ULEZ and The Impact on Charities.

Whilst the goal of the Ultra-Low Emission Zone or ULEZ zone was to reduce the level of harmful toxic air within a given area. There has been an unmistaken impact of ULEZ on families financially as well as charities which serve their communities. Now whilst clean air is something that we all want for our families, there are still times where the car is crucial whether it be for key works serving the community.

How Charities Support the Community:

Although the public transport system in London is highly effective it is still unable to meet all the needs of its community and is now spilling over into adverse effects on charities. Providing aid for the most vulnerable in society is something that should be a top priority for any local authority and ensuring that works can be taken with the fewest barriers is essential. Often due to the flexibility and innovation of charities and businesses many in our communities have these needs met not just by the public sector but by the private sector.

The Impact of ULEZ

This is where the ULEZ zone particularly impacts the vulnerable, now although some businesses in London and TFL will be able to update their vehicles to reflect the new policies and therefore reduce their emissions charities and small businesses will not be able to do this. This will effectively add greater costs to these organisations. Organisations like Dogs on the Street who are a small charity which serve the homeless residents of London and their pets are one such organisation offering tailored services that these citizens otherwise would not be able to afford. The charity has bespoke services and have specialist equipment on their vehicles to offer these services to the communities and modernising these vehicles will add significant costs to their operation. To adapt to this change that means the donation and fundraising efforts are going towards paying the ULEZ fees rather than into providing crucial support for the residents and their pets.

Scrappage Program Flaws

So, what about the scrappage scheme now whilst the scrappage program offered grant funding for charities or businesses in order to conform with the new charges before they came in the problem lies with purpose refitted vehicles. Specifically having mobile grooming, veterinary and general care vehicles have additional expenses and whilst the grant would go some way to meet these costs it would barely cover the cost of acquisition of a vehicle, and this would often be of an older used model where the battery will also have shown some wearing unlike traditional fuel vehicles which have a longer service life. This scheme has also been closed to new applicants which limits charities making claims for grant funding where the two-year window may have often not allowed the organisation to raise the necessary funds to replace the fleet of specialist vehicles. This two-year window also came at a time when many of the organisations were working flat out to deal with added pressures of Covid-19.

Actions that can be Taken

Now, myself and other activists are calling on the Mayor of London to look again at how his ULEZ zones are still impacting some of the most vulnerable in his community by increasing the financial burden on charities. That is why we are collectively calling on him to review his ULEZ policy for charities who may have been unable to refit or scrap vehicles under the previous scheme. Reopen the scheme to allow for further funding to support specialist sourcing of new efficient vehicles or to provide exemptions. The support for Dogs On The Street from Neil Garratt and Shaun Bailey has been hugely refreshing to see London Assembly members standing up for this charity and others.

Further Reading

https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/scrappage-schemes?cid=scrappage-scheme

https://dogsonthestreets.org/london/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/05/londons-ultra-low-emission-zone-good-or-bad-idea

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/ulez-checker-zone-map-charge-2021-b1944620.html

https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/environment/pollution-and-air-quality/mayors-ultra-low-emission-zone-london

Remember contact your London Assembly members and add pressure onto the Mayor.

https://www.london.gov.uk/people/assembly

The case for TB testing review: PR perspective

Whilst so much of the world's attention has been on the crisis in Afghanistan, and rightly so. However, the national case of Geronimo, the alpaca, has continued.

The Story so Far

With the high court denying Helen's appeal for further testing, the case will likely result in the animal's death. When writing this, Geronimo is in the custody of the police and DEFRA awaiting his fate. Following this, a post mortem investigation will then be conducted. Helen is likely to do her independent tests. While many campaigners hope this can still be avoided if the situation cannot change, the results must be clear. DEFRAs vet will take biopsy's of the tissue and various cultures to assess the Geronimos health. This test needs to be done independently as well. Now Geronimo does not have any clinical signs of TB, which are weight loss and respiratory problems. Now visually, TB is challenging to diagnose, which is why a robust testing program is necessary.

The Impact on Testing

With a test for bovine TB essential for keeping cases down and alpaca ownership continuing to rise as more people take to various models of adding these animals onto a farm, testing is crucial. Now with the testing protocols being brought into question at present because of the case of Geronimo, the issue that is likely to happen is one where the voluntary test is proving highly inaccurate when an alternative is available. It will increase owner scrutiny. With the trial being voluntary once owners investigate the testing protocols in greater detail, owners will likely increase scrutiny, which is positive. However, as the trial is mainly voluntary at this point, the reduced confidence in the study would reduce not only the scope but further question its validity, increasing its overall cost and likely incentives offered to ensure necessary subjects are available.

Rounded Testing Regimes

The other element that needs to be considered is, does the current protocol use all of the available science to identify TB accurately. If we add this third test, there is no feasible alternative other than post mortem for further testing. Although we may still see some errors with the three tests, the additional test would increase validity and owner confidence. The likelihood of an animal failing a test due to a false positive across consecutive sampling is extremely unlikely, especially when the test has different approaches and methodologies will reduce the likelihood of farmers and owners going through lengthy appeal processes. 

A further focus

This additional phage test then opens doors further for testing once a valid treatment is available and brings into question the testing of cattle. An additional piece will focus on testing regimes in cattle and current issues or concerns to follow this article up. So what can we do whilst we desperately wait and want this case to end in a positive outcome? We also need to ensure that the focus and scrutiny does not move off of Bovine TB testing. A further change in testing is needed so that those with animals and livestock are not in the situation where the organisations do not fully utilise all the tools there to protect them.

Saving Geronimo

In Summary:

Geronimo was bought by his owner from a bTB negative farm and was imported to the UK by his Owner Helen. Geronimo was tested on a trial testing program by DEFRA (Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs) and the BAS (British Alpaca Society). There are multiple elements taking place in this case as it is has received national interest, the personal bond between Geronimo and his owner as well as the validity of the trial.

The Trial of the Enferplex Test:

The problem with the trial. Now the test in itself may have a place in the sector to benefit cattle and alpacas. The issue is that there has been an issue with the test as part of the trial whilst they included various outcomes to rule out particular errors the problem, occurs with the circumstances of Geronimo. Even though he has been isolated and after coming from a TB free county the test conducted is showing a positive result but we should all be aware that this test is only a trial to see if it detects bTB in camelids as it does in cattle as well as the accuracy. The concern would be as with some of the errors currently found with TB testing post mortem is the only conclusive test identifying TB lesions but if Geronimo is healthy this is a senseless waste of life. This also poses a problem for the government and DEFRA as it would be a PR disaster. Now Geronimo has been vaccinated according to his owner which the tests used in the trial Enferplex would not be able to distinguish from him having the disease. This is where the problem lies for a trial the animal should not have been selected to begin with as there is nothing in the protocols to account for this. Now the backup of this type of test is to utilise the much-contested validity of the skin test which is also primarily used in the cattle which in itself has had its sensitivity questioned and found in camelids the accuracy is less than 20%.

Call for the Actiphage Test:

Now a testing method that does not utilise a method for detecting present antibodies and instead identified the presence of the disease itself is a far more sensible solution. The Actiphage test effectively highlights to the tester if the disease is present by giving a clear DNA signature under testing conditions from a blood sample taken from the subject. This would remove the risk that the animal simply has antibodies due to an immune response that has been supported by a vaccine. If the test proves that there is no TB present then what we effectively have is a case for a test that can be used to identify the status of an animal after the introduction of a vaccine. Then if animals test positive under this test they may be vaccinated but could also be reactors as they have the disease present and would effectively be suffering from the disease. This would offer an option to incorporate testing into a vaccine regime for both cattle and camelids as well as a lifeline for Geronimo.

In Conclusion:

The Actiphage test provides a new tool to potentially safeguard vaccinated animals like Geronimo as we move closer to vaccine trials this is invaluable. Whilst also protecting other stock animals as we measure the effectiveness of the test and validity. Geronimo is potentially paving the way to increase the calibre of the testing method applied in the UK and also offer crucial protection from euthanasia which many including myself feel is morally wrong and scientifically dubious without robust testing.

Sources and Further Reading:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9879245/Standoff-Geronimo-continues-alpacas-owner-demands-appropriate-bovine-TB-testing.html

https://www.fwi.co.uk/livestock/health-welfare/livestock-diseases/bovine-tb/farmers-and-vets-hope-alpaca-case-raises-bovine-tb-awareness

https://tbhub.co.uk/tb-in-non-bovine-animals/camelids/

http://apha.defra.gov.uk/external-operations-admin/library/documents/tuberculosis/TN191.pdf

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-58158054

https://1gov.uk/petition-to-save-condemned-alpaca-geronimo-secures-almost-80000-signatures/

https://www.bas-uk.com/british-alpaca-society-calls-for-urgent-talks-with-defra-amidst-fears-for-the-future-of-voluntary-btb-testing-in-the-uk/

https://tbhub.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Factsheet_gamma_test_TB_hub.pdf

https://tbhub.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Phage_factsheet_13.02.2020_TB_hub.pdf

Aus-UK Trade Deal

At a Glance:

On the 17th of June 2021, Australia and the UK signed a historic trade deal. Now both nations are seeking an ambitious free trade agreement (FTA). Now whilst the UK is mainly looking at the FTA as the first step in entering the pacific market, Australia is looking at boosting its ties with the UK consumer market. Whilst the UK will benefit from exports of Whiskey, Cheeses and Cars. Australia benefits from an increase in Agricultural access and industrial products. For countries with broadly similar systems and ways of working, easing restrictions on UK Australian working visas is also a big pull.

The Good:

With over 1.25 million ex-pats living in Australia, a core winner here is the young job seekers, the gap year adventures, and the entrepreneurs. Greater access to both countries education systems, markets and cultures allows for knowledge sharing, growth of existing companies or the formation of new businesses as both countries seek to explore the wealth of development in the tertiary and quaternary sectors. A core focus is how these two island nations can establish conduits of data flow with established protections maintained for both consumers. This presents opportunities for the UK and Australian firms to challenge the might of Silicon Valley. With the greater access, this would provide for a greater prospect for both nations to share both the skills of their respective workforces and provide an opportunity for businesses to flourish. With the UK and Australia already sharing cultural heritage, a free trade agreement would remove red tape to provide essential growth in these emerging sectors. 

The Bad: 

Whereas the deal is primarily heralded as an outstanding achievement and part of Britain reentering the global fray, we also need to recognise its limitations. Now the UK is both known for an exceptional standard of food quality and animal welfare; however, the provision for our farmers is far less robust than other countries. The Australian trade deal for all its benefits for opening up both emerging sectors and new avenues for trade also sees Australia benefit from a new market to sell its livestock and arable produce to now this in itself is not a problem until we address the broader issues. The UK is legislating for greater protection for animals already providing protection in slaughterhouses with CCTV, actively working towards reducing life transport and generally improving welfare standards of stock. The issues from the fact that many in the sector myself included seeing cheap imports as a potential loss leader that UK farmers cannot compete against due to quality or regulatory pressures.  Now, this could be remedied by further intervention from the government to protect the British agriculture trade through additional reinforcement of subsidies which would continue to enable farmers security of revenue so that they can steward the environment. We also have to reflect on the recent pandemic where without these key workers within this sector, UK food prices would have soared, but subsidy should not be the only tool. Subsidy should be a support mechanism for farmers to innovate and explore further opportunities, not as the critical area to ensure their survival which is where in the future we are likely going to need more robust packaging from trends in carbon footprints and welfare standards to the origin of products.

The Ugly:

As with many areas of new policy areas, we are likely to see far further detail in weeks and months to come, and the benefit of this detail may undoubtedly outweigh any cons. However, areas that are already becoming abundantly clear are that any trade deal needs to add value to our stores and the public without costing our domestic sectors. We must recognise that this deal will essentially become the benchmark for future agreements with other countries such as New Zealand and the United States, and the standards we employ need to ensure we can maintain our quality. This is where we need to think about what governments and sectors can do to ensure the British made standard is and Union Jack products are promoted as other countries will be focusing on promoting their products and not seeing our own produce increasingly priced out of the market. Whereas some would certainly and often rightly articulate that the market would be the best moderator to ensure that successful products or produce survive, we need to recognise holistic benefits of what we are trying to achieve and whilst tariff provisions are a solution, they are not a silver bullet. We need to think of what can be done to ensure that we are giving the right information with a greater abundance of produce. Making sure products are more accurately labelled and those items have information consumers care about as we already see levels of information vary based on the intensity of farming or sustainability of materials we need to reflect this on the packaging in the stores. Place of origin is also crucial and must be clear as we are already aware larger producers such as New Zealand Dairy could potentially use the deal to enter the UK milk market and price pinched farmers further out. 

To conclude:

The free trade deal in itself overs various opportunities for a plethora of sectors to benefit from further collaboration with a country we share so much with; however, we need to recognise that the deal must benefit the UK holistically and not sole sectors. Agreements need to ensure various sectors can benefit from these new agreements offering avenues to enrich our great nation and not solely focus on metropolitan sectors to see growth for our country and the success of domestic programs. Part of the levelling up agenda needs to recognise the key industries around our nation and areas where we can grow, not token offers or caveats.

Locally Tackling Pet Theft What Can We Do?

We all recognize that Pet Theft is sweeping across our United Kingdom and in Suffolk, we are equally as afflicted by this rise in crime as other counties. This report will be following on from my conversation with Suffolks Police and Crime Commissioner Tim Passmore.

Tim as an avid dog owner and lover was very open about the impacts on Pet Owners across the county. Now in Suffolk, we have eighteen reported cases of Dog Thefts. This is a clear distinction which we need to make as cases are reported as Thefts not as specific crimes. Now as I spoke to Tim he expressed his views candidly about how “Adhorrent the crime is and how it affects owners like a child being taken from them”.

The importance to remember here was that local constabularies are obligated to record the crime as a possession theft as they are recorded as an object first. Tim makes the clear point that the animal is a living being and it is my view that we should rightly view them as such this links back to Animal Welfare Sentencing reform which would recognize a greater severity for sentencing guidelines. We still have work to do in this area as we need to apply this sentence in my view to a specific act of UK law. Now whilst Suffolk Constabulary records these thefts as both traditional item theft and pet thefts is certainly useful in tackling this crime. It is also where we must recognize not only the distress that this has caused on owners but also on how wider implications of sentencing could be applied against those that commit these offenses.

Presently the UK like other countries applies sentences in a discounted way where the crimes will have been recorded but the time they have served will be served concurrently or at the same time as the first sentence. Rather than a cumulative approach where if the offender commits a series of offenses the sentences do not sequentially add on to each other. Now in the UK, we have three specific types of sentencing Suspended sentences where the duration is less than a year this is often how Pet Theft is dealt with nationally which also highlights the need for reform. The aim would be to push for a Determinate sentence were unlike the suspended sentence where the sentence is held unless the guilty party reoffends a determinate sentence sees half of the offender’s sentence in prison and half in the community. This is where the probationary sentence comes into account and ensures that the guilty party does not re-offend. Indeterminate sentences are used to identify where the courts can use their powers to determine a minimum imposed sentence which could be used where you have a repeat offender or when the individual is linked to organized crime.

Now Tim highlights that the maximum sentence for theft is up to seven years but this does not mean that the judiciary has to sentence up to this amount and the guidance for the courts may be tied from using tougher sentences. Now why is this the case, one area is culpability is an area that should be reflected on in a specific act because although this relates to the planning and coordination of the theft. Guidelines then have to further examine the level of harm to an individual now this form of measurement is a subjective matter and should not necessarily be applied in this way. If the animal itself was recognized as having harm applied to it by recognizing the conditions or impact on it and the distress to owner or keeper in a way that is more referencable to the courts this could likely lead to tougher sentences. We went on to discuss the importance of the Animal Welfare Sentencing Bill both its importance and significance as a way to develop specific and tougher sentences but also as a way to build on changes brought in at a later stage.

In terms of trends, Tim says that present data does not trend to any particular breed but as always high demand or popular breeds can be easier targets as the criminals are aware they can move them on easier. Now from this, I draw the conclusion that they are also aware of how much these popular breeds fetch online and as a result the value of the breed specifically. Whereas we could draw from this less well-known breeds may not be as identifiable and whilst we certainly should not let our guard down as dogs are stolen for a variety of reasons where we must be vigilant to protect our precious pets. There is no evidence as of yet to suggest that breeds are stolen to order and therefore business owners should remain vigilant of their risk to theft but they are at no greater risk of opportunistic thieves than the general public. Now building on my previous article Tim points out that whilst these thieves are stealing pets from gardens as well as kennels they have a variety of methods and are not deterred from entering a house to steal a litter of puppies. Now, this highlights ways you can reduce the risk of break-ins by methods such as alarm systems which must be armed, CCTV, robust locks, and not advertising any litters of puppies or kittens which may attract opportunistic thieves. One area which Tim points out that we have not spoken about is how something which may not be outrightly suspicious may be a tool for criminal groups using distraction theft to talk to the owner and cause someone to let their guard down and allow someone to abduct their pet.

https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/centres-institutes/centre-criminology/blog/2016/01/more-one-crime-sentencing-multiple-offences

https://www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resources/sentencing/

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/theft-general/

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/theft-general/

Aspirations for Animal Welfare Reform a Summary

In this article, I want to touch on what elements of Animal Welfare reform that we should be advocating for, covering farm, and companion animals.

So when we look at Welfare Reform we need to recognise a suitable comparison between our laws and other countries which arguably have a better welfare standard then we do. Looking at the Swiss and Austrian systems. In the UK with our five animal welfare needs are the standards that we must hold people to account for the abuse of animals.

So what are these needs: Need for a suitable environment, Need for a suitable diet, Need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns. Need to be housed with, or apart, from other animals and the Need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease. These needs allow us to recognise the basic rights of the animal and what they require to be able to exist. This is furthered by are they able to meet the basic requirement of life as well as limiting suffering on the animal to ensure that they can behave in a normal way preventing abnormal behaviours which cause acute and prolonged suffering.

Now in terms of points where we can go further with Swiss and Austrian law provisions about freedom of an animals movement which could be arguably a move to prevent intensive farming in particular pigs who are kept in farrowing crates. This freedom of movement would protect them from a number of points that cause behaviour concerns and problems due to confinement. Now in intensive farming, it is arguable that whilst some farmers would argue confinement is necessary for the production of the animal associated products. Yet whilst Austria does still have clauses for this to allow farmers to use a form of confinement for safety reasons such as farrowing (when the sow has piglets) but generally speaking these limitations are vastly limited. Now carrying on with the farming point poultry are still getting the beaks trimmed which is a known area of suffering. The same arguably in areas that look at keeping calves with the heifer this is still recognisable as a form of suffering for the calf but it is something that can still be practiced. Both the Swiss and Austrian laws also mandate that they must see and be exposed to human interaction if it is deemed necessary. The three countries also recognise the need for animals to have suitable light exposure now all three make particular points for livestock with regards to light and this is something which is rightly protected. The other contentious issue is the exemption around religious slaughter many argue that any form of unnecessary suffering is overtly wrong. However, they specify that stunning is then done immediately following the ceremonious slaughter. This is something that is not required in other laws but does offer a way to protect the animal from prolonged suffering and although limiting the suffering further should be a goal this is a step in the right direction and easier to achieve than an outright ban. Laws around suffering looking particularly at pain and pain-causing circumstances as well as offering protection to selective invertebrates such as crustaceans and squid species. Now one area which certainly ranks lower across the board is animals used for draught and recreation which I will revisit in a later article.

In terms of the companion animal point, all three countries roughly meet the same standard of companion animal welfare. The main criticisms of all the items of legislation are as follows; Austria requires breeders to have a license to breed animals this would be something that if regulated correctly would reduce the advertising, of mass-produced litters and regulate the sale of young animals and banning on sales of animals. All of these limit the distribution of animals and would make criminal exploitation of these animals more difficult. This is something the Swiss and UK laws do not yet facilitate. UK provisions against mutilations for animals used in breeding is far more safeguarded in the UK which is a benefit to the animals as a whole. All countries arguably need to review how we control stray animal populations whether that be in the UK looking at how we rehouse animals that have been abandoned or in mitigating cat populations impact on wildlife. In the UK we arguably need to address the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 which is disputed globally as a poor method for protecting public safety and not euthanising animals unnecessary. All countries were also suggested to encourage a more sustainable pet ownership mechanism.

Now, this is only an introduction which is something which I aim to look at each point more specifically to revise a more apt system to protect our animals. We certainly should do more and elements of these laws can protect are animals from abuse which should then coincide with animal welfare legislation. Now this works is likely to make a series rather than a sole article which I will look at over the latter weeks. Please do look at https://api.worldanimalprotection.org to investigate which countries have stronger laws.

https://www.blv.admin.ch/blv/en/home/tiere/tierschutz.html

https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/endcruelty/changingthelaw/whatwechanged/animalwelfareact

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/animal-welfare_how-well-are-swiss-animals-protected-/45489148

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/religious-slaughter/europe.php#switzerland

https://thehumaneleague.org.uk/article/why-welfare

https://www.alaw.org.uk/the-law-as-a-driving-force-for-animal-welfare-reform/

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/228468611.pdf

https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/animals-and-livestock/animal-welfare/issues-paper

Animal Welfare Sentencing Bill

This week the latest incarnation of the Animal Welfare Sentencing bill is entering the house again for a further reading prior to entering the Lords. Now I want to highlight this because this particular bill could give us at the very least a potential avenue to attach Pet Theft Reform sentencing guidelines too. Now to begin with Animal Welfare sentencing in the UK needs to align with other western countries.

Now the guidance within this new bill would also make a particular focus on the changing digital world, paying a focus to where the offender films themselves committing the offence. This is both critical to allow social media platform and users to report and identify abusers which the police can then used as further evidence as an “aggravating factor”. Now for offenders who are caught on camera, this would not be the case but the differentiation of the attitudes of those knowingly committing the offence needs to be recognised and actioned accordingly. It was cited that the RSPCA identified that the filming of animal abuse had risen from 2019 and this needs to be apart of any reforms as it offers a way we can stop the open sharing of these acts of abuse on social media channels. It would also be worth addressing here that whilst points were made in the regard to recording the bill a potential area that needs further refining is the circulation and sharing of this content. Those found to be knowingly sharing this type of media need some form of penalty to act as a deterrent otherwise the work taken to seek justice against the abuser will be lessened by the circulation of the content. My hope is this will be addressed by the Government White Papers at online harms more broadly and that animal abuse is featured specifically.

Now whilst I would add here that when this issue was debated cross-party MPs both advocated for the bill to have amendments which at the very least would use the same sentencing guidelines as seen with robbery. However, it was pointed out by Tom Hunt the MP for Ipswich that at times these guidelines do not echo the sentiments of the public. He particularly cites Pet Theft here and the reason the call for reform is still needed in this case is because of the view that these sentencing guidelines give to the courts they treat the animal as an object and not in a specific way under the law. If the animal was treated specifically under the law it would provide us the general public and animal owners with the knowledge that those who commit these offences and also knowingly abuse someones beloved pet when they are stolen but that justice will be enacted. A further amendment to this bill would also make acts that are often associated with other crimes or forms of abuse against animals such as mutilation which are associated with dogfighting or baiting. These harsher sentences would enable our justice system to empower the police to protect our animals and tackle the criminal gangs perpetuating revenue from animal abuse.

A proposal presented to increase the effectiveness of the bill as well as making sure that animals are treated fairly and evenly not establishing systems where cruelty to domestic animals is targeted under this bill but not wild animals. The RSPCA and various other charities can report how acts of cruelty against wildlife can arguably be as severe as what we see in companion animals and no less worth safeguarding. Points which were raised that in particular areas that then targeted wildlife, in particular, were even less adequate than that which the bill seeks to rectify. The MPs however, do rightly point out to protect pets a subsequent amendment for wild animals may need to be included at a later point. It is therefore positive to see support for further animal rights reform in national politics.

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2622/publications

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-01/0014/200014.pdf

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/section/4

World Wildlife Day

First of all, to raise awareness, different organisations worldwide show what affects disappearing wildlife by linking it to their branding. Now, why are they doing this?

In today's article, I discuss what the day brings awareness for. The reason why we need to keep wildlife at the centre of our policies. What we can do to help as general citizens.

Now the impact which humans have on the natural world is plain and clear for everyone to see. The importance of days such as today to highlight our place in the world and are impacts is crucial. Now what these days do is highlight what we can do better rather than encourage a sense of regret because we need to recognise what we can do better.

In terms of highlighting impacts on various animals, countries such as India highlight their rich wildlife and make it clear that their natural heritage is essential. In particular, the steps taken toward the reintroduction of other predators like Cheetahs show that they recognise that as well as maintaining the existing animals in the region, they need to reintroduce historic species to help the region recover. Countries such as India recognise the need to promote greater cohesion with wildlife organisations, such as how UK football clubs highlight the impact of World Wildlife day by removing animals from their logos. This is more for publicity, making more people aware of the effects we are having and raising awareness. This links us to the theme this year, where we look at how Forests and Livelihoods: Sustain People and the Planet.

My interest in this field is the impact that our industries have on pollinators. Comprehending how they utilise their habitats effectively is key to understanding how to preserve the species and biodiversity. The crux of this process is applied broadly to other animal conservation. Noting the importance of conservation projects and planting endeavours to help the animals recover in their environment. Comparing this with infrastructure projects that restore the vibrance of our woodlands. In Suffolk, the focus needs to be on developing works in the conservation and regenerative agriculture fields. For the Agricultural sector to grow in a sustainable direction, research needs to identify areas that producers can continue developing to maximise sustainable growth for both the industries and wildlife.

My interest in pollinators, significantly the benefits they bring to the natural world for flora and their important place in food webs. Now forests have a significant advantage in terms of how they safeguard the planet. They are quoted as being the lungs of our world. We need to recognise how we sustainably grow to limit our damage to these valuable green spaces. Many flora species have contributed to our medicines and food production. Each year, new resources, such as; plants, pharmaceutical, food resources, and natural beauty, are discovered alongside animal species. We also need to remember that the natural biodiversity all reduces how many species densely congregate in a given space. This is key for epidemiological reasons are it provides a barrier against disease spread. While animals would naturally interact in forests or different biomes, their interaction frequency is limited outside of the human environment. The increased interaction in intensive settings like wet markets has arguably lead to an increase in disease spread.

So in terms of how you can protect animals in terms of policy areas, the Dutch indeed lead the way in giving animals a front and place centre in their infrastructure projects. Often building animals into their design, they include Wildlife corridors, giving animals access to other habitats, enabling more extraordinary biodiversity and not limiting them to a closed environment and isolated population. This is a more expensive form of infrastructure design, but it is crucial we need to reflect on this when we look at designing our environments at home. Connecting farms via hedgerows and allowing green spaces to be connected, not isolated. Countries like Rwanda, India, Scotland, and Costa Rica are increasing the number of trees they are planting to increase forest cover and biodiversity. In Suffolk, we are doing the same thing by establishing our memorial woodlands and engaging in our own planting initiatives. Countries like Zambia have set up organisations to monitor and regulate our impact on animals ensuring they have the opportunity to thrive in the environment. Countries like Canada, the Central African Republic, Zimbabwe, Bhutan, Tanzania, and Botswana have invested heavily in National parks and the different safeguards that can establish vestiges of protection for vulnerable habitats. Norway and Namibia have particular safeguards in their policy that recognise protected species and safeguard animals in law and society.

Now to summarise how you can help as well as engaging in conservation projects locally, you can also make sure your home is wildlife-friendly. Whether that be providing food and resources for animals that are unable to find resources at particular times of the year, such as Hedgehogs. Putting wildlife shelters in place or bird boxes to offer them an alternative home to replace the lack of suitable nesting sites. Planting trees and hedges which are ideal for nesting and foraging, which animals can use as valuable resources. In terms of what these plants are, heritage plants are good places to start but think Blackthorn, Hawthorn, Dogwood. Think about what you can offer to animals. Can you provide food for animals or even small plants for pollinators in the window? Could you plant a heritage hedge? Can you get involved with other projects rewilding, tree planting or conservation projects?

https://rr-africa.oie.int/en/projects/world-wildlife-day-2021-forests-and-livelihoods-sustaining-people-and-planet/

https://www.republicworld.com/lifestyle/festivals/world-wildlife-day-here-is-the-theme-history-and-significance-of-this-day.html

https://www.discoverwildlife.com/news/world-wildlife-day-when-is-it-this-years-theme-and-how-to-take-part/

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/which-countries-are-the-best-in-wildlife-conservation.html

https://nationaltoday.com/world-wildlife-day/

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/articles/three-top-tips-to-help-give-nature-a-home-in-your-garden/