Ecolocracy is a method of translating the ‘philosophy of need’ into a effective, ethical practice. It is a proposed management system developed through dialectical materialism and systems thinking. It has been designed for organisations that want to effect change in the world, while simultaneously “being the change you want to see in the world”. This is part two of an introduction to ecolocracy, and for this to make any sense at all it does need to be read following part 1.

Read, Why we need ‘ecolocracy’

Read, An introduction to ‘ecolocracy’ – pt.1

Read the On The Nature of Change (OTNOC) series

CIRCLES

Monday morning and the staff member sits at her desk, alongside the rest of her team. The team works on a project. It is part of a department working together on a programme. There is also the IT team, and the finance team. The HR team. It can get pretty tribal, and blame and failure is usually displaced to the others, over there.

There is a necessary level of organisation between the whole organisation, and the individual member of staff. It is very difficult to get anything done alone, and often more difficult when meetings involve more than 12 individual. But the team is not the only solution. The ecolocracy organisation uses ‘circles’.

Circles

The circle – or hola – is the core concept for Holacracy. The key differences are that a circle is constituted of a cluster of roles, rather than made up of individuals. The circle – like the role – has a purpose to express, domains to control and a set of accountabilities to enact.

A circle can be responsible for core operations, and ongoing work. They can also be formed around a particular project, or indeed an emergency task.  A circle can also be ad hoc, and brought into being to deliver a specific project or outcome.

A Holacracy looks like a series of nested circles. The biggest circle contains the entire organisation. This circle is called the ‘anchor circle’. Circles bring together a set of roles. Some organisations will be a single circle. Some organisations will have circles, and independent roles. Circles can bloom and then be pruned in a short period of time.

Each circle retains a high degree of autonomy, individual authority, and wholeness. Each role and circle has real responsibilities as a part of a larger entity. The primary responsibilities of each circle and role are: offering transparency; processing requests, accountabilities and projects; and prioritisation. (These are further defined in the next article).

However, the autonomy of the circle is limited (or mediated) through the regulatory relationship with both inner and outer circles. The decisions and actions of a circle are not therefore fully independent of others. It remains part of a larger circle. Again, needs serve as a primary concern.

Robertson said: “[A] circle that behaves as if it were fully autonomous will harm the system…The needs of other circles must be taken into account in the self organising process.”

The work of circles can vary in type and scale. Some circles deliver specific projects, others manage a department or product line, others perform support functions and provide overall business operations.

The circle members bring tensions they experience in performing their roles to the circle. These tensions can be resolved by taking actions and through governance. Each circle holds both tactical and governance meetings. (Tactical meetings are described in the previous article, and governance is described in the next).

Circle members

A single individual can be appointed to one or more role, and can therefore participate in a number of different circles. The members of the circle have three further obligations: transparency, processing and prioritisation.

Transparency

Transparency requires members to share, or provide access to, their task list with colleagues. This would include a list of projects and next actions, the relative priority attached to each, the projections – a rough estimate of when the item will be completed – and also their checklists items and metrics.

Processing

Processing means adding all requested tasks into the task list and assigning them a priority. Each circle member needs to process accountabilities and projects – including having a clear next action. They need to capture the requests for projects and next-actions. If someone has requested to impact the domain of the role this should be considered, and an explanation given if declined.

Prioritisation

The circle member has a duty to process all requests before getting on with “ad hoc execution” – the day to day of doing tasks. This includes prioritising each of their tasks. Members of the circle can then see when tasks are likely to be completed.

Robertson said: “You have a duty to prioritise processing inbound messages and requests from fellow circle members over performing next actions for your own roles, except for certain time constrained work. This relates to processing – not necessarily doing the requested action.”

Further, circle members need to prioritise any governance or tactical meeting, except in exceptional circumstances.

The defining principle for circle members is the needs of the circle take priority over meeting individual goals. “You have a duty to prioritise in alignment with any priorities or ‘strategies’ specified by the lead link of the circle,” Robertson explained.

Lead Links and Rep Links

The circle differs from the team because there is no team leader or manager, and there is someone to represent the needs of the roles within the circle in discussion with the rest of the organisation. Instead of a manager, there is a ‘lead link’, and there is also a ‘representative link’.

The lead link role and the rep link role each distribute information between an outer circle and an inner circle. The roles are part of both governance and operations. They mediate the relationship between the whole and the part. The roles bring human consciousness to the relations between the circles in the organisation. They allow for feedback and tensions to flow between the circles.

The lead link is appointed by the outer circle and to represent its needs in the inner circle. A lead link holds the perspective and functions needed to align the inner circle to the “purpose, strategy, and needs of its broader context”.

Robertson said: “The role of the lead link serves a key function in every circle, but don’t confuse it with the role of a traditional manager…It is not the lead link’s job to direct the team, or to take care of all the tensions felt by those in the circle.”

As lead link “you hold the space within which the purpose of the circle can be fulfilled, and you keep out issues and concerns that are not within the scope of the circle”.

The lead link acts “as an interface”…”routing incoming information or requests to appropriate roles, and bringing resources into the circle and directing them to the most important functions, roles or projects in the circle”.

In a new ecolocracy, and indeed a new circle, the lead link role is an entrepreneurial role – you’ve actively building a structure to achieve a purpose.

The representative link, or rep link, is elected by the members of the inner circle, and represents them at the outer level circle. “A rep link helps make the super-circle a healthy environment for the inner circle,” Robertson added.

The rep link is a direct channel from within the core of the cell through its membrane. It is the rep link’s accountability – not that of the lead link – to channel tensions out into the broader circle if they are seen to be limiting the inner circle and cannot be resolved locally.

EMERGENCE

The quality of emergence is introduced to Holacracy in order to evolve the management system to ecolocracy. Emergence is a term used in systems theory to describe the qualities that can unfold from increased complexity – this phenomena is described in the popular idiom, ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts’.

The Holacracy system appears based on the assumption that the individual can be the sole seat of creativity, agency, and effectiveness in the organisation.

It is true, that when projects are well broken down into tasks, these tasks become relatively simple and can be performed by a single individual. Just as it takes more than one neuron in the brain to have an idea, it always takes more than one individual to achieve genius.

However, the creativity that is emergent from a team of dedicated, intelligent individuals working together is lost. Therefore, the ecolocracy system introduces emergent meetings specifically for the purpose of creating space for this quality to manifest itself.

Emergence meetings can be called by any individual enacting a role for the purpose of developing collective creativity within the organisation. The role owner can extend to the invitation to anyone within the organisation to form a ‘coalition of the willing’. There is no obligation on the part of colleagues to attend. The process and the structure of the meeting is then the sole responsibility of those who participate.

Policies

There are times when one role or circle needs to delegate responsibility to – or be delegated responsibility from – another role or circle. These are times when decision making needs to be evolved for the organisation to function fully. This is done through a ‘policy’.

Robertson explained: “In Holacracy, a ‘policy’ is defined as ‘a grant or limit of authority to impact the domain of a circle/role’.

“A circle / role that controls a domain can set a policy in a governance meeting either to allow outside roles to impact that property or to prevent its own roles from impacting that property in certain ways.”

He warned that an expectation of what someone should do should be expressed as an accountability, and not a policy.

Conclusion

The circle is the ‘hola’ in Holacracy. And performs the same function in ecolocracy. The individual works to deliver the purpose of the organisation. This individual work can be organised on a day to day basis through tactical meetings.

But any individual is more effective when they work collaboratively with others. It is not always possible for an organisation to bring all of its members together.

In traditional organisations this is managed through teams – but too often teams can become tribes, and they are limited by the autocratic power of a team manager. The success of one team can be derived from the failure of another – and the manager will get promoted.

With ecolocracy, tasks and projects are delegated to roles, and roles are clustered into circles. A circle has responsibility for the project, or a particular workflow or support function.

The lead link of the circle ensures that its members work towards the purpose of the whole organisation, the rep link in a circle ensures the whole meets the needs of the individual in their work.

But how does a circle come into being? Who decides what projects and work a circle should manage? How are the purpose, domains and accountabilities negotiated, agreed and defined? This is where we need to understand governance – the subject the next section of this article.

Read, Why we need ‘ecolocracy’

Read, An introduction to ‘ecolocracy’ – pt.1

Read the On The Nature of Change (OTNOC) series

GOVERNANCE

The power of ecolocracy resides within the governance process. The individuals who perform the roles clustered into the circle are all involved with the governance of the circle – although this involvement is specific and clearly defined.

An organisation run with the Holacracy management system is conscious of where it is currently, and where it would like to be in the future, at each scale – from the individual role to the purpose of the whole.

The circles hold governance meetings each month. These meetings can restructure the whole organisation – setting up new circles and roles, closing down redundant circles and roles, adding authorities and domains to circles and roles.

Governance represents the “meta-level” of understanding and organising how the purpose of the organisation is actually achieved. The governance process sets out the pattern in which work is achieved, rather than making any specific decisions. It is the whole defining the parts.

“Governance is fundamental: it is the seat of the organisation’s power, and all authorities and expectations flow from the governance process,” Robertson explained.

However, this is not the wild west. The governance process centres on the needs of the roles, and of the circles. The people enacting the roles are responsible for coming to the governance with tensions – changes necessary to travel from where we are to where we need to be.

The organisation evolves from the former to the latter through processing “tensions”. The concept of tension is the core of the governance when using the Holacracy management system. A tension can be understood as a need, or a problem that needs to be solved, experienced by an individual as they work to the purpose at the best of their ability.

The governance process is designed to empower the individuals within the organisation to meet their own needs, and use their ability to fulfil the purpose of the organisation – which in turn is a wider, social need.

People taking part in the governance process cannot trample over the roles of others, and an important aspect of the function of governance is moving out of people’s way. This is done through an integrative process which begins with the needs and freedom of the individual.

“Governance deals with deep issues by using an ‘integrative’ process to gather and consider people’s input, without relying on a single leader to arbitrate.” Brian Robertson stated. “Holacracy is not a governance process ‘of the people, by the people, for the people’ – it’s governance of the organisation, through the people, for the purpose.”

Governance meetings

The governance process is performed through monthly meetings of each of the circles in the organisation, to refine the operating structure of the circle. Governance meetings have the following activities:

Creating, amending, or removing roles within the circle.

Creating, amending or removing policies (as defined below) governing the circle’s domain.

Electing circle members to fill elected roles (fasilitator, secretary, rep link).

Creating, amending or dissolving sub-circles

Facilitating Governance

A facilitator is elected at each governance meeting and is responsible for ensuring that the specific process of governance set out below is followed. The facilitator is like a referee – a neutral, impartial role designed to protect the process and uphold the rules of the game.

Robertson explained that the responsibility of the facilitator is not to support or take care of the people: it is to protect the process – which allows people to take care of themselves. The role requires that you override any instinct to be polite or nice. You do need to cut people off. “Done well, the process feels profoundly impersonal”.

“When someone violates the process by talking out of turn, you simply stop out-of-process behaviour without emotion or judgement, and you do it immediately, without waiting for a comfortable pause.”

Governance meeting process

1. Check-in Round: Each member can share one ‘distraction’ with the group, and therefore purge any anxieties that will prevent them concentrating on the tensions at hand.

2. Administrative Concerns.

3. Agenda Building: Any participant can add one or more agenda item. The items must be described by one word or two word agenda titles, each representing a single tension.

4.Process Each Agenda Item using Integrative Decision Making Process (IDMP), set out below.

5. Closing Round. Each participant can share one closing reflection.

Integrative Decision Making Process (IDMP)

1.Present proposal: The proposer has a space to describe a tension and state a proposal to resolve it, usually without a discussion. The proposer can ask for a discussion to help craft the proposal – but not to build consensus or integrate concerns.

2. Clarifying questions: Anyone can ask a clarifying question to seek information or understanding. The proposer can simply say ‘not specified’. No reactions or dialogue are allowed.

3. Reaction round: Each person is given space to react to the proposal. Comments should be made as first or third person comments. No discussion allowed.

4. Amend and clarify: The proposer can optionally clarify the intent of the proposal further or amend the proposal based on the reactions, or just move on. No discussion allowed.

5. Objection round: The facilitator asks: “Do you see any reasons why adopting this proposal would cause harm or move us backwards?” Objections are stated, tested and captured without discussion. With ecolocracy, the facilitator then asks, “Do you see any reasons why adopting this proposal would cause harm to others, or to the environment?” The proposal is adopted if no objections surface.

6. Integration: Focus on each objection – one at a time. The goal is to craft an amended proposal that would not cause the objection – but would still resolve the tension. Once all objections are processed, return to the Objection round.

Testing proposals

A proposal can be presented (at stage 1. Described above) when the facilitator agrees that the tension behind the proposal is limiting someone’s role, and the aim must be to remove that limit, for the sake of the role. A proposal may modify other roles in the process, as long as there is a reason.

A proposal can be discarded by the facilitator if the proposer cannot give a concrete example of how it would improve her or his ability to express the purpose or accountabilities of one of the roles. Any individual can propose something to help in relation to a role they do not fill – but only if permission has been given by the person currently in that role.

Testing objections

An objection is invited by the facilitator. She asks: ‘Do you see any reason why adopting this proposal would cause harm or move us backwards?’ You invite each person attending the governance meeting to respond, ‘objection’ or ‘no objection’.

An objection can block a proposal. There is a potential for conflict – and indeed sclerosis – to play out or set in during the governance process. Therefore, the power of objection needs to be limited, or regulated. This is achieved through a fair and transparent process.

A valid objection must cite a new tension that would be created by adopting the proposal: all the following must be true:

1. The proposal would hurt the circle and not just fail to improve it – or (when using ecolocracy) the proposal would be a net harm to others, or a harm to the environment.

2. The objection would be created specifically by adopting the proposal – and would no longer exist if the objection were dropped.

3. The objection arises from known data – or there would not be an opportunity to adapt before significant harm could be done.

4. If the proposal had already been adopted, it would be necessary for the objector to process the objection as a proposal – that the proposal limits one of the objector’s roles.

5. The proposal is unconstitutional – for example, the outcome is ‘not governance output’.

The governance meeting then continues the objection round until all objections have been raised and tested. “We test objections with an attitude of scientific curiosity,” Robertson argued.

Integration

There is final stage where the governance meeting attendees attempt to ‘integrate’ the proposal with any valid objections. If this cannot be done, the objections stand and the proposal falls, at least until the next governance meeting.

The integration process begins with the valid objection being written on a board. The circle then works together to answer the following question: ‘What could we add to or amend in the proposal to dissolve the objection, while still addressing the original objection’.

When the circle completes the integration they then go back to the objection round and see if any further objections surface. If no objections are raised, the proposal is adopted.

“IDM is used only in the foundational domain of governance, and not to make operational decisions unless specifically required by the governance decision,” Robertson wrote. “Thus, the integrative process in Holacracy is used to define space for autocratic control of specific areas, along with appropriate boundaries on that control.”

The ecolocracy management system has been designed so that organisations can actuate their purpose of meeting a wider social need. This is done be ensuring each individual can contribute to the best of their ability, by ensuring their needs are met – including the need for autonomy.

The proposed management system is radically different from conventional organisational structures, which are in turn modelled on the military: divisions of men controlled by the commander who sets the purpose, sets the strategy, and sets the individual tasks.

So how does any real life organisation move from the current hierarchy and ownership to this radical alternative? This is covered in the next section: adopting ecolocracy.

Adopting ecolocracy

“Holacracy is a systemic change to a new power structure, and it’s a binary shift: either power is held and delegated by a manager, or it’s held by the Holacracy constitution,” Robertson states. “Adopting pieces of Holacracy won’t change the power structure, and the change in power structure is where the real potential of Holacracy lies.”

The move to ecolocracy can – nonetheless – be relatively simple. In an organisation based on the traditional model a single owner or chief executive can adopt the Holocracy constitution and then enact the three defining changes that evolve the system into an ecolocracy. Where an organisation – a charity for example – is owned by a board of trustees and run by a management team, a majority decision at either or both levels may be sufficient.

“The aim of Holacracy is to distribute power from an individual charismatic leader, or chief executive, to a process which is defined in the written constitution,” Robertson explained. The chief executive officer needs to relinquish power by adopting the Holacracy constitution and cede power to its process, its rule system, in order to meet this aim.”

Five steps to bootstrap Holacracy:

1. Adopt the constitution.

2. Set up a shared system for governance records: circles, roles, accountabilities; metrics, checklists, projects.

3. Define your initial structure: the anchor’s lead link has the authority to define the initial structure, and the lead link of every circle within may further tweak the initial structure in their circle before – but only before – the first governance meeting.

4. Hold the first governance meetings and run elections.

5. Schedule regular tactical and governance meetings.

There are organisations where the owners and chief executive simply refuse to move away from the hierarchical structure. Power resides at the centre. It may be valued in its own right, or it may be assumed that the person with the power is also the only person with the ability and intellect to understand the purpose and strategy of the organisation.

In a profit making organisation, it may be the person with the power is paid enough to represent the interests of the person making the profit.

This being the case, the individual within the organisation has to recognise that power, but also the power they have as a member of the collective that through their labour deliver the purpose of the organisation. They also have the power to withdraw their individual labour – which could involve moving to a differently managed organisation.

CONCLUSION

Ecolocracy is a powerful new system for running impactful, resilient and efficient organisations. It mimics natural processes to distribute authority through a system while retaining a sense of purpose.

The Holacracy management system creates freedom for and empowers the individual member of the organisation. It does this by distributing power and authority to each of the roles. The role hold accountability for getting things done.

Roles are then grouped into circles. Each circle holds a governance meeting to clarify and evolves its own purpose, its domains and its accountabilities. This creates a dynamic and conscious organisation, that can evolve over time. However, there are limitations on each role and each circle. It is regulated by its environment.

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist, founder of Request Initiative and co-author of Impact of Market Forces on Addictive Substances and Behaviours: The web of influence of addictive industries (Oxford University Press). He tweets at @EcoMontague.

Read, Why we need ‘ecolocracy’

Read, An introduction to ‘ecolocracy’ – pt.1

Read the On The Nature of Change (OTNOC) series

We all suffer stress and anxiety to some degree and reported stress levels are generally increasing.  The Mental Health Foundation recently found that three quarters of people in the UK had felt so stressed in the past year that they were overwhelmed or unable to cope.

It would be in everyone’s interest to tackle the various causes of stress.  Many are related to work situations, many to personal and financial circumstances, but a proportion is attributable to environmental noise. Noise can be defined as unwanted sound. The descriptor “unwanted” immediately suggests that there will be an emotional or psychological response to the intrusion of noise into our lives.

Recent research is beginning to suggest that we need to take noise more seriously.  

Noise impact 

In 2015 a German study reported that there was a 25 percent higher rate of depression in areas with high traffic noise compared to quieter neighbourhoods, allowing for other socioeconomic factors.  The complexity of noise impact is evident in the finding that the highest rates of depression were found in areas where intermediate noise was being experienced for 24 hours each day – not in the areas with the highest noise levels.  It was postulated that in the particularly noisy areas, people take measures to block out the noise

The mechanisms for noise impact on human health and wellbeing remain uncertain.  Noise will cause both psychological and physiological distress, disturbing homeostasis and increasing allostatic load.  That means the internal balance within the human body, controlled by the nervous system and by hormones, is thrown out, resulting in elevated or fluctuating endocrine and nervous responses.

There can be constriction of blood vessels, tightening of muscles, increased heart rate and raised blood pressure.  In turn these can have very evident effects, causing annoyance, anxiety, hypertension, sleep disturbance and cardiovascular disease. 

Persistent hypertension, or high blood pressure, can increase the risks of heart attack, stroke and kidney disease. There is some evidence of reduced cognitive performance in children. Many people can tune out noise, to varying degrees, but that doesn’t mean to say that the purely physiological responses are eliminated.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has recently issued a set of guidelines and thresholds for environmental noise.  For example, it is recommended that human exposure to road noise should be limited to no more than 53 dB as an average.  Above that level then there will be negative health impacts. At night, the level should not exceed 45 dB in order to maintain relatively healthy sleep patterns.  For rail noise there are marginally different thresholds, 54dB and 44 dB respectively.  Of course, industrial noise is already regulated by existing legal controls so should not be creating additional problems to any significant extent.

Ambient noise 

The dB, or decibel, is not a measure most of us are very familiar with. It attempts to reflect the loudness of a noise as we hear it but, in technical terms, is a logarithmic scale because the human ear is capable of responding to an enormous range of powers of sound waves.  

Zero, of course, is set at the threshold for healthy hearing to first detect any sound at all. So, just as examples, I’m sitting writing this article at my desk, beside a window which overlooks a fairly quiet road at the bottom of a 20m garden – perhaps 10 cars or trucks passing each minute at the moment.  In this room I have secondary glazing which is very effective at reducing sound.  In the room itself there are a couple of PCs, screens, and a central heating radiator that probably makes some noise.  Today there is no wind at all. Otherwise, just the background sounds of any house. 

The noise sensor right beside me nearly always shows about 35 or 36 dB.  If I put the radio on fairly low, so that I can listen in to the news, but not be so disturbed that I can’t block it out and write, then the noise level increases to 55 dB roughly.  If I put the vacuum cleaner on, then the noise level is 66 dB and I can’t really think very rationally and, after more than a few minutes, it becomes quite annoying. An increase of 10 dB is likened to a doubling in the loudness of a sound to the human ear. 

The European Union adopted a Directive on environmental noise in 2002. It stipulates that measurements must be taken of ambient noise, the results must be made publicly available, and action plans for noise reduction must be agreed.  As yet there are no fixed target noise levels.

Major problem 

The measurements provided under the Directive make interesting reading. In Scotland, within the four main cities of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee, there are over 1 million people exposed to 24-hour noise levels in excess of 55 dB (so slightly higher than the WHO recommended maximum exposure level of 53 dB) while there are almost 800,000 exposed to night-time noise levels in excess of 50 dB (well above the WHO recommendation of 45 dB).  

In England, across 65 urban areas, it was reported in early 2014 that there were 7.4 million people living in areas with road noise levels in excess of 55 dB as an average, while there were almost 5 million living with night-time road noise above 50 dB. Adding in exposure to rail noise as well, the figures increase to 8.4 million and 5.6 million respectively.  

It has been suggested that 10 percent of people in England & Wales live with day-time noise in excess of 65 dB, and 16 percent with night-time noise in excess of 55 dB.  These exposures seem to be fairly stable, with little change either for better or worse over time.  However, complaints about noise have certainly been increasing over the past 20 years.  As you would expect, there is also an inherent equalities issue since more deprived communities are more likely to be exposed to a combination of both greater noise and air pollution. 

You would think there would be good reason to be very concerned. Opinion surveys across Europe in 2016-17 revealed that one third of citizens said they experienced problems with noise, and in cities this proportion rose to half.  Another poll indicated that 15 percent of people place noise pollution in the top 5 environmental issues that worry them.  

In the UK, 4 percent of respondents have a major problem with noise, and 22 percent a moderate problem.  There is evidence that the trend is towards increasing public concern.

Premature deaths

Admittedly, there are many ways to combat noise – sound insulation in homes, double-glazing, sleeping in the quietest part of the house.  So individuals will personally experience a noisy environment in very different ways.

However, overall, the European Environment Agency stated in 2014 that there were 10,000 premature deaths caused by noise pollution in Europe, 43,000 hospitalisations and 900,000 cases of hypertension.

It is also reckoned that 1 million DALY are caused every year in Europe (a DALY is a disability adjusted life year) from traffic noise.  This suggests that there is a very considerable burden placed on people across Europe, principally through annoyance and sleep disturbance.  

Each DALY can be costed.  In Netherlands a cost of Euros 77k has been calculated, while in the UK it has been valued at £20k to £30k, and in the USA between $50k and $100k.  Taking a middle figure of £50k, then the total cost of noise-related disability in Europe could be about £50 billion per year.  A fairly recent estimate put the annual cost of obesity in Europe at £70 billion.

Green solutions

So what is being done?  Well, the European 7th Environmental Action Programme commits to noise pollution being significantly reduced by 2020 and moving closer to the WHO levels. Additionally, the European Union has set standards for engine noise in cars and heavy vehicles.  

Obviously, the routine annual MoT test requires silencers and exhaust systems to be maintained. It has also set improving standards, since 2005, for noise created by vehicle tyres.  Opportunities can be taken to improve road surfaces by laying low-noise coatings.  Many indoor and outdoor appliances now have noise standards applied.  Certainly, there are ongoing business innovations in devising better sound insulation building materials and products.  

At the more local level, noise impact assessments are required of new road infrastructure, while controls can be exercised in construction of new housing, and in baffling from noise by built or green infrastructure.  It’s been shown that a planted stand of trees and shrubs 30m wide can reduce noise levels by 10 dB, effectively a halving of the perceived noise level, and this provides a significant benefit when a typical noise level beside a motorway might be around 70 dB.  A tree or shrub barrier can also reduce air pollution by half.

There are clearly multiple benefits to be derived from green solutions to climate change, poor air quality and excessive noise – in terms of tree planting, green roofs, green walls, and increased walking and cycling, as well as use of public transport, in place of private vehicles.  Overall, however, there is very poor centralised collection of information or data in the UK  on how much effort is going into any of these local remedial actions.

Harming biodiversity 

The impacts of noise pollution on biodiversity are, perhaps, even less well established.  There have been many laboratory tests which indicate significant physiological responses for various species but impacts in the natural environment are poorly understood.

A study was undertaken across all the protected areas in the USA, amounting to 14 percent of the total land area, which found that intrusive man-made noise reduced the area in which only natural sounds could be heard by between 50 percent and 90 percent, depending on location.  This means that natural sounds that could normally be heard at a distance of 50m could only be heard at 25m.  Overall 63 percent of the land area experienced twice as much sound as it should.

Clearly unnatural noise will impact on many species.  Animals rely on sound for communication, navigation, finding food and avoiding danger. For example, it’s been shown that foraging efficiency of owls is adversely impacted by traffic noise.  There is much less bat activity in noisy places.  There is evidence of impact on breeding bird communities through a change in composition of the community and a reduction in nesting species richness.  

However, some species clearly get an advantage in noisy places through reduced competition and predation.  There have been studies of wild populations of species as distinct as rats and deer showing avoidance behaviour of noisy places, causing behavioural and social changes which can result in disturbed and reduced feeding.  

There have been many studies of the effect of aircraft noise on wild species.  This distinct type of noise can be very loud and very sudden, possibly even causing panic and injury and abandonment of young.   

On the other hand, studies have also shown that roadside verges can be refuges for many insects, butterflies, moths and bees – so it would appear the relative lack of physical disturbance is a benefit compared to the possibility of some relatively minor disbenefits from noise.  However, it is recognised that good inter-comparison studies between similar noisy and quiet locations are needed. 

The future 

Accepting that we will have to continue living with noise, despite ongoing efforts to tackle the problem at source and make various technologies quieter, then we should be working hard to disrupt the pathways for noise transmission.

What does the future hold?  The existing European directive on environmental noise has the feel of a preliminary exercise to gather evidence and to prepare member states for more prescriptive action later.  This is confirmed by the commitment in the 7th environmental action programme.  

It’s clear there are potentially great benefits to be gained by properly aligning green interventions to enhance climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, infrastructure resilience, air pollution reduction, biodiversity enhancement, local amenity, and noise reduction.  

Perhaps the best approach would be to build on the existing 2013 EU green infrastructure strategy and to agree an EU framework directive on green infrastructure, designed to deliver all those well-established multiple benefits that would improve our own lives and physical and mental wellbeing.

This Author 

Professor James Curran retired recently as Chief Executive of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.  He researches, writes and talks on climate change, sustainability, air pollution and biodiversity.

Image: A PV sound barrier near Munich airport with solar panels incorporated, Wikimedia. 

Within England’s National Parks more than a quarter of land is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) meaning that it should provide refuge for the country’s rarest wildlife.

On average, just one in four SSSIs in National Parks are in an acceptable condition – far worse than those in the wider countryside. 

Failure to protect national parks is having a devastating effect on iconic British birds such as lapwing, dunlin and snipe, whose numbers are declining faster in the Peak District than elsewhere – despite being ‘priority species’.

Worsening condition

In Exmoor National Park, curlew and kestrel numbers have dramatically fallen while the ring ouzel or ‘mountain blackbird’ has become locally extinct.

Kevin Cox, chairman of RSPB criticised the “dismal performance” of these protected zones: “SSSIs protect some of our most nationally important wildlife, and you would expect these sites to be thriving within National Parks.

“The fact that these sites are, on average, in worse condition inside National Parks than outside is therefore extremely concerning.” Habitats elsewhere within the parks could be in even worse condition.

Using 2017 Natural England data, RSPB researchers found that on average 26 per cent of SSSIs within English National Parks are in a favourable condition.

The North York Moors came in lowest, with just 11 per cent of SSSIs in good condition. The same protected zones were doing four times better in the wider countryside, according to the RSPB report in British Wildlife.

Isobel Mercer, a Senior Site Conservation Policy Officer at the RSPB, said: “People want to experience a countryside rich in plants and animals rather than barren moorland. National Parks are national assets that have a duty to protect and enhance our wildlife. However, evidence at the moment shows this just isn’t happening.

Stanford Principle

Sharp declines in biodiversity have raised questions over whether National Parks still merit their Category V protected landscape status.

In 1951 when the first National Park (the Peak District) was created the government drafted the ‘Stanford Principle’. This stated that when conservation and public enjoyment clash, conservation should take priority. One of the primary objectives of these parks was to provide refuge for threatened species which were once common across the English countryside.

However, human interests seem to be trumping conservation which is putting many species at risk, particularly upland waders, farmland birds and birds of prey.

Seven out of ten of England’s National Parks are upland in nature. Grouse shooting in the Peak District, the North York Moors, Northumberland and the Yorkshire Dales is one of the main reasons for wildlife decline in the uplands. Burning moorland to provide fresh shoots of heather for grouse as well as the illegal persecution of birds of prey were found to be particularly damaging.

The intensification of agriculture has also negatively impacted biodiversity. In the Peak District, the number of sheep grazing has increased fivefold since 1900 which has resulted in a loss of vegetation, increase in soil erosion and flooding incidents downstream.

Misleading statistics 

The North York Moors’ freshwater pearl mussel – which can live to more than 100 – has not bred for twenty years at least and is now on the verge of extinction. Populations of wood warbler, pied flycatcher and salmon are also sharply declining.

Andy Wilson, chief executive of the North York Moors National Park agreed there were real issues facing wildlife in England’s parks but criticised the RSPB for making “partial and misleading use of statistics”.

In June it was revealed in Parliament that 47 percent of SSSIs had not had an assessment by Natural England in the past six years. Wilson condition: “So the data may have been published in 2017 but only a small proportion will have been collected recently.  It’s not up to date.” He said the most pressing issues facing National Parks are climate change, extreme weather events and tree disease.

A spokesperson for Peak District National Park said the recovery of SSSIs could take decades: “UK upland SSSIs – in particular those of the Dark Peak area of the Peak District – have experienced significant historical damage from industrial air pollution, over-grazing and erosion, amongst other factors.

“This has taken place over centuries, and indeed prior to the designation of National Parks from the 1950s onwards.”

Wildlife is plummeting all over the country and the 2016 State of Nature report found 56 percent of UK species declined between 1970 and 2013. The intensification of agriculture was the most significant driver of biodiversity loss.

Huge potential 

The RSPB has called for more funding to improve monitoring of wildlife within the parks and welcomed the government’s National Parks review.

Cox said: “This review of England’s designated landscapes is a key opportunity for the UK Government to deliver on the ambitions set out in its 25 Year Plan for the environment. Ensuring that protected nature sites like SSSIs are in good condition should be at the heart of plans to improve National Parks for wildlife.”

Mercer said these areas had “huge potential” to halt and reverse biodiversity loss in England.

Caroline Cotterell, Natural England’s Director for Nature and Landscapes said she is “committed to working with the owners and managers of SSSIs in England to safeguard and improve them. This is underlined in the Government’s 25 Year Environment Plan, as we work to make sure we leave our environment in a better state than we found it.”

This Author

Phoebe Weston is a freelance science and environment journalist. She grew up on an organic farm in Kent and is interested in rural land use, wildlife and farming. Read her blog Rewilding London here. 

Image: Exmoor National Park. Shrinkin’violet, Flickr. 

Adam Kidega, 45, recalls returning to the lake shore after a night fishing with his boat full of fish. In his younger years, he says: “It was always a bonanza.”

Today it is a different story. One can spend long nights on the lake and return empty handed.

If “very” lucky, Kidega says, he returns to Dunga fishing village with a handful of fish – two or three – and if unlucky, none at all. “That is how bad things have become.”

Parliamentary

This part of Lake Victoria, near Kisumu in western Kenya, is choked with water hyacinth, putrid algae and other invasive plants. They flourish in the organic waste that drains in from cities and farms, creating poor conditions for fish to breed. Climate change intensifies the problems.

It is the “deadest part of the lake,” according to executive secretary of the Lake Victoria Basin Commission (LVBC), Ally Said Matano, who blames the population density of the catchment. “The higher the number of people you have in a catchment area the more the pollution and the more problems you get.”

LVBC is an inter-government body of the five East African countries sharing the Lake Victoria basin, home to 40 million people.

The world’s largest tropical lake, Victoria is an important source of water and hydropower, a reservoir of biodiversity and a medium for transport across three main basin countries: Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania.

Christine Kaaya, the programmes coordinator for Uganda’s parliamentary forum on climate change, says each of the major rivers, streams and wetlands feeding the lake is under some level of threat.

Third phase

“Degradation of the catchment area is the main problem across the board, and with time the effects will catch up with the lake,” says Kaaya. “Already we have been warned about the ecosystem being badly damaged.”

A 2018 study by the Swiss-based International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) found that freshwater ecosystems in the lake were inadequately protected.

“Freshwater biodiversity in the Lake Victoria Basin is in decline and the risk of species extinctions is increasing, with the major drivers of threat identified as: pollution; biological resource use, primarily overfishing; agriculture; and invasive species, particularly Nile Perch and water hyacinth,” the study says.

Climate change is an ongoing and future threat to freshwater species, especially fishes, which are shown to be particularly vulnerable, the report adds.

The biggest initiative to tackle the problem has been the Lake Victoria Environmental Management Project, first approved in 1996. Last year, the World Bank approved a $240m loan for the third phase of the project.

Badly degraded

Results from the Kenyan part of phase one were judged “unsatisfactory” in a 2006 evaluation. The entire government team responsible was dismissed in 2002 “due to heightened dissatisfaction with observed performance”.

An NGO source, who asked not to be identified because he relied on government funding, gives the example of public flushing toilets. Several were installed, as an alternative to people defecating on riverbanks. But they were quickly vandalised and raw sewage continued to pollute the lake.

Uganda and Tanzania fared slightly better, with “moderately satisfactory” outcomes. A spokesperson for the World Bank in Uganda declined to comment on specific criticisms, deferring to the government.

Alfred Okot Okidi, a top official at Uganda’s ministry of water and environment, said the next phase would learn from previous efforts. It involves regenerating “badly degraded” swamps and riverbanks in southwestern Uganda.

“What we want to do is to restore the catchment area, including through pulling people out of the swamps and give them alternative livelihoods,” Okidi says. Other interventions include planting trees and containing sewerage from urban hotspots like Ugandan capital Kampala.

This Article

This Article first appeared on Climate Home News and was produced as part of an African reporting fellowship supported by Future Climate for Africa.

The British government’s proposals for a post-Brexit environment law and watchdog are modelled on the European Commission system they are meant to replace, environment secretary Michael Gove told MPs on Wednesday. 

As a prominent advocate for leaving the European Union, Gove has long argued that Brexit will allow the UK to strengthen its environmental protections and set policies more effectively.

But when it comes to the commission’s role in making sure governments fulfil policies, the “easily understandable process” in Brussels sets a good example for Britain’s Environment Bill, he told the House of Commons’ Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

Loopholes

“There are lots of other things where we wish to do things differently,” Gove said. 

“But given that we will have had a degree of confidence in the process – whereby the commission can give an opinion and then if necessary go with infraction proceedings – people have a high degree of confidence that – whatever else are the defects of the EU – that is a good working model. And therefore we’ve sought to replicate it.”

The same goes for the government’s plan to establish environmental principles to guide policymaking.

The treaty that created the EU includes commitments to, for example, ensure that a polluter always pays. Legal experts told MPs last week that the UK’s draft would create loopholes for lawmakers to avoid following them.

Open-minded

Broadly, the EU principles are “well understood”, Gove told MPs.

“The logic… is, you say what the principles are on the face of the bill, and then the government goes to parliament and says this is how we’re going to put the principles into effect and then you of course have regards to those principles when you’re shaping new legislation.”

Environmental advocates, MPs, the National Audit Office and others have expressed concerns that the draft Environment Bill fails to give the watchdog enough independence and power to hold the government to account for its shortfalls.

In response to criticism, Gove said repeatedly on Wednesday that his department is still “open to suggestions” and “open-minded” as it prepares to release the final version this year.

This Article

This Article first appeared at Climate Home News.   

Turkey’s highest administrative court has blocked a major coal power plant on the Black Sea coast, in a victory for campaigners.

The Council of State ruled on 21 February Hema Elektrik’s environmental impact assessment for the 1,320 megawatt project in Amasra district, Bartin province, was inadequate.

It was responding to a lawsuit filed by more than 2,000 local people – a record number of individual plaintiffs for an environmental court case in Turkey, according to a local news report.

Employment

“This decision represents a great victory for us,” said Erdogan Atmis, of the grassroots campaign group Bartin Platform.

Campaigners have fought the project in various guises since 2005, citing concerns about its impact on health, ecology and tourism in the area. Hema’s owner Hattat Holding has responded to previous setbacks by reapplying for permits under a new subsidiary.

“After this rejection, they can try it again,” said Atmis, “but no matter what they do, they won’t be successful, because they will find the people of Bartin and Amasra to be an obstacle.”

Ozlem Katisoz of the Turkish Foundation for Combatting Soil Erosion (Tema), a campaign group not directly involved in this case, said the level of public opposition was striking because Bartin is a coal region.

“Coal is a cultural issue, it is a source of employment,” she said. “Coal is something people are proud of.” What swung public opinion against this plant was that it was set to use imported, not domestic, coal, she said.

Anticipated

Tema, which is primarily concerned with agriculture, is involved in legal challenges and lobbying against a number of other coal projects because of their impacts on farming.

Turkey has the third biggest pipeline of coal power plants in the world, with 37GW of capacity in various stages of planning, according to the latest CoalSwarm data.

The government energy policy backs coal mining and power production as a way to reduce reliance on fuel imports.

Despite that backing, implementation of these plans has slowed to a trickle, in the face of public opposition, legal challenges and investor nerves. Only four generating units are currently under construction, while 62 have been cancelled and 31 shelved since 2010.

“Overall, what this shows is that the the wave of new coal plants that had been anticipated several years ago in Turkey is not materializing, at least so far,” said Ted Nace, director of CoalSwarm.

Coal is one of the biggest sources of climate pollution worldwide and climate activists are urging countries like Turkey to back renewable energy instead.

Tema’s Katisoz said the first priority should be energy efficiency, with “huge potential” for savings in buildings and heavy industry. Better strategic planning is needed, she added, as the projections for electricity demand are uncertain. Then there is scope to scale up solar and wind power.

This Article

This Article first appeared at Climate Home News.

Microplastic pollution has been found in some of Britain’s most iconic and remote rivers and lakes – including Llyn Cefni Reservoir in Anglesey and Afon Cegin, a river in North Wales.

The new research by Bangor University and Friends of the Earth is believed to be the first of its kind. It looked at ten sites – including lakes in the Lake District, waterways in the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park, and a wetland as well as the Welsh reservoir – and found microplastics in all of them.

Dr Christian Dunn, of Bangor University,  led the research and confirmed the findings suggest that microplastics should now be considered as an emergent contaminant – and that routine monitoring of all UK waters must now take place.

Investigate

Researchers were able to identify and count microplastic pollutants – less than 5 mm in size, such as plastic fragments, fibres and film – per litre of water using a fluorescence lighting system. 

The preliminary findings revealed microplastic pollution levels ranging from over a 1,000 pieces of plastic per litre in in the river Tame in Greater Manchester, to 2.4 pieces per litre in Loch Lomond.

Last year, a report by Eunomia for Friends of the Earth estimated that huge quantities of microplastic pollution are entering UK waterways from a number of sources every year.

The key sources of pollution include car tyres (7,000-19,000 tonnes), clothing (150-2,900 tonnes), plastic pellets used to make plastic items (200-5,900 tonnes) and paints on buildings and road markings (1,400-3,700 tonnes).

Further work is now essential to fully investigate any health risks from microplastics – to humans and ecosystems – so that “safe” levels can be ascertained, and removal and mitigation processes can be put in place.

Dangers

Dr Christian Dunn, of Bangor University, said: “It was more than a little startling to discover microplastics were present in even the most remote sites we tested, and quite depressing they were there in some of our country’s most iconic locations.

“I’m sure Wordsworth would not be happy to discover his beloved Ullswater in the Lake District was polluted with plastic.

“These initial findings, from our team at Bangor University with Friends of the Earth, show that we have to start taking the issue of plastic in our inland waters seriously.

“Plastic is polluting our rivers, lakes and wetlands in a similar way as pollutants such as so-called ‘emerging contaminants’ like pharmaceutical waste, personal care products and pesticides.

“As with all emerging contaminants we don’t yet fully know the dangers they present to wildlife and ecosystems, or even human health, and to what levels they occur in all our water systems.

Devolved

“But it’s now clear that microplastics should be considered a serious emerging contaminant and there needs to be a concerted effort to regularly monitor all our inland waters for them.

“Our method provides a straightforward and low-cost way of doing this so we now need to roll it out and see if our preliminary results are just the tip of the iceberg.”

Julian Kirby, plastics campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: “The widespread contamination of our rivers and lakes with microplastic pollution is a major concern, and people will understandably want to know what impact this could have on their health and environment.

“Plastic pollution is everywhere – it’s been found in our rivers, our highest mountains and our deepest oceans.

“The onus is now on Westminster and on devolved governments in the UK to introduce legislation to drastically reduce the flow of plastic pollution that’s blighting our environment.”

Although there have been a number of studies on plastic pollution in the marine environment and some on the sediment of waterways, less research has been conducted on microplastic pollution in actual water samples from inland systems in the UK.

The methodology used in this study offers a simple low-cost way of collecting and analysing samples, allowing regular nationwide monitoring of waterways.

This Article

This article is based on a press release from Friends of the Earth.

A research project aiming to inspire international action on marine plastic pollution at the University of Stirling has been awarded a share of £850,000.

The Economics of Marine Plastic Pollution: What are the Benefits of International Cooperation? will calculate the economic costs of the environmental damages associated with marine plastic and the benefits of a cross-country coordinated clean up.

Frans de Vries, Professor of environmental economics at the University’s Stirling Management School, (pictured) said: “We know plastic pollution is a global phenomenon and has a significant, detrimental impact on the marine and coastal environment.

Joined-up

“The transboundary nature of marine plastic pollution reduces the incentive for any single country to take action. Through this project, we aim to identify and prove the value of international cooperation in tackling the issue.”

The three year study, which involves academics from the University of Stirling, University of Glasgow, Plymouth Marine Laboratory and Clark University in America, will focus on collecting data from eight countries bordering the North Atlantic Ocean.

Researchers will seek to map the spatial distribution and movement of marine plastic; calculate the costs of reducing both the stock and flows of plastic in and into the marine environment; develop a framework to determine the economic benefits of different levels of international cooperation in reducing plastic waste; and identify incentives that might encourage a joined-up approach.

De Vries added: “Despite increasing worldwide recognition of the problem of marine plastic, a lack of coordinated and effective control persists.

Preservation

“Our research will contribute to discussions around the introduction of an international agreement on plastics in the marine environment, and we are hopeful our findings will inspire international efforts towards solving this massive environmental problem.”

The research has been funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC).

Helen Rogers, senior portfolio manager at ESRC said: “ESRC is delighted to be funding to this project, with contributions from NERC and as part of UK Research and Innovation, we are well placed to foster research that can help solve the pressing issue of the plastic waste problem.

“Humanity’s shared environment is at risk and Prof de Vries’ work will contribute to its preservation.”

This Article

This article is based on a press release from the University of Stirling.

A unique rewilding training scheme in the Highlands, run by conservation charity Trees for Life and backed by the National Lottery Heritage Fund, is aiming to boost young people’s skills and employability in the rural economy.

Applications are open this month for the award-winning charity’s Skills for Rewilding programme, which is offering five people the chance to spend a year learning practical skills in landscape management, horticulture, community engagement, and estate management.

Mainly based at Trees for Life’s acclaimed Dundreggan Conservation Estate in Glenmoriston, the successful applicants will be able to develop skills in rewilding – helping damaged ecosystems return to a natural state – that will also be transferable to other organisations.

Hands-on activities

“We’re looking to train young people who haven’t found their niche yet, or who are looking to change careers. It’s an exceptional opportunity to gain the practical experience which is highly sought after by employers, whilst being based in a spectacular setting,” said Paul Greaves, Trees for Life’s Skills for Rewilding Manager.

Trees for Life is restoring the globally important Caledonian Forest and its wildlife. The forest once covered much of the Highlands, but after centuries of deforestation, only around 1% now survives.

So far Trees for Life’s volunteers have established 1.6 million trees, and the charity is also successfully reintroducing red squirrels to fragments of suitable forest across the Highlands.

Focusing on work experience rather than academic learning, the trainees will work alongside Trees for Life’s team – carrying out hands-on activities such as growing native trees from seeds, landscape management, helping volunteers plant trees, engaging with communities and schools, and ecological monitoring.

Traineeships

They will gain accredited qualifications, including some from the University of the Highlands and Islands, and will also get the chance to broaden their experience by going on placements with organisations such as the RSPB and Scottish National Heritage.

Last year’s programme attracted more than 100 applicants. Those taking part came from backgrounds including education, painting and decorating, and the hospitality sector.

Trees for Life hopes to attract people from groups poorly represented in nature conservation, including younger local people, women, and individuals hoping to make a career change later in life.

Applicants must be UK nationals and at least 18 years old when the traineeships start in July. The programme covers living expenses, and is funded by The National Lottery Heritage Fund.

This Author

This article is based on a press release from Trees for Life. Applications are open from March 1 to 9am on Monday 18 March. To register interest, email traineeships@treesforlife.org.uk. See www.treesforlife.org.uk or call 01309 691292.

Pictured: Last year’s Trees for Life Skills for Rewilding trainees (left-right) Nick Kinnegan, Callum Fraser, Tim Buchan, Rhona Duncan at Dundreggan Conservation Estate © Alex MacLeod, Trees for Life