Demands to reintroduce predators such as wolves and bears could significantly damage public support for rewilding the British countryside, a senior conservationist has said.

Francesca Osowska, chief executive of NatureScot, a government conservation agency, said rewilding could only succeed if it won support from people living in and managing the countryside, including farmers and Highland estate managers who are worried about losing their livelihoods.

She said focusing on totemic predators such as wolves risked alienating the people living in rural areas whose involvement is essential if the large-scale restoration programmes needed to address the climate and nature emergencies were to succeed.

Osowska said: “We need to think about rewilding as a much broader concept. We need to think about restoring all of nature, not just large mammals. And that goes from the pine hoverfly to ensuring that we’ve the right mix of forestry – different land types to have that mosaic of habitats.

“The vision I want is of a nature-rich future. Nature-rich means we’re all touched by and living in harmony with nature and able to benefit from it.”

With the environment high on the agenda at the G7 summit in Biarritz this weekend, the data will be an embarrassment to ministers who have repeatedly pledged to protect the environment – despite imposing savage cuts on England’s statutory nature conservation agency, Natural England.

Under the EU’s habitats and birds directive, member states commit to improve the physical protection of individual specimens and the conservation of core breeding and resting sites for rare and threatened species. The EU also sets rules regarding animal welfare and works with the international community to fight illegal wildlife trade.

Member states have to report every six years on progress. But the draft figures for the UK for 2013-2018 show it faring worse than many other member states and making no progress on key measures.

During the period, the draft data show 82% of the UK’s designated habitats to be in “bad” or “poor” condition, unchanged from the last reporting period of 2007-12. The percentage in a “bad” state was 71%, compared with 36% in Germany and 32% in France.

A no-deal Brexit will put the future of an endangered group of forest giraffes in jeopardy, conservation experts have warned. 

Around 70 okapis, which are from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and have a brown body and zebra-like striped legs, reside in zoos in the European Union where free movement rules support an inter-country breeding project.

Should Britain, which houses 15 okapis, crash out of the EU without a transition deal, it would probably be removed from the project.

Sander Hofman, general curator of Antwerp Zoo in Belgium, who coordinates okapi relocation for reproduction, said: “Brexit is very bad news for conservation breeding.

“Fifteen out of my 73 [okapis] are in the UK. You can imagine that if I need to remove these 15, it would be a big blow for my population but it would be even worse for the UK colleagues.”

Conservationists are being blocked from cleaning up one of Britain’s most scenic rivers – by a moorhen and her babies.

The Cam Conservators who look after the River Cam in Cambridge have had two dozen complaints about “unsightly” litter building up by Jesus Lock.

But they say they cannot move the debris because it could disturb a mother moorhen’s nest.

One chick has already been born and three more eggs are ready to hatch but they are perched on the edge of the weir.

The local conservators say disturbing the nest is illegal under the 1984 Wildlife and Countryside Act.

This article explains “The planning minister has rounded on campaigners who claim his proposed planning system overhaul for England seriously threatens the countryside. Greg Clark accused the National Trust of “misleading” people, and suggested the Campaign to Protect Rural England always “objected to every change”. The groups fear excessive development under a simpler, faster system”

I have an economic development background and I am pro development, but not at any cost. I can see the value in specific and detailed critiques and debates around specific issues. I remain concerned however when very large membership organisation make significant statements in their members name without any evidence of thoroughgoing consultation. There have been many unintended consequences arising from the current planning regime which have made significant parts of rural England unaffordable and not viable for people of ordinary means to live in. We need to ensure that becomes a key part of the agenda in this debate.