Comments Off on Press Release: Wild Justice lodges complaint about Waitrose and Marks & Spencer selling gamebirds contaminated with toxic lead shot
Environmental campaign group Wild Justice has lodged a complaint to the Competition and Marketing Authority about false claims made by Waitrose and Marks & Spencer in relation to selling game meat contaminated with toxic lead shot.
Maximum legal lead levels are set for meats such as beef, pork, chicken etc. but not, utterly bizarrely, for game meat, even though the Food Standards Agency warns that, ‘Eating lead-shot game regularly can expose you to potentially harmful levels of lead. Those who eat lead-shot game should be aware of the negative health effects and try to minimise exposure.
Exposure to lead can harm the developing brain and nervous system. Minimising the amount of lead-shot game eaten is especially important for children, pregnant women and women hoping to conceive’.
Nevertheless, with a nod to growing concerns about the impact of toxic lead ammunition on public health, wildlife and the environment, in recent years both Waitrose and Marks and Spencer have stated publicly that they no longer stock gamebirds (Pheasants and Red-legged Partridges) that have been shot with lead ammunition.
However, research undertaken by Wild Justice during the last gamebird shooting season (1 September 2023 – 1 February 2024) shows that some of their products still contain high levels of lead contamination that would exceed the legal limit stipulated for other (non-game) meat, in some cases more than five times above the legal limit (Marks & Spencer’s Pheasants – here) and over 65 times above the legal limit (Waitrose’s game casserole mix – here).
The Competition and Marketing Authority (CMA) has a ‘green claims code’ that provides guidance for businesses making environmental claims about their goods and services. Wild Justice has provided evidence to the CMA that the claims being made by Waitrose and Marks and Spencer about no longer stocking game meat that has been shot with lead ammunition breaches the CMA guidance requiring marketing claims to be ‘truthful and accurate’ and ‘substantiated’.
Wild Justice said: “It is clear from our lab testing results that the repeated claims made by both Marks and Spencer and Waitrose that they no longer stock game meat that has been shot with lead ammunition are neither truthful or accurate.
“Our results also suggest that neither supermarket has undertaken independent testing to substantiate their claims that they no longer stock lead-shot game meat. Instead they appear to have relied upon assurances from their suppliers that the products are lead-free, and in the case of Waitrose this irresponsibility has continued even after we have made them aware of our results over a number of years.
“Marks and Spencer has now sold lead-contaminated game meat for two seasons since claiming to have gone lead-free and Waitrose has sold it for three seasons since making the same claim.
“Customers of these major supermarkets expect honesty and transparency about the products they buy, including the environmental impact of their purchases. They also expect not to be deceived about the risks to their health and that of their children by consuming poisonous meat.
“We look forward to the consideration of our findings by the CMA”.
Comments Off on Waitrose still selling gamebirds contaminated with toxic lead shot, despite telling customers it only stocks lead-free gamebirds
Lead is a poison and has been removed from many formerly common uses such as for water pipes and fishing weights, and in petrol and paints. But it is still legal to use lead ammunition to shoot gamebirds in the UK such as Pheasant, Red-legged Partridge, Grey Partridge and Red Grouse. Maximum lead levels are set for meats such as beef, pork, chicken etc. but not, utterly bizarrely, for game meat. The maximum legal lead level for most meats (other than gamebirds) in the UK is 0.1mg of lead per kg of meat, measured as wet weight (ww).
Following widespread public health and environmental concerns, in July 2019 Waitrose announced that by the 2020/21 shooting season it would only stock lead-free gamebirds. However, it didn’t manage to achieve this and blamed the Coronavirus pandemic for affecting availability.
In 2020, Waitrose made a further commitment and stated, “We are now pledging that by season 2021/22 all Waitrose & Partners game will be brought to bag without the use of lead ammunition” (see here) However, Wild Justice tests revealed Waitrose was indeed still selling game meat contaminated with high levels of lead in the 2021/22 season. Waitrose argued, entirely unconvincingly, that the affected birds must have acquired the lead from the environment (i.e. they’d eaten the lead) “because we have eliminated lead shot from our supply chain” (see here).
Waitrose didn’t appear to sell any game meat during the 2022/23 season but in January 2024 game meat was once again being stocked on its shelves so naturally we were keen to test it for lead content.
We bought ten Pheasant breasts, ten Partridge breasts, ten game casseroles (a mixture of venison, Pheasant, Partridge and duck) and ten whole Pheasants topped with bacon from Waitrose stores in Lichfield, Sandbach, Northwich, Uttoxeter and Cheadle All these products were marketed under Waitrose’s ‘No.1, the very best’ range.
We didn’t find any health warnings about consuming lead-contaminated meat on the game meat packaging or on in-store labels. Prior to its commitment to go lead-free, Waitrose game meat carried public health warnings.
The samples were all tested for lead levels by experts at the same laboratory that has tested all our samples in previous years, at the Environmental Research Institute, University of the Highlands and Islands, Thurso.
One of ten Pheasant breasts, three of ten Partridge breasts, six of ten whole Pheasants and nine of ten game casseroles contained high levels of lead exceeding the maximum legal limit in non-game meat – some of the levels were very high.
Fig 1: Levels of lead found in various gamebird products sold by Waitrose in January 2024
The median lead level for the 10 Pheasant breast samples was undetectable and the highest level was 3.53 mg/kg ww Pb, over 35 times the maximum for lead in non-game meat.
For the 10 Partridge breasts the median lead level was 0.06 mg/kg ww Pb, below the maximum for lead in non-game meat, and the highest level was 1.5 mg/kg ww Pb, some 15 times the maximum for lead in non-game meat.
For the 10 game casseroles the median lead level was 0.68 mg/kg ww Pb, nearly 7 times the maximum for lead in non-game meat, and the highest level was 6.59 mg/kg ww Pb, over 65 times the maximum for lead in non-game meat.
The median lead level for the 10 whole Pheasant samples was 0.19 mg/kg ww Pb, almost twice the maximum for lead in non-game meat, and the highest level was 1.38 mg/kg ww Pb, just under 14 times the maximum for lead in non-game meat.
Four of the ten whole Pheasants contained shot (which was removed prior to testing the meat). These four pieces of shot were chemically analysed and were found to be lead shot.
Lead is a poison. Some of these lead levels found in all four of the game meat products sold by Waitrose as part of its ‘No.1, the very best’ range would be illegal in other meats.
There is evidence that Waitrose has tried to move towards lead-free game meat (although little evidence for its game casseroles) but nevertheless it is still not adhering to its trading statement that it no longer sells game meat that has been killed with lead ammunition, nor does it appear to be undertaking independent testing to substantiate its claimed environmental credentials. That should be deeply concerning to Waitrose customers and of significant interest to the regulating trade authority.
Comments Off on Natural England attacks the principles of the Aarhus Convention
Wild Justice and Badger Trust are mounting a legal challenge against the decision of Natural England (NE) to issue licences for Badger culling, made after pressure from the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) under the previous government.
NE has asked the Court to increase the normal adverse cost cap (what you pay if you lose the case) from £10,000 to £20,000 for Wild Justice and from £10,000 to £30,000 for Badger Trust. The Aarhus Convention (to which the UK is a party) exists to protect citizens’ access to information, access to decision-making and access to justice. Taking legal challenges supported by the public is clearly in the ‘access to justice’ category. The £10,000 normal Aarhus cap is a quid pro quo – if we, as claimants win, we can claim back far less than we could under a non-Aarhus case.
We believe we have a good chance of success, but nothing is certain and we see NE’s unusual and aggressive move as an attempt to scare off legal challenges. We believe NE will best avoid legal challenges by making sound and legal decisions – if they appear to stray from the straight and narrow then it is in the public interest for their actions to be challenged and for the courts to decide one way or another.
Here is our joint press release:
Natural England trying to intimidate small badger charity and respected environmental group in ‘test case’
The UK is a party to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Aarhus Convention which protects the public’s right to access to justice for environmental challenges, because such challenges are in the public interest. Conventionally the adverse costs per applicant (payable if the legal challenge fails) are limited to £10,000 per claimant. However this week in a shocking development the Government’s body Natural England led by Tony Juniper has applied to the court to make the small badger charity Badger Trust pay £30,000 and the environmental champions Wild Justice £20,000 to take a case against them and Defra to conclusion. We have robustly responded to this unusual move.
The basis of the case is that Natural England’s own Head of Science called for the badger cull that began on 1 June 2024 and targets nearly 30,000 badgers for slaughter, to be halted as it would not affect the spread of bovine TB in cattle. This was overruled by the Chair Tony Juniper and the CEO Marian Spain, after Defra, under the previous Conservative Government, appealed to them to continue the cull to satisfy farming lobby sentiment. Therefore the cull is not being undertaken for disease control purposes.
The new Labour Government has recently announced that badger culling will end within five years and yet Natural England is aggressively defending a decision it was ‘encouraged’ to make under the previous regime which had a very different policy.
Peter Hambly Chief Executive of Badger Trust said,
“We are shocked that Natural England – a body supposed to conserve nature – is trying to intimidate us from taking legal action to protect nature. This is against the purpose of the Aarhus Convention and the way they are disregarding international agreements to continue with the ineffective slaughter of badgers shows how desperate they are to back a failed policy. Badgers are not the issue – cattle to cattle transmission is the overwhelming cause of bTB spread. If Natural England (and Defra) addressed this properly they would not be trying to subvert agreements like this. I think it is clear that Natural England is simply not fit for purpose.”
Wild Justice said,
“In Wild Justice’s previous legal challenges involving Natural England, Natural Resources Wales, Ofwat, Defra and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Northern Ireland) no public body has ever taken this stance. In such cases we are David and the public body is Goliath. Natural England is attacking the Aarhus Convention’s provisions on public access to justice. To quote from the Convention:
‘The subject of the Convention goes to the heart of the relationship between people and governments. The Convention is not only an environmental agreement, it is also a Convention about government accountability, transparency and responsiveness. It grants the public rights and imposes on Parties and public authorities obligations regarding access to information and public participation and access to justice. Moreover, the Aarhus Convention is also forging a new process for public participation in the negotiation and implementation of international agreements.’”
Comments Off on Natural England and Thursley Common
This was the scene on a Surrey heathland managed by Natural England – a heath with a panoply of designations to protect its wildlife from harm – one evening in June this year. The evening before, a group of local birdwatchers had been watching Nightjars feeding over this very spot. We are told that on the nights after this event no Nightjars were seen.
This site is also home to Woodlarks and Dartford Warblers as well as a variety of reptiles including Adders.
NE decided that such filming – on several nights and in several places – would not significantly harm the wildlife of this designated site and so gave permission for filming to go ahead. They were also paid a sum of money that NE have refused to disclose but which locals say was of the order of £30k – maybe 30 large pieces of silver?
NE has disclosed to us that these (see below) are the Nightjar breeding territories but any birdwatcher would know that Nightjars do not hop about on the ground in a small area to feed – they will be swooping around all over this heathland.
We find it inconceivable that wildlife was not harmed by this event (filming by a 100-strong crew with lights, artificial smoke, vehicles and horses) and we wonder whether NE would have given a private land owner permission to host such an event on similar land. We hope not – for the wildlife’s sake.
Comments Off on Dartmoor – commonly badly managedImage: Dartmoor by @venturaartist
This blog provides background to our legal challenge of the Dartmoor Commoners’ Council – see previous blogs here (22 July) and here (30 August).
The background to our legal challenge is that the UK has signed up to having 30% of our land area protected for wildlife by 2030 – that’s not far away. Dartmoor is, in theory, a protected area already but it is widely acknowledged that it is underperforming in terms of protecting the natural beauty and wildlife of this area. A range of bodies ought to be ensuring that Dartmoor’s wildlife prospers including Natural England (NE), its parent department Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), the Dartmoor National Park Authority and a few others too.
This is Dartmoor;
The Dartmoor National Park (green outline), areas of common grazing land (green stippled areas) and the areas designated as Special Areas of Conservation by the UK Government for their wildlife value. The two large blocks of land in the north and south of Dartmoor which are SAC are also predominantly common grazing land. Data from https://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx .
Much of the land which is of high nature conservation importance is also common grazing land which would be fine if those areas were in good condition for wildlife but they are not. NE has assessed these and other areas as part of its routine work. Last year we published a Wild Justice report, A Site for Sore SSSIs, which criticised NE for not keeping those assessments up to date (partly because of government cuts to budgets) and criticised Defra for those cuts and for the state of allegedly protected wildlife sites across England – click here for the report.
The NE assessments of the state of the land which makes up the SAC land can be represented as follows:
The Sites of Special Scientific Interest within the Dartmoor National Park. The condition of the SSSI units is indicated by the colours in which they are shaded; red, Unfavourable Declining; orange, Unfavourable No Change; dark green, Unfavourable Recovering; light green, Favourable. Data from https://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx .
All those red and orange areas are in poor condition and aren’t getting better, even the dark green shaded areas are in poor condition and there would be long discussions about whether they are really recovering (we won’t get into that here). Only the pale green areas are in Favourable condition and they, as you can see, make up a very small proportion of the total upland area.
When we tell you that all of the red and amber areas are common grazing land, and disproportionately high proportions of the dark green areas are also common land, whereas, very strikingly, the areas in good condition are disproportionately NOT common land, you’ll realise that the finger is pointing strongly at common land management as the key to getting Dartmoor habitats back into good condition.
This isn’t really a great surprise, but the very, very strong link between an area being common land and it being in poor ecological condition surprised us by its magnitude.
What’s going wrong on common land? The simple answer is overgrazing, although this is sometimes denied, particularly by those who are doing the overgrazing. Have a look at these two NE blog posts which spell out that overgrazing, particularly by sheep, and particularly in winter, is the cause of habitat damage – click here and here.
The latest of those blogs by NE’s David Slater states:
During the winter when grass availability is reduced sheep will browse the new growth of heather and bilberry. This grazing pressure will, over time, lead to a sharp decline in heather cover. [short passage omitted here to which we will return below] … In some areas our monitoring data suggests that heather cover has reduced from 25% to 1% over recent years. This data does, however, show that small heather shoots are present across much of the site – albeit in a fragile state and restoration would be possible with the right grazing management in place.
There is a phrase often used about grazing on Dartmoor along the lines of ‘The problem with vegetation management on Dartmoor is as much one of under-grazing as over-grazing’. This is true to an extent but can be very misleading. The intensive management of many areas of Dartmoor in the past (the 1980s and 1990s), was aimed at creating grazing for high densities of sheep. This involved burning (to encourage growth of more palatable and young vegetation) with high sheep numbers. These measures harmed the existing vegetation and provided the conditions for one particular grass, Purple Moor Grass, to flourish.
Sheep do not readily graze Purple Moor Grass but cattle will, in the spring and early summer, and so a common remedy for overgrazing of the previous vegetation by sheep is to instigate (often reintroduce) summer grazing of such areas by cattle. This gives rise to the remark about undergrazing being an issue – in other words, it usually applies to cattle grazing and rarely applies to sheep grazing moorland. That is why the short passage we omitted from David Slater’s blog (above, to aid clarity of his main point) reads;
The impact of sheep on heathland vegetation is further compounded by the over dominance of purple moor-grass (Molinia) from a lack of summer grazing by cattle and historic drainage. As purple moor-grass is unpalatable during the winter this results in the sheep grazing being concentrated on the drier heathland habitats further compounding the damaging impact of winter sheep grazing.
A main cause of Unfavourable condition of Dartmoor’s important wildlife sites is overgrazing and associated management. Who should be sorting this out? NE clearly has a major role because it has responsibility for the state of the protected areas. We think NE has been feeble in exercising its powers to enforce the right management practices on these wildlife sites. Instead it has tried, and we recognise that it really has tried, to negotiate voluntary agreements with land managers to reduce overgrazing. Instead of using a stick, it has offered carrots in the form of public payments (from your taxes) for better management. The trouble is that all too often those taking the carrots have given NE an ultimatum that they will take the carrots but they don’t want to go as far with reducing overgrazing as NE thought necessary. This was when it was time to wield a stick, we say. Things came to a head last year when, correctly (in our opinion), NE announced that it couldn’t renew management agreements because those agreements weren’t working – good for NE! There was a big hoo-ha, NE was criticised by local MPs, a review was called and it was decided that a talking shop would be set up. That doesn’t sound like progress to us.
Hen Tor, on an SSSI in Unfavourable Declining condition on Dartmoor. Photo by Tony Whitehead
What has been ignored by almost everyone, is the role of the Dartmoor Commoners’ Council (DCC) – our proposed Defendant in our legal challenge.
The DCC is a very unusual body, we don’t think any other National Park has an equivalent body. The DCC was set up by Parliament in the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 following widespread public concerns about excessive over stocking and poor animal care on the commons – you can look at the legislation here (it is pretty clear but some of it is written in very technical legalese that is unfamiliar to most of us).
The DCC was set up in order to maintain and promote ‘proper standards of livestock husbandry’, amongst other things, and it is clear that the drafters of the legislation, and therefore Parliament, had in mind ensuring that over-grazing did not occur. Part III of the Act, entitled ‘Regulation of the Commons’, states;
‘Subject to this Act it will be the duty of the Commoners’ Council to take such steps as appear to them to be necessary and reasonably practicable for the maintenance of the commons and the promotion of proper livestock husbandry thereon (including the assessment of the number of animals which can properly be depastured on the commons from time to time) and in discharging that duty the Commoners’ Council shall have regard to the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the commons‘. [Emphasis added in bold by us].
Later in Section III (section 5.1.a.ii) the Act states that;
The Commoners’ Council shall make regulations to ensure that the commons are not overstocked and, for that purpose, may fix or provide for the fixing of the number of animals or animals of any description which from time to time may be depastured on the commons by way of right of commons or of any other right or privilege. [Emphasis added in bold by us].
The wording of this act of parliament makes clear that DCC was set up with overstocking in mind. Parliament would have been well aware of the concept of the ‘tragedy of the commons’ where if people have unlimited access to a finite common resource (for example fish stocks) then the likelihood is that they will overexploit the resource to the detriment of all. The solution to such unwelcome outcomes is either voluntary restraint (which suffers from the free-loader problem (where it is always in the selfish short-term interest of an individual to exploit the restraint of others by continuing to overexploit the resource) or wise regulation. It appears to Wild Justice that the 1985 Act envisaged DCC as a source of wise regulation. However, the composition of DCC is largely, as the name suggests, commoners, and they arguably are the vested interest with most to gain in the short term from the absence of wise regulation.
Our legal challenge seeks to make DCC do the job that Parliament intended. On its website the DCC claims that the under the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 ‘the Dartmoor Commoners’ Council was established to represent the commoners‘ among other things. We don’t see those words, or those sentiments in the actual legislation.
Comments Off on Wild Justice challenges Dartmoor Commoners’ Council in High Court to tackle deterioration of wildlife habitats Hen Tor, on an SSSI in ‘unfavourable, declining’ condition on Dartmoor. Photo by Tony Whitehead
Wild Justice is taking High Court action in a bid to make the guardians of Dartmoor common land ensure the commons are brought back into favourable condition, which will include tackling the destructive effects of over grazing.
The not-for-profit company says the solution to the poor state of wildlife on Dartmoor is not another “talking shop” as recommended in the government’s response to the Fursdon Review earlier this year.
Instead, Wild Justice says the Dartmoor Commoners’ Council (DCC) should use the powers it has been granted by Parliament to enforce measures to bring Dartmoor’s wildlife back into the state demanded by existing legislation.
Dartmoor National Park covers 95,000 hectares, with 46,000 hectares of moorland, 36,000 hectares of which is registered common land. There are 92 separate registered commons on Dartmoor and 54 commons owners who grant rights for “commoners” to pasture sheep, cattle and ponies.
Parts of this common land in the north and south of the National Park comprise areas of nationally and internationally important habitats such as blanket bog and wet and dry heath. Large areas of Dartmoor are designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC).
DCC was formed by statute in 1985 for the express purpose of maintaining the commons and promoting proper standards of livestock husbandry, including the assessment of the number of animals that should be permitted to graze. However, in its application to the High Court, Wild Justice says DCC has not fulfilled its legal responsibilities for the following reasons:
Breach of the DCA 1985 – section 5(1)(a)(ii) DCA 1985 expressly requires DCC to make regulations “to ensure that the commons are not overstocked”. DCC chose to make regulations enabling it to issue limitation notices as a means of controlling stock numbers. However, DCC has not issued any limitation notices in at least the last 10 years, in breach of its statutory duties. Under section 4(1) DCA 1985, DCC is also required “to have regard to the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the commons”. As DCC has failed in the past 10 years to even consider whether to issue limitation notices for this purpose, it has plainly failed to discharge this obligation, says Wild Justice. Section 4(1) DCA 1985 also requires DCC, as part of its consideration of what steps are “necessary and reasonably practicable for the maintenance of the commons” to carry out an “assessment of the number of animals which can be properly depastured on the commons from time to time”. As DCC has failed to carry out such an assessment for the last 10 years, DCC is in breach of s.4(1) DCA 1985.
Breach of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA 1981) –under section 28(G) WCA 1981, DCC is under a duty to take reasonable steps to further the conservation and enhancement of the flora, fauna, geological or physiographical features of the parts of the commons that overlap with the Dartmoor SSSIs. As DCC has been unable to provide any documentation to show that it has considered this requirement, Wild Justice considers that it has failed to fulfil this duty.
Breach of Regulation 9(3) of the Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (Habitats Regulations) – Reg 9(3) of the Habitats Regulations requires DCC to have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directives when exercising its functions. This includes taking appropriate steps to avoid the deterioration of habitats and species for which an SAC has been designated. Even though there is a large overlap between the commons and the Dartmoor SAC, DCC has been unable to show that it has done anything to discharge this duty – in fact by failing to consider whether to issue limitation notices to control overstocking, DCC has in effect actively avoided taking any such steps.
DCC acting outside the DCA 1985 – the minutes of the DCC contain almost no consideration of DCC’s statutory duties under the DCA 1985. Instead, they reveal that DCC was “established to represent the commoners”. “Representing the commoners” is not within DCC’s statutory remit.
Wild Justice addresses the 2023 Fursdon Review which looked at the relationship between protected areas (such as SSSIs and SACs) and land management (mostly upland grazing and burning) on Dartmoor.
The Fursdon Review recommended the delivery of a Dartmoor-wide, landscape level, vision, supported by a clear delivery strategy. The Review recognised that the already existing Dartmoor National Park Authority’s (DNPA) Partnership Plan provides such a vision, but that it should be reinforced by the creation of a Land-Use Management Group (LUMG) sitting outside the governance structure of the DNPA. The LUMG would facilitate the development of a plan to improve SSSI condition and deliver government targets on Dartmoor.
In a statement submitted to the court Dr Avery says the plan is an inadequate response to the poor state of Dartmoor and adds in his statement: “The solution to the poor state of wildlife on Dartmoor is not another talking shop, but rather requires all regulators, which have been given powers by Parliament, to enforce measures that will bring Dartmoor’s wildlife into the state that existing legislation and government targets require.”
Wild Justice says that overgrazing, particularly by sheep in winter, is the key issue that is holding back the recovery of Dartmoor’s internationally important heathland habitats. This is particularly true on peripheral commons that comprise a significant proportion of its protected sites. They recognize that the spread of purple moor grass, especially on the central blanket bogs, which are also of international importance, is another key issue for Dartmoor. However, Wild Justice maintains that the control of overgrazing and the recovery of the heaths could be achieved if the Commoners Council used the statutory powers afforded to it by the Dartmoor Act.
It is hoped that the application for judicial review will result in a High Court hearing in which DCC’s statutory purpose will be clarified.
In a statement, Wild Justice said:
“DCC was set up with the duty and the powers to protect and enhance Dartmoor’s environment. The fact that all are agreed that Dartmoor is not in a good state shows that thing needs to change, starting with DCC’s reluctance to use the powers that parliament gave it.”
Wild Justice is represented by Carol Day and Ricardo Gama in the environment team at law firm Leigh Day. Solicitor Carol Day said:
“Our client is concerned about the parlous state of the Dartmoor commons and hopes this judicial review will clarify how DCC should be exercising its statutory duties to protect and enhance these nationally and internationally important habitats.”
For press enquiries, or questions about this case, please email admin@wildjustice.org.uk
Comments Off on Taking the next step with our badger cull challenge
Today we’ve announced we’re taking the next steps in our legal challenge of badger culls, alongside the Badger Trust. See the press release from our lawyers, Leigh Day, below.
Wildlife groups Badger Trust and Wild Justice have begun a legal challenge after the government’s nature conservation agency Natural England issued additional badger culling licences against scientific advice from its own experts.
The 26 supplementary badger cull licences authorise farmers to kill badgers from June to November, despite Natural England’s director of science advising that there was “no justification” for the action.
Natural England stated that one of its reasons for issuing the licences was to maintain the confidence of farmers in the government’s disease reduction programmes, as set out by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Wildlife charity Badger Trust and not-for-profit company Wild Justice, represented by law firm Leigh Day, will argue that Natural England issued licences unlawfully for the purpose of maintaining the confidence of the farming community, rather than for the proper purpose of preventing the spread of disease.
Licences for badger culling are issued to assist in preventing the spread of tuberculosis (TB) amongst cattle, a practice regarded as controversial but while operated within strictly limited periods of time was previously supported by scientific advice from Natural England.
In February 2024, the organisation received 26 applications for supplementary badger culling licences. However, its director of science concluded in April that, following four years of previous intensive badger culls, alternatives such as a vaccine meant that there was no requirement for further culling.
Despite this advice commissioned from its own scientists, in May Natural England opted to issue the supplementary licences spanning from 1 June to 30 November.
This was following advice from officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) about the consequences on their relationship with the farming industry if the licences were not granted.
Officials from Defra advised Natural England that abrupt policy changes would “seriously undermine” Defra’s ability to work constructively with the farming industry on future disease control.
A briefing paper on the licensing decision prepared for Natural England’s executive committee also identified the maintenance of the organisation’s relationship with the National Farmers’ Union and the farming community as an advantage of issuing the licences.
The licences were granted on 10 May 2024. Wild Justice and Badger Trust have now applied for judicial review of Natural England’s decision to issue the licences, arguing that Natural England:
Unlawfully exercised the statutory power to issue licences to kill badgers for the improper purpose of maintaining farmers’ confidence in the Secretary of State’s policy, rather than for the narrower (and proper) purpose of “preventing the spread of disease”.
Had regard to considerations that were legally irrelevant to its decision on whether to issue the licences. These included the consequences of the decision for its relationships with Defra and the “farming community”, and for its own budget and the wellbeing of its staff.
Failed to provide adequate and rational reasons as to why the licences should be issued after its director of science had advised that there was no scientific justification for issuing the licences.
“’The previous Conservative government leant on Natural England to approve these licences. Why would the new Labour government, which offered ‘change’ in its election manifesto, be prepared to defend that action in the courts? Not only is it not ‘change’, it’s spending taxpayers’ money on the previous government’s flawed decisions.”
Rosie Wood from Badger Trust said:
“Saying you don’t want to upset trade industry lobbyists is no reason to slaughter badgers. Natural England’s scientist said stop the badger cull, and it’s time for the new Defra Secretary of State, Steve Reed, to step up and stop this mess right now. TB is overwhelmingly a cattle-to-cattle spread disease. Follow the evidence – end the badger cull, stop this egregious attack on nature and stop misleading the public, farmers and the taxpayer.”
Leigh Day’s Ricardo Gama said:
“Our clients were surprised by Natural England’s decision to go ahead with issuing supplementary badger culling licences in spite of the clear advice from its own scientists that the decision would not be justifiable and would breach legislation intended to protect badgers. Our clients hope to persuade the court that the decision to overlook this advice in favour of maintaining relationships with the farming community was unlawful.”
Comments Off on We’re challenging over-grazing on DartmoorImage: Dartmoor by @venturaartist
Today we share the news that we’re beginning a challenge concerning the over-grazing of Dartmoor’s commons. You can read the press release from our lawyers, Leigh Day, below.
Wild Justice set to challenge over-grazing of Dartmoor Special Area of Conservation
Wild Justice is challenging the over-grazing of Dartmoor’s commons to try to help internationally important areas of heathland back into favourable condition.
The organisation has written to the Dartmoor Commoners’ Council (DCC) – the body responsible for managing livestock levels on the Dartmoor Special Area of Conservation (SAC) – calling for commoners (people who hold rights of grazing on common land) to be ordered to reduce stock on all Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) making up the SAC where grazing pressure is a problem (particularly from sheep in winter) so that their habitats can recover.
Its letter signals the start of a High Court process to challenge DCC’s failure to take steps to prevent over-grazing. If DCC fails to send a satisfactory response, Wild Justice will apply for a judicial review of DCC’s failure to maintain and enhance protected sites on Dartmoor’s commons.
The legal challenge is being brought because of responsibilities the DCC has to protect the Dartmoor habitats under the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA), and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.
Dartmoor’s commons are designated an SAC to protect four important habitat types: Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix; European dry heaths; Blanket bogs and Oak woods. These habitats are found on the six SSSIs making up the SAC. As a statutory public body, DCC has a duty to take reasonable steps to further the conservation and enhancement of the Commons.
Wild Justice launched the challenge following a request for information to the DCC under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, which revealed DCC had not issued any limitation notices over stocking levels in the past 10 years. DCC confirmed it had no documentation to show how it had taken account of “the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the area” as required by the WCA and it had no documentation to show that it had considered the requirements of the EU Birds and Habitats Directive, when controlling stocking levels.
In its letter to DCC, Wild Justice points to recent government data outlining the poor condition of the SSSIs that comprise the SAC. Natural England assessments show grazing pressure is a key reason for the unfavourable condition of 16 SSSI units: – 40 per cent, of the SAC. The wet and dry heathlands cover 10,280ha of the SSSIs but, according to the Natural England condition assessments and site checks, 90 per cent of these heaths are in unfavourable condition because of grazing pressure.
Wild Justice says there has been a failure by DCC to:
Make regulations to ensure that the commons are not overstocked;
Discharge its statutory duty under the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area;
Give effect to section 28G Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, by which it must take reasonable steps to further the conservation and enhancement of the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features which make the sites of special scientific interest; and
Give effect to regulation 9(3) of the Habitats Regulations 2017, under which it should issue any limitation notices to control overstocking.
In a statement, Wild Justice said: “Dartmoor’s commons are often regarded as a landscape of wild beauty, but the data shows us that they are not in a good state for nature. When over 90 per cent of its internationally important protected heaths are in unfavourable condition, and when we know that’s because of grazing pressure, then something’s got to change. Wild Justice is therefore asking DCC to use their power and responsibility correctly to make this change happen.”
Wild Justice is represented by Carol Day and Ricardo Gama in the environment team at law firm Leigh Day. Solicitor Carol Day said:
“The fact that grazing pressure is causing key wildlife habitats on Dartmoor to deteriorate is not new and is borne out by Government data. DCC is a statutory public body tasked specifically with controlling levels of stocking on the Commons with their conservation and enhancement in mind – our client calls on them to use the powers at their disposal as a matter of urgency.”
For any further press enquiries please email us on admin@wildjustice.org.uk
Comments Off on Disturbance of Surrey heathland – what can you tell us, please?
Nightjar. Photo: Tim Melling
Wild Justice has received information about an event on a Surrey lowland heath (which is a Site of Special Scientific Interest, a Special Protection Area and a Special Area of Conservation). Schedule 1 species such as Woodlark and Dartford Warbler are feared to have been disturbed during mid-late June through commercial activity as well as Nightjar, a pair of which were known to have been using this area.
We have written to Natural England to ask them what they know of this event, what action (if any) they are taking and whether they were involved in encouraging or permitting this event.
This is a necessarily cryptic account of things but if you believe you know about what happened please contact us by emailing admin@wildjustice.org.uk . Thank you!
Comments Off on Wild Justice & Badger Trust set to challenge supplementary Badger cull
Wild Justice and our friends at the Badger Trust have joined forces to send a formal legal letter to Natural England about its decision in May 2024 to grant nine new Supplementary Badger Cull licences and to authorise 17 existing licenses, which was contrary to the scientific advice of Natural England’s own Director of Science, Dr Peter Brotherton.
According to documents seen by Wild Justice and the Badger Trust, Dr Brotherton had advised Natural England that he’d found “no justification for authorising further supplementary Badger culls in 2024 for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease and recommend[ed] against doing so“. It appears Dr Brotherton’s expert advice was overridden in favour of not upsetting the farming industry.
Wild Justice and the Badger Trust have sent a formal Pre-action Protocol Letter to Natural England which argues that we think Natural England’s decision was unlawful. This letter provides Natural England with an opportunity to respond to our allegations by 15 July 2024 and if we consider the response to be unsatisfactory we may consider launching a request for a formal Judicial Review.
Here is a copy of our Pre-Action Protocol letter sent to Natural England yesterday:
This will be a matter with which Natural England will have to deal and, most likely, answer to a different Secretary of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, after this week’s general election. This could be our first legal challenge (in this case jointly with the Badger Trust) involving a new government if it progresses. We’ll await Natural England’s response with interest. The Defra Secretary of State, whoever it might be, is named as an Interested Party in the letter.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Alliance Party by Dara McAnulty
I am an author and environmental activist from Northern Ireland who believes that the environment must be protected both to help preserve the natural world and to protect the people who live in it.
In the past, I have participated in a local Stormont election where my single transferable vote preferences included Alliance party, Sinn Fein, Green Party and the SDLP. I am not a member of any party and have no real political connections other than support for parties that I believe can make a positive impact on the natural world and help people live in mutual coexistence.
We can see throughout this manifesto a focus on a ‘Green New Deal’. This shows at least on some level a desire to prioritise the environment within their policy making. This green new deal covers mainly the economic plan for a just transition to a fossil-fuel-free energy framework. This will be funded via tax rises on the super-rich who have benefited from the fossil fuel economy. This is a welcome statement considering the hellish climate cliff we are no longer teetering but charging off.
They also wish to pursue an end to the cruel and ecologically harmful practice of dog-hunting and also increase the protection of animal welfare. In addition to this pledge, the Alliance Party also states that it would ask for more funding for the Office of Environmental Protection. This will allow for a greater level of enforcement for environmental crime which has some of the lowest prosecution levels despite being a highly serious and damaging form of criminal activity.
Things I don’t like:
Although there are no policies that are directly in conflict with the environment, there are many key omissions. One of these key omissions is that there is essentially no mention of biodiversity or the natural world. The Green New Deal that they are showing support for mainly consists of ways of transitioning to a fossil-free economy and transforming agriculture.
They seem to have very little to say on local issues in their manifesto that they could be representing on a UK level such as the dire situation of Lough Neagh. However, it does seem to be a key issue for the Minister of the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA) has made various pledges on. This may be me being highly cynical but they appear to be campaigning on environmental issues that cannot be achieved by a small Northern Irish party and not on presenting the ecological situation of Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK.
Overall assessment: this manifesto does not appear to be in any direct conflict with the natural world. There is a very welcome and much-needed commitment to the transition away from fossil fuels and a greener more sustainable economy. We can also see that there is a focus on animal welfare and a ban on hunting with dogs which is an area where Northern Ireland trails behind the UK. There are, however, a lot of omissions in this manifesto with very little mention of conserving the natural world and key habitats such as Lough Neagh. These are issues that require a voice on a UK level to draw in a greater amount of nationwide support.
I see many policies necessary for the protection of the natural world but not a lot of bravery.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Social Democratic and Labour Party by Dara McAnulty
I am an author and environmental activist from Northern Ireland who believes that the environment must be protected both to help preserve the natural world and to protect the people who live in it.
In the past, I have participated in a local Stormont election where my single transferable vote preferences included Alliance Party, Sinn Fein, Green Party and the Social Democratic and Labour Party. I am not a member of any party and have no real political connections other than support for parties that I believe can make a positive impact on the natural world and help people live in mutual coexistence.
This is my review of the environmental policies set out by the SDLP in their election manifesto.
Things I like:
There is a detailed section within the SDLP manifesto for many different environmental issues that is larger than any of the other Northern Irish parties. A key pledge is the formation of an independent Northern Ireland Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement the government’s pledges to protect the natural world. Whilst this is admirable, it does not mention that we already have a Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) which has been held back by a lack of resourcing, legal powers and failure of magistrates to impose in full, the proper judicial penalties and fines.
The pledge to fight for a Lough Neagh Recovery plan is something that needed to happen a long time ago but with the current polluted state of the Lough, is all but essential now. This pledge extends to all bodies of water, to reduce the rampant amounts of water pollution. All our water bodies are in dire need of conservation efforts and better overall management of agricultural practices, land ownership and discharge regulation.
They also wish to establish an all-island animal cruelty register that will allow for the tracking of those people who are convicted of animal abuse thus preventing them from buying or owning animals anywhere on the island. This will help to combat the epidemic of animal cruelty and attempt to end the harm and inhumane treatment of the animals we live alongside.
Things I don’t like:
The SDLP does not say how the EPA will be protected and supported to ensure it can deliver on environmental commitments. Nor has the SDLP mentioned the role of the oversight body, the Office of Environmental Protection (OEP) and what role it has in supporting the NIEA does its job. My concern is that the creation of EPA is a headline grabber rather than an actual attempt to implement policy to ensure environmental protection.
Overall: this is a very detailed manifesto that covers a wide range of issues affecting the environment, and presents many different ways that policy could be used to aid the conservation and protection of the natural world. There is the issue of how the Environmental Protection Agency would operate but in general it some desire to attempt to resolve these issues.
This is a manifesto that sees the destruction of the natural world around it and provides a path to protecting it.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Labour by Caroline Lucas
I’m the former MP for Brighton Pavilion and the UK’s first Green MP. I’ve been Chair of the Climate Change All-Party Parliamentary Group and an active member of the Environmental Audit Select Committee. I’m also a former leader of the Green Party of England and Wales and was previously a Member of the European Parliament for ten years.
Unsurprisingly, I’m a longtime Green voter. My lightbulb moment first came nearly 40 years ago when I bought a copy of Seeing Green by Jonathan Porritt and started to fully appreciate the need for a party political expression of the environmental movement. Since then, I’ve seen the vital role that elected Greens can play in holding the larger parties to account and pushing for more ambitious solutions to the climate and ecological crises.
Labour’s commitment to “make Britain a clean energy superpower” was expected given it’s one of their five missions. However, I am concerned by Keir Starmer’s recent statement that GB energy will be “an investment vehicle, not an energy company” which, if true, would be a far cry from the publicly owned energy company that we were promised.
It is good to see no new exploration licences in Labour’s manifesto but I very hope that they will also halt production licences for oil and gas, as well as revoking those of recently approved projects like Rosebank, otherwise we will continue to see fuel poured on the fire.
Bringing the railways back into public ownership is exactly the kind of ambition that we need from Labour, and which has been more than matched by the Green Party manifesto, where it is coupled with investment to modernise our railways. The question that I had time and again whilst reading their manifesto was, why isn’t this bold thinking seen elsewhere (the water sector for example), and where is the investment?
The commitment to Improving our resilience to climate shocks was a pleasant surprise. Adaptation has long been ignored by Government, with the Climate Change Committee branding it “chronically underfunded and overlooked”. But will Labour put their money where their mouth is?
Things I don’t like:
Growth, growth, growth. With planetary boundaries at breaking point, and a staggering three planets required if everyone in the world consumed natural resources at the same rate as the UK, growth cannot be the objective in and of itself. Greens would develop new indicators of economic success that consider the wellbeing of people and planet.
I will never understand Labour’s newfound commitment to Brexit which has made us poorer as well as weakening environmental protections. Greens would want the UK to rejoin and play its full part in the European Union, as soon as the conditions are right.
Nuclear white elephants are hugely expensive, far too slow to build, and ill-equipped for the more flexible energy system of the future. Yet Labour has foolishly committed to new nuclear power stations, including Sizewell C which many have vehemently opposed not least because of its proximity to the Minsmere nature reserve, home to some of the UK’s rarest wildlife.
Although Labour’s manifesto commits to tackling the sewage scandal, it fails to get to the heart of the matter – the unmitigated disaster that is our privatised water system. Water is a public good, so the Green Party would bring it back into public ownership.
Things that appear to be missing:
I was shocked by the lack of detail on restoring our natural world. As the bare minimum, where’s the increased budget for arms-length bodies like Natural England and the Environment Agency? Or the funding to enable landowners to return land to nature? Or the pay rise to help farmers shift to nature-friendly farming and tackle our broken agriculture system which is driving biodiversity loss? They have even fallen short on improving access – committing to a range of slow and piecemeal measures, rather than a comprehensive English Right to Roam Act.
So many of my concerns about Labour’s manifesto come down to the lack of investment. According to the IPPR, not only is the UK the lowest investor in the G7, but Labour’s plans for government would involve more public investment cuts than the Conservatives have implemented over the last fourteen years. Let that sink in. Yet this is hardly surprising when they also refuse to consider measures to raise revenue and make our tax system fairer, such as a carbon tax or a wealth tax, which has been left out of political debates for too long.
Finally, the refusal to invest means that Labour’s manifesto is missing the street-by-street, local authority-led, home insulation programme that would cut household bills and ensure that everyone has a warm and comfortable home to live in. Indeed, it was their green homes programme that was hit hardest by their £28bn rollback last year, being cut to around £2.64bn a year. A decision which will cost us all more in the long run.
Overall assessment:
After fourteen long years of Tory rule and in the midst of a climate emergency, the country is crying out for real hope and real change, but Labour’s manifesto falls flat. I am therefore more convinced than ever that we need new Green MPs in Parliament, holding Ministers to account, and pushing them to be bolder and braver in protecting our planet.
Would I vote for these environmental policies?
What do you think?
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. They were commissioned by Wild Justice several months ago by approaching a wide variety of conservationists and environmentalists long before the date of the general election was known. Some people who originally agreed to write pieces found the date and short timescale impossible and had to back out. We did not know what they would write and their only brief was to pick one or two political parties’ election manifestos and tell us what they liked and didn’t like about their environmental policies. We didn’t tell people what to write and we haven’t edited what they wrote (except to squeeze things into a common format, to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors and typos).The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Recent past and impending future by Ben Goldsmith
Ben Goldsmith is an environmentalist and financier who manages the investment firm Menhaden which focuses on energy and resource efficiency as well as Nattergal Ltd, a new venture focused on large-scale ecosystem restoration. The Goldsmith family has been active in environmental causes with his late father, James, campaigning against genetically modified crops and globalised free trade; his uncle Teddy, co-founder of the Green Party and The Ecologist magazine; and his elder brother Zac being a government minister, including in Defra. Ben was a non-executive member of Defra’s Board for several years. He is a strong advocate for rewilding and changes to agriculture.
“One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. Much of the damage inflicted on land is quite invisible to laymen. An ecologist must either harden his shell and make believe that the consequences of science are none of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself well and does not want to be told otherwise.” Aldo Leopold
Our rivers are choked with human sewage and livestock slurry. Our seas, once among the richest found anywhere, no longer teem with fish. On land, formerly common wildlife species are now far from common; others are in freefall. Birdsong, colour, vibrancy have been all but drained from our landscapes. The UK consistently ranks among the most nature-depleted countries in the world.
And yet, all is not as it seems. During the last decade something has shifted. Anyone who has spent a lifetime caring about the natural world can’t fail to have noticed it. First quietly, then in a stampede, people have tuned into the vital importance of nature, not just as the source of everything that we have and everything that we love, but viscerally. We are nature. Nature is us. Our physical health and our inner sense of wellbeing are essentially nourished by spending time in nature. Increasingly people know it, and are seeking out wild places, learning about the importance of keystone species such as beavers, marvelling at the reintroduction of white storks and white-tailed eagles and complaining furiously at the state of our rivers. Poll after poll shows that the clamour for more and better nature is coming from all corners of society, rural and urban, young and old, political left and right. And it has been working, more than perhaps we’ve really noticed.
Imagine if you’d been told a decade ago that the entire farm subsidy budget would be underpinned by the principle of ‘public money for public good’, with all payments conditional entirely upon the restoration of nature; that further payments would be available for the good things restored nature does for us, such as protecting us from flooding and drought, cleaning our air and water and storing carbon; that a 25-year Environment Plan replete with ambitious, ratcheting targets would be given legal underpinning by a comprehensive Environment Act, policed by a new Office for Environmental Protection; that the UK would have created in a decade no-take marine reserves in its near-pristine overseas territories amounting to an area the size of the Indian sub-continent, as well as a suite of new marine protected areas in British waters with bans on trawling in a growing number of these; that the amount of British aid spending allocated to nature overseas would have risen from a few tens of million a year to more than a billion; that fishing for sand eels, the base of the whole marine food web in British waters, would be banned; that pine martens, wildcats, beavers (beavers!), wild boar, white storks, white-tailed eagles, golden eagles, ospreys, cranes and perhaps soon lynx would all be back and thriving in Britain.
There is so much more to do and much of this is far from perfect; but we ought still to allow ourselves a moment of satisfaction at quite how much has been gained in recent years. This has all been because of growing demands from the public for nature recovery. Which is why it is incomprehensible that Rishi Sunak’s Conservatives have been ‘green hushing’ the one pillar of their record in government that would delight nearly everyone if only they knew about it. Tory rhetoric on the environment during the last two years has been woeful, with some Tories seemingly undermining accepted science on nature recovery, pandering to conventional vested interests, launching attacks on the environmental arm’s length bodies and generally playing to an audience that polls reveal to be inconsequential. A large proportion even of Tory voters switching to Reform, a party with nothing good to say on the biggest set of issues of our time, say they do so in spite of their own personal concern for environmental issues. Conservative commentator Peter Franklin wrote just now that “Sunak’s decision to diminish the green Conservative legacy… was not only morally questionable, it was politically useless to boot.” Thankfully there have been few actual reversals or dilutions of policy, and all the best stuff simply rolls on.
Labour has never really considered itself the party of nature and Labour politicians, with the possible exceptions of Michael Meacher and Hilary Benn have never convinced voters that the party is interested in these issues. Tory DEFRA Secretary of State Michael Gove demonstrated more understanding and enthusiasm for nature than a string of earlier Labour ministers. That may now be changing. It is not lost on the Labour leadership that investing in nature is a genuine vote winner, especially among floating voters. Alongside the Liberal Democrats, Labour has wasted no time in pressing home the fact that the Conservative government has been slow to act on the universal despoiling of our rivers, although its own rivers policy says nothing more than the current government policy (Ofwat has recently been given powers to strip bonuses from water company bosses who break the law). It is excellent that Labour has promised to implement fully the new environmental frameworks put in place by the previous government, but the party has yet to guarantee the Environmental Land Management budget even in cash terms (which in itself is already woefully inadequate to the scale of the challenge); and Labour pledges to plant millions of trees and three new forests are meaningless without some kind of funding replacement for the Nature for Climate Fund, on which we’ve heard nothing yet.
While the detail from Labour remains short, as undoubtedly will be the money, sincere promises have been made. Meanwhile the Greens, usually the best bet for voters who place environmental concerns above all else, have spent what should have been their opportunity years fighting among themselves over gender and other social issues which seem remote to most voters, as well as trumpeting hardline positions on important but certainly not green matters such as Covid and Gaza, while calling for the kind of uncontrolled mass migration that frightens voters of both left and right. The Greens are distracted exactly when we need them.
Whatever happens in this election, the time is long gone when nature ranked in the psyche of politicians alongside stamp-collecting and Morris dancing as a niche interest. There is no going back. The public is finally awake; and we can see, hear, smell and feel the change that is already coming to our country.
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. They were commissioned by Wild Justice several months ago by approaching a wide variety of conservationists and environmentalists long before the date of the general election was known. Some people who originally agreed to write pieces found the date and short timescale impossible and had to back out. We did not know what they would write and their only brief was to pick one or two political parties’ election manifestos and tell us what they liked and didn’t like about their environmental policies. We didn’t tell people what to write and we haven’t edited what they wrote (except to squeeze things into a common format, to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors and typos).The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – You can bet on this! by Chris Packham
Chris Packham is many things, including a co-founder and co-director of Wild Justice. Here he writes in a personal capacity.
(To the tune of Queen’s ‘It’s a Kind of Magic’)
It’s a kind of chaos . . . It’s a kind of chaos . . . It’s a kind of chaos
(Only instead of being an uplifting 1980’s anthem this is a 2020’s statement of abject misery – more Morrissey than Mercury)
But it’s true, and you don’t need me to tell you that, either from the political or environmental point of view. But just in case you have been on an intergalactic cruise in another part of the universe, here goes
Our rivers and seas are full of shit . . . party-gate
One in six UK species are in danger of extinction . . . Rwanda-gate
It’s the twelfth time in a row that monthly world temperature records have been broken . . . 28 billion green investment ditched-gate
National Parks in nature poor condition . . . the view of the New Forest from Chris’s-gate
Its endless, but let’s not forget the Faroese and Icelanders murdering whales . . . and ditch Net Zero-gate, and farmed salmon, and fox hunting, and . . . and the badger cull, and the glyphosate glut, and, the . . . the total lack of accountability in not just the government but life, and the sickening behaviour of the right wing press. No gate there, apparently its not even a scandal, it’s just a way of life – they pervert, lie and demonise and people believe it. Except us eco-mobbers.
Lovely eco-mob action last Saturday. We were all there in London, not on the cosy pavement but in the road. Mark with family, Ruth with friends, Lucy with a microphone, Tina with a placard and Chris with the headache of trying to make it work. It was telling that finally nearly all the movement marched to the same tune for four and a half hours. What made that happen do you think? Well, I think it was a cocktail of ingredients, some sweet, some sour, but the frilly garnish on top was fear. Because whether we and our supporters like it or not we have maybe, almost-just-a-bit, found the guts to admit that we are not meeting the mark in our mission to properly protect our wildlife. Yep, it’s true and here’s an example of why . . . I sat in my garden working on Sunday. A fair bit of it is given over to wildflowers and it’s doing okay, quite colourful, quite diverse. It was sunny and warm. In three hours I saw one butterfly. One lonely Meadow Brown.
I don’t mind telling you that it made me very scared. I thought that maybe we have already missed our chance to restore nature now. I was going to ring Mark and say ‘I think we might have already blown it. I think it might have gone beyond recovery already’. Whatever, or how-many-ever butterflies you might have seen on Sunday, that is not a good sign. It’s an omen, an ominous omen. A portent, a sign that our wildlife is on its knees and we cannot wait to do what we need to do any longer.
Image: Meadow Brown by Iluvis (Pixabay)
We at Wild Justice try hard to do what we need to do. We need to lead on some issues which others can’t seem to find the gumption to confront. We have to make a legitimate legal noise, get a bit beaten up, a bit ostracised, a bit ‘themmed’ . . . but then after a while people seem to find some comfortable ground behind us and things shift a bit. Maybe Wild Justice are the Just Stop Oil of the conservation movement . . . or if not, maybe the conservation movement needs a JSO type of team . . . now that’s got me thinking.
We set the date for the march and then Rishi organised an election. Thanks Rish, perfect timing, added some real focus to one part of the purpose of the march – to show the next government that a) we are here, b) there’s lots of us (it was the biggest pre-election protest to date) and c) we have united and we will be back. Only next time with some actual focused demands.
One thing that I could smell in the throng all afternoon was discontent. The crowds reeked of it, I could feel the sense of having been cheated, there was a constant murmur of disapproval and a nip of raw anger. And you know what we Brits are like with anger, we let it simmer, we ignore it or even pretend its something else, until it builds up to a point when we suddenly EXPLODE! I wonder what the environmental movement will look like when it explodes? I fear that it might be just as ugly as every other movement that is forced to finally give up on trying to progress through the ruins of democracy, being patronised, ignored, sold-short, side-lined or shunned. I’d rather we get our demands met without a big bang but because we simply have to win our arguments I’m ready to embrace whatever it takes.
Image by Denise Exon, placard by unknown
That’s why we should all think about the election. We will be banging on the door of the next government within weeks demanding the changes that will not only save our species but secure our planet’s future too. So who do we want to meet when they open it? Who do we not want to be shouting at through the letterbox? Maybe more importantly to us as individuals – who do we want in our constituency office? You know, the real person that we will be able to talk to, inform, lobby or chastise face to face, in the arena that really counts. So who are you candidates? Do they know anything about the parlous state of the planet? Do they really give a monkeys about wildlife? Do you think they actually care or are they just a power-hungry primate who, with one X too many in the ballot box could be more of a problem than part of the solution?
It’s clearly important. It’s probably the most important election ever for us. The climate scientists have given us five years to act, the same five years that our votes will impact on 4 July. It’s your decision. But please don’t fall in with the idea that marking a piece of paper with an ‘X’ will suffice. That’s just like thinking the Direct Debit which keeps trickling cash into your ENGO’s bank account means you can relax because ‘they’ will fix it. ‘They’ will not fix it, neither the government or the ENGO’s will fix it. That will be down to you. So please don’t wake up on 5 July and think that the part of your job as a human who cares about life will be taken care of by the next government . . . because, as your candidate for the LOVELIFE party, I can promise you that it won’t. And you can bet on that!
Remember – they won’t. Only we will. Only you will. Please be willing.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Conservatives by Derek Gow
I am a wildlife ecologist who has worked on reintroduction projects for species such as the water vole, Eurasian beaver and the white stork. I have written three books, the last of which – The Hunt for The Shadow Wolf – was published by Chelsea Green in March 2024.
This is my third manifesto review to date – it’s the Tories and I just can’t summon a hip hooray that’s honest – so shall we move on with it ?
Before we start with anything relevant, let me tell you my own personal Boris story, as it illuminates quite aptly what follows hereafter. Professor Richard Brazier from Exeter University introduced him to me. I am unclear as to just how exactly they first met. While it might have had something to do with the boxes of Kalashnikovs and RPG’s in the back of the pick-up truck he drove up to our rendezvous on Exmoor and the Aldi bags laden with greasy £1000 notes that replaced them on our way home I just really can’t say.
But they were embarrassingly close.
When we got to his dad’s farm, Richard suggested that we should ingratiate ourselves to him by providing the beaver pelt – which I generally carry with me as an emergency spare – to him on the basis of no evidence whatsoever that it was a tradition of the ancient Britons to swaddle their first-born sons in the skin of this absorbent creature. I duly did so to Boris’s delight. He asked me if I thought the Romans might have worn the species as head dress when they surged through the surf around Colchester to invade our shores nearly 2000 years ago. I said it was unlikely. When he asked again, I said that I really thought not as nowhere at all in the Testaments of Asterix did it infer that anything other than beasts of a carnivorous kind were employed. Lions, bears, tigers and leopards are after all illustrated in his historically accurate tome.
Beavers with their big buck teeth are not.
Unimpressed he surged off through his father’s fields to a nearby mound where the sightless eye slits of the slim cadaver bobbed gently in the breeze above his own. There in silence he stopped, hands on hips, defiant, to view ? – well nothing much at all. An odd curious sheep of a simplistic disposition and some sniggering rabbits where the long grass met the bracken.
A noble gesture of a quite utterly meaningless sort.
But when we as a nation began our relationship with the Conservative party sooooooo long ago, it was slick Dave who wooed and won us. ‘Vote blue, get green’ was his manifesto slogan which, once elected, really only helped his pal Creepy-George Osborne ensure that HS2’s destructive tracking was rerouted around the perimeter of his constituency’s most wealthy pals at a cost of £93 million a mile.
Homes for the blind and orphanages were demolished to provide its foundations.
We were never together in the pain he imposed upon us.
Simply awful people with twisted personal bents were disposed of, on DEFRA. Owen Paterson; who blamed badgers for moving the goal posts before old Fred, his gamekeeper, reminded him through his ear trumpet it was actually buzzards. Therese Coffey insisted that nature did not matter – if indeed what she actually snuffled was interpretable at all – before dropping more food down her front and quaffling another cigar. Gove tried – sincerely or not – and for a time made a difference while Zac Goldsmith who could have ably accomplished so much was never allowed anywhere near the levers of power.
International and oceanic achievements were fine but he made no decisions on beavers.
And now, as we face the end – no longer Boris on the prow facing the oncoming hordes boldly – just Rishi the rodent bolting from burrow to burrow, what’s left to expect?
Well, more help for farmers without sanction. Yes, they will keep ELM going until, one day, they strangle it before announcing that they haven’t. Agriculture as normal which the government’s own figures suggest is 0.6% of GDP – nearly as much as the wrapped sandwich and toy industries combined – is worth only 50% of the cosmetics industry and yet it will continue to receive somewhere in the region of £4 billion ring-fenced to remain afloat. Some of the industry’s ills will be alleviated by reinstating ‘national service’ for farm serfs in the fruit-picking landscapes of the eastern squirearchy, who will pay them a pittance to be abused.
There will be no changes to the Hunting Act, so if your grandmother has a coronary, wandering packs of hounds on a B-road at midday will halt her ambulance until her blood clots.
That’s guaranteed and ring fenced as well
Natural England – who are toothless to the gums already – the good people left when they were told to stamp Letterset licences for badger assassination – along with the Environment Agency will have their remits repurposed to ensure that they trouble not the sloppers of slurry into our drinking water supply; more forests full of Sitka will be built; flooding will be solved by ‘natural solutions’ which don’t involve more wetlands; the disease-ridden damp routes which transport pesticides, cocaine and condoms to our dying sea will be purified in an instant and another national park which will fail before it’s begun will be inaugurated.
Livestock worrying will be cured by sheep feng shui which will assure them emphatically that they are not born to die.
In a bells and smells sort of fashion.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Honestly, it’s all too late and too pathetically unconvincing even if it appeals to anyone at all. If you care at all about the environment or your children’s future in it then just don’t vote for these despotic odd balls.
The damage they have done runs deep enough.
In conclusion the only thing I was intrigued by were their plans for Sycamore Gap.
There they have promised to heal.
A 25ft beige weiner, purchased or pinched from outside a fuel station – cause their funding is pretty tight – will be positioned to flail in its new location atop the stump where the mighty tree once stood. Forever after will this noble monument flatulate in memory of both the tree and Tory benevolence towards it.
Until the very next day when it’s burst by a shrew.
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. They were commissioned by Wild Justice several months ago by approaching a wide variety of conservationists and environmentalists long before the date of the general election was known. Some people who originally agreed to write pieces found the date and short timescale impossible and had to back out. We did not know what they would write and their only brief was to pick one or two political parties’ election manifestos and tell us what they liked and didn’t like about their environmental policies. We didn’t tell people what to write and we haven’t edited what they wrote (except to squeeze things into a common format, to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors and typos).The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – The Green Party by Jasmine Isa QureshiJasmine Isa Qureshi
I am a transdisciplinary ecologist, multimedia journalist, marine biologist, poet, researcher and writer. I have worked / published across multiple topics including conservation practice, ecology, identity, race and sexuality, worked with collectives and campaigns as a facilitator and educator, and I’m an ambassador for the Bumblebee Conservation Trust and Green Jobs for Nature. I sit on the advisory committee for RSPB England and I’m the Communications lead for Wildcard (a grassroots rewilding organisation).
Voting actually never appealed to me when I was younger.
I grew up in the shadow of disparity in inner city London, watching the dismal legacy of governments now and past gone, chipping away at the meagre support and services presented as presents to the people in mine and others communities. Nature speckled here and there but it mostly became lost in the fumes and mortar.
Voting seemed an aspirational move, one you took when you had enough time to talk about it to a friend. Muslim families aren’t always ones to discuss the politics they suffer under at the dinner table, and mine was only different in that my father always spoke politically, but to tether his words to exact policies I would struggle to do so.
Tories were off limits, at least that much was clear – we certainly scoffed and ridiculed their members more than enough to put those younger in the family off of even going near a conservative manifesto. Greens were joked about – we never received enough knowledge as a family, or enough trust that they would change things, to even consider them a party to vote for. Labour…well labour seemed the only hope. The desperate plea for some shift in the grey, disillusioned environment we moved slowly through. But then we became disillusioned further, leading to some of us giving up voting altogether (I almost did, as the combined lack of information and hopelessness surrounding politics seeped in.
Then hit 2015. My first time voting was in 2017, a couple of years after this – the year Jeremy Corbyn was voted in as leader of the Labour party – and at last something gleamed in the shipwreck we were drowning in. I’d learnt more, been more active as a young global majority speaker and writer, obsessed with wildlife and finding joy in an ever growing love of insect biodiversity, and was determined that at last, I’d be able to put my trust in someone who stood up for the people and environments I’d seen so downtrodden growing up. I voted in that election with a joy and hope I don’t remember ever feeling previous, and haven’t really felt since.
The disaster of a campaign that followed snuffed that out as fast as it came in.
I voted Green in 2021. Greens became to me something that I think my family viewed Labour as growing up. That desperate hope for change.
But now I view change differently. Gone are the days where I assumed a singular avenue as a direction for change, and gone are the days where I attribute that change to one person or even one group. Now more so I view change as multi-level, I view it as disruptive, and I view it as significantly a movement with an “undermining of previous stagnant linear structure” quality. My ever evolving view of nature and people as intertwined mechanisms and multiplicities in whatever environment we all exist in (because we will ALWAYS exist in the same environments), has opened up my perspective on what change is and how we will get there. I believe in the quality of questioning and understanding what we are told, and in the spirit of this, I think it only right to break down something often presented – in my opinion – extremely inaccessibly; the political manifesto.
This is my review of, and my thoughts about, the environmental implications of the Green Party election manifesto.
Things I like:
I like the fact that nature is mentioned in everything. Pretty much the majority of the manifesto makes reference to climate and nature, and intertwines the “everyday” faculties and services we need, with environmental implications. This highlights the fact that whatever we do, whoever we are, nature is affected and in turn this will affect us all.
Let’s begin, with the provision of “greener” homes – it looks very promising – stating how the Greens will change the policies that exist around housing to ensure local councils are able to provide green spaces for communities, reduce the environmental impact of new construction (Greens say they will campaign to change building regulations so that all new homes are require house builders to include solar panels and low carbon heating systems) and require local authorities to spread small developments across their areas, rather than build concentrated large estates.
This could do away with large, corporate land ownership where houses are built en-masse and neither cared for nor supported infrastructure wise.
This is MASSIVE in a country where housing development and building development has such a huge impact on the environment. This is usually because the materials are sourced unsustainably, and high carbon emissions are produced from pollutive resources and nature unfriendly practices, not to mention there are often hugely negative effects on local wildlife and biodiversity, because of unsupported, low quality standards of living that disregard peoples connection to a healthy environment – locally supported and sustained, good quality housing could counter this.
They’ve backed up their ambition with practicality, and I’m impressed with the attention to detail on energy – there is a lot that is mentioned on how they will adapt new and old buildings to be more energy efficient. This again is something often overlooked in the fight for a greener future – we have a large percentage of the population that is not provided with an efficient means to thrive in an environmentally friendly fashion, thus the support of these communities in order to create a society whereupon there is easy access to climate friendly housing, etc. will SIGNIFICANTLY help the environment and biodiversity thrive, due to a thriving atmosphere and climate.
Not to mention, the possible divestment this could trigger from corporate energy companies that profit from our current highly inefficient means of energy production, and that are at the root of the biodiversity and climate crisis around the world.
The Greens continue strong, dipping further into energy policy, doubling down on a phase out of fossil fuels, stopping all oil and gas extraction projects, cancelling fossil fuel licences, and my personal favourite part – “Government will have failed if the infrastructure for sustainable energy generation is primarily in private hands”. Greens say they will push for all and any ownership of sustainable energy infrastructure to have a minimum ownership by community (is this a reference to local council or just community representatives? Perhaps. Maybe we should take it with a pinch of salt).
If we care about the environment, we should be pushing for the agency of our systems to be public and community led, and if the Greens mean what they put down here, this is a big step towards that.
Ok, we’ve got community energy, and there’s an emphasis on net-zero economy and sourcing renewable energy too – the Greens say they are determined to move towards an economy that doesn’t rely on fossil fuels, and that they’re aware that this could pose problems in a system that has so many of us reliant on those fuels and sources, and that in-lieu of this they will push for a just transition that is led by workers and unions.
One of my biggest peeves (to put it lightly) with manifestos or groups that campaign for futures without toxic energy sources or products, is that they tend to forget the huge amounts of people in underprivileged communities who rely on these products and processes (not by fault of their own, but by fault of a constructed system of exploitation and disparity where they have no choice due to personal financial / other instabilities). The Greens are showing that they have a plan to ensure this change is sustainable, and not just for those who can afford it right now.
Bringing Nature back to life. Every environmentalist’s eyes light up reading those words. The Greens admit something here that we’ve been talking about for years and something that frankly, is quite a hard sentence to say; “we are one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world…”. That introduction sounds terrible, but it gives me hope for the rest of this bit, because it means an awareness that we desperately need to do something. The biggest part of this new chapter for the UK is the Rights of Nature Act – a set of policies which, if implemented, allows there to be legal personhood assigned to ALL of nature. Again, something that I like because it covers so many bases, and doesn’t signify the need to protect nature as simply a resource, instead perhaps provisioning direction towards a mutual respect of “nature” as a complex set of entities and interactions.
The phase out of harmful pesticides that is mentioned, and the push for interconnected climate and nature protective policies, that also makes reference to clean air and the right to breathe clean air, once again gives me hope that this party understands the inherent need to have interconnected policies that protect people AND wildlife, which seems to me the only way to build an alternative system of sustainable growth and rich social health and biodiversity.
The Access to Nature section flows nicely from this, setting out a pathway towards providing a Right to Roam Act for England (they don’t snip this from the air either, it’s based on a model already at work in Scotland), which is bolstered (if you had any reservations perhaps – as I did – about this being only for those with access to land already or access to financial support / transportation) by the emphasis on campaigning to ensure equal access for everyone to live within a short distance of “nature-rich” greenspace. I especially like the focus on “rewilding urban areas”, in this section – “reintroducing nature into our urban environments” includes (widespread?) tree street planting, hedgehog holes in fences, swift bricks and bee corridors, not to mention conservation worker training being made more accessible and available. All things that make me feel once again, there is an understanding of nature and people being connected in this fight.
The element of “right to roam” that scares people most I think is the uninhibited access to nature, which can often result in destruction or abuse of said nature. I have an issue with the premise of this argument – the current model of nature access (without the right to roam act) appears to be one of people with primary access to nature (referring to those with gardens, access to reserves, SAFE parks, etc. – meaning they are financially supported in order to be transported or own transport to these environments), and the luxury of learning about ecology and developing a “love” for wildlife (remember, care is developed – lived experience, environmental and peer pressure, plus a healthy access and involvement with nature, all influence and develop care for nature), being the ones to decide that no one else who has not been afforded these luxuries is allowed to develop this same care and compassion. The right to roam act should be brought in with complexities that the Greens do reference – “renewed and strengthened Countryside Code which sets out clearly the rights and responsibilities when accessing nature” – and changes to educational access which will be brought by the campaigning for injection of green spaces into any place you live in. If the only argument against this is that “we’ve seen that people don’t care so they shouldn’t be allowed in”, then I’’d say you need to re-approach why it is they “don’t care”, who it is you’re referring to, and what systemic structures and limitations have ensured so many “don’t care”.
I like the emphasis on the de-privatisation of utilities as I’ve mentioned, and I like the intention to end the culling of badgers, another inherently void-of-evidence conservation practice that has been disproven time and again by conservation organisations and yet seems to still persist, due to backing by collectives of influential farmers and landowners.
Things I don’t like:
I would say that I’m not someone easily impressed, but I must say, there isn’t a lot that I don’t like about this manifesto. Perhaps that it might be too ambitious? I’ve seen it written that the aim to achieve Net Zero by 2040 as opposed to Conservative and Labour aims of 2050 is not realistic or achievable, and that it is made harder by the abolition / phase out of nuclear power, and that the mass injection of renewable energy – primarily that of wind farms – is not realistic and actually is harmful.
To that I’d say that maybe we NEED ambitious protocol. We need ambitious policy reforms, and we need ambitious and radical change for an environment that is coughing and spluttering due to a fundamentally non-radical and soft approach to what vulnerable and underprivileged communities need (animals and humans). The other political parties have laid out manifestos that offer something different by a couple of years than the greens ambition, and not only this, but the greens have offered solutions to ongoing problems that I’d say are so disastrously ridiculous, that they require huge shake downs in order to be countered. I will say that what is also required here is continued support of people who already rely on these resources, and whilst the Greens do say that they want a just transition towards net zero, I would pressure them to say exactly how this will be achieved.
Nuclear power being divested from is not a bad thing – Nuclear power might offer a certain type of “green” energy, but the infrastructure required to nurture that to be a safe resource, that doesn’t harm people and wildlife, and that doesn’t produce copious amounts of toxic waste, well that infrastructure doesn’t exist due to previous governments, exploitative investments and policy, and limited budgets.
I don’t really like the injection of so much wind energy – the Greens do state that they want to pave the way for wind to provide 70 percent of the UK’s electricity by 2030; wind energy is one that doesn’t use power resources that are toxic to the environment so this all sounds amazing, however the production of so many units could in of itself lend to the destruction of environments elsewhere in the world (depending on the production), as the materials turbines are made from aren’t necessarily recyclable (the blades themselves particularly), however there is shown to be scope to reuse the parts in building other machinery.
The transportation of so many units to various parts of the country (or offshore as is mentioned) could also produce considerable emissions. Wind turbines themselves are also responsible for the deaths of many thousands of bird species due to the positioning of them in areas and heights where the animals will come into contact with the blades, and can drastically disrupt the flight patterns and migration paths of thousands of birds – the counter for this and a big pressure on the Greens would be to ensure that there is very careful planning in terms of where these turbines are placed (even offshore this must be considered – marine organisms are affected negatively often when the correct protocols are not put in place), and that they don’t disrupt environments and nature in such huge ways as a lot of the wind farms we see now do (due to the factor of, well, wind, turbines can only work when the wind blows, thus many are often required in order to produce enough energy).
However, there is a significant emphasis in the manifesto on funding research into innovative ways of constructing energy resources, so Greens, please consider altering past bad practices of wind energy production. And we must also remember that if renewable energy is to be relied upon in a manner that is realistic and achievable, there will need to be more weight placed on resources such as wind energy, or we’re back to square one again and would have to also rely on fossil fuels and oil companies.
Things that appear to be missing:
It’s that hope thing again. But this time not the metaphorical, but the realistic. The reason that all those years ago my family wrung their hands and turned to Labour was because not only did they see a different set of values and policies than the system they were living in that would help them, but they also saw a tangible chance of that hope becoming a reality.
The greens are an invaluable asset it seems in the fight for green new futures, and whilst they do need a more robust directive when it comes to:
Right to roam processes (the model is there, and the intention is good, but can they involve education and financial stability enough in this process to assure it protects people and the environment? That remains to be seen, because they promise a LOT, and it might put people off as it is weighed up as “unrealistic”)
Energy policy
Conservation practice in certain areas (e.g. insect populations, the foundations of our organisms and the crux of our food production, biodiversity and sustainable environments, are mentioned maybe once or twice, and just when referencing pollinators).
They have outlined a manifesto that platforms so much of what we need…but. And unfortunately there’s always a but…will enough people vote for them? This might be a strange thing to put in the “missing” section, but again, as someone who is now more focussed on multi-level change, I am worried that the political climate is one of desperation, and what I see missing from people’s votes is a green candidate time and time again. Perhaps what is missing is our ability to dream of new futures due to the expectancy of desolation the past has brought us. That is something the greens will have to factor into their election process.
Overall assessment:
Like I said. There is hope here. There is a consistent countering of desolation. I think there is a capacity to change specific elements, and I would stress that as we now approach a period where we need to focus on degrowth, untethering and divestment, and on the capacity and support required to build alternative systems in ecology, conservation and societal growth (all alongside each other and intertwined), that this is all contained in certain elements of this manifesto, and thus it does provide bedrock for the futures we are fighting for. It may be lacking in specific details around the process and achievement of some of those processes, but I think I’d challenge you to find a manifesto that didn’t lack that. Perhaps we are in need not of a longer and more detailed manifesto, but of a different format of communicating policy and intentions.
Would I vote for these environmental policies?
Yes. Yes I would.
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. We invited them to share their thoughts on one or two manifestos of their choice. We didn’t tell people what to write and we haven’t edited what they wrote (except to squeeze things into a common format, to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors and typos).The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – SNP by Lucy Lapwing HodsonPhoto by Lucy Lapwing
SNP manifesto – by Lucy Lapwing
I am an environmental campaigner, writer, amateur-ish naturalist and enthusiastic toad-tickler. I worked in the conservation sector for eight years, and now work with Wild Justice on their campaigns. I also write about wildlife, organise other campaigns and events, and work a bit in wildlife telly.
I first voted in the 2010 general election, and awoke on May 7th to a Conservative government just a month after my nineteenth birthday, which was excellent…
I joined the Labour Party aged 16, and have voted Labour in every general election since. I sat a term as a borough councillor in my early twenties, and voted in each Labour leadership race. I supported Jeremy Corbyn; I considered his vision of an equitable future for the most vulnerable folks in our society to be exciting and admirable. I left the Labour party in 2020, and have voted Green in local elections since then.
On July 4th I’ll be voting in Scotland for the first time, in Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber.
This is my review of, and my thoughts about, the environmental implications of the SNP’s election manifesto.
Things I like:
Four Nations Climate Response Group: SNP commit to establishing this, saying it’ll help ‘agree climate plans across the UK’ and make sure the UK government doesn’t backtrack on commitments. It sounds good in theory; we’ve seen countless u-turns and backtracking, and it’d be good to see whoever’s next in parliament being held to account.
Peatland: Gets a mention – which I like – but that’s about as detailed as it gets.
Voting age: Extended to under 16’s, who I think should get the chance to vote when the climate and nature crises will impact their future the most.
Palestine: SNP support a ceasefire & wish to recognise Palestine as an independent state. It might sound tenuous – but the crisis in Palestine is a land issue, and so is the nature crisis. I’d like to see more land justice dots being connected between human and nature issues.
No more coal: The SNP supports a ban on new coal licences. Ban new coal licences.
Things I don’t like:
Light on nature: The SNP manifesto only uses the word ‘nature’ once – and in that instance it’s light on detail. Compare that to the Scottish Green’s 14 (which I had a look at last week). It doesn’t use the words ‘biodiversity’, ‘wildlife’ or ‘environment’ either.
Carbon Capture: Like something out of a sci-fi film, the SNP commits to working with the Acorn Project and the Scottish Cluster in order to capture carbon. This would be a colossal infrastructure project, and would involve pumping CO2 into aquifers and depleted oil and gas fields in the North Sea. I’m wary of any climate or nature ‘solutions’ that involve allowing us to continue the status quo; in this case, ‘don’t worry, we can carry on consuming and emitting, because we can just shove all the carbon dioxide under the sea, no problem’. I don’t know enough about carbon capture to write it off completely, but personally, it doesn’t feel like it’s the answer when we could be being imaginative in how we restructure our ways of living so that we don’t produce so much CO2 (plans for reduction of CO2 aren’t mentioned).
Fishing: The manifesto seems to imply the continued support of Scottish salmon farms (there’s a brief nod to aquaculture and Scottish Salmon) – which I simply think are abhorrent. Energy should be being put into making our rivers and sees a place that supports thriving, bustling wild Salmon populations, not shoving thousands of fish in cages and drenching them in formaldehyde.
Growth-based mindset: See carbon capture, above. Most mentions of ‘green energy’ and ‘climate change’ in the manifesto are twinned with some spiel about the economic growth of Scotland. Whilst I understand the nuances of the draining effect of UK government when it comes to the economy and investment, it’d still be good to see something different here. The Green Party seek to measure our society’s success by different measures – moving away from a growth-based mindset and measuring things like our citizen’s wellbeing and happiness, which – when we need to use less, consume less, emit less – sounds rather nice.
Wishy-washy on oil and gas: The SNP give a very politician-style statement on the future of Oil and Gas in the country. They say ‘We believe any further extraction must be consistent with our climate obligations and take due account of energy security considerations. Decisions must be made on a rigorously evidence-led, case-by-case basis, through a robust climate compatibility assessment.’ To me, this basically translates as ‘we’ll make it easy for the industry to justify why extraction should be allowed to continue’.
Peatland: The manifesto commits to ‘Provide fair funding for climate’. It states that Scotland has over two thirds of the UK’s peatland – but gives no detail around peatland restoration, or resilience going into a warmer (peat-drying) future.
Trees: The manifesto states that the Scotland plants 60% of the UK’s trees. This sounds like a big figure, but again, it’s light on detail.If you’ve spent much time in Scotland you’ll know huge proportions of the ‘woodland’ there is forestry plantation. Where’s the native woodland restoration? The natural regeneration? Their short and vague statement does nothing but make this already fuzzy issue even less clear in voter’s minds.
Access: Considering Scotland has the right to roam already, and in light of the campaign to establish it elsewhere, it would’ve been nice to see this mentioned, as well as the wider subject of access to nature and the countryside.
Things that appear to be missing:
Nature Restoration: For a country famous for its wildlife, its nature tourism, and its national parks, there’s also no mention of any plans for restoration or recovery of wildlife.
Where’s the ambition? The manifesto says the SNP’s commitment to the climate and nature crisis is ‘unwavering’, yet they appear to be going along with the UK Government’s target of Net Zero by 2050, saying that Scotland’s is therefore 2045. Why not call for this to be brought forward? It’s an emergency, after all.
Overall assessment:
I’m drawn to the SNP for their left-leaning policy in a number of areas- but sadly their reputation of being a bit bolshy, bold and outspoken doesn’t seem to come across in any of their nature, climate or environmental policy (where it even exists). After reading their manifesto, I’m left feeling frustrated and disappointed. It’s especially frustrating when the SNP have been in coalition with the Scottish Greens in Scottish government. Surely they’ve had time for a good natter and to swap some ideas on these issues?
Would I vote for these environmental policies?
For the policies? No. On election day? Before reading the SNP’s manifesto in detail, I considered them my main voting option (having no Scottish Green candidate on my ballot paper) – but I’m disappointed by their environmental policy. I probably will vote for them, and hope their open-mindedness in other policy areas means they’d be willing to listen and adjust on environmental policy.
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. We invited them to share their thoughts on one or two manifestos of their choice. We didn’t tell people what to write and we haven’t edited what they wrote (except to squeeze things into a common format, to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors and typos).The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Labour by Samuel LindsaySamuel Lindsay (and young owl)
I am a forest ranger and ecologist based on the west coast of Scotland. My role integrates engaging all levels of the community with their local natural spaces while still managing these areas for conservation. I have studied zoology, ecology and conservation and am deeply passionate about the nature the UK has to offer.
I have previously voted for the Labour or SNP parties as they more closely align with my views than other prominent parties. Although I agree with many of the stances taken by the Green Party, they have not been viable options in the area where I have lived.
This is my review of, and my thoughts about, the environmental implications of the Labour Party’s election manifesto.
Things I like:
National Forests: It is good to see that there has been some light shed on expanding existing highly diverse habitats such as wetlands, peat bogs and woodland and the creation of 3 new national forests is a win, be it a small one on the scale of land use in England. We can only hope that they enable the public the right to access these woodlands. Any form of habitat expansion or creation has to be viewed as a positive, even if it is minuscule.
Water Policies: Although this has long been an issue, recent media has been active in bringing the illegal dumping of sewage by water companies to the public eye. Freshwater ecosystems are very sensitive to changes and already face significant pollution in many built-up areas. Labour is proposing tougher repercussions for repeat offenders which is a positive step forward, however, I do think these laws should be stricter. The negative effects of dumping sewage are well understood and are deliberate actions so any breaking of these laws should be treated seriously, not just for repeat offenders.
Ending Badger Culls: It is positive to see that Labour recognise the ineffectiveness of the badger cull in stopping bovine TB and is keen to see this brought to an end. Through misunderstanding the transmission of the disease and poor previous policies it will take a while to change the public and farmers’ perception of badgers so any steps towards this are positive.
Things I don’t like:
Blaming the Conservatives: Labour has taken the stance that the Conservatives are to blame for the state of the UK’s environmental affairs, going as far as to refer to it as “the Conservatives’ nature Emergency”. Although yes, the conservatives have put in place many policies that have contributed greatly to this, no party that has been in power over the past 30+ years can say they have not also played a part in the landscape. A far more compelling stance would be to recognise their previous shortcomings and focus on how they are going to improve moving forward and set a strong example.
Coastal Renewables: The potential of our “long coastline… shallow waters” for renewable energy infrastructure is highlighted, however this can have significant detrimental effects on these ecosystems. It is becoming more widely known that many forms of green energy come at a cost to specific species and habitats and may not be a viable solution.
Protecting Nature: The section on protecting nature is incredibly small given the size of this document. It is understandable that the focus of this document largely has to have strong relevance as to issues that benefit the public, however many of the benefits to people that come from protecting nature are indirect and these are the issues that need to be highlighted. This part was their opportunity to expand on this but instead very little was proposed in their plans to protect nature or why.
Things that appear to be missing:
Targets for Habitat Expansion: Although the talk of habitat expansion is positive, this is a very vague statement. There are no clear targets or areas identified for this to be carried out and it is therefore difficult to believe this is being treated as anything more than appeasing an environmentally aware demographic. It would not have taken much to identify some example areas and present the proposals in an easily digestible format.
Right to Roam: I strongly believe that engaging people with the natural world and enabling them to responsibly explore and nurture their connection is fundamental to a more environmentally conscious Britain, however, the public only has legal access to 8% of land in England. This manifesto dedicates 4 words to this issue and gives the impression it was added to fill a list rather than treated with the importance it requires.
Marine Ecosystems: Nowhere in this manifesto is there any mention of the UK’s fishing industry. This makes up a significant part of local economies in many rural towns and has already had pressure put on it following Brexit. This is so closely linked with the health of our marine ecosystems and I would have expected there to be some discussion on sustainable fishing practices going forward. The only mention of the waters around Britain is about installing renewable energy infrastructure on them.
Overall assessment:
In many regards, I do not feel that the environmental policies stated in this manifesto have any real substance to them. Each point feels like a token gesture to appease a demographic rather than the serious issue that the climate crisis presents. On the surface, many of the points can sound positive, such as the habitat creation. However, there are no quantifiable targets that they plan to aim for. Improving the policing of water quality and holding water companies is positive, but the actual consequences of this feel insignificant. If the penalty for a crime is a fine then it is not a law that applies to the wealthy and this feels like another example of that. The offshore wind farms are also of great concern, as they feel increasing the quantity of “green” energy alternatives is the way forward regardless of the catastrophic impacts this would have on our coastline ecosystems.
Would I vote for these environmental policies?
I feel like they are heading somewhat in the right direction, however, there is also great damage that they could do to the natural environment if they move forward the way they plan to here.
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. We invited them to share their thoughts on one or two manifestos of their choice. We didn’t tell people what to write and we haven’t edited what they wrote (except to squeeze things into a common format, to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors and typos).The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Plaid Cymru by Gill Lewis
Gill Lewis is a children’s author, vet and environmental campaigner.
She writes books about animals and our human relationship with the wild world. Her books have won the US Green Earth Book Award (twice), German Prize for Environmental Youth Literature and she has been awarded the Little Rebels Special Commendation for her contribution to political/radical children’s fiction.
She has been a regular supporter of Hen Harrier Day and has written two books about the driven grouse issues – Sky Dancer and Eagle Warrior. Lewis founded and judges Hen Harrier Action’s Young Wild Writer Competition.
Lewis’ next book Rescue at Seal Bay (Published August 2024) explores the disturbance of breeding and young seals at tourist hot-spots and the importance of raising public awareness to protect vulnerable sea life.
It’s generally accepted that most people get less rebellious as they age. I am a political Benjamin Button, aging in reverse, getting angrier and more politically vocal with the years. As a teenager I was politically naïve and disinterested. I have selective amnesia (or possibly suppressed shame) about my first vote back in 1987 when I may have voted Tory. We all have regrets. Since then, I have voted Lib Dem and in more recent elections given the Green Party my vote.
Since moving to West Wales almost three years ago, I’ve been interested in Welsh politics and how the Welsh Government and Senedd Cymru influence change at local level to affect the environment and local communities. However, Westminster still holds sway over many areas that have not been devolved to Wales and much criticism has been levelled at Westminster for not understanding the needs of communities in Wales. This has been exemplified in the Levelling Up schemes administered by Westminster and criticised by the First Minister as an “incoherent mess with very little planning, consultation or economic logic,” and “through ineptitude and indifference, the UK Government has wasted the opportunity to deliver meaningful change Wales desperately needs to see.”
We have seen the effects of this near where I live, where a UK Levelling Up grant has part funded a private enterprise that will expand unregulated adventure tourism at an SSSI and Special Area of Conservation. This will allow adventure tourism to run roughshod across rare biogenic reef, scramble on cliffs with no minimum distance from nesting seabirds and disturb breeding seals and their young. This will be catastrophic for biodiversity at a site of highest ecological importance. There was no community consultation or engagement. Indeed, the local community has been fighting to protect the biodiversity of this area for over two decades, but the community voice has not been heard.
So would Plaid Cymru, which seeks to gain more independence for Wales, enable more decision-making that affects Wales to be made in Wales? Could Plaid Cymru allow our community to protect the biodiversity here for future generations and for the many visitors who come specifically to see the wildlife? And importantly, will Plaid Cymru put biodiversity and climate at the heart of its policies?
At first glance the manifesto looks promising, but it’s what is missing that leaves me with a sinking feeling that Plaid might talk the talk, but in reality, when it comes to making real change, they won’t have the vision, the bravery or policies to walk the walk.
What I like:
To ensure environmental justice there primarily needs to be social fairness and justice across society. Plaid sets out in its manifesto that, through demanding fair funding and a fairer tax system, it will aim to reduce poverty, and improve healthcare, education, transport, affordable housing and funding of the arts. It promises to improve rural community amenities, infrastructure and internet coverage.
We have finite resources on a finite planet and need to move away from putting economic growth in terms of GDP. It is refreshing to see Plaid state; “recognising the climate and nature emergency in which we find ourselves, we need to think beyond economic growth in terms of GDP and we call on the next UK government to consider adopting alternative ways of measuring the economy.” This is quite a bold statement and, like the Green Party, recognises that economic growth drives over-exploitation of resources.
Plaid would introduce a Business, Human Rights and Environmental Bill which would mandate private companies to conduct due diligence in supply chains.
Under the Climate Change and Energy heading on the manifesto, Plaid makes the bold statement that “Plaid Cymru recognise that the climate and nature emergencies are the biggest threat to mankind on a global scale and reaffirms our commitment to reaching net-zero targets in Wales by 2035 and reversing biodiversity decline by 2030.”
The school curriculum should equip young people with an understanding of climate challenges. I’m encouraged to hear this, as putting climate and nature recovery at the heart of education is key for future generations to prepare to adapt at a societal level for the challenges that lie ahead.
Plaid Cymru opposes new sites for nuclear power stations, opposes new licenses for oil and gas, opposes new open cast coal mines, and would maintain a ban on fracking.
Stronger enforcement of protection of SSSI. This is to be encouraged. Currently over 60% of protected sites in Wales are in an unfavourable condition. I find it incredulous that Natural Resources Wales actually agree a coasteering concordat on a site of SSSI and Special Area of Conservation where people are allowed to climb directly below and within 10m of nesting razorbills, causing disturbance. I would hope that Plaid Cymru would ensure protected sites are truly protected and not just exist as paper parks.
Support a science led plan to ensure nature loss is firmly in reverse as soon as possible and ensure substantive recovery by 2050.
With trust in politics at an all-time low, it’s good to see that Plaid Cymru will make it a criminal offence for an elected politician to intentionally mislead the public.
What I don’t like:
Despite recognising that the nature and climate emergencies are the biggest threat to mankind, Plaid appears to be appealing to the rural voters and has largely omitted any actual strategies to change and adapt the future of farming that ensure we reach the promised targets of nature recovery. Plaid criticises the Welsh Government’s Sustainable Farming Scheme, but only offers vague promises of ‘demanding a more flexible approach’. 90% of Wales’ land cover is rural agricultural land, and with Wales being one the most nature depleted countries in the world, the lack of recognition of the importance of nature recovery across the land mass of Wales, shows a lack of vision and bravery at the outset. Rather than creating a meaningful plan to engage with farmers and incentivise nature recovery, Plaid has succeeded in kicking this can down the road for another year at least.
Plaid will “introduce a broader approach to tackling bovine TB which includes controlling the disease in wildlife.” Without specifics it’s impossible to know if this will be a holistic science-led approach or just a gun-wielding increase in the killing of badgers.
No mention of protecting marine habitats and species.
In the short paragraph about protecting households from flooding as a consequence of climate change, there is only mention about investing in infrastructure. There is no mention of using natural defences such as restoring natural landscapes with the introduction of beavers above water catchment areas. Not only would this reduce flooding risk, but it would also enhance biodiversity. If implemented well, landowners could benefit financially from these strategies, and it would incentivise a change of landscape use.
“Preserving Wales’s Natural Landscape – we believe the beauty of Wales’s natural landscape should be preserved.” I intensely dislike this term. It suggests a lack of understanding of the biodiversity crisis. A preservationist mindset is inflexible and fixed on a point in time. Historically, Wales has been heavily cleared of native tree cover and overgrazed. Industrialisation of farming practices over the past eighty years have accelerated biodiversity loss. We don’t want to preserve depleted landscapes; we need to radically change them to ones for nature recovery.
What I would like to see:
There needs to be a bold vision to tackle nature recovery across Welsh landscapes. Some of the principles of the Sustainable Farming Scheme are sound, but the scheme has been criticised of being rushed through without clarity or consultation of the farming community and without sufficient financial incentives.
Rural areas have borne the brunt of austerity cuts and loss of EU funding, and there is suspicion of political meddling and short-termism. Rural communities are deeply embedded to the landscape. Yet these communities have seen biodiversity crash within just four generations. My own great grandparents farmed in the shadow of Pen-y-Fan, when the landscape of Bannau Brycheiniog would have had much richer and varied habitats for wildlife. From hay meadows to hedgerows, my great grandparents would have heard curlews and corncrakes. We need the rural communities to be on board, to share a vision of a long-term future of farming to ensure we reach the promised targets of nature recovery. However, this can only be done if farming communities become a part of the narrative and have sufficient financial incentives for real long-term change.
So, will I be voting for Plaid Cymru?
Can Plaid truly offer more agency to rural communities and also present Wales on the international stage as a forward-thinking country which will tackle the climate and nature emergencies? Is the green haze that shimmers on the Plaid Cymru manifesto the beginnings of real grassroots change? Or is it political astroturf?
A vote for Plaid Cymru where I live is a tactical vote – so it’s certainly on the cards.
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. They were commissioned by Wild Justice several months ago by approaching a wide variety of conservationists and environmentalists long before the date of the general election was known. Some people who originally agreed to write pieces found the date and short timescale impossible and had to back out. We did not know what they would write and their only brief was to pick one or two political parties’ election manifestos and tell us what they liked and didn’t like about their environmental policies. We didn’t tell people what to write and we haven’t edited what they wrote (except to squeeze things into a common format, to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors and typos).The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Labour by Dominic Woodfield
I write this manifesto review from both a personal and professional perspective, being an ecologist by profession, a conservationist by heart, and a practitioner operating for thirty years in that tricky zone where environmental protection and economic growth interface and often collide through the prism of planning policy and decisions, and environmental regulation.
In past general elections I have variously voted Labour, Green and (on one occasion) Lib Dem, largely depending on where either my heart or tactical expedience led me. On July 4th I expect it will be one of those three again, albeit as I seem to be in a pretty safe Labour seat, the urge to place my cross somewhere other than merely ‘less worse’ might prove tempting.
I’ve chosen to review the Labour party election manifesto as the one that seems most likely to be put into some sort of practice come July 5th. I find it striking in its careful casting of tackling the climate crisis as less something that is existential for humanity, but more an economic opportunity, and in saying little more about the nature crisis than ‘we will obey the law’ and ‘we will create some new River Walks’. While the manifesto does state that “the climate and nature crisis is the greatest long-term global challenge that we face” you can’t help hear the emphasis on ‘long-term’, and the manifesto then rapidly pivots to the economic opportunities of the energy transition. Economic opportunities there are indeed – big ones – but let’s not forget the bigger reasons why it is important, and why it demands action now.
Anyway, down to business:
Things I like:
No-one is going to argue with reduced NHS waiting times, more teachers, reducing crime/anti-social behaviour and economic stability. But there’s a failure to recognise that the current woes in these areas are symptoms of malaise, not causes. I want Government to go after the root causes, but I don’t see much to convince me that Labour is not going to continue to attach sticking plasters in the same manner that they accuse the Conservatives of doing. Perhaps they’ll be bigger, with pictures on or something. Corporate greed, corporate corruption, the hegemony of the elite and the cumulative effects of this (regulatory capture, societal imbalance, lack of accountability) are not in the cross-hairs of this manifesto (it would be a huge risk to Labour for them to be, I know).
I can completely get behind bringing energy back into public ownership, albeit in the absence of anything to tell me otherwise, Great British Energy appears likely to be just another player, rather than a step-change. Can we do it for water and public transport too please?
A commitment to end the “ineffective” badger cull. It’s really good to see that word being used to describe the cull in a manifesto. I would like to also have seen a related commitment to end the slide within the public sector to base science on policy (rather than formulate policies based on good science). Ending the pointless, wasteful and backward badger cull is long, long overdue, but after July 4th how much pressure will we see exerted on the new incumbents by the beef and cattle industries and their civil servant sympathisers to deflect attention away from poor cattle husbandry and epidemiologically disastrous farming practices?
Things I don’t like
The fixation on the planning system as being ‘the’ problem, rather than failure to properly resource regulators and planning authorities so they can level the field and make the system work better for all. This is all very Boris and a return to the hopelessly misguided planning White Paper of a few years back.
The guff about protecting nature is just that – guff. It’s evidently not been written by anyone with even a passing knowledge of the biodiversity crisis and the causes of it, and nor can any other such person have reviewed or sense-checked it. Labour are as much to blame for the depletion of UK nature as the Conservatives, and trying to score political points out of the parlous state of our wildlife reveals a failure to accept that some issues are bigger than the electoral cycle. The sparse comments about the nature crisis and countryside policy generally don’t bode well for our prospects of getting a Meacher, rather than (please, no) a Paterson or a Coffey.
The thing I don’t like most of all? The sense that I’m reading an exercise in spin, redolent of the Blair days when the term ‘spin doctor’ was coined, and which conjures up the angry opening chords of The Who’s “Won’t Get Fooled Again”.
Things that appear to be missing
Detail
Costings
Plans
Conviction
Credibility
Overall assessment
Reading this manifesto has actually made me less likely to vote Labour than before. Perhaps that’s a luxury I can afford, being in a (reputedly) safe Labour seat. But why should I give a party my support when its manifesto gives me no sense that, in Government, they would be really serious about going after the root causes of our environmental and social ills, or being the catalyst for fundamental change that is needed to tackle the existential threats we face. I am left with the sense that Starmer’s Labour Party does not appear to want to challenge the powerful and unaccountable factions at the top of our society which act as a leaden weight against vital environmental, economic and societal change. If that’s because they’re scared of their influence and power, that may be understandable, but I’d have more respect for them if they just said so, rather than offer me loose words and phrases that I have no confidence will prove anything other than empty in a year or two’s time.
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. We invited them to share their thoughts on one or two manifestos of their choice. We didn’t tell people what to write and we haven’t edited what they wrote (except to squeeze things into a common format, to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors and typos).The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – A legal manifesto for wildlife by Carol Day
Carol Day is a part-time solicitor with public interest law firm Leigh Day. For one day a week, she works for the RSPB on access to environmental justice.
I’ve been asked to set out what I would include if I was fortunate enough to be drafting a manifesto for environmental lawyers – the key question being how can the law best address the crises of habitat loss, species extinction, raw sewage in rivers, polluted air and the devastating impacts of climate change?
Being an Aarhus nerd, I’d start with an Environmental Rights Bill (ERB) to enshrine in law a right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment for everyone – and to strengthen the ability of citizens to hold public bodies to account when it comes to the environment, pollution and climate change. This would give proper effect to the UNECE Aarhus Convention (which has still not been comprehensively implemented despite the UK ratifying the Convention in 2005) and deliver on the commitment to a right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment by the UN General Assembly in 2022 and the Council of Europe in 2023.
People feel let down by UK public bodies. An ERB would help meet the demand for public action to ensure a healthier quality of life – including urgent imperatives for clean air and water and access to nature. In addition to actively promoting climate busting energy and transport schemes and undermining nature and pollution protections, the current Government has implemented a programme of regressive new laws on public protest. Prior to these restrictions, it had been almost unheard of, since the 1930s, for members of the public to be imprisoned for peaceful protest in the UK. An ERB could reverse these draconian measures and empower people to protect the environment by protecting and strengthening their access to environmental information, participation in decision-making processes and access to the courts. It could reverse the impacts of over a decade of attacks on judicial review by guaranteeing that those brave enough to take cases to court, like Sarah Finch (whose ground-breaking Supreme Court case last week on climate emissions has significant implications for fossil fuel projects across the UK), are guaranteed protection from crippling legal costs.
My shopping list would continue with the introduction of an English Bill to mirror the Wildlife Management & Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024 with the power to rescind and withhold licences if birds of prey continue to “go missing” under suspicious circumstances on particular grouse moors.
I would also legislate for a ban on trail hunting and the introduction of a “Right to Roam” giving everyone the freedom to wander in open countryside, whether the land is privately or publicly owned (as they do in Norway, Sweden, Estonia and Scotland). There are many other things I would include if I had more space, but I would also reverse proposals to undermine compensatory requirements in the marine environment under the Habitats Regulations and include a commitment to restore statutory agency funding to levels that enable them to fulfil their statutory functions, pinned to inflation, and without fear of recrimination – thus enabling them to enforce against polluters, provide bespoke (not just standing) advice in planning matters and monitor important wildlife sites appropriately.
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. They were commissioned by Wild Justice several months ago by approaching a wide variety of conservationists and environmentalists long before the date of the general election was known. Some people who originally agreed to write pieces found the date and short timescale impossible and had to back out. We did not know what they would write and their only brief was to pick one or two political parties’ election manifestos and tell us what they liked and didn’t like about their environmental policies. We didn’t tell people what to write and we haven’t edited what they wrote (except to squeeze things into a common format, to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors and typos).The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Conservatives by Chantal Woodun
Chantal Woodun
My interest in the natural world led me to study Zoology and Psychology as a first degree, followed by International Studies, focusing on the environment and environmental policy.
Nature disconnection is a serious concern and in an attempt to do something about it, I became a London National Park City Ranger in 2020. Combined with my @wanderfulldn Instagram account, I draw attention to the vast array of blue and green space across our capital and beyond, whilst trying to show the benefits to our physical and mental health.
I also work with the campaign to save the glorious Warren Farm Nature Reserve, part of Brent River Park, West London from development by Ealing’s Labour council and have recently taken a part-time role as a tutor within the Sciences department at the CityLit, London.
I first voted in 1997 when the Conservatives had been in power for 18 years whilst Labour were promising to listen to citizens and drive radical change.
“Committed to leaving the environment in a better state for future generations” and to ‘maintain leadership on climate change’.
They refer to the Environment Act, 2021 to halt nature’s decline by 2030 with a biodiversity net gain.
To continue support for the ‘Nature for Climate Fund’. This includes the support of peatland restoration.
Tree planting.
They want to create energy independence and refer to utilisation of renewables (alongside the more secure gas and oil).
90% of designated bathing waters are ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ up from 76% in 2010.
They will keep their 2022 windfall tax on oil and gas companies in place until 2028-29.
Almost 50% of the UK’s electricity comes from renewables.
Creation of new National Park.
The expansion of their existing ‘Blue Belt’ programme.
Negatives/areas to be clarified: :
Their commitment to “leaving the environment in a better state for future generations” is per their previous manifesto. Three years on from the 2021 Environment Act and they are already behind their targets. Six years to go so what is their plan and confidence on achieving this?
They refer to climate ‘change’ and not ‘crisis’ or ‘emergency’. Language is important and shows their lack of urgency and understanding.
The UK is one of the least biodiverse countries in the world, so they have a great deal of work to do to achieve this.
There is no commitment beyond 2025 for the Nature for Climate Fund. Currently, Peat habitats are 87% degraded which sounds dire so how do they plan to improve this to a reasonable state?
They talk about tree planting with no detail of how, where, why. Also, in addition, they must look at habitats such as meadows, shrublands, hedgerows and wetlands, especially if they are to tackle biodiversity loss.
They will “ensure annual licensing rounds for oil and gas” to protect “200,000 jobs and billions of pounds of tax receipts.”. This is short sighted and antiquated. At this time of climate emergency, they must look to prioritise green energy and green jobs.
90% of bathing waters as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’! Seriously?! They do not reference the raw sewage pumped into waterways or that every one of England’s rivers failing to meet safety standards. Where is their reference to this and a call to ban companies from doing this?
The windfall tax on oil and gas companies is far from adequate. Citizens are experiencing energy poverty so taxing a fraction of what they should is completely unreasonable.
I found the ‘50% electricity from renewables’ looks to be closer to 40%. They plan to create new gas power stations to maintain a safe and reliable energy, stating the unreliability of renewables. This statement and their general language suggest they will continue to prioritise fossil fuel.
Whilst I’m not against a new national park, the RSPB state only 43-51% of protected areas are well-managed. It would be better to improve, restore and protect what we already have.
Overall assessment/Would I vote for these policies?
I have genuinely attempted to be objective and fact based, however throughout writing this, my face would have demonstrated that based on their record and facts, I don’t believe anything they say when it comes to protecting nature and the environment. Their statements of being leaders on climate and stats on renewables and clean water just make it clear that they are deluded.
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. They were commissioned by Wild Justice several months ago by approaching a wide variety of conservationists and environmentalists long before the date of the general election was known. Some people who originally agreed to write pieces found the date and short timescale impossible and had to back out. We did not know what they would write and their only brief was to pick one or two political parties’ election manifestos and tell us what they liked and didn’t like about their environmental policies. We didn’t tell people what to write and we haven’t edited what they wrote (except to squeeze things into a common format, to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors and typos).The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Green Party by Indy Kiemel Greene
I am a 19 year old conservationist and naturalist. I studied Countryside Management at Nottingham Trent University.
This will be my first election where I am eligible to vote. Wildlife and the environment are high on my list of priorities. They will be a contributing factor when I place my vote in the Mansfield constituency.
‘Bring nature back to life’ is a highlight policy. We have to take protecting nature seriously and not skirt around the edges. A whole plethora of species are in freefall, on the brink. An enforceable policy designed to protect nature is paramount.
The Green party wish to take water companies back into public ownership. It could potentially help to reduce and ultimately stop the utter disgrace of the endless sewage dumped into our seas and rivers. It is mindless vandalism where currently water companies throughout the country are getting away with these criminal acts.
The party is keen to end the emergency authorisation of bee killing pesticides (neonicotinoids). The current government has for the fourth year running given emergency approval for this banned pesticide to be used on sugar beet. An utterly deplorable decision.
A new clean air (human rights) act. How many thousands of people have health issues related to air pollution.
I’m half Dutch and the emphasis the Netherlands place on a safe nationwide cycle path infrastructure is remarkable. The Greens want to also invest in new cycleways and footpaths. Even small steps away from our obsession with our cars would lead to a healthier more active society.
I’m rather taken with the party’s desire to ban domestic flights for journeys which would take less than three hours by train. Our sky is littered with such journeys, it just shouldn’t be.
A new commission on animal protection would seem a significant step forward. The welfare and protection of our wildlife and farm animals needs to be taken far more seriously than it currently is.
A desire to offer the highest level of protection to marine life in domestic and overseas territorial water is a no-brainer.
An end to factory farming, and the routine use of antibiotics on farm animals. A complete ban on the close confinement in cages.
An end to the utterly pointless and heartbreaking badger cull. Over 230,000 slaughtered with hardly any tested for bovine TB.
Animals cannot protect themselves. The Greens unlike any other political party are pushing hard for animal protection. We are somewhat accomplished at shooting, trapping and poisoning them. Keeping them in vile overcrowded environments. The welfare and protection of our animals cannot be a secondary issue.
Farming and food. ‘Our food system accounts for a third of all greenhouse gas emissions and is the greatest driver of nature loss and pollution in our rivers‘. That is quite a sobering thought.
The Greens propose the financial support for farmers to be tripled to support their transition to nature friendly farming. This potentially sounds like a win win for farmers and nature. I also like the idea of farm payments being linked to reduced use of pesticides.
Further policies implemented to ensure quality surplus food is not wasted. I think this is so important, the amount of food waste we are responsible for as a society is truly shocking.
As a young person I am particularly drawn to the idea that as part of the core curriculum children are involved in growing, preparing and cooking of food. Understanding and valuing the origins and importance of healthy food is such an important life lesson.
Things I don’t like:
The Greens are so committed to green issues that it would seem a little harsh to be too critical. The other major parties, yes I could certainly pull them up on aspects of their environmental policies, or in some cases a complete lack of them. The Green’s focus on radical environmental policies and animal welfare and protection are light years ahead of any other party contesting the forthcoming election.
One area however is English right to roam policy. I have always had mixed feelings towards this. Whilst it’s important for people to have access to green spaces, it is unfortunately not always going to be valued and respected, as I have witnessed first hand myself. In most circumstances in order for nature to flourish it has to be left to do so with as few disturbances as possible. It’s a very difficult act to balance.
Things that appear to be missing:
The manifesto highlights the importance of offering a high level of protection to marine life, but it doesn’t mention any thoughts towards properly manageing fisheries. With our seabird numbers decreasing rapidly in the last two decades it’s a disappointing omission.
What does appear to be missing from the Green Party is not so much a particular policy in their manifesto, but real tangible growth. With so many people identifying the climate crisis as a major concern in their thinking you wonder why the Greens do not have far more of a visible uprising in popularity. They are after all the only party focusing so many of its policies on the environment and animal welfare. They have presented some brave, bold and honest policies.
I believe the Greens are in many people’s minds when it comes to voting, and the party has certainly made headway in recent times, with more people turning to them, but they are far from a driving force. Maybe having two co-leaders is a turn off for some. Often people vote for a charismatic leader more than a parties policies. Nigel Farage is a perfect example of this. I certainly hope the forthcoming election sees a wave of new voters put a X next to the parties name.
Overall assessment:
As you would expect the Green’s manifesto is very much centred around green issues, obviously far more so than any other political party. As they state ‘We are part of nature and unless it flourishes we cannot flourish either’.
There was a time when the Green Party was purely just about the environment. There was little in the way of policies in other aspects of UK life. Now they are a fully fledged party with a manifesto offering exciting policies in all areas. Of course green issues dominate, and the Greens have some bold striking, thought provoking policies.
Reading their manifesto they are seemingly the only party which take the climate emergency truly seriously. They listen to the science and act accordingly with the struture of many of their policies. It feels like the party is under no illusion when it comes to the speed needed to tackle the climate crisis. It requires radical ambition that is sadly missing from other parties manifesto’s.
Would I vote for these environmental policies:
If the environment is your thing and you vote with your heart then the Greens are the way to go in my opinion. The Green Party is the only party which proposes radical change at a speed which could potentially bring about some of the change needed to tackle the environmental crisis, and offer some form of distinct hope.
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. They were commissioned by Wild Justice several months ago by approaching a wide variety of conservationists and environmentalists long before the date of the general election was known. Some people who originally agreed to write pieces found the date and short timescale impossible and had to back out. We did not know what they would write and their only brief was to pick one or two political parties’ election manifestos and tell us what they liked and didn’t like about their environmental policies. We didn’t tell people what to write and we haven’t edited what they wrote (except to squeeze things into a common format, to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors and typos).The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
In national elections I have voted for Labour since eligible (2001), although I am not wedded to the idea of continuing to do so. Locally, I am more pragmatic, and happy to vote for whoever is likely to win and commit to improving the local socioecological system. I should probably make more of an effort to be involved in the political sphere in the UK (much of my policy-relevant conservation work is focussed overseas) but have met with my High Peak constituency MP (a Tory whom I didn’t vote for) to discuss regional biodiversity conservation and have been invited to speak at events run by the High Peak Green Party. My opinion on the direction we need to be heading is well captured by this text from this paper (of which I am a co-author) that we “must identify and lobby for policies that convey broad ideological shifts towards the subordination of economic objectives to ecological criteria. These policies may enable, or require, citizens and companies to make sustainable decisions regardless of their own environmental values.”
Use of the word ‘soil’ seven times and attention to its degradation. Conspicuously absent in many manifestos, but along with freshwater our most precious resources upon which we all depend – in this case something that really does deserves the label ‘too big to fail’. Much to like in general on their agricultural policies.
The introduction of a Rights of Nature Act – as a society we need to move towards a system where nature is valued and protected for its own sake. Although payment for ecosystem services and nature-based solutions are useful concepts, they are not without risk and our research group has shown that a narrow focus on carbon can lead to loss of biodiversity.
Delivering 30×30 (international country-specific pledges to conserve 30% of terrestrial and marine habitat by 2030); this is ambitious given that we are starting from such a low baseline, and the current government is way behind in reaching this target, although I’d like to see some figures for how this could be achieved balancing the manifesto goals for increased timber production and the potentially higher area demands for regenerative farming.
Privatisation of utilities. Clearly this experiment has failed, and it is a great example of why the ‘Environmental Kuznets curve’ (EKC) – an oft-vaunted (by economists) rule that suggests that economic development only begets environmental degradation initially, but then society improves its relationships with the environment as per capita income increases – is nonsense. For other examples of why the EKC doesn’t work see our paper here.
A big funding top-up for DEFRA, the Environment Agency and Natural England seems a no-brainer.
Much of the energy policy and climate policy as discussed by others in this series.
Things I don’t like:
Most of these reflect what I see as scarcity of nuance in a grey world rather than a visceral reaction against them but…
Ban on all blood sports. Whilst I do viscerally dislike the idea of killing animals as a fun thing to do at weekends or on an overseas holiday, there is considerable evidence-based risk of unintended negative consequences for wildlife from an outright ban predicated on virtue ethics rather than utilitarian ones. Trophy hunting bans feature on manifestos from across the political spectra, likely because they are popular and quite apolitical with little UK economic impact. This knee-jerk reaction ignores the importance of trophy hunting in protecting vast swathes of wild land in the Global South, a fact well established in dozens of conservation papers and alternative models to replace trophy hunting are not currently scalable. I was one of many signatories among other conservation biologists and practitioners calling for a smart ban to weed out bad actors, and not blanket bans which jeopardise the survival of many species. Above all, as a nature-depleted country with a long colonial shadow we shouldn’t be undermining the success of nations in the Global South that have retained their large and often dangerous wildlife. The UK situation is very different, and field sports here are not in the same league for conservation co-benefits, but nevertheless I wouldn’t want to throw all the commercial shoots under the bus – here is a good example of why.
Although I am very supportive of establishing a ‘human right to clean air and water and enhanced access to nature and green space’ as advocated for by the Nature 2030 advocacy campaign, I am not currently supportive of a new Right to Roam Actfor England as there is a tension here with a Rights of Nature Act. Disturbance by people and their pets is an increasingly important driver of biodiversity loss, so whilst we need to increase opportunities to connect people with nature, this should not be at the cost of that nature. What works in Scotland (population 5 million) will have different implications for wildlife in England (55 million) and even in Scotland wildlife is under increasing pressure. See zonation comments below.
Things that appear to be missing:
Commercial fisheries, our most important source of wild meat, continue to be mismanaged but get very short shrift here. A subject conspicuous in the Conservative and Reform manifestos and entirely absent from the Labour one.
One of the biggest questions, borrowed from the Green’s own fantastic Natalie Bennett in the House of Lords, is thus ‘What is land for’ and we need to be much better at answering it as a society. My suggestion would be better zonation to balance economic development with biodiversity conservation and ecosystem service provisioning. I’d like to see some meaningful strictly protected areas too – areas reserved for nature alone for example, but we need to better balance these goals in a dynamic way. As absent in other manifestos we need to see a detailed plan as to how we can reconcile these competing demands on land.
Overall assessment:
My focus was narrow by Wild Justice’s stipulation, but all policy is connected to the environment and cannot be divorced from it. Climate Change is a force multiplier when it comes to armed conflict, the displacement of people, food security, biodiversity loss etc. All manifestos need to be realistically grounded in our ecological realities and the Green Party’s manifesto is closest to recognising this.
Would I vote for these environmental policies?
Yes, although I will always vote tactically.
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. They were commissioned by Wild Justice several months ago by approaching a wide variety of conservationists and environmentalists long before the date of the general election was known. Some people who originally agreed to write pieces found the date and short timescale impossible and had to back out. We did not know what they would write and their only brief was to pick one or two political parties’ election manifestos and tell us what they liked and didn’t like about their environmental policies. We didn’t tell people what to write and we haven’t edited what they wrote (except to squeeze things into a common format, to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors and typos).The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Labour by Guy Shrubsole
.
I’m an environmental campaigner and author of The Lost Rainforests of Britain and Who Owns England?, and the forthcoming book The Lie of the Land.
My politics are what the climate campaigner Leo Murray calls the ‘free-range left’: lefty, green, pluralist and free-roaming. I’ll be voting in the constituency of South Devon on 4 July.
Labour’s manifesto refers repeatedly to the “nature emergency” and “nature crisis” – in addition to the climate crisis. Sure, it’s just words, but this is a welcome recognition by Labour – that ‘environmental issues’ aren’t confined to climate change, as desperately urgent as that is. The manifesto also states the fact that Britain is “one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world”.
So it’s really good to see the outlines of some bold policies on nature starting to take shape – starting with a Land Use Framework, something the current Tory government has utterly failed to publish, despite promising to do so. Labour says its Land Use Framework would balance “the need for long-term food security with the recovery of nature”. Explicitly prioritising nature here is important, as is the emphasis on long-term food security. One hopes Labour is starting to shape a more meaningful measure than simply pandering to the ‘productivism’ of the NFU – one that recognises the UK is over-abundant in sheep, yet produces only half the fresh veg we eat. The next government will also need to set up a Land Use Commission to ensure any Land Use Framework is an ongoing process, not just a lone report that gathers dust on a shelf.
Labour’s nature policies also include creating wilder national parks: “We will help protected areas like national parks and national landscapes to become wilder and greener”. Code, I suspect, for finally implementing the recommendations of the Glover Review in full (neglected by the Tories) and giving National Park Authorities (NPAs) reformed statutory purposes for nature recovery. Of course, to make our national parks wilder will also need other changes: they are not, in fact, owned by the nation, but mostly by private landowners. Empowering NPAs to buy more land themselves is essential.
Labour has promised to “empower communities to create new parks and green spaces by introducing a new Community Right to Buy to help them purchase and restore derelict land and green space of community value.” This is excellent, and applies what Angela Rayner and Keir Starmer have previously announced around community ownership of pubs and village halls, to land and nature more broadly. Labour appears committed to introducing Scottish-style Community Right to Buy laws in England, meaning communities can not only designate ‘assets of community value’ (as at present) but also get first right of refusal on buying them when they come up for sale. Imagine communities in England being able to do what the people of Langholm in Scotland have recently done – they’ve bought a 10,000-acre former grouse moor belonging to the Duke of Buccleuch, and turned it into a nature reserve.
Labour’s manifesto pledges to “expand nature-rich habitats… including on public land.” Their pre-manifesto nature policies also state that “We will help coordinate nature’s recovery with bodies responsible for public land and major landowners‘. This may sound anodyne, but in fact could be one of the most significant policies – the first inklings of a Public Nature Estate: an idea that Wildlife & Countryside Link have been calling for, and which I’ve written about more here. As Wild Justice’s Mark Avery says in his book Reflections: “It is bizarre that government opts out of land ownership as a means of delivering wildlife recovery.”
Things I don’t like:
Labour’s policies on access are disappointingly weak. Having previously hinted last year that they might introduce a Scottish-style right of responsible access, the party has seemingly u-turned, and the retail policies that have made it into the manifesto are small and piecemeal. Pledging three new national forests will do very little to address the fact that there’s no right to roam in 85% of England’s woods (many of them kept off-limits by large pheasant shoots). Promising a series of national river walks does nothing to address the fact that 97% of our rivers have no clear access rights for swimmers and paddlers – yet it’s been these ‘river guardians’ who’ve done so much to draw attention to pollution in our waterways. I take heart from Labour’s words “as part of our plans to improve responsible access” (my emphasis), and hope for a broader conversation about access rights and responsibilities after the election.
Despite some encouraging policies, I’d have liked a lot more of them – and more detail. There is clearly much work that Labour will need to do to develop nature policies if they take office.
Things that appear to be missing:
Whilst Labour talk about tackling the scandal of sewage in our rivers, there’s no mention of agricultural river pollution – the other half of the crisis besetting our waterways. Farming’s significant contribution to the state of our rivers seems to be a taboo subject for nearly all parties competing in this election – with the notable exception of the Green party, whose manifesto explicitly calls out “our food system” as “the greatest driver of nature loss and pollution in our rivers”. If Labour takes office it must be bolder in taking on the NFU and agribusiness interests in tackling agricultural river pollution.
If the next government is to meet 30×30 in time, it will need to end the vicious political attacks on Natural England that has characterised this government’s relationship with environmental regulators generally. Our green watchdogs are far from perfect, but a lot of that is due to a decade and a half of austerity and the Tories’ ideological obsession with deregulation – and being in hock to landowning and shooting interests. I’d like to see Labour make a firm commitment to restoring Natural England’s budgets and independence.
Overall assessment:
Manifestos are often slim and vague documents, and Labour’s manifesto doesn’t say nearly enough on nature. Yet it does recognise the urgency of the nature crisis (and that it’s not the same thing as the climate crisis), and with the nature policies the party announced prior to the manifesto launch it’s started to put in place some solid building blocks. It’s early days, but if Labour is prepared to turn the page on the Tories’ deregulatory impulses and their bowing to landed interests, things could get interesting. In talking about nature on public land, communities taking a stake in caring for nature, and reinvigorating our national parks, there’s the stirrings here of a social democratic approach to nature conservation that’s not been seen for many years. But if they win the election, Labour will have just five short years in which to achieve 30×30, meet Environment Act targets and turn the corner on nature’s decline. They will also be under huge public pressure to clean up our rivers and give people the greater access to nature that they yearn for. Labour will need to be much bolder in office than they’ve so far dared to say in opposition.
Would I vote for these environmental policies? Yes – but I’d like there to be more of them!
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. They were commissioned by Wild Justice several months ago by approaching a wide variety of conservationists and environmentalists long before the date of the general election was known. Some people who originally agreed to write pieces found the date and short timescale impossible and had to back out. We did not know what they would write and their only brief was to pick one or two political parties’ election manifestos and tell us what they liked and didn’t like about their environmental policies. We didn’t tell people what to write and we haven’t edited what they wrote (except to squeeze things into a common format, to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors and typos).The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Labour by Alick Simmons
Alick Simmons is a retired veterinarian. He served as the UK Government’s Deputy Chief Veterinary Officer (2007-2015) and the UK Food Standards Agency’s Veterinary Director (2004-2007).
In his private life, Alick is a passionate amateur naturalist and after leaving public service in 2015 he set out to combine his interest in wildlife with his professional experience. Alick is chair of the Zoological Society of London’s Ethics Committee on Animal Research and a member of the Wild Animal Welfare Committee. He sits as an independent member of both the RSPB’s Ethics Advisory Committee and the National Trust’s Wildlife Management Advisory Group. He is a former chair of both the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare and the Humane Slaughter Association.
His first book, Treated Like Animals: Improving the Lives of the Creatures We Own, Eat and Use, was published by Pelagic Publishing in 2023.
‘Restore Hope’ and ‘Stop the Chaos’: I won’t argue with that.
Set up Great British Energy to cut bills for good: it would be good combine this with greater accountability: force the energy utilities to commit to public service, to reduce excessive profits and have them held to account by customers. Failing that, renationalise.
Water companies forced to clean up our rivers: The citizen has been robbed blind by privatised utilities, especially the water companies. Fergal Sharkey is right. Rhese companies have no moral compass and the regulator is toothless. Labour needs to take back control. Cleaning up the rivers is a start but bringing the companies back under public ownership must be the ultimate aim.
Nuclear power: to ensure a smooth transition between fossil fuels and a wholly green economy, I’d like to see a network of small nuclear power stations of the type being designed by Rolls Royce. And for those opposed to nuclear on safety grounds, I’d merely point to the tens of thousands dead from pollution, accidents and wars associated with fossil fuels.
Warm homes: our insulation standards are, in comparison with much of Europe, around 50 years behind. And that is for new homes. Bringing older homes up to a high standard, particularly for those on low incomes is imperative.
Things I don’t like:
Protecting nature: although I welcome the recognition that GB is one of the most nature depleted countries in the world the response has far too little ambition. I want to see more than a few new footpaths. Where are the real National Parks owned by the public? Where is the commitment to restoring biodiversity? Where is the plan to meet 30 by 30? (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-commits-to-protect-30-of-uk-land-in-boost-for-biodiversity).
Stronger animal welfare: who doesn’t want better animal welfare? Some of this is good but most is tinkering at the edges. Sure, let’s get rid of snares but what about the numerous unaccountable and untested methods of killing wildlife such as Larsen traps, mole traps, Fenn traps and poisons that are on free sale for use by anyone? And as for domestic animals – a pledge to address puppy farming while ignoring industrial pig and poultry farming does not strike me as a balanced manifesto. And trophy hunting? I hate the whole notion but will a ban on imports of trophies make a jot of a difference? No, it won’t. Meanwhile, the vast majority of UK shooters enjoy their hobby safe in the knowledge that no one expects them to be able to shoot straight or to be to able identify their quarry.
Things that appear to be missing:
Wholesale reform of the law protecting wildlife: the Law Commission has looked at the Wildlife and Countryside Act and associated legislation. They came up with a plan for reform. We need to stop dithering and fiddling around the edges (it’s over 3 years since the Conservative government promised to review the use of snares – nothing has happened). We need to stand back, take a look at the whole rotten regime and seize the opportunity to end the War on Wildlife. It’s time for a root and branch review of the way in which wildlife is protected and give the regulators real teeth and adequate resources.
Restoration of extirpated native species: let’s get on with it. Where is the plan? A radical government and one with a huge majority has the opportunity to restore these lost species – in publicly owned and managed real National Parks. No more dithering.
A commitment to end badger killing. Last summer, I met a shadow cabinet minister who assured me that Labour would stop badger killing. No ifs, buts or maybes. Now we have a commitment to something that looks like… another blasted review.
Overall assessment
Despite the lack of a dedicated section on the environment, this is a lot better than any of the others – with the exception of the Green Party. Although there are nods to animal welfare and wildlife protection these lack ambition. With some yawning gaps on the environment it lacks the punch and detail I had hoped for.
Would I vote for these environmental policies?
I have always been clear about who I would NOT vote for. Which generally means I vote tactically to keep out the party I loathe. I really want to vote Labour. Sadly, because I live in a rural constituency, I think it will be no different this time, particularly as this looks like a close run thing.
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. They were commissioned by Wild Justice several months ago by approaching a wide variety of conservationists and environmentalists long before the date of the general election was known. Some people who originally agreed to write pieces found the date and short timescale impossible and had to back out. We did not know what they would write and their only brief was to pick one or two political parties’ election manifestos and tell us what they liked and didn’t like about their environmental policies. We didn’t tell people what to write and we haven’t edited what they wrote (except to squeeze things into a common format, to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors and typos).The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Plaid Cymru by Henry Morris
I am an ultra-marathon runner and a comedy writer.
I first voted in 2011. That was in Harrogate, when my vote went to Phil Willis of the Liberal Democrats. I continued to vote Lib Dem until the coalition and have since voted Labour or Green. I now live in the constituency of Caerfyrddin in West Wales where there’s a three-horse race between Plaid Cymru, Labour and the Conservatives.
Reverse biodiversity decline by 2030 and reach net-zero targets by 2035: ambitious and easy to say in opposition. But they’re saying it, and I like it.
No new oil and gas drilling: listening to scientists is the new taking money from corporate shills.
Invest £4b in public transport: the HS2 white elephant is classed as an England and Wales project even though not one metre of its track visits Wales. Plaid have calculated £4b as the Welsh share of the project. Which really makes you wonder what sort of transformative good that £50b could have been put to had it been invested around the UK, rather than on saving commuters between London and Birmingham thirty minutes of eating Pret sandwiches on a platform.
Undergrounding of cables instead of pylons: Mary had a little lamb, It ran into a pylon. 10,000 volts went up its arse, And turned its wool to nylon. Also: good idea.
Introduce an environment bill to mandate private companies to conduct due diligence to avoid environmental harms in their supply chains: I don’t know who Environment Bill is, but he sounds great.
Take control of the Crown Estate and invest profits into green jobs and climate change research: the Crown Estate owns £600m of Welsh assets, including the seabed. Profits from these go directly to the Treasury and 25% ends up in the King’s building society account to ‘cover his living costs.’ £110m last year. Plaid thinks this money would be better invested in Wales, rather than on toothbrush valets. I agree.
Welsh Green New Deal: reskilling employees and apprentices into the green and net-zero sector. Intelligent, sensible policy. No wonder the Tories hate this stuff.
Stronger enforcement in SSSIs: if they can invest enough to find out who keeps dumping tyres on our SSSI riverbank I’ll be very happy.
The measurement of growth to factor in the nature emergency and climate change: they’ll be trying to find out if we’re happy next.
Increase Air Passenger duty and kerosene tax for private jets: I was initially wary of this policy as I thought it was going to hit the King hard when he next takes his Airbus Voyager to COP29, but then I remembered that on top of his Crown Estate cash he also gets a Royal travel grant and I was on board again.
Ynni Cymru: nationalise energy and expand community-owned renewables. Wales is a net-exporter of energy. This energy is then sold back to Welsh consumers who have the highest bills in the UK. If I lived in Wales, which I do, I’d be annoyed about this. Which I am.
Energy company windfall tax: tax the energy companies who have been raking in £1b a week since the energy crisis started? Those guys? Oh fine, if we must.
Things I don’t like:
Opposition to the Sustainable Farming Scheme 10% tree cover target: there was a huge backlash from farmers – the backbone of rural Welsh identity and I suspect Plaid support – over this, and Plaid’s sashay into delaying the plan for a year was indicative of what happens when realpolitik gets in the way of promising what you like when you’re in opposition.
Scrap NVZ regulations (nitrate vulnerable zones): another farming backlash, another policy at odds with their words about biodiversity.
Controlling TB in wildlife: I guess this means badgers. I’m friends with lots of farmers, who are all great, who are adamant this is essential. And I’m friends with lots of conservationists, who are all great, who say it isn’t. So I’ve taken a comprehensively cowardly approach to the issue so far, of not learning enough about it so that I don’t have to take sides. But all things considered, badgers are brilliant, and I prefer them alive.
Overall assessment: I admire much of this manifesto and having already written about the policies of the Tories and Reform, it was nice to read something not written by short-term opportunists or the unhinged. Whoever wrote it is engaged with the issues we all face and a lot is said about biodiversity and the climate crisis. There is, however, a significant tension between Plaid’s ambitious sentiments, and its unwillingness to upset farmers. Living in a farming community I hear about the pressures they’re facing every day. I have much sympathy. But Wales is 95% agricultural land, and habitat loss has been a huge driver for the collapse of biodiversity. Plaid’s fear of upsetting their core support is understandable, but Earth is also the only assemblage of life in the known universe, and it might be a good idea to keep it that way.
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. They were commissioned by Wild Justice several months ago by approaching a wide variety of conservationists and environmentalists long before the date of the general election was known. Some people who originally agreed to write pieces found the date and short timescale impossible and had to back out. We did not know what they would write and their only brief was to pick one or two political parties’ election manifestos and tell us what they liked and didn’t like about their environmental policies. We didn’t tell people what to write and we haven’t edited what they wrote (except to squeeze things into a common format, to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors and typos).The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Scottish National Party by Ian Carter
.
I worked as an ornithologist at Natural England for 25 years, and was closely involved in the reintroduction of Red Kites and other species recovery projects. I now spend my time watching wildlife and writing about it. My recent books include Rhythms of Nature, and I co-authored The Red Kite’s Year and The Hen Harrier’s Year with wildlife artist Dan Powell. I moved to Galloway, southern Scotland (from Devon) just over two years ago and have written a new book, Wild Galloway, about the glen where I now live, to be published by Whittles in September.
In England, I tended to vote Labour unless the Lib Dems had more chance of winning. Once, when neither of those parties could win, I voted Green. My whole adult life, living always in rural areas, I’ve been blessed with an incumbent MP whom I didn’t vote for. But maybe my luck is about to change.
Transport (the good bits): There is already free bus travel for over 60s and under 22s in Scotland and limits to peak rail fares. As well as a generic call for further government investment in public transport there is the suggestion that the existing public ownership of the railways should be extended to include full public control over Network Rail Scotland. That seems very sensible.
Coal: A ban on new licences is already a commitment of the Scottish government but the SNP wish to see this extended to the rest of the UK. An easy call to make perhaps, but a good one.
Renewables: This almost slipped down to the ‘Missing’ heading but there is just enough to include it here. The SNP believes in significant growth for renewables through enhanced public funding, which should include an investment in the green economy of at least £28bn a year from the UK government. Changes to the electricity grid system to help boost renewables are needed and greater devolved powers would help to deliver them.
Net zero (the good bits): A related topic and another that just scrapes into this section. It is mentioned ten times, mainly involving pleas to the UK government for greater devolved powers and more investment. Removing VAT from on-street electric vehicle charging is a rare point of detail. It’ll help, I suppose, a little. The suggestion that government should seek ‘an equity stake in future energy projects’ might help a lot more, but there is no further detail. There is an interesting line that because Scotland has two thirds of the UK’s peatland and plants 60% of our new trees, it must reach net zero by 2045 if the UK is to hit the 2050 target.
Brexit: Aligned to the desire for an independent Scotland is the intention to push for Scotland to rejoin the EU. And while there is nothing specific about the environmental benefits, these are beyond dispute. It is unlikely to happen of course but even so… the aspiration is clearly stated and who really knows what the future will bring.
There is an acknowledgment that we face twin crises of climate change and nature loss and a stated ‘unwavering commitment’ to tackle them. That’s a good start, but see also ‘Things that are missing’.
Things I don’t like:
Transport (the bad bits): We expect nothing less from mainstream parties of course but, despite everything, continued growth is always a high priority and if more and better roads can help with that, so be it. The suite of name-checked road improvement schemes is one of the few places in the document where we are treated to some detail, hot on the heels of an acknowledgment that reducing road traffic is key to cutting emissions. Ah well.
New oil and gas licences: New licences will be dealt with on a ‘case by case’ basis, with a ‘robust climate compatibility assessment’ (which already exists). So, having previously suggested there should be a presumption against new exploration, the SNP have clambered back up onto the fence and are refusing to budge. Disappointing.
Nuclear power: The SNP really don’t like nuclear, whether that’s weapons or power stations. Instead, we are promised that the shortfall in energy can be made up from renewables, better energy storage, hydrogen and carbon capture. Is this realistic? I’m not convinced.
Net zero (the bad bits): Despite lots of mentions, most relate to ensuring a ‘fair transition’ from fossil fuels. It’s difficult to see this as anything other than a scaling back of ambition. How else to explain the suggested lowering of VAT for the hospitality and tourism sectors for example. And see below regarding a windfall tax on oil companies. For ‘fairer’ read ‘slower’. The idea of reinvigorating investments on carbon capture sounds a little desperate.
Things that are missing:
Neither ‘wildlife’ nor ‘conservation’ get a mention. ‘Nature’ is referenced just once when we are told about the ‘unwavering commitment’ to tackle the nature crisis. If this is so, I’d have thought there might be a few words about it in the manifesto.
Animal welfare: Nothing. Nothing at all. That’s a shame because the Scottish Government has recently tightened up the law on hunting with dogs and enacted legislation to ban snares and license grouse shooting. A signal to Westminster that we must all continue to make progress in these areas would have been welcome.
Access to the countryside: Scotland already has a right of responsible access but, again, a reaffirmation of its importance and a nudge to Westminster would not have gone amiss, especially as the rest of the UK lags so far behind.
A windfall tax on energy? The SNP would like devolved powers for a windfall tax on ‘Scottish companies’ in part to help tackle climate change (so far so good), but this, they say, must not be a ‘raid on the north-east of Scotland’ (where the oil industry is based). If we take that to mean fossil fuel companies are not to be taxed more heavily then where will the money come from? They don’t say.
Farming and wildlife: There must be ‘more funding’ for farmers (to pre-Brexit levels at least) and it must be ‘sustainable’. Westminster please note. And, well, that’s all there is.
Fishing: Again, a plea for ‘more funding’, and a lament that Scotland’s share of fishing quotas has been reduced in post-Brexit trade deals, but nothing at all on the impacts of this industry on marine wildlife.
Housing: Nothing under the environmental banner. Not a thing.
Pollution: A passing mention of cleaner vehicles. And that’s it.
Overall assessment: This is a short manifesto at just 28 pages, many containing only a few extra-large words. It is uninspiring. It lacks detail and says almost nothing about subjects I feel passionately about, including nature conservation, pollution and animal welfare. The SNP puts up candidates only for Scottish constituencies and environmental matters are largely devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Does that excuse the lack of detail here? Perhaps a little, though it still leaves me feeling cold and unenthused.
Would I vote for these environmental policies? I moved to Scotland recently, only to find that I still had a Conservative MP (I know, really! One of only seven in Scotland in the last parliament). My vote will go to the candidate most likely to beat them, and the latest odds suggest that the SNP is best placed. I’ll be happy to vote SNP because of their moderately impressive track record in the Scottish Parliament, but it will be ‘despite’ rather than ‘because of’ this underwhelming manifesto.
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. They were commissioned by Wild Justice several months ago by approaching a wide variety of conservationists and environmentalists long before the date of the general election was known. Some people who originally agreed to write pieces found the date and short timescale impossible and had to back out. We did not know what they would write and their only brief was to pick one or two political parties’ election manifestos and tell us what they liked and didn’t like about their environmental policies. We didn’t tell people what to write and we haven’t edited what they wrote (except to squeeze things into a common format, to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors and typos).The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Scottish National Party by Mark Avery
.
I am one of the co-founders and co-directors of Wild Justice but I write this in a personal capacity. I am a scientist (evolutionary biologist and ecologist) by training, and I worked for the RSPB for 25 years. Since 2011 I have done pieces of freelance work for several wildlife organisations, written several books, blogged, campaigned and helped set up Wild Justice.
I first voted in the 1979 general election and have rarely voted for a successful candidate. I am a member of the Labour Party and have, in the past, voted Labour (often), LibDem (rarely but where they stood a chance of displacing the Conservatives) and Green (mostly in local and EU elections). I’ll be voting in the Corby and East Northamptonshire constituency on 4 July where there is no SNP candidate, but I have friends and relatives living in Scotland, and a degree from a Scottish university, and maybe I’ll move north some time, but in any case I am interested in politics generally.
Rejoin the EU: I was a determined Remainer and I guess I still am, but I’m not sure that the EU we so foolishly left, is necessarily the one that now exists. So I am emotionally drawn to this, and intellectually in the long term, but I’m not really quite sure what it would be like any more. Shifting baselines.
Building a fairer, greener economy: yes, I’m up for that. The manifesto seeks devolution of more planning controls to the Scottish parliament – that sounds very reasonable to me. It doesn’t depend on independence and is a perfectly reasonable ask under devolved government.
Ban new coal licences: yes – but is anyone applying for them?
Provide sustainable funding for farmingto pre-Brexit levels: I recall (but I’m out of date) that there are oddities that disadvantage Scotland when it comes to dispersion of the former Common Agricultural Policy payments and their successors. I’m all for fairness. However, this just looks like a demand for more money (perhaps justified) with the word ‘sustainable’ thrown in because it sounds good. There isn’t anything here (page 21) which explains where the sustainability comes from.
Give Scotland our rightful share of marine funding: this is a bit like many other asks in this manifesto, it says Scotland is being short-changed by Westminster. If it is, then, even sitting in England, I don’t think it should be.
Prioritise Scotland’s unique fishing needs: see above – is Scotland being short-changed? But if it is farmed salmon which will get the dosh then it would be more gladly given in my view if salmon farming were better in welfare and environmental terms. But the principle is that Scotland can wreck its environment if it wants to…does the SNP want to?
Things I don’t like:
Scottish independence: I’m not sure what I think about this because it is rarely something I have to think about in England. Scottish independence will be something that is done to me about which I have feelings but no say – I’m not complaining, just explaining. If I were in Scotland then I would have wanted to free myself from English Tory policies but that may be about to change and I’m not sure (who is?) how Labour will behave.
No ban of new oil and gas licences: funny that coal gets banned, oil and gas don’t. Can’t think that is anything other than pork-barrel politics.
Rule out nuclear power plants in Scotland: I wouldn’t.
A cleaner, greener transport system: sounds good as a headline but this is all a bit thin really. And I am slightly miffed that I can’t use my senior citizen bus pass in Scotland so I’ll flounce off and drive a Ferrari round Edinburgh instead.
Things that appear to be missing:
farming is hardly mentioned except for ‘give us more money’.
nature is not mentioned except for the word being used once – so not even ‘give us more money’.
forestry is not mentioned…
hardly anything environmental is mentioned except in terms of ‘give us more money’. That money may be deserved but there is a reason why, even in a devolved UK, the SNP should say more about these matters in their Westminster election manifesto – see last two sections below.
Overall assessment: the manifesto reads like a demand for money. If you live in England, Wales or Northern Ireland then you might do well to read this manifesto and see what demands are being made of you. If the Barnett formula isn’t fair then it needs to be made fair even if that disadvantages English residents and taxpayers. I am a great supporter of fairness. Those who oppose Scottish independence (not me) would do well to ensure fairness across all four UK nations in allocation of money as part of a defence against schisms. However, Scotland does have its own parliament and decides a great deal of its own affairs, but this is a manifesto for a UK parliament election, not a Scottish election. MPs come to Westminster from Scotland (Wales and Northern Ireland) to help decide UK matters. MPs go to Westminster from English constituencies to decide English matters and UK matters. Westminster is a hybrid parliament – see below for more.
Would I vote for these environmental policies?: the question is moot because there is no SNP candidate standing in Corby and East Northamptonshire despite the fact that Corby hosts a large and impressive Highland gathering – the next of which takes place 10 days after the general election. The last time I visited the Labour Club in Corby, which was probably over a decade ago, Scottish accents were commonplace and pints of McEwans export were being drunk, as Corby had the nickname of ‘Little Scotland’ due to the number of Scottish steelworkers who had moved to work in the Corby steelworks.
However, the MPs sent to Westminster from Scotland can vote on English-only issues, whereas the MP I help to elect in Corby cannot vote on Scotland-only, Wales-only or NI-only issues because they don’t sit in the devolved nations’ legislatures. This is the famous West Lothian question and for a while at Westminster, MPs from English seats had a veto on England-only issues – see English Votes for English Laws, EVEL – click here.
If MPs from Scottish constituencies influence my environmental future on England-only matters I won’t be chuffed, unless, of course, they vote the way I’d like! If MPs from non-English constituencies had a decisive say on licensing (or better a ban) of driven grouse shooting in England then whichever way it went, one side or the other in England could rightly feel hard done by. This set-up is a recipe for future strife and needs sorting out rationally and fairly – the trouble is that the short term interests of the Westminster English government (as opposed to the Westminster UK government) are strongly determined by whether they think they will gain or lose in the short term from EVEL.
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. They were commissioned by Wild Justice several months ago by approaching a wide variety of conservationists and environmentalists long before the date of the general election was known. Some people who originally agreed to write pieces found the date and short timescale impossible and had to back out. We did not know what they would write and their only brief was to pick one or two political parties’ election manifestos and tell us what they liked and didn’t like about their environmental policies. We didn’t tell people what to write and we haven’t edited what they wrote (except to squeeze things into a common format, to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors and typos).The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
On Saturday 22nd June, tens of thousands of you took to the streets for nature and for the climate. Here are some of your photos from the Restore Nature Now march, it was brilliant to see so many of you there.
If you went along and took any photos, send them to admin@wildjustice.org.uk and we’ll share some of them here!
Image by Mark AveryImage by Helen WhittleImage by by Mary and Michael PattersonImage by Helen WhittleImage by Mark AveryImage by Nick ColeImage by Mark AveryImage by Mary and Michael PattersonImage by Mary and Michael PattersonImage by Mary and Michael PattersonImage by Georgette TaylorNadeem Perera by by Mary and Michael PattersonImage by Helen WhittleImage by Helen WhittleImage by Mark AveryNemonte Nenquimo by Mary and Michael PattersonFeargal Sharkey by by Mary and Michael PattersonImage by Mary and Michael PattersonAneeshwar Kunchala by Mary and Michael PattersonImage by Mark AveryImage by Anna DaleImage by Helen WhittleImage by Helen WhittleImage by Mary and Michael PattersonImage by Mary and Michael PattersonImage by by Mary and Michael PattersonImage by Mary and Michael PattersonImage by Helen WhittleImage by Mary and Michael PattersonImage by Anna DaleImage by Helen WhittleImage by Mary and Michael PattersonAneeshwar Kunchala by Mary and Michael PattersonImage by Nick ColeImage by Mark Avery
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Plaid Cymru by John Bratton
I am an entomologist who held desk jobs in the government conservation agencies in Peterborough and Bangor for 20 years. Most of my time now goes on helping to look after an SSSI in Gwynedd. I have voted in all available elections since 1979, never with whole-hearted support for a party but rather trying to choose the one whose policies would be least damaging to the natural environment. I have only once voted for the winning party in a general election. These are my thoughts on the environmental aspects of the 2024 Plaid Cymru manifesto.
The manifesto has 15 chapters. None of their titles mention environment or biodiversity, so the most promising ones for environmental policies are Climate Change and Energy and Rural Affairs.
Climate Change and Energy starts well: “Plaid Cymru recognises that the climate and nature emergencies are the biggest threat to mankind on a global scale…”. But in the following 30 paragraphs, only three mention wildlife conservation. The majority of the chapter concerns Plaid Cymru’s determination to take control of energy generation and water resources.
Turning to Rural Affairs doesn’t reduce the disappointment. Plaid Cymru will broaden the approach to tackling of bovine TB by controlling the disease in wildlife. Apart from that, nature doesn’t figure in rural affairs. Presumably Plaid is so keen to get the agricultural vote that it won’t say anything that might result in a tut of disapproval from farmers.
What I like in the Plaid Cymru manifesto:
A determination to improve water quality in Wales.
No new licences for oil and gas drilling.
Stronger enforcement of protection for SSSIs “so that the days of companies dumping waste on protected sites are a thing of the past”. This is clearly a reference to the Welsh Labour leader’s association with a criminal convicted of dumping on the Gwent Levels. But is it consistent with Plaid’s desire for a third bridge over the Menai Strait which would damage two SSSIs? And do they realise poor habitat management is the bigger issue with SSSIs?
“A science-led plan … to ensure nature loss is firmly in reverse as soon as possible”. But there is nothing in the rest of the manifesto to suggest how this reverse would come about. It can’t be achieved in isolation from the rest of Welsh life.
Opposition to the requirement in the Sustainable Farming Scheme (the new agri-environment scheme) for all participating farms to have at least 10% tree cover. If this policy were to be implemented, it would cause the loss of wildlife-rich rough grazing and marshes, these being the farmland habitats a farmer would be most likely to sacrifice to tree plantations.
Controlling TB in wildlife as mentioned above, assuming this means vaccinating the badgers rather than culling anything that might test positive.
Strengthening the UK’s animal and plant disease surveillance. This is proposed as a crop protection initiative but should protect wildlife too.
Improving the legislation around dogs harassing livestock. This is a perennial problem on the SSSI where I work.
Things I don’t like:
Plaid wants to scrap the Nitrate Vulnerable Zone Regulations, which seems to be at odds with their aspirations for higher water quality.
They have ambitions to “clear away the coal tips that litter our valleys”. Perhaps no one has sent them Liam Olds’ report on the conservation value of colliery heaps in South Wales.
What is missing:
Details. There is not enough detail to make the positive proposals convincing.
Access to green spaces. While most of the party manifestos are promising greater public access to the countryside, Plaid is silent on this issue. It would be useful to know whether the immensely damaging Wales Coastal Path is a model Plaid would want to repeat.
There is no mention of the marine environment. The words “marine” and “fishing” do not appear in the manifesto, while “sea” is mentioned once, in relation to drownings.
There is no mention of Natural Resources Wales. Are they happy with the organisation’s performance? Do they recognise its responsibilities for wildlife conservation and its conflicting role in Welsh forestry?
Would I vote for Plaid Cymru on the basis of this manifesto?
No.
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. This piece was not originally commissioned by Wild Justice but was submitted by a newsletter subscriber. The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
If you think you could produce a review of one of the 2024 general election manifestos then we would need to receive it as soon as possible, but in any case before 26 June, in a similar format to that above, as a word file and with a .jpg or .png image of yourself, the author. Send any potential texts to admin@wildjustice.org.uk and we will look at them. We’ll let you know if we want to publish your piece and we may be able to pay you a small amount for it.
Comments Off on Guest Election Blog – Scottish Greens by Lucy Lapwing HodsonPhoto by Lucy Lapwing
Scottish Green Party Manifesto – by Lucy Lapwing
I am an environmental campaigner, writer, amateur-ish naturalist and enthusiastic toad-tickler. I worked in the conservation sector for eight years, and now work with Wild Justice on their campaigns. I also write about wildlife, organise other campaigns and events, and work a bit in wildlife telly.
I first voted in the 2010 general election, and awoke on May 7th to a Conservative government just a month after my nineteenth birthday, which was excellent…
I joined the Labour Party aged 16, and have voted Labour in every general election since. I sat a term as a borough councillor in my early twenties, and voted in each Labour leadership race. I supported Jeremy Corbyn; I considered his vision of an equitable future for the most vulnerable folks in our society to be exciting and admirable. I left the Labour party in 2020, and have voted Green in local elections since then.
On July 4th I’ll be voting in Scotland for the first time, in Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber.
This is my review of, and my thoughts about, the environmental implications of the Scottish Green’s election manifesto.
Things I like:
Nature: They use the word ‘nature’ in their manifesto – and they actually mean nature – a total of 14 times. This might seem basic, but other parties haven’t used this word (or similar) once in their entire manifesto. Language is important; it shows consideration and at least a degree of commitment.
Investment to restore peatlands and expand native forest; There is an implied commitment from the greens to restore ecologically functioning habitats, not simply to ram tens of thousands of trees (in plastic tubes) into the ground to reach climate targets. It’s good to have a party recognising that trees and woodlands aren’t the only one of nature’s answers to carbon capture; other habitats, particularly peatlands (who doesn’t love a sphagnum moss?!), are vital in both ecological and climate terms.
Protect funding to support farmers developing regenerative agricultural practices; I might sound like a nerd, but I find regenerative agriculture very exciting. Fixing our relationship with land and food seems like one of the biggest ways to let nature flourish again in the UK. I’d like to see this commitment ramped up – more funding please Scottish Greens (and anyone else who’s listening). And whilst we’re at it – let’s have land equity so that more people have input into food growing!
Using the law – The Scottish Greens are supporting the implementation of a Human Right to a Healthy Environment, as well as calling to recognise Ecocide as an International crime. To see each of these outcomes in legislation would be a big win. Laws are powerful (we hope you agree, if you’re reading this on Wild Justice’s blog), and if both of these come to exist, groups and individuals stand a better chance of using the system to defend both nature and the people being harmed by the nature crisis. It’s good to see the Scottish Greens supporting both of these initiatives.
Sewage: I’m sick of having to check the Surfer’s Against Sewage app every time I get in the sea. And if I want to get in a river, I just have to cross my fingers and hope it’s not a sh*t-filled soup.The sewage crisis is appalling.Scottish Greens say they’ll call for ‘a major investment to upgrade the capacity of our sewage system’, including separating domestic sewage and rainwater systems. In a place of so much rain, like Scotland, this makes a ridiculous amount of sense. They also say they want ‘stronger powers for regulators to crack down on water companies, with unlimited fines and a ratcheting effect for repeat offenders.’ Wouldn’t it be great to get justice for this gross, smelly mess?!
Revoke recently issued oil and gas licences, and prohibit and new ones. It’s surprising how other parties have avoided committing to this – what feels like a no-brainer in the climate emergency. They also discuss the legacy of this industry; decommissioning existing oil and gas fields. It’s good to see some long-term consideration of this issue.
Climate policy: This is where the Scottish Greens feel particularly strong (which you might expect). I won’t cover everything, but it’s good to see a wide range of energy and transport issues covered, as well as advocation for a Green New Deal.
Things I don’t like:
Light on detail: Some parts of the manifesto feel as though they’re written with confidence; their policies surrounding sewage, oil and gas licensing, and the law seem to be backed up with evidence.Others – like those discussing nature restoration and regenerative agriculture, contain no detailed statistics, figures or commitments.
Who’s involved? Whilst it’s promising to read about the restoration of habitats (like woodlands and peatlands) there is relatively little detail explaining how this might happen. Any issue involving how land is used (and what it looks like) is inevitably sensitive; it’d be good to understand how communities and those local to areas of restoration will be involved and empowered.
Things that appear to be missing:
Marine and Fishing issues; the manifesto lacks any policies or statements on issues affecting Scotland’s coasts. There’s scope here to discuss Marine Protected Areas, impacts of fishing (including Scallop Dredging and trawling) and the booming industry of commercial, industrial salmon farming.
Overall assessment:
Like every manifesto I’ve read – there’s lack of detail surrounding many of even the most promising policies and stances. That said, it seems as though they’ve given more than fair consideration to specifically nature-related issues (outside of climate change). It’s nice to see ecological subjects getting a good chunk of coverage.
I can’t say this is the ideal manifesto – no party can achieve that for everyone – but it overall feels positive, hope-filled and relatively ambitious. It also seems like the Scottish Greens would be willing to listen and engage on nature and wildlife issues, which is more than can be said for other parties.
Would I vote for these environmental policies? Yes. Sadly and frustratingly, I do not have a Scottish Green candidate in my seat, so I’ll have to look into Vote Swapping I reckon.
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. They were commissioned by Wild Justice several months ago by approaching a wide variety of conservationists and environmentalists long before the date of the general election was known. Some people who originally agreed to write pieces found the date and short timescale impossible and had to back out. We did not know what they would write and their only brief was to pick one or two political parties’ election manifestos and tell us what they liked and didn’t like about their environmental policies. We didn’t tell people what to write and we haven’t edited what they wrote (except to squeeze things into a common format, to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors and typos).The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
If you think you could produce a review of one of the 2024 general election manifestos then we would need to receive it as soon as possible, but in any case before 26 June, in a similar format to that above, as a word file and with a .jpg or .png image of yourself, the author. Send any potential texts to admin@wildjustice.org.uk and we will look at them. We’ll let you know if we want to publish your piece and we may be able to pay you a small amount for it.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – The Workers’ Party by Mark Avery
I am one of the co-founders and co-directors of Wild Justice but I write this in a personal capacity. I am a scientist (evolutionary biologist and ecologist) by training, and I worked for the RSPB for 25 years. Since 2011 I have done pieces of freelance work for several wildlife organisations, written several books, blogged, campaigned and helped set up Wild Justice.
I first voted in the 1979 general election and have rarely voted for a successful candidate. I am a member of the Labour Party and have, in the past, voted Labour (often), LibDem (rarely but where they stood a chance of displacing the Conservatives) and Green (mostly in local and EU elections). I’ll be voting in the Corby and East Northamptonshire constituency on 4 July.
quite a few things but the only ones about the environment were…
“Our approach to the countryside is one of respect and wider public access“: sounds quite good, but could mean a host of very different things. I remain agnostic about increased access until its proponents spell out what it means in practice.
“We will require demonstrable proof that all land held in the UK is being used for socially productive purposes – agricultural production, housing or infrastructural development, shared heritage, natural wilderness or parkland with easy access for workers and their families and so forth. We commit to the preservation of national parks and woodlands as well as meadows and other ecological treasures on this basis of full public access. Closed lands in excess of reasonable family or productive requirement will come under review for directed use and public access if they are left idle.“: this is a very radical socialist agenda. I’d need a lot more flesh on the bones before I could support it though.
“Grandstanding projects of dubious value to meet liberal political needs will come to an end and be replaced by investment in clean water, efficient sewage, ...”: sounds good but is so vague…
Things I don’t like:
Net zero: calling for a referendum on Net Zero sounds like a way of letting people say ‘no’ to something that we need. And pointing to the fact that there is money to be made (by nasty businesses) from achieving it, and money to be lost (by the workers) from achieving it, seems too one sided. The long term (my grandchildren’s generation) consequences of slow action are huge.
ULEZ: opposition to clean air for working people?
The Green Agenda: is portrayed as part of capitalism and the beneficiaries are big businesses.
Things that appear to be missing:
farming, forestry, fisheries, nature are hardly mentioned.
Overall assessment: there are some things I like here because my politics are to the left of the current Labour Party, but none of them is about the environment. Treatment of Net Zero is very negligent. This manifesto has much (some of it sensible) about social and economic policies but practically nothing about the third leg of sustainable living – environmental policies. And so, it’s a Big Fail.
Would I vote for these environmental policies?: No, because of their stance on Net Zero, because it’s very much social and economic perspectives first and environment last (if at all) and because they don’t have a stance on very much as far as environment is concerned. But I will keep an eye on how Labour does and how this lot develops. Just as Reform may be the downfall of the Conservative party, a mixture of the Greens and Workers Party may be a kick up the backside for Labour.
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. They were commissioned by Wild Justice several months ago by approaching a wide variety of conservationists and environmentalists long before the date of the general election was known. Some people who originally agreed to write pieces found the date and short timescale impossible and had to back out. We did not know what they would write and their only brief was to pick one or two political parties’ election manifestos and tell us what they liked and didn’t like about their environmental policies. We didn’t tell people what to write and we haven’t edited what they wrote (except to squeeze things into a common format, to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors and typos).The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
If you think you could produce a review of one of the 2024 general election manifestos then we would need to receive it as soon as possible, but in any case before 26 June, in a similar format to that above, as a word file and with a .jpg or .png image of yourself, the author. Send any potential texts to admin@wildjustice.org.uk and we will look at them.We’ll let you know if we want to publish your piece and we may be able to pay you a small amount for it.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Labour by Derek Gow
I am a wildlife ecologist who has worked on reintroduction projects for species such as the water vole, Eurasian beaver and the white stork. I have written three books, the last of which – The Hunt for The Shadow Wolf – was published by Chelsea Green in March 2024.
As this is my second review, I am confident that I have no need to repeat a prescribed layout. Mark, Chris and Ruth will be clement and allow me some space for modest scene setting.
Imagine, if you can, a family bereavement. It’s a distant relative, not someone you adore and they have passed peacefully in their small house full of dust, chintz and ghastly figurines from the 1950’s in the back streets of St Albans. As they were prudent there is a will and along with a sisal-bound hoard of old women’s weekly magazines, a half-drunk bottle of advocaat and some red cabbage seedlings you have been allocated the ownership of their dog.
It’s neither old or young. Large or small. Hostile nor enthusiastic.
You don’t already own a dog but realise that there is no rational basis to resent it for simply being what it is – a dog. As you view each other uneasily across the length of your dead relatives barren kitchen the pluses of the situation unfolding seem positive. More walks for the dog is more exercise for you. A good bath, a change of diet and an excursion to a grooming parlour could transform your new ward into a decent companion. The negatives? Well, your imaginary pluses are all baseless and it may bite your new boyfriend, inflame his asthma beyond the point of purple endurance and more worryingly incur a vets bill for the removal of the walnut like growth on its lower jowl – which results in it dribbling quite a lot – that makes NASA’s next bill for a Mars space mission look mundane.
Either way your imaginings are baseless and all that’s for sure is you’re about to exit the land of the blandly dogless.
It is my belief that emotions roused by the above can be fairly applied to the prospect of a next Labour government.
So, let’s begin with neutrality.
I remember sitting once in a bar in Bavaria watching farmers spit while Tony Blair on TV put his case for the renegotiation of the Common Agricultural Policy. But whatever aspirations grinning Tone may have cherished for the wider social reallocation of this loot – day care centres for small kids disadvantaged by big ears or new merry-go-rounds for incontinent pensioners – were shot down by a fusillade of nons, neins and nees from industrial farming interests whose only toxic desire was to bless every bee with breast cancer. Defeated on that front he then tried to outsmart the wily fox hunters who mounted up to outflank his clumsy manoeuvrings in order to perpetuate forever their own pointless vileness. Remember foot and mouth ? Well, that came next and although there were foetal murmurings of a different countryside deal at that time, they were lanced through by bold Sir Ben Gill from the NFU on his weary warhorse Status Quo and failed to draw breath. Amidst this brouhaha some Labour ministers – before they were jailed for embezzlement – gave the impression that nature was vaguely important.
Good people like Hilary Benn who might have made a difference came way too late to the fray.
So, while in power Labour stuck with the science and refused to throw any badgers to the lynch mobs, as a political force they have no clearer track record of environmental commitment than any other form of UK government. Though the party recognises that the climate crisis is accelerating the downfall of nature it remains to be seen if they intend to make any real difference. Although their promise to expand nature-rich habitats such as wetlands, peat bogs and forests is welcome, what does its stated purpose of enabling ‘families to explore’ actually mean ? Along with the pledge to create nine river walks – where our millions strong dog herd can froth, float and flounder – and other ‘national forests’ will these actions not simply cater for the recreational requirements of people ?
Bialowiezas they will not be .
But perhaps there is hope.
If it’s clear that the befoulment of our freshwaters has captured both public and political attention then chaining together in perdition of the responsible water company executives in the bilges of barges moored off Portland will achieve nothing if the 70% of toxic silts, fertilisers, pesticides and disease-ridden slurries released by farming are not additionally addressed. While commitments to ban the cruelty of snares will displease the serfs of the grouse lords and trail hunting’s removal will hopefully unhorse the apocalyptic any real change in the fortunes of nature can only come from the reshaping of our landscape on a massive scale. We have created the dead zones of now. If we wish to resuscitate what’s left of our wildlife then a rapid remoulding’s required. Farming must be a first priority and the snarling old Cerberus of the NFU should be taken by its new political masters to an immediate appointment of a veterinary sort which when it leaves 2 stones lighter will ensure meek, future compliance.
The lowering of the voting age is a bold initiative and it must be accompanied by the assumption of brave Mary Colwell’s environmental curriculum to inform the generations who have a future that is long. The creation from their ranks of legions who care will be essential if any battle to save what’s left of our dying planet is to not end in defeat. Decent people who assist them must be nurtured to become the custodians of the new wetlands we will need to alleviate both flooding and drought as the earth warms. Any scrub allowed to burst forth from pastures that enables autumn ouzels to wax fat for their African flights or flower filled rough grasslands or green-gladed wood pastures should together tumble into their purlieu. Beavers must be reintroduced immediately without witless restriction into every river system to defibrillate what little life remains until in a time that’s far distant every creature whose beating heart draws breaths, bounds or shimmies can exist once again on their own.
Perhaps prosaically the Tories in their tumultuous rout may have left commandments of worth that could be captured. The Environment Act of 2021 despoiled as it’s been in the dank lair of the great troll Therese could – after disinfection – be raised as a banner by a new Labour government imbued with both passion and purpose to rally on high a real movement now to recover the earth.
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. They were commissioned by Wild Justice several months ago by approaching a wide variety of conservationists and environmentalists long before the date of the general election was known. Some people who originally agreed to write pieces found the date and short timescale impossible and had to back out. We did not know what they would write and their only brief was to pick one or two political parties’ election manifestos and tell us what they liked and didn’t like about their environmental policies. We didn’t tell people what to write and we haven’t edited what they wrote (except to squeeze things into a common format, to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors and typos).The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
If you think you could produce a review of one of the 2024 general election manifestos then we would need to receive it as soon as possible, but in any case before 26 June, in a similar format to that above, as a word file and with a .jpg or .png image of yourself, the author. Send any potential texts to admin@wildjustice.org.uk and we will look at them. We’ll let you know if we want to publish your piece and we may be able to pay you a small amount for it.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Lib Dems by Chantal WoodunChantal Woodun
My interest in the natural world led me to study Zoology and Psychology as a first degree, followed by International Studies, focusing on the environment and environmental policy.
I became a London National Park City Ranger in 2020. Combined with the @wanderfulldn Instagram account, I attempt to draw people’s attention to the diverse habitats and wildlife found across our capital and beyond and how this can benefit our physical and mental health. I also work with the campaign to save the glorious Warren Farm Nature Reserve, in West London.
Campaigners and citizens have struggled to protect this rare, 61 acre rewilded meadow in Brent River Park, from development by Ealing’s Labour council. Fighting for what should so naturally be part of our world at a time of immense climate and environmental crisis draws focus on just how low down the priority list nature really is.
I first voted in 1997 when the Conservatives had been in power for 18 years whilst Labour were promising to listen to citizens and drive radical change.
The manifesto puts a great deal of focus on various approaches to the nature and climate emergency noting it’s “the most pressing threats to prosperity facing the UK and the world.”.
They acknowledge that a significant change in the way UK citizens see and interact with the world around them is necessary, making it part of the culture by:
Delivering high-level vocational skills via national centres of expertise for areas such as renewable energy.
Creating tens of thousands of green jobs.
Promoting community energy and fitting new homes with solar.
Reducing household energy bills by making homes more energy efficient including free retrofitting for low-income households.
Creating green pensions which comply with the Paris Agreement climate goals.
Creating greener and safer cycling and walking networks travel options.
Recognition that it is everyone’s human right to a healthy environment, demonstrated with a Clean Air Act and banning water companies from continuing to pump raw sewage into rivers, lakes and coastal areas.
For far too long, governments have given power to huge corporates and turned a blind eye to the ill they do. The LibDems would hold companies to account for their negative impact.
Things I don’t like or are unclear:
Whilst I am a huge fan of renewable energy, they must be realistic about some of the targets. For example, saying ‘all new homes to be fitted with solar panels’ sounds great but it won’t be realistic as solar is not going to be appropriate everywhere.
I welcome the reestablishment of lost woodland habitats but I worry when it comes to tree planting targets. It requires appropriate assessment to ensure 1. They are planted in the habitat appropriate locations 2. Native species are planted 3. It is well managed, ensuring a greater chance of survival 4. A continued management plan is in place to for the trees and wider species diversity. In sum, they need to make sure the ‘at least 60 million trees a year’ is not an empty target.
They speak about a new approach to farming and woodland creation, but due to the UKs critical and dire biodiversity status, there must also be a focus on other lost habitiats such as vital wetlands, meadows, hedgerows and marine life.
Placing nature and the environment in planning is critical, however, this needs to be wide ranging such as reducing driveways which increases flooding and removes vital planting space, look to how new and existing buildings can save water and look at how the vast amount of roof space can be better utilised.
Overall assessment:
Overall, I feel that the Liberal Democrats are serious about restoring nature and the environment to the heart of the UK, looking at ingrained and substantial change in an array of areas from colleges, jobs, green technology and importantly holding companies to account and correctly fining and taxing them. However, details and ways of funding need to be elaborated on.
Would I vote for these policies?
I am a Liberal at heart and believe in their policies but based on their rankings I worry it will be a wasted vote.
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. They were commissioned by Wild Justice several months ago by approaching a wide variety of conservationists and environmentalists long before the date of the general election was known. Some people who originally agreed to write pieces found the date and short timescale impossible and had to back out. We did not know what they would write and their only brief was to pick one or two political parties’ election manifestos and tell us what they liked and didn’t like about their environmental policies. We didn’t tell people what to write and we haven’t edited what they wrote (except to squeeze things into a common format, to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors and typos).The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
If you think you could produce a review of one of the 2024 general election manifestos then we would need to receive it as soon as possible, but in any case before 26 June, in a similar format to that above, as a word file and with a .jpg or .png image of yourself, the author. Send any potential texts to admin@wildjustice.org.uk and we will look at them.We’ll let you know if we want to publish your piece and we may be able to pay you a small amount for it.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Labour by Sophie Pavelle
I’m a Devon-based author (Forget Me Not, Bloomsbury 2022) and science communicator. I have worked in the NGO conservation sector since leaving university, most recently for Beaver Trust. I’m an Ambassador for The Wildlife Trusts and sit on the RSPB England Advisory Committee. My writing appears in The Guardian, National Geographic Traveller, New Scientist, The Independent, and BBC magazines.
Having been born in the USA I have dual citizenship between the States and the UK, first voting in the 2013 US election, and later in the 2015 UK general election. I’ve often felt torn between viewing voting as both a privilege and a frustration. Voting increasingly feels like casting a line into a dark and dirty political lake, only for it never to be bitten. Come the 4th July 2024, I hope my vote may count towards fairness, honesty, deliverance of positive change, and tighten the government’s grip on the climate and biodiversity crisis with serious teeth.
The commitment to change (because it must happen). In 2019, Labour’s manifesto told us ‘It’s Time For Real Change’. Come 2024, we are met with an onslaught of the same ideology. Change change change repeats in dizzying italics to open their 140+ page document, enough to deter any curious reader. If they say it enough, and light an intention candle while they chant, perhaps change will just happen and the ‘chaos’ will magically end in a puff of smoke?
The revival of the UK’s EV transition. From an environmental perspective, I am disappointed by much of this manifesto. But having experienced life via an electric vehicle (EV) at home over the last year, I agree that the EV infrastructure needs investment and strategy if we are to catch up with that of other countries and make personal use of EV’s more affordable at the outset, and less of a logistical ballet. Labour state the ban of petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030 as a flagship catalyst in this change, with that and a zero-carbon electricity system complimenting ambition for ‘clean energy by 2030’; led by a new publicly owned company called Great British Energy. We aren’t party to any detail of their methods of delivery as to quite how they will ‘double onshore wind’ and ‘triple solar power’ by this deadline – just a headshot of a brooding Keir Starmer with some wind turbines in the background and only five years to go.
Increasing environmental resilience. The Labour Party make the link between the need to increase ‘resilience’ in preparing for the environmental challenges of flooding and erosion in coastal areas, and the impact of inaction on personal and societal wellbeing. Whose ‘inaction’ exactly remains unclear, especially as Labour appears to defer responsibility by referring to the dual climate and biodiversity crises as ‘the Conservative’s nature emergency’.
Nature-friendly housing developments and in-built climate resilience to house designs is welcome, as is the commitment to maintaining environmental protections in housing developments affected by nutrient neutrality – including excess nutrient offsetting measures, like wetlands.
50 per cent of all food purchased across the public sector is to be locally produced or at least certified to environmental standards. Again, quite how they will achieve and sustain this, remains a mystery.
The climate and nature crisis is the ‘greatest’ long-term global challenge that we face – an accurate statement summarising today’s state of green affairs. Impressively, Labour also tell us they can ‘end’ it as though it is but a fantasy – a movie dragging on and they’re able to play hero and hit the ‘off’ switch.
Things I don’t like:
£24 billion for ‘green initiatives’ in their ‘Green Prosperity Plan’, a budget that reads more like an advert for a shiny new detergent in the green wash than a robust, strategic framework for nature’s recovery.
Labour flaunts some words and phrases, and promise to end the sewage scandal of our waterways – but what specifically are they going to do to make good their promises? How ambitious are their deadlines? Sure, they rightly acknowledge that Britain is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world – but this statistic is old. In this context, its inclusion feels lazy, recycled and lacklustre. Isn’t it time to pay nature more than lip service?
The UK as the world-leading ‘clean energy superpower’ is the grand, green headline. How foolish of me to hope for ‘biodiversity’, or ‘ecosystem restoration’. I can’t see any emphasis given to flood mitigation, or drought resilience. And certainly not species reintroductions, clean air or with any gumption, clean water.
Any notion of ‘reconnection’ or connectivity is written in the context of Britain as a business, a powerful trading nation – not as an archipelago which needs the terrestrial and the marine and every living thing in-between to be joined as one living system as though by umbilical cord.
Things that appear to be missing:
Soon into the manifesto I find myself as participant in an unexpected game of hide and seek. I realise I have already been playing all week: I can’t hear anything of substance from Labour as to their environmental policies on the radio or TV, perhaps I’ll read of it instead?
I begin my search, shortcutting baggy sections with Ctrl+F hunting for words I’d expect to see from the party claiming to ‘end’ climate change. It becomes harder than I thought.
‘Biodiversity’ (the crucial measure of the variety of life on Earth), has one mention across all 140+ pages. The context? As something to merely ‘promote’ like free shots on a cheap night out. A flyer through the door.
‘Drought’, ‘wildfire’, and ‘air pollution’ – all present, significant threats to the UK as climate change strengthens its grip. A recent study by air quality organisation IQAir (2024) finds just seven out of a surveyed 134 countries meet the World Health Organisation’s air quality standard. The UK is not one of them. ‘Wildfire’ is named alongside transport and industry as the top three contributors to background air pollution. With these facts to hand, I felt sure drought, wildfire or air pollution would get a namedrop in this manifesto. Any luck? Zero mentions.
‘Keystone’, as in ‘keystone species’ which exert a top-down influence and stabilise food-chains and ecosystem resilience: zero.
‘Beavers’ – the keystone mammal which (in the right river catchments) can offer profound, economical and rapid ecosystem services in the way of flood and drought mitigation as ecosystem engineer: also, zero.
The marine environment is blessed with barely a nod, a single reference, despite being integral to both the UK’s climate and energy security. Over 60 per cent of our seabird populations are plummeting, at the mercy of bird flu, fragile fish stocks, extreme weather, and more. Is our blue planet not worthy of specific policies?
A ‘Right To Roam’ Act – um, what happened to this? Labour seems to have retracted its loud and ready pledge to revolutionise public access to nature in a policy similar to that in Scotland, despite this promise being widely publicised (and largely welcomed) in January 2023. Yes, we noticed. And still, in England, only one per cent of the population owns half the country.
‘Toxic’. I find one mention. Not, as I would expect, detailing the toxic chemicals polluting every single one of England’s rivers – but of a ‘toxic’ imbalance of economic growth Labour seek to remedy if elected into power.
Farming comprises 71 per cent of UK land area, yet the section of Labour’s manifesto on their plans for farming is so small it’s easily missed, save for a pledge to make the Environment Land Management (ELM) ‘work for farmers and nature’. That is the least they can offer when farming is crucial to nature’s recovery. I’ll believe it when I can hear skylarks again.
Overall assessment:
The lack of clarity on Labour’s environmental policies leave me reeling in the choppy wake of assumption. All I can do is hope Labour’s sparsity of environmental speak belies their fundamental understanding of and robust plans to restore the state of UK nature, the threats facing local areas, and the diversity in which threats present themselves.
With all the information, the science, the solutions to hand this party had every chance of nailing their approach to the UK’s environmental future. Instead it feels skewed by a blinkered pro-business approach that, although fundamental, lacks strength by blindsiding the natural capital to be gained by working with and restoring nature.
This manifesto feels environmentally half-hearted, bogged down by political mood swings and dull rhetoric. Any hope of a clear path is lost under a hazy, scattergun approach. From pothole fixing to an abolition of trail hunting – the chosen examples of priorities make me feel like they’ve rummaged in a raffle and picked out a few at random because that’ll do.
The only pledge even vaguely linked to the environment in their manifesto highlights is the oxymoronic ‘Clean Power’. Where is the seagrass? The peatlands? The temperate rainforests? The recognition of farmers and landowners as crucial allies in a wilder future? Where is the wild colour, intelligence and vibrancy in this manifesto that should galvanise a new generation of voters, and reassure them that their voice truly matters when standing up for nature?
To me, Labour writes of nature as the accessory to their ties and blazers – instead of the beating heart in the body underneath.The way the environment is written of is not only boring and lifeless but concerning. Labour repeatedly encourages us to join them and ‘turn the page’ – but they hardly make it easy. True to their namesake, the manifesto is a laborious read. I’m wading through treacle to find anything that excites or reassures me that they have clarity on the true state of the natural world. Is the Labour party aiming to motivate action for nature and its restoration, or deflate it?
It’s crunch time and I feel as though Labour are still at the door lacing up their brogues, while the rest of us are standing there in waterproofs wondering when they will come outside and feel the storm. I wanted this to be an oak tree of a manifesto that had nature’s back, that defends her corner with sword and shield. Instead, Labour takes aim with a skinny green arrow and misses in that sweet, stunning form of denial which takes years to refine. Labour, take a bow.
Would I vote for these policies?:
Would you?
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. They were commissioned by Wild Justice several months ago by approaching a wide variety of conservationists and environmentalists long before the date of the general election was known. Some people who originally agreed to write pieces found the date and short timescale impossible and had to back out. We did not know what they would write and their only brief was to pick one or two political parties’ election manifestos and tell us what they liked and didn’t like about their environmental policies. We didn’t tell people what to write and we haven’t edited what they wrote (except to squeeze things into a common format, to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors and typos).The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
If you think you could produce a review of one of the 2024 general election manifestos then we would need to receive it as soon as possible, but in any case before 26 June, in a similar format to that above, as a word file and with a .jpg or .png image of yourself, the author. Send any potential texts to admin@wildjustice.org.uk and we will look at them.We’ll let you know if we want to publish your piece and we may be able to pay you a small amount for it.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Reform by Henry Morris
I first voted in 2001. That was in Harrogate, when my vote went to Phil Willis of the Liberal Democrats. I once delivered some leaflets for him; I have a vivid memory of an ‘Up Yours Delors’ UKIP sticker in someone’s window and thinking they must be mad. It didn’t occur to me that 20 years later their talisman Nigel Farage would be shaping UK political discourse. I continued to vote Lib Dem until the coalition and have since voted Labour or Green. Since I now live in Wales, I’m fortunate to have an alternative to Labour: this time I intend to vote for Plaid Cymru.
Ban foreign supertrawlers from UK waters: I endorse this idea. Although having read the rest, I suspect the key word we’re looking at in this sentence is ‘foreign’.
Things I don’t like:
Ban ULEZ and clean air zones: Can I shock you? I like clean air.
Scrap Net Zero: if the world we know is to continue in a recognisable form the case for Net Zero is incontrovertible. A desire to scrap it thus suggests only two explanations – ill intent or stupidity. In Nigel Farage’s case it looks like the former. In Richard Tice’s case it’s both.
Scrap thousands of retained EU laws that hold back British business: have you noticed how often unregulated, profit-chasing businesses do unscrupulous things?
Scrap renewable energy subsidies: why have unlimited clean energy when you can burn a finite quantum of destructive petrochemicals? Look, I’m not saying these millionaire xenophobes don’t have our best interests at heart . . . Oh well, actually, I am.
No more bans on petrol vehicles: this raised a chuckle. The manifesto is largely predicated on banning things – refugees, regulations, rationality. This is the one thing with which they want to do the opposite.
Fast track North Sea oil and gas licenses, grant shale gas licenses: who would you believe on fossil fuel extraction: a pair of mediocre business bigots, or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the International Energy Agency and NASA? The agony of choice.
Scrap climate related farming subsides: hard to believe a statement like this in a manifesto that nowhere mentions biodiversity.
Protect country sports: those who argue against the mass extermination of wildlife on grouse moors can piss off. Cheese rolling and bog snorkelling can stay though.
Things that appear to be missing:
A handle on reality.
Overall assessment:
Predicated on the deregulating of anything that gets in the way of making money. It reads like the deranged ramblings of a glue-sniffing property investor who doesn’t understand science, humanity or punctuation. Yet, at the time of writing, Reform have risen above the Tories in some opinion polls. Hence, while it is all to easy to laugh or jeer at this malarkey, the constant rightward shift in political discourse must be taken seriously. These people won’t become the opposition, but as we’ve already seen, that won’t stop the media endlessly platforming their ignorant ideas in front of struggling people who are susceptible to ‘easy’ solutions. A few years ago, ‘reform’ seemed like a progressive word. Today, Reform’s nonsense needs to be parried at every opportunity with facts, rationality, and hope.
Would I vote for these environmental policies?
Not if Richard Tice paid me £144k to vet his candidates.
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. They were commissioned by Wild Justice several months ago by approaching a wide variety of conservationists and environmentalists long before the date of the general election was known. Some people who originally agreed to write pieces found the date and short timescale impossible and had to back out. We did not know what they would write and their only brief was to pick one or two political parties’ election manifestos and tell us what they liked and didn’t like about their environmental policies. We didn’t tell people what to write and we haven’t edited what they wrote (except to squeeze things into a common format, to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors and typos).The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
If you think you could produce a review of one of the 2024 general election manifestos then we would need to receive it as soon as possible, but in any case before 26 June, in a similar format to that above, as a word file and with a .jpg or .png image of yourself, the author. Send any potential texts to admin@wildjustice.org.uk and we will look at them. We’ll let you know if we want to publish your piece and we may be able to pay you a small amount for it.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Lib Dems by Stephen Moss
I am an author, naturalist, university lecturer and former wildlife TV producer, originally from London but now living in Somerset. I have produced numerous TV programmes and written many books about the natural world and environmental issues, and feel passionately about the need to take urgent action to reverse global biodiversity loss and the climate crisis.
I first voted in the 1979 general election (when to my eternal shame, as a very politically naïve 19-year-old, I voted Conservative). Since then I have generally voted Liberal, but when I lived in North London in the late 1980s and early 1990s, I voted tactically for Labour. I now vote Liberal in the Somerset constituency of Wells and Mendip Hills, a Conservative-Liberal marginal, where local resident Tessa Munt is standing against Meg Powell-Chandler, the former aide to Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings.
Let’s start with the big picture: we know that the Liberal Democrats cannot, under the current system and with fairly low polling numbers, form the next government. However, they can hold the Labour government to account, and there is a chance – albeit a fairly small one – that they can get enough seats to be the largest opposition party, beating the Conservatives into third place and rendering them even more irrelevant; possibly even hastening the Tories’ extinction as a political force.
That is why, if you care about the environment, and live in any constituency where the Liberal Democrats are second to the Tories – or indeed to Labour – I would urge you to vote tactically for the Lib Dem candidate to try to achieve the maximum possible number of seats for the party.
Things I like:
Their priorities
Of all the main parties, the Lib Dems have the strongest and most prominent environmental policies (even if they do bang on a bit too much about river pollution, which although very important, is not the biggest problem we face).Their ‘Fair deal for the environment’ gets equal billing with the economy, public services, a strong UK and democracy, which is excellent.I was especially impressed by the way they link environmental benefits with economic ones, instead of setting them against one another as the Tories do.The high priority they give to tackling the climate crisis (although they still use the less powerful phrase ‘climate change’); with really practical solutions such as home insulation schemes, clean energy etc.
The way they don’t shy away from mentioning ‘transitioning to net zero’.
Energy Policy
They start by saying ‘Climate change is an existential threat’ – honest, clear and true. And again, they link dealing with the crisis with lowering people’s domestic energy bills – sensible and correct.Driving ‘a rooftop solar revolution’ by expanding incentives, and aiming to get 90% of all UK electricity from renewables by 2030.
Making it cheaper and easier to switch to electric vehicles.
Environment
The section on ‘Natural Environment’ is excellent: clear, honesty, powerful and full of practical ways in which we can improve the environment for people and wildlife.I like the way they start with a clear statement: ‘Protecting our precious natural environment lies at the heart of the Liberal Democrat approach’. About time one of the major parties said this!
Ambitious yet achievable targets to double the area of habitats, abundance of species and Protected Areas by 2050.
Food and Farming
A holistic National Food Strategy (though it focuses more on food and health and fails to join the dots by linking this to an improved environment).The pledge to ‘Accelerate the rollout of the new Environmental Land Management schemes, properly funding it with an extra £1 billion a year to support profitable, sustainable and nature-friendly farming’. (My Italics)
Supporting farmers in restoring natural habitats and improving species recovery and carbon storage, while still producing food.
Other
A sensible, balanced approach to Housing and Transport policies, which would benefit the wider environment as well as people.A clear support for a pluralistic media, including the BBC, to allow open reporting so crucial in a democracy.
Strong policies on Rights and Equality; again essential in a democracy, and so harmed by the Conservative policies of the last 14 years.
Things I don’t like:
Nothing, really, apart from the few omissions set out below. The manifesto is refreshingly free from the dog-whistles of the Conservatives and the general lack of focus and vision of much of Labour’s manifesto.
Things that appear to be missing:
To be fair, there is only so much room in any manifesto – nevertheless, I would like to have seen them at least mention the issues outlined below:
The Foreword from Ed Davey does include the water and sewage scandal, but might perhaps have also mentioned the biodiversity crisis or climate change – I suspect they omitted them because they know that these are not a high priority with floating voters. Understandable, but still a pity.
The ‘fair deal on the environment’ only mentions nature once, in a rather generalised way ‘we will restore nature’ – without saying how (though those details are outlined later).
The section on Health, while packed with excellent policies, doesn’t mention increasing access to the natural world to improve people’s physical and mental health and overall well-being – also a pity.
The section on Education doesn’t mention the benefits of outdoor education, or Mary Colwell’s excellent proposal for a Natural History GCSE.
Overall assessment:
By the end of reading this manifesto I felt optimistic and hopeful. So many of the policies resonated with me – not just the environmental issues but also wider ones, which contribute to a strong and democratic society.
Then I remembered that unfortunately most of them won’t be enacted because the Lib Dems won’t get into power. Yet maybe, just maybe, Labour will take a look at these excellent, practical and sensible polices and steal some of them!
Would I vote for these environmental policies?
Absolutely, yes!
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. They were commissioned by Wild Justice several months ago by approaching a wide variety of conservationists and environmentalists long before the date of the general election was known. Some people who originally agreed to write pieces found the date and short timescale impossible and had to back out. We did not know what they would write and their only brief was to pick one or two political parties’ election manifestos and tell us what they liked and didn’t like about their environmental policies. We didn’t tell people what to write and we haven’t edited what they wrote (except to squeeze things into a common format, to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors and typos).The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
If you think you could produce a review of one of the 2024 general election manifestos then we would need to receive it as soon as possible, but in any case before 26 June, in a similar format to that above, as a word file and with a .jpg or .png image of yourself, the author. Send any potential texts to admin@wildjustice.org.uk and we will look at them. We’ll let you know if we want to publish your piece and we may be able to pay you a small amount for it.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Lib Dems by Sophie Pavelle
I’m a Devon-based author (Forget Me Not, Bloomsbury 2022) and science communicator. I have worked in the NGO conservation sector since leaving university, most recently for Beaver Trust. I’m an Ambassador for The Wildlife Trusts and sit on the RSPB England Advisory Committee. My writing appears in The Guardian, National Geographic Traveller, New Scientist, The Independent, and BBC magazines.
Having been born in the USA I have dual citizenship between the States and the UK, first voting in the 2013 US election, and later in the 2015 UK general election. I’ve often felt torn between viewing voting as both a privilege and a frustration. Voting increasingly feels like casting a line into a dark and dirty political lake, only for it never to be bitten. Come the 4th July 2024, I hope my vote may count towards fairness, honesty, deliverance of positive change, and tighten the government’s grip on the climate and biodiversity crisis with serious teeth.
‘Fairness’ is certainly declared front and centre for this party throughout their manifesto, sometimes loyal to their namesake as demonstrating broad-mindedness. When it comes to these green ambitions, we’re promised ‘a fair deal’. So far so good – nature thrives on an ecological balance between give and take. Perhaps we’re learning?
The economy and environment are entwined: I am pleased (or relieved?) to see the environment and the economy being written of in tandem, perhaps reflecting a renewed understanding of the interconnectedness between nature and society. A call and response. The Lib Dem’s recipe for their proposed ‘strong ‘and ‘fair’ economy reminds me of that of a functioning ecosystem. A lively, progressive environment that is built on ‘stability’, strengthened by small businesses in the food chain upholding ‘long-term productivity’ for those keystones at the top – the ‘industries of the future’. ‘Renewables’ and ‘bioscience’ sectors even get a mention. Will the ‘innovation and ingenuity’ this party references so readily as solutions to a brighter future, mean that UK academia will be more swiftly summoned and supported as part of our economic and environmental arsenal? Stranger things have happened.
Economic recovery cannot happen without tackling the climate emergency, it’s at the heart of our industrial strategy, the Liberal Democrat’s suggest. The Liberal Democrat’s bluntly remind us of the Conservative’s abandonment of climate commitments as leading to a loss of confidence in green investment and technology. The climate is hot. But money is hotter. Could the environmental nightmare become the capitalist’s dream?
Climate change presents an ‘existential threat’ demanding courage and urgent action. This manifesto test drives some buzz words to raise the environmentalist’s brow. They have at least read the key headlines of the latest State of Nature Report (2023), outlining how one in six UK species now risk extinction. They tease examples of the threats to mitigate, like wildfire – a good example of an increasing event for UK landscapes that is all too easy to deny. Met Office data (2023) shows how a 2°C rise in global temperatures will double the days the UK experiences ‘very high fire danger’, pushing the wildfire season into late summer and autumn. Wildfire is a blazing truth we must confront.
A total abolition of greenhouse gases by 2045 ‘at the latest’, is what this party proposes will expedite the UK towards its net zero ambitions – the same deadline as they set themselves in their 2019 manifesto. Back then it was all ‘stop Brexit’ and a plea for a ‘brighter future’. Whether the same target date demonstrates consistency or complacency remains to be seen, but this party has raised their target of electricity generated by renewables come 2030 – from 80 per cent (2019 manifesto) to 90 per cent. Ambitious. The clock is ticking.
An ‘Emergency Home Energy Upgrade Programme’ assures free insulation and heat pumps for low-income households, of clean transport, cycling and walking networks. As a cyclist at the dodgy end of Britain’s roads, my tyres and I appreciate the promise of pothole repair. But I’ll relax once I’m not brushing shoulders with bin lorries in my swerve to avoid a crater.
National and local citizen assemblies are offered as a means to empower and sustain public input, to power-up smaller, more agile corporations in decision making. There is opportunity for the individual to integrate as part of the community fabric and influence decision power on the climate and energy policies outlined by the Lib Dem’s. This focus on people has a chance of indirectly benefitting nature by fostering the most human of acts: conversation, participation, storytelling and gathering. By giving space for us to find and nurture personal connections with the environment, gives us the support we need to act in its favour. The RSPB has seen positive results with this interactive approach that reaches a cross-section of society in their citizen assemblies, as part of the People’s Plan for Nature. Dare we see this as a chance to actually do?
Farmers are ‘key allies’ in tackling the climate and biodiversity crisis, as well as the proposal of more funding (an extra £1 billion per year) for Environment Land Management schemes (ELMs) – which will support farmers in woodland, peatland and waterway restoration, as well as natural flood protection. Seeing ‘species recovery’, ‘carbon storage’ and ‘food’ for the table mentioned in the same breath was reassuring. Nature’s sustenance ensures that of our own.
A new Clean Air Act will be passed (revising the current one from 1993) overseen by the appointment of a new Air Quality Agency, presumably in response to data (2022) from the World Health Organisation showing that the UK’s annual average levels of air pollution are four times greater than the legal limit.
More funding allocated to the Office for Environmental Protection, the Environment Agency and Natural England can only be a good thing. The Conservative party has infamously slashed Natural England’s budget by over 60 per cent, making an already difficult job as an environmental watchdog, near impossible.
Things I don’t like:
This party’s manifesto often feels lopsided environmental policy. There are glimmers of ecological understanding and a grasp of the nuance of the UK’s environmental needs. And compared to other political parties they offer specific and varied examples of how they might deliver some pledges.
But this weight is unbalanced. ‘Net zero’ decorates sentences like a wilting garnish, to the point where its significance as a binding target set in the 2015 Paris Agreement is diluted. We need zest.
Things that appear to be missing:
Detail is lacking in places I need it, like in their grand statement that they will ‘double nature by 2050.’ OK – am listening – double how? To them, what is it they see as ‘nature’ exactly? The seduction of tree planting? Or restoring lost predator/prey dynamics? Reconnecting land with sea? Or protecting grasslands, woodlands, peatlands, kelp forests, rainforests in policy as an interconnected system? How can any of this be quantified, and happen in 20 years? Because as it stands this doubling act sounds more like a gamble than a promise.
Overall assessment:
The Liberal Democrat’s manifesto is not a denial of the environmental emergency, but it’s hardly a confrontation of it either. Really, it’s just saying the least I would expect from a party navigating the greatest threats facing our planet and life as we know it.
Would I vote for these policies?: it does leave me with more questions, which I suppose means I’m curious to see them try.
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. They were commissioned by Wild Justice several months ago by approaching a wide variety of conservationists and environmentalists long before the date of the general election was known. Some people who originally agreed to write pieces found the date and short timescale impossible and had to back out. We did not know what they would write and their only brief was to pick one or two political parties’ election manifestos and tell us what they liked and didn’t like about their environmental policies. We didn’t tell people what to write and we haven’t edited what they wrote (except to squeeze things into a common format, to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors and typos).The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
If you think you could produce a review of one of the 2024 general election manifestos then we would need to receive it as soon as possible, but in any case before 26 June, in a similar format to that above, as a word file and with a .jpg or .png image of yourself, the author. Send any potential texts to admin@wildjustice.org.uk and we will look at them. We’ll let you know if we want to publish your piece and we may be able to pay you a small amount for it.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Reform by Rosie Pearson
I am a planning and environmental campaigner, co-founder of the Community Planning Alliance, founder of Essex Suffolk Norfolk Pylons action group, co-founder of the North Essex Farm Cluster and columnist with The Telegraph.
I do not have any strong party allegiances. I’m interested in policies, not politics.
Brownfield first for housing (although we need to remember that this should always be on a case-by-case basis. Some brownfield is a wildlife-rich haven).
Incentives for new technology in housing and for modular and smart homes. There is definitely room for anything that can reduce CO2 emissions in housing, both during construction and once properties are occupied. A Parliamentary report in 2022 – click here – found that the UK’s built environment (commercial and residential) is responsible for a quarter of our emissions. It’s ripe for improvement.
Repurposing unused offices and vacant high street properties – again, yes please, albeit with checks and balances to ensure that conversions are of a good quality. Retrofitting and reuse of existing buildings also has the benefit of keeping carbon locked in.
Things I don’t like:
Most of the rest of it! Aside from the fact that the manifesto does not mention ‘nature’, ‘biodiversity’ or ‘wildlife’ at all, when it does refer to the environment (four times) it is twice with intent to remove environmental regulations, once to protect country sports and also in this very weak paragraph about tree-planting, “We can protect our environment with more tree planting, more recycling and less single use plastics. New technology will help, but we must not impoverish ourselves in pursuit of unaffordable, unachievable global CO2 targets.” This, depressingly, misses the point that climate change itself will impoverish us (or worse) and that there are economic benefits to a green economy.
Reform will ‘Stop the War on Drivers’ by legislating to ban ULEZ Clean Air Zones and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. Come on, Reform – there are numerous studies showing the benefits and popularity of these proposals. We need to put public transport, cycling and walking at the top of the agenda and give people affordable options so they do not have to rely on their car.
And finally, a pledge which makes me want to cry because I have seen at first-hand how nature is benefiting – one to scrap climate-related farming subsidies. The environmental farming subsidies are only just starting to be applied. It is an exciting time. Farmers are showing us how they can grow food and protect the environment. Reverting to flat-rate subsidies would be a short-sighted disaster. If we don’t protect our soils, aquifers and water-courses and rural environment, we will not be able to grow food at all.
Overall assessment:
This was a painful read and nothing short of terrifying for the environment, nature and biodiversity.
Would I vote for these environmental policies?
Unequivocally, no.
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. They were commissioned by Wild Justice several months ago by approaching a wide variety of conservationists and environmentalists long before the date of the general election was known. Some people who originally agreed to write pieces found the date and short timescale impossible and had to back out. We did not know what they would write and their only brief was to pick one or two political parties’ election manifestos and tell us what they liked and didn’t like about their environmental policies. We didn’t tell people what to write and we haven’t edited what they wrote (except to squeeze things into a common format, to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors and typos).The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
If you think you could produce a review of one of the 2024 general election manifestos then we would need to receive it as soon as possible, but in any case before 26 June, in a similar format to that above, as a word file and with a .jpg or .png image of yourself, the author. Send any potential texts to admin@wildjustice.org.uk and we will look at them. We’ll let you know if we want to publish your piece and we may be able to pay you a small amount for it.
Comments Off on How do rivers fare in the manifestos? A review by River Action
After climate change, it feels as though water quality and sewage pollution is a top priority issue for many voters in the general election. We think this is largely down to campaign work by organisations like River Action and others (including ourselves), who’ve raised awareness and brought the dire situation with our rivers to people’s attention.
Today we’re opening up our blog to our friends at River Action, who’ve kindly done the work to assess five manifestos for policies and promises when it comes to the water pollution crisis. Read on for the full blog, or download a PDF version below.
James Wallace, CEO of River Action UK
How do rivers fare in the manifestos?
By James Wallace CEO, River Action UK
The water pollution crisis in our rivers, lakes and seas is one of the leading issues for the 2024 general election. River Action, joined by communities and organisations nationwide, has raised the alarm and called on voters to join the campaign. But are suggestions like The Charter for Rivers reflected in the manifestos?
Freshwater is the lifeblood of our land, enabling food and water security, underpinning our economy, literally sustaining lives. But our rivers and lakes are dying – only 14% of rivers in England are in good ecological condition and 83% of rivers are highly polluted by sewage and agriculture.
Earlier this year, water quality testing from River Action revealed high levels of dangerous E.coli bacteria in the River Thames ahead of the famous Boat Race. With 3.6 million hours of raw sewage spilled in 2023 and water companies accruing £64 billion in debt since privatisation while rewarding shareholders with £78 billion of dividends, this is no surprise. Known by many of our neighbours as ‘The Dirty Man of Europe’, the UK has some of the worst water quality.
Now that we are clear on the scale of the crisis, let’s look at how our rivers, lakes and seas could be protected and restored in the next government.
Labour
Starting with (according to the polls) the frontrunner candidate for the next government. The manifesto essentially wrote itself from various recent Labour announcements. Having first trumpeted it would ban bonuses for polluting water company bosses’ in October 2023, they have made it a top feature in the manifesto. Likewise bringing criminal charges against persistent lawbreakers. This is a welcome policy but not the urgent systemic root and branch regulatory reform needed.
How, we wonder, will they accelerate the penalty and prosecution process, having committed to automatic and severe fines? It took 6 and 4 years respectively for Thames Water and Southern Water to be prosecuted for major fish kills by the poorly performing Environment Agency. It needs a new bold government to give the enforcers back their sharp teeth. Labour’s commitment to independent pollution monitoring is well received. We can’t have polluters marking their own homework. But, with the Environment Agency notoriously turning-up late and downgrading serious pollution incidents, we need the threat of immediate inspections reinstated to rattle illegal polluters.
In March this year, Labour vowed to put water companies into special measures to force them to clean up their toxic mess and protect people’s health. This made the manifesto, but the party has been light on detail of what these special measures would be. For example, what is their commitment to ensuring the taxpayer does not bail out a failing water company like Thames Water?
Labour has remained quiet on agricultural pollution, likely due to its targeting of rural votes and pacifying the National Farmers’ Union. The manifesto recognises that the Environmental Land Management scheme (ELMS) must work for farmers and nature. But unlike the other manifestos it does not put a number on what support would look like. A missed opportunity to support struggling farmers.
Surprisingly, there is nothing on water scarcity – how can a party claim to prioritise growth when our freshwater, therefore economy, is at risk of drying up?
Conservative
With the backdrop of an attack on net zero costs and threat of new oil and gas licensing rounds, the Conservative’s environmental manifesto pledges are a roundup of the policies introduced while in government. Why does it take an election to announce reviewing Ofwat’s dreadful Price Review process? They lack ambition compared with 2019 and what is needed to remedy more than a decade of environmental degradation.
Their manifesto is marred by almost daily news about the failing water industry while under their tenure – most recently, analysis from the BBC found every major English water company has reported data showing they have discharged raw sewage when the weather is dry. We are concerned to see the returned threat of scrapping the nutrient neutrality rules which protect vulnerable waterways. If last autumn’s Commons v Lords debacle is anything to go by, can we expect the Conservatives to continue to set up housing against clean rivers? We can and must have both. And the proposal to use polluter fines to fund nature based solutions will only work if sufficiently punitive and hefty. At the moment it pays to pollute.
We were pleased to see the River Wye get a mention in the manifesto. However, it was in reference to the ‘Plan for the River Wye’ which local campaigners have ridiculed for falling ‘far short’, countering with their own action plan to revive the river. The manifesto does at least recognise the need for an increased farming budget, with a commitment to increase it by £1 billion over the Parliament; mimicking but not matching a policy first mentioned at the Liberal Democrat conference last autumn.
As the Conservatives fight to hold their rural seats, expectations were almost non-existent about the potential for a shake up on their water policy. With the announcement of banning wet wipes made three times over as many years, we have become accustomed to repeated broken/recycled promises. Perhaps a new version of the Conservative party, reverting to its small ‘c’ conservative roots might emerge post election, incorporating more of the Conservative Environment Network’s manifesto for rivers, seas and waterways; such as linking water company CEOs pay with environmental performance and ensuring housebuilding doesn’t contribute to storm overflow discharges?
Liberal Democrats
After Ed Davey fell off a paddleboard in Lake Windermere to highlight the sewage crisis, it was no surprise that our polluted waters feature as the top Lib Dem environmental message. While they have long trailed their sewage policies, the manifesto included a few interesting new ideas. Policies include ‘blue flag standards’ and ‘blue corridors’ to drive clean and healthy waterways and giving local environmental groups a place on water companies’ boards. Restructuring water companies into public benefit companies could help put people and planet before profit, giving a voice to communities and ensuring financial rewards relate to environmental performance. Their proposed abolition of Ofwat may be a good step too… will a tough new regulator rise from the swamp?
A Sewage Tax on water company profits may resonate with voters, a direct way of linking environmental and financial performance. An explicit reference to enforcing laws on sewage overflows is welcome, but should extend to other water pollution including agriculture. The current damp squib advisory approach to law enforcement has led to the ecological collapse of rivers like the Wye. As with the other manifestos reviewed, there is limited explicit reference to the essential ingredients to regulatory reform such as an increase in Environment Agency inspections and publishing independent pollution monitoring data. The public has a right to know what goes into their inland and coastal waters – and who is to blame – and all parties should commit to transparency (which would also save the regulators time and money on information requests and legal prosecutions).
The Lib Dem manifesto does make the direct link between farming and rivers, with a commitment to “support farmers to reduce the pollution of rivers, streams and lakes” and plans to properly fund the Environmental Land Management scheme with an extra £1 billion a year. The creation of an Environmental Rights Act – guaranteeing everyone’s right to a healthy environment could help them achieve the target of doubling nature by 2050.
It seems that beyond the confines of electoral targets, the Lib Dems have an opportunity to position themselves as the party for water and broaden focus out from just sewage pollution. This was demonstrated with voter approval in the rural Tiverton by-election last year and may be repeated in the general election. But as with the others, there was silence on water shortages, although a single social tariff for water bills to eliminate water poverty was a nod in the right direction.
Green
Finally, to the Greens, who recognised in their manifesto launch that they have no expectations of forming a government but instead will play a key role in holding the party in power accountable. Their manifesto states what they will push for in parliament rather than what they would implement as Government.
Backed by a promise to tax the super rich, the Green Party manifesto has the environment as one of its three key pillars, and directly recognises the food system as the “greatest driver of nature loss and pollution.” They would triple support for farmers to transition to nature friendly farming, and link payments to reduced use of pesticides and agrichemicals. And, they would end factory farming, which by default would significantly reduce agricultural nutrient pollution.
Greens would take water companies back into public ownership. Will that extend to reforming the environmental regulators and toughening enforcement? Under the current system, fines from water companies that are put back into protecting the environment equate to approximately 1% of funds distributed to shareholders. Such a derisory penalty, acts as a reward rather than deterrent for breaking the law.
The Greens propose tackling the water crisis through other means too. Setting aside 30% of land by 2030 to allow natural recovery of waterways, and assert a Right to Roam to increase access and people’s likelihood of caring about the environment that sustains them.
The potentially one or two new Green MPs will follow in the footsteps of Caroline Lucas, one of the few MPs to cast a wide net on raising river pollution issues, and after reading the manifesto we expect to see the new generation of Greens to do the same.
Reform
There is not much to say here. Reform’s manifesto commits to cancelling all EU inherited regulations (i.e. all our current environmental standards and protections) and abandoning any commitment to achieving net zero. The Reform Party will scrap climate-related farming subsidies and stop Natural England protecting wildlife. There is no reference to rivers or ending pollution.
In conclusion
It is very encouraging that four manifestos have cited water pollution but there’s little to get excited about. Whichever party forms the the next government has a long way to go to inspire belief that significant action will be taken to save our rivers, lakes and seas over the next parliament, as key measures were limited or missing from the manifestos including:
Sewage – significant reform of Ofwat’s failed regulation of the water industry to end decades of profiteering and pollution, and restructuring and refinancing failing water companies linking environmental and shareholder performance, putting people and planet before profits.
Agriculture – strengthening regulation on intensive livestock farming and enforcing the law, limiting density of factory farms in catchments, supporting farmers with environmental incentives, enabling nutrient trading – turning farm waste into resource – and increasing farmers’ share of food pricing.
Water scarcity – restoring wetlands, building more reservoirs and fixing leaking water pipes so we do not run out of water; delivered through a nationwide plan to secure water within and between catchments, while decreasing demand for abstraction, protecting our most vulnerable waterways like chalk streams.
Monitoring and enforcement – properly funding environmental protection agencies and water industry regulators, publishing independent pollution monitoring and sharing data with the public and between regulators, equipping and instructing them to take firm action against polluters.
Protecting public health – ensuring the Environment Agency properly monitors our rivers and publishes transparent data and guidance about when it is safe to use rivers, and making water companies introduce tertiary treatment of final effluent in areas of high use and risk.
It’s not our job to tell anyone how to vote on July 4th, but as we head to the polls what we can do is constantly urge all politicians to put water – rivers, lakes and seas – at the heart of the next parliament.
We must value water as if it’s the elixir of life and enabler of every aspect of our economy. We must start acting like we are in a freshwater emergency. That means a government that prioritises this urgent mission. One that will provide the financial and policy commitments, but also the leadership to rebuild trust and mobilise regulators, civil servants, politicians and industry into action. We need to welcome in a new era of collaborative working – across parties, sectors and communities – moving beyond blame and deceit to achieve rapid transformational systemic solutions. To do this, the new government must define and own the problem, be transparent and fulfil its promises now, not in future decades, and that starts with committing to wholesale regulatory reform backed by sufficient funding.
For real change, we need the new Secretary of State for the Environment to sit opposite the Prime Minister at Cabinet, next to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and for the environment to be front and centre in our nation’s political future.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Green Party by Ross McNally
I am a young environmental writer and socialist, and a zoology graduate from the University of Reading. Having only been eligible to vote in the previous two General Elections, I have only ever voted Labour. I have spent the last four years in an increasing state of despair at how the current Labour leadership has abandoned all pretence at a transformative progressive vision for the country and shredded all credibility before even taking office, including on its environmental policies. Therefore, I have been drawn towards The Green Party, which is offering a genuine alternative, centred around environmental sustainability. Below is a brief review of the most important environmental content – and omissions – from The Green Party’s manifesto.
Things I like:
Genuine protection for biodiversity: the Greens are committed to protecting 30% of UK land and sea by 2030, in keeping with the global 30×30 target adopted at the COP15 in 2022. They emphasise that this will be genuine protection, with nature given the ‘highest priority,’ rather than the meaningless designations that British protected areas have come to exemplify. Part of this protection includes a commitment to ban bottom trawling ‘in UK MPAs and other waters’. This is somewhat vague – will it be a total ban in all UK coastal waters? – but at least it meets what should be the bare minimum threshold of stopping one of the most ecologically destructive practices taking place inside so-called Marine Protected Areas. The Greens are pushing to take water companies back into public ownership, so that profits can be reinvested into updating infrastructure rather than lining the pockets of foreign shareholders. Greens are also pushing for a Rights of Nature Act, to confer legal personhood to nature with all the rights that come with it.
Access to nature: The Green Party supports an English Right to Roam Act, which would follow the model currently in place in Scotland, effectively extending this across England. With the public currently only having access to 8% of England, and less than 3% of waterways, most people are currently locked out of our own country and prevented from easily engaging with nature. A Right to Roam would enable people to more easily access the countryside close to where they live.
Reducing the impact of farming: The Green Party manifesto does quite a rare thing in British politics. It acknowledges the substantial environmental impact of agriculture, and proposes ways to mitigate this. They would phase out the most harmful pesticides, including glyphosate, and we would not see annual ‘emergency’ authorisations for the use of banned neonicotinoids. All pesticides would be subject to rigorous environmental tests before authorisation. The Greens also acknowledge the disproportionate impact of livestock farming and the need to curb meat and dairy production, which will be crucial to meeting its 30×30 target.
Green energy: The Green Party will phase out fossil fuels by granting no new oil and gas licences and ending subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. They will aim for wind to supply 70% of the UK’s electricity generation by 2030 (wind currently accounts for less than 30%). Regional investment banks and minimum thresholds for community owned renewable energy projects. Greens want £29 billion of investment over the next 5 years to insulate homes, with £12bn of this to retrofit social housing stock and £17bn as grants for private homes. An additional £9bn would be made available in grants for heat pump installations. Greens would introduce new building regulations to ensure that new homes meet Passivhaus equivalent standards, and that all newbuilds were fitted with solar panels and low carbon heating systems like heat pumps.
Green transport: The Greens aim to end the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2027, supported by an extensive scrappage scheme worth £5bn by the end of the new parliament, plus the rapid rollout of charging infrastructure. Greens want a road tax proportional to vehicle weight, to end the scourge of SUVs. They oppose all new roadbuilding plans in favour of much greater investment in public transport, including public ownership of railways, gradually followed by taking back ownership of rolling stock, as well as local authority control and funding of bus services. Bus services would be increased in rural areas, and bus travel would be free for under-18s.
Things I don’t like:
No nuclear energy: while some may have reservations about the upfront cost and construction time for nuclear power stations, they’re an extremely efficient and perfectly safe way of producing clean energy, and should certainly be included as part of a resilient and sustainable energy system. The senseless opposition from the Greens is a failure of long-term thinking, and borders on misinformation.
Unjustified support for trophy hunting bans: it’s important to separate the industrial scale shooting of gamebirds in Britain, which should certainly be banned, from lower impact trophy hunting of individual animals. While we may feel moral objections to trophy hunting, in many parts of the world it is a valuable source of revenue that makes community conservation possible, makes conservation competitive with other land uses and reduces human-wildlife conflict. Trophy hunting isn’t a threat to any CITES-listed species imported to the UK, and until we have apex predators back in Britain, well-regulated domestic hunting of deer can be a useful way of controlling populations.
Things that appear to be missing:
Just transition for the livestock industry: The manifesto should have been more explicit in the need to end livestock farming, which is among the greatest single environmental threats both as a source of greenhouse emissions and as a source of water and air pollution, as well as a disproportionate use of land. The manifesto should have been clearer on a just transition for the livestock industry, much like the transition for oil and gas workers.
Keystone species reintroductions: As part of its plan for nature, The Green Party should have clarified its position on the reintroduction of keystone species. There is still no strategy for wild, unenclosed beaver releases in England and Wales, despite several free-living populations already expanding. It was made clear to the Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee last year by Professor Richard Brazier of the University of Exeter that wild boar, bison and elk should be removed from the Dangerous Wild Animals Act, which creates unnecessary obstacles to their reintroduction; the Greens should have addressed this. A trial reintroduction of the lynx is also long overdue, and with the Lynx to Scotland partnership currently engaged in consultations with local stakeholders, the Green manifesto could have given a position on this.
Would I vote for these environmental policies?:
In my view, there is no contest in this election. If you’re interested in environmental restoration and the inextricable links between environmental, social and economic justice, The Green Party is the only party proposing change on the scale and speed that’s required to address the evermore urgent climate and ecological crises we face. With a Labour majority virtually inevitable, it nevertheless seems that under Keir Starmer, we’re going to get another Tory government in all but name. It’s therefore vital to have an increased number of Green MPs in parliament to hold them to account over environmental policy as well as other issues.
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. This piece was not originally commissioned by Wild Justice but was submitted by a newsletter subscriber. The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
If you think you could produce a review of one of the 2024 general election manifestos then we would need to receive it as soon as possible, but in any case before 26 June, in a similar format to that above, as a word file and with a .jpg or .png image of yourself, the author. Send any potential texts to admin@wildjustice.org.uk and we will look at them. We’ll let you know if we want to publish your piece and we may be able to pay you a small amount for it.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Reform by Elizabeth PerryImage: Elizabeth Perry (and pooch)
I have been a public law solicitor for twelve years (although currently non-practising). I started my career in human rights and, more recently I’ve moved into animal protection law.
This is my view of the Reform Party’s election manifesto, so far as it concerns any environmental implications. I have read through the manifesto, thought about its perspective, what is seeks to achieve and what, importantly, I think it omits and this is my summary; essentially – the bad, the bad and the ugly.
Are there things I like?
There is one – the statement that “we all care about the environment”.
Many don’t care about the environment – in fact, reading the Reform Party’s manifesto has made me believe that they actually see the environment as just a very inconvenient obstacle one has to live with – but – and this is the big but – if one can profit from the environment, well, then that’s ok then – they’ll get on board with that.
Anyway, I like any optimism that perhaps one day, everyone will care about the environment and so for that, I like that sentence.
Things I don’t like
There are many, not least as so many issues seem to conflate with one another and don’t really bear any truth to the real issue at question. It reads as outdated, set in a time when we weren’t facing climate disaster, loss of countless habitats, the possibility of our native wildlife species becoming extinct, soil degradation or the terrible fate intensive farming will bring to our environment.
It glosses over an awful lot and makes no qualms at all about doing so.
For example, energy and the environment – lumped together under the same heading, essentially with “energy” winning out, because there’s money to be had – or yet to be found – in that domain, regardless of the cost to our planet.
Climate change is effectively denied as an urgent, crisis-of-our-time issue, but rather one which is inevitable, always has been and always will be, so we should take this in our stride, sit back, look at where money could be made or saved (for example, taking examples given to us, by granting fast track licenses of North Sea gas and oil or perhaps by abandoning any investment in the net zero targets) and let the climate disaster play out.
This manifesto completely disregards the effect of the heavy, intensive industrialisation we have allowed our earth to endure. It suggests we should simply adapt rather than try to prevent further global warming and goes on to point fingers – noting that China produces 27% of CO2 emissions, whereas the UK produces only 1%. So, the message seems to be, if we can’t beat them, let’s just join them – they’re the worst anyway. There is a complete lack of any joined-up thinking or attempt to reaching out to other nations to make our voices stronger, nor is there any thought of future generations to come, and what their world may look like if we keep carrying on like we are.
The manifesto calls for the release of sewage in to our rives and seas to stop – and whilst I support this, it gives no further detail on how it would achieve this nor any detail on what sanctions could be imposed upon those who carried on doing so. The health of our rivers and seas is incredibly poor. The River Trust reported (this year, 2024) that 85% of river stretches in England fall below good ecological standards. So, what we don’t need is bland statements that say sewage needs to be stopped – we know this, what we need is an action plan of how it will be stopped.
On the issue of agriculture, the manifesto effectively pledges to support farmers – but seemingly, at all costs. It wants to help farmers, keeping farmland in use and wants to scrap climate-related subsidies. It supports British grown, clear labelling and gives the nod to smaller food processing – and whilst all of this very much plays into romanticised notions of what British farming perhaps was once more akin to – and many believe it should revert back to – it underappreciates how we are now, through industrialisation, climate change and advancements in technology, worlds away from returning to that place. Over 70% of the UK’s land is farmland – and 85% of all UK farmed animals are now raised in intensive farms – which are nothing like traditional farms.
So, whilst people may support a return to the more traditional farming models –such a move could only ever come about if intensive farming was recognised for what it is – a huge blight on our environment – both in terms of the vast resources it needs and the bio security risks it creates (due to overcrowding, the over use of antibiotics etc) but also the unethical and inhumane conditions our fellow creatures live in.
Agriculture is the main source of river pollution in the UK and whether it’s traditional farming models or intensive farms – the UK’s farming landscape has changed – I fear for the worst – and the Reform Party’s manifesto simply scratches the tip of the iceberg by offering support to smaller farms, without any mention at all of how (and, if) it would ever seek to tackle the growth and operation of intensive farms and their anticipated and inevitable expansion.
The manifesto also supports country sports. I’m not sure how it would defend its assertion that country sports increase investment in conservation of our environment – the majority of country sports often aim to obliterate anything natural (all in the name of sport) – so I will wait (but I won’t hold my breath) to see if the Reform party expand upon this further. In reality, I think any vote for the Reform Party is a green light for abhorrent levels of cruelty to endure, all in the name of a jolly good day out
And finally, fishing; the manifesto speaks of the need to police our waters, impose and extend bans on foreign vessels – (foreign vessels being the ones it believes to be damaging our seabed) and restore the UK’s fishing heritage and support coastal communities. But the manifesto neglects to detail how it’s proposals will stop any further damage to the seabed (even if it were just UK vessels in the waters), how it will commit to protect the waters now and in to the future and how it will look to restore all that we have lost along the way.
My overall view of the Reform Party Manifesto
The Reform Party’s only interest really does appear to be making the country as rich (sadly, only in monetary terms and not in any environmental sense of the word) as quickly as possible, with little (in fact, I’d go so far as to say no) regard to our environment.
It ditches any notion of trying to engage in any useful dialogue or seeking cooperation between nations (something I believe is absolutely vital if we have any hope at all of resolving the climate crisis we are currently faced with), it lacks any progressive thinking to protect future generations (which, let’s not forget – are our children’s children etc) and it focuses on old-school, frankly outdated models of how it would like the UK to look in any environmental sense, irrespective that those models serve no useful purpose – given the drastic changes the environment has been subjected to and the pressing need for us all to step up and protect it.
It refuses to recognise that climate change is something that can be stopped, or ought to be stopped – it downplays the urgency and severity of the same, it’s views in relation to agriculture are archaic – farming is not the industry it once was – not necessarily because we have chosen not to support local, but because intensive farming practices have been allowed to develop and expand with very little scrutiny, which has had (and will continue to have) dire consequences upon the environment around us.
Overall, it’s a blast to revamp some long lived past – with little conviction.
Would I vote for their environmental policies? In a nutshell, no.
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. This piece was not originally commissioned by Wild Justice but was submitted by a newsletter subscriber. The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
If you think you could produce a review of one of the 2024 general election manifestos then we would need to receive it as soon as possible, but in any case before 26 June, in a similar format to that above, as a word file and with a .jpg or .png image of yourself, the author. Send any potential texts to admin@wildjustice.org.uk and we will look at them. We’ll let you know if we want to publish your piece and we may be able to pay you a small amount for it.
Comments Off on Guest election post – Labour by Jonathan Fox
I was a rapid response paramedic working in London for over 37 years until my retirement from the NHS in 2016. I was national press officer for my ambulance union for 21 years, combining this role in a voluntary capacity with my front-line paramedic career.
I have always been actively engaged with the environment and wildlife. Like many, I am extremely concerned about our prevailing climate and biodiversity crisis. I am frustrated that we are currently on a road map to a global temperature which will exceed the stated objectives of the Paris Climate Agreement, which pledged to keep global temperatures to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
The failure of countries to act decisively and collegiately is both enormously worrying and frustrating; especially as there has been scientific consensus over climate for a long time. The technology to mitigate the most severe climate consequences is there: whether there is the determination at an international level to fix it, is another matter.
There is a monumental desire for political change in the UK. The environment and climate rarely commands the exposure it needs from our politicians.
I shall be voting in the North West Essex constituency.
This is my review of, and my thoughts about, the environmental implications of the Labour election manifesto.
Things I like:
The creation of UK Energy.
No new oil and gas licences.
The promise of putting failing water companies into special measures.
The promise to make the UK the green finance capital of the world. The reference to the clean energy transition representing a huge opportunity for growth is encouraging. The UK must see Net Zero as a great opportunity; rather than a mechanism for cynically weaponising climate; as we all too often see in the right wing media and right of centre politics.
The acknowledgement that the badger cull is ineffective.
Things I don’t like:
The ditching of Labour’s £28bn yearly green investment plan, watering it down to an £8bn a year commitment to green policies. One can only hope that Labour might be become fiscally bolder over environment expenditure should they form the next government.
Refusing to rescind oil and gas licences recently issued by the Tories. The Climate Change Committee (CCC) in 2023 made it clear that while there is an ongoing need for some oil and gas moving forward, it said it doesn’t justify the need for any new oil fields; which the CCC also states is incompatible with Net Zero. This is an opportunity missed as Labour could have used this statement as cover to make a far bolder position on fossil fuel licences.
Measures on water don’t go far enough. Labour should have retained their pledge to renationalise our failing water industry. Our rivers and seas are in crisis: reflecting the mantra of profits before investment; the sewage discharges at record levels, are testimony to this breathtaking dereliction of duty by water companies to maintain the health and the promotion of biodiversity in our rivers and streams.
Not committing to ending the badger cull now! Research and vaccination strategies being supported while maintaining the discredited status quo is to my mind, both unscientific and illogical.
Would I vote for these environmental policies? I can only hope that 5 July brings the change of government needed to bring our climate and biodiversity to the top of the political agenda. There really isn’t any time to lose!
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. This piece was not originally commissioned by Wild Justice but was submitted by a newsletter subscriber. The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
If you think you could produce a review of one of the 2024 general election manifestos then we would need to receive it as soon as possible, but in any case before 26 June, in a similar format to that above, as a word file and with a .jpg or .png image of yourself, the author. Send any potential texts to admin@wildjustice.org.uk and we will look at them. We’ll let you know if we want to publish your piece and we may be able to pay you a small amount for it.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Labour by James Gilbert
I am a freelance ecologist and Chartered Environmentalist. I first voted in the 1997 general election, and have not once voted blue. On 4 July I will be voting in the Corby and East Northants constituency. These are my key thoughts concerning the environmental content of the Labour election manifesto.
Things I like:
Clean energy by 2030: fundamental in seriously tackling UK carbon emissions and energy insecurity. Labour plans to double onshore wind, triple solar power, and quadruple offshore wind by 2030 (It is good to have a target, but to me this one it feels improbable.)
No new fossil fuel licences and a fracking ban: an emphatic yes to this.
Warm Homes Plan: to have a large-scale and affordable roll-out of domestic insulation and solar, etc., is crucial in reducing the UK’s carbon footprint and achieving Net Zero. Government incentivisation for greener homes has gone from modest to poor; opportunities have been wasted hence progress in this area has been unforgivably slow in recent years.
Protecting nature: Labour taking action to meet the Environment Act targets is obviously welcome, and what I particularly like is specific reference to doing this ‘in partnership with civil society, communities and business’. To that end, the People’s Plan for Nature https://peoplesplanfornature.org/ would be a good starting point? The new Environment Secretary must invite help from civil society – and needs to, as Mark Avery has already pointed out to Steve Reed, former Shadow SoS for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs https://markavery.info/2024/06/08/dear-mr-reed-1/. The expansion of nature-rich habitats such as wetlands, peat bogs and forests is urgent.
Circular economy: the manifesto states ‘Labour is committed to reducing waste by moving to a circular economy’ – it is odd that this (one and lonely) sentence is somewhat randomly tagged to the end of the ‘Protecting nature’ section…but at least it is there? A move to a (more) circular economy cannot come soon enough – it needs our immediate attention.
Things I don’t like:
The words ‘environment’ and ‘climate’ are not referenced in Keir Starmer’s manifesto-opening remarks, nor are they within the text concerning Labour’s five national missions. Considering biodiversity loss and climate change are two of the biggest crises of our time, this is a depressing oversight (but not a surprising one).
Labour will improve access to nature, promote biodiversity, and protect our landscapes and wildlife as mentioned in the opening paragraphs of the ‘Make Britain a clean energy superpower’ chapter. However, decent detail on this does not come further ahead in the (short) ‘Protecting nature’ section of this chapter.
Labour implying in the manifesto that the Conservatives are to blame for Britain being one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, is just absurd and pathetic!
Clean water: given the appalling and inexcusable state of our rivers and seas, it is clear that the water industry needs to be renationalised. Putting failing water companies (*all* water companies are failing in their environmental duties?) under special measures, and giving new powers to regulators, I very much doubt would be enough.
National planning policy: I am surprised to learn that Labour would bring in planning reform, with the main aim of streamlining existing processes. As it stands, planning policy rightly favours ‘sustainable development’ and the rules/controls are fairly stringent in this regard. Environmental aspects to the making of plans and taking of decisions need to at least remain as robust as they are right now.
Rail transport: I would have liked to see many more words on constructing brand-new lines – along with some ambition to resurrect 1960s ‘Beeching-cut’ lines. We need and deserve a big push to (re)grow the rail network, because a comprehensive British rail system is vital for both a cleaner and closer-knit Britain.
Things that appear to be missing:
Clean water (nutrient enrichment): sewage/wastewater is not the only concern — nutrient pollution with regard to farming and forestry practices, and road runoff, is also of huge, lasting detriment to the health of our waters, yet receives no mention?
Unwavering government support for environmental public bodies: organisations such as the Environment Agency and Natural England, need to be better funded and resourced in order to properly protect and enhance our natural heritage in their respective ways.
A tax on aviation fuel: given that aviation is one of the fastest growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions, it has to be time to work something out on this.
A new GCSE in Natural History: Labour does not (yet?) commit to introducing this new qualification, announced by the DfE in 2022. We as a society urgently need to address our lack of awareness and diminishing knowledge concerning the natural world, only then will we better respect it. A stronger desire to protect nature will come from sustaining our innate early years fascination.
Extending people’s access to green and blue spaces: there is no mention of a Right to Roam Act (a right of responsible access). This is very disappointing because such an act, together with a Natural History GCSE, would go a large way in mending our fractured relationship with nature. We all should, by law, be able to responsibly explore the countryside, get to know places, become attached to them. And by doing this, a much greater number of us will be moved to shift from (largely) passively caring to actually acting, when certain land is threatened with damage or destruction.
Overall assessment: The Labour manifesto is quite close to being good on the environment and nature; it doesn’t go far enough to be ‘good’. Given the poor and declining state of nature right now, politicians/parties need to be brave and champion radical action.
Would I vote for these environmental policies?: probably yes, simply because they better align with my beliefs and values than those of the only realistic alternative party in the Corby and East Northants constituency.
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. This piece was not originally commissioned by Wild Justice but was submitted by a newsletter subscriber. The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
If you think you could produce a review of one of the 2024 general election manifestos then we would need to receive it as soon as possible, but in any case before 26 June, in a similar format to that above, as a word file and with a .jpg or .png image of yourself, the author. Send any potential texts to admin@wildjustice.org.uk and we will look at them. We’ll let you know if we want to publish your piece and we may be able to pay you a small amount for it.
Comments Off on Guest election blog: Who should I vote for? by Henry Edmunds, farmer
Henry Edmunds is an organic farmer who farms the Cholderton estate on the edge of Salisbury Plain.
How will I vote in the forthcoming election? The priority for me will be to back a party that recognises the ongoing crisis in the British countryside and acknowledges that measures must be taken to turn away from the path of intensification to one that supports regenerative agricultural practices. The fact is that these are best for farmers, the land, nature and the planet.
For far too long, agricultural policies have been dictated by organisations and governments who have been influenced by the multi-national chemical industry. It is these who have profited from selling their products by promoting the ‘agricultural revolution’. However, in so doing, the numbers of farmers and skilled farm workers has drastically declined. Concurrently, carbon dioxide emissions from agriculture have skyrocketed and unsustainable practices have become the norm.
We must turn back to systems employed by our grandparents. Farms need to generate their own fertility by utilising grazing animals on their fields. I emphasise ‘grazing’ because the current practice of enclosing huge numbers of animals in buildings, together with the use of high protein feeds, is a major source of CO2 and methane and is unsustainable. Grazing animals at appropriate stocking rates is great for wildlife and encourages diverse pastures containing a plethora of wild flowers and insects.
As grass grows, it gives off hydroxyl ions as part of the process of transpiration. Water vapour, rising from the soil’s surface, together with these hydroxyl ions bind with the methane and nitrogen from grazing animals, returning these gasses to the soil where they promote natural fertility. 95% of planet cooling is achieved by the transpiration of plants.
Pastures containing a substantial leguminous element should be established on an extensive proportion of the land currently dedicated to the continuous arable cycle. Pastures will enrich the soil and eradicate arable weeds naturally. After a few years, they can be returned to cereal production and will produce good crops for 2 years or more without applied chemicals. This process should be extrapolated, on a rotational basis, over the entire arable area. Because chemicals are no longer utilised, wildlife flourishes.
The land will now become a carbon sink due to the rise in organic matter in the soil from animal waste and the roots now produced by the pasture.
Employing these techniques will make a very substantial contribution to reducing UK carbon emissions and could help the country achieve parity before the target date (too late) of 2050.
Much store is given by some concerning the carbon emissions from livestock, but, as has been explained, this is only part of the picture.
Before the industrial revolution, there were countless millions of large grazing animals on the planet. The plains of North America, Africa and the steppes of Mongolia and Tibet had incalculable numbers of grazers, moving in herds across the open lands. Yet, carbon dioxide levels were stable. It is only since the industrial revolution that CO2 levels have accelerated.
Unless real action is taken very, very soon, all life on earth will become progressively more difficult for every living entity.
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. They were commissioned by Wild Justice several months ago by approaching a wide variety of conservationists and environmentalists long before the date of the general election was known. Some people who originally agreed to write pieces found the date and short timescale impossible and had to back out. We did not know what they would write and their only brief was to pick one or two political parties’ election manifestos and tell us what they liked and didn’t like about their environmental policies. We didn’t tell people what to write and we haven’t edited what they wrote (except to squeeze things into a common format, to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors and typos).The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
If you think you could produce a review of one of the 2024 general election manifestos then we would need to receive it as soon as possible, but in any case before 26 June. Henry didn’t stick at all closely to the required format, but because we know him and like him we let him off. We won’t necessarily do the same with you so please stick closer to the format of Ruth Tingay’s or Mark Avery’s review. Send your submission as a word file and with a .jpg or .png image of yourself, the author. Send any potential texts to admin@wildjustice.org.uk and we will look at them. We’ll let you know if we want to publish your piece and we may be able to pay you a small amount for it.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Labour by Rosie Pearson
I am a planning and environmental campaigner, co-founder of the Community Planning Alliance, founder of Essex Suffolk Norfolk Pylons action group, co-founder of the North Essex Farm Cluster and columnist with The Telegraph.
I do not have any strong party allegiances. I’m interested in policies, not politics.
This is my review of, and my thoughts about, the environmental implications of Labour’s approach to energy as set out in their election manifesto. Here are my highlights and lowlights.
Things I like:
‘Energy’ gets 72 mentions in the manifesto, and it is very welcome to see that the party wishes to put so much of its own energy into energy. The admirable ambition is to make Britain a clean energy superpower, accelerating the energy transition and addressing climate change. Much of this is intended to be achieved through ‘Great British Energy’ (still with very sketchy details of how this will work.)
It is extremely pleasing to see that there will be no new licences to explore new oil fields (because they will only accelerate the worsening climate crisis). In addition, no new coal licences will be granted and Labour will ban fracking. Strong stuff.
A new Energy Independence Act will establish the framework for Labour’s energy and climate policies. This sounds sensible in theory, though the proof is, of course, in the pudding, and will depend what the Act decrees.
Communities will be invited to come forward with local energy projects and there is a plan to deploy local energy production to benefit communities across the country. It is an enticing thought that local energy generation schemes could keep power close to where it is needed and see profits retained by the community. Local-scale schemes reduce the need for environmentally damaging transmission infrastructure and can encourage use of rooftops and previously used land instead of vast acres of greenfield land.
Things I don’t like:
The manifesto is worryingly silent on the environmental impact of renewables. Clean, green energy is no longer green if it harms the environment irrevocably. Labour tells us that we will see a combination of onshore wind, solar, and hydropower projects. Yet each of these brings downsides as well as benefits. For example, enormous solar farms in our countryside, and on our best farmland, pose a risk to the environment and to our food security. Sensible discussions around pros and cons of alternatives will be crucial.
Labour is also silent on the environmental harms that arise from great grid upgrade that is required to facilitate extraordinarily ambitious green energy proposals will cause. The grid upgrade in its own right could bring more harm than benefits. That is certainly the case in East Anglia where transmission proposals are causing untold worry and grief because of their impact on the natural environment.
The manifesto leaves too many questions. How will GB Energy and the Green Prosperity Plan actually work? What will be in the Energy Independence Act? The devil will be in the detail.
Overall assessment:
There is too much hyperbole (Labour will end climate chaos?) and un-achievable pledges. For example, Labour proposes to “double onshore wind, triple solar power, and quadruple offshore wind” by 2030. Installed onshore wind and offshore wind currently stand at 15GW apiece. How on earth will Labour ensure these are doubled and quadrupled, respectively?
Would I vote for these environmental policies?
There is lots to like and, if one stands back from the hyperbole, the direction of travel is the right one. However, there is an enormous and unacceptable risk to the environment. This risk is heightened further given so much public rhetoric about forcing infrastructure on unwilling communities (the blockers). My sense is that Labour will be focused tunnel-vision on building ‘green’ things to the extent that it will forget about the collateral damage. My personal experience is that Labour is not interested in listening to alternatives.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Reform by Ruth TingayDr Ruth Tingay
I’m a conservationist, blogger, researcher and campaigner. I write the Raptor Persecution UK blog and a monthly wildlife crime column for British Wildlife magazine. I’m a past president of the Raptor Research Foundation, a founding member of the REVIVE coalition for grouse moor reform in Scotland and a co-founder and co-director of Wild Justice.
I’m rarely swayed by specific manifesto commitments (with a few notable exceptions) and tend instead to vote for the party whose overall values align most closely with mine and whose representatives can demonstrate integrity and trustworthiness.
This is my review of, and my thoughts about, the environmental implications of the Reform UK election manifesto (although noting that Nigel prefers the term ‘contract’ to manifesto – whatever).
Things I like? I wasn’t expecting to find anything to be honest, but I did find a few. Although I daresay my reasoning about these policies is very different to Reform UK’s and any agreement we share is entirely coincidental:
Scrap HS2 – Absolutely agree. This stunt has already caused monumental and irreversible environmental damage and has cost tax payers £billions. Dishonest claims about its benefits have long been exposed and debunked. Close what remains of this fiasco and use the funds to support urgently-needed public transport infrastructure across the country.
Stop the release of sewage into our rivers and seas – An obvious crowd-pleasing statement given widespread national outrage about the current sewage scandal but the manifesto doesn’t provide any indication whatsoever about how this could be achieved, which makes it look nothing more than a shallow and calculated vote-winning exercise.
Ban foreign supertrawlers from UK waters – I agree that supertrawlers should be banned from UK waters, not because they’re ‘foreign’ but because repeatedly dragging giant mile-long nets to catch hundreds of tonnes of fish (and everything else in its path) every day couldn’t ever be described as sustainable. The use of the word ‘foreign’ is superfluous here, although wholly in keeping with Reform UK’s general xenophobic outlook which I’d guess is probably more important to them than any deep-seated concern for the marine environment.
Things I don’t like:
Scrap environmental levies; Scrap Net Zero and related subsidies; Scrap annual £10 billion of renewable energy subsidies; Start fast-track licences of North Sea gas and oil; Increase and incentivise ‘clean’ coal mining; Legislate to scrap EU regulations with immediate effect; Legislate to ban all ULEZ and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods; Scrap plans on selling petrol and diesel cars; Scrap legal requirements for manufacturers to sell electric cars; Scrap climate-related farming subsidies; Productive land must be farmed and not used for solar farms or rewilding; Stop Natural England from taking action that damages farmers; Protect country sports.
These aren’t environmental policies – they’re anti-environmental policies that are tone deaf. The scale of ignorance is shocking, even for this party. The word ‘reform’ is defined as ‘making changes [to something] in order to improve it’. Someone should tell Nigel.
Things that appear to be missing:
Intelligence
Credibility
Logic
Scientific understanding
Any trace of environmental awareness or concern
Overall assessment:
Depressing, pitiful, idiotic, terrifying.
Would I vote for these environmental policies?
Hello? Is that Dignitas?…
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. They were commissioned by Wild Justice several months ago by approaching a wide variety of conservationists and environmentalists long before the date of the general election was known. Some people who originally agreed to write pieces found the date and short timescale impossible and had to back out. We did not know what they would write and their only brief was to pick one or two political parties’ election manifestos and tell us what they liked and didn’t like about their environmental policies. We didn’t tell people what to write and we haven’t edited what they wrote (except to squeeze things into a common format, to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors and typos).The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
If you think you could produce a review of one of the 2024 general election manifestos then we would need to receive it as soon as possible, but in any case before 26 June, in a similar format to that above, as a word file and with a .jpg or .png image of yourself, the author. Send any potential texts to admin@wildjustice.org.uk and we will look at them. We’ll let you know if we want to publish your piece and we may be able to pay you a small amount for it.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Conservatives by Stephen MossJEFNNB STEPHEN MOSS, former Springwatch presenter and nature writer , author of ‘Wonderland – a year of Britain’s Wildlife, day by day’, at the 2017 Hay Festival of Literature and the Arts, Hay on Wye, Wales UK
I am an author, naturalist, university lecturer and former wildlife TV producer, originally from London but now living in Somerset. I have produced numerous TV programmes and written many books about the natural world and environmental issues, and feel passionately about the need to take urgent action to reverse global biodiversity loss and the climate crisis.
I first voted in the 1979 general election (when to my eternal shame, as a very politically naïve 19-year-old, I voted Conservative). Since then I have generally voted Liberal, but when I lived in North London in the late 1980s and early 1990s I voted tactically for Labour. I now vote Liberal in the Somerset constituency of Wells and Mendip Hills, a Conservative-Liberal marginal, where local resident Tessa Munt is standing against Meg Powell-Chandler, the former aide to Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings.
This is my review of, and my thoughts about, the environmental implications of the Conservative Party election manifesto.
Let’s start with the big picture: the absurdly low priority the manifesto gives to the environment – just over two pages out of almost 80. Even then, it is shoehorned into a section alongside ‘the rural economy’, which majors on more housing, better broadband and a craven appeal to the hunting lobby.
When they do finally get to the sub-section on ‘Enhancing nature and protecting our environment’ they say: ‘Our beautiful countryside, coastline, woods and rivers are a crucial part of what makes our country so special. We are committed to leaving the environment in a better state for future generations’. Given the current state of Britain’s rivers that is, quite simply, a lie.
The phrases ‘climate change’ and ‘biodiversity crisis’ are nowhere to be seen – though the manifesto does – bizarrely – include a crackdown on XL Bully dogs, puppy-smuggling and livestock worrying, as well as holiday lets and home ownership – fringe issues when compared with the huge environmental problems we face.
Things I like:
I was tempted to leave this section blank, but taking the manifesto at face value, I would say:
Energy Policy
‘Introducing more efficient local markets for electricity, which expert analysis estimates would save £20 – £45 per household per year.’
‘Giving households the choice of smart energy tariffs, which can save them £900 a year’.
Environmental Protection
Targets to halt nature’s decline by 2030 (though there are no details on how they plan to achieve this in just over 5 years)Moratorium on deep-sea mining
Tackling illegal deforestation on a global scale
Other
Supporting programmes to encourage disadvantaged children and young people to access green spaces (again, no detail as to what this actually means, and how it could be achieved)
‘Continue to work with landowners, charities and others to open up more ‘access to nature’ routes’. (But not supporting a universal right to roam).
Things I don’t like:
Energy and net zero
Misrepresentation of Net Zero as being a threat to our energy security, a drag on the UK economy, and a hit to people’s individual finances; instead of an opportunity to enhance energy security, boost our economy by becoming world-leaders in renewables and associated technology, and reduce energy bills by providing cheaper green energy and insulating homes.
The delaying of the delivery of Net Zero to 2050, which all experts agree is far too late. (And the way they link this with higher home energy bills, when in fact bills would go down the faster we move).
Boasting of leading the way in facing the existential challenges of global climate change, while their previous policies have put the brakes on this.
The policy of lowering green levies on household energy bills – which are essential if we are to reach Net Zero in time’ and also of ruling out further ‘hidden green levies’. (Here, in another example of their skewed approach, they use the word ‘green’ as a negative instead of a positive!)
The policy of ‘reforming’ the independent Climate Change Committee, which sounds very similar to the progressive neutering of the once-independent Natural England – with, so far, pretty disastrous consequences.
The refusal to stop the issuing of oil and gas licences in the North Sea- again with the spurious defence of improving our energy security.
The continuation of giving hugely expensive incentives to multinational fossil fuel companies
Housebuilding
The abolishing of ‘the legacy EU “nutrient neutrality” rules’ – which sounds like a polluters’ charter to me.
The aim of ‘Delivering a record number of homes each year on brownfield land in urban areas’. While some brownfield sites are right for development, I am concerned that the blanket term, will also lead to the destruction of edgeland sites which are often better for wildlife than the ‘green countryside’.
Transport
‘Backing Drivers’ – like many people I am a driver (though of an EV), but also a cyclist and a pedestrian. I firmly believe that as a driver I have responsibilities towards the environment as well as rights. This policy is designed to reverse any beneficial changes and increase accidents, pollution, and harm to human health and wildlife.
Agriculture
Th obsession with food security and boosting domestic food production, which ignores the importance of soil, wildlife and sustainability
Things that appear to be missing:
Any genuine policies to reverse the decline in the UK’s wildlife and the loss and degradation of habitats.
A policy to use onshore wind generation to produce plentiful, cheap renewable energy.
Any admission of blame for things being as bad as they are after 14 years of Conservative chaos.
In Rishi Sunak’s opening letter, nor in the headline list of ‘Bold Actions to deliver a secure future’, none of the following words appear: ‘nature, ‘natural’, ‘environment’, ‘climate’.
Overall assessment:
The manifesto as a whole is packed with dog-whistle policies aimed at a small and rapidly dwindling minority of elderly, traditional conservatives, with no specific detail as to how any of the policies will be achieved. In any case, most are simply tinkering at the edges of our environmental crisis – more concerned with litter than climate change, for example.
Worst of all – and this is especially true of the section on restoring water quality – the manifesto takes no account of 14 years of neglect, wilful mismanagement, corruption and misguided policies. It reads like a wish list for a party who have never been in power and have no chance of being in power in the foreseeable future.
The bad news is that the Conservatives have been in power, and like a defeated army fleeing the battlefield are laying waste to our country (and especially the natural world) as they retreat.
The good news is that they will not be in power, and have the chance to put into practice these half-baked policies – in the foreseeable future; and perhaps for ever.
Would I vote for these environmental policies? Not in a million years!
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Labour by Mya Bambrick
I am a young naturalist, an ecology and wildlife conservation student at Bournemouth University, a nature writer, and wildlife content creator. I work with various conservation NGOs to engage young people with nature. Last year I was awarded the BTO’s Young Ornithologist of the Year.
Being 21, this is the first time I have voted in a general election. In prior local elections, I have voted for the Labour party. On the 4th of July I’ll be voting in the Crawley constituency.
This is my review of, and my thoughts about, the environmental implications of the Labour Party election manifesto.
Things I like:
Addressing climate and biodiversity crisis: Labour starts off the environmental chapter of their manifesto with a powerful statement ‘The climate and nature crisis is the greatest long-term global challenge that we face.’ The fact they are addressing that we are in both a climate and nature crisis is a strong start. All so often the focus is all on climate, despite how intertwined the two issues are and how vital it is to deliver action with both climate and biodiversity in mind.
Big on green energy: Labour are putting a focus on being a green energy superpower, which is well needed. With promises of the publicly owned body ‘Great British Energy’ and clean power by 2030, it seems like this is relatively high on their agenda. I particularly like their emphasis of affordability, with their Warm Homes Plan and creating ‘650,000’ new green jobs whilst fighting the climate crisis. However, I do question if this will be enough, and whether they’ll scale back plans, as seen on their previous U-turn on a £28 billion-a-year green investment pledge.
No new oil and gas exploration licenses: Their promise to end new oil and gas exploration licenses is very welcome. We cannot meet those targets of net zero by 2050 if we are continuing to exploit fossil fuels. However, I’m disappointed that there is no commitment to revoke licenses issued during the last parliament.
Water companies: With only 15% of UK rivers in good ecological condition, we desperately need regulations that are stricter on water companies who pollute our rivers with untreated sewage. Although lacking detail, Labour commits to put ‘failing water companies under special measures’ and to ‘block the payment of bonuses to executives who pollute waterways,’ similarly to the Conservatives. Hopefully this will be enough to incentivise leaders to prevent environmental harm on our precious waterways. Although investment is severely needed in improving infrastructure which deals with our sewage, rather than profits ending up in the pockets of those high up.
Expanding wetlands and peat bogs and forests on public land: It’s brilliant that they’ve mentioned both wetlands and peat bogs. These habitats act as excellent tools for climate resilience through sequestering carbon. Having lost ‘90%’ of our wetland habitats in the last 100 years and ‘80%’ of our peat bogs lost or damaged, it’s about time they got some limelight. This is what we need – an interlinked approach of boosting biodiversity whilst providing climate benefits.
Land-use framework and ELMS: One of the most important tasks for the next government is to ensure we have an integrated and well-planned approach to how we use our finite amount of land. Being one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, a mention of this framework is a good step in ensuring there is space for nature, whilst providing climate solutions. Let’s hope within that framework some land is prioritised solely for nature – if they are to meet targets of 30% of land and sea protected for nature by 2030. With 70% of England being farmed, nature-friendly agriculture is a must to ensure our farmland species can bounce back. It will be interesting to see how ambitious their environmental land management scheme will be, and how much funding will be put towards landscape-scale recovery. All a bit vague – seems to be following this theme!
End the badger cull: Labour promise to end the Badger Cull, a completely ineffective and unethical practice which has now killed over 230,000 Badgers. It’s about time we moved to alternative methods with transmission primarily being from cattle to cattle, although there is little indication on what they’re planning these alternative methods to be.
Things I don’t like:
Commitment of building 1.5 million houses: A tricky balance for a young person like me who one day (maybe when I’m 40) would like to own an affordable home but worries about the impact of these new developments. Previous governments have not matched their house building targets and I would have like to have seen indication of building with nature in mind. Mandatory swift bricks, bat boxes, green roofs, wildflower verges, ponds, the whole lot!
Details on increasing renewable energy whilst protecting nature: With this big focus on green energy whilst combating the nature crisis, you’d think they would address ensuring renewable energy infrastructure is built whilst protecting nature.
Things that appear to be missing:
Although, in my opinion, the contents of the manifesto are positive and the best by far of the two serious competitors, there appears to be a lot missing when it comes to nature. I was shocked that despite being an island nation, there are no mentions of increasing protection of our seas, or of sustainable fishing. Furthermore, when addressing the state of our rivers the number one issue of agricultural pollution isn’t included. I was very disappointed that their climate action objectives seem separate to restoring nature – no nature-based solutions like reintroducing beavers (into rivers and not just fenced areas!), and limited indication of landscape-scape restoration which aids sequestering carbon. Despite indications of more public access to nature through nine new National River walks and three new National Forests, there is no commitment to Right to Roam as I expected.
Overall assessment:
A bit disappointing and vague. I would have liked to have seen a stronger stance on nature by Labour, although it’s more positive than the alternative. I’m pleased to see plans for Great British Energy (although not sure how it will work) and a Green Prosperity Plan to fight the climate crisis and bring extortionate energy bills down. Targets for tree-planting is a bit of a competition these days amongst parties, with millions of trees promised. I would have liked to see more emphasis on natural regeneration. Moving to a circular economy is a strong statement, but there is no explanation of how they would reduce and reuse waste in the first place to achieve this. Overall, it’s a mediocre plan for a manifesto which states we are in a climate and nature emergency. We should continue to fight for a braver, stronger, and more prioritised approach.
Would I vote for these environmental policies? Although we can’t always trust what is set out, the Labour’s environmental credentials seem somewhat positive, so I would vote for these policies. I’ll be voting tactically, as the Green Party have no chance in getting in, and I cannot stand another 5 years of Tory run.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Conservatives by Henry Morris
The Conservative and Unionist Party Manifesto – by Henry Morris
I am an ultra-marathon runner and a comedy writer.
I first voted in 2011. That was in Harrogate, when my vote went to Phil Willis of the Liberal Democrats. Willis had unseated the Tories when they tried to parachute Norman Lamont into a presumed safe seat in 1997. Willis was likeable. Ex-Chancellor Lamont, on the other hand, incorrectly accused my sister of short-changing him for half a pint of lager when she was working behind the bar in The Knox Arms. I continued to vote Lib Dem until the coalition and have since voted Labour or Green. Since I now live in Wales, I’m fortunate to have an alternative to Labour: this time I intend to vote for Plaid Cymru.
Here are my thoughts about the environmental implications of the Conservative’s election manifesto.
Things I like:
Whoever wrote this has an excellent comic ear. A passage such as: “we will reform the ‘Price Review’ regulatory process for water companies. This will consider how we move to a more localised catchment-based and outcome-focussed approach, that better utilises nature-based solutions” sounds exactly like the kind of corporate drivel that middle-managers use in place of plain language.
Things I don’t like:
Net Zero. A lot of bluster about ‘delivering net zero by 2050’, at odds with the subsequent three pages where they leverage all historic progress on it against doing as little as possible.
Flooding. They’d like to spend a lot of money on flood mitigation. Not a bad idea, but with an odd ring when you consider they wish to continue licensing oil and gas production. The science – significantly more settled than modern weather patterns – tells us that persisting with fossil fuel extraction will exacerbate extreme flooding events. I’m worried lest people might mistake the Conservatives’ unfamiliarity with the laws of physics for unfamiliarity with the wellbeing of anything beyond corporate interests.
Planning. Simplify it. Good news for donors, bad news for wildlife.
Hunting. They will be making no changes to legislation that is being persistently flouted. Put another way, a party priding itself on its toughness on crime looks the other way if the crime involves wildlife.
Immigration. A lot of nativist nonsense aimed at vilifying vulnerable people that completely ignores the potential for a billion climate refugees.
Biodiversity. ‘We introduced our landmark Environment Act including ambitious targets to halt nature’s decline by 2030 and Biodiversity Net Gain.’ Eh? Why do they want to halt Biodiversity Net Gain? Is it because this disordered sentence needs a comma? (Not the butterfly, which ironically would fall victim to such a policy.)
Reverse ULEZ. Why are Tories against clean air?
Electric vehicles. Two pages of babble about ‘world-leading’ electric vehicle production, from a government that pushed back the ban on new petrol vehicles to 2035.
Water. ‘Last year 90% of our designated bathing waters were classified as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’.’ OK, let’s see a picture of a Cabinet minister swimming downstream of an intensive poultry farm in the River Wye. NB: They want to ‘work with the regulator to further hold water companies to account’.That’ll be the regulator they’ve been systematically defunding.
Designate our 11th National Park. It’s unclear whether National Park Eleven will permit the industrial killing of game birds and all competing wildlife, but if most of the other ten are anything to go by, you wouldn’t bet against it.
Overall assessment: Interesting. Headed for catastrophe, the Tories had the opportunity to save a few votes by promising the earth, safe in the knowledge they wouldn’t have to deliver. Instead, environmentally speaking at least, this manifesto is pitched squarely at ill-informed amnesiacs. It fails to engage in any telling way with climate breakdown or biodiversity collapse, and most of the problems it purports to address were either created or exacerbated by the politicians who wrote it. As such, it can’t really exist apart from the other four unfulfilled manifestos they’ve put out since 2010. On the plus side, if you can overlook the existential emergency in which we all find ourselves, it is quite funny.
Comments Off on Our general election guest blogs – an introduction, index and reference point.
Introduction
In the run-up to the general election we are publishing guest blogs which review the political parties’ election manifestos. These accounts have been commissioned from a variety of authors and they were asked to select one or two of the party election manifestos and review them from an environmental perspective. The published accounts do not necessarily reflect the views of Wild Justice – we are aiming for variety (and quite honestly, we couldn’t have predicted what many of these authors have written). Many people were approached months ago and some said ‘no’ immediately, some said ‘yes’ but then the short window after the manifestos were published didn’t fit in with their plans and others have fallen by the wayside. We have also published some manifesto views that were sent to us by Wild Justice supporters.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Conservatives by Rosie Pearson
I am a planning and environmental campaigner, co-founder of the Community Planning Alliance, founder of Essex Suffolk Norfolk Pylons action group, co-founder of the North Essex Farm Cluster and columnist with The Telegraph.
I do not have any strong party allegiances. I’m interested in policies, not politics
This is my review of, and my thoughts about, the environmental implications of the Conservatives’ approach to speeding up infrastructure as set out in their election manifesto. Here are my highlights and lowlights.
Things I like:
We are promised reforms that will better protect nature. Yes, I know, promises, promises, but the intent is stated and can be used to hold the Conservatives to account. What’s not to like about a promise to better protect nature?
The Conservatives will ensure any requirements to offset the impact of new infrastructure and homes on an area are proportionate, without compromising environmental outcomes. This too, is hard to disagree with. We must all remember, though, that offsetting is a last resort, after the rest of the mitigation hierarchy has been followed, starting with avoiding harm in the first place.
Ensure National Policy Statements are regularly updated. This is essential. There are rapid technological changes which must be reflected in policy to ensure best outcomes for the environment.
A welcome pledge, for example, is to review the policy statement which presumes pylons as preferred grid infrastructure. Why would you presume a pylon when an integrated offshore grid reduces harm on the environment by halving infrastructure overall? Why presume a pylon when there’s so much new technology that allows transmission operators to upgrade the existing grid? And why not encourage HVDC undergrounding, as used by the Germans, instead of pylons – it’s cheaper and less harmful to the environment, landscapes, communities, and heritage?
Things I don’t like:
“End frivolous legal challenges that frustrate infrastructure delivery by amending the law so judicial reviews that don’t have merit do not waste court time.”: How many ‘frivolous’ legal challenges actually are there in reality? One doesn’t wake up and decide on a whim to lob in a judicial review. It is a huge commitment, not least financially. And anyway, the courts won’t allow frivolous legal challenges. If infrastructure providers, the Planning Inspectorate and Secretary of State do their jobs properly, there will be nothing to challenge. Therefore, this commitment feels petulant and unnecessary. We await the Lord Banner review on this very topic. It was completed on 27 May. I hope the next Government publishes it. Any attempts to water down the legal system should be strongly resisted. The environment needs the protection afforded by legal challenges.
Reforms to ‘outdated EU red tape’ and continued reforms to ‘EU’s bureaucratic environmental impact assessment’: That slated EU red tape has done a great job, in the form of sustainability appraisals and the like. We will need to watch the Environmental Outcomes Reports with an eagle-eye to ensure that they are similarly robust.
Nothing about communities: Communities can provide a very robust scrutiny service, all for nothing, of big infrastructure projects. They have detailed knowledge of their local environment, from species, to habitats, to flooding and much more. Communities must be valued for the treasure trove of information they provide
Silence on the Treasury Green Book: What is the point of having Treasury Green Book guidance for policies and projects if no-one is ever expected to follow it? This is a personal bug-bear. We’re seeing in East Anglia that huge infrastructure projects, such as the Norwich to Tilbury pylons, are being rammed through the system without any attempt to quantify the impacts, whether those be socio-economic or natural capital impacts. Use of Green Book guidance would enable a far more balanced appraisal of alternatives and better environmental outcomes.
Overall assessment:
There is nothing wrong with an ambition to speed up infrastructure delivery. The system is bureaucratic and tortuous. Whether it is realistic to expect major infrastructure projects to be signed off in one year instead of four remains to be seen. Early indications would suggest that while the sign-off process may shorten, the burden of work to be done before an infrastructure provider enters the consent process may simply increase. Thus sign-offs may appear faster but the project planning phase will be no quicker than before.
Would I vote for these environmental policies?
A glass half full response… While there are risks to the environment of simplifying and speeding up the planning process, there are also benefits. So long as Government is held robustly to account on its post-Brexit promises not to water down environmental protections, and to this manifesto pledge to better protect nature, this new approach could offer benefits.
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. They were commissioned by Wild Justice several months ago by approaching a wide variety of conservationists and environmentalists long before the date of the general election was known. Some people who originally agreed to write pieces found the date and short timescale impossible and had to back out. We did not know what they would write and their only brief was to pick one or two political parties’ election manifestos and tell us what they liked and didn’t like about their environmental policies. We didn’t tell people what to write and we haven’t edited what they wrote (except to squeeze things into a common format, to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors and typos).The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
If you think you could produce a review of one of the 2024 general election manifestos then we would need to receive it as soon as possible, but in any case before 26 June, in a similar format to that above, as a word file and with a .jpg or .png image of yourself, the author. Send any potential texts to admin@wildjustice.org.uk and we will look at them.We’ll let you know if we want to publish your piece and we may be able to pay you a small amount for it.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Labour by Indy Kiemel Greene
I am an 18 year old conservationist and naturalist. I studied countryside management at Nottingham Trent University.
This will be my first election where I am eligible to vote. Wildlife and the environment are high on my list of priorities. They will be a contributing factor when I place my vote in the Mansfield constituency.
Green prosperity plan: Labour’s desire to invest in clean power is paramount in my view, as is investing in home insulation upgrades. A combined public and private sector collaboration, working to utilise the huge coastal benefits the UK has to offer in the way of producing green energy is a good outlook.
A wish not to issue licences for new gas and oil fields. No new coal licences as well as fracking being banned for good. Loopholes being closed in the windfall tax on gas and oil companies. I believe these are all highly important symbolic moves.
Create nine new national river walks and establish three new national forests. Increase nature rich habitats including wetlands and peat bogs. Giving land back to wildlife and creating areas for families to explore. Any actions which can give back to nature have to be welcomed and applauded.
As regards our water companies, Labour will impose automatic fines of companies involved in wrongdoing. Independent monitoring of every water outlet. Stop bonuses to polluting executives. Not before time, the state of our rivers is an absolute travesty.
Farming: introduce a land-use framework. Environment land management schemes to enhance the partnership between nature and farmers. End the ineffective badger cull by working with farmers and scientists on methods to eliminate bovine TB. The extensive and seemingly endless killing of badgers has been abhorrent in my view.
Animal welfare: ban trail hunting and snare traps and the import of hunting trophies. Engage with scientists and industry and civil society with the intention to eradicate animal testing. All of the above should have been eradicated years ago or at least adapted to increase animal welfare.
Things I don’t like:
I still see an over reliance on oil and gas production in the North Sea. Working these fields for the entirety of their lifespan, which could equate to decades more damage. They also have a desire to focus on more expensive nuclear power stations. As with all parties, their thinking is not nearly bold enough. Wind and solar ultimately need to be the way forward. It’s cheaper to build and run wind and solar energy than it is gas.
Animal welfare seems to be glossed over, although mentioned in some form. I feel there are processes within factory farming which have to be addressed. Too many bad practices are allowed to continue in many areas of farming. Animal welfare in some instances is not taken into consideration.
The wish to continue to further carve up the countryside with development of new road systems. The party states a desire to do this but doesn’t exactly explain the reasoning behind this decision.
Things that appear to be missing:
There is no mention of protecting our waters from overfishing. Considering a quarter of UK fish populations have been reduced to a critically low population, action has to be taken.
I would also have liked to see a mention of the banning of certain pesticides used in farming. Neonicotinoids, banned in 2018, were for the fourth year in a row given emergency authorisation to be used in sugar beet by the government. Neonicotinoids can have devastating effects on insect populations.
I would have liked to have seen joined-up thinking when considering their climate policy. Scientific knowledge has to come first when it comes to devising a policy on climate. I read little to convince me of science being at the forefront.
Overall assessment:
I believe as regards to our natural world, this is the most important election in the UK’s history. Labour’s manifesto states “the climate and nature crisis is the greatest long-term global challenge that we face”.
One of Labour’s missions is to make Britain “a clean energy superpower”, with an aim to produce “zero-carbon electricity by 2030”. Can they deliver? Some may say with brave forward-thinking their targets may be achievable, others will say it’s just not possible to achieve clean power by 2030.
In parts I find Labour’s climate policy to be ambitious – certainly more than the Conservative’s policies disclosed in their manifesto. Labour’s GB energy venture is certainly an interesting proposal.
I like their commitment not to issue new fossil fuel licences, but their desire to continue with existing and newly approved fields I find deeply disappointing. I also find alarming the parties’ wish to immediately embrace carbon capture and storage, with much uncertainty surrounding whether this method is effective or not.
I certainly feel Labour needed to spend time explaining what it would do regarding our failing public transport system, instead of suddenly building more roads. There is also no mention of a threat to our ocean’s plastic pollution crisis.
As with all manifestos, the devil is in the detail and there is certainly a significant amount of detail absent in many of the climate and environmental proposals outlined.
Would I vote for these environmental policies?: In places bold, in other places blah blah blah. If climate and environment policies lifts you out of your armchair to vote, then go look at the Green party manifesto.
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. They were commissioned by Wild Justice several months ago by approaching a wide variety of conservationists and environmentalists long before the date of the general election was known. Some people who originally agreed to write pieces found the date and short timescale impossible and had to back out. We did not know what they would write and their only brief was to pick one or two political parties’ election manifestos and tell us what they liked and didn’t like about their environmental policies. We didn’t tell people what to write and we haven’t edited what they wrote (except to squeeze things into a common format, to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors and typos).The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
If you think you could produce a review of one of the 2024 general election manifestos then we would need to receive it as soon as possible, but in any case before 26 June, in a similar format to that above, as a word file and with a .jpg or .png image of yourself, the author. Send any potential texts to admin@wildjustice.org.uk and we will look at them.We’ll let you know if we want to publish your piece and we may be able to pay you a small amount for it.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Lib Dems by Rosie Pearson
I am a planning and environmental campaigner, co-founder of the Community Planning Alliance, founder of Essex Suffolk Norfolk Pylons action group, co-founder of the North Essex Farm Cluster and columnist with The Telegraph.
I do not have any strong party allegiances. I’m interested in policies, not politics.
This is my review of, and my thoughts about, the environmental implications of the Liberal Democrat’s approach to energy as set out in their election manifesto. Here are my highlights and lowlights.
Things I like:
Meeting the UK’s commitment under the Paris Agreement to reduce emissions by at least 68% from 1990 levels by 2030 is a robust start.
The manifesto positively supports accelerating the deployment of renewable power and delivering energy security. It aims to do so by supporting investment and innovation in tidal and wave power, by maintaining the ban on fracking, introducing a ban on new coal mines and by ending fossil fuel subsidies. (However, see my concerns below about one element of this strategy.)
Supporting the expansion of community and decentralised energy would be hugely popular and reduce the pressure to industrialise the countryside with large-scale solar and transmission infrastructure.
It is encouraging to see that there will be a requirement for the National Infrastructure Commission to take fully into account the environmental implications of all national infrastructure decisions, even though in reality it has no decision-making powers.
The build-out of the grid will be supported by a strategic Land and Sea Use Framework. This is much needed given huge and conflicting pressures on land uses, and pleasing to see it will extend to marine matters. Investing in energy storage, including green hydrogen, pumped storage and battery capability.
This is very specific and it is interesting that it is included in the manifesto: ‘Building more electricity interconnectors between the UK and other countries to guarantee security of supply’. There already are lots of interconnectors. The requirement to locate them carefully to avoid disruption to local communities and minimise environmental damage is noteworthy because it indicates a respect for the environment and communities.
Things I don’t like:
The pledge to remove “the Conservatives’ unnecessary restrictions on new solar and wind power” is disappointing as that has come after much lobbying in recent years. Wind power must have community consent, as currently, and solar should not be on best and most versatile arable land. Blanket renewables at any cost can cause more harm than the benefits they bring. It is disheartening not to see pledges for solar on all rooftops and car parks.
The Liberal Democrats (like the Conservatives and Labour, to be fair) miss the point that there are ‘community benefits’ for those hosting infrastructure. Community benefits are extremely unpopular because it is, in fact, compensation that is needed. Ideally transmission operators and other infrastructure providers must be obliged to have a discretionary compensation scheme that requires them to ensure that no-one is financially disadvantaged.
It would be preferable to see reference to updating policies to ensure latest technological approaches to the ‘great grid upgrade’ are taken into account. There’s a risk that pylons will remain the preferred choice, despite being environmentally damaging when alternatives exist.
Overall assessment:
The ratio of likes to dislikes above is favourable and the environment features very strongly in the energy section of the manifesto.
Would I vote for these environmental policies?
The only Liberal Democrat energy policy that gives me pause is the one that seeks to allow wind power and solar power seemingly without restrictions. Environmental, community and food security checks are essential and one would hope that in practice those would apply.
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. They were commissioned by Wild Justice several months ago by approaching a wide variety of conservationists and environmentalists long before the date of the general election was known. Some people who originally agreed to write pieces found the date and short timescale impossible and had to back out. We did not know what they would write and their only brief was to pick one or two political parties’ election manifestos and tell us what they liked and didn’t like about their environmental policies. We didn’t tell people what to write and we haven’t edited what they wrote (except to squeeze things into a common format, to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors and typos).The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
If you think you could produce a review of one of the 2024 general election manifestos then we would need to receive it as soon as possible, but in any case before 26 June, in a similar format to that above, as a word file and with a .jpg or .png image of yourself, the author. Send any potential texts to admin@wildjustice.org.uk and we will look at them. We’ll let you know if we want to publish your piece and we may be able to pay you a small amount for it.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Reform by Derek Gow
I am a wildlife ecologist who has worked on reintroduction projects for species such as the water vole, Eurasian beaver and the white stork. I have written three books, the last of which – The Hunt for The Shadow Wolf – was published by Chelsea Green in March 2024.
My voting history: I can’t remember when or whom I first voted for and although retrospectively I hope fervently it wasn’t Margaret Thatcher I can at least rest easy in the knowledge that no evidence or living testimony can now contradict the assertion that I absolutely did not. In subsequent penance I have variously voted LibDem, Labour in the glitzy, early days of the Blair bandwagon or Green if the opportunity arose and a non-vegan candidate was available.
Where I currently reside in West Devon the overlordship of the Tories abruptly replaced that of the Normans in the time span of long, long ago and normally therefore if their selected candidate was a pink pig with lipstick in a top hat and tutu it would overcome all other opposition with ease. But we live in uncertain times and as voters of a cobalt hue start to bolt ranks swiftly could it be that another outcome might prove possible ?
This is my review of, and my thoughts about, the environmental implications of the Reform manifesto:
Rockall: I was intrigued to discover that Reform is the only party that has selected to renegotiate a treaty with Ireland to win back the sovereignty of Rockall in the North Atlantic. While it’s not clear in the text if this is to protect its visiting seabirds, more darkly it may be that it’s part of Nigel’s cunning plan to process asylum seekers in British Overseas Territories – one at a time on its peak.
Other things I also enjoyed were as follows.
Climate change: The ernest assumption is that global warming is good because one day you will be able to grow grapes in Yorkshire to produce more foul British wine and that rewilding, solar panels and environmental subsidies are all abominations.
Farming: farmers should simply be given £3 billion – although the pledge at the bottom of the page said 2 – for, well, just being farmers, and their pubescent offspring should be sent to institutions to learn ‘farmcraft’ which although not directly connected to ‘warcraft’ or ‘witchcraft’ would no doubt prove just as ruinously destructive.
Marine fisheries: The spectre of plundering foreign pirates who bottom trawl the sea bed in a fashion that is more destructive than noble British craft would apparently be solved by the navy while the party took time out to negotiate a new fishing deal with the EU. While this might prove palatable to Reform voters in deprived coastal towns it seems an odd priority for an industry which contributes 0.03% to our national GDP. No mention was made of the fate that awaited the skilled overseas workers required to man our fleet as it mines its way to marine life extinction. Perhaps the navy will deal with them too.
Water quality or countryside sports?: There was as far as I could discern no mention of sewage but rather a pledge – unique again – to support country sports for their conservation and employment worth. Though no list identified priority species it’s very likely that pheasants and red legged partridges would be instantly protected while old rural pastimes such as fox tossing would be revived to give Nigel something to do with his hands.
Natural England: Apparently, Natural England must immediately stop doing anything that annoys farmers. So, no restrictions of any sort. SSSIs which are buggered might as well be ploughed under and injected with diseased slurry, plucking presentations will be purveyed for hen harriers and as for badgers and beavers? Don’t even bother applying for a licence, just scalp them in the streets when the children are passing. Wearily I read on…
Fracking: will be fine when its safety is proven, as by that time we will be living in an Orwellian state where ex-military officers make the rules. I would not hold out much hope that the promised compensation will be delivered to your doorstep. Instead, when the methane emissions peak out and your kids can’t breathe, the discharge from the drilling will surely combine with the other filth in our rivers to replace, with a fluid of a nauseous sort, the lands where water used to flow.
Overall assessment: So, vote Reform and you know what you will get. Rampant farmers ripping up hedgerows, foxhunters bounding through your backyards with their hounds shitting everywhere, and gamekeepers firing fusillades at the foxes which take shelter under the cradles of your offspring. If you can summon the stomach to read further the ‘contract’ offered by Reform questions the need for civil and human rights lawyers, promises a police force without a brain that’s selected for a high standard of health and fitness and rails against Christians not being able to express their beliefs in public.
Would I vote for these environmental policies? Even the multi-cellular molluscs acquired from the dead-cert of a Rockall deal would decline I believe to affix their signature of assent and in conclusion I would suggest that those of you of higher wit might follow their example.
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. They were commissioned by Wild Justice several months ago by approaching a wide variety of conservationists and environmentalists long before the date of the general election was known. Some people who originally agreed to write pieces found the date and short timescale impossible and had to back out. We did not know what they would write and their only brief was to pick one or two political parties’ election manifestos and tell us what they liked and didn’t like about their environmental policies. We didn’t tell people what to write and we haven’t edited what they wrote (except to squeeze things into a common format, to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors and typos).The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
If you think you could produce a review of one of the 2024 general election manifestos then we would need to receive it as soon as possible, but in any case before 26 June, in a similar format to that above, as a word file and with a .jpg or .png image of yourself, the author. Send any potential texts to admin@wildjustice.org.uk and we will look at them. We’ll let you know if we want to publish your piece and we may be able to pay you a small amount for it.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Labour by Mark Avery
I am one of the co-founders and co-directors of Wild Justice but I write this in a personal capacity. I am a scientist (evolutionary biologist and ecologist) by training, and I worked for the RSPB for 25 years. Since 2011 I have done pieces of freelance work for several wildlife organisations, written several books, blogged, campaigned and helped set up Wild Justice.
I first voted in the 1979 general election and have rarely voted for a successful candidate. I am a member of the Labour Party and have, in the past, voted Labour (often), LibDem (rarely but where they stood a chance of displacing the Conservatives) and Green (mostly in local and EU elections). I’ll be voting in the Corby and East Northamptonshire constituency on 4 July.
‘Clean energy by 2030’ and ‘Clean energy superpower’: both sound good and are given prominence and priority, as they should be. Labour is willing for the state to be a major player including through public investment, not a bystander hoping markets will deliver public goods (which they rarely do). Doubling of onshore wind by 2030 is bold and a good aim, likewise trebling of solar and quadrupling of offshore wind.
Nuclear power: I remain keen on nuclear being part of the way forward, because its footprint is small and its contribution potentially large and clean (even if slow and expensive) so I agree with this (unlike many environmentalists).
No new oil or gas fields and no new coal: yes.
Warm homes: insulation and domestic solar etc. Yes, we should all be part of this and I hope that the next government does give this a big boost. Most governments say they will, none has done enough so far.
Climate adaptation: good to see, should be given equal prominence with mitigation.
Clean water: this sounds very good with new regulation and criminal sanctions.
Meet our Environment Act targets: this is good to see given prominence and we must make sure this happens
Work in partnership with civil society, communities and business to restore and protect our natural world: if this is code for not listening to vested interests then it is very good as recent governments have been unduly influenced by shooting and farming interests, to the detriment of the natural environment and the general population. Our wildlife charities will have to raise their game.
Stronger animal welfare: this seems a little odd in a chapter on being a clean energy superpower but, hey! it’s good to see it somewhere. And good that this gives just about equal prominence to welfare of wild animals (eg trail hunting which doesn’t hunt trails and snares) and domestic, laboratory and farmed animals.
Things I don’t like:
Energy: too often framed in old-fashioned economic terms (growth, jobs, lower bills) and not often enough in terms of the impacts on people and other living creatures across the globe. I’m worried how much nature will be trashed by unthinking deployment of the right solutions in the wrong places.
Protecting nature: this section is short, vague and doesn’t give the impression that the authors know much about the subject. The nine new river walks sounds more like a sop to Right to Roam than a serious policy deserving mention in this tiny passage on wildlife. If I were a Hen Harrier, Skylark, Water Vole, Marsh Fritillary, Badger or Herring, I wouldn’t feel that much protection were coming my way.
The Conservatives have left Britain one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world: apart from the fact that Britain isn’t a country, the same could be said for the Blair/Brown Labour governments, and the Thatcher/Major Tory governments, and the Wilson, Heath, Callaghan etc etc governments – in fact, this statement might well have been true when William the Conqueror landed here in 1066 so I blame the Saxons. There is plenty to blame the Tories about for the last 14 years but this isn’t in any way solely down to them. Therefore, it’s either a cheap shot or a shot that shows the writer knows little about the subject they should read my book Reflections).
Planning: I’m not convinced that the current planning regime is a major brake to economic growth, but Labour says it is and so will bring in planning reform. However, I am convinced that the planning regime gives some protection against unsustainable economic growth – and so it should! I wonder whether Labour has been captured by the house building industry rather than by the need to provide more housing. Planning controls are there to protect us from bad built development. That used to mean ‘ugly stuff’ but now it means ‘unsustainable stuff’.
Devolved power: It is noticeable that power tends to get devolved to big places with lots of people – City Mayors for example. Where I live in Northamptonshire we haven’t got any big places so I see us being rather disempowered, and that will apply even if Northampton were laughably seen as a ‘big place’. Protecting the quality of rural areas for carbon storage, food production, wildlife, flood protection and landscape appeal may become even more of a challenge.
Things that appear to be missing:
Great British Energy: I don’t really understand this and I blame the manifesto not myself. Sounds good, but will it be good?
Warm homes plan: seems to rely on upgrades to existing infrastructure but we also need new build (domestic and industrial) to meet high energy generating and efficiency standards – planning regulations and building standards are needed. Why only upgrade old housing when high standards for new build is cheaper and quicker?
Clean Water: water companies need to be renationalised (as Labour intended in a previous manifesto). The arguments for Great British Water are just as strong as for Great British Energy (maybe stronger), and water companies own large areas of land that could be managed for carbon storage, flood alleviation and nature
Introduce a land use framework: sounds promising and we certainly wouldn’t get this under a Conservative government – but what is it? And related to that…
The uplands: Labour manifestos always read to me as though we all live in cities and large towns but although many of us do, many of us don’t. What about the areas where few people live? Are they irrelevant? Our uplands, for example, should be regenerated from sheep-wrecked hills to carbon storing, clean water producing, flood reducing, wildlife rich hills.
Grouse shooting and wildlife crime: nothing on these that I can see. Probably not surprising for such an urban party.
Badgers: work to end the ineffective Badger cull whilst aiming to eradicate bovine TB is good, but no timescales and no hint as to the mechanism (maybe cattle vaccination?). This doesn’t feel like hitting the ground running to me.
Swift boxes in new buildings: easy, totemic, cheap and popular – and absent.
Overall assessment: The treatment of ‘Protecting Nature’ in the manifesto is cursory and gives me no confidence that those at the top of the party have a clue what Labour in government will do. Yes, there is a back-up policy document which looks pretty good but the manifesto has nothing worthwhile on this subject so my own party has not convinced me that it is serious on nature.
Would I vote for these environmental policies?: I will vote Labour but, as in many other years, despite, rather than because of, Labour’s environmental policies. I’ll vote Labour again because I cannot support the Conservatives, and the Greens and LibDems have no earthly chance of winning in Corby and East Northants. But also, because I harbour a hope, maybe misplaced, that, as in 1997, Labour will do much better for the environment than its pre-election-winning manifesto suggested. Maybe a Michael Meacher will emerge from the ranks and do great things. I hope so.
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. They were commissioned by Wild Justice several months ago by approaching a wide variety of conservationists and environmentalists long before the date of the general election was known. Some people who originally agreed to write pieces found the date and short timescale impossible and had to back out. We did not know what they would write and their only brief was to pick one or two political parties’ election manifestos and tell us what they liked and didn’t like about their environmental policies. We didn’t tell people what to write and we haven’t edited what they wrote (except to squeeze things into a common format, to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors and typos).The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
If you think you could produce a review of one of the 2024 general election manifestos then we would need to receive it as soon as possible, but in any case before 26 June, in a similar format to that above, as a word file and with a .jpg or .png image of yourself, the author. Send any potential texts to admin@wildjustice.org.uk and we will look at them.We’ll let you know if we want to publish your piece and we may be able to pay you a small amount for it.
Comments Off on Guest election blog – Green Party by Rosie Pearson
I am a planning and environmental campaigner, co-founder of the Community Planning Alliance, founder of Essex Suffolk Norfolk Pylons action group, co-founder of the North Essex Farm Cluster and columnist with The Telegraph.
I do not have any strong party allegiances. I’m interested in policies, not politics.
This is my review of, and my thoughts about, the environmental implications of the Green Party’s approach to nature as set out in their election manifesto. Here are my highlights and lowlights.
Things I like:
Thank goodness that someone wants to ‘bring nature back to life’, and how refreshing to see acknowledgement that we are part of nature and that a thriving environment is essential to support human life.
This is possibly the standout policy in all the manifestos I have reviewed – the one to introduce a Rights of Nature Act. Without a legal framework that protects nature, we have little hope of reversing the seemingly irrevocable species declines we are seeing. Nature must have an inalienable right to flourish. Perhaps the Costa Rican model might be a good one to emulate. In 1998, the Costa Rican government implemented the Biodiversity Act. It protects endangered species and biodiversity, and gives the state the means to enforce sustainable practices.
A pledge to end the scandal of sewage pouring into our rivers and seas by taking the water companies back into public ownership. Public ownership is possibly the only way to solve this terrible modern scandal. The current model is failing terribly. However, increased funding and enforcement would be vital.
The passing of a Clean Air (Human Rights) Act, giving everyone the right to breathe clean air has the potential to revolutionise the way we plan for housing and infrastructure. It could, at long last, shift the model away from car-led, road-based development to walkable, compact developments with public transport and cycle paths. The public health benefits would be pretty spectacular.
Things I don’t like:
A new English Right to Roam Act. This conflicts with nature’s need for an undisturbed home and with the Green Party’s acknowledgement that nature is having a really tough time in the UK. We should indeed ensure access to green space for all. But we should not unleash humans (and their dogs) into the countryside where they will unwittingly trample and terrify wildlife, leave litter and light fires. The Right to Roam in Scotland has not come without problems, and England is much more densely populated. For access to green space we already have 140,000km of Public Rights of Way, 197,000 km of country lanes and hundreds of nature reserves and other areas of public access, such as National Trust parkland. Let’s improve all of above and add more.
Though I am nitpicking, there is an absence of ‘green’ economic models. There is no reference, for example, to the potential of Kate Raworth’s doughnut economics, a model that balances essential human needs and planetary boundaries, or Dasgupta’s recognition that nature should be embedded into economic decision-making. Both approaches argue that we need to balance economic growth with nature. These are models Green Party could champion.
Overall assessment:
The Green Party manifesto has nature at its heart – every policy is delightfully tinted with green.
Would I vote for these environmental policies?
From nature’s perspective, a right to roam fills me with dread. However, the proposed Rights of Nature and Clean Air acts cancel out this policy and would bring about groundbreaking changes, so yes, I would.
This is one of a series of opinion pieces on the political parties’ 2024 general election manifestos. They were commissioned by Wild Justice several months ago by approaching a wide variety of conservationists and environmentalists long before the date of the general election was known. Some people who originally agreed to write pieces found the date and short timescale impossible and had to back out. We did not know what they would write and their only brief was to pick one or two political parties’ election manifestos and tell us what they liked and didn’t like about their environmental policies. We didn’t tell people what to write and we haven’t edited what they wrote (except to squeeze things into a common format, to correct minor grammatical and spelling errors and typos).The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Wild Justice.
If you think you could produce a review of one of the 2024 general election manifestos then we would need to receive it as soon as possible, but in any case before 26 June, in a similar format to that above, as a word file and with a .jpg or .png image of yourself, the author. Send any potential texts to admin@wildjustice.org.uk and we will look at them. We’ll let you know if we want to publish your piece and we may be able to pay you a small amount for it.
Comments Off on Wildlife groups challenge government on lack of action for wildlifePalace of Westminster Image: Shutterstock
Wild Justice is one of a large group of environmental organisations taking a legal challenge against the Westminster government’s failure to act effectively to meet wildlife recovery targets – click here for BBC coverage. Wildlife and Countryside Link sent a Pre-action Protocol letter to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs back in May. Wild Justice has been centrally involved in this initiative.
This legal action, the first by Wildlife and Countryside Link, shows that wildlife groups, from the big guys such as RSPB, Wildlife Trusts and Woodland Trust to the many much smaller organisations including Wild Justice, River Action and the Wildlife Gardening Forum, are determined to use the law to make governments honour their commitments.
With the calling of the general election, it is a little unclear who will be in government on 5 July (although the odds on the Conservatives being the party with most seats are currently 35/1) but the task of responding to any evolving legal challenge will fall to that new government. We may hear fine words about wildlife conservation during the election campaign (although we haven’t heard much yet) but it will be action after the election that really matters.
We will scrutinise the manifestos of all the major political parties to assess their promises on environmental matters.
Richard Benwell, CEO of Wildlife and Countryside Link, said:
“In the Environment Act, the previous Government established a groundbreaking legal framework for nature recovery, and it is positive to see politicians of all stripes pledge to halt wildlife decline. Yet time after time, environmental targets are missed.
The Office for Environmental Protection [OEP] says that once again delivery is falling short. It’s time for the culture of non-compliance with environmental law to end. When plans to restore biodiversity and stop pollution aren’t delivering, we can’t afford to stand by. Environmental charities are ready to take legal action where any Government falls short of its own promises for nature.
As we approach polling day, we’re calling on all parties to set out what they’d do for nature if elected. Environmental charities large and small have written to all party leaders to challenge themto explain to the voting public how they would restore our natural world and pass on a country rich in nature for future generations.”
Wildlife and Countryside Link is represented by Leigh Day whose Ricardo Gama said:
“The government set ambitious targets for itself in the Environment Act 2021, as well as setting up an independent regulator, the OEP, to monitor whether it is on track to meet those targets. The OEP’s most recent assessment is bleak, finding that the government is ‘largely off track’ to meet the targets that it set for itself. Link are rightly asking the government how it can carry on with a business as usual approach and still meet its targets in light of the OEP’s findings. A pre-action letter has been sent asking that question. If the government don’t give a satisfactory response then Link will consider issuing a claim for judicial review in the High Court.”
Wild Justice’s Mark Avery said:
“The next government needs to act to restore wildlife in our lives. Fine words won’t do. Promises need to be delivered and as Wild Justice has shown in our work, legal action is a potent force to make politicians keep their promises.”
If you’re joining us at the Restore Nature Now march on 22nd June, here are two PDF documents of a placard that you can print at home. Choose from A4 or A3, depending on your printer, mount and staple to a stick.
Comments Off on If you are mounting a legal challenge…
Six years ago, before Wild Justice came into existence, two of us, Ruth with the Scottish Raptor Study Group and Mark as an individual, were embarking on legal challenges of the licensing of killing ravens in Scotland and the licensing of removal of Hen Harrier chicks from nests in England. Our experiences were instrumental in the setting up of Wild Justice. Much of our work, and a very large proportion of our expenditure, is involved with legal challenges of the decisions of public bodies such as agencies and government departments.
We believe that our successes, and sometimes our failures too, have motivated others to seek legal advice and challenge the actions of public bodies and we applaud that.
Sometimes we are asked to support such challenges, and sometimes we do – we’ve previously provided help to Open Seas and their challenge surrounding scallop dredging, and Whitewebbs Park and their campaign to preserve a greenspace in Enfield. Sometimes this support is financial, and sometimes we support others’ work by sharing their campaigns and petitions.
We thought that it would be useful for us to lay out some of the aspects of a legal challenge that increase the likelihood of Wild Justice lending our support to your work. We are working on much more comprehensive ideas – so this is simply a starter.
Here we are thinking about individuals or organisations who have already sought and received legal advice, and who are going ahead with a legal challenge. We are not lawyers (but we know some people who most definitely are) and we are not in the business of giving legal advice.
But if you’ve done that, and are starting to raise funds, then here are some pointers to things which are likely to increase your chance of our support:
Fundraise through the Crowdjustice platformhttps://www.crowdjustice.com/ : this is set up to deal with legal cases where the money you raise will go to pay some lawyers to take the case on your behalf. We have dealt with Crowdjustice a lot and find them good to work with, but more importantly, the money, if not all spent on your legal case, will remain in the system and can eventually be allocated to other legal challenges. That’s the type of thing Wild Justice wants done with our money. To be facetious to make the point – we don’t want our contribution to be spent on a big party afterwards!
Choose good lawyers and tell the world who they are: Crowdjustice allows the legal firms involved to be named on the fundraising page eg see an old page of ours – click here
Make it very clear what you are challenging and what might be the outcome of a successful challenge: we, and anyone else, needs this information in order to decide whether or not to offer support.
Contact us nearer the beginning of your fundraising than the end: we make decisions quickly but it still takes time to transfer money and to tell our supporters about your case so that they can contribute as individuals if they wish.
If you take notice of these suggestions it will make it easier for us to decide whether we can help you – the answer still might be ‘no’, of course.
Wild Justice is keen to operate collaboratively and supportively amongst different campaign groups and organisations – we’re stronger together after all. In the near future we’ll be looking to pull together some more comprehensive advice for individuals or groups who are looking to challenge the ways our environment and wildlife are being damaged. As well as helping other groups, we want to to help encourage campaigns to be independent, confident and efficient in their own right. Watch this space.
Comments Off on Woodcock survey shows decline still in place
The results of a British Trust for Ornithology/Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust national survey of Woodcock numbers have just been released – click here.
There were increases in some regions since the last national survey in 2013, but also some big falls in other areas. Overall the British population has declined further in the last decade and has declined by 35% since 2003. Here is a map showing the declines:
Wild Justice initiated and promoted a UK Parliament petition calling for a change, in fact a shortening, of the Woodcock shooting season because the current dates (from 1 September in Scotland, from 1 October in England, Wales and Northern Ireland) allow shooting at times of year when the main targets must be British breeding birds, because the influx of European, and indeed Asian, Woodcock does not occur until late November/December. See previous blogs on this subject click here, clickhere, click here.
We don’t think that shooting pressure is the main cause of Woodcock declines, but nor do we think it can be ruled out as a factor.
We have seen no progress from any UK administration on changing the shooting season dates, even though a review was promised and the change does not require parliamentary time and so is administratively quick and easy. We believe the review has taken place in England and we believe that a shortening of the shooting season has been recommended but that ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are sitting on it and leaving it for a future government to bring into place. This will almost certainly mean delay until the 2025/26 shooting season. That isn’t good enough.
Comments Off on Game meat with high lead levels still being sold
BACKGROUND
Lead is a poison and has been removed from many formerly common uses such as for water pipes and fishing weights, and in petrol and paints. But it is still legal to use lead ammunition to shoot gamebirds such as Pheasant, Red-legged Partridge, Grey Partridge and Red Grouse (amongst others). Maximum lead levels are set for meats such as beef, pork, chicken etc but not, utterly bizarrely, for game meat. The maximum legal lead level for most meats in the UK is 0.1mg of lead per kg of meat, measured as wet weight.
Four years ago in February 2020, nine UK game-shooting organisations made a massive apparent U-turn after years and years and years of defending the use of toxic lead ammunition, and said they wanted to drag the industry into the 21st Century by making a five-year voluntary transition away from using lead ammunition for shooting game birds (ref 1).
To test progress (and in some cases, compliance with trading claims), for the last four years Wild Justice has bought game meat from supermarkets and online stockists and had them tested for lead levels by experts at the Environmental Research Institute, University of the Highlands and Islands, Thurso. See results from samples bought during the 2020/21 game shooting season here (refs 2, 3), 2021/22 season here (refs 4, 5, 6), and 2022/23 season here (refs 7, 8, 9, 10).
So far, partridges sold by Yorkshire game dealer Holme Farmed Venison during the 2022/23 season have been the only product that did not contain any samples with high levels of lead above the maximum legal limit for non-game meat (ref 9).
This winter (2023/24) we bought more game meat samples (including Pheasants, partridges [unknown species] and game mix casseroles comprising venison, Pheasants and partridges) from the following stockists: Holme Farmed Venison (HFV), The Wild Meat Company (WMC), Eat Wild (EW), Marks and Spencer (M&S) and Waitrose. Unusually, Sainsbury’s did not stock any game meat this season.
As in previous years (see methods statement in ref 2) we removed all visible pieces of shot prior to sampling and these were subjected to chemical analysis to determine their metal composition.
Here we report on the results except those from Waitrose – we will tell you about them soon.
RESULTS 2023/24 SEASON
Game meat from all outlets contained some samples with lead levels higher than the maximum legal level allowed for non-game meat (the horizontal line at 0.1mg/kg ww Pb limit) although there was variation both between outlets and between the type of game meat sold.
For example, eight of the ten oven-ready Pheasants and nine of the ten oven-ready partridges sampled from Holme Farmed Venison (HFV), and seven of the ten whole Pheasants sampled from The Wild Meat Company (WMC) contained high levels of lead above the maximum legal level for non-game meat, whereas only one of the ten stuffed partridges and three of the ten stuffed Pheasants sampled from Marks & Spencer contained levels above the maximum legal level for non-game meat.
Holme Farmed Venison
Holme Farmed Venison (HFV) is a Yorkshire-based game dealer that previously supplied game meat to Sainsbury’s. In the 2022/23 shooting season, partridge breasts were the first (and only) samples that we tested that didn’t contain lead levels above the maximum legal level for non-game meat (ref 9).
In the 2023/24 shooting season, we ordered ten oven-ready Pheasants and 20 oven-ready partridges from HFV online but they could only supply us with ten Pheasants and ten partridges. No explanation was provided for failing to fulfil our order. We also bought 10 pork loin steaks from HFV to act as controls.
Both the Pheasants (8/10) and partridges (9/10) contained high levels of lead, above the legal maximum for lead in non-game meat. The median lead level for the 10 Pheasant samples was 0.46 mg/kg ww Pb, 4.6 times the maximum for lead in non-game meat, and the highest level was 1.99 mg/kg ww Pb, just under 20 times the maximum for lead in non-game meat, For the 10 partridges the median lead level was 0.76 mg/kg ww Pb, 7.6 times the maximum for lead in non-game meat, and the highest level was 12.92 mg/kg ww Pb, over 129 times the maximum for lead in non-game meat,
We couldn’t find any health warnings on the HFV website about consuming toxic lead, nor on the game meat packaging. In previous years, HFV has failed to respond to questions we posed about lead levels in the game meat it supplies (ref 11).
There is little evidence to suggest that HFV is actively seeking to source its game meat from shoots that use non-toxic ammunition, which seems to be a backwards step from the previous season.
The Wild Meat Company
The Wild Meat Company (WMC) is an online stockist whose strap line is, ‘Healthy natural meat from the Suffolk countryside direct to your home’ and claims its products are “healthy and delicious” (ref 12). We haven’t previously tested game sold by the WMC but were keen to do so this year due to the company’s shockingly complacent attitude towards protecting its customers from the effects of consuming lead-contaminated game meat. The following quotes are from the WMC website (ref 13):
“[WMC] remain satisfied that our customers should not be concerned about eating game that has been shot with lead”;
“We would like to reassure our customers that our support for a voluntary transition away from lead does not mean that we feel eating properly prepared game shot with lead ammunition poses a risk to human health”;
“The FSA [Food Standards Agency] currently advises that toddlers, children, pregnant women and women trying for a baby should minimise their consumption of lead-shot game. This is because of concerns that children who are growing are more likely to absorb lead than older children and adults. Our own children, of course, have all eaten game from a young age with no ill effects. However, decisions about what to eat or feed your children are, of course, entirely your own, and we leave them up to you!”
We bought ten whole feathered Pheasants from WMC (5 x males, 5 x females). We also bought 10 free range pork chops to act as controls.
7/10 Pheasants contained high levels of lead above the maximum legal level permitted for non-game meat. The median lead level for the 10 Pheasant samples was 0.38 mg/kg ww Pb, 3.8 times the maximum for lead in non-game meat, and the highest level was 1.05 mg/kg ww Pb, just over 10 times the maximum for lead in non-game meat, Unsurprisingly, given the commentary on its website, there is little evidence that The Wild Meat Company is actively sourcing game birds that haven’t been shot with toxic lead ammunition.
Eat Wild
Eat Wild promotes itself as the ‘development board for wild meat’ (ref 14). Previously it was the British Game Alliance, then British Game Assurance, involved in auditing shooting estates for sustainability and good practice but in autumn 2013 that role transferred to a group called Aim to Sustain (ref 15), leaving Eat Wild to focus on the marketing and promotion of game meat.
In November 2023, it was still possible to order game meat directly through the Eat Wild website (however, this is apparently no longer possible and the website now simply points consumers directly to game meat stockists). We have previously sampled game meat from Eat Wild (Pheasant breasts in the 2022/23 season, where 6/13 samples contained high levels of lead, ref 9) so we wanted to test more samples this season.
We ordered 12 x Pheasant breasts and 12 x partridge breasts. However, Eat Wild only sent six Pheasant breasts. When questioned about our missing items, Eat Wild told us there were stock issues and copied Holme Farmed Venison into the correspondence!
We didn’t find any health warnings about consuming lead-contaminated meat on the Eat Wild website or on the packaging.
Three of the six Pheasant breasts contained high levels of lead above the maximum legal limit for non-game meat. The median lead level for the 6 Pheasant samples was 0.10 mg/kg ww Pb, on the maximum for lead in non-game meat, and the highest level was 1.00 mg/kg ww Pb, 10 times the maximum for lead in non-game meat,
Marks and Spencer
Marks and Spencer (M&S) made a bold claim in its 2023 Code of Practice for Game Species Production (ref 16), declaring:
‘M&S only source game that has been shot with non-toxic shot as of 2022, removing lead shot completely from our supply chain’.
We know this wasn’t true for all the Pheasants M&S sold during the 2022/23 shooting season because we tested some and found many still contained lead (ref 9) so we were keen to test again during the 2023/24 shooting season to see whether M&S, despite its trading claims, was still selling game meat contaminated with toxic lead ammunition.
Game meat was only available for a very limited period just before Xmas 2023 and had to be pre-ordered online for collection in store on a handful of dates. We ordered ten stuffed Pheasants and ten stuffed partridges and collected them from the Glossop store on 22 December 2023. Ten chicken breasts were bought in store on the same day to be used as control samples.
We didn’t find any health warnings about consuming lead-contaminated meat on the game meat packaging.
One of the ten stuffed partridges and three of the ten stuffed Pheasants contained lead levels above the maximum legal limit for lead in non-game meat. The median lead level for the 10 Pheasant samples was 0.04 mg/kg ww Pb, below the maximum for lead in non-game meat, and the highest level was 0.50 mg/kg ww Pb, 5 times the maximum for lead in non-game meat, For the 10 partridges the median lead level was undetectable and the highest level was 0.22 mg/kg ww Pb, just over twice the maximum for lead in non-game meat, There is evidence that M&S has tried to move towards lead-free game meat but it is not adhering to its trading statement that it has removed lead shot completely from its supply chain.
DISCUSSION
Despite being four years into its five-year voluntary transition away from lead ammunition, the game-shooting industry still cannot guarantee its game meat does not contain high levels of toxic lead shot. Not one of the outlets from whom we bought game meat samples during the 2023/24 shooting season has been able to provide products that don’t contain lead levels higher than the legal maximum limit for non-game meat. If these products were chicken, pork, lamb or beef their lead contamination levels would render them illegal and unsafe for human consumption. The game shooting industry is getting away with putting public safety at risk simply because the Government has failed to set a maximum legal limit for toxic lead in game meat.
Even the premier supermarket Marks and Spencer who says it has made great efforts to find suppliers who will guarantee non-lead game meat are failing to deliver on that commitment and their customers are having to play Russian roulette each time they purchase game meat from these stores. Marks and Spencer has now sold lead-contaminated game meat for two seasons since claiming to have gone lead-free. Trading Standards may well be interested in pursuing these false declarations.
Why these companies can’t spend a few hundred pounds to test their products prior to selling is a mystery. Instead, it’s been left to a tiny organisation like Wild Justice to do this work.
Comments Off on GWCT caught up in unlawful licensing by DefraAfter being caught up in unlawful licensing by Defra, GWCT seem to shrug.
Last week we won a legal challenge, after Defra finally conceded that the issuing of some of their 2023 gamebird release licences was unlawful. We were very pleased, particularly as it took us some digging to uncover.
The process by which these dodgy licences were granted was rather murky and unclear (see cartoon here) – but we know that Therese Coffey was personally involved (she was Secretary of State for Defra at the time). We also know, that she chose to involve other organisations when rejecting Natural England’s recommendations – recommendations given to protect vulnerable bird populations during a catastrophic outbreak of Bird Flu.
Coffey was keen to take advice from the pro-shooting Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) but didn’t seek advice from expert organisations like the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) or the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO). The minister who signed most of the licences was Lord Benyon, a land owner who shoots and who has been, when not a minister, a trustee of the very same GWCT.
“As one of the UK’s leading wildlife research charities, Defra called on the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) to provide independent advice on gamebird management and releasing in 2023.
The GWCT has undertaken decades of peer-reviewed research in this field and the advice it gives is based on research evidence and expertise.
The Trust was pleased to have been consulted by Defra on technical matters relating to gamebird ecology and management as part of the ministerial department’s decision-making process.”
What does their statement say about being caught up in unlawful licensing by Defra? Not an awful lot except that GWCT seem chuffed to bits to be Defra’s mates and completely unbothered about the unlawful decisions made by their mates which favoured the shooting industry from which GWCT get much of their funding.
The current chair of GWCT, Sir James Paice, was a Defra minister, alongside Lord Benyon in the early years of the coalition government, Another former Defra minister, Sir Robert Goodwill MP, is also a trustee of the GWCT and is chair of the influential Environment, Food and Rural Affairs select committee which oversees the work of Defra.
You might be forgiven for thinking that the shooting industry has had an awful lot of influence on government since 2010. And you might reflect on the lack of progress that Defra has made on regulating intensive grouse shooting, clamping down on illegal killing of raptors, banning toxic lead ammunition and reducing the harmful impacts of massive releases of non-native gamebirds on the environment.
Where there has been progress on regulating the shooting industry it has often been (eg in general licences and licensing of gamebird releases) through legal challenges mounted by Wild Justice.
Comments Off on Badger consultation period – last minute extension
With our friends and colleagues at the Badger Trust we wrote to Defra about their consultation on 22 March – click here – and Defra told us that they would respond by Friday 19 April, ahead of the closing date of the consultation of Monday 22 April. Defra did indeed respond yesterday, our lawyers received a response at 17:07 yesterday.
Lengthening a flawed consultation is something, but our original concerns with the validity of this consultation remain (and also see our more recent blog – click here). We will be having urgent discussions with our legal team and our friends in the Badger Trust early next week. Watch this space!
Comments Off on The confusing Defra Badger consultation
On Friday morning we asked you to spend about 20 minutes reviewing the current Defra Badger cull consultation. We are very grateful to 1082 of you who completed that task: 715 on Friday, 145 on Saturday, 108 on Sunday, 107 on Monday and 7 on Tuesday. Here are the summarised results which we will be making available to Defra later today. Defra has said that it will respond to the letter sent by Wild Justice and the Badger Trust criticising the consultation by Friday so this is further input to their cogitation.
Question 1 – we asked about your motivation to respond to the consultation.
Question 2 – we asked whether you were keen on Badgers
Question 3 – we asked about your views on bovine tuberculosis
Question 4 – we asked about what factors would be important to you in assessing bovine tuberculosis control measures
Question 5 – we asked about your overall impression of the consultation
That’s the easy bit! The responders to the Wild Justice questionnaire were highly motivated to respond to this public consultation, they were keen on Badgers, keen to see a reduction in bovine tuberculosis in wildlife and cattle, thought that there were many aspects of the issue that would influence their views and thought the consultation looked very difficult to engage with.
Question 6 – the Defra consultation asks (in its question 5, on p17 of the consultation document) whether you agree with the ‘stated objective’ of a targeted badger intervention policy without stating what the stated objective might be:
We asked our respondents to look through the Defra consultation document and tell us on which page they believe that ‘stated objective’ was stated. 919 of you responded (92 skipped the question)
The commonest response was ‘Can’t find it’ – 462 respondents (50%)
Of those who indicated they found the ‘stated objective’ on a single page the breakdown was as follows:
Of those who indicated they found the ‘stated objective’ on multiple but adjacent pages the breakdown was as follows:
Pages 3, 4, 5 and 6………………..1 Pages 4 and 5……………………….1 Pages 6 and 7……………………….1 Pages 6, 7 and 8……………………1 Pages 7 and 8……………………….5 Pages 10, 11 and 12………………1 Pages 12 and 13………………….17 Pages 12, 13 and 14………………2 Pages 12, 13, 14 and more……10 Pages 13 and 14…………………..3
An additional 11 respondents identified multiple non-adjacent pages as the location of the stated objective.
To summarise: • half of our respondents could not find the ‘stated objective’ referred to in Defra’s question 5 • the other half of our respondents identified all but two (pages 2 and 9) preceding pages of the Defra questionnaire as being the location of the ‘stated objective’ i.e. pages 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 and 17. • Wild Justice would plump for the top of page 13, in fact section 5.7, as being the ‘stated objective’ and if we are generous in including page 12 alongside page 13 as the ‘right’ answer then around 150 of our respondents agree with us – 150 is 16% of those who answered the question. This means that 84% of our respondents either could not find the ‘stated objective’ or thought that it was somewhere other than where we believe it might be.
This is not a sound basis for Defra to rely on the responses to their question 5.
Question 7 – we asked our respondents whether, having looked at Defra’s question 5, and looked for the stated objective, how easy would they find it to answer Defra’s question 5, right now.
Question 8 – we asked our respondents where the issue of costs was addressed. Most responses, to keep it brief, were highly critical and pointed out that the mentions of economic benefit and Value for Money did not state costs, and did not provide analysis of the figures given, nor comparative figures for alternative actions. One respondent stated that they were ‘losing the will to live’ after a quarter of an hour of trying to understand this public consultation paper.
Question 9 – we asked our respondents where the issue of humane killing was addressed. Most responses, to keep it brief, could not find any mention of it. Some pointed out that there were mentions on pages 19 and 20 of the consultation paper (and a few other scattered mentions) but that these were statements simply stating that the Chief Veterinary Officer regarded the current cull methods as humane (many of our respondents disagreed) or that culling would be humane.
Summary:
The Wild Justice questionnaire did not deal with all unsatisfactory aspects of the Defra consultation paper. We did not ask about factual inaccuracies, misrepresentations or important omissions. We concentrated on whether the Defra consultation was understandable and represented a fair series of questions that could be answered by a motivated member of the public. We concentrated on Defra’s question 5, which we believed was important as it asked whether respondents were in favour of Defra’s plans, against them or needed more information.
Defra’s question 5 asks respondents views on the ‘stated objective’ without being clear about the stated objective. The questions was asked on page 17 and our respondents thought that they had found the ‘stated objective’ on a wide selection of the 17 pages of the consultation preceding and including the question, but half of our respondents reported that they could not identify the ‘stated objective’. Our guess is that the stated objective had to be hunted down four full pages preceding the question about it – a horrendous way to structure a consultation.
After being invited to think about Defra’s question 5 in our questionnaire, 63% of respondents said they would find it very difficult to answer Defra’s question 5 and another 24% reported that it would be somewhat difficult to answer. Thus almost nine out of 10 of our respondents would find Defra’s question 5, a crucial question one might think, difficult to answer even after being directed to it specifically.
By inspection of the free text responses it is clear that this is partly because half of our respondents did not feel that they identified the stated objective, but also because the stated objective in section 5.7 has an element of ‘reducing bovine tuberculosis’ (which most people support) mixed up with increased Badger culling as the mechanism (which many people do not support). How is the public supposed to answer Defra’s question 5 if they want to reduce bovine tuberculosis but do not want badgers to be killed by free shooting OR do not want badgers to be killed OR do not think that badger killing is effective OR want to know the costs OR have a wide variety of other concerns.
Wild Justice would not know how to answer Defra’s question 5 ourselves nor would we know how to recommend that others answer it. Defra’s question 5 cannot deliver useful or reliable information.
The consultation lacks any meaningful information about other aspects of Badger culling eg cost and humaneness that are important to the decision making of many members of the public.
We note that if a respondent doesn’t care much about Badgers and wants more culling, the Defra consultation is relatively easy to complete. This will create a massive bias in the responses gathered.
Wild Justice thanks over 1000 respondents to our questionnaire.
Wild Justice will make these findings available to Defra later today.
PS Thank you for all your message of support and donations following yesterday’s news of our legal victory over Defra over gamebird releases.
PPS The link to our questionnaire – click here – is open so that people can inspect the questions but we will not be adding any further responses to our analysis.
Comments Off on Defra gamebird licensing found to be unlawful. Wild Justice wins legal challenge
Last week, after months of spinning things out, Defra finally conceded that the issuing of licences for gamebird releases in the Deben Estuary and Breckland in 2023 was unlawful. This is what Wild Justice has argued for months and months. Defra is paying Wild Justice’s costs up to the Aarhus threshold of £35,000. Yesterday, the court sealed the consent order, which means we can now begin to tell you more.
It was a Wild Justice legal challenge back in 2020 that forced Defra to strengthen protection for wildlife and important habitats from the mass releases of non-native gamebirds for recreational shooting.
In 2023 we were seeing a huge outbreak in bird flu, and so Defra used this legislation to require landowners to apply for individual licenses if they wanted to release gamebirds in or near certain designated sites. This didn’t please the shooting industry – the UK has one of the least-regulated recreational shooting industries in Europe.
The process for granting or refusing these licences was particularly murky (see cartoon above) – something we blogged about last year. Through some digging, we managed to find out that licenses for the Deben Estuary and for 27 sites in Breckland were granted despite being protected areas – and we wanted to know why.
The crucial aspect of this case is that Defra ministers did not follow Natural England’s formal advice on issuing these licences. Instead, Therese Coffey and Richard Benyon adjusted the terms of the licences to weaken the protection that they would give to wild birds and these changes made life easier for shooters.
Wild Justice challenged the lawfulness of these licences on three grounds. Defra has now conceded on the first ground and admitted that the issuing of these licences was unlawful because the ministers involved could show ‘no cogent reasons’ why Natural England’s advice was not heeded. We interpret Defra’s words on Ground 2 as a concession too. We also believe that had this case gone to court then we would have won on the Ground 3 too – but we’ll never know.
Let’s be quite clear here – Defra ministers did not adhere to the legal requirements of the Habitats Directive and the advice of their own conservation agency. Not only that; they were unable to give good reasons for why they didn’t.
Does it matter? Yes, it always matters if politicians act unlawfully. Yes, it matters when the most powerful politicians running government departments act unlawfully. And yes it matters very much if there is any suspicion that ministers are ignoring the law in order to please particular interest groups.
Wild Justice is pleased to have taken this legal challenge, and very pleased to have won it! This victory helps to remind all public bodies that they are subject to the law, not above the law. When a tiny organisation like Wild Justice (working with brilliant lawyers) faces down a powerful government department this helps to create a landscape of fear in Whitehall, Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast. Respect for the law is always helped by strong enforcement. This outcome was only possible because of a legal challenge.
We will reveal some of the documents relating to Defra’s decision-making over the next few weeks.
Wild Justice said:
‘Defra had ‘No cogent reasons’ to disregard Natural England’s expert advice. So to find out that Therese Coffey and Richard Benyon have licensed releases of pheasants and partridges into what are supposed to be some of our most precious places, against that advice – and during a catastrophic outbreak of bird flu – it frankly reeks of both recklessness and arrogance. It seems to us they may have had more regard for the interests of the shooting industry than those of the environment in this matter.
Natural England has faced legal challenges by Wild Justice in each of the past five years, but in this case we support them and have stood up for them.
We challenged these decisions because government is bound by the law, just as the rest of us are. We shall expose more about this reprehensible behaviour over the next few weeks.’.
Wild Justice is entirely dependent on donations. To support our work – click here. To hear more about our campaigns and legal cases subscribe to our free newsletter – click here.
We jointly instructed Leigh Day solicitors to send an urgent request to Defra on 22 March 2024 on their recently published consultation to evolve badger control policy and introduce additional cattle measures.
We feel at the present time there is insufficient evidence about what is proposed and the basis on which it has been brought forward.
We have asked Defra to respond by 28 March 2024 (it is a very short consultation process) with this missing information to allow sufficient time to respond to any additional information.
We have also drawn attention to the fact that the Northern Ireland Executive consultation on bTB measures was recently found unlawful for a number of omissions.
We are awaiting the response from Defra before deciding on further action.
Our supporters are angry at this further planned assault on a much-loved native species.
Comments Off on Phasing out toxic lead voluntarily STILL isn’t working…
In February last year we shared news of a study showing that voluntary phasing out of lead ammunition by the shooting industry isn’t working. Twelve months later, and we can report that not much has changed – phasing out use of lead shot STILL isn’t working.
Wild Justice has spoken about many times about lead contamination of game meat. Lead is a known toxin, it’s bad for humans and wildlife alike. Its widespread and longstanding use by the shooting sector has contaminated areas of the countryside and has caused the deaths of millions of water birds who ingest it accidentally. It also crops up in food – both for humans in the form of game meat, and even in dog food.
Other countries in Europe have completely banned the use of lead shot, and there’s been a call for an outright ban in the UK for decades, which has been strongly resisted by shooting organisations and businesses.
In 2020, nine major UK shooting and rural organisations pledged to completely to phase out lead shot in UK game hunting by 2025. Today, another study from SHOT-SWITCH and scientists at the University of Cambridge has been published in Conservation Evidence Journal . It shows that whilst a small decline in the use of lead shot appears to have happened, a huge amount of work still needs to be done to see the transition complete successfully.
In late 2023 and early 2024, researchers obtained Pheasant carcases from supermarkets, butchers, farm shops, online retailers and shoots (a number of which Wild Justice helped locate). Of the 340 they managed to get hold of, 93% were found to have been killed using lead ammunition. This has reduced only slightly from 94% of samples tested in 2022-2023. And, if we look at the rate of reduction since the pledge was made, we can see it’s very unlikely to succeed before next year; in 2020-21 and 2021-22 over 99% of pheasants were shot with lead. At this rate of decrease, it’ll take another half a century to phase out the use of lead shot completely.
In February 2020, the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust emphasised how important a move away from lead by the industry is. In a statement announcing the five year voluntary transition, they said:
“This is a vital step we must make together to safeguard our wildlife and the wider environment.””
It may have been vital, but now 80% of the way through their transition period, it’s clear it’s not been working. We think it’s about time an outright ban on using lead shot be brought into place.
Defra has now published its response to the consultation – click here – and it amounts to pretty much a reinstatement of what have been the regulations for decades. We will read them several times more to be sure but they look pretty good to us – and we see that others have praised them too.
There is a problem though – at the moment those regulations are not in place, they lapsed at the end of 2023 and Defra needs parliamentary time to reinstate them. So hedgerows currently lack legal protection. We shall have to hope that farmers act responsibly and do not harm wildlife just because of Defra ineptitude – this late consultation was sent out in the Therese Coffey period as Secretary of State.
There are hopeful signs that most farmers will act responsibly because many farmers were in favour of maintaining the protections that have now, albeit temporarily, lapsed.
But do just keep an eye out for farmland hedgerows being cut between now and the end of August. If you see such management and are able to take a quick photo of what’s happening then we’d love to see them. There are some limited circumstances under which management of hedgerows was legal during the bird nesting season so please do not accuse any farm worker of wrong doing – you might be wrong. If you see farmland hedgerows being cut then please send details, including a photo and geographic location, to admin@wildjustice.org.uk. In our recent questionnaire (more on that probably next week – but thank you to over 4000 respondents) there was a strong request (obviously only from some of you) to be offered tasks that you could do outdoors. Well, this fits that bill. Thank you.
You could also write to your MP saying that you are glad that eventually these regulations will be reinstated but that you are concerned that they are not in place right now. Ask your MP to ask Defra when the regulations will be reinstated and ask for their support for government to find time to rectify this loss of environmental protection.
If you read the government response to the consultation responses – click here – you’ll see that both the RSPB and Wild Justice are credited with asking their supporters to respond to the consultation. Of the 8,692 responses received, Defra reckoned that 354 came from the RSPB members and 1939 from Wild Justice supporters. The RSPB has an income of over £100m/annum and a membership of over a million, Wild Justice has an income of less than £250k/annum and a subscriber base of c35,000 to this newsletter. We’ll just let you digest that comparison.
Every single response you made was counted and influenced the Defra decision – you helped send a strong message to government. We think our supporters are wonderful (and we are sure that your responses to the Lead Ammunition consultation will have been important too).
One of our aims is to give you more and more opportunities to have your say. We won’t tell you what to say but we will give you suggestions and guidance, which you can take or leave. We are in this together and you will get more support from Wild Justice to make your views known than you will from many other larger wildlife organisations.
We think you’re great! If you think we’re OK too then please consider making a donation to encourage us through PayPal, bank transfer or a cheque in the post – see details here.
Comments Off on Wild Justice partners with League Against Cruel Sports to fund development of new test to detect medicated grit
Wild Justice has partnered with the League Against Cruel Sports (Scotland) to fund the development of a new laboratory test which can detect the presence of medicated grit (Flubendazole) on grouse moors.
The new test has been used to analyse grit samples collected by the League from a number of moorland estates across Scotland and has revealed that some grouse-shooting estates are not adhering to the industry’s voluntary ‘best practice’ guidelines, raising questions about the prescription process, the administration of the drug, withdrawal and disposal issues and the potential impact of this drug on both environmental and human health.
Toxic medicated grit is used by grouse moor managers to tackle parasites in Red Grouse. Photo: Ruth Tingay
We have published a joint briefing document (see below) and met with officials from the Scottish Government and its statutory nature conservation agency, NatureScot, last week to discuss our concerns.
Robbie Marsland, Director of League Against Cruel Sports Scotland, said: “Medicated grit is used by the shooting industry in a bid to treat parasites that reduce the numbers of Red Grouse to be shot for sport. Before we undertook this research, no one knew the extent, concentration or the prescription process behind this chemical which is known to be toxic to people and animals.
“It turns out that tonnes of medicated grit litter the Scottish landscape at levels of up to 2.5 times the recommended dose. We found the chemical at times when we would have expected it to have been withdrawn under statutory requirements and we found it both in trays with drainage holes or directly strewn on the ground.
“We have also uncovered the fact that this chemical isn’t even licensed for use on Red Grouse in the UK. It is prescribed using an emergency procedure that is supposed to be used on a case-by-case basis to ‘avoid unacceptable suffering’.
“With this new information, Ministers in Scotland need to urgently consider the potential dangers of medicated grit to the environment and to humans – especially to human health.
“An urgent and detailed review needs to be carried out into how such vast amounts of medicated grit are prescribed and used and, in the meantime, the Scottish Government should introduce a moratorium – a suspension – on the use of Flubendazole on grouse moors.”
Dr Ruth Tingay from Wild Justice said: “Wild Justice was pleased to co-fund the development of a test to detect the presence of the veterinary drug Flubendazole on grit placed out on grouse moors. The use of communal grit trays has already been linked to the rapid spread of a highly contagious disease in Red Grouse (Respiratory Cryptosporidiosis), which leads to serious welfare and conservation concerns, especially the threat of cross-contamination to other red-listed species in the area. To date, the statutory agencies are not adequately monitoring either the use of the drug nor the environmental consequences of its use. The report’s findings also lead to an important ethical question about this dubious widespread drugging regime of wild birds, simply to provide an opportunity for those birds to be shot later by a privileged few”.
Scottish Government officials told us that the issue over the prescribing of medicated grit is a reserved issue to the Westminster Government. However, they reassured us that the use of medicated grit will be included in the Grouse Moor Management Code of Practice currently being drawn up to accompany the Wildlife Management & Muirburn Bill (we had previously heard that some organisations from the grouse-shooting sector were trying to have it excluded from regulation). If grouse moor managers are found to be in breach of the Code of Practice this could be grounds for having their new grouse shooting licences revoked.
We have been invited to provide input to the draft Code of Practice on the use of medicated grit. Our recommendations will include the requirement for all medicated grit users to provide a copy of their veterinary prescription to NatureScot; that NatureScot can randomly sample grit from moors to test for the presence of Flubendazole or other anthelmintics (especially during the period when there is a statutory requirement for the drug to be withdrawn to prevent it entering the human food chain via shot Red Grouse) – this testing can now be facilitated by the newly developed laboratory test; that medicated grit should be administered in such a way that it is not allowed to leach in to the environment, and that medicated grit should be disposed of as a toxic substance.
An exclusive article about our joint project featured in The Herald yesterday, here.
Comments Off on Wild Justice donates a further £5,000 to support forensic investigations into alleged raptor persecution crimes
Wild Justice has donated a further £5,000 to the PAW Forensic Working Group (a sub-group of the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime) to help support police investigations into alleged crimes against birds of prey.
You may recall we began this funding initiative in 2020 with an initial budget of £10,000. Those funds were donated by Wild Justice, Northern England Raptor Forum, Tayside & Fife Raptor Study Group, Devon Birds, and a number of individuals who wished to remain anonymous.
Since then the fund has been used to help secure the conviction of at least four gamekeepers.
The first one was gamekeeper Hilton Prest who was found guilty in December 2021 of the unlawful use of a trap in Cheshire (see here). The second one was gamekeeper John Orrey who was convicted in January 2022 of beating to death two buzzards he’d caught in a trap in Nottinghamshire (here). The third one was gamekeeper Archie Watson who was convicted in June 2022 of multiple raptor persecution and firearms offences on a pheasant shoot in Wiltshire (see here). The fourth one was gamekeeper Paul Allen who was convicted in January 2023 of carrying out multiple wildlife, poisons and firearms offences on a pheasant shoot in Dorset (here).
All this work had almost depleted the forensics fund so we’re delighted to have been able to contribute another £5,000. Rare Bird Alert has also recently donated £6,000 so the fund currently stands at approx £11,000 which will enable this important work to continue.
Dr Lucy Webster, Chair of the PAW Forensic Working Group said:
“The additional funding provided to the Forensic Analysis Fund has demonstrated the benefit of supporting early-stage investigations where no crime has yet been proven. Veterinary examinations at this stage allow crimes against birds of prey to be quickly identified, giving an investigation the best chance of progressing to a prosecution. The PAW Forensic Working Group welcomes these further donations to the Forensic Analysis Fund which will allow this early-investigation support to continue and help tackle bird of prey persecution”.
The fund is solely administered by the PAW Forensic Working Group and is open to any regional or national statutory agency in the UK, specifically to support forensic testing in raptor crime investigations. For further details please visit the PAW Forensic Working Group website here.
Wild Justice would like to thank its friends and supporters who have donated to this work.
Separate to this forensic fund, Wild Justice also recently provided funding of approx. £800 to cover the cost of DNA testing in the case of a Hen Harrier found dead with shotgun injuries on a grouse moor in Northumberland. The DNA results were used by the RSPB to demonstrate a genetic link between the shot Hen Harrier (a breeding male called ‘Dagda’) and his offspring who were at an early nestling stage in a nest on the adjacent RSPB Geltsdale Reserve. It is believed that Dagda was away hunting on the neighbouring grouse moor when he was shot, although so far police have been unable to determine who was responsible. See here for further details of that case.
Comments Off on Wild Justice’s Books for Schools ProjectThe six titles sent to schools in 2023/24 by Wild Justice; Dara McAnulty Diary of a Young Naturalist, Gill Lewis Swan Song, Ollie Olanipekun & Nadeem Perera Flock Together: Outsiders, Chris Packham & Megan McCubbin Back to Nature, Jess French Book of Brilliant Bugs, and Gill Lewis Eagle Warrior.
In spring 2020, Wild Justice decided to supply schools and libraries with some books, choosing titles relevant to wildlife and conservation. Little did we know how challenging that would be with the pandemic emerging! However, with lots of patience and effort, we persevered.
For our first project, we focussed on schools and libraries in areas proximate to driven grouse moors; supplying free copies of Sky Dancer and Eagle Warrior by the wonderful Gill Lewis, and Inglorious Twelfth by our own Mark Avery. In this year we supplied 395 books to 39 libraries and 41 schools.
The following year we completed this endeavour again; this time opening up further and focussing on community and voluntary libraries (including one on the Isle of Man). We wanted to support these due the strains of the ongoing pandemic on volunteer staff, plus they offer a wider range resource – they’re invaluable places. To compliment, we also selected community and rural schools, for similar reasons.
We had such a positive response to the 3 titles in 2020, we chose to offer these again, and in 2021, we supplied 405 books again to 41 schools and 39 libraries.
For 2023 and 2024 we decided to throw this project open to our newsletter subscribers and see what happened. What a response we received with nearly 400 nominations – outstanding!
We had to narrow this down a bit, so we selected schools according to a couple of factors. Firstly, schools in England were selected by the highest pupil premium rates – all of which were over 50%. For Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where such data doesn’t exist, schools were instead selected to reflect a broad geographic distribution across each country.
The 2023/24 project will be completed this month and we’re delighted to share the news that 97 schools across the UK (including a school on the Isle of Man) will receive 2 copies of each title – that’s 1,164 books!
Map showing distribution of nominated schools selected to receive free copies of wildlife and nature books.
We remain sincerely grateful to our wonderful supporters, who not only fund this project, but this time have given the opportunity to so many worthy schools and most importantly, young people, access to these titles – thank you!
Comments Off on Nutrient Neutrality – we challenge Defra
UPDATE (16:30 16 February): we received a response from Defra yesterday and having spoken to our legal team today we have decided there is no prospect of winning this challenge. We got this one wrong. But what Defra is doing is shockingly bad and if we were still in the EU we would be considering challenging this policy. As it is, we can’t see a legal route forward. However there is work to be done by us and others to ensure that the promised upgrades are produced and that the relevant regulators do their jobs properly. Watch this space for more thoughts.
We’ve started another legal challenge. We recently asked our lawyers to send this Pre Action Protocol (PAP) letter to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. You might remember that last year, the government tried to amend the Habitats Regulations in a way that could have allowed lots of unchecked nitrate and phosphate pollution by housing developments.
Whilst that was shot down, some new guidance has been issued in January this year. We suspect it might be attempting to achieve the same relaxation of rules by house builders as the proposed amendments last year, but by the back door.
You can find a press release about this below from our lawyers at Leigh Day. We should get a reply soon, and we’ll keep you updated.
Wild Justice challenges second bid to relax water pollution rules
Wild Justice is challenging a bid by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (SSEFRA) Steve Barclay to change water pollution rules to permit house building in sensitive water catchment areas without enforcing measures to protect them from sewage pollution.
Wild Justice says a notice to planning authorities and water companies published 25 January 2024 is an unlawful attempt to use guidance to introduce a change that was defeated in the House of Lords last year when Levelling Up Secretary Michael Gove proposed an amendment to the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill (LURA).
The amendment was voted down after the Chair of the Office for Environmental Protection said it would “permit certain environmentally damaging activity to proceed without appropriate assessment”.
Now the SSEFRA has published a “Notice of designation of sensitive catchment areas 2024” in accordance with section 96C of the Water Industry Act 1991. The notice requires water companies to upgrade sewage infrastructure to improve pollution control measures for the removal of nitrogen and phosphorus from discharges into sensitive catchment areas by 1 April 2030. Wild Justice welcomes that.
However, the notice also says that planning authorities considering proposals for developments should assume that that those pollution control measures will be in place by the deadline of 1 April 2030, even though there is no guarantee that the measures will be in place.
Wild Justice says the notice would have the same effect as some of the LURA amendments that were defeated in the Lords.
Represented by the environment team at law firm Leigh Day, Wild Justice has sent a pre-action protocol letter to Steve Barclay, signalling the start of the judicial review process, challenging the lawfulness of the notice. The group is challenging the notice on four grounds:
Ground 1: unlawfully requiring competent authorities and other local planning authorities to disregard matters which they are required to have regard to in accordance with the Habitats Regulations and planning law generally. A competent authority is required to have regard to any potential adverse impacts which a proposed development may cause to a European site, and is prohibited from granting planning permission for such a development. By requiring authorities to assume that the relevant nutrient pollution standard has been met, the notice would require the authorities to ignore potential impacts to sensitive catchment areas in situations where the relevant pollution standard has not been met.
Ground 2: unlawful fettering of discretion: By purporting to prohibit competent authorities from considering that a relevant nutrient pollution standard has not been met, the notice unlawfully fetters authorities’ discretion.
Ground 3: ultra vires the statutory power: The notice is made “in accordance with the power in Section 96C” Water Industry Act but the act does not give the Secretary of State power to direct what planning authorities may consider in determining a planning application. Those matters are governed by the Habitats Regulations and planning legislation.
Ground 4: Irrationality: The notice has the perverse effect of lowering the level of environmental legal protection afforded to the nutrient sensitive catchments. In that sense, the notice is self-defeating and therefore irrational.
Wild Justice said:
“This appears to be a con. Did the new Secretary of State really read this passage which tells regulators to assume the unlikely and unproven will be true? We think Defra is not to be trusted, and quite honestly, we don’t trust them. This is a legal fight that is worth having.”
Leigh Day solicitor Ricardo Gama said:
“After a huge outcry from environmental groups and a defeat in the House of Lords last year our client thought that the government had quite sensibly given up seeking to remove legal protections for internationally important habitats. The latest notice appears to try to achieve the same thing through the backdoor.”
Here’s a very quick run through some highlights of 2023. It’s been a good year for our legal challenges.
The changes to the Northern Ireland general licences occurred in January but we started considering and working on our legal challenge from early January 2021. You could actually say that we started working on this from our very first day in the public eye when we challenged the lawfulness of Natural England’s general licences. But the trigger was when one of us sent an email to our lawyers in Leigh Day saying ‘Do you do NI? This looks pretty ropy [with a link to the existing Northern Ireland general licences].’ and received the reply ‘It is definitely possible for us to help with a case in NI, and that licence looks like a real shocker!‘. The reply took 23 minutes to arrive – that’s how on-the-ball Leigh Day are and then things started to happen quickly at our end but slowly at every other stage during the legal process. It took two years to get the result that should have been offered by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Northern Ireland, right from the start. Their general licences were ‘real shockers’ in legal and biological terms. But we got there in the end.
We had another win in Northern Ireland, on Badger culling. This was a sweet success, with the Northern Ireland Badger Group (who were just brilliant) and we won a judicial review where the process followed by DAERA was judged to be unlawful and they will have to repeat a public consultation in a very different way if they even consider going ahead with a cull. We wonder whether they will as the science has changed in that time.
The NI Badger case started with an email from us to our lawyers early on a Monday morning and a response, within the hour, in September 2021 and led to our eventual victory in October 2023. These things take a while, and are taking far longer than they used to take, and longer than they should take.
We sometimes get a bit of moaning from public bodies about how much time, money and effort goes into fighting our cases. We have some but rather little sympathy for this view. They are a lot of work for us too – we’re volunteers! The solution to not spending time on defending legal challenges is not to make dodgy decisions which can be challenged as unlawful. But if you have taken some unlawful decisions then we suggest that giving in quickly is the right thing to do!
In Wales, the recent announcement (see our newsletter a few days ago) of changes, good changes, to the Welsh general licences shows that our successes there continue to accrue and the proposed changes to releases of gamebirds (disappointingly weak though they are – click here) follow directly from our success in England.
And the current legal challenge occupying our time is on the licensing of gamebird releases in England this year. We can’t say too much about it other than these three blogs that were written some time back (click here, hereandhere).
We are hopeful that our petition on the Woodcock shooting season will bring about changes in shooting seasons for Woodcock and maybe a few other species too. This hasn’t been quick either. Hannah Bourne-Taylor’s Swift brick petition also passed 100,000 signatures and was debated and is languishing in the shallows of government dithering. These are simple government decisions which are easy to take but our current system of government makes few big decisions well and can’t even cope with the small easy decisions.
Hundreds (we know), but probably thousands (we think) of Wild Justice supporters responded to government consultations on gamebird releases in Wales, hedgerow regulations and lead ammunition control. Wales is moving ahead with restrictions on gamebird releases but we have yet to hear how Defra will move on hedgerows or lead ammunition. What we do know, is that Wild Justice supporters were effusive in their praise for our advice and suggestions on these responses. Consultations of this sort are rarely completely straight forward to complete and we are pleased that a bit of guidance from us has allowed many more members of the public to voice their views on issues that do concern them. We’ll do more of this in the future.
Wild Justice published our first three reports. A Site for Sore SSSIs analysed data from England and showed that Sites of Scientific Interest in England are in worse condition than the official figures show and the data are very out of date anyway (click here) – the protected area system is in a terrible state of disrepair. Meddling on the Moors looked at Hen Harriers in England and particularly took a critical look at the controversial brood-meddling scheme licensed by Natural England to suit grouse moor managers (click here) – we think it’s a rotten ‘trial’ where the evidence is clear that it has failed. Ban or License? presented the results of a poll of over 7000 respondents and showed that these respondents (who may not have been a representative sample but were a large sample) favoured banning of driven grouse shooting over licensing – click here. Strikingly, this was firmly true of RSPB members despite the RSPB’s corporate support for licensing.
We carried on our data collection on glyphosate levels in your urine and lead levels in game meat, our funding helped secure quicker results in forensic analysis of wildlife crimes, we had a couple of boat trips in Poole Harbour and we helped fund legal challenges on river pollution, tree protection, underwater developments in Northern Ireland and Open Seas‘s successful legal challenge of the Scottish government’s licensing of scallop dredging – click here.
.
That’s a quick summary of 2023 – bring on 2024, we say!
.
.
All of these things, and many more, have been reported in our newsletters through the year. Our newsletter is our favoured means of keeping you in touch with our thoughts and work. It’s free – subscribe here.
And all this work is funded by donations from the public – if you feel you can support our future work then you can donate via PayPal, cheques or by bank transfer – click here for details.
Comments Off on Low convictions allowing wildlife crime to go unpunished, say nature groups
Wildlife & Countryside LINK’s Wildlife Crime Group (of which Wild Justice is a member) has published its latest report on wildlife crime that took place across England and Wales in 2022.
Here is the WCL press release:
Low convictions allowing wildlife crime to go unpunished, say nature groups
Some of the country’s leading nature voices are today releasing analysis showing that our cherished wildlife is being failed in the courts, with people who commit crimes (including persecution of birds of prey, badgers and bats) rarely being convicted. Such a lack of convictions removes a key deterrent for would-be criminals and makes it more likely for people to become repeat offenders. Wildlife crime can also be linked to other serious crimes like firearms offences and organised crime.
The Wildlife Crime Report for 2022, compiled by Wildlife and Countryside Link, with information from groups including RSPB, WWF UK, and the League Against Cruel Sports, has shown that convictions for crime against wildlife in 2022 decreased substantially. This is despite a record number of reports of wildlife crime over 2021. Other wildlife crimes include the disturbance of seals and dolphins, and the illegal trade of wildlife across international boundaries.
In 2022, Link estimates that there were around 4,457 reported wildlife crime incidents in England and Wales, compared to 4,885 in 2021 (a record level sustained from a surge in incidents in 2020 during the pandemic). Despite record levels of wildlife crime in 2021, there was a notable 42% fall in subsequent convictions for wildlife crime, from 900 in 2021 to 526 in 2022.
Dominic Dyer, Wildlife and Countryside Link’s Wildlife Crime Chair, said: “To put it simply, people who hurt wildlife are getting away with it, with a lack of convictions leaving them free to cause further suffering. Despite shockingly high levels of wildlife crime in recent years we’re not seeing higher levels of convictions to give nature the justice it deserves.
“With the Government’s deadline to halt the decline of nature by 2030 getting ever closer, it’s time for ministers to take the issue of wildlife crime seriously. This means the Home Office making it a notifiable offence to help police forces identify crime hotspots and plan accordingly.”
Despite a slight fall in the overall number of reports of wildlife crime, the report shows that reports of disturbances on marine mammals (including seals and dolphins) rose from 450 in 2021 to 508 in 2022. This is likely due to the rise in the number of people participating in outdoor activities on or near the coast including walking, paddle boarding, kayaking and jet skiing, as well as wildlife tours and wild swimming. Marine experts and water sports governing bodies are working to educate the public on how to enjoy our beaches and ocean without putting the welfare of marine wildlife at risk.
Sue Sayer MBE of Seal Research Trust, said: “More people enjoying our ocean is great news for health and wellbeing, but we must be more mindful of how this can impact marine wildlife including seals. If a seal gets scared by people getting too close it will use huge amounts of energy to scamper away and could also risk serious injury when getting back into the water. Fortunately, it’s very easy to enjoy our beaches and ocean without putting seals at risk of harm. Just follow the Defra Marine and Coastal Wildlife Code, Give Seals Space (100m+), and slowly move further away from seals if they start to look at you.”
Bat crime figures for 2022 increased by 23% compared to 2021. A survey issued by the National Wildlife Crime Unit to the 43 police forces across England and Wales (19 responded meaning these numbers are likely far less than the true extent of crime), coupled with reports to Bat Conservation Trust revealed 164 cases of bat crime. The most common form of bat crime is disturbance or destruction of roosts, often due to property development. The report points to a case in Monmouthshire of a developer being fined more than £7,000 after renovating an old school building where bats were known to be present.
Kit Stoner, chief executive of Bat Conservation Trust, said: “Bats are long lived, roost faithful, and slow to recover from population losses. Unfortunately, many species of bat in the UK are under threat from loss of roosting sites. With the most common form of bat crime being disturbance or destruction of roosts, it is vital that we maintain and enforce protections. Without this action, we will not meet targets to halt the decline of species.”
Due to a lack of official data, these figures on crime (most of the data relies on direct reports from members of the public to nature groups) are likely to be a significant under-estimate of wildlife offences. Wildlife and Countryside Link is therefore calling on the Home Office to make wildlife crime notifiable, to help target resources and action to deal with hotspots of criminality.
To properly tackle the issue of wildlife crime, nature experts are calling for the following actions (most of which were also recommended by a UN report in 2021):
Making wildlife crimes notifiable to the Home Office, so such crimes are officially recorded in national statistics. This would better enable police forces to gauge the true extent of wildlife crime and to plan strategically to address it.
Increasing resources & training for wildlife crime teams in police forces. Significant investment in expanding wildlife and rural crime teams across police forces in England & Wales, would enable further investigations, and lead to further successful prosecutions. Funding for the National Wildlife Crime Unit should be increased in line with inflation, to allow the Unit to continue its excellent work.
Reforming wildlife crime legislation. Wildlife crime legislation in the UK is antiquated and disparate. A 2015 Law Commission report concluded these laws are ‘‘overly complicated, frequently contradictory and unduly prescriptive’’. Much of this stems from the need to prove ‘intention and recklessness’, which has stunted the potential for prosecution in even clear cases of harm being done to protected and endangered species.
Comments Off on Please respond to a public consultation on lead ammunition
Today we are asking you, please, to respond to a consultation by the Health and Safety Executive on the use of lead ammunition. This is an issue on which Wild Justice has been very active.
Below we have set out some background information on the issue, as well as some guidance on how you might want to fill out the consultation, step by step.
Background.
We believe that restrictions on the use of lead shot and lead bullets for shooting live quarry are long overdue. Lead is a poison and shooting it into the environment or into creatures that may enter the human food chain or be eaten by other wild animals is senseless. This consultation is important and it feels like getting change is possible. Honestly, it won’t take you very long to make your views known and the more people who respond, the better.
Many of the respondents will be shooters who have been briefed by the shooting industry. This is an industry which has been dragging its feet on this matter for years and years and years. Some shooters will respond in wildlife-friendly ways but this is your opportunity to speak up for wildlife (and for human health). The consultation applies to Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland) but if you live in Northern Ireland or elsewhere there is no bar to you responding and there may well be implications of the decisions that apply to you.
The consultation has two attached papers – we’ve read them. They are both very long (100+ pages each), quite technical and would take you hours and hours to read properly. But filling in a public consultation is not an exam test and you’ll be able to answer the few questions without wading through all of the two papers although you may find them interesting and informative.
However, if you want more information then here are some comprehensible sources of information on the topic, we include them to show that we know our stuff on this subject and we regard it as important:
Webpage of the Lead Ammunition Group – click here – which contains much information including their 2015 report (after five years of expert work), correspondence, updates and various other information
Recent blog by John Swift, chair of LAG, calling for restrictions on use of lead shot and lead bullets for shooting live animals – click here – these are exactly the same measures that Wild Justice supports. It is striking that John is a former Chief Exec of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and has been an active shooter.
Oxford Lead Symposium – a 2015 compendium of accessible research papers on the impacts of lead ammunition on people, wildlife and the environment generally – click here.
Wild Justice website has a variety of blog posts on tests of lead levels in supermarket game meat – click here for information on lead in dog food, lead in supermarket game meat and more.
An RSPB blog post by one of us 13 years ago which describes the RSPB trialing copper bullets for deer control and deciding to make that change permanent – click here
A letter from RSPB and Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (2022) calling for an all-out removal of lead for shotgun pellets – click here.
A blog post by the RSPB which calls for the end to the use of lead ammunition (shot and bullets) from 2022 – click here.
The Food Standards Agencyadvice on not eating game meat shot with lead – click here
NHS advice on not eating game meat shot with lead
if pregnant, trying to get pregnant or for young children – click here
The consultation closes at midnight on Sunday 10 December so you have 6 days including today, and including the weekend, to respond. Here is the link to the consultation:
We think that this is a very poorly worded and dense consultation. This is ‘the’ public consultation by a government agency on a matter of considerable public interest and yet the questions are off-putting and assume quite a lot of technical knowledge. It does look quite scary but please don’t be put off. There aren’t many questions, you can skip lots of them and so with some explanation from us we think you can make a difference by expressing your views within a few minutes. Note that you don’t have to finish the answers all in one go, you can do a bit and then click the option for ‘save and come back later’ at any time and do just that.
The good thing is that the draft Agency Opinion (ie what they propose to do) is heading in absolutely the right direction on lead shot but needs a bit of a kick up the backside as far as lead bullets are concerned.
Filling out the consultation:
Below, we refer to the 7 pages of the consultation (which contain 20 questions), although the pages aren’t numbered, because we think it will help you navigate the document.
OK, let’s get started.
Page 1: There are 12 questions about you (eg what’s your name?) so they are relatively easy and because you are responding as an individual, not an organisation, you can skip a few of the questions anyway. That’s the first page done and only eight questions left.
Page 2:
This has one question about transition periods – otherwise known as delays. Should the shooting industry be given three years or five before the use of lead shot for shooting live animals is banned?
We say, three years, and you may feel the same. Our reasons are that lead ammunition is already banned for use over wetlands and/or for shooting a list of waterbirds (details differ across the UK nations) and therefore many shooters have already had many years to transition. Despite being illegal for over 20 years, compliance with the lead shot ban in this form of shooting has been very poor, and so bringing in a short transition for the new measures will not only bring in new protection it will help to enforce the existing laws which have been flouted by shooters for decades.
OK, so you have now answered 13 out of 21 questions.
The next page, Page 3, is about ‘Humane Dispatch’ where we guess you won’t have any special knowledge so that you can almost certainly tick ‘no’ (14th question) and move on to Page 4 and a question (the 15th question) about monetising raptor deaths.
Page 4:
This page’s question is a stinker: ‘Monetised benefits associated with restricting lead bullets for live quarry shooting: Do you have information regarding the monetary benefits associated with reducing the risk of secondary poisoning of raptors from the use of lead bullets e.g., from WTP-based evaluations or similar?’
Your reaction may be ‘Wtf is WTP?’ but this extremely poorly posed question is about how much you care that birds of prey may ingest lead from the carcasses of injured animals that they kill or dead animals that they scavenge. You can answer that, so tick ‘Yes’ and then say why you care about birds of prey such as Golden Eagles, Red Kites and Buzzards that may be poisoned by ingestion of lead ammunition (and that you care about other carrion-eating birds and mammals).
You might want to say that nobody has ever asked you about your willingness to pay (WTP) to see poisoning of birds of prey from lead ammunition addressed but that if they had you would be willing to pay and you are sure that large numbers of wildlife lovers would do so too. However, you might want to point out that protecting threatened birds of prey is a responsibility of government and that you are already paying your taxes so that government, and bodies such as the HSE, do that job properly.
You might want to point out that taking the time to answer this badly-phrased question on this consultation is a proxy for willingness to pay. You could also say that since non-toxic alternatives to lead ammunition are readily available then this is very simply a question of sensible regulation where a less harmful ammunition is readily available. You might want to say that you care very much about rare birds of prey such as Golden Eagles and you don’t want them to suffer or be harmed by unnecessary contamination of their food by a poison.
You may want to end by saying that there are so many reasons why removing lead bullets from use on live ‘quarry’ is a good idea that your view is that they overwhelmingly outscore a small inconvenience to shooters and that you want restrictions on using lead bullets to be as strong as those in the draft Agency Opinion for lead shot.
Page 5:
Let’s move on to Page 5 where there are two questions (questions 16 and 17) about ‘Use of different bullet types for live quarry shooting and target shooting’. If you know anything about these issues then do answer the questions but we are confident that the vast majority of you can tick ‘no’ to both and move on.
That just leaves three questions and the good news is, on Page 6…
… we doubt whether many of you can or want to answer the two questions on ‘Rifles and Zeroing’ so that’s 19 of the 20 questions done. Which takes us very quickly on to Page 7.
Page 7:
This page is for General Comments and we would encourage you to go to town here.
You may want to start your general comments with these three points:
I support the draft Agency Opinion that restrictions on sale and use of lead shot for shooting live animals should be brought in as a matter of urgency.
I support those restrictions being brought in after a transition period which is less than five years; I would favour three years rather than five (see my response to that question above) but I would urge an even quicker transition because this simple and necessary measure has been delayed overlong.
For the sake of clarity, since this question has not specifically been asked in this consultation, I support similar urgent restrictions being brought in for the use of lead bullets for shooting live animals
Then make some or all of these comments in your own words:
This is your first opportunity as a member of the public to comment and so there are issues not addressed by the consultation questions that you want to make.
Lead is a poison and it is crazy to shoot a poison into wild animals destined for the human food chain. There is no mandatory labelling of game meat as containing lead (if it does) which is a poison so the only safe way for game consumers to avoid eating lead is if lead ammunition is removed from use. The FSA and NHS both draw attention to the human health aspects of lead ingestion. These concerns apply to game shot with shotgun pellets (eg Red Grouse, Pheasants, partridges and duck) but also to many species of deer shot with bullets and sold as venison.
Environmental contamination and secondary poisoning of scavenging and predatory birds and mammals is an issue that needs addressing so restrictions should apply to lead bullets as well as lead shot.
Strong, quick regulation is needed because existing regulations on shooting of waterfowl are flouted by shooters.
The 2015 report of the Lead Ammunition Group recommended that such restrictions should be brought in and it is outrageous that UK governments are still consulting and delaying on this very simple issue.
Other jurisdictions in Europe and North America have brought in similar restrictions – the UK would not be going out on a limb but would simply be following what is clearly going to become the norm.
Removal of lead from petrol, water pipes, paints has been achieved years ago and removing lead ammunition from use is simply one more step based on lead’s known harmful impact on people and wildlife.
It is up to you how you respond but please do respond. We’re sorry that the consultation is so badly worded and framed but this is an important opportunity, your only opportunity, to make your views known. Please do have a go – thank you!
Wild Justice will respond as an organisation but we are asking you to accept the invitation from the HSE to respond to this consultation as an individual. Perhaps you know others who also might want to respond to it – feel free to bring this information to their attention.
In this case, we would like to hear from you if you respond to this consultation. Please drop us an email (admin@wildjustice.org.uk) and tell us if you responded and any comments you have on the consultation and/or on the advice contained in this blog.
Comments Off on NRW advises Welsh Government to regulate gamebird releases
Natural Resources Wales (NRW) has announced it has provided advice to the Welsh Government to regulate the release of significant numbers of non-native gamebirds for shooting. This regulation is required to help NRW monitor and evaluate the potential environmental impacts of such releases on native flora and fauna as well as on protected sites. NRW’s proposals followed increased regulations introduced for gamebird releases in England after Wild Justice action.
Seven week old pheasant chicks, often known as poults, after just being released into a gamekeepers release pen on an English shooting estate
NRW first announced its proposed measures to add Common Pheasant and Red-legged Partridge to part 1 of Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 earlier this year. Part 1 of Schedule 9 lists non-native species that are already established in the wild, but which may pose a conservation threat to native biodiversity and habitats. This would mean that any release of those species in Wales would need to be carried out under a licence issued by NRW.
NRW then held a public consultation over the summer and has now reviewed those consultation responses and has reiterated its advice to Ministers that these two species should be added to Schedule 9 so that any releases should then be licensed, either by a General Licence or by an individual licence when releases are on or close to protected sites.
If Ministers accept NRW’s advice, the new regulations are expected to be in place for the 2025/26 shooting season.
Here is a copy of NRW’s advice to the Welsh Government, published yesterday (8 November 2023):
Comments Off on Chris Packham wins libel action against Fieldsports Channel Ltd and journalist Andrew (Ben) O’Rourke
Press release from Leigh Day (6 November 2023)
Chris Packham settles defamation claim with Fieldsports Channel after it admits death threat claims were untrue.
Environmental campaigner and naturalist Chris Packham CBE has settled a defamation claim against the website Fieldsports Channel after it falsely accused him of writing a fake death threat letter to himself.
The online shooting and hunting channel has agreed to pay Mr Packham substantial damages and contribute to his legal costs as well as provide an undertaking never to repeat the allegation.
In June 2022, Fieldsports Channel and one of its journalists, Ben O’Rourke, published an online video and article alleging the TV presenter had written a fake death threat letter to himself and lied about it being sent by an anonymous third party. The serious allegation was not put to Mr Packham directly to offer him right of reply.
In bringing the claim against Fieldsports Channel Ltd and Mr O’Rourke, Mr Packham’s lawyers argued the allegations were plainly baseless and had caused him enormous reputational damage and distress. They pointed out that the only possible basis for the allegation was handwriting analysis of the letter which has since been comprehensively discredited.
Of particular concern to Mr Packham was the implication he had lied to his family about the death threat, knowing it would cause them considerable anxiety. Also, that he had lied to, and knowingly wasted the time of, Hampshire Police, who investigated the letter and on whom he relies for his and his family’s safety.
Mr Packham’s distress was later compounded by Fieldsports Channel’s derisive response to his claim, in particular mounting caricatures of his head on a “trophy wall” at the British Shooting Show in February 2023. Mr Packham has been the victim of arson attacks and has received numerous death threats, and he considers its actions to have been utterly reckless and irresponsible in that context.
As well as paying Mr Packham substantial damages and contributing to his legal costs, Fieldsports channel and Mr O’Rourke have agreed never to repeat the allegation and will publish a legal statement, which is also to be read in the High Court on 6 November 2023, explaining the matter on its platforms.
Mr Packham was represented by Mr Jonathan Price and Ms Claire Overman of Doughty Street Chambers, who are instructed by partner Tessa Gregory and solicitor Carol Day of law firm Leigh Day.
Chris Packham said:
“Fieldsports TV displayed a complete contempt of even the basic codes of real journalism. They allowed a vicious vendetta to drive a targeted catalogue of lies in an attempt to destroy my credibility, integrity and reputation. Further, even when involved in this litigation they recklessly posted images of myself contrived to fuel hatred amongst fire-arms owners when they knew I was already the victim of targeted attacks from members of this community. They also failed to show any respect for the legal process. As a consequence, Fieldsports TV have now issued a full apology and agreed to pay substantial costs and damages. My message is clear – if anyone publishes or perpetuates lies about me or my conduct I will challenge them and I will win.”
Carol Day, solicitor at law firm Leigh Day said:
“Our client Mr Packham was the subject of an egregious slur against his reputation based on the flimsiest of evidence that failed to stand up to even the most basic form of scrutiny. To be accused of writing a fake death threat to himself, with all the consequences that brings for his family and the authorities, was a highly damaging attack on Mr Packham’s integrity. The fact he was then mocked publicly for objecting to these defamatory remarks shows how little regard the defendants had for the reputation of others. Our client can only hope that lessons have been learned from this sorry episode and it brings an end to these gratuitous attacks on Mr Packham’s character by people who simply disagree with his views.”
Comments Off on Wild Justice wins judicial review as Northern Ireland badger cull ruled unlawful
Press release from Leigh Day (25 October 2023)
Northern Ireland badger cull by shooting ruled unlawful in High Court
A decision to allow a cull of badgers in Northern Ireland by shooting has been ruled unlawful in the High Court.
In a judgment handed down in Belfast this morning, Wednesday 25 October 2023, it was ruled that the 2021 consultation into the decision to allow the cull of up to 4,000 badgers a year was so fundamentally flawed as to be unlawful. Therefore, the resulting decision to control the spread of bovine tuberculosis (bTB) by allowing farmer-led groups to shoot free-roaming badgers with rifles was also unlawful and the policy has been quashed.
Now the Department for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA) will have to rethink the policy following the former Minister’s decision in March 2022 to allow farmers to use rifles to kill badgers to tackle bTB. It will have to hold a new consultation on its options for tackling bTB.
Photo by Chris Packham
The legal challenge to DAERA was brought by Wild Justice and Northern Ireland Badger Group (NIBG) who are represented by the environment team at law firm Leigh Day. Additional witness evidence was provided by the Born Free Foundation.
The Judge, Mr Justice Scoffield, agreed with Wild Justice and NIBG that the consultation did not meet the requirements for a lawful consultation.
He said DAERA failed to comply with the requirements of a fair and lawful consultation by failing to provide consultees with sufficient information about the basis for its proposed decision to permit them to engage meaningfully with the Department’s thinking.
He said the Minister ought to have been advised, but was not, of why those who responded to the consultation believed a cull by shooting was an inhumane option which would give rise to unnecessary suffering.
The 2021 consultation document repeatedly referred to a “business case” as being the basis for DAERA’s recommendations and decisions. DAERA singled out Option 8 – the culling by shooting of free-roaming badgers by farmer-led companies – as its preferred option and asked consultees if they agreed. But without the business case, Wild Justice and NIBG say it could not understand how that option had been chosen or properly respond to Option 8.
Wild Justice and NIBG argued that because they didn’t have the business case, they couldn’t meaningfully engage with the consultation process and as such the process and the resulting decision were ineffective and unlawful.
They also argued that the Minister failed to properly consider the responses they were able to make. For example, their views on the humaneness of the options available does not appear to have been factored into the decision-making process. The possibility that informed consultation responses could have affected the outcome is clear because when the options were scored, the most humane option (Test, Vaccinate and Remove (TVR) scored only 10 per cent lower than the least humane option chosen (a non-selective cull)).
The judge said consultees were entitled to further information about the analysis behind the Department’s preference for Option 8 including the non-monetary criteria used and how the options were ranked on both cost and risk, with some indication given of why the options were so ranked.
He added that the consultation document effectively skated over DAERA’s reasoning on the scientific issues in a way which did not permit meaningful engagement from expert consultees.
Wild Justice said:
“We are obviously thrilled that DAERA’s policy to allow a non-selective cull of badgers by farmer-led groups has been quashed and that our legal arguments have been upheld with such convincing authority by Mr Justice Scoffield. We are mindful that DAERA may try again to implement a similar policy and we stand ready to challenge any proposal that fails to comply with due consideration of not just public law, but also of the scientific evidence and welfare aspects associated with such action. We are grateful to our partners at the Northern Ireland Badger Group and the Born Free Foundation for their expertise, to our brilliant legal team at Leigh Day, Matrix Chambers and Phoenix Law for their dedication, and especially to our supporters whose generous response to our crowd funder enabled us to take this case”.
Mike Rendle of NIBG said:
“Today’s judgement has vindicated our very grave concerns about the way the bovine TB strategy consultation was conducted and the decision to implement a farmer-led cull which would inflict immense suffering on great numbers of healthy badgers. The scientific evidence clearly shows that cattle, not badgers, are driving bovine TB in Northern Ireland. Badger culling is not only cruel and ineffective, it is a costly distraction that has no benefit for cattle, farmers or badgers.”
Dr Mark Jones of the Born Free Foundation said:
“Born Free is delighted that Northern Ireland’s High Court of Justice has upheld the Wild Justice and the Northern Ireland Badger Groups challenge to DAERA’s proposals to introduce mass badger culling in Northern Ireland. DAERA’s refusal to disclose the full details of its Business Case during the consultation process on its policy made it impossible for consultees to scrutinise the financial and other arguments it had in mind. The introduction of an England-style badger cull in Northern Ireland, when the latest peer-reviewed science from England clearly demonstrates the failure of this approach to reduce bovine TB in cattle, has no basis in evidence, and would result in the unnecessary and inhumane killing of thousands of perfectly healthy badgers. DAERA should now permanently abandon any such plans and focus instead on the cattle-based measures required to bring bovine TB, which has such devastating impacts for farmers and their cattle, under control.”
Wild Justice and NIBG are represented by Carol Day and Ricardo Gama at Leigh Day, with Phoenix Law as agents in Northern Ireland.
Leigh Day environmental law specialist, solicitor Carol Day said:
“Our clients are delighted that the Judge has held this consultation to be so unfair as to have been unlawful. The failure to provide consultees with the Business Case, which formed the basis for the Minister’s decision to proceed with the controlled shooting of free-roaming badgers, prevented them from engaging meaningfully in the process. The judge also held that the Minister failed to conscientiously consider key points made when making his decision, such as the relative “humaneness” of the various options for addressing bovine TB, on which our clients made specific submissions.”
Counsel instructed were David Wolfe KC and Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh KC, both of Matrix Chambers.
Comments Off on Gamebird releases in Norfolk and Suffolk – can you help?
Good morning!
On Monday we told you what we have heard about the process of assessing licences for gamebird releases by Defra (see our blog – click here). Yesterday, Tuesday, we looked at one area of coastal Suffolk, the Deben Estuary Special Protection Area, where Natural England recommended that no licence for gamebird releases be issued and yet we believe that advice may have been overturned by Defra ministers, perhaps by the Secretary of State herself, Therese Coffey, who also happens to be the local MP (see our blog – click here) .
Today we tell you more of what we’ve learned from information requests to Natural England. We asked for the documentation of the decisions on licence applications for a variety of sites. Let us tell you about the Breckland, a Special Protection Area in Norfolk and Suffolk, see https://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx.
Breckland Special Protected Area
If you travel from Cambridge to Norwich, or King’s Lynn to Bury St Edmunds, you’ll pass through the Breckland, an area of sandy soils with conifer plantations, arable crops and some remaining areas of heathland. The British Trust for Ornithology’s HQ in Thetford is particularly well situated to explore this wildlife-rich area. It’s a large SPA (and SAC and SSSI) designated because of its wildlife importance and as far as the birds are concerned, three main species, Woodlark, Nightjar and Stone Curlew (see here).
There are many landowners in this large area but some stand out as being particularly interesting with the Elveden Estate of the fourth Earl of Iveagh and the van Cutsem Estate at Hilborough being particularly notable.
The gist of Natural England’s formal advice to Defra was that licences could be granted for gamebird releases but, because Stone Curlews are late nesters, gamebird releases should be delayed until 1 September in some cases and 1 October in others in order to protect the species for which the SPA exists from the dangers of avian flu carried by released gamebirds.
We can just imagine how this would have gone down with a bunch of large shooting estates. Remember the shooting season for Red-legged Partridges opens on 1 September and for Pheasants a month later. Natural England advised that gamebird releases should be delayed by a matter of around 6-10 weeks which would have implications for the length and scale of the shooting season.
This seems sensible to us, although an outright ban for a few years would be even more sensible.
We believe, though we do not know for sure, that this is an example of a licence which was granted by Defra lacking the conditions (relating to date of release) recommended by Natural England.
Can you help, please? We will get to the bottom of this through information requests but it may take some time. If you have information that would help, then please do get in touch. Thank you to all those who have contacted us so far.
By the way, do you realise who are the two local MPs? They are both rather well known, perhaps even notorious; in the south of the area it is Matt Hancock and in the north it is Therese Coffey’s best friend – Liz Truss.
If you can add information to this story then please contact Wild Justice and we will respect your anonymity.
We were expecting a response from Defra this week on one of our information requests but heard yesterday that they won’t respond until early November. It’s almost as though they feel they must hide and cover up what they’ve done, isn’t it? We’ll review where we are with our legal team in a few days. If we find evidence of unlawful decision making then we will consider taking legal action even though the process works so slowly the chances are that there might be a different government in place by the time these matters could be resolved by the courts.
Comments Off on Gamebird releases in Suffolk – can you help?
Good morning!
Yesterday we told you what we have heard about the process of assessing licences for gamebird releases by Defra (see our blog which reproduces yesterday’s newsletter – click here).
Today we tell you some of what we have discovered from information requests to Natural England. We asked for the documentation of the decisions on licence applications for a variety of sites. Let us tell you about the Deben Estuary, a Special Protection Area in Suffolk important for wading birds, see https://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx.
The SPA runs from Woodbridge to the sea at Woodbridge Haven and in autumn and winter holds important numbers of waterfowl, especially waders and geese (see here).
Natural England’s advice was clear – no licence should be granted for gamebird releases here:
Specifically the advice states ‘In line with the strict protection afforded to European Sites, Natural England recommends that this licence is refused’.
We believe, though we do not know for sure, that this is an example of a licence which was granted against Natural England advice.
Can you help, please? We will get to the bottom of this through information requests but it may take some time. If you have information that would help then please do get in touch.
If you live locally to this site and know of any Pheasant or Red-legged Partridge releases, this season, in or very close to the SPA as shown on the map above, then please let us know. Is there gamebird shooting occurring on this site this year?
We don’t know, but we intend to get to the bottom of this.
By the way, do you realise who is the MP for the Deben Estuary? It’s Therese Coffey – the Secretary of State at Defra. Let’s hope that she didn’t play a part in this decision because there is a clear potential conflict of interest. We wonder who was the applicant for the licence? Do you know?
If you can add information to this story then please contact Wild Justice and we will respect your anonymity.
If you’ve just found us and like what we’re doing then it would be remiss of us not to inform you that it’s possible to donate to Wild Justice, now or in the future, through PayPal, bank transfer or a cheque in the post – see details here. Thank you for all your donations. You are our source of funding.
Let us tell you a story – some of it is known, some of it is surmise based on anonymous information, apparently from several sources (but we can’t be sure – it’s anonymous!) received by Wild Justice. We’re asking that the people who know what is happening become whistleblowers and contact us to reveal more.
It’s a story about gamebird releases.
Introduction
Thanks to a legal challenge by Wild Justice in October 2020 – see here – Defra was forced to introduce new regulations on gamebird releases near sites of high nature conservation importance because of the impacts of large numbers of non-native Red-legged Partridges and Pheasants on native species and sensitive habitats. This was a significant change to the level of regulation of gamebird shooting in England (Wales is considering action too – see here).
Last year, many organisations, including Wild Justice, called on Defra to limit gamebird releases because of the prevalence of avian flu. Defra didn’t act then but calls continued – see here. This spring, rather late in the day, Defra sensibly introduced more restrictions on gamebird releases and such releases inside or close to Special Protection Areas (SPAs) had to be individually licensed.
The licensing system – what we know
Licences had to be sought for releases of non-native gamebirds in and near SPAs. The licence applications were made to Natural England who provided Defra their expert advice on whether individual licence applications should be approved. Defra is the licensing body, and Defra ministers are ultimately responsible – but they must seek Natural England’s advice as their nature conservation advisor.
The licensing system – what we are told
Wild Justice has been told, by anonymous sources, but apparently several of them, that the process of deciding on the issuing of licences looks more like this;
First, we are told, there is a secret mystery committee involving other ‘experts’. Can this be true? If it is, then who are its members? We would surmise that it contains members of the shooting industry and nobody from the likes of RSPB or BTO.
Second, we are told, that Natural England’s advice is sometimes countermanded by the secret mystery committee. The committee decides in favour of more licences being approved against Natural England’s advice, and then passes them on to Defra ministers including the Secretary of State, Therese Coffey, herself.
Third, we are told, that further applications are approved and/or the conditions of the licences are weakened by ministerial decision. It is a matter of considerable public interest if ministers are going against the formal advice of their expert advisors. It is of even more public interest if the ministerial decisions are arbitrary or not based on the facts presented in the licences.
Wild Justice has tried to get to grips with this process through the process of Environmental Information Requests. Natural England were supposed to get back to us on Thursday after asking for an extension of the normal response time to 40 days (we started asking on 9 August). We heard nothing from Natural England on Thursday, chased them on Friday and then received a response which we will tell you about tomorrow. Defra simply refused to answer our questions claiming that they were too onerous.
This is speculation about what is happening
We can’t be sure what’s happening – but that’s because we have asked and Defra hasn’t come clean. Would that make you more relaxed or more suspicious about events? It has made us pretty suspicious.
We know that shooting interests have threatened legal action over the licensing scheme – maybe a deal has been done so that the licensing system is as weak as possible, through ministerial intervention, to keep the shooting industry happy?
What if other politicians (there’s quite a lot of gamebird shooting in Rishi Sunak’s Richmond constituency for example) have put pressure on Defra to fix this for their constituents?
We don’t know, but we intend to get to the bottom of this.
If you can add information to this story then please contact Wild Justice and we will respect your anonymity.
Comments Off on Regulating gamebird releases in Wales – an update
Earlier this year, Natural Resources Wales (NRW) opened a public consultation about its proposed measures to regulate the release of significant numbers of non-native gamebirds for shooting. This regulation is required to help NRW monitor and evaluate the potential environmental impacts of such releases on native flora and fauna as well as on protected sites. NRW’s proposals followed increased regulations introduced for gamebird releases in England after Wild Justice action.
NRW’s public consultation focused on NRW’s advice to Welsh Ministers to add Common Pheasant and Red-legged Partridge to part 1 of Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Part 1 of Schedule 9 lists non-native species that are already established in the wild, but which may pose a conservation threat to native biodiversity and habitats. This would mean that any release of those species in Wales would need to be carried out under a licence issued by NRW.
NRW proposes a General Licence for gamebird releases that are 500m or more from sensitive sites, and an individual licence for gamebird releases on or within 500m of a sensitive site. The new regulations, if approved by Welsh Ministers, were intended to be in place in time for the start of the 2024 shooting season (1st September 2024).
The consultation closed in June and attracted an exceptionally high volume of responses (42,000). Wild Justice had encouraged its supporters to ask for greater regulation than was being offered (thank you to everyone who participated), and representatives from the gamebird shooting industry had asked their members to argue that regulation wasn’t required.
Last week, NRW wrote to stakeholders (see letter below) to explain that it will still provide advice to the Welsh Government by 31 October 2023 but that if Ministers decide to proceed with the licensing proposals, NRW will need extra time to prepare the new licensing regime and that this would not be achievable by the 2024 shooting season but would be in place by the start of the 2025 shooting season.
We look forward to hearing what advice NRW gives to Ministers by the end of October 2023.
Here is a copy of the NRW letter to stakeholders, sent out last week:
Dear Stakeholder
As you are probably aware, we received over 42,000 responses to our recent consultation including some very detailed and technical submissions.
We are currently analysing and considering the responses, beginning with those relating specifically to the proposal to add common pheasant and red-legged partridge to Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and we will shortly be providing advice to Welsh Government and the Minister for Climate Change by 31 October 2023. We have provided copies of all the consultation responses to Welsh Government.
If the Minister makes the decision to add common pheasant and red-legged partridge to the Schedule, we will need to put in place a licensing response.
Considering the views of consultees is an important part of ensuring that any regulatory approach is workable, proportionate, and effective. Given the volume of consultation responses, we feel that having licensing in place in time for the 2024/5 shooting season is not achievable. We have decided, following discussions with Welsh Government, that, should licensing be required, it will not come into force until the 2025/6 season – a delay of 12 months from our original target.
This revised timetable will allow us to properly consider the responses to the consultation and engage with stakeholders, as well as honouring our commitment to give shoots in Wales sufficient time to prepare for any changes.
We will be in touch with you again when we have provided our advice to the Welsh Government.
Last weekend Wild Justice took to the seas – venturing out into Poole Harbour, Dorset, with two boat loads of our supporters. Working with Birds of Poole Harbour, we set out with our binoculars raised, on the lookout for some of the local avian superstars.
Wild Justice is having a busy year. Our projects have varied enormously – from looking at the state of our SSSIs to testing lead levels in game meat, and from supporting a successful legal challenge of scallop dredging to securing a debate on shortening the Woodcock shooting season. Throughout all of our investigations and legal challenges, our wins, our losses, there’s one consistent element; your support. With each challenge, report or newsletter we hear your words of encouragement, news of your own actions, and your thoughts and ideas. Our work is funded by you, our supporters; many ‘small’ donations adding up to a sizeable sum which enables us to campaign, challenge and take action. We’re only a small organisation and team, and we don’t deal with the millions of pounds that larger NGOs deal with, but we know we pack a punch.
Earlier in the year we invited our newsletter subscribers to register their interest in joining us on a boat trip in Poole Harbour. Over the weekend, over 120 of you and some invited guests joined us and we saw Ospreys, a White-tailed Eagle, Spoonbills, Sandwich Terns, Curlew Sandpipers, a variety of waders and even a rare Forster’s Tern (from North America!). This was also an opportunity for us to talk to just a few of you about Wild Justice’s work and how our Pine Marten-like tenacity creates a landscape of fear among government and regulatory bodies. We also heard from some of our lawyers at Leigh Day, who work incredibly hard with us to bring justice for wildlife.
It energised and buoyed us to share the experience with a group of like-minded people. We’re really grateful for your support, thoughts and ideas – thank you! A big thank you also to Birds of Poole Harbour for their hosting and excellent bird-spotting skills. the weather was great on Friday and Saturday and then it tipped down with rain on Sunday – we were lucky!
If this type of trip sounds like something you’d like to come along to – make sure you’re subscribed to our newsletter – click here – to hear about any future events. And please spread the word – our newsletter is where you hear about our work, challenges and news first. The more people we reach, the more effective we can be for our wildlife!
Comments Off on Please respond to the Defra hedgerow consultation
Today we are asking you, please, to respond to the Defra hedgerow consultation. Does that sound dull and unimportant? Well, it might be slightly dull to fill in the form (but it is quick, and we are providing you with quite a lot of suggestions which will make it even quicker) but it is certainly important because hedgerows are very important refuges for farmland wildlife – birds, insects, plants, mammals, spiders … everything.
Many of the respondents will be farmers, who are likely to respond in ways that make life easy for farmers and not necessarily in ways that make life easier for wildlife. We’re sure that many farmers will respond in wildlife-friendly ways but this is your opportunity to speak up for wildlife. The proposals apply to England but responses are welcomed from all parts of the UK (as is clear from Q6).
The consultation is a consequence of Brexit and so is a test of the promises that were made that Brexit would not weaken environmental protection. We are in a wildlife crisis and Defra should be strengthening existing protection, stiffening the enforcement of existing and future protection and focusing on producing recoveries in farmland wildlife. This consultation scores low points in those areas. There is a danger that Defra weakens the existing rather feeble levels of environmental protection at the behest of the intensive agriculture lobby.
The consultation closes on Wednesday 20 September, presumably at midnight, and so you have seven days including today to respond. Here is the link to the consultation:
If you have responded to a government consultation before then you’ll find this one very easy – there are lots of Yes/No questions and boxes for (optional) comments. Unless you want to go overboard it won’t take you more than 10 minutes to answer all the questions and make brief comments. If you’ve never responded to a government consultation before, then this is a good place to start because it is quite straight forward.
OK, let’s get started.
There are 26 questions but the first eight are about you (eg what’s your name?) so they are easy. The last two questions are about the form so respond to them or not depending on your frame of mind.
That leaves 16 questions but almost all of them can be answered Yes or No. You can, of course, answer the questions however you want, but these are our suggestions based on our view that the current regulations are too weak, they need to be strengthened rather than weakened and that our proposals for strengthening them will not disadvantage the farming industry, food production or profitability to any significant degree.
So, you’re less than 100 keyboard strokes from having your say:
Q9: Yes
Q10: No
Q11: No
Q12: Yes
Q13: Extend beyond 31 August
Q14: No
Q15: Yes
Q16: No
Q17: Yes
Q18: [Skip or see below]
Q19: Yes
Q20: Yes
Q21: Yes
Q22: Yes
Q23: Yes
Q24: Yes
You could stop there – thank you! You’ve stood up for hedgerow protection just by answering those questions. But if you want to add comments then these are what we would suggest (feel free to copy and paste these suggestions):
Q9: Please consider widening them to at least 3m.
Q10: Small fields have wildlife too – conceivably more of it per unit area. We are in a wildlife loss crisis and farmland has lost more wildlife than most other habitats/land uses. We should be doing more not the same (it clearly isn’t working) or less.
Q11: I can’t see any reason why.
Q12: You have not defined ‘important’ bird species – all bird species and all wildlife species are important. All wild birds and their nests are protected by law – the no-cutting period is a simple means of ensuring that nests are not destroyed accidentally and it simplifies farmers’ lives in that otherwise they should check all hedgerows for active bird nests before hedge cutting.
Q13: I can’t see any good reason to shorten the period.
We are in a wildlife loss crisis and farmland has lost more wildlife than most other habitats/land uses. We should be doing more not the same (it clearly isn’t working) or less.
As a citizen and taxpayer I expect farming to deliver more for the environment.
Many species of birds which nest in hedgerows are declining and/or rare and for some of these the late season is particularly important. Two buntings come to mind – Yellowhammer and Cirl Bunting.
But it’s not all about birds – other wildlife would benefit from later cutting dates too.
Q14: We are in a wildlife loss crisis and farmland has lost more wildlife than most other habitats/land uses. We should be doing more not the same (it clearly isn’t working) or less.
As a citizen and taxpayer I expect farming to deliver more for the environment.
The existing exemptions aren’t really needed – they are examples of farming getting an easy ride.
Roadside hedges can be cut at other times of year.
I have not seen a well-argued case for relaxing cutting dates.
Q15: leave blank
Q16: leave blank
Q17: leave blank
Q18: Regulations must be backed up by effective enforcement. Poor enforcement is to blame for the failure of many environmental policies from raptor protection, preventing sewage pollution of rivers, banning of lead ammunition in shooting wildfowl, restricting the burning of blanket bogs and adherence to the terms of general licences.
Defra should engage the public in reporting breaches of regulations and ensuring follow-up.
Q19: Yes, although I believe the benefits might be modest compared with those in agricultural land. Golf courses and renewable energy sites (windfarms and solar farms) must surely be areas where hedgerow protection can be introduced at little disadvantage to anyone.
Q20: Yes, but I have answered yes to Q20-Q24. Some combination of measures is needed and you have not consulted on a proposed mixture. This requires more thought than you can reasonably expect a member of the public to be able to provide at this stage. This is a flaw in your consultation.
Q21: Yes, but I have answered yes to Q20-Q24. Some combination of measures is needed and you have not consulted on a proposed mixture. This requires more thought than you can reasonably expect a member of the public to be able to provide at this stage. This is a flaw in your consultation.
Q22: Yes, but I have answered yes to Q20-Q24. Some combination of measures is needed and you have not consulted on a proposed mixture. This requires more thought than you can reasonably expect a member of the public to be able to provide at this stage. This is a flaw in your consultation.
Q23: Yes, but I have answered yes to Q20-Q24. Some combination of measures is needed and you have not consulted on a proposed mixture. This requires more thought than you can reasonably expect a member of the public to be able to provide at this stage. This is a flaw in your consultation.
Q24: Yes, but I have answered yes to Q20-Q24. Some combination of measures is needed and you have not consulted on a proposed mixture. This requires more thought than you can reasonably expect a member of the public to be able to provide at this stage. This is a flaw in your consultation.
Wild Justice will respond as an organisation but we are asking you to accept the invitation from Defra to respond to this consultation as an individual. Perhaps you know others who also might want to respond to it – feel free to forward this email to them.
Comments Off on Ban or license? – a Wild Justice report
We asked subscribers to the Wild Justice newsletter whether they favoured licensing of driven grouse shooting or would they support an all-out ban. The 7000+responses sent a clear message in favour of a ban.
Food for thought for environmental organisations and politicians.
Comments Off on Meddling on the Moors – a Wild Justice report
Today, in the run up to the start of the Red Grouse shooting season on Saturday – The Inglorious 12th – Wild Justice publishes a report assessing the five-year trial of a controversial conservation measure. Some people call it brood management, we call it brood meddling. This trial only applies to England and came out of discussions between Defra and a range of shooting organisations. No such measures are being talked about or implemented in Scotland (which alongside England, has large areas of grouse moors) or Northern Ireland or Wales (both of which do have grouse moors, but they don’t make up a very high proportion of the upland area).
Our report finds that little has really been learned from this trial and many of the data remain unanalysed. Basically, we are pretty critical of how things are going. Read our report (takes a few seconds to load) and see what you think:
Comments Off on NRW consultation on gamebird releases: your chance to participate
Natural Resources Wales (NRW) is consulting on future regulations to control gamebird releases. Their plans are to adopt a very similar set of regulations to those in England. We think there are lessons to be learned from the English regulations, and that Wales could do better, but we generally support the measures being proposed.
The consultation paper can be found here – click here. It closes on 20th June so there is just over a week for you to participate. Here are our suggestions for how to respond but you must make up your own mind as to what you say – but please do respond regardless of where in the UK you live.
The first three questions relate to your personal details. Here are the remaining five main questions, Questions 4-8, related to the release of gamebirds in Wales, and our suggested responses in italics:
Q4. Do you agree that common pheasant and red-legged partridge should be added to Part 1 of Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in Wales? This change would mean that releasing those species in Wales would need to be carried out under licence. Please give reasons for your views.
I strongly agree with this proposal. This is a proportionate and logical response to the issues laid out in the consultation document and its accompanying papers. Self-regulation will not work as here we are dealing with the shooting industry – a notoriously uncooperative group of people who promote self-regulation but rarely deliver it (eg on wildlife crime, moorland burning and lead ammunition use). The shooting industry always claims to be highly regulated whereas in fact shooting is almost unregulated across the UK with respect to many other European countries.
Q5. If these species are added to Schedule 9, please give us your views on whether our proposed licensing approach would be effective and proportionate?
I generally support the proposals but they need to be made tougher in order to build on lessons learned from the last few years in England – Wales should do better.
Enforcement and monitoring – the shooting industry cannot be relied upon to stick to new regulations, it is a notoriously conservative industry which is reluctant to change. NRW must ensure that monitoring and enforcement of compliance is in place. In England, Natural England has not carried out this function, and neither does Defra and so the regulations are not properly enacted. Wild Justice has recently (8 June) started a legal challenge to the regime in England.
Use of general licences – I believe that instead of a general licence, these measures should be enforced through individual licences where anyone wishing to release gamebirds must apply for an individual licence. Such measures were not introduced in England but have now been imposed for releases close to many ‘European Sites’ partly as a response to the widespread prevalence of avian flu and well-founded concerns over the role of gamebird releases in exacerbating the problem through providing a very large reservoir of captive bred and released birds. Wales should move directly to this approach.
Reporting of releases – an individual licensing system would go a long way to providing information on numbers of birds released and their locations. Current measures, including the APHA poultry register, provide very little useful information on which to base future improvements to regulation.
Should Mallard releases be included in these measures? – at a time of avian flu, but in any case, why are not Mallard releases covered by these proposals?
Buffer area around sensitive sites – the 500m proposal is not based on the current scientific evidence. Gamebirds travel much further than this from release sites. Based on the current evidence I would support a buffer zone of 1km. The maximum distance travelled by released gamebirds (Pheasants) in the study by Turner (2007) was, on average, over 900m and this only considered the first three months after release – gamebirds can be expected to disperse further in the other nine months of their first calendar year, and beyond. It is a commonplace event whilst travelling in the countryside to see gamebirds far from any potential release sites – the 500m zone is not supported by evidence and is not fit for the purpose of protecting sites of conservation importance.
Will the proposals be sufficient to protect sites of conservation importance? – the English regulations largely ignored the impacts of gamebirds on reptile and amphibian populations, the effects of gamebird releases on mammalian predator populations, the indirect impacts on lead shot use and the impacts on avian flu transmission to poultry and to wild birds. In England stronger measures have recently been introduced (individual licensing near SPAs) which partly address the avian flu issue. I see that Annex 3 of the consultation papers provides a long list of known or suspected impacts of gamebirds on wildlife of conservation importance and that includes reptiles and amphibians which were largely ignored by Defra. There is clear need for tougher regulations than were initially introduced in England and I strongly feel that NRW should introduce a larger buffer zone (1km) and individual licensing of releases as its starting point for effective regulation of harmful impacts of gamebirds on native wildlife.
Charging for licences – NRW and Defra have both moved to a position of regarding non-native gamebird releases as a wildlife conservation issue which must be controlled. The polluter pays principle should apply here and the eventual licensing system should not be a burden on the taxpayer. I support individual licensing of releases and those licences should carry a charge. This can also be seen as a charge on the failure of the shooting industry to self-regulate over recent years and their opposition to any form of new regulation which will protect the environment.
Q6. We have based the proposed general licence conditions for pheasant release on the recommendations in the GWCT guidelines for sustainable gamebird releasing. However, the guidelines do not include specific density thresholds for red-legged partridge and there appears to be less evidence on which to base conditions relating to partridge. We have used what evidence is available, and expert opinion, to propose conditions for partridge releases. These are either based on a density threshold linked to the area of cover crop provided, or on density per hectare of release pen (as with pheasants), depending on how the birds are released. We would welcome views on whether these proposals are appropriate and workable and whether they could they be improved.
I do not regard the GWCT guidelines as having taken sufficient account of new evidence or the current condition, and they were produced by an organisation strongly supportive of gamebird shooting. NRW should take a precautionary approach and assume that all impacts are worse than GWCT recognise.
Q7. The GWCT guidelines include a recommendation that no more than one third of woodland with game interest should be used for release pens. This is to ensure sufficient woodland remains that can benefit from habitat management activities. We would like to include this recommendation in our proposed general licence. However, we would prefer to be able to define what can be included in the calculation. Do you have suggestions for how this might be achieved?
I do not regard the GWCT guidelines as having taken sufficient account of new evidence or the current condition, and they were produced by an organisation strongly supportive of gamebird shooting. NRW should take a precautionary approach and assume that all impacts are worse than GWCT recognise. In any case, these measures do not in themselves limit the scale of gamebird releases – if a woodland currently has release pens that occupy less than a third of the woodland area then increases in gamebird releases would be possible. This is not what NRW should be accepting. An individual licensing system and a 1km buffer would go some way to addressing this point.
Q8. Location and density appear to be the main factors influencing the environmental impact of releases, but we recognise that smaller releases in less sensitive areas are likely to present reduced risks. It may be appropriate that small gamebird releases taking place away from sensitive protected sites and their buffer zones are not subject to the same general licence conditions that apply to larger releases. Do you think this is something we should consider? Please give reasons.
Many small releases add up to the same cumulative impact as few large releases – it is the overall impact that NRW must address. I cannot see that this approach does anything other than complicate matters to the benefit of very few individuals and the potential disadvantage of the wildlife that NRW must protect.
Please do consider responding to the consultation – click here – which closes on 20 June. Numbers are important and we know that the shooting industry is encouraging their supporters to respond. Numbers do matter, so this is definitely a subject on which you can make a difference.
It was thanks to Wild Justice, including our supporters, that regulations were brought in in England and those regulations of gamebird releases are better than nothing but need to be improved over time (hence our current legal challenge about the release of gamebirds in England – here). NRW has been slow to move on this subject, but quicker than Scotland and Northern Ireland, and needs to be shown that there is public support for effective regulation now. You can help that to happen.
Comments Off on Wild Justice starts new legal challenge of gamebird release regulationsP28PYW Seven week old pheasant chicks, often known as poults, after just being released into a gamekeepers release pen on an English shooting estate
Today Wild Justice sent a Pre-Action Protocol letter to Dr Therese Coffey, the Secretary of State at Defra, and named Natural England, and Alexander and Diana Darwall (owners of the Blachford Estate) as interested parties. Our claim is that Defra has failed to monitor compliance with GL43 which regulates gamebird releases in England and with the lawfulness of the reissue of GL43 a few days ago.
GL43 came into existence when Wild Justice caused Defra to back down rather than face us in court over the issue of whether unlimited releases of tens of millions of non-native gamebirds (Red-legged Partridges and Pheasants)(click here) damage sites of high nature conservation value. We have never been happy with the provisions of GL43 but recent events have increased our concerns.
We wrote to Natural England (on 7 February) about Pheasant releases and received a response in early March (click here). We asked about enforcement of GL43 and wrote this about their response;
When it comes to regulation of shooting, it is interesting that Natural England confirms what we thought, that there has been no notification to them of any releases of gamebirds within 500m of the Dartmoor Special Area of Conservation in either 2021 or 2022. We believe that such releases have taken place and failure to notify Natural England is a serious matter.
However, Natural England don’t regard it as their job to ask about this and instead point the finger at their government department sponsor, Defra, by metaphorically shrugging and saying ‘GL43 is a DEFRA licence and though the conditions of the licence require information on the use of the licence to be submitted to Natural England, monitoring compliance with the licence is DEFRA’s responsibility. Responsibilities around the investigation and enforcement of suspected breaches of GL43 rest with the Police and the CPS. Outside the scope of GL43, NE is in contact with landowners and estate managers of SSSIs to ensure any conditions relating to SSSI consents are being met.’. Natural England’s jobsworth view is that it is everyone else’s job to look at these matters, but not theirs.
We suspect that Defra will be less than thrilled to have been fingered by the statutory body they sponsor as being the body failing on this matter. We’ll find out – we’ve written to Defra to ask them whether a bowler-hatted person from the ministry, in pin-stripe suit and with a rolled up brolly under their arm has taken the train down to Devon to have a poke around on this issue. We’ve also written back to Natural England.
We did write to Defra and this is what we got back from them:
We asked three questions of DEFRA in our letter of 16 March 2023. Our questions and DEFRA’s responses (16 May 2023) are set out below: “What steps if any Defra takes to monitor compliance with GL43 in general? Defra does not carry out proactive compliance monitoring in relation to the general licences that it issues. The reporting requirement under condition 3 of the licence is used to build an evidence base for the location and extent of relevant release activity only.
What steps Defra will take in light of the apparent contravention of GL43 identified in this letter? Thank you for drawing this matter to our attention. We will consider your representations and what if any further action is required to ensure compliance with the conditions of the GL43.
If Defra does not intend to take any action, the reasons for that decision The steps Defra intends to take are set out above.”
Natural England is quite clear that it regards it as their parent department’s job to monitor compliance with GL43 – it’s as though Natural England is simply a passive letterbox on this subject. And Defra is quite clear it doesn’t monitor compliance with GL43. So, it seems that no-one does. We might ask you to help them out…
But if nobody does, then these regulations which were brought in so that they would give better protection to sites of high nature conservation value aren’t really working are they?
Wild Justice has asked for the following;
In order to remedy the legal errors, we request that the Secretary of State: a. commits to a review of the approach to monitoring and enforcement of GL43, taking advice from Natural England as to the compliance of such approach with the Habitats Directive; and b. revokes the current iteration of GL43 while such review is ongoing.
Wild Justice PAP letter to Defra sent today, 6 June 2023
These matters are relevant to BASC’s huffing and puffing about GL43 – click here – and also to the consultation in Wales on proper regulation of gamebird releases. It’s not clear that BASC has actually started a legal challenge – be in no doubt, we have!
More on this over the next few days – the quickest way to find out about all of our work is to sign up to our free newsletter – click here.
Comments Off on Chris Packham wins High Court libel case & is awarded £90k damages
Statement from Chris’s lawyers at Leigh Day, 25th May 2023:
The High Court has today ruled in favour of environmental campaigner and naturalist Chris Packham CBE in his defamation case brought against Dominic Wightman, editor of Country Squire Magazine, and one of the magazine’s contributors, Nigel Bean. The court accepted the account of a third defendant, Paul Read, who claimed he was a mere proof reader.
The Court has awarded Mr Packham £90,000 in damages against Mr Wightman and Mr Bean.
The case, heard between 2 and 11 May 2023 related to nine articles, ten social media posts and two videos. The court ruled that the allegations made in these materials were defamatory and untrue. The allegations included that:
Mr Packham dishonestly raised funds for The Wildheart Sanctuary in relation to rescued tigers, which he falsely said had been mistreated
Mr Packham lied about peat burning on Scottish game estates during COP26.
Mr Packham dishonestly raised funds for the sanctuary during the covid pandemic while concealing that it would receive an insurance pay-out
During the trial, Mr Wightman and Mr Bean withdrew their truth defence in relation to the second and third of these allegations. They maintained a truth defence in relation to the first allegation, but the court determined that they “fail[ed] to come even close to establishing the substantial truth” of that allegation.
The Court concluded that: “Mr Packham did not lie and each of his own statements was made with a genuine belief in its truth. There was no fraud of any type committed by him in making the fundraising statements.”
Mr Wightman and Mr Bean also argued that they had a reasonable belief that publication of the allegations was in the public interest. The court ruled that this defence also failed “by some margin.”
The judgment states that, “rather than approaching the task with an investigative mind, these defendants targeted Mr Packham as a person against whom they had an agenda”. In particular, following receipt of Mr Packham’s initial legal complaint, the articles published by Mr Wightman and Mr Bean “gave way… to increasingly hyperbolic and vitriolic smearing of Mr Packham, with further unsubstantiated allegations of dishonesty regarding peat-burning and the Trust’s insurance gratuitously thrown in”. One of the articles complained of mocked Mr Packham’s manner of speaking, and several made offensive references to his autism.
During the trial the court heard that Country Squire Magazine published 16 articles mentioning Mr Packham in the four years before the first article complained of in the legal case, and a further 93 articles were published in the three years following. Mr Packham had not been approached for comment before the publication of any of the articles containing allegations about him, as is journalistic best practice. Furthermore, there was sparse documentary evidence that any of the allegations had been properly researched to ensure their veracity.
Mr Read withdrew his reliance on the defences of truth and public interest when he instructed separate legal representation shortly before trial, and his case (which the Court accepted) was solely that: (i) as a mere proof-reader, he had insufficient involvement in the articles; and (ii) his retweets of the defamatory allegations had not circulated sufficiently widely to have caused serious reputational harm to Mr Packham.
In awarding Mr Packham substantial damages against Mr Wightman and Mr Bean, the High Court accepted that their campaign “would have misled and agitated vocal and sometimes violent groups”, who “posted threatening and vile material about Mr Packham and his family online”.
The Court also held that the men had used this case as a way of introducing offensive and wholly unsubstantiated allegations to smear Mr Packham, and to “scare [him] off… from seeking recourse in a public hearing for the libels”.
In addition to the articles, social media posts and video complained of the in the legal case the defendants had also claimed that a death threat received by Mr Packham had been written by himself. This caused particular anguish to Mr Packham as it implied that he had lied to his family and friends, as well as wasting police time. The court held that Mr Packham did not write the death threat letter, concluding that “even a cursory examination of the handwriting in the death threat and comparison with a true sample of Mr Packham’s handwriting demonstrates obvious differences between the two.”
The court had also expected the handwriting expert instructed by Mr Wightman, Mr Bean and Mr Read to have been “horrified… and to have unequivocally withdrawn their evidence” when it emerged in November 2022 that their report, which concluded with certainty that Mr Packham wrote the death threat, had in fact analysed samples of his accountant’s handwriting. However, Mr Wightman, Mr Bean and Mr Read did not withdraw the allegation when this error was pointed out to them. Moreover, the court held that Mr Wightman was instrumental in procuring ostensibly third-party statements repeating the serious allegation, in “The Packham Papers” and in an article by Fieldsports TV. The death threat allegation was only formally withdrawn by Mr Read shortly before trial, and by the other defendants only on the third day of trial.
Chris Packham said:
“Every day many thousands of innocent people are victims of online abuse and hate crimes. This can be racially, religiously or politically motivated. It can be generated in regard to gender politics, environmental beliefs, body shaming. This vile part of modern life ruins lives, livelihoods, reputations, it disrupts young peoples’ educations, causes incalculable mental health problems and tragically causes people to take their own lives.
“As it stands the criminal law is simply not there to protect us from such hate – something that must change. The current governments ‘Online Safety Bill’ is plodding along. In the meantime a tiny minority of victims are able to take civil action.
“In the offending articles and tweets Mr Wightman and Mr Bean accused me of defrauding the public to raise money to rescue tigers from circuses, defrauding the public by promoting a crowd-funder during the COVID epidemic, lying about the burning of peat during COP26, writing a death threat letter to myself, and elsewhere of bullying, sexual misconduct and rape. They also accused me of faking an arson attack at my home and repeatedly called upon the BBC to sack me.
“In a full and frank vindication of my innocence the court has found that “Mr Packham did not lie and each of his own statements was made with a genuine belief in its truth”.
“Most egregiously all three defendants had advanced an allegation that I had forged a death threat letter to myself, an allegation that they managed to disseminate to the mainstream media.
“The Court has held that I did not write the death threat letter, concluding that “even a cursory examination of the handwriting in the death threat and comparison with a true sample of Mr Packham’s handwriting demonstrates obvious differences between the two”.
“Thank you to my followers for your unswerving support and belief in my honest crusade to make the world a better place for wildlife, people and the environment.”
Carol Day, Solicitor at law firm Leigh Day said:
“Mr Packham is grateful to the judge for his careful deliberation of the issues and is delighted with the judgment, which completely vindicates him of any fraudulent motivation in raising funds to rescue the ex-circus tigers, alongside further unsubstantiated allegations of dishonesty regarding peat-burning and insurance fraud. This case should provide a strong deterrent to anyone who sets out to gratuitously smear someone’s character simply because they don’t agree with their views.”
Mr Packham is represented by partner Tessa Gregory and solicitor Carol Day of Leigh Day and barristers Jonathan Price and Claire Overman of Doughty Street Chambers. Leigh Day instructed specialist costs counsel Benjamin Williams KC of 4 New Square Chambers for the hearing on costs and consequential matters on 25 May 2023.
Comments Off on Wild Justice supports a legal challenge on scallop dredging
Wild Justice is pleased to support, and share the word about, a campaign to stop the damaging practice of scallop dredging in Scotland.
Open Seas is a SCIO (Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisation) taking legal action against this widespread form of fishing. The organisation believes the current licensing of scallop dredging is unlawful and has accused Scottish ministers of regulatory negligence.
The practice of scallop dredging is intensive and invasive. It involves ‘bottom trawling’ using heavy metal dredges to scrape and rake scallops from the seabed. The process is brutal and damaging, smashing up marine habitats and harming wildlife.
Why does Open Seas believe scallop dredging is unlawful?
The Marine Scotland Act requires Scottish Ministers to ensure that their decisions conform with the National Marine Plan. Within this plan, one policy requires the assurance that no use of the sea will have “significant impact on the national status of Priority Marine Features.” These marine features include marine habitats and species in Scotland.
Evidence gathered by Open Seas across multiple locations shows that scallop dredging has caused significant damage to marine habitats. Despite this evidence, the dredging continues to be licensed – which is why they’re requesting a Judicial Review.
Wild Justice agrees with Open Seas and we have been happy to support their campaign. Ahead of their request for Judicial Review we contributed £10,000 towards their legal costs – a small proportion of the total costs, but one we hope makes a difference, and which Open Seas was able to use to encourage other donors to step up.
How can you help?
The hearing is to take place on May 22 – that’s on Monday. In the meantime, you can help by signing the ‘Our Seas’ coalition petition, which is asking for an inshore limit on scallop dredging and bottom-trawling.
Comments Off on We wrote to Natural England about SSSIs…
So far in 2023, we’ve been having a nosey at some Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), and their condition – see here. We wrote to Natural England about one site in particular called Dendles Wood, found on Dartmoor.
From their response (see here) we’ve concluded that it’s in a bit of a sorry state; pheasants were being released very close to it, it hadn’t been assessed since 2011, and its current management plan had expired in 2020. This got us thinking.
So, earlier this spring, we wrote to Natural England under the Freedom of Information regulations. In our letter, we asked for some information about all Sites of Special Scientific Interest in England. This is what we said in our email to them:
Dear Natural England
We write to request information under the Environmental Information Regulations and/or Freedom of Information Act regulations.
Our request is in relation to Biological Sites of Special Scientific Interest within England. Specifically, please provide:
A list of all Biological SSSIs in England, the county in which they are found, their constituent Units, the size in hectares of each Unit, the condition (Favourable, Unfavourable Recovering etc) of each unit and the year in which each SSSI Unit’s condition was assessed by Natural England. All of this information is publicly available but we would ask for the data in electronic format (such as an Excel file) so that they can be analysed easily. Please provide the information so that each SSSI Unit is a row in the file which contains information for each unit on the constituent SSSI and the condition and date of assessment of the Unit.
These are data that Natural England must hold electronically, they are publicly available on your website, and so we assume that it is a minor task to extract these data and provide them in the requested form. However, we would be prepared to pay reasonable costs of data extraction.
Please meet this request inside, well inside, the maximum allowable period of 20 working days. Many thanks, Wild Justice
Whilst the information we asked for is available online, it is only accessible as individual web pages for each SSSI, and is therefore in a format that makes it difficult to assess. The information we asked for included:
A list of all Biological SSSIs in England
The county in which they are found
Their constituent Units
The size in hectares of each Unit
The condition (Favourable, Unfavourable Recovering etc) of each unit
The year in which each SSSI Unit’s condition was assessed by Natural England.
Well, we’re please to say that last week we heard back from Natural England, following our FOI request. You can see their response below. Now we have these data (and it’s quite a lot of data) we’ll be looking at what they tell us about SSSI condition in England. Watch this space…
Comments Off on A dog’s dinner: high levels of toxic lead found in UK dog food.
Would you feed your dog something that wasn’t safe for yourself?
Lead is a heavy issue. Wild Justice has campaigned on lead levels in food since we started. Whilst our previous investigations have analysed lead levels in game meat sold for human consumption on supermarket shelves, we’re now looking at how lead gets into the diets of our four-legged best friends.
Recently, Wild Justice funded tests of lead levels in dog food sold in the UK. Specifically, these were dog food products, in various forms, that contained Pheasant. The study, published in the journal Ambio today (click here), analysed a mix of Pheasant-based dog foods from online retailers including raw, air-dried and wet products, as well as some control products containing no Pheasant.
These are products you might buy with the intention of giving your pet a healthy diet. The results, however, indicate that you could be doing the exact opposite…
THE RESULTS:
Raw Pheasant-based dog foods:
The researchers found that approximately three quarters of samples from raw Pheasant-based dog food packs exceeded the EU maximum lead levels permitted in animal feed – i.e. a level of lead that would be considered unsafe to feed to livestock that we might eat ourselves.
In three of these raw products being sold in the UK, lead levels were found to be an average of 245, 135 and 49 times above the maximum permitted levels respectively.
Not only that, but every single sample of raw dog food containing Pheasant exceeded the permitted lead threshold in the meat of domestic stock, such as chicken, beef and pork, that is destined for human consumption.
Air Dried dog foods:
In the air-dried product tested – described as ‘100% Pheasant and Partridge sticks’ – 60% of the samples tested exceeded the EU Maximum lead levels permitted in animal feed.
Wet Pheasant-based dog foods:
The processed, tinned dog food tested contained a mix of Pheasant (40%) goose (40%) vegetables and oil. Interestingly, none of the samples tested exceeded the EU maximum lead levels permitted in animal feed.
The samples did, however, exceed the level of lead permitted as safe in livestock meat destined for human consumption.
Control samples:
None of the control samples of other dog foods, containing no Pheasant meat, exceeded the EU maximum levels of lead permitted in animal feed.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
We can see from these results that pet owners are unwittingly feeding their dogs levels of lead that may harm their health. We know, from other recent research, that lead is still very widely used by the shooting industry for the shooting of gamebirds such as Pheasant and partridges. We know that their pledge to phase out the use of lead shot voluntarily over five years hasn’t been going to plan – with only a 6% reduction in three years. As a result, some of that lead is ending up in the pet food chain, and is consumed by our companion animals.
Consumption of lead is detrimental to human health, being especially harmful to developing brains and the nervous system. But this harm isn’t limited to humans; other animals are affected in similar ways. Lead ingestion can affect the gut, nervous system, heart, kidneys and blood of companion animals like dogs, and could be particularly harmful to puppies.
Chris Packham, Co-Director of Wild Justice said “That people might be unwittingly poisoning their beloved companion animals is outrageous. It’s clearly a failure of our regulatory systems when products like raw Pheasant-based dog foods can be sold containing such high lead levels. No animals should be exposed to these levels of lead in their food, under the guise of being healthy, when they in fact contain levels of lead that would be illegal to feed to cows or chickens or indeed, if it was in your own beefburgers or pork sausages.
Like us, our dogs are vulnerable to toxic lead and we must ask; would you feed your dog something deemed too toxic to eat yourself? These results show the repercussions of lead ammunition use by the shooting industry reach wider than just those who eat game out of free choice. Wild Justice is taking legal advice on these shocking findings.”
SO, WHAT CAN YOU DO ABOUT IT?
If you have a dog, (or even if you don’t), there are two things you can do to try and put a stop to this:
Write to Pet Food Manufacturers. If you’ve got a favourite brand of dog food, and they sell products containing Pheasant or partridge, get in touch with them. Ask them if they’re aware of this study, and if they’ve carried out their own testing of lead levels in their products. We’d love to hear what they say in response.
Write to your MP, MSP or MS. Get in touch with your parliamentary representative, and point out this research to them which demonstrates a massive failure of regulation.
Wild Justice is a not-for-profit organisation set up by Chris Packham, Ruth Tingay and Mark Avery. We are entirely dependent on donations. To support our work – click here. To hear more about our campaigns and legal cases subscribe to our free newsletter – click here.
Comments Off on Are lead levels falling in game meat?
Wild Justice has led the way in testing game meat (Pheasant, partridge (unknown species) and Woodpigeon) that has been on sale in supermarkets, online and in independent butchers and game dealers over the last three shooting seasons and reporting on the levels of lead found in that meat.
We have analysed (or, more correctly, had others analyse) Pheasant and partridge meat purchased from Harrods, Sainsbury’s , Waitrose, M&S and Lidl. Others have looked at the metallic composition of shot found in purchased game birds, and those studies indicate that lead is still used predominantly for shooting game which is sold for human consumption in the UK (see here). However, Wild Justice is in a unique position to comment, on the basis of hard facts, about what is happening to lead levels in game meat in the UK.
A short introduction to the subject: lead is a poison and its use has been regulated, across much of the world, in many uses such as in vehicle fuel, water pipes, paint and in food. That’s one reason why, when you go into a food store you can be reasonably sure that the meat you might buy won’t have high levels of lead in it. We’ve tested a variety of non-game meat over the last three years and found nothing whatsoever to worry about.
As this table shows, the measures of lead (Pb) levels in non-game meat are very low, and critically, there are no samples that breach the maximum legal level – which is 0.1mg of lead per kg of wet meat.
However, when it comes to game meat, much of it is shot with lead ammunition and tiny fragments of lead are shed from the ammunition as it passes through the flesh of the bird (or mammal) and lodge in the flesh (soon to be known as meat). These are tiny particles and cannot realistically be detected or removed from game meat in the cooking or preparation process. The way to prevent them from being in the meat is to use ammunition other than lead (such as steel and bismuth).
Bizarrely, despite all this being well-known, and despite there being health implications of eating high levels of lead (see here for just one example) there are no limits set for lead levels in game meat being sold to the public. Wild Justice believes this is wrong and a failure of governments to regulate for the public good.
But it means that however high the levels of lead, harmful lead, we find in game meat, this meat can legally be sold. Our work highlights the scale of the problem.
Levels of toxic lead in game meat samples: our sampling has only scratched the surface, but we seem to have the largest recent dataset of lead levels in UK game meat. How weird is that? A tiny organisation is leading the way in monitoring the levels of a poison in our food!
Here is a big table with lots of numbers in it:
This table is in the same format as the non-game table above. Whereas for non-game meat the righthand-most column has all zeros in it (showing that none of the samples was in excess of the legal level for non-game meat) in this table most samples have many lead levels that are legal, but would be illegal in non-game meat. There is one row, the penultimate row (Eat Wild partridge breast) that is an exception – we’ll come back to that.
The rows shaded in yellow are this shooting season’s results (and are discussed in a bit more detail in our two previous blog posts), the unshaded rows are results you have seen before if you have been following our work on this issue.
Is there evidence here of lower lead levels in game meat on sale to the public? Yes, although it is too soon to whoop with joy and there is a long way to go. But all credit to Holme Farmed Venison whose Eat Wild partridge breasts were the first samples we have seen of game meat where all of the samples had below the legal level of lead for non-game meat. That’s good and came as a pleasant surprise. As a very rough and ready measure, if one compares the proportion of samples above 0.1mg/kg Pb ww this year, 52/95 (55%), with those from the previous two years, 93/119 (78%) it looks as though things might be getting better (and it would look that way even more if we hadn’t discovered those very high levels in Lidl stores in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland).
There is evidence, but not proof, that things are getting better. Wild Justice will continue to test game meat samples next shooting season to see whether things really are getting better.
Comments Off on Lead levels in supermarket game meat – latest results
This winter we bought game meat from supermarkets in the UK and sent the samples to be tested for lead levels by experts at a laboratory. This is the latest in a series of such examinations we have carried out with game shot in the 2020/21, 2021/22 and now 2022/2023 shooting seasons. As usual we also purchased non-game meat and had those samples tested in the same way.
We bought meat from Sainsbury’s stores in southeast England (London, Essex, Suffolk and Bedfordshire); Pheasant breasts, game mix and beef escalopes (black, red and blue diamonds respectively in the graph below).
We bought Pheasant and partridge breasts online from Eat Wild, Holme Farmed Venison (green and purple diamonds in the graph below)
We bought whole Pheasants online from M&S and picked them up before Christmas at a local store (yellow diamonds in the graph below).
The horizontal line (at 0.1mg/kg Pb ww) shows the legal maximum lead level for non-game meat. There is no legal maximum lead level set for game meat – which is totally bizarre.
You can see that the beef escalopes are all well below the line (any lead in them was below the detectable threshold of the test). That’s what they should look like and in previous years when we have tested chicken, duck, and pork then all those samples have been similarly ‘lead-free’. Good!
Also – and this is encouraging – the 12 partridge breasts bought from Holme Farmed Venison also had low lead levels. If the maximum levels that apply to pork, beef, chicken etc did apply to game meat then these samples would have been legal to sell.
However, Pheasant breasts and game mix from Sainsbury’s, Pheasant breasts from Holme Farmed Venison and whole Pheasants from M&S had some samples that were high in lead levels. When we say ‘high’, some were very high. The scale on the Y-axis of the graph is a logarithmic one so that we can fit all the data onto one graph. If we had used a linear scale then if you are looking at this on a PC the highest points would be heading for the ceiling of the room you are in!
If you consider the 70 game meat samples shown in the graph above, nine of the 10 highest values are from Sainsbury’s Pheasant breasts or the game mix bought in their stores (the other of the top ten, the ninth highest, was from the Eat Wild Pheasant breasts).
We discuss these results, and those of the analyses of game meat bought in Lidl stores in Northern Ireland, in the next blog which puts this year’s results in context with previous years’ findings.
Comments Off on Pheasant breasts sold by Lidl contaminated with lead levels up to 85 x higher than legal limit set for non-game meat
Lead-contaminated Pheasant breasts are on sale at Lidl supermarkets across Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, new research by Wild Justice has found.
Tests on frozen Pheasant breasts bought from Lidl stores found lead levels at up to 85 times higher than the legal limit set for beef, pork, chicken etc;
88% of samples tested positive for potentially dangerous amounts of lead;
Findings indicate the voluntary phasing out of lead shot by the shooting industry hasn’t prevented lead contamination of meat three years after its announcement;
Packaging information reveals the Pheasants were shot inUK, processed in Poland, then shipped to Northern Ireland & RoI to be sold at Lidl stores
We bought 25 samples of frozen Pheasant breasts from seven Lidl stores across Northern Ireland & the Republic of Ireland in February 2023 and had them tested for lead levels using methods previously described (here) for tests we have conducted on game meat bought from other supermarkets.
Five of the 25 packs contained whole shot, which was removed and tested to confirm it was lead (which was the case for all five samples). Even after the whole shots had been removed, 22 of the 25 samples still contained lead levels over the legal limit set for livestock meat, with one sample containing a lead level 85 times higher than the legal limit set for livestock meat.
This excessively-high lead content found in 22 samples isn’t illegal for gamebird meat sold in the UK because currently (and inexplicably) there is no legal limit for lead levels in wild game meat such as Pheasant, partridges, grouse and venison, only for meat such as pork, beef and chicken etc, which is really quite non-sensical given that gamebirds are routinely shot with toxic lead ammunition but pigs, cattle and chickens are not.
We couldn’t see any public health warning on the Lidl packaging.
Our findings on the high lead content of pheasant breasts sold in Lidl stores don’t come as any surprise as they align with the results of previous tests we’ve undertaken on gamebird meat sold in Sainsbury’s, Waitrose, Harrods, and by three independent game dealers, over the last two years (e.g. here, here, here, here, here, here). Our results also align with the results of a recently published peer-reviewed study conducted by scientists at the University of Cambridge (here).
What is surprising about the Lidl Pheasants, however, is the very strange apparent route to market.
The packaging of the Lidl Pheasant breasts includes the following statement:
‘Produced in Poland, using UK pheasants‘.
So it looks like Pheasants that were shot in the UK (whether this includes Northern Ireland or not isn’t clear) were then shipped to Poland to be processed (carved up), and then the Pheasant breasts were shipped to Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic to be put on the shelves of various Lidl stores. That’s hardly a sustainable model, is it?!
Furthermore, it has previously been reported (here) that the UK has imported over 1.2 million ready-to-hatch Pheasant eggs from game farms in Poland to be reared and released into the UK countryside as live targets for recreational shooters. Are these the same Pheasants we’re then exporting back to Poland for processing, or are those different Pheasants?
What’s also odd is the stated date the Pheasant breasts were frozen (17th May 2022 according to the Lidl packaging shown in the photo above). Given the Pheasant-shooting season closes on 31st January (in Northern Ireland) and 1st February (rest of the UK), and assuming these Lidl Pheasants were all shot on the last day of the season, where and how were these shot Pheasant carcasses stored for at least 3.5 months if they weren’t frozen prior to export? Or were they frozen prior to export, defrosted in Poland, and then refrozen for transfer to NI and the RoI?
Something seems very amiss here with this whole set-up and deserves closer investigation…
Two years ago we sent out a survey through our newsletter and summarised the responses in five blogs over the Easter Period. This year we have repeated the process, almost exactly (we dropped one question and refined another), and this and a preceding blog post set out the results so that you can see how you fit in and read a range of views from others.
What do you care about (note the wording of the question)?
How would you describe your relationship with Wild Justice?
NB the options were: I wouldn’t class myself as a supporter (green), I’m a passive supporter (dk blue), I’m an active supporter- I am prepared to sign petitions, donate money and/or write letters, at least now and again (yellow) and I’m an active supporter and I’d like Wild Justice to give me more opportunities to make a difference (lt blue)
What do you think of our newsletter?
Excellent newsletter, brilliantly written with a fine touch of humour, concise but gives all the information needed, and very motivating.
I like your no-nonsense, clear, personable, emails.
I find your fact based newsletters refreshing and informative & I know that when a new email arrives it will be important to read it and, where appropriate, respond to requests for support and help.
The wording, tone and approach are spot on. Newsletter in the right size and content brief and to the point.
Your newsletters are beautifully written & very impactful.
I look forward to seeing your newsletter and read it each time.
Very proud of your achievements, persistence & the unique, quirky, succinct & intelligent nature of your communications. Onwards!
Newsletters are very informative and I like the tone which is positive where possible and constructive where news is grim.
I like your newsletters very much.
Your newsletter is very informative. I am glad that you are taking a stand on the issues you take up.
I am impressed with WJ’s approach to activism; it is rational and effective. I feel it would be better supported with more user friendly emails.
I really appreciate the Wild Justice’s campaigns and all the informative briefings.
Newsletter very interesting and readable.
Very interesting and important emails, but sometimes too lengthy.
I like the brevity of your emails. They are short enough (but full of info) to read. There’s nothing worse than screeds of words with multiple links, I find that off putting!!
One of the only mailshots I actually read – I appreciate the ‘no frills’ approach and straightforward design and language. As someone who suffers with overwhelm and distraction from too many emails and too much information and visuals/links, I really like the simplicity of this one.
Your emails are informative, thought provoking and convincing, and give up to date reports on the progress of campaigns and issues. They illustrate how purposeful and sincere Wild Justice is.
The style of your newsletters, the way you ‘talk’ to the people is very informative and interesting and one immediately wants to be part of this attitude.
I like the clear and unemotional tone of your newsletters. You are honest about your failures and successes and go for clear and achievable goals.
Newsletter is excellent. Very pleased to see focus on SSSIs and site protection. More pressure needed to make NE etc actually visit and monitor sites.
Newsletter is well written and informative and I am pleased that you do not bombard us with a daily email as this can become irritating. You send them when there is something to say.
I like reading your newsletter as it covers different topics, giving me the information I want without be too long winded.
I think you nail it. Comms are concise and considered but pitched in a friendly chatty tone, and the frequency is about right to keep us informed. The calls to arms and requests for donation are limited to those where you think your supporters can make a difference. And most importantly the causes you choose to focus your efforts on are spot on.
The newsletters are engaging and well-written – a good tone, quite friendly but still brisk and business-like. Gives an impression of a competent organisation that understands what it is trying to do, even when you acknowledge that you don’t win them all.
I like the matter-of-fact, but upbeat, tone of the newsletter. The request for money is never overbearing, which is important.
Your newsletters and website are engaging and interesting. You are really good at explaining potentially complicated issues in a way that makes them easy to understand and is not at all overwhelming. I always read right to the end… something I don’t always manage to do with info from other organisations. I always read your newsletters as soon as I see them in my inbox, they never get added to the ‘read later’ pile that I somehow never quite manage to return to!!
Your humour is probably at least as important as my own beliefs in motivating me.
You’ve created a wonderful resource with the newsletters, bringing to light many issues people may not be aware of and it’s very impressive how much has been achieved since Wild Justice began.
The tone with which you talk to supporters is refreshingly down-to-earth – I like your style!
I LOVE your easy to read no nonsense newsletters and everything you stand for, if I were a billionaire I’d happily donate large sums of money on a regular basis 🙂
What do you think of our involvement with the legal system?
Think you do well to use legal framework to argue case for better protection for wildlife – brilliant strategy- and 100% support the challenges to laws that harm wildlife.
It seems no one can do the decent thing voluntarily – they have to be forced into it by legal enforcement – that’s you!!
Without Wild Justice I think that many current laws and practices would go unchallenged as major conservation organisations do not want to take on any contentious issues and come into conflict with politicians or business.
I am absolutely thrilled that Wild Justice is taking the active roll to support the protection of wildlife and taking the government to task in its failings over current legislation. After all what is the point of legislation if it is not properly applied or monitored.
I really like the fact that you use the legal system to drive change – much more effective that the more widespread ‘clicktivism’.
what you are doing – being the legal voice for the silent wildlife – is utterly vital to help them survive in this human dominated world – fight smart, fight hard my friends!
You are an ingenious organisation. In today’s world you can only effect real change & combat greed through legal action.
I really admire your intelligent use of the legal system.
The legal route is the only way to ensure change long term.
I think your work is first class. However I’m slightly concerned that you have too much faith in the lawyers you use. They should be judged more critically on their success rate.
I like and support Wild Justice as it uses the law to tackle important and often englected issues.
I am right behind their use of the justice system to effect change. Writing to MPs, signing petitions, demonstrating etc can be useful, but the results of going to court can’t be brushed aside.
I consider that holding government to account for enacting existing legislation is the keystone of your work.
You do an excellent and much needed job using legal argument to force change.
I see Wild Justice as an intelligent conduit to change government policy regarding wildlife and environmental issues. Kind of playing the establishment at their own game by legally challenging corporations and government rather than demonstrating.
Most people (myself included) do not have the legal understanding or means to make these challenges, however angry or frightened we might feel – through Wild Justice, I feel I have a chance of making my voice heard.
I am impressed with the smart use by Wild Justice of a combination of judicial review or the threat of it, together with pressure by other means, to provide the best chance of a successful result.
I particularly like how proactive and assertive Wild Justice is, striving to achieve its goals creatively and cleverly, and where it exposes failings in our legislation and legal processes it focuses effort to rectify them, which I think is the best approach.
It is great that parts of the UK government/civil service know that they are being scrutinised by people who care and are prepared to “put their money where their mouth is”.
Welcome the great progress made by making good use of the legal system to support nature’s recovery.
Regulation and it’s enforcement has failed us as a society and you are trying to correct that.
Keep up the good work – taking the legal route to correct questionable ‘legal’ unacceptable practises around wildlife issues is much needed.
I believe in trying to make a difference and actually holding organisations to account in the courts.
I agree with everything you stand for and especially the use of the legal system to further your aims.
Two years ago we sent out a survey through our newsletter and summarised the responses in five blogs over the Easter period. This year we have repeated the process, almost exactly (we dropped one question and refined another), and we’ll tell you the results in this and a following blog post.
We received 7219 responses in a week! Question 8 allowed you to write anything you liked about Wild Justice and just under 5000 respondents took that opportunity – we have read every single response. Thank you for all the feedback.
In this post, and the following one, we refer to the respondents to the survey as Wild Justice supporters. That seems fair enough since over 96% of respondents described themselves as supporters of one sort or another. That is a bit of a contrast to two years ago when we received hundreds of responses from people, often claiming to be shooters, who took the opportunity to berate us often with considerable rudeness. That type of response was missing this time around – perhaps because such people realised that their opinions might be published in this feedback and might not reflect well on the pastimes they claimed to enjoy.
At a very high level the results are:
Wild Justice supporters are spread right across the UK and a small proportion of you live abroad.
Wild Justice supporters are getting on a bit – >50% aged 65+ and >80% aged 55+ (just like us!)
Wild Justice supporters are slightly more likely to be female, 55%, than male (44%) or ‘other or prefer not to say’ (1%)
Wild Justice supporters eat less meat than the general public; 26% never, 28% 1-2 times a week
Wild Justice supporters see themselves as supporters of a wide range of other conservation organisations with RSPB and the Wildlife Trusts the most popular overall – very low support for BASC, a pro-shooting organisation
Wild Justice supporters are first of all wildlife conservationists, second environmentalists and lastly interested in animal welfare (of course most people are a complex mixture of all three)
Over two thirds of respondents (68%) describe themselves as active supporters of Wild Justice (signing petitions, writing to MPs etc, donating) and an additional 7% would like to become more active still.
Where do our newsletter subscribers live?
England 82%
Scotland 9%
Wales 6%
Outside UK >1%
UK (no other details) 1%
Northern Ireland <1%
But we can do better than that, because you gave us your postcodes:
How old are our newsletter subscribers?
And your gender?
Are you meat eaters?
Which of these organisations do you also support?
Here are some of the things, representative examples, of what you said about Wild Justice in general:
You are doing a fantastic job in the face of overwhelming threats to our environment and wildlife. Please continue with your good work.
Thank you for your persistence in protecting wildlife and habitats
So wonderful that you exist! Your work is essential – please keep going!
I find supporting Wild Justice more ‘real’ than other charities who tend to ‘pussy foot around’ and pretend that we can solve the climate and biodiversity loss crises. I think that probably the most productive way to fight for these causes is through the courts. So I like what Wild Justice does. I like the fact that sometimes you win cases. You’re prepared to go back to court. At the very least you raise the profile of issues which are not widely known about. I am educated by you. I like your no-nonsense, clear, personable, emails. (I don’t do Twitter). I hope I have managed to introduce you to a few other people.
Your work gives hope in a world where most things man-made seems to be awful for the natural world. Please continue.
I totally support your aims and what you do. If I was younger I would be more active, but that is not possible. The pressure you exert on government and other agencies to be more wildlife and animal aware is absolutely vital to the survival of our planet.
Compared to other charities I support such as WWF and RSPB, it is small but powerful. Keep on fighting!
I am very glad you exist, you give me hope and belief that there are people who care, you are showing that things can change
You annoy all the right people. Please keep doing what you are doing. Our money is being well spent.
I’m really pleased that Wild Justice exists – daliwch ati!
Really feel your battles with “authority” are worthwhile especially those concerning the environment like sewage dumped in rivers, the value of the SSSI’s etc.
Nobody else does what you do or even gets close. For god’s sake keep at it.
Your work is needed badly. Corruption and incompetence by govt bodies demand that you expose them.
Wild Justice has begun to highlight and solve the problems that most wildlife charities have failed to address. The more you do the more support I shall give, because the law-makers will do nothing for wildlife or the environment unless you shine a light on their dreadful policies.
I love Wild Justice’s proactive approach to supporting our wildlife and environment. They have really bought home to me how little is being done by the government and landowners.
I enjoy the spirit and energy of Wild Justice.
I think that you are doing a brilliant job in spite of a lack of interest from the Government in doing anything which upsets their mates.
Comments Off on More glyphosate results – thank you for taking the p*ss again!
Introduction
Last year, in February/March we asked you to consider sending a urine sample to Germany to get the glyphosate levels tested. Over 120 of you participated and the results were quite interesting – click here. We asked the original participants whether they would get another sample tested in the autumn and 59 test results were received.
Results
The data came from across Great Britain:
Figure 1. Distribution of subjects taking Test 2. The size of the circles is proportional to each subject’s Test 2 glyphosate levels.
People whose urine glyphosate levels were high in the February/March tests were also likely to be high in the September/October/November tests (Pearson correlation coefficient R=0.49) suggesting some consistency in urine glyphosate levels within individuals.
However, urine glyphosate levels were lower, slightly but significantly, in the autumn tests compared with the spring tests.
Figure 2. Boxplot showing Test 1 and Test 2 results for subjects who took both tests (n = 59). Means are shown as squares, medians as horizontal lines. There was a statistically significant difference between Test 1 and Test 2 results (Wilcoxon paired rank test, P < 0.00001).
We could find no relationship between age, gender, diet (omnivore, flexitarian/pescatarian, vegetarian and vegan) and urine glyphosate levels. Our sample of people was not very diverse when it came to gardening habits so those factors revealed nothing.
However, we also looked at land use around the address of the participants using digitised maps like this one:
Figure 3. An example of 1- and 5-km buffers around a postcode centre (in this case LE10 1HJ) placed over the UKCEH 25-metre land-cover product. Red indicates arable land, dark blue is agricultural grassland, light blue is suburban land, olive-green is urban land and light green is woodland.
We found a tantalising relationship between urine glyphosate levels (Test 1, where sample size was biggest) and land use. Not significant but intriguing. Which way did it go? Higher urine glyphosate levels came from participants in built up areas. Is that what you expected?
Conclusions
The results suggest that there is a moderate degree of within-subject consistency in glyphosate level between tests, and that there is temporal variation in glyphosate levels, which were higher on average in Test 1 (Feb-Mar 2022) than in Test 2 (Sep-Nov 2022). There was a weak suggestion of a positive relationship between a subject’s glyphosate levels and the amount of built-up land (urban or suburban) around them.
We’re going to share these results with others and ponder what further studies could be built on this basis.
Thank you!
Over 120 people took part in these tests, and 59 in both tests. That makes a reasonable sample of people. It’s a bit of a faff sending off for the test kit, and then sending it off to be analysed (particularly as Brexit has made postage of p*ss to Germany more expensive and involve more paperwork. Many participants refused our offer of reimbursement for postage and the cost of a kit – that meant that the study was much cheaper than it might have been. Thank you very much to all who participated. We’ll get back to you with future plans.
What we take from this is that, for a National Nature Reserve, owned by us all, the management plan ran out in 2020 and a new one will be written for 2024. That’s pretty pathetic and we wonder whether the new plan will be written and whether it would even have been thought of without our intervention. But it is typical of the rest of the answers – either nothing has been done or nothing much has been done. The Blue Ground Beetle hasn’t been paid much attention at all since 2016 it seems. The most recent condition assessment of the condition of the four SSSI units is 2011 – well over a decade ago. But an update is now scheduled for this year – we wonder whether that was planned before or after our intervention. This is a picture of a regulator (and in this case, in part a land owner too) failing to carry out its duties. If this is the state of attention given to protected sites across England then the system is in disarray. It probably is in disarray because of government cuts to Natural England but also feebleness by NE themselves.
When it comes to regulation of shooting, it is interesting that Natural England confirms what we thought, that there has been no notification to them of any releases of gamebirds within 500m of the Dartmoor Special Area of Conservation in either 2021 or 2022. We believe that such releases have taken place and failure to notify Natural England is a serious matter.
However, Natural England don’t regard it as their job to ask about this and instead point the finger at their government department sponsor, Defra, by metaphorically shrugging and saying ‘GL43 is a DEFRA licence and though the conditions of the licence require information on the use of the licence to be submitted to Natural England, monitoringcompliance with the licence is DEFRA’s responsibility. Responsibilities around the investigation and enforcement of suspected breaches of GL43 rest with the Police and the CPS. Outside the scope of GL43, NE is in contact with landowners and estate managers of SSSIs to ensure any conditions relating to SSSI consents are being met.’. Natural England’s jobsworth view is that it is everyone else’s job to look at these matters, but not theirs.
We suspect that Defra will be less than thrilled to have been fingered by the statutory body they sponsor as being the body failing on this matter. We’ll find out – we’ve written to Defra to ask them whether a bowler-hatted person from the ministry, in pin-stripe suit and with a rolled up brolly under their arm has taken the train down to Devon to have a poke around on this issue. We’ve also written back to Natural England.
We’re sure we’ll have more to tell you about on this issue.
Comments Off on Woodcock debate – does anyone shoot Woodcock before 1 December?Woodcock. Photo: Tim Melling
Some MPs really showed themselves in an unflattering light when they spoke in the Woodcock debate. Considering that GWCT and BASC favour NOT shooting Woodcock in October and either all of or most of November they were falling over themselves to criticise our proposal, supported by over 107,000 of you, that shooting should not be allowed in October and November. Here we quote some extracts from some very confused speeches – read the full transcript of the debate here.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby, Con) suggested that ‘Sustainable levels of shooting and the voluntary delay of shooting are the way forward‘ but also said that ‘The proposal in the petition will have little effect on the resident population, as only around 2% of birds that are shot are not migratory‘. And in one bound appears to have missed the fact that the proposal in the petition is the same as voluntary restraint except that it is adding the power of regulation. How can that be worse or have little effect? And we all know that the resident birds make up a very small proportion of the overall numbers gunned down – but they make up a very high prioportion of those at risk in October and November. That’s very much the point Sir Robert but you appear not to have grasped it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford, DUP) said ‘There is now … voluntary restraint in place: woodcock are not to be shot before 1 December. There is no evidence of any significant harvest of birds before that date and no evidence that shooting is the cause of the decline in the resident population. Given that shooting does not take place to any significant degree before 1 December and that the current harvest of migrant woodcock is clearly sustainable, there is no need for regulatory change.’. A bit like Sir Robert – maybe they been confused by the same briefing note?
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, Con) said that ‘…the evidence so far shows that the voluntary actions that have been undertaken have been beneficial – that is an appropriate first step for those of us who have concerns about ensuring that the issue is addressed in the long term‘ and then dismisses the second step thus ‘I am not convinced by the evidence that has been presented that further regulation is justified at this time, nor am I convinced that it would be beneficial for the … woodcock‘. Mr Simmonds doesn’t explain why he doesn’t favour regulation on the subject on which he agrees with voluntary restraint, but he was ‘struck be’ the briefing of the Countryside Alliance who can’t explain why they don’t want people to shoot Woodcock early in the season but only through the kindness of their hearts and not through the operation of shooting seasons.
Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire, Con) said ‘If both sides of the argument agree that woodcock are special and should not really be shot until mid-November or the beginning of December, why do we need to legislate? We need to legislate when things go wrong, not when things are going right, and I think that—by and large—people have not thought about what punishment they would like to see for somebody who shoots a woodcock at the end of November.’ It’s difficult not to smile when Sir Bill speaks as he seems so affable and confident – maybe he got those traits from Eton? If one changed the shooting season then the penalties for shooting a bird out of season would be just as they are now. But we see again the embracing of voluntary measures and the rejection of a few penstrokes which would change the shooting seasons.
Greg Smith (Buckingham, Con) said ‘Why do we need to legislate for something that, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire has just said, is not actually a problem?‘. Mr Smith says that we shouldn’t add anything to the statue book because (presumably) he thinks that all the good laws are in place already and nothing needs to change (?), but in any case he is wrong because the change in shooting season is secondary legislation and can be achieved very simply – no new law is needed.
Running up to the debate and during the debate it was repeatedly stated that voluntary measures were working – pretty much perfectly. There is no reason at all to believe this. There are, despite the claims made, no real data to back up this claim. The only ‘evidence’ is what shooters say about their own behaviour. This comes from the industry that claims that it is giving up lead ammunition voluntarily, which claimed it would cease burning blanket bogs voluntarily and which has claimed for decades that hardly any illegal killing of birds of prey goes on – none of those things is true and yet each is said with equal certainty as the nonsense on Woodcock shooting.
We don’t doubt there is a bit more restraint on Woodcock shooting than there was a decade ago, but the idea that everything is fine is just a story. Let’s look at the evidence.
Back in June 2020 the GWCT published a popular account of their satellite tagging study of Woodcock in British Birds. It’s a very interesting study and the paper included the exhortation to shooters not to shoot Woodcock before 1 December. One of us wondered whether this was being respected and spent just a few moments searching the internet for advertisements for Woodcock shooting before 1 December – click here. There were loads and loads of examples and they didn’t take much searching.
In March 2022, when we wrote to Defra on this matter the situation had not changed – there were plenty of shooting estates and websites offering Woodcock shooting to paying clients before 1 December – look at the examples in our letter to Defra at footnotes 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 here.
As the date of the debate approached, shooters became a little more circumspect about publicly offering Woodcock shooting before 1 December – but only a little. In January, the Shooting Times published a letter , and a photo, of a dad and his son who had been out shooting in Lancashire in mid November and the adult had achieved a ‘left and right’ of Woodcock under the title of ‘A day to remember’ (don’t you worry, we will – click here). Bragging about breaking what is claimed to be an effective voluntary restraint on shooting in a shooting magazine is not a good look for an industry whose advocates are going to stand up in parliament and claim all is well.
In the week before the debate there were still adverts for Woodcock shooting in October and November plainly advertised and some still are. Here are four current examples; this one from Scotland which also has an American Woodcock pictured (click here), this one from Wales (click here), this from Northern Ireland (click here) and another from Scotland (click here). Several websites have changed what they say (they’ve become rather coy about what they’ll sell you) but we cannot tell whether they have changed what happens on the ground. Here’s one example (click here).
It’s unclear how much change there has really been. We suspect, from what we are told, that there really has been some uptake of voluntary restraint in shooting dates, and that the GWCT has been responsible for much of that spread in good practice. Our campaign will have accelerated that spread. But it is clear that more is needed – if only so that those showing voluntary restraint don’t feel like mugs. Those MPs who claimed that all is well are wrong and are doing shooting a disservice.
If nobody ever shot a Woodcock in September- November then you could argue that such a change in shooting season were unnecessary – but they clearly do. And if not for limiting unsustainable shooting, what are open and close seasons for?
The shooting industry has looked shifty and evasive on this issue. It’s quite obvious that everyone thinks that we shouldn’t shoot Woodcock before 1 December – let’s update outdated shooting season to reflect that, please!
Comments Off on Woodcock see more clearly than some MPs
We received this rather fuzzy image of a Woodcock in a garden in London from a subscriber. What a great bird to see in your garden!
At first glance, it looks almost as if the bird has two eyes on the side of its head but that is because the bird moved and there is a double image.
But it did take us back to the recent Woodcock debate in Parliament where Conservative MP, Sir Bill Wiggin, said;
I am very fond of woodcock. They are the only birds with binocular vision, which means that when they fly, they can see where they are going, which is why they have an extraordinary flight pattern, particularly in the evening as the light fades.
Any Woodcock reading through the debate would be surprised to hear that other birds don’t have binocular vision and that he or she was unique. The truth is very different – see here. Most birds have some binocular vision – especially predatory species. Meet an eagle face-to-face and it will be looking back at you with both eyes. The same is true for owls, ostriches and many other species.
But birds do, generally, have their eyes on the sides of their heads which means that they have large areas of monocular vision and rather smaller areas of binocular vision.
Woodcock have very large visual fields – they can see around them all 360 degrees with a 5 degree binocular field in front of them and another similar-sized binocular field directly behind them. What must that feel like? But it’s almost the opposite of what Sir Bill Wiggin said – Woodcock actually have small binocular fields – and yet they manage to fly around perfectly adequately. They spend so much of their time sitting on the ground, not moving, that they need to have eyes in the backs of their heads to see whether a predator is approaching. We reckon they can see more clearly than many MPs.
Here ‘s a lovely Woodcock from Ronan Jackson – the eyes have it!
Woodcock by Ronan Jackson, aged 11 from Scotland – a keen Woodcock enthusiast
Comments Off on Wild Justice funding: helping to track down the raptor killers (guest blog, Guy Shorrock)
In 2020, Wild Justice initiated a Raptor Forensics Fund to help police forces across the UK to tackle wildlife crime. A £10K funding pot was established with donations from WJ, Northern England Raptor Forum, Tayside & Fife Raptor Study Group, Devon Birds, and a number of individuals who wish to remain anonymous.
This guest blog, written by Guy Shorrock (a member of the PAW Forensic Working Group and former RSPB Senior Investigator) provides an insight into how these funds were used recently to investigate and successfully convict a gamekeeper in Dorset.
EARLY DAYS
I spent some 38 years working in enforcement, just over 30 of these with RSPB Investigations. As former colleagues will testify, one of my favourite expressions was ‘You can’t beat a good clue‘; and it has to be said that some of the very best come from forensic examinations, often revealing things simply invisible to the human eye.
When I joined RSPB in 1991, they had just started their last private prosecution, involving the first UK wildlife case using DNA profiling which showed the captive breeding claims of a goshawk keeper were false as the three chicks had been taken from the wild and, unsurprisingly, were not related to the declared female parent. Despite the derisory £100 fine, it was a seminal moment in wildlife crime investigation. With my university background in science, I was keen to get involved and over the next few years initiated, or was involved with, several cases of raptor laundering, mainly peregrines and goshawks.
It was RSPB and the Department of the Environment (now Defra) who drove most of this work & supported police & CPS prosecutions. Two high profile cases, involving extensive peregrine laundering, led to two men receiving custodial sentences. I believe these cases were instrumental in the formation of the Partnership for Action against Wildlife Crime (PAW) in 1995. This led to many developments, most significantly the later formation of the NWCU, but also the PAW Forensic Working Group (FWG). I have been fortunate to have been involved with the FWG since it started in 1996, and the group has been blessed with a succession of dynamic and highly capable people from various professional backgrounds.
June 1991 – a blood sample being taken from a goshawk – the first time DNA testing was used in a UK wildlife crime case. Photo: RSPB
CURRENT SET UP
The FWG continues to promote the use of forensics in wildlife crime investigations and has set up a range of initiatives & projects. One of these was the Forensic Analysis Fund – which provides financial support where forensics or specialist examinations are needed during an investigation. However, one area which had always been a problem was initial funding for things like x-rays and post-mortems to confirm a crime had even taken place. Many WCOs have helpful arrangements with local vets and can get some work at little or no cost. However, in many potential raptor persecution cases, the RSPB had to cover costs to get things kick-started.
Helpfully, in 2020 Wild Justice made £10K available to help cover these initial costs in potential raptor persecution cases under a scheme administered by the FWG. Police can now get initial investigative costs of up to £200 quickly covered, and more funds are available on application. At later stages in the investigation, where normally the Forensic Analysis Fund provides police with match funding, the WJ Raptor Forensics Fund covers 100% of forensic costs for raptor persecution cases. This money has been very helpful in numerous cases, and in connection with four prosecutions.
CASE IN POINT
The most recent conviction of a gamekeeper in Dorset on 16 February 2023 for seven serious charges has been well reported in the media. This case provides a great illustration of the sequential use of forensics tests and how the Raptor Forensics Fund can be used effectively. In November 2020, local Johanna Dollerson was out for a walk on the Shaftesbury Estate when she came across a dead red kite. There was a dead rat lying nearby and, concerned something untoward may have happened, she called Dorset Police. The public remain the eyes and the ears in the countryside, and of the cases that do eventually get to court, many have relied on people being alert to unusual events and taking the trouble to report them.
The dead Red Kite poisoned by Bendiocarb found on the Shaftesbury Estate in Nov 2020. Photos: Johanna Dollerson
The following day an officer recovered both items and they were initially taken to a local vet. As poisoning was suspected, the red kite and a liver sample from the rat were submitted to the government’s Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme (WIIS), this is overseen by HSE with the day-to-day work done by Natural England (NE).
Sure enough, following an initial post mortem at APHA to collect samples, the toxicology work by Fera confirmed abuse of the pesticide Bendiocarb in the red kite. The rat liver was negative. Bendiocarb has become a persistently abused pesticide for the killing of raptors, the product Ficam W being the most common source of this. This very toxic product is only for professional use, and people need to be appropriately trained and have a suitable and secure pesticide store. This product was actually banned just a few weeks after the red kite was found, though I have no doubt that the abuse of Ficam W to kill raptors and other wildlife will continue for many years. The kite also had an astonishing nine times the lethal level of the rodenticide Brodifacoum in its system so would no doubt have soon succumbed to this, had not also been exposed to Bendiocarb.
With it being an abuse case, it was referred to the Dorset Police Rural Crime Team and into the capable hands of WCO PC Claire Dinsdale (now with the NWCU). Police identified the gamekeeper running a private pheasant shoot being on the estate, and I assisted with the planning of the operation. Until June 2020 he had been employed for many years by the estate, but was now with a new employer, though remaining as a tenant at his long-term address. Further enquiries established he had purchased several sachets of Ficam W in 2018 – this extra information enabled the police to obtain a search warrant, allowing a search of his address as well as the land.
Many years ago, I had filmed a gamekeeper on this estate, retired but still doing some predator control, visit an illegal spring trap set in the open on the ground next to a dead pigeon bait inside a pheasant pen, most likely targeting buzzards. For reasons still unclear, no formal police action was taken, so I hoped this time things would go more smoothly.
On the 18 March 2021, Dorset Police led a multi-agency search supported by the NWCU, NE and RSPB. By a pen close to the rear of the gamekeeper’s home were the bodies of six dead buzzards, two lying next to the remains of a fire. The circumstances suggested the bodies were awaiting disposal by burning.
Four of the six buzzards found – all had been shot. Photo: Guy Shorrock/RSPB
A quick check of the ashes indicated the remains of at least one raptor and these were seized along with the buzzards.
Dorset Police CSI examining the fire site where the remains of three further buzzards were found. Photo: Guy Shorrock/RSPB
Nearby, under an old pond liner, were two tins of the fumigant pesticide Cymag. This gives off the very toxic hydrogen cyanide gas when brought into contact with moisture and storage like this is dangerous as well as illegal. Cymag was legally used to gas rats and rabbits until the end of 2004, though it also has a bad reputation for use in the illegal gassing of badgers and foxes. This particular brand was probably banned in the 1990s. In the rear yard were a number of insecure outbuildings and his 4×4 Mule vehicle. In a toolbox in the vehicle were three small pots containing a powder – later confirmed as Bendiocarb. The footwells of this vehicle were also swept by the CSI and traces of Bendiocarb were also detected in the dirt.
Three small pots of Ficam W (Bendiocarb) found inside a toolkit in the gamekeeper’s vehicle. Traces of this pesticide were also found in sweepings from the footwell. Photo: Guy Shorrock/RSPB
In an outbuilding was a part-used sachet of Ficam W (Bendiocarb), a product which had been banned three months earlier. Next to this was an old rodenticide container, and inside this were hidden two small bottles of Strychnine, another product banned since August 2006. In previous cases suspects have claimed no knowledge of any pesticides and stated they must had been languishing in outbuildings for many years before they arrived. I know of one case where this was probably true. A helpful clue in this case was an ‘01’ phone number on the old rodenticide container, this reflected the national ‘PhONEday’ number changes in 1995, which was after the gamekeeper had first taken up residence at the address. BT Archives kindly provided a statement to cover this point.
There was actually no appropriate pesticide store at his premises, so even an approved professional brand of rodenticide was insecurely and unlawfully stored. Guilty pleas were later entered to the keeping of the three banned pesticides.
An insecure store held a sachet of the recently banned Ficam W (Bendiocarb) and two bottles of strychnine hidden inside an old container.
THE FORENSIC TRAIL
Once the evidence had been seized, various forensic tests needed to be considered. Firstly, using the Raptor Forensics Fund, the six buzzards went for screening x-rays at a local vet which clearly indicated they had all been shot. With this information, the birds were sent for a post mortem examination at Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC) under the skilled hands of experienced pathologist Fiona Howie. In addition to confirming all had been shot, it also established one of the bodies was very fresh and probably shot within a day of us arriving at the address. Interestingly, this particular bird had survived two previous shooting incidents.
Two more of the six shot buzzards – the top bird probably shot within a day of the police raid. Photo: RSPBX-ray of this Buzzard shows its body peppered with shot, with multiple wing fractures. It contained pellets from two previous shooting incidents which it had survived (larger pellet from one of these in the neck). Photo: RSPB
We were obviously interested in what was in the fire remains and the Raptor Forensics Fund allowed us to submit these to Judith White, a Curator and avian specialist at the Natural History Museum. When I attended to collect them, they had been cleaned and neatly divided into 34 individual exhibit bags. The examination had confirmed there were the remains of at least three further buzzards from within the ashes. So, using nearly £900 from the Raptor Forensics Fund, these three examinations had produced some powerful evidence.
The grim remains from the fire, cleaned and sorted at the NHM. This confirmed the left tibiotarsus present from three different buzzards.
The preparation of the case file for the CPS was a huge amount of work, and Claire Dinsdale deserves great credit for her tenacity in completing this. As this was underway, myself and Dr Ed Blane, a highly experienced employee of Natural England, became aware that the original rat carcass had been described by the vet as being ‘cut open’. We were immediately concerned this was a potential bait which may have killed the red kite. Small prey items like these are not particularly common, and I couldn’t recall any previous cases using a rat bait. Back in 1999 I had found a couple of dead starlings laced with a banned pesticide right on the edge of the RSPB reserve at Geltsdale in Cumbria. A nearby breeding female hen harrier was later confirmed as poisoned with this product. In 2008, 32 pieces of meat laced with another banned pesticide were found placed on fenceposts on the Glenogil Estate in Scotland.
Thankfully, the body of the rat was still safely stored in the vet’s freezer and the Health & Safety Executive kindly agreed to submit it for further toxicology tests at FERA, which confirmed the presence of Bendiocarb. We also decided to try and identify the food contents found in the red kite and a sample was sent from FERA to the UK Wildlife DNA Forensics Laboratory at SASA. This laboratory, led by Dr Lucy Webster, has been doing some amazing work on wildlife genetics, and has provided vital evidence in many investigations and court cases. Police Scotland are fortunate to have any wildlife forensics done there free of charge. Other UK forces are not so lucky, so once again the Raptor Forensics Fund allowed this work to progress and SASA confirmed the tissue as being from brown rat. So there now seemed little doubt the red kite had been poisoned at the location where it was found. This additional evidence allowed the CPS to proceed with a charge of killing the red kite. Whilst this was ultimately one of three charges discontinued at court, I have little doubt it put the CPS in a very strong position and encouraged the seven guilty pleas that were entered.
All investigations are ultimately about seeking the truth as to what has taken place. This case provides a great example of how forensic testing can provide essential evidence in a wildlife crime investigation. The scientists undertaking this type of work (in this case at APHA, FERA, SASA, SRUC, and NHM) are often the unsung heroes of many successful court cases. It is their professionalism and attention to detail which provides police and prosecutors with the information to take matters forward. As technology continues to advance it will be interesting to see what other methods will allow some of the raptors killers to be brought to justice.
Last December we wrote about how nine-year-old artist and naturalist Benji Fallow had chosen to donate the proceeds from his fabulous artwork to Wild Justice (amongst others) – see here.
A few days ago Benji’s mum, Nish, got in touch to tell us that Benji has raised a £100 donation for Wild Justice from the sale of several of his wildlife-themed cards!
Thank you so much, Benji, what an absolute star!
All the artwork are prints of Benji’s own work, made by himself from scratch at ages 6 – 8yrs. They are printed on beautiful sustainably produced Mokawk paper with high quality inks. The packaging is all recycled and compostable.
You can view (and buy!) Benji’s artwork on his Etsy page:
Comments Off on Monday’s parliamentary debate on Woodcock shooting seasonWoodcock. Photo: Olly Smart
On Monday afternoon our petition calling for a change to the Woodcock shooting season was debated by MPs in Westminster Hall. This came about because nearly 108,000 people signed the petition – thank you all! The Defra minister, Trudy Harrison, broke the news that Defra has asked Natural England to look at the case for changing the shooting season. This was better news than we feared and we are optimistic that this modest change might be achieved. If it is, it is the 108,000 people who signed the petition who deserve most of the credit.
You can read the full transcript of the debate – click here.
Some thoughts from us:
the three of us, Chris, Ruth and Mark, attended the debate in person and we’d like to thank the House of Commons staff for facilitating that and making the whole process very easy
we’d like to thank Jonathan Gullis MP (Stoke-on-Trent North, and a member of the Petitions Committee) for talking to us online a week before the debate, listening to what we said and doing such an excellent job of summing up the issues. And we were delighted that he supported the aim of the petition.
all the MPs who spoke were polite and argued their positions with courtesy, and that is not what has always happened in such debates
we were very pleased to see the two MPs (Chris Loder (West Dorset) and Duncan Baker (North Norfolk)) whose constituencies were at the top of the list of signatures supporting the petition present to hear the debate. And that means that the constituents in those constituencies who signed the petition made a real difference. West Dorset provided 694 signatures and North Norfolk 602 signatures. If all the signatures had been spread evenly across the 650 Westminster constituencies each would have had around 166 signatures.
Chris Loder did not speak in the debate but he did attend (although he looked a bit grumpy perhaps) but Duncan Baker did and he also supported the aims of the petition (see the transcript).
Opposition MPs were thin on the ground so we are particularly grateful to Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) and Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) for speaking and the Shadow Environment minister Alex Sobel, who had been in Ukraine the day before, made good points in favour of the petition.
the Defra minister, Trudy Harrison MP was receptive to the petition – which came as a pleasant surprise. Defra has asked Natural England to advise them on the merits of changing the shooting season. That’s fair enough. We had a very good chat with the minister after the debate, especially about lead ammunition and game meat. We will follow that up.
most of the other MPs present seemed to be reading out the briefs of the shooting industry – the industry that has tied itself up in knots on this issue. Since it is common ground that shooting Woodcock should not happen in October and November the only remaining issue is how to ensure that they aren’t shot then. If your position is that nobody shoots them then anyway (as several MPs claimed) then there can be no objection to introducing the change to the shooting season suggested by our petition. If nobody shoots then, nobody will be inconvenienced. However, if there is shooting at that time, then only those people who are going against the guidance will be inconvenienced, and so they should be! So there really oughtn’t to be an argument at all – the shooting industry position simply looks daft (and not for the first time).
there is plenty of evidence that there is shooting of Woodcock, across the UK, in October and November but we’ll come back to that at a later date.
We’d like to thank the RSPB, birding magazines and a whole host of bird clubs for supporting this petition and promoting it to their members. We haven’t yet secured a change in the shooting season but it is still on the cards and it is a live issue. It wasn’t before Wild Justice started this campaign almost exactly a year ago – click here for a campaign timeline.
We’d like to thank everyone who signed this petition. It is pretty obvious that a petition with three signatures won’t make much difference compared with one with 108,000 signatures. All of you made a difference. It is rare to have a debate in parliament of this sort and the issue still to be alive – usually government is very resistant to change. We have got further than we might have done because of your strong support. Woodcocks can’t start petitions, can’t sign petitions, and can’t write to their MPs – we have to do that, and a large number of people have come together to do that for a beautiful bird which needs a better deal from us. Thank you!
Comments Off on Woodcock petition timelineWoodcock. Photo: Tim Melling
2022
early March – we talk about Woodcock shooting
mid March – we talk to our lawyers about Woodcock shooting
21 March – we write to Defra and the Northern Ireland minister suggesting that the Woodcock shooting season should be shortened by two months in order to give the declining British population more protection – click here.
6 April – GWCT make the first of many shooting industry attempts to muddy the waters on Woodcock shooting seasons but their own website says (and still does say) don’t shoot Woodcock until 1 December- click here
8 April – we take the micky out of the nonsensical GWCT position – click here
12 July – our patience is exhausted with lack of Defra response to our letter so we launch a petition calling for a shortening of the Woodcock shooting season. We call for the shooting season to start on 1 December and not 1 October (England, Wales and Northern Ireland, 1 September in Scotland). On this very day the petition passes 10,000 signatures which triggers the need for a response from Defra – click here.
3 August – Defra responds to the petition, because of the 10,000 signatures having been achieved but the response is poor and we complain to the Petitions Committee about the quality of the response – click here.
7 September – the Petitions Committee agrees with our assessment of the Defra response and tells Defra to do better – click here
27 September – Defra changes direction and on his last day in his job as Secretary of State at Defra George Eustice signals that the department agrees to review the shooting season for Woodcock and impacts of shooting on other species – click here
30 September – petition passes 30,000 signatures – click here
10 October – petition passes 50,000 signatures – click here
12 November – petition passes 60,000 signatures – click here
31 December – petition passes 100,000 signatures and earns the opportunity to be debated in the Westminster parliament – click here
2023
25 January – petition closes on 107,916 signatures with West Dorset and North Norfolk being the top two constituencies – click here.
27 February – our petition is debated in Westminster Hall and receives a positive response from MPs and government – click here
Comments Off on Phasing out toxic lead voluntarily just isn’t working…
Today a study on the use of lead shot in Pheasant shooting has been released – it has some significant (but not necessarily surprising) results. We’re now three years into a five-year pledge completely to phase out lead shot in UK game hunting, made by nine major UK shooting and rural organisations. The Cambridge study has revealed that in the 2022-23 season 94% of pheasants being sold on supermarket shelves, in butchers and by game dealers were shot using lead.
This is quite clearly a very small decrease – an average of a 2% reduction per year of the pledge. At this rate of change, it would take the industry another 47 years to phase out the use of lead shot – just a little bit longer than the 5 years they committed to.
The study, undertaken by scientists at University of Cambridge and published in Conservation Evidence Journalcan be read here. A team of 17 volunteers scoured shops, butchers and game dealers for Pheasant in late 2022 and early 2023; they managed to round up 356 carcasses. Of these, 235 contained embedded shotgun pellets. These pellets were then analysed in a laboratory to determine the main metal present – in 94% of them, this was lead.
There has been a (very) small improvement in these figures; the same analysis carried out in 2020-21, and 2021-22 found that over 99% of pheasants were shot with lead. That said, a decrease of 6% goes to show that phasing out lead voluntarily simply isn’t working fast enough.
We’ve spoken about lead contamination of game meat, and it’s detrimental impact on human health, several times in the past few years. Lead is a known toxin which accumulates with repeated exposure; it can cause health issues in adults, and has neurological effects on babies and children.
The pledge to go lead-free was made back in 2020 by a consortium of organisations including Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT), British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC), Countryside Alliance and British Game Assurance (BGA) amongst others. It called on members, supporters and shooters to voluntarily switch to an alternative and non-toxic type of shot, such as steel or copper.
This transition should be an easy one. Alternative steel shot is practical, and can be used with most existing shotguns. There’s been plenty of guidance provided by the likes of GWCT and others, who’ve actively encouraged their community to adopt alternatives, since they made their commitment back in 2020. Other countries have had great success with a switch; Denmark’s shooting community have stopped using lead since it was banned back in 1996. It seems that the lacking factor here isn’t practicality – but a case of will by hunters and shooters.
The sector’s pledge was offered voluntarily, but in the face of mounting pressure from both the public and governing bodies concerned with lead ammunition. Last year the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) consulted on a proposed restriction, even ban, of lead ammunition – which we’re still waiting to hear back about.
The first author of the Cambridge study, Professor Rhys Green, agrees that the decrease is nowhere near on track to meet a 2025 deadline: “If UK game hunters are going to phase out lead shot voluntarily, they’re not doing very well so far,” he said.
It seems that the five-year pledge may have been an attempt by the industry to get a head-start on the transition, before it was strictly enforced. It seems so far, that head-start has turned into more of a false start.
Our newsletter is received by over 30,000 subscribers and shared around and read by very many more. We obviously know the email addresses and names of subscribers and we have just done an audit of the mammals who are subscribed – ‘bear’ with us, this is quite fun and also has a serious point.
There are 34 Foxes, 6 Hares (including O’Hares, which we assume are Irish Blue Hares), 2 Seals, 2 Badgers, 2 Squirrels, 2 Moles, 2 Wolfs but just one Deer and one Bear, and no Rabbits, Shrews, Voles, Beavers, Otters or Whales at all. Not the most balanced and sustainable mammal fauna perhaps.
We’d like to thank one of these mammals for a donation of £2000 on Thursday. The money appeared in our bank account and that’s all we know. Thank you very much!
The serious point is that when you donate to us by bank transfer, which is a very convenient way to do it, we see your name and the amount but that’s all – so we’d love to thank you individually but can only do so collectively like this. Many thanks to all who have donated to us by whatever means https://wildjustice.org.uk/wildlife-donations/
Comments Off on Send our Woodcock briefing to your MP before Monday lunchtime
Our petition to limit the Woodcock shooting season is being debated next week – at 4:30pm on Monday 27 February. You can watch it live here.
We think what we’re asking for is simple, necessary and noncontroversial. We believe shooting seasons are there for a purpose, and there is very clear reasoning to limit the Woodcock season to take place between December 1 and January 31 each year.
We hope you’ve considered writing to your MP, asking them to attend the debate – you’ve still got time to do this. You can find your MP’s name and email address here (make sure to include your name and address to speed up the process).
Below we have provided a briefing on Woodcock. Please consider sending this to your MP too – you can download a PDF at the end of the blog. This should summarise the issue, lay out the facts, and explain our justification for the proposed change – one that 107,916 of you supported.
Thank you once more for that support – we’ll update you soon!
Wild Justice – A briefing on Woodcock. ‘LIMIT THE SHOOTING SEASON OF WOODCOCK’ Petitions Committee Debate, Monday 27 February 2023.
Why the shooting season for Woodcock (Scolopax rusticola), should be shortened to run from December 1st – January 31st.
What’s a Woodcock?
Woodcock are a type of wading bird, found most often in woodland habitat. It has a long beak, big inky-black eye and beautiful mottled chestnut, brown and buff feathers, which help with its camouflage. They’re nocturnal, and probe soggy patches of earth for worms at night. Their breeding display in spring and summer is a sight and sound to behold – flying in big circles at dusk, creaking and grunting as they go.
Woodcock are also classified as game birds. They can be shot in England, Wales and Northern Ireland between October 1st and January 31st. They can be shot in Scotland from September 1st until January 31st.
What’s the issue with Woodcock in 100 words?
We have a resident population of Woodcock, and a migratory one; resident ones stay year round and breed here. This UK population is declining and Red-Listed – it’s thought to be ~55,000 pairs. Migratory Woodcock arrive here in early December from places like Scandinavia, Russia and Asia. They swell the population considerably – some 800,000 to 1.3million birds. Currently the shooting season allows Woodcock to be shot from October 1st (Sept 1st in Scotland). This means any birds shot in Sept/Oct/Nov are likely from our threatened breeding population. By moving the shooting season start to December 1st, we’re removing that risk.
FAQs:
Why should the season be shortened?
By shifting the start of the Woodcock shooting season to December 1st, this reduces the chances that any shot bird will belong to the threatened UK breeding population. It’s more likely that a bird shot in December will belong to the migrant population, coming from areas where Woodcock populations are not threatened like they are in the UK.
We say that the shooting seasons are there for a purpose (principally to protect breeding populations) and there is a very clear and agreed reason for changing the opening date of the Woodcock shooting season in this case.
Shooters say they’re already voluntarily refraining from shooting Woodcock before December, so what’s the point in changing the opening date of the Woodcock shooting season?
We think there are two reasons why the opening date of the Woodcock shooting season should still be changed:
Whilst many shooters abide by the guidance supplied, we know Woodcock are still being shot before December 1st. Evidence of this has been published in the Shooting Times as recently as November 2022, and web pages advertising shooting before December 1st are still online (see just three examples here, here and here). Changing the opening date of the Woodcock shooting season guarantees no Woodcock can be shot legally before the advised date.
We know the date is already supported by large shooting organisations and shooters – so it seems like a no-brainer. If lots of shooters are already abiding by guidance, why not change the open season?
What do involved parties think?
Parties from different organisations – both non-shooting and shooting communities – agree that shooting Woodcock before migrant populations arrive is a bad idea. Here’s what they have to say:
British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) say to their members: “Refrain from shooting Woodcock until the migrant population arrives to reduce the chance of a resident bird being taken. As a guide, don’t shoot Woodcock until late November. Do allow migrant birds at least a week of good weather to recover from their journey before shooting.”
Game and Wildlife Conservation trust (GWCT) say to their supporters:
Woodcock should not be shot when:It’s too early in the season and the first migrants have just arrived. Whilst every shoot will be different, generally we recommend not shooting Woodcock before 1st December.
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) have said:
“The RSPB supports the call for an alteration to the start of the Woodcock hunting season (to 1 December) as an emergency precautionary measure to reduce the probability that a shot Woodcock originates from the threatened UK breeding population, now that the species is Red-listed in Britain and Ireland. We see this as a proportionate measure in the context of the wider climate and nature emergency and declines in the UK breeding woodcock population.” We would review this position only if the conservation status of the UK breeding population improves.
Who would be affected by a change in the season?
As we’ve seen, GWCT and BASC guidance already asks supporters to refrain from shooting Woodcock before December 1st. We know lots of shooters abide by this. The only people who’d be affected by a change in the shooting season are people who choose to ignore the guidance set by their industry and by conservationists.
Wild Justice is calling for:
The shooting season for Woodcock in the UK to be shortened – starting on December 1st each year and ending on January 31st.
For more information, please contact admin@wildjustice.org.uk.
We’ve been doing this because many members of the shooting industry maintain that it isn’t necessary to impose a statutory shortening of the Woodcock-shooting season, which is what we and 107,916 petitioners have called for. Many in the shooting industry claim that nobody shoots the threatened Woodcock in November; instead they claim to be exercising voluntary restraint and don’t shoot Woodcock until after 1st December when the non-threatened migrant Woodcock have arrived in the UK.
Whilst we know this is true of some estates, it simply isn’t true for all of them. We’ve found many examples of Woodcock-shooting being offered to paying guests in the month of November, which is a risk to our threatened, red-listed resident Woodcock population.
In what appears to be a response to our campaign, one such estate, the Baronscourt Estate, home to the Duke and Duchess of Abercorn, has removed evidence from its website that if offers Woodcock-shooting in November.
Here’s what the estate’s website said on 7th December 2022:
And here’s what its website says today:
Interesting, isn’t it?
We wonder if the Baronscourt Estate has changed its Woodcock-shooting behaviour as well as the words on its website?
We’ll shortly be posting more information about Monday’s Westminster debate and how you can watch.
Comments Off on Wild Justice’s Raptor Forensics Fund helps secure 4th gamekeeper conviction
We’re delighted to report that our Raptor Forensics Fund, established in 2020 to help support police investigations into alleged raptor persecution crime, has played a part in the conviction of a criminal gamekeeper in Dorset.
54-year old Paul Allen, a member of the National Gamekeepers Organisation and employed as a gamekeeper for a privately-run pheasant shoot on the Shaftesbury Estate near Wimbourne, was convicted at Weymouth Magistrates Court in January 2023 of carrying out multiple wildlife, poisons and firearms offences on the estate in March 2021 (here).
Following the discovery of a poisoned red kite on the estate in November 2020, a multi-agency raid led by Dorset Police’s (now former) wildlife crime officer Claire Dinsdale took place in March 2021 (see here) where the corpses of six dead buzzards were found by a pen behind the gamekeeper’s house (tests later showed they had all been shot, including one that was was estimated to have been shot in the last 24hrs). Officers also found the remains (bones) of at least three more buzzards on a bonfire.
A loaded, unsecure shotgun was found propped up behind a kitchen door and 55 rounds of ammunition were found in a shed. Neither the shotgun or the ammunition were covered by Allen’s firearms certificate.
Officers also found a number of dangerous, and banned, chemicals, including two bottles of Strychnine, two containers of Cymag and a packet of Ficam W (Bendiocarb) in various locations, including in a vehicle used by Allen.
Allen was sentenced on 16th February 2023 to a 15-week custodial sentence, suspended for 12 months. He also received fines totalling £2,022 and a compensation order to the value of £844.70.
The compensation order for £844.70 refers to the amount Allen must repay to our Raptor Forensics Fund. This is in relation to three pieces of work, undertaken as part of the police investigation, that was paid for from our fund, including the initial screening x-rays by a vet to determine that six of the buzzards contained shot and later post mortem examinations to confirm the buzzards had all been shot. The fund was also used to pay for an expert examination of the bones found on the remnants of a bonfire. This was undertaken by a specialist from the Natural History Museum who confirmed the presence of bones from at least three more buzzards.
This is the fourth conviction that our Raptor Forensics Fund has helped secure. The first one was gamekeeper Hilton Prest who was found guilty in December 2021 of the unlawful use of a trap in Cheshire (see here). The second one was gamekeeper John Orrey who was convicted in January 2022 of beating to death two buzzards he’d caught in a trap in Nottinghamshire (here). The third one was gamekeeper Archie Watson who was convicted in June 2022 of multiple raptor persecution and firearms offences on a pheasant shoot in Wiltshire (see here).
Thank you to all those who contributed to our Raptor Forensics Fund* and thanks also to the PAW Forensic Working Group (a sub-group of the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime) who administer our fund and ensure that police officers can access it without delay to help progress their investigations into raptor persecution crimes.
If you’d like to donate to our work, please click here.
*Contributors to the Raptor Forensics Fund include the Northern England Raptor Forum, Tayside & Fife Raptor Study Group, Devon Birds, and a number of individuals who wish to remain anonymous.
Comments Off on What you’ve told us about SSSIs (2)
Thank you for a flood of responses to our newsletter and recent blog on SSSIs. We’ve had a lot more comments about how pleased you are to have been told about how to find your nearest SSSI. Some of you live surrounded by SSSIs and very few of you, wherever you live, are more than 10km from your nearest SSSI.
However, many of you are concerned that your local SSSIs are not in good condition. Here are just a few examples:
I am fortunate to live very close to a SSSI. Sadly, it is assessed as in unfavourable condition and declining.
Hello I’m lucky enough to have an SSSI within a km. I used to be able to see hundreds of Brent Geese that landed nearby, they were so noisy it was lovely. But since the farm was sold and the new owners, a local business, released thousands of pheasants and partridges into the area, the Brent geese no longer appear.
You asked about living close to an SSSI. Well, I’m about 100yards from one and it’s also RAMSAR. I never knew. I did know it was mud flat and there are some interesting birds about. Unfortunately it’s a glaring shade of red on that website.
My nearest SSSIs are Mole Gap to Reigate escarpment and Reigate Heath. They’re both within about a mile of where I live and I’ve visited both – but hadn’t realised they both have quite large sections in unfavourable declining condition sadly.
My nearest SSSI is Eyemore Railway Cutting. Thousands of Pheasants, ducks and partridge are reared in Eyemore wood and the SSSI has high densities of game birds year-round.
I live 20 minutes from a SSSI, being Winterton dunes in Norfolk. I am a dog owner so please don’t take offence at this but the place has become a dog-walkers paradise, it is horrific! There can be literally hundreds of dogs running around off their leads! Since the local tourist promotion of “come to see the Seals”, those poor things are hounded during the winter season by hundreds of people, who mainly give no respect to them or nature full stop. It is a very nature depleted SSSI now, more akin to a city park. I’m all for encouraging people into nature, but in the right way.
A huge local issue is that raw sewage is discharged into the River Dee near Chester City Centre on a regular basis.
We are plagued with pheasants and can hear shoots often [an SSSI in North Wales]. XXXXXXXXX Estate is a popular shooting venue and is mere yards from the above SSSI.
South Thames Estuary & Marshes 3 miles. Riddled with off road bikes sadly 🙁
Having drilled down to one that is marked red, ‘Unfavourable declining’, (part of Blackwater Valley SSSI in Berks). it is unclear what action, if any is being taken to stop its decline, despite a fairly recent site survey.
One of the closest SSSI sites to us is the River Wye- according to your map, the Upper Wye Gorge , near Symonds Yat. Obviously this river has been in the news lately due to the poor state it is in -suffering greatly from the increase in poultry sheds and farming run off and uncontrolled sewage outfalls. It needs all the help it can get…
I have been surprised to discover, via your recent excellent email regarding SSSIs, that I live on the edge of quite a large SSSI area made up of several joined individually named areas. These include Foulden Common, Breckland Forest and Gooderstone Warren amongst others. Some of these areas are used for game shooting and in a normal year (not so much this year due to bird flu) the area is inundated with released pheasants and partridges which must upset the natural balance of these areas, it also upsets me and others that these beautiful birds are bred solely for the “entertainment” of amateur shooters.
Further to your email of 13 February my response is as follows, Southampton Common SSSI is my nearest SSSI and I live approximately 1.7 miles from it. It is where I do my patch birding. It is alarming to see that it is in a state of Unfavourable Recovering.
My nearest SSSI is Haddon Hill, part of the South Exmoor SSSI, which approximately 1km from my home as the crow flies. Between my home and Haddon Hill is a famous high-bird pheasant shoot called Haddeo Valley, which is currently run by the Loyton Estate. Thousands of pheasants are released on the Haddeo Valley shoot every year and they spill out everywhere, onto the SSSI, onto our reserve, and onto roads, where large numbers are squashed. Exmoor National Park Authority tell me that they are powerless to stop this abomination.
I live in Downton, Wilts very close to the Hampshire Avon SSSI and over the years I’ve witnessed just how much over abstraction has affected the river.
Comments Off on What you’ve told us about SSSIs (1)
Wow! We’ve already had over 500 responses to our Monday newsletter, and blog – click here – about SSSIs. And they have come from right across Great Britain. We have read every one, and they are still coming, and we will read every one of those too.
There are some very clear themes and we’ll come back to some of those, but the overwhelming reception to the information we provided on how to locate SSSIs has been that you are delighted to have it and surprised by how many SSSIs are close to where you live. The closest we have logged so far is 45 paces from one of our subscribers but an awful lot of people have discovered that there is an SSSI within walking distance of home.
Here is a tiny selection of comments:
Thank you for your timely piece on SSSIs. I am the chair of our local environment group and I am researching the status of a local wildlife site prior to doing some conservation work in it. I had received contradictory information about whether or not it was a SSSI. Following the links in your email I learn that it isn’t.
The nearest one to me is Plymbridge Lane and Estover road – a tiny parcel of land amongst housing and hospital buildings that is home to the only known wild population of the Plymouth pear tree. It’s about 2 miles from where I live and I had no idea it was an SSSI until your email prompted me to investigate.
I have been very surprised to learn of one near to me which I’d never known about. I have walked and driven along Bonhay Road in Exeter countless times without being aware that it has an SSSI designation.
My nearest SSSI is Richmond Park – whoever knew that! – and I live about ½ mile from it.
My nearest SSSI is XXXXXX in East Lancashire. About 3 miles away. I know it quite well and it’s a great spot for bird life. But I had no idea that it was a SSSI!
I live in London NW1 and my nearest SSSI is Hampstead heath woods. Didn’t know it was designated!
The closest SSSI to me is Killerton in Devon which I visit regularly. Ashamed to say I did not realise it was an SSSI!
I live 5 mins walk away near Chester & I was not fully aware that the River Dee is an SSSI.
I have 2 SSSI within 3Km neither of which I was aware of. Duckmanton Railway Cutting in a favourable condition and Doe Lea Stream Section in unfavourable recovering. [near Chesterfield]
I live in the large borough of Bromley in Greater London in southeast London. I knew about Ruxley Gravel Pits as I once got access to it through the local Bromley RSPB visit. However; I hadn’t realised that it straddles both sides of the road . It’s about 10 minutes drive from me. I didn’t know about Elmstead Pit which is even closer to me- 5 minutes in the car-if that! I also have Crofton Woods within around 15 minutes drive. I didn’t know about it.
Thank you for the information on helping find these sites. It’s great to be able to see where they are. There are two SSSI’s quite close to me that I wasn’t aware of. Ludworth Intake, which is about 2 miles away and Matley Moor Meadows, near Rowarth, which is about 4 or 5 miles away. Compstall Nature Reserve (also known as Etherow Country Park) I know well and is about 3 miles from me. [East of Manchester]
There is an SSSI approx 2km from where I live in Frome Somerset – Vallis Vale on the SSSI map. I knew of the area but not the fact is is a designated SSSI.
Hi, in response to your email this morning, I’ve discovered that I literally live over the road from an SSSI. It’s Whittlewood Forest in Northants.
My closest SSSI is Harries Ground, Rodbourne. I wasn’t aware of it. I’m also fairly close to some sites I did know about – various sites owned by Wiltshire Wildlife, eg Cloately Farm, Clattinger Farm, Distillery Farm. I was surprised to find that the M4 motorway cutting at junction 17 (the Chippenham one) is an SSSI!
The nearest SSSIs to me in Wales are New House Meadow and the River Wye just below it, in Rhayader. Approx 2 miles away. I didn’t know New House Meadow was a SSSI – I walk past it most days on my walks on the Wye Valley Trail. It’s not possible to access it, but it’s good to know it’s there as a SSSI. How interesting!
I find that my house is within 200m of two SSSIs here in Devon.
I’m about 450m from 2 SSSI’s one of which I wasn’t aware of!
My nearest SSSI is Tynet Burn, just WSW of Buckie, Moray, where I live. I didn’t even know about it before! It’s about 5km ? from where I live. I shall be going for a look!
Living on The Parade in Barry, South Wales, I find I’m actually over looking one! Known as Little Island – better known as Friar’s Point to us. Another one is on a frequent dog walk, that being Cliff Woods. It appears that Barry is surrounded by these sites. I’ll be researching these over the next few days to find out just what the scientific interest is!
I have discovered that I live less than 1km from The Wye SSSI in Derbyshire.
We have an SSSI about a mile away Called Coed Talon Marsh we regularly visit it for a walk but did not realise it is an SSSI.
Comments Off on Where is your nearest Site of Special Scientific Interest?
We’ve been struck by the strong response to our blog from last week which told you about a wildlife site, Dendles Wood, on the edge of Dartmoor – click here. We’re waiting for Natural England to respond to our list of questions about Dendles Wood. While we wait, we thought that we’d do something a bit different and tell you how you can find your nearest important wildlife site, your local Dendles Wood, on an interactive online map. Dendles Wood is a Site of Special Scientific Interest, which sounds terribly dull, but SSSIs (and ASSIs, Areas of Special Scientific Interest, in Northern Ireland) are a very important part of protecting nature across the UK. Here is some background information on SSSIs and ASSIs from Wikipedia – click here.
Finding the SSSIs near you
We’re going to concentrate on SSSIs now as there are thousands of them across Great Britain and they are all mapped on the same online system called MAGIC. If you visit the MAGIC site – https://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx – you’ll find a familiar map of GB with a complicated-looking table of contents on its left hand side. Let’s imagine you live in Edinburgh and zoom in a bit on Scotland’s capital. You’ll see something like this:
That looks familiar, doesn’t it? There is Edinburgh with its ring road and airport, the three bridges across the Firth of Forth and places like Loch Leven, east of Kinross, near the top of the map.
But where are the SSSIs? They are just a few clicks away – in fact, five clicks away. Look at the Table of Contents on the left hand side. SSSIs are ‘Designations’ so click the small box with a ‘+’ in it. Then choose (by clicking another small box with a ‘+’) ‘Land-based designations’, and then ‘Statutory’ and then, because we are looking at Scotland, ‘Sites of Special Scientific Interest (Scotland)’ and then, last click, the box which will shade in the actual boundaries of the SSSIs around Edinburgh in green and you will see something like this:
Same map, but with the SSSIs shaded in green. And now you can see that Arthur’s Seat in the middle of Edinburgh is a geological SSSI and that the Firth of Forth shores are SSSI, and Loch Leven up at the top of the map is an SSSI and there are lots more with titles such ‘burn’, ‘loch’, ‘marsh’, ‘muir’, ‘wood’, ‘moss’ and ‘glen’ that hint at why these sites may have been notified in the first place.
Just remember, if you are in Wales or England you need to click on the relevant ‘Sites of Special Scientific Interest ([nation])’ option.
But with five clicks you can see all of the SSSIs in Great Britain – you can zoom in and out of the map and you can visit all parts of England, Scotland and Wales. Happy travels! You’ll discover that some SSSIs cover thousands of hectares and others small fractions of a hectare, that some are well-known names and others you’ve never heard of, but all have been selected for their wildlife (and/or geological) value. They are sometimes referred to as the conservation jewels in the crown and to a large extent if the right sites are chosen, and if they are protected and well-managed, then they form a vital wildlife conservation network.
What is the nearest SSSI to your home? Did you know about it already? Have you ever been there? The notification of an SSSI does not confer rights of entry to the public but there may be a footpath through the SSSI, it may be owned by a conservation body which permits public access or it may be designated as open access – normal rules apply.
Finding out more about SSSIs – starting with England
Now you have discovered that you live in a country with SSSIs dotted about all over it you may be curious to know more about your local SSSI. The following information is for England only because the systems differ in different UK nations and the English system is quite good and (to be honest) we understand it better than we do the Welsh or Scottish or Northern Irish systems.
There’s The Wash, which is a massive SSSI, and the North Norfolk coast and scattered around are a lot of smaller, but still very important, SSSIs such as Dersingham Bog and Roydon Common.
Each SSSI is made up of units and you can see the units, and, importantly, their condition with another couple of clicks;
See? Now all the SSSIs, but let’s look at The Wash, are shown with their units mapped and each unit is classified, by Natural England, as being in Favourable Condition or not. Obviously, it would be good if all the SSSI units were shaded in light green as Favourable Condition but the more you look closely the more you will find that there are SSSI units in Unfavourable Condition. Don’t be fooled by the areas classed as Unfavourable Recovering – it sounds good but often isn’t. Sometimes it just means there is a plan for recovery and there is a wide gulf between having a plan on paper and having the right action on the ground.
If you pop the name of the SSSI into the form (make sure it is the right name, let’s choose ‘The Wash’) and press ‘search’ you’ll get a screen like this one;
… then click on ‘View details’ and you’ll get this;
From this screen you can find out why The Wash was notified as an SSSI, what actions on site require Natural England’s permission, what Natural England thinks about how the site should be managed and information on the details behind the condition of all the SSSI units – in this case 60 of them that go to a couple of pages. If you do look at the unit condition assessments then you will find, just as was true for Dendles Wood, that the years on which some units were last assessed (according to this Natural England website) were a very long time ago. This isn’t news – lack of monitoring of SSSI condition is a well-known problem to professional nature conservationists. But if you live in England this system will allow you to check when your local SSSI was last assessed Was it ages ago? Have a look and see.
Comments Off on Pheasants camping out in Dartmoor woodsDarwall’s Guide to: ‘Do I allow it on my land?’
You might have heard about Dartmoor in the news quite a lot recently – see, for example, here. In January this year, the owner of a Dartmoor Estate, Mr Alexander Darwall, won the right to remove people found wild camping on his land.
Prior to this, it was assumed under local law that a right to wild camp existed without having to ask permission from the landowner. Whilst public outcry derided the decision, describing it as impairing people’s ability to spend time in nature, another issue came to our attention.
On trespasses undertaken by Right to Roam and the Stars Are for Everyone campaigners, it was noticed that a large number of Pheasants were wandering in and around protected areas of the Blachford Estate (Darwall’s Estate on Dartmoor). In particular, one rather beautiful National Nature Reserve called Dendles Wood.
Dendles Wood NNR is a protected area – it’s part of the larger Dendles Wood Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and is also part of the much larger Dartmoor Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The NNR is owned mostly by Natural England, and partly by South West Water, but lies adjacent to Darwall’s Blachford Estate. The SSSI is an area of temperate rainforest with a ground flora of mosses and many lichens on the trees, and it is also home to the rare Blue Ground Beetle Carabus intricatus.
Following the reports of lots of Pheasants in and around Dendles Wood, we decided to do some digging. Inspecting the estate on Google Earth, it looks as though Pheasants are being released from at least one pen on the Blachford Estate in close proximity to Dendles Wood – only 225m away in fact. This raised a few questions for us…
It seems inevitable that free-roaming birds released at such proximity to Dendles Wood are going to enter the protected site. In studies reviewed for Natural England, Pheasants are increasingly recognised as being a threat to native flora and fauna. Pheasants can affect other (real) wildlife through direct predation of invertebrates, browsing or grazing of flora, direct scratching of ground vegetation and through nutrient deposition via faeces.
Natural England’s management plan for Dendles Wood, spanning 2015-2020 (no updated plan seems to be available), lists high Pheasant stocking rates as a potential threat to Blue Ground Beetle populations in the NNR/SSSI.
We’ve asked our lawyers to write to Natural England. We’re concerned that harm to biodiversity from Pheasants released close to Dendles Wood is quite likely – so we’ve asked Natural England lots of questions about local Pheasant releases, and what steps Natural England has taken to regulate gamebird releases since they identify Pheasant numbers as a potential threat to the site. Our 16 detailed questions are in the letter below.
This issue goes to the role of Natural England as a regulator of protected sites, and in this case as a landowner too. According to the Natural England website (click here), the latest assessments of the condition of the four SSSI units of Dendles Wood were in the years 2009-2011 – more than a decade ago – can that be right?
You can read our letter, which was sent to Natural England yesterday, below – and we’ll tell you how they reply.
Wild Justice is entirely dependent on donations. To support our work – click here. To hear more about our campaigns and legal cases subscribe to our free campaign newsletter – click here.
Comments Off on Our Woodcock petition finished on 107,916 signatures – here are the top constituencies
Our petition to limit the Woodcock shooting season closed last Wednesday – ending on a grand total of 107,916 signatures. We’re blown away, thank you!
We know now the petition will be debated in Parliament on February 27 this year – which you can read about here. We’ll be keeping you updated with developments in the run up to it.
Below is a final update on the leading constituencies – the top 20 for number of signatures. West Dorset, Mr Christopher Loder MP’s constituency, came out on top.
West Dorset, Chris Loder MP – 694 signatures
North Norfolk, Duncan Baker MP – 602 signatures
Torridge and West Devon, Geoffrey Cox MP – 564 signatures
Tiverton and Honiton, Richard Foord, MP – 409 signatures
North Devon, Selaine Saxby MP – 409 signatures
Somerton and Frome, David Warbuton, MP – 409 signatures
Here’s a map of signature distribution – you can see South West England and East Anglia are still particularly strong areas of support. Both are strong Pheasant shooting areas. It’s good to see that Therese Coffey’s constituents are still sending the Defra Secretary of State a strong message on what she should do.
Our action, supported by you, has already persuaded Defra to promise changes to licensing and for those to be discussed across the UK administrations. This would not have happened without our action – thank you for your brilliant support.
Wild Justice is entirely dependent on donations. To support our work – click here. To hear more about our campaigns and legal cases subscribe to our free newsletter – click here.
We are delighted to have won two awards, voted by the readers of Birdwatch, in the 2022 Birders’ Choice Awards.
Up against strong contenders, we won the Conservation Hero of the Year Award and our campaign to limit the Woodcock shooting season won the Campaign of the Year Award.
We’re enormously grateful to Birdwatch for nominating us for the short-list and humbled by the amount of Birdwatch readers who voted for us.
We wouldn’t be able to achieve anything without strong public support (both financial and moral) so these awards are for all of us.
We’re also indebted to our fantastic legal team at Leigh Day and Matrix Chambers for their incredible work on our behalf. We’re delighted that one of the team, Carol Day, has recently been named on the prestigious Lawyer Hot 100 2023 list (see here) – she richly deserves such recognition.
Wild Justice is entirely dependent on donations. To support our work – click here. To hear more about our campaigns and legal cases subscribe to our free campaign newsletter – click here.
Comments Off on Our petition to limit the Woodcock shooting season will be debated in Parliament in February
Our petition to limit the Woodcock shooting season has now closed, with over 107,000 signatures. Thank you all so much for your support! (Please click here for more detail about our Woodcock campaign).
Because the petition passed 100,000 signatures it will be debated by MPs and that will happen on Monday 27 February. You can attend the debate in person, though seats are limited and not very comfortable, or watch the debate on the UK Parliament YouTube channel.
We’ll give you details of how you can encourage your MP to take part in the debate. Westminster Hall debates are non-binding on the government but are opportunities to air the issues. Only back-bench MPs are allowed to speak except that an opposition shadow minister and a government minister speak at the end of the debate so it is an opportunity to judge the policies and engagement across the political spectrum.
Meanwhile, a letter published in this week’s edition of Shooting Times is a bit awkward for the shooting community. It describes the type of Woodcock shooting that we have been told by loads of shooters never happens!
This is why our petition to limit shooting by regulation is so much better an approach than leaving it to the good will of shooters as suggested by BASC and GWCT.
Just to re-cap, GWCT agree that it’s a bad idea to shoot woodcock before 1 December and BASC say something similar.
We argue that shooting seasons should protect quarry species – no shooting of Woodcock before 1 December!
We’re delighted that BirdWatch readers have voted our Woodcock campaign ‘Campaign of the Year’ in the recently announced Birders’ Choice Awards 2022. Thank you to everyone who voted!
Comments Off on Reward for info about 5 shot goshawks passes £14,000
On Monday (16th January 2023), Suffolk Police found five dead juvenile Goshawks dumped at the edge of the King’s Forest, just south of Thetford. X-rays revealed all five contained shotgun pellets (see here for details).
A £5,000 reward for information leading to a conviction was launched by the RSPB, swiftly followed by another £5,000 contributed by Wild Justice (here).
The following day the bird news service Rare Bird Alert launched a crowdfunder to increase the reward (here) and so far this has raised over £4,000, meaning the total reward on offer at the moment is £14,070.
If you’d like to contribute to the reward, please visit the crowdfunder here.
If you have any information about this appalling crime, please call Suffolk Police on 101 and quote crime reference 37/3027/23. Alternatively, you can provide anonymous information via the RSPB’s dedicated Raptor Crime Hotline on 0300 999 0101.
Comments Off on Five shot Goshawks found in Suffolk: Wild Justice offers £5k reward for information
On Monday (16th January 2023), Suffolk Police found five dead juvenile Goshawks dumped at the edge of the King’s Forest, just south of Thetford. X-rays revealed all five contained shotgun pellets (see here for details).
Earlier today, the RSPB offered a £5k reward for information leading to a conviction in this despicable case. It is the highest reward the charity has ever offered (see here).
Wild Justice will match the RSPB’s reward, which now stands at £10,000.
Wild Justice said: “We are sick to the back teeth of the relentless illegal persecution of birds of prey in the UK, which is mostly associated with land managed for gamebird shooting, be that Red Grouse, Pheasants or partridges. Indeed, it was our strength of feeling about raptor persecution, and our frustration at the failure of the Westminster and the devolved governments to tackle it effectively, that led to us founding Wild Justice in 2018. In partnership with the RSPB, we hope this substantial reward will encourage someone to come forward with information about whoever was responsible for this heinous crime, and that that information leads to a successful conviction“.
If you have any information, please call Suffolk Police on 101 and quote crime reference 37/3027/23. Alternatively, to get in touch anonymously, call the RSPB’s dedicated Raptor Crime Hotline on 0300 999 0101.
We’re disappointed to have to tell you that we lost our appeal for permission for judicial review of Ofwat’s regulation of sewage releases. This is a blow to us and we know it will be to many who supported us financially and/or morally. We’ve invested a lot of time in researching the issue and its legal background, and over £40,000 of your donations in legal fees taking the case and then taking it on to the Court of Appeal. We gave it our best shot but there is nowhere else to go.
Was it worth it?
Well, although we lost, we tried. Most judicial reviews fail but unless you take to the field you can’t win any victories. This one we lost. We lay out our scorecard overall below.
Frankly, we are surprised that we were not given permission to go to a full court hearing. We believed, and still do believe, that we had a strong and arguable case. We would have relished having a day in court to make that case.
We’d much rather win than lose – wouldn’t everyone? But we are often told, and often by those against whom we have taken legal action, that despite losing, the very act of taking a legal challenge changes the future behaviour of public bodies. We are now accustomed to being told that things would have happened, bad things, but someone said ‘What if Wild Justice got to hear of this? We’d be in court pretty quickly.’. So we guess our view is that if we keep throwing ourselves against the door then we will sometimes break through, and even when we don’t then we’ve rattled the windows as well as the doors and the residents know there is someone outside.
But we wish we could have won this case.
Our record:
This is the third challenge that we have lost at the ‘permission’ stage – and we have appealed all of them – unsuccessfully. The other two were cases on the Badger cull in England – click here – and the hopeless Defra burning regulations – click here.
There have been other cases where even just a legal letter has been enough to secure a positive change – most spectacularly in our first challenge over general licences in England back in 2019.
Some cases, where permission is granted, proceed towards a court hearing and then the other party caves in – examples include our challenge of gamebird releases in England – click here – and our challenge of Northern Ireland general licences – click here.
Our challenge of general licences in Wales went to court and the judge found against us – click here – but his remarks were so helpful (and to be fair, Natural Resources Wales were so sensible) that after a consultation NRW brought in a suite of changes that were pretty much what we had asked for – click here. Sticking in there, and making a strong case, won the day in the end.
This is a very strong record – and for that we have to thank our legal team at Leigh Day and Matrix Chambers.
The future:
We’ve already started some further investigations in relation to sewage discharges. We’ll let you know if anything comes of them. But we’d also like to wish others well in their actions on water quality; small organisations like Windrush Against Sewage Pollution with whom we worked closely, Surfers Against Sewage, River Action, Wild Fish and the incomparable Feargal Sharkey.
We’ll sit in a corner feeling down about this loss for a day or two and then we’ll be up again and looking for the next area where we can take legal action on behalf of wildlife. Thank you for your support.
We are awaiting the result of our challenge of the proposals for a Badger cull in Northern Ireland.
Comments Off on Northern Ireland’s new general licencesRook. Photo: Tim Melling
With the publication of new general licences for Northern Ireland – click here – we can draw a line under another chapter in Wild Justice’s campaign to reduce the casual and unlawful killing of wildlife under statutory licences. Following changes to general licences in England, Wales and Scotland, Northern Ireland has made a raft of positive changes following a successful Wild Justice legal challenge in 2021 – click here.
General licences are used by statutory agencies to authorise the killing of what might be called ‘pest’ species – although we object to that as a blanket term. All wild birds are protected by law but there are circumstances under which they can be killed legally – for example to protect human health, crops or endangered species. The general licences permit any of us, under certain circumstances and conditions, to kill specified species without applying for a specific licence which would involve a careful justification of the need for lethal control.
Since Wild Justice launched its first legal challenge, on general licences in England, in spring 2019, we have seen widespread reform of general licences. The licences still are not perfect but they have been improved, through our campaigning and legal challenges, by removal of a large number of inappropriate species from the licences, tightening up of the conditions applying to the licences and restriction of the times of year and the locations in which they can be used.
The Northern Ireland general licences were, frankly, awful until our actions – click here. The new Northern Ireland general licences affect very many fewer species: the ‘health and safety’ licence contains just two species whereas it used to include seven species; the ‘damage to crops’ licence now contains six species rather than nine species and the ‘conservation licence’ now is reduced to two species from four species. Use of the ‘conservation licence’ to kill Hooded Crow and Magpie is limited now from March – August inclusive.
The necessary and sensible changes for which we have argued and campaigned have been opposed by shooting organisations and in some cases by farmers. There has been a lot of bluster and bravado about how Wild Justice would not win, but we have. With the help and involvement of our supporters, and the deployment of great legal brains, we have, together, brought about the most significant reforms to general licences across the UK that have ever taken place. We have taken on the casual licensing of casual killing of wildlife and brought about very significant changes in the teeth of opposition from interest groups and initially indiffere
