Natural England says Leeds Bradford Airport expansion should not be approved – necessary details have not been provided

The government’s environment adviser, Natural England, says Leeds City Council should not approve controversial plans for the Leeds Bradford Airport expansion, unless further evidence on the potential impacts is provided.  Natural England states the airport’s planning application lacks detail and “there is currently not enough information to rule out the likelihood of significant effects” on the environment. It has asked the airport to provide additional information, so the council can asses the impact the new £150 million terminal would have on air quality, local wildlife and protected landscapes.  Natural England therefore advises Leeds City Council that it should not grant planning permission at this stage. The airport wants to increase passengers numbers from 4 million to 7 million a year. Climate scientists, environmentalists, The Group for Action on Leeds Bradford Airport (GALBA) and four Leeds MPs are also calling on the council to reject the new plans. GALBA, said the airport has not bothered to assess the damage that their expansion plans would do to wildlife and nature.
.

 

Government’s environment adviser says Leeds Bradford Airport expansion should not be approved

Natural England said there is “not enough information to rule out the likelihood of significant effects” on the environment

8th July 2020 (Leeds Live)

The government’s environment adviser says Leeds City Council should not approve controversial plans for the Leeds Bradford Airport expansion, unless further evidence on the potential impacts is provided.

Natural England states the airport’s planning application lacks detail and “there is currently not enough information to rule out the likelihood of significant effects” on the environment.

It is also calling on airport bosses to provide additional information, so the council can asses the impact the new £150 million terminal would have on air quality, local wildlife and protected landscapes.

Natural England’s report states: “There is currently not enough information to rule out the likelihood of significant effects.

“Natural England therefore advises that your authority should not grant planning permission at this stage.

“In addition, uncertainties remain relating to effects that may become significant when considered in combination with other plans or projects

“Natural England advises that additional information should be submitted by the applicant in order for your authority to fully assess the proposal.

“This would then provide an opportunity for your authority to repeat your screening to assess the likelihood of significant effects of the project.”

Airport bosses want permission to build a £150 million terminal by 2023, as they look to replace the run-down terminal building and increase passengers numbers from four million a year to seven million a year.

Climate scientists, environmentalists, The Group for Action on Leeds Bradford Airport (GALBA) and four Leeds MPs are also calling on the council to reject the new plans.

Hywel Rees, chief executive of Leeds Bradford Airport, insists the airport “is not actually expanding” and says it was given permission to increase passenger numbers to seven million a year when Leeds City Council approved plans to extend the existing airport terminal in January 2019.

However, a report published by the council’s chief planning officer says those approved plans for a terminal extension “allowed for the expansion of passengers to five million per year by the year 2023.”

‘LBA haven’t bothered to assess the damage’

Chris Foren, chair of GALBA, said: “Natural England have basically said that Leeds Bradford Airport (LBA) haven’t bothered to assess the damage that their expansion plans would do to wildlife and nature.

“When you read the report, it’s full of polite but firm requests for LBA to go away and re-write their planning application.

“LBA’s Australian owners, AMP Capital, have tried to present the application as being all about a new ‘green’ terminal building. But it isn’t.

“They want to extend daytime flying hours and allow more planes to fly at night. The least they could is to properly assess the harm that all those extra flights would cause.”

He added: “The current terminal building accounts for just 1.3 per cent of LBA’s greenhouse gas emissions.

“93 per cent come from planes using the airport and AMP Capital want a massive increase in the number of flights. That would be disastrous for the climate and very bad for the local countryside.”

‘A strong long-term commitment to significantly reduce emissions’

However, Mr Rees claims the new terminal will be one of the most sustainable airport buildings in the UK and building it will lead to a long-term reduction in carbon emissions.

He said: “The submission of these plans embodies a strong long-term commitment at LBA to significantly reduce emissions in the UK aviation sector and the wider Yorkshire region.

“As technology in aviation improves, we must be ready to host the next generation of flying from a contemporary terminal facility.

He added: “In the last five years LBA has reduced its airport emissions by 45 per cent while passenger numbers increased by 24 per cent.

“This is a clear indicator that we take our responsibilities seriously.

“Increasing passenger numbers does not mean an equivalent increase in flights and we expect to only see an increase in aircraft arrivals and departures from 30,000 to 46,000 per annum, meaning we meet the demand for seven million passengers in a more efficient way.

“That, coupled with our clear desire to work with airlines to bring in the most efficient and sustainable aircraft and fuels show how we are actively mitigating against this increase.

“I understand that people will be concerned about what increasing numbers of passengers means, but we have taken every step to ensure there is minimal impact on emissions, noise and road access.”

https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/leeds-news/governments-environment-adviser-says-leeds-18556835

.


See earlier:

Leeds Bradford Airport CEO says the plan is about modernising not expanding

Leeds Bradford Airport (LBA) has been planning to expand, building a new terminal that would allow more annual flights and passengers – and thus more CO2 and more noise. The plans have been fiercely opposed. Now, with the airport effectively closed for months, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the chief executive has written that the plans are not about expanding. He says the building plans are to improve and modernise the terminal, and “LBA is not expanding because we are not proposing to grow beyond the airport’s existing consented capacity
limit of 7 million passengers. Our present limit is already 7m passengers and LBA is not proposing to increase that limit.”  He claims planes are now so (allegedly) “quiet” that tight noise restrictions are not as relevant as years ago. There is the usual stuff about the airport aiming to be carbon net zero by 2023 – which is lovely, though it excludes the carbon from flights, making it somewhat irrelevant. The CEO comes out with all the usual industry platitudes about “clean” planes, and “sustainable” fuels, and future electric planes … none of which mean much. And cycle routes to the airport …

Click here to view full story…

Leeds Bradford airport submits plans for new terminal building & more passengers (4m to 7m a year) despite Covid fall in demand.

The airport has submitted a planning application to Leeds City Council, to replace the current terminal building with a new one by 2023, to increase passenger numbers from 4 million a year to 7 million a year. Opponents to the plans say that will make the climate emergency “worse” and that the current pandemic means there’s “no need” for it. Local people, in Group for Action on Leeds Bradford Airport (GALBA) say the expansion will increase CO2 emissions, at a time when countries around the world are being urged to drastically then. It will also bring more noise for local communities, increased air pollution, and more traffic congestion. Instead “We need to rebuild a healthy economy in Leeds. We don’t need an unsustainable development like this.” Leeds City Council  declared a climate emergency in 2019, but conveniently does not include the CO2 emissions from the airport’s flights in its carbon budget. But the flights alone would exceed Leeds’ entire carbon budget by 2035. The airport is trying hard to persuade the Council that its expansion is needed, in competition with Manchester, and the (alleged) economic benefits it would bring would be huge.  Will it be able to afford £150 million, now there is the Covid fall in demand?

Click here to view full story…

Leeds Bradford Airport expansion could now be in doubt – if the landmark Heathrow climate case can be used against it

The ruling on Heathrow’s 3rd runway on 27th February, by the Court of Appeal, put the scheme seriously in doubt – on the grounds of its carbon emissions. The DfT had decided not to take proper account of the extra carbon emissions, in relation to the UK’s commitments under the Paris Agreement, when it produced the Airports National Policy Statement . The ruling is ground-breaking, because it sets a global precedent that can now be used to challenge other developments which damage the environment. The expansion plans of Leeds Bradford would result in a possible increase in passengers from about 4 million per year now to about 7 million. This means the plans are not considered large enough to require the National Policy Statement and DCO route. Instead the application goes through the usual planning process. So the Heathrow ruling may not have a direct bearing on this case, though the principle of the need to properly account for carbon emissions from new developments, may be used to argue against it if it went to appeal. Leeds has declared a climate emergency, and its local Citizens’ Assembly resolved that the airport should not expand, due to its carbon emissions.

Click here to view full story…

.

.

.

.

 

 

Read more »

Public consultation over Southampton runway extension slightly delayed – and campaigners fight for Marlhill Copse trees

The public consultation through Eastleigh Borough Council over plans to extend Southampton Airport’s runway by 164 metres has been delayed. It was due to start on July 10th, but now the start date is not known – the delay may only be a week or so. The consultation is due to last 30 days. The airport also wants to add 600 more parking spaces to the existing long stay car park. There is a lot of local opposition to the plans, largely due to the noise impact and the extra carbon emissions of more flights. Neighbouring local authorities including Winchester and Southampton councils objected to the scheme.  There has already been one consultation, in late 2019, and the airport may make modifications in this second consultation. The final decision will be by Eastleigh Borough Council. The airport bought a small woodland near the airport, Marlhill Copse in 2018. It now wants to fell many of the trees, citing safety concerns. The trees in fact would only be a potential safety concern if the airport is allowed to expand. Three trees have already been felled, on the pretext of “good forestry management”.  Campaigners are trying to get this tree felling and tree height reduction stopped.
.

 

 

Public consultation over Southampton Airport runway extension is pushed back

9th July 2020

By Maria Zaccaro @MariaDailyEcho, Local Democracy Reporter (Daily Echo)

A PUBLIC consultation over plans to expand Southampton Airport has been pushed back.

As previously reported, airport bosses were planning to formally launch a consultation on plans to expand the runway at Southampton Airport by 164 metres on July 10.

Residents will be able to have their say by leaving a comment on the new plans once they will be published on Eastleigh Borough Council website.

But a spokesperson for Southampton Airport has now said: “The administrative processing of all of the new material onto the council planning portal is taking slightly longer than anticipated, and this now means that the public consultation on the planning application will go live next week.”

A date is yet to be set.

As reported, residents will have 30 days to have their say on the proposals which also include plans to add an extra 600 parking spaces to the existing long stay car park.

The one set to start next week, will be the second public consultation on the airport expansion.

The news comes as the initial plans were met with criticism as some residents raised concerns over the impact the expansion would have on the environment and pollution.

Neighbouring local authorities including Winchester and Southampton councils objected to the scheme.

But Southampton Airport had previously said that following a high level of feedback received during the first public consultation last autumn, airport bosses made “some significant updates and improvements” in many key areas.

Airport bosses stressed that extending the runway is “absolutely vital” to the future of the airport.

Residents have been asked to have their say on the new plans.

A final decision is expected to be made by Eastleigh Borough Council.

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/18571332.public-consultation-southampton-airport-runway-extension-pushed-back/

.


The airport wants to fell trees in Marlhill Copse

Lots of information about the issue at

https://sites.google.com/view/protect-marlhill-copse/home

Airport Expansion and Marlhill Copse:

The tall trees at Marlhill Copse literally obstruct airport expansion

  1. The airport admits that tree height management is the reason it bought Marlhill Copse in 2018.
  2. The trees identified for felling in the ‘Aerodrome Safeguarding’ plan of 2019 do not pose a risk to current flights but do penetrate the ‘Object Limitation Surface’ for the airport’s expansion plans.
  3. Instead of ‘Aerodrome Safeguarding’, the airport are now using ‘Health & Safety’ and ‘Good Forestry Practice’ to justify tree felling.
  4. The recent ‘Health & Safety’ felling application has resulted in the loss of 3 of the highest trees at Marlhill and the rest of the tall trees will either be felled or severely reduced in height as part of a Woodland Management Plan.
  5. We accept the risk of falling branches and trees in other parts of the city and we can accept this at Marlhill Copse, it is a natural process.
  6. Airport expansion will severely impact the health & safety of local residents, not least from the 80+dB noise and loss of roof tiles when A320 jets take off over neighbouring houses.
  7. Southampton is lacking mature trees (https://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2018/02/southampton-trees.page), yet tree maturity is being used as a justification to fell.
  8. The negative description of ‘non-indigenous’ and ‘non-native’ species (and justification for felling) ignores the fact that it was an ornamental carriage drive planted with exotic species most of which are not invasive.
  9. The ‘Special Character’ of Marlhill Copse is subjective and should not be for the airport to define. The defining character of Marlhill Copse (even if given to the community in 5 years) will be that it includes no tall trees.
  10. Don’t be fooled – this is all about airport expansion; it is not about ‘Health & Safety’ or ‘Good Forestry Practice.’

The Woodland Management Plan (WMP) will need to be approved by Southampton City Council before airport expansion can happen but Councillors will treat the two matters (woodland management and airport expansion) as unrelated issues.

…. and there is more

on how to object etc

https://sites.google.com/view/protect-marlhill-copse/home

.


 

There is a petition to Southampton City Council:

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/protect-southampton-s-marlhill-copse

Southampton airport wants to fell and reduce the height of trees at Marlhill Copse in order to allow shallower take off to the south. This will cause increased noise and nuisance to the whole of Southampton.

In 2019 there was a High Court injunction protecting Marlhill Copse from any tree-works, but solicitors from both the airport and city council managed to overturn this on 2 July. The airport were due to submit a planning application to demolish around 20 large pines and hope it could be approved by a single Council officer with the minimum of formal public consultation. The planning panel has effectively agreed to a total of 219 trees having their height reduced – 93 trees by more than 10 metres.

Marlhill Copse is a conservation area with Tree Preservation Orders. It is vital that any request for felling or crown-reduction is subject to the utmost scrutiny and that decision-making is absolutely transparent. There should be the fullest public consultation as it would be absurd to demolish the very carbon-capturing organisms that a Green City should be cherishing . The fate of Marlhill Copse is too important to be delegated to an officer or the planning panel.

Marlhill Copse is a whole-city issue. It needs a whole-city response.

If you can pledge to a fighting fund please email:
MarlhillCopse999@gmail.com

For updates please visit: https://sites.google.com/view/protect-marlhill-copse/home

.

 


Marlhill Copse:

The campaigners’ Facebook page says:

The airport is determined to cut these trees down without allowing an independent verification of its results. What have they got to hide? Worryingly it has recruited 90 supporters who do not seem to understand what a rigorous scientific approach is. If you want the truth about the airport’s reasons for cutting down these trees you should object to this application and ask for an independent review. Please share widely and quickly – the decision will be taken by the City Council next Tuesday 23rd July 2020.

If the link doesn’t work email your objection to   trees@southampton.gov.uk

or

https://www.southamptonairport.com/about-us/aerodrome-safeguarding/marlhill-copse/marlhill-copse-feedback-form/

https://www.facebook.com/pg/Marlhill.Chat/posts/?ref=page_internal

 

Read more »

Portugal’s proposed new airport would threaten thousands of protected birds – ClientEarth is taking action

The government is gearing up to build a new Lisbon airport – Montijo Airport – on Portugal’s most important wetland – the Tagus Estuary. The area is on the path of hundreds of thousands of migratory wetland birds that congregate there for the winter or on their journey between Northern Europe and Africa. It is also protected under numerous international treaties due to its importance for these protected species. Attempts to go ahead with the project show a disregard for important EU laws and a lack of consideration of the severe impacts of building the airport on an internationally protected nature site. ClientEarth are taking action to try to prevent this. With 7 national NGOs, they have filed a court action against the government, aiming to annul Montijo Airport’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), because the airport plans have not properly considered the impact on the nature reserve and its wildlife. The Portuguese authorities failed to carry out the necessary tests and have simply proposed to ‘relocate’ the habitats and birds. In the Netherlands, thousands of people have signed a petition against the construction, as it would seriously threaten the migratory Black-tailed Godwit, the Dutch national bird.

.

 

 

Portugal’s proposed new airport would threaten thousands of protected birds

From ClientEarth

The Portuguese government is gearing up to build a new airport on the country’s most important wetland – the Tagus Estuary. The area is on the path of hundreds of thousands of migratory wetland birds that congregate there for the winter or on their journey between Northern Europe and Africa. It is also protected under numerous international treaties due to its importance for these protected species.

Attempts to go ahead with the project show a disregard for important EU laws and a lack of consideration of the severe impacts of building the airport on an internationally protected nature site.

So we’ve stepped in. Working with Sociedade Portuguesa para o Estudo das Aves (SPEA), and supported by seven national NGOs, we have filed a court action against the government, aiming to annul Montijo Airport’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

An incomplete environmental assessment

“The Portuguese authorities have failed to consider that this project would adversely affect the integrity of this irreplaceable nature reserve. Persevering despite the unnecessary risk it poses to nature is a blatant breach of EU and national nature laws and cannot go unchallenged.”

The EIS is an important document which should consider the impacts of any development on the environment.  The law requires that a series of tests be carried out before a development can go ahead which affects a protected site.  The Portuguese authorities failed to carry out those tests and have simply proposed to ‘relocate’ the habitats and birds that will be affected by the airport.

Protected migratory birds and habitats in the Tagus will be permanently disturbed if the airport is constructed, and failure to fully assess the project’s environmental impact, and suggesting that birds can and will simply inhabit nearby salt flats, is a clear breach of EU and national laws.

Our wildlife lawyer Soledad Gallego said: “The Portuguese government is bound by law to protect the birds and habitats that depend on this unique natural area for survival. Approving this airport threatens this important wetland and the wildlife it supports.”

Damage to sites beyond Portugal

The potential consequences also extend beyond damage to the Tagus Estuary.  Because of its importance for migratory birds, damage or disturbance to the Tagus Estuary will also have an effect on sites all along the migration route to northern Europe. Gallego added: “Montijo Airport could have far-reaching consequences felt well beyond Portuguese borders. Failure to consider this will cause irreversible damage to nature, people and the climate.”

The project has been heavily criticised both at national and international level. In Portugal, it has been met by public and political outcry. Environmental groups in Portugal have also expressed their disapproval, with experts citing the construction as a “crime against nature”.

In the Netherlands, thousands of people have signed a petition against the construction, as it would seriously threaten the migratory Black-tailed Godwit, the Dutch national bird.

https://www.clientearth.org/portugals-proposed-new-airport-would-threaten-thousands-of-protected-bird-species/?utm_source=montijo&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=

.


See earlier:

Plans for new Lisbon airport opposed by local authorities, and the Dutch (for harm to national bird, the godwit)

There are plans to construct a new airport for Lisbon (Portugal) as the existing airport – Humberto Delgado Airport – is considered by the authorities to be full. Plans have been considered for many years, but a new airport at existing Montijo military air base, near Lisbon, got approval on 8th January 2019 when the government signed an agreement with ANA – Aeroportos de Portugal (the country’s airports manager). The Montijos site is on the  Tagus estuary, a nature reserve where the godwits, a threatened species, stop off on their way from Africa to the Netherlands. There is now considerable opposition from the Netherlands, where the godwit is seen as the national bird. The planned airport would devastate the areas where godwits feed, and many birds would be culled if the airport was built, for air passenger safety. There is now political controversy about the airport, as in Portuguese law, if local councils oppose a development, it is not permitted. The government wants to over-rule this ability, as various councils led by various political parties are blocking government plans. Due to costs, TAP Air Portugal, has firmly stated it would not move to the new airport.

https://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2020/03/new-lisbon-airport/

.

.

.

Read more »

Plans for new Lisbon airport opposed by local authorities, and the Dutch (for harm to national bird, the godwit)

There are plans to construct a new airport for Lisbon (Portugal) as the existing airport – Humberto Delgado Airport – is considered by the authorities to be full. Plans have been considered for many years, but a new airport at existing Montijo military air base, near Lisbon, got approval on 8th January 2019 when the government signed an agreement with ANA – Aeroportos de Portugal (the country’s airports manager). The Montijos site is on the  Tagus estuary, a nature reserve where the godwits, a threatened species, stop off on their way from Africa to the Netherlands. There is now considerable opposition from the Netherlands, where the godwit is seen as the national bird. The planned airport would devastate the areas where godwits feed, and many birds would be culled if the airport was built, for air passenger safety. There is now political controversy about the airport, as in Portuguese law, if local councils oppose a development, it is not permitted. The government wants to over-rule this ability, as various councils led by various political parties are blocking government plans. Due to costs, TAP Air Portugal, has firmly stated it would not move to the new airport.
.

 

Construction of new Lisbon airport threatened by municipal veto

By Carla Jorge

Lisbon,
March 01, 2020 (Lusa – Agencia de Noticias de Portugal)

The start of work on the new Lisbon airport (Montijo airport) was scheduled for this year, but a law giving the local authorities involved the right to veto the project threatens to put a brake on the work.

The government has advocated a change in the law in recent days, which gives two PCP (communist) authorities the right to veto the project, while Prime Minister António Costa has already warned that abandoning the option for Montijo has very high costs.

However, the PSD (social democrats), the largest opposition party in a parliament in which no party has a majority, has already declared itself unwilling to change the law and parties such as the Left Bloc and the Livre have also indicated that they are against the change, which puts the project back in deadlock.

In 2019, after decades of debate over the best location for a second airport in the Lisbon region, Montijo’s project saw progress, with the issue of a favourable Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the reorganization of military airspace. In addition, the government has included in the State Budget for this year, as an objective, the beginning of construction, continuing “this important” project and entering “its definitive implementation phase”.

The executive thus assumed “as a goal for 2020 the beginning of construction” of Montijo airport.

The project is the construction of a civil airport at Montijo Air Base No. 6 (BA6), in complement to the Lisbon airport, with the aim of distributing air traffic destined for the Lisbon region and connecting the A12 (the southern motorway) to the new airport.

A squadron from Sintra Air Base 1 to Beja was scheduled to move in the spring, allowing constraints in airspace management to be overcome, which will facilitate operation in Lisbon until the new airport is completed.

The agreement to expand Lisbon’s airport capacity, with an investment of €1.15 billion by 2028 to increase Lisbon’s current airport (Humberto Delgado airport) and transform Montijo’s air base into a new airport was signed on January 8, 2019, between ANA – Aeroportos de Portugal (the country’s airports manager) and the State.

At the end of January this year, the Portuguese Environment Agency announced that the project had received a conditioned favourable decision in the Environmental Impact Statement, while maintaining around 160 measures of mitigation and compensation to which ANA “will have to comply”, which amount to around €48 million.

https://www.lusa.pt/article/A8wzUGZFnViMOT2TIiVH7jMSZM5iuSI1/construction-of-new-lisbon-airport-threatened-by-municipal-veto


Comment by a local resident in Portugal:

The current law for approval of infrastructure in Portugal needs the consent of all affected local authorities. A handful of local authorities around the new airport area have rejected it so the airport can’t go ahead. The government is trying to change the law as it considers that a few local authorities can’t stop a project of national interest.  Opposition to the left and right of the socialist government are against changing the law so interesting times.

I think this will be the airport that never happens… There are a couple of other alternatives with lower environmental impact that need to be considered. No one is yet talking about carbon emissions but it will come next.  Watch this space.


Don’t kill our national bird: Dutch object to new Lisbon airport

By Catarina Demony, Victoria Waldersee (Reuters)

FEBRUARY 18, 2020

LISBON (Reuters) – Thousands of people in the Netherlands have signed a petition objecting to the construction of an airport in Portugal that could threaten the black-tailed godwit, the Dutch national bird.

A black-tailed godwit
Image result for black tailed godwit

The new airport will be located on the south bank of Lisbon’s Tagus estuary, a nature reserve where the godwits, a threatened species, stop off on their way from Africa to the Netherlands.“What is the point of protecting the godwits in the Netherlands if they are weakened or even die in Portugal?” says the petition, which has so far been signed by 26,000 people.

Portugal’s environment agency gave the green light for the airport in Montijo last month but said it must take steps to protect wildlife. The project has been heavily criticised by environmentalists at home and now abroad.

Vogelbescherming Nederland, the Dutch nature conservation organisation behind the petition, said the Tagus estuary is a vital feeding break for the godwits.

“They eat crop residues in the rice fields before they fly to our country to breed,” they said. “But if the Portuguese government gets its way, that will soon be over.”

Researchers also say birds are at risk of colliding with aircraft and will be driven away by noise.

Writing in Portuguese newspaper Publico, assistant secretary of state Alberto Souto de Miranda said people should not worry because “birds are not stupid and it is likely they will adapt”.

Thijs van der Otter, a spokesperson for Vogelbescherming Nederland, was unconvinced.

“That’s like cutting down a forest and saying it’ll find somewhere else to grow,” he told Reuters. “Life isn’t that simple.”

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-portugal-netherlands-bird/dont-kill-our-national-bird-dutch-object-to-new-lisbon-airport-idUKKBN20C2A5

.


There is a petition, in Portuguese here, that people can sign against it. https://peticaopublica.com/?pi=AeroportoMontIjoNAO

.


TAP Air Portugal Not Interested In New Lisbon Airport

by  Joanna Bailey  (Simple Flying)
February 3, 2020

Lisbon needs a second airport. In fact, it’s been desperate for more capacity since about 2018, when the existing airport was proclaimed ‘full’. Airport operator ANA Airports of Portugal has been working on a plan to annex an airbase in neighbouring Montijo as an overspill for the city. However, its likely biggest customer, TAP Air Portugal, has firmly stated it has no interest in moving to the new facility at all.

Talks of a second airport for Lisbon have been grinding along for more than five decades. Now, with the existing Humberto Delgado Airport experiencing something of a capacity crunch, ANA Airports of Portugal, the operators of the facility, are considering using a neighboring airbase to provide much-needed slots.

In fact, this idea was first floated way back in 2017, but has taken some time to develop into a solid idea. Last month, Lisbon’s second airport moved a step closer to becoming a reality, as the Portuguese Environmental Agency (APA) finally gave it the thumbs up. The caveat? Every airline will be charged a €4.50 ($5) ‘pollution bill’ as compensation for the airport’s construction.

ANA airports chief executive officer Thierry Ligonniere, Portuguese Finance State Secretary Ricardo Mourinho Felix, Portuguese Infrastructure Minster Pedro Marques and ANA Airports chairperson Jose Luis Arnaut sign an agreement between the Portuguese government and ANA airports for the expansion of the Lisbon airport to Montijo. Photo: Getty
However, it looks like ANA is on its own in footing the bill for the construction of the airport, as local airline TAP Portugal has said it is not interested in helping out. According to CAPA, the airline has said it has no interest in moving to the new airport, and therefore will not be co-financing the development in any way.

As long ago as October 2018, it was reported by Blue Swan that TAP would not be interested in using the new airport, even after it’s built. At the time, TAP’s CEO Antonoaldo Neves stated that using the new airport was not in line with TAP’s hub and spoke strategy. He said,

“I’m in favor of Montijo but don’t want to use it… I wish all the best for Montijo, as soon as possible.”

Mr. Neves supported the notion that Lisbon’s existing airport was completely exhausted of capacity, and that a new airport was needed urgently. However, he is clearly looking for TAP to remain, along with TAP Express, at the existing Humberto Delgado Airport instead of moving to the new one.

What’s happening with the new airport?

Montijo airbase is around 20km from the existing airport, and is out of town in terms of geography. Lisbon’s current airport is unable to expand from its footprint due to the proximity of residential and commercial districts. As such, Montijo would not only provide the capacity Portugal needs right now, but would also be a future-proofed solution, able to expand more in the future as needed.

It was originally earmarked to be open for business from 2022 onwards. Originally, it was thought that it would be a replacement for Humberto Delgado, with all airlines moving there. However, the rapid rise in tourism to Portugal has meant this is no longer an option. Now, the new airport will work in tandem with the existing one, providing overflow capacity and acting as a hub for some airlines.

But which? With TAP clearly not keen to move its operations, who will use the new airport?

Well, just as low-cost carriers have moved out of Gatwick and Heathrow in favor of cheaper and less slot constricted London airports, so might they be encouraged to do so in Portugal. CAPA estimates 25% of seat capacity at Lisbon is on LCCs, with Ryanair leading the pack, followed by easyJet and Vueling.

In fact, Ryanair has been somewhat outspoken in its support for the new airport, with CEO Michael O’Leary even calling for ANA to be kicked off the project in order to get things moving. Back in 2017, Algarve Daily News reported him saying,

“Real competition will be good for the consumer. The problem is in the way airports in Portugal are organized. ANA is a monopoly, so there is no competition … Montijo is already there, there is a runway there, there are flights … and now ANA asks for an environmental study? Why? The track is there, it is not a nature reserve, it is already an airport. But it’s a way of delaying it all until 2021, so ANA can raise prices in Lisbon even higher and make even more money.”

Clearly, Ryanair will be one of the first airlines to move operations to Montijo once it finally opens. Could it become the low-cost hub for Portugal? Let us know in the comments.

https://simpleflying.com/tap-air-portugal-not-interested-in-new-lisbon-airport/

.


 

New Lisbon airport gets green light from environment watchdog

OCTOBER 31, 2019

By Catarina Demony, Sergio Goncalves

LISBON (Reuters) – Portugal’s environmental agency has given the green light for a new airport in Lisbon, but only if the project meets certain conditions, including measures to reduce noise and protect wildlife.

Portugal’s booming tourism industry has complained for years about the lack of capacity at Lisbon’s Portela airport and a new airport at Montijo on the southern bank of the Tagus River was proposed as a hub for low-cost flights.

Plans for a new airport in Lisbon have been under consideration for five decades but the government has said the Montijo airport, where there is already a military air base, should be completed by 2022.

An environmental study, presented by Portugal’s airport authority ANA in July this year, highlighted a threat to wildlife from the new airport as the Tagus estuary is a nature reserve for various birds, including flamingos.

Last year, environmental organization Zero sent a complaint to the European Commission, insisting that a more demanding “strategic” environmental evaluation be carried out before the airport can be built.

In a ruling late on Wednesday, Portugal’s environmental agency gave its final go-ahead for the project on condition that measures are implemented to reduce its environmental impact.

French construction group Vinci, which owns ANA, the operator of Lisbon airport, in January said it would invest 1.15 billion euros ($1.32 billion) in the expansion of Lisbon’s main airport and the construction of the new one.

The entire project will be financed by the private sector, Vinci said when the agreement was announced, but no other companies have been named in connection with it.

The environmental agency, APA, has set out around 200 conditions for the project to “mitigate the negative impacts from the new airport on birdlife, noise and mobility.” These will cost some 48 million euros.

Some of the conditions include sound insulation requirements and restrictions on flights between midnight and 6 a.m.

Vinci’s ANA said in a statement: “ANA will analyze the feasibility, balance and environmental benefit of these measures.”

ANA’s study in July had made the case for the new airport at Montijo as the only viable solution for the Lisbon’s airport capacity issue.

Portugal’s tourism industry has had eight consecutive years of growth, which has helped the country recover from a severe debt crisis and economic recession of 2010-13.

Traffic at Lisbon’s existing airport increased by 8.9% in 2018 to 29 million passengers compared with the year before, according to Vinci.

If the project goes ahead, the new airport, around 25 km (15.5 miles) from Lisbon city center, is set to be one of the largest construction projects in Portugal.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-portugal-airport-montijo/new-lisbon-airport-gets-green-light-from-environment-watchdog-idUKKBN1XA21I

.


Wikipedia:

With the long-term concession of ANA Aeroportos de Portugal to the French group Vinci Airports[7] the project for a new airport was postponed in July 2013, and it was decided that the existing Lisbon Airport would be further upgraded to surpass 22 million passengers annually[25] and would remain the present solution for this major European gateway.[26] Ryanair had predicted that it will double the number of passengers it carries from the airport in the three years from 2014.[27]

In January 2019, Portugal’s government unveiled a 1.1-billion-euro ($1.26 billion) plan to expand Lisbon’s current airport and build a second one.[8] National airports operator ANA is footing the bill to adapt a military airfield in Montijo, 30 km (19 mi) by road from Lisbon.[28] It aims to handle around 50 million passengers a year from 2022.[9] The airports company will also pay for the expansion of the Humberto Delgado Airport in the capital. With around 29 million passengers a year, it is at full capacity.[10]

.

.

.

.

.

Read more »

Natural England and the licences it gives airports to kill birds 13km from airport boundary

The law in the UK allows airports to get licences to kill a range of bird species, within an area 13 kilometres from the airport boundary. The licences are issued by Natural England, the body whose description is: “We’re the government’s adviser for the natural environment in England, helping to protect England’s nature and landscapes for people to enjoy and for the services they provide”. A large number of species are listed, by Natural England, including Canada Goose, Greylag Goose, Great Black-backed Gull, Lesser Black-backed Gull, Herring Gull, Mallard, Feral Pigeon, Rook, Starling and Woodpigeon.  Other birds can be killed within 250 metres of the airport boundary, such as Magpie, Carrion Crow, Lapwing and Jackdaw. The killing is meant to be if there is danger to the safety of plane flights. Birds can be trapped, shot, or have their eggs oiled (which kills the chick before it can hatch). According to Natural England, 12,956 birds were culled in 2015-16, with rooks, crows and pigeons making up the largest number.  A FoI request has been submitted to ascertain the number of airports issued with licences recently, the number of birds killed, and the ways in which they were killed.

.

Natural England

CLASS LICENCE To kill or take certain species of wild birds to preserve air safety

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/852816/cl12-birds-take-kill-air-safety-licence.pdf

 

LICENCE TERMS and CONDITIONS

1. Valid for the period 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2020 (inclusive)

2. Area valid in All counties of England (landward of the mean low water mark)

3. Purpose(s) for which this licence can be used

This licence can only be used to preserve air safety

4. What this licence permits In relation to the species listed below, this licence permits killing or taking birds, taking or destroying their eggs, and taking, damaging or destroying their nests while that nest is in use or being built.

5. The species covered by this licence

(a) on, or within 13 kilometres (km) of the perimeter of, an aerodrome:

Goose, Canada Branta canadensis Goose, Greylag Anser anser Gull, Great Black-backed Larus marinus Gull, Lesser Black-backed Larus fuscus Gull, Herring Larus argentatus Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Pigeon, Feral Columba livia Rook Corvus frugilegus Starling Sturnus vulgaris Woodpigeon Columba palumbus

(b) on, or within 13 km of the perimeter of, an aerodrome (without the need for non-lethal methods of control to be used):

Goose, Egyptian Alopochen aegyptiacus Parakeet, Ring-necked Psittacula krameri

(c) on, or within the immediate vicinity (up to 250 m) of, the perimeter of the aerodrome:

Crow, Carrion Corvus corone Gull, Black-headed Chroicocephalus ridibundus (formerly Larus ridibundus) Gull, Common Larus canus  Jackdaw Corvus monedula Lapwing Vanellus vanellus Magpie Pica pica

 

and it continues:

 

6. The methods of killing and taking permitted under this licence

The methods permitted are:

a. shooting with a firearm/ammunition combination (including a semiautomatic weapon*) appropriate for the species concerned;

b. pricking of eggs;

c. oiling of eggs using paraffin oil (also known as Liquid Paraffin BP or light/white mineral oil);

d. destruction of eggs and nests;

e. a Larsen* trap

f. A multi-catch* cage trap

g. a pen or corral used as a trap;

h. falconry;

i. any hand held or hand propelled net to take birds whilst not in flight;

j. by hand; and

k. in relation to the killing or taking of Feral Pigeon (Columba livia) only:

– any device for illuminating a target or any sighting device for night shooting;

– any form of artificial lighting or any mirror or other dazzling device.

This licence does not authorise the use of any method of killing or taking which is prohibited by section 5 or section 8 of the 1981 Act except those listed above.

 

……. and it continues for many pages ….

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/852816/cl12-birds-take-kill-air-safety-licence.pdf

.

.


See also:


See earlier:

More intelligent approaches, understanding bird psychology, help cut risk of bird strikes

Safety fears have led to mass culls of birds near airports. But are such drastic measures necessary? It appears that about 70,000 gulls, starlings, geese and other birds have been killed around New York airports since since 2009. They have been killed by shooting, trapping, and sometimes gassing. The CAA say that the number of confirmed bird strikes rose from 1,496 to 1,665 between 2011 and 2015. Only in 6% of cases did it have some kind of operational effect on an aircraft. In many of these incidents, planes aborted take-off, returned to the airport, or diverted to another. According to Natural England, 12,956 birds were culled in 2015-16. Rooks, crows and pigeons made up the largest number. Bird conservation organisations want airports to use less barbaric ways of reduce the risk of bird strikes. There are various technological solutions that may be effective. One bird ecology professor at Exeter university said that it is necessary to understanding of the birds’ point of view. A “sonic net” can be used, which is a noise played across areas to be protected. It needs to be at the same pitch as the alarm calls of birds, or predator noises that they are listening out for. “When birds experience this they either leave the area or their vigilance goes up because they can’t hear each other’s alert calls or a predator coming.” So the birds move away, as it is too risky to stay.

Click here to view full story…

German study indicates plane noise near Tegel airport has an impact on acoustic communication by birds

Scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology in Seewiesen in Germany have found that birds near Berlin’s Tegel airport, one of Europe’s largest, start singing significantly earlier in the morning than their counterparts at quieter locations. What’s more, they discovered that chaffinches stop singing when the noise from air traffic exceeds a threshold of 78 decibels (A). The two most important functions of birdsong are territorial defence and the attraction of a mating partner, and so disturbances to birdsong by noise can impair the birds’ reproductive success. The scientists selected the Jungfernheide forest, immediately adjacent to the airport, with a similar area of forest 4 kilometres away, the Tegeler forest – where the noise was on average 30 decibels lower. Berlin-Tegel airport operates between 06.00 and 23.00, with a plane taking off or landing about every two minutes. with noise levels of up to 87 dB(A) during take-offs and landings. The birds near the airport were found to start singing a bit earlier. This may be to make up for time lost during the day, when they stop singing if the noise gets too loud. The noise of each flight lasts for perhaps 30 seconds, every 2 minutes, So the birds are losing about a quarter of their available communication time while flights are operating. So starting to sing earlier in the morning is clearly worthwhile.

Click here to view full story…

Gatwick objects to new hospice due to increase in ‘bird strike risk hazard’ – as within 13 km radius of airport

Under guidance from the DfT, airports have to be statutory consultees for any planning application within a radius of 13 km of the airport, that might have an impact on it, for a variety of reasons. One of these is the risk of bird strike, and so new developments that might attract birds are opposed. Now Gatwick Airport has objected to plans for a new hospice and homes in Pease Pottage [south of Crawley, and about 6km south of Gatwick airport] due to an increase in ‘bird strike risk hazard’. St Catherine’s Hospice would provide a 48-bed care facility, and there would also be up to 600 new homes, cafe, a community building, retail units, and a new primary school. The current hospice has only 18 beds, and is not able to cater for the number of people needing palliative support in the area nor has sufficient family areas. Gatwick says the areas of open water in the application would attract birds large enough to endanger planes, including feral geese, duck, grey heron and cormorants – especially if the public feed them. Gatwick also fear the mown grassland would provide a grazing habitat for birds. Gatwick wants minimal water. Airports keep their grassed areas as unappealing to bird life as possible. Gatwick set out, for the Airports Commission, what it would do to “control and where possible reduce bird hazard.”

Click here to view full story…

Belfast boy wants alternative home for geese facing cull for safety of Belfast City Airport planes

A 10-year-old boy – Jack McCormick – has appealed to Belfast’s Lord Mayor to have geese, considered to be posing a threat to low-flying aircraft, moved to another park. The Lord Mayor has promised to raise the issues in a meeting with George Best Belfast City Airport. “I am an animal lover and would hate to think of anything bad happening to the grey geese at the park,” Jack wrote: “My papa takes me to a great park in Gilnahirk …. It is big, but it has no geese or any animals. Why not move some of your geese from Victoria Park to the park at Gilnahirk? I would make sure that they were well-looked after. If you can’t move them to Gilnahirk, could you not move them to other parks around Belfast?” The authorities prick the eggs so they don’t develop. Jack said (children aren’t stupid!): “Last year I noticed that there wasn’t that many goslings but this year I’m hoping there will be an increase,” he said. “I don’t want any of them to die just because of being near an airport. To be fair, the geese were there first, and then the airport was built there.”

Click here to view full story…

 

.

 

 

.

.

.

Read more »

Scientists say rules on noise pollution, including aircraft noise, should be tightened to protect wildlife

.

 

Noise pollution rules should be tightened to protect wildlife, say scientists

Researchers examined more than 100 studies on the impact of human-produced noise

Noise produced by human activities should be better regulated to protect wildlife, say the authors of a study exposing how sound pollution affects myriad creatures from fish to birds.

“For example in bats, they try to locate their prey via acoustic cues,” said Dr Hansjoerg Kunc, the co-author of the research from Queen’s University Belfast. “If you have the noise in the background they can’t really hear that, so they have to fly longer and invest more time and energy to find their food.”

Writing in the journal Biology Letters, researchers examined more than 100 studies on the effect of noise on a large variety of animals, from molluscs to mammals.

The studies were based on experiments in which different aspects of the animals’ behaviour or other measures, such as changes in hormone levels, were recorded before and after exposure to noise. The size of any shift from pre-noise behaviour was then calculated on a scale. The latest research took all of these calculations and put them together for six groups of animals, including fish and birds.

The results reveal that human-produced noise affects all six groups of animals considered, encompassing a wide range of species. While some studies showed greater effects than others, analysis carried out by Kunc and his team found this is not down to genetic closeness or the type of species.

“Thus, the significant response to noise can be explained by most species responding to noise rather than a few species being particularly sensitive to noise,” the authors wrote. They added that noise was important from a conservation point of view because it meant efforts to reduce the impact must take into account a host of species within different ecosystems.

Kunc said noise “can change the species composition of an area, and then of course lose the function of an ecosystem.”

The team said it was highly probable that studies have underestimated the impact of noise, but cautioned that their research did not examine whether the effects were beneficial or detrimental to species. Such considerations, they added, were complex – for example, noise that disrupts hunting could benefit prey while creating difficulties for predators.

Even where some animals benefitted, that did not mean noise should not be tackled, since the majority would experience negative effects and it could cause disruption of ecosystems, said Kunc.

Andy Radford, a professor of behavioural ecology at the University of Bristol who was not involved in the study, said particular species or populations might face different impacts – while some may be able to move away from the noise, for example, others may not, while animals might tolerate stress better than others. What’s more, even plants can be affected – for example if pollinators move away because of noise.

However, Radford said there was cause for optimism. “Unlike with, for example, chemical pollution, if a noise source moves away or is switched off, then nothing lingers in the environment itself,” he said.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/20/noise-pollution-wild-life-better-regulation?

.


Published:

Anthropogenic noise has become a major global pollutant and studies have shown that noise can affect animals. However, such single studies cannot provide holistic quantitative assessments on the potential effects of noise across species. Using a multi-level phylogenetically controlled meta-analysis, we provide the first holistic quantitative analysis on the effects of anthropogenic noise. We found that noise affects many species of amphibians, arthropods, birds, fish mammals, molluscs and reptilians. Interestingly, phylogeny contributes only little to the variation in response to noise. Thus, the effects of anthropogenic noise can be explained by the majority of species responding to noise rather than a few species being particularly sensitive to noise. Consequently, anthropogenic noise must be considered as a serious form of environmental change and pollution as it affects both aquatic and terrestrial species. Our analyses provide the quantitative evidence necessary for legislative bodies to regulate this environmental stressor more effectively.

Footnotes


See also

Twitter storm: noise pollution creates havoc for birds, study shows

Human activities could be affecting reproduction and even normal social behaviour

Fiona Harvey Environment correspondent (Guardian)

Thu 20 Jun 2019

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/20/twitter-storm-noise-pollution-creates-havoc-for-birds-study-shows

.


The Effects of Noise on Biodiversity (NO0235)

Final Report for Defra

2012

By the University of Bristol

Part of the Exec Summary says: 

The major finding is that a strong evidence base does not exist regarding the potential impact of anthropogenic noise on non-marine UK PS and SPI. Definite conclusions could be made only about the reed bunting (Emberiza schoeniclus), which exhibits shifts in song frequency in response to road traffic noise. It is also likely that foraging in brown long-eared bats (Plecotus auritus), singing in European robins (Erithacus rubecula), house sparrows (Passer domesticus), starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) and bullfinches (Pyrrhula pyrrhula), and the behaviour of common toads (Bufo bufo) are affected by road traffic noise to some degree. Common issues preventing strong conclusions for other species include a lack of sufficient controls to rule out potential confounding factors (e.g. changes in the behaviour of animals near roads may be the consequence of differences in lighting, disturbance or habitat differences, rather than noise) and the use of acoustic measurements that are more relevant to humans than the auditory capabilities of the study species. In addition, hardly any studies directly considered how anthropogenic noise might impact individual fitness; while several more studies provided good proxies for fitness, definite conclusions in this regard would also be premature.

To make a fair assessment of how much anthropogenic noise affects non-marine wildlife in general, and UK PS and SPI in particular, will therefore require further empirical work. Such work should ideally address the current taxonomic bias towards studies on birds, include carefully designed experimental studies (while bearing in mind that such research on species of conservation priority raises some ethical issues), quantify the noise sources of relevance in a way that relates to the hearing capabilities of the study organism, look beyond short-term studies to consider chronic and repeated exposure, focus on response indicators that can inform models of population viability, and investigate impacts at community and ecosystem levels as well as how individuals are affected.

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=10048_NO0235_PublishedReport.pdf

.


Loud aeroplane noise found to cause aggression in birds

Birds living near airports are more likely to be aggressive and suffer from hearing impairments, a new study has found.

August 27th, 2019

https://www.countryfile.com/wildlife/loud-aeroplane-noise-found-to-cause-aggression-in-birds/

.


WHAT EFFECT DO AIRPLANES HAVE ON BIRDS? – A SUMMARY

Norbert Kempf and Ommo Hüppop,

Institute for Ornithological Research, Helgoland Ornithological Station

Date? Before 2000?

https://www.fai.org/sites/default/files/documents/ln_3-1_aircraft_effects_on_birds.pdf

.

.

 

Read more »

Environmental Audit Cttee inquiry into environmental damage of tourism (in UK and by Brits abroad)

Holidaymakers’ responsibility for foul beaches, overcrowding, traffic, plane carbon emissions, harm done by cruises and other environmental impacts will come under parliamentary scrutiny. The Commons Environmental Audit Committee (chaired by the remarkable Mary Creagh) has an inquiry to address problems caused by tourism, including aviation emissions, pollution, habitat damage etc in UK and abroad. Deadline for comments 13th September.  It will look at whether the UK government should play a greater role in offsetting the waste and damage caused by the tens of millions of Britons who go on holiday overseas each year – and of the impact on domestic tourism in the UK.  The Committee says global tourism is responsible for 5% of greenhouse gas emissions. People do not often consider the environmental, and climate, impacts of their holidays. “While there are some sustainable practices, we want to look closely at the government’s actions to ensure the economic, social and environmental impacts of tourism are minimised.” Due to ever cheaper flights, and zero tax on aviation fuel, the holiday business is one of the world’s fastest-growing industries and accounts for more than 10% of global GDP. Many countries have had to take strict measure to prevent serious damage done by excessive tourism, eg in Philippines, or Venice or Thailand.  Or US hiking trails.
.

 

Environmental damage of tourism comes under MPs’ spotlight

Inquiry to address problems including aviation emissions and traffic in UK and abroad

By Jonathan Watts (Guardian)

@jonathanwatts
18 Jul 2019

Holidaymakers’ responsibility for foul beaches, overcrowding, traffic, aeroplane emissions and other environmental impacts will come under parliamentary scrutiny.

The inquiry into the environmental cost of tourism and transport will consider whether the UK government should play a greater role in offsetting the waste and damage caused by the tens of millions of Britons who go on holiday overseas each year.

It will also look at ways to reduce the negative consequences of the growing domestic tourism industry, including the hefty carbon footprint of aviation and cruise companies.

According to the Commons environmental audit committee, which launched the inquiry on Wednesday, global tourism is responsible for 5% of greenhouse gas emissions.

“Now that summer is here, families are looking forward to a well-earned holiday. But when we book a cruise, flights or visit a popular tourist destination, it’s easy to forget about the environmental impact our holidays are having,” the committee chair, Mary Creagh MP, said.

“While there are some sustainable practices, we want to look closely at the government’s actions to ensure the economic, social and environmental impacts of tourism are minimised.”

Thanks to ever cheaper flights and zero tax on aviation fuel, the holiday business is one of the world’s fastest-growing industries and accounts for more than 10% of global GDP.

But the growing weight of tourists is putting a crushing strain on many of the world’s most popular destinations. The Philippines government had to close the party island of Boracay for six months to clean up the sewage and other filth from unregulated and overstretched resorts.

In Thailand, authorities shut down Maya Bay on Ko Phi Phi Leh island to allow the environment to recover from a daily influx of 5,000 tourists and 200 boats since it was made famous by the Leonardo DiCaprio film The Beach.

In the US, a growing horde of backpackers in national parks has clogged up back-country trails and mountain roads, prompting complaints that the search for tranquility has been overtaken by the quest for the perfect selfie. Venice plans to offset the damage with a new tax on the 30 million people who visit the lagoon city every year.

There have been anti-tourism protests in many cities, including Barcelona, and an increasing tendency to blame accidents on the industry, most notably in the wake of the Venice cruise ship collision.

Despite such complaints, the tourist business is expected to continue expanding. In Britain, tourism is the fastest-growing industry. Authorities expect the sector to expand by 3.8% a year up until 2025 and account for more than a tenth of all jobs.

Last year, 37.9 million overseas visitors arrived in the UK – the seventh most popular destination in the world – which puts a substantial burden on the climate and calls into question the government’s target of net zero emissions by 2050.

The committee will study the industry and report next year on ways to reduce the impacts by using incentives, taxation, offsets and greater scrutiny of corporate claims to provide sustainable or eco-friendly packages.

Caroline Lucas, the Green MP for Brighton, said she hoped the inquiry would also review plans to expand airport capacity in the UK and reconsider subsidies that make air travel cheaper than train journeys.

“How we travel can make a major difference to the environmental impact of our holidays, yet far too often the greener options are less affordable. That must urgently change if the UK is serious about the climate emergency, yet the government is failing even to acknowledge the problem – instead supporting a third runway at Heathrow as well as reckless airport expansion elsewhere in the UK.

“This inquiry will allow us to focus on positive policy solutions as well as the environmental problems associated with travel and tourism.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/18/environmental-damage-of-tourism-comes-under-mps-spotlight?

.


 

The Environmental  Audit Committee inquiry: 

https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/environmental-audit-committee/news-parliament-2017/sustainable-tourism-inquiry-launch-17-19/

 

Committee investigates environmental impact of travel and tourism

18 July 2019

The Environmental Audit Committee launches an inquiry into sustainable tourism, looking at both the impacts of tourism and travel on the environment and how these can be reduced.

Tourism is one of the fastest growing economic sectors in the world, accounting for ten percent of global GDP and just under ten percent of total employment. Done well, it can help economic growth, environmental protection and poverty alleviation.

However, the growth in international and domestic travel has caused pressure in terms of carbon emissions, resource management and can have negative impacts on local communities and cultural assets if not managed properly. This can lead to the physical degradation of popular sites and higher rents, congestion and air pollution in some cities. These pressures are known as ‘overtourism’ and harm local communities and the visitor experience.

Travelling by plane or ship causes local air and water pollution, noise and greenhouse gas emissions. The tourism industry accounts for an estimated five per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. The amended UK Climate Change Act includes aviation and shipping emissions in the new net zero target. The Committee will seek views on travel choices to inform the Government’s forthcoming aviation strategy to 2050.

Chair’s comments

Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, Mary Creagh MP, said:

“Now that summer is here, families are looking forward to a well-earned holiday. But when we book a cruise, flights or visit a popular tourist destination, it’s easy to forget about the environmental impact our holidays are having.

“The recent cruise ship collision in Venice, as well as protests both there and in Barcelona, are a sharp reminder of the effects of ‘overtourism’ and the damage that can be done to the environment and local quality of life.

“The industry adds five percent to global greenhouse emissions, putting our net zero by 2050 target at risk. While there are some sustainable practices, we want to look closely at the Government’s actions to ensure the economic, social and environmental impacts of tourism are minimised. We will publish a report early next year.”

Terms of reference

The Committee is inviting written evidence submissions on some or all of the following points to inform its inquiry:

  • What can the Government do to support a sustainable inbound tourism industry in the UK?
  • How should the UK tourism industry balance the need to encourage tourism whilst protecting fragile environments?
  • How well is the UK industry managing the impact of tourism in line with its obligations under the sustainable development goals, at home and abroad?
  • Should the UK Government take more responsibility for the impacts of outbound tourism, for example waste and resource management, protecting habitats and species and community and cultural impacts?
  • How can the Government reach its net zero emissions targets through influencing sustainable travel patterns? Is there a role for offsets in sustainable tourism?
  • Where should the balance lie between affordable travel and influencing sustainable travel choices? Are taxes and incentives needed?
  • How effective are sustainable tourism practices by large tourism companies such as cruise ship and package holiday operators

Submissions should be made via the sustainable tourism inquiry page by 5pm on Friday 13 September. Guidance is available to view here.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/environmental-audit-committee/news-parliament-2017/sustainable-tourism-inquiry-launch-17-19/

.


See earlier:

 

Ever increasing numbers of city-breaks and short holidays ruining cities – and the climate

With rising affluence in much of the world, and flying being unrealistically cheap (as it pays no fuel duty, and almost no other taxes) people want as many short holidays and city breaks as they can get. This is starting to have very negative impacts on some of the cities most visited, eg. Barcelona. Growth is relentless. The UN World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) even speaks about tourism as a right for all citizens, and their forecasts suggest increases from 1 billion international travellers today, to 1.8 billion by 2030.  But there is a huge price to pay in carbon emissions from all these trips and holidays, most of which is the flights.  Short breaks therefore, pollute more per night than longer breaks. And  you can fit more into your year. “The marketing department might prefer a Japanese tourist to Barcelona because on average they will spend €40 more than a French tourist – according to unpublished data from the Barcelona Tourist Board – but the carbon footprint we collectively pay for is not taken into account.” People are being persuaded by advertising and marketing, and a change in ethos of society, to take more short holidays – not one longer one.  A report in 2010 suggested that makes people the happiest. More trips = more carbon emissions. 

https://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2017/06/ever-increasing-numbers-of-city-breaks-and-short-holidays-ruining-cities-and-the-climate/
.


IPBES report on global biodiversity loss. Comment on impact of tourism

The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has published a report on the serious global loss of biodiversity. IPBES says:  “Long-distance transportation of goods and people, including for tourism, have grown dramatically in the past 20 years with negative consequences for nature overall. The rise in airborne and seaborne transportation of both goods and people, including a threefold increase in travel from developed and developing countries in particular, has increased pollution and significantly raised invasive alien species… Between 2009 and 2013, the carbon footprint from tourism rose 40% to 4.5 gigatons of carbon dioxide and overall 8% of the total greenhouse-gas emissions are from transport and food consumption that are related to tourism. The demand for nature-based tourism, or ecotourism, also has risen, with mixed effects on nature and local communities, including some potential for contributions to local conservation in particular when carried out at smaller scales.”   

https://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2019/05/ipbes-report-on-global-biodiversity-loss-comment-on-impact-of-tourism/

.

.

.

.

 

 

 

Read more »

IPBES report on global biodiversity loss. Comment on impact of tourism

The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has published a report on the serious global loss of biodiversity. IPBES says:  “Long-distance transportation of goods and people, including for tourism, have grown dramatically in the past 20 years with negative consequences for nature overall. The rise in airborne and seaborne transportation of both goods and people, including a threefold increase in travel from developed and developing countries in particular, has increased pollution and significantly raised invasive alien species… Between 2009 and 2013, the carbon footprint from tourism rose 40% to 4.5 gigatons of carbon dioxide and overall 8% of the total greenhouse-gas emissions are from transport and food consumption that are related to tourism. The demand for nature-based tourism, or ecotourism, also has risen, with mixed effects on nature and local communities, including some potential for contributions to local conservation in particular when carried out at smaller scales.” 
.


The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is an independent intergovernmental body, established by member States in 2012. The objective of IPBES is to strengthen the science-policy interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, long-term human well-being and sustainable development.

 

Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’
Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating’

Current global response insufficient;
‘Transformative changes’ needed to restore and protect nature;
Opposition from vested interests can be overcome for public good

Most comprehensive assessment of its kind;
1,000,000 species threatened with extinction

More details from IPBES at

https://www.ipbes.net/news/Media-Release-Global-Assessment

 

Their comment relating to tourism, from the Summary for Policymakers:

17.  Long-distance transportation of goods and people, including for tourism, have grown dramatically in the past 20 years with negative consequences for nature overall.

The rise in airborne and seaborne transportation of both goods and people, including a threefold increase in travel from developed and developing countries in particular, has increased pollution and significantly raised invasive alien species (well established) {2.1.15}. Between 2009 and 2013, the carbon footprint from tourism rose 40% to 4.5 gigatons of carbon dioxide and overall 8% of the total greenhouse-gas emissions are from transport and food consumption that are related to tourism {2.1.11, 2.1.15}.

The demand for nature-based tourism, or ecotourism, also has risen, with mixed effects on nature and local communities, including some potential for contributions to local conservation in particular when carried out at smaller scales

.

The report in full is at

bit.ly/IPBESReport 

but it is currently being accessed by so many people that it is unavailable. Keep trying….

.

.

 

.

Read more »

Warning at UN Biodiversity Conference that humanity’s rush into biofuels/biomass will devastate global biodiversity

Growing enough plants to provide biomass and biofuels, that are meant to slow climate change (climate breakdown) compared to burning fossil fuels, will need a biofuel land grab: a 10 to 30-fold rise in land devoted to these crops from the level now. This means the destruction of the habitats for plants and animals, seriously undermining the essential global biodiversity. This warning was spelt out at the UN Biodiversity Conference in Egypt by Anne Larigauderie, executive secretary of the  Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, IPBES.  The latest IPCC report, on limiting climate warming to 1.5°C, had given “a sense of extreme urgency” for ways to cut CO2 emissions, fast. But this mean “tradeoffs and synergies between climate, biodiversity and land degradation.”  More land would be used for monocultures of plants like maize. Perhaps by 2050 up to 724 million hectares, an area almost the size of Australia, might be used for biofuel crops – compared to perhaps 15 to 30m ha now. There is very little “marginal land” that could be used for these crops (they need water etc, and decent soils). This use of biomass will inevitably have “negative consequences for biodiversity.”  By contrast, reforestation and forest protection helps reduce carbon more effectively. As does cutting energy use. Tragic that the global aviation industry hopes to use huge volumes of biofuel, just so it can keep expanding and creating ever more desire for hyper-mobility, and a sense of entitlement to inter-continental jet travel, largely for leisure and recreation.
.

 

 

Biofuel land grab will slash nature’s space

Growing enough greenery to provide cleaner fuel and slow climate change will need a biofuel land grab: a 10 to 30-fold rise in land devoted to green crops.

By Alex Kirby (Climate News Network)

LONDON, 21 November, 2018

The costs of replacing fossil fuels with alternatives derived from some natural sources may be prohibitively high: the biofuel land grab needed could require at least 10% more land than the world uses now to grow green crops, conservationists say.

But that’s the good news. They believe the total increase in green energy-related land use could be much higher, closer to 30%, meaning “crushing” pressure on habitats for plants and animals, and undermining the essential diversity of species on Earth.

Their warning was spelt out at a UN biodiversity meeting in Egypt by Anne Larigauderie, executive secretary of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, IPBES.

IPBES says it exists to organise knowledge about the Earth’s biodiversity to offer information for political decisions globally, like the work over the last 30 years of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC.

Extremely urgent

She said the latest IPCC report, on limiting climate warming to 1.5°C, had given “a sense of extreme urgency for these exchanges on tradeoffs and synergies between climate, biodiversity and land degradation.”

Dr. Larigauderie said most IPCC scenarios foresaw a major increase in the land area needed to cultivate biofuel crops like maize (or corn, as it is also known) to slow the pace of warming by 2050 − up to 724 million hectares in total, an area almost the size of Australia. The current amount of land used for biofuel crops is uncertain, but conservationists say it lies somewhere between 15 and 30m ha.

“The key issue here is: where would this huge amount of new land come from”, she asked. “Is there currently such a large amount of ‘marginal land’ available or would this compete with biodiversity? Some scientists argue that there is very little marginal land left.

“Protecting the invaluable contributions of nature to people will be the defining challenge of decades to come”

“This important issue needs to be clarified, but the demand for land for energy will almost certainly increase, with negative consequences for biodiversity.”

Dr. Larigauderie was speaking at the start of the annual conference of the states which support the UN Convention on Biological Diversity.

Deep cuts in the greenhouse gas emissions from human activities which drive global warming would be possible without massive bioenergy resources, she said, but this would need substantial cuts in energy use as well as rapid increases in the production of low-carbon energy from wind, solar and nuclear power.

Safeguarding the variety of plant and animal species and the services nature provides was itself essential to reducing global warming, she said. Land ecosystems today soak up about a third of annual carbon dioxide emissions, with the world’s oceans accounting for about another quarter annually.

Forests achieve more

In any case, Dr Larigauderie said, reforestation was better at protecting the climatethan most biofuel crops. In temperate climates, one reforested hectare was four times more effective in climate mitigation than a hectare of maize used for biofuel.

“All methods that produce healthier ecosystems should be promoted as a way to combat climate change”, she said. “This includes afforestation and reforestation, as well as restoration − implemented properly using native species, for example.”

IPBES plans to publish a primer detailing elements of its Global Assessment of Biodiversity in May 2019. The British scientist Sir Robert Watson, formerly chair of the IPCC and now chair of IPBES, says: “The loss of species, ecosystems and genetic diversity is already a global and generational threat to human well-being. Protecting the invaluable contributions of nature to people will be the defining challenge of decades to come.

“Policies, efforts and actions − at every level − will only succeed, however, when based on the best knowledge and evidence. This is what the IPBES Global Assessment provides.” − Climate News Network 

https://climatenewsnetwork.net/biofuel-land-grab-will-slash-natures-space/

.

Biofuel land grab will slash nature’s space

Read more »

Report finds widespread wildlife trafficking at airports across 114 countries, including Heathrow

In June 2016 officials discovered 142 kg of ivory in six suitcases in Charles de Gaulle Airport. All six bags belonged to one passenger who was traveling from Angola to Vietnam through Paris. A new analysis – by C4ADS – of global airport wildlife seizure and trafficking data reveals that criminals are exploiting air transport to smuggle protected and endangered animals and animal products on commercial flights. The report, “Flying Under the Radar: Wildlife Trafficking in the Air Transport Sector,” analyses airport seizures of ivory, rhino horn, birds and reptiles from January 2009 to August 2016.  Wildlife traffickers moving ivory, rhino horn, reptiles and birds by air tend to rely on large hub airports all over the world. Overall, 114 countries had at least one instance of wildlife trafficking in the air transport sector during the period covered by the report. Some of these, especially of reptiles and birds, involve European airports.  The report says creating awareness among personnel and passengers, training air industry staff, strengthening enforcement seizure protocols and reporting and sharing seizure information, could cut the numbers.  In the UK, Heathrow is the main place that illegally trafficked wildlife products travel through. The illegal trade seriously threatens many species, and is a high profit enterprise.
.

 

 

Report finds widespread wildlife trafficking at airports across 114 Countries

24th May 2017  (Air Cargo News)

June 2016: Officials discovered 142 kg of ivory in six suitcases in Charles de Gaulle Airport. All six bags belonged to one passenger who was traveling from Angola to Vietnam through Paris.
A new analysis of global airport wildlife seizure and trafficking data reveals that criminals are exploiting air transport to smuggle protected and endangered animals and animal products on commercial flights.

The report, “Flying Under the Radar: Wildlife Trafficking in the Air Transport Sector,” analyses airport seizures of ivory, rhino horn, birds and reptiles from January 2009 to August 2016.

Collectively, these four categories account for about 66% of all trafficked wildlife, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), and serve as indicators for wider trends within illicit wildlife trafficking.

The illegal trade of wildlife is the fourth largest black market in the world—worth in the region of $20bn annually—and impacts more than 7,000 species of animals and plants. Criminal organisations involved in wildlife trafficking are often directly connected to other trafficking networks, including the smuggling of narcotics, arms and people.

The seizure data in the survey indicates that wildlife traffickers moving ivory, rhino horn, reptiles and birds by air tend to rely on large hub airports all over the world.

According to the report, the country with the most reports of wildlife trafficking in the air transport sector was China — largely due to its role in the ivory trade — followed by Thailand and the United Arab Emirates.

The US ranked tenth by number of air seizures. Overall, 114 countries had at least one instance of wildlife trafficking in the air transport sector during the period covered by the report.

Ivory and rhino horn trafficking routes appear fairly concentrated in Africa and Asia, although the products often transit through countries in the Middle East and Europe. Reptile and bird trafficking routes, by contrast, appear geographically diverse, with concentrations in North America, Europe, the Middle East and South Asia.

The study was produced by C4ADS as part of the USAID Reducing Opportunities for Unlawful Transport of Endangered Species (ROUTES) Partnership.

Michelle Owen, the ROUTES Partnership lead, said: “This analysis provides a global perspective on what many in the airline industry are already seeing at the regional level: transport infrastructure is being abused to facilitate the trafficking of wildlife.

“There are a variety of low-cost and high-impact solutions available that airports and airlines can take to help address this issue. ROUTES is developing resources to raise awareness and build capacity within the air transport sector, and to support leaders within the transport industry who have made commitments to assist with tackling wildlife trafficking.”

Flying Under the Radar outlines more than a dozen data-based recommendations for preventing wildlife trafficking through the air transport sector. These include creating awareness among personnel and passengers, training air industry staff, strengthening enforcement seizure protocols and reporting and sharing seizure information.

“Wildlife seizure data is vital to identifying, understanding and combatting wildlife trafficking in airports around the world,” says author Mary Utermohlen from C4ADS.

“Still, it’s important to recognise that seizure data of any kind only provides a partial window into the true nature of trafficking activity. What seizures can’t show are the patterns and routes associated with trafficking activity that is not detected, seized or reported by enforcement authorities.”

Jon Godson, assistant director of environment at IATA, said: “Airlines are rarely informed if there has been a wildlife seizure from a passenger or cargo shipment carried by their aircraft. Data like this can demonstrate not only high risk routes, species and concealment methods but also the truly global nature of this exploitation.”

http://www.aircargonews.net/news/airports/single-view/news/report-finds-widespread-wildlife-trafficking-at-airports-across-114-countries.html

.

.


Flying Under the Radar: Wildlife Trafficking in the Air Transport Sector

24.5.2017  (WWF.org)

The USAID Reducing Opportunities for Unlawful Transport of Endangered Species (ROUTES) Partnership and C4ADS have released a new report, Flying Under the Radar: Wildlife Trafficking in the Air Transport Sector, which analyzes ivory, rhino horn, reptile and bird seizures in the air transport sector. The report reveals the widespread exploitation of the air transport sector by wildlife trafficking networks and presents more than a dozen data-based recommendations for preventing wildlife trafficking through the air transport industry.

Learn more about the ROUTES partnership.

https://www.worldwildlife.org/publications/flying-under-the-radar-wildlife-trafficking-in-the-air-transport-sector

The WWF report is at

https://c402277.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/publications/1059/files/original/Flying_Under_the_Radar-FINAL.pdf?1495634396

including mentions of Heathrow, and maps illustrating the routes of various illegal wildlife commodities, like ivory, rhino horn, reptiles etc.

.

.

 


Significant seizure of elephant ivory at Heathrow Airport

Tuesday, 24 November, 2015  (IFAW)
.
The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) has congratulated UK Border Force for seizing elephant tusks and other ivory items at Heathrow Airport.

Border Force has described the haul as one of the biggest that has been found in the UK, totalling 110kg.

However, every piece of ivory comes from dead elephants, and the demand for ivory to make ornaments and decorative trinkets is pushing elephants to the brink of extinction.

The seized ivory at Heathrow Airport, which included raw elephant tusks along with carved bangles and beads, was discovered in baggage left abandoned at Terminal 4 in transit from Angola on its way to Hanover in Germany in October.

The items were taken away and examined by specialists who confirmed that the products were ivory.

The trade in ivory is strictly controlled under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Items are only legally allowed to be brought in to or exported out of the EU if the correct permits have been issued.

UK Director of IFAW, Philip Mansbridge, said: “Border Force officers are to be congratulated for their work in seizing this ivory, which represents a number of dead elephants. Horrifyingly about one elephant is killed for its ivory every 15 minutes in Africa.

“The illegal ivory trade is not only a serious organised crime but a modern-day tragedy for elephants in the wild. Many ivory buyers are unaware of the terrible cruelty and devastating conservation impacts of elephant poaching and I urge people never to buy ivory products.”

Phil Douglas, Director, Border Force Heathrow said: “This is one of the largest seizures of its kind made in the UK and it demonstrates the vigilance of our officers. The illicit trade in animal products like ivory is a serious contributory factor in the threat of extinction faced by many endangered species and that is why the rules around it are so strict.

“Border Force takes its role in preventing illegal wildlife trafficking very seriously and, working together with our partners in the UK and internationally, we are determined to bring it to an end.”

The National Crime Agency will now continue investigations into this ivory seizure.

In a separate development, authorities in Vietnam have confirmed a seizure of 860 kgs of ivory. This is the fifth large-scale ivory bust in Vietnam in the last four months.

According to IFAW’s report Criminal Nature, increasing levels of illegal wildlife trade fuels poaching and trafficking, both of which rank alongside global arms, human and drug trafficking as serious organised crimes.

IFAW works to address all the links in the ivory chain; from anti-poaching activities, participating in ivory destruction events, working with enforcers to target wildlife criminals and educating consumers about the cruelty and impact of the illegal wildlife trade.

-Ends-

Notes

The IFAW report, Criminal Nature: The Global Security Implications of the Illegal Wildlife Trade, documents the threat the illegal trade poses to animals like elephants and rhinos, and also people.

To learn more about the illegal ivory trade, download IFAW’s digital magazine Unveiling the Ivory Trade.

CITES is the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (also known as the Washington Convention) www.cites.org

The Heathrow-based Border Force CITES team is made up of specialist officers who work closely with the National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU), National Crime Agency and police to provide expert advice on border operational issues.

http://www.ifaw.org/united-kingdom/news/significant-seizure-elephant-ivory-heathrow-airport 

.


.

From

“Wildlife Crime in the United Kingdom” – by the European Parliament

April 2016

The UK has a substantial role in illegal wildlife trade as a transit and destination country and a wide range of species are affected by the illegal trade.

• The number of seizures is high; between 2009 and 2014 the UK Border Forces made 2 853 seizures in total5 . A significant portion of seizures are made at Heathrow Airport.

The number of criminal prosecutions varies by year. For instance between 2013 and 2014, 18 criminal prosecution cases took place.

• Apart from wildlife trafficking other crimes against endangered species is also a concern in the UK. Poaching is the most common wildlife crime in the UK, while other common types of wildlife crimes include badger persecution6 , bat persecution and raptor persecution.

• Links between wildlife crime and organised crime groups have been identified in the UK, particularly in relation to rhino horn thefts and trade, to trade in raptors and bird eggs, and to the repeated sale of traditional medicine products. Some 19 organised crime groups are currently identified in the UK with the involvement of 134 individuals mainly linked to poaching, raptor persecution and other CITES related illegal wildlife trade.

…..

In 2014, thirteen San Salvador rock iguanas were seized at Heathrow Airport in, out of which twelve were repatriated to the Bahamas and one died.

…..

In 2013, two major seizures took place at Heathrow Airport of ‘Red Sandalwoods’ which were in transit from New Delhi to Hong Kong.

…..

In February 2015, according to a press release of the UK Border Forces12, a large number of endangered geckos were seized at Heathrow. The 165 turquoise dwarf geckos were imported from Tanzania. Within the same consignment 36 bearded pygmy chameleons, 112 peacock tree frogs, 192 whip scorpions and 66 yellowheaded geckos were also found.

…..

The large number of seizures at Heathrow Airport shows a geographical hub of illicit wildlife trade actions. Nevertheless, trade in illegal wildlife is also facilitated by postal services. Even though the CITES biennial reports provide a detailed overview of the number of seizures made by UK authorities in 2015, significant changes have also been made to the UK national statistics in order to provide an overview of wildlife crime at the national level.

…..

The National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU) within the UK Police Force and the UK Border Forces’ specialised CITES team based at Heathrow Airport play an important role tackling wildlife crime in the UK. The NWCU’s aim is to collect intelligence from a wide range of organisation on wildlife crime and to assist the Police force via the dissemination of this information.

…..

This in-depth analysis showed that the illegal trade of wildlife and other wildlife crimes are a significant problem in the UK. With regards to wildlife trafficking, the UK is primarily a transit and destination country and a wide range of species are affected. The number of seizures is high, many of which take place at Heathrow Airport.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2016/578963/IPOL_IDA(2016)578963_EN.pdf

.

 


The National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU) within the UK Police Force and the UK Border Forces specialised CITES team based at Heathrow Airport play an important role in tackling wildlife crime. Furthermore, the UK Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime (PAW UK), a multi-agency group comprising representatives of statutory bodies and NGOs involved in wildlife law enforcement in the UK, is also a key player. Finally, national and international NGOs, such as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the wildlife trade monitoring network TRAFFIC and the World Society for the Protection of the Animals (WSPA) also contribute to ending wildlife crime in the UK and to raising awareness of the issue. .

 

 

Read more »