Social media has helped scientists reveal dozens of animals, from birds to bats, are on the move in the UK or are new arrivals as a result of climate change.

At least 55 land-based and marine animals have moved to parts of the country outside their natural range or arrived in the UK in the 10 years between 2008 and 2018, a study from the Zoological Society of London has found.

They include purple herons, which have bred successfully for the first time in Kent in 2010, and European bee-eaters which bred in the UK in 2014 and 2017.

Unusual

Jersey tiger moths have spread from the Channel Islands and south coast to London, while red mullet and greater horseshoe bats have also been displaced by climate change.

The black bee fly was the only species identified as having entered the UK for the first time and become established since 2008, with the first record in Cambridgeshire in 2016 when it was found on a bug-hotel in a garden.

The study analysed UK government environment reports and 111 scientific papers to find species that were on the move as a result of rising temperatures.

Researchers also performed Twitter and Google searches for terms including “unusual species” and “first sighting” for the countries of the UK to find where people had posted images online of the animals in unusual places.

Some 10 of the 55 species were identified thanks to social media, the research published in the Journal of Applied Ecology shows.

Impacts

The research, which focused only on species that had established sustainable new populations through natural movement, said of the 55 species identified, 16 (29 percent) are known to have negative impacts on nature or people. They include crop pests such as the box tree moth and oak borer beetle.

A further 11 species (20 percent) were reported to have potentially positive impacts, such as increasing tourism or boosting fish stocks.

Dr Nathalie Pettorelli, lead author and senior research fellow at ZSL’s Institute of Zoology, said: “We are currently massively unprepared for the climate-driven movement of species that is happening right now in the UK.

“As it stands, society is not ready for the redistribution of species, as current policies and agreements are not designed for these novel species and ecological communities – particularly if those species have no perceived value to society.

“Our results suggest that many species are on the move in the UK, and that we can expect a lot of changes in the type of nature we will have around us in the coming years.

“But the lack of an integrated national platform dedicated to tracking and communicating about species displaced by climate change is currently a hindrance to mitigating those potential ecological, economic and societal associated impacts.”

This Author

Emily Beament is the PA environment correspondent.

Image: Koshy Koshy, via Flickr. 

A cross-party group of MPs will scrutinise the impacts of tourism and travel on the environment, and investigate how they can be reduced.

Tourism is one of the fastest growing economic sectors in the world, accounting for ten percent of global GDP and just under ten percent of total employment, according to the Environmental Audit Committee.

Launching the probe this morning, the committee acknowledged that, if done well, tourism can help economic growth, environmental protection and poverty alleviation.

Evidence sought

However, the growth in international and domestic travel can lead to the physical degradation of popular sites, higher rents for residents, traffic congestion and air pollution.

Protests against “overtourism” in cities such as Barcelona have highlighted the issue, the committee said.It is asking people to submit evidence on issues including how the UK tourism industry can balance encouraging tourism while protecting fragile environments; how well the UK industry manages the impact of tourism in line with the UN’s sustainable development goals; and the effectiveness of sustainable tourism practices of large tourism companies such as cruise ship and package holiday operators.

The MPs will question both how the government can support sustainable inbound tourism in the UK, and sustainable tourism to other countries.

The committee will also look at how the government can reach its net zero emissions targets through influencing sustainable travel patterns, and whether there is a role for offsets in sustainable tourism.

Click here to submit evidence to the inquiry by 15 September.  

This Author

Catherine Early is a freelance environmental journalist and chief reporter for The Ecologist. She can be found tweeting at @Cat_Early76.

The International Year of Indigenous Languages (IYIL) falls in a year of climate breakdown that speaks to the need to rethink our societies and cultures.

IYIL prompts us to listen to the voices of Indigenous Peoples. It encourages us to appreciate, to preserve and to respect their living cultures.

This encouragement could not be more timely: our environmental crisis demands that we abandon the social, political, economic and cultural systems that have brought us to this precipice. Let us heed the call to redefine our relationships with the non-human world.

Traditional ecological knowledge

Globalist cultures are the most removed from the natural environment: often nature and society are concepts placed at odds. Yet, it is crucial that we don’t lose sight of how culture leaves its mark on the living planet.

Indigenous Peoples tend to have strong cultural ties to the living planet and so traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) is culturally ingrained. IYIL brings these cultures to the forefront of international discourse, at a time when global movements like Extinction Rebellion (XR) and School Strike for Climate (SS4C) show a will for change.

The link between cultural diversity and biodiversity has long been recognised; we must now commit to policies that relate cultural protection and environmental protection.

In the world’s biodiversity hotspots there is a confluence of ethnic and linguistic diversity (a key marker of cultural diversity). Eric Smith’s defines cultural change, in ​On the Coevolution of Cultural, Linguistic and Biological Diversity​, as “a form of co-evolution between cultural information and the social and natural environment” goes some way towards explaining this relationship.

It suggests a symbiotic relationship between culture and nature: when they are aligned, the one shifts with the other. Looking at the diversity of indigenous cultures and their lands, we can see that there is truth in this theory.

Declining diversity

Globalist culture, which champions a ‘one-size-fits-all’ ideology, is the opposite. We prefer one economic, political and social system. This preference for a singular way is reflected in our environmental governance: we create monocultures, farm only particular species of animal, and raid the Earth’s natural resources.

The way that we inflict our monoliths on the natural environment has consequences. We have reduced agrodiversity and genetic diversity in wildlife; we have destroyed countless habitats and ecosystems; we have caused a crisis of global heating. We have erased most of the world’s diversity and the result is climate breakdown and the unprecedented loss of indigenous cultures.

When we lose these cultures we lose cultural understanding of the environment and how to live within the constraints of nature. And when we lose this, we lose the knowledge and practices that enable sustainable living, and so we lose ecological integrity.

This demonstrates to us why protecting endangered cultures is so important for our planet. It also demonstrates why we need to diversify our own culture.

Supporting diversity

Here, I will share stories from some of the indigenous-led projects I have worked on with InsightShare to demonstrate the impact of cultural preservation on the natural environment.

In Nagaland in north-east India, the arrival of settlers and missionaries who privatised land and water resources caused the erasure of traditional Naga culture. Looking to revive their traditional culture, a local women-led organisation, the North East Network (NEN), chose to use participatory video (PV) to film millet farming.

This film, titled ‘Millet – Securing Lives’, was screened in local villages and surrounding communities and inspired a renaissance in millet farming. The environmental impacts of this cultural revival are significant.

The farming of millet improves agrodiversity, and biodiversity festivals showcasing millet and seed exchanges improve food security. Furthermore, farming millet does not require many external inputs -no fertilisers or pesticides, no need for irrigation, making it an economic and environmentally-friendly food source.

Territorial defence

In 2009, we co-founded a project called Conversations with the Earth, amplifying indigenous voices on climate change.

As well as raising public awareness and challenging so-called false solutions, such as carbon trading, geo-engineering, and “sustainable growth”, over 60 videos were produced by communities that shared a refreshingly alternative paradigm. Our community video network brought together groups of Indigenous Peoples from Eight countries and used a participatory approach to raise collective intelligence to address the ecological crisis.

Our Peruvian partners created a video called ‘Indigenous Peoples of the Peruvian Andes and Climate Change’ in which the participants reflected on how climate change had impacted them.

Through this process, the community of Karhui, Cusco, made the decision to reforest their sacred mountains with native trees, to start to revere once more the ancient Springs, replacing invasive Eucalptus with native medicinal plants, and singing and dancing to nurture Mother Water, reviving the annual water festival previously banned by the Evangelical Mayor. This decision, that has clear environmental benefits, was rooted in cultural beliefs and spirituality.

Similarly, our indigenous partners in North West Mexico are using PV as a tool for territorial defence. One film documents the threat posed by a water dam in Sorona to the safety of the Guarijio’s sacred lands – their pristine deciduous forests and agricultural lands.

Illegal pipeline

Another, ‘October 21st’, tells the story of Yaqui resistance to a gas pipeline in Loma de Bacum. ‘Yooram Luturia’, offers a version of the famous Yaqui oath, which reminds each member of the tribe to recall their commitment to protecting the environment and territory.

These films indicate the importance of the natural environment to indigenous culture in Mexico. The creation of sacred natural sites and the community commitment to protecting them serve to remind us all that respect for the living planet needs to be re-incorporated into our own culture.

Ten years on, these activists have established local video collectives, which remain connected and work together to articulate a collective vision for a Living Cultures movement. In Mexico, La Marabunta Filmadora video collective is fighting a campaign against an illegal gas pipeline that lies across their lands, and now addressing illegal logging through producing short social media videos.

In Tanzania, Oltoilo Le Maa is fighting land-rights violations, including defending traditional grazing lands from a private hunting safari, as well as challenge the growing number of lands being demarcated by the government to be sold off into private hands.

In Nagaland, NEN is spreading millet revival to more communities and educating youth in the traditional agroecological farming approaches once practised by their ancestors. Each video team offers a platform for indigenous voices to be heard. Initially the films are screened locally; much like holding up a mirror.

Living planet

Community screenings create safe spaces to reflect back to the wider community some of today’s challenges and help surface a diversity of responses, supporting collaborative innovation. Some videos may be targeted at governments and other external audiences to persuade the other stakeholders to protect their lifeways and their lands.

Policies that operate at a grass-roots level have the highest potential for success. Self-governance, land rights and political empowerment enable indigenous communities to keep their cultural identities and their land, which in turn allows them to play a central role in the conservation and management of their territories.

Governments across the planet must recognise that 80 percent of the world’s remaining biodiversity is found in Indigenous lands. What better way to mitigate against climate change than to urgently protect these territories of life, to support the traditional custodians of biocultural diversity?

Participation is the engine for change. Without participation there exists no active citizenship, no engagement, no agency and no access to decision-making. Participation decolonises top-down systems and opens up a myriad of communication between groups of people.

Movements like XR and SS4C need to align with emerging indigenous-led movements like the Pan-African Living Cultures Alliance (PALCA) to rethink our cultures and societies and to redefine our interaction with the living planet.

We must invite Indigenous Peoples to participate in the conversations that they should be leading; helping shift the balance away from separation and individualism to connection and collaboration.

This Author 

Nick Lunch is a director and co-founder of InsightShare.

A recent slew of articles have hit international media in the wake of Botswana’s decision to lift its moratorium on trophy hunting.

Typically, the argument is that Botswana now has too many elephants, which have exceeded the country’s carrying capacity. Local communities that depended on hunting revenue and bushmeat now go without, reducing tolerance for conflict with crop-raiding elephants and other wildlife.

Moreover, trophy hunting only targets ‘surplus bulls’, so there’s nothing to worry about, and only a maximum of 400 will be killed in any given year. Oh, and don’t tell us what to do, you western armchair critics. 

The truth does not support any of these premises. 

Elephant poaching

Botswana, as is now clearly documented in the peer-reviewed literature, has an elephant poaching problem, not an overpopulation problem.

Between 2014 and 2018, the population has remained roughly stable at around 130,000 elephants. According to the latest continent-wide survey, the African savannah elephant population is estimated at 374,982 elephants, excluding South Sudan and Central African Republic.

Rowan Martin, veteran wildlife manager, quotes a figure of 541,684 elephants from the 2016 African Elephant Status Report (AESR). Of the remaining elephants, Botswana is home to the vast majority. 

Martin is one of the many voices in favour of Botswana’s decision to lift the trophy hunting moratorium. He asserts that the suspicions that the Botswana government is doing so primarily to secure the rural vote in the upcoming October elections are vacuous.

However, it is clear that elephants are being reduced to a political football, caught between the views of its current president and his predecessor. It is a vote-catcher that could go horribly wrong. Martin has chosen to label arguments against elephant trophy hunting as ‘mud-slinging’ that insinuates that ‘native Africans’ can’t manage their own natural resources. This is a pity, as it detracts from the substance of the debate. 

There are at least five myths that inform the rationale for reintroducing hunting. Rowan Martin and his followers believe that these are no myths. A brief response to each of Martin’s objections, in light of new research about elephant behaviour, follows:  

Population

Myth: Botswana’s elephant population is exploding

Botswana’s elephant population numbered roughly 62,998 in 1995. Martin argues that the most accurate figure for a decade prior to that is between 30,000 and 40,000 elephants. The African Elephant Status Report (AESR) to which he refers puts the figure at 50,000 in 1990.

Martin is also of the view that the current figure of 160,000 quoted at the KAZA conference is accurate. But the AESR to which Martin himself referred puts the 2006 figure at 154,658, notes that it’s disputed, and estimates the 2015 figure at 131,626.  

Martin takes issue with the widely accepted view that the Botswana population has been roughly stable between 2014 and 2018. It has clearly fallen since 2006, so it remains unclear why he thinks that Botswana’s ‘elephant populations are growing, not stable’.

It is also not clear what Martin means by the phrase that the ‘Botswana population is pumping out emigrants.’ Elephants are migrating into Botswana from elsewhere to escape hunting and poaching, hardly expelling them. The latest survey by Schlossberg, Chase and Landen (2018) has been lauded as one of the most rigorous scientific undertakings in this field, and it shows stable numbers at best alongside a growing poaching crisis.

The growing populations are humans and cattle, not elephants. Outside protected areas, desertification caused by cattle over-grazing is a problem that too often gets ignored in this conversation. The cattle industry is ecologically and economically costly but politically powerful. Water is also increasingly scarce, which will exacerbate human and elephant conflict. Hunting will not solve this problem; appropriate land use planning will.  

Carrying capacity

Myth: Botswana’s elephants have exceeded the ‘carrying capacity’ of the landscape

Martin agrees with the oft-quoted figure of a carrying capacity of 54,000 elephants in Botswana. That equates to about one elephant for every three kilometres squared. This concept remains arbitrary and lacks relevance for large, unfenced wilderness landscapes.

But Martin continues to insist that these landscapes are akin to farms that must be managed to ensure as little variation as possible. Him and Ron Thomson have both lamented the loss of large canopy trees as a result of elephant ‘over-population’. But they haven’t responded to the science that shows the importance of inter-seasonal variation; elephants’ roles as ecosystem engineers; and the fact that there is no benchmark as to what a landscape should look like. 

Martin dismisses the 24 authors of the above-linked Ambio article as ‘pseudo-scientists’. His criteria for determining what constitutes ‘pseudo-science’ is anything that contradicts his own experience or cited literature.

He similarly betrays himself when he argues that man ‘does not need “scientific criteria” in his aesthetic quest as long as he is practising adaptive management.’ The literature he cites in support of this is work produced by himself and Marshall Murphree.  

Trophy standard

Myth: Hunting will solve the elephant population ‘explosion’

Martin argues that this myth is redundant because we know that trophy hunting only eliminates a small number of bull elephants each year.

But this misses the fact that the myth is one of the pretexts on which the re-introduction of trophy hunting has been rationalised. It also misses the deeper point that trophy hunting is likely to lead to population collapse, especially if it annihilates older bulls. 

A report by Martin, Craig and Peake shows a high and consistent ‘trophy standard’ in the 15 years leading up to 2010, but Martin’s appeal to it amounts to special pleading as there is no guarantee that such a standard will be maintained from 2019 onwards, especially given the notoriety of corruption in the industry. Nor does it mean that a high ‘trophy standard’ reflects good ecological management.

The quota numbers for some areas were a thumb-suck based on no science at all. But the primary reason why hunting will fail is that there are very few ‘trophy’ tuskers remaining – genetic depletion is real and scientifically documented. Martin ignores the figures about how few trophy bulls over the age of 35 are left in Botswana. 

Furthermore, the evidence is now unequivocal that: ‘Male elephants increased their energetic allocation into reproduction with age as the probability of reproductive success increases. Given that older male elephants tend to be both the target of legal trophy hunting and illegal poaching, man-made interference could drive fundamental changes in elephant reproductive tactics.’ 

The reproductive success of a male elephant increases with age – there is no such thing as a ‘surplus’ bull that can be extracted as a ‘trophy’. Therefore, a combination of poaching and trophy hunting may well lead to population collapse or at least to undesirable lasting population changes. 

Devolution of rights

Myth: Hunting will solve human and elephant conflict

Conservationists should generally be fully in favour of devolution of rights to local communities that are on the frontlines of conservation. Martin is right that status conferred is more important than benefits derived.

He contradicts this point by arguing that trophy hunting is an essential component of the system because of the added value it brings to communities. Many communities do not want to return to hunting, and no credible NGO working in Botswana thinks that a return to trophy hunting is wise.

Martin also asserts that the Botswana government called for tenders in previous hunting concessions (mostly in the Central Conservation Areas) but that no one wanted them. Had those concessions been granted, poaching would have been less likely to take root – presence counts for a lot in counter-poaching. 

Martin fails to mention, however, that a large part of the reason no investor wanted those concessions is that the Botswana Tourism Organisation insisted that the land use be exclusively photographic and demanded substantial signature bonuses. But blindly insisting on photographic lodges in geographically unamenable areas lacks wisdom.

Self-drive tourism and mobile camps, brilliant options, were precluded as a use option even though it was frequently promoted in those concessions’ management plans. To argue that the hunters were right, after all, does not follow. 

Poaching

Myth: Hunting moratorium led to more poaching

Botswana’s poaching problem only started to escalate just before 2017, three years after the hunting ban was imposed. Martin argues that the AESR puts ‘the inception of severe illegal hunting at around 2006.’

It’s not clear whether he means for Botswana or for the whole African population. But either way, that would clearly destroy the argument that hunting presence is necessary to ameliorate poaching. Hunting was at its peak in 2006.

Moreover, hunting presence in places like the Selous hardly countered poaching. To argue that hunters could do nothing about politically protected poaching gangs is an all-too-easy get-out-of-jail-free card. 

Where Martin is right is that communities should be far more involved in land-use planning and rights devolution needs to be a priority. None of this means, however, that western trophy hunting is a sensible policy choice, especially given that the practice is morally abominable and ecologically unsustainable. 

This Author 

Ross Harvey studied a B.Com in Philosophy, Politics and Economics at the University of Cape Town (UCT), where he also completed an M.Phil in Public Policy. At the end of 2018, he submitted his PhD in Economics, also at UCT. Ross is currently a freelance independent economist who works with The Conservation Action Trust.

Follow him on Twitter: @Harvross

Many won’t remember a time when the countryside was filled with grassland that rippled with rainbows of flowers, but they are likely to recognise the intense yellow glare of pesticide-soaked oilseed rape fields that dominate rural landscapes today. 97 percent of the UK’s wildflower meadows have been dug up or destroyed since the end of World War II.

The joy of being immersed in a meadow – surrounded by the fluttering of butterflies, the chirping of crickets and the buzz of bees – is increasingly rare. Without urgent action to tackle dwindling biodiversity, these memories will disappear.

Just like the flowers that they feed on, insect pollinators are in trouble, with one third of the UK’s wild bee and hoverfly species showing declines in their numbers since the 1980s. Clearing grassland for farms and using harmful chemicals such as pesticides on crops has driven many pollinator species to this state, but these insects are essential for growing many of our favourite crops. 

Bright future

By transferring pollen between flowers, they ensure that crop plants are successfully fertilised and can go on to develop the fruits and seeds that we like to eat. Without them, future generations may no longer be able to enjoy summer strawberries or autumn’s apples and pears. 

How we grow food will need to change to ensure wildlife has room to live and isn’t exposed to toxic chemicals. In the meantime, there are solutions sitting right on our doorsteps. Simple changes to how our gardens, parks and public spaces are managed could give pollinators a brighter future.

One way to protect our pollinators is to change the way that our roadsides are managed. Some country lanes are bursting with blooms, but the majority of road verges in the UK are cut to within an inch of their lives. Regular mowing is needed to ensure drivers can see clearly on sharp bends and junctions, but neat and tidy roadsides leave nothing for pollinators to eat. 

Sowing wildflower seed mixes and reducing how often verges are mowed can transform barren stretches of motorway into colourful meadows filled with the pollen and nectar that bees and butterflies currently struggle to find. Bees don’t seem to be put off by the traffic noise and their numbers have been shown to increase dramatically on verges that are cut no more than twice a year.

Plantlife, a British conservation charity, has called on councils to turn their road verges into wildflower meadows by cutting just once in late summer, between mid-July and September. Pictorial Meadows is another campaign group that has researched how meadows can be encouraged in urban environments. It recommends cutting late to give flowers time to be pollinated, produce fruit and then set their seeds in the soil, so that the meadow can grow back year after year. Cutting earlier prevents flowers from fruiting and setting seed.

Local campaigns

Over 65,000 people have now signed a petition encouraging councils across the UK to allow wildflower meadows to grow on roadside verges. Councils seem to be listening. Rotherham Borough Council has established eight miles of meadows alongside a motorway, saving £23,000 per year on mowing costs.

The UK road network spans over 246,000 miles – and reducing mowing on the grass verges that surround them to just once a year could save money and create thriving habitats for pollinating insects that return on their own each spring.

Next time you are out in your local area, have a look at the roadsides and public spaces from the perspective of a hungry bee. Can you find any flowers? Is there enough variety for you to maintain a balanced diet? Will there still be flowers for you to feed on next week? If the answer to any of these questions is no, then you might be inspired to take action.

If you have a garden, consider creating miniature meadows in underused patches of lawn, or focus on filling the flower beds with bee-friendly flowers. Small changes do add up. By signing the petition and engaging with your local council in the campaign, we could see rapid and widespread transformation of road networks and a blossoming future for butterflies and bees.

This Author 

Olivia Norfolk is a lecturer in Conservation Ecology, Anglia Ruskin University. This article was first published on The Conversation. 

Scientists have discovered that trees could play a critical part in limiting global heating to 1.5°C. An ambitious worldwide programme of tree planting could potentially absorb up to two thirds of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide.

The report’s authors have mapped out globally where that planting could take place. Here in the UK, Manchester-based charity City of Trees has carried out a parallel activity to understand what part trees could play in helping the city region tackle climate breakdown and air quality and become more resilient to extreme weather.

The City of Trees team has carried out the most comprehensive i-Tree Eco survey so far undertaken in the UK, using specialist software, with results informing where there is potential to plant millions more trees. 

Tree economics

Data has been collected from more than 6,000 trees across Greater Manchester to help calculate the economic and environmental benefits trees provide, as well as highlighting that one million trees in the region are at risk from pests and diseases such as Ash Dieback and Horse Chestnut Bleeding Canker.

The results show that there are an estimated 11,321,386 trees with 15.7 per cent of Greater Manchester beneath tree canopy.

Greater Manchester’s trees act as a filtration system for harmful air pollutants – removing 847 tonnes of pollutants each year. They assist with excessive storm water, intercepting 1,644,415 cubic metres of storm water run-off per year. 

Added to this they sequester 56,530 tonnes of carbon each year and the current carbon of all the trees in the region is 1,573,015 tonnes.

The total annual economic value of air pollution filtration, storm water attenuation and carbon sequestration in Greater Manchester’s trees is £33,298,891.

Insightful results

The surveyors collected data such as tree species and the width, height and diameter and condition of the trees. The data is fed into i-Tree Eco software, which processes the information and provides insightful results about the economic value of trees, trees under threat and where there is potential to plant more. 

The i-tree software was developed by the US Forestry Service and adapted for use in the UK by Forest Research. Data from an i-tree survey can be used for making effective resource management decisions, developing policy and safeguarding towns and cities trees and green spaces.

They found that it would cost over £4.7 billion to replace all Greater Manchester’s trees; these trees produce 122,450 tonnes of oxygen each year; the most common species of trees in Greater Manchester are Hawthorn, Sycamore and English Oak

Laurence Adams is one of 57 tree surveyors, specially trained by City of Trees. Laurence worked in a small team with other surveyors, who were trained ecologists.

The teams were given allocated plots each day, in one geographical area and they would travel to the GPS points on the map and then survey all the trees in an 11.3metre radius around that point. 

Fascinating creatures

Laurence said:“Sometimes you would be in a suburban area and you would find street trees or you would need to access people’s back gardens to survey the trees there. 

“Other times the location might be on the edge of the motorway and you would have to find a way of surveying those trees – at one point as we were right on the edge of the M62.

“We took measurements such as tree height, the size and condition of the tree crown, the thickness of the trunks, the estimated age of the tree and species as well as, whether there was any other space around the tree to plant more.

“Sometimes the trees would be on their own but there were instances where teams would find a group of trees together which may take up to two days to survey.

 “Putting aside their environmental benefits, being around trees is also one of our best ways to re-connect with nature in the city and, speaking as a relative beginner, the more you learn about them, the more you realise what fascinating creatures they are. It’s really important that we share our streets and green spaces with them.”

City of Trees

City of Trees is a movement set to reinvigorate Greater Manchester’s landscape by restoring underused, unloved woodland and planting 3 million trees – one for every person that lives in the city region, within a generation. 

The charity delivers a range of projects working with schools and communities to plant trees, manage woodlands and create urban orchards.They carried out the survey to influence policy, protect existing trees and woodlands as well as identifying land where more trees can be planted and informing plans for the Northern Forest.

The Northern Forest is a government-backed plan to plant 50 million trees across the North of England, stretching from Liverpool to Hull, within 25 years. The Woodland Trust is working with City of Trees and other community forests to deliver the vision.

Tree strategy

The findings from the survey are informing the Tree and Woodland Strategy All Our Treesthat City of Trees is producing for Greater Manchester, which outlines the need for more trees in and around our towns and cities, making sure that trees are prioritised where they are needed most. The right tree in the right place will help to combat key environmental issues such as flooding and air quality.

All Our Treeswill make recommendations for managing woodlands to ensure they remain healthy, delivering benefits for generations to come, and enhance wildlife and provide habitats and refuges for wildlife particularly those species that are under threat

The strategy will also support Greater Manchester’s five-year environment plan and the city region’s spatial framework – the plan for homes, jobs and the environment.

Director of City of Trees, Jess Thompson, said: “Trees are essential to our towns and cities and provide a necessary carbon capture system. They are vital for our future health and resilience. With reports such as the IPCC clearly stating we need to plant more trees as part of a multilateral approach to climate breakdown, we need to act now and this survey has provided us with the information we need to do that.”

This Author

Bryan Cosgrove is the resilience coordinator at City of Trees. Bryan’s current focus is on modeling provision and the need for ecosystem services in the urban environment.

I took my seven year old son to the school students’ climate protest on 15 March this year. I’ll most likely do the same on 20 September, but I won’t have to take a day’s leave. I’ll be on strike myself.

The call from Greta Thunberg and student activists for older folks to join them on the third global #Strike4Climate makes perfect sense. We must escalate our action in line with the urgency of the situation we face.

At Global Justice Now, we discussed a simple motion submitted to the union shop and passed it with just a couple of abstentions. 

Comprehensive vote

We drew inspiration from three main sources. Firstly from the students. Having been on countless demonstrations in my time, the student protest was one of the most refreshing and exciting I’ve had the privilege to attend.

We were also inspired by those making sacrifices and putting energy into the recent waves of Extinction Rebellion protests. Finally, Jonathan Neale wrote a wonderful article for The Ecologist in May – we took him at his word and responded accordingly.

The work we do at Global Justice Now puts us in contact with climate activists across the world, and our staff body boasts some very accomplished and determined activists. This established record of work in the field ensured a comprehensive vote for strike action.

I’ll react to any predictable backlash. I work for a progressive campaigning NGO and am not taking any risk, as I might be if this were happening in a corporate workplace. Whilst there is some truth to this, we are going on strike, we are losing a day’s pay, we are taking that hit.

We are waiting to hear the response from the trustees of the organisation. We hope they will be sympathetic (they should be!) but that wasn’t a factor in determining our action.

Escalating action

We hope other workplaces will join us. We recognise the differences in the daily realities facing different workers in different workplaces, but we also stress the urgent need for escalated action.

This escalation will be a necessary part of a successful campaign to limit the irreversible impact of climate change. This is all the more pressing given the likelihood of Boris Johnson ending up in 10 Downing Street – he is a man who has a history of repeating climate sceptical myths and who is bankrolled by climate sceptics and deniers.

As Naomi Klein, Margaret Attwood, Nnimmo Bassey and many others wrote in the Guardian: “We hope others will join us: that people will leave their offices, their farms, their factories; that candidates will step off the campaign trail and football stars will leave the pitch; that movie actors will scrub off their makeup and teachers lay down their chalk; that cooks will close their restaurants and bring meals to protests; that pensioners too will break their daily routines and join together in sending the one message our leaders must hear: day by day, a business as usual approach is destroying the chance for a healthy, safe future on our planet.”

There has to be a calculation in workers’ decisions. Although there are apparent risks to taking what is political strike action, there are other factors that should not be ignored. 

If the next reports from climate scientists tells us that the situation is worsening and the stakes are rising, then the risks we face will be higher than a potential labour dispute over a single day’s stoppage.

What’s next

AT GJN I heard the argument that individuals can ill-afford to lose a day’s pay, but another colleague pointed out that what we risk to lose if we do not take a stand is far greater than a train ticket to Manchester and back.

Will an employer be happy to be seen taking action against workers taking action to stop climate change? Will such sanctions lead to escalated actions? To consumer boycotts? Could brands suffer damage amongst growing and influential groups of young people? Will workers be happy with attending a hurriedly organised lunchtime event, perhaps following the strikes and protests on illicit glances at their smart phones? 

The University and College Workers’ Union (UCU) is campaigning for the TUC to call a nationwide 30 minute stoppage in solidarity with the school students on 20 September. While this is a better than nothing development we hope it is not used by others to suggest the very token half hour is enough (let’s face facts a day is not enough anyway!).

We have learnt from the youth. We are indebted to them for their leadership, and we must not let them down again.

This Author 

Guy Taylor is an organiser at Global Justice Now where he is also a Unite Union shop steward.

Sir David Attenborough has called on companies that profit from the use of animal images to donate at least 0.5 percent of revenues to conservation.

But now Disney has been criticised for donating just 0.02 percent of what it has made from the Lion King franchise to lion conservation programmes.

According to Disney, the first Lion King film grossed over $8 billion. Since the film came out, wild lion populations have fallen by more than 40 percent.

Enormous profits

In the lead up to the lunch of the remake this month, an initial donation of US$1.5 million has been made, with a promise of about $1.5 million to follow. And much of this will come from ‘up-selling’ Lion King products to fans.

The new film is expected to make over $200 million at the box office on its opening weekend.

In addition to poaching, human-wildlife conflict and habitat loss, trophy hunting has emerged as a major threat to remaining lion populations. Approximately 10,000 lion trophies have been taken by hunters in the past decade, according to the CITES database.

Earlier this year, scientists from the Zoological Society warned that the species’ genetic diversity had declined by 15 percent in the past century.

A study published in November 2017 by Queen Mary, University of London warned that the loss of just 5 percent of remaining adult males could push lions beyond the point of recovery.

Population decline

Eduardo Goncalves of the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting said: “This month marks the fourth anniversary of the killing of Cecil the lion. Up to 5,000 more lions have been shot for sport since his death. Despite the fact that numbers have fallen sharply to 20,000, the law still permits lions to be shot for so-called ‘sport’.

“It’s almost as if we never left the colonial period. Lions are not an inexhaustible resource we can kill for entertainment willy-nilly.

“Disney’s contribution to lion conservation is paltry. They may as well rename their film the Lion Pauper for all the good it will do. They are making billions from lions and giving hardly anything in return.

“If they were serious about supporting lion conservation they would up their contribution to at least the 0.5 percent recommended by David Attenborough. Given the crisis facing lion populations, it should be even more.

Trophy hunting

“Disney should also throw its weight behind efforts to abolish trophy hunting. The impact of lion trophy hunting on populations has been well documented throughout sub-Saharan Africa.

Not only have large numbers of lions been killed, but trophy hunters have directly affected the species’ gene pool by targeting the fittest and strongest animals.

“If Disney were to mobilise its fan base behind a global move to abolish trophy hunting, that would be an achievement worthy of the name Lion King.”  

This Author 

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting. 

Time is running out to repair the damage to the planet that human beings have done, environment secretary Michael Gove is warning.

Read this: XR summer rebellion begins

Mr Gove will say there is a political, economic and moral need to act to tackle climate change and reverse wildlife losses in a keynote speech at Kew Gardens today (Tuesday). 

And he will say that 2020 will be a crucial year for deciding the future of the planet, with international summits aimed at agreeing new deals for the oceans and for nature and increasing ambition on tackling climate change.

Damaged

The UK is bidding to host key UN climate talks next year, when countries are expected to come forward with more ambitious plans to cut greenhouse gas emission to avoid dangerous global warming.

A UN conference in China will attempt to address declines in wildlife and a new international oceans treaty is also set to be negotiated – opportunities which Mr Gove says “the world must not miss”.

Domestically, he will say, the Government has ambitions for a new Environment Act that will match the success of the UK’s world-leading Climate Change Act and set the path for environmental improvement for decades to come.

The environment secretary will tell the audience at the botanical gardens in London: “Time is running out to make the difference we need; to repair the damage we as a species have done to the planet we have plundered.”

Nature is in retreat, with 80% of the world’s forests that were standing 8,000 years ago cleared, damaged or fragmented, and species becoming extinct at a rate estimated to be 1,000 to 10,000 times higher than they would naturally.

Steward

Climate change is causing sea level rise and even if action is taken now to slow carbon dioxide pollution, the climate will keep heating up for decades to come, he will warn.

“The scale of action required may be daunting, but the need to act is imperative,” he will say.

“There is a political need to act – because we cannot leave this planet to the next generation more polluted, more dangerous, denuded of its natural riches and increasingly inhospitable to all life.

“There is an economic need to act – because unless we restore our natural capital then we will have depleted soils incapable of yielding harvests or sustaining livestock, we will have oceans with more plastic than fish, we will have dried up or contaminated water sources and we will have severe weather events endangering lives and livelihoods.

“And there is a moral need to act – because, as Margaret Thatcher reminded us, we do not have a freehold on this planet, it is not ours to dispose of as we wish, we are partners in the great chain of evolution with the rest of nature and endowed as we are with reason we therefore have the responsibility to steward and protect,” he will say.

This Author

Emily Beament is the Press Association environment correspondent.

Fishing vessels may still be illegally discarding fish overboard in defiance of a European Union ban, putting stocks at risk, peers have warned.

The EU landing obligation aims to put an end to the throwing of dead fish back into the sea, which took place because fishermen were catching species they did not want or were not allowed to take, as part of efforts to conserve stocks.

Rules to prevent 1.7 million tonnes of fish a year being discarded were brought in following a campaign led by celebrity chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, with requirements that vessels would land everything they caught.

Quota

But six months after the rules took full effect, they seem to have had little impact and the UK government does not know the extent to which they are being complied with, the Lords EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee said.

The committee of peers warned in a previous report in February that the UK was in a position to implement or enforce the rules preventing discards when they came into force in January.

In the inquiry for that report, the committee heard significant concerns that the ban could have an impact on the industry, infrastructure and ports.

Concerns were raised that fishermen could run out of quota for one fish stock, even though they had quota remaining for others, and would have to stop fishing early in the year, while storage facilities and supply chains would struggle with more undersized fish being landed.

Neither of these things have happened, the Lords said, with only small quantities of fish that would have been discarded being landed, and little evidence of fishing vessels being “choked” by a lack of quota.

Marine

This suggests fishermen were continuing to discard fish illegally, a new report by the committee warned.

Continued discarding of fish could cause serious damage to stocks, which raises concerns the Government believed illegal discarding was still taking place and did not know the extent of compliance with the rules, the peers said.

The latest report calls for the Government to mandate the use of remote electronic monitoring of all vessels in UK waters after Brexit, such as CCTV cameras, GPS tracking and sensors to monitor fishing gear use.

The Government must also track improvements in gear that is more selective, to avoid catching undersized fish, in the UK fleet, and work with other member states and the Commission to ensure bycatch reduction plans are implemented quickly.

The committee also raised concerns that the scale of the exemptions to the ban that have been granted undermines the aim of the landing obligation to prevent overfishing and protect fish stocks and the marine environment.

Stocks

Lord Teverson, chairman of the sub-committee said: “Good progress has been made in recent years to improve the health of fish stocks in EU waters.

“But now it seems that fishing ministers are once again tempted to make decisions based on short-term economic benefits rather than long-term sustainability.

“Unless the discard ban is properly implemented and enforced the UK’s fishing industry could in the future find itself with nothing left to fish.”

An Environment Department spokesman said: “This government is fully committed to sustainable fishing, including ending the wasteful discarding of fish.

“We continue to work with the industry to promote awareness of the new requirements and have stepped up enforcement to ensure fish caught are landed and accurately recorded. Once we leave the EU, we will have the flexibility to introduce other measures to ensure the sustainability of our fish stocks.”

This Author

Emily Beament is the Press Association environment correspondent.