Environmental activists Young Friends of the Earth Norway (Natur og Ungdom) teamed up with Greenpeace to take the Norwegian Government to court for opening up new areas for Artic Oil Drilling in November last year.

The environmental group of over 7,500 members called for the Norwegian government to halt all 10 new oil licenses in the arctic, as this would violate both the Paris Agreement and Norway’s own constitution which states that authorities will take measures to secure the right for people and future generations to a healthy environment.

Disappointingly, it was announced yesterday that this historic case was lost, as the Oslo district court decreed that exploration for new reserves did not violate citizens’ constitutional right. Instead, it claimed: “Norway is only responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions within its borders, not those causes by burning exported oil and gas“.

Designated borders

Therefore Norway, one of the world’s largest exporters of oil and gas, has self-decreed that it is not responsible for CO2 emissions caused by hydrocarbons exported to other countries, avoiding all climate responsibility to its people, its future people and the planet for bringing new oil and gas reserves into production.

This kind of individualist thinking, inspired by the neoliberal doctrine, hampers the collective action required to meaningfully mitigate climate change. We risk serious consequences if this ‘out of sight, out of mind’ attitude becomes another Norwegian export.

In response, Ingrid Skjoldvær, chair of Young Friends of the Earth Norway, told The Ecologist: “Of course we are disappointed. We know that fighting the most powerful industry in Norway is going to be tough, so the verdict is not a huge shock.

“But we still think that we have a strong case, and we want to take this case further. Hence our next task is to see if this is economically and legally feasible.”

In a twist of cruel irony, the verdict, just like the oil and gas it concerned, will have implications far beyond its designated borders.

Decision makers

The loss has been felt not simply by Greenpeace and YFoE activists, but by the global environmental movement attempting to scour corporate interest with people power, by future generations that will walk into a warmer world and by the youth voice that continues to struggle above water.

More physical impacts come from the drilling, which will put more greenhouse gas into our atmosphere, contrary to the plethora of evidence that if we are to avoid 2 degrees centigrade warming, all fossil fuels need to remain in the ground. The accumulating scream of science is again muffled by the obnoxious noise of drills.

However, there is cause to celebrate victories, as small as they may seem. Firstly, the case was historic in that it saw young people mobilising for democracy and their future.

Since 1988 when James Hansen first testified in front of Congress that the world was warming, decisions about climate change have been dominated by the very bodies made up of people who won’t be around to feel it.

Whilst climate change will affect young people the most (particularly those that are BME, female and from the global South), the majority do not have the age credentials even to vote. This court case has been a symbolic step in reinstating the youth seat at the decision makers’ table.

Summer success

Secondly, it’s a loud reminder that young people are not alone in their strife. Cases like these that pit money versus man seldom inspire hope for young people.

However, as Ingrid poignantly argues: “If you feel disenchanted then look around! Young people all around the world are making a difference. My best tip if you feel a bit dis-empowered is to organise yourself in an organisation. It’s a great way to meet other like-minded and to put more force behind your demands.’

In the UK, grass roots action is already happening, with the UK Youth Climate Coalition celebrating its 10th year anniversary and mobilising for its 2018 campaign against fossil gas. 

Thirdly the case perhaps signals a shift in global governance. The drilling was stunted not by the bounds of international regulation, nor the condemnation of neighbouring allies, but by the incumbent force of Norwegian youth power.

Perhaps we are shifting to an environmental paradigm where young people are taking centre stage? If Jeremy’s Corbyn’s summer success is much to go by then perhaps collective youth are far more able than generations of repression suggest?

Perhaps youth power will become a key weapon in the environmental arsenal?  Though this battle has been lost, the war is far from over. 

This Author

Katie Hodgetts works with the Economic Justice Team at Friends of the Earth Europe and can be found on twitter at @katiehodgettssx 

The world has to stop burning coal to produce electricity. We cannot afford the dirtiest fuel, killing with its air pollution, heating the planet with its carbon. That’s a reality that’s dawned in increasing numbers of countries, with the UK among them, who have signed up to the Powering Past Coal alliance, launched at the Bonn climate talks.

In Britain, the reality is this signature is more symbolic than practical. The government had already promised a phase out by 2025 (which could be a lot earlier). In August only 2 percent of electricity was produced through coal and its financial cost is increasingly ruling it out.

But the politics of coal are very different in Poland, where 80 percent of electricity is still produced with highly-polluting fuel, and the government is one of the last in the developed world still building new coal-fired stations.

Industry viability

It’s also not the case in Spain, where when I was in Madrid recently, Greenpeace was unfurling a banner showing the rightwing People’s Party leader Rajoy, embracing Alvaro Nadal, his energy minister and coal enthusiast.

Only about 10 percent of electricity is produced from coal, and some areas of traditional mining have effectively closed down, due to its low quality, but others continue, and the miners’ union is a significant political force.

In both places, I was recently at conferences where these issues came under close discussion.

In Poland, I was at the Industry Forum, an event held annually by the Foundation Institute for Eastern Studies, to talk on a panel about solar energy. At a number of sessions on energy, I didn’t hear anybody outright supporting the government’s policy of all-out coal, but it was pretty well taken as a political given.

One of the strongest expressions of concern I heard was from a steel industry representative, who was worried that coal-fired electricity was already heading towards being – and in the future was certain to be – more expensive than renewables, which would affect Poland’s industry’s viability.

Financial benefit

And I learnt that while coal is often defended as a national energy security issue (meaning Warsaw doesn’t have to depend on Russia gas), in fact Poland is importing Russian coal, for both financial and supply reasons. And oddly, recently, even US coal.)

Employment in the coal industry has already plunged, from a high of over 400,000 to around 100,000, which has had a big impact the main coal region, where, uncomfortably, the global climate talks will be held next year. But, coal miners remain a potent political force, and the current government is almost defining its highly nationalist politics with coal.

I was in Spain with Equo, the Green Party which is part of the Podemos coalition in parliament, to share Britain’s experience of the Climate Change Act with those seeking to introduce similar legislation in Madrid.

I spoke of how a “just transition” – compensation and alternative ways of life – needs to be offered to regions affected by job and income losses in the move away from fossil fuels. (We also need to think about the structure of the new renewables economy.)

Also a focus was the way in which the opportunities of renewable energy, particularly solar and onshore wind, (and energy conservation) are shared around countries, with many regions having the opportunity to financially benefit.

Energy transition

Every city can have its own collection of small solar and battery installers, its own community of energy-efficiency providers, small businesses who provide jobs, use other local businesses from accountants to hardware wholesalers, and who employ people who put money back into the local economy.

Onshore wind too, can be developed locally, often by municipalities who can use the returns to support public services. (Bristol’s wind turbines are just one example of this.)  With electric cars taking off fast, there’s also the potential for income to households owning them from use as grid storage (Vehicle to Grid, VtG in the jargon).

So when we think about what this transition means, we’re seeing jobs and income that used to be concentrated in one part of nations, being replaced by a far more decentralised, equitable arrangement.

When we think about “just transition” the usual focus is on those who are losing out, but it is also important to focus on that side of the equation. While former coal regions make the case for significant extra funding, other regions with significant needs might understandably ask “why them and not us?”

If it is understood that this is a new sharing and spreading of the benefits of energy generation (as well as the greater resilience that is the other great advantaged of a decentralised system), then there’s likely to be far more political “buy-in” around nations where this energy transition can and should be understood as a great economic opportunity, rather than a threat.

It is a transition that can put the returns from energy generation in the hands of the many, helping every region of the country, so it’s both fair and reasonable that they should all make a contribution to those few regions that see a net loss from the change.

This Author

Natalie Bennett is a regular contributor to The Ecologist and a former leader of the Green Party. She tweets at @natalieben. 

Britain has had a cheap food policy since the war, but the time has come to re-evaluate our priorities. Pressure on prices has forced farmers to sacrifice ecological protection in the name of productivity.

Government subsidies – while designed to encourage sustainable farming – have unfortunately failed to deliver tangible benefits to wildlife.

Michael Gove is due to make a speech at the Oxford Farming Conference today, pledging to reform the subsidy system so that it rewards the services provided by farmers, rather than simply the area of land owned.

Ecological protection

Although individual trailblazers are creating new models of sustainable farming, this complete overhaul of the subsidy system is desperately needed to ensure that all farmers are required to deliver environmental services.

Brexit – while a threat to the protections enshrined in European Union law – provides an opportunity to reset the balance, ensuring that British farmers are valued for their stewardship of the environment as much as for the food they produce.

Current ‘sustainable farming’ subsidies, under Pillar I of EU structures, consist of the Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) and Greening obligations. Under the BPS, farmers are paid a fixed flat rate per hectare of land, which varies between lowland, upland or moorland.

The Greening obligations, required for further payment, include the rotation of a minimum number of different crops (Crop Diversification), and the creation of Ecological Focus Areas (EFAs). In addition, Pillar II supports the UK Countryside Stewardship (CS) scheme, aimed at maintaining areas of existing high biodiversity, such as limestone grassland, neutral meadows and specific bird breeding habitats.

The BPS, which requires only that land be maintained as farmland, has failed to deliver because it offers no incentive to engage in ecological protection.

Traditional systems

Indeed, ‘non-qualifying’ features – wildlife-rich habitats such as ponds, wetlands and wide hedgerows – are deducted from the area for which farmers can receive payment, encouraging their destruction.

This habitat loss, along with changes to the chemical environment, is a significant contributor to the decline of many species, as well as the catastrophic reduction in invertebrate populations. 

With respect to Greening, the rules for Crop Diversification contain many loopholes, while the EFA obligation is poorly specified; it does not enforce improvement, but allows farmers to claim for already existing ecological features, while catch-and-cover crop obligations have failed to improve biodiversity due to narrow restrictions on the species permitted and the duration that they are grown for.

Ironically, frustration with the present system in which even high inputs and production levels do not enable farmers to compete with cheap food from abroad is driving innovation.

A growing minority of farmers are experimenting with more traditional systems, producing higher quality food that commands a premium in the market, and simultaneously achieving a multitude of ecological benefits.

Crop yields

One farm has been trialling a rotational approach using grass and herbal leys, which gives nature the opportunity to restore soil health and faunal diversity between crop yields.

In 2011 an 11-hectare field, which had been in continuous arable cropping for over 30 years, was drilled with grass seed and white clover and left for five years, untouched save for grazing sheep and cows.

In 2015 the grass was removed and winter oilseed rape and winter wheat were direct drilled into the field. The direct drilling method has precluded the need to cultivate the soil for seven years, and so the field is currently acting as a carbon sequestration facility.

According to the farmer’s data, carbon levels in the soil increased from 1.4 percent in 2011 to 2.6 percent in 2015, and the earthworm population and structural quality of the soil improved. This has, in turn, provided the foundation for stable crop yields, improving commercial revenue. 

On the farm’s other fields, the cropping programme has moved away from narrow, two-crop rotations of wheat and rape to rotations of eight to 10 diverse crops, including spring crops, linseed and catch-and-cover crops which act as green ploughs and cultivators. 

Farming legislation

A suckler herd and sheep flocks now graze the rotational grass leys, and close to 20,000 extra trees have been planted, the area under which will be used for free-range chickens.

The rotations have improved the soil condition enough to allow direct drilling for the foreseeable future.  This has resulted in a 65-70 percent saving on establishment costs and a reduction in the CO2 emissions previously caused by in-field cultivations prior to drilling. 

The longer crop rotation has also improved soil health, and herbicide sprays across the farm have been reduced by 10-15 percent as the ground becomes cleaner.

Other estates are experimenting with various forms of ‘re-wilding’, allowing natural re-diversification and enhanced profitability, while groups such as the Pasture-Fed Livestock Association (PFLA) are working to encourage the restoration of species-rich grasslands, and also producing higher value meat at lower cost.

It remains to be seen how widely these methods can be adopted by others, particularly given current, Brexit-related, uncertainty around farming legislation.

Meadow flora

While it is widely understood that British environmental policy will initially be identical to EU legislation, the current farm subsidies are only guaranteed until 2022.

Speculation suggests that, once farming subsidies are paid directly from the Treasury and not through the EU, the public may increasingly demand quantifiable tax-payer benefits in return for subsidy payments. 

The recent indication from Mr Gove that farmers are likely to be paid by results – whether increases in the ’natural capital’ of the soil and water or better delivery of biodiversity across the countryside – certainly suggests that change is on the way.

Forty years ago, the respected Professor of Agriculture Gerald Wibberley was fond of saying that farmers will always respond to ‘price signals’, growing whatever society pays them to.

This concept could form the basis of a new contract between farmers and their communities. An EU-funded pilot scheme in Wensleydale, for example, awards farmers with grants, dependent on the biodiversity they can produce in the dale’s hay meadows, including re-establishing meadow flora and increasing the population of wet grassland birds, such as the Curlew. Farmers are already discussing their achievements, and even competing for the best result.

Promised overhaul

To restore biodiversity and encourage a shift away from intensive farming methods, government subsidies need to be refocused along similar lines.

From 2014-2020, BPS funding totalled around €25.1 billion, while Countryside Stewardship funding came to only €2.6 billion. Redirecting funds towards programmes such as the CS scheme could yield an increase in tangible ecological benefits.

However, it is not simply a matter of numbers. Grants must be better integrated across landscapes. Regulatory focus in UK, unlike most of Europe, has tended to home in on individual fields, at the expense of a more comprehensive overview of the potential for reconnecting land and restoring soils and isolated or lost features across larger areas.

Strategies targeting soils, geology and drainage, and semi-natural vegetation patterns, must be developed for suites of adjoining farms. As the ‘Making Space for Nature’ report of 2010, led by ecologist Professor Sir John Lawton, stressed, biodiverse areas need to be bigger, better, and better-connected.

These concerns must feed into the promised overhaul of the system, to ensure that each and every farmer is incentivised to become a provider of environmental services.

Sustainable farming

These services could include carbon sequestration, the storage of floodwater to prevent flooding in towns, and the conservation of biodiverse wildlife habitats. DEFRA should change its philosophy from controlling to enabling.

If these indications that reform is on the way do not come to fruition, farmers may begin to act together to improve the ecology of their productive land.

Experiments carried out by trailblazers such as the farmers mentioned above prove that individuals can have a significant impact, both in improving the health of their own land and by acting as an example for others. 

However, this alone is not sufficient. The subsidy system needs dramatically rethinking, to reward farmers for their stewardship of the land as much as for food production. Sustainable farming should not be an oxymoron.

These Authors

Tom Heathcote is a Partner at Fisher German LLP, which offers a range of specialist services across all property sectors including property consultancy, estate agency and chartered surveying. Phil Colebourn is Chairman of EPR (Ecological Planning and Research), an ecological consultancy which focuses on the complex interface between biodiversity and land-use planning.

Trade deals with the EU and beyond post-Brexit could pose the biggest peacetime threat to the UK’s food security if current environmental and public health standards and existing farmers’ needs are not prioritised in the terms of the negotiations, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Agroecology for Food and Farming (APPG on Agroecology) warned today.

The cross-party group of MPs and peers conducted an inquiry into the ways Brexit trade negotiations could impact UK agriculture and food production, with special emphasis on areas of practice and legislation most likely to impact producers working to sustainable, agroecological standards.

The inquiry’s overriding concern was that issues such as food security, environmental protection and welfare standards may be significantly weakened by the UK exiting the EU.

Free-trade agreements

Kerry McCarthy MP, the group chair, said: “There are serious concerns that if negotiators don’t value farmers enough and build poorly managed trade deals that reflect this – particularly a US-UK deal – it could trigger a race to the bottom in terms of standards and ability of our own farmers to compete. The APPG is determined that this sector should not become a bargaining chip or something that can easily be traded.”

The most important trade arrangement for the UK to resolve remains the EU. As much as 60 percent of UK food, feed and drink exports went to the EU, with just 16 percent shipped to Asia and 14 percent to the United States.

The APPG on Agroecology believes Defra must work with DIT to make sure that in all new trade agreements British farmers are protected and not undermined by lower welfare imports, such as the US with the concerns over chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-filled beef, because those countries will oppose any improvements and want standards reduced.

These concerns would apply to environmental standards, which again would harm agroecological producers more than any other sector. The recent news that the DIT is pushing to carry out secret negotiations with the US only serves to fuel publicly held fears.

A statement from the APPG on Agroecology stated: “It is understood that free-trade agreements smooth the way for foreign direct investment, including by transnational agribusinesses.

Food security

“There is a very real risk that this could encourage farmers to adopt input-heavy, intensive systems, or systems which are not suited to local environmental or cultural conditions.

“All of this may have a detrimental impact on soil health, local biodiversity and broader ecosystem health, and move the UK ever further away from sustainable ways of producing food and managing land.”

Kerry added: “If discussions are not handled by a negotiating team ready to support our agriculture industry in its entirety – not just the largest businesses, or those with capacity to lobby loudest – then the government is severely hampering its own ability to make good on its election manifesto promises to farmers, and will run the very real risk of permanently damaging our leading role in setting and improving food standards for current and future generations.”

The APPG on Agroecology has released the results of its inquiry into the impact of Brexit on food and farming trade to coincide with the opening of the Oxford Real Farming Conference (ORFC).

Grasses and grazing

Kerry added: “The hundreds of farmers that attend the ORFC are among some of the most vulnerable groups in the UK’s agricultural sector and often the least heard.

“They will be the most affected by a botched Brexit trade deal, and yet they are the ones best positioned to preserve the UK’s food security for decades into the future.

“The APPG on Agroecology calls on Defra, DExEU and DIT to work together to not only maintain, but to improve our production, public health and environmental standards as we navigate trade deals, for the good of the country.”

Agroecology is increasingly being seen as the answer to many of the concerns facing modern land management concerns. This includes soil health management techniques that focus on crops, grasses and grazing rather than fertiliser, which has been a key driver of the FAO announcement that the world only has 60 harvests left. It also includes agroforestry techniques to combat climate-change related flooding and encourage biodiversity and natural pest control.

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist and tweets at @EcoMontague.