Monthly Archives: January 2017

Indonesia’s plans to protect its peatland forests are fatally flawed

Leave a reply

Earlier this month, the Indonesian government made a decision which was hailed as a major step forward in the fight against climate change.

President Joko ‘Jokowi’ Widodo’s administration issued a long-awaited revision to regulations designed to protect the nation’s fragile peatlands.

The Washington Post said the move “could help prevent wildfires” and with it stop “billions of tonnes of carbon emissions” entering the atmosphere.

And the news was a welcome relief to the tens of millions of people forced to breathe the smoke from peat fires which follow the clearing and draining of peatland. There were an estimated 100,000 premature deaths resulting across three countries from last year’s devastating Indonesian peat and forest fires.

But others are yet to be convinced. Jokowi’s promise has been undermined by perplexing compromises based on industry-sponsored science.

Simply put, the new regulations won’t fulfil the President’s stated goals – or those of the Paris agreement.

The ‘ban’ that will allow the peatland destruction to continue

Existing plantation licenses for peatland cultivation remain valid under the new regulations, meaning that commercial exploitation can presumably continue for the 30-plus years that land use permits remain valid – with the potential for extensions up to roughly a century.

What’s more, the regulations place only a temporary moratorium on new peat development, lasting a maximum of around two years.

That’s also the longest time allowed before the government must complete its planned ‘peat zoning’ process, which will separate areas to be protected from those that can be drained for plantations.

The regulations require just 30% of each peat system to be zoned for protection, along with any further area in which the peat has a thickness of over 3m. Adopting the industry-supported ‘eko-hidro‘ model, this 30% is to be located over the slightly raised ‘dome’ of thicker peat which occurs in the centre of many peat systems. The remaining area is to be zoned for production, where clearing and drainage are permitted.

This model has been soundly rejected by peat scientists and Indonesian environmental groups alike. The whole peat dome is hydrologically connected, so draining the perimeter will inevitably result in the collapse of the centre in any case. Wetlands International has likened this policy to “allowing smoking in the left side of a plane and forbidding it on the right side”.

Still a risk of fires

Indonesia’s peatlands formed over thousands of years through a process where a continuously high water table prevents the breakdown of organic material, locking carbon into deep deposits.

The regulations allow plantation companies to reverse this process, draining these crucial water tables so that non-wetlands species such as oil palm and pulpwood acacia can be grown in the peat swamps.

The regulations limit the depth of drainage to 0.4 meters below the surface of the peat. Allowing the top 40cm of peat to dry out means millions of hectares of peat will remain at risk of fire. Peat degradation will also continue: experts estimate that the 40cm policy will only reduce the speed of peat subsidence by around 20% compared with unfettered drainage.

As the top layer of drained peat oxidises and collapses, fresh peat is exposed within the 40cm permissible drainage zone, and so it goes on. Over the longer term, essentially the same amount of carbon will be emitted as if unlimited drainage were permitted. Modelling predicts that over a number of decades, drained peatlands will collapse, become flood-prone and unusable for plantations.

Ultimately, the 40cm drainage rule is a flawed compromise. Firstly any drainage will still have the negative impacts above, and secondly, according to industry, oil palm and acacia require deeper drainage to grow in peat soils.

On the plus side

Despite the overall disappointing business-as-usual approach of the regulations, there have been a number of positive initiatives introduced.

The previous regulations prohibited using fire to clear peatlands. Now landholders are expressly prohibited from allowing fires to take place, even if they did not light them. Although landholders’ strict liability for fires is already established under other environmental instruments, it is good to see it reiterated here.

The establishment of a continuous air quality monitoring system and public fire reporting system could also be a boon. Hopefully this will include monitoring of the most dangerous element of pollution, ie PM 2.5 particles, which are currently absent from Indonesian air quality regulations.

We are waiting to hear about government plans for monitoring and law enforcement, and how the regulations will dovetail with the work of the new Peatland Restoration Agency (BRG).

Paris agreement

The Indonesian government is looking to improved forest management to deliver over half of its Paris agreement emission reduction commitment.

Forestry sector reform is expected to deliver over half of the 29% promised reduction against predicted business-as-usual growth in emissions by 2030.

Peatland management, and these regulations in particular, are crucial to achieving that goal. But as they stand now, they have no hope of doing so.

 

 

Yuyun Indradi is a Greenpeace Indonesia forest campaigner.

This article was originally published on Greenpeace Energydesk.

 

Indonesia’s plans to protect its peatland forests are fatally flawed

Leave a reply

Earlier this month, the Indonesian government made a decision which was hailed as a major step forward in the fight against climate change.

President Joko ‘Jokowi’ Widodo’s administration issued a long-awaited revision to regulations designed to protect the nation’s fragile peatlands.

The Washington Post said the move “could help prevent wildfires” and with it stop “billions of tonnes of carbon emissions” entering the atmosphere.

And the news was a welcome relief to the tens of millions of people forced to breathe the smoke from peat fires which follow the clearing and draining of peatland. There were an estimated 100,000 premature deaths resulting across three countries from last year’s devastating Indonesian peat and forest fires.

But others are yet to be convinced. Jokowi’s promise has been undermined by perplexing compromises based on industry-sponsored science.

Simply put, the new regulations won’t fulfil the President’s stated goals – or those of the Paris agreement.

The ‘ban’ that will allow the peatland destruction to continue

Existing plantation licenses for peatland cultivation remain valid under the new regulations, meaning that commercial exploitation can presumably continue for the 30-plus years that land use permits remain valid – with the potential for extensions up to roughly a century.

What’s more, the regulations place only a temporary moratorium on new peat development, lasting a maximum of around two years.

That’s also the longest time allowed before the government must complete its planned ‘peat zoning’ process, which will separate areas to be protected from those that can be drained for plantations.

The regulations require just 30% of each peat system to be zoned for protection, along with any further area in which the peat has a thickness of over 3m. Adopting the industry-supported ‘eko-hidro‘ model, this 30% is to be located over the slightly raised ‘dome’ of thicker peat which occurs in the centre of many peat systems. The remaining area is to be zoned for production, where clearing and drainage are permitted.

This model has been soundly rejected by peat scientists and Indonesian environmental groups alike. The whole peat dome is hydrologically connected, so draining the perimeter will inevitably result in the collapse of the centre in any case. Wetlands International has likened this policy to “allowing smoking in the left side of a plane and forbidding it on the right side”.

Still a risk of fires

Indonesia’s peatlands formed over thousands of years through a process where a continuously high water table prevents the breakdown of organic material, locking carbon into deep deposits.

The regulations allow plantation companies to reverse this process, draining these crucial water tables so that non-wetlands species such as oil palm and pulpwood acacia can be grown in the peat swamps.

The regulations limit the depth of drainage to 0.4 meters below the surface of the peat. Allowing the top 40cm of peat to dry out means millions of hectares of peat will remain at risk of fire. Peat degradation will also continue: experts estimate that the 40cm policy will only reduce the speed of peat subsidence by around 20% compared with unfettered drainage.

As the top layer of drained peat oxidises and collapses, fresh peat is exposed within the 40cm permissible drainage zone, and so it goes on. Over the longer term, essentially the same amount of carbon will be emitted as if unlimited drainage were permitted. Modelling predicts that over a number of decades, drained peatlands will collapse, become flood-prone and unusable for plantations.

Ultimately, the 40cm drainage rule is a flawed compromise. Firstly any drainage will still have the negative impacts above, and secondly, according to industry, oil palm and acacia require deeper drainage to grow in peat soils.

On the plus side

Despite the overall disappointing business-as-usual approach of the regulations, there have been a number of positive initiatives introduced.

The previous regulations prohibited using fire to clear peatlands. Now landholders are expressly prohibited from allowing fires to take place, even if they did not light them. Although landholders’ strict liability for fires is already established under other environmental instruments, it is good to see it reiterated here.

The establishment of a continuous air quality monitoring system and public fire reporting system could also be a boon. Hopefully this will include monitoring of the most dangerous element of pollution, ie PM 2.5 particles, which are currently absent from Indonesian air quality regulations.

We are waiting to hear about government plans for monitoring and law enforcement, and how the regulations will dovetail with the work of the new Peatland Restoration Agency (BRG).

Paris agreement

The Indonesian government is looking to improved forest management to deliver over half of its Paris agreement emission reduction commitment.

Forestry sector reform is expected to deliver over half of the 29% promised reduction against predicted business-as-usual growth in emissions by 2030.

Peatland management, and these regulations in particular, are crucial to achieving that goal. But as they stand now, they have no hope of doing so.

 

 

Yuyun Indradi is a Greenpeace Indonesia forest campaigner.

This article was originally published on Greenpeace Energydesk.

 

Roundup residues in food cause fatty liver disease

Leave a reply

The weedkiller Roundup causes non-alcoholic fatty liver disease at very low doses permitted by regulators worldwide, a new peer-reviewed study published by a Nature journal shows.

The study is the first ever to show a causative link between consumption of Roundup at a real-world environmentally relevant dose and a serious disease.

The new peer-reviewed study, led by Dr Michael Antoniou at King’s College London, used cutting-edge profiling methods to describe the molecular composition of the livers of female rats fed an extremely low dose of Roundup weedkiller, which is based on the chemical glyphosate, over a 2-year period.

The dose of glyphosate from the Roundup administered was thousands of times below what is permitted by regulators worldwide.

The study revealed that these animals suffered from non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).

Dr Antoniou said: “The findings of our study are very worrying as they demonstrate for the first time a causative link between an environmentally relevant level of Roundup consumption over the long-term and a serious disease – namely non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Our results also suggest that regulators should reconsider the safety evaluation of glyphosate-based herbicides.”

Potentially serious implications for human health

The new results demonstrate that long-term consumption of an ultra-low dose of Roundup at a glyphosate daily intake level of only 4 nanograms per kilogram of bodyweight per day, which is 75,000 times below EU and 437,500 below US permitted levels, results in NAFLD.

Regulators worldwide accept toxicity studies in rats as indicators of human health risks. So the results of this latest study have serious implications for human health.

NAFLD currently affects 25% of the US population and similar numbers of Europeans. Risk factors include being overweight or obese, having diabetes, or having high cholesterol or high triglycerides (a constituent of body fat) in the blood. However, some people develop NAFLD even if they do not have any of these known risk factors. The new study raises the question of whether exposure to Roundup is a hitherto unrecognized risk factor.

Symptoms of NAFLD include fatigue, weakness, weight loss, loss of appetite, nausea, abdominal pain, spider-like blood vessels, yellowing of the skin and eyes (jaundice), itching, fluid build-up and swelling of the legs and abdomen, and mental confusion.

NAFLD can progress to the more serious condition, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). NASH causes the liver to swell and become damaged.

Most people with NASH are between the ages of 40 and 60 years. It is more common in women than in men. NASH is one of the leading causes of cirrhosis in adults in the United States. Up to 25% of adults with NASH may also have cirrhosis.

Background to the study

The rat body tissues used in this analysis were obtained from a previous study led by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini of the University of Caen, France.

In this original investigation, rats were given an extremely low, environmentally relevant dose of a commercial Roundup formulation at 0.1 ppb (parts per billion) / 50 ppt (parts per trillion) glyphosate via drinking water for 2 years. Daily intake of glyphosate from the Roundup was 4 nanograms per kilogram of body weight per day, which is thousands of times below what is permitted by regulators.

Analysis of the organs and blood / urine biochemical levels in the original study by Prof Séralini suggested a higher incidence of liver and kidney damage in the animals given Roundup compared to controls given plain drinking water.

Dr Antoniou’s group has conducted distinct followup investigations on the rat body tissues from this ultra-low-dose Roundup treatment group, using in-depth molecular analytical procedures and statistical analytical methods that are appropriate for this type of research.

First follow-up study: increased damage to vital organs

In the first follow-up investigation, a transcriptomics (gene function profile) analysis was performed on the livers and kidneys from the female animals.

The results strongly supported the observations made at an anatomical (organ) and blood / urine biochemical level in the Séralini study – namely that the organs of the animals given Roundup suffered more structural and functional damage than the controls.

The transcriptomics results indicated an increased incidence of fibrosis (scarring), necrosis (areas of dead tissue), phospholipidosis (disturbed fat metabolism) and damage to mitochondria (the centres of respiration in cells) in the Roundup-fed animals.

However, although transcriptomics analysis is able to predict health or disease status of an organ, it does not provide definitive proof of harm. This is mainly because it does not give a direct measure of the actual biochemistry of the organ under study.

Also, alterations in gene function resulting from a test do not always result in the types of changes in physical composition that could lead to disease.

And now: definitive confirmation of liver dysfunction from low dose of Roundup

In the new study the researchers undertook a followup protein composition profile (‘proteomics’) and small molecule metabolite biochemical profile (‘metabolomics’) investigation of the same liver samples to confirm the prediction of disease suggested by the transcriptomics gene expression profile analysis.

As the proteomics and metabolomics directly measure the actual composition of the organ, these analytical methods provide a definitive assessment of its health or disease status.

“Overall”, the authors conclude, “metabolome and proteome disturbances showed a substantial overlap with biomarkers of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and its progression to steatohepatosis (serious fatty liver disease) and thus confirm liver functional dysfunction resulting from chronic ultra-low dose [glyphosate] exposure.”

Proteins significantly disturbed (214 out of 1906 detected), as shown by the proteomics profiling, reflected a type of cell damage from reactive oxygen (peroxisomal proliferation), steatosis (serious fatty liver disease) and necrosis (areas of dead tissue).

The metabolomics analysis (55 metabolites altered out of 673 detected) confirmed lipotoxic (excess fatty tissue) conditions and oxidative stress. Metabolite alterations were also associated with hallmarks of serious liver toxicity.

Glyphosate responsible for rising diabetes and obesity?

The authors also suggest that the findings may have considerable relevance to human health problems such as obesity and diabetes:

“Our observations may have human health implication since NAFLD is predicted to be the next major global epidemic. Approximately 20-30% of the population in the United States carry extra fat in their livers. NAFLD is associated with the recent rapid rise in the incidence of diabetes, obesity, and metabolic syndrome.

“Overall, it is acknowledged that NAFLD is mostly caused by excess caloric intake, but also from the consumption of processed foods, which increases simple sugar and saturated fat ingestion as well as sedentary lifestyles.

“However, many suffer from NAFLD but which do not have any high risk factors and thus other contributors to disease, such as exposure to physiologically active environmental pollutants via contaminated food, cannot be excluded.”

 

 

Claire Robinson is managing editor at GMWatch, a public news and information service on issues surrounding GM crops and foods.

This article was originally published by GMWatch. This version contains some additional reporting by The Ecologist.

The study: ‘Multiomics reveal non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in rats following chronic exposure to an ultra-low dose of Roundup herbicide‘ is by Mesnage R, Renney G, Séralini G E, Ward M, and Antoniou M N. It is published in Scientific Reports, 2016; 6:39328 (open access).

 

London breaches air pollution limit for all 2017

Leave a reply

One the 6th day the 2017 parts of London have already breached their pollution limits for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) for the entire year.

Yesterday pollution monitors on the busy Brixton Road, Lambeth, registered NO2 levels above 200 micrograms of NO2 per cubic metre from 7am through until 1am this morning, a total of 18 hours – reaching the EU time limit for the entire year.

Later this morning, between 5am and 7am, another two hours of readings above 200 ug/m3 of NO2 were recorded – pushing the site well above the EU limit.

ClientEarth lawyer and Brixton resident Alan Andrews – a member of the legal team that has won a succession of legal actions against the government for its failure to abide by EU pollution laws – said:

“This is another shameful reminder of the severity of London’s air pollution and shows why the Mayor has rightly made tackling it a top priority. It is absolutely essential that he now delivers on his promises and that the national government back him to the hilt.

“He has promised to introduce a bigger ultra-low emission zone in 2019 and to deploy the cleanest buses on the most polluted roads. While these are vital steps in the right direction, we can’t wait another three years for action. We need immediate action to cut pollution in the short-term and protect Londoners’ health during these pollution spikes.”

A number of other London locations, including Putney High Street and Brompton Road in Knightsbridge, are expected to breach this limit shortly. Last year, Putney High Street breached this limit more than 1,000 times.

The principal culprit – diesel vehicles

The main reason for the high pollution levels on these busy roads is pollution from cars, buses, trucks and motorbikes – and diesel vehicles make by far the biggest contribution as their engines operate at higher temperatures than petrol engines causing nitrogen and oxygen in the air to react, producing a cocktail of nitrogen oxides (generically NOx) including the irritant gas NO2.

Friends of the Earth is among those calling for urgent action to tackle air pollution which it says causes almost 10,000 premature deaths in the capital every year. Jenny Bates, FoE’s Air Pollution Campaigner, said: “With the new year only days old, it’s scandalous that air pollution limits for the entire year have already been breached.

“Air pollution is a major health threat, particularly to children and other vulnerable people, contributing to around 40,000 early deaths across the UK every year. Road traffic is the biggest culprit – and diesel is the worst. This is why the government must take much bolder and quicker action including planning to phase out diesel by 2025.”

The environmental campaign group is calling for much stronger and quicker action from the government to meet EU legal limits in the shortest time possible including:

  • Plan for the phase out of diesel vehicles by 2025 as part of a 21st Century Clean Air Act
  • Expand London’s Ultra-Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ) for all vehicles across the whole of the capital, and many more and stronger Clean Air Zones (CAZ’s) across the rest of the country
  • Invest more in cycling and public transport to give people better alternatives to driving, and don’t allow road-building to add to the problem

The group’s petition calling for urgent action government action on air pollution is currently receiving dozens of signatures every minute.

Diesel cars now account for 47.7% of new registrations

But in spite of the pollution caused by diesel vehicles and the scandal surrounding VW’s ‘test-cheating’ software designed to artifically reduce pollution emissions under test conditions, sales of new diesel cars reached their highest level in the UK ever, according to data from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

In 2016 1,285,160 new diesel powered cars were sold, up from 1,276,871 in 2015. Market share declined by 0.6% however this was countered by a 2.3% increase in overall new car sales. This reflects the fact that the government has failed to act to reduce the attractiveness of diesel cars to consumers.

Paul Morozzo, clean air campaigner at Greenpeace, said: “Despite growing concerns about the health impacts of diesel fumes, the government has done almost nothing to tackle car companies since they were caught cheating emissions tests.

“In London new rules will mean new taxis and buses will from next year have to be hybrid or better but nothing is happening on diesel cars despite alternatives being readily available. Unbelievably, the government is still incentivising consumers to buy brand new diesel cars that are pumping out illegal levels of pollution.

“If cars coming off the production line had dodgy brakes, you know the government would step in to sort it out. We urgently need to stop the sale of new diesel models until emission testing is truly fit for purpose. Better still, we need car companies to phase out diesel completely and concentrate on hybrid and electric alternatives.”

The Greenpeace petition to the government had received over 86,000 signatures at time of writing.

Devastating health impact

In the past few months, doctors, health professionals and campaigners, have all spoken out about the devastating impact of air pollution on human health, especially for children, the elderly, asthma sufferers and other vulnerable groups. Air pollution can cause asthma in otherwise healthy children, stunts children’s lung growth permanently by up to 10%, and is linked to strokes, heart disease and diabetes in older people.

Only yesterday research was published in The Lancet showing a link between people’s proximity to busy roads and the incidence of dementia. The study, which followed 6.6 million people in Ontario, Canada, for over a decade, found that people who live closest to major traffic arteries were 12% more likely to be diagnosed with the disease.

In November 2016, the High Court in London ruled for the second time in 18 months that the government was not doing enough to combat the air pollution crisis. The judge also said ministers knew that over-optimistic pollution modelling was being used, based on flawed lab tests of diesel vehicles rather than actual emissions on the road. The government must now look again at proposals to bring pollution levels down to legal levels.

“While London has the worst air pollution, this is a national problem which requires a national solution”, commented Alan Andrews. “The government’s draft plans to tackle air pollution, as ordered by the High Court, are due in April. They must include a national network of clean air zones, which stop the dirtiest diesel vehicles entering pollution hotspots.

“They also have to stop the perverse fiscal incentives which encourage people to use diesel vehicles and instead help them to buy cleaner ones.” 

 

 

Oliver Tickell is contributing editor at The Ecologist.

 

Chinese ivory ban is a big win for elephants – but the loopholes must be closed

Leave a reply

At the end of 2016, elephants made headlines around the world as China finally announced a timeframe for closing its domestic ivory market.

This action has long been affirmed by many conservationists to be the single biggest step that could be taken to end the slaughter of elephants, and represents a major win for elephant conservation.

The Chinese Government deserves commendation. However, close examination of the recent announcement gives some potential causes for concern – it is now imperative that the ban be strongly publicised and enforced, and that any potential loopholes be closed.

China is by far the world’s biggest contemporary market for elephant ivory and the final destination for the majority of ivory from poached elephants. The continued existence of a legal ivory trade in China has been a major hindrance in combatting this illegal trade.

As of the end 2016, there were 34 licensed ivory carving facilities and 130 licensed retail outlets in China permitted to process and trade in ‘legal’ ivory derived from either old (pre-CITES) stock or a CITES-sanctioned one-off sale in 2008.

However, EIA investigations and research by other groups documented widespread abuse of this poorly regulated system, which enabled the laundering of illegally sourced ivory. Closing this loophole could massively simplify enforcement operations – with no legal market to launder ivory, any processing or sale is illegal and can be immediately dealt with as such.

The ‘cultural relic’ loophole

China’s intention to close its domestic market was first announced in May 2015 and was restated by President Xi Jinping the following September. On December 28, 2016 a notification of plans to close the domestic market in its entirety by the end of 2017 was finally published. (See below for a full, unofficial translation of the notification.)

Looking into the detail of the document, there is potential for both celebration and concern.

First, the positives. The notification sets out an impressively ambitious timescale for stopping all ivory carving and retail activities in previously licensed facilities by the end of 2017. Unlike the upcoming ban in Hong Kong, traders have not been given an unnecessary five-year grace period to dispose of stock – stock which should have been exhausted long ago and the imminent illegality of which was well known.

Secondly, a compromise appears to have been reached to maintain the cultural heritage of ivory carving – the main argument from opponents of an ivory ban in China. The notification commits to “proactively guiding the transition of ivory carving techniques”, including providing guidance in using alternative materials and encouraging master carvers to move into museum restoration.

However, the notification contains a worrying potential loophole which requires urgent clarification. It states that “cultural relics made of ivory that are of legal origin and have been verified by a specialist appraisal body may … be auctioned under strict supervision, to demonstrate their cultural value.”

The term translated here as ‘cultural relic’ usually refers to antiques, but not explicitly so. This indicates that limited sales of ivory antiques – and, possibly, even any item judged to have artistic merit created or sold under the previous licensing system and regardless of age – may be allowed to continue.

Indeed, the potential loophole has already been interpreted as such by the antiques industry. The current language sends an ambiguous message to markets and risks undermining the effectiveness of the ban and demand-reduction campaigns.

‘Leakage’ from neighbouring countries must be blocked

Also, the Chinese Government and the international community must ensure that the ivory market does not simply shift to other areas with weak enforcement or lax legislation, especially in countries bordering China.

The open sale of huge amounts of nominally illegal wildlife products – including ivory and tiger products – has been documented in border regions of Vietnam, Laos and Myanmar.

In many of these markets, Chinese citizens represent the vast majority of buyers and trade is conducted in Chinese, often with Chinese currency. Targeted collaborative enforcement efforts are urgently required to close these markets and ensure illegal ivory cannot leak across the border into China.

Overall, the Chinese domestic ivory ban is a major cause for celebration and optimism as we begin 2017. Although the potential loopholes need clarifying and closing, this notification sends a strong and timely signal that the global ivory market is progressively shutting up shop. 

 

 

Aron White is Wildlife Campaigner at the Environmental Investigation Agency.

China’s domestic ivory trade ban text – unofficial translation

Notification from the General Office of the State Council regarding the orderly cessation of commercial processing and sale of elephant ivory and the parts thereof

Directed to the governments of all provinces, autonomous regions, municipalities; all State Council ministries and commissions; and all subordinate agencies:

Matters relating to the orderly cessation of commercial processing and sale of elephant ivory in order to strengthen protection of elephants, combat illegal trade in elephant ivory and with the agreement of the State Council are as follows:

1. The cessation of commercial processing and sale of elephant ivory by stages.

 The processing and sale of elephant ivory and the products thereof at the first batch of designated processing units and designated sales spaces shall cease by March 31, 2017; all such activities shall cease by December 31, 2017. The State Forestry Administration shall determine the specific list of such units and shall announce them publicly in a timely manner. The relevant units shall cease processing and sale of elephant ivory and the products thereof within the stipulated time limits, and shall apply to the Administrative Department for Industry and Commerce to conduct the necessary processes of altering or cancelling registrations. The Administrative Department for Industry and Commerce shall no longer handle applications for establishing or amending companies that relate to the commercial processing or sale of elephant ivory.

2. Proactively guiding the transition of ivory carving techniques.

 Once the commercial processing and sale of elephant ivory has ceased, the Department of Culture shall guide the transition of the guardians of ivory carving techniques and relevant practitioners. Records shall be made of those ivory carvers who are covered by national or state-level intangible cultural heritage programmes, to leave behind comprehensive information on their work processes and key techniques. Renowned masters of ivory carving shall be encouraged to undertake arts restoration work at institutions such as museums. Guardians of ivory carving techniques shall be provided guidance in use of alternative materials to develop their carving techniques. Non-commercial social and cultural groups and industry associations may integrate existing resources to set up ivory carving workshops, to conduct research into and transference of ivory carving techniques, but may not undertake related commercial activities.

3. Strict management of the collection of elephant ivory and the products thereof.

  The sale of elephant ivory and the products thereof on the market or via the internet is prohibited. Elephant ivory and the products thereof that is of legal origin and carries a special marking may be displayed or exhibited at museums, art galleries or other non-commercial spaces, and may be transported, gifted and inherited, in accordance with the law. Cultural relics made of ivory that are of legal origin and have been verified by a specialist appraisal body may, having obtained the necessary permits in accordance with legal processes, be auctioned under strict supervision, to demonstrate their cultural value.

4. Strengthening law enforcement and public education.

 Departments of public security, customs, industry and commerce and forestry shall, according to their professional duty, strengthen enforcement of the law, and shall continue to increase the intensity of efforts to combat illegal processing, sale, transportation and smuggling of elephant ivory and the products thereof, focusing particularly on investigation and seizure, destruction of illegal processing sites, and obstructing illegal sale on the market or online. They shall conduct extensive public education and conservation awareness activities, and shall vigorously advocate the concept of ecological civilization, guiding the public to reject illegal trade in elephant ivory and the products thereof and to build a social environment that is conducive to the protection of elephants and other wild fauna and flora.

The governments of all provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities and all relevant departments shall attach great importance to strengthening organisational leadership and clarifying professional duties, in order to ensure that the cessation of commercial processing and sale of elephant ivory and the products thereof is carried out smoothly, and shall make appropriate arrangements for the transition of relevant units and persons, in order to conscientiously safeguard harmony and stability in society.

The General Office of the State Council, December 29, 2016.

 

LUSH ethical cosmetics company launches a new Spring Prize fund for regenerative projects

Leave a reply

Regeneration is key to moving livelihoods and economies towards a more sustainable future and to reviving damaged environments by putting back more than what’s taken out.

The Lush Spring Prize aims to support a shift towards doing things differently by affording more people both the resources and the opportunity to do so.

The Lush Spring Prize will award funds annually to those who are engaging in the process of regeneration in the following four categories:

  • Intentional Projects (£50,000) … backing for great ideas in the early stages

 

    • Young Projects (£75,000) … projects 1- 
5 years old seeking to grow

     

      • Established Projects (£50,000) … 
beacons demonstrating success and 
withstanding the test of time

       

        • Influence Award (£25,000) … lobbying 
or campaigning to influence policy or public opinion in support of regeneration.

         

          About The Ethical Consumer Research Association: Ethical Consumer Research Association is a not-for-profit research and consultancy co-operative specialising in independent research into social, animal welfare and environmental issues. www.ethicalconsumer.org

          About Lush: Lush is a campaigning manufacturer and retailer of fresh handmade cosmetics with shops in 49 countries. Lush operates a thoroughly comprehensive Ethical Buying department, developing fair trade and direct trade initiatives. www.lush.com


          The Ecologist and LUSH have a new content sharing collaboration agreement

           

           

China must take responsibility for its citizens’ wildlife crimes in Africa

Leave a reply

Dear Ambassador Xin Shunkang,

During the past month, several Chinese nationals have been apprehended and charged with wildlife crimes, including illegal possession of rhino horn, ivory and pangolin skins and scales.

Your embassy is on record stating that “it will not allow a few of its nationals who have been arrested in connection with poaching to tarnish its country’s image.”

While we recognize that not all Chinese nationals are involved in wildlife crimes, Namibia’s environmental community believes that the situation regarding Chinese nationals committing wildlife crimes in Namibia is far more serious and broad-based than you have acknowledged.

The fact is, unless effective action is taken now to halt wildlife crime, your country will get an increasingly bad name. And you and your country are best placed to address the problem.

Until the arrival of Chinese nationals in significant numbers in Namibia, commercial wildlife crime was extremely low. As Chinese nationals moved into all regions of Namibia, setting up businesses, networks, acquiring mineral prospecting licenses and offering payment for wildlife products, the incidence of poaching, illegal wildlife capture, collection, killing and export has increased exponentially.

Driving our country’s wildlife to extinction

Chinese nationals have been involved in, and/or are the commercial drivers behind:

  • the escalating poaching of rhinos and elephants in Namibia and the illegal export of rhino horn and ivory,
  • the capture, trade and export of pangolins,
  • the import of Chinese monofilament nets in industrial quantities via Zambia to the northeast of Namibia, which are destroying the fisheries of the Zambezi, Chobe, Kwando and Okavango Rivers,
  • the unsustainable commercialization of fisheries in these north-eastern rivers and wetland systems for export to cities and towns in neighbouring countries,
  • the capture and killing of Carmine Bee-eaters at their breeding colonies by means of nets,
  • the rise in bush-meat poaching wherever Chinese nationals are working on road construction and other infrastructure, including tortoises, monitor lizards, pythons and any other form of wild meat, including from protected and endangered species,
  • the illegal collection of shellfish on the Namibian coast,
  • the illegal transit through Namibia and attempted export of poached abalone from Cape waters through Namibian ports.

We are also aware of long-standing interests by some Chinese nationals to start a shark fin industry in Namibia, a practice that has caused widespread damage to shark populations in many parts of the world, including in South Africa.

And more recently, Chinese nationals have proposed to capture marine mammals and seabirds for the Asian aquarium market. The Namibian scientific and environmental communities have strongly rejected this proposal on sound conservation and ethical grounds, as has the Namibian public.

We are concerned by an apparent total disregard by some Chinese nationals for Namibia’s wildlife, conservation, and animal welfare laws and values. Namibians are proud of their environmental heritage, their rich wildlife resources and the institutional mechanisms that are in place to sustainably manage them.

Namibia as a nation has worked hard to protect and nurture these natural assets. Namibia’s wildlife management provides an international example for good conservation and sustainable use. We have not made these investments so that some Chinese nationals, or anyone else, can pillage them.

Adding insult to injury

The illegal commercial interests of some Chinese nationals towards Namibia’s protected wildlife has exploited the vulnerability of poor Namibians and divided societies. It undermines local ownership of natural resources and the empowerment of communities to managing their wildlife wisely, for long-term communal benefits. It undermines Namibia’s globally acclaimed Community-based Conservancy programme, and it does considerable damage to Namibia’s international conservation and sustainable development reputation.

The recent announcement by the Chinese business community that it is contributing N$30,000 to counter rhino poaching, while acknowledging that Namibians are deeply concerned about the situation caused by some Chinese nationals, totally fails to understand the economic scale of the problem. Indeed, it is an insult to the environmental sector in Namibia and to Namibia’s environment.

An initial very conservative estimate of the extent of the losses to Namibia’s wildlife and ecosystems caused by Chinese nationals is about N$811 million. And this does not include the significant additional resources that Namibia’s government, donors, communities, private sector, and NGOs have had to commit to combat escalating wildlife crimes. These funds should rather have been spent on more productive activities such as continuing to develop the wildlife and tourism sectors to improve the lives and livelihoods of rural communities.

We do not claim to fully understand the relationship between Chinese nationals and the Chinese state. It appears that Chinese nationals are not at liberty to obtain passports and travel independently around the world, bringing their personal capital and starting businesses in their own names in whatever country would have them, independent of the Chinese state.

As such, Chinese nationals in Namibia appear to be part of a state supported system. So, as the highest ranking Chinese official in Namibia, we would expect all Chinese nationals in Namibia to fall under your authority.

As such, we now call on you to put an immediate stop to the illegal wildlife crimes perpetrated, encouraged, funded, incentivized or otherwise committed and supported, by some Chinese nationals in Namibia.

And now, please help us to repair the damage caused!

Further, we call on the Chinese government to make good, by investing in Namibia’s environment sector in a transparent and internationally recognized manner, and in proportion to the damage caused, to help rebuild Namibia’s wildlife populations, ecosystems, management systems and reputation.

This letter does not represent only the views of the 40 environmental organisations listed below, but also represents the views of countless members of the Namibian public and our international friends.

The sentiments expressed in social media over the past months, from across a broad spectrum of Namibian society, and their outrage at the leading role that Chinese nationals play in wildlife crime have surely been noted by you and members of your embassy.

You will also be aware of the sentiments expressed by our President, by the Minister of Environment and Tourism, and by the Namibian Police Inspector General as reported in the local media. The time for inaction is over.

China has a policy of non-intervention and yet these actions by some Chinese nationals, and the apparent inaction of your embassy to address the problem, are direct and indirect interventions that have disastrous impacts on our policy and legal framework, on our environmental culture and ethics, on our natural heritage and on our national conservation and development programmes. They also have huge negative impacts on our people and their livelihoods, and on our international reputation.

In late 2014 the out-going US President Barack Obama, in an interview with the New York Times, accused China of being a “free rider” for the last 30 years in not taking on more of its international obligations. In the last couple of years, particularly under the leadership of your President Xi Jinping, China has taken a decidedly more active leadership role in global issues. It is time to extend that leadership to natural resources and in particular, to wildlife conservation.

Indeed, the Chinese philosopher Zhuangzi, almost 2,000 years ago, may have been amongst the first to advocate for ecological sustainability within a philosophy of coexistence between man and nature. If China is to live up to its stated aims of having positive interactions between peoples and countries then this, for us in Namibia, is a critical issue.

Time for China to take responsibility!

We support our government’s policy of attracting foreign investment to stimulate growth, employment and development. And we counter all forms of xenophobia and profiling. However, we expect foreign investors and their nationals to abide by Namibia’s laws, and to embrace Namibia’s cultures, ethics, and values.

Too many Chinese nationals have abused Namibia’s environmental laws, and this is causing growing resentment and anger amongst Namibians. By their criminal actions, some Chinese nationals have drawn attention to themselves and their nationality through their blatant disregard of Namibia’s legal and environmental values. We are also concerned at how little action the Chinese embassy in Namibia appears to be taking to address the problem.

We as concerned Namibian Environmental NGOs and businesses, who it should be stated, are pro-sustainable use, stand ready to work with a China that willingly takes on greater responsibility and leadership in addressing the illegal trade in wildlife and, in particular, commits to putting an immediate stop to all wildlife crimes in Namibia by its Chinese nationals.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Chris Brown, CEO, Namibian Chamber of Environment; and other environmental organisations.

Namibian Chamber of Environment members

African Penguin Conservation Project
Africat Foundation
Cheetah Conservation Fund (CCF)
Desert Elephant Conservation
Earthlife Namibia
Eco Awards Namibia
Edu Ventures
Environmental Compliance Consulting
EnviroScience
Frank Bockmühl
Giraffe Conservation Foundation
Jaro Consultancy
Naankuse Foundation
Namib Desert Environmental Education Trust
Namibia Animal Rehabilitation, Research & Education Centre (NARREC)
Namibia Nature Foundation (NNF)
Namibia Scientific Society
Namibian Association of CBNRM Support Organizations (NACSO)
Namibian Hydrogeological Association
NamibRand Nature Reserve
Ongava Game Reserve
Otjikoto Environmental and Education Trust
Progress Namibia TAS
Research and Information Services of Namibia (RAISON)
Southern Africa Institute for Environmental Assessment (SAIEA)
Save The Rhino Trust (SRT)
Scientific Society Swakopmund
Sustainable Solutions Trust (SST)
The Namibian Environmental and Wildlife Society (NEWS)
Tosco Trust
Venture Publications

Other Namibian Environmental Organisations supporting this letter

Botanical Society of Namibia
Brown Hyena Research Project
Gondwana Collection Namibia
Game Rangers Association of Africa (GRAA) – Namibian Chapter
Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation (IRDNC)
Kavango Open Africa Route (KOAR)
Legal Assistance Centre (LAC)
Namibia Bird Club
Wilderness Safaris – Namibia

 

Real Farming Report – Whose seeds are they anyway?

Leave a reply

For at least 12,000 years, humans have been sowing, selecting, domesticating and freely exchanging seeds in order to adapt to the conditions of an ever-changing Earth. Then, a century or so ago, things went pear-shaped.

Since the 1900s, crop diversity has been narrowing at a dramatic pace. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), some “75% of genetic diversity has been lost”.

In the mainstream, farmers have turned away from locally adapted, traditional varieties of domesticated species (landraces) in favour of alternatives offering higher yields.

The consequences of shrinking diversity don’t take much head-scratching to work out. The first is that the world’s meals have become homogenised. Three crops – wheat, rice and corn (also known as maize) – account for 43% of all food eaten… anywhere in the world. There are over 2,000 different varieties of apple in the UK, but you’re unlikely to spot more than 20 in supermarkets.

A recent report by charity People Need Nature has revealed the effect that homogenised taste buds have had on land-use in England: “Most (84%) of arable land grows cereals and oilseed rape. Just 30% of this area is used to produce wheat good enough to mill for flour, and most of this is used to make bread. The other 70% of wheat and other cereals grown in England is used to feed animals”.

Maize in particular is harvested late in the season, so the stubble is usually left over winter. The unprotected soil is then washed off the fields into streams and rivers, worsening the impact of downstream flooding.

“Maize fields are also very poor for wildlife; nothing much can live in them.” writes author of the study, Miles King.

Secondly, a master key to food security has been handed to multinational agricultural corporations. In France’s Official Catalogue of Plant Varieties, five major corporations now own 6,000 strains. What’s more, 95% of all the corn seeds registered in the catalogue are hybrid, which means they have a declining yield characteristic: every season, a farmer will likely need to buy more seed to obtain high yields and will pay royalties on any seeds they do replant. By using intellectual property laws to charge these royalties, environmental campaigner Vandana Shiva believes agriculture giants, ‘make commodity out of what nature created for us’.

As the population rises, seed diversity will decide whether 370 million go hungry

Narrowing seed diversity poses a threat to the security, resilience and productivity of the global agr-food system in the future, particularly with reference to population growth and climate change.

The United Nation’s Food and Agricultural Organization’s Coping with Climate Change report highlights that genetic diversity, “has long been an essential element of strategies to reduce the effects of crop diseases and abiotic stresses such as drought.”

The FAO predicts that the world will need to be producing 70% more food by 2050 in order to feed a third more mouths. UN projections put the world’s population at 9.7 billion by 2050, rising to 12.2 billion by 2100.

“To achieve sustainability and higher levels of productivity, production systems will have to rely increasingly on ecological processes and ecosystem services, on the diversity of varieties, breeds, strains and species, and on diversification of management strategies (Galluzzi et al., 2011),” states the report.

Almost all of the population growth will occur in developing countries – particularly Sub-Saharan Africa – so enhanced access to food will also be needed to stop an estimated 370 million people from going hungry in 2050.

The question of how best to provide food security for a growing global population without causing irrevocable harm to the Earth’s climate and environment is perhaps the most pressing challenge faced today. A fierce debate is raging over the best answer.

The deep-freeze option

Spitsbergen, a remote island in the Norwegian Svalbard archipelago – the farthest north a person can hope to travel on a scheduled flight – might seem an unlikely location for one of the possible solutions. But that’s exactly what it has been described as. Buried 120m deep inside a mountain on Spitsbergen, lies a ‘doomsday vault’ capable of storing 4.5 million seed samples, equating to 2.25 billion seeds. In foil packages sealed in boxes and kept at -18°C (-0.4°F) the genetic information of 10,000 years of agriculture lies frozen.

Svalbard Seed Vault is built for worst-case scenarios: natural disasters like drought, pestilence, disease and man-made disasters like war. It claims to be “the ultimate insurance policy for the world’s food supply”, containing backups of the world’s crop collection.

At the time of writing, the count stands at 870,971 seed samples, originating from almost every country in the world; wooden boxes have even arrived from North Korea.

Svalbard’s deep-freeze is an example of one possible solution: gene bank collections that store seed diversity for the long-term, so that it may be used by breeders in the future, returned to farmers and offered to consumers.

The resistance

However, seed diversity is already being protected in situ. A study by a Penn State geographer, taking into account information from 11 countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America, suggests 75% of global seed diversity currently survives in small-scale holdings of less than three to seven acres. These seeds include staple food crops like maize, rice, wheat, potatoes and teff (in Ethiopia).

At Navdanya Biodiversity Conservation Farm, securing biodiversity for the future goes hand-in-hand with protecting the livelihoods of smallholders. Stretching for 47 acres between the Ganga and the Yamuna, the Shivalik and Himalayan mountain ranges, it is a seed vault in action, founded by environmentalist Vandana Shiva in 1995 on land that had been previously degraded by sugarcane and eucalyptus plantations.

More than two decades on, the farm now claims to be saving 1,500 varieties of seeds and trees, while creating a biodiversity sanctuary for birds, butterflies, insects and soil microorganisms. “We do not just grow crops and biodiversity,” its website declares, “we are cultivating community.”

Around 122 community seed banks have been set up across 18 states of India to collect and save seeds from disappearance, multiply them, then distribute them according to farmers’ needs. So far, these banks have supplied farmers after events like floods in Uttarakhand, Cyclone Phailin in Odisha and the Nepal Earthquake.

Futile or fertile?

It is tempting to believe that Svalbard and Navdanya can coexist happily. When facing the apocalypse you can’t be picky in your choice of partner, and they represent two sides of the same coin after all. Both are protecting seed diversity: it’s simply that one does so in its original place, the other in a new location.

For Vandana Shiva though, Svalbard is symptomatic of a dangerous shift in agriculture: it’s going hands-free. By locking seeds in what are essentially long-stay (exceedingly cold) ‘car parks’, they are open to being patented in the future: “While living seeds need to evolve ‘in situ’, patents on genomes can be taken through access to seed ‘ex situ’,” she warns.

Projects that aim to map the genetic data of seeds held in gene banks rob farmers, “of their seeds and knowledge, it robs the seed of its integrity and diversity, its evolutionary history, its link to the soil and reduces it to “code.”” adds Shiva.

Svalbard’s samples cannot be accessed by anyone other than their national depositor, but the vault is sponsored in part by two multinational agribusiness megaliths – DuPont/Pioneer Hi-Bred and Syngenta – as well as the Bill Gates Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation. Concerns over what they stand to gain are understandable, and conspiracy theories are rife (though whether there is any fire behind all the smoke remains to be seen).

Money is – as ever – also at the heart of the debate. The Crop Trust, which funds the world’s gene banks, states: “These crop collections are also often threatened, most typically by inadequate funding”.

Yet, the same is true of small-scale farming. People Need Nature’s Miles King states that in the UK: “farm subsidies are available only to farmers with more than 5 hectares, which excludes the producers it should be supporting”.

Is the future in your hands?

All of this suggests a coming age of hands-free farming is on its way. In a prepared testimony from Syngenta, littered with reference to Google’s self-driving cars and rocket ship development, Monsanto’s chief technology officer states: ‘The pace of innovation is accelerating, and new tools and applications are creating a healthy disruption in agriculture.’

Robots have been developed for tasks like recognising and picking ripe fruit, or identifying and eradicating individual weeds; Monsanto and Bayer both already offer digital farming services. Data from sensors in farmers’ fields and satellites decide the appropriate seeds to plant, the exact amount of chemicals to apply and the exact time to apply them throughout the growing season.

This is indicative of the Modern Age. It reveals humanity’s automation bias: mankind trusts software, but sometimes this trust is so strong that other sources of information, including humans’ own senses, are distrusted.

“To resist invention is not to reject invention. It’s to humble invention, to bring progress down to Earth,” writes the author Nicholas Carr in his book The Glass Cage. “What makes one tool superior to another has nothing to do with how new it is. What matters is how it enlarges us or diminishes us, how it shapes our experience of nature and culture and one another,” he says.

“Bringing our hands back into function is going to be the biggest revolution of our time.” predicts Vandana Shiva.

Seeds will tell.

This article is part of a new content-sharing arrangement with the LUSH – the ethical cosmetics company that also works to support sustainable farming practices across the Globe

 

 

 

Four essential ‘green lines’ for Brexit negotiators

Leave a reply

Brexit risks harming the UK’s environment unless the government passes stiff new legislation before it triggers Article 50.

That’s the conclusion of a major new report by the Environment Audit Committee, a cross-bench group of 16 MPs.

In the run-up to the referendum, most experts were very worried about the environmental impact of Brexit and, since the vote, some of these concerns have been confirmed.

Think, for example, of Michael Gove and John Whittingdale inviting companies to draw a wish list for a bonfire of EU social and environmental legislation.

On the other hand, some environmental NGOs have launched a campaign to achieve a “Greener UK” after the vote, seizing Brexit as an opportunity to increase, not decrease, environmental ambition.

So, which way is Britain going to go? This depends on whether Theresa May’s government uses the Brexit negotiation to actually deliver on its manifesto commitment to “be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than it found it”.

As with anything Brexit-related, a ‘green Brexit’ is full of uncertainties, and faces both technical and political difficulties. However the audit committee’s report can help us draw ‘green lines’ on which to judge how eco-friendly Brexit is really likely to be.

1. Adopt clear policy objectives

Long before the referendum the government started working on two parallel 25-year plans for the environment and agriculture / food. But progress has been slow, and consultation on this flagship policy has still not started. As with Brexit more generally, clear environmental goals have been promised but not yet delivered.

Environment secretary Andrea Leadsom’s speech yesterday to the Oxford Farming conference was a classic example of trying to have it both ways. “By cutting the red tape that comes out of Brussels”, she said, “we will free our farmers to grow more, sell more and export more great British food whilst upholding our high standards for plant and animal health and welfare.”

But is it really possible to ‘cut red tape’ and maintain high standards? When the two objectives collide, which will win out? The absence of clarity on what the government is trying to achieve for farming and the environment makes it difficult to ensure these unknown objectives are not inadvertently thwarted during the Brexit negotiations.

A first Brexit green line, then, is that negotiating objectives should be, as much as possible, aligned with the 25-year plans. The MPs’ report suggests the basic framework and consultation on both plans should take place before the government officially starts negotiating to leave the EU.

This would ensure any conflicts between the two plans and the Brexit negotiation brief are considered and hopefully mitigated.

2. Beware of regulatory gaps

The prime minister has called for a “Great Repeal Bill“ to transfer to UK law all applicable EU law and ensure a smooth transition.

But copy-pasting legislation is not so straightforward: Andrea Leadsom, told the environmental committee that, of the 800 or more pieces of European environmental legislation, up to a third would not be automatically carried over.

What is striking in the committee’s report is how little is known about what these gaps actually are, and which policy areas are particularly at risk.

A second green line for Brexit would be to identify these gaps as soon as possible and make sure they are effectively plugged by the time the UK leaves the EU. To do this, the committee suggests that “any provisions which cannot be transposed into UK law should form the basis of a new Environmental Protection Act.”

3. Coordinate across the UK

May’s government is working on a Brexit deal for the “whole UK“, but environmental policy is a devolved area. While there are of course EU-wide rules, they’re implemented slightly differently in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

Common rules limit regulatory divergence, although it still exists: for example, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland have banned their farmers from growing genetically modified crops but England has not.

The Great Repeal Bill therefore risks fuelling constitutional tensions within the UK. Establishing UK-wide rules, such as minimum pollution standards, would see Westminster taking back control from the devolved administrations, and not just from Europe. It would be politically difficult – indeed the Scottish government is clearly opposed to it – but may be, to some extent, environmentally necessary.

A third green line for Brexit would thus be to achieve both minimum standards throughout the UK and to respect devolved administration’s competences to adopt more ambitious and innovative policies.

4. Don’t stick environmental policy in a silo

Coordination will not only be needed between devolved and central administration, but within central administration itself.

How the UK answers the two central Brexit questions – in or out of the single market? In or out of the customs union? – will have major impacts on the environment. Notably, if the UK opts for a hard Brexit (out of both single market and customs union) and is to negotiate its own trade deals, environmental standards could be at risk. Just think of the Europe-wide mobilisation against the EU-US trade deal TTIP on this very basis.

A fourth green line for Brexit is that the UK environment should not lose out from these new deals. The committee asks that “the government should guarantee that it will not trade away environmental protections, animal welfare and food safety standards, as part of the negotiations to leave, or as part of future trade deals.”

These four green lines will allow us to gauge the Brexit negotiation from an environmental perspective. A first test will be in how the government responds to the Environment Audit Committee’s report.

But the key test will be the UK’s official negotiation position – and whether it makes any mention of the environment.

 

 

Viviane Gravey is Lecturer in European Politics, Queen’s University BelfastThe Conversation.

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

 

Four essential ‘green lines’ for Brexit negotiators

Leave a reply

Brexit risks harming the UK’s environment unless the government passes stiff new legislation before it triggers Article 50.

That’s the conclusion of a major new report by the Environment Audit Committee, a cross-bench group of 16 MPs.

In the run-up to the referendum, most experts were very worried about the environmental impact of Brexit and, since the vote, some of these concerns have been confirmed.

Think, for example, of Michael Gove and John Whittingdale inviting companies to draw a wish list for a bonfire of EU social and environmental legislation.

On the other hand, some environmental NGOs have launched a campaign to achieve a “Greener UK” after the vote, seizing Brexit as an opportunity to increase, not decrease, environmental ambition.

So, which way is Britain going to go? This depends on whether Theresa May’s government uses the Brexit negotiation to actually deliver on its manifesto commitment to “be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than it found it”.

As with anything Brexit-related, a ‘green Brexit’ is full of uncertainties, and faces both technical and political difficulties. However the audit committee’s report can help us draw ‘green lines’ on which to judge how eco-friendly Brexit is really likely to be.

1. Adopt clear policy objectives

Long before the referendum the government started working on two parallel 25-year plans for the environment and agriculture / food. But progress has been slow, and consultation on this flagship policy has still not started. As with Brexit more generally, clear environmental goals have been promised but not yet delivered.

Environment secretary Andrea Leadsom’s speech yesterday to the Oxford Farming conference was a classic example of trying to have it both ways. “By cutting the red tape that comes out of Brussels”, she said, “we will free our farmers to grow more, sell more and export more great British food whilst upholding our high standards for plant and animal health and welfare.”

But is it really possible to ‘cut red tape’ and maintain high standards? When the two objectives collide, which will win out? The absence of clarity on what the government is trying to achieve for farming and the environment makes it difficult to ensure these unknown objectives are not inadvertently thwarted during the Brexit negotiations.

A first Brexit green line, then, is that negotiating objectives should be, as much as possible, aligned with the 25-year plans. The MPs’ report suggests the basic framework and consultation on both plans should take place before the government officially starts negotiating to leave the EU.

This would ensure any conflicts between the two plans and the Brexit negotiation brief are considered and hopefully mitigated.

2. Beware of regulatory gaps

The prime minister has called for a “Great Repeal Bill“ to transfer to UK law all applicable EU law and ensure a smooth transition.

But copy-pasting legislation is not so straightforward: Andrea Leadsom, told the environmental committee that, of the 800 or more pieces of European environmental legislation, up to a third would not be automatically carried over.

What is striking in the committee’s report is how little is known about what these gaps actually are, and which policy areas are particularly at risk.

A second green line for Brexit would be to identify these gaps as soon as possible and make sure they are effectively plugged by the time the UK leaves the EU. To do this, the committee suggests that “any provisions which cannot be transposed into UK law should form the basis of a new Environmental Protection Act.”

3. Coordinate across the UK

May’s government is working on a Brexit deal for the “whole UK“, but environmental policy is a devolved area. While there are of course EU-wide rules, they’re implemented slightly differently in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

Common rules limit regulatory divergence, although it still exists: for example, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland have banned their farmers from growing genetically modified crops but England has not.

The Great Repeal Bill therefore risks fuelling constitutional tensions within the UK. Establishing UK-wide rules, such as minimum pollution standards, would see Westminster taking back control from the devolved administrations, and not just from Europe. It would be politically difficult – indeed the Scottish government is clearly opposed to it – but may be, to some extent, environmentally necessary.

A third green line for Brexit would thus be to achieve both minimum standards throughout the UK and to respect devolved administration’s competences to adopt more ambitious and innovative policies.

4. Don’t stick environmental policy in a silo

Coordination will not only be needed between devolved and central administration, but within central administration itself.

How the UK answers the two central Brexit questions – in or out of the single market? In or out of the customs union? – will have major impacts on the environment. Notably, if the UK opts for a hard Brexit (out of both single market and customs union) and is to negotiate its own trade deals, environmental standards could be at risk. Just think of the Europe-wide mobilisation against the EU-US trade deal TTIP on this very basis.

A fourth green line for Brexit is that the UK environment should not lose out from these new deals. The committee asks that “the government should guarantee that it will not trade away environmental protections, animal welfare and food safety standards, as part of the negotiations to leave, or as part of future trade deals.”

These four green lines will allow us to gauge the Brexit negotiation from an environmental perspective. A first test will be in how the government responds to the Environment Audit Committee’s report.

But the key test will be the UK’s official negotiation position – and whether it makes any mention of the environment.

 

 

Viviane Gravey is Lecturer in European Politics, Queen’s University BelfastThe Conversation.

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