The explosion in the number of Latin American cases of microcephaly – a congenital condition associated with maldevelopment of the brain – has become an international emergency due its “strongly suspected” link with the rapidly spreading Zika virus, according to the World Health Organisation(WHO).

The WHO has called for urgency in finding a vaccine and better diagnostics, and has urged the world to be alert.

Researchers of infectious diseases are still trying to understand how Zika in pregnant women causes congenital malformation. “Everyone agrees on the urgent need to coordinate international efforts to investigate and better understand this relationship”, said Margaret Chan, the head of the WHO.

The Aedes aegypti mosquito, the species that also transmits the dengue and chinkungunya viruses, is responsible for infecting a growing number of humans with Zika.

For now, the only apparent defense against Zika is to avoid getting bitten by mosquitoes. But as global temperatures rise and Aedes aegypti moves to new habitats and breeding grounds in urban areas where water is stored in open containers, this is becoming increasingly difficult. Scientists from all over the world are concerned.

“Global warming affects the abundance and distribution of disease vectors [small disease-carrying insects], increasing the incidence of infectious diseases and expanding the geographical areas which are at risk”, says Fiona Armstrong, executive director of the Australia-based Climate and Health Alliance.

Increased heat and humidity associated with climate change create ideal breeding conditions for mosquitoes, Armstrong adds: “As regions that used to be drier and colder start to register higher temperatures and more rain, mosquitoes expand their breeding areas, which increases the number of populations at risk.”

Zika virus expected to spread widely

The WHO estimates that up to four million cases of Zika will be recorded in the Americas over the next 12 months. About 80% of those infected do not exhibit symptoms but when they manifest, patients notice fever, a red rash, and conjunctivitis.

At least 22 Latin American countries have reported cases of Zika, and Brazil has been hit hardest. In November 2015, the Ministry of Health confirmed a correlation between the outbreak of the virus and the increased incidence of microcephaly in the northeast region of the country. Since then, 3,448 suspected cases of microcephaly are being investigated across the country.

It is not known for sure how Zika arrived in Brazil, but it is thought to have been introduced by either an Asian tourist during the 2014 World Cup or a canoeist from Polynesia who participated in a 2014 event in Rio de Janeiro.

Researchers Davidson Hamer and Lin Chen of Boston Medical Center in the US fear the Zika virus will spread quickly there too. Their study affirms the risk is high due to the presence of the Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus mosquitoes in several states. Concerns are growing as summer – mosquito breeding season – nears.

According to CCTV, local authorities are monitoring the chances that the virus reaches China, whose southern regions are most at risk. No cases have been reported there so far. The Chinese foreign ministry has already expressed its willingness to help Latin American authorities in any way it can, including searching for vaccines to combat the disease.

The Zika virus was discovered in Uganda, Africa in 1947, but the first outbreak in humans was recorded in 2007. The virus then spread to Asia and French Polynesia in 2013, where it infected around 19,000 people and where the first associations with microcephaly were made.

In addition to congenital malformations, it is also believed that Zika causes Guillain-Barre syndrome, a neurological disease that can result in temporary or permanent paralysis.

Where dengue fever can thrive, so can Zika

Authorities still have difficulty predicting how far the Zika outbreak could spread. Christovam Barcellos, a researcher at the Fundação Oswaldo Cruz Health and Climate Observatory, says the history of dengue fever can provide some clues:

“We have observed that the areas where dengue is transmitted are expanding throughout the world. In Brazil, dengue is moving further and further south and to cities at higher elevations, which used to be more protected. This could be an effect of climatic conditions.”

Studies have already indicated southern China and Southeast Asia as areas where dengue could be transmitted, along with northern Australia, since the mosquito vector inhabits these regions.

“It’s remarkable how Aedes is adapted to the city. It has a life cycle of one to two weeks, during this time it hatches, flies away and bites people. And cities have an ideal environment for it to reproduce”, Barcellos adds.

Climate change will continue to put pressure on public health systems and resources allocated to fighting new diseases, especially in underdeveloped regions of the globe, researchers say.

“Political leaders and health authorities are underestimating the breadth and complexity associated with the risks to human health that come along with a warmer planet”, Armstrong warns.

Nadia Pontes is a journalist currently working freelance for national and international press. She has spent the last 5 years at Deutsche Welle in Germany where she has worked as a reporter and editor and latterly as a presenter of Futurando, a program about environment, science and innovation. In Brazil, she has spent time at SBT, Band Vale radio and Rede Vanguardia.

This article was originally published by Diálogo Chino and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 UK: England & Wales License. It is also available in Español and Português.

The thorny topic of genetically modified (GM) crops was recently thrust into the global spotlight again. Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Bill Gates said that GM crops are a necessary tool to fight hunger and poverty in Africa.

But something Gates did not discuss was the news that the largest and most significant African adopter of GM crops – Burkina Faso – recently began a phase out of Bt cotton. Bt cotton is the most widely grown GM crop by poor farmers in Africa.

Why would Burkina Faso, a nation that struggles with hunger and poverty, turn its back on the very tools Gates and others so ardently support?

In 2003 Burkina Faso became one of the first African countries to begin field trials of Bt cotton. This was done in partnership with the agriculture company Monsanto. Bt refers to a toxin – Bacillus thuringiensis – that kills one of the world’s most common and pernicious cotton pests, the bollworm. Monsanto agreed to backcross the Bt gene onto local Burkinabè varieties, which were subsequently released to farmers in 2008.

Burkina Faso’s adoption of Bt cotton made big news. Not only is Burkina Faso consistently one of Africa’s largest cotton producers, but cotton is also seen as the engine driving rural development throughout large parts of the country.

It all looked like a great success story

The introduction of Bt cotton has reportedly boosted total cotton production. In 2014, Burkina Faso had the largest number of total GM crop producers on the African continent. It has more than 140,000 smallholder farmers cultivating Bt cotton.

Burkina Faso’s success story has been celebrated as an example of how GM crops can help poor farmers. Many farmers have enthusiastically adopted the technology, and for good reason. Studies show that Bt cotton has increased yields and profits. The average Bt cotton farming family gained 50% more profit than from conventional cotton. This is despite the very high cost of Bt cotton seed.

Bt cotton growers also use significantly less pesticide. The total number of sprayings has gone down from six to two, reducing exposure of damaging chemicals and saving valuable labour time.

But Bt cotton hasn’t been a blessing for everyone. The inferior lint quality of Bt cotton has caused severe economic losses for Burkinabè cotton companies. This has prompted a complete phase out of all Bt cotton production over the next two years. Company officials and Monsanto representatives cite two problems with lint quality.

1. Bt varietals produce shorter, less desirable lint. The shorter length means poorer quality, which in turn means a lower price on the international market.

2. Even though cotton yields are up, the amount machines are able to extract from the picked cotton has diminished. In other words, Bt cotton produces both less cotton lint, and lint of an inferior quality.

Inferior lint quality is not a big deterrent for farmers, who sell their cotton at a guaranteed price to the cotton companies. But it is a critical issue for the companies themselves. The combination of shorter staples and lower lint quantities substantially undermines profits.

These cotton companies also control the provision of seeds and inputs to farmers and were able to unilaterally phase out Bt cotton. This is much to the dismay of many Bt cotton farmers.

Mr Gates, it’s complicated …

The story of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso underlines the complex nature of debates around the potential for GM crops to help poor farmers. In this case the technology does what it is supposed to do: confers pest resistance, reduces pesticide use and increases yield. Many farmers like it, and want more of it.

But an unexplained impact on staple length means the cotton companies are shifting away from this technology. This technical hurdle will need to be overcome for Bt cotton to continue as a success story in Burkina Faso.

Burkina Faso’s reversal on GM cotton also raises some worrying questions for the future of GM crops on the continent. Will different GM crops also have unintended and detrimental consequences? Can the institutions and companies in charge of their development be trusted to transparently show both the pros and cons to their adoption?

This case also calls into question the philosophy behind GM crop introductions – that genetically engineered scientific breeding programmes can address farmer needs.

The Burkina Faso case demonstrates the perils of such a narrow, trait specific approach to addressing agricultural development. Sometimes focusing on a single trait – in this case pest resistance – can have unintended and harmful consequences for other important traits – in this case, cotton quality.

At Davos, Gates said: “Africans I think will choose to let their people have enough to eat.”

This suggested that the inevitable advance of GM crops across the continent. Meanwhile, after several years of producing GM crops, Burkina Faso looks ready to abandon this technology.

Brian Dowd-Uribe is Assistant Professor, International Studies Department, University of San Francisco.

Matthew Schnurr is Associate Professor Department of International Development Studies, Dalhousie University.

The paper: ‘Briefing: Burkina Faso’s reversal on genetically modified cotton and the implications for Africa‘ is by Brian Dowd-Uribe & Matthew Schnurr, and published in African Affairs 1-12, 2016.

Also on The Ecologist: ‘Burkina Faso calls time on Monsanto’s GM cotton, demands $280m damages‘ by Claire Robinson.

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

The thorny topic of genetically modified (GM) crops was recently thrust into the global spotlight again. Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Bill Gates said that GM crops are a necessary tool to fight hunger and poverty in Africa.

But something Gates did not discuss was the news that the largest and most significant African adopter of GM crops – Burkina Faso – recently began a phase out of Bt cotton. Bt cotton is the most widely grown GM crop by poor farmers in Africa.

Why would Burkina Faso, a nation that struggles with hunger and poverty, turn its back on the very tools Gates and others so ardently support?

In 2003 Burkina Faso became one of the first African countries to begin field trials of Bt cotton. This was done in partnership with the agriculture company Monsanto. Bt refers to a toxin – Bacillus thuringiensis – that kills one of the world’s most common and pernicious cotton pests, the bollworm. Monsanto agreed to backcross the Bt gene onto local Burkinabè varieties, which were subsequently released to farmers in 2008.

Burkina Faso’s adoption of Bt cotton made big news. Not only is Burkina Faso consistently one of Africa’s largest cotton producers, but cotton is also seen as the engine driving rural development throughout large parts of the country.

It all looked like a great success story

The introduction of Bt cotton has reportedly boosted total cotton production. In 2014, Burkina Faso had the largest number of total GM crop producers on the African continent. It has more than 140,000 smallholder farmers cultivating Bt cotton.

Burkina Faso’s success story has been celebrated as an example of how GM crops can help poor farmers. Many farmers have enthusiastically adopted the technology, and for good reason. Studies show that Bt cotton has increased yields and profits. The average Bt cotton farming family gained 50% more profit than from conventional cotton. This is despite the very high cost of Bt cotton seed.

Bt cotton growers also use significantly less pesticide. The total number of sprayings has gone down from six to two, reducing exposure of damaging chemicals and saving valuable labour time.

But Bt cotton hasn’t been a blessing for everyone. The inferior lint quality of Bt cotton has caused severe economic losses for Burkinabè cotton companies. This has prompted a complete phase out of all Bt cotton production over the next two years. Company officials and Monsanto representatives cite two problems with lint quality.

1. Bt varietals produce shorter, less desirable lint. The shorter length means poorer quality, which in turn means a lower price on the international market.

2. Even though cotton yields are up, the amount machines are able to extract from the picked cotton has diminished. In other words, Bt cotton produces both less cotton lint, and lint of an inferior quality.

Inferior lint quality is not a big deterrent for farmers, who sell their cotton at a guaranteed price to the cotton companies. But it is a critical issue for the companies themselves. The combination of shorter staples and lower lint quantities substantially undermines profits.

These cotton companies also control the provision of seeds and inputs to farmers and were able to unilaterally phase out Bt cotton. This is much to the dismay of many Bt cotton farmers.

Mr Gates, it’s complicated …

The story of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso underlines the complex nature of debates around the potential for GM crops to help poor farmers. In this case the technology does what it is supposed to do: confers pest resistance, reduces pesticide use and increases yield. Many farmers like it, and want more of it.

But an unexplained impact on staple length means the cotton companies are shifting away from this technology. This technical hurdle will need to be overcome for Bt cotton to continue as a success story in Burkina Faso.

Burkina Faso’s reversal on GM cotton also raises some worrying questions for the future of GM crops on the continent. Will different GM crops also have unintended and detrimental consequences? Can the institutions and companies in charge of their development be trusted to transparently show both the pros and cons to their adoption?

This case also calls into question the philosophy behind GM crop introductions – that genetically engineered scientific breeding programmes can address farmer needs.

The Burkina Faso case demonstrates the perils of such a narrow, trait specific approach to addressing agricultural development. Sometimes focusing on a single trait – in this case pest resistance – can have unintended and harmful consequences for other important traits – in this case, cotton quality.

At Davos, Gates said: “Africans I think will choose to let their people have enough to eat.”

This suggested that the inevitable advance of GM crops across the continent. Meanwhile, after several years of producing GM crops, Burkina Faso looks ready to abandon this technology.

Brian Dowd-Uribe is Assistant Professor, International Studies Department, University of San Francisco.

Matthew Schnurr is Associate Professor Department of International Development Studies, Dalhousie University.

The paper: ‘Briefing: Burkina Faso’s reversal on genetically modified cotton and the implications for Africa‘ is by Brian Dowd-Uribe & Matthew Schnurr, and published in African Affairs 1-12, 2016.

Also on The Ecologist: ‘Burkina Faso calls time on Monsanto’s GM cotton, demands $280m damages‘ by Claire Robinson.

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

The thorny topic of genetically modified (GM) crops was recently thrust into the global spotlight again. Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Bill Gates said that GM crops are a necessary tool to fight hunger and poverty in Africa.

But something Gates did not discuss was the news that the largest and most significant African adopter of GM crops – Burkina Faso – recently began a phase out of Bt cotton. Bt cotton is the most widely grown GM crop by poor farmers in Africa.

Why would Burkina Faso, a nation that struggles with hunger and poverty, turn its back on the very tools Gates and others so ardently support?

In 2003 Burkina Faso became one of the first African countries to begin field trials of Bt cotton. This was done in partnership with the agriculture company Monsanto. Bt refers to a toxin – Bacillus thuringiensis – that kills one of the world’s most common and pernicious cotton pests, the bollworm. Monsanto agreed to backcross the Bt gene onto local Burkinabè varieties, which were subsequently released to farmers in 2008.

Burkina Faso’s adoption of Bt cotton made big news. Not only is Burkina Faso consistently one of Africa’s largest cotton producers, but cotton is also seen as the engine driving rural development throughout large parts of the country.

It all looked like a great success story

The introduction of Bt cotton has reportedly boosted total cotton production. In 2014, Burkina Faso had the largest number of total GM crop producers on the African continent. It has more than 140,000 smallholder farmers cultivating Bt cotton.

Burkina Faso’s success story has been celebrated as an example of how GM crops can help poor farmers. Many farmers have enthusiastically adopted the technology, and for good reason. Studies show that Bt cotton has increased yields and profits. The average Bt cotton farming family gained 50% more profit than from conventional cotton. This is despite the very high cost of Bt cotton seed.

Bt cotton growers also use significantly less pesticide. The total number of sprayings has gone down from six to two, reducing exposure of damaging chemicals and saving valuable labour time.

But Bt cotton hasn’t been a blessing for everyone. The inferior lint quality of Bt cotton has caused severe economic losses for Burkinabè cotton companies. This has prompted a complete phase out of all Bt cotton production over the next two years. Company officials and Monsanto representatives cite two problems with lint quality.

1. Bt varietals produce shorter, less desirable lint. The shorter length means poorer quality, which in turn means a lower price on the international market.

2. Even though cotton yields are up, the amount machines are able to extract from the picked cotton has diminished. In other words, Bt cotton produces both less cotton lint, and lint of an inferior quality.

Inferior lint quality is not a big deterrent for farmers, who sell their cotton at a guaranteed price to the cotton companies. But it is a critical issue for the companies themselves. The combination of shorter staples and lower lint quantities substantially undermines profits.

These cotton companies also control the provision of seeds and inputs to farmers and were able to unilaterally phase out Bt cotton. This is much to the dismay of many Bt cotton farmers.

Mr Gates, it’s complicated …

The story of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso underlines the complex nature of debates around the potential for GM crops to help poor farmers. In this case the technology does what it is supposed to do: confers pest resistance, reduces pesticide use and increases yield. Many farmers like it, and want more of it.

But an unexplained impact on staple length means the cotton companies are shifting away from this technology. This technical hurdle will need to be overcome for Bt cotton to continue as a success story in Burkina Faso.

Burkina Faso’s reversal on GM cotton also raises some worrying questions for the future of GM crops on the continent. Will different GM crops also have unintended and detrimental consequences? Can the institutions and companies in charge of their development be trusted to transparently show both the pros and cons to their adoption?

This case also calls into question the philosophy behind GM crop introductions – that genetically engineered scientific breeding programmes can address farmer needs.

The Burkina Faso case demonstrates the perils of such a narrow, trait specific approach to addressing agricultural development. Sometimes focusing on a single trait – in this case pest resistance – can have unintended and harmful consequences for other important traits – in this case, cotton quality.

At Davos, Gates said: “Africans I think will choose to let their people have enough to eat.”

This suggested that the inevitable advance of GM crops across the continent. Meanwhile, after several years of producing GM crops, Burkina Faso looks ready to abandon this technology.

Brian Dowd-Uribe is Assistant Professor, International Studies Department, University of San Francisco.

Matthew Schnurr is Associate Professor Department of International Development Studies, Dalhousie University.

The paper: ‘Briefing: Burkina Faso’s reversal on genetically modified cotton and the implications for Africa‘ is by Brian Dowd-Uribe & Matthew Schnurr, and published in African Affairs 1-12, 2016.

Also on The Ecologist: ‘Burkina Faso calls time on Monsanto’s GM cotton, demands $280m damages‘ by Claire Robinson.

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

The thorny topic of genetically modified (GM) crops was recently thrust into the global spotlight again. Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Bill Gates said that GM crops are a necessary tool to fight hunger and poverty in Africa.

But something Gates did not discuss was the news that the largest and most significant African adopter of GM crops – Burkina Faso – recently began a phase out of Bt cotton. Bt cotton is the most widely grown GM crop by poor farmers in Africa.

Why would Burkina Faso, a nation that struggles with hunger and poverty, turn its back on the very tools Gates and others so ardently support?

In 2003 Burkina Faso became one of the first African countries to begin field trials of Bt cotton. This was done in partnership with the agriculture company Monsanto. Bt refers to a toxin – Bacillus thuringiensis – that kills one of the world’s most common and pernicious cotton pests, the bollworm. Monsanto agreed to backcross the Bt gene onto local Burkinabè varieties, which were subsequently released to farmers in 2008.

Burkina Faso’s adoption of Bt cotton made big news. Not only is Burkina Faso consistently one of Africa’s largest cotton producers, but cotton is also seen as the engine driving rural development throughout large parts of the country.

It all looked like a great success story

The introduction of Bt cotton has reportedly boosted total cotton production. In 2014, Burkina Faso had the largest number of total GM crop producers on the African continent. It has more than 140,000 smallholder farmers cultivating Bt cotton.

Burkina Faso’s success story has been celebrated as an example of how GM crops can help poor farmers. Many farmers have enthusiastically adopted the technology, and for good reason. Studies show that Bt cotton has increased yields and profits. The average Bt cotton farming family gained 50% more profit than from conventional cotton. This is despite the very high cost of Bt cotton seed.

Bt cotton growers also use significantly less pesticide. The total number of sprayings has gone down from six to two, reducing exposure of damaging chemicals and saving valuable labour time.

But Bt cotton hasn’t been a blessing for everyone. The inferior lint quality of Bt cotton has caused severe economic losses for Burkinabè cotton companies. This has prompted a complete phase out of all Bt cotton production over the next two years. Company officials and Monsanto representatives cite two problems with lint quality.

1. Bt varietals produce shorter, less desirable lint. The shorter length means poorer quality, which in turn means a lower price on the international market.

2. Even though cotton yields are up, the amount machines are able to extract from the picked cotton has diminished. In other words, Bt cotton produces both less cotton lint, and lint of an inferior quality.

Inferior lint quality is not a big deterrent for farmers, who sell their cotton at a guaranteed price to the cotton companies. But it is a critical issue for the companies themselves. The combination of shorter staples and lower lint quantities substantially undermines profits.

These cotton companies also control the provision of seeds and inputs to farmers and were able to unilaterally phase out Bt cotton. This is much to the dismay of many Bt cotton farmers.

Mr Gates, it’s complicated …

The story of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso underlines the complex nature of debates around the potential for GM crops to help poor farmers. In this case the technology does what it is supposed to do: confers pest resistance, reduces pesticide use and increases yield. Many farmers like it, and want more of it.

But an unexplained impact on staple length means the cotton companies are shifting away from this technology. This technical hurdle will need to be overcome for Bt cotton to continue as a success story in Burkina Faso.

Burkina Faso’s reversal on GM cotton also raises some worrying questions for the future of GM crops on the continent. Will different GM crops also have unintended and detrimental consequences? Can the institutions and companies in charge of their development be trusted to transparently show both the pros and cons to their adoption?

This case also calls into question the philosophy behind GM crop introductions – that genetically engineered scientific breeding programmes can address farmer needs.

The Burkina Faso case demonstrates the perils of such a narrow, trait specific approach to addressing agricultural development. Sometimes focusing on a single trait – in this case pest resistance – can have unintended and harmful consequences for other important traits – in this case, cotton quality.

At Davos, Gates said: “Africans I think will choose to let their people have enough to eat.”

This suggested that the inevitable advance of GM crops across the continent. Meanwhile, after several years of producing GM crops, Burkina Faso looks ready to abandon this technology.

Brian Dowd-Uribe is Assistant Professor, International Studies Department, University of San Francisco.

Matthew Schnurr is Associate Professor Department of International Development Studies, Dalhousie University.

The paper: ‘Briefing: Burkina Faso’s reversal on genetically modified cotton and the implications for Africa‘ is by Brian Dowd-Uribe & Matthew Schnurr, and published in African Affairs 1-12, 2016.

Also on The Ecologist: ‘Burkina Faso calls time on Monsanto’s GM cotton, demands $280m damages‘ by Claire Robinson.

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

The last few months have been particularly difficult for those living in temporary accommodation when torrential storms and flooding hit Gaza.

After Israel’s 2014 military offensive displaced over 100,000 people by destroying their homes, many now live in temporary shelter.

Some families are living in the rubble of their former homes or shipping containers and are heavily at risk from the elements. Others are living in caravans, but even these offer little protection against this year’s floods and brutal winter cold.

The Southern communities of Khan Younis, Rafah and Khuza have been hit the hardest and limited emergency aid is being provided.

Winter storms have worsened the issue with municipalities declaring a state of emergency. Storms have blown the roofs off houses and schools have been forced to shut down due to power failures.

In Rafah, a refugee camp in the Southern part of Gaza, families have been displaced due to flash flooding from rainwater and several landslides have been reported across the city.

Medical Aid for Palestinians’ Gaza Director, Fikr Shalltoot said: “It was a catastrophic situation in Rafah, where more than 100 families were obliged to flee their houses. The rain water mixed with sewage water ruined their houses’ furniture including beds, closets, kitchens etcetera. The people in the upper floors were unreachable as the ground floors were full of water.

“The municipality staff were trying to pump the water out of the houses but their capacity was quite limited due to the shortages of fuel and electricity. People were desperate and in great need for support; therefore MAP cooperated with a local partner and distributed 228 Blankets, 228 Mattresses and 114 hygiene kits to these families in Rafah.”

The Palestinians have little hope of rebuilding their homes as they have no access to building materials unless the Gaza blockade is lifted and construction material is allowed to enter the territory. In the West Bank, more than twenty homes have been recently demolished by Israeli bulldozers including homes funded by the European Commission and the UN, and more evictions are planned.

No electricity, no water, no way out

When an Israeli airstrike took out fuel storage tanks at the Gaza Power Plant in 2006, it marked the beginning of an electricity crisis. Since then blackouts of between 12-16 hours per day are common whilst only 45% of demand is being met.

With insufficient electricity to power water pumps and wells, wastewater treatment plants have had to reduce their treatment cycle. Drainage systems have been unable to cope with heavy rains since the destructive 2014 attacks and the territory has been flooding yearly.

Over-pumping of the water and sewage system has led to its deterioration in an attempt to counter dwindling water supplies. The 2014 attacks had also seen Israeli warplanes targeting water pipelines and wells. Partially treated sewage is being discharged into the Mediterranean at the rate of 25,000 cubic meters per day, whilst there is a constant risk of back-flow into the streets increasing the likelihood of disease caused by poor sanitation.

In a policy brief titled ‘Drying Palestine: Israel’s Systemic Water War‘ issued by Al-Shabaka, the Palestinian Policy Network, Muna Dajani wrote from Jerusalem of the damage that consecutive Israeli military aggressions have caused to Gaza’s water systems and pollution into the Mediterranean sea:

“Ninety-five percent of the water that Palestinians in Gaza have been consuming for decades has been proven unfit for human consumption. Electricity shortages that have lasted for almost a decade have limited water treatment capacity and thus the availability of water to households, as well as increased the discharge of untreated wastewater into the sea.

“Even before the summer assault on Gaza, 90 million liters of untreated or partially treated wastewater were being dumped and continue to be dumped into the sea each day due to insufficient treatment facilities.”

Water, water, everywhere
Nor any drop to drink

Since the ousting of the first ever freely-elected Egyptian President, Mohamed Morsi in 2013, the siege between the borders of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula has tightened. The Egyptian army, which now governs Egypt after a coup, closed the border with Egypt and constructed a crude canal to pump seawater into the Gaza Strip.

The aim was to “destroy the smuggling tunnels“ which are allegedly used by terrorists, although an Israeli minister has now claimed this was at the request of the Jewish state. The tunnels are a life-line to the area, allowing essential materials to enter the country. It is thought that 95% of the supply tunnels have now been destroyed.

The natural underground aquifers have already been severly depleted by Israel, and are now threatened by the influx of saltwater into the soil. Almost all the water in Gaza comes from the coastal aquifer, which is shared with Israel. “Due to the absence of any policy coordination between Israel and the Gaza Strip with regard to the Coastal Aquifer, both authorities are currently over-extracting”, says EWASH.

In an area which should have ample freshwater resources especially the West Bank, Palestinian water resources are under Israel’s jurisdiction and legal restrictions have been placed on access. New water infrastructure cannot be built without the express permission from the military.

Even rain-collecting containers can be destroyed. According to a 2009 report by Amnesty International, soldiers shot water tanks to pass the time, since “water tanks are good for target practice; they are everywhere and are the right size to aim at and calibrate your weapon, to relieve your frustration … or to break the monotony of a stint of guard duty.”

The UN had previously expressed concerns that by 2020, Gaza would be uninhabitable. With the speed at which Israel and Egypt are sending the population into destitution, this could be even sooner.

Vanessa Amaral-Rogers is a freelance journalist writing mainly on environmental themes.

Campaign: Medical Aid for Palestinians, in partnership with the Association of International Development Agencies (AIDA) and Avaaz, are calling for easing of restrictions on the entry of building materials into Gaza and an end to the blockade and closure of the territory.

Petition: ‘Global Leaders: Lift the Gaza Blockade‘ (Avaaz).

Greenpeace has installed a life-like ten-metre fracking rig outside the UK Parliament in London to “bring the local impacts of fracking to the heart of democracy.”

The rig emits a realistic flame which is firing up every hour using bio ethanol, while flood lighting and the sound effects of drilling and lorries are reverberating around the House of Commons.

Installed before dawn this morning by operatives in day-glo jackets bearing the ‘frack and go’ name and logo, the drilling rig is still in place this afternoon closely attended by media and curious passers by.

Hannah Martin, Greenpeace campaigner said: “We are here to fight for the future of the English countryside. Ministers are pushing aside local democracy to bulldoze through their unpopular fracking plans.

“We have installed a life-like fracking rig and drill at Parliament Square to show them what people in Lancashire and beyond will have to endure if so-called ‘Communities Minister’ Greg Clark forces fracking on a reluctant nation.”

Greg, ever heard of ‘localism’? Oh yes, you invented it …

The protest and polling results coincide with the first day of the independent Planning Inspectorate inquiry into whether fracking will go ahead in Lancashire.

Energy company Cuadrilla – which is owned by companies based in Australia and the Cayman Islands, a notorious UK tax haven – is appealing against Lancashire county council’s decision to reject its fracking application.

However, Greg Clark, the Communities Minister, has already announced he will have the final say on whether Cuadrilla will be allowed to frack in Lancashire. In a bid to fast track fracking, the government announced last year that he could ignore both the decision by the local council and the Planning Inspectorate.

In a letter sent to Lancashire County Council in November last year, Greg Clark explained: “The reason for this direction is because the drilling appeals involve proposals for exploring and developing shale gas which amount to proposals for development of major importance having more than local significance and proposals which raise important or novel issues of development control, and/or legal difficulties.”

Previously Greg Clark had been vocal in his support for the idea of local decision-making. Back In 2011 he said that local councils should “wield real power.” And last year, Clark told the Local Government Association that they must “Take power now. Don’t let yourself, any longer, be ruled by someone else.”

However it appears that Greg Clark’s ‘localism’ is strictly about local communities right to decide the way the government wants them to.

Minister – come to Lancashire let’s talk fracking!

A protest rally is also taking place today outside Blackpool Football club where the inquiry is being held. Jasber Singh, from Lancashire and part of Frack Free Lancashire said: “I have been involved with anti-fracking community groups in Lancashire for over two years, and the number of groups keeps increasing.

“That’s because we are not going to gain anything from fracking apart from air, noise, land and water pollution that’s bad for our health and the health of the climate. It would pay the Communities Minister to visit some communities in Lancashire rather than ignoring us and our council.”

A new Populus poll released today by Greenpeace shows that nearly two-thirds (62%) of people in the UK think their local council, not central government departments, should decide whether to accept or reject fracking applications in their local area.

Last weekend, campaigners and local people were angered further by a leaked letter from three Cabinet ministers – Liz Truss, Amber Rudd and Greg Clark to George Osborne. The letter suggested that fracking applications could be taken out of local authorities’ control altogether and immediately passed to the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Planning process.

“This is an affront to local democracy and shows a lack of respect for people’s wishes”, said Hannah Martin. “People who love and live in the countryside and who care about climate change will not stand for a government riding roughshod over democracy to industrialise our landscape and damage the climate.”

“We and the government know that most known reserves of fossil fuels must stay in the ground if we are to have any chance of combating climate change. A dash for gas is simply not an environmentally and economically effective strategy to power the UK after the Paris climate agreement.”

Cuadrilla, the biggest UK shale company, is 45% owned by Riverstone, a private equity company fund registered in the Cayman Islands. Another 45% is owned by AJ Lucas, an Australian company, whose largest shareholder, Kerogen Investments, is also registered in the Cayman Islands.

Main source: Greenpeace. See here and here.

I can understand why some people on the left are sceptical about the EU.

Anyone who cares about environmental and social justice only has to take a cursory glance at what’s happening in our continent to realise that the EU isn’t always beneficial to progressive policies here in Britain.

A closer look, however, reveals that the picture is not black and white. Whilst, at present, the EU too often reflects the current British government’s zeal for privatisation and deregulation, historically there is a lot to celebrate.

Even today, our EU membership offers us protection from the Tories’ worst instincts. And – crucially – the EU offers us a way of working across borders to make things better and to achieve social and environmental progress, which simply would not be possible if the UK were to walk away.

TTIP – A taste of things to come if Britain was to go it alone

One cause for scepticism is the transatlantic trade deal, TTIP. This epitomises everything that’s wrong with the EU – and with neoliberal politics in general. Back room decisions, handing power to corporations, and threats to our rights at work and public services.

But those who hope that leaving the EU would make Britain’s trade policy fairer are, to be frank, fooling themselves. The UK has already signed a number of bilateral deals that subject both sides to the dreaded investor state dispute mechanisms (ISDS) which allows companies to sue states for risking their ‘future profits’.

Indeed the Tory Government is a major driving force for TTIP – and David Cameron is one of the deal’s top cheerleaders. With MEPs and German MPs able to access TTIP documents, the buck stops with UK Ministers for the shameful situation that politicians in Westminster cannot.

If we left the EU, then we could be left with what pro-Brexit MPs describe as the ‘WTO Option’. What then? Well if recent trade deals are anything to go by, and with the Tories still in charge, we could then expect the roll out of multiple TTIPs on steroids as Britain negotiated trade deals with countries across the world.

Mounting pressure from citizens, campaigners and progressive politicians across Europe has successfully forced the EU to open up TTIP to more scrutiny. Eventually, our MEPs will vote on the final deal. If we want to stop the rot of damaging trade deals, it’s our responsibility to make sure our elected representatives know that they will not get away with waving TTIP through.

The attack on Greece – right wing Governments enforcing austerity

Another concern for people on the left is Greece and the tragedy which has unfolded there. The imposition of austerity on the country – and the deep damage it’s caused – was certainly enough to make me think twice.

But to lay the blame simplistically on the EU is short-sighted. The real villains are the right wing European governments at the top table. With the European Council made up of ministers from each EU country, it often simply reflects the prevailing currents in European politics.

The imposition of austerity in Greece should not be surprising when you look at Merkel’s right wing government in Germany or indeed the slash and burn policies of the Tories here in Britain.

That’s not to say, of course, that institutions like the European Central Bank or the EU council aren’t anti-democratic – they are. But to give people a real say in Europe we need to prise open the doors of power, not throw away the one structure which has the ability to regulate the excesses of the cross-continental market.

Brexit would do nothing to help the Greek people. We need more pan-European solidarity, resistance, and collaboration – not less.

Environment – cross-border challenges need cross-border solutions

Not infrequently, I’m furious that EU environmental and climate policies don’t go far enough. But it’s important to remember that some of our dirtiest power stations have been closed thanks to EU directives.

Our beaches are cleaner, our air less polluted and, as Mike McCarthy put so eloquently recently, our wildlife is far safer because of EU rules. Only last week the European Parliament backed stronger action on protecting nature. To me it’s obvious that being part of the EU makes sense when it comes to protecting our environment.

Pollution and environmental degradation don’t respect national borders. As an environmentalist, I’d rather be working hard to make sure EU decisions deliver bolder cross-border solutions than spending the next three years scrabbling around to salvage scraps from the Nature Directives.

Doing things differently – a new EU

Ultimately, walking away from the EU would put at risk our rights at work, our environment and our ability to influence the rules that will continue to affect us. Added to that is the profound risk that Brexit poses to our multicultural and multinational society. But if we’re going to stay in the EU we also need a vision of how we can do things differently.

The EU will only change if we work together with people from across the continent to make it do so.

This week activists, campaigners and politicians from across the continent gather in Berlin to discuss how we’ll win Europe back for the people. For a start that means democratising the EU structures – making top meetings like the EU Council open to the public through livestreaming, giving more power to elected politicians over unelected Commissioners, and ending the culture of secrecy.

It means further clamping down on corporate lobbyists – something that’s already begun in the EU and which Westminster could learn from.

And it means thinking big about EU policies that would make all of our lives better such as cross-border minimum wages (set differently for each country but ensuring that everyone earns enough to get by on where they live). Much is still to be decided – but these talks are a solid start.

On Wednesday the movement for a different kind of EU comes to Britain as a new pro-EU campaign launches in London. The progressive case for British membership of the EU, which has been side-lined for too long in a debate dominated on both sides by big business, is about to be made loud and clear.

If you care about social justice and our environment – and want to make the EU better for all of us – I urge you to join the movement to make another Europe possible.

Caroline Lucas is the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, and former leader of the Green Party.

Find out about the launch of Another Europe in London on Wednesday. Sign up to attend.

Twitter: #DontWalkAway

This article was originally published by openDemocracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.

Greenpeace has installed a life-like ten-metre fracking rig outside the UK Parliament in London to “bring the local impacts of fracking to the heart of democracy.”

The rig emits a realistic flame which is firing up every hour using bio ethanol, while flood lighting and the sound effects of drilling and lorries are reverberating around the House of Commons.

Installed before dawn this morning by operatives in day-glo jackets bearing the ‘frack and go’ name and logo, the drilling rig is still in place this afternoon closely attended by media and curious passers by.

Hannah Martin, Greenpeace campaigner said: “We are here to fight for the future of the English countryside. Ministers are pushing aside local democracy to bulldoze through their unpopular fracking plans.

“We have installed a life-like fracking rig and drill at Parliament Square to show them what people in Lancashire and beyond will have to endure if so-called ‘Communities Minister’ Greg Clark forces fracking on a reluctant nation.”

Greg, ever heard of ‘localism’? Oh yes, you invented it …

The protest and polling results coincide with the first day of the independent Planning Inspectorate inquiry into whether fracking will go ahead in Lancashire.

Energy company Cuadrilla – which is owned by companies based in Australia and the Cayman Islands, a notorious UK tax haven – is appealing against Lancashire county council’s decision to reject its fracking application.

However, Greg Clark, the Communities Minister, has already announced he will have the final say on whether Cuadrilla will be allowed to frack in Lancashire. In a bid to fast track fracking, the government announced last year that he could ignore both the decision by the local council and the Planning Inspectorate.

In a letter sent to Lancashire County Council in November last year, Greg Clark explained: “The reason for this direction is because the drilling appeals involve proposals for exploring and developing shale gas which amount to proposals for development of major importance having more than local significance and proposals which raise important or novel issues of development control, and/or legal difficulties.”

Previously Greg Clark had been vocal in his support for the idea of local decision-making. Back In 2011 he said that local councils should “wield real power.” And last year, Clark told the Local Government Association that they must “Take power now. Don’t let yourself, any longer, be ruled by someone else.”

However it appears that Greg Clark’s ‘localism’ is strictly about local communities right to decide the way the government wants them to.

Minister – come to Lancashire let’s talk fracking!

A protest rally is also taking place today outside Blackpool Football club where the inquiry is being held. Jasber Singh, from Lancashire and part of Frack Free Lancashire said: “I have been involved with anti-fracking community groups in Lancashire for over two years, and the number of groups keeps increasing.

“That’s because we are not going to gain anything from fracking apart from air, noise, land and water pollution that’s bad for our health and the health of the climate. It would pay the Communities Minister to visit some communities in Lancashire rather than ignoring us and our council.”

A new Populus poll released today by Greenpeace shows that nearly two-thirds (62%) of people in the UK think their local council, not central government departments, should decide whether to accept or reject fracking applications in their local area.

Last weekend, campaigners and local people were angered further by a leaked letter from three Cabinet ministers – Liz Truss, Amber Rudd and Greg Clark to George Osborne. The letter suggested that fracking applications could be taken out of local authorities’ control altogether and immediately passed to the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Planning process.

“This is an affront to local democracy and shows a lack of respect for people’s wishes”, said Hannah Martin. “People who love and live in the countryside and who care about climate change will not stand for a government riding roughshod over democracy to industrialise our landscape and damage the climate.”

“We and the government know that most known reserves of fossil fuels must stay in the ground if we are to have any chance of combating climate change. A dash for gas is simply not an environmentally and economically effective strategy to power the UK after the Paris climate agreement.”

Cuadrilla, the biggest UK shale company, is 45% owned by Riverstone, a private equity company fund registered in the Cayman Islands. Another 45% is owned by AJ Lucas, an Australian company, whose largest shareholder, Kerogen Investments, is also registered in the Cayman Islands.

Main source: Greenpeace. See here and here.

I can understand why some people on the left are sceptical about the EU.

Anyone who cares about environmental and social justice only has to take a cursory glance at what’s happening in our continent to realise that the EU isn’t always beneficial to progressive policies here in Britain.

A closer look, however, reveals that the picture is not black and white. Whilst, at present, the EU too often reflects the current British government’s zeal for privatisation and deregulation, historically there is a lot to celebrate.

Even today, our EU membership offers us protection from the Tories’ worst instincts. And – crucially – the EU offers us a way of working across borders to make things better and to achieve social and environmental progress, which simply would not be possible if the UK were to walk away.

TTIP – A taste of things to come if Britain was to go it alone

One cause for scepticism is the transatlantic trade deal, TTIP. This epitomises everything that’s wrong with the EU – and with neoliberal politics in general. Back room decisions, handing power to corporations, and threats to our rights at work and public services.

But those who hope that leaving the EU would make Britain’s trade policy fairer are, to be frank, fooling themselves. The UK has already signed a number of bilateral deals that subject both sides to the dreaded investor state dispute mechanisms (ISDS) which allows companies to sue states for risking their ‘future profits’.

Indeed the Tory Government is a major driving force for TTIP – and David Cameron is one of the deal’s top cheerleaders. With MEPs and German MPs able to access TTIP documents, the buck stops with UK Ministers for the shameful situation that politicians in Westminster cannot.

If we left the EU, then we could be left with what pro-Brexit MPs describe as the ‘WTO Option’. What then? Well if recent trade deals are anything to go by, and with the Tories still in charge, we could then expect the roll out of multiple TTIPs on steroids as Britain negotiated trade deals with countries across the world.

Mounting pressure from citizens, campaigners and progressive politicians across Europe has successfully forced the EU to open up TTIP to more scrutiny. Eventually, our MEPs will vote on the final deal. If we want to stop the rot of damaging trade deals, it’s our responsibility to make sure our elected representatives know that they will not get away with waving TTIP through.

The attack on Greece – right wing Governments enforcing austerity

Another concern for people on the left is Greece and the tragedy which has unfolded there. The imposition of austerity on the country – and the deep damage it’s caused – was certainly enough to make me think twice.

But to lay the blame simplistically on the EU is short-sighted. The real villains are the right wing European governments at the top table. With the European Council made up of ministers from each EU country, it often simply reflects the prevailing currents in European politics.

The imposition of austerity in Greece should not be surprising when you look at Merkel’s right wing government in Germany or indeed the slash and burn policies of the Tories here in Britain.

That’s not to say, of course, that institutions like the European Central Bank or the EU council aren’t anti-democratic – they are. But to give people a real say in Europe we need to prise open the doors of power, not throw away the one structure which has the ability to regulate the excesses of the cross-continental market.

Brexit would do nothing to help the Greek people. We need more pan-European solidarity, resistance, and collaboration – not less.

Environment – cross-border challenges need cross-border solutions

Not infrequently, I’m furious that EU environmental and climate policies don’t go far enough. But it’s important to remember that some of our dirtiest power stations have been closed thanks to EU directives.

Our beaches are cleaner, our air less polluted and, as Mike McCarthy put so eloquently recently, our wildlife is far safer because of EU rules. Only last week the European Parliament backed stronger action on protecting nature. To me it’s obvious that being part of the EU makes sense when it comes to protecting our environment.

Pollution and environmental degradation don’t respect national borders. As an environmentalist, I’d rather be working hard to make sure EU decisions deliver bolder cross-border solutions than spending the next three years scrabbling around to salvage scraps from the Nature Directives.

Doing things differently – a new EU

Ultimately, walking away from the EU would put at risk our rights at work, our environment and our ability to influence the rules that will continue to affect us. Added to that is the profound risk that Brexit poses to our multicultural and multinational society. But if we’re going to stay in the EU we also need a vision of how we can do things differently.

The EU will only change if we work together with people from across the continent to make it do so.

This week activists, campaigners and politicians from across the continent gather in Berlin to discuss how we’ll win Europe back for the people. For a start that means democratising the EU structures – making top meetings like the EU Council open to the public through livestreaming, giving more power to elected politicians over unelected Commissioners, and ending the culture of secrecy.

It means further clamping down on corporate lobbyists – something that’s already begun in the EU and which Westminster could learn from.

And it means thinking big about EU policies that would make all of our lives better such as cross-border minimum wages (set differently for each country but ensuring that everyone earns enough to get by on where they live). Much is still to be decided – but these talks are a solid start.

On Wednesday the movement for a different kind of EU comes to Britain as a new pro-EU campaign launches in London. The progressive case for British membership of the EU, which has been side-lined for too long in a debate dominated on both sides by big business, is about to be made loud and clear.

If you care about social justice and our environment – and want to make the EU better for all of us – I urge you to join the movement to make another Europe possible.

Caroline Lucas is the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, and former leader of the Green Party.

Find out about the launch of Another Europe in London on Wednesday. Sign up to attend.

Twitter: #DontWalkAway

This article was originally published by openDemocracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.