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.

As an island nation, Britain has vulnerable communities that must be prepared for the impact of the climate emergency. And while much has been said about homes at risk from the sea in coastal regions, or those inland subject to river flooding, the UK Committee on Climate Change’s new progress report for 2019 has laid bare the challenge facing them.

In 2018, Hemsby on the coast of Norfolk in the east of England saw several homes dramatically lost after storm surges caused metres of the sandy cliff edge to collapse. Over the last decade, major storms left substantial areas of England badly flooded for weeks or months, such as in 2007, 2009, 2012, and the winters of 2013-14 and 2015-16.

The Environment Agency has said that the UK faces having to abandon areasrather than continue to defend them with the ever higher and stronger flood defences that would be necessary. 

Risk management

According to the committee’s climate change risk assessment it is almost certain that England will have to adapt to at least one metre of sea level rise.

Modelling studies have shown that flooding increases exponentially with rising sea levels. So for coastal areas subject to flooding it is not sufficient to increase the height of sea walls in line with sea level rise.

The assessment predicts that up to 1.5m properties (including 1.2m residential homes) may be located in areas with an annual flood risk of once in 200 years or more by the 2080s. Around 8,900 properties are located in areas at risk from coastal erosion, this may increase to over 100,000 properties by the 2080s.

While coastal erosion affects fewer properties than flooding, the impact is more drastic due to the inevitable and irrecoverable loss of land to the sea. 

Significant increases in coastal flood risk are projected to occur as early as the 2020s due to increases in storm frequency. According to the committee’s projections the number of residential properties exposed to flooding more frequently than once every 75 years (on average) is predicted to increase 20 percent by the 2020s under the scenario which gives a 4°C rise in global temperatures by the 2080s.

Flood protections

However, the Committee on Climate Change’s latest report on dealing with these issues scores work on alleviating surface water flooding, and work on ensuring new building development is properly designed to manage flooding, both firmly in the “red” of the red-amber-green traffic light system indicating readiness.

Other aspects of flood protection fare only slightly better, with river and coastal development flood protection and alleviation and flood recovery in general marked as “amber”.

Number of properties (residential and non-residential) potentially affected by a future once every 200 years coastal surge.HR Wallingford

In the Netherlands, for centuries vulnerable to floods due to its low-lying land, a number of new approaches to water management have been adopted over the years in an effort to live with water rather than to fight it.

Schemes range from flood-proof homes, including floating homes, to the Room for the River programme which entails strategies for planned evacuations, temporary relocation of farmers and villagers, and strategic flooding of polders (reclaimed areas separated by drainage dykes).

Coastlines

The UK has its own approaches to manage increased flood risk, and is developing new approaches in view of the dire predictions by climate change experts under scenarios of both 2°C and 4°C global temperature rise.

River flooding and coastal flooding (from waterway or coastal inundation), as well as surface water and groundwater flooding (from rain and storms and insufficient drainage), were categorised as the most significant sources of risk in the UK now and in the future. 

The committee’s projection of flood risk has identified the most cost-effective, engineering-based measures to reduce flooding as improving defences, managed realignment of the coast, catchment area management, and urban runoff management through sustainable drainage systems.

In this case, “realignment” of the coast entails not only the natural changes to the physical coastline as a result of climate change, but also the decision to abandon or relocate entire settlements. This can have a significant personal and financial impact on those residents affected.

While the abandonment of properties in places like Happisburgh and Hemsby in Norfolk due to coastal erosion is well known, we can see from the map above that many other coastal areas around the Humber, Mersey, Severn and Thames estuaries are at risk.

Design challenges

Those affected, and also key infrastructure assets, will need to be evaluated to ascertain whether they should be included in this process of coastal realignment. The area around the Thames in southern England is likely to be classed as worth protecting due to the high numbers of people living there, for example.

In addition, a number of low-lying inland plains will also be lost – many of which were selected for housing development only a few decades ago.

While planning and building regulations can reduce flood risk to new-build properties within affected areas, anticipated population growth means that there is increasing pressure to build on floodplains. According to Emma Howard Boyd, Chair of the Environment Agency, the number of properties built on floodplains will double over the next 50 years, creating further flood risk problems.

The UK has a significant number of key industries and infrastructure at the coast – for example power stations, petrochemical plants, steel industries and oil and gas infrastructure.

To tackle the associated design challenges for housing, business and industries appropriate funding and having a well-skilled engineering force will be key. 

Increasing impact

In view of the increasing impact of climate change we need to urgently build our resilience to flooding. Flood resilience includes knowing what the risks are and where.

We need flexible engineering solutions, including natural flood risk management, as well as ways to help society adapt.

We need to make sure we have the right people with the right skills at all levels to address related socio-economic issues, including hard decisions on what to fight to keep, and what can be lost.

These Authors 

Carola Koenig is a senior lecturer in Engineering, Flood and Coastal Engineering Programme Lead, Brunel University London. Philip Collins is a senior lecturer in Geology & Geotechnical Engineering, and Vice Dean (Education) at Brunel University London.

This article was first published in The Conversation. 

Living on the edge of Dartmoor is a joy. I can run along snaking lanes and be on windswept moorland in half an hour, watching the whole of south Devon unfold far below between misty green horizons.

As I grind my way up the flanks of England’s largest granite outcrop, I’m immersed in that network of small fields, pastures and tree-studded hedgerows that is so quintessentially Devon.

This article was first published in Resurgence & Ecologist magazine. 

There is much that is great about our farmed landscape. But this is no Wind in the Willows ideal. The fields are largely devoid of livestock, insects and birds. Their striking emerald green reflects a monoculture of highly competitive grasses, growing hell-for-leather on a super-rich diet of artificial fertiliser.

Agricultural policy

A closer look reveals all too many signs of hedge-lines that once were, wetlands drained and rough moorland converted to closely cropped pasture. And then there are the huge brown expanses of dead vegetation recently sprayed with Roundup. We have sacrificed variety and vibrancy for tidiness, uniformity and productivity.

Since 1970 we have lost half of our wildlife; 1,200 UK species are extinct or under threat of it. Devon has the country’s best network of hedges, but only 38 percent of its 53,000km are in good condition. UK farmland loses 2.2 million tonnes of topsoil annually, and the stripping of slurry and agrochemicals by heavy rain is one of the biggest reasons why fewer than 20 percent of our rivers are in good health.

Something badly needs to change if we want to leave future generations with a natural environment worthy of the name.

It would be wrong to blame farming for all of this, of course, and many farmers are among the best champions for wildlife. But agriculture covers three-quarters of our landscape, and intensive farming, which has the largest environmental impact, grew by 26 percent between 2011 and 2017.

Since the early 1970s, farming has become insep­arable from the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The CAP is a strange beast, stretched and contorted into a bizarre shape by politics and vested interests battling with fairness and common sense. A small amount has been directed to agri-environment schemes, but nearly 90 percent is simply handed out according to how much land a farmer owns.

Nothing to do with food production, nature or efficiency. CAP has propped up land prices, funded wholly unsustainable practices, and ensured the richest get the lion’s share. We need something a whole lot better.

Environmental commitments

By the time you read this we might have left the European Union and be moving towards a post-CAP era. So let’s imagine this brave new world. In New Zealand, where farm subsidies ended in the 1970s, the landscape is one of extremes: areas of stunning wilderness on the one hand, and miles of intensively farmed prairie on the other.

It’s quite possible to see how this could happen in the UK. Most small and upland farms are kept afloat by subsidies. Without them many would go to the wall, and the market value of their land would plummet. Some areas might revert to nature; others might be bought up by hobby farmers or put to non-agricultural uses.

But in an era where the cost of borrowing money is cheap and land is a safe long-term investment, it’s all too easy to see how the larger operators could quickly buy up cheap land and intensify production, capitalising on economies of scale.

If the direction signalled by the recent Agriculture Bill is anything to go by, such an extreme situation is thankfully unlikely. Much has been said about public money for public goods, with the environment receiving special mention.

But we know nothing about the detail or how much money will be available. Just meeting our existing environmental commitments requires government spending five times what it currently does on agri-environment schemes.

Diversify and innovate

So what might a new and more enlightened farming policy look like? We need minimum standards that all farms must meet. As well as safety and animal welfare, this should include phasing out damaging pesticides, and reducing ploughing and slurry spreading, avoiding it altogether on steep slopes. All farms should move to a net carbon-neutral position.

We need farming to diversify and innovate. Agroforestry can be more profitable, productive and Nature-friendly than traditional farming, but it is seldom seen in the UK, as it’s not well suited to current policy.

And, like it or not, new technology such as hydroponic systems might prove to be a much more sustainable and less land-hungry way of producing our food.

And we need farming to make room for Nature. This means hedges being allowed to grow out, wider field margins, and natural vegetation strips along river corridors.

But we also need spaces for Nature to expand, on steeper slopes and in marginal areas around our uplands. And 3 percent of farmland should be managed for pollinators. In some areas, we should allow farming to withdraw altogether or reduce to much more extensive systems, so that Nature can return.

What next?

So how do we make this happen? First, we need a solid bedrock of firm regulation, banning the use of damaging chemicals for example. This could be a challenge in the current low-regulation culture.

Secondly, we need a green subsidy system that pays for things the market won’t – Nature, flood control, soil protection. It should be simple, flexible, widely available and properly funded. £3 billion a year would help restore the natural systems that sustain us. That’s a big sum, but it’s still only 0.5% of total public expenditure and compares with £37 billion for defence.

Finally, we need to be brave enough to say what type of farming is suitable where, rather than leaving the market to dictate. We need a vision for Nature’s recovery – a Nature recovery network – that farming helps deliver, not a complex set of poorly funded mechanisms that struggle to find room for wildlife around the margins.

Is this possible? I think it is, and I believe farmers would benefit just as much as the rest of us.

This Author

Harry Barton is chief executive of the Devon Wildlife Trust. He lives with his family on the edge of Dartmoor. This article was first published in Resurgence & Ecologist magazine. 

Image: Roger Roberts, Geograph. 

A new interactive online tool is set to encourage tree planting initiatives across the UK. It calculates how much pollution would be removed by planting trees in local areas, as well as the corresponding public health cost savings.

Hundreds of thousands of trees are due to be planted across the country over the next three years in Government-backed schemes. The new tool – Pollution Removal by Vegetation – ­takes national data and makes it locally relevant and accessible for councils, NGOs, developers and other businesses that are considering such initiatives.

Scientists at the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (CEH) teamed up with eftec, a leading environmental economics consultancy, to develop the tool, which shows the existing amount of woodland in each local authority in hectares, how much particulate matter (PM2.5) the trees remove from the air and the resulting predicted public health cost saving within that area over a 100-year period.

Health risks

Based on the number of hectares of woodland someone wishes to plant within a local authority area, it can calculate how many kilogrammes of PM2.5 – considered the most serious form of air pollution – would be removed from the air by the extra vegetation and the resulting public health cost saving within that area over a 100-year period. 

The tool can also estimate the effects of felling existing woodland by calculating the health costs attributable to the PM2.5 that would no longer be removed from the air by those trees.

The new tool builds on previous research that CEH and eftec carried out for the Office of National Statistics, which estimated that plants in the UK remove 1.4 million tonnes of air pollution and save £1 billion in avoided health costs every year.

Professor Laurence Jones of the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology explained: “There is a lot of public concern about the potential health risks that pollution poses in many urban areas of the UK.

“While reducing harmful emissions at source is the best way to improve air quality, the addition of vegetation can play a role in removing pollutants within a local area.”

Urban planning

Ian Dickie of eftec adds: “Trees make urban areas more attractive and improve local air quality, thereby boosting people’s health. As our ongoing research has shown, this in turn can have significant positive economic benefits.

“We regularly hear political commitments to plant more trees in urban areas – our new online tool will inform and support the efforts by local and central government, NGOs, businesses and individuals in adding trees in our towns and cities.

“We were very pleased with the positive feedback we received about the valuation tool from these stakeholders at a recent webinar and hope it will encourage and support their tree planting initiatives in pollution hotspots.”

To access the free online tool, visit the website. You can also download a method note that explains the model and its uses.

The recording of the launch webinar hosted by EKN is now available – it takes you through the tool’s development and uses.

This Article 

This article is based on a press release from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. 

Environmental campaigners shut down a busy central London road as they called for an end to prosecutions of protesters and urged the Government to take action on climate change.

Extinction Rebellion, which brought central London to a halt earlier this year with protests calling for environmental action, has launched a “summer uprising” in Bristol, Cardiff, Glasgow, Leeds and London.

More than 200 Extinction Rebellion protesters gathered outside the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand on Monday, blocking the road to traffic in both directions as part of their five-day “summer uprising” in several cities across the UK.

Future

A large blue boat emblazoned with the words “Act Now” was parked on the street outside the main entrance of the building and used as a makeshift stage for speakers to address the crowd.

The group said the demonstration was to “demand the legal system take responsibility in this crisis, and ensure the safety of future generations by making ecocide law”.

It also called on the Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecution Service to drop the prosecutions of more than 1,000 Extinction Rebellion protesters who were arrested during demonstrations at five London sites in April.

Jayne Forbes, 63, of Extinction Rebellion London, said: “I was arrested during the International Rebellion in April because it is so important to stand up and challenge a government who is not even performing its primary function of providing our security for the future.

“I therefore believe we have a duty to engage in civil disobedience to promote the need for action now for climate and ecological justice. And yet the government may want to prosecute me for taking a stand to protect our future.”

Liam Geary Baulch, 26, said: “I’m here today because we are in an ecological and climate emergency and we are seeing people around the world taking action because something needs to be done now.

Ecocide

“Although we see Governments starting to accept the emergency and setting targets, they are not acting now. Our demand is net zero (carbon) by 2025. We are demanding the Government act now.”

A spokeswoman for the Metropolitan Police said the force has a plan in operation outside the Royal Courts of Justice.

There was a strong police presence in the area, including around a dozen vans, and the main entrance to the court complex was closed to court users and the public. The Strand was blocked between Aldwych and Chancery Lane and traffic was redirected.

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Laurence Taylor said in a statement on Friday that the force had been planning its operation ahead of the protests. “We have been engaged with the organisers to understand their plans but we cannot tolerate behaviour that crosses a criminal threshold.”

The boat, which also had the words “we are nature defending itself” painted on the side, was named Polly Higgins after the late environmental lawyer who campaigned for ecocide to be made a crime. A flag with the phrase “make ecocide law” was raised from its mast.

Anthem

Protesters of all ages, including several young children, sat in the road and listened to a number of speakers. Songs, poetry and a water ceremony were also performed from the boat.

At one point, a woman announced that the protesters had “caused a major disruption in London today”, to cheers from the crowd.

Another campaigner speaking from the boat said: “I find it incredible that they are clearing so much space in the courts to prosecute all those people who were arrested, when we know who they should be prosecuting.”

Members of the crowd then shouted out the names of a number of large corporations in response, including BP, Shell and Monsanto.

At the junction of the Strand and Aldwych, a smaller group gathered and sang songs at the passing traffic, including the protest anthem, “We Shall Overcome”.

Act

Environmental protesters are taking action across five UK cities to call on the government to halt wildlife losses and cut greenhouse gases to net zero by 2025.

Protesters in each city are unveiling a large coloured boat, each named after an environmental activist, with the message “Act Now” on it.

The activists say they are staging a series of “creative acts of civil disobedience”, blocking specific locations, bridges and roads as well as holding talks, workshops, people’s assemblies and family-friendly activities.

In Glasgow, activists are using a 25ft purple boat to block Trongate, covering the intersection of Gallowgate and High Street, by the Merchant City clock tower.

The boat carries a message from the group which says “Act Now”, with “The future you fear is already here” on the other side of the vessel.

Dying

Protesters are targeting Leeds’ financial district to draw attention to the links between banking and the climate and ecological emergency.

Members of Extinction Rebellion parked a large green boat outside Cardiff Castle and held banners reading “Act Now” and “Climate Emergency” as commuters were subjected to delays during the morning rush hour.

Tents were also set up on grass in front of Cardiff City Hall, the home of the Welsh capital’s local government, as campaigners looked set to camp there ahead of more disruption in the coming days.

A leaflet handed out by campaigners said they were protesting “to prevent the breakdown of humanity’s life support system, the Earth”, and said they were calling for the the UK Government to create a “national assembly” to implement climate change solutions.

Stephen Lingwood, 37, from Extinction Rebellion Cardiff, said: “People are dying right now of climate chaos in places like India. It’s only going to get worse.

“We’re at the beginning of the sixth mass extinction and a climate genocide and the Government’s inaction is, in my view, criminally irresponsible.”

Protesters parked a large blue boat outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London, ahead of prosecutions of more than 1,000 people arrested during protests in April, with activists calling for all the cases to be dropped.

These Authors

Sian Harrison and Sam Tobin are reporters with PA.