The UK Government is to create the world’s biggest fully protected marine reserve encompassing over 830,000 square kilometres of ocean in the South Pacific – an area about 3.5 times the size of the UK.

It will cover the entire marine area of the Pitcairn Islands British Overseas Territory, apart from waters within 12 miles of Pitcairn itself, and taking in the waters around the smaller uninhabited islands of Henderson, Ducie, and Oeno.

Collectively the Territory includes just 47 square kilometres of land, and the total resident population comprises just 56 inhabitants.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, chose to announce the move in the Budget, delighting conservationists the world over owing to the area’s rich biodiversity.

Pitcairn’s waters host some of the best-preserved marine ecosystems on the planet and are of globally significant biological value. Over 1,200 marine species have been recorded around Pitcairn, including whales and dolphins, 365 species of fish, turtles, seabirds and corals.

Forty-eight of these species are globally threatened – such as the critically endangered hawksbill turtle, and some are found nowhere else on Earth – such as the Pitcairn angelfish.

With the designation of the marine reserve, Pitcairn’s waters will become off-limits to all extractive and damaging activities, offering protection from overfishing and illegal pirate fishing, as well as deep-sea mining exploration, pollution and climate change.

Success for local residents and campaigners

“The people of Pitcairn are extremely excited about designation of the world’s largest marine reserve in our vast and unspoiled waters of the Pitcairn Islands, including Ducie, Oeno and Henderson Islands”, according to a statement from the Pitcairn Island Council, which has joined with conservation groups to lobby for the protected status.

Conservationists and the Island’s residents have been campaigning for the creation of a reserve around Pitcairn since 2013. In February 2015 a coalition of over 100 conservation and environmental organisations and scientists launched the Great British Oceans campaign to encourage the Government to create fully protected marine reserves in the UK Overseas Territories, principally around the Pitcairn Islands, Ascension Island in the Atlantic and the South Sandwich Islands in the Southern Ocean.

The coalition, led by the RSPB, The Pew Charitable Trusts, the Zoological Society of London, the Blue Marine Foundation, the Marine Conservation Society, Greenpeace UK and the National Geographic Society praises the creation of the Pitcairn marine reserve as a monumental step for ocean conservation.

Jonathan Hall, Head of UK Overseas Territories for the RSPB, said: “We’re delighted that the Government has today granted the Pitcairners wish to see a marine reserve declared in their waters.”

The announcement, he added, “builds the network of marine reserves around the UK’s Territories, and we hope that this achievement will heighten ambition to see further protection around other Territories, such as Ascension.”

Members of the Great British Oceans coalition “now look forward to working with the Government on expanding the UK’s marine reserve network throughout other Overseas Territories, and the possibility of designating reserves in the waters of Ascension Island and the South Sandwich Islands in the near future.”

UK is the world’s 5th biggest ocean ‘owner’

Although the UK is a small country in a big world, its colonial history places it among the biggest ocean owners thanks to its 14 of Overseas Territories, whose marine estate adds up to 6.8 million square kilometres, over twice the size of India, and nearly 30 times the size of the UK itself.

The Overseas Territories are also a treasure trove of biodiversity, containing 94% of its wildlife species, including many that are endemic – found nowhere else in the world.

The announcement of the designation of a Pitcairn marine reserve means that the UK now has the two largest marine reserves in the world, the second largest being the Chagos marine reserve created around the British Indian Ocean Territory in 2010.

This puts Britain virtually level-pegging with the USA, who top the table for the most marine area fully protected following the expansion of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument by President Obama last year. 

The designation of the Pitcairn marine reserve means that the UK Government is now fully protecting nearly a quarter (22%) of waters under British jurisdiction, and has increased the global fully protected area by a quarter.

Excepting today’s announcement, only around 3% of the world’s ocean has any protection at all, and less than 1% is classified as ‘fully protected’. This is despite commitments from 194 countries to protect 10% of the entire global ocean by 2020.

A plethora of praise

Matt Rand, Director of Pew’s Global Ocean Legacy project, which advocates for establishment of the world’s great marine parks, commented: “The United Kingdom is the caretaker of more than 6 million square kilometres of ocean-the fifth-largest marine area of any country. British citizens are playing a vital role in ensuring the health of our seas. The Pitcairn Islands Marine Reserve will build a refuge of untouched ocean to protect and conserve a wealth of marine life.”

Charles Clover, Chairman of the Blue Marine Foundation, said: “Declaring a marine reserve around Pitcairn is a visionary thing to do and the right thing to do. With Pitcairn, Britain is now perilously close to having the largest amount of protected ocean of any country in the world. This is a fantastic achievement and while most would agree this probably isn’t the greenest Government ever, it is certainly now the bluest Government ever.”

Paul Rose, Expedition Leader, National Geographic Pristine Seas, said: “Ocean leadership like this from our Government is exactly right: It protects the pristine waters of our Overseas Territories, sets an example to the rest of the world, giving hope and encouragement to future generations. Thank you UK Government!”

Sam Fanshawe, Chief Executive, Marine Conservation Society said: “Designation of the Pitcairn Islands as one of the world’s largest Marine Reserves is a significant step toward addressing the deficit in global ocean conservation. It’s good to see the UK Government showing some leadership in marine conservation issues at the international level!”

John Sauven, Executive Director of Greenpeace UK, said: “This is good news for the marine environment and a positive sign from the Government about wanting to improve the health of the world’s oceans. This decision will be an opportunity to create a sanctuary for marine life to thrive, and unlocks the possibility for the UK to play a global leadership role in ocean conservation.”

Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall, whose Fish Fight television programmes advocated greater marine protection in both UK waters and British Overseas Territories, said: “Today’s announcement shows this Government really does mean business when it comes to marine conservation.

It is an excellent step forwards towards better protection of our seas and one that will make a genuine difference in a globally important marine habitat.

It’s clear that the British public care hugely about protecting our marine life, and so it’s great to know that our Government is ready to protect some of the most unspoiled parts of the global oceans for the benefit of future generations. And it surely paves the way for even more protection of our seas, both overseas and here at home.”

The Ocean Elders, a collective of global leaders including H.S.H. Prince Albert II of Monaco, Sir Richard Branson, Jackson Browne, James Cameron, Dr. Rita Colwell, Jean-Michel Cousteau, Dr. Sylvia Earle, Jose Maria Figueres, Graeme Kelleher, Sven Lindblad, Her Majesty Queen Noor, Nainoa Thompson, Ted Turner, and Captain Don Walsh, said:

“We are delighted that the UK Government is showing global leadership through its designation of a marine reserve in the Pitcairn Group of Islands. This will offer protection to some of the most pristine waters and coral reefs on Earth. We urge other countries to follow suit and create additional large and protected ocean areas in the face of escalating climate change and constant threats to ocean health.”

Principal source: RSPB.

The UK Government is to create the world’s biggest fully protected marine reserve encompassing over 830,000 square kilometres of ocean in the South Pacific – an area about 3.5 times the size of the UK.

It will cover the entire marine area of the Pitcairn Islands British Overseas Territory, apart from waters within 12 miles of Pitcairn itself, and taking in the waters around the smaller uninhabited islands of Henderson, Ducie, and Oeno.

Collectively the Territory includes just 47 square kilometres of land, and the total resident population comprises just 56 inhabitants.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, chose to announce the move in the Budget, delighting conservationists the world over owing to the area’s rich biodiversity.

Pitcairn’s waters host some of the best-preserved marine ecosystems on the planet and are of globally significant biological value. Over 1,200 marine species have been recorded around Pitcairn, including whales and dolphins, 365 species of fish, turtles, seabirds and corals.

Forty-eight of these species are globally threatened – such as the critically endangered hawksbill turtle, and some are found nowhere else on Earth – such as the Pitcairn angelfish.

With the designation of the marine reserve, Pitcairn’s waters will become off-limits to all extractive and damaging activities, offering protection from overfishing and illegal pirate fishing, as well as deep-sea mining exploration, pollution and climate change.

Success for local residents and campaigners

“The people of Pitcairn are extremely excited about designation of the world’s largest marine reserve in our vast and unspoiled waters of the Pitcairn Islands, including Ducie, Oeno and Henderson Islands”, according to a statement from the Pitcairn Island Council, which has joined with conservation groups to lobby for the protected status.

Conservationists and the Island’s residents have been campaigning for the creation of a reserve around Pitcairn since 2013. In February 2015 a coalition of over 100 conservation and environmental organisations and scientists launched the Great British Oceans campaign to encourage the Government to create fully protected marine reserves in the UK Overseas Territories, principally around the Pitcairn Islands, Ascension Island in the Atlantic and the South Sandwich Islands in the Southern Ocean.

The coalition, led by the RSPB, The Pew Charitable Trusts, the Zoological Society of London, the Blue Marine Foundation, the Marine Conservation Society, Greenpeace UK and the National Geographic Society praises the creation of the Pitcairn marine reserve as a monumental step for ocean conservation.

Jonathan Hall, Head of UK Overseas Territories for the RSPB, said: “We’re delighted that the Government has today granted the Pitcairners wish to see a marine reserve declared in their waters.”

The announcement, he added, “builds the network of marine reserves around the UK’s Territories, and we hope that this achievement will heighten ambition to see further protection around other Territories, such as Ascension.”

Members of the Great British Oceans coalition “now look forward to working with the Government on expanding the UK’s marine reserve network throughout other Overseas Territories, and the possibility of designating reserves in the waters of Ascension Island and the South Sandwich Islands in the near future.”

UK is the world’s 5th biggest ocean ‘owner’

Although the UK is a small country in a big world, its colonial history places it among the biggest ocean owners thanks to its 14 of Overseas Territories, whose marine estate adds up to 6.8 million square kilometres, over twice the size of India, and nearly 30 times the size of the UK itself.

The Overseas Territories are also a treasure trove of biodiversity, containing 94% of its wildlife species, including many that are endemic – found nowhere else in the world.

The announcement of the designation of a Pitcairn marine reserve means that the UK now has the two largest marine reserves in the world, the second largest being the Chagos marine reserve created around the British Indian Ocean Territory in 2010.

This puts Britain virtually level-pegging with the USA, who top the table for the most marine area fully protected following the expansion of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument by President Obama last year. 

The designation of the Pitcairn marine reserve means that the UK Government is now fully protecting nearly a quarter (22%) of waters under British jurisdiction, and has increased the global fully protected area by a quarter.

Excepting today’s announcement, only around 3% of the world’s ocean has any protection at all, and less than 1% is classified as ‘fully protected’. This is despite commitments from 194 countries to protect 10% of the entire global ocean by 2020.

A plethora of praise

Matt Rand, Director of Pew’s Global Ocean Legacy project, which advocates for establishment of the world’s great marine parks, commented: “The United Kingdom is the caretaker of more than 6 million square kilometres of ocean-the fifth-largest marine area of any country. British citizens are playing a vital role in ensuring the health of our seas. The Pitcairn Islands Marine Reserve will build a refuge of untouched ocean to protect and conserve a wealth of marine life.”

Charles Clover, Chairman of the Blue Marine Foundation, said: “Declaring a marine reserve around Pitcairn is a visionary thing to do and the right thing to do. With Pitcairn, Britain is now perilously close to having the largest amount of protected ocean of any country in the world. This is a fantastic achievement and while most would agree this probably isn’t the greenest Government ever, it is certainly now the bluest Government ever.”

Paul Rose, Expedition Leader, National Geographic Pristine Seas, said: “Ocean leadership like this from our Government is exactly right: It protects the pristine waters of our Overseas Territories, sets an example to the rest of the world, giving hope and encouragement to future generations. Thank you UK Government!”

Sam Fanshawe, Chief Executive, Marine Conservation Society said: “Designation of the Pitcairn Islands as one of the world’s largest Marine Reserves is a significant step toward addressing the deficit in global ocean conservation. It’s good to see the UK Government showing some leadership in marine conservation issues at the international level!”

John Sauven, Executive Director of Greenpeace UK, said: “This is good news for the marine environment and a positive sign from the Government about wanting to improve the health of the world’s oceans. This decision will be an opportunity to create a sanctuary for marine life to thrive, and unlocks the possibility for the UK to play a global leadership role in ocean conservation.”

Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall, whose Fish Fight television programmes advocated greater marine protection in both UK waters and British Overseas Territories, said: “Today’s announcement shows this Government really does mean business when it comes to marine conservation.

It is an excellent step forwards towards better protection of our seas and one that will make a genuine difference in a globally important marine habitat.

It’s clear that the British public care hugely about protecting our marine life, and so it’s great to know that our Government is ready to protect some of the most unspoiled parts of the global oceans for the benefit of future generations. And it surely paves the way for even more protection of our seas, both overseas and here at home.”

The Ocean Elders, a collective of global leaders including H.S.H. Prince Albert II of Monaco, Sir Richard Branson, Jackson Browne, James Cameron, Dr. Rita Colwell, Jean-Michel Cousteau, Dr. Sylvia Earle, Jose Maria Figueres, Graeme Kelleher, Sven Lindblad, Her Majesty Queen Noor, Nainoa Thompson, Ted Turner, and Captain Don Walsh, said:

“We are delighted that the UK Government is showing global leadership through its designation of a marine reserve in the Pitcairn Group of Islands. This will offer protection to some of the most pristine waters and coral reefs on Earth. We urge other countries to follow suit and create additional large and protected ocean areas in the face of escalating climate change and constant threats to ocean health.”

Principal source: RSPB.

The UK Government is to create the world’s biggest fully protected marine reserve encompassing over 830,000 square kilometres of ocean in the South Pacific – an area about 3.5 times the size of the UK.

It will cover the entire marine area of the Pitcairn Islands British Overseas Territory, apart from waters within 12 miles of Pitcairn itself, and taking in the waters around the smaller uninhabited islands of Henderson, Ducie, and Oeno.

Collectively the Territory includes just 47 square kilometres of land, and the total resident population comprises just 56 inhabitants.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, chose to announce the move in the Budget, delighting conservationists the world over owing to the area’s rich biodiversity.

Pitcairn’s waters host some of the best-preserved marine ecosystems on the planet and are of globally significant biological value. Over 1,200 marine species have been recorded around Pitcairn, including whales and dolphins, 365 species of fish, turtles, seabirds and corals.

Forty-eight of these species are globally threatened – such as the critically endangered hawksbill turtle, and some are found nowhere else on Earth – such as the Pitcairn angelfish.

With the designation of the marine reserve, Pitcairn’s waters will become off-limits to all extractive and damaging activities, offering protection from overfishing and illegal pirate fishing, as well as deep-sea mining exploration, pollution and climate change.

Success for local residents and campaigners

“The people of Pitcairn are extremely excited about designation of the world’s largest marine reserve in our vast and unspoiled waters of the Pitcairn Islands, including Ducie, Oeno and Henderson Islands”, according to a statement from the Pitcairn Island Council, which has joined with conservation groups to lobby for the protected status.

Conservationists and the Island’s residents have been campaigning for the creation of a reserve around Pitcairn since 2013. In February 2015 a coalition of over 100 conservation and environmental organisations and scientists launched the Great British Oceans campaign to encourage the Government to create fully protected marine reserves in the UK Overseas Territories, principally around the Pitcairn Islands, Ascension Island in the Atlantic and the South Sandwich Islands in the Southern Ocean.

The coalition, led by the RSPB, The Pew Charitable Trusts, the Zoological Society of London, the Blue Marine Foundation, the Marine Conservation Society, Greenpeace UK and the National Geographic Society praises the creation of the Pitcairn marine reserve as a monumental step for ocean conservation.

Jonathan Hall, Head of UK Overseas Territories for the RSPB, said: “We’re delighted that the Government has today granted the Pitcairners wish to see a marine reserve declared in their waters.”

The announcement, he added, “builds the network of marine reserves around the UK’s Territories, and we hope that this achievement will heighten ambition to see further protection around other Territories, such as Ascension.”

Members of the Great British Oceans coalition “now look forward to working with the Government on expanding the UK’s marine reserve network throughout other Overseas Territories, and the possibility of designating reserves in the waters of Ascension Island and the South Sandwich Islands in the near future.”

UK is the world’s 5th biggest ocean ‘owner’

Although the UK is a small country in a big world, its colonial history places it among the biggest ocean owners thanks to its 14 of Overseas Territories, whose marine estate adds up to 6.8 million square kilometres, over twice the size of India, and nearly 30 times the size of the UK itself.

The Overseas Territories are also a treasure trove of biodiversity, containing 94% of its wildlife species, including many that are endemic – found nowhere else in the world.

The announcement of the designation of a Pitcairn marine reserve means that the UK now has the two largest marine reserves in the world, the second largest being the Chagos marine reserve created around the British Indian Ocean Territory in 2010.

This puts Britain virtually level-pegging with the USA, who top the table for the most marine area fully protected following the expansion of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument by President Obama last year. 

The designation of the Pitcairn marine reserve means that the UK Government is now fully protecting nearly a quarter (22%) of waters under British jurisdiction, and has increased the global fully protected area by a quarter.

Excepting today’s announcement, only around 3% of the world’s ocean has any protection at all, and less than 1% is classified as ‘fully protected’. This is despite commitments from 194 countries to protect 10% of the entire global ocean by 2020.

A plethora of praise

Matt Rand, Director of Pew’s Global Ocean Legacy project, which advocates for establishment of the world’s great marine parks, commented: “The United Kingdom is the caretaker of more than 6 million square kilometres of ocean-the fifth-largest marine area of any country. British citizens are playing a vital role in ensuring the health of our seas. The Pitcairn Islands Marine Reserve will build a refuge of untouched ocean to protect and conserve a wealth of marine life.”

Charles Clover, Chairman of the Blue Marine Foundation, said: “Declaring a marine reserve around Pitcairn is a visionary thing to do and the right thing to do. With Pitcairn, Britain is now perilously close to having the largest amount of protected ocean of any country in the world. This is a fantastic achievement and while most would agree this probably isn’t the greenest Government ever, it is certainly now the bluest Government ever.”

Paul Rose, Expedition Leader, National Geographic Pristine Seas, said: “Ocean leadership like this from our Government is exactly right: It protects the pristine waters of our Overseas Territories, sets an example to the rest of the world, giving hope and encouragement to future generations. Thank you UK Government!”

Sam Fanshawe, Chief Executive, Marine Conservation Society said: “Designation of the Pitcairn Islands as one of the world’s largest Marine Reserves is a significant step toward addressing the deficit in global ocean conservation. It’s good to see the UK Government showing some leadership in marine conservation issues at the international level!”

John Sauven, Executive Director of Greenpeace UK, said: “This is good news for the marine environment and a positive sign from the Government about wanting to improve the health of the world’s oceans. This decision will be an opportunity to create a sanctuary for marine life to thrive, and unlocks the possibility for the UK to play a global leadership role in ocean conservation.”

Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall, whose Fish Fight television programmes advocated greater marine protection in both UK waters and British Overseas Territories, said: “Today’s announcement shows this Government really does mean business when it comes to marine conservation.

It is an excellent step forwards towards better protection of our seas and one that will make a genuine difference in a globally important marine habitat.

It’s clear that the British public care hugely about protecting our marine life, and so it’s great to know that our Government is ready to protect some of the most unspoiled parts of the global oceans for the benefit of future generations. And it surely paves the way for even more protection of our seas, both overseas and here at home.”

The Ocean Elders, a collective of global leaders including H.S.H. Prince Albert II of Monaco, Sir Richard Branson, Jackson Browne, James Cameron, Dr. Rita Colwell, Jean-Michel Cousteau, Dr. Sylvia Earle, Jose Maria Figueres, Graeme Kelleher, Sven Lindblad, Her Majesty Queen Noor, Nainoa Thompson, Ted Turner, and Captain Don Walsh, said:

“We are delighted that the UK Government is showing global leadership through its designation of a marine reserve in the Pitcairn Group of Islands. This will offer protection to some of the most pristine waters and coral reefs on Earth. We urge other countries to follow suit and create additional large and protected ocean areas in the face of escalating climate change and constant threats to ocean health.”

Principal source: RSPB.

The UK Government is to create the world’s biggest fully protected marine reserve encompassing over 830,000 square kilometres of ocean in the South Pacific – an area about 3.5 times the size of the UK.

It will cover the entire marine area of the Pitcairn Islands British Overseas Territory, apart from waters within 12 miles of Pitcairn itself, and taking in the waters around the smaller uninhabited islands of Henderson, Ducie, and Oeno.

Collectively the Territory includes just 47 square kilometres of land, and the total resident population comprises just 56 inhabitants.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, chose to announce the move in the Budget, delighting conservationists the world over owing to the area’s rich biodiversity.

Pitcairn’s waters host some of the best-preserved marine ecosystems on the planet and are of globally significant biological value. Over 1,200 marine species have been recorded around Pitcairn, including whales and dolphins, 365 species of fish, turtles, seabirds and corals.

Forty-eight of these species are globally threatened – such as the critically endangered hawksbill turtle, and some are found nowhere else on Earth – such as the Pitcairn angelfish.

With the designation of the marine reserve, Pitcairn’s waters will become off-limits to all extractive and damaging activities, offering protection from overfishing and illegal pirate fishing, as well as deep-sea mining exploration, pollution and climate change.

Success for local residents and campaigners

“The people of Pitcairn are extremely excited about designation of the world’s largest marine reserve in our vast and unspoiled waters of the Pitcairn Islands, including Ducie, Oeno and Henderson Islands”, according to a statement from the Pitcairn Island Council, which has joined with conservation groups to lobby for the protected status.

Conservationists and the Island’s residents have been campaigning for the creation of a reserve around Pitcairn since 2013. In February 2015 a coalition of over 100 conservation and environmental organisations and scientists launched the Great British Oceans campaign to encourage the Government to create fully protected marine reserves in the UK Overseas Territories, principally around the Pitcairn Islands, Ascension Island in the Atlantic and the South Sandwich Islands in the Southern Ocean.

The coalition, led by the RSPB, The Pew Charitable Trusts, the Zoological Society of London, the Blue Marine Foundation, the Marine Conservation Society, Greenpeace UK and the National Geographic Society praises the creation of the Pitcairn marine reserve as a monumental step for ocean conservation.

Jonathan Hall, Head of UK Overseas Territories for the RSPB, said: “We’re delighted that the Government has today granted the Pitcairners wish to see a marine reserve declared in their waters.”

The announcement, he added, “builds the network of marine reserves around the UK’s Territories, and we hope that this achievement will heighten ambition to see further protection around other Territories, such as Ascension.”

Members of the Great British Oceans coalition “now look forward to working with the Government on expanding the UK’s marine reserve network throughout other Overseas Territories, and the possibility of designating reserves in the waters of Ascension Island and the South Sandwich Islands in the near future.”

UK is the world’s 5th biggest ocean ‘owner’

Although the UK is a small country in a big world, its colonial history places it among the biggest ocean owners thanks to its 14 of Overseas Territories, whose marine estate adds up to 6.8 million square kilometres, over twice the size of India, and nearly 30 times the size of the UK itself.

The Overseas Territories are also a treasure trove of biodiversity, containing 94% of its wildlife species, including many that are endemic – found nowhere else in the world.

The announcement of the designation of a Pitcairn marine reserve means that the UK now has the two largest marine reserves in the world, the second largest being the Chagos marine reserve created around the British Indian Ocean Territory in 2010.

This puts Britain virtually level-pegging with the USA, who top the table for the most marine area fully protected following the expansion of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument by President Obama last year. 

The designation of the Pitcairn marine reserve means that the UK Government is now fully protecting nearly a quarter (22%) of waters under British jurisdiction, and has increased the global fully protected area by a quarter.

Excepting today’s announcement, only around 3% of the world’s ocean has any protection at all, and less than 1% is classified as ‘fully protected’. This is despite commitments from 194 countries to protect 10% of the entire global ocean by 2020.

A plethora of praise

Matt Rand, Director of Pew’s Global Ocean Legacy project, which advocates for establishment of the world’s great marine parks, commented: “The United Kingdom is the caretaker of more than 6 million square kilometres of ocean-the fifth-largest marine area of any country. British citizens are playing a vital role in ensuring the health of our seas. The Pitcairn Islands Marine Reserve will build a refuge of untouched ocean to protect and conserve a wealth of marine life.”

Charles Clover, Chairman of the Blue Marine Foundation, said: “Declaring a marine reserve around Pitcairn is a visionary thing to do and the right thing to do. With Pitcairn, Britain is now perilously close to having the largest amount of protected ocean of any country in the world. This is a fantastic achievement and while most would agree this probably isn’t the greenest Government ever, it is certainly now the bluest Government ever.”

Paul Rose, Expedition Leader, National Geographic Pristine Seas, said: “Ocean leadership like this from our Government is exactly right: It protects the pristine waters of our Overseas Territories, sets an example to the rest of the world, giving hope and encouragement to future generations. Thank you UK Government!”

Sam Fanshawe, Chief Executive, Marine Conservation Society said: “Designation of the Pitcairn Islands as one of the world’s largest Marine Reserves is a significant step toward addressing the deficit in global ocean conservation. It’s good to see the UK Government showing some leadership in marine conservation issues at the international level!”

John Sauven, Executive Director of Greenpeace UK, said: “This is good news for the marine environment and a positive sign from the Government about wanting to improve the health of the world’s oceans. This decision will be an opportunity to create a sanctuary for marine life to thrive, and unlocks the possibility for the UK to play a global leadership role in ocean conservation.”

Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall, whose Fish Fight television programmes advocated greater marine protection in both UK waters and British Overseas Territories, said: “Today’s announcement shows this Government really does mean business when it comes to marine conservation.

It is an excellent step forwards towards better protection of our seas and one that will make a genuine difference in a globally important marine habitat.

It’s clear that the British public care hugely about protecting our marine life, and so it’s great to know that our Government is ready to protect some of the most unspoiled parts of the global oceans for the benefit of future generations. And it surely paves the way for even more protection of our seas, both overseas and here at home.”

The Ocean Elders, a collective of global leaders including H.S.H. Prince Albert II of Monaco, Sir Richard Branson, Jackson Browne, James Cameron, Dr. Rita Colwell, Jean-Michel Cousteau, Dr. Sylvia Earle, Jose Maria Figueres, Graeme Kelleher, Sven Lindblad, Her Majesty Queen Noor, Nainoa Thompson, Ted Turner, and Captain Don Walsh, said:

“We are delighted that the UK Government is showing global leadership through its designation of a marine reserve in the Pitcairn Group of Islands. This will offer protection to some of the most pristine waters and coral reefs on Earth. We urge other countries to follow suit and create additional large and protected ocean areas in the face of escalating climate change and constant threats to ocean health.”

Principal source: RSPB.

Something rather remarkable is happening in the middle of Poland’s capital, Warsaw, and it’s not exactly a capital city spectacle. In fact, rather the opposite.

Tucked-away under a line of trees, opposite the Prime Minister’s Palace in Central Warsaw, is a small ramshackle camp, comprising two tents, a Second World War wood fired mobile cooking apparatus, some chairs and benches, a pile of logs and a number of banners, posters and logos.

This is ‘Green City’ a symbolic and actual site of occupation by farmers fighting to save their livelihood and way of life. At the time of writing, it is in its 28th day of existence – and it isn’t planning on going anywhere.

That’s in spite of the fact that it is illegal, and suffering under a daily fine imposed by the Polish government. A fine which is, in many ways, a small replication of what is happening on a much bigger scale to farming communities throughout the European Economic Community and beyond.

At Green City, a name affectionately bequeathed upon the camp site by local Warsaw well-wishers, the fourth shift is taking place. A group of 30 farmers is replacing another similar sized group which has been ‘in residence’ for the last week.

Sustained by vegetable soup and gifts of food

A huddle of farmers gather around as hot vegetable soup is served from the wood fired dispenser. Conversations break-out with supporters who arrive sporadically with gifts of food and other items.

In amongst the protesting farmers is Edward Kosmal, the owner of a mixed family farm in Zachodniopomorskie Province in North West Poland, and leader of the resistance to the ‘land grabs’ that are taking place there.

A strongly built, quiet and thoughtful man, Kosmal has resolutely refused to give-in to government intransigence and deafness to the farmer’s calls for fair treatment. His emergence as farmer’s leader is both welcome and necessary.

A steady and determined hand on the helm is critical to the staying power of this grass roots uprising which has already been hailed as the single largest farmers protest to have ever taken place in Poland. Cometh the hour, cometh the man.

In February, 6,000 farmers (see photo) marched through central Warsaw to the very spot where the ‘Green City’ now stands. Its inauguration took place on that day.

The Academy of Self-Sufficiency and Health

On the other side of the road from the camp, a military police officer stands impassively in front of the main entrance to the Prime Minister’s vast Palace. Other police patrol slowly up and down, keeping a wary eye on the activities that bubble up at the Green City camp site.

One such activity is the birth of the ‘Academy of Self Sufficiency and Health’, a series of workshops, slide shows and films, demonstrating the practical techniques of self-sufficiency. These are presented by enthusiastic farmers and their supporters – who strongly oppose the globalisation of food and farming under vast transnational agribusiness corporations.

The agi-corporations, they say, cream off any profits to be made in the agriculture sector so as to enlarge their empires at the expense of the small and medium sized family farmers who uphold the traditions of good land management practices and nourishing, wholesome foods.

And these foods are in consequence increasingly hard to find – and certainly never make it onto the shelves of the ubiquitous super and hypermarkets that have come to dominate Polish retailing, in just the same way as they have in North America and Western Europe.

The farmers who squat down beside a log fire, a welcome source of warmth during the cold Polish nights, listen to the talks with a growing curiosity. They are here because the land that they and their families wish to farm, in perpetuity, is being stolen from under their feet.

Stolen by a government that is more interested in the profits to be made by selling-off its prime agricultural land to the highest foreign bidder, than retaining it for indigenous farmers to ply their trade and keep the nation fed with the ‘real foods’ that Poland is famous for. These farmers are no longer prepared to see their lives ruined by short-term profit hunters.

They have been steadily stepping-up their protests for three years now. Blocking the government land agencies responsible for doing the deals that undermine their futures.

Land grabs stealing farmers’ land, and futures

In the streets of Szczecin, a large market town in Zachodniopomorskie Province, farmers picket the main regional land agency, while on surrounding roads their tractors have kept-up a regular convoy, Polish flags fluttering from their cabs and poster messages stuck in the windows.

The public is broadly with them. Some 80% of the land area in some regions of Zachodniopomorskie have already been sold-off, according to Edward Kosmal. Another farmer added: “I woke up in the morning to find I had Danish and German neighbours.”

An estimated 70% of citizens of Szczecin have come out in support. They see what’s happening and fear a total take-over once the buying of Polish farmland by foreigners becomes legal in 2016.

With the support of The International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside, the farmers added two further demands to the Polish government: to establish a proper, legally enforced ban of GM crops and seeds; and to end the exceptionally harsh regulations that demand registration, licensing and separate processing premises before any farmhouse foods can be legally sold to the Polish public.

Then there are further demands, made by hard-pressed farmers from East Poland, that they be compensated for deeply unfair historical milk quota allocations that have left many dairy farmers with no internal demand for their dairy products, as cheap imports pour in from Western European Countries with two or three times higher quota allocations.

There are also demands for proper land inheritance regulations and compensation for being victims of the Russian embargo of Polish and EU foods. An embargo established as a counter to the EU penalising Russia for illicit actions that it accused Putin of carrying out in Ukraine.

Uncontrolled wild pig damage to large areas of crops is yet another problem that has negatively impacted upon farmers’ incomes. In Poland, farmers cannot carry guns and all hunting and vermin control is carried out by government employed registered gamekeepers.

Edward Kosmal explained how nearly all farmers in his area (and it’s broadly true across Poland) are heavily in debt to the banks they took out loans with, so as to purchase modern tractors and other farm equipment suitable for the commercial farming enterprises they were encouraged to undertake when Poland joined the EU in 2004.

Locked into western corporate agribusiness

The advice to go for debt-fuelled growth came from Government Advice Offices for farmers, which espouse the ‘restructuring’ of farms so as to fit the typical Western European agribusiness model.

Hence the drive for increased export-led production with its attendant knock-on effect of more monocultural farming practices, higher synthetic fertilizer applications, more pesticides and ever bigger and more expensive farm machinery.

The financial pressures that this aggressive push for higher export revenue puts on farmers who have borrowed heavily in order to fulfil these recommendations – are ubiquitous throughout farming communities from one end of the world to another. They hardly ever lead to sustained higher incomes to the farmer, as costs regularly outweigh returns and (in Europe) only EU subsidies keep the farms from bankruptcy.

In the UK, this situation has led to one farmer taking his life every two weeks, rather than witness his life’s work taken away by the bank to whom his farm is indebted. In Poland, the subsidies are smaller, in accordance with the size of the farms, but also due to the fact that they are only paid at 50% percent of the rate received in Western Europe.

Manacled by debt, how to escape the treadmill?

Back at Green City’s Academy of Self-Sufficiency and Health, the discussion comes around to this global debacle that Polish farmers now find themselves swept-up in.

Poland’s EU membership and pro EU government mean that officialdom fully espouses the capitalist neo-liberal free-trade model that leads to globalised factory farms supplying the dominant supermarket chains – while decimating the health and diversity of the natural environment with vast sterile monocultures.

One can appreciate why there are some intensely serious expressions on the faces of the participating farmers. After all, Poland remains one of the last bastions in Europe of large numbers of small scale, semi self-sufficient farmsteads. They still number around one million with an average size of just seven hectares.

These small farms are synonymous with the non-commercialised, low input and biodiverse characteristics of pre-EU agriculture. These typical self-sufficient family farms  have now been trampled on by the European Union’s utterly insensitive common agricultural policy (CAP).

Those who followed the government’s advice to expand and commercialize – the hallmark of ‘restructured’ EU farming incentives – are faced by the unpalatable probability that their bank loan-supported expansion efforts have simply driven them onto a tread-mill – one which makes them slaves to the corporate / government / Brussels ‘Troika’, and ensures that the independence and freedom they once enjoyed has become a rapidly fading dream.

A future freed from slavery?

But maybe this is not, after all, the end of the story. The spontaneous arrival at Green City of the clandestine Academy of Self-Sufficiency and Health, has brought into focus a vision both new and old that just could be exactly what the doctor ordered; not just for Poland, but for struggling farmers everywhere.

At its heart is a renewed commitment to supplying the nation, the region and the local community with home grown ‘real foods’, produced by time honoured methods that bring genuine health back to the soils, plants, animals and humans that are the true beneficiaries of a caring and benign approach – and a determination to free the nation from the chemical, GMO and synthetic food killer fixes that threaten to achieve a complete corporate dominance of the globalized food chain.

Have we arrived at a turning point? One which exposes the failed model of the profit driven, tax payer subsidised, monocultural madness that has brought mankind to the edge of a cliff – beyond which lies complete ruination?

In early March, ICPPC leaders Jadwiga Lopata and I delivered two loaves of ‘legal’ chemically enriched ‘USA style’ style plastic wrapped white bread to Prime Minister Ewa Kopacz. A week earlier, accompanied by the Solidarity Farmer’s Union chief, we had offered her a basket of ‘illegal’ real farm food’ with a letter demanding a change to the regulation that criminalises such foods and the farmers that produce them.

The USA style white loaves were a reward for her failure to respond. They were accompanied by a letter explaining this, signed by ICPPC’s President.

We aren’t giving-up. Spring sunshine is replacing the cold grey days of winter. Soon the farmers will have to return to the fields to plant their crops. But the resistance will not come to an end. We’re all in it for the long-term.

The Academy of Self-Sufficiency and Health, planted as it is at the heart of this resistance camp, will bring into all our minds the possibility of a life in which we are no longer slaves to the insentient and power obsessed Brussels, corporate, government cabal.

We can, and will, once again become independent farmers, supporting and supported by the communities in which we grow and share our real farm foods.

Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, writer, broadcaster and activist. He is currently the President of the International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside. His most recent book ‘In Defence of Life – A Radical Reworking of Green wisdom’ is published by Earth Books. Julian’s website is www.julianrose.info.

Evidence is mounting that the more the Antarctic warms under the impact of climate change, the more snow will fall on it, causing a build-up of ice.

The research, published in Nature Climate Change, builds on high-quality ice-core data and fundamental laws of physics captured in global and regional climate model simulations.

The team of authors, led by scientists from Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), says each degree Celsius of warming in the region could increase Antarctic snowfall by about 5%.

The suggestion that Antarctic snowfall is increasing is not itself new. But what the Potsdam scientists have done is important: they both provide new evidence to support the contention, and explore its potential consequences.

Katja Frieler, climate impacts and vulnerabilities researcher at PIK, and lead author of the report, says: “Warmer air transports more moisture, and hence produces more precipitation. In cold Antarctica, this takes the form of snowfall.

“We have now pulled a number of various lines of evidence together and find a very consistent result: temperature increase means more snowfall on Antarctica.”

The answers are in the ice-cores

To reach a robust estimate, the PIK scientists collaborated with colleagues in the Netherlands and the US including co-author Peter U. Clark, professor of geology and geophysics at Oregon State University.

“Ice-cores drilled in different parts of Antarctica provide data that can help us understand the future”, he says. “Information about the snowfall spanning the large temperature change during the last deglaciation, 21,000 to 10,000 years ago, tells us what we can expect during the next century.”

The researchers combined the ice-core data with simulations of the Earth’s climate history and comprehensive future projections by different climate models, and were able to pin down temperature and accumulation changes in warming Antarctica.

The ‘good news’ is that the increasing snowfall on the continent will add to the mass of the ice sheet and increase its height, offsetting sea level rise from other causes.

But on balance, Antarctica will still lose ice to the ocean

But the ‘bad news’, say the researchers, is that most of the snow won’t stay there. “Snow piling up on the ice is heavy and presses down – the higher the ice, the more pressure”, co-author Ricarda Winkelmann explains.

On the basis of another previous PIK study, the extra snow will increase the amount of ice flowing to the ocean. “Because additional snowfall elevates the grounded ice-sheet on the Antarctic continent but less so the floating ice shelves at its shore, the ice flows more rapidly into the ocean and contributes to sea level”, says Dr Winkelmann.

So on balance, the sea level-lowering effect from the extra snow is a relatively small one: the 5% increase in Antarctic snowfall that they expect for every 1°C rise in temperature would mean an estimated drop in sea-level of only about three centimetres after a century. By contrast melting ice in Greenland threatens metres of sea level rise.

Adding to Antarctica’s contribution to sea level rise, rising sea levels in the Southern Ocean – mainly caused by the thermal expansion of oceans and melting glaciers around the world, most importantly on Greenland – will allow coastal ice shelves to flow more rapidly into the ocean.

Furthermore even slight warming of the waters lapping Antarctica will make it easier for coastal ice to break off, allowing more of the continental ice mass to discharge into the ocean.

So the frozen continent will still be a net source of sea level rise in a warming world, says co-author Anders Levermann – PIK professor of dynamics of the climate system, and lead author of the sea-level rise chapter in the latest report by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“If we look at the big picture, these new findings don’t change the fact that Antarctica will lose more ice than it will gain, and that it will contribute to future sea-level change”, he says.

Dr Frieler agrees: “Under global warming, the Antarctic ice sheet, with its huge volume, could become a major contributor to future sea-level rise, potentially affecting millions of people living in coastal areas.”

Alex Kirby writes for Climate News Network.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

I have taught courses in the energy and environmental sciences at Boston University for 27 years.

For most of that time I have remained ‘above the fray’ when it comes to activism, preferring to let others, including many of my students, engage in the political process.

I can no longer stand on the sidelines. Climate change and other impacts that stem from our reliance on fossil fuels are large, growing and they disproportionately harm the poor in every society.

As a scientist, I conclude that the evidence is unassailable. As a citizen, I am compelled to try and use this information to help steer our energy system to a sustainable future.

Many universities hold large endowments or funds that have significant positions in fossil fuel companies. This investment will increasingly be viewed as an abdication of the university’s treasured position as representing the intelligence of society.

Three years ago, I wrote a letter as then co-chair of Boston University’s Committee on Sustainability urging the university’s Board of Trustees to seriously investigate divestiture. And with my colleagues, I recently started a blog that discusses issues surrounding energy transitions.

I’m not the only academic to get involved in this issue. At least 200 institutions of higher education, foundations, religious organizations, and cities have committed to divestment. This includes about 32 colleges and universities that have pledged some level of divestment; at least an equal number have publicly rejected divestment.

At Boston University, a faculty petition and the student group DivestBU have prompted the University’s Advisory Committee on Socially Responsible Investing to take up the divestment issue. So pressure by faculty and students has helped make divestiture a front-burner issue.

Why we need to change

This is a multi-faceted problem, but one issue, in particular, motivated me to act. Boston University and many other institutions of higher education have education and research programs that describe the nature of climate change and its impacts on society.

The same institutions have invested considerable effort in ‘greening’ their business operations, including efforts to improve the efficiency of energy and water use, recycling, purchasing and procurement, building and renovation, and outreach to students, faculty, and staff.

But climate change has not been confronted in the boardroom, where endowments have been ring-fenced from transparency and scrutiny. This is what I want to change. Universities face charges of being hypocritical.

What message do you send when you grant degrees with titles such as ‘Sustainability’, ‘Environmental Science’, and ‘Climate and Society’ with one hand, yet with the other hand invest in the activities that drive the very problems those degrees aim to address?

Yet the argument for divestment spans the financial, economic, environmental and ethical domains. One guiding principle is the existence and degree of harm caused by the use of fossil fuels.

As stated by Robert Knox, chair of the Board of Trustees of Boston University, circumstances exist to consider divestment only when “the degree of social harm caused by the actions of the firms in the asset class is clearly unacceptable.”

A prodigious body of evidence indicates that the fossil energy system causes pervasive human health, environmental, and social harm across every society, and that these costs will grow in the absence of explicit measures to address them. Climate change will shave about $1.2 trillion from global GDP this year, and that cost is growing by about 2% per year.

The World Health Organization estimates that an additional 250,000 people will die annually between 2030 and 2050 from conditions caused or worsened by climate change. Air pollution from fossil fuel combustion reduces life expectancy by up to 1.6 years in the US and five years in northern China.

These costs will grow if we continue to develop unconventional oil and gas sources such as oil sands, shale gas, and shale oil which have larger ecological footprints than conventional sources.

Fossil fuel risks

The dependence on oil leads directly to violent conflict. In the name of national security, the US military has frequently been used to protect access to foreign sources of oil and to protect key suppliers such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait from internal revolt and external attack.

Oil revenue channeled through charities, schools, and private donors in some Middle East nations helped create and sustain both Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

University endowments face tangible financial risk from their investments in fossil fuels. Material efforts to enforce a carbon budget designed to prevent unacceptable damage from climate change will result in a dramatic loss of value for fossil fuel assets, principally in the form of stranded assets, or energy sources that will left in the ground.

Companies with large amounts of stranded carbon resources could see their stock prices fall, lowering the value of investment portfolios that hold the shares.

Universities also face risk to their reputation. The ability of the university to sell itself to prospective students, faculty and contributors rests on its authority as a source of knowledge vital to humanity. If there is a misalignment of its teaching, research, operational, and financial behaviors, that authority and the institution’s viability, is put at risk.

Failing to act carries a significant reputation risk, as the university’s very existence is defined as a civilizing force. Universities seen to be complicit in destruction will likely lose position, students, faculty and reasons to be proud of what they do.

There is an alternative

Some say divesting from fossil fuels while at the same time using those fuels to run campus operations is hypocritical. But I believe hypocrisy only arises if one’s investment behavior is misaligned with the nature of your research and teaching programs, and with your campus operations.

No one expects to flip a switch and be divorced from fossil fuels. But many universities have expansive research programs that provide elements of the roadmap to a sustainable future.

This includes teaching programs that prepare young adults to navigate life in that future, and campus operations that reduce the institution’s carbon footprint and overall environmental impact. In this situation, there is no hypocrisy in divestment, even if the institution continues to rely on fossil fuels for some time.

Another frequent argument made against divestiture is that low-carbon forms of energy are more expensive than fossil fuels, so ‘forcing’ a transition will impose a significant cost on society. As a blanket statement, this is demonstrably false.

Multiple independent studies and the observation of actual investment patterns unequivocally demonstrate that energy efficiency and onshore wind power are as cheap or cheaper than electricity generated from fossil fuels in many regions. The cost of electricity from solar sources is plummeting.

The price for solar photovoltaic technologies has dropped from $50-80 per watt in the 1970s to less than $1 per watt today. Lower cost drives adoptions; about 26% of all new electric capacity in the first half of 2014 in the US was solar.

A university’s role in society

There are three takeaway points on divestment. First, addressing climate change is central to the mission of every institution to higher education because it imperils vital aspects of human existence and, therefore, crosses every academic discipline and profession.

Universities have an obligation to their students, facility, alumni and society to understand the nature of, and the risks posed by, climate change. To the best of their abilities, they must see that such knowledge is used in society’s best interest. This obligation holds regardless of whether or not divestment is being considered.

Second, divestment is feasible and, if intelligently implemented, should not threaten the financial health of endowments.

Third, universities do not have to go it alone. There is a rapidly expanding set of informational resources, analytical tools, and institutional partnerships that support the planning and implementation of divestment.

http://theconversation.com/college-fossil-fuel-divestment-the-view-from-the-lectern-38138

Cutler J Cleveland is Professor of Earth and Environment at Boston University.

This article is adapted from ‘The Path to Fossil Fuel Divestment for Universities: Climate Responsible Investment‘, Cutler J. Cleveland and Richard Reibstein. and was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Unless George Osborne gets new orders about his budget this week, it looks like, despite the bluster of the last year, the Government will not be announcing the results of the 14^th On-shore Oil and Gas Licensing Round this side of the election (perhaps they’re worried about legal action).

Despite this the Conservative’s token ‘green’, Tim Yeo MP, has been trumpeting the benefits of shale gas, based upon some spurious data produced by DECC which – as I outline in a new report for Talk Fracking this week – is based upon questionable results.

Arguably Tim Yeo’s trust in those results, expressed during the Parliamentary debate on the moratorium proposed by the Commons Environmental Audit Committee, has been very much abused by DECC and shale gas’s supporters in government.

In fact, with less than two months to go before the election, and despite ‘fracking’ having been the major grassroots environmental issue of the last Parliament, all is quiet on the shale gas front.

In reality though this is just the calm before the post-election PR storm.

Coming our way – the fracking spin machine

Irrespective of who wins (or perhaps in the circumstances, who loses the least), after the election the UK public will face an onslaught of PR-orchestrated ‘spin’ to promote shale gas, coalbed methane and underground coal gasification (UCG) as the best thing since … well, anything!

In Scotland, a moratorium on ‘fracking’ was imposed days after the failure of the moratorium in Parliament (although, as I highlighted in my last Ecologist article, the wording of the moratorium doesn’t cover UCG).

As a result the pro-fracking company INEOS, recently heavily invested into unconventional gas, is planning to “love bomb” the Scottish public back into supporting fracking. And though in Scotland that campaign is just getting under-way, in England it’s already begun …

What?, hadn’t you noticed? – that’s because you weren’t meant to.

In the final case study of my recent report for Talk Fracking I examine the use of academics within the Task Force on Shale Gas – a body set up last September under the auspices of former New Labour minister, and more recently former head of the Environment Agency, Lord Chris Smith.

The Task Force claims to “provide a transparent, trusted, independent and impartial platform for public scrutiny, discussion and information about shale gas exploration and production in the UK.”

Behold the Prince of Darkness … Edel who?

This is where the public relations ‘shadow play’ comes into its own. Not in the guise of Lord Chris Smith – who while head of the Environment Agency had behind the scenes meetings to thrash out how environmental regulations would be watered-down.

Not even the Task Force’s ‘expert panel’ members – many of whom have previously expressed support for shale gas and even outright hostility to the anti-fracking movement. And not even the oil and gas industry companies – who are funding the work of the Task Force.

The real players here – the people behind the scenes pulling the strings of the shadow play puppets – are Edelman, which acts as the Task Force’s secretariat.

Who are Edelman? That’s the really important question here – and the most prescient question to ask in relation to the Task Force’s future work on behalf of the public.

All modern businesses tend to specialise in certain fields. Edelman’s specialism is ‘grassroots engagement’ – creating industry-friendly front – or ‘astroturf’-groups to represent the benefits of controversial developments. Edelman has developed this technique in the US for its large American extractive and industrial clients over the last decade or so.

Their purpose is not to convince the public. They are there – as outlined in the recent US study Merchants of Doubt – to confuse the public so that they don’t know who to believe. Their aim is to create, as the original strategies developed by the tobacco industry in the 1960s outlined, an apparent controversy so they can get their point across.

They do not create unity or agreement on an issue, but instead seek to polarise the community to prevent the grassroots opposition holding sway over political decision-makers.

Neutralizing risk, pressurizing opponents

If you want to see how Edelman works, take a look at TransCanada’s alternative proposal for the stalled Keystone Pipeline – the East Energy Pipeline.

Even before the route was announced, TransCanada employed Edelman to carry out an assessment of how they could “drive an active public discussion about Energy East that gives Canadians reasons to affirmatively support the project in the face of organized opposition.”

The way this would be enacted is outlined in another study prepared a few months later by Edelman:

“The most effective way to counter any external challenge is to ready a robust campaign that comprises proactive and reactive communication activities. This approach strives to neutralize risk before it is levelled, respond directly to issues or attacks as they arise, and apply pressure – intelligently – on opponents, as appropriate.”

Their strategy also included a specific digital ‘grassroots advocacy’ proposal which – from Edelman’s US-based offices where they maintain a large interactive intelligence database – would organise an on-line campaign, using 35,000 recruited ‘activists’, to target conventional and social media with positive messages about TransCanada’s pipeline.

There was even a separate proposal for Francophone Québec – perhaps because Edelman’s research showed that French speaking Canadians were politically disposed to be “green” or “super-green”.

The difficulty for Edelman and their clients was that someone leaked these documents to Greenpeace Canada last November.

Edelman changes trains

Which brings us back to the Task Force on Shale Gas.

Up until the Task Force was created, Edelman had been running the secretariat for the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Unconventional Gas and Oil. The APPGs expenses were funded, like many other APPGs, by the industry – a similar group in fact to those who now support the new Task Force.

Trouble was, being comprised of politicians, the public paid little attention to any of the industry propaganda’ which the APPG circulated.

Then last Autumn, roughly coincident with the formation of the Task Force, Edelman dropped the APPG – handing the secretariat role to another agency with a track record of astroturfing on behalf of industrial causes, Hill and Knowlton.

Was the APPG a failing cause? Were politicians the wrong conduit to influence the public?

After all, in 2013 someone at one of the funders of the Task Force, Centrica, had written an email to the Department for Energy and Climate (DECC) office promoting shale gas stating that

“Our polling shows that academics are the most trusted sources of information to the public so we are looking at ways to work with the academic community to present the scientific facts around shale.”

Just few months before the dropping the APPG, Edelman employed Katie Waring, energy secretary Ed Davey’s former special adviser at DECC – perhaps indicating that a change of strategy was being planned.

With Edelman, has the Task Force lost all credibility?

The problem for the ambitions of Chris Smith is that the model of the Task Force – comprising experts doing research for the public, funded by industry and managed by PR agencies – has already been used in the USA. For example, the Center for Sustainable Shale Development.

It too was modelled as a ‘stakeholder group’ where academics, industry and the public could come together and research the impacts of shale gas – but which was shown to be a front group for the industry, and whose fossil fuel industry support increased when some non-industry members left.

Even with the panel of experts many of whom are pre-disposed to shale gas, and the industry financing, the involvement of Edelman is toxic to the future work of the Task Force.

Chris Smith has to come clean. Who thought up the concept of the Task Force? Who co-ordinated the early meetings and identified the key figures who would take part? And what has been the role of Edelman in that process?

If the Task Force exists “to provide a transparent, trusted, independent and impartial platform for public scrutiny”, then a key part of that has to be accounting for the previous manipulative role of Edelman in controversial public issues – and whether that contaminates the Task Force’s role to serve the public interest.

A ‘fair and impartial platform’? Hardly!

In the USA almost 60 years ago the father of PR, Edward Bernays, stated in his influential book, The Engineering of Consent:

“Today it is impossible to overestimate the importance of engineering consent; it affects almost every aspect of our daily lives. When used for social purposes, it is among our most valuable contributions to the efficient functioning of modern society …

“The responsible leader … must apply his energies to mastering the operational know-how of consent engineering, and to out-maneuvering his opponents in the public interest.”

The Task Force on Shale Gas, in its composition, the background to its formation, and those who organise its work, has the appearance of an industry front group; organised by the company who specialise in such tactics to ‘engineer consent’ – Edelman.

Unless and until the process by which the Task Force was created is fully revealed, including who employed or commissioned Edelman in that role, then the Task Force cannot be considered – irrespective of its academic credentials – to be a fair and impartial platform to discuss unconventional gas and oil in Britain.

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer, and maintains the Free Range Activism Website (FRAW).

A fully referenced version of this article is located on FRAW.

The Democratic Republic of Congo’s prime minister has said that his government wants to find a way to explore for oil in the Virunga national park, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, and will engage in negotiations with the UN body to “explore judiciously”.

Virunga, Africa’s oldest and most biodiverse park, has been on the list of ‘World Heritage in danger’ since 1994, as two decades of armed conflict and intense poaching by militias has taken its toll on the park’s ecosystem.

In 2007, the Congolese ministry of hydrocarbons awarded two oil concessions straddling Virunga’s boundaries to the French major Total, as well as Soco International, a British oil company registered on the London Stock Exchange.

While Total quickly agreed to never explore within the current limits of the park – even in the event of a boundaries change – Soco has carried out exploratory activities in Virunga, concluding a seismic study in July 2014.

The company said it will hand over the results of the seismic survey to the Congolese government in coming months. It is based on these results that the DRC will decide whether to explore further.

Oil exploration ‘incompatible’ with World Heritage designation

Famous for its mountain gorillas, among the last ones on the planet, Virunga is home to dozens of endangered species, mainly found in and around Lake Edward, the area where Soco has been exploring.

According to the UNESCO convention, the exploration and exploitation of oil is incompatible with the World Heritage Site status. To allow drilling for oil wells legally, the government will have to declassify parts of the park, or Virunga as a whole.

“It would not be a minor modification of the park limits. It would be a major modification that would impair the universal value of the park”, said Leila Maziz, the coordinator for the Congo Basin projects at UNESCO. She added that UNESCO has not received an official request from the Congolese government at this stage.

In its annual report issued last week, Soco stated that it will not be part of the discussions between the UN body and the government. However, prime minister Augustin Matata Ponyo told the BBC that “Soco had brought the issue of the boundary to the government’s attention.”

Under international pressure following a global campaign by WWF and the documentary Virunga, Soco issued a statement that it would not seek to explore further in the park “unless Unesco and the DRC government agree that such activities are not incompatible with its world heritage status.”

Following that statement in June 2014, Soco’s deputy chief executive Roger Cagle told the Times that, nevertheless, DRC could apply for a boundary change.

An ‘alarming’ development

In an official letter seen by the Guardian, Matata Ponyo wrote that his government has been considering boundary change since July 2014, following the UNESCO summit.

“It is alarming that the Congolese prime minister says that Soco has raised the issue of Virunga’s boundary with the government and that the government appears to be moving towards declassifying some of the park”, Dyer said.

A spokeswoman for Soco said: “Soco has publicly stated that it has not and will not lobby the DRC government to redraw the boundaries of the Virunga national park.”

As part of its report, Soco also announced that it has hired the legal firm Clifford Chance to carry out an independent investigation into the allegations brought forward by the documentary ‘Virunga’, as well as Human Rights Watch and Global Witness.

In February, the Church of England threatened to sell its £3m share in Soco, over concerns relating to the company’s behaviour in DRC.

This article was originally published by the Guardian and is republished here by kind permission via the Guardian Environment Network.

Unless George Osborne gets new orders about his budget this week, it looks like, despite the bluster of the last year, the Government will not be announcing the results of the 14^th On-shore Oil and Gas Licensing Round this side of the election (perhaps they’re worried about legal action).

Despite this the Conservative’s token ‘green’, Tim Yeo MP, has been trumpeting the benefits of shale gas, based upon some spurious data produced by DECC which – as I outline in a new report for Talk Fracking this week – is based upon questionable results.

Arguably Tim Yeo’s trust in those results, expressed during the Parliamentary debate on the moratorium proposed by the Commons Environmental Audit Committee, has been very much abused by DECC and shale gas’s supporters in government.

In fact, with less than two months to go before the election, and despite ‘fracking’ having been the major grassroots environmental issue of the last Parliament, all is quiet on the shale gas front.

In reality though this is just the calm before the post-election PR storm.

Coming our way – the fracking spin machine

Irrespective of who wins (or perhaps in the circumstances, who loses the least), after the election the UK public will face an onslaught of PR-orchestrated ‘spin’ to promote shale gas, coalbed methane and underground coal gasification (UCG) as the best thing since … well, anything!

In Scotland, a moratorium on ‘fracking’ was imposed days after the failure of the moratorium in Parliament (although, as I highlighted in my last Ecologist article, the wording of the moratorium doesn’t cover UCG).

As a result the pro-fracking company INEOS, recently heavily invested into unconventional gas, is planning to “love bomb” the Scottish public back into supporting fracking. And though in Scotland that campaign is just getting under-way, in England it’s already begun …

What?, hadn’t you noticed? – that’s because you weren’t meant to.

In the final case study of my recent report for Talk Fracking I examine the use of academics within the Task Force on Shale Gas – a body set up last September under the auspices of former New Labour minister, and more recently former head of the Environment Agency, Lord Chris Smith.

The Task Force claims to “provide a transparent, trusted, independent and impartial platform for public scrutiny, discussion and information about shale gas exploration and production in the UK.”

Behold the Prince of Darkness … Edel who?

This is where the public relations ‘shadow play’ comes into its own. Not in the guise of Lord Chris Smith – who while head of the Environment Agency had behind the scenes meetings to thrash out how environmental regulations would be watered-down.

Not even the Task Force’s ‘expert panel’ members – many of whom have previously expressed support for shale gas and even outright hostility to the anti-fracking movement. And not even the oil and gas industry companies – who are funding the work of the Task Force.

The real players here – the people behind the scenes pulling the strings of the shadow play puppets – are Edelman, which acts as the Task Force’s secretariat.

Who are Edelman? That’s the really important question here – and the most prescient question to ask in relation to the Task Force’s future work on behalf of the public.

All modern businesses tend to specialise in certain fields. Edelman’s specialism is ‘grassroots engagement’ – creating industry-friendly front – or ‘astroturf’-groups to represent the benefits of controversial developments. Edelman has developed this technique in the US for its large American extractive and industrial clients over the last decade or so.

Their purpose is not to convince the public. They are there – as outlined in the recent US study Merchants of Doubt – to confuse the public so that they don’t know who to believe. Their aim is to create, as the original strategies developed by the tobacco industry in the 1960s outlined, an apparent controversy so they can get their point across.

They do not create unity or agreement on an issue, but instead seek to polarise the community to prevent the grassroots opposition holding sway over political decision-makers.

Neutralizing risk, pressurizing opponents

If you want to see how Edelman works, take a look at TransCanada’s alternative proposal for the stalled Keystone Pipeline – the East Energy Pipeline.

Even before the route was announced, TransCanada employed Edelman to carry out an assessment of how they could “drive an active public discussion about Energy East that gives Canadians reasons to affirmatively support the project in the face of organized opposition.”

The way this would be enacted is outlined in another study prepared a few months later by Edelman:

“The most effective way to counter any external challenge is to ready a robust campaign that comprises proactive and reactive communication activities. This approach strives to neutralize risk before it is levelled, respond directly to issues or attacks as they arise, and apply pressure – intelligently – on opponents, as appropriate.”

Their strategy also included a specific digital ‘grassroots advocacy’ proposal which – from Edelman’s US-based offices where they maintain a large interactive intelligence database – would organise an on-line campaign, using 35,000 recruited ‘activists’, to target conventional and social media with positive messages about TransCanada’s pipeline.

There was even a separate proposal for Francophone Québec – perhaps because Edelman’s research showed that French speaking Canadians were politically disposed to be “green” or “super-green”.

The difficulty for Edelman and their clients was that someone leaked these documents to Greenpeace Canada last November.

Edelman changes trains

Which brings us back to the Task Force on Shale Gas.

Up until the Task Force was created, Edelman had been running the secretariat for the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Unconventional Gas and Oil. The APPGs expenses were funded, like many other APPGs, by the industry – a similar group in fact to those who now support the new Task Force.

Trouble was, being comprised of politicians, the public paid little attention to any of the industry propaganda’ which the APPG circulated.

Then last Autumn, roughly coincident with the formation of the Task Force, Edelman dropped the APPG – handing the secretariat role to another agency with a track record of astroturfing on behalf of industrial causes, Hill and Knowlton.

Was the APPG a failing cause? Were politicians the wrong conduit to influence the public?

After all, in 2013 someone at one of the funders of the Task Force, Centrica, had written an email to the Department for Energy and Climate (DECC) office promoting shale gas stating that

“Our polling shows that academics are the most trusted sources of information to the public so we are looking at ways to work with the academic community to present the scientific facts around shale.”

Just few months before the dropping the APPG, Edelman employed Katie Waring, energy secretary Ed Davey’s former special adviser at DECC – perhaps indicating that a change of strategy was being planned.

With Edelman, has the Task Force lost all credibility?

The problem for the ambitions of Chris Smith is that the model of the Task Force – comprising experts doing research for the public, funded by industry and managed by PR agencies – has already been used in the USA. For example, the Center for Sustainable Shale Development.

It too was modelled as a ‘stakeholder group’ where academics, industry and the public could come together and research the impacts of shale gas – but which was shown to be a front group for the industry, and whose fossil fuel industry support increased when some non-industry members left.

Even with the panel of experts many of whom are pre-disposed to shale gas, and the industry financing, the involvement of Edelman is toxic to the future work of the Task Force.

Chris Smith has to come clean. Who thought up the concept of the Task Force? Who co-ordinated the early meetings and identified the key figures who would take part? And what has been the role of Edelman in that process?

If the Task Force exists “to provide a transparent, trusted, independent and impartial platform for public scrutiny”, then a key part of that has to be accounting for the previous manipulative role of Edelman in controversial public issues – and whether that contaminates the Task Force’s role to serve the public interest.

A ‘fair and impartial platform’? Hardly!

In the USA almost 60 years ago the father of PR, Edward Bernays, stated in his influential book, The Engineering of Consent:

“Today it is impossible to overestimate the importance of engineering consent; it affects almost every aspect of our daily lives. When used for social purposes, it is among our most valuable contributions to the efficient functioning of modern society …

“The responsible leader … must apply his energies to mastering the operational know-how of consent engineering, and to out-maneuvering his opponents in the public interest.”

The Task Force on Shale Gas, in its composition, the background to its formation, and those who organise its work, has the appearance of an industry front group; organised by the company who specialise in such tactics to ‘engineer consent’ – Edelman.

Unless and until the process by which the Task Force was created is fully revealed, including who employed or commissioned Edelman in that role, then the Task Force cannot be considered – irrespective of its academic credentials – to be a fair and impartial platform to discuss unconventional gas and oil in Britain.

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer, and maintains the Free Range Activism Website (FRAW).

A fully referenced version of this article is located on FRAW.