The crisis of plastic waste has been gaining increasing attention in the UK in recent months. From the awareness-raising Blue Planet II series, to a national ban on microbeads in cosmetics, to Penzance becoming the country’s first ‘plastic-free community’. 

So while it seems to be becoming easier to shun plastic in day-to-day life in Britain, what about when heading further afield?

Travelling and its unfamiliar surroundings presents many new hurdles for the plastic-conscious to overcome and in trying to save luggage space and time, travellers often opt for the conveniences of bottled water, shopping in supermarkets and sending waste to landfill. 

Top tips

Heading abroad comes with a myriad of potential environmental pitfalls to consider, but if your plastic waste footprint is something you want to reduce on you next trip, here are ten simple things you can do about it.

1. Resist disposables

Even before you set foot out of the country, look in the travel aisle of any supermarket and you’ll be bombarded with an array of disposable items and tiny plastic bottles. From razors, to wet-wipes, to shampoo, the general idea is convenience above all else. 

Most of these plastic-heavy items can be easily avoided however with some foresight and careful packing. A metal razor will last your entire trip and more, shampoo bars are just as transportable as bottles and a flannel can be reused many more times than a pack of wet wipes. 

2. Use some local lingo 

Learning at least a little of the local language is always a good idea before heading to a new country. As well as making it easier to get around and usually being much appreciated by the locals, having a few well-chosen phrases noted down as you explore can help to avoid picking up unnecessary plastics. Once you’ve mastered the essentials (“una cerveza por favor”), try boosting your vocabulary with phrases like: “I don’t need a bag thanks”, “no straw please” and “where’s the nearest recycling point?”

3. Be a policy nerd

There may be more exciting things to research prior to heading to a new country, but brushing up on local policies around plastic waste and recycling can really help in your plastic-free endeavours when you arrive. 

In Kenya producing, selling or even using plastic bags could land you with a prison sentence or hefty fine and in Singapore litterers are punished by being made to clean the streets in shirts that read: “I am a litter lout.” Each country – even each city – is different.  Local government websites and travel forums are good places to look. 

4. Kick the bottled water habit

With a million plastic bottles bought around the world every minute, one of the simplest ways to cut your plastic waste footprint as a traveller is to not buy bottled water. 

Even if your destination’s water is 100 percent safe to drink, it’s always good to have a reusable bottle to carry on day trips and long journeys. Some countries even have refill schemes, such as Thailand where curb side machines provide safe, cheap drinking water.

If the water could be harmful, it’s worth investing in a filter bottle. There are now numerous options on the market including LifeStraw, which makes contaminated water safe to drink, and SteriPEN, which purifies using UV light.

5. In it for the long haul

Being a passenger on any long journey whether by bus, boat, train or plane will inevitably land you with a heap of unwanted plastic. From disposable cups to blankets wrapped in polythene. 

Although companies are starting to take note (in January Ryanair announced plans to eliminate the use of non-recyclable plastics by 2023), your best bet is to think of any on-board comforts you might want and bring your own.

Take home-made meals and snacks and inform the transport company in advance that you won’t be needing theirs. Pack cutlery, headphones, a water bottle, blankets, and a pillow and politely decline the ones you’re offered on board. 

6. Plastic-free travel in the bag

It sounds obvious, but investing in a cloth bag or two before you set off on any trip is a must. You never know when you’ll come across an exciting market or, if you’re feeling particularly keen, a piece of plastic litter to pick up and recycle or repurpose. 

Not only will you save on plastic, but in countries where singe-use bags are banned, charged for or simply not readily available you’ll be thankful to have something to carry any purchases in.  

7. Shun supermarkets 

Supermarkets can be tempting when you’re desperate to see the sights rather than spend time shopping for supplies, but seeking out alternatives can help to avoid these plastic havens.

Trying local crafts markets, street food stalls and independent shops has the added bonus of bringing you closer to a country’s culture and boosting the local economy. 

8. Make snacks from scratch

Exploring new places can be hungry work, but picking up snacks not wrapped in plastic on the road can be tricky. If you’re staying somewhere with access to a kitchen, plan ahead and make bulk batches of snacks from raw ingredients. 

If you opt to use a recipe from back home this also gives you a chance to bond with your fellow travellers and locals alike by sharing a part of your culture. You might even pick up some new recipes along the way. 

9. Take only photographs, leave only footprints

Even with all the above steps in mind, landing yourself with some plastic along your journey is almost inevitable. If you can’t find a recycling point, consider taking plastic items back to your home country to recycle them there. And with your luggage full of trash, you’ll be less tempted to cram in plastic tat from any last minute souvenir shopping. 

10. Create upcycled gifts 

Another option for those unavoidable plastics is to repurpose them into something useful, fun or beautiful. Put your creative skills to the test and while away the hours waiting for that delayed bus by transforming used cartons into animals for local kids, making plastic bottle plant holders to give to people you meet or, for the more ambitious, weaving strips of plastic packaging into a bag, basket or mat. 

This Author

Tom Lawson is a freelance journalist.

The Icelandic whale hunting company Hvalur hf has announced it intends to resume hunting endangered fin whales this summer after a two year hiatus.

It’s thought the company is currently exploring the use of whale meat in iron-based supplements for people suffering from anaemia as well as using gelatine from bones and whale pickles for medicines and in foodstuffs.

The newly announced whaling season is due to begin on 10th June.

Kick in the teeth

The last two killing seasons were scrapped with the chief executive of Hvalur hf , Kristján Loftsson citing ongoing difficulties with Japanese customs on imports of his whale products and the strong krona.

But the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) understands the two-year break has been used by the company to explore the possibility of processing other products for the Japanese market.

Clare Perry, leader of  EIA’s Ocean Campaign, said: “We are utterly appalled to learn that after two years free from explosive harpoons and seas stained red with their blood, fin whales – supposedly granted international protection – are once more to be callously slaughtered in pursuit of a profit.

“Loftsson has single-handedly kept Icelandic fin whaling afloat even though Hvalur hf is understood to be running at a loss, subsidised by its holdings in other companies to which it is connected and seeking to create a demand for all sorts of disgraceful whale products such as ‘jerky’ pet treats for the Japanese market and whale beer for domestic consumption.

Wealthy maverick

“His belligerent obsession to keep on hunting endangered fin whales is a kick in the teeth of world opinion and an international disgrace that shames Iceland’s otherwise solid environmental global reputation.”

She added: “The Government of Iceland needs to take a long, hard look at Loftsson’s activities, and its own collusion in enabling them, and ask itself whether the profound damage done to the country’s credentials as a tourist destination is worth allowing a wealthy maverick to continue pursuing what can only been viewed as a perverse vendetta again these magnificent creatures.”

Iceland left the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in 1992 in protest over the global moratorium on commercial whaling, but rejoined in 2002 with a reservation to the moratorium and resumed commercial whaling in 2006.

Since 2009, Hvalur hf has exported products from hundreds of fin whales to Japan, despite a ban on international trade in fin whales under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

This Author

Catherine Harte is a contributing editor of  The Ecologist. This story is based on a news release from the Environmental Investigation Agency ( EIA).

In the Biblical account of creation, God makes the universe and everything in it with the joy and abandon of a child with a paint set. He separates light from dark. He flings stars into space. He gives form to plants and animals. 

Finally, He makes humans. But unlike everything that comes before, humans are accorded the special – if ambiguous – status of being made in God’s image.  

The story unfolds from here, and as it does we see human defiance and destruction place a growing distance between us and nature.

Adam and Eve are expelled from the Garden of Eden for doing the one thing they’re told not to. Cain murders his brother Abel, and flees further from the garden.

God vows to start afresh with a cataclysmic flood. But then even this, Noah’s descendent Abraham comes to the very brink of plunging a knife through the chest of his only offspring. 

A human penchant for destruction continues.

Fast forward from this most anthropocentric of creation stories, to the dawn of the Anthropocene. Now, among the Jews, Christians and Muslims of the ‘Abrahamic faiths’, questions of man’s place in God’s creation gather a new urgency.

Perhaps it’s just as well then that these faiths specialise not only in stories of struggle and failure, but in ideas of hope and redemption too. 

Below are three such ideas, that three environmental groups have put at the centre of their work, as they go about the task of repairing man’s relationship with nature.

Tikkun Olam – Judaism

Debate and argument are a central part of Jewish religious expression. They have even been called “a Jewish national sport”. And so the precise meaning of an expression as nebulous as Tikkun Olam – or ‘world repair’ – is up for grabs to whoever argues most convincingly.

In this spirit, throughout its history Tikkun Olam has been claimed as a guiding principle of social policy, an endorsement of volunteerism, a decree to oppose idolatry, and an invitation to participate in a mystical good-versus-evil battle.

More recently, however, the USA’s Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life (COEJL) argues that it is a divine instruction to respond to climate change.

Rabbi Daniel Swartz from COEJL said: “Olam can mean eternity as well as world, so this is a reminder that we have to find solutions that are sustainable across generations, not just ones that work for the present at the expense of the future”.

With this in mind, COEJL and its member organisations work from the bottom up – reacquainting Jews with nature through outdoor education programmes around the world – whilst also targeting Jewish public policy, with its energy programmes attracting the endorsement of figures like Al Gore.

Gospel – Christianity

In the Middle Ages, the Catholic friar Francis of Assisi gained a reputation for talking to animals. In one story, he preached to birds when men would not listen. In another, he pleaded with a wolf to stop terrorising a neighbourhood. He also conversed with a squirrel about the sacraments.

Assisi saw nature as polluted by the sin of humanity, and so also in need of redemption. As patron saint of animals and ecology, he’s been a popular figure in the church ever since.

Nevertheless, the gospel is ordinarily marketed as ‘good news’ for people and their souls, rather than the planet and its future. But this might be changing.

“The gospel is about relationships”, Andy Atkins, the chief executive of  A Rocha UK says. “With God, with others, with ourselves and with the environment that sustains us”. Former head of Friends of the Earth, Atkins describes A Rocha as “a home for Christians who make the connection between their faith and the environment, supporting them to influence others.”

Two years ago they launched an ‘Eco Church’ scheme to recognise churches that put the environment at the heart of their mission: from installing solar panels, to preaching on environmental stewardship, and involvement in local conservation.

There are now nearly 900 such churches in the UK, and A Rocha aims for 4,000 by 2025. Look carefully and you might spot one of their recycled wooden plaques adorning an Eco Church near you. They also have two nature reserves in the south of England.

Hima – Islam

Before the arrival of Islam in the seventh century AD, the harsh desert of the Arabian peninsula was home to nomadic tribes who frequently came into conflict. A Hima – meaning ‘protected area’ – became a place of respite for everyone.

Conflict was forbidden in these areas, and scarce natural resources were carefully and collectively managed for the good of all. With the arrival of Islam – which accorded a particular respect to animals – a Hima became a place of refuge for wildlife too. Some Himas were even designated as retirement homes for elderly camels.

And though the concept of a Hima was forgotten during the course of the twentieth century, it is now on its way back, thanks to the Society for the Protection of Nature in Lebanon (SPNL).

Assad Serhal founded SPNL in order to protect the many migrating birds that rest in his native Lebanon. But when he re-discovered Hima, he found a way to bring communities together from across the country’s ethnic and religious groups, to engage in responsible land management, and take pride in their region’s biodiversity.

He has since been invited to work with other countries to establish Himas across the Middle East and Mediterranean.

This Author

Jake Lloyd is a communications consultant, and communications coordinator at Arukah Network. He helped his local church to join the Eco Church scheme mentioned above, and participates in a community energy project.

If you would like to draw attention to any ‘Voices for Nature’ that should be heard more widely – these could be thinkers, activists, systems, authors or others – please contact Elizabeth Wainwright on Twitter @LizWainwright.

The European Union introduced wide-ranging rules regulating the manufacture and supply of chemicals 11 years ago.

The rules imposed significant costs on businesses but – it is hoped – will save many lives. They were passed with little media coverage with few people being aware of their existence – and have become a fact of life.

Given it’s been possible to restrict businesses and address a threat to public health without public debate when it comes to chemicals, could the world do the same with climate change? If that threat can also be tackled with rules that few people hear about, perhaps public opinion doesn’t matter.

Dangerous warming

Sadly for technocrats, this is unlikely. The challenge ahead – to meet the targets of the Paris Agreement and stop warming crossing dangerous thresholds – is enormous.

Greenhouse gas emissions have been rising steadily since the Industrial Revolution: the world will need to reverse that rise, cutting emissions at an unprecedented rate until humans stop adding warming gases to the atmosphere within the next few decades.

That means cleaning up industrial sectors that are distant from most people’s lives – like electricity, chemicals and shipping. The obscurity of shipping is reflected in the fact its crucial climate conference, happening this week, is getting almost no mainstream media coverage.

It also means cutting emissions from most people’s day-to-day lives, like the ways we travel and the food we eat.

Without cutting emissions from sectors like agriculture and aviation, the world won’t stop dangerous warming. It’s unlikely to be possible to clean up these sectors without most people noticing and agreeing to the changes.

Restricting flying

So public support for tackling climate change is essential, yet it’s far from assured. The problem isn’t climate denial: few people think the whole thing is a hoax, even in the countries where denial is loudest. A majority of the public accept climate science and believe it’s a threat that needs to be tackled.

The problem comes when they’re asked to make sacrifices to deal with it – most are unwilling to do so and are suspicious when they hear about changes that would impose costs on them in the name of cutting emissions.

Preventing dangerous warming may depend on public enthusiasm, but at the moment apathy is far more widespread. This isn’t just a problem for the future – it matters right now.

Take the UK. Its emissions are falling fast but this progress has come without confronting the emission sources that would be less popular to cut.

Plans to build a third runway at Heathrow would make the UK’s climate targets much harder to achieve, yet few politicians are prepared to acknowledge that cutting emissions probably means restricting flying.

Inherent nature

Similarly, the EU’s backing for TAP, a new pipeline that would bring huge volumes of Caspian Sea natural gas into Europe, suggests the bloc is also taking decisions now that will make it much more difficult to cut emissions in the next few decades.

If most people are worried about climate change, why does this kind of polluting infrastructure keep getting built, and why is there so little pressure for the measures that will be needed to prevent dangerous warming

Psychologists have identified a host of reasons most people avoid thinking about climate change. Among these are the way the problem seems distant – its impacts are mostly in other places, it will mostly happen in the future – and progresses slowly, and the fact it requires sacrifices now to avert problems later.

The barriers the mind puts up to avoid worrying about climate change might make the problem seem hopeless: Nobel Prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman describes himself as “deeply pessimistic” about it.

But we must avoid confusing the inherent nature of climate change with the way it’s widely described and understood.

Spell disaster

For example, the fact the threat seems distant has more to do with the way its effects are described, notably the emphasis on ecosystems like the Arctic.

The consequences for polar bears aren’t enough to motivate most people, and now climate change is hitting the people whose emissions need to fall – with storms like Hurricane Sandy, which devastated New York in 2012 made more likely by climate change – it’s no longer necessary to talk about it as a distant threat.

The same applies to the idea that climate change requires sacrifices for future benefits. It may well do, and, if that’s all that most people hear about it, there’s unlikely to be widespread enthusiasm.

But there are plenty of ways in which tackling climate change can bring benefits beyond averting future problems, from cleaner air and new jobs, to better insulated homes and, perhaps, communities that jointly own wind farms and solar panels.

This is a matter of choice. Climate apathy could spell disaster for efforts to prevent dangerous warming but it isn’t inevitable.

The fact it is so widespread is a result of various ways climate change has been, and continues to be, described. That can change. It will take a widespread shift in how the issue is talked about, but it’s still possible to turn apathy into action.

This Author

Leo Barasi is the author of The Climate Majority: Apathy and Action in an Age of Nationalism published by New Internationalist.

Two multinationals – Nordgold and Columbus Gold – are seeking to establish themselves in French Guiana, between two Forest biological reserves, to exploit gold.

This useless and imposed project is an economic mirage and represents a dead end for the future of French Guiana and its inhabitants.

WWF France is saying ‘stop’ to Montagne d’Or, an industrial gold mine project that is planned for construction in the French Guiana.

Global campaign

To raise awareness about the project, which is currently the subject of a public debate in Guiana, WWF France launched the #StopMontagnedOr campaign.

The Montagne d’Or project is planning to clear a total of 1,513 hectares, including the deforestation of primeval forests of considerable environmental value – 575 hectares – on a site where more than 2,000 vegetable and animal species can be found, of which 127 protected species have been inventoried.

We are opposed to the Montagne d’Or project because it represents irreducible environmental impacts – deforestation, energy consumption – but also substantial risks – bursting of the dike, acidic mine drainage, transport and handling of dangerous materials, landslides, etc.

The company also plans to use cyanide even though in 2010 the European Parliament requested a total ban on the use of cyanide-based technologies in the mining industry, due to its extreme toxicity for the environment and human health.

Public funding pit

Montagne d’Or is also a mirage in terms of development for French Guiana, and a bottomless pit for taxpayers.

The project is expected to swallow up at least 420 million euros of public funding, or 560,000 euros for each of the 750 direct jobs announced.

The customary Amerindian chiefs have stated their opposition to the project. At the Conference of Native Peoples of Guiana, held on 16 and 17 December 2017, the customary chiefs stated their “firm and unmovable” position against the Montagne d’Or project and demanded a moratorium on all mining projects threatening their territories.

Gold mining is not a priority for the Guianese. However, the public funding allotted to Montagne d’Or will not benefit other essential sectors such as agriculture, tourism or renewable energies.

Petitioning a president

It is now urgent to part ways with the linear economy of the past, based on the extract-manufacture-consume-throw away quartet, and to open the way to the twenty-first century economy, which is circular, functional and sustainable.

Through the #StopMontagnedOr campaign and a film starring Ibrahim Cissé, WWF France presents a disaster scenario that comes to life on a football pitch. We have identified an original way in which to challenge the huge dimensions of the Montagne d’Or project.

Because the gold extraction will involve 57,000 tons of explosives, 46,500 tons of cyanide and 195 million litres of fuel, and destroy 1,513 hectares of forests – about the equivalent in size to 2,161 football pitches.

The campaign comes alive on the internet and social networks: WWF France and Ibrahim Cissé calling on their respective communities and public as a whole to mobilise globally on the stopmontagnedor.com platform to call out the French President of the Republic, Emmanuel Macron.

A decisive match is currently being played in French Guiana, we need the mobilisation of all to take this project out of the game!

This Author

Pascal Canfin is chief executive of WWF France.

The Polish government broke European Union law by logging the ancient forest of Białowieża, judges from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) have ruled.

The judgment is the final say on the case, which began in 2016 when then Polish environment minister Jan Szyszko tripled the logging limits in the forest.

The forest is one of Europe’s last primeval forests, a Natura 2000 site, and a World Heritage Site. Located on the border between Poland and Belarus, it covers around 140,000 hectares and is home to the European bison.

Chainsaws and harvesters

Szyszko, who lost his post earlier this year, claimed that the logging was necessary to protect the forest from a bark beetle infestation.

Lawyers at ClientEarth alongside six other organisations made a formal complaint to the European Commission, which took the case to the ECJ.

The campaigners’ case was backed by scientists, who argued that bark beetles are not a threat to the forest, and that the dead trees that are also being removed are extremely important for the biodiversity of the forest. The UNESCO World Heritage Committee also urged Poland to stop the logging.

The case was fast-tracked at every stage. In July 2017, the ECJ ordered all chainsaws and harvesters to be stopped immediately while it considered the case. The logging finally ended in November.

James Thornton, the chief executive of ClientEarth, said: “This is a huge victory for all defenders of Białowieża Forest. Hundreds of people were heavily engaged in saving this unique, ancient woodland from unthinkable destruction.”

Conflict of interest

However, this was not the end of the fight, he warned. “The ruling is just on paper for now – we need to see concrete action.

“First, the decisions that allowed logging must be withdrawn. Then, the Polish government should also consider enlarging the national park so it encompasses the whole of Białowieża Forest. This is the only way to guarantee that devastation of the forest will not happen again.”

Greenpeace Poland, which had also campaigned against the logging, said that the ECJ’s ruling confirmed that its protection of the forest was “not just necessary, but just”.

Katarzyna Jagiełło, a forest campaigner with the campaign group, said: “But the struggle to protect this forest doesn’t end here. This unique natural treasure is still not protected properly, with more than two-thirds of the Polish part of the forest administered by the state’s forest holding office who are responsible for logging the forest.”

The only way to secure the protection of the forest for the environment minister to make it a national park, and end the conflict of interest caused by the state holding office, which carried out the logging, administering an EU and UNESCO protected area.

No appeal possible

Environment minister Henryk Kowalczyk, who has replaced Szyszko, told Reuters in March that it should be up to Poland to decide the forest’s future.

If the ECJ made any specific recommendations about the forest’s future management, particularly if it banned any logging, then the government would have to discuss it, he said. 

Today’s judgment is final and the Polish government cannot appeal it. The verdict is valid from today, so the government needs to take immediate action.

If it does not, the commission will launch a legal case over non-compliance, which could result in hefty fines. The minimum penalty is €4.3 million, but usually in such cases the fines are much higher, potentially reaching tens of millions of euros, according to ClientEarth.

The Polish Ministry of Environment said that it would study the judgment in detail, but added that it would respect the verdict.

“The Białowieża Forest is our national heritage. All the activities have been undertaken with its preservation in the best possible condition for present and future generations in mind,” Kowalczyk said.

He added that the ministry would soon present the commission with proposals for “compromise solutions” for the Białowieża Forest, which would take into account the work of an expert team preparing a long-term plan for protecting the ‎forest.

This Author

Catherine Early is a freelance environmental journalist and the former deputy editor of the environmentalist. She can be found tweeting at @Cat_Early76. 

The Polish government broke European Union law by logging the ancient forest of Białowieża, judges from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) have ruled.

The judgment is the final say on the case, which began in 2016 when then Polish environment minister Jan Szyszko tripled the logging limits in the forest.

The forest is one of Europe’s last primeval forests, a Natura 2000 site, and a World Heritage Site. Located on the border between Poland and Belarus, it covers around 140,000 hectares and is home to the European bison.

Chainsaws and harvesters

Szyszko, who lost his post earlier this year, claimed that the logging was necessary to protect the forest from a bark beetle infestation.

Lawyers at ClientEarth alongside six other organisations made a formal complaint to the European Commission, which took the case to the ECJ.

The campaigners’ case was backed by scientists, who argued that bark beetles are not a threat to the forest, and that the dead trees that are also being removed are extremely important for the biodiversity of the forest. The UNESCO World Heritage Committee also urged Poland to stop the logging.

The case was fast-tracked at every stage. In July 2017, the ECJ ordered all chainsaws and harvesters to be stopped immediately while it considered the case. The logging finally ended in November.

James Thornton, the chief executive of ClientEarth, said: “This is a huge victory for all defenders of Białowieża Forest. Hundreds of people were heavily engaged in saving this unique, ancient woodland from unthinkable destruction.”

Conflict of interest

However, this was not the end of the fight, he warned. “The ruling is just on paper for now – we need to see concrete action.

“First, the decisions that allowed logging must be withdrawn. Then, the Polish government should also consider enlarging the national park so it encompasses the whole of Białowieża Forest. This is the only way to guarantee that devastation of the forest will not happen again.”

Greenpeace Poland, which had also campaigned against the logging, said that the ECJ’s ruling confirmed that its protection of the forest was “not just necessary, but just”.

Katarzyna Jagiełło, a forest campaigner with the campaign group, said: “But the struggle to protect this forest doesn’t end here. This unique natural treasure is still not protected properly, with more than two-thirds of the Polish part of the forest administered by the state’s forest holding office who are responsible for logging the forest.”

The only way to secure the protection of the forest for the environment minister to make it a national park, and end the conflict of interest caused by the state holding office, which carried out the logging, administering an EU and UNESCO protected area.

No appeal possible

Environment minister Henryk Kowalczyk, who has replaced Szyszko, told Reuters in March that it should be up to Poland to decide the forest’s future.

If the ECJ made any specific recommendations about the forest’s future management, particularly if it banned any logging, then the government would have to discuss it, he said. 

Today’s judgment is final and the Polish government cannot appeal it. The verdict is valid from today, so the government needs to take immediate action.

If it does not, the commission will launch a legal case over non-compliance, which could result in hefty fines. The minimum penalty is €4.3 million, but usually in such cases the fines are much higher, potentially reaching tens of millions of euros, according to ClientEarth.

The Polish Ministry of Environment said that it would study the judgment in detail, but added that it would respect the verdict.

“The Białowieża Forest is our national heritage. All the activities have been undertaken with its preservation in the best possible condition for present and future generations in mind,” Kowalczyk said.

He added that the ministry would soon present the commission with proposals for “compromise solutions” for the Białowieża Forest, which would take into account the work of an expert team preparing a long-term plan for protecting the ‎forest.

This Author

Catherine Early is a freelance environmental journalist and the former deputy editor of the environmentalist. She can be found tweeting at @Cat_Early76. 

The Polish government broke European Union law by logging the ancient forest of Białowieża, judges from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) have ruled.

The judgment is the final say on the case, which began in 2016 when then Polish environment minister Jan Szyszko tripled the logging limits in the forest.

The forest is one of Europe’s last primeval forests, a Natura 2000 site, and a World Heritage Site. Located on the border between Poland and Belarus, it covers around 140,000 hectares and is home to the European bison.

Chainsaws and harvesters

Szyszko, who lost his post earlier this year, claimed that the logging was necessary to protect the forest from a bark beetle infestation.

Lawyers at ClientEarth alongside six other organisations made a formal complaint to the European Commission, which took the case to the ECJ.

The campaigners’ case was backed by scientists, who argued that bark beetles are not a threat to the forest, and that the dead trees that are also being removed are extremely important for the biodiversity of the forest. The UNESCO World Heritage Committee also urged Poland to stop the logging.

The case was fast-tracked at every stage. In July 2017, the ECJ ordered all chainsaws and harvesters to be stopped immediately while it considered the case. The logging finally ended in November.

James Thornton, the chief executive of ClientEarth, said: “This is a huge victory for all defenders of Białowieża Forest. Hundreds of people were heavily engaged in saving this unique, ancient woodland from unthinkable destruction.”

Conflict of interest

However, this was not the end of the fight, he warned. “The ruling is just on paper for now – we need to see concrete action.

“First, the decisions that allowed logging must be withdrawn. Then, the Polish government should also consider enlarging the national park so it encompasses the whole of Białowieża Forest. This is the only way to guarantee that devastation of the forest will not happen again.”

Greenpeace Poland, which had also campaigned against the logging, said that the ECJ’s ruling confirmed that its protection of the forest was “not just necessary, but just”.

Katarzyna Jagiełło, a forest campaigner with the campaign group, said: “But the struggle to protect this forest doesn’t end here. This unique natural treasure is still not protected properly, with more than two-thirds of the Polish part of the forest administered by the state’s forest holding office who are responsible for logging the forest.”

The only way to secure the protection of the forest for the environment minister to make it a national park, and end the conflict of interest caused by the state holding office, which carried out the logging, administering an EU and UNESCO protected area.

No appeal possible

Environment minister Henryk Kowalczyk, who has replaced Szyszko, told Reuters in March that it should be up to Poland to decide the forest’s future.

If the ECJ made any specific recommendations about the forest’s future management, particularly if it banned any logging, then the government would have to discuss it, he said. 

Today’s judgment is final and the Polish government cannot appeal it. The verdict is valid from today, so the government needs to take immediate action.

If it does not, the commission will launch a legal case over non-compliance, which could result in hefty fines. The minimum penalty is €4.3 million, but usually in such cases the fines are much higher, potentially reaching tens of millions of euros, according to ClientEarth.

The Polish Ministry of Environment said that it would study the judgment in detail, but added that it would respect the verdict.

“The Białowieża Forest is our national heritage. All the activities have been undertaken with its preservation in the best possible condition for present and future generations in mind,” Kowalczyk said.

He added that the ministry would soon present the commission with proposals for “compromise solutions” for the Białowieża Forest, which would take into account the work of an expert team preparing a long-term plan for protecting the ‎forest.

This Author

Catherine Early is a freelance environmental journalist and the former deputy editor of the environmentalist. She can be found tweeting at @Cat_Early76. 

The Polish government broke European Union law by logging the ancient forest of Białowieża, judges from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) have ruled.

The judgment is the final say on the case, which began in 2016 when then Polish environment minister Jan Szyszko tripled the logging limits in the forest.

The forest is one of Europe’s last primeval forests, a Natura 2000 site, and a World Heritage Site. Located on the border between Poland and Belarus, it covers around 140,000 hectares and is home to the European bison.

Chainsaws and harvesters

Szyszko, who lost his post earlier this year, claimed that the logging was necessary to protect the forest from a bark beetle infestation.

Lawyers at ClientEarth alongside six other organisations made a formal complaint to the European Commission, which took the case to the ECJ.

The campaigners’ case was backed by scientists, who argued that bark beetles are not a threat to the forest, and that the dead trees that are also being removed are extremely important for the biodiversity of the forest. The UNESCO World Heritage Committee also urged Poland to stop the logging.

The case was fast-tracked at every stage. In July 2017, the ECJ ordered all chainsaws and harvesters to be stopped immediately while it considered the case. The logging finally ended in November.

James Thornton, the chief executive of ClientEarth, said: “This is a huge victory for all defenders of Białowieża Forest. Hundreds of people were heavily engaged in saving this unique, ancient woodland from unthinkable destruction.”

Conflict of interest

However, this was not the end of the fight, he warned. “The ruling is just on paper for now – we need to see concrete action.

“First, the decisions that allowed logging must be withdrawn. Then, the Polish government should also consider enlarging the national park so it encompasses the whole of Białowieża Forest. This is the only way to guarantee that devastation of the forest will not happen again.”

Greenpeace Poland, which had also campaigned against the logging, said that the ECJ’s ruling confirmed that its protection of the forest was “not just necessary, but just”.

Katarzyna Jagiełło, a forest campaigner with the campaign group, said: “But the struggle to protect this forest doesn’t end here. This unique natural treasure is still not protected properly, with more than two-thirds of the Polish part of the forest administered by the state’s forest holding office who are responsible for logging the forest.”

The only way to secure the protection of the forest for the environment minister to make it a national park, and end the conflict of interest caused by the state holding office, which carried out the logging, administering an EU and UNESCO protected area.

No appeal possible

Environment minister Henryk Kowalczyk, who has replaced Szyszko, told Reuters in March that it should be up to Poland to decide the forest’s future.

If the ECJ made any specific recommendations about the forest’s future management, particularly if it banned any logging, then the government would have to discuss it, he said. 

Today’s judgment is final and the Polish government cannot appeal it. The verdict is valid from today, so the government needs to take immediate action.

If it does not, the commission will launch a legal case over non-compliance, which could result in hefty fines. The minimum penalty is €4.3 million, but usually in such cases the fines are much higher, potentially reaching tens of millions of euros, according to ClientEarth.

The Polish Ministry of Environment said that it would study the judgment in detail, but added that it would respect the verdict.

“The Białowieża Forest is our national heritage. All the activities have been undertaken with its preservation in the best possible condition for present and future generations in mind,” Kowalczyk said.

He added that the ministry would soon present the commission with proposals for “compromise solutions” for the Białowieża Forest, which would take into account the work of an expert team preparing a long-term plan for protecting the ‎forest.

This Author

Catherine Early is a freelance environmental journalist and the former deputy editor of the environmentalist. She can be found tweeting at @Cat_Early76. 

The Polish government broke European Union law by logging the ancient forest of Białowieża, judges from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) have ruled.

The judgment is the final say on the case, which began in 2016 when then Polish environment minister Jan Szyszko tripled the logging limits in the forest.

The forest is one of Europe’s last primeval forests, a Natura 2000 site, and a World Heritage Site. Located on the border between Poland and Belarus, it covers around 140,000 hectares and is home to the European bison.

Chainsaws and harvesters

Szyszko, who lost his post earlier this year, claimed that the logging was necessary to protect the forest from a bark beetle infestation.

Lawyers at ClientEarth alongside six other organisations made a formal complaint to the European Commission, which took the case to the ECJ.

The campaigners’ case was backed by scientists, who argued that bark beetles are not a threat to the forest, and that the dead trees that are also being removed are extremely important for the biodiversity of the forest. The UNESCO World Heritage Committee also urged Poland to stop the logging.

The case was fast-tracked at every stage. In July 2017, the ECJ ordered all chainsaws and harvesters to be stopped immediately while it considered the case. The logging finally ended in November.

James Thornton, the chief executive of ClientEarth, said: “This is a huge victory for all defenders of Białowieża Forest. Hundreds of people were heavily engaged in saving this unique, ancient woodland from unthinkable destruction.”

Conflict of interest

However, this was not the end of the fight, he warned. “The ruling is just on paper for now – we need to see concrete action.

“First, the decisions that allowed logging must be withdrawn. Then, the Polish government should also consider enlarging the national park so it encompasses the whole of Białowieża Forest. This is the only way to guarantee that devastation of the forest will not happen again.”

Greenpeace Poland, which had also campaigned against the logging, said that the ECJ’s ruling confirmed that its protection of the forest was “not just necessary, but just”.

Katarzyna Jagiełło, a forest campaigner with the campaign group, said: “But the struggle to protect this forest doesn’t end here. This unique natural treasure is still not protected properly, with more than two-thirds of the Polish part of the forest administered by the state’s forest holding office who are responsible for logging the forest.”

The only way to secure the protection of the forest for the environment minister to make it a national park, and end the conflict of interest caused by the state holding office, which carried out the logging, administering an EU and UNESCO protected area.

No appeal possible

Environment minister Henryk Kowalczyk, who has replaced Szyszko, told Reuters in March that it should be up to Poland to decide the forest’s future.

If the ECJ made any specific recommendations about the forest’s future management, particularly if it banned any logging, then the government would have to discuss it, he said. 

Today’s judgment is final and the Polish government cannot appeal it. The verdict is valid from today, so the government needs to take immediate action.

If it does not, the commission will launch a legal case over non-compliance, which could result in hefty fines. The minimum penalty is €4.3 million, but usually in such cases the fines are much higher, potentially reaching tens of millions of euros, according to ClientEarth.

The Polish Ministry of Environment said that it would study the judgment in detail, but added that it would respect the verdict.

“The Białowieża Forest is our national heritage. All the activities have been undertaken with its preservation in the best possible condition for present and future generations in mind,” Kowalczyk said.

He added that the ministry would soon present the commission with proposals for “compromise solutions” for the Białowieża Forest, which would take into account the work of an expert team preparing a long-term plan for protecting the ‎forest.

This Author

Catherine Early is a freelance environmental journalist and the former deputy editor of the environmentalist. She can be found tweeting at @Cat_Early76.