Those famous electoral TV debates are getting closer – and it’s intriguing to imagine the dialogue between UKIP leader Nigel Farage and the Green leader Natalie Bennett.

One big area of disagreement is of course immigration, and the Greens’ immigration policy is, in their own words “liberal” – which in practice means absolutely no constraint or restriction on who enters the or stays in the UK.

Specifically, the Green Party “will progressively reduce UK immigration controls” and give non-Europeans the same free-movement rights as Europeans. That is, everyone is free to move in.

In my opinion, Bennett will struggle to defend this policy in debate with the populist Mr Farage, given the large scale immigration it would be certain to provoke if implemented any time soon. Even committed Greens will find it unrealistic – except as a very long term aspiration.

More cynically – has the Green Party given any thought to what the electoral consequences will be when their open door policy becomes widely known? As Mr Farage will surely make sure it does?

People look to the Greens for the promise of a long-term sustainable future for their descendants and the UK, as well as the Earth itself. So a policy that appears to actively negate that aspiration – by encouraging overpopulation and cultural instability – must undermine the party’s credibility in many voters’ eyes.

The population question

As a green (Oxford Ecology Movement) candidate in the 1979 general election I can quote our policy at the time: “The national aim is a replacement birth-rate in the short term, followed by a gradual reduction over the next 1 or 2 centuries to 20-30 million in Britain, achieved through education and popular consent.”

The Green population policy today is less specific, worthy but lacking in substance –  focussed more on global than UK issues, which enables the more political and controversial issue of the UK population (and the link to immigration) to be fudged.

The main thrust appears to be that we’ll need to look at population at some undefined future date (PP101, 103), but in the meantime we can have as many children as we like (PP106) and let everyone in who wants to come (PP111), provided we keep half an eye on “economic and environmental pressures”.

It is all very vague and woolly, and while it implies the need for an eventual limit, there is no thinking about what a sustainable population for the UK might be, thus also no means to achieve it, even if lip-service is paid to population being a proper subject of public debate (PP107).

There is a medium-term aim (PP120) “to promote debate on sustainable population levels for the UK ­ … to increase awareness of the issues not to set specific population targets.” But to discuss a sustainable population for the UK without having any idea of what you are aiming at seems, for a Green policy, worse than pointless.

Surely the essence of the green approach to life and humanity is long-term sustainability? So difficult issues like actual numbers and how to achieve them need to be openly and clearly discussed.

The emphasis is however on world population limits. Indeed some local Greens have suggested to me that as long as the total world population is stabilised, it doesn’t matter how people are distributed. So it’s OK for lots of people to flood into nice rich UK as this will result in fewer poor people somewhere else.

So apparently we should ignore our own interests in order to altruistically solve those of others currently less fortunate. It’s a noble wish, but surely each country needs to have policies that at least safeguard their own viability?

The debate must be allowed to take place

Fortunately the Green population debate is far from over. In recent posts on The Ecologist, Biff Vernon has argued for a population policy by stealth focussed on women’s status and health in poor countries, while Simon Ross from Population Matters argued that evading the core issue is dishonest and that in any case we have issues here in the UK.

Rupert Read, the Green prosective candidate for Cambridge, has also thrown his hat in the ring, in an Ecologist article that outright opposes mass immigration: “We Greens need to be absolutely and resolutely pro-immigrant – while turning against large-scale immigration.“

The Ecologist‘s founding editor Edward Goldsmith would probably have sided with Read and Ross. As he wrote in 1989 in ‘The population explosion‘, “A growing population is not intolerable per se but because of the increasing impact it must have on the natural environment. This impact is greatly magnified by the increase in material consumption made possible by economic development.”

But not only does the Green Party today have no coherent population policy, there is a campaign within the party to denigrate and censor the one UK organisation that does, Population Matters.

Already banned from advertising in Green World, the activist promoting this exclusion, Adam Ramsay, has also recently persuaded my local party in Oxfordshire to prevent Population Matters from having a stall at our annual Green Fair, a popular fund-raising event held in December, with stalls from all manner of ethical-ish small traders, wildlife/animal welfare groups, and various right-on campaigning groups.

Ramsay’s views are online on two blogposts on Green European Journal and Bright Green Scotland with vigorous counter-argument and comments under each, taken up also by Derek Wall on Another Green World.

Ramsay’s arguments at the Oxford meeting were emotive – he invoked supposed population bogeyman Thomas Malthus (see Wikipedia for a balanced view), the 19th century Irish potato famine, a Swiss population group using the term ‘lebensraum‘ (‘living space, biosphere’, but used by Nazis and therefore bad).

And all that before he finally got round to two of Population Matters’ policies that are said to clash with what is acceptable to the Green Party: means-tested benefit on 3+ children and “no net immigration”.

Natural partners, not enemies

Apart from the two policies just mentioned, Population Matters’ aims closely match those of the Green Party – resources, pollution, energy usage etc – so why not try to work together?

In their 2015 manifesto Population Matters specifically state that they don’t want to increase poverty, hence their 3-child policy is flexible, and “no net immigration” isn’t a ban on immigrants as opponents like to make out, but an attempt to limit immigration to the numbers leaving, currently over 300,000 annually!

Thus there is plenty of room to ‘agree to differ’ on these themes, and in any case, as already discussed, I would suggest the Green Party needs to take a long hard look at their own shortcomings in this area. Most particularly there is no defensible case for the censorship and bans that these campaigners are so keen to enforce.

The Oxfordshire party has 700 members, but the decision was taken at a business meeting attended by about 25 people, with 12 voting for the ban, 5 against and several abstentions. Should important decisions affecting potential allies be taken so cavalierly ?

Both immigration and population are widely misunderstood. Immigration, or rather calls for it to be curtailed, is all too often seen in a racial or racist context. Clearly that motivates some, but we should not all be tarred with that brush – from a sustainability perspective, it makes no difference whatever what colour, race or religion extra people are.

They are, simply, people – and with our 413 people per square kilometre, England has recently overtaken The Netherlands as the most densely populated country in Europe – excluding city states. Wales, Northern Ireland and especially Scotland are less heavily settled.

For a long-term future any country needs to be fundamentally self-sufficient in food – we shouldn’t have to rely on imports, as in the long run there may not be surpluses available to buy – though exchanges are of course acceptable. Oats for bananas, anyone?

At present UK population levels this would only be possible if a lot more grain went into people’s mouths rather than meat animals, or a lot more land was (re)converted to high-intensity arable, itself unsustainable long-term. Also we have a responsibility to the planet’s other life, so we need wild space for both that life and for our own wellbeing.

Hence ever-increasing overcrowding is not desirable. I have heard local Greens pointing out that as there are some places more densely settled than England, then we can take more people. But that begs the question – why should we? do we want to? what good will it do us?

We can’t just wait for the global ‘demographic transition’

I’m not for a moment suggesting that population should elbow out the other major issues facing us all – ecosystem destruction, per capita consumption and related CO₂ emissions and other pollution being obviously among the most serious, with their additive impacts on global warming and climate change.

However tackling the consumption / pollution aspects without including the population factor smacks of wilful blindness to the facts. The ‘demographic transition’, whereby increasing affluence reduces birth rates, has no doubt delayed the crunch point, but more importantly has lulled people into a false sense that population will somehow solve itself if we can sort out poverty across the planet.

Goldsmith was in fact trenchant on that point: “To seek to reduce population by systematically encouraging economic development is thus self-defeating since it can only increase natural consumption and thus environmental destructiveness.”

And it shouldn’t be forgotten that most of the last century’s massive world population growth arose from medical advances reducing infant and other death rates, not from increasing birth rates. It therefore makes sense to actively encourage a balancing reduction in birth rate, something that is a cultural block in many places.

Some cultures have responded quite rapidly with a demographic transition, but others, Egypt for example, have failed to do so, producing populations dramatically unbalanced with disproportionate numbers of young people and numerous negative knock-on effects from that including unemployment and wider disaffection.

In some developed countries like Japan and Italy where birth-rates have dropped, there is panic in conventional economics about the opposite problem: a preponderance of the elderly, seen as dependent on the workforce.

Hence there is a tendency to promote pro-natalist policies, or increased immigration, to offset the numbers of pensioners. In practice this is what has been happening in the UK, as millions of immigrants have flowed in over recent decades, many from Asia or Africa bringing in addition a tendency to higher birth-rates.

Having your cake and eating it

The Green Party rightly opposes “economic order that supposes the need for an ever-growing younger population to support the retired” (PP114) yet supports unrestricted immigration and “that the number of children people have should be a matter of free choice” (PP106).

But this is having your cake and eating it. There is ample evidence that increasing population exacerbates the already severe human impacts on the environment and the planet’s carrying capacity. Indeed as Jonathan Porritt points out,

“we are already using 50% more resources than the Earth can sustainably provide, and unless we change course very fast indeed, even two planet Earths will not be enough to meet our burgeoning economic demands (on a business-as-usual basis) by 2030.”

Addressing consumption alone is only taking half-measures, and won’t stop the crunch. There are limits to growth, both economically and in population – why are we still ignoring these when the basic issues were thrashed out ad nauseam in the 1970s, not least by Goldsmith.

We don’t know exactly where these limits are, and finding out should be a priority, but with ‘known unknowns’ it is advisable to follow the precautionary principle, particularly when its the one and only home planet that is at issue!

And the Green Party should not be afraid to say so!

Anthony Cheke is a retired sometime professional ecologist and later bookseller. Author of ‘Lost Land of the Dodo, an ecological history of Mauritius, Réunion & Rodrigues’. Green parliamentary candidate in the old Oxford constituency as a co-founder in 1979 of the Oxford Ecology Movement, formed to contest that year’s general election largely as a consciousness raising exercise (and then deliberately disbanded). We were to the left of the then Ecology Party and developed the ‘citizen’s income’ later adopted by the Green Party, and stressed the importance of reducing inequality – going further than the recent book ‘The Spirit Level’ by recommending a range of roughly 3:1 for highest to lowest disposable incomes.

Poland’s biggest ever farmers’ protest is now entering its second week after closing down key motorways and main ‘A’ roads.

Rallies and blockades have so far taken place in over 50 locations across the country involving thousands of small and family farmers.

Over 150 tractors have been blockading the A2 motorway into Warsaw since the 3rd February and hundreds more have closed roads and are picketing governmental offices in other regions.

The farmers are vowing to continue the struggle until the government agrees to enter talks with the union and address what the growing crisis in Polish agriculture, and roll back measures that unfairly discriminate against smaller family-run farms.

“We are ready for dialogue”, said Edward Kosmal, chairman of the farmers protest committee for West-Pomeranian Region. “We look forward to meeting with you, Prime Minister, and beginning a comprehensive government commitment to solving the problems of Polish agriculture.

“If you do not enter into a dialogue with the Union, we will be forced to step up our protests.”

Key demands: land rights, no GMOs, legalize farm food sales

The four key demands of the farmers are:

• Land rights – implement regulation to prevent land-grabs by Western companies and to protect family farmers rights to land – from 2016 foreign buyers will be legally able to buy Polish land.

• Legalize direct sales of farm produce – the government must take action to improve farmers’ position in the market, including the adoption of a law to facilitate direct sales of processed and unprocessed farm products (NB. Poland has the most exclusionary policies in Europe around on-farm processing of food products and direct sales, which make it impossible for family farmers to compete with bigger food companies).

• Extend inheritance laws to include land under lease as a fully legal form of land use.

• Ban the cultivation and sale of Genetically Modified Organisms in Poland

“We demand a legal ban on GM crops in Poland”, said one protesting farmer and Solidarity member. “The value of Polish agriculture, unique in Europe, is the unpolluted environment and high quality food production. That’s decisive concerning our competitiveness in global markets.”

Another added: “We demand the introduction of legislation that will protect Polish land from exploitation by foreign capital! Agricultural land cannot be sold to commercial companies. It’s part of Polish territory. Once sold it will be lost.”

A dramatic escalation

These actions represent a dramatic escalation of protests that have been simmering across the country over the last year, but especially in the northern provinces.

An immediate cause of discontent has been oppressive ‘food hygiene’ and other regulations that effectively present small scale farmers from selling their produce on-farm and in local markets, where their mostly organic (if uncertified) produce is widely respected as of higher quality than food gown on modern industrial farms.

Poland is one of the last European countries that still has a large body of small scale ‘peasant’ farmers who still use traditional agricultural methods free of chemicals and with very low levels of mechanization, with horses still widely used for traction.

Farms are typically mixed, with small number of pigs, chickens, cattle and horses and arable fields all contained on around five hectares.

However industrial farmers are keen to expand their operations and many family farmers see the increasingly stringent regulations as an attempt to force them off their land.

Industrial farmers are welcomed by Poland’s right-wing government, for example Smithfield, the world’s biggest pig producers, which bought Poland’s Animex SA in 1999 and now runs a string of 16 or more huge hog farms where animal welfare conditions have been described as “horrendous“.

Julian Rose, President of the International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside (ICPPC), explained: “We are witnessing a sharp escalation in activity by Polish farmers squeezed by EU, government and corporate interests.

“These protests are touching the raw nerve of what’s wrong with the inhuman, neo-liberal and profit obsessed practices of today. Practices which ignore the real needs of farmers and consumers alike.”

More information

English: http://icppc.pl/index.php/en/
Polish: http://protestrolnikow.pl / Facebook.

Action: Please send expressions of your support for Polish farmers to Prime Minister Ewa Kopacz, kontakt@kprm.gov.pl and copy to ICPPC – biuro@icppc.pl .

Donate: icppc.pl/index.php/en/support-us.html

Further online resources:

Photo via Land Workers Alliance.

IGas has responded to a motion passed at the Welsh Assembly this week stating the Welsh Government’s opposition to shale gas extraction, declaring “they have no power to stop fracking!”

The motion calling for a fracking moratorium was tabled by Plaid Cymru, and passed with the support of Welsh Labour Assembly Members by a large margin: 37 for and 16 against. 

Despite the cross party backing, the Welsh Government has yet to take action. Labour’s economy minister Edwina Hart, who backed the Plaid motion calling for a moratorium, has turned down calls for planning advice on fracking to be updated.

But insiders have indicated that the First Minster, Carwyn Jones, is currently seeking legal advice on what powers the Welsh Government has to effectively place a moratorium on fracking.

The UK Government currently has control over shale gas licensing but the Welsh Government has responsibility, in theory, for any related planning applications. But any appeals against refusals are judged by the London-based Planning Inspectorate for England and Wales.

And as IGas helpfully points out, these devolved planning powers render the Welsh Government helpless in protecting Welsh communities against any unwanted developments.

IGas: ‘we’re going ahead anyway’

The original IGas application to carry out test drilling at a site in Borras, near Wrexham was rejected by the democratically elected councillors on the local authority. The company then appealed against the decision, which went to the Westminster-controlled Planning Inspectorate, which overturned the earlier refusal.

An IGas spokesman told the Daily Post: “Nothing has changed in our plans to test drill for underground gas in Wrexham, which we will be continuing with.

“And if we were to put in a planning application in the future, which is rejected by Wrexham council, the appeal would go to the Welsh Secretary, which comes under Westminster, not the Welsh Government.

“The decision by the Welsh Government was not a moratorium. They can refuse applications on planning grounds, but they have no power to stop fracking.”

As Sion Chavez, editor of Daily Wales, points out, “It’s a situation which highlights the absurd consequences of having one country administered by a neighbouring country.”

“Scotland and Northern Ireland each have their own completely separate Planning Inspectorates which allow their own governments to oversee any appeals. But in the case of Wales, it’s the Planning Inspectorate for England and Wales.”

The SNP controlled Scottish Government has recently used its control over planning to announce an immediate moratorium on all fracking applications.

Welsh Government must be firm

Gareth Clubb, Director of Friends of the Earth Cymru, commented: “As soon as this legal advice is available, it needs to be published so that all the people of Wales can know where we stand on this problem.

“If a moratorium is within the Welsh Government’s powers then it just needs to get on and make it happen. If a ban isn’t possible, two things need to happen straight away. The first is that any powers restricting Wales’ ability to protect its communities should be devolved immediately.

“The second is that until those powers are devolved the Welsh Government must issue a Planning Policy Statement with a presumption against the development of unconventional oil and gas onshore in Wales.

“Anything other than these steps will suggest that the Welsh Government was being duplicitous through voting in favour of doing everything in its power to prevent fracking in Wales, but failing to take the action needed to deliver on its promise.”

Among other clauses, the successful motion calling for a fracking moratorium “Believes that energy should be fully devolved to the National Assembly for Wales and that the Welsh Government should have the power to block fracking.”

It further “Calls on the Welsh Government to do everything within its power to prevent fracking from taking place in Wales until it is proven to be safe in both an environmental and public health context.”

Principal source:  original articles published by Daily Wales.

Last week a lobster fishery in the Kattegat, the area of sea between northern Denmark and Sweden, is the proud recipient of a ‘sustainable fishing’ certificate through the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC).

But only four months ago Citizen Inspectors of The Black Fish (TBF) – an Amsterdam-based environmental group dedicated to preventing illegal overfishing in European seas – observed fishermen illegally targetting protected cod stocks in the exact same fishery – and has the photographic and video evidence to prove it.

But the MSC has decided to disregard the evidence of illegal activity, prompting Wietse van der Werf, TBF’s International Director, to comment:

“Sustainability labels mean very little if certifiers are not digging deeper to find out what is really happening in fisheries. Surprise inspections and undercover investigators would be a good start.”

The evidence collected by TBF’s Citizen Inspectors will not be made public, pending its use in possible legal action, adds van der Werf: “We will continue to build on our findings as with more evidence we stand a stronger case.”

Good lobster, bad cod

The ‘sustainable’ fishery targets Norwegian lobster (also known as nephrops) with trawlers. But the Kattegat also contains important spawning areas for cod, which has been heavily overfished in the area over recent decades.

So the area contains two fisheries: a sustainable lobster fishery, and a very unsustainable cod fishery. Complicating the picture, Kattegat trawlers often catch the lobster and cod together in the same net, continuing the negative impacts on the troubled fish.

To protect the cod, while allowing the lobster fishery to continue, the Swedish authorities imposed new rules requiring fishers to fit specially designed grids in their trawl nets that create openings that adult cod caught up in the net can escape through, while retaining the lobsters.

But as one as of TBF’s Citizens Inspectors explains: “During the inspections we found multiple steel grids which weren’t properly attached to the trawl nets, allowing for an opening to be created underneath the grid, so cod could be caught.

“One net even used chains as weights to open up the net further, making the fitted grid totally useless. On another occasion we observed fishers re-attaching their nets upon return to the port, presumably for the net to meet the requirements during a possible inspection by fisheries officials.”

But the lobster will continue to carry the MSC label

In spite of the evidence of illegal ‘black’ cod fishing in the Kategat, products from the nephrops fishery will now bear the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) label for ‘sustainable fisheries’.

TBF notified the MSC about its findings but learned that the formal assessment period for the fisheries had already passed, so it was too late for their evidence to be taken into account.

Annual surveillance audits are carried out by the certification body but according to van der Werf, “we fear that these will yield little result in uncovering illegal activities, in part because they are publicly announced before they take place.”

By contrast, TBF’s Citizen Inspector Network carried out over 100 inspections in Swedish fishing ports last August, identifying numerous trawl nets illegally modified to prevent the cod’s escape.

Help: The Black Fish appeals to anyone who might have further information about illegal activities in the Swedish nephrop fishery to come forward. Our legal team can be contacted at legal@theblackfish.org.

Source: The Black Fish.

The Black Fish is an international organisation that works to end illegal overfishing. Our approach brings together people and the benefits of modern technology to protect the oceans through enforcement of environmental regulations. The Black Fish currently runs 28 projects in 12 countries around Europe, with an international team of 30 staff, countless volunteers and supporters around the world.