The ground-breaking Puffarazzi project from the RSPB is back with the charity asking for the public’s help to find out more about one of our best loved seabirds.

Visitors to puffin colonies around the UK and Ireland in spring and summer 2019 and 2020 are being asked to join the Puffarazzi by photographing these colourful seabirds with fish in their bills.

The project is now also asking for historical photos to be submitted as well to aid conservation efforts. All these images will help scientists learn more about what puffins are feeding their chicks, known as pufflings.

Nutritious

Puffins, with their colourful bills, distinctive eye markings and somewhat comical walk, are a firm favourite for many people.

Yet, these birds are in serious trouble with their numbers plummeting in former strongholds in the UK and Europe and the species is now classed as vulnerable to extinction.

This project aims to find out the causes of these UK declines which are likely to be related to a reduction in food availability caused by climate change. Scotland is one of the most important places for puffins, with 80 per cent of the UK and Ireland population breeding here.

The public response in 2017 was incredible; 602 people joined the Puffarazzi and sent in 1,402 photos from almost 40 colonies.

The photos have helped scientists identify areas where puffins are struggling to find the large, nutritious fish needed to support their pufflings. They revealed variations around the UK with some areas having far smaller fish for the puffins to feed on.

Photo album

Scientists are now looking to build on this knowledge with one big difference this time round – rather than just asking for current photos scientists also need snaps of puffins with fish in their bills from any year.

Provided the year and place of the image is known it can be submitted; there’s even a way for pre-digital photos to be included. These will help scientists to track how puffin food sources have changed over time. Images can be submitted at the Project Puffin Website

Ellie Owen, who is leading the project said: “We’re so excited that Puffarazzi is back. The response last time was overwhelming and it’s thanks to this success that we’ve expanded the project.

“Puffins are facing a bleak future and we want to change that, which is why we need to learn more about how puffin food stocks have changed over the years.

“We’re asking you to dig around in your photo albums and digital files and to send us any applicable photos you have, however old they are. However big or small the fish in the photo is it will be really useful for us.

Conservation

“Anyone can join the Puffarazzi – back in 2017 our youngest volunteer was just 11 years old – and if you took part two years ago you can do so again. Our project website has all the information on how to take part, while keeping yourself and the puffins safe.”

Guidance on the Puffarazzi website includes how to avoid disturbing puffins while photographing them such as avoiding spending more than a couple of minutes photographing a puffin carrying fish, keeping movements and noise to a minimum, not walking near or over puffin burrows, and keeping about five metres away from puffins at all times.

There is also advice on how to stay safe while taking photos of puffins, what the images need to capture for the scientific information needed by the project, and the online form for submitting the photographs.

Ellie added: “We know that many people have been inspired by the plight of these plucky little seabirds and want to help them.

“By becoming part of the Puffarazzi you’ll be filling in key knowledge gaps currently holding puffin conservation efforts back and will help shape future advice for government on how best to safeguard puffins.”

This Article

This article is based on a press release from the RSPB.

Latin America climate week is part of a series of regional summits to encourage dialogue between governments and civil society, in support of national climate pledges. The events were initially set to take place from 19 to 23 August in Salvador

The rebuke comes months after Brazil backed out from presiding over the Cop25 UN climate summit, prompting a frenzied search for alternative venues. Chile stepped in with less than a year to prepare.

 Brazil’s environment minister, Ricardo Salles, told national daily O Globo: “We do not accept hosting the event because it is an action in the run-up to Cop25. It does not make sense to host an event from the climate conference, if we are not going to hold the conference.”

Urban agenda 

The newspaper published a message from UN Climate Change saying it was seeking other options in the region, but would make no official comment until it received notification in writing. A spokesperson for the UN body declined to comment to Climate Home News.

According to Salvador City Hall, the event had been confirmed last year under Michel Temer’s interim government. André Fraga, the official charged with UN liaison, was informed of the cancellation on Friday night, in a phone call from the federal environment ministry.

Fraga told O Globo: “I have been informed that Minister Ricardo Salles was not comfortable with holding the event in Brazil. 

“He claimed what all of this government claim: that the event only serves as a platform for NGOs, that it is useless and that the environment ministry’s focus is the urban agenda, which has nothing to do with climate change.”

The environment minister denied having a problem with campaign groups, saying: “It has nothing to do with the participation or not of NGOs, it has to do with our main agenda which, as I said, is an urban environmental agenda.”

Climate disaster

Fraga continued: “We do not support a meeting organized before our administration, with a different agenda from the one we prefer, which is the issue of the urban environmental agenda and sanitation, dumps.”

Environmentalists were quick to condemn the move. Carlos Rittl of Climate Observatory tweeted that the government was a “climate disaster”.

This Author 

Natalie Sauer reports for Climate Home News. She has contributed to a variety of international outlets, including Politico Europe, AFP and The Ecologist.  This article was first published by Climate Home. 

As a society we have become disconnected from the natural world. We see Nature as some sort of middle-class lifestyle add-on rather than something we are intrinsically part of.

Somehow we forget there is no health and wellbeing on a dead planet. This has led to a collective indifference to the catastrophic demise of our natural environment.

This article was first published in Resurgence & Ecologist magazine. 

We think the world is so large we can never run out of resources. Indeed our entire economic model is based on converting more of Nature into money to keep alive the fairy tale of infinite growth.

Behaviour change

Each year in the UK, 1 in 4 of the adult population experiences a mental health problem, over the last 25 years rates of depression and anxiety in teenagers have increased by 70 percent, and 62 percent of adults and 35 percent of children aged 2–15 are overweight.

It is clear that despite all our material wealth we are not happy.

Our current medical approach to health care has its limitations. We invest most of our resources in frontline interventions for established disease and illness.

We have taught society to expect a medication or intervention for any given condition. There is reluctance from patients and clinicians to accept prescriptions for diet, exercise or lifestyle change, despite growing evidence of their value.

There has been extensive research into what influences behaviour change, which lies outside the remit of this article. I believe that, to succeed, any intervention has to speak to our values.

Health and wellbeing

From early childhood our education system slowly creates individuals with a focus on achieving material wealth. Much time is spent indoors, and children are increasingly distanced from the origins of the food they eat, the water they drink, and the air they breathe.

Our children spend far more time on screens than outdoors. Four to six hours a day is the new norm for our teenagers, despite evidence that it is not good for their health.

A Naturally Healthy approach would commit resources to connecting our children with the natural world in order to benefit their health and wellbeing and that of our environment.

Spending time being active and learning outside will help them understand their place in the world. It will improve their physical and mental health, and it will help them understand and value Nature.

Is it not reasonable to embed this in the national curriculum, to have a Naturally Healthy syllabus that develops throughout their school years? Make no mistake: this would not detract from the academic agenda. In fact, evidence shows that happy, healthy children learn better.

Local environment

Naturally Healthy is simply common sense. We must enshrine this principle in our national education strategy.

Local implementation would depend on the local environment. It could be walking a mile a day, it could be daily forest school, it could even be surfing with The Wave Project.

The specification is that it allows children to learn, engage with and value our natural world. However, it needs to be embedded, consistent and running through formal education.

For our adult population we must review our strategic health approach. Interventions that reconnect adults with Nature have benefits for physical and mental health, and can be designed to be both preventive and therapeutic.

Targeted, Nature-based interventions have demonstrated efficacy and cost-effectiveness in the management of a range of conditions, including depression, anxiety, loneliness and chronic disease, and in slowing the progression of dementia. There are also no side effects!

Cost effective

Interventions can be as simple as walking for health, as active as coasteering, or as involved as volunteering with the National Trust.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach. Feedback tells us that participants value being part of a community, learning new skills, increasing activity levels and reconnecting with the natural world.

It is important to remember that for many of these projects the evidence regarding efficacy and cost-effectiveness is very clear, so we need to be careful how we describe them.

They should not be described as ‘add-ons’ or ‘green prescriptions’, but as first-line best practice where appropriate, and commissioned accordingly. 

So why, if the evidence is clear, is this not being recognised at a national level? It is. Chapter 3 of the government’s 25-year environment plan recognises the link between the environment and health and wellbeing.

The vision is to help people improve their health and wellbeing by using green spaces, to green our towns and cities, and to encourage children to be closer to Nature both in and out of school.

Formal recognition

There is growing engagement from health-care commissioners, and interest from the Department of Health, but as yet no formal recognition. We hope in time a clear, consistent message will develop.

We believe that reconnecting our communities with the natural world offers transformative opportunities to improve health and wellbeing.

Partnership working between health and environmental organisations allows long-term strategic visions to develop that will result in a healthy population and a healthy environment.

We have a responsibility to our patients, our communities and our children to act. Will we?

Naturally Healthy May is a month of events inspiring us to get outdoors. For more information visit the campaign’s website.

This Author

James Szymankiewicz is a general practitioner and Chair of Natural Devon. He tweets at @Drjamesszy. This article was first published in Resurgence & Ecologist magazine. 

Image: Ben Lee. 

Twenty seven rebels planted 52 trees this week, to replace trees cut down by developer Queensberry Properties earlier this year. The trees were all different types, having been donated to the cause from various sources.

Some of the trees bear signs saying “They may take our lives, but they’ll never take our treedom”; “Harm to us = Harm to humans”, and “Tha mi beò, cum mi an seo!” among other statements.

The trees felled by Queensberry were part of the important wildlife corridor between the Botanic Gardens and Kelvingrove Park that’s used by herons, bats, foxes, and otters. 

Environmental community

David Carruth, 26, conservationist stated “These trees have been transplanted from locations all over Glasgow and beyond from areas where they would have been cleared anyway.

“As they come together in this place so do the extended environmental community here in Glasgow with a clear message written in green that enough is enough.”

For more than ten years local residents and activists have been opposing the development of 45 flats and four townhouses in the lane. Previous direct action by Extinction Rebellion Glasgow caused delays to the tree cutting. 

Cheyenne Loana, 23, psychology student, said “Otago Lane is such a tranquil oasis in the middle of a busy city, and the community vibe is being robbed from these people by a greedy company. It broke my heart when they took down those trees, there are wood chippers in my nightmares. Planting these trees will help the healing process.”

This Article 

This article is based on a press release from Extinction Rebellion. 

Image: Jane Duckett. 

Professor Katharine Hayhoe is visiting the UK and delivering a lecture as part of the Cambridge Climate Lecture Series on the 15th may at 3pm. The lecture is open to the public and can also be watched live online. Nick Breeze caught up with her before the event. 

Nick Breeze (NB): Here in the UK, in the last month or two, hundreds of people have been arrested and climate change is in the news. In some ways that is good but it also creates another polarity because some people don’t agree with the methods. 

How do we get past this impasse of what is a social system of high carbon consumption, that people are protesting against, and the overwhelming desire to just stop making climate change worse?

Katharine Hayhoe (KH): Yes, the level of concern and urgency is growing with the Extinction Rebellion and the children’s climate strikes. It is because the urgency is growing to the point where we scientists are standing up and saying we need to do something about it. 

And then, there was the 1.5-degree report where it is shown that even a 0.5 degree of change carries quantifiable impacts that should be avoided. The scientific urgency has increased and our personal experience of the impacts has changed rapidly in the last decade, and I think that is even more important.

The vast majority of people surveyed in the US agree that climate is changing, plants and animals will be affected, future generations will be affected, even people in the developing countries will be affected. But then you say, ‘do you think climate change will affect you personally?’ And the majority still answer ‘no’. 

It is up to 41 per cent saying yes though, and it has gone up from 30 per cent to 40 per cent in the last 10 years. And this year we saw the biggest jump in that number. And that is because we are experiencing impacts in the places where we live, and we are recognising that it really does affect us and we do need to fix it. 

NB: Ok, and you think it is the tangible impacts that are really contributing now to the dialogue?

KH: I think so, I think it is the tangible impacts coupled with the increasing clarity of the scientific messaging and also, the involvement of so many different voices. So, in the UK as well as around the world we see voices from the business sector, we see voices talking about divestment from the fossil fuel sector. 

You know, the Rockefeller Foundation divested for climate change reasons away from fossil fuels. We see countries like Norway taking tremendous steps forward. We see faith leaders of all kinds from the Anglican Church across the spectrum speaking about climate change. 

We are starting to see these discussions happening in almost every sphere, so climate change is no longer considered to be an environmental issue that only environmentalists care about. And of course, climate change is a human issue. We already have all the values we need to care about it. 

So we are starting to see these discussions in many different places where we didn’t see it before and that is also contributing to this growing awareness and groundswell of demand for meaningful action.

NB: You mentioned earlier that you have quite a big background in communicating to faith groups and communities. Can you talk a little bit about how politics, faith, and climate science are interconnected in your experience?

KH: Yes, so, the science tells us that climate is changing, humans are responsible, the impacts are serious and our choices matter. Specifically, I look at the difference between a future where we continue to depend on fossil fuels as a primary source of energy, versus if we wean ourselves off fossil fuels as soon as possible. There is a very significant difference. In some cases, the difference is between the continued success or failure of an entire economic sector or region. 

That is what science can tell us but what do we do with that information? That is where we need our values to tell us what the right choices are. There is no silver bullet that is going to fix everything. All our choices, even clean energy like wind or tidal or solar have some drawbacks, like how do you recycle all those wind turbines when they reach their end of their life? 

We already have some of that happening, so we have to make choices that are informed by the science but they are based on our values. And for the majority of us around the world who belong to one or more major faith traditions or religion, often our values are informed by our faith.  

So, how does that play into politics? 

Well, politics is informed by the politicians’ values and I am sorry to say that often politicians values are centred on ‘will I be re-elected?’. And there we have an enormous problem because climate change is a slow moving train wreck. 

When we make choices around climate change today, we will not see the benefits or the drawbacks of those choices for some time. Now, there are obviously co-benefits to the choices that we make today and those can often be seen in short-term but we won’t see the impact of our carbon reduction for a couple of decades, which is well below a political term of office. 

And then we also have a fundamental problem where money rules the world, including our politics. And when you look at Wikipedia’s list of the richest corporations in the world, the majority of those corporations made their money either extracting, or processing, or selling, or building things that use fossil fuels.

So, when we talk about climate solutions we are talking about a fundamental shift in the balance power and wealth in this world.

NB: And that is obviously quite a contentious message in itself really. Because it challenges the fabric of our existing society.

What was very well publicised in Europe was Pope Francis’ encyclical, Laudato Si. Did you find that it had any impact at all in the US, and was it at all resilient against the politicisation of climate science?

KH: I actually know what happened because I have a colleague, Asheley Landrum, who researched it. And what she found was sadly no surprise. It is the fact that if people already agreed with the Pope on climate change, whether they were Catholic or Protestant, then the encyclical increased their opinion of the Pope.

If they did not agree with the Pope on the climate change before the encyclical was published then it did not change their mind about climate change. It changed their mind about the Pope. 

This is really important because it has long been assumed that for those people who use religiously sounding arguments to reject climate change, or who wear their religion on their sleeve, that it is their values that dictate their opinions and their reactions to issues like climate change. 

But what I had already learned, and what the Pope’s encyclical demonstrated, is that for many people, and this is just as true in the UK as it is in the US and Canada, their opinions are written first and foremost by their political ideology.

NB:  One last question, how do you personally feel we are doing in this struggle to tackle the threat of climate change? 

KH: ‘What gives you hope?’ is probably the most frequent question I get. I do not get hope from the science. When I look at what we are doing to this planet, it seems like every new study I read shows that climate is changing faster and leading to a greater extinction than we previously thought. 

I also do not get a lot of hope from the politics. The politics are more contentious and divided and tribal today, not just in the US and the UK, but in places like Brazil and around the world. It is like a virus! It’s more polarised today than it has been in decades. So I don’t see a lot of hope there, either. 

But where I do see hope is in people. When I talk to people about the things I hear they are doing, and again, the kids strikes, the unexpected conversations that you have with people who are making changes in incredible places. 

For example, I grew up in a public school system and I went to a big public university. Now I work at a public university but I often get invitations to speak at big Christian colleges. When I first was invited, I thought ‘they probably don’t think climate change is real, they probably are all very unsustainable and environmentally unfriendly’. Some of them are very small with 1,200 students and others are a little bit bigger with 5,000 or 10,000 students and yet they put the big public schools to shame! 

They have solar panels, wind farms, sustainable agriculture programmes, food waste reduction, and green buildings and you know programmes that integrate students across the campus into caring about the planet and caring about the poor. 

I get so much hope from talking to people, you know, there are so many people in this world who understand the problem and that are working to fix it. I think it is really just our politics, this rhetoric that is holding us back.

This Author

Nick Breeze is a climate change journalist and can be followed on Twitter here: @NickGBreeze.

Current stockpiles of coal in the UK are more than twice what the government anticipates coal-fired power stations will need ahead of the 2025 deadline for ending coal-fired power for electricity, latest government figures show.

At the end of 2018, 4.1 million tonnes of coal was stockpiled at UK power stations. Analysis by Friends of the Earth indicates that this is more than double the 1.6 million tonnes of coal that the government predicts the UK will need for UK coal-fired electricity generation, which is due to end by 2025.

Findings by Coal Action Network suggested that this excess in coal in the UK is triggering increased exports of the fossil fuel onto the global market. Exports of coal from the UK are at an eight year high, increasing 28 percent in 2018, and sourced from the UK’s opencast coal mines.

Climate impacts

Dr Richard Denniss, Chief Economist at the The Australia Institute, commented on the findings: “Economics 101 tells us that when you increase the supply of something you push down the price.

“By mining more coal in the UK than is burned in the UK there is no doubt that the UK coal industry is putting downward pressure on world coal prices and, in turn, leading to an increase in consumption of coal globally.

This will undermine international commitments to keep global temperature rise under 1.5 degrees to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. The only reason the UK should approve new coal mines, when it already has more coal than it can burn, is if it hopes to increase coal consumption in other countries.”

Increasingly low coal generation could be one reason why stockpiles have continued to grow; Drax power station has not burnt coal since March 23rd, Aberthaw since 14th March and  West Burton since January.

It’s not clear why coal-fired power stations are continuing to buy coal in excess of their projected life span.

Opencast mines

Opencast coal extraction involves stripping large areas of topsoil and subsoil to extract vast quantities of coal using heavy machinery and dynamite.

In the UK it has been is far more destructive to the local environment than traditional mining which it came to replace, hosting a very small number of jobs compared to the pre-Thatcher deep mining industry. It comes primarily from mines in the North-East of England and Wales.

A new opencast coal mine ‘Bradley’ in Pont Valley, County Durham was allowed to go ahead in June 2018, amid fierce local opposition.

June Davison, a local campaigner reacted to the news that Bradley coal was going into inflated stockpiles: “Every tonne of thermal coal that has come out of the ground at Bradley over the past 10 months has been surplus to the UK’s requirements.

“Banks Group’s justification for destroying our valley and seeking to open new mines is based on the lie that they are providing for UK household energy needs.”

Despite the figures, the UK is still importing coal from opencast mines, adding to the surplus in stockpiles. In the first two months alone of 2019, 1.2 million tonnes of coal have been imported from Russia, North America and Colombia.

Violent displacement 

In Russia and Colombia, two of the sources of the coal that is still being imported, opencast coal mining happens on a vast scale and has come with land-grabs, violent displacement, poisoning of river and watercourses, and cultural genocide of indigenous peoples. 

Vladimir Slivyak, co-chairman for Russian environmental group Ecodefense, said: “The news that the UK power stations continue to buy Russian coal despite having too much already adds insult to injury to those on the frontline of opencast coal destruction.

“Coal mining in Russia means environmental destruction and human rights violations. The more coal tainted with blood the UK buys from Russia, the more damage caused.” 

Samuel Arragoces, displaced from the community of Tobacco by the Colombian mine Cerrejon, said: “We are worried about what is happening in the UK, where the government promised to phase out coal.

“Coal mining here in La Guajira, Colombia, is causing more suffering every day. Our question for the UK government is, will it keep letting power stations buy this coal now that it will not be needed? Because here the coal mine is seeking to expand, polluting more water sources, stealing more land.

“Our community leaders are threatened with death for trying to stop this. So will the UK carry on being a marketplace for this coal?’

What next 

On 13 June 2019 the Secretary of State for housing, communities and local government is due to make a decision on whether or not to allow the Highthorn Mine at Druridge Bay, Northumberland, to go ahead, and whether or not to stop the Bradley mine at Pont Valley in County Durham. 

On 14 June 2019, another proposed opencast coal mine is due to be considered by Newcastle City Council, (Dewley Hill at Throckley, near Newcastle), which is expected to be influenced by the outcome of the decisions on Bradley and Highthorn.

A clue to what might happen lies in the Planning Inspectors’ report on the Highthorn application: “If the Secretary of State were to conclude, on the basis of the available evidence, that no such ‘window’ exists for coal-fired generation, then the need for, and benefits of, Highthorn coal would be much diminished.

“The planning balance then would be fundamentally altered, and in those circumstances, I consider that there would be a strong case for refusing the planning application.’

Local communities are mobilising against all the plans in what could be a crucial moment for the future of coal mining. You can follow their campaigns here: Campaign to Protect Pont Valley; Save Druridge; Defend Dewley Hill. 

This Author

Isobel Tarr is a campaigner at Coal Action Network.

Plastic pollution is an “unfolding catastrophe” that we “ignore at our peril”, Sir David Attenborough has warned as it emerged a bag and sweet wrappers were found on a record-breaking ocean dive.

The naturalist and wildlife campaigner said plastic in the sea is a “global problem” that demands a response on a global scale.

It has been revealed that plastic waste was recently found during the deepest ocean dive on record, which saw explorer Victor Vescovo descend nearly 11km down into the Pacific Ocean.

Extinction

The journey to extreme depths of the Mariana Trench encountered new species of sea creatures, as well as a plastic bag and sweet wrappers.

Writing in the i newspaper, Sir David said it was “high time” for the world’s leaders to take action on plastic pollution.

“I have seen for myself the effects of plastic pollution on some of our planet’s most precious species and natural places – an unfolding catastrophe that has been overlooked for too long,” he said. “But we ignore it at our peril.”

Sir David’s comments come after a major report warned wildlife and habitats are declining at an “unprecedented” rate worldwide.

Up to a million species of plants and animals are at risk of extinction, a greater number than ever before in human history, the UN-backed global assessment revealed.

Industrial scale

The study said plastic pollution has increased 10-fold in the seas since 1980, harming turtles, seabirds and mammals. However, the report also warned that a decline in wildlife will cause harm to humans too.

A report by the Tearfund released on Tuesday warned of the impact on human health caused by plastic pollution.

The research suggested one person dies every 30 seconds in developing countries from diseases caused by plastic pollution and rubbish.

“This report is one of the first to highlight the impacts of plastic pollution not just on wildlife but also on the world’s poorest people,” Sir David said.

“Humankind’s ability to produce this material on an industrial scale far outstrips our ability to manage it, and as a consequence plastic is choking our rivers and seas.”

This Article

This article was provided by the Press Association. 

London-based wildlife charity People’s Trust for Endangered Species (PTES) and Royal Holloway University of London have joined forces to launch a new national beetle survey, in order to conserve the beautiful but threatened noble chafer beetle.

PTES and Royal Holloway are looking for volunteers to look for noble chafers over a two-week period in June, to find out where they are still living in the UK, allowing conservationists to help save them from extinction.

Volunteers will be asked to set up a (harmless!) trap and fit it with a chemical lure – specially developed to attract noble chafer beetles, meaning it shouldn’t attract many other insects.

Keeping track

The trap will need checking daily and any beetles need to be photographed then released. Full instructions and equipment will be given to all volunteers. Noble chafers don’t bite, so it is safe to handle them.

This survey is being coordinated by Dr Deborah Harvey, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, at Royal Holloway and is funded by PTES. To find out more information and to take part in the survey, email Deborah.

Harvey said: “Noble chafers are fascinating  beetles – adults are typically only seen for a few weeks in a year, which is why this two-week survey period is essential in order to see how their populations are faring.

“It’s incredibly important for us to know where noble chafers are living and where they’re not, so we can work to ensure the survival of this native species.”

Noble chafers are beautiful beetles with iridescent, shiny green bodies (although also copper and gold) speckled with white. They are small, with adults being about 2cm long, and are believed to live in traditional orchard habitats where they depend on old, decaying wood for food and shelter.

Population range

As with many native species, noble chafers are threatened with the loss of their primary habitat – the deadwood at the heart of old, decaying trees.

Laura Bower, Conservation Officer at PTES added: “We know noble chafers have populations in the New Forest and in traditional orchards in Kent and the Three Counties, as well as some isolated records in Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire. 

“We want to build on this and expand our knowledge of the noble chafer’s population range.

“Anyone in the UK can take part, so we hope that volunteers can help us by checking traditional orchards, gardens and wood pasture sites in areas where they are currently known to exist but also where we don’t yet have records, to see if they are there or not.”

This Article 

This article is based on a press release from Royal Holloway. To find out more about noble chafer, visit the campaign’s website. 

Image: Gailhampshire, Flickr. 

The African National Congress (ANC) has maintained its position as the country’s governing party, preliminary Election 2019 results show.

This is despite the party’s lack of focus on the critical issues of our time – namely climate change and environmental degradation – in their manifesto.

According to the environmental and social justice coalition SAFCEI – Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute – the ‘new’ government has the unique opportunity – through innovative new policies and industries – to shift the country away from polluting fossil fuels, nuclear and a carbon-intensive development model, towards a clean and just energy future driven by renewables.

Public demand

SAFCEI calls on the new legislature to be responsive to the growing public demand for stronger climate action and environmental justice, and trusts that the country’s newly elected representatives will demonstrate leadership in that regard.

Bishop Geoff Davies, Founder and Patron of the SAFCEI said: “Unfortunately, the environment and climate change has not featured on any political party’s agenda for this election.

“There seems to be some promise at provincial level, but it is clear that the benefits of transitioning to renewable energy – such as the obvious decreased carbon emissions, an increase in job and business opportunities and improved and more equitable access to energy – is not evident on a national level.

“And yet, by developing our renewable energy industry, the government would inevitably be addressing many of the issues that are current priorities, such as growing inequality, poverty, unemployment and homelessness.”

Just transition 

Climate Justice Campaigner at 350 Africa South Africa, Alex Lenferna said: “The ANC’s head of economic transformation Enoch Godongwana released a statement a few days ago about the government’s intention to force banks to invest in more coal, undermining all the ANC’s intentions to go renewable. 

“With the ANC set to hold onto power, South Africans must be vigilant and hold them to their manifesto’s promise of renewal and a just transition away from fossil fuels.” 

“Under 25 years of ANC leadership, we are now ranked as one of the worst countries in the world in terms of action on climate change and progress to a sustainable and secure energy system.

“The ANC promised to change course and with elections over, it is up to citizens and civil society to ensure their electoral promises turn into ambitious action on climate change and a just transition to an affordable 100% renewable energy future for all.”

Participation in governance

Noelle Garcin from Action 24 – a European Union co-funded, collaborative initiative – said: “We urge the 6th legislature to make climate change and environmental sustainability a priority within our developmental agenda, and treat it with the urgency and ambition it demands.

“The political parties that win the most seats in Parliament and in the provinces have a big responsibility in that regard. But the ones who get fewer seats can also play a critical role, by using their voice to champion environmental and climate issues across the board, particularly through active involvement in portfolio committees.”

“Citizens should also remember that elections are not everything, and hold their representatives to account on their electoral promises in the course of the next five years.

“A healthy democracy requires active and constructive participation in governance. Legislatures and our elected representatives must create the conditions for meaningful public involvement, particularly on issues that concern us all, such as climate change.” 

Fossil fuels

According to Vainola Makan, SAFCEI’s Energy Justice Coordinator: “If the integrity of the elections is ruled intact by the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) tomorrow, then it appears the country’s status quo is confirmed.

“The ANC remains the national governing party, and has gained back Gauteng, while the Democratic Alliance (DA) continues to hold the Western Cape.

“These are two parties that do not hesitate to champion fossil fuels – including fracking – as plausible energy sources and both are known to ignore public concerns when projects present devastating consequences for the environment and their health and wellbeing.”

“One of our government’s main goals now should be to progress the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), without delay. The IRP should provide the blueprint for a smooth transition away from these harmful and outdated energy options – including nuclear – to more sustainable solutions.

“Furthermore, to ensure a just energy transition that benefits all South Africans, there should be sufficient consultation between the country’s labour force (particularly the mining sector), society at large, industry and government.”

Dire consequences

Thembeka Majali from AIDC-One Million Climate Jobs Campaign highlighted Eskom’s role in the just energy transition required: “As a public utility, Eskom should be serving the energy needs of our people and a core aspect of its role should be focused towards advancing renewable energy.

“To ensure a fair and just energy transition to a low carbon economy in South Africa, Eskom should replace internal coal jobs with internal renewable energy jobs. These need to be decent and permanent jobs and would require re-skilling and re-training of the workers.” 

Lorna Fuller, Director of Project 90 by 2030 said: “The country must transition to renewable energy, if we have any hope of reducing our carbon emissions by two-thirds by 2030. We need a government that recognises the reality of the situation and is prepared to take decisive action.”

SAFCEI – which includes the above-mentioned organisations and the Environmental Monitoring Group (EMG) – said: “We resolve to continue monitoring the governing parties and how they respond to the threat of climate change and a degrading environment.

“Politicians need to be held accountable concerning the environmental component of their manifestos. We will engage with the ruling parties after 100 days to assess how far they have come with these promises and to what extent they are addressing the dire consequences of climate change and attempting to create a just energy future for all South Africans.”

This Article 

This article is based on a press release from Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI).

Image: GovernmentZA, Flickr. 

“Large hydro is a very big part of the solution. I fundamentally believe we have to be involved,” Rachel Kyte of the World Bank has stated. 

Big dams are back, riding the so-called low-carbon economic development riddle once more. The World Bank, pension and climate funds, Chinese capital. Cash is flowing to dams like a wild-water river. Close to 4,000 hydropower dams of 1MW+ are planned or under way.

The 2000 World Commission on Dams exposed the massive social and environmental impacts plus greenhouse gas emissions from large dam reservoirs. The results were so ‘damning’ that the whole sector froze for some years.

Rights

But at least since 2011, the sector is again in full swing. Not only big dams, but also smaller projects are planned along entire river valleys, such as in the Indian Himalayas, the Balkans, Anatolia, Central America, the Alps, etc. These latter can also cause severe cumulative impacts and be highly conflictive.

Hydroelectricity is generally considered a form of renewable energy and dams are therefore legitimised by governments, companies, funding agancies, etc to pursue an alledged energy transition.

However, when studying the detailed data of 220 dam related environmental conflicts in the Global Environmental Justice Atlas (EJAtlas) we see a similar pattern of violence as in other extractive sectors like the oil industry.

Our study highlights how collective non-violent resistance is met with repression, criminalisation, violent targeting of activists and assassinations.

The UN special rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, called the pattern of killings “an epidemic”. And this is sadly the reality in many countries.

Slow violence

Some cases were covered in media across the globe, like the murder on Berta Caceres. But the silenced massive repression goes much broader.

Also, there is little recognition of the fact that the communities who resist are often not just saying no to a dam but are rejecting the narrow techno-economic rationalisation of cost-benefit or of technicalities for energy efficiency or ‘cleanness’ that is used to justify the dam.

There is also the usual ‘project reductionism’ that turns limited and flawed environmental impact studies into legal weapons in the hands of the dam builders.

Big dams are generally more disruptive, but smaller projects are often promoted under the same capitalist and corporate-led logic in large scale. Under these conditions, they constitute again a problem rather than a sustainable option.

There is finally many forms of ‘slow violence’, for example where effects of climate change and desertification are exacerbated by dam construction but poorly taken into account and yet they gradually make territories not able to sustain life anymore.

Resistance

The first large anti-dam movements saw the light in the 1980s and has vastly denounced impacts of such projects. The First International Meeting of People Affected by Dams took place later in 1997.

Ever since, resistance has grown stronger, wider, deeper, wide alliances have been created across movements and with the academy. Studying the 220 conflicts in the EJAtlas we found that:

• Out of 10 categories covering the main economic-industrial activities, water management conflicts such as dams are among the most intense and conflictive (Along with mining, nuclear energy and fossil fuel projects).
• Indigenous communities are among the most mobilized social groups globally, and at the same time they often are the most impacted group.
• Resistance is largely non-violent and in the public domain: street marches, petitions, artistic performances, standing in rising dam waters, hunger and thirst strike, etc…
• Alliances against extractivist plans are on the rise, for example with trade unions of the energy companies, agroecology movements, pedagogists, etc. The opposition is increasingly propositional and proactive towards systemic changes.
• Spaces for alternative knowledge production are on the rise. This includes reports and community-based participatory studies, for example to detect specific impacts or to plan truly sustainable and community-controlled energy systems.
• Companies are largely responsible for intimidating and criminalising the opposition, and in many cases even for allowing assassinations to happen. In almost one fifth of the cases, protesters have been violently targeted and in almost one tenth at least one activist was assassinated. Rates are higher in indigenous territories.
• Displacement, loss of landscape and sense of place, land dispossession, loss of livelihood and loss of grounded traditional knowledge are the most common socio-economic impacts.
• Dam regions have mental health impacts too, such as in the case of the Pehuenche peoples in the Alto Bío Bío region in Chile, sadly affected by very high suicide rates.

How to move forward

Repression, criminalization, violent targeting and assassinations employed against activists are common features of dams. The data suggests that repression and violence in dam projects cannot be considered as rare cases of bad management but are a systemic practice to curb opposition and to legitimize different visions and proposals.

The violence usually occurs in an atmosphere of impunity, amidst a general mainstream acceptance of dams by governments and companies as necessary for sustainable energy.

However, it all begs the question what sustainability actually means, what it is supposed to actually sustain. Capitalist investments or life cycles? Violent repression that targets resistance undermines the emergence of alternative visions, cultures that are not only sustainable but actually regenerative, what some have also called ‘pluriverse’.

Communities opposing dams should not be called protestors but protectors of other life sources and other ways of life. Moreover, it is often in those same impacted territories that claims for an energy autonomy, sovereignty and democracy materialize in concrete proposals and small scale initiatives.

The broader path of socio-economic transformations that many communities and organizations have already undertaken is operating a profound epistemic, ontological and anti-colonial shift. The sooner we recognize it, the greater a justice can be paid.

Data

At the EJAtlas project, we are currently expanding the database of conflictive hydroelectric dams in order to create a representative sample of impacts, resistances, bottom-up proposals, etc.

We particularly aim at collecting data from (but not exclusively) countries with high numbers of dams (built or projected) but only few cases mapped yet (for example from Congo DC, Pakistan, Russia, China, Brazil, USA, etc).

Please contact us at d.delbene@gmail.com if you have information to share or for any other query (feel free to write us also in Spanish, French, Italian or Portuguese).

This Author

Daniela Del Bene recently obtained her PhD at ICTA-UAB with a dissertation on Hydropower and ecological conflicts. She is also the main coordinator of the EJAtlas.