China’s recent move to limit imports of the dirtiest coal from 2015 onwards is a scary prospect for Australian miners.

The proposed restrictions will ban the burning of coal with high levels of ash or sulphur in areas around major cities, as the Beijing government battles its pollution crisis.

Analysts say that as much as half of the thermal coal currently shipped from Australia to China could run afoul of the new measures.

The exact effects on Australia’s coal export market are hard to predict, and will doubtless vary between different companies and coalmining regions.

But what is clear is that unless it can find some new customers, the sector is likely to find itself in trouble.

Aussie coal – a mainstay of the economy

Australia is the world’s fourth-largest coal nation, with a A$16.9 billion industry that produces 401 million tonnes a year – almost 8.9% of the world total.

Industry groups have claimed that coal mining contributes some A$60 billion a year to Australia’s economy – roughly the same as the iron ore and agricultural sectors – while supplying A$3 billion in total yearly royalties to the Queensland, New South Wales and Victorian state governments.

Like other resource exports, Australia’s thermal coal sales – worth A$16 billion worldwide according to the Bureau of Resource and Energy Economics – are at the mercy of the world market.

The Australian coal industry is already reeling after two years dogged by job losses, increased costs and rapidly eroding profitability. Nearly 10,000 coal workers lost their jobs in 2013, and more lay-offs are expected in the future.

Coal prices are tumbling

With coal prices already falling, Australian exporters could also face the extra prospect of having to ‘wash’ their product to bring ash and sulphur within China’s new guidelines – which will add costs and damage profit margins. The potential extra cost has been estimated at anywhere between A$1 and A$27 per tonne.

Since 2004 there has been a continuous slowdown in mining sector productivity (the output relative to capital and / or labour input), mainly because both labour and capital costs have been consistently above the global average.

Yet despite these productivity issues, and the growing worldwide expectation that coal mining and coal-fired power generation should meet higher environmental standards, the Australian coal sector is focusing on increasing its production.

Recently, despite contention about the environmental impacts, federal environment minister Greg Hunt and the Queensland government approved the Carmichael coalmine in the Galilee Basin.

One of the largest coal projects in the world, the new mine will cover 200 square km and add up to 60 million tonnes annually to Australia’s existing coal production. In an increasingly competitive market, Australia will need to find more buyers for its new coal supplies.

Does Australia need more coal? Or more customers?

Indonesia already competes with Australia to export to China, and it is anticipated that the United States will increase its coal exports from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana over the next few years.

Meanwhile, other emerging producers including Mongolia and Mozambique are expected to create significant competitive pressure in the world’s coal export market.

At the same time, many Asian economies are increasing their electricity generation capacity – some of it through renewable energy including hydro, solar and wind power.

But all is not yet lost – significant amounts of new fossil fuel generation is also likely to come on stream, which may open new avenues for Australian coal exports.

China has recently shown interest in investing in coal-fired power plants in Pakistan – and Pakistani power minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif said earlier this month that one of the sources of coal could be Australia.

What will China’s new rules mean?

It is not yet clear how much Australia’s coal industry stands to lose from China’s new rules. The costs of processing it to the required standard are not clear, particularly because much of Australia’s coal is well above the Chinese requirements anyway.

But the move nevertheless represents another new problem for a sector that is facing many other challenges – including deterioration in terms of trade (the ratio of export prices to import prices), low coal prices, exchange rate appreciation, declining productivity, and the emergence of overseas rivals with lower production costs.

That is why Australia’s coal sector is now focusing on ramping up production, to try and gain a competitive advantage over emerging Asian and African miners and capture a greater market share for sustained export earnings.

The climate challenge

The other major challenge facing Australian coal, highlighted by this week’s UN Climate Summit in New York, is fact that much of the world is aiming to wean itself off it.

China’s thermal coal use is forecast to peak in just two years, and UN climate chief Christiana Figueres has advocated the replacement of fossil fuels with alternative energy sources.

China’s investment in up to 200 gigawatts of wind energy is just one sign that it is aiming to reduce its dependence on coal. There is a growing sense that China is getting serious about cutting its greenhouse emissions.

China’s new coal regulations are a warning to Australian miners that they won’t survive either without exploring other export markets besides their traditional customers, China and Japan.

And if Australia wants to remain an energy exporter far into the future, it should focus on exploiting its admirable technological abilities to develop renewable energy products that could diversify its exports still further.

Shabbir Ahmad is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Queensland’s Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining. He does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

The author acknowledges comments on this piece from Dr Jo-Anne Everingham and Professor Saleem Ali at the University of Queensland.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

China’s recent move to limit imports of the dirtiest coal from 2015 onwards is a scary prospect for Australian miners.

The proposed restrictions will ban the burning of coal with high levels of ash or sulphur in areas around major cities, as the Beijing government battles its pollution crisis.

Analysts say that as much as half of the thermal coal currently shipped from Australia to China could run afoul of the new measures.

The exact effects on Australia’s coal export market are hard to predict, and will doubtless vary between different companies and coalmining regions.

But what is clear is that unless it can find some new customers, the sector is likely to find itself in trouble.

Aussie coal – a mainstay of the economy

Australia is the world’s fourth-largest coal nation, with a A$16.9 billion industry that produces 401 million tonnes a year – almost 8.9% of the world total.

Industry groups have claimed that coal mining contributes some A$60 billion a year to Australia’s economy – roughly the same as the iron ore and agricultural sectors – while supplying A$3 billion in total yearly royalties to the Queensland, New South Wales and Victorian state governments.

Like other resource exports, Australia’s thermal coal sales – worth A$16 billion worldwide according to the Bureau of Resource and Energy Economics – are at the mercy of the world market.

The Australian coal industry is already reeling after two years dogged by job losses, increased costs and rapidly eroding profitability. Nearly 10,000 coal workers lost their jobs in 2013, and more lay-offs are expected in the future.

Coal prices are tumbling

With coal prices already falling, Australian exporters could also face the extra prospect of having to ‘wash’ their product to bring ash and sulphur within China’s new guidelines – which will add costs and damage profit margins. The potential extra cost has been estimated at anywhere between A$1 and A$27 per tonne.

Since 2004 there has been a continuous slowdown in mining sector productivity (the output relative to capital and / or labour input), mainly because both labour and capital costs have been consistently above the global average.

Yet despite these productivity issues, and the growing worldwide expectation that coal mining and coal-fired power generation should meet higher environmental standards, the Australian coal sector is focusing on increasing its production.

Recently, despite contention about the environmental impacts, federal environment minister Greg Hunt and the Queensland government approved the Carmichael coalmine in the Galilee Basin.

One of the largest coal projects in the world, the new mine will cover 200 square km and add up to 60 million tonnes annually to Australia’s existing coal production. In an increasingly competitive market, Australia will need to find more buyers for its new coal supplies.

Does Australia need more coal? Or more customers?

Indonesia already competes with Australia to export to China, and it is anticipated that the United States will increase its coal exports from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana over the next few years.

Meanwhile, other emerging producers including Mongolia and Mozambique are expected to create significant competitive pressure in the world’s coal export market.

At the same time, many Asian economies are increasing their electricity generation capacity – some of it through renewable energy including hydro, solar and wind power.

But all is not yet lost – significant amounts of new fossil fuel generation is also likely to come on stream, which may open new avenues for Australian coal exports.

China has recently shown interest in investing in coal-fired power plants in Pakistan – and Pakistani power minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif said earlier this month that one of the sources of coal could be Australia.

What will China’s new rules mean?

It is not yet clear how much Australia’s coal industry stands to lose from China’s new rules. The costs of processing it to the required standard are not clear, particularly because much of Australia’s coal is well above the Chinese requirements anyway.

But the move nevertheless represents another new problem for a sector that is facing many other challenges – including deterioration in terms of trade (the ratio of export prices to import prices), low coal prices, exchange rate appreciation, declining productivity, and the emergence of overseas rivals with lower production costs.

That is why Australia’s coal sector is now focusing on ramping up production, to try and gain a competitive advantage over emerging Asian and African miners and capture a greater market share for sustained export earnings.

The climate challenge

The other major challenge facing Australian coal, highlighted by this week’s UN Climate Summit in New York, is fact that much of the world is aiming to wean itself off it.

China’s thermal coal use is forecast to peak in just two years, and UN climate chief Christiana Figueres has advocated the replacement of fossil fuels with alternative energy sources.

China’s investment in up to 200 gigawatts of wind energy is just one sign that it is aiming to reduce its dependence on coal. There is a growing sense that China is getting serious about cutting its greenhouse emissions.

China’s new coal regulations are a warning to Australian miners that they won’t survive either without exploring other export markets besides their traditional customers, China and Japan.

And if Australia wants to remain an energy exporter far into the future, it should focus on exploiting its admirable technological abilities to develop renewable energy products that could diversify its exports still further.

Shabbir Ahmad is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Queensland’s Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining. He does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

The author acknowledges comments on this piece from Dr Jo-Anne Everingham and Professor Saleem Ali at the University of Queensland.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

China’s recent move to limit imports of the dirtiest coal from 2015 onwards is a scary prospect for Australian miners.

The proposed restrictions will ban the burning of coal with high levels of ash or sulphur in areas around major cities, as the Beijing government battles its pollution crisis.

Analysts say that as much as half of the thermal coal currently shipped from Australia to China could run afoul of the new measures.

The exact effects on Australia’s coal export market are hard to predict, and will doubtless vary between different companies and coalmining regions.

But what is clear is that unless it can find some new customers, the sector is likely to find itself in trouble.

Aussie coal – a mainstay of the economy

Australia is the world’s fourth-largest coal nation, with a A$16.9 billion industry that produces 401 million tonnes a year – almost 8.9% of the world total.

Industry groups have claimed that coal mining contributes some A$60 billion a year to Australia’s economy – roughly the same as the iron ore and agricultural sectors – while supplying A$3 billion in total yearly royalties to the Queensland, New South Wales and Victorian state governments.

Like other resource exports, Australia’s thermal coal sales – worth A$16 billion worldwide according to the Bureau of Resource and Energy Economics – are at the mercy of the world market.

The Australian coal industry is already reeling after two years dogged by job losses, increased costs and rapidly eroding profitability. Nearly 10,000 coal workers lost their jobs in 2013, and more lay-offs are expected in the future.

Coal prices are tumbling

With coal prices already falling, Australian exporters could also face the extra prospect of having to ‘wash’ their product to bring ash and sulphur within China’s new guidelines – which will add costs and damage profit margins. The potential extra cost has been estimated at anywhere between A$1 and A$27 per tonne.

Since 2004 there has been a continuous slowdown in mining sector productivity (the output relative to capital and / or labour input), mainly because both labour and capital costs have been consistently above the global average.

Yet despite these productivity issues, and the growing worldwide expectation that coal mining and coal-fired power generation should meet higher environmental standards, the Australian coal sector is focusing on increasing its production.

Recently, despite contention about the environmental impacts, federal environment minister Greg Hunt and the Queensland government approved the Carmichael coalmine in the Galilee Basin.

One of the largest coal projects in the world, the new mine will cover 200 square km and add up to 60 million tonnes annually to Australia’s existing coal production. In an increasingly competitive market, Australia will need to find more buyers for its new coal supplies.

Does Australia need more coal? Or more customers?

Indonesia already competes with Australia to export to China, and it is anticipated that the United States will increase its coal exports from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana over the next few years.

Meanwhile, other emerging producers including Mongolia and Mozambique are expected to create significant competitive pressure in the world’s coal export market.

At the same time, many Asian economies are increasing their electricity generation capacity – some of it through renewable energy including hydro, solar and wind power.

But all is not yet lost – significant amounts of new fossil fuel generation is also likely to come on stream, which may open new avenues for Australian coal exports.

China has recently shown interest in investing in coal-fired power plants in Pakistan – and Pakistani power minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif said earlier this month that one of the sources of coal could be Australia.

What will China’s new rules mean?

It is not yet clear how much Australia’s coal industry stands to lose from China’s new rules. The costs of processing it to the required standard are not clear, particularly because much of Australia’s coal is well above the Chinese requirements anyway.

But the move nevertheless represents another new problem for a sector that is facing many other challenges – including deterioration in terms of trade (the ratio of export prices to import prices), low coal prices, exchange rate appreciation, declining productivity, and the emergence of overseas rivals with lower production costs.

That is why Australia’s coal sector is now focusing on ramping up production, to try and gain a competitive advantage over emerging Asian and African miners and capture a greater market share for sustained export earnings.

The climate challenge

The other major challenge facing Australian coal, highlighted by this week’s UN Climate Summit in New York, is fact that much of the world is aiming to wean itself off it.

China’s thermal coal use is forecast to peak in just two years, and UN climate chief Christiana Figueres has advocated the replacement of fossil fuels with alternative energy sources.

China’s investment in up to 200 gigawatts of wind energy is just one sign that it is aiming to reduce its dependence on coal. There is a growing sense that China is getting serious about cutting its greenhouse emissions.

China’s new coal regulations are a warning to Australian miners that they won’t survive either without exploring other export markets besides their traditional customers, China and Japan.

And if Australia wants to remain an energy exporter far into the future, it should focus on exploiting its admirable technological abilities to develop renewable energy products that could diversify its exports still further.

Shabbir Ahmad is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Queensland’s Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining. He does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

The author acknowledges comments on this piece from Dr Jo-Anne Everingham and Professor Saleem Ali at the University of Queensland.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

China’s recent move to limit imports of the dirtiest coal from 2015 onwards is a scary prospect for Australian miners.

The proposed restrictions will ban the burning of coal with high levels of ash or sulphur in areas around major cities, as the Beijing government battles its pollution crisis.

Analysts say that as much as half of the thermal coal currently shipped from Australia to China could run afoul of the new measures.

The exact effects on Australia’s coal export market are hard to predict, and will doubtless vary between different companies and coalmining regions.

But what is clear is that unless it can find some new customers, the sector is likely to find itself in trouble.

Aussie coal – a mainstay of the economy

Australia is the world’s fourth-largest coal nation, with a A$16.9 billion industry that produces 401 million tonnes a year – almost 8.9% of the world total.

Industry groups have claimed that coal mining contributes some A$60 billion a year to Australia’s economy – roughly the same as the iron ore and agricultural sectors – while supplying A$3 billion in total yearly royalties to the Queensland, New South Wales and Victorian state governments.

Like other resource exports, Australia’s thermal coal sales – worth A$16 billion worldwide according to the Bureau of Resource and Energy Economics – are at the mercy of the world market.

The Australian coal industry is already reeling after two years dogged by job losses, increased costs and rapidly eroding profitability. Nearly 10,000 coal workers lost their jobs in 2013, and more lay-offs are expected in the future.

Coal prices are tumbling

With coal prices already falling, Australian exporters could also face the extra prospect of having to ‘wash’ their product to bring ash and sulphur within China’s new guidelines – which will add costs and damage profit margins. The potential extra cost has been estimated at anywhere between A$1 and A$27 per tonne.

Since 2004 there has been a continuous slowdown in mining sector productivity (the output relative to capital and / or labour input), mainly because both labour and capital costs have been consistently above the global average.

Yet despite these productivity issues, and the growing worldwide expectation that coal mining and coal-fired power generation should meet higher environmental standards, the Australian coal sector is focusing on increasing its production.

Recently, despite contention about the environmental impacts, federal environment minister Greg Hunt and the Queensland government approved the Carmichael coalmine in the Galilee Basin.

One of the largest coal projects in the world, the new mine will cover 200 square km and add up to 60 million tonnes annually to Australia’s existing coal production. In an increasingly competitive market, Australia will need to find more buyers for its new coal supplies.

Does Australia need more coal? Or more customers?

Indonesia already competes with Australia to export to China, and it is anticipated that the United States will increase its coal exports from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana over the next few years.

Meanwhile, other emerging producers including Mongolia and Mozambique are expected to create significant competitive pressure in the world’s coal export market.

At the same time, many Asian economies are increasing their electricity generation capacity – some of it through renewable energy including hydro, solar and wind power.

But all is not yet lost – significant amounts of new fossil fuel generation is also likely to come on stream, which may open new avenues for Australian coal exports.

China has recently shown interest in investing in coal-fired power plants in Pakistan – and Pakistani power minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif said earlier this month that one of the sources of coal could be Australia.

What will China’s new rules mean?

It is not yet clear how much Australia’s coal industry stands to lose from China’s new rules. The costs of processing it to the required standard are not clear, particularly because much of Australia’s coal is well above the Chinese requirements anyway.

But the move nevertheless represents another new problem for a sector that is facing many other challenges – including deterioration in terms of trade (the ratio of export prices to import prices), low coal prices, exchange rate appreciation, declining productivity, and the emergence of overseas rivals with lower production costs.

That is why Australia’s coal sector is now focusing on ramping up production, to try and gain a competitive advantage over emerging Asian and African miners and capture a greater market share for sustained export earnings.

The climate challenge

The other major challenge facing Australian coal, highlighted by this week’s UN Climate Summit in New York, is fact that much of the world is aiming to wean itself off it.

China’s thermal coal use is forecast to peak in just two years, and UN climate chief Christiana Figueres has advocated the replacement of fossil fuels with alternative energy sources.

China’s investment in up to 200 gigawatts of wind energy is just one sign that it is aiming to reduce its dependence on coal. There is a growing sense that China is getting serious about cutting its greenhouse emissions.

China’s new coal regulations are a warning to Australian miners that they won’t survive either without exploring other export markets besides their traditional customers, China and Japan.

And if Australia wants to remain an energy exporter far into the future, it should focus on exploiting its admirable technological abilities to develop renewable energy products that could diversify its exports still further.

Shabbir Ahmad is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Queensland’s Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining. He does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

The author acknowledges comments on this piece from Dr Jo-Anne Everingham and Professor Saleem Ali at the University of Queensland.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

China’s recent move to limit imports of the dirtiest coal from 2015 onwards is a scary prospect for Australian miners.

The proposed restrictions will ban the burning of coal with high levels of ash or sulphur in areas around major cities, as the Beijing government battles its pollution crisis.

Analysts say that as much as half of the thermal coal currently shipped from Australia to China could run afoul of the new measures.

The exact effects on Australia’s coal export market are hard to predict, and will doubtless vary between different companies and coalmining regions.

But what is clear is that unless it can find some new customers, the sector is likely to find itself in trouble.

Aussie coal – a mainstay of the economy

Australia is the world’s fourth-largest coal nation, with a A$16.9 billion industry that produces 401 million tonnes a year – almost 8.9% of the world total.

Industry groups have claimed that coal mining contributes some A$60 billion a year to Australia’s economy – roughly the same as the iron ore and agricultural sectors – while supplying A$3 billion in total yearly royalties to the Queensland, New South Wales and Victorian state governments.

Like other resource exports, Australia’s thermal coal sales – worth A$16 billion worldwide according to the Bureau of Resource and Energy Economics – are at the mercy of the world market.

The Australian coal industry is already reeling after two years dogged by job losses, increased costs and rapidly eroding profitability. Nearly 10,000 coal workers lost their jobs in 2013, and more lay-offs are expected in the future.

Coal prices are tumbling

With coal prices already falling, Australian exporters could also face the extra prospect of having to ‘wash’ their product to bring ash and sulphur within China’s new guidelines – which will add costs and damage profit margins. The potential extra cost has been estimated at anywhere between A$1 and A$27 per tonne.

Since 2004 there has been a continuous slowdown in mining sector productivity (the output relative to capital and / or labour input), mainly because both labour and capital costs have been consistently above the global average.

Yet despite these productivity issues, and the growing worldwide expectation that coal mining and coal-fired power generation should meet higher environmental standards, the Australian coal sector is focusing on increasing its production.

Recently, despite contention about the environmental impacts, federal environment minister Greg Hunt and the Queensland government approved the Carmichael coalmine in the Galilee Basin.

One of the largest coal projects in the world, the new mine will cover 200 square km and add up to 60 million tonnes annually to Australia’s existing coal production. In an increasingly competitive market, Australia will need to find more buyers for its new coal supplies.

Does Australia need more coal? Or more customers?

Indonesia already competes with Australia to export to China, and it is anticipated that the United States will increase its coal exports from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana over the next few years.

Meanwhile, other emerging producers including Mongolia and Mozambique are expected to create significant competitive pressure in the world’s coal export market.

At the same time, many Asian economies are increasing their electricity generation capacity – some of it through renewable energy including hydro, solar and wind power.

But all is not yet lost – significant amounts of new fossil fuel generation is also likely to come on stream, which may open new avenues for Australian coal exports.

China has recently shown interest in investing in coal-fired power plants in Pakistan – and Pakistani power minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif said earlier this month that one of the sources of coal could be Australia.

What will China’s new rules mean?

It is not yet clear how much Australia’s coal industry stands to lose from China’s new rules. The costs of processing it to the required standard are not clear, particularly because much of Australia’s coal is well above the Chinese requirements anyway.

But the move nevertheless represents another new problem for a sector that is facing many other challenges – including deterioration in terms of trade (the ratio of export prices to import prices), low coal prices, exchange rate appreciation, declining productivity, and the emergence of overseas rivals with lower production costs.

That is why Australia’s coal sector is now focusing on ramping up production, to try and gain a competitive advantage over emerging Asian and African miners and capture a greater market share for sustained export earnings.

The climate challenge

The other major challenge facing Australian coal, highlighted by this week’s UN Climate Summit in New York, is fact that much of the world is aiming to wean itself off it.

China’s thermal coal use is forecast to peak in just two years, and UN climate chief Christiana Figueres has advocated the replacement of fossil fuels with alternative energy sources.

China’s investment in up to 200 gigawatts of wind energy is just one sign that it is aiming to reduce its dependence on coal. There is a growing sense that China is getting serious about cutting its greenhouse emissions.

China’s new coal regulations are a warning to Australian miners that they won’t survive either without exploring other export markets besides their traditional customers, China and Japan.

And if Australia wants to remain an energy exporter far into the future, it should focus on exploiting its admirable technological abilities to develop renewable energy products that could diversify its exports still further.

Shabbir Ahmad is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Queensland’s Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining. He does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

The author acknowledges comments on this piece from Dr Jo-Anne Everingham and Professor Saleem Ali at the University of Queensland.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

After an absence of more than two centuries, wild beavers have returned to Britain. For me that is an exciting thing to say.

At first they reappeared in Scotland – through escapees in Perthshire and an official reintroduction programme in Argyll. Now they are in England too, living and breeding on the River Otter in Devon.

Like most people I was thrilled when I heard the news. An iconic species was returning, enhancing biodiversity and enriching our environment. And it was happening with minimal fuss. or trouble.

Sadly, not everyone has seen it that way. The response from the government and some special interest groups has been depressingly familiar.

The animals they say, are a threat. They will harm fish stocks, they could carry disease. And, just to make it final, they have been gone too long. The landscape has changed too much. We cannot live together.

Across Europe, people and beavers mix

None of this is true. In virtually every country in Europe people and beavers manage to live side by side. These are not animals which require true wilderness but a species which live happily in modern agricultural landscapes.

They bring many benefits – enhancing fish stocks, increasing biodiversity and helping with flood prevention. There is a reason there have been 157 beaver reintroductions across the continent.

Despite this DEFRA, egged on by a few lobbyists, announced in early summer that it was planning to capture the beavers and “rehome” them. That could mean only one thing, a life in captivity and no more beavers in the wild. The uproar that followed was predictable. Columns were written, petitions were signed and local action groups came together.

In the weeks since, everything has gone quiet. Yet behind the scenes it seems preparations are still continuing to catch the animals.

There are rumours that traps have been ordered and moved into the area. Locals fear that the capturing could begin as soon as October.

Removing the population from the wild may be illegal

Friends of the Earth does not work much with beavers, and we do not run nature reserves in the UK, but we do know about the law, and in this case it seems to be very much on the beaver’s side.

The European Habitat Directive, a piece of law the UK agreed to, sets out clear rules for the protection of native species. The beaver is listed in Annex IV, and for these species Article 12 prohibits

• all forms of deliberate capture or killing of specimens of these species in the wild;
• deliberate disturbance of these species, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration;
• deliberate destruction or taking of eggs from the wild;
  deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places.its capture or killing in the wild.

It also obliges the government to establish a system of strict protection for all Annex IV animals.

The fact that the animals are not listed in the UK’s domestic regulations, due to the fact that they have been absent for some time, does not matter provided that the beavers are within their natural range.

And they are.

European beavers (Castor fiber) were once common throughout the continent and were found in almost every region, including Great Britain, where they were widespread, occurring right across the island.

Archaeological remains have been discovered from Cornwall to the North of Scotland. There are towns named after them. They are a recognised component our river systems. Natural England, the body that will no doubt be tasked with overseeing their removal, recognises this.

Netherlands, France, Belgium – so why not England?

Just as importantly, the modern British landscape is a perfect example of the kind of modern habitats they thrive in. In its 2009 feasibility study on reintroducing beavers to England, Natural England stated that it was ‘evident that many if not most of England’s rivers would provide suitable habitat to support beavers’.

The physical characteristics of the River Otter match the criteria they laid out. That there are beavers living and breeding there proves it.

The fact too that the beavers have just recently arrived is likely to be irrelevant. The concept of natural range outlined in the Directive is not static, and the guidance makes it clear that where the animals spread to a new area, that area must be considered part of its natural range.

Even if the beavers on the River Otter are escapees, this is no reason to consider them as being beyond their natural range. Indeed, the return of the beavers to England is just the latest stage in a process that has seen them rebound all over their territories.

From a population of just over a thousand a hundred years ago, they are now found in over 30 countries, including some of the UK’s nearest neighbours in the Netherlands, France and Belgium. Beavers have been seen swimming in the sea off Kent, and of course there are already populations in Scotland.

Little threat of disease

The Habitats Convention’s Article 16 does provide a let out that could, in specified circumstances, allow trapping. ‘Derogations’ from Article 12 may be permitted, for example:

• in the interest of protecting wild fauna and flora and conserving natural habitats;
• to prevent serious damage, in particular to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water and other types of property;
• in the interests of public health and public safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest;
• for the purpose of research and education, of repopulating and re-introducing these species and for the breedings operations necessary for these purposes.

Perhaps that’s what Lord de Mauley had in mind when he wrote a letter to the Angling Trust, raising the spectre that the animal might be carrying disease as a reason to catch them.

But this is a red herring. The disease in question, Echinococcus multilocularis, cannot be transmitted simply from beaver to beaver. In any case it can be easily tested for.

If the beavers living on the river were found to be free from disease, as they almost certainly are, it would be unjustifiable, disproportionate and potentially unlawful not to re-release them back onto the Otter, precisely because they are protected by the Directive.

As for the other circumstances provided in Article 16, DEFRA would be hard to argue that trapping the beavers was a matter of public health and safety, overriding public interest, or preventing serious damage.

None of the let outs appear to apply in this case where the beavers are causing no problems to anyone, and can only enhance the quality of wildlife habitat.

Community support

When the Scottish government tried to get rid of the wild beavers the community rallied round, eventually creating enough fuss for the issue to be dropped.

In Devon too everyone from farmers to shopkeepers to local councillors has spoken out in favour of the continued presence of the beavers.

It is still not too late. It is not clear how much the government really wants to catch these animals. By raising our concerns, we hope that DEFRA will realise that its actions will not just be unpopular, but potentially illegal.

We are not saying that our countryside should become a free-for all, but rather that we should take this opportunity to stop and think and work out the best way forward.

In the future beavers may need to be controlled, and the Habitats Directive allows this where genuinely necessary. We fully accept that and there are people who know how to do this.

At a time when so many species are under threat, and where the loss of biodiversity has become so constant that it almost loses its meaning, the ability to see a native species re-establish itself is a privilege, and one we should not give up lightly.

Alasdair Cameron is a wildlife campaigner with Friends of the Earth.

Action

• Write to your MP asking him or her to put your concerns to Liz Truss, secretary of State at DEFRA.
• Sign the petition to save the free beavers of Devon.

Dozens of Governments, businesses, civil society and indigenous peoples participating in the United Nations Climate Summit in New York have pledged to halve deforestation by 2020 and to end within the following decade.

The New York Declaration on Forests, a non-legally binding political agreement, calls for the restoration of more than 350 million hectares of forests and croplands, an area greater than the size of India.

“Forests are not only a critical part of the climate solution – they hold multiple benefits for all members of society”, said Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. “The New York Declaration aims to reduce more climate pollution each year than the United States emits annually”

Deforestation is a significant contributor to climate change. Trees, which store carbon, release it when they are burned during slash-and-burn land clearing of forests, for example.

If it works as expected, the initiative would avoid between 4.5 and 8.8 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year by 2030. That is equivalent to removing the carbon emissions produced by the one billion cars that are currently on the world’s roads.

The pledge in full

Signatories include nations, regions, Indigenous Peoples, corporations and NGOs.

Major forest nations include Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Guyana, Indonesia, Kenya, Liberia, Mexico, Norway, Peru, Philippines, the USA and Vietnam. Although Brazil did not sign, however its states of Acre and Amazonas did.

Collectively they pledged to:

• At least halve the rate of loss of natural forests globally by 2020 and strive to end natural forest loss by 2030.
• Support and help meet the private-sector goal of eliminating deforestation from the production of agricultural commodities such as palm oil, soy, paper and beef products by no later than 2020, recognizing that many companies have even more ambitious targets.
• Significantly reduce deforestation derived from other economic sectors by 2020.
• Support alternatives to deforestation driven by basic needs (such as subsistence farming and reliance on fuel wood for energy) in ways that alleviate poverty and promote sustainable and equitable development.
• Restore 150 million hectares of degraded landscapes and forestlands by 2020 and significantly increase the rate of global restoration thereafter, which would restore at least an additional 200 million hectares by 2030.
• Include ambitious, quantitative forest conservation and restoration targets for 2030 in the post-2015 global development framework, as part of new international sustainable development goals.
• Agree in 2015 to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation as part of a post-2020 global climate agreement, in accordance with internationally agreed rules and consistent with the goal of not exceeding 2°C warming.
• Provide support for the development and implementation of strategies to reduce forest emissions.
• Reward countries and jurisdictions that, by taking action, reduce forest emissions – particularly through public policies to scale-up payments for verified emission reductions and private-sector sourcing of commodities.
• Strengthen forest governance, transparency and the rule of law, while also empowering communities and recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples, especially those pertaining to their lands and resources.

Backed by major palm oil and food companies

Also supporting the Declaration are 20 global food companies, most recently Dunkin Donuts and Krispy Kreme, which announced their pledges to deforestation-free sourcing policies of palm oil.

The world’s largest palm oil companies – Wilmar, Golden Agri-Resources and Cargill – also committed to work together to implement and join the Indonesian Business Council in asking incoming Indonesian President Joko Widodo to support their efforts through legislation and policies.

Taken together, the share of palm oil under zero deforestation commitments has grown from 0 to about 60% in the last year, with the potential to reduce up to 450 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually by 2020.

That is the equivalent of 2 billion tonnes in the period through 2020.

Other advances

Among other announcements, 26 governors from Peru and Liberia presented new forest policies and pledged to cut deforestation by 80%.

An important side-deal was also struck between Norway and Liberia, which is to become the first nation in Africa to completely stop cutting down its trees in return for development aid. Norway will pay the Ebola-stricken West African country $150m (£91.4m) to stop deforestation by 2020, designating 30% of its forests as ‘protected areas’.

Meanwhile the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Ethiopia, Guatemala, Uganda and several other countries are set to make national pledges to restore more than 30 million hectares of degraded lands.

The Consumer Goods Forum, a coalition of 400 companies, also called on Governments to pass a legally binding climate deal in Paris in 2015 that includes REDD+, including large-scale payments to countries that reduce deforestation.

Principal source: The UN.

It sometimes feels as if environmental news is never good news, but that certainly isn’t true when it comes to the ozone layer. The UN has announced that the ozone layer is showing “signs of recovery“.

Evidence has pointed to recovery for some time, but researchers have waited until they were confident that the hole in the ozone layer was beginning to heal. It’s not yet restored to perfect health – that will take a few more decades – but a significant corner has been turned.

That good news comes 30 years after governments around the world began to sign up to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer.

Solving global environmental problems takes time, but the success of the Vienna convention, and the Montreal Protocol that puts the convention in to action, is proof that when the world works together, and keeps working together even when the going gets tough, it can deliver the solutions that we all need.

Of course, having written “that we all need” begs an important question. Why does the ozone hole matter to me?

We have all seen those NASA images of the ozone hole over the Antarctic, but that’s a long way from where most of the planet’s population lives. It’s a little like that scene at the end of ‘Happy Feet’ where the politicians challenged to respond to the plight of the penguins ask why they should “worry about a load of flightless birds”.

So why should we worry whether or not there is a little more or less ozone, a tiny fraction of the gases in the atmosphere, than there might have been if we hadn’t all changed our fridges and under-arm deodorants?

What’s the ozone layer ever done for us?

The most obvious answer is that the ozone layer protects us from ultraviolet (UV) light, and that being exposed to too much UV can eventually cause skin cancers. OK, but just how many skin cancers have been prevented by protecting the ozone layer?

Until recently, it has been hard to answer that with any sort of numbers, but research has begun to model what the world would have been like if we had not protected the Earth’s ozone layer.

These ‘world avoided’ models are indicating that without the Montreal Protocol people around the world would already be exposed to increases in UV. Those increases would be enough to be causing skin damage that, over time, would mean more people developing skin cancers.

In fact, the most recent estimate of what would have happened without ozone protection suggests that by 2030 there would have been around 2 million more cases of skin cancer a year worldwide.

That can’t be a precise figure, but even if we take as a ‘ball-park’ estimate, that’s 2 million people every year being saved from skin cancer because governments acted to protect the ozone layer.

Looking over a longer timescale, do the maths. Two million fewer skin cancers a year, year on year on year soon generates some very large numbers. And those figures don’t take in to account the massive ozone depletion that would have occurred worldwide by the middle of this century.

Can we do it again, with climate?

That collapse in global ozone is a consistent outcome of ‘world-avoided’ research and would have increased UV levels around the world beyond anything that has ever been experienced since humans evolved.

Maybe we could have coped with that, but it would have been difficult. Yes, we can all reduce our exposure to UV by how we choose to behave, that’s probably the biggest factor affecting our risk of skin cancer in the world we actually live in. But what about in the world avoided?

How much sun-cream would you have needed if without protection you would begin to sunburn in just a few minutes? What clothes would you send your children to school in? Health-warning signs on the beaches?

And even if you could cope, what about the damage to crops, to forests and to the oceans that would have resulted from run-away increases in UV, the scale of which we can’t yet really quantify.

So yes, the news that the ozone layer is beginning to recover is a good reason to be cheerful. Be cheerful because we have protected the planet. Be cheerful because we have protected human health.

Above all, perhaps, be cheerful because the success of the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol shows that global governments can work together to solve major environmental problems.

When the Vienna Convention was signed no one could be really sure exactly how ozone depletion might develop, but governments were brave enough to make tough decisions based on the best estimates of future risks. 30 years later, research allows us to confirm just how right those decisions were.

Surely that’s good news not just for ozone, but also as we look ahead to the even tougher challenges of responding to climate change.

Nigel Paul is co-chair of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) panel on ozone depletion and Professor of Plant Science at Lancaster University, but he writes here in his personal capacity. During the 1990s he received funding for research in to the effects of ozone depletion from UK research councils and the EU.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

It sometimes feels as if environmental news is never good news, but that certainly isn’t true when it comes to the ozone layer. The UN has announced that the ozone layer is showing “signs of recovery“.

Evidence has pointed to recovery for some time, but researchers have waited until they were confident that the hole in the ozone layer was beginning to heal. It’s not yet restored to perfect health – that will take a few more decades – but a significant corner has been turned.

That good news comes 30 years after governments around the world began to sign up to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer.

Solving global environmental problems takes time, but the success of the Vienna convention, and the Montreal Protocol that puts the convention in to action, is proof that when the world works together, and keeps working together even when the going gets tough, it can deliver the solutions that we all need.

Of course, having written “that we all need” begs an important question. Why does the ozone hole matter to me?

We have all seen those NASA images of the ozone hole over the Antarctic, but that’s a long way from where most of the planet’s population lives. It’s a little like that scene at the end of ‘Happy Feet’ where the politicians challenged to respond to the plight of the penguins ask why they should “worry about a load of flightless birds”.

So why should we worry whether or not there is a little more or less ozone, a tiny fraction of the gases in the atmosphere, than there might have been if we hadn’t all changed our fridges and under-arm deodorants?

What’s the ozone layer ever done for us?

The most obvious answer is that the ozone layer protects us from ultraviolet (UV) light, and that being exposed to too much UV can eventually cause skin cancers. OK, but just how many skin cancers have been prevented by protecting the ozone layer?

Until recently, it has been hard to answer that with any sort of numbers, but research has begun to model what the world would have been like if we had not protected the Earth’s ozone layer.

These ‘world avoided’ models are indicating that without the Montreal Protocol people around the world would already be exposed to increases in UV. Those increases would be enough to be causing skin damage that, over time, would mean more people developing skin cancers.

In fact, the most recent estimate of what would have happened without ozone protection suggests that by 2030 there would have been around 2 million more cases of skin cancer a year worldwide.

That can’t be a precise figure, but even if we take as a ‘ball-park’ estimate, that’s 2 million people every year being saved from skin cancer because governments acted to protect the ozone layer.

Looking over a longer timescale, do the maths. Two million fewer skin cancers a year, year on year on year soon generates some very large numbers. And those figures don’t take in to account the massive ozone depletion that would have occurred worldwide by the middle of this century.

Can we do it again, with climate?

That collapse in global ozone is a consistent outcome of ‘world-avoided’ research and would have increased UV levels around the world beyond anything that has ever been experienced since humans evolved.

Maybe we could have coped with that, but it would have been difficult. Yes, we can all reduce our exposure to UV by how we choose to behave, that’s probably the biggest factor affecting our risk of skin cancer in the world we actually live in. But what about in the world avoided?

How much sun-cream would you have needed if without protection you would begin to sunburn in just a few minutes? What clothes would you send your children to school in? Health-warning signs on the beaches?

And even if you could cope, what about the damage to crops, to forests and to the oceans that would have resulted from run-away increases in UV, the scale of which we can’t yet really quantify.

So yes, the news that the ozone layer is beginning to recover is a good reason to be cheerful. Be cheerful because we have protected the planet. Be cheerful because we have protected human health.

Above all, perhaps, be cheerful because the success of the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol shows that global governments can work together to solve major environmental problems.

When the Vienna Convention was signed no one could be really sure exactly how ozone depletion might develop, but governments were brave enough to make tough decisions based on the best estimates of future risks. 30 years later, research allows us to confirm just how right those decisions were.

Surely that’s good news not just for ozone, but also as we look ahead to the even tougher challenges of responding to climate change.

Nigel Paul is co-chair of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) panel on ozone depletion and Professor of Plant Science at Lancaster University, but he writes here in his personal capacity. During the 1990s he received funding for research in to the effects of ozone depletion from UK research councils and the EU.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

It sometimes feels as if environmental news is never good news, but that certainly isn’t true when it comes to the ozone layer. The UN has announced that the ozone layer is showing “signs of recovery“.

Evidence has pointed to recovery for some time, but researchers have waited until they were confident that the hole in the ozone layer was beginning to heal. It’s not yet restored to perfect health – that will take a few more decades – but a significant corner has been turned.

That good news comes 30 years after governments around the world began to sign up to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer.

Solving global environmental problems takes time, but the success of the Vienna convention, and the Montreal Protocol that puts the convention in to action, is proof that when the world works together, and keeps working together even when the going gets tough, it can deliver the solutions that we all need.

Of course, having written “that we all need” begs an important question. Why does the ozone hole matter to me?

We have all seen those NASA images of the ozone hole over the Antarctic, but that’s a long way from where most of the planet’s population lives. It’s a little like that scene at the end of ‘Happy Feet’ where the politicians challenged to respond to the plight of the penguins ask why they should “worry about a load of flightless birds”.

So why should we worry whether or not there is a little more or less ozone, a tiny fraction of the gases in the atmosphere, than there might have been if we hadn’t all changed our fridges and under-arm deodorants?

What’s the ozone layer ever done for us?

The most obvious answer is that the ozone layer protects us from ultraviolet (UV) light, and that being exposed to too much UV can eventually cause skin cancers. OK, but just how many skin cancers have been prevented by protecting the ozone layer?

Until recently, it has been hard to answer that with any sort of numbers, but research has begun to model what the world would have been like if we had not protected the Earth’s ozone layer.

These ‘world avoided’ models are indicating that without the Montreal Protocol people around the world would already be exposed to increases in UV. Those increases would be enough to be causing skin damage that, over time, would mean more people developing skin cancers.

In fact, the most recent estimate of what would have happened without ozone protection suggests that by 2030 there would have been around 2 million more cases of skin cancer a year worldwide.

That can’t be a precise figure, but even if we take as a ‘ball-park’ estimate, that’s 2 million people every year being saved from skin cancer because governments acted to protect the ozone layer.

Looking over a longer timescale, do the maths. Two million fewer skin cancers a year, year on year on year soon generates some very large numbers. And those figures don’t take in to account the massive ozone depletion that would have occurred worldwide by the middle of this century.

Can we do it again, with climate?

That collapse in global ozone is a consistent outcome of ‘world-avoided’ research and would have increased UV levels around the world beyond anything that has ever been experienced since humans evolved.

Maybe we could have coped with that, but it would have been difficult. Yes, we can all reduce our exposure to UV by how we choose to behave, that’s probably the biggest factor affecting our risk of skin cancer in the world we actually live in. But what about in the world avoided?

How much sun-cream would you have needed if without protection you would begin to sunburn in just a few minutes? What clothes would you send your children to school in? Health-warning signs on the beaches?

And even if you could cope, what about the damage to crops, to forests and to the oceans that would have resulted from run-away increases in UV, the scale of which we can’t yet really quantify.

So yes, the news that the ozone layer is beginning to recover is a good reason to be cheerful. Be cheerful because we have protected the planet. Be cheerful because we have protected human health.

Above all, perhaps, be cheerful because the success of the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol shows that global governments can work together to solve major environmental problems.

When the Vienna Convention was signed no one could be really sure exactly how ozone depletion might develop, but governments were brave enough to make tough decisions based on the best estimates of future risks. 30 years later, research allows us to confirm just how right those decisions were.

Surely that’s good news not just for ozone, but also as we look ahead to the even tougher challenges of responding to climate change.

Nigel Paul is co-chair of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) panel on ozone depletion and Professor of Plant Science at Lancaster University, but he writes here in his personal capacity. During the 1990s he received funding for research in to the effects of ozone depletion from UK research councils and the EU.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.