Scientists fear cuts to the EU budget could threaten the continued persistence of wildlife on agricultural landscapes. Up to £400 million worth of funding provided through the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) could be stopped as a result of government spending cuts. Conservation groups are warning such action could prove disastrous for some farmland species, and threaten the recovery of those already endangered such as the cirl bunting and turtle dove.

Under the current terms of the CAP, farmers are able to receive payments in return for developing projects on their land that are designed to encourage local biodiversity. Such incentives have seen great success, and played a vital role in the conservation of species sensitive to agricultural practices that may have otherwise experienced a population decline. However as part of the current CAP reform ‘Pillar 2’ funding – the money available to farmers who practice methods beneficial to the environment and biodiversity could be scrapped.

Martin Harper, Conservation Director of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) said he was “staggered” by the idea, fearing that wildlife corridors such as hedges and water ways could also be affected.

The government has however stated that the current biodiversity subsidies in place are ‘good value’ and that cuts should be targeted towards CAP subsidies assigned for food production instead. Proposals for the new EU budget will be announced later this month on 29th June.

All 278 of Britain’s green laws, originally put in place to safeguard the natural environment, have been included on the list of red tape regulations to be considered for the axe by the public as part of the ‘Red Tape Challenge’. The proposed deregulation is a corwdsourcing exercise launched by government to assess which of the current regulations restrict growth of the economy and scrap unnecessary red tape.

Environmental laws including; the Wildlife and Countryside Act, National Park Act, Clean Air Act and the Climate Change Act could now all be scrapped by government as they fall under ‘general regulations’ outraging environmental campaigners.

If green laws such as the Wildlife and Countryside Act – which governs the protection of animals and plants in Britain – were axed as a result of the ‘Red Tape Challenge’ national parks, marine reserves and sites of special scientific interest (SSSI’s) would no longer be protected by law.

Additionally, the retraction of the Climate Change Act – which was the first of its kind – would mean the release the secretary of state from duties to reach climate change targets such as to reduce the UK’s carbon emissions by at least 80% below 1990 levels by the year 2050.

The Government’s ‘Red Tape Challenge’ website invites comments either as an individual or as an organisation about red tape regulations, with Ministers facing the presumption that laws and regulations listed in the ‘Red Tape Challenge’ should be scrapped unless argued otherwise. You can comment on environmental regulations threatened to be axed by the scheme over a number of subject areas including:

• Air quality
• Biodiversity, wildlife management, landscape, countryside and recreation
• Energy labelling and sustainable products
• Industrial emissions and carbon reductions
• Noise and nuisance
• Waste
• Environmental permits, information and damage

After receiving public comments Ministers will then have three months to work out which regulations they want to keep and why.

Last week the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) released the results of an investigation into public attitudes and knowledge relating to biodiversity and the natural environment.

The results of the study reflect the answers given by 1,769 people who participated in face-to-face interviews in England during March 2011, and similar surveys conducted between the 2007-2011 period.

Questionnaire results revealed the following key points:

• In 2011 92% of respondents said it was fairly or very important for them to have public gardens, parks, commons or other green spaces nearby.
• 56% of respondents said they used public gardens parks, commons or other green spaces at least once a week.
• 48% of respondents reported knowing at least a little about biodiversity; a slight increase from 44 per cent in 2009.
• 78% of respondents when prompted agreed that they “worry about changes to the countryside in the UK and loss of native animals and plants”.
• 13% of respondents had volunteered with, given time to or taken part in conservation volunteering for an organisation or community group in the previous 12 months.

In terms of environmental knowledge, when people were questioned specifically on how much, they knew about ‘climate change’, ‘ecosystem services’, and ‘biodiversity’ 44% reported knowing a lot or a fair amount about climate change. Yet, 31% of respondents said they had never heard of the term ‘biodiversity’, and 28% of respondents said they had never heard of the term ‘ecosystem services’.

The release, despite indicating progress towards increased environmental awareness among members of the public, shows that there is still room for improvement of environmental education, particularly in relation to biodiversity and ecosystem services.

The European Nitrogen Assessment (ENA), a major new investigation, today released its findings revealing the environmental and economic cost of nitrogen pollution in Europe.

The ENA, conducted by over 200 international experts, estimated that nitrogen pollution is already costing Europeans up to £650 each every year – amounting to a total of £280 billion. This cost reflects the value of damage to essential services, (known as ‘ecosystem services’), such as climate regulation and the supply of clean water and air provided by healthy ecosystems that are rich in biodiversity.

For decades nitrogen fertiliser has been used to increase agricultural food production in order to meet rising demands and feed the planets growing human population. The use of nitrogen fertiliser to improve crop yields has however had negative environmental impacts. Much of the nitrogen pollution associated with agriculture is linked to its use as a fertiliser to produce crops used to feed livestock intended for meat production. As a result, large areas of forest are cleared each year to make space for soy beans grown to feed Europe’s chickens, cows and pigs.

In terms of climate, up to 60% of the economic cost of nitrogen damage is derived from fossil fuels burnt in order to generate energy and from transport (with the remiaing 40% coming from agriculture). Nitrogen fertilisers also cause the release of nitrous oxide, one of the fundamental green house gases responsible for global warming. Furthermore, nitrogen also contributes to air pollution with negative implications for human health, reducing life expectancy and causing problems such as asthma and cancer.

Despite this, there remains a great need to use nitrogen fertiliser, and demand for fossil fuel combustion. Consequently, there is now more than ever, a need to improve the efficiency of processes associated with nitrogen pollution so as not to cause unnecessary damage to the environment. The ENA report addresses these issues and suggests we minimise future damage by reducing fossil fuel emissions through investment in clean energy for homes and transport, and by reducing our demand for meat. The report discusses altering the western diet by decreasing meat consumption, in order to ease the environmental pressures associated with its production. Present figures show that in Europe people currently eat 70% more meat and diary products than required for a healthy diet and therefore reducing meat intake could be beneficial for both human health and the environment.

The report concludes that the overall costs of damage to the environment at the expense of nitrogen pollution far out-weigh the direct economic benefits of using nitrogen in agriculture alone. In light of these developments a move towards a more sustainable lifestyle by individuals, institutions and government is needed. Defra’s Chief Scientist, Professor Bob Watson, remained positive commenting that “things are going in the right direction, [the UK has reduced nitrous oxides by 60% since 1990] but we do need to move faster to avoid this environmental damage”.

Last week the University of Cambridge hosted the BES Annual Symposium, this year titled ‘Forests and Global Change’. The event was a huge success with 370 delegates attending the three day symposium which was called “the best symposium yet” by one of the speakers, Adrian Newton.

A number of experts gave presentations on the latest research into the effect a changing climate has on forest ecosystems, and what this might mean in the future. The talks covered a range of subjects from carbon storage to biodiversity conservation, and expanded on how we can implement action through the development of new strategies such as ‘Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation’ (REDD).

By bringing together so many experts to showcase this information it is hoped progress can be made towards the creation of an informed approach to climate change and its impact of forest ecosystems, and further help to bridge the gap between science and policy.