4Mins Read The United Nations Environment Assembly has adopted a resolution linking animal welfare to sustainability for the first time. The Animal Welfare – Environment – Sustainable Development Nexus resolution was accepted earlier this month after being sponsored by seven member states. The move is seen as historic and, potentially, a catalyst for widespread governmental action to […]
3Mins Read The Amazon rainforest could soon become a savanna, scientists warn as deforestation, drought, wildfire, and climate change continue to take a toll on the world’s largest tropical rainforest. A new study says the Amazon rainforest is nearing a tipping point in its decline that could change the region drastically. The new research, published yesterday in the […]
Recent developments on the US side of the Atlantic have given wolves a reason to howl with joy. On the UK side of the ocean, however, eagles have less reason to celebrate. That’s after news emerged about two eagles turning up dead, allegedly on shooting estates.
Welcome reprieve for some wolves
Donald Trump made many anti-wildlife and anti-environment moves in office. One of them was the axing of endangered species protections for wolves. In doing so, he was following in a not-so-great US tradition. Since George W Bush’s presidency, all administrations have advocated for stripping wolves of protections, the Seattle Times has pointed out.
Furthermore, Trump’s successor Joe Biden hasn’t reinstated protections for wolves, despite pressure to do so. That failure has meant states and trophy killers have been merrily colluding to mow wolves down in their hundreds. In early 2021, for example, Wisconsin set a quota for hunters to kill 119 wolves over a week-long period. They killed at least216 wolves in just 60 hours.
But a judge recently delivered a welcome reprieve to wolves in a number of US states. Ruling in a lawsuit Earthjustice brought on behalf of multiple wildlife-focused organisations, US district judge Jeffrey White restored protections for wolves:
BREAKING GOOD NEWS! A federal judge just restored protection to gray wolves, reversing a Trump-era rule that removed ESA protection from wolves across most of the lower 48 https://t.co/2hWpQYUnis
The judgement doesn’t cover all wolves in the US, however. Wolves in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming remain at risk. That’s because they lost their protections prior to Trump’s delisting decision.
In May 2021, the Center for Biological Diversity and others petitioned the US government to restore these wolves’ protections. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is currently reviewing the matter. And campaigners are continuing the pressure to make that happen:
Project Coyote *just* launched new billboards in Idaho and Montana demanding full federal protections for Northern Rockies wolves. pic.twitter.com/waT9WBSwxU
Unfortunately, the news wasn’t so good for winged predators in the UK this week. Dorset Police announced that “multi-agency operations” in the south of England have recovered the dead bodies of two white-tailed eagles. They found one of the bodies in Dorset in January. Both BirdGuides and Raptor Persecution UK reported that the authorities found the eagles on shooting estates. The eagles were part of an Isle of Wight reintroduction project.
#LatestNews – APPEAL – Sadly, two of the @SeaEagleEngland Isle of Wight reintroduced white-tailed eagles have recently been recovered dead on multi-agency operations in the south of England including one in Dorset. See full details below. pic.twitter.com/MowL4RhBHz
Raptor Persecution UK, written by raptor conservationist Ruth Tingray, argued that the involvement of multiple agencies in the operations is a “clear indication” of suspected criminality. She also said there’s “huge concern” for the welfare of three other white-tailed eagles in Dorset at present.
The existence of Tingray’s website is a testament to the fact that raptor persecution is a big problem in the UK. Shooting estates are by far the most commonly implicated perpetrators of this persecution. Just recently, NatureScot sanctioned a Scottish shooting estate after a golden eagle died of poisoning there. Birds of prey aren’t particularly good for shooting interests, as the former can disrupt the latter’s killing operations.
As wildlife campaigner, devoted birder, and creator of the Off The Leash podcast Charlie Moores told The Canary:
We may never know the true scale of raptor persecution on shooting estates, but what we can say with certainty is that it has almost wiped out the Hen Harrier as a breeding species in England, has limited the expansion of Golden Eagles into the Scottish lowlands and stopped them moving across the border into England, has restricted the population of Goshawks, and is actively looking to control the number of Buzzards.
Leading by bad example
Despite the scale of the problem, Dorset MP Chris Loder has publicly stated he doesn’t want the police to “spend time and resources” on investigating the white-tailed eagle deaths:
Dorset is not the place for eagles to be reintroduced. I’m not challenging government for more money for Dorset so it goes on this. I don’t condone this at all, but I want @dorsetpolice to focus on #countylines rather than spend time and resources on this. https://t.co/F3D3VCZPmN
Loder’s comments provoked hefty pushback, including from a wildlife crime investigator:
1/3 @chrisloder in 30 years dealing with wildlife crime this is one of the saddest & most unbelievable comments I've heard from a politician (& that's a very low bar!) – I note https://t.co/9eRfQPtJf9 your interest in animal welfare and the inspiration from your own dog poppy
The MP responded to the furore by characterising raptors as lamb killers and sharing an article that pictured eagles with lambs in their claws. Unfortunately for the MP, the photographer responsible for snapping some of those pictures has pointed to the fact that they staged them with a captive eagle and an already dead lamb:
As the photographer behind two of these images, I’d recommend you establish the circumstances before using them as evidence. Both are staged for an editorial story using a captive eagle and a dead lamb. Just so you know.
The feeding shots are mine (both used without permission); the flight shot isn’t and to my knowledge, genuine. Sea eagles can take lambs but your tweet implies it’s routine behaviour. It’s generally localised involving specific birds at specific times of year.
So all in all, a mixed week for predators of different shapes and sizes. Some wolves are thankfully better off. While some magnificent birds have tragically, and possibly illegally, been sent to an early grave. And what of the most dangerous predator of all? It seems the so-called leaders among us continue to fall far short of expectations.
Ben Courtice reviews Silent Earth, which describes the crisis of declining insect populations, but falls short on the solutions required to turn this around.
As the New Zealand government prepares to deal with a looming omicron outbreak, this will not be the only major issue it will have to tackle this year.
The year 2022 will be important for environmental and climate action.
Several key developments are expected throughout the year, both in New Zealand and internationally, focusing on climate change and biodiversity — and how these crises overlap with the impacts of the covid-19 pandemic.
In February and early April, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will publish the next two parts of its Sixth Assessment (AR6).
These reports will provide the basis for global negotiations at the next climate summit scheduled to be held in Egypt in November.
The February report will focus on impacts and adaptation and the April report on mitigation of climate change. Together, they will assess the global and regional impacts of climate change on natural ecosystems and on human societies, as well as opportunities to cut emissions.
They will identify points of particular vulnerability, consider the practicalities of technological innovations and weigh the costs and trade-offs of low-carbon opportunities. Both reports will present a definitive statement of where impacts of climate change are being felt and what governments and other decision makers can do about it.
Multiple crises Climate change tends to dominate headlines about the environment. But biodiversity loss and accelerating rates of species extinction pose an equal threat to our economies, livelihoods and quality of life.
A UN Global Assessment Report on biodiversity and ecosystem services predicts the loss of one million species during the coming decades. It foresees serious consequences for our food, water, health and social security.
New Zealand is not immune from this global crisis. About one third of our species are listed as threatened.
In April, the UN Biodiversity Conference in Kunming, China, will launch a new global biodiversity framework to guide conservation and sustainable management of ecosystems until 2030.
Expect to see intense negotiations on the current draft framework as states try to balance the need to address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss, without endangering economic priorities, including post-covid recovery.
New Zealand’s plan to cut emissions In May, the government is expected to release its first emissions reduction plan (ERP), in response to the Climate Change Commission’s advice on how New Zealand can meet its domestic and international targets.
The plan will set out policies and strategies to keep the country within its emissions budget for 2022-25 and on track to meet future budgets.
Under the Climate Change Response Act 2002, the government is required to set emissions budgets for every three to four-year period between 2022 and 2050 and to publish emissions reduction plans for each.
The first plan looks likely to come at a difficult time for the economy. Businesses have already contended with covid-related lockdowns and uncertainty and may soon be challenged by staffing shortages in the wake of the omicron outbreak.
It will be tricky to balance the need for significant action to reduce emissions while keeping business and the wider community on board. Expect a wide-ranging plan with sector-specific strategies for transport, energy, industry, agriculture, waste and forestry, but little detail on agriculture.
Half a century since first environment summit In 1972, the UN Conference on the Human Environment took place in Stockholm, Sweden. It was the first international conference to make the environment a major issue.
Fifty years on, in June this year Stockholm +50 will mark a half-century of global environmental action, and refocus world leaders’ attention on the “triple planetary crisis” of climate, biodiversity and pollution.
The aim is to accelerate progress on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, the Paris Agreement and the global biodiversity framework, while making sure countries’ covid-19 recovery plans don’t jeopardise these. Expect growing demand for more global recognition of a “human right to a healthy environment” to leverage more effective environmental action.
On the domestic front, the national adaptation plan (NAP) is due in August. This will set out how the government should respond to the most significant climate change risks facing Aotearoa.
These risks range from financial systems to the built environment and have already been identified in the first national climate change risk assessment. Public consultation will take place in April and May.
There’s no substitute for face-to-face diplomacy. I’m here at COP26 to make sure that we meet the moment on climate, and kick off a decade of ambition, action, and innovation to preserve our shared future. pic.twitter.com/vhuHhyMqlv
The decade of action The UN’s annual climate summit, COP27, will take place in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, in November. Last year, COP26 drew unparalleled public attention and generated some positive new climate pledges.
One major success was an agreement that nations revisit and strengthen their nationally determined contributions by the end of 2022. But the summit was generally criticised for failing to secure commitments from high-emitting countries to keep global temperatures from climbing beyond 1.5℃.
The overarching aim to “keep 1.5℃ alive” will be more urgent than ever. A particular concern is how effectively civil society will be able to bring pressure to bear on governments.
Protests and activities are likely to be significantly limited by the Egyptian host government.
In the build-up to COP27, expect significant pressure on big polluter states to deliver more ambitious commitments to cut emissions, but also less flamboyant and free protests in Egypt.
The UN has called 2020-2030 the “decade of action”. The chance remains to avoid runaway climate change, protect biodiversity and stabilise our ecosystems. It’s imperative that this year, the third of this decade, is one that really counts.
3Mins Read In an effort to make the UK’s food supply more sustainable, leading supermarket chain Lidl says it’s working with produce suppliers to achieve eco-certification by the end of 2023. Lidl, which operates nearly 900 stores across the UK, and its produce suppliers, will work with the LEAF Marque to improve the nation’s food system. LEAF, […]
The history of life on Earth has been marked five times by events of mass biodiversity extinction caused by extreme natural phenomena. Today, many experts warn that a Sixth Mass Extinction crisis is underway, this time entirely caused by human activities.
A comprehensive assessment of evidence of this ongoing extinction event was published recently in the journal Biological Reviews by biologists from the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa and the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris, France.
“Drastically increased rates of species extinctions and declining abundances of many animal and plant populations are well documented, yet some deny that these phenomena amount to mass extinction,” said Robert Cowie, lead author of the study and research professor at the UH Mānoa Pacific Biosciences Research Center in the School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology (SOEST).
England’s rivers are filled with a “chemical cocktail” of sewage, agricultural waste and plastic putting public health and nature at risk, a cross-party parliamentary group has said. In a new report published on Thursday, the Environmental Audit Committee said only 14% of English rivers meet good ecological status.
It added that it has been tricky to get a complete overview of the health of rivers due to “outdated, underfunded and inadequate monitoring” and until the passing of the Environment Act last year, there had been a “lack of political will” to improve water quality.
The committee said it has been tricky to get a complete overview of the health of rivers due to ‘outdated, underfunded and inadequate monitoring’ (PA)
The build of waste is suffocating fish
Some of the issues the group has raised includes river quality monitoring not identifying microplastics, persistent chemical pollutants or antimicrobial resistant pathogens flowing through rivers. Other concerns the committee has include plants, invertebrates and fish being suffocated as a result of the build-up of high levels of nutrients, such as phosphorus and nitrogen, from sewage and animal waste and the extent of sewage discharge, misreporting and large spills by water companies.
In its report, it added that fats, oils and greases, and cleaning and hygiene products containing plastic, are also causing problems for drainage systems – while single-use plastic hygiene products are clogging up drains and sewage works. Its recommendations include urging for regulatory action, water company investment and ross-catchment collaboration to restore rivers to good ecological health.
The committee says Ofwat should examine the powers it has to limit payment of bonuses to water company executives until the permit breaches cease and that the Environment Agency should consider creating an online platform where scientists can upload their data on water quality.
Philip Dunne is the chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee (Chris McAndrew/UK Parliament/PA)
A “Victorian sewerage system”
Environmental Audit Committee chairman Philip Dunne said:
Rivers are the arteries of nature and must be protected. Our inquiry has uncovered multiple failures in the monitoring, governance and enforcement on water quality. For too long, the Government, regulators and the water industry have allowed a Victorian sewerage system to buckle under increasing pressure.
Today, we are calling for these relevant bodies to come together and develop a system fit for the future. Monitoring regimes need to be reviewed, enforcement needs to be ramped up, and even public awareness needs boosting on what can and cannot be poured down drains or flushed down the toilet. So many emerging pollutants are being missed by inadequate and insufficient monitoring, and court actions against polluters have fallen dramatically.
To deliver real change and improve the state of our rivers, a wide range of stakeholders must come together including the Government, regulators and water companies. The Environment Act signalled the first welcome sign of political will to tackle this issue. I hope this marks the start of Government regulatory and polluter action to improve the state of our rivers for all to enjoy.
Over £137 million in fines since 2015
Environment minister Rebecca Pow said the government welcomes the report and was going “further and faster than any other government to protect and enhance the health of rivers and seas”.
An Environment Agency spokesperson said:
The EA has launched a major investigation into possible unauthorised spills at thousands of sewage treatment works, secured fines of over £137 million since 2015 for pollution incidents and placed new requirements on water companies to significantly increase their monitoring and reporting so that everyone can see what is happening. We are also working with farmers to support environmentally friendly farming that doesn’t damage water quality.
Everyone should understand the scale of the challenges and the investment needed to put things right. We welcome the EAC’s recommendations and will respond in due course.
The year is 2040 and Aotearoa New Zealand has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the commitment to keep global heating below 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperatures.
The economy, society, local government, transport, housing and urban design, energy, land use, food production and water systems have all changed significantly. Fossil fuels have been mostly phased out internationally and import taxes are imposed on high emissions goods.
New Zealand is now a world leader in natural infrastructure, clean hydrogen energy, engineered wood and high quality low emissions food. Despite ongoing challenges, with a prosperous economy, most people think the transition was worth it.
Cities are more pleasant places to live, air and water are cleaner, nature is more abundant.
Following the emissions budgets stipulated by the Zero Carbon Act in late 2021, emissions are now properly priced into all economic decisions. The Emissions Trading Scheme has been reinforced and the price of emitting carbon has stabilised at $300 per tonne, after hitting $75 in 2022 and $200 by 2030.
In 2026, New Zealand signed the International Treaty to Phase out Fossil Fuels, which prohibits fossil fuel extraction, phases out use and requires international cooperation on renewable energy.
Carbon import taxes mean many high emissions commercial activities are no longer economically viable. Trade unions have played a major role in the industrial strategy underpinning the transition to a lower emissions economy.
Māori economy bigger than any other sector The Māori economy is bigger than any other sector and has benefited from wider international recognition of the long term value of climate and biodiversity work.
Queenstown … New Zealand’s economy is based on productive activity that stays within planetary boundaries while respecting social requirements, such as a decent standard of living for all. Image: The Conversation/Shutterstock
New Zealand’s economy is based on productive activity that stays within planetary boundaries – including emissions and pollution of land and water – while respecting social requirements, such as a decent standard of living for all.
Building on their successful response to the covid pandemic, marae-based organisations are prominent as centres of excellence for climate and economic strategy, health and social services, managed retreat from coastal areas and natural infrastructure development.
Public financing was radically rebalanced in the 2020s, delivering more for local government and a greater partnership between councils, government and Māori organisations. This has enabled far better delivery of local services and much more meaningful connections within communities.
Councils and council organisations laid the groundwork for the climate transition, helping address the unequal impacts of climate change on different groups. Councils and mana whenua collectively administer substantial funds for regional development.
People travel between cities primarily via electric rail, managed by a new national passenger rail agency InterCity, which acquired the InterCity regional bus operator in 2023. Image: The Conversation/Shutterstock
Fast, frequent rail
The government’s 2022 Climate Budget provided the massive injection of funds required to redesign our cities, which are now organised around mass transit, safe and segregated routes for cycling and vibrant pedestrian areas. People can access fast, frequent light rail and dedicated busways with low cost fares. Less road space is required for driving, which is more accessible now for those who need it, including disabled people and service vehicles.
People travel between cities primarily via electric rail, managed by a new national passenger rail agency InterCity, which acquired the InterCity regional bus operator in 2023. Through major reforms in 2024, KiwiRail became a dedicated rail freight operator. A new government agency, OnTrack, oversees maintenance and renewal of tracks and rail infrastructure.
Passenger rail services run across the North Island main trunk line on improved electrified tracks at up to 160kph. South Island rail uses hydrogen trains fuelled by locally produced green hydrogen.
Most of the work to upgrade transport, housing and energy infrastructure has been done by a new Ministry of Green Works set up in 2025. This Ministry partners with local hapū and iwi, as well as councils through regional hubs. It is backed by the government’s expanded Green Investment Finance company.
Anger at the divide between property owners and renters culminated in a general rent strike in 2024. Image: The Conversation/Shutterstock
Anger over housing for all Anger at the divide between property owners and renters culminated in a general rent strike in 2024. The government responded with new financial rules ending the treatment of housing as an asset class. Kāinga Ora, Māori organisations and councils have undertaken a massive public housing construction effort.
Most new housing is now public infrastructure rather than private homes built to store individual wealth. Public ownership has expanded, in particular for entities that provide core services such as transport, energy and water.
In 2024, the government worked with councils to focus plans on quality universal design housing. Since the new building code was adopted in 2025, all new homes have high standards for energy efficiency and accessibility. Higher density apartments line public transport routes in the main centres, with terraced homes in smaller towns. Structural timber has replaced concrete and steel in many construction projects.
Changes to housing, transport and urban design have supported improvements in health, well-being and physical activity. Health improved dramatically after universal basic services were introduced in 2024 to cover free visits to the doctor and dentist as well as free childcare and elderly care.
Electricity generation has doubled, with a mix of wind, solar and geothermal. Image: The Conversation/Shutterstock
Energy goes green Electricity generation has doubled, with a mix of wind, solar and geothermal. Many more energy storage facilities exist, including pumped hydroelectricity. Distributed energy is commonplace. Many councils have helped their communities set up local solar schemes and dozens of towns are completely independent of the national grid.
Green hydrogen is produced at the converted aluminium smelter at Tiwai Point using hydroelectricity. This is used in heavy industry and transport and exported from Southport.
In 2027, after New Zealand blew its first carbon budget, the government replaced MBIE with a new Ministry for Economic Transition. The ministry oversaw the transition to green jobs via a universal job guarantee scheme.
It also supported a dramatic reduction in energy use in all parts of society and the economy. This effort had a greater impact on emissions reduction than the replacement of energy and fuel with renewable sources.
The land heals In 2025, the government established a Natural Infrastructure Commission. The term “natural infrastructure” emerged in the 2020s as a term to include native forests, wetlands, coastal environments and other ecosystems that store and clean water, protect against drought, flooding and storms, boost biodiversity and absorb carbon.
The commission has supported massive land restoration for carbon sequestration and biodiversity purposes, with an annual budget of NZ$5 billion from emissions revenue. Among other uses, the fund compensates land owners for land use changes that reduce emissions and build up resilience.
Under the new Constitution of Aotearoa adopted in 2040, ownership of the Conservation Estate transferred from Crown ownership to its own status of legal personhood.
International carbon taxes have transformed agriculture. Dairy herds have reduced in size and New Zealand is known for organic, low emissions food and fibre. High quality meat and dairy products, as well as plant-based protein foods, supply international markets.
Seaweed and aquaculture operations have flourished. Along with regenerative agriculture, this transition has reduced pollution and emissions. With native ecosystems regenerated, tōtara and harakeke can now be sustainably harvested for timber and fibre.
In urban and industrial settings water use has dramatically reduced. Every business, home and building stores its own water. Water use is measured and charges are levied for excess water use beyond the needs of the household. No water is ever wasted.
The country feels steadier than 20 years ago. There is hope for the future in a world that was full of uncertainty after the pandemic stricken early 2020s. Image: The Conversation/Shutterstock
A better place The country feels steadier than 20 years ago. There is hope for the future in a world that was full of uncertainty after the pandemic stricken early 2020s.
Many government agencies and councils are now seen as useful and relevant, having been equipped with the money to provide housing, social services, environmental restoration and support for economic and land use change.
Moving away from high emissions exports was more successful than anyone expected, but it took strict rules to make it happen. Some in the business sector opposed more government direction and regulation, but it’s widely accepted that relying on market forces would not have delivered a successful transition.
That approach had driven the country to the brink of failure on climate, biodiversity and social cohesion. Having been leaders in milk powder and tourism, the country now leads on natural infrastructure and the future of food, timber and energy.
Most of us are familiar with the story of the passenger pigeon, so numerous in the late 1700s that flocks of billions of birds darkened the sky for hours as they passed. Humans exterminated them in a little over 100 years, the last wild passenger pigeon being shot in 1901. In contrast, few have ever heard of the Rocky Mountain locust, but its story is similar. Once very common, swarms would occasionally erupt from their core range in the eastern Rocky Mountains, spreading eastward across the Great Plains. In 1875, a particularly large swarm of this grasshopper was estimated to contain perhaps 12.5 trillion individuals, possibly the most common organism ever witnessed by man. Within just 28 years it was extinct, the last one being recorded in 1902. The cause of this most dramatic of extinctions is unclear, but it seems that the core breeding ground of this species was river valleys in Montana and Wyoming, where the locust laid its eggs in sandy soils. These areas were fertile and easily cultivated, so were among the first settled and ploughed by farmers, destroying the eggs of the insect.
The contrast between public awareness of the fate of the passenger pigeon and that of the Rocky Mountain locust reflects a more general bias. We tend to identify with and care about large creatures (mammals and birds in particular), while paying little or no attention to the much smaller creatures, the insects and their kin. Children are often fascinated by insects, but sadly they usually grow out of this, and the first reaction of many teenagers or adults to anything that buzzes or scuttles near them is likely to be an attempt to swat it or stamp on it. Even the common names we give insects, such as “bugs” and “creepy-crawlies,” reflect this negative attitude.
I fell in love with insects when I was just 5 or 6 years old. I never grew out of my childhood obsession, and I have been lucky enough to make a career out of studying their often weird and wonderful lives. My mission is to persuade others to care for and respect them, for we all need insects, whether we know it or not. The 1.1 million known species of insect comprise more than two-thirds of all known species on our planet. Insects pollinate roughly three-quarters of the crops we grow, including most of our fruit and vegetables, such that many of us would starve without them. They also pollinate the large majority of wildflowers; recycle dung, leaves and corpses; help to keep the soil healthy; control pests; and much more. They are food for numerous larger animals such as most birds, freshwater fish, frogs and lizards. Ecosystems would grind to a halt without insects.
It should thus be of concern to all of us that insects are in decline. Every year there are slightly fewer butterflies, fewer bumblebees — fewer of almost all the myriad little beasts that make the world go round. Estimates vary and are imprecise, and many insects, particularly those in the tropics, are simply not being systematically counted by anyone, but the data we do have overwhelmingly suggest a pattern of decline. For example, in Germany, the biomass of flying insects fell by 76 percent in the 27 years to 2016. In the U.S., monarch butterfly numbers have fallen by 80 percent in 25 years. In the U.K., butterflies have halved in abundance since 1976, when I was 11 years old. These changes have happened in our lifetimes, on our watch, and they continue to accelerate.
My youngest son is now 11; he is growing up in a world where butterflies are half as common as they were when I was his age. How many butterflies will his children ever see?
The famous American biologist Paul Ehrlich likened loss of species from an ecological community to randomly popping out rivets from the wing of a plane. Remove one or two and the plane will probably be fine. Remove 10, or 20 or 50, and at some point, that we are entirely unable to predict, there will be a catastrophic failure, and the plane will fall from the sky. In his analogy, insects are the rivets that hold ecosystems together.
What is driving the decline of insects? There are many factors, but clearly the industrialization of farming, particularly the move toward large-scale monoculture cropping dependent on a blizzard of pesticides is playing a major role. In 1962, three years before I was born, Rachel Carson warned us in her book Silent Spring that we were doing terrible damage to our planet. She would weep to see how much worse it has become. The problems with pesticides and fertilizers Carson highlighted have become far more acute. Some of these new pesticides, such as neonicotinoids, are thousands of times more toxic to insects than any that existed in Carson’s day. The U.S. in particular has an especially gung-ho attitude to pesticides, with U.S. farmers accounting for nearly 20 percent of all global use. About one-quarter of the pesticides used in the U.S. are now banned in the European Union due to concerns over risks to human or environmental health. The U.S. allows several pesticides now banned in China and Brazil, neither of which is famed for its sensitive approach to environmental protection.
The Rocky Mountain locust may be extinct, but other grasshoppers are still common in the same area, and occasionally there are outbreaks that spill out into surrounding states. The grasshoppers eat grass, competing with livestock and hence impacting ranchers. One such outbreak occurred in the summer of 2021, prompting the federal government to fund aerial spraying of about 1 million acres of rangeland in Montana and neighboring states with an insecticide, diflubenzuron. Those responsible for this decision argue that the chemical does little harm to other insects, but this is clearly nonsense, since elsewhere the same chemical is applied commercially to kill various butterflies, moths, beetles, flies and termites, and it is highly toxic to bumblebees. The chemical is even toxic to many plants. So what is the collateral damage from this carpet-bombing of the landscape? There are tens of thousands of native insect species in Montana; this spraying will kill untold trillions of individual insects (including monarch butterfly caterpillars). This in turn will impact the functions that these insects perform; fewer pollinators for crops and wildflowers, fewer insects for birds to eat. Grasshoppers and other insects are an essential protein source for chicks of many birds such as the endangered greater sage grouse. In turn, the birds help to keep the grasshoppers in check. If the birds decline further, along with other natural enemies of the grasshoppers, future outbreaks will be worse, and more insecticide will be sprayed. It is a self-defeating war on nature that can never be won. I find myself wondering if the crop duster pilots play “Ride of the Valkyries” on their cockpit radio, while muttering “I love the smell of insecticide in the morning.”
Pesticides are not the only problem insects face in the modern world. Ongoing habitat loss — particularly of tropical forests — and the spread of invasive species and non-native insect diseases are all taking their toll. Light pollution attracts countless night-flying insects to bash themselves to death on artificial lights, and disrupts the ability of insects to judge day length and emerge from hibernation at the correct time of year. Many soils have been degraded, rivers choked with silt and polluted with chemicals or simply so much water extracted that they run dry. Climate change, a phenomenon unrecognized in Rachel Carson’s time, is now threatening to further ravage our planet. The recent failure of COP26 to achieve any meaningful international progress on tackling climate change means that in the future, insects will have to cope with more frequent droughts, wildfires, floods and storms. It is death by a thousand cuts.
Our planet has coped remarkably well so far with the blizzard of changes we have wrought, but we would be foolish to assume that it will continue to do so. A relatively small proportion of species have actually gone extinct so far, but almost all wild species now exist in numbers that are a fraction of their former abundance, subsisting in degraded and fragmented habitats and subjected to a multitude of ever-changing man-made problems. We do not understand anywhere near enough to be able to predict how much resilience is left in our depleted ecosystems, or how close we are to tipping points beyond which collapse becomes inevitable. In Paul Ehrlich’s “rivets on a plane” analogy, we may be close to the point where the wing falls off.
To learn more about insect declines and what you can do to help reverse them, read Silent Earthby Dave Goulson, published by HarperCollins in 2021.
It’s no secret that the diversity of life around us is plummeting fast. In 2020 alone, scientists declared more than 100 species to be extinct. And that’s bad news not only for the creatures themselves, but for those of us (that would be all of us) who rely on them for food, to produce oxygen, to hold soil in place, to cleanse water, to beautify our world and so much more. According to the World Economic Forum, nature plays a key role in generating more than half of global GDP.
So, what can we do to reduce future harm? One big thing is to identify emerging threats and opportunities to protect biodiversity and proactively shape policies and actions to prevent harm early on. To this end, a group of scientists and conservation practitioners led by William Sutherland, professor of conservation biology at the University of Cambridge, each year creates and publishes a “horizon scan” of global trends with impacts for biodiversity. Read on for this year’s top picks, and see our coverage of previous years’ horizon scans here or at the bottom of this page.
Floating Solar
One of the big challenges for solar power is finding a place to put large arrays of photovoltaic panels. In recent years the notion of siting them on water rather than land has taken off dramatically, with more than 300 installations in place around the world today. The approach offers a number of benefits to biodiversity. For one, it saves land resources that might otherwise be covered with solar panels. It can reduce algal blooms on waterways. It can reduce the demand for other habitat-harming energy sources such as hydropower, and the evaporative cooling water offers makes the panels more efficient. All that said, still to be determined are the potential implications — positive and negative — for aquatic and marine ecosystems.
Energy Through the Air
Powerlines and the poles and towers that hold them are staples of civilization. Imagine being able to replace them with devices that transmit electricity through the air instead of along wires? That vision is closer to becoming reality, thanks to innovations in materials and in technologies that create and direct beams of energy — think wireless smartphone charging writ large. Deployment of long-distance wireless energy infrastructure could reduce the harms that conventional hardware pose to wildlife, such as collision risks for birds and bats. On the downside, it could also stimulate energy use and make it easier to live in remote locations, hastening the destruction or disruption of our planet’s few remaining untrammeled areas.
Soaring Satellites
Think human impacts on biodiversity are limited to the biosphere? Think again. More than 2,000 communications satellites currently orbit our planet, and with current plans, the total could reach 100,000 in the next 10 years. The process of deploying and decommissioning these extraplanetary objects can disrupt the stratospheric ozone layer; deposit aluminum in, and otherwise modify the chemical composition of, the upper atmosphere; and alters Earth’s albedo — its ability to reflect sunlight. These alterations in turn affect the amount and type of radiation that hits the surface of our planet. As satellite deployment soars, implications potentially loom large for climate, exposure to ultraviolet light and other conditions that affect the well-being of living things.
Nitrogen Boom?
The pursuit of alternative transportation fuels has taken many twists and turns, all with ancillary costs as well as benefits. Recent attention has turned to ammonia as a fuel for shipping. It can power fuel cells or engines. It has almost doubled the energy density of hydrogen, and poses fewer issues related to storage and transporting fuel to where it’s needed. The problem? Ammonia takes lots of energy to produce and can cause environmental harm if not burned completely. As interest in ammonia fuel grows, the authors warn against false claims of it being a “zero carbon” fuel and potential downsides, such as increased air pollution, that might accrue from its use.
Airborne DNA Detection
Increasingly sophisticated tools for detecting and identifying DNA are able to pinpoint the presence — or even past presence — of all kinds of organisms from bits of their genetic material floating through the air. This capability opens the door to a wide range of conservation-assisting endeavors, from characterizing the members of a particular ecological community, to locating rare or endangered species, to tracking the expansion of the range of invasive organisms, to nailing perpetrators of illegal wildlife trade. So-called “eDNA” biomonitoring is already in use for detecting the presence of microorganisms, plants and fungi, and it appears to be feasible for tracking some animals as well. As the technology expands, so likely will the applications to efforts to understand and protect biodiversity.
Refrigerant Redux
Widespread efforts have taken place in recent decades to reduce use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in air conditioners, refrigerators and other cooling systems due to their capacity to contribute to global warming. Unfortunately, one of the top kinds of replacement chemicals, hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs) appear to have plenty of environmental issues of their own. As they decompose, HFOs form chemicals that pollute water and air. Some produce potent greenhouse gases. Environmental contamination with this long-lasting HFC substitute appears to on the rise. Unless regulation related to the deployment and decommissioning of refrigerants quickly and dramatically improves, we risk further contributing to climate change with a shift in practice intended to help reduce its risks.
Volcanoes, Meet Cement
Production of clinker, a key ingredient of cement, is bad for the climate and bad for biodiversity. It requires mining limestone, harming habitat for living things. And the process of turning limestone into clinker releases huge amounts of planet-warming carbon dioxide — both from the energy required to heat it up, and from the carbon dioxide limestone releases in the process. Cement production already is responsible for some 8% of global carbon dioxide emissions, and demand for cement is expected to grow. Using volcanic material in place of limestone could reduce greenhouse gas impact and would have additional benefit of possibly improving the ability of cement resist cracking. However, the authors write, we need to weight the environmental costs of mining and transporting volcanic material against the benefits of reducing limestone use.
Insecticide Whack-a-Mole
Neonicotinoids are a class of chemicals that kill insects by disabling their nervous systems. Used to control pests in agriculture, they have come under fire in recent years for threatening populations of bees and other desirable insects. As neonicotinoids have been banned in the European Union and elsewhere, other, similar-acting insecticides have emerged. These substitutes, including sulfoxaflor and flupyradifurone, appear also to harm bees and some other desirable insect species, potentially posing new threats to insect biodiversity.
Spreading Without Sex
Some insects and other invertebrates have evolved a novel solution to their “can’t find a date” problem: They can reproduce without sex. The process, known as parthenogenesis, allows them to make more of their species when mates are scarce or absent. It also dramatically enhances their ability to gain a foothold in new territory if accidentally introduced there. At least one invertebrate, the marbled crayfish, evolved the ability to reproduce asexually in captivity and is now spreading rapidly across Europe, Africa and Asia, carrying with it disease that harms native species. As we cultivate other invertebrates for food or hobbies, we raise the risk that something similar might happen with other species.
Plant-Forward Food
Animal agriculture is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, and “plant-forward” diets are gaining increased attention as a way to not only be healthier ourselves but to help our planet be healthier as well. China, for one, is taking it a step further: Rather than simply touting meals heavy on fruits and veggies, it has committed to cut its citizens’ meat consumption in half by 2030. Media campaigns and meat bans in some settings already have contributed to a decline in meat consumption, and the initiative has boosted innovations around synthetic meats, with the country’s plant-based meat industry expected to grow 20–25% per year in the foreseeable future.
All Together Now
Volunteer groups, nonprofit organizations, small-town governments and other local entities can be a valuable source of support for people living in rural areas. It turns out they can be a valuable source of support for other living things, too. Globally, the number of social institutions has grown from half a million in 2000 to 8.5 million in 2020, providing support for sustainable management of some 300 million hectares (700 million acres) of forests, farmland and waterways. If this trend continues, it bodes well for biodiversity conservation as more lands are managed in ways that keep them — and the plants and animals that inhabit them — thriving.
Wetland Attitude Adjustment
The East Asian–Australasian Flyway, which extends along the eastern coast of Asia and Australia through New Zealand, is one of the top hot spots in the world for diversity and sheer numbers of waterfowl and other water-loving birds, including critically endangered species. With massive development underway in China — one of the top wetland-containing nations in the world — it’s also among the most threatened: In the past decade, many wetland areas have been transformed into farmland and cities. Recently, however, several changes are starting to shine an optimistic light. The United Nations has provided a new level of protection to highly significant wetlands in Korea and China by adding them to its roster of World Heritage Sites. And China itself has begun investing in protecting key wetlands. If this trend continues and other countries follow suit, it could spell welcome relief for water birds throughout much of eastern Asia and the western Pacific.
Mangrove Revival
The mangrove forests that coat coastlines in the tropics and subtropics harbor abundant plant and animal species that thrive at the intersection of land and sea. In past decades development has decimated many, destroying the biodiversity-nurturing and carbon-sequestering services they provide. But in recent years that tide has turned. Conservationists’ efforts to restore and preserve these rich habitats have helped reduce loss. In addition, these wetlands are also the accidental beneficiaries of other ecosystem changes: As inland forests are cut, erosion moves soil toward the coast where it can nurture new mangroves, and climate change is creating more of the warm habitat they need. Together, these changes have reduced mangrove loss to near zero, though local areas of depletion continue.
Tide Zone Tribulations
Intertidal zones — the portions of the ocean’s coast across which water advances and recedes with the tides — experience daily fluctuations in temperature, water level, salinity, physical disruption and predation. Now, they are seeing another variable: heat waves. Record temperatures in Pacific Northwest in June 2021 left mussels, clams, oysters, barnacles, sea stars, rockweed and more dead along thousands of miles of coastline. And that’s not all. Climate change threatens to change salinity of these complex and fragile ecosystems as well, as precipitation patterns change and polar ice melts. If this keeps up we’ll have more than a stinky mess: The complex ecosystems and the services they provide — stabilizing coasts, providing food, providing habitat, protecting water quality — will be fried, too.
Treasure — and Trouble? — Beneath the Seas
The seabed beneath Earth’s oceans harbors abundant bounties of precious metals and other mineable materials. New technologies have now made it possible to mine such materials, and one country, Nauru, recently announced plans to permit deep-sea mining. This announcement means that the International Seabed Authority must either set up specific ocean mining regulations or commit to reviewing applications under established, more general United Nations conventions. Ocean mining may reduce pressure to disrupt land habitat — but it also opens the door to new assaults on unique deep-sea ecosystems and the living things they harbor.
After two hard-fought weeks of negotiations, the Glasgow climate change summit is, at last, over. All 197 participating countries adopted the so-called Glasgow Climate Pact, despite an 11th hour intervention by India in which the final agreement was watered down from “phasing out” coal to “phasing down”.
In an emotional final speech, COP26 president Alok Sharma apologised for this last-minute change.
His apology goes to the heart of the goals of COP26 in Glasgow: the hope it would deliver outcomes matching the urgent “code red” action needed to achieve the Paris Agreement target.
At the summit’s outset, UN Secretary-General António Guterres urged countries to “keep the goal of 1.5℃ alive”, to accelerate the decarbonisation of the global economy, and to phase out coal.
So, was COP26 a failure? If we evaluate this using the summits original stated goals, the answer is yes, it fell short. Two big ticket items weren’t realised: renewing targets for 2030 that align with limiting warming to 1.5℃, and an agreement on accelerating the phase-out of coal.
But among the failures, there were important decisions and notable bright spots. So let’s take a look at the summit’s defining issues.
We’ve kept 1.5 alive and made huge progress on coal, cars, cash and trees.
And while there is still so much that needs to be done to save our planet, we’ll look back at COP26 as the moment humanity finally got real about climate change. pic.twitter.com/Rf91HN4fS3
Weak 2030 targets The goal of the Paris Agreement is to limit global temperature rise to well below 2℃ this century, and to pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5℃. Catastrophic impacts will be unleashed beyond this point, such as sea level rise and more intense and frequent natural disasters.
But new projections from Climate Action Tracker show even if all COP26 pledges are met, the planet is on track to warm by 2.1℃ — or 2.4℃ if only 2030 targets are met.
Despite the Australian government’s recent climate announcements, this nation’s 2030 target remains the same as in 2015. If all countries adopted such meagre near-term targets, global temperature rise would be on track for up to 3℃.
Technically, the 1.5℃ limit is still within reach because, under the Glasgow pact, countries are asked to update their 2030 targets in a year’s time. However, as Sharma said, “the pulse of 1.5 is weak”.
And as Australia’s experience shows, domestic politics rather than international pressure is often the force driving climate policy. So there are no guarantees Australia or other nations will deliver greater ambition in 2022.
“Many of our small, low-lying islands may disappear by the end of this century. That means the country will be lost.”
Palau’s Environment Minister Steven Victor tells #Newsnight decisions made tonight at #COP26 are also about “deciding whether we keep a culture alive” pic.twitter.com/Qnr0X219om
Phase down, not out India’s intervention to change the final wording to “phase down” coal rather than “phase out” dampens the urgency to shift away from coal.
India is the world’s third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, after China and the United States. The country relies heavily on coal, and coal-powered generation is expected to grow by 4.6 percent each year to 2024.
India was the most prominent objector to the “phase out” wording, but also had support from China.
And US climate envoy John Kerry argued that carbon capture and storage technology could be developed further, to trap emissions at the source and store them underground.
Carbon capture and storage is a controversial proposition for climate action. It is not proven at scale, and we don’t yet know if captured emissions stored underground will eventually return to the atmosphere. And around the world, relatively few large-scale underground storage locations exist.
It is hard to see this expensive technology ever being cost-competitive with cheap renewable energy.
In a crucial outcome, COP26 also finalised rules for global carbon trading, known as Article 6 under the Paris Agreement. However under the rules, the fossil fuel industry will be allowed to “offset” its carbon emissions and carry on polluting. Combined with the “phasing down” change, this will see fossil fuel emissions continue.
It wasn’t all bad Despite the shortcomings, COP26 led to a number of important positive outcomes.
The world has taken an unambiguous turn away from fossil fuel as a source of energy. And the 1.5℃ global warming target has taken centre stage, with the recognition that reaching this target will require rapid, deep and sustained emissions reductions of 45 percent by 2030, relative to 2010 levels.
What’s more, the pact emphasises the importance to mitigation of nature and ecosystems, including protecting forests and biodiversity. This comes on top of a side deal struck by Australia and 123 other countries promising to end deforestation by 2030.
The pact also urges countries to fully deliver on an outstanding promise to deliver US$100 billion a year for five years to developing countries vulnerable to climate damage. It also emphasises the importance of transparency in implementing the pledges.
Nations are also invited to revisit and strengthen the 2030 targets as necessary to align with the Paris Agreement temperature goal by the end of 2022. In support of this, it was agreed to hold a high-level ministerial roundtable meeting each year focused on raising ambition out to 2030.
Despite the world not being on track for the 1.5℃ goal, momentum is headed in the right direction. And the mere fact that a reduction in coal use was directly addressed in the final text signals change may be possible.
But whether it comes in the small window we have left to stop catastrophic climate change remains to be seen.
A campaign is underway in Cardiff to save Northern Meadows. Tessa Marshall from campaign group Save the Northern Meadows told The Canary that campaigners entered the site at 6am on 25 October and they’ve no intention of leaving:
BREAKING: 30 local people have barricaded an entrance to Cardiff Northern Meadows to stop what they say is an illegal attempt to start building works that will destroy the popular public green space. They are encouraging supporters to join them. pic.twitter.com/FyPZrhatVr
The site is due to be developed into a cancer care centre. And whilst campaigners believe the centre is needed, they are objecting to its location and the amount of money already spent on the project.
A new development
Then late on 25 October campaigners from Coryton and Whitchurch occupied Lady Cory Field, which is next to Northern Meadows. They say this is:
in a bid to prevent the clearance of 25,000m2 of green space which form the enabling works for the construction of a new cancer centre by Velindre University Health Board.
They added:
Campaigners have erected notices stating ‘This is NOT a “residential building”‘ in reference to Section 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (2012), asserting that in order to remove them from the land a claim for possession will need to be made via the courts.
Why are they doing this?
Marshall said they started the campaign about 18 months ago when they first:
found out that there was significant work proposed to be done at the space we call the Northern Meadows.
This space consists of three large meadows with a wide array of biodiversity says Marshall. There’s also a wood that’s part of a public right of way.
She says they objected to the planning application. According to her, a letter from Velindre Cancer Centre stated that it was set to begin development today. If she’s correct, it doesn’t have planning permission to carry out its work, so campaigners are preventing the work crews from getting on site.
Marshall says it’s a biodiversity site with species such as bats, hedgehogs, grass snakes, door mice, and owls that’s right next to a nature reserve. She also says it borders an ancient forest, and that:
The biodiversity on site is significant
According to Marshall, the whole build is being funded by mutual investment model, “which is essentially PFI light”. As of 2014, Marshall says the cancer centre was predicted to cost £250m. But with inflation since that time, the project “will likely [cost]…a billion pounds”, and according to Marshall “is not fit for the 21st century”.
Not just an environmental campaign
Marshall added that the objection to developing this area – which she called “the last green space in Cardiff north” – isn’t just environmental. It’s also being opposed for health reasons. Marshall believes the site, in addition to being a site of biodiversity, is not appropriate for a cancer care centre. Such treatment can be toxic for patients so they should be adjacent to an ICU hospital so they can get treatment when needed, says Marshall.
In an open letter on the campaign blog, Dr Ashley Roberts added:
There is little doubt taking away the Northern Meadows as they currently are from the local population would be hugely detrimental to physical and mental well-being.
Meanwhile, a leaked letter written in November 2020 by cancer expert professor Neil Burnet stated that:
There is a clear trend for specialist cancer services to be moved to larger hospitals with a wide range of specialist services as they are redeveloped. Cancer units which have had general services withdrawn from their campuses have been badly disadvantaged, both for patient care and research.
Velindre is very much out of step with the prevailing thinking about patient care, an issue which needs to be considered very carefully.
Not everybody is opposed to the plan, however:
This is a legal development to build a ground breaking carbon neutral healing cancer hospital on NHS owned land. There is plentiful green space in the area (I'm a life long resident) and the local and medical support is overwhelmingly in favour if the hospital.
— GeorgeCastle #blacklivesmatter (@GeorgeCastle13) October 25, 2021
Marshall said she accepts the need for a new cancer centre, but that Velindre Cancer Centre has:
been planing this project for nearly 10 years, they’ve spent over £20m…and what have they [achieved]? They haven’t put a single thing in the ground yet.
Response from the Velindre Cancer Centre
In a statement to Wales Online, David Powell, project director for the Velindre Cancer Centre stated :
The works being carried out are focused on limited vegetation clearance that will allow us access to do ground survey work on the site in the coming weeks. The work will only include removal of previously wind-fallen trees as agreed with Cardiff Council.
The works will be undertaken in accordance with the European Protected Species Development Licence (EPSL) granted by Natural Resources Wales and we will have ecologists on site during the work to ensure that we meet the requirements of the licence.
In line with the proportionality of the work being undertaken, and the short term disruption to access, we wanted to provide context to key stakeholders ahead of the work beginning. As part of our ongoing engagement, we will provide more notice ahead of any further works on site in the coming weeks.
Protecting North Cardiff’s access to green space for our and future generations health and well-being.
Protecting an existing dynamic and diverse ecosystem, it’s habitats and its wildlife.
Protecting our heritage and the development of it at the future Whitchurch Hospital site.
The campaign group wants people to show their opposition to this project by signing its petition. It also wants people to work with elected representatives to achieve this. They say:
The community resolve is strong, as developers do not have the correct planning permission to begin clearing on the site.
The community is not against a new cancer centre. Rather, they support the position of 167 Senior Clinicians and Colocate Velindre who believe building the stand alone centre will create unnecessary risk for cancer patients for decades to come.
The community is peacefully asking the Council and Developers to enforce their own rules and ensure clearance is done while following due process. This cannot happen until planning application 21/01954/MJR is granted permission by the planning committee, and a petition of objection including 367 signatories is heard.
A recent trophy hunting controversy in Zimbabwe has strengthened the argument that the practice is damaging to conservation. In the wake of the scandal, African wildlife experts have also told The Canary that, although proponents argue that trophy hunting enriches and empowers communities on the continent, the opposite is true in reality.
As The Canary has previously reported, whether trophy hunting helps or hinders communities and conservation is a contentious subject.
Mopane
A trophy hunter reportedly killed a lion called Mopane in Zimbabwe in early August. The circumstances surrounding his killing echo those of Cecil the lion. According to reports, the trophy hunter killed Mopane in the same area as Cecil, outside of Hwange National Park, and with the same weapon – a bow and arrow. Mopane also apparently took a long time to die, like Cecil.
Campaigners have since raised concerns about other male lions in the area they suspect are at risk of being targeted by trophy hunters.
As the Zimbabwe Elephant Foundation’s founder Noma Dube told The Canary, Mopane leaves not one but two prides behind. Dube explained:
Mopane had two prides, one of his own and the other one he kind of adopted which is very rare. It goes to show who Mopane was, an incredible lion.
There is some discussion over the exact make-up of Mopane’s prides. But it appears that they consist of at least two cubs, six or less sub-adults (individuals who are no longer cubs but haven’t yet reached adulthood), and around four females.
One arrow, many lives
Dube described the potential impact of Mopane’s death as “horrific”. That’s because it will leave the cubs vulnerable to being killed by other male lions attempting to assert dominance over the remaining pride members. The females are also at risk as they may try to defend their cubs. Dube further asserted that if the females flee with their young in to evade other males they may end up “hunting and killing livestock” in areas that get them killed. She concluded that “taking off dominant pride males in this area has terrible effects on the dynamics of the pride”.
Dube’s assertions reflect comments made by others. African conservationists Dereck and Beverly Joubert have previously stated that the dynamic whereby other males “move in to usurp the pride” after the removal of a dominant male lion, means that their single death “can lead to a cascade” of lion mortalities.
In short, although Mopane’s killer targeted only one lion, the act potentially threatens numerous others. This raises questions about the impact of the practice on conservation, given there are potentially less than 10,000 wild lions left in Lion Conservation Units (LCUs) across Africa, according to LionAid.
The Canary contacted Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (ZimParks) for comment. It did not reply by the time of publication. However, in a response to a tweet by Fauna and Flora Zimbabwe condemning Mopane’s killing, ZimParks’ spokesperson Tinashe Farawo said:
The hunts were legal, the best you can do is to lobby for the change of our laws.
An ethical and scientific lie
The Canary also spoke to another expert on the subject, whose comments cut to the core of science’s role in propping up trophy hunting.
In response to a question about the conservation implications of targeting dominant male lions in trophy hunts, carnivore ecologist and conservation writer Mordecai Ogada said that the question itself “illustrates the danger posed by science to our sovereignty over our natural heritage”. He asked:
If I say it shouldn’t be done, does that imply that killing of females, solitary males, or subordinate males is OK?’
Essentially, Ogada argued that providing a scientific response would “imply that the killing of lions for sport is somehow acceptable”. It would be, he continued, “to accept the ethical and scientific lie that calls sport hunting a conservation tool, with technical basis”.
As Ogada’s comments suggest, in terms of conservation, there are no ‘good’ individuals to target for trophy hunting. Typically, for example, trophy hunters have targeted male elephants over a certain age, arguing that they are redundant due to their diminished role in breeding. But a 2020 study showed that these older elephants play a key role in the development and training of younger males.
White supremacy
Ogada also spoke to the racial and human aspects of trophy hunting on the continent. He summarised trophy hunting as “a form of self actualization and bloodlust pursued by white supremacists in Africa”.
Conservationists in support of the practice generally argue that communities co-existing with trophy-hunted species receive financial benefit from the trade. So they say communities benefit and, in turn, so does wildlife because it incentivises people to conserve populations of wild animals. They argue that without hunting, people would convert land to uses incompatible with the survival of those populations.
But this argument insinuates that, without incentives, African people won’t look after the wildlife around them. This is not what history tells us. In fact, as South African economist and policy analyst Ross Harvey previously toldThe Canary, it was “colonial hunting that brought many species [in Africa] to the brink of extinction”. Meanwhile, Ogada asked:
When is “science” going to address the obvious white supremacist nature of sport hunting in Africa? Or is the social status of the slain lions more important than the diminution of indigenous African people?
An insult and a curse
In 2020, a number of community officials, mainly from Namibia and Zimbabwe, signed an open letter in support of trophy hunting that argued it enables conservation and upholds human rights. But some officials and members of affected communities in Zimbabwe and elsewhere have asserted that the financial income from trophy hunting rarely trickles down to people, or is minimal. Dube pointed out that, although trophy hunting has been taking place for decades, the “communities living alongside hunting concessions have never been lifted out of poverty”.
Wildlife journalist and author Adam Cruise recently undertook field research in Namibia. His findings reveal that the country’s desert elephants are “on the verge of extinction”, mainly due to trophy hunting. Furthermore, in relation to benefits to communities, Cruise told The Canary:
Trophy Hunters proclaim that the proceeds from a hunt benefit impoverished communities. This is blatantly false. Most of the money spent by a trophy hunter on a prize such as a lion, ends up in the hands of booking agents, flights, five star lodge accommodation, the accompanying professional hunter and a permit to the government. The locals, if they are lucky may have some of the carcass (minus the head and pelt of course) tossed in their direction as ‘food’.
Quite frankly the notion that trophy hunting benefits the poor is an insult to those local communities and a curse on conservation.
Studies have also shown that the funds raised from the practice are negligible in relation to conservation.
An essential tapestry
In light of the alarmingly low numbers of wild lions remaining, every individual left is vital in conserving the species. Moreover, as Dube noted:
Lions play a crucial role in the wild by controlling the herbivore population. We cannot afford to lose our predators.
Indeed, the rich tapestry of life on Earth as a whole is essential. It’s responsible for the ecosystems that humans, and all living beings, depend on for survival and health. Unfortunately, however, the world is losing species at a rate that the UN says is “unprecedented in human history”. The reasons for this unprecedented decline are numerous, but they’re nearly exclusively human-led. Habitat loss, pollution, the climate crisis, and the wildlife trade – including trophy hunting – all play a part.
Trophy hunting can and is doing damage to communities of wild animals. It also doesn’t appear to be lifting people out of poverty – instead trapping them in a colonial power structure where they have little sovereignty over their natural heritage.
In short, the idea that trophy hunting helps either communities or conservation is on incredibly shaky ground.
Ecologist Tom Langton recently mounted a legal case against the Conservative government over its ongoing killing of badgers. In particular, Langton challenged whether the government had paid regard to conserving biodiversity in plans laid out in its ‘Next Steps‘ strategy. The government has a statutory duty to “have regard… to the purpose of conserving biodiversity” when “exercising its functions”, according to the 2006 Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERCA).
The verdict on that case is now in. And justice Griffiths – the same judge who previously decreed Geronimo the alpaca’s fate – has ruled in favour of the government. The judge acknowledged that there’s “no evidence” the government had regard to conserving biodiversity in its Next Steps plan. But he essentially concluded that the government didn’t need to, and that even if it had the resulting policy would be the same.
Langton has instructed his legal team to apply for permission to appeal to the ruling.
The proceedings contained a number of eyebrow-raising – or hare-raising – assertions. These included a bible-based suggestion from the judge that 2020 was not the ‘season’ for the government to have regard for biodiversity. That’s despite the world being engulfed in a biodiversity crisis, with the UK one of the most nature-depleted countries on Earth.
Most notably though, the case revealed a troubling fact about Natural England’s (NE) use of evidence in relation to badger killing.
Next steps
The government began the badger killing policy – or ‘culling’ – in 2013. Over 140,000 badgers have died as a result of it so far. The government claims the massacre of the protected species is necessary because badgers transmit tuberculosis (TB) to cows. But many argue the policy is based on cherry-picked science and flawed claims.
The government revealed its Next Steps strategy for tackling TB in cows in 2020. Officials included their future plan for badgers, namely:
We envisage that any remaining areas [for new cull zones] would join the current cull programme in the next few years and that the badger cull phase of the strategy would then wind down by the mid to late 2020s, although we would need to retain the ability to cull in a targeted way where the epidemiological evidence requires it.
In May, officials laid out the plan in more detail. Essentially, intensive culling and supplementary culling – i.e. killing more badgers in areas where they’ve already been ‘intensively’ killed – will continue until 2026. At that time, the government will introduce a targeted culling policy. Langton previously toldThe Canary that this is an “expansion of the [culling] policy”, whereby “100% of badgers” could be targeted in smaller designated cull areas.
“No cause for concern”
NE is both the “conservation adviser” and licensing authority for badger killing. It provided statements to the court in the case. In 2018, the body issued guidance that considered the ecological implications of badger killing as a policy. And it was a previous legal action by Langton that prompted the guidance. Following that action, a judge found NE in breach of duty for not considering the cull’s potential ecological impacts. Griffiths said that NE’s guidance left an “overwhelming impression” that there is “no cause for concern”.
NE’s written statements in this case also appeared to give that impression. For example, NE noted that the body purposefully didn’t include lagomorphs – hares and rabbits – in its 2018 guidance. It said this was because the “currently available evidence” shows “only a possible theoretical effect” of the cull on brown hares and rabbits.
Badgers are the UK’s largest land predator. And the numbers of other predators, such as foxes, can potentially increase in areas if badgers there are killed. This can affect other species, which may face predation or other impacts because of the presence of these new residents.
Caution advised
To support its assertion, NE quoted from a 2011 evaluation by the Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera), now called Fera Science. The quote read:
During the RBCT, in the areas where fox density increased in response to badger culling, no statistically significant changes in lagomorph density were detected
The Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) was a 10-year-long assessment of the impact of culling badgers on TB levels in cows. Researchers conducted an assessment of the “ecological consequences of removing badgers from an ecosystem” during that trial.
As NE noted, those researchers didn’t find ‘statistically significant changes in lagomorph density’. But, due to the sample size, the researchers did effectively advise caution in interpreting their statistical results on hares. They also clearly stated that the increase in foxes in culled areas could potentially decrease “hare populations over the period of the study”. This is because foxes eat hares with some regularity. In the “main conclusions”, the researchers said their analysis offered “some evidence” that widespread badger killing could negatively affect hare populations.
Furthermore, the Fera evaluation itself emphasised that fox population increases were a real threat to hares. It said there were “modelling studies” and “empirical studies” that had shown that to be the case. And the evaluation concluded that badger killing could potentially impact lagomorph populations.
Defra response
In essence, it appears that NE’s 2018 guidance and its statement to court focused on statistical aspects of prior analyses that suggested badger killing won’t impact hares. But NE did not give due regard to the clear caveats and warnings elsewhere in these reports which asserted that hares could be affected.
The Canary contacted the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) for comment. It did not address the questions we raised about NE’s selection and use of evidence. Instead, a spokesperson said:
We welcome the High Court’s decision to dismiss the claim. The judge has been clear that we were consistent with our duties towards biodiversity when setting out our plans for the bTB strategy.
The badger cull has led to a significant reduction in the disease but no one wants to continue the cull of a protected species indefinitely. That is why we are now building on this progress by accelerating other elements of our strategy, including cattle vaccination and improved testing so that we can eradicate this insidious disease and start to phase out badger culling as soon as possible.
Not the season?
In relation to whether the government had regard to conserving biodiversity in its Next Steps plan, the judge noted that:
Biodiversity had been considered at multiple points before Next Steps, and the evidence was inconclusive.
He also argued that there was nothing in related material “immediately preceding” Next Steps that “suggested that there were fresh implications for the purpose of conserving biodiversity”. Related material would include the government-sponsored 2018 Godfray review. In short, the judge highlighted that at the time of creating its Next Steps plan, the government had no new information to hand about the impact of killing badgers on biodiversity.
So Griffiths quoted from the King James bible and declared “To every thing there is a season, and a time for every purpose”. In doing so, he was suggesting that Next Steps was not the right time for the government to consider biodiversity.
But as the judge himself noted, the other evidence was inconclusive. Moreover, the Godfray review called for further ecological studies into the impact of reducing badger numbers due to their ‘key role’ in ecosystems. Langton previously toldThe Canary that the RBCT recommended further study too.
So arguably there couldn’t be a better time for the government to have regard for biodiversity than when deliberating on its Next Steps strategy. And that’s precisely because the previous studies and analyses lacked definitive answers on how killing badgers affects biodiversity.
An absence of evidence
In his verdict, the judge said there was a “complete absence” of evidence among existing material that showed “any change to culling policy was required in order to conserve biodiversity”. As such, he determined that even if the government had given regard to conserving biodiversity in the Next Steps strategy – which it didn’t – it would have made the same decisions.
However, to quote a received truth rather than scripture, ‘an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’. That’s of course particularly true when most of the ambiguous evidence you do have calls for further study.
Surely it’s up to the government to provide conclusive and thorough evidence that the cull does not threaten the conservation of biodiversity. And it should be doing so before greenlighting further and never-ending badger killing. If that’s not what ‘having regard’ means, then the statutory duty is quite meaningless.
4Mins Read UNESCO has decided to keep Australia’s Great Barrier Reef off the “in danger” list, despite environmentalists and scientists urging otherwise.
4Mins Read Earth Overshoot Day 2021 happened on July 29, almost a month earlier than the year before. It was pushed forward because emissions are on the rise and biodiversity loss is speeding up. Each year, Earth Overshoot Day represents the date humanity has used up all the biological resources the planet regenerates each year. We’re simply […]
The UK is continuing its massacre of badgers for at least the next five years. The optics of the mass killing plan are terrible for a government that is attempting to position itself as a biodiversity champion. But, more importantly, what is the controversial and years-long slaughter doing to UK badger populations and the ecosystems they are part of?
This is one of the issues The Canary discussed with ecologist Tom Langton and veterinarian Iain McGill in wide-ranging conversations about the ongoing policy. Bothexperts have consistentlyopposed the slaughter on scientific, ecological, and ethical grounds.
Legal action
The government began the badger killing policy – or ‘culling’ – in 2013. Over 140,000 badgers have died as a result of it so far. The government claims the massacre of the protected species is necessary because badgers transmit tuberculosis (TB) to cows. But the policy is not only deeplyunpopular, many argue it’s based on cherry-picked science and flawed claims. The evidence appears to back up those arguments.
Langton has brought a legal case against the government over the killing. It will challenge how “allowing the mass destruction of a protected species to enable intensive livestock production… fits within governments wider statutory duty” to have regard to conserving biodiversity. That duty is detailed in the 2006 Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act.
A mindset unfit for our times
The idea that killing wildlife is an acceptable solution to issues isn’t new or uncommon. But with the UN warning that the destruction of nature and ecosystems poses an existential threat to human civilisation, it’s increasingly becoming an ‘answer’ that’s unfit for our times.
Indeed, McGill told The Canary that proponents of the cull are:
out of step with society, they’re out of step with a world where biodiversity is shrinking. They’re just very out of step with culture and what the right thing to do is.
The government’s rhetoric of late suggests it’s taken note of this disconnect. It’s announced policy changes that environment secretary George Eustice says will allow it to “start to phase out badger culling as soon as possible”.
McGill explained what the ‘phasing out’ means in practice:
they’re not really phasing it out, they’re expanding it massively before they phase it out.
He said the government is adding another 10 or 11 intensive culling areas this year, and a further 10 or 11 in 2022. Intensive cull licences last for four years, so they will enable the continuing mass slaughter of badgers up to 2026. The Badger Trust estimates that the government’s plan will cost a further 140,000 badgers their lives.
Forever plan
Langton, meanwhile, highlighted what the government’s plan is for after 2026. The ecologist says the government is proposing an “expansion of the policy” on a local level, whereby “100% of badgers” could be targeted in smaller designated cull areas. He warned:
We could end up with just as many badgers being killed, via either a general licence for the whole of England… so instead of 50 large culls, we could have say 500 farm clusters given a licence to eradicate badgers.
In its strategy, the government outlines that it will draw up a “new policy of culling” moving forward. It says that “vaccination in badgers and surveillance would first have to be carried out before reverting to culling”. The strategy says culling that took place in East Cumbria will, in part, “be the basis” for the future culling policy. There was no maximum limit on the amount of badgers East Cumbria could kill in its cull. Langton says that the plan there was to “remove them completely and that is what they did”. He called it “badger scorched earth”.
Not what it says on the tin
The ecologist concluded that the plan going forward:
doesn’t really do what it says on the tin. The policy messaging has all been about phasing out culling, but in fact it’s not. It’s just a rebranding, a rehashing, of the original policy which is to see badgers reduced in number across much of the country by 70%.
Figures from a 2017 study suggest the culling policy so far may have knocked out around a third of England’s badger population. The plan for the next five years could remove a further third.
McGill said that the scale of destruction means that it’s likely “local extinctions will happen” for badgers in parts of England, mostly where they have faced intensive culling. The government claims that:
Culling activities are strictly licenced and monitored closely to ensure badger populations remain viable in culling areas
“Crass hooliganism”
Badgers are the UK’s largest land predator. As such, they play a key role in the ecosystems in which they live. A 2011 evaluation by the Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera), now called Fera Science, warned that ecosystems could face direct and indirect impacts from “badger control”. It found that direct impacts, such as the disturbance or accidental killing of other species during culling operations, could:
have significant negative impacts on either individual species, assemblages of species and/or designated sites
In terms of indirect impacts, it said “Manipulating carnivore populations” could have “significant effects on the structure of ecological communities” and “wider knock‐on consequences for the ecology of other species and communities”.
McGill explained that removing badgers:
causes something called mesopredator release, where the other predators can move into the area where badgers would have been controlling those things… stoats, weasels, foxes, can increase.
He said that this, in turn, could “have an impact” on ground-nesting birds, hedgehogs numbers and more. McGill emphasised that “you don’t know what’s going to move in and change”, but asserted:
It’s a very stupid thing to do if you’re trying to conserve biodiversity. It’s just a crass hooliganism. It’s environmental hooliganism.
Government response
The Canary contacted the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) for comment. A spokesperson said:
Bovine TB is one of the most difficult and intractable animal health challenges that the UK faces today, causing considerable trauma for farmers and costing taxpayers over £100 million every year.
The badger cull has led to a significant reduction in the disease but no one wants to continue the cull of a protected species indefinitely. That is why we are now building on this progress by accelerating other elements of our strategy, including cattle vaccination and improved testing so that we can eradicate this insidious disease and start to phase out badger culling as soon as possible.
Forging ahead regardless
Langton also stressed that there are lots of unknowns in relation to the potential ecological impacts. He told The Canary that the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) recommended further study for there to be any level of certainty on the ecological consequences of killing badgers. The RBCT was a 10-year-long assessment of the impact of culling badgers on TB levels in cows.
The Godfray review, a government-sponsored review of the cull, also called for further ecological studies into the impact of reducing badger numbers due to their ‘key role’ in ecosystems.
That essentially means that widespread badger killing has been taking place for eight years without the government knowing for sure how its actions will impact affected species and ecosystems. Indeed, in a prior legal case he mounted, Langton said the judge ruled that Natural England (NE) had breached its statutory duty by not taking “steps to look for potential [ecological] effects” of the cull.
National England’s capacity
That case prompted NE to produce guidance on “evaluating the ecological consequences of culling” on certain sites. Langton said NE also committed to undertaking impact assessments. Indeed, the body did produce a monitoring report in conjunction with the British Trust for Ornithology in 2018. However, it hasn’t made that report public.
Langton has called for a pause in the killing until NE has “designed, tested and [put] in place” a “robust system” to monitor its impact on sites and species. NE might, however, not have the capacity for such a system. In itself, that calls the government’s commitments to biodiversity protection – and adherence to legal obligations – into question.
As Langton told The Canary, Tony Juniper, the chair of NE, warned the public and government in 2020 that it lacked the ability to properly monitor protected sites due to funding cuts. A 2018 House of Lords report highlighted that NE appeared to have faced “a budget cut of over 44% in an 11-year period” by that year. The Landscape Institute, meanwhile, said that:
the status of Natural England has been incrementally diminished, so that it struggles to impose essential constraints on developments that will inevitably give rise to environmental damage.
Wildlife isn’t the problem
Although research into the ecological impacts of killing badgers is severely lacking, the RBCT did flag an inconvenient fact for the government related to biodiversity in its findings. Langton said that the trial’s studies of ground nesting birds showed that:
never mind the badgers or the foxes, it was the overstocked cattle that are destroying the nests. They were treading on them, eating them, and actually the conservation problem is the cattle. They’re far too dense, there’s far too many of them now and that’s one reason why rural birds are declining.
Many have long argued that the answer to TB control lies in changes to the farming industry. Clearly, changes to farming aren’t only key to eradicating TB in cows, though. They’re also essential for reversing the UK’s catastrophic biodiversity loss and tackling the climate crisis. Last, but certainly not least, changes are necessary to ensure better lives for farmed animals. As a Guardian article highlighted, they face “systematic cruelty”, with female dairy cows in particular trapped in a “cycle of hell”.
“We defend the animal”
McGill says that there needs to be “a total change in the way we’re farming”. He argues that Defra needs to start looking at issues “in the round”, with an “aim that isn’t just industry”. Instead, it should base policy on the health and welfare of wild and farmed animals, “the whole environment itself”, public health and public opinion, as well as the needs of industry.
McGill says that in farming:
We need to go back to looking at the animal as the starting point. The veterinary profession has a key role to play here by saying: ‘well, we defend the animal, and its health, and its welfare, and its right to exist as a creature, which is sentient’. Then it all flows from that. That’s what’s been forgotten in our headlong rush for cheap food.
Beggars belief
In short, these experts argue that there was – and is – a path to a TB-free future for cows without the mass slaughter of badgers and any associated ecological carnage. But the Conservative government charged head first down the lethal route. McGill summed the situation up, saying:
It beggars belief really that this is the 21st Century and they’re getting away with it.
It does indeed beggar belief, not least because the government made its choice amid a biodiversity emergency and in one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world.
3Mins Read The U.N. special envoy for the oceans, Peter Thomson, has urged states to end the “madness” of fisheries subsidies that lead to overfishing.
GeorgeCastle #blacklivesmatter (@GeorgeCastle13) 
