Scientists have warned about the dangers of plastic pollution and microplastics in the environment for a while now.

But most people still aren’t convinced of the link between carelessly discarding a water bottle and damage in the seas.

After all, plastic in the ocean doesn’t have the powerful symbolism of nuclear plants or oil spills: most of it is below the waves, often invisible to the naked eye.

A new documentary feature film, A Plastic Ocean, wants to change all that. It follows several popular films on the oceans that have successfully shifted attitudes and even shaped legislation.

The End of the Line triggered a wave of media attention on unsustainable fishing practices, while SeaWorld finally agreed to halt its orca breeding programme after the ‘Blackfish effect‘.

I’m a media sociologist specialising in science communication. As part of my research I recently spoke to the movie’s producer, former BBC Blue Planet producer Jo Ruxton. She discusses the film, and her hopes that it will create a cultural shift in public perceptions and behaviour concerning plastic pollution.

Plastic, plastic, everywhere …

Lesley Henderson: You’ve always been interested in the ocean through your work as a filmmaker and have spent several years living on islands around the world. Was there something specific that prompted you to create this film?

Jo Ruxton: I’d heard about the so-called ‘Great Pacific Garbage Patch’, a floating continent twice the size of Texas and ten metres deep. I started looking into it but couldn’t find any pictures or anything on Google Earth. I went out to the centre of the North Pacific to look for it on an expedition with scientists and volunteers and but we still couldn’t see it.

Then we started to do surface plankton trawls about 400 miles off San Francisco just to see what was in there. The closer we got to the centre the more plastic we found. Every trawl was coming up jam-packed with plastics but when you actually looked out on the water you could hardly see anything. There were a few floating bits around but it certainly wasn’t a ten metre deep continent.

I talked to the scientists and found out that plastic becomes very brittle in sea water because it’s subjected to sunlight, waves and salt and it takes about 20 years to get from the coast to the centre. It breaks up until it’s smaller and smaller and now of course it’s mixing with the plankton.

That to me was a much more insidious story because if it’s mixing with the plankton it’s clearly getting into the food chain which can’t be good for the plankton and the fish that are feeding on it.

So were there particular visual challenges of filming microplastics? How did you overcome these?

It’s the images that sell a film, if you don’t have those, you’re dead in the water. So we thought, what about the effects on big charismatic animals, the baleen whales that feed on plankton? We used interesting scientists: seeing a woman walk along the side of the jetty with a crossbow slung over her shoulder and finding out she’s a professor about to go and shoot dolphins to take blubber samples makes you sit up and watch.

Another scientist was doing night dives and trawls looking at lantern fish travelling up from the depths and finding pieces of plastic in their stomachs. The visual images of squid hunting at night in torch light are quite special. To get people interested it was a case of finding the right animals, getting the images, and getting some fun stuff in there including ‘boys toys’ like a submersible.

Toxic shock

How did you approach presenting the scientific information about the risks to human health posed by microplastics?

We used lay people (champion free diver Tanya Streeter and journalist Craig Leeson) to ask the questions. Though we’ve really simplified the science, every statement we make has been backed by peer-reviewed papers.

This link between chemicals leaching out of plastics and plastics attracting chemicals was particularly difficult to explain. Tuvalu was the most important sequence: here was a place drowning under its own plastic waste. They’re just burning it, and kids are playing with bonfires as they come home from school.

We filmed a family group of 30 and five had cancer and two more had died of it in the previous 18 months. We know that furans and dioxins have been linked to cancer and we know that those gases are produced when we burn plastic but no one’s linked the two.

In the film you show deposit schemes in Germany where people receive money for recycling plastic bottles – was part of your aim to try to create value for plastic?

The movie has for key messages: it’s about health, value, charismatic animals and it’s about the environment. I care about all four but even if people don’t care about their own health they might care about money, if they don’t care about people and the environment then they care about money.

Cultural and legal change: define plastic as ‘hazardous waste’?

Why a feature documentary film rather than other forms of media or education?

There are a lot of short films on the internet but I think there is now more of an appetite for big environmental films. The End of the Line brought huge change, the whole Hugh’s Fish Fight changed policy in Europe, Blackfish too – it’s not just the tree huggers who are going to see it. An Inconvenient Truth was basically a power point presentation but was powerful enough to get a lot of people sitting up and thinking.

So why not have one about plastic pollution? It is a growing concern, we’re finding out more and more about it and perhaps this is the way forward. I can go and give lectures to 100 people at a time but a successful film can reach many more people.

How do you envisage that audiences will engage with A Plastic Ocean?

I think it will be an eye opener. One of the reasons environmental films are so hard to get commissioned is because they’re very doom and gloom. It’s people who already care who come and watch them and they come out feeling like they’ve been punched in the stomach and guilty every time they eat a fish or start the car up.

But the last 20 minutes of this film is dedicated to ‘what we can do’ in terms of legislation, technology, or changes in our behaviour.

So what you’re trying to do is trigger a cultural change?

Yes – cultural change is probably the biggest thing along with legislation. If there is an oil spill it’s all hands on deck to clean it up and restore the habitat. If plastic was reclassified as hazardous that’s exactly what we would be doing: restoring habitats and doing something positive with all that plastic.

The film: ‘Plastic Ocean‘.

Lesley Henderson is Senior Lecturer in Sociology & Communications, Institute for Environment, Health & Societies, Brunel University London.

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

Carrie was joined by actress Jenny Seagrove, singer Sandi Thom, wildlife presenter Anneka Svenska, dog behaviourist Victoria Stilwell, Made in Chelsea’s Lucy Watson and TV vet Marc Abraham. MP Rob Flello tried to deliver the petition, but to everyone’s shock, the Chinese Embassy door stayed firmly shut. Two heavily armed guards were posted outside.

Sadly the number of signatures almost matches the amount of dogs and cats killed annually every June, when millions of animals are snatched ruthlessly off the streets of China, some pets still wearing their collars, crushed into chicken crates and transported hundreds of miles without food or water to their torturous end in Yulin.

When they arrive, they are traded off to vendors who have been known to extend the length of death by causing pain to the animals in a bid to trigger the release of more adrenalin which is said to tenderise the meat. Photos of these horrors are on the Internet and shared regularly – they include showing dogs being boiled alive, fur burn off while the animal is still conscious, dogs being skinned alive, beaten over the head with metal hooks and throats being slit with dull blades.

Marc Ching of The Animal Hope and Wellness Foundation has travelled to Yulin and reported on his website that he has witnessed crucified dogs nailed to walls, as well as animals left to die slowly in a loose noose so as to induce fear and panic. He has also seen vendors casually skin victims alive while smoking cigarettes and chatting like it’s an every day job. Dogs can be seen wagging tails to the bitter end, as they have been raised as much loved pets in households around China. Marc Ching is out in Yulin again this year and HSI has offered to support his work.

Last year, The Chinese Government washed its hands of any named association with the festival, however it has done nothing to actively shut it down. Until the Government bans it or we see a change in people’s attitudes in China, this cruel event will continue each year.

There is good news though, as numbers of animal activists in China is on the rise with many citizens stopping bikes and trucks carrying crushed dogs and cats in order to liberate the victims. Hope lies with the younger generations who find it hard to tolerate this violent belief system.

To highlight why the Yulin festival should be banned by China, HSI has revealed five key facts about the annual slaughter:

1. It’s not a traditional festival but was ‘invented’ in 2010 by dog traders to boost profits;

2. Before the festival started, Yulin had no history of mass dog slaughter and consumption;

3. Every year, 30 million dogs are killed across Asia for their meat, some 10-20 million in China alone, and thousands die just for Yulin;

4. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has warned that the dog trade spreads rabies and increases the risk of cholera 20-fold;

5. Dog meat is eaten by no more than 20 per cent of the Chinese population.

Despite the petition not being accepted by the London branch of the Chinese Embassy, Humane Society International will persist with this campaign and the petition is now being posted to the London Embassy. The original will be presented to The Chinese Government directly by an HSI representative.

Source: Anneka Svenska

Chinese demand for medicines, curios and fancy foods is having devastating impacts on the world’s wildlife, but that’s not news to us.

We know that it is driving tigers and elephants from the face of the Earth, and that creatures as diverse as pangolins, seahorses, sharks and hornbills are suffering catastrophic declines.

But for every traded shark fin there must be a shark hunter, and we rarely get to hear the human side of the story.

Our research, published this week in the journal Geoforum, shows how Chinese demand for shark fins and sea cucumbers has affected traditional fishers in Madagascar.

The Vezo live along the country’s southwest coast and derive their living entirely from the sea. Most of the fishing methods they use have remained unchanged for generations. Their boats have no motors, they dive without tanks, and many still make their nets by hand. What has changed is trade.

Growing demand driving new migrations

Two generations ago most Vezo fished purely for their own plates, but global demand for seafood has brought them firmly into the cash economy. Having exhausted the world’s more accessible waters, Chinese trade networks for shark fin and sea cucumber reached the region in the 1990s.

For Vezo fishers, animals they had previously ignored or avoided became incredibly valuable. But just as had happened elsewhere, they soon got fished out, and the fisheries collapsed. Undeterred, the Vezo simply moved along the coast, following the dwindling stocks into unfished waters.

I carried out the research with Dr Garth Cripps, who joined a group of Vezo fishers on their migration from the village of Ampasilava on the island continent’s southwest coast. Their destination – the rich fishing grounds of the Barren Isles, a remote archipelago about 300 miles north.

Travelling in a laka, a traditional wooden sailing canoe just three feet wide and 20 feet long, the group made landfall on islands and in mainland villages along the way, where Garth discussed the migration and its impacts with both migrant and resident fisher communities.

Astonishing conditions

The conditions Garth heard about – and encountered – when he reached the Barren Isles astonished him.

Some islands were just subtidal cays, simple sand bars that were completely inundated in the highest tides, but that didn’t stop hundreds of migrants from settling there for months at a time – when the tides came in they would simply pack up their camps in their laka, drop anchor, and sit in their boats till the waters receded. So what would drive people to endure such conditions?

“Here the Vezo live on the very margins of society, leading a traditional life in the most remote places yet highly connected to global markets”, says Garth.

We found that the migrants were affected by both ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors. On the push side, overfishing and a rapidly growing coastal population made life in their home villages extremely difficult. But it was the lucrative nature of shark fin and sea cucumber that really drove them northwards, to waters where they could still be found.

Garth found that a single sea cucumber could fetch over £8 while 1kg of high quality shark fin could reach almost £70, enormous riches when the average income in the migrants’ home villages is just £1.16 a day.

“While life on the islands is tough, the migrants face a bleak life in their home villages where fish stocks are close to collapse. Migration has become a critical way to make enough money so that they can look after their families”, says Garth. “Stopping migration would just make fishers even poorer.”

The impacts of the migrants are a concern to conservationists, since the Barren Isles are one of the richest and most intact marine ecosystems in all of Madagascar. However the area also faces a bigger problem – gangs of illegal divers, equipped with motorboats and scuba equipment, who can hoover up sea cucumbers in much greater quantities. Though their actions are illegal, they operate with impunity in a country that lacks the capacity to enforce its fishing regulations.

Expanding marine protected areas

In December 2014, Madagascar’s president Hery Rajaonarimampianina declared his government’s bold and ambitious new vision – to triple the coverage of the country’s marine protected areas. Marine protected areas come in various forms, but can roughly be divided into strict, ‘no-take’ areas where all fishing is outlawed, and those where sustainable forms of fishing are allowed.

While no-take areas are generally implemented by governments and don’t always account for the needs of local fishers, a new, more participatory model has been spreading across Madagascar and the Western Indian Ocean over recent years. Locally managed marine areas (LMMAs) place the power to decide on fisheries management in the hands of the fishers themselves, and have so far proved remarkably effective.

Now the largest LMMA in the Indian Ocean is being implemented in the Barren Isles and the model faces its sternest test. Can migrant and resident fishers work together to keep the illegal divers out?

The paper: ‘Human migration and marine protected areas: Insights from Vezo fishers in Madagascar‘ is by Garth Cripps and Charlie J. Gardnera, and is published in Geoforum.

Also on The Ecologist: ‘Sustainable abundance – rebuilding fisheries to support coastal communities in Madagascar‘ by Alasdair Harris.

Dr Charlie Gardner is an interdisciplinary conservation scientist and practitioner with a particular focus on Madagascar and the Western Indian Ocean. He is an Honorary Research Fellow at the Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology (University of Kent), and his principal research interests include protected area management, small-scale fisheries, and approaches to span the divide between conservation science and practice.

Books: Charlie’s book ‘Life Amongst the Thorns‘, co-authored with the photographer Louise Jasper, seeks to highlight the incredible biodiversity and conservation issues of Madagascar’s spectacular spiny forest.

Blue Ventures: Charlie is a long-term partner of, and adviser to, Blue Ventures, which develops transformative approaches for catalysing and sustaining locally led marine conservation. They work in places where the ocean is vital to local cultures and economies, and are committed to protecting marine biodiversity in ways that benefit coastal people.

Spiritual ecology is the knowing that we are all part of one living, spiritual being. It is the knowing of the connection of our soul and the soul of the world: The understanding that our fate is entwined with the fate of life on earth.

The rupture of this spiritual connection to the earth, and the resultant mind-set which sees the human experience as separate to life on earth, viewing nature as something external to our lives that can be controlled or managed, is fundamental in how we are to understand the breakdown of ecological systems around the world. We must move beyond the thinking that has created the problem. We must move beyond the logic of capital.

This home is on the site of an abandoned market garden, once agricultural land. Our protection of this land, to preserve it for agricultural use, means resistance, resulting in an antagonistic relationship with the landowners and the police. We do not recognise the private ownership of the land we live on. In this capitalist world system, where private property is enshrined by law over the rights of nature, we should confront the possession of land where we can. Within our spiritual ecology, we must begin to challenge the commodification of nature. This must be central in the ‘great turning’ (Macy 2007) we are to make.

Living at Grow Heathrow has been a spiritual experience. We are actively rebelling against the wasted values of materialism, the capitalist world view which seeks to objectify nature.

We attempt to have a relationship with our home amongst the Elder tree, viewing the land we live on as sacred; this means rejecting the old habits of objectifying land, claiming it for an investment or naming it for empire. In this city of London, we see this ‘extractivist mind-set’ in overdrive; land and property too often does not serve this city’s children, their families and communities, but is simply banked on, viewed as a relatively safe and secure investment.

At Grow Heathrow, we do not own the land, it does not belong to us, there is only a relationship with the land, with the Elder tree. This is a relationship we are only just discovering, one that can nourish us. We are learning how the calendula can heal our skin. We are learning how the elder berries can protect us from viral infections.

We have become more attuned to the workings of the earth, the shifts in weather patterns on this island and how this influences our daily activity. Sometimes one experiences this in simple ways, like whether we need to water our plants, whether we have enough energy gained from the wind turbine and solar panel to power tonight’s party.

Living here involves developing a greater understanding of earth’s rhythms. We mark the equinox and solstice with celebration. This is a reminder of our connection with nature, the rhythms of growing food. It is our attempt to honour and give respect to nature.

Our compost toilets reaffirm our cyclical relationship with resources; ‘humanure’ is used as a mulch for trees and flowers. Living in a community garden growing organic fruit and vegetables, one becomes more conscious of the health of the soil.

Whilst we learn organic food production on our occupied land, the objective is not to sustain ourselves solely from the land we live on. With the amount of land we have, and the number of mouths to feed, this is neither possible nor our primary aim. However, the sharing and giving of food is central in bringing people together; this gesture can be conceived as a spiritual component of our community work. Collecting waste food from wholesale markets and supermarket bins, we make use of this ‘waste’, serving to volunteers, those who visit us for the day or attend our workshops.

We aspire to replicate nature and the gift economy, offering our events and resources for free. Nature has a gift economy. One can see this in how an apple tree gives its fruit with unconditional love. We must aspire to provide food, knowledge, festivity and love without expecting anything in return.

Moving to Grow Heathrow has had its challenges for those who have been brought up with western comforts; heating our homes without burning fossil fuels has been a steep learning curve. There is much to learn here. A cold night can connect one to the harsher reality of living on the streets of London. Just as fasting can be a spiritual tool to bring one closer to those without food, being inflicted more acutely by a cold winter snap makes one empathise with those without shelter.

There is an emphasis on preserving the wildlife that surrounds our self-built dwellings and communal spaces. There is a tension between the need for shelter, the need to create infrastructure for a community numbering 40 to 50 at times, and cutting back wildlife. This is in the context of a housing crisis in London, with brutal evictions making people homeless. We’ve taken in many. There is a need for land, to house people. We have discussions attempting to overcome this issue. In the practise of our democracy, the care and respect for other species is present. But we are learning – we will make mistakes.

The straw-bale house could be described as a sacred building, the temple of our community. A building, which was constructed with a respect and reverence for nature, using locally sourced, organic materials. When meditating in the straw-bale house, one cannot erase this memory from the depths of the mind, the memory of love and care that went into the building. The house is surrounded by Elder trees, providing homes for a variety of birds; their singing surrounding us as we sit in stillness.

With the sometimes daunting challenge of facing up to corporate greed and state imperialism, meditation can help us find clarity and conviction. The state of peril that we find ourselves in, with 6 degrees of planetary warming a real possibility, spelling the widespread extinction of species on earth – if we are not to despair, we must ‘touch eternity in the present moment, with our in-breath and out-breath’ (Thich Nhat Hanh 2012).

If we are to truly acknowledge our intimate relationship between our bodies and the health of the soul of the world, how are we to persist obediently to the norms of modern society that are destroying our health? Understanding of this intimate relationship must translate into a fierce love to protect it, a love whose reach moves beyond the legal authority of any given land.

We must protect nature. We must protect ourselves. The love we have for each other and life on earth must result in a fierce resolve to protect us. Sometimes we will have to act in a way which sacrifices our legal rights for the rights of other humans, for other life to flourish. We must embrace an antinomian spiritual ecology, whereby our ecological responsibility demands a rejection of civil legal authorities and their laws. With a spiritual ecology, this act no longer is sacrificial, but a self-interested act; an eroding detached ego-self making way for an identity as one with nature. In our movements we can garner great strength and resilience with this understanding of oneness.

One indicator that the earth is degrading is the lack of empathy and love for those most vulnerable in society. This is a cause anyone concerned with our collective spiritual awakening should engage with. We can measure the greatness of a society by how it treats those most poor and marginalised. This is why we must wed any ecological resistance to struggles against austerity in the UK, and the oppressive, egotistical ideology which serves it. Struggles against patriarchy, racism and colonialism cannot be detached from our spiritual work. If we begin not to care for our own kind, how will we develop empathy for life as a whole? A lack of empathy for humankind is a signpost for the degradation of our ecology.

The change that is required of us, to become more fully awaken ecologically minded humans, cannot come from a top down approach. The change we need cannot come from government alone. We will rely on the local actions of all of us. We depend on all of us individually and in communities, making self-determination the centre of our activity, to weaken the tyrant of capital that enchains us.

We must no longer prop up capital, or any power structures which oppress human beings or exploit life on earth. Our driving momentum is not to convince those in power to change their direction. It is often very tempting to be lured into the logic of the state and its power. Instead we hope to transcend the logic of party politics, enhance a culture of DIY, encouraging others to take politics into their own hand.

We must engage with experiences which teach us how to commune together, how to live together as an interdependent community. There are emotional resources and wisdom one can acquire from living communally, or in Grow Heathrow’s case, living in a squatted eco community. This experience, that is both taxing and enriching, can help us develop the kind of compassion we will need to embrace each other in wider society and the ecology as a whole.

Part of our project as spiritual ecologists is to undermine the political narrative that justifies our exploitative economies. The ideology that believes we cannot act as ‘we’, but as self-centred individuals. This notion has to be undermined, we must be part of a political project which demonstrates that human beings can and are motivated by far nobler causes than financial gain; instead, being driven by mutual aid and cooperation, care and compassion for humans and other beings.

We must reawaken the identity which wishes to respect the ancient soul of the world, ensure this life giving force prevails over the competitive, industrialist psyche that has dominated capitalist economic production. We can hope that the struggle against corporate interests and the state can reinvigorate our spirit, allowing us to become more centred to the needs of the global ecology within our political framework. We can hope that by mobilising in solidarity against the objectification of nature, we can grow a greater ecological awareness amongst humanity.

Everything we achieve at Grow Heathrow is only with the comradery of trusted allies who inspire as much as they are friends. Living there has demanded everything of us, trials that have touched our whole humanity. I am continually moved and inspired by the individuals who move here. They have made a spiritual step, for they have recognised the emptiness of materialism, how the pursuit of financial gain bankrupts the soul. By moving to Grow Heathrow, one has placed greater importance on human bonds, the need to take care of human beings, and take care of nature. This is a step that I admire in everyone who has moved there, one that I admire in all human beings.

Edward Thacker

References

Thich Nhat Hanh. 2012. Thich Nhat Hanh: in 100 years there may be no more humans on planet earth.

Macy, J. 2007. The Great Turning. Berkeley: Centre for Ecoliteracy

Spiritual ecology is the knowing that we are all part of one living, spiritual being. It is the knowing of the connection of our soul and the soul of the world: The understanding that our fate is entwined with the fate of life on earth.

The rupture of this spiritual connection to the earth, and the resultant mind-set which sees the human experience as separate to life on earth, viewing nature as something external to our lives that can be controlled or managed, is fundamental in how we are to understand the breakdown of ecological systems around the world. We must move beyond the thinking that has created the problem. We must move beyond the logic of capital.

This home is on the site of an abandoned market garden, once agricultural land. Our protection of this land, to preserve it for agricultural use, means resistance, resulting in an antagonistic relationship with the landowners and the police. We do not recognise the private ownership of the land we live on. In this capitalist world system, where private property is enshrined by law over the rights of nature, we should confront the possession of land where we can. Within our spiritual ecology, we must begin to challenge the commodification of nature. This must be central in the ‘great turning’ (Macy 2007) we are to make.

Living at Grow Heathrow has been a spiritual experience. We are actively rebelling against the wasted values of materialism, the capitalist world view which seeks to objectify nature.

We attempt to have a relationship with our home amongst the Elder tree, viewing the land we live on as sacred; this means rejecting the old habits of objectifying land, claiming it for an investment or naming it for empire. In this city of London, we see this ‘extractivist mind-set’ in overdrive; land and property too often does not serve this city’s children, their families and communities, but is simply banked on, viewed as a relatively safe and secure investment.

At Grow Heathrow, we do not own the land, it does not belong to us, there is only a relationship with the land, with the Elder tree. This is a relationship we are only just discovering, one that can nourish us. We are learning how the calendula can heal our skin. We are learning how the elder berries can protect us from viral infections.

We have become more attuned to the workings of the earth, the shifts in weather patterns on this island and how this influences our daily activity. Sometimes one experiences this in simple ways, like whether we need to water our plants, whether we have enough energy gained from the wind turbine and solar panel to power tonight’s party.

Living here involves developing a greater understanding of earth’s rhythms. We mark the equinox and solstice with celebration. This is a reminder of our connection with nature, the rhythms of growing food. It is our attempt to honour and give respect to nature.

Our compost toilets reaffirm our cyclical relationship with resources; ‘humanure’ is used as a mulch for trees and flowers. Living in a community garden growing organic fruit and vegetables, one becomes more conscious of the health of the soil.

Whilst we learn organic food production on our occupied land, the objective is not to sustain ourselves solely from the land we live on. With the amount of land we have, and the number of mouths to feed, this is neither possible nor our primary aim. However, the sharing and giving of food is central in bringing people together; this gesture can be conceived as a spiritual component of our community work. Collecting waste food from wholesale markets and supermarket bins, we make use of this ‘waste’, serving to volunteers, those who visit us for the day or attend our workshops.

We aspire to replicate nature and the gift economy, offering our events and resources for free. Nature has a gift economy. One can see this in how an apple tree gives its fruit with unconditional love. We must aspire to provide food, knowledge, festivity and love without expecting anything in return.

Moving to Grow Heathrow has had its challenges for those who have been brought up with western comforts; heating our homes without burning fossil fuels has been a steep learning curve. There is much to learn here. A cold night can connect one to the harsher reality of living on the streets of London. Just as fasting can be a spiritual tool to bring one closer to those without food, being inflicted more acutely by a cold winter snap makes one empathise with those without shelter.

There is an emphasis on preserving the wildlife that surrounds our self-built dwellings and communal spaces. There is a tension between the need for shelter, the need to create infrastructure for a community numbering 40 to 50 at times, and cutting back wildlife. This is in the context of a housing crisis in London, with brutal evictions making people homeless. We’ve taken in many. There is a need for land, to house people. We have discussions attempting to overcome this issue. In the practise of our democracy, the care and respect for other species is present. But we are learning – we will make mistakes.

The straw-bale house could be described as a sacred building, the temple of our community. A building, which was constructed with a respect and reverence for nature, using locally sourced, organic materials. When meditating in the straw-bale house, one cannot erase this memory from the depths of the mind, the memory of love and care that went into the building. The house is surrounded by Elder trees, providing homes for a variety of birds; their singing surrounding us as we sit in stillness.

With the sometimes daunting challenge of facing up to corporate greed and state imperialism, meditation can help us find clarity and conviction. The state of peril that we find ourselves in, with 6 degrees of planetary warming a real possibility, spelling the widespread extinction of species on earth – if we are not to despair, we must ‘touch eternity in the present moment, with our in-breath and out-breath’ (Thich Nhat Hanh 2012).

If we are to truly acknowledge our intimate relationship between our bodies and the health of the soul of the world, how are we to persist obediently to the norms of modern society that are destroying our health? Understanding of this intimate relationship must translate into a fierce love to protect it, a love whose reach moves beyond the legal authority of any given land.

We must protect nature. We must protect ourselves. The love we have for each other and life on earth must result in a fierce resolve to protect us. Sometimes we will have to act in a way which sacrifices our legal rights for the rights of other humans, for other life to flourish. We must embrace an antinomian spiritual ecology, whereby our ecological responsibility demands a rejection of civil legal authorities and their laws. With a spiritual ecology, this act no longer is sacrificial, but a self-interested act; an eroding detached ego-self making way for an identity as one with nature. In our movements we can garner great strength and resilience with this understanding of oneness.

One indicator that the earth is degrading is the lack of empathy and love for those most vulnerable in society. This is a cause anyone concerned with our collective spiritual awakening should engage with. We can measure the greatness of a society by how it treats those most poor and marginalised. This is why we must wed any ecological resistance to struggles against austerity in the UK, and the oppressive, egotistical ideology which serves it. Struggles against patriarchy, racism and colonialism cannot be detached from our spiritual work. If we begin not to care for our own kind, how will we develop empathy for life as a whole? A lack of empathy for humankind is a signpost for the degradation of our ecology.

The change that is required of us, to become more fully awaken ecologically minded humans, cannot come from a top down approach. The change we need cannot come from government alone. We will rely on the local actions of all of us. We depend on all of us individually and in communities, making self-determination the centre of our activity, to weaken the tyrant of capital that enchains us.

We must no longer prop up capital, or any power structures which oppress human beings or exploit life on earth. Our driving momentum is not to convince those in power to change their direction. It is often very tempting to be lured into the logic of the state and its power. Instead we hope to transcend the logic of party politics, enhance a culture of DIY, encouraging others to take politics into their own hand.

We must engage with experiences which teach us how to commune together, how to live together as an interdependent community. There are emotional resources and wisdom one can acquire from living communally, or in Grow Heathrow’s case, living in a squatted eco community. This experience, that is both taxing and enriching, can help us develop the kind of compassion we will need to embrace each other in wider society and the ecology as a whole.

Part of our project as spiritual ecologists is to undermine the political narrative that justifies our exploitative economies. The ideology that believes we cannot act as ‘we’, but as self-centred individuals. This notion has to be undermined, we must be part of a political project which demonstrates that human beings can and are motivated by far nobler causes than financial gain; instead, being driven by mutual aid and cooperation, care and compassion for humans and other beings.

We must reawaken the identity which wishes to respect the ancient soul of the world, ensure this life giving force prevails over the competitive, industrialist psyche that has dominated capitalist economic production. We can hope that the struggle against corporate interests and the state can reinvigorate our spirit, allowing us to become more centred to the needs of the global ecology within our political framework. We can hope that by mobilising in solidarity against the objectification of nature, we can grow a greater ecological awareness amongst humanity.

Everything we achieve at Grow Heathrow is only with the comradery of trusted allies who inspire as much as they are friends. Living there has demanded everything of us, trials that have touched our whole humanity. I am continually moved and inspired by the individuals who move here. They have made a spiritual step, for they have recognised the emptiness of materialism, how the pursuit of financial gain bankrupts the soul. By moving to Grow Heathrow, one has placed greater importance on human bonds, the need to take care of human beings, and take care of nature. This is a step that I admire in everyone who has moved there, one that I admire in all human beings.

Edward Thacker

References

Thich Nhat Hanh. 2012. Thich Nhat Hanh: in 100 years there may be no more humans on planet earth.

Macy, J. 2007. The Great Turning. Berkeley: Centre for Ecoliteracy

The European Parliament today voted overwhelmingly to accept a highly critical report by the EU Development Committee on the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition (NAFSN) that calls on the EU and its member states to cease funding it.

The New Alliance is a controversial aid initiative, supported by major agribusiness enterprises, that has received $1.1 billion from the EU’s own aid directorate and £600 million from the UK international aid department DFID.

In its conclusion the report “severely questions the ability of mega-PPPs such as NAFSN to contribute to poverty reduction and food security, as the poorest communities risk to bear the brunt of social and environmental risks associated with it.

“Given the existing deficiencies, the rapporteur believes that the EU and its Member States should stop its current support to NAFSN.

“Instead, both donors and national governments should invest in a model of agriculture which is sustainable, pro-smallholder farming, pro-women, and which unlocks the potential of domestic and regional markets so as to benefit family farmers and provide quality food for consumers at accessible prices …

“Official Development Aid (ODA) should serve the goal of poverty reduction, not the interests of EU trade policy. The rapporteur believes that the EU should not use ODA to support transnational companies operating as monopolies or in cartels which contribute to undermining the local private sector, thus endangering family farmers and smallholders.”

By agribusiness, for agribusiness

Founded in 2012, the ‘New Alliance’ is aimed at the commercialisation of African agriculture. It seeks to open up the continent to agriusiness and to encourage small farmers to raise production using expensive inputs such as fertilizer, pesticides and high-yielding proprietary seeds, including GMOs.

The New Alliance brings together corporate investment with aid money from G7 countries and the European Union, with its stated aim to lift 50 million people out of poverty in 10 African countries. In exchange for aid investment, African countries undergo a number of policy reforms to ensure a more business friendly environment to benefit the investors – among them fertilizer giant Yara International, Syngenta, Monsanto, Coca-Cola and Nestle.

It is based on the assumption that corporate investment in agriculture will increase production and automatically improve food security and reduce poverty. But the initiative has been widely criticised by civil society organisations across the world.

Not only has it failed to address poverty or hunger, but the scheme has facilitated the grabbing of land and natural resources, undermined small-scale farmers and their right to adequate food and nutrition, and accelerated seed privatisation.

The report, which was commissioned earlier in the year, highlighted numerous concerns about the scheme, including:

• the introduction and spread of certified seeds in Africa increases smallholder dependence, makes indebtedness more probable, and erodes seed diversity;
• the need for EU Member States to invest in agro-ecological farming practices in developing countries;
• the need for independent grievance mechanisms for those communities affected by land dispossession;
• the lack of consultation with civil society groups from Africa before the launch of the scheme;
• the flawed assumption that corporate investment in agriculture automatically improves food security and nutrition and reduces poverty.

The plan: Green Revolution part 2

In its Explanatory Statement the EU report sets out the heart of the problem: “NAFSN aims to replicate in Africa the model of the 1960s/1970s Asian ‘Green Revolution’, based on monoculture, mechanisation, biotechnology, dependence on fertilisers, long distribution channels and the production of export crops. The limits of this approach are well known, particularly the associated environmental risks.

“Moreover, the agreed policies in host countries are meant to create a business-friendly environment through reforms of infrastructure, tax, land or trade policies; easier access to ‘idle’ land for long-term lease; and regulatory reforms in the area of seeds to strengthen intellectual property rights of plant breeders.

The report also draws attention to the New Alliance’s most fundamental contradiction: its total exclusion of the very people the initiative is ostensibly designed to help:

“Strikingly, smallholders were barely consulted in the creation of the CCFs although they are supposed to be the ultimate beneficiaries of NAFSN. Consequently, NAFSN has been heavily criticised by civil society, public figures like the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food and by African small-scale farmers themselves. They warn that NAFSN risks facilitating land grabs, to further marginalise small-scale producers and women, while supporting unsustainable farming …

“Family farmers and smallholders are the main investors in African agriculture, and provide over 60% of employment in SubSaharan Africa. They have demonstrated their ability to increase food production sustainably (often through agro-ecological practices), to diversify production, to contribute to rural development, to increase incomes and, in turn, to help reduce poverty.

“Instead of supporting NAFSN’s model of ‘modern’, ‘business-oriented’ agriculture based on large-scale industrial farming, your rapporteur, in line with recommendations of UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food and the 2009 International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), calls on African governments to invest in family farming and agroecology.”

Not ‘aid’ but ‘a means of promotion for the companies involved’

The New Alliance has also been slated by Olivier De Schutter, the former special rapporteur to the UN on food security, who wrote his own highly critical review of its methods and performance.

And in 2015, an independent audit of the UK’s aid partnerships with corporate partners singled out the New Alliance as being particularly ineffective. The report suggested that the £600 million that the UK had poured into the scheme served as “as little more than a means of promotion for the companies involved and a chance to increase their influence in policy debates”.

Aisha Dowell, a food campaigner with Global Justice Now said: “This is the most high profile and damning report so far of the New Alliance, and proves that this is a scheme that has been cooked up to benefit big agribusiness companies rather than to help small-scale farmers or vulnerable communities.”

There needs to be an urgent inquiry as to why DfID is continuing to support such a fundamentally flawed initiative, she added: “There’s plenty of good reasons why the UK should be committed to contributing a fixed amount of GDP in aid money, but we need to be critically examining how that money is spent. The current fixation on corporate partnerships is based on an ideological vision of development that that is dangerously dated. 
 
“Small scale farmers across the globe produce 70% of the world’s food, often using techniques that are much more sustainable and climate-friendly than big agribusiness. There are plenty of ways that aid money could be used to improve the lives and livelihoods of these people. But the New Alliance is doing exactly the opposite by facilitating big agribusiness’ takeover of food systems in different African countries.”

The report: ‘Report on the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition‘ (2015/2277(INI)) Committee on Development is written by Maria Heubuch as Rapporteur and was today adopted as the official view of the European Parliament.

Oliver Tickell is Contributing Editor at The Ecologist.

Spiritual ecology is the knowing that we are all part of one living, spiritual being. It is the knowing of the connection of our soul and the soul of the world: The understanding that our fate is entwined with the fate of life on earth.

The rupture of this spiritual connection to the earth, and the resultant mind-set which sees the human experience as separate to life on earth, viewing nature as something external to our lives that can be controlled or managed, is fundamental in how we are to understand the breakdown of ecological systems around the world. We must move beyond the thinking that has created the problem. We must move beyond the logic of capital.

This home is on the site of an abandoned market garden, once agricultural land. Our protection of this land, to preserve it for agricultural use, means resistance, resulting in an antagonistic relationship with the landowners and the police. We do not recognise the private ownership of the land we live on. In this capitalist world system, where private property is enshrined by law over the rights of nature, we should confront the possession of land where we can. Within our spiritual ecology, we must begin to challenge the commodification of nature. This must be central in the ‘great turning’ (Macy 2007) we are to make.

Living at Grow Heathrow has been a spiritual experience. We are actively rebelling against the wasted values of materialism, the capitalist world view which seeks to objectify nature.

We attempt to have a relationship with our home amongst the Elder tree, viewing the land we live on as sacred; this means rejecting the old habits of objectifying land, claiming it for an investment or naming it for empire. In this city of London, we see this ‘extractivist mind-set’ in overdrive; land and property too often does not serve this city’s children, their families and communities, but is simply banked on, viewed as a relatively safe and secure investment.

At Grow Heathrow, we do not own the land, it does not belong to us, there is only a relationship with the land, with the Elder tree. This is a relationship we are only just discovering, one that can nourish us. We are learning how the calendula can heal our skin. We are learning how the elder berries can protect us from viral infections.

We have become more attuned to the workings of the earth, the shifts in weather patterns on this island and how this influences our daily activity. Sometimes one experiences this in simple ways, like whether we need to water our plants, whether we have enough energy gained from the wind turbine and solar panel to power tonight’s party.

Living here involves developing a greater understanding of earth’s rhythms. We mark the equinox and solstice with celebration. This is a reminder of our connection with nature, the rhythms of growing food. It is our attempt to honour and give respect to nature.

Our compost toilets reaffirm our cyclical relationship with resources; ‘humanure’ is used as a mulch for trees and flowers. Living in a community garden growing organic fruit and vegetables, one becomes more conscious of the health of the soil.

Whilst we learn organic food production on our occupied land, the objective is not to sustain ourselves solely from the land we live on. With the amount of land we have, and the number of mouths to feed, this is neither possible nor our primary aim. However, the sharing and giving of food is central in bringing people together; this gesture can be conceived as a spiritual component of our community work. Collecting waste food from wholesale markets and supermarket bins, we make use of this ‘waste’, serving to volunteers, those who visit us for the day or attend our workshops.

We aspire to replicate nature and the gift economy, offering our events and resources for free. Nature has a gift economy. One can see this in how an apple tree gives its fruit with unconditional love. We must aspire to provide food, knowledge, festivity and love without expecting anything in return.

Moving to Grow Heathrow has had its challenges for those who have been brought up with western comforts; heating our homes without burning fossil fuels has been a steep learning curve. There is much to learn here. A cold night can connect one to the harsher reality of living on the streets of London. Just as fasting can be a spiritual tool to bring one closer to those without food, being inflicted more acutely by a cold winter snap makes one empathise with those without shelter.

There is an emphasis on preserving the wildlife that surrounds our self-built dwellings and communal spaces. There is a tension between the need for shelter, the need to create infrastructure for a community numbering 40 to 50 at times, and cutting back wildlife. This is in the context of a housing crisis in London, with brutal evictions making people homeless. We’ve taken in many. There is a need for land, to house people. We have discussions attempting to overcome this issue. In the practise of our democracy, the care and respect for other species is present. But we are learning – we will make mistakes.

The straw-bale house could be described as a sacred building, the temple of our community. A building, which was constructed with a respect and reverence for nature, using locally sourced, organic materials. When meditating in the straw-bale house, one cannot erase this memory from the depths of the mind, the memory of love and care that went into the building. The house is surrounded by Elder trees, providing homes for a variety of birds; their singing surrounding us as we sit in stillness.

With the sometimes daunting challenge of facing up to corporate greed and state imperialism, meditation can help us find clarity and conviction. The state of peril that we find ourselves in, with 6 degrees of planetary warming a real possibility, spelling the widespread extinction of species on earth – if we are not to despair, we must ‘touch eternity in the present moment, with our in-breath and out-breath’ (Thich Nhat Hanh 2012).

If we are to truly acknowledge our intimate relationship between our bodies and the health of the soul of the world, how are we to persist obediently to the norms of modern society that are destroying our health? Understanding of this intimate relationship must translate into a fierce love to protect it, a love whose reach moves beyond the legal authority of any given land.

We must protect nature. We must protect ourselves. The love we have for each other and life on earth must result in a fierce resolve to protect us. Sometimes we will have to act in a way which sacrifices our legal rights for the rights of other humans, for other life to flourish. We must embrace an antinomian spiritual ecology, whereby our ecological responsibility demands a rejection of civil legal authorities and their laws. With a spiritual ecology, this act no longer is sacrificial, but a self-interested act; an eroding detached ego-self making way for an identity as one with nature. In our movements we can garner great strength and resilience with this understanding of oneness.

One indicator that the earth is degrading is the lack of empathy and love for those most vulnerable in society. This is a cause anyone concerned with our collective spiritual awakening should engage with. We can measure the greatness of a society by how it treats those most poor and marginalised. This is why we must wed any ecological resistance to struggles against austerity in the UK, and the oppressive, egotistical ideology which serves it. Struggles against patriarchy, racism and colonialism cannot be detached from our spiritual work. If we begin not to care for our own kind, how will we develop empathy for life as a whole? A lack of empathy for humankind is a signpost for the degradation of our ecology.

The change that is required of us, to become more fully awaken ecologically minded humans, cannot come from a top down approach. The change we need cannot come from government alone. We will rely on the local actions of all of us. We depend on all of us individually and in communities, making self-determination the centre of our activity, to weaken the tyrant of capital that enchains us.

We must no longer prop up capital, or any power structures which oppress human beings or exploit life on earth. Our driving momentum is not to convince those in power to change their direction. It is often very tempting to be lured into the logic of the state and its power. Instead we hope to transcend the logic of party politics, enhance a culture of DIY, encouraging others to take politics into their own hand.

We must engage with experiences which teach us how to commune together, how to live together as an interdependent community. There are emotional resources and wisdom one can acquire from living communally, or in Grow Heathrow’s case, living in a squatted eco community. This experience, that is both taxing and enriching, can help us develop the kind of compassion we will need to embrace each other in wider society and the ecology as a whole.

Part of our project as spiritual ecologists is to undermine the political narrative that justifies our exploitative economies. The ideology that believes we cannot act as ‘we’, but as self-centred individuals. This notion has to be undermined, we must be part of a political project which demonstrates that human beings can and are motivated by far nobler causes than financial gain; instead, being driven by mutual aid and cooperation, care and compassion for humans and other beings.

We must reawaken the identity which wishes to respect the ancient soul of the world, ensure this life giving force prevails over the competitive, industrialist psyche that has dominated capitalist economic production. We can hope that the struggle against corporate interests and the state can reinvigorate our spirit, allowing us to become more centred to the needs of the global ecology within our political framework. We can hope that by mobilising in solidarity against the objectification of nature, we can grow a greater ecological awareness amongst humanity.

Everything we achieve at Grow Heathrow is only with the comradery of trusted allies who inspire as much as they are friends. Living there has demanded everything of us, trials that have touched our whole humanity. I am continually moved and inspired by the individuals who move here. They have made a spiritual step, for they have recognised the emptiness of materialism, how the pursuit of financial gain bankrupts the soul. By moving to Grow Heathrow, one has placed greater importance on human bonds, the need to take care of human beings, and take care of nature. This is a step that I admire in everyone who has moved there, one that I admire in all human beings.

Edward Thacker

References

Thich Nhat Hanh. 2012. Thich Nhat Hanh: in 100 years there may be no more humans on planet earth.

Macy, J. 2007. The Great Turning. Berkeley: Centre for Ecoliteracy

The European Parliament today voted overwhelmingly to accept a highly critical report by the EU Development Committee on the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition (NAFSN) that calls on the EU and its member states to cease funding it.

The New Alliance is a controversial aid initiative, supported by major agribusiness enterprises, that has received $1.1 billion from the EU’s own aid directorate and £600 million from the UK international aid department DFID.

In its conclusion the report “severely questions the ability of mega-PPPs such as NAFSN to contribute to poverty reduction and food security, as the poorest communities risk to bear the brunt of social and environmental risks associated with it.

“Given the existing deficiencies, the rapporteur believes that the EU and its Member States should stop its current support to NAFSN.

“Instead, both donors and national governments should invest in a model of agriculture which is sustainable, pro-smallholder farming, pro-women, and which unlocks the potential of domestic and regional markets so as to benefit family farmers and provide quality food for consumers at accessible prices …

“Official Development Aid (ODA) should serve the goal of poverty reduction, not the interests of EU trade policy. The rapporteur believes that the EU should not use ODA to support transnational companies operating as monopolies or in cartels which contribute to undermining the local private sector, thus endangering family farmers and smallholders.”

By agribusiness, for agribusiness

Founded in 2012, the ‘New Alliance’ is aimed at the commercialisation of African agriculture. It seeks to open up the continent to agriusiness and to encourage small farmers to raise production using expensive inputs such as fertilizer, pesticides and high-yielding proprietary seeds, including GMOs.

The New Alliance brings together corporate investment with aid money from G7 countries and the European Union, with its stated aim to lift 50 million people out of poverty in 10 African countries. In exchange for aid investment, African countries undergo a number of policy reforms to ensure a more business friendly environment to benefit the investors – among them fertilizer giant Yara International, Syngenta, Monsanto, Coca-Cola and Nestle.

It is based on the assumption that corporate investment in agriculture will increase production and automatically improve food security and reduce poverty. But the initiative has been widely criticised by civil society organisations across the world.

Not only has it failed to address poverty or hunger, but the scheme has facilitated the grabbing of land and natural resources, undermined small-scale farmers and their right to adequate food and nutrition, and accelerated seed privatisation.

The report, which was commissioned earlier in the year, highlighted numerous concerns about the scheme, including:

• the introduction and spread of certified seeds in Africa increases smallholder dependence, makes indebtedness more probable, and erodes seed diversity;
• the need for EU Member States to invest in agro-ecological farming practices in developing countries;
• the need for independent grievance mechanisms for those communities affected by land dispossession;
• the lack of consultation with civil society groups from Africa before the launch of the scheme;
• the flawed assumption that corporate investment in agriculture automatically improves food security and nutrition and reduces poverty.

The plan: Green Revolution part 2

In its Explanatory Statement the EU report sets out the heart of the problem: “NAFSN aims to replicate in Africa the model of the 1960s/1970s Asian ‘Green Revolution’, based on monoculture, mechanisation, biotechnology, dependence on fertilisers, long distribution channels and the production of export crops. The limits of this approach are well known, particularly the associated environmental risks.

“Moreover, the agreed policies in host countries are meant to create a business-friendly environment through reforms of infrastructure, tax, land or trade policies; easier access to ‘idle’ land for long-term lease; and regulatory reforms in the area of seeds to strengthen intellectual property rights of plant breeders.

The report also draws attention to the New Alliance’s most fundamental contradiction: its total exclusion of the very people the initiative is ostensibly designed to help:

“Strikingly, smallholders were barely consulted in the creation of the CCFs although they are supposed to be the ultimate beneficiaries of NAFSN. Consequently, NAFSN has been heavily criticised by civil society, public figures like the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food and by African small-scale farmers themselves. They warn that NAFSN risks facilitating land grabs, to further marginalise small-scale producers and women, while supporting unsustainable farming …

“Family farmers and smallholders are the main investors in African agriculture, and provide over 60% of employment in SubSaharan Africa. They have demonstrated their ability to increase food production sustainably (often through agro-ecological practices), to diversify production, to contribute to rural development, to increase incomes and, in turn, to help reduce poverty.

“Instead of supporting NAFSN’s model of ‘modern’, ‘business-oriented’ agriculture based on large-scale industrial farming, your rapporteur, in line with recommendations of UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food and the 2009 International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), calls on African governments to invest in family farming and agroecology.”

Not ‘aid’ but ‘a means of promotion for the companies involved’

The New Alliance has also been slated by Olivier De Schutter, the former special rapporteur to the UN on food security, who wrote his own highly critical review of its methods and performance.

And in 2015, an independent audit of the UK’s aid partnerships with corporate partners singled out the New Alliance as being particularly ineffective. The report suggested that the £600 million that the UK had poured into the scheme served as “as little more than a means of promotion for the companies involved and a chance to increase their influence in policy debates”.

Aisha Dowell, a food campaigner with Global Justice Now said: “This is the most high profile and damning report so far of the New Alliance, and proves that this is a scheme that has been cooked up to benefit big agribusiness companies rather than to help small-scale farmers or vulnerable communities.”

There needs to be an urgent inquiry as to why DfID is continuing to support such a fundamentally flawed initiative, she added: “There’s plenty of good reasons why the UK should be committed to contributing a fixed amount of GDP in aid money, but we need to be critically examining how that money is spent. The current fixation on corporate partnerships is based on an ideological vision of development that that is dangerously dated. 
 
“Small scale farmers across the globe produce 70% of the world’s food, often using techniques that are much more sustainable and climate-friendly than big agribusiness. There are plenty of ways that aid money could be used to improve the lives and livelihoods of these people. But the New Alliance is doing exactly the opposite by facilitating big agribusiness’ takeover of food systems in different African countries.”

The report: ‘Report on the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition‘ (2015/2277(INI)) Committee on Development is written by Maria Heubuch as Rapporteur and was today adopted as the official view of the European Parliament.

Oliver Tickell is Contributing Editor at The Ecologist.

Spiritual ecology is the knowing that we are all part of one living, spiritual being. It is the knowing of the connection of our soul and the soul of the world: The understanding that our fate is entwined with the fate of life on earth.

The rupture of this spiritual connection to the earth, and the resultant mind-set which sees the human experience as separate to life on earth, viewing nature as something external to our lives that can be controlled or managed, is fundamental in how we are to understand the breakdown of ecological systems around the world. We must move beyond the thinking that has created the problem. We must move beyond the logic of capital.

This home is on the site of an abandoned market garden, once agricultural land. Our protection of this land, to preserve it for agricultural use, means resistance, resulting in an antagonistic relationship with the landowners and the police. We do not recognise the private ownership of the land we live on. In this capitalist world system, where private property is enshrined by law over the rights of nature, we should confront the possession of land where we can. Within our spiritual ecology, we must begin to challenge the commodification of nature. This must be central in the ‘great turning’ (Macy 2007) we are to make.

Living at Grow Heathrow has been a spiritual experience. We are actively rebelling against the wasted values of materialism, the capitalist world view which seeks to objectify nature.

We attempt to have a relationship with our home amongst the Elder tree, viewing the land we live on as sacred; this means rejecting the old habits of objectifying land, claiming it for an investment or naming it for empire. In this city of London, we see this ‘extractivist mind-set’ in overdrive; land and property too often does not serve this city’s children, their families and communities, but is simply banked on, viewed as a relatively safe and secure investment.

At Grow Heathrow, we do not own the land, it does not belong to us, there is only a relationship with the land, with the Elder tree. This is a relationship we are only just discovering, one that can nourish us. We are learning how the calendula can heal our skin. We are learning how the elder berries can protect us from viral infections.

We have become more attuned to the workings of the earth, the shifts in weather patterns on this island and how this influences our daily activity. Sometimes one experiences this in simple ways, like whether we need to water our plants, whether we have enough energy gained from the wind turbine and solar panel to power tonight’s party.

Living here involves developing a greater understanding of earth’s rhythms. We mark the equinox and solstice with celebration. This is a reminder of our connection with nature, the rhythms of growing food. It is our attempt to honour and give respect to nature.

Our compost toilets reaffirm our cyclical relationship with resources; ‘humanure’ is used as a mulch for trees and flowers. Living in a community garden growing organic fruit and vegetables, one becomes more conscious of the health of the soil.

Whilst we learn organic food production on our occupied land, the objective is not to sustain ourselves solely from the land we live on. With the amount of land we have, and the number of mouths to feed, this is neither possible nor our primary aim. However, the sharing and giving of food is central in bringing people together; this gesture can be conceived as a spiritual component of our community work. Collecting waste food from wholesale markets and supermarket bins, we make use of this ‘waste’, serving to volunteers, those who visit us for the day or attend our workshops.

We aspire to replicate nature and the gift economy, offering our events and resources for free. Nature has a gift economy. One can see this in how an apple tree gives its fruit with unconditional love. We must aspire to provide food, knowledge, festivity and love without expecting anything in return.

Moving to Grow Heathrow has had its challenges for those who have been brought up with western comforts; heating our homes without burning fossil fuels has been a steep learning curve. There is much to learn here. A cold night can connect one to the harsher reality of living on the streets of London. Just as fasting can be a spiritual tool to bring one closer to those without food, being inflicted more acutely by a cold winter snap makes one empathise with those without shelter.

There is an emphasis on preserving the wildlife that surrounds our self-built dwellings and communal spaces. There is a tension between the need for shelter, the need to create infrastructure for a community numbering 40 to 50 at times, and cutting back wildlife. This is in the context of a housing crisis in London, with brutal evictions making people homeless. We’ve taken in many. There is a need for land, to house people. We have discussions attempting to overcome this issue. In the practise of our democracy, the care and respect for other species is present. But we are learning – we will make mistakes.

The straw-bale house could be described as a sacred building, the temple of our community. A building, which was constructed with a respect and reverence for nature, using locally sourced, organic materials. When meditating in the straw-bale house, one cannot erase this memory from the depths of the mind, the memory of love and care that went into the building. The house is surrounded by Elder trees, providing homes for a variety of birds; their singing surrounding us as we sit in stillness.

With the sometimes daunting challenge of facing up to corporate greed and state imperialism, meditation can help us find clarity and conviction. The state of peril that we find ourselves in, with 6 degrees of planetary warming a real possibility, spelling the widespread extinction of species on earth – if we are not to despair, we must ‘touch eternity in the present moment, with our in-breath and out-breath’ (Thich Nhat Hanh 2012).

If we are to truly acknowledge our intimate relationship between our bodies and the health of the soul of the world, how are we to persist obediently to the norms of modern society that are destroying our health? Understanding of this intimate relationship must translate into a fierce love to protect it, a love whose reach moves beyond the legal authority of any given land.

We must protect nature. We must protect ourselves. The love we have for each other and life on earth must result in a fierce resolve to protect us. Sometimes we will have to act in a way which sacrifices our legal rights for the rights of other humans, for other life to flourish. We must embrace an antinomian spiritual ecology, whereby our ecological responsibility demands a rejection of civil legal authorities and their laws. With a spiritual ecology, this act no longer is sacrificial, but a self-interested act; an eroding detached ego-self making way for an identity as one with nature. In our movements we can garner great strength and resilience with this understanding of oneness.

One indicator that the earth is degrading is the lack of empathy and love for those most vulnerable in society. This is a cause anyone concerned with our collective spiritual awakening should engage with. We can measure the greatness of a society by how it treats those most poor and marginalised. This is why we must wed any ecological resistance to struggles against austerity in the UK, and the oppressive, egotistical ideology which serves it. Struggles against patriarchy, racism and colonialism cannot be detached from our spiritual work. If we begin not to care for our own kind, how will we develop empathy for life as a whole? A lack of empathy for humankind is a signpost for the degradation of our ecology.

The change that is required of us, to become more fully awaken ecologically minded humans, cannot come from a top down approach. The change we need cannot come from government alone. We will rely on the local actions of all of us. We depend on all of us individually and in communities, making self-determination the centre of our activity, to weaken the tyrant of capital that enchains us.

We must no longer prop up capital, or any power structures which oppress human beings or exploit life on earth. Our driving momentum is not to convince those in power to change their direction. It is often very tempting to be lured into the logic of the state and its power. Instead we hope to transcend the logic of party politics, enhance a culture of DIY, encouraging others to take politics into their own hand.

We must engage with experiences which teach us how to commune together, how to live together as an interdependent community. There are emotional resources and wisdom one can acquire from living communally, or in Grow Heathrow’s case, living in a squatted eco community. This experience, that is both taxing and enriching, can help us develop the kind of compassion we will need to embrace each other in wider society and the ecology as a whole.

Part of our project as spiritual ecologists is to undermine the political narrative that justifies our exploitative economies. The ideology that believes we cannot act as ‘we’, but as self-centred individuals. This notion has to be undermined, we must be part of a political project which demonstrates that human beings can and are motivated by far nobler causes than financial gain; instead, being driven by mutual aid and cooperation, care and compassion for humans and other beings.

We must reawaken the identity which wishes to respect the ancient soul of the world, ensure this life giving force prevails over the competitive, industrialist psyche that has dominated capitalist economic production. We can hope that the struggle against corporate interests and the state can reinvigorate our spirit, allowing us to become more centred to the needs of the global ecology within our political framework. We can hope that by mobilising in solidarity against the objectification of nature, we can grow a greater ecological awareness amongst humanity.

Everything we achieve at Grow Heathrow is only with the comradery of trusted allies who inspire as much as they are friends. Living there has demanded everything of us, trials that have touched our whole humanity. I am continually moved and inspired by the individuals who move here. They have made a spiritual step, for they have recognised the emptiness of materialism, how the pursuit of financial gain bankrupts the soul. By moving to Grow Heathrow, one has placed greater importance on human bonds, the need to take care of human beings, and take care of nature. This is a step that I admire in everyone who has moved there, one that I admire in all human beings.

Edward Thacker

References

Thich Nhat Hanh. 2012. Thich Nhat Hanh: in 100 years there may be no more humans on planet earth.

Macy, J. 2007. The Great Turning. Berkeley: Centre for Ecoliteracy

The European Parliament today voted overwhelmingly to accept a highly critical report by the EU Development Committee on the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition (NAFSN) that calls on the EU and its member states to cease funding it.

The New Alliance is a controversial aid initiative, supported by major agribusiness enterprises, that has received $1.1 billion from the EU’s own aid directorate and £600 million from the UK international aid department DFID.

In its conclusion the report “severely questions the ability of mega-PPPs such as NAFSN to contribute to poverty reduction and food security, as the poorest communities risk to bear the brunt of social and environmental risks associated with it.

“Given the existing deficiencies, the rapporteur believes that the EU and its Member States should stop its current support to NAFSN.

“Instead, both donors and national governments should invest in a model of agriculture which is sustainable, pro-smallholder farming, pro-women, and which unlocks the potential of domestic and regional markets so as to benefit family farmers and provide quality food for consumers at accessible prices …

“Official Development Aid (ODA) should serve the goal of poverty reduction, not the interests of EU trade policy. The rapporteur believes that the EU should not use ODA to support transnational companies operating as monopolies or in cartels which contribute to undermining the local private sector, thus endangering family farmers and smallholders.”

By agribusiness, for agribusiness

Founded in 2012, the ‘New Alliance’ is aimed at the commercialisation of African agriculture. It seeks to open up the continent to agriusiness and to encourage small farmers to raise production using expensive inputs such as fertilizer, pesticides and high-yielding proprietary seeds, including GMOs.

The New Alliance brings together corporate investment with aid money from G7 countries and the European Union, with its stated aim to lift 50 million people out of poverty in 10 African countries. In exchange for aid investment, African countries undergo a number of policy reforms to ensure a more business friendly environment to benefit the investors – among them fertilizer giant Yara International, Syngenta, Monsanto, Coca-Cola and Nestle.

It is based on the assumption that corporate investment in agriculture will increase production and automatically improve food security and reduce poverty. But the initiative has been widely criticised by civil society organisations across the world.

Not only has it failed to address poverty or hunger, but the scheme has facilitated the grabbing of land and natural resources, undermined small-scale farmers and their right to adequate food and nutrition, and accelerated seed privatisation.

The report, which was commissioned earlier in the year, highlighted numerous concerns about the scheme, including:

• the introduction and spread of certified seeds in Africa increases smallholder dependence, makes indebtedness more probable, and erodes seed diversity;
• the need for EU Member States to invest in agro-ecological farming practices in developing countries;
• the need for independent grievance mechanisms for those communities affected by land dispossession;
• the lack of consultation with civil society groups from Africa before the launch of the scheme;
• the flawed assumption that corporate investment in agriculture automatically improves food security and nutrition and reduces poverty.

The plan: Green Revolution part 2

In its Explanatory Statement the EU report sets out the heart of the problem: “NAFSN aims to replicate in Africa the model of the 1960s/1970s Asian ‘Green Revolution’, based on monoculture, mechanisation, biotechnology, dependence on fertilisers, long distribution channels and the production of export crops. The limits of this approach are well known, particularly the associated environmental risks.

“Moreover, the agreed policies in host countries are meant to create a business-friendly environment through reforms of infrastructure, tax, land or trade policies; easier access to ‘idle’ land for long-term lease; and regulatory reforms in the area of seeds to strengthen intellectual property rights of plant breeders.

The report also draws attention to the New Alliance’s most fundamental contradiction: its total exclusion of the very people the initiative is ostensibly designed to help:

“Strikingly, smallholders were barely consulted in the creation of the CCFs although they are supposed to be the ultimate beneficiaries of NAFSN. Consequently, NAFSN has been heavily criticised by civil society, public figures like the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food and by African small-scale farmers themselves. They warn that NAFSN risks facilitating land grabs, to further marginalise small-scale producers and women, while supporting unsustainable farming …

“Family farmers and smallholders are the main investors in African agriculture, and provide over 60% of employment in SubSaharan Africa. They have demonstrated their ability to increase food production sustainably (often through agro-ecological practices), to diversify production, to contribute to rural development, to increase incomes and, in turn, to help reduce poverty.

“Instead of supporting NAFSN’s model of ‘modern’, ‘business-oriented’ agriculture based on large-scale industrial farming, your rapporteur, in line with recommendations of UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food and the 2009 International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), calls on African governments to invest in family farming and agroecology.”

Not ‘aid’ but ‘a means of promotion for the companies involved’

The New Alliance has also been slated by Olivier De Schutter, the former special rapporteur to the UN on food security, who wrote his own highly critical review of its methods and performance.

And in 2015, an independent audit of the UK’s aid partnerships with corporate partners singled out the New Alliance as being particularly ineffective. The report suggested that the £600 million that the UK had poured into the scheme served as “as little more than a means of promotion for the companies involved and a chance to increase their influence in policy debates”.

Aisha Dowell, a food campaigner with Global Justice Now said: “This is the most high profile and damning report so far of the New Alliance, and proves that this is a scheme that has been cooked up to benefit big agribusiness companies rather than to help small-scale farmers or vulnerable communities.”

There needs to be an urgent inquiry as to why DfID is continuing to support such a fundamentally flawed initiative, she added: “There’s plenty of good reasons why the UK should be committed to contributing a fixed amount of GDP in aid money, but we need to be critically examining how that money is spent. The current fixation on corporate partnerships is based on an ideological vision of development that that is dangerously dated. 
 
“Small scale farmers across the globe produce 70% of the world’s food, often using techniques that are much more sustainable and climate-friendly than big agribusiness. There are plenty of ways that aid money could be used to improve the lives and livelihoods of these people. But the New Alliance is doing exactly the opposite by facilitating big agribusiness’ takeover of food systems in different African countries.”

The report: ‘Report on the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition‘ (2015/2277(INI)) Committee on Development is written by Maria Heubuch as Rapporteur and was today adopted as the official view of the European Parliament.

Oliver Tickell is Contributing Editor at The Ecologist.