You’re already familiar with the issue of plastic microbeads poisoning our oceans and choking our wildlife. There’s good news and bad news.

The bad news is that plastic microbeads aren’t the whole story, even with the world approaching a consensus on banning them. The good news is that eco-friendly personal care products, right down to the packaging, have emerged as a flashpoint of interest and innovation.

Below are some of the reasons why this is a conversation worth having and a change that’s long overdue.

Degradable packaging

Plastic water bottles have earned our ire over the years. However, unsustainable packaging trends in the personal care industry have become an urgent problem too.

Some estimates say product packaging waste is as much as one-third of the refuse that ends up in landfills. Once it’s there, some of that plastic can take up to a millennium to break down. During that time, it poses a significant risk to wildlife and leaches toxins into our water supplies and soil.

Think of the many millions of products sold annually, each one wrapped in cellophane and contained in a plastic tube, tub or bottle. This has been a difficult habit to break. One relatively straightforward change cosmetics companies can implement immediately is to create more practical shapes for their product packaging.

The more tightly packed our shipments of these goods become, the smaller their transportation footprint. The packing and distribution process also is more efficient. Regular shapes like squares and rectangles tend to use less raw material than round ones, too. Some companies have slimmed down their packaging in other ways, such as eliminating corrugated layers or forgoing product leaflets.

Cosmetics and personal care products sometimes have specific requirements with respect to their shelf life. The packaging must be airtight or otherwise designed to help them last as long as possible. Even with those limitations, materials that degrade more quickly in nature can be used. “Nano-clays” and PLA-based plastics — with some inorganic fillers to account for cosmetics products’ inherent instability — have shown promise.

Sustainable products

With more attention paid to packaging, cosmetics and personal care companies can begin making changes to the formulation of these products.

As we noted above, the U.S. and some other countries have acted on the plastic microbeads issue. 2015 saw the American Congress amend the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to ban the manufacture of microbeads. You’ve likely seen these in facial scrubs and other products, where they provided the abrasion necessary for exfoliation.

In the absence of microbeads, many hygiene-minded individuals have learned to scrub with a washcloth and water, which does the trick just as well for most people and skin types. Chemical exfoliants aren’t going anywhere, though. Neither are the complex and proprietary chemical formulations that line cosmetic aisle shelves. However, the time has come for more earth-friendly formulations, proprietary or not.

For a start, consider how useful the compound glycerine can be. Glycerine appears in all vegetable and animal matter on Earth, but not all of it has the same influence on the planet. Natural glycerine is produced through the hydrolysis of fats, and synthetic glycerine requires the processing of chlorine, propylene or petroleum. Both kinds are useful in cleansers, moisturizers, toners, soaps, facial masks and an abundance of other products many of us use regularly.

Deforestation is another one of the most urgent issues today, and it’s thanks to the ubiquity and demand for palm oil. In 2018, Americans used some 72 million tons of palm oil — likely because we don’t have to witness the fallout personally. In Borneo alone, palm oil cultivation has been responsible for 47% of the nation’s deforestation since 2000.

What’s next?

Can we save the Earth’s forests from our runaway demand for palm oil in self-care and beauty products?

Thankfully, even the World Wildlife Fund says it’s possible. The RSPO label — issued by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil — is becoming more common. It signifies the company engages in sustainable harvesting and manufacturing processes when it sources palm oil.

Achieving LEED certification and making other energy-conscious choices in manufacturing plants and distribution centers are additional ways to commit to more sustainable practices in this industry. LEED certification indicates a structure has taken significant steps to reduce its energy expenditures and carbon footprint.

It’s a little cruel that so much of the onus here rests on the average consumer and how well they’ve educated themselves on these issues. However, it’s heartening to know that some of the biggest names in personal care products in the world today are taking small but decisive steps to make their operations more sustainable. They’re heeding the call, slowly.

In the meantime, consumer education is still paramount. We all could stand to learn a little more about the origins of our favorite products and why and how they threaten the stability of the natural world. If we can’t vote with our wallets, we can revisit our hygiene habits. Most of us can easily get away with bathing less often, and in so doing, eliminate some of the noxious chemicals or threatened plant compounds we invite into our homes from afar.

This Author 

Emily Folk is a regular contributor to The Ecologist, a conservation and sustainability writer and the editor of Conservation Folks.

Environmental legislation to improve air and water quality, tackle plastic pollution, restore habitats, all overseen by an independent watchdog were announced yesterday in the Queen’s speech.

The speech returns to Parliament key pieces of legislation on agriculture, fisheries and trade that were dropped due to the new government being formed. Campaigners hope that the new versions will be stronger than those that preceded them.

On fisheries, they want to see binding commitments not to fish above scientifically recommended sustainable levels and measures to tackle fishing-related deaths of protected species, while for farming, many want certainty for funding and guidance for farmers and land managers to enable them to invest in the natural world.

Greener farming

Import standards were also needed to safeguard farmers from imports produced to low environmental and welfare standards, they said.

Draft plans for the environmental watchdog were published earlier this year, but came under fire for being too weak. Under current arrangements, the European Commission can fine governments for not complying with environmental law, but the watchdog will not have this function.

Many campaigners had been concerned that climate change had not been included in the watchdog’s role. But the government today confirmed that its remit would include all climate change legislation, including the target to reach net zero emissions by 2050.

Dr Richard Benwell, chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link, a coalition of 54 environmental charities, said that the legally-binding targets were “a fantastic step forward”, and could usher in a new era of environmental improvement, but only if the targets deliver a major dose of ambition, backed by credible plans.

Animal welfare

“We will be watching for the critical clauses needed for nature’s recovery. The agriculture bill must guarantee sufficient funding for greener farming for at least a decade. The fisheries bill must include legal limits on catches to restore our seas. The environment bill must match aspirational targets with ambitious action,” he said.

New measures to improve animal welfare are also being brought forward, including tougher sentences for crimes of animal cruelty and a requirement for government departments to give full regard to animal sentience and welfare in all policy. Imports of trophy hunting will be banned, in a victory for campaigners.

However, Friends of the Earth said that the trade bill had been “completely watered down” since it was last debated by Parliament, which was of “huge concern” given that the UK was days away from leaving the EU.

Sue Hayman, the Labour shadow secretary of state for DEFRA, said: “Boris Johnson is threatening our environment with reckless new trade agreements that would undercut Britain’s environmental standards.

“The government must legislate to ensure that the UK won’t fall behind the EU on environmental standards and that the Office for Environmental Protection is fully independent and resourced. 

Judged

“The government’s air quality plans have already been ruled unlawful multiple times. Tory cuts have stopped government agencies from protecting our environment and left councils struggling to tackle fly tipping and littering.”

Dave Timms, Head of Political Affairs at Friends of the Earth said: “Despite some improvements from previous proposals, it’s extremely disappointing that the Environment Bill won’t protect existing environmental safeguards from being watered down – something ministers have repeatedly promised.

“We’re facing a climate emergency – and while the new environmental watchdog will at least have power to hold government to account on climate change, its independence is still not guaranteed. And it’s speed of progress hardly suggests the blue lights are being switched on.

“It’s encouraging to see headline commitments on issues such as plastics, air pollution and natural restoration, but it remains to be seen if the frameworks set out in this ‘flagship’ bill will have the clout to fulfil the government’s ‘world leading’ ambitions.

“The climate crisis is the biggest threat we face – the government’s commitment to tackling it will be judged on its action, not words.”

This Author

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

When the idea of the level playing field emerged from the Brexit talks many environmentalists breathed a sigh of relief.

As Barnier presented this agreement to us in the European Parliament, I remember realising that even if we were to go ahead with Brexit, the inclination of the Brexit regulation burners to trash social and environmental standards would be restrained.

Theresa May agreed to this condition as part of the withdrawal negotiated agreement, but very worryingly Boris Johnson has eliminated it from the proposals he presented to Brussels last week.

Species

It’s a typical piece of Brussels jargon but in simple terms the level playing field means that our future relationship with the EU will be based on the understanding that our environmental standards can only build on those of the EU and not undercut them.

It skilfully eliminates the possibility of Singapore on Thames.

In terms of the environment this really matters. It’s been frequently repeated that 80 percent of our environmental law comes from the EU.

Although the Withdrawal Act translated this into British law, without the level playing field there is nothing to stop GM enthusiast Owen Paterson persuading his friend Theresa Villiers to allow genetically modified crops into Britain.

Or any of the Tories pro-development paymasters removing protections of species under the Habitats Directive and then letting development rip up protected sites.

Damage

There is much talk amongst pro-environment Tories like Zac Goldsmith about the provisions of the Environment Bill that appeared to disappear when prorogation happened. Now it has a new lease of life as a centrepiece of the Queen’s speech.

However, vague long-term plans to deliver environmental improvements, ‘enabling’ local authorities and ‘promoting’ resource efficiency amount to little when compared with the European law it intends to replace.

The proposed Bill seeks to establish new long term domestic environmental governance ‘based on environmental principles’.

But notably absent when it comes to principles is the precautionary principle. This is the basis on which genetically modified organisms are kept out of the European market, for example, as we simply don’t know what harm they might cause and so it is safer to wait until we do.

This principle is problematic in terms of a future trade deal with the US, where the environmental protection works on the principle of waiting for damage to occur and then taking retrospective legal action à la Erin Brockovich.

Inspiration

Given that the corporations who cause environmental destruction are rich and powerful and citizens are not, I know which legal regime I would rather be living under.

Finally, we come to the very important issue of monitoring and enforcement. The budgets of both the Environment Agency and Defra have been slashed under the Conservative government, so who would be able to protect citizens if legal protections on the environment are not upheld?

As European citizens we have access to the European Court of Justice, and in the repeated legal action on air pollution, ClientEarth has shown how effective such cases can be.

The proposed replacement in a British regime would be an Office for Environmental Protection, effectively a part of government even if at arm’s-length. There is no proposal for a separate court or any system of independent arbitration other than judicial review.

Given that the inspiration for Brexit amongst many corporate interests was precisely ripping up the ‘red tape’ that has protected our countryside, waterways, and natural habitats for decades, to have no route to independent legal redress would be a source of considerable concern.

Standards

Indeed, Johnson seemed to confirm exactly this point in his statement about the Queen’s Speech heralding leaving the EU as “a defining opportunity… to tear away bureaucratic red tape”.

As the Brexit rollercoaster rolls on, moving from hope and despair about a deal on an hourly basis, we should not be distracted from the real reasons why any Brexit is worse for the environment than continuing as a member of the EU.

The loss of the level playing field will be a serious blow to those of us who depend on European law to protect our natural places and the other species we share them with.

As an MEP I will be voting on any withdrawal agreement, and rest assured, I and a vast majority of my fellow MEPs will not vote for a deal that does not include the level playing field on environmental standards. 

This Author 

Molly Scott Cato is a Green MEP for the South West of England. 

We are witnessing an historic international rebellion, an overwhelmingly rapid rise in the numbers, tactics and impacts of environmental campaigners.

To ‘protest’ – as defined by the 15th century French origin of the word – is not just to challenge power, but also ‘to make a pledge, a solemn declaration’ and to drive change.

And this rebellious pledge, this conviction to a noble cause, has marched great movements and struggles to victory for centuries.

Disruption

The Peasants Revolt, the French Revolution, the Luddites, Suffragettes, the US Civil Rights movement, South African anti-apartheid struggles and now – one hopes inevitably – a good outcome for today’s Extinction Rebellion (XR) and climate strike actions.

XR activists are clinging to historical evidence of such protests to conclude their non-violent rebellion just needs to win over 3.5 percent of the population, in order to succeed.

But lawyers and rights groups monitoring Extinction Rebellion [XR] protests that continue to disrupt 60 cities around the world for the second week of their ‘Autumn Uprising’ are concerned by a threat that lurks at the heart of this quest to speak truth to power and demand accountability and change. 

How much are freedoms and rights being encroached? How much is enough, especially bearing in mind the backdrop of a recent UN report warning that the climate crisis is the “greatest ever threat to human rights”.

Where are the lines drawn with reasonable disruption? Although XR champions ‘peaceful civil disobedience’, revolutions do not happen by asking for permission.

Containment

While the arrests and other personal sacrifices made this week by the XR protestors, along with the cost of disruptions they are causing, have been described by activists as mild compared to the catastrophic future costs, impacts and deaths from climate warming made by scientists, not everyone is seeing it that way yet.

Police, politicians and XR activists remain resolute in their opposing views of what is enough.  

A few high profile critics have used their media platform to complain that the methods activists use are too disruptive and will lose public goodwill.

Boris Johnson, the UK prime minister, even tried to dismiss XR’s thousands of supporters as ‘hemp smelling,” “uncooperative crusties”.

Across the world, the state and the rebels have taken aim at each other’s battle lines, to dismantle the other side – with XR strategies including ‘moving like water’ and popping up across cities to undermine police efforts at containment.

Laws

The activists are using the power of numbers and rapid communication networks including secret and open social media channels to achieve an efficient, ever moving peaceful ‘army’.

Look to nature and you can see the effectiveness of this: it is reminiscent of the highly successful, organised and unstoppable colonies of social insects such as the humble ant, where the power of each one is sustained and grows by using shared intelligence and cooperation.

XR also uses surprise, and endless replacements of resources including, so far, seemingly limitless numbers of arrestable protestors, tents and other equipment.

By comparison, the Metropolitan Police seems somewhat restricted. Last week, police Assistant Commissioner Nick Ephgrave, pointed to the huge cost of XR on the police, businesses and people, and called for a review of protest laws.

The April uprising cost the police £16m. Ephgrave wants banning orders for rebels who repeatedly break the law: “The legislation around public order was drafted in a different era and it’s not particularly helpful because it wasn’t designed for what we’re dealing with now,” he said.

Pepper spray

“Were we to allow unlawful protest to be tolerated it would encourage others to do the same sort of thing and it’s difficult to see where that would end. It’s not our job to worry about their motivation, we just have to deal with the situation as we see it and try to get the balance right.

“We will police this within the law, fairly but firmly,” he added. “Our intention is that London stays open for business throughout this period and we will take whatever measures we can to make that happen.”

London’s Metropolitan Police had imposed a condition on London protestors on Tuesday under the Public Order Act 1986, stating that the rebels must restrict their assembly to Trafalgar Square.

“The Met believes that this action is necessary in order to prevent the demonstrations from causing serious disruption to the community. Anyone who fails to comply with the condition is liable to arrest and prosecution,” a statement read.

Of course, XR wants a high arrest count for civil disobedience. By Monday, 14 October 2019, the Met Police had obliged by arresting 1,405 protestors in London; around 500 were arrested in Belgium at the weekend where police used water canons and pepper spray, and an estimated 1,500 more internationally.

Proud

The Met claimed some activists posed a security and safety threat at London City Airport where they had blocked and glued-on to buildings, a train station and a British Airways plane. A spokesperson said: “Targeting an airport and inconveniencing travellers in this way is wholly unacceptable and irresponsible.”

Across London, police cleared many of the 12 main London rebel encampments and seized their tents, equipment and food. XR supporters complained the police were being ‘intimidating, provocative and violent’ towards them and shared videos of belongings being forcefully seized.

Some shared videos claiming they were ‘violently arrested’ and that police were using ‘pain and compliance’ tactics. Many more, however, appeared to remain peaceful and even sang during arrests.

It has prompted police actions to be scrutinised and criticised by protestors, politicians and lawyers. Green Party deputy leader Amelia Womack said police “swooped in” and removed staging and equipment when she was about to speak to protestors last Wednesday.

She praised XR for raising public awareness of the climate emergency, adding: “The right to protest is crucial in any democracy to enable people to show their unhappiness when important matters are being ignored. We have a proud history of using acts of rebellion to start debates where other methods haven’t yielded results.

Zealous

“If our government want to see Extinction Rebellion stop their peaceful protest, then they must listen and take immediate action to tackle the climate emergency. Our country, and its citizens are demanding it.”

The police confiscation of vital ramps, wheelchairs and accessible toilets was also criticised by disabled protestors, who said they had spent months planning the event to ensure the protests were accessible and inclusive and safer for them.

The climate crisis charity Plan B has written to the Metropolitan Police complaining of numerous instances of alleged human rights violations in the policing of XR protests and of ignoring good policing guidance.

Tim Crosland, the Plan B director and member of Extinction Rebellion, said: “Extinction Rebellion activists are being treated as criminals. Their ‘crime’, let’s remember, is to demand the action required, according to science, to prevent the ultimate humanitarian catastrophe.”

High profile barrister Jolyon Maugham QC of The Good Law Project, told The Ecologist: “Our politics is in disarray. The media is flooded with Brexit. At times like this it’s even more important that we zealously guard the few remaining spaces where people can be heard. Good Law Project is very keen to take forward some test cases to protect the right to peaceful protest.”

Right

Human rights lawyer, Kirsty Brimelow QC, agreed the right to peaceful protest is protected under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights: “However, it is a qualified right. This means that it doesn’t trump all other rights,” she said. “But the right to protest is a significant consideration when the police decide about the reasonableness of any protest obstruction such as tents.

“Camps may be an eyesore or a literal mess but the nature of protests includes elements of unruliness. There has to be a careful balancing exercise between competing rights and regulations before peaceful protests are interfered with by the police.”

She added: “History has shown that many peaceful protests have been right. Here protestors are uniting behind science, in particular the latest report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In this context – the future of the planet – the State should be expected to exercise a high degree of tolerance when dealing with protestors.”

A spokesperson for Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, said: “Sadiq strongly supports the democratic right to peaceful and lawful protest and has backed the climate strikes over recent weeks and months.

Freedom

“However, he will not support illegal action, which causes major disruption to Londoners or risks public safety. Such action is counter-productive to this crucial cause, and puts further pressure on our already over-stretched police force who need to be focused on tackling violent crime.”

XR has pledged its peaceful disobedience actions will continue all this week across the world. One thing is clear from the history of environmental campaigning: they are not going to achieve a revolution by writing emails, signing petitions or waiting for permission.

This rising fight for environmental justice is a protest true to the French meaning of the word: a pledge, a solemn declaration and a demand for change, it is rooted in civil disobedience, it has emboldened an escalating mass movement and now it is defining its own battle lines, regardless of the law.

It echoes Martin Luther King Jr’s historic message from an earlier protest movement: “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”

This Author

Alex Morss is a freelance writer, author and ecologist. She tweets @morss_alex.

Extinction Rebellion protest action is continuing in London despite police ordering activists to end their gatherings across the capital or risk arrest.

On Tuesday morning, the group’s co-founder, Dr Gail Bradbrook, climbed on top of the entrance of the building in central London and “lightly” hit the glass with a hammer, said she was taking action for trees threatened by HS2.

She said: “I do this in fierce love of the 108 ancient woodlands threatened by HS2, this climate crime of a project. Imagine the good we could do with HS2’s anticipated cost to rapidly accelerate towards our demands to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.

Rebels

“If the Government is serious about plans to meet the net zero target they need to stop funding destructive projects such as HS2 and airport expansions.”

Extinction Rebellion said other protesters had glued themselves to the building. It said activists were calling on the government to explain its plan to meet a net-zero emissions target within the carbon budget of the UK.

The protesters’ latest actions came after the Metropolitan Police imposed conditions under Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, requiring any protest assembly in the capital to cease by 9pm on Monday.

The force said this was to “prevent serious disruption to the life of the community”. On Monday evening, activists were cleared from Trafalgar Square, where many had lawfully congregated for the past week.

In response to the police action, an Extinction Rebellion (XR) statement said its “rebels” would take “a moment to pause and remember why we are here”.

Breaches

It added: “Extinction Rebellion will let the Trafalgar Square site go tonight. The International Rebellion continues.”

On Twitter, XR’s London branch labelled the clearing of protesters from the square as “an outrage”.

It also tweeted: “Today, an unprecedented, political, decision has been taken to shut down peaceful protest calling out the government for inaction in the face of crisis.”

As of 5pm on Monday, police said there had been 1,445 arrests in connection with the eight days of XR protests in London.

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Laurence Taylor said conditions were being imposed on protesters due to “continued breaches” of previous police orders and “ongoing serious disruption to the community”.

Peace

He added: “We have made significant progress in managing Extinction Rebellion’s activity at sites across central London over this past week.

“Officers have begun the process of clearing Trafalgar Square and getting things back to normal.”

Mr Taylor said officers had made more than 90 arrests on Monday as protesters targeted the City of London, the capital’s financial district.

He added: “The policing operation continues, and we will continue to take action against anyone engaged in unlawful protests at locations targeted by Extinction Rebellion.”

On Monday night in Trafalgar Square, four people in a so-called peace tent, who had locked themselves together, were cut out of their locks with machinery.

Generations

Pam Williams, 71, glued herself to the spot where her tent stood as police arrived to take it.

Speaking to the PA news agency, she said: “I’m refusing to leave and I’ve glued myself to the ground. My husband has taken away the tent, the police haven’t got it. I shall stay here until I’m arrested.”

Ellie Chowns, a Green Party MEP, said she was arrested after “standing in solidarity” with protesters in Trafalgar Square.

At 11.30pm, only around 50 protesters remained in Trafalgar Square and the majority of the activists’ infrastructure had been removed.

Activists had previously said they planned to launch “XR Grandparents”, an initiative focused on older generations, on Tuesday afternoon.

This Author

Tom Pilgrim is a reporter with PA.

Prescribing contact with nature for people who have low levels of mental wellbeing is excellent value for money, a new report shows. 

Researchers at Leeds Beckett University analysed the social value of Wildlife Trusts’ nature conservation projects which offer outdoor volunteering opportunities and programmes that support people experiencing problems such as anxiety, stress or mild depression.

The report draws on the conclusions of three years research which found that people participating in both sorts of outdoor nature conservation activities felt significantly better, both emotionally and physically, as a result. They needed, for example, fewer visits to GPs or felt more able to get back into work.

Social return 

The new report – Social return on investment analysis of the health and wellbeing impacts of Wildlife Trust programmes – calculates the social return on investment for every £1 invested in the two types of project and found that they are excellent value. 

For every £1 invested in regular nature volunteering projects, which play a part in creating a healthy lifestyle by tackling problems like physical inactivity or loneliness, there is an £8.50 social return.  

For every £1 invested in specialised health or social needs projects, which connect people to nature and cost more to run, there is a £6.88 social return.

Healthier and happier

Dom Higgins, nature and wellbeing manager at The Wildlife Trusts said: “Evidence shows that nature volunteering or taking part in a more specialised health and nature project really works. People who have low levels of wellbeing feel healthier and happier when they’re connected to wildlife and wild places.

“We want to see the concept of nature on prescription becoming a core part of the National Health Service (NHS) mental wellbeing programmes. This new report shows the enormous value of a natural health service.

“It’s also important to have more investment in Wildlife Trust outdoor volunteering which has been proven to improve mental, physical and social wellbeing.

“In addition, we need many more wild, natural places near to where people live and work – that way, green prescribing can be rolled-out everywhere. This would help the NHS save money – as well as help nature to recover.”

Conservation activities

Anne-Marie Bagnall, Professor of Health & Wellbeing Evidence, Director of the Centre for Health Promotion Research, Leeds Beckett University said: “Our analysis of the impacts on people taking part in Wildlife Trusts’ natureconservation activities shows an excellent social return on investment for people with all levels of wellbeing. 

“We can therefore say with confidence that, based on evidence from independent research, these programmes can be effective in both maintaining good wellbeing and tackling poor wellbeing arising from social issues such as loneliness, inactivity and poor mental health.

“The significant return on investment of conservation activities in nature means that they should be encouraged as part of psychological wellbeing interventions.”

Dr Amir Khan, GP and Health Ambassador for The Wildlife Trusts said: “There is a clear need to invest in nature-based services so that more people can benefit. If more people could access nature programmes I believe that we would see a knock-on effect in our GP surgeries, with fewer people attending for help with preventable or social problems arising from being cut off from others, not getting active or having a purpose.”

Encouragement and support

The Leeds Beckett University research demonstrates the value of projects such as Lancashire Wildlife Trust’s MyPlace which specialises in eco-therapy. 

MyPlace works in green spaces to support young people and adults to reduce stress, anxiety and many low-level mental health conditions – thus improving health, wellbeing and fitness.

For Simon, coming to MyPlace for help with problems including depression and social anxiety was life changing. He now shares his positive experiences with others by volunteering with the project.

Simon says: “Before coming to MyPlace, I would close myself off from the world. They offered me encouragement, support and how to expand my social skills. 

“MyPlace has made my transition back into life far easier and it’s helped my confidence and self-esteem. I thought my life was going to go one of three ways, I was either going to end up in a hospital, in a prison cell or on a slab. I did not imagine that I would be here, being able to offer what I do today.”

This Article 

This article is based on a press release from the Wildlife Trust. 

The police have failed to complete an investigation into the alleged illegal killing of 118 badgers by a farmer in a badger cull zone.

The alleged crimes were reported to an executive agency of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) by an employee.

However, evidence suggests that the government did not refer the matter to police – even though the killing of just one badger is so serious a crime that it can lead to a fine of up to £50,000 or a prison sentence.

Farmer’s admission

The confusion caused by the significant delays led to the alleged crimes remaining unsolved – but who is to blame for this failure? Police or government?

The police are supposed to have a neutral role as regards the badger cull, but recently it was alleged that a Devon cull liaison officer had been acting partially.

So what further light does the ‘118 badgers incident’ shed on the role of the police in relation to the badger cull? Badger culling began six years ago in the autumn of 2013 in two pilot cull zones: West Gloucestershire and West Somerset. West Gloucestershire’s cull began on 3 September.

In August 2013 the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA), an executive agency of Defra, received a report from a Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera) field worker who was surveying setts before the cull.

The report said that a farmer had admitted to the field worker and his colleague that they would “not find any badger setts that are active on his land” and that “he had got rid of 118 badgers”.

The field worker wrote his report on 19 August and said in the report that he had notified AHVLA’s field office (in Gloucester).

Knock-on effect

The pilot culls were due to start in 2012 but were delayed. Culls were only licensed by Natural England if the percentage of participating land in a cull area was at least 70 percent. In 2013 participating land in West Gloucestershire was 70.17 percent. The 0.17 percent equated to about half a km².

If the alleged crimes had been reported to police it is possible that the farmer (a cull participant) would have had to withdraw from the cull during the investigation and that if his land was over half a km², the whole licence for West Gloucestershire would have had to be revoked.

118 is a huge number of badgers. Badgers are territorial and rely on suitable habitat and an abundant food supply to subsist. These factors suggest that the farmer’s landholding was considerably larger than half a km².

Defra’s denials

In October 2013 it was revealed that badger population estimates in both cull counties had fallen dramatically in the course of one year. Some experts suggested that illegal killing may have had a part to play in the substantial drop.

At the time a Defra spokesperson said that the department had not received any allegations of illegal killing in the cull areas and that if anyone had any information about suspected wildlife crime they should contact police.

Replying to a Freedom of Information request submitted in the same month Defra said: “No evidence has been received by Defra about any illegal culling. Defra does not hold this information as it is not the department’s responsibility to arrest or prosecute individuals undertaking illegal activity. This is the role of the police.”

This denial was disputed by the requester, who asked Defra to conduct “adequate and properly directed searches to confirm whether information about illegal badger killing [in England in 2013] is held.” Defra reiterated that it did not hold the information. But it did.

Error admitted

Two years later, as part of preparations for a hearing in the First-tier Tribunal, this Freedom of Information request was re-examined.

In August 2015 Defra admitted that it did hold the requested information and disclosed the field worker’s report with the name of the farm and the farmer blotted out.

Defra confirmed that the farm was in Gloucestershire and that the farmer was a cull participant in the Gloucestershire cull zone.

When asked if they had reported the alleged crimes to police, Defra said: “We do not know whether this information was referred to the police.”

Considerable confusion

In 2015, once the field worker’s report had been disclosed, the alleged incident was reported to Gloucestershire police by a member of the public. A wildlife crime officer undertook the investigation and said that he was unaware of the incident being reported previously.

Although it was well over six months since the alleged offence had occurred (and therefore a prosecution could not be brought) the officer acknowledged the seriousness of the alleged crimes and wanted to speak to those involved and to investigate why it had not been reported to police by Defra, if that was the case.

Progress was slow, but by September 2016 the officer had been supplied with the report that identified the farm and the farmer. He contacted the Animal and Plant Health Agency (formerly AHVLA) to request the contact details of the field workers and the farmer, the farm’s location, the details of the AHVLA manager to whom the incident was reported, the police force to which the matter was forwarded and a reference number or an explanation as to why it was not reported to police.

Early on in the investigation the officer was removed from his post as wildlife crime officer and by the end of 2016 he had retired. After he had left the force and enquiries were made as to the investigation’s progress there was considerable confusion.

The new investigating officer said she had not been made aware of the final outcome. She could not find the unredacted report or government emails and could not contact the retired officer. When she approached APHA, she said that they could not locate the report and could not find anyone who had spoken with the original investigating officer.

Bombshell

When pressed – and after more time had elapsed – the officer obtained the report. Then she dropped the bombshell that the farm was not in Gloucestershire’s policing area but in Avon and Somerset’s policing area and that consequently Gloucestershire police would no longer be involved in the investigation.

She said that she had contacted ‘the relevant person’ in Avon and Somerset police who turned out to be the cull liaison officer. He drew attention to the fact that a prosecution needed to be brought within six months of the offence and expressed regret that his force were not notified of the incident at the time.

Three and a half years had elapsed since the field worker wrote his report and one and a quarter years had passed since the incident was reported to police.

It cannot be confirmed whether anyone working within Defra or AHVLA had deliberately withheld the field worker’s report and chose not to inform police. However, there is evidence to suggest that they did not inform police (while there is none to suggest that they did).

The original investigating officer and the Avon and Somerset cull liaison officer both indicated that the alleged crimes had not been reported to their forces at the time. If they had been reported in August 2013 – or even in October when the requester sought the information – a full investigation could have been carried out and a prosecution brought.

Did Defra fear that a police investigation would create negative publicity for its controversial badger control policy – or that it would delay the pilot culls for another year? We will never know.

Police impartiality

The original investigating officer was impartial and concerned with the truth. However, once this officer left, the investigation faltered.

Did the Gloucestershire farmer live in an Avon and Somerset policing area?  This claim is not wholly convincing. If it is true, it is odd that the original investigating officer did not realise this when he received the report disclosing the names of the farm and the farmer.

Was the investigation transferred in order to close it down?

It is alleged that a high-ranking officer from Devon and Cornwall police suggested to government that the badger protection law should be suspended in cull areas (‘legalising’ illegal killing). Do other senior officers share his views?

‘Idiots’

Why was the investigation referred to a cull liaison officer?

It has recently been alleged that a cull liaison officer in Devon police referred to badger cull protestors as “idiots” while he was advising cull operatives. There are claims that he also said that he would confiscate cameras set up to monitor cage traps. Devon police has said that appropriate action would be taken against the officer who had not acted impartially.

Whether the two cull liaison officers share the same attitude is unknown. However, it is logical to assume that it would be more appropriate for wildlife crimes to be investigated by a specially trained wildlife crime officer rather than an officer with a close relationship to badger cull participants and marksmen.

What happened to those 118 badgers? Were they killed illegally? Sadly, it is likely that the mystery – and the investigation – will remain unsolved.

Were the badgers’ corpses disposed of  below ground? If they were, then – thanks to the government and police – the truth was buried with them.

This Author

Anna Dale campaigns against the English badger cull. 

The latest State of Nature report makes for sobering reading. Many species are in serious trouble, falling in numbers and drawing back into ever-smaller strongholds as we close in around them, a pattern of decline going back hundreds of years.

In the rest of Europe, the story is frequently similar. In Germany, more than three quarters of flying insects have disappeared in just 27 years. Farmland birds across Europe have lost over half their populations since 1980. This is a crisis.

It is clear that something has to change. We can no longer pretend that existing conservation approaches are working. It is time for an ambitious, optimistic, forward-thinking programme to bring nature back to Europe.

Embrace forests

The challenge is significant and the stakes are high, but we have a chance now to restore our ecosystems, keep carbon out of the atmosphere, and bring wildlife conservation into the twenty-first century on our continent.

The first step is to embrace forests again – once familiar, now almost entirely lost – and restore them to their rightful place in our landscapes.

Forests are the among the best solutions to climate breakdown, and changes to our land use, agriculture and forestry practices globally would take us around 37 percent of the way to keeping warming below catastrophic levels.

It will be impossibly difficult to engineer a system more efficient at taking carbon out of the atmosphere, holding together the hills and supporting wildlife. Even better, allowing forests to re-establish themselves costs next to nothing.

So why, in most European countries, and particularly the UK, are we so unconcerned about having no real forests left?

Ancient woodlands

Forest cover in the UK is around 13 percent, one of the lowest levels in Europe. If you were to exclude plantation forests, grown only for timber and which suffocate biodiversity, this figure would fall still further.

Across Europe, the situation is much the same, although not to such a dramatic extent. Majestic, species-rich, carbon-absorbing ancient woodlands have largely been forgotten in favour of sparse, monocultural, neat rows of trees. This cannot carry on.

The good news is that doubling tree cover in the UK can be achieved with little or even no effect on food production, by prioritising land which is low-quality farmland but perfect for woods to flourish.

It’s not enough to simply have more trees, however, reforestation must take the form of restoring natural forests, not lining up further industrial woodlands.

One particularly strong reason for this is that over the same area, natural forests store 40 times the carbon of plantations.

Primeval lessons

True forests would provide a home for many of our declining species, enlarging and reconnecting the small fragments of remaining woodland in which they currently cling to life. More species are usually found in larger patches, and connecting separate islands of habitat means if a species is threatened in one area it has an escape route for establishing populations elsewhere.

The primeval forest of Białowieża National Park, in Poland, provides a blueprint for what more European forests could – and should – look like.

To a visitor accustomed to UK woodlands, this forest is at times a confusing experience; fallen trees are left to return to the soil, the forest hums with the noise of birds, bison, deer and wolves, and more species of tree, shrub and mushroom can be seen on a single visit than a lifetime spent in the UK’s woodlands. This forest teaches us that if we let forests manage their own affairs, they will thrive.

Dr Tomasz Samojlik from the Mammal Research Institute at the Polish Academy of Sciences said: “Until the late nineteenth and early twentieth century [Białowieża Primeval Forest] was not touched by ‘modern’, ‘rational’ forestry. It is an invaluable reference point for all European forest research, but only as long as we do not turn it into managed treestand.

“Any attempt at rewilding and restoring ancient woodlands should take the example of Białowieża and aim at including as little human intervention as possible.” 

Forest engineers

Of course, part of the reason Białowieża is so diverse is because it is a more balanced ecosystem. Without wolves and lynx, deer populations explode. This results in trees being stripped of their bark and dying, and the rate of survival for smaller trees is massively reduced or entirely cut off.

Once wolves were allowed to return to Yellowstone National Park in the USA, the populations of tree species which were dying out have rebounded strongly, as have many species of birds and mammals as the wolves reshape their environment.

Beavers are another essential ‘ecosystem engineer’. They create small patches of wetland which boost biodiversity and lock up more carbon.

The benefits even extend to dealing with the biggest problems facing wildlife today, like climate change, invasive species and disease – the more biodiverse a given area is, the more able it is to withstand external shocks that would demolish a less resilient ecosystem. As these threats grow in number and significance, bringing back nature to our forests will be essential for ‘future-proofing’ them to ensure they survive.

To restore our forests to their natural state, we must look for the species which once kept them fully functioning and bustling with life, and bring them back to do so again. This – not the idea of returning to a species mix which existed at some arbitrary point in the past – is why rewilding our landscapes is crucial.

Crossroads

We are at a crossroads in forest management in the UK and Europe. Subsidised overgrazing, over-management, and simply counting the number of trees as a measure of success are demonstrably not working, and we are passing up golden opportunities for natural solutions to climate change and the biodiversity crisis.

The resurgence of the rainforests, wildwoods, conifer forests and temperate broadleaved woodlands which would naturally exist in Britain, over at least double the area they currently cover, would begin to redress this imbalance.

This Author 

Steve Trent is the executive director of Environmental Justice Foundation. 

Image: Environmental Justice Foundation

The Size of Wales Mbale programme has passed its ten million milestone as climate change activist Leah Namugerwa and first minister Mark Drakeford plant trees on two continents.

The ambitious Mbale tree planting scheme, which is funded by the Welsh government’s Wales for Africa programme, plants trees in the heavily-deforested region of Mount Elgon region in eastern Uganda.

It is also supported by the Welsh government’s Plant! scheme, which plants two trees for every child born or adopted in Wales – one in Wales and one in Uganda.

Soil erosion 

Ms Namugerwa, 15, planted the 10 millionth tree in a special ceremony in Uganda. 

At the same time, Mr Drakeford planted a “twin tree” in Bute Park, Cardiff. He will be joined by children from Cwmcarn Primary School’s Eco team.

As well as fighting climate change – one of the biggest issues of our time – fast-growing trees protect local people in the Mount Elgon region from the effects of soil erosion, which can cause deadly landslides.

The trees also provide local communities with fresh fruit and shelter and an important source of income.

Trailblazer

The tree planting took place as Wales and the world celebrated the United Nations’ International Day of the Girl Child.

Leah Namugerwa is one of a new generation of young, female climate change activists, blazing a trail alongside fellow activist Greta Thunberg. Her work campaigning for tree planting and a ban on single use plastic has begun to have a significant impact across Uganda.

She was joined by 600 children from Makunda Primary School and the members of the Sunu Women’s Group, planted more trees to celebrate the project and its plans to plant 25 million trees by 2025. 

Mr Drakeford said: “The Mbale tree planting programme has been a great success, helping the most vulnerable Ugandan communities adapt to climate change.

“Tropical forests absorb nearly a fifth of all man-made CO2 emissions, making them crucial in stabilising the world’s climate.

“Planting trees in Wales and Uganda is vital in helping to tackle climate change, and helps the children of Wales feel a personal connection with their environment.”

enormous achievement

Elspeth Jones, director of Size of Wales, said: “The planting of the 10 millionth tree in Uganda is an enormous achievement.

“The programme has been working towards this point for many years and immense passion has been invested by a lot of people in both Wales and Uganda to make this happen.

“We are all extremely proud to see these trees being planted today to mark this amazing milestone. We hope that many people from all over Wales will visit our tree in stunning Bute Park and use it as an opportunity to learn about this wonderful project and the importance of trees in tackling the climate emergency. 

“We’re really excited about the next stage of the project, which is to plant 25 million trees by 2025 – anyone who wants to support this effort can donate to plant a tree in the project via the Size of Wales website.”

This Article 

This article is based on a press release from Size of Wales. 

Image: Wikipeda. 

The UK Ivory Act – which introduces tough regulations on the buying and selling of ivory from, to and within the UK – received Royal Assent in December 2018 but will now be subject to Judicial Review at the High Court on 16 October.

John Stephenson, CEO of Stop Ivory, said: “To lose this law before it has even taken effect would be a tragedy for Africa’s elephants. The UK is one of the world’s leading exporters of antique ivory and sends more to China and Hong Kong than any other country.

“Any legal trade in ivory provides cover for the illegal trade because it is difficult to distinguish between antique and newly carved ivory. Moreover, it fuels a continued demand for ivory by perpetuating its perceived value in the eyes of consumers and making it a socially acceptable commodity.”

Lobbying

The antiques lobby group, a company of antiques dealers and collectors called the Friends of Antique Cultural Treasures Ltd (FACT), argues that the Ivory Act is incompatible with EU law, which allows trade in pre-1947 ‘antique’ ivory. The group also claims the act infringes antiques dealers’ human rights by not letting them buy or sell ivory.

However, the European Commission is currently considering new restrictions on ivory trade across Europe which are based in part on the UK Ivory Act and even use similar language. Other countries, such as Singapore, Australia and New Zealand, have introduced, or are in the process of introducing, similar legislation also based on the Act.

Mary Rice, Executive Director of the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), which has campaigned against the ivory trade for decades, said: “The UK Ivory Act has been welcomed globally as an important step in stifling a demand for ivory which threatens elephants in the wild. So we’re extremely concerned about attempts by British antiques dealers to have the UK ban quashed.”

While the antiques trade claims the UK Ivory Act will result in “substantial economic damage” to the industry, ivory accounts for less than one per cent of annual sales in many UK auction houses.

The Act does not prevent individuals from owning ivory, from passing items on as family heirlooms or donating it to museums and includes a number of carefully crafted exemptions.

The UK Ivory Act also has the support of many African countries with significant elephant populations, which are calling for stricter controls on the sale of ivory abroad as they struggle to control poaching at home.

Poaching 

Thirteen African governments belonging to the Elephant Protection Initiative (EPI) signed a statement hailing the passing of the Act in 2018: “We believe the UK’s new law will … support and encourage enforcement efforts and initiatives to reduce ivory trafficking in Africa, and around the world.”

Approximately 55 African elephants are poached every day, an unsustainable rate of loss.

According to a 2017 survey, 85 percent of the British public are in favour of the UK Ivory Act.

A decision from the High Court is expected before the end of the year.

This Article 

This article is based on a press release from the Environmental Investigation Agency and the Elephant Protection Initiative.