Government cuts a threat to butterflies
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The continuing survival of Britain's most-threatened butterflies has been put at risk by swingeing government cuts, conservationists are warning.
Funding for recovery schemes for 24 butterfly species, provided by the Government's wildlife agency, Natural England, has now been completely ended, the charity Butterfly Conservation says.
The species affected include the large blue, above, which was brought back from extinction and has been flourishing on about 15 sites because of careful micro-management.
Dr Martin Warren, Butterfly Conservation's chief executive, said Natural England had cut the £300,000 annual grant the charity has been receiving to help with species recovery, to about £40,000. The funds went towards recovery programmes for 24 butterfly and 70 moth species but the remaining £40,000 would have to be devoted to work on 15 very rare moth species, leaving the butterflies unfunded.
Natural England declined to comment in detail at the weekend.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments