even slide backwards on its target to conserve sites.

“We don’t really know what’s happening,” the insider said. “There is very little monitoring going on and when this is combined with little to no proactive management work, there is very little hope of any gains. We could go backwards on the the target but in reality we are unlikely to know as the site condition hasn’t been checked. It is pretty shocking.”

Three weeks ago, a parliamentary question from Caroline Lucas, co-leader of the Green party, revealed that almost half of England’s SSSIs have not been monitored in the last six years, as is required by national guidelines.

Labour’s Sue Hayman told Unearthed: “SSSIs protect our most precious natural environment. If ministers are serious about their green credentials, then they need to prioritise protecting our environment.”

Natural England’s budget has nearly halved in the past decade.  In 2017/18 it was £112m, down from £200m in 2006/7, its chairman Andrew Sells told parliament in December.

The agency has recently consulted on new plans to use local enforcement powers to crackdown on damaging activities on SSSIs.

Extinctions

The report lays out key risks that Natural England is facing, alongside measures that will be taken to combat them.

These include a “high” likelihood that “resources, and thus actions, are inadequate to meet the Biodiversity 2020 target to secure an overall improvement in the status of our wildlife and to prevent any further human-induced extinctions of known threatened species”.

The impact of this risk would be “high”, the document states.

Natural England’s plan to combat these risks is to “engage with partners to commit resources”, which could mean NGOs, businesses or other public bodies.

Matt Shardlow, CEO of nature charity Buglife, said this mitigation strategy “is not going to be enough to halt and reverse the huge declines of biodiversity – ever, let alone by the global target of 2020.”

He told Unearthed: “This plan feels like the moment of impact between aspiration and reality.  The clear desire to leave the natural environment in a better condition than we inherited it rests uncomfortably askew atop a jagged heap of colliding aims and financial realities.”

More than one in ten of the UK’s wildlife species is threatened with extinction, making it “among the most nature depleted countries in the world”, according to a major report published in 2016. Atlantic puffins, European turtle doves and wildcats are among the species at risk of extinction in the UK.

Planning

Natural England’s role advising on planning proposals and wildlife licences, which permit culling, disturbance or handling of species, also looks set to change.

The report warns of a high risk that “turn around targets” for this work will be missed.

In response the agency will bring in the “introduction and expansion of chargeable services” – presumably for licences and permits – and “continue to work on longer term reforms” and standardise its responses to casework.

The RSPB, the country’s largest conservation charity, said that standardised responses could be “a useful tool to speed up consenting processes or pose a very real threat to wildlife, depending on how they are used.”

It could also lead to increased charges, less robust advice and leave some unable to pay for it, they said.

Chris Corrigan, RSPB’s director for England, told Unearthed: “Gove and May both signed up to an ambition to leave the environment in a better state than they found it and there was great ambition in the 25 year environment plan.

“But here for the first time there is something tangible that shows how the government is implementing that vision – and it all feels desperately weak.”

This Article

This article first appeared at Unearthed, from Greenpeace.

The world is taking less than three percent of the action needed to stop the global extinction crisis, Zac Goldsmith MP said today.

The former editor of The Ecologist was speaking ahead of a Seahorse Environmental Communications fringe event at the Conservative Party conference in Birmingham today. 

“If we need a hundred units of action we’re probably seeing two or three units at the moment. But as it happens a big chunk of those two or three units are emanating from the United Kingdom,” he said.

Nature for humans

However, Mr Goldsmith said Britain is lagging behind in the amount the country spends on biodiversity. The Government should allocate part of Britain’s foreign aid budget to protecting global nature, he argued. 

“The easiest and most effective tool at our disposal in this country is our aid budget – £14.5 billion and growing every year. We need to see a significant chunk of that money spent on restoring, repairing and protecting ecosystems and nature.”

The MP was speaking alongside Joanna Elliott, the senior director of conservation partnerships at Fauna & Flora International. “There is enough space out there for animals and people to coexist. So it must be nature for humans and humans for nature,” she said.

Peter Hall, director of International Rhino Foundation and a Conservative party donor, argued Brexit represents a “wonderful” opportunity to boost investment in global nature.

Supporting communities

“Britain sends £1.5 billion to the European Union as part of its Official Development Assistance spend. Let’s get that £1.5 billion and apply it to nature,” he added.

A member of the audience at the fringe event representing Oxfam reminded the delegates that the aid budget was essential in supporting life saving disaster work, and also supporting communities suffering from conflict, corruption and dire poverty.

Tony Juniper, the environmental campaigner Tweeted after the event: “Excellent fringe meeting hosted by @ZacGoldsmith on UK environmental leadership @wwf_uk’s @MBarrettwwfuk sets out three parts to leading: 1. Restore our own wildlife 2. Cut our global footprint 3. Use our aid programme to achieve environment goals at same time as cutting poverty.”

According to the Fullfact charity: “About 15 percent [of the aid budget] goes as humanitarian aid, or crisis relief, with the rest focused on strategic or long-term goals.

The side adds that “36 percent of the money goes via multilateral organisations, like the United Nations. The other 64 percent goes to programmes in specific countries as bilateral aid.

“The five biggest recipients of bilateral aid are Pakistan, Syria, Ethiopia, Nigeria and Afghanistan. When it comes to continents, significantly more gets spent in Africa (51 percent) and Asia (42 percent) than anywhere else.”

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist, founder of Request Initiative and co-author of Impact of Market Forces on Addictive Substances and Behaviours: The web of influence of addictive industries (Oxford University Press). He tweets at @EcoMontague.

Around half the millions of birds shot during the new pheasant shooting season – which opens on today – will never make it to a ‘game’ dealer, according to independent research.

According to the Savills ‘Shoot Benchmarking Survey 2017/18’, on average only 48 percent of the birds shot will be taken by game dealers.

With the number of pheasants being bred to be killed estimated as at least 27 million each year – though potentially much higher – the number of birds killed ‘purely for fun’ is at an alarming level.

Chris Luffingham, director of campaigns at the League Against Cruel Sports, said: “Shooting estates are churning out millions of factory-farmed pheasants and partridges into the British countryside, only for the birds to be gunned down and thrown in the incinerator, buried or fly-tipped by the roadside.

Falling prices

“Even if you’re happy to have pheasant for dinner, there can be no justification for this massive waste of life – all in the name of ‘sport’.”

The report also points out that prices received for ‘game’ birds have fallen by 50–60 percent over the last six years, and fell 35–38 percent between the 2016/17 and 2017/18 seasons.

The report states: “The market situation also meant not all shoots were able to sell their shot game, last season 46 percent were supplying their game dealer free of charge and 12 percent were paying the game dealer to collect them. There was some variation but typically payments were 20–30p per bird.”

The shooting industry has set up the British Game Alliance, in an attempt to get more people to eat ‘game’ meat. But Countryside Alliance polling showed that 85 percent of people had never bought pheasant or partridge to eat at home – in spite of the meat being regularly available.

Incinerated, buried

Pressure on shooting has continued to increase. Last week, pheasant shooting was banned on public land in Wales. Meanwhile, polling during the summer by the League Against Cruel Sports and Animal Aid showed that nearly seven out of ten people (69 percent) in Great Britain want ‘game’ bird shooting made illegal.

Luffingham added: “You can’t shoot millions and millions of pheasants then claim it’s one for the pot, when it’s blindingly obvious that most people in this country don’t put pheasant in their pot.

The shooting industry is out of control. It’s purely about money – breed as many targets as they can then let the punters blast them to bits. Any claim that this industry cares about the birds it raises is patently nonsense.”

In recent months senior industry figures have publicly slated “greedy” shoots following game birds being incinerated, buried in pits and fly-tipped after being gunned down for ‘sport’.

Public opposition

Pheasants and partridges are routinely confined to barren, wire-floored battery cages on game bird breeding farms across the UK and France, undercover investigations by the League show.

The birds are not the only animals to suffer, as hundreds of thousands of other animals and birds are trapped, snared and killed to ‘protect’ the pheasants and partridges which will then be shot.

Luffingham concluded: “For many years the extreme cruelty and environmental damage inflicted by the ‘game’ bird shooting industry has gone on unabated, despite clear warnings and unprecedented public opposition.

“It is clear the game bird shooting industry is rotten to the core and a ban must be introduced. The public expect nothing less.”

This Author 

Marianne Brooker is a contributing editor for The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from the League Against Cruel Sports. 

The world is taking less than three percent of the action needed to stop the global extinction crisis, Zac Goldsmith MP said today.

The former editor of The Ecologist was speaking ahead of a Seahorse Environmental Communications fringe event at the Conservative Party conference in Birmingham today. 

“If we need a hundred units of action we’re probably seeing two or three units at the moment. But as it happens a big chunk of those two or three units are emanating from the United Kingdom,” he said.

Nature for humans

However, Mr Goldsmith said Britain is lagging behind in the amount the country spends on biodiversity. The Government should allocate part of Britain’s foreign aid budget to protecting global nature, he argued. 

“The easiest and most effective tool at our disposal in this country is our aid budget – £14.5 billion and growing every year. We need to see a significant chunk of that money spent on restoring, repairing and protecting ecosystems and nature.”

The MP was speaking alongside Joanna Elliott, the senior director of conservation partnerships at Fauna & Flora International. “There is enough space out there for animals and people to coexist. So it must be nature for humans and humans for nature,” she said.

Peter Hall, director of International Rhino Foundation and a Conservative party donor, argued Brexit represents a “wonderful” opportunity to boost investment in global nature.

Supporting communities

“Britain sends £1.5 billion to the European Union as part of its Official Development Assistance spend. Let’s get that £1.5 billion and apply it to nature,” he added.

A member of the audience at the fringe event representing Oxfam reminded the delegates that the aid budget was essential in supporting life saving disaster work, and also supporting communities suffering from conflict, corruption and dire poverty.

Tony Juniper, the environmental campaigner Tweeted after the event: “Excellent fringe meeting hosted by @ZacGoldsmith on UK environmental leadership @wwf_uk’s @MBarrettwwfuk sets out three parts to leading: 1. Restore our own wildlife 2. Cut our global footprint 3. Use our aid programme to achieve environment goals at same time as cutting poverty.”

According to the Fullfact charity: “About 15 percent [of the aid budget] goes as humanitarian aid, or crisis relief, with the rest focused on strategic or long-term goals.

The side adds that “36 percent of the money goes via multilateral organisations, like the United Nations. The other 64 percent goes to programmes in specific countries as bilateral aid.

“The five biggest recipients of bilateral aid are Pakistan, Syria, Ethiopia, Nigeria and Afghanistan. When it comes to continents, significantly more gets spent in Africa (51 percent) and Asia (42 percent) than anywhere else.”

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist, founder of Request Initiative and co-author of Impact of Market Forces on Addictive Substances and Behaviours: The web of influence of addictive industries (Oxford University Press). He tweets at @EcoMontague.

Around half the millions of birds shot during the new pheasant shooting season – which opens on today – will never make it to a ‘game’ dealer, according to independent research.

According to the Savills ‘Shoot Benchmarking Survey 2017/18’, on average only 48 percent of the birds shot will be taken by game dealers.

With the number of pheasants being bred to be killed estimated as at least 27 million each year – though potentially much higher – the number of birds killed ‘purely for fun’ is at an alarming level.

Chris Luffingham, director of campaigns at the League Against Cruel Sports, said: “Shooting estates are churning out millions of factory-farmed pheasants and partridges into the British countryside, only for the birds to be gunned down and thrown in the incinerator, buried or fly-tipped by the roadside.

Falling prices

“Even if you’re happy to have pheasant for dinner, there can be no justification for this massive waste of life – all in the name of ‘sport’.”

The report also points out that prices received for ‘game’ birds have fallen by 50–60 percent over the last six years, and fell 35–38 percent between the 2016/17 and 2017/18 seasons.

The report states: “The market situation also meant not all shoots were able to sell their shot game, last season 46 percent were supplying their game dealer free of charge and 12 percent were paying the game dealer to collect them. There was some variation but typically payments were 20–30p per bird.”

The shooting industry has set up the British Game Alliance, in an attempt to get more people to eat ‘game’ meat. But Countryside Alliance polling showed that 85 percent of people had never bought pheasant or partridge to eat at home – in spite of the meat being regularly available.

Incinerated, buried

Pressure on shooting has continued to increase. Last week, pheasant shooting was banned on public land in Wales. Meanwhile, polling during the summer by the League Against Cruel Sports and Animal Aid showed that nearly seven out of ten people (69 percent) in Great Britain want ‘game’ bird shooting made illegal.

Luffingham added: “You can’t shoot millions and millions of pheasants then claim it’s one for the pot, when it’s blindingly obvious that most people in this country don’t put pheasant in their pot.

The shooting industry is out of control. It’s purely about money – breed as many targets as they can then let the punters blast them to bits. Any claim that this industry cares about the birds it raises is patently nonsense.”

In recent months senior industry figures have publicly slated “greedy” shoots following game birds being incinerated, buried in pits and fly-tipped after being gunned down for ‘sport’.

Public opposition

Pheasants and partridges are routinely confined to barren, wire-floored battery cages on game bird breeding farms across the UK and France, undercover investigations by the League show.

The birds are not the only animals to suffer, as hundreds of thousands of other animals and birds are trapped, snared and killed to ‘protect’ the pheasants and partridges which will then be shot.

Luffingham concluded: “For many years the extreme cruelty and environmental damage inflicted by the ‘game’ bird shooting industry has gone on unabated, despite clear warnings and unprecedented public opposition.

“It is clear the game bird shooting industry is rotten to the core and a ban must be introduced. The public expect nothing less.”

This Author 

Marianne Brooker is a contributing editor for The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from the League Against Cruel Sports. 

The stunningly biodiverse Ryukyuan island chain has been garnering international headlines for its local protests, election manoeuvrings, and the planned relocation of the US Futenma military base to Oura Bay, Okinawa.

Local resentments are mounting against forty pre-existing military bases and the ecological destruction they have caused, but these local voices have not been represented in global conversations. 

Prior to annexation by Japan, Okinawa was an independent kingdom. It is home to indigenous people whose traditions have kept the area’s interconnected ecosystems in balance. But construction is endangering Okinawa’s aquatic and terrestrial environments. 

Endangering species

The Oura Bay alone is home to 262 endangered species. The military facility plans to dump 21 million metric tons of sand and soil mixed with the alien invasive Argentine ant and Red-back spider into its waters. 

In this distinctive natural environment, 26 newly discovered endemic species have been found since 2006.

These islands are home to the Sekisei Lagoonresides, Japan’s largest – and dying – coral reef. Corals currently on Japan’s ‘red list’ – Okinawensis veron and Sargassum carpophyllum – could be crushed by the construction works. It is a sad irony this would occur in our International Year of the Reef, 2018.

The area’s seagrass is the last northern feeing ground for the critically endangered dugong and it will be buried. This revered marine mammal is part of Okinawa’s creation story, held-up as a Japanese National Monument and protected by the US Historic Preservation Act. It will face extinction if further construction goes through.

Regular local protests and prefectural efforts such as the ‘Okinawa’s treasure, World’s treasure: Let’s Pass it on to the Future’ symposium have tried to demonstrate the disastrous ecological consequences of this project. 

The past governor, alongside the Centre for Biological Diversity and Earthjustice, recently lost the court battle against the US Department of Defence. The department claimed that the construction has “taken into account” the relevant issues, and that the Japanese government had fulfilled its obligations surveying the situation. 

Deforestation and contamination

Sea turtles will lose their egg-laying grounds and the temporary offshore yards will disturb marine animals. The large base – approx. 1,800m in length – will rest on an extremely fragile seabed that is vulnerable to earthquakes. 

As a possible solution, François Simard, a Deputy Director of the IUCN, called for declaring the bay a protected marine area in accordance with the Aichi Biodiversity Target 11. However, the protection of an area to prevent military expansion has not worked well on these islands in the past.

The Yanbaru forest, which is a rare and rich subtropical evergreen forest with 11 endemic species, was slated to be put on the UNESCO World Natural Heritage list for its’ biological uniqueness. Yet, it hosts the US Jungle Training Warfare area. An expansion of this site in 2016 introduced six helipads for the upgraded MV 22 Ospreys, and lead to the felling of 24,000 trees and to the disturbance of endangered species such as the Okinawa rail.

Since 1998, there have been over 415 incidents of toxic spills and dumping from the military facilities. Polluted matter has flowed into rivers and embedded itself into the ecosystem. It’s horrific to imagine this occurring yet again, especially amidst seeming efforts to house nuclear weapons in the the Oura Bay.

Extreme contamination 

The investigative journalist Jon Mitchell and the Okinawan organization, Informed Public Project, have found sewage and diesel leaking into rivers that provide drinking water at levels that far exceed maximum EPA recommendations. 

This level of exposure poses severe threats to wildlife. Near one base, mongoose and habu snakes were found to have respectively high levels of PCBs and DDTs, an internationally banned chemical. DDT is a poisonous insecticide that magnifies through the food chain.  

Local populations live in fear of these high levels of contamination, particularly because fish make up a large part of their diet. 

Added to this, it was uncovered in 1996 that US aircrafts were test-firing over 1,500 depleted urranium shells near an important fishing ground in Torishima. 

In 2015, the Pentagon’s release of US Marine Corps’ documents from the 1970s revealed “large fish kills” in the waters near Camp Kinser. Inspections demonstrated a high concentration hazardous compounds in the sea.

No accountability 

Shinako Oyakawa, co-founder of the ASCILs, an anti-base group advocating for Okinawa’s self-determination and sustainable indigenous environmental practices, said: “To tell the truth we don’t know how much contamination we are facing from the past, the present and even into the future.”

This opacity around the exact amount of contamination is due to the level of secrecy around US military practices abroad, and the current US-Japan Status of Forces Agreement which prohibits the inspection of bases and removes accountability for its’ environmental mismanagement.

Now that the anti-base Governor Takashi Denny has won the prefectural elections, the central government is planning to bring the prefecture to court. 

However, in this international dialogue on the matter, it is fundamental that these issues aren’t only approached from political angles. We need a strong framework for environmental protection, itself an important – though neglected – aspect of ensuring our future security. 

This Author 

Temo Dias is a journalist and researcher in East Asian political affairs, environmental issues and governmental corruption. 

For the first time anti-fracking protectors have been jailed in the UK. This is no fleeting, symbolic sentence. Three friends and comrades to so many in the climate movement have been denied up to 16 months of their freedom.

All for sitting on top of lorries outside Cuadrilla’s Lancashire site where they are attempting to frack for shale gas for the first time in the UK.

Unusually they were charged with public nuisance while the majority of the 300 anti-frackers arrested at Preston New Road (PNR) have been charged with obstruction of the highway. With public nuisance comes the possibility of jail time at the whim of a judge.

Disrupting Cuadrilla

It seems clear that in this instance our imprisoned comrades were made an example of by the forces of our criminal (in)justice system to deter future disruption to Cuadrilla as they move rapidly closer to actually beginning to frack.

Indeed, the action of our imprisoned friends was no mere protest. We do not passively request the Government or Cuadrilla suddenly change their minds. Its too late for that. Our strategy is to frustrate and disrupt Cuadrilla to stop fracking ourselves.

This strategy – sitting happily alongside the movement building, lobbying and litigation of other organisations – is necessary because the UK’s regimen of environmental regulation and democratic processes have failed to stop this egregious imposition of extraction by fossil capital on a Lancashire community that loudly repeats again and again its firm stance against fracking: “WE SAID NO!”

The state has taken political prisoners of the anti-fracking movement because we are winning. Our strategy had successfully frustrated Cuadrilla’s efforts to frack for the first time and lay the groundwork for a UK fracking industry.

For the state so intimately bound up with fossil capital and private finance which stand to profit so much from a new domestic gas industry, deploying its capacity to withdraw individuals’ freedom and terrorise a grassroots movement is common sense when it comes to defending private profit.

Neoliberalism

I am one of the 300 anti-frackers arrested and charged as part of the state’s offensive against our peaceful democratic movement. I can say from experience that police conduct has been consistently violent and the (in)justice system punitive.

Many of us have been assaulted, beaten and taunted by sneering cops who use trade union legislation to collect our data during arrest, while the courts charge us with obstruction of the highway for actions where traffic has been allowed to continue to speed by or where the police have themselves closed the road.

In many ways the story of fracking in the UK is archetypal of our decaying neoliberal regime. Using plucky start-ups like Cuadrilla and Third Energy (backed by venture capital) to pave the way for a new frontier of accumulation, corporate giants like Shell and BP wait in the wings to descend on and rapidly expand the market when the time is right.

This model’s reliance on financial capital is no clearer than the ownership of Third Energy – seeking to frack in North Yorkshire – by Barclays. The bank pledged in 2017 to sell the company but still haven’t. Regardless, the rogue profiteers of British stand to gain as much as the fossil fuel industry as they provide support for this new industry.

Indeed, it is only fossil capital, finance and their representatives in the Tory party that stand to benefit from a UK fracking industry. For them, their need to maximise the value they realise of the UK’s untapped gas reserves trumps any concerns by local people of what fracking will do to their communities. Let alone the need to keep fossil fuels in the ground to avoid climate chaos.

(In)justice system

Local democracy was trampled on by central Government in defence of the interests of capital. The police repress peaceful disruption at the site. The courts inflict significant costs on protectors and have begun to take their prisoners.

These various factions of the state operate as a very well oiled machine protecting the fledgling fracking industry. This is definitive neoliberalism: ideological appeals to the total sovereignty of the free market, rolling back the state’s protections for the many; while in practice there is a total reliance on unregulated finance and repressive state power to protect and create markets for capital as it fails to viably expand its sphere of accumulation by its own stated logic.

Of course the Tory Government has actively supported a UK fracking industry. But the imprisonment of three anti-frackers underlines the deep relationship between the state and finance and fossil capital. Who has the keys to the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy alone does little to determine the culture of our criminal (in)justice system.

When Labour goes into Government, they will ban fracking. But a much harder challenge eco-socialists in this country must prepare for is restraining the deeply embedded commitment to protect capital’s interests held by the state’s many agencies.

Too far

As Labour prepares to repeal decades of anti-trade union law, the base of the labour movement and social movements must prepare to unleash unprecedented backlash against British capital through industrial and direct action.

For this to be successful and not repressed, finance must serve the transformative program of a government led by the many. The (in)justice system can no longer defend finance’s dispossession of communities globally. It must be made turn its attention holding it to account.

In the anti-fracking movement we give great care to the welfare of our comrades, from those taking disruptive action to the communities we act in solidarity with.

The state has demonstrated a total disregard for the welfare of protectors defending their community and the climate. They’ve gone too far this time. This may have been a move to silence us. In due course, they will understand they just made us more resolved than we ever thought possible to stop fracking as the first step of irreversibly transforming our society and economy.

This author

Chris Saltmarsh is co-rirector of climate change campaigns at People & Planet. He is active in the anti-fracking movement as a member of Reclaim the Power Oxford. He tweets at @chris_saltmarsh.