A recent prosecution case highlights the dangers for children in agricultural environments and that farms are not playgrounds. In the case, video footage taken by a neighbour captured the moment a farmer allowed one of his grandchildren to illegally ride in his tractor and ultimately led to his conviction.
Howard Walters, 78, was given a 12-month community order after he was spotted with the child in the tractor cab as he fed cattle on his farm in South Wales.
Walters had already been issued with a prohibition notice by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in November 2020 after admitting to inspectors he allowed his pre-teen grandchildren to ride in his tractor. However, just two months later, he was filmed by his neighbour flagrantly breaching the terms of that notice.
A HSE inspector who investigated Mr Walters says the law is “very clear”. Children under 13 are specifically prohibited from driving or riding on or in any agricultural machine, including the tractor cab.
At the time of committing the offence, Walters, of Tirmynydd Farm in Birchgrove, Swansea, was already the subject of a suspended prison sentence for unrelated environmental offences. In a case that was heard on 27 August 2024 at Swansea Crown Court, he was fined £500 for breaching the terms of that sentence. As part of his community order, Walters must attend 25 days of rehabilitation.
Agriculture remains one of the most dangerous industries in Britain, with on average around 29 people killed each year. Being killed by vehicles remains the most significant cause of work related fatality over the last five years.
Unfortunately, children are among those deaths with it often being the case that they are family members, with many killed by farm vehicles. Guidance is available for farmers on how to prevent accidents to children on farms.
Howard Walters, of Tirmynydd Farm in Birchgrove, Swansea, pleaded guilty to breaching section 33(1)(g) Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. He was given a 12 month community order and ordered to pay £3,000 in costs.
HSE inspector Simon Breen said:
“The law around children being allowed in the cabs of any agricultural vehicle is very clear. For any child to ride on agricultural machinery like a tractor is unsafe and illegal. The fact this farmer chose to ignore a prohibition notice for putting his grandchildren at risk is all the more staggering. We will take action against those who break the law. The solution is very simple – young children should never ride in agricultural vehicles.”
The HSE has published detailed guidance about child safety on farms and in agriculture which is available on its website.
How farmers can keep children safe on farms
Children must not be allowed in the farm workplace (young children should enjoy outdoor space in a secure fenced area).
Any access to the farm workplace by children under 16, for example for education, or knowledge / experience, must be planned and fully supervised by an adult not engaged in any work activity.
Children under the age of 13 years are specifically prohibited from driving or riding on any agricultural machine. It is illegal.
Properly trained, instructed, and supervised older children may, in tightly controlled circumstances, be able to help with some straightforward low risk tasks.
A Wellington dairy farmer pollution prosecution following incident after slurry entered watercourse.
A farmer has been given 14 weeks in prison suspended for a year and ordered to pay £10,000 costs after he persistently allowed slurry to run off into a stream near his farm.
David Bartlett, aged 70, of Upcott Dairy Farm, Sampford Arundel, Wellington, appeared for sentencing before District Judge Brereton at Taunton magistrates’ court on Thursday 18 July.
He had previously pleaded guilty to three offences relating to pollution to the Westford stream, a tributary of the River Tone. He was also ordered to pay £154 victim surcharge.
In a case brought by the Environment Agency, the court heard that the farm had a long history of failing to properly contain slurry and had been warned several times in the past for causing pollution of the Westford stream.
In October 2022, Agency officers installed remote monitoring equipment on the stream which confirmed regular pollution events were continuing to occur.
Using the data from the remote monitoring, officers went to the monitoring site in December 2022 where they found significant amounts of sewage fungus contaminating the bed of the watercourse, an indication of persistent pollution.
Pollution resulted in poor quality of water
Continuing upstream towards Upcott Dairy Farm, colonies of bloodworm were evident. These are a species of pollution tolerant organism associated with poor water quality. No invertebrate life forms were noted when stones in the stream bed were turned over, further indicating the poor quality of the water.
Near the farm, one of the officers saw a nearby ditch had suddenly started to discharge a significant amount of effluent with the appearance and smell of slurry. The source was quickly traced to an overflowing underground slurry tank on Upcott Dairy Farm.
Officers also investigated the system used for applying slurry to fields. Typically, farmers will use slurry to provide nutrients to their crops or grass. Bartlett was using a simple pipe to dispose of slurry in a single location.
Although not discharging slurry at the time of the pollution event inspection, it was clear there was significant contamination of slurry around the end of the pipe and evidence that slurry had tracked down the field toward the Westford stream.
A subsequent visit found slurry being pumped on to waterlogged land with no attempt to use the slurry for crop benefit. The slurry was several inches thick in the field indicating it had been pumped over a prolonged duration in the same location.
Toward the bottom of the field there was a significant build-up of mud and slurry either side of the gateway crossing the stream. This too presented a risk of further runoff pollution into the stream.
Pollution survey revealed stream affected for 2.5km
A biologist’s survey and report confirmed that the Westford stream had experienced repeated, acute and sustained chronic pollution events by slurry. Lack of slurry storage had led to slurry being pumped inappropriately on to a single patch of land where it was likely to run-off and cause pollution.
Bartlett had failed, despite repeated warnings, to install slurry storage facilities that would allow slurry to be stored during winter when ground conditions were unsuitable.
The report stated there had been “a significant negative impact on the aquatic invertebrate community and water quality along 2.5km of Westford stream.”
Bartlett submitted a statement to the Environment Agency in which he made limited admissions, implying others, such as his neighbour and the local authority were responsible. He denied deliberately pumping slurry into the watercourse.
Judge Brereton said there were significant aggravating features in the case, including Bartlett having previously been warned over causing pollution, his failure to carry out proper checks or make structural improvements by way of an adequate, compliant slurry storage system which is capable of storing slurry having received funds from the Rural Payments Agency to pay for infrastructure that would improve the environment and not cause significant, sustained pollution incidents.
Dairy farmer repeatedly ‘failed to acknowledge’ advice
David Womack of the Environment Agency said:
This farmer has, over the years, caused numerous pollution incidents and he has repeatedly failed to acknowledge the advice given or to improve the facilities for storing or properly using slurry.
For over 30 years there has been legislation in place requiring all livestock farmers to have storage facilities capable of storing a minimum of four months’ slurry production. The 2018 Reduction and prevention of Agricultural Diffuse Pollution Regulations now also require farmers to plan all applications of slurry in order to reduce the risk of pollution. Pumping slurry on to waterlogged land is unlawful and is likely to cause diffuse pollution.
We hope Mr Bartlett will now work with us to voluntarily improve the facilities at Upcott Dairy Farm. If he doesn’t, we won’t hesitate to use other legislative powers to reduce the risk of further pollution
Pollution prosecution charges
The charges against the defendant were:
On and before the 2 December 2022 you, David Bartlett, did cause an unpermitted water discharge activity, namely the discharge of poisonous, noxious or polluting matter from Upcott Dairy Farm, Sampford Arundel, Wellington, Somerset, into inland fresh waters contrary to Regulations 12(1)(b) and Regulation 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016.
On and before the 2 December 2022 you, David Bartlett, a Land Manager did not ensure that organic matter, namely cattle slurry, was not applied to agricultural land that was waterlogged, flooded or snow covered in that you applied organic fertilizer to waterlogged ground contrary to Regulation 3(a) and 11 of the Reduction and prevention of Agricultural Diffuse Pollution (England) Regulations 2018
On and before the 2 December 2022 you, David Bartlett, a Land Manager did not ensure that for each application of organic or manufactured fertilizer to agricultural land, the application was planned so as not to give rise to a significant risk of agricultural diffuse pollution contrary to Regulation 4(1)(a)(ii) and 11 of the Reduction and Prevention of Agricultural Diffuse Pollution (England) Regulations 2018.
Prevent pollution with effective slurry management
Effective slurry management is crucial for both environmental sustainability and farm productivity. Here are some best practices for slurry management in the UK:
Multiple people involved in large scale illegal waste crime in Staffordshire are facing prison following a successful prosecution by the Environment Agency.
The sentencing, which led to the conviction of 5 of the defendants, took place on 2 April 2024, at Shrewsbury Crown Court sitting at Telford Magistrates, following an 8-week trial in September and October 2023.
The prosecution concerned a large-scale illegal dumping of waste at Bonnie Braes Farm in Staffordshire, with offences taking place between 1 March 2014 and 30 June 2015.
At least 100,000 tonnes of waste was brought onto the site during the charge period, when there was no legal right to do so. This activity included a significant amount waste from excavation, alongside other mixed refuse and some asbestos.
The volume of waste added to the site meant that the land was raised by 6 – 7 metres in height. Additional concern was created by the crucial gas distribution pipeline which passes underneath Bonnie Braes Farm, one of two that supplies Stoke-on-Trent. A fracture of the pipeline would have had devastating consequences, causing disruption to the supply of gas as well as the potential closure of the busy A500 road for a significant period.
Mr Recorder Nicholls, found that the offending caused Category 1 harm to the environment due to the eyesore that the deposits caused. In considering the large scale illegal waste crime in Staffordshire, he stated the impact that the weight had on the site, created negative effects not only to the gas pipeline but also to a culvert on the site, which was found to have collapsed, causing significant flooding to the land in heavy rain. The operation of the site also caused significant disruption on lanes that were unsuitable for large vehicles and the tracking of mud from the site across the roads.
We are glad to see the outcome of these prosecutions and will continue to work tirelessly to tackle environmental crime. Illegal waste sites like this, undermine legitimate businesses, undercut their prices, and blight the environment. We would urge everyone to check that a waste site is licenced before using them by checking the public register online at GOV.UK. If people suspect criminal activity, they should report it to our 24-hour incident hotline 0800 807060 or anonymously through CrimeStoppers on 0800 555111.
Environment Agency Spokesperson
Large Scale Illegal Waste Crime Sentences
Mr Recorder Nicholls imposed the sentences as follows:
Raymond Bowden,64 of Liverpool Road, Church Lawton, was sentenced to 30 months immediate custody. He was also disqualified from holding the position of a director for a period of 8 years and 3 months. A Proceeds of Crime Application is outstanding and will be determined at a future date.
Joe Frizell, 48 of Crewe Road, Shavington, was sentenced to 2 years immediate custody. He was also disqualified from holding the position of a director for a period of 6 years. A Proceeds of Crime Application is outstanding and will be determined at a future date.
James Bowden, 44 of Bignall Hill, Bignall End was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment that was immediately suspended for 18 months. He must undertake 240 hours of unpaid work. He was also disqualified from holding the position of a director for a period of 5 years. A Proceeds of Crime Application is outstanding and will be determined at a future date.
Victoria Webb-Johnson, 47 of Sydney Road, Crewe was sentenced to 10 weeks imprisonment suspended for 12 months. She was also ordered to pay a contribution towards the costs of the prosecution of £8000 and the victim surcharge.
Stefan Paraszko, 66 of High Street Silverdale, was sentenced to 11 months imprisonment that was immediately suspended for 18 months and the victim surcharge.
VWJ Earth Moving Limited was fined £11,000 and ordered to pay a contribution towards the costs of the prosecution of £8000 and the victim surcharge
Jumbo Waste and Metal Limited was fined £1, as the company is in liquidation, and the victim surcharge.
TW Frizell (Haulage & Plant Hire) Ltd was fined £1, as the company is in liquidation, and the victim surcharge.
Joe Frizell was also sentenced alongside RJC Regeneration Limited in respect of a matter that occurred at Elms Farm, Betley, Crewe. In that case waste was deposited without the benefit of an Environmental Permit and exceeded the allowances of any waste exemptions.
In respect of the Elms Farm case, Mr Recorder Nicholls imposed the following sentences:
Joe Frizell was sentenced to 2 months immediate custody to run concurrently with his other sentence – this means he received a total of 2 years immediate custody overall.
RJC Regeneration Limited was fined £8000 and the victim surcharge
Further information
In the matter large scale illegal waste crime in Staffordshire from Chester Crown Court, Joe Frizell, RJC Regeneration Ltd and Mark Oulton pleaded guilty on 18 July 2023 to offences relating to the depositing of illegal waste at Doddlespool Farm and Elms Farm, Crewe at Chester Crown Court on 18 July 2023.
Mark Oulton, 53 of Main Road, Betley, was sentenced by Chester Crown Court on 8 September 2023 to 9 months custody suspended for 18 months. In addition, he was sentenced to 130 hours unpaid work, a £5000 fine and ordered to pay a contribution towards the prosecution costs of £27,000. Mr Oulton was also made subject to a court order requiring him to remove waste illegally deposited and stored on Doddlespool Farm by 8 September 2024.
Large Scale Illegal Waste Crime Charges
Jumbo Waste & Metals Ltd
Jumbo Waste & Metals Ltd did between the 1st March 2014 and the 30th June 2015, contravened regulation 12(1) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 operate a regulated facility on land known as Bonnie Braes Farm, Bignall End, without the authorisation of an environmental permit, contrary to Regulation 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010.
Raymond Bowden
Raymond Bowden did between the 1st March 2014 and the 30th June 2015, contravened regulation 12(1) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 operate a regulated facility on land known as Bonnie Braes Farm, Bignall End, without the authorisation of an environmental permit, contrary to Regulation 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010.
James Bowden
Between the 12th January 2015 and the 30th June 2015, Jumbo Waste & Metals Ltd contravened regulation 12 of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 by operating a regulated facility at Bonnie Braes Farm, Bignall End outside the terms of authorisation of an environmental permit and this offence was committed with the consent or connivance or was attributable to the neglect of James Bowden, being a director of the said company, contrary to Regulation 38(1) and Regulation 41(1) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010.
Stefan Paraszko
Stefan Paraszko pleaded guilty to between the 1st March 2014 and the 30th June 2015, contravened regulation 12(1) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 operating a regulated facility on land known as Bonnie Braes Farm, Bignall End, without the authorisation of an environmental permit, contrary to Regulation 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010.
TW Frizell (Haulage & Plant Hire) Ltd
TW Frizell (Haulage & Plant Hire) Ltd, between the 1st March 2014 and the 30th June 2015, deposited controlled waste on land at Bonnie Braes Farm, Bignall End when there was no environmental permit in force authorising the deposits, contrary to sections 33(1)(a) and 33(6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
Joe Frizell
Between the 1st March 2014 and the 30th June 2015, TW Frizell (Haulage & Plant Hire) Ltd deposited controlled waste on land at Bonnie Braes Farm, Bignall End when there was no environmental permit in force authorising the deposits and this offence was committed with the consent or connivance or was attributable to the neglect of Joe Frizell, being a director of the said company, contrary to sections 33(1)(a), 33(6) and 157(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
VWJ Earthmoving Ltd
VWJ Earthmoving Ltd pleaded guilty to between the 1st March 2014 and the 30th June 2015, depositing controlled waste on land at Bonnie Braes Farm, Bignall End when there was no environmental permit in force authorising the deposits, contrary to sections 33(1)(a) and 33(6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
Victoria Webb-Johnson
Victoria Webb-Johnson pleaded guilty to between the 1st March 2014 and the 30th June 2015, VWJ Earthmoving Ltd deposited controlled waste on land at Bonnie Braes Farm, Bignall End when there was no environmental permit in force authorising the deposits and this offence was committed with the consent or connivance or was attributable to the neglect of Victoria Webb-Johnson, being the director of the said company, contrary to sections 33(1)(a), 33(6) and 157(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
Chester Court Charges
Mark Oulton
Between 16 February 2018 to 22 March 2021 at Doddlespool Farm, Main Road, Betley, Crewe, CW3 9AE, Mark Oulton did operate a regulated facility, namely a waste operation for storage of waste, except under and to the extent authorised by an environmental permit, contrary to Regulations 12 and 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016.
Between 3 October 2017 to 22 March 2021 at Elms Farm, Betley Road, Betley, Crewe, Mark Oulton did operate a regulated facility, namely a waste operation for storage of waste, except under and to the extent authorised by an environmental permit, contrary to Regulations 12 and 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016.
RJC Regeneration Ltd
Between 3 October 2017 to 23 March 2018 at Elms Farm, Betley Road, Betley, Crewe, RJC Regeneration Ltd did deposit waste on land without the benefit of an environmental permit contrary to Section 33(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
Joe Frizell
Between 3 October 2017 to 23 March 2018 at Elms Farm, Betley Road, Betley, Crewe, RJC Regeneration Ltd did deposit waste on land without the benefit of an environmental permit and that offence was committed with the consent, connivance or was attributable to the neglect of Joe Frizell contrary to Sections 33(1)(a) and 157 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
Recent incidents involving cattle have underlined the potential dangers they pose to walkers, and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has issued a reminder on staying safe near cattle.
The HSE, however, is stressing that serious incidents involving cattle and walkers are rare, while reminding both farmers and walkers to do all they can to keep everyone safe.
Farmers have a legal responsibility to manage their herds to reduce risk to people using footpaths and other rights of way.
The HSE regularly investigates incidents involving cattle and the public. A proportion of these incidents involve serious injury and sometimes death. Incidents often involve cows with calves or bulls, and the person injured often has a dog.
The HSE’s published statistics show that in the five years leading up to March of this year, nine members of the public died after being attacked or trampled by cattle.
Public safety near cattle
Members of the public can find out about steps they can take to safely enjoy the countryside and respect farming activities by following HM Government advice in The Countryside Code.
The advice includes:
Give livestock plenty of space. Their behaviour can be unpredictable, especially when they are with their young.
Keep your dog under effective control to make sure it stays away from livestock. It is good practice wherever you are to keep your dog on a lead around livestock.
Let your dog off the lead if you feel threatened by livestock. Releasing your dog will make it easier for you both to reach safety.
While many thousands of people enjoy the countryside and use the extensive network of footpaths, bridleways, and public access land every day, activities such as walking through or near cattle can be hazardous.
“All large animals can be a risk to people. Even a gentle knock from a cow can result in people being crushed or falling. All cattle should be treated with respect.
“Farmers should carefully consider the animals put into fields with footpaths, for example cows and calves are best kept in alternative fields. Even docile cattle, when under stress, perhaps because of the weather, illness, unusual disturbance, or when maternal or other instincts are aroused, can become aggressive.
“Follow farming industry and HSE guidance to reduce the risk from animals and help people to enjoy your land and pass through smoothly.”
HSE inspector Wayne Owen
Cattle safety advice for farmers and landowners
The HSE has published guidance to promote safety and the Cattle and public access in England and Wales: Advice for farmers, landowners and other livestock keepers (AIS 17EW) is available for free download. A risk assessment can help you identify the hazards and put controls in place to protect yourself, farm staff and the public. You should record the significant findings of your risk assessment and review these regularly and when there are changes.
The NFU has also published guidance to help farmers stay safe around cattle which is available on its website.
Key considerations for farmers and landowners include:
No dairy bulls should be kept in fields with a public right of way (PROW) at any time.
Where possible avoid putting cattle, especially cows with calves, in fields with PROW.
Where there is a need to keep cattle with calves or a bull in a field with PROW do all that you can to keep animals and people separated. Consider the use of fencing (permanent or temporary e.g. electric fencing). This is particularly important at busy times or where PROW are heavily used.
Assess the temperament of any cattle before putting them into a field with PROW.
If cattle, especially cows with calves, do need to be put into fields with PROW, keep this period to a minimum.
Position feed and water troughs away from the PROW and away from PROW entrances and exists to the field.
Put in place a system to monitor any cattle in fields with PROW at least on a daily basis. It may be worth recording this.
Consider culling any animal that shows signs of aggression.
Any animal that has shown any sign of aggression must not be kept in a field with PROW.
Clearly sign post all PROW across the farm. Display signage at all entrances to the field stating what is in the field (cows with calves / bulls).
In June, a roadmap for flood and climate-resilience was published. The Environment Agency (EA) launched the roadmap setting out practical actions to be taken over the next four years to tackle the growing threat of flooding from rivers, the sea, and surface water as well as coastal erosion.
The FCERM Strategy Roadmap builds on existing progress and sets out how we can be better prepared for the unavoidable impacts of climate change by ensuring the country is resilient and ready to respond and adapt to flooding and coastal change. The Environment Agency will be delivering the Roadmap with many partners including local authorities, local drainage boards, farmers, environmental groups, infrastructure providers and the insurance sector.
Delivery of the actions in the Roadmap will improve climate-resilience and will:
Ensure that new homes will be safe from flooding.
Maximise the use of nature to enhance flood and coastal resilience while aiding nature recovery.
Improve the flood resilience of our roads, railways, and other vital national infrastructure.
Ensure the delivery of environmental improvements and sustainable growth as part of flood and coastal projects.
Enhance our flood forecasting and warning services to help people be better prepared to respond to flood events.
Support building back better to reduce the damage and disruption caused by flooding.
Work with communities and local partners to develop long term plans to manage future flooding and coastal change and adapt to future hazards.
Climate-resilience
The Roadmap was launched by the Environment Agency’s Chief Executive, Sir James Bevan, and Floods Minister, Rebecca Pow, at the Flood and Coast Conference. It directly supports the implementation of the £5.2 billion capital investment programme which will better protect many hundreds of thousands of properties from flooding and coastal erosion by 2027.
“This roadmap sets out how we can build a more resilient nation. It will work alongside our record investment of £5.2 billion in flood and coastal defences between 2021 and 2027 to help better protect communities.
Climate change will only bring more extreme weather and this roadmap will spur on the timely action required to manage flood and coastal risk, help reduce the costly impacts and manage the risks to people’s homes and businesses across the country.”
Floods Minister, Rebecca Pow
flood and climate-resilience will impact all sectors
“Climate change is happening now, and its impacts will continue to worsen. Rainfall patterns are changing, causing more frequent flooding, and while we continue to protect and prepare coastal communities from rising sea levels, it is inevitable that at some point some of our communities will have to move back from the coast.
We all need to adapt and become more resilient to these challenges, and this roadmap sets out actions that will be taken to do this over the next four years.
It will ensure that we make our communities more resilient to flooding and coastal change, so that when it does happen, it causes much less harm to people, does much less damage, and ensures life can get back to normal much quicker.”
Sir James Bevan, Chief Executive of the Environment Agency
Roadmap key elements
Key actions from the roadmap include:
Developing a new national assessment of flood risk from rivers, the sea and surface water that will provide better data and mapping to inform future risk and investment decisions.
Working with coastal groups to update the policies and actions in Shoreline Management Plans so they reflect adaptation to a changing climate.
Working with national infrastructure providers, including National Highways and Network Rail, on joint investment opportunities to ensure national infrastructure is resilient to future flooding and coastal change.
Working with Ofwat to ensure that water company assets are resilient and contribute to better flood risk outcomes.
Working with Natural England, the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, and other partners to collate evidence and case studies to help mainstream nature-based solutions that enhance flood and coastal resilience and nature recovery.
Working with Flood Re and the insurance sector to develop a communications programme for homeowners to signpost advice and support on the benefits of property flood resilience.
Developing new training materials with the Town and Country Planning Association to help improve skills and capabilities on flood risk and development planning.
Working with the Environment Agency’s supply chain to ensure all flood and coastal projects adopt low carbon technologies that contribute to zero carbon targets.
Continuing to improve the Environment Agency’s digital tools for people to check their flood risk and sign up to flood warnings.
Working with Department for Education, schools, and children’s charities to improve young people’s knowledge of flood risk and climate change.
The publication of the Roadmap comes after the Environment Agency announced that it had exceeded its target in delivering the government’s £2.6 billion investment in flood and coastal defence schemes since 2015, better protecting more than 314,000 homes.
The Environment Agency is now working alongside partners to deliver on the government’s record investment of £5.2 billion in flood and coastal defences between 2021 and 2027, which will better protect hundreds of thousands more properties as well as avoid £32 billion of wider economic damages.
An Environment Agency report highlights an urgent need to work with nature and lays bare the scale of change needed to halt England’s biodiversity and climate crisis.
Published in July, the report sets out how significant changes will be needed to how land is used in England, with the need for significant landscape scale interventions and the use of nature-based solutions to help wildlife recover, and for humans to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change.
The ‘Working with Nature’ report compiled by Environment Agency scientists sets out the global challenges facing the basics for life on Earth – clean water, climate regulation and food. It describes the potential loss of complex natural ecosystems that provide such essentials as an existential risk to human survival.
Referencing Rachel Carson’s 1962 book Silent Spring, considered by many to be the most important piece of environmental writing of the 20th century, Environment Agency chief executive, Sir James Bevan, spoke about the ‘silent spring’ that awaits humanity unless action is taken by businesses, government and individuals to prevent further damage and rebuild the natural environment. The report was unveiled at an event hosted by the Green Alliance, ahead of the COP15 Biodiversity Conference taking place later this year. Internationally, the G7 leaders have committed to the global mission to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. The COP 15 meeting of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2022 will review the progress towards previously agreed Biodiversity targets.
“The biodiversity crisis joins the climate crisis as an existential risk to our survival, but as this report sets out the solution is not to retreat but to work together to build a nature-positive response.
Nature provides the basics for life – clean water, clean air and food. With major pressures on land use across England, nature-based solutions must be a major part in our response to protect these essentials whilst rebuilding our natural world.”
Sir James Bevan, Environment Agency Chief Executive
England is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world due to its long history of industrialisation and land use changes over millennia. There is an urgent need to work with nature as large areas of habitats have been lost with 99.7% of fens, 97% of species-rich grasslands, 80% of lowland heathlands, up to 70% of ancient woodlands and up to 85% of saltmarshes destroyed or degraded.
The impacts on species have also been severe, with a quarter of mammals in England and almost a fifth of UK plants threatened with extinction.
Nature in England has also been impacted by pressures on land use. The report sets out the impact of the last 50 years of agricultural production and points to the likelihood of a need of further intensification and increased yields from agricultural land. It also charts the impacts of urbanisation, forestry and the need for large areas of land for climate change mitigation.
To address the major declines in biodiversity that will only be accelerated by a changing climate, the report sets out a need for more land to be dedicated to nature conservation to act as refuges for nature and to mitigate against climate change – such as coastal wetlands to combat flood risks. However, with such demand on land, it will need to provide multiple benefits to people and nature.
The Environment Agency has a leading role to play in restoring or recreating new wildlife-rich habitat in England. Recent projects include peat restoration at Great Fen, Cambridgeshire, which will save 325,000 tonnes of CO2 from being released each year while restoring habitats for threatened fenland species and protecting surrounding towns, villages and farmland from the risk of flooding after heavy rainfall.
The report identifies such nature-based solutions as a crucial tool in restoring nature and achieving multiple other benefits. By working with nature, including tree planting, peat restoration, species reintroductions and natural flood management, it suggests there are opportunities to restore biodiversity, whilst providing other benefits such as carbon sequestration, flood protection and clean and plentiful water.
The report also says action will also be required to address the levels of consumption in wealthy countries, which contribute to the loss of biodiversity, and that sustained effort will be required from many people and organisations at forums like the COP 15 meeting of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity to tackle the effects of global consumption, production and supply chains. If you require advice on environmental issues, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.
The Guardian has reported that England’s Environment Agency has downgraded 93% of pollution prosecutions for serious incidents over four years, despite recommendations from frontline staff for the perpetrators to face the highest sanction according to a leaked report seen by the paper’s reporters.
93% of serious pollution prosecutions over 4 years may have been downgraded (stock image)
The EA receives over 100,000 incident reports a year, every one of which is recorded and assessed. Of 495 serious pollution investigations which were recommended for prosecution only 35 cases were taken forward to prosecution. A spokesperson for the Environment Agency said the regulator does not comment on leaked documents. However, they said it does:
“consider, record and prioritise all incidents – with all breaches and offences reported to us undergoing a robust initial assessment. We have a wide range of enforcement options, including civil sanctions, enforcement undertakings, and in some circumstances, advice and guidance. Where prosecution is appropriate, we pursue robustly and in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, which sets out that the evidence must provide a realistic prospect of securing a conviction and that a prosecution is in the public interest. Over 90% of our prosecutions are successful, and recent outcomes such as the £90m fine of Southern Water Services show a clear and welcome trend towards much bigger fines against offenders in appropriate cases.”
The Environment Agency has prosecuted two men for angling offences. Wayne Knight of Cosby, Leicester, was fined £220, ordered to pay costs of £135 plus a victim’s surcharge of £34. Knight admitted fishing without a licence at Mill on the Soar, Sutton Elms, on 1 February 2022.
Lester McManus of Leicester, was fined £40, ordered to pay costs of £135 plus a victim’s surcharge of £34. McManus admitted fishing for freshwater fish during the close season at Aylestone on the River Soar on 24 March 2022.
Environment Agency prosecutions for angling offences (stock image)
A spokesperson for the Environment Agency said:
“These cases show we pursue offenders through the courts and won’t hesitate to take enforcement action where anglers break rules.”
Anyone found fishing illegally may face prosecution and a fine of up to £2,500.
Any angler aged 13 or over, fishing on a river, canal or still water needs a licence. The money raised through the sales of rod licences is re-invested back into the sport and illegal fishing undermines the Environment Agency’s efforts to make fishing sustainable.
A 1-day licence costs from just £6 and an annual licence costs from just £30 (concessions available). Junior licences are free for 13 – 16-year-olds.
Licences are available online or by calling the Environment Agency on 0344 800 5386 between 8am and 6pm, Monday to Friday. The Environment Agency carries out enforcement work all year round and is supported by partners including the police and the Angling Trust. Fisheries enforcement work is intelligence-led, targeting known hot-spots and where illegal fishing is reported.
The first major review of the UK food system in 75 years has been undertaken with Part 1 of the National Food Strategy published on 29 July 2020. The review was headed by Henry Dimbleby who co-founded the Leon restaurant chain, before going on to become Director of London Union, which runs some of London’s most successful street food markets.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
