Monthly Archives: November 2016

Scotland’s wild beavers win legal protection

The Scottish Government is minded to allow beavers to remain in the wild in Scotland under the full protection of EU and UK wildlife law, Environment Secretary Roseanna Cunningham announced today.

This decision follows the escape of beavers from a wildlife park in the Tay catchment in 2001. A viable population established on the Tay and the aquatic mammals have now spread over hundreds of square miles into the Earn catchment. They have been observed as far west as Dochart, near Argyll, and in the headwaters of the Forth.

But as reported on The Ecologist in December 2015, farmers and landowners were permitted by the Scottish government to shoot them in an apparent breach of the EU’s Habitats & Species Directive, causing widespread public concern. Beavers are native across the UK but were hunted to extinction in the 16th century.

Work has now begun to ensure beavers can be added to Scotland’s list of protected species as soon as possible. It will be the first time a mammal has been officially reintroduced to the UK.

Ms Cunningham added that the species will have to be actively managed, in line with practices in other European countries. She and other Scottish Ministers have agreed that:

  • Beaver populations in Argyll and Tayside can remain
  • The species will receive legal protection, in accordance with the EU Habitats Directive.
  • Beavers will be allowed to expand their range naturally.
  • Beavers should be actively managed to minimise adverse impacts on farmers and other land owners.
  • It will remain an offence for beavers to be released without a licence, punishable by up to two years imprisonment and an unlimited fine.

Helen Meech of Rewilding Britain said: “We are delighted that beavers will be allowed to remain in the wild in Scotland. As recent trials have shown, beavers can deliver huge benefits for both people and wildlife through improved water quality, reduced flood risk and habitats for a wide range of species. We also welcome measures to manage the impact of beavers on farmers and other land owners.”

She added that similar protections should be extended to wild beaver populations across the UK: “We urge the UK Government to put in place the same measures to protect and manage beaver populations in England and Wales.”

‘Beavers promote biodiversity by creating new ponds and wetlands’

Environment Secretary Roseanna Cunningham said: “I have been determined to find a pragmatic approach, which balances the biodiversity benefits of reintroducing beavers with the obvious need to limit difficulties for our farmers.

“I want to put on record my appreciation of the efforts of the Scottish Wildlife Trust, NFU Scotland, the Royal Scottish Zoological Society, and Scottish Land and Estates who have worked in partnership to set out a way forward.

“Beavers promote biodiversity by creating new ponds and wetlands, which in turn provide valuable habitats for a wide range of other species. We want to realise these biodiversity benefits while limiting adverse impacts on farmers and other land users. This will require careful management.

“Today’s announcement represents a major milestone in our work to protect and enhance Scotland’s world renowned biodiversity. But I want to be absolutely clear that while the species will be permitted to extend its range naturally, further unauthorised releases of beavers will be a criminal act.

“Swift action will be taken in such circumstances to prevent a repeat of the experience on Tayside.”

Research has shown that beavers provide important benefits for biodiversity, and watershed management. However, the animals can also cause some difficulties for farmers and land managers in agricultural areas due to the damming of rivers and streams, and consequent local flooding.

Advice and assistance to farmers

The impacts of beavers in Scotland have been closely monitored by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) at both the official Scottish Beaver Trial site in Knapdale in Argyll and on Tayside.

A study commissioned by SNH showed the beavers were not to blame for floods takiong place last winter. And last spring a Stirling University study based on 13 years observation was published, showing that beavers actually slow floodwaters and thus reduce the impact of flooding, while also increasing biodiversity, assisting soil retention and filtering out pollutants.

The Scottish Government is now required by law to complete a Habitats Regulations Assessment and consider a Strategic Environmental Assessment. Management techniques to prevent beaver damage, such as controlling flow through dams, or protecting valuable trees can be carried out without a licence.

More intensive management techniques, up to and including lethal control, are permitted under the Habitats Regulations for specified purposes and subject to there being no other satisfactory solution, and no adverse effect on the conservation status of the species.

This is the framework that applies in most other European countries and allows beavers to be managed to prevent serious damage to land uses such as agriculture, forestry and fisheries.

The Scottish Government will provide advice and assistance to farmers in understanding their options and helping them implement mitigation and prevention measures.

 


 

Oliver Tickell is contributing editor of The Ecologist.

 

We can still stop the toxic EU-Canada trade deal in its tracks

One of the most controversial aspects of the toxic trade deals being pushed by the EU is the system of corporate courts.

This is a parallel legal system that enables corporations to sue governments for billions of pounds for passing laws that might harm their profit margins.

Giving corporations a whole raft of legal new powers is not only wildly unpopular with people across Europe, it could very well be incompatible existing judicial systems in Europe.

As Green MEP Yannick Jadot pointed out, “many legal experts, including the German Judges Association, and even an Advocate General of the European Court of Justice, are convinced that any kind of ISDS [corporate courts] system in CETA may be incompatible with EU law.”

So if you have a trade deal that would have far-reaching implications for legal systems, surely the sensible thing to do would be to refer it to the experts on those legal systems so they could give it proper scrutiny before giving it the go ahead?

That’s exactly what 89 cross-party MEPs tried to do today in the European Parliament, with a motion to refer the corporate court system in the EU-Canada trade deal (CETA) to the European Court of Justice in order for them to make a proper, informed decision as to its legal compatibility with the current judicial systems operating across Europe.

Sounds sensible, right?

Unfortunately, the motion was defeated yesterday, with 258 MEPs voting for the referral, and 419 MEPs voting against. In the UK alone over 6,000 people emailed their MEPs to say that there should be proper legal scrutiny.

Some UK MEPs like Molly Scott Cato (Green), Jude Kirton-Darling (Labour) and Julie Ward (Labour) were part of the original group that had proposed the referral, and five Labour MEPs and all the Green MEPs present voted in support of the referral. But a series of UK MEPs voted to block it, including all Conservative and LibDem MEPs, most Labour MEPs and UKIP’s notorious Roger Helmer.

What was particularly underhand about this vote was that pro-CETA MEPs used all sorts of underhand hustles to prevent a debate taking place ahead of the vote. The leadership of the two main parties put a lot of pressure on the MEPs who proposed the motion to withdraw their names, while also manipulating the complex procedures of the parliament to push things through. So those who had concerns didn’t get any chance to articulate them.

But why would MEPs vote against something that seems so sensible? The answer is that it is desperation that is prompting MEPs to make such irresponsible decisions.

Brussels has already been burnt after a tidal wave of people power stopped one toxic trade deal in its tracks (TTIP) and there is a sense amongst those who are deeply wedded to the process that they need to push something, anything through now regardless of the consequences.

It doesn’t matter to the Eurocrat machine that the trade deal might mean exposing governments to ruthlessly litigious corporations from across the Atlantic, or locking us all into a model of privatised public services for years to come.

The good news: 258 MEPs are on our side

There is some hope. When the Wallonian regional parliament in Belgium held up the signing ceremony last month, one of the concessions that they won, was a promise that Belgium itself would refer the corporate courts system to the European Court of Justice. They are working to a longer time frame and are not making the referral immediately.

As a result we could have the situation where the European Parliament has agreed to CETA but the European Court of Justice later decides it is incompatible with EU law, so everyone has to backtrack and reverse decisions in order to take the corporate courts out of CETA. The MEPs calling for the referral were trying to avoid this situation which would be embarrassing for the parliament, but at least there is still a chance for proper scrutiny.

The other good news is that this vote showed that there were 258 MEPs who have sensibly expressed concerns about the EU-Canada trade deal today. There’s a lot of uncertainty as to when the final vote for the ratification of CETA looking will take place, but there’s good reason to believe that it might be in February.

So we need to use that time to do all we can to woo a sizeable (but not impossible) number of MEPs over from their ‘CETA no matter what the cost’ position, to one where they listen to the fact that millions of European citizens think that CETA represents a massive corporate coup.

And then we’ll have stopped another toxic trade deal dead in its tracks.

 


 

Take action now: Ask your MEP to stop CETA!

Kevin Smith is the press officer at Global Justice Now.

Jean Blaylock has campaigned on issues around trade and food for the last twelve years. She currently works for Global Justice Now as a policy officer.

This article is an extended version of one originally published by Global Justice Now.

 

Caleb Behn: ‘After oil & gas, no amount of money can restore your fractured land’

Canadian indigenous activist Caleb Behn issued a stark warning from the most heavily-fracked parts of his native land, as he travelled to the UK for screenings of the documentary Fractured Land.

The film tells of the struggle against unconventional gas extraction in British Columbia, and Behn, its protagonist, explained why the story of his territory spurs him on to fight further development.

“This is a country that has a lot of fresh, clean water. A green image. Renewable power. Why put it all at risk?” Caleb Behn is talking of his first impressions when he flew in to Glasgow airport.

Just a few months remain until hydraulic fracturing, an unconventional form of gas extraction, either gets the green light in Scotland – as happened in England four years ago – or is permanently banned.

After two years of campaigning by both industry and activists, people in Scotland are holding their breath to see what the outcome will be. This tension was evident at the Glasgow screening of Fractured Land, the film which documents Behn’s work against the ‘fracking’ that has changed his Canadian home so radically.

Behn, 34, is a First Nations campaigner and former attorney, as skilled in hunting as he is in legal research. He now works heads up Keepers of the Water, an indigenous organisation dedicated to protecting the Artic Ocean Basin from dam development.

The ‘one-way street’ of oil and gas

Across his family lands – Eh-Cho Dene and Dunne-Za, northeast British Columbia (BC) – the industrial scars of the fracking industry are widespread. Several Canadian provinces have halted the controversial practice, but British Columbia, home to one third of all First Nations people in Canada and famous for its lakes and forests, has seen a rapid expansion of drilling sites.

“When it started for us, it was a few isolated bits, low-risk”, Behn explains. “But when you look at what this actually does after twenty or thirty years, it radically changes the landscape. No amount of money in the world can change it back. This is truly a one-way street for your country.”

As the countdown to the first fracking sites begins in England, there is hope among activists in Scotland that their government will instead follow Northern Ireland and impose a ban. The research commissioned by the SNP government, published recently, found “some” evidence to link fracking to airborne and waterborne environmental hazards, but failed to come down conclusively either way.

Fractured Land was showing earlier this autumn across Scotland as part of the Take One Action festival, which aims to promote social justice and global change through film. In the film, Behn visits other indigenous peoples across the world, including Aotearoa / New Zealand – a country with a progressive, green image.

But even there he finds Taranaki, a town surrounded by fracking wells, where residents complain of high cancer rates. A Maori elder tells him, in tears, that their concerns have been ignored throughout.

Conflicting identities

The film shows the conflict, both politically and personally, in which the activists are caught up. Behn’s own mother works for the oil companies, trying to change the system from the inside. He understands all too well the reasons behind her decision. When he became a lawyer, after years of hard work and reluctant city life, he was torn between two identities, two ways of life. He faced hostility in the legal and professional world, and some too from indigenous communities.

“You’ve got to dress like a clown if you want to join the circus”, Behn says wryly: but putting on that suit meant, for some, that he was no longer one of them. It is obvious that this pains him. But Behn throws himself into work. Having left the legal profession, he has now extensively researched the impact of extractive industries across Canada, the US, and New Zealand, highlighting the ‘boom and bust’ cycles that the oil and gas sector generates.

The profits “should be used in a good way”, says Behn, “and I’ve never seen extractive industries pay a fair rate to the people and lands they destroy and desecrate.”

Currently Behn is working with academics to quantify the longer-term effects of the fracking industry on indigenous public health. In Behn’s northeastern BC – or ‘Treaty 8 territory’ – a report found that 41 billion litres of heavily contaminated water had been injected into a single 50-year-old gas well. Vast quantities of less contaminated water are disposed of in huge ponds.

The ‘best science’?

One problem, Behn says, is that the elusive ‘best science’ – which governments say they’ll listen to – doesn’t actually exist yet:

“People are getting sick, developing long-latency illnesses that won’t fully manifest for twenty, maybe thirty years. In a way that’s more terrifying: if someone drops dead today that gets investigated. But if, in a population of 20,000 people, 400 develop a rare form of cancer that doesn’t show up for twenty years – that’s much harder to trace.”

Fracking companies in British Columbia say they adhere to strict regulations on safety and environmental impact. In Scotland, chemicals multinational Ineos, which owns exploration licences for around 700 square miles of the country, maintains that shale gas exploration can be done safely, and that an ‘indigenous’ shale industry is needed to keep up with energy demand.

But Behn thinks the impact is underestimated. “Scots must understand that fracked wells produce a lot of gas at the start – but they taper off. So to sustain long-term production, you have to keep fracking, keep drilling for years, if not decades.

“So at the start it’s going to look tiny. But look at a fully-developed shale field – what you see is a checkerboard of roads and pipelines. After twenty, thirty years it’ll radically change the landscape. No amount of money in the world will change it back.”

From Pennsylvania to the Firth of Forth

Just a few days after Behn’s visit, the first shipment of fracked US shale gas was due to arrive at Ineos’ vast petrochemical plant at Grangemouth.

The gas comes from Pennsylvania, where health concerns have become a serious issue. A cursory glance at satellite maps shows the typical fracking landscape – crisscrossing networks of squiggly white lines and drilling stations. One of the companies supplying the ethane was recently fined $4.15m for pollution violations there.

Ineos staged various PR stunts around the arrival of the north American gas, including a ‘lone piper’ on the pier, and an luxury wine-and-dine trip for journalists. The company is hoping to push ahead with its proposals for hydraulic fracturing across the heavily-populated central belt of Scotland, pending the Scottish Government’s final decision, which is expected in spring 2017.

Behn studies a photograph of the sprawling Grangemouth plant, with its chimneys and flares, and the fug that hangs over the neighbouring town. “It reminds me of my territory a lot”, he says. “My land is bisected, divided, by pipelines, roads, well sites, pads, all that. It’s really hard on my heart.”

‘Expect resistance’

For Behn the arrival of the US shale gas is an illustration of how interconnected the issue is. He has traveled extensively to talk with indigenous people resisting further oil and gas developments, and describes with passion the protest camps in North Dakota, and in his own county.

“What’s happening is a rise of indigenous resistance. The phrase is ‘respect existence or expect resistance’, because if you don’t respect the people’s right to say no, or the people’s right to clean water, and if you don’t respect democratic process or the rule of law – expect us to stand up and oppose.

“But that’s terrifying”, Behn admits, “because it’s a post-9/11 world and right now it looks like things are going to get worse before they get better.”

The thousands of indigenous people gathered at Standing Rock, North Dakota, right now would probably not disagree. The water protectors, as they have asked to be known, have for months now been met with extraordinary violence by a militarised police force, as they attempt to stop the construction of a crude oil pipeline.

Tear gas, tasers, concussion grenades, attack dogs and other ‘non-lethal’ weapons have seen scores of people hospitalised; just days ago a 21-year-old woman was hit with a stun grenade, cutting her arm to the bone. She may lose the limb.

“I wish it wasn’t so hard to do right by the people around you and the land that sustains you”, Behn concludes, “but that seems to be the way of it in the 21st century.” The privilege of travelling and meeting other activists is “bittersweet” for him: “to see these people who love their land and their people, and yet they’re suffering for it. I see it a lot in my communities, and I see it here as well.”

“If your country decides to go for it, I’d be happy to try and help you avoid the mistakes of my territory. But I hope it doesn’t happen.”

 


 

Jen Stout is a writer and reporter based in Glasgow. Originally from Fair Isle, her background is in campaigns and activism. She is particularly interested in Russia, policing and justice, offshore finance, land reform, surveillance, and LGBT rights, to name a few. Jen previously worked as a reporter for online new media platform CommonSpace, and is now freelance; writing primarily for Bella Caledonia, and for Film & Campaign, which brings new audiences to new documentary films. @jm_stout

News on fracking proposals, campaigns and resistance is available at Frack-Off

Fundraising page for Sophia Wilansky, the woman severely injured by a stun grenade at Standinbg Rock.

 

Only ‘we the people’ can rise above the false promise of COP22

In the early hours of Saturday morning, the 22nd UN Conference of the Parties (COP) on climate change was brought to an official close, amid a series of final declarations.

Many had called for COP22 in Marrakech to be the ‘COP of action’. There’s a big problem here, though: the fundamental nature of these conferences is not active – it’s diplomatic. And diplomacy is far better at holding action back, than driving it forward.

The reality is that Marrakech was never going to be the COP of action in the way that campaigning groups around the world advocated for. It was the COP for cleaning up the forced, last-minute consensus of the Paris Agreement forged at COP21 last December.

Paris was the photo-op, and Marrakech was the first of the nitty-gritty, argumentative, tense meetings that would follow. COP22 was always going to be the one where the Parties decided what the Paris Agreement actually meant. This is not a recipe for ambition, or grand bargains. It is a recipe for pragmatism – and that’s exactly what we saw.

Kicking the diplomatic can down the road

High-level diplomatic action is a very different beast than putting-to-work action or implementation at the level of national governments, local governments, the private sector, civil society – down to individual households.

Marrakech did feature action, but predominantly diplomatic and rhetorical action – which does not amount to much in the real world, and certainly does little for the legitimacy of the UNFCCC process.

That’s not to say there was a great surge of diplomatic action in Marrakech, either. In fact, there are many reasons to be disappointed by the lack of progress. The technicalities of implementing each country’s National Determined Contributions (NDCs) remain vague.

The open questions that have been kicked down the road at every COP for so many years – like financing, adaptation and compensation to states suffering from loss and damage from climate change – saw the usual spirited debate and confusion, but very little progress.

On new topics raised by the Paris Agreement that needed to be filled out in detail and implemented into the Paris framework – like the ‘Rulebook’ for state action and the ‘Facilitative Dialogue’ for non-state action – the advance was limited, and disappointed observers and Parties alike.

The best that can be said about this year’s COP is that it sent a firm, appropriate signal in the aftermath of the US election, thanks in no small part to the Chinese delegation. In the ‘Marrakech Action Declaration‘, Parties to the COP “call on all non-state actors to join … for immediate and ambitious action and mobilization, building on … important achievements”.

This, at least, is where we agree – if we want the fast and decisive action on climate change needed to have any hope of achieving the Paris goals, the best place it can happen now is outside the COP process.

Climate campaigners must give up their own denialism

As 2016 draws to a close, earth-shattering election results in two of the world’s major powers, first the UK and now the US, have profoundly shaken global – and environmental – politics. The implications of these developments for the COP were captured by UNEP Executive Director Eric Solheim at this year’s Sustainable Innovation Forum, the most high-profile business-focused side event during the COP.

It is not the US electorate that has failed us, he argued, it’s the climate change community, the already converted climate action-ists: “If we cannot make environment a kitchen conversation in Kentucky and Texas, then we are failing.” The climate change community must learn how to work with the new wave of ultra-conservative, post-factual populism. The task at hand is to stop failing people that do not align with the promised neo-liberal, sustainable development utopia.

It has never been so obvious that deploying the same old arguments to convince climate sceptics doesn’t work anymore, despite the ever-growing mountains of evidence. Maybe it never worked to begin with. And maybe the issue of climate change in itself doesn’t have much to do with it.

In a media world unconcerned with truth, disenfranchised and disillusioned citizens are less and less receptive to traditional arguments, facts, or statistics. The climate action community must speak the language of the people, not the dialect of the climate scientist or the diplomat. There are some organizations that understand this – 350.org is perhaps one of them.

We must frame the social changes that we all believe are necessary for tackling climate change in the context of the social and economic benefits they will bring with them. Those disillusioned with globalisation have little interest in the self-reflected glory of international diplomacy or UN agreements. In fact, this is only pushing them further away.

The self-congratulatory celebration that followed the signing of the Paris Agreement is the polar opposite of the way the discussion should be framed to reach those persuaded by Brexit, Trump, and bad science.

A new audience for climate action?

The Paris Agreement is only made possible in a globalised, multilateral world in which diplomacy takes small and incremental steps – the same world that drives disruption, rapid change, and exploitation of communities across the world. When your very well-being and security is threatened, incremental international climate diplomacy does nothing for you.

If this sea change in communicating climate change is the task at hand, a COP of action was never going to achieve it. This is not the purpose of a COP, nor is it the task of traditional diplomacy, or even a task for major multinationals, or the President of the United States.

It is a task for individuals, local governments, schools, universities, community action groups … it is a task for ‘we the people’.

Now is the time to ride this new wave of populism and make it work for the climate movement: to show that the new economic thinking necessary to stop climate change can also raise the disenfranchised and dispossessed from the economic margins.

To make the case towards not only a cleaner and more sustainable but also a better and more just livelihood. It is time to put people right at the centre of climate action.

 


 

Alexander Pfeiffer is head of Young European Leadership‘s delegation to the COP and a doctorate student at the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) at the Oxford Martin School. See his website.

Elizabeth Dirth is the Chair of the 2050 Climate Group and studying an MSc in Sustainable Development with a specific focus on international climate governance.

Alex Clark is the Henry Fellow at Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, having graduated from Oxford University with an MSc in 2015. He is currently working on energy policy, climate change and global health and is also Project Leader for Operations with SDSN Youth.

 

Heaven’s eyes: Luc Hoffmann, unsung hero of nature conservation

Birdwatchers are a strange lot.

Who among us eagerly jumps out of bed at 4:30 am to stand motionless and silent in a frosty field, looking up into the clear blue sky, with a cramped neck and feet throbbing in cold with the vague expectation we’ll spot something, maybe even a species we’ve never seen before?

This was the world that fascinated Hans Lukas (Luc) Hoffmann, heir to the Roche fortune, and one of the Spiritus Rectors of the World Wildlife Fund (‘WWF’).

A zoologist by training and ornithologist by passion, Hoffmann helped initiate, oversee and fund WWF development into the world’s largest organization encouraging preservation of nature. He died in bed in Camargue on July 21st at the age of 93.

A burst of obituaries were published shortly following Luc Hoffmann’s recent death from the likes of The Economist, Le Monde, the Guardian and more. Most of them were hastily prepared to meet deadlines and necessarily consisted of ‘cut & paste’ of official press releases for lack of time and want of copy.

Hoffmann is broadly depicted as a reclusive aristocrat with a penchant for birds who dabbled in conservation as a means to spend his vast inheritance. This caricature, while convenient, and carefully disguised by Hoffmann’s obsession for secrecy, widely misses the mark.

On closer examination, Hoffmann may have had more impact in defining and advancing the environmental movement more than anyone of his generation. Who was this man? What motivated him? What were his achievements? What lessons could we learn from him?

In an attempt to answer these questions and set the record straight, I conducted extensive interviews with senior members of management of the World Wildlife Fund, Roche, conservationists, and others who were close to Hoffmann throughout his life. As far as I know, no such research has ever been performed, let alone published.

Privileged beginnings in Basel

Hoffmann was born in Basel, Switzerland, to Emanuel Hoffmann, a businessman and art collector, and the sculptor Maja Hoffmann-Stehlin. His grandfather, Fritz Hoffmann-La Roche, was a visionary entrepreneur who understood that future prosperity lay in the infant pharmaceutical industry.

Hoffmann-La Roche founded the company of the same name in 1896, so the young Luc grew up in a wealthy and privileged environment. His mother was an avid supporter of young artists and classical music.

Basel has historically been at the cutting edge of humanism; the notion that individual agency matters. The city, despite its modest medieval village appearance, has outpunched its weight across a range of fronts. It has given us Euler in mathematics, and Paracelsus in medicine. It provided refuge and published history bending works for Calvin, Erasmus and Rousseau. It was here that Theodor Herzl conceived the Jewish State of Israel; and Ernst Beyeler started ‘Art Basel’.

When Hoffmann was born in 1923, Basel was mainly about chemicals. The city straddles France and Germany and lies at the beginning of the Rhine, whose tributaries have been the industrial lungs of Europe. When England boycotted sale of natural products like indigo to color fabrics, and quinine to treat malaria to France and Germany in times of war, a fledgling chemistry business began to take hold.

Most of industry at this juncture was focused on machines and new forms of energy to replace labor. The chemical industry was about replicating substances found in nature, or creating entirely new products like plastics or drugs through unique combinations of chemical substances. This created markets over night and unimaginable fortunes for a new class of scientists and especially their backers.

Roche, a company founded by his grandfather started with cough syrup, only began to get traction when, as the only Basel chemical company, it hired Jewish scientists fleeing Nazi Germany. Leo Sternbach, a Polish-Jew, went on to invent Valium and Tadeus Reichstein synthesised Vitamin ‘C’, and later won a Nobel Prize.

DDT – the new wonder-chemical to solve the world’s problems

But the real hero of the day in Basel was the Swiss scientist, Paul Mueller, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1948 when Hoffman was a formative 25 years of age. Gustaf Hellström, of the Royal Academy of Sciences, told the distinguished audience in Stockholm:

“Dr Mueller, DDT kills the mosquito, which spreads malaria; the flea, which spreads the plague; and the sandfly, which spreads tropical diseases. In the mind of the layman you stand out as a benefactor of mankind of such stature that also the humility of a saint is required to escape the danger of falling a victim to the worst of all spiritual diseases – megalomania.”

DDT was an elixir for farmers, threw off a fortune of profits for Roche’s cross town rival JR Geigy (now Syngenta), and helped vault scientists to the highest echelons of Basel society. It also sent out a beacon of aspiration that problems could now be solved and fortunes made through discovery of new chemical formulae.

So it must have been blasphemous when Hoffmann upon reaching legal age switched his studies from chemistry to zoology, a few years before Mueller’s coronation. Tragedy may have persuaded him. Hoffmann’s father died in a car crash when he was nine years old and the following year his older brother died of leukemia.

As the only surviving son, he was expected to be groomed to takeover Roche. But these sudden deaths were traumatic and Hoffmann did not like all the attention people were giving him; the mothers who picked up their children at school ingratiating him and trying to win his good graces.

This is when he took up long walks to be alone with nature. There he found joy and authenticity observing small birds going about their bright, oblivious business, treating him as though he were unimportant, and alas, normal.

As a child, he brought home one day an injured duck and convinced his mother to re-outfit the bathroom as a zoo. It was probably through these experiences or on one of these solitary walks that Hoffmann recalibrated his life based on his passions rather than others’ expectations: when he realized it was more important for him to preserve nature rather than redefine or mimic it.

He proved to be a shrewd observer and rapid learner, publishing his first academic paper – on the unlikely subject of migrant seabirds in the Basel region – at the age of 18 in 1941. His first long expedition with his friend Dieter Burckhardt, was to Brittany in search of gannets, a bird rarely spotted in France. He began reading for a degree in botany and zoology at the city’s university.

But his studies were interrupted two years later when he was conscripted into the Swiss army, rising to the rank of lieutenant. Once the war was over, he returned to academic life, earning a PhD for his studies of the behavior of common tern chicks in the Camargue.

Marching to the beat of a different drummer

But from an early age, it became clear that Hoffmann wanted to march to the beat of a different drummer. Guy Sarasin, of the old Basel banking dynasty family, and whose mother was Luc’s godmother, told me: “we were fairly close until we were 20, but then he disappeared from Basel society. There are 20 people in Basel who really matter, and most of them intermarry in one generation of the other.”

In Swiss German there is an idiom ‘Basel Teig’ to describe the interconnectedness of the city’s most influential families. Hardly the preconditions for something bold and new.

He married Daria Razumovsky, the daughter of Russian aristocrats, who, having lost their lands in the revolution, had fled to Vienna. Daria had found work in a concert hall where she met Paul Sacher, Hoffman’s stepfather. Maja, his mother, had a hand in the matchmaking. When he inherited a bit of money at the age of 31 it was enough to buy a 1,250 hectares tract of land in Camargue, France; a kind of Mecca for environmentalists, where the Rhone meets the Mediterranean.

In 1954 Hoffmann set up there the Tour du Valat biological research station, which became one of the leading institutions of its kind in the world. It was Hoffmann 1st of many campaigns to rescue a threatened species, in this case greater flamingos, that were on the verge of extinction. Tour du Valat, and the Camague, would become his life-long laboratory.

He and Daria lived in a farmhouse and raised their children there. Hoffmann spoke Swiss-German to his four children (and French or English at work) but kept them in the dark about his fortune. Educated at the school Hoffmann built on his estate for his employees, his children looked blank when a cleaner once slyly murmured that she supposed their father owned quite a large pharmacy in Basel.

The level of secrecy around Roche was legendary, even by Basel’s tight lipped standards. The joke in town was that “the only number one could find in Roche’s 1980 annual report was the year.”

Camargue – Hoffmann’s life-long laboratory

The Camargue is Europe’s largest river delta and in environmentalist-speak, a wetland. Once dismissed as mosquito-infested marshes, they are now recognised as cradles of biological diversity.

For conservationists they are crucial because they are delicate and fragile interfaces between land and sea; with ever shifting landscapes that wield considerable bio-diversity due to the variability of conditions and the need to adapt to saline or salt water. They are natural breeding and feeding grounds for hundreds of species of migrating birds before crossing longer distances over water.

Small changes in temperature due to global warming or reductions in water due to constructions of golf courses, roads, or condominiums can cause considerable damage that vibrates throughout the entire eco-system.

At Tour du Valat his four children were brought up as little camarguais with the children of the estate workers. The family’s dwellings were basic, and only the glimpse of a Braque in the drawing room (Braque, Hoffmann’ friend, had also fallen for the Camargue), or the glass of Domaine Leflaive Montrachet offered to a visitor, hinted that Mr Hoffmann may have come from less humble origins.

Conception of the World Wildlife Fund – a marriage of sorts

Hoffmann was quietly going about his business as a kind of ‘one-man band’ when Sir Peter Scott approached him and proposed a merger of sorts.

Scott was working with the IUCN, the World Conservation Union, which had a small team of reputed conservationists who recently concluded the Morges Manifesto, signed by 16 of the world’s leading conservationists of the day, including biologist, author, and wildlife enthusiast Sir Julian Huxley, director-general of the British Nature Conservancy E. M. Nicholson and Scott, then vice president of IUCN.

The IUCN’s Red List, established in 1954 by Colonel Leofric Boyle, a British army officer, was a globally recognised warning call about endangered species. But it was more a podium than a hammer and there is a big difference between citing a problem and resolving it. Scott pitched Hoffmann the idea to create an institution to ‘walk the talk’; or fund the programs IUCN was beating its drum about.

This was 1961 and governments were more interested to go to the moon than to fuss about preserving nature. Scott felt more was needed. Hoffmann was a recognized scientist with a deep pocket book, so his qualifications as a prospective ally were ideal.

Both realized hard facts and analysis were necessary to convince opinion leaders. “They need to know, before they start to care”, Hoffmann would say in his quiet, firm and unassuming manner. Hoffmann also was among the first to stress that it was loss of habitat that caused loss of species; so one had to combat causes not effects.

Scott, Hoffmann and the other Morges Manifesto members saw eye to eye, and paved the way for the founding of the WWF. Hoffmann was appointed vice-president, after rejecting, with characteristic modesty, Scott’s proposal that he become president.

Slowly Hoffmann’s decision to study nature instead of chemicals was vindicating itself. Increasingly people were beginning to know, understand and care. A year after WWF’s founding in 1962, Silent Spring, a book by Rachel Carson about the impact on bird populations of DDT, the widely used pest-killer, helped foster a sense that maybe society had got things upside down.

Overnight DDT’s place in history as a panacea for farmers and the saintly achievement of chemistry became the poster child of shame. President Lyndon Johnson signed the Water Quality Act in 1965 shortly after calling the Potomac a “national disgrace” because it was so filthy.

Hard facts, analysis and even a Nobel Prize

In 1971 the Nobel committee stunned the scientific community by awarding what many consider its most coveted and relevant Prize in Physiology or Medicine to Karl von Frisch, Konrad Lorenz and Nikolaas Tinbergen for their discoveries in the field of Ethology, or the scientific study of animal behavior.

Von Frisch, for example, devoted a lifetime to decoding the information that animals pass to each other. He elucidated what has been called ‘the language of bees’. When a bee has found flowers containing nectar, it performs a special dance when returning to the hive. The dance informs the bees in the hive of the existence of food, often also about the direction where the flowers will be found and about the distance to them.

The scientific community was also ‘buzzing’. Few understood the importance of observing the behavior of insects, fishes and birds would have on medicine, with people like Hoffmann regarded condescendingly as ‘mere animal watchers’. Grants and other forms of funding were off limits due to the unrecognized status of the field.

Never mind. The Nobel Committee validated the scientific value of their work so suddenly money could be found to fund evidence based science to study nature from sources other than aristocrats and wealthy heirs to fortunes.

Dissenters in Basel, who rolled their eyes over Hoffmann’s decision to turn his back to chemistry and Basel, and were counting the days of the return of its prodigal son, suddenly found that the world was beginning to march towards him.

Scandals put wind into the conservation movement’s sails

Even the Chinese were waking up to man’s orgy of destruction. In 1958 the Chinese government announced that sparrows were to be targeted as part of the ‘Four Pests’ campaign because they ate grain, offering rewards for killing them. People obediently tore down the birds’ nests, caught them in nets and banged saucepans to stop them landing anywhere. Sparrow numbers collapsed.

But the birds, it turned out, ate insects that ate crops, and their slaughter thus contributed to the great famine of 1960 that killed 20m people. During the same period, China was also stepping up its timber production and the area covered by forest shrank by more than a third. The resulting soil erosion gummed up the Yangzi River. In 1998 it flooded, killing 3,600 people and doing around $30 billion-worth of damage.

It was fact based analyses like these that helped convince people that sacrifices paid off, and costs and benefits justified preservation.

Scandals also helped. Hardly a year went by when there wasn’t a major environmental disaster to remind us that reckless economic growth was destroying the things in life that were most precious. Bhopal, Three Mile Island, Exon Valdez stained the conscience of a generation.

The most embarrassing of all was closest to Hoffmann. In July of 1976, an explosion at one of Roche’s chemical plants in Seveso, near Milan, leaked a toxic gas into the river. 3,300 animals died and many more were put down in order to prevent the spread of contamination into the food chain. 500 people were found to have skin lesions.

While Hoffmann had no direct involvement, as a member of Roche’s board of directors and representative of the family’s controlling interest, the impact must have been devastating. One of Hoffmann’s children recounted to me vivid remembrance as a child when “rumours among our childhood friends circulated that the Hoffmann’s had stored toxic chemicals underground in the Camargue.”

These, and other incidents, ushered in a wave of protective regulations and emboldened Hoffmann to double down on his effort and spending.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created in 1970 to regulate pesticides, among other things. The Endangered Species Act was signed into law in 1973 by Richard Nixon. Trade in endangered species has been limited through the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), which came into force in 1975 and covers some 35,000 species, the best-known being elephant and rhino.

WWF as agents of improvement, rather than merely peddlers of complaints

This was all fertilizer stimulating WWF’s flowering as agents of improvement, rather than merely peddlers of complaints. For two decades Hoffmann chaired WWF’s sought-after ‘Conservation Program Committee’ – the organ that decides where environmental problems were; how they could best be resolved; and how much money could be invested.

In 1971, at Ramsar in Iran, he oversaw the signing of the first global treaty protecting wetlands. Coming into force in 1975, the convention now covers 170 countries, making it one of the most effective measures to protect habitats across the globe.

In addition to the Camargue, Hoffmann helped save the wetlands at Coto Doñana in Andalucia, home to imperial eagles; the Banc d’Arguin in Mauritania, the stopover point for millions of migrating waders; the Faia Brava in Portugal, haunt of griffon vultures; and many others.

Charles de Haes, who served as head of the WWF International from 1975-1993, and worked closely with Hoffmann, told me: “he was a charming, empathetic, and gentle man who spoke very little, but underneath there was a quiet, yet relentless determination.”

Claude Martin, who succeeded de Haes as head of WWF International from 1993-2005 said: “I would prepare 100 questions for Luc to discuss during a train ride, because I knew that his usual answer was less than a handful of words; and the rest of the time would be spent gazing out the train window.” Jean Jalbert, who heads Tour du Valat, said: “We once drove six hours to Spain and did not exchange a single word.”

Hoffmann was better at listening, and this he did as vigilantly as he observed birds. With his deep penetrating eyes, surrounded by his hallmark bushy, unkempt eyebrows, as though genetically designed to cushion binoculars, he would listen patiently and carefully to any case.

Those presenting knew that he likely understood more about the facts upon which a decision would hang. Hoffmann had over 60 scientific papers and books published, and kept careful notebooks listing species in three languages.

“He would never wield his authority, but it was nevertheless palpable”, said Martin. “His way was to ring up and ask me whether I thought it would be a good idea to do something in Madagascar.” As WWF’s co-founder, single largest donor, and scientific conscience this was tantamount to instructions.

Inheriting a fortune is not easy

Inheriting a fortune is not easy. Most succumb to the comforts of rents and work on improving cosmetic appearances. Those who have a go at it are usually damned if you do in the case of success (handed to you on a silver platter), and if you don’t in the case of failure (spoiled).

Most wealthy people take up a token involvement in a charity or have their names inscribed in a university lecture hall or new wing to a museum. These sort of donations are often driven by vanity or tax deductions. Few of them in any event really make the commitment and sacrifices to ‘walk the talk’.

Hoffmann was different. Jim Leape, who headed WWF from 2005-2014, told me that Hoffmann travelled more than he did and sat next to him at the table for important meetings. He would invite people to join him for a 5am birdwatch followed by a meeting to discuss project goals, and milestones achieved. Martin recalls sitting at a fire place with tribal and government heads in Mauritania over camel meat discussing how the depletion of its fish stocks would create havoc for future generations.

Though few really knew Hoffmann, as his life was so tightly fitted around his children and work, he seemed to have a natural joie de vivre and well cultivated, albeit dry, sense of humor. The rite of passage was getting invited to his modest home in the Camague. Conservationists, artists, scientists and other well wishers paid pilgrimage over the years.

The need to convince people’s hearts as well as their minds

Professor Charles Weissmann, the family’s scientific advisor for Roche, cofounder of Biogen, and a distinguished scientist was once invited there. Weissman recounts humorously his stay. “Luc anointed me as godfather for one of his flamingos. Unfortunately the bird disappeared very soon, leading to a total loss of our investment.”

Everything about flamingos fascinated Hoffmann. He first saw them when he was still a student, chasing the nibble chicks through stones and shrubs, knee deep in water, in an effort to ring them so they could be tracked. Some 30,000 flamingos were ringed since 1977, and the rings read some 500,000 times in 18 countries.

It may have been their wondrous pink and scarlet plumage, their strange tongues, spined and hooked to filter food from water, or the surging flights in flocks of thousands, majestically flying from one lagoon to the next.

Hoffmann and the founders knew that WWF needed to convince people’s hearts as well as their minds – and that needed an animal even more charismatic than the flamingo. One of WWF’s marketing coups was when it selected the Panda as its mascot and logo.

Peter Scott came up with the idea after Chi-Chi arrived in the London Zoo in 1961. Here was an animal that was endangered, and exuded empathy instantaneously around the world. When Hoffmann saw the 1st sketches by Gerald Watterson, he quipped that “the black and white resolution will also save us on printing costs.”

Endangered, endearing, inexpensive

Hoffmann was remarkably frugal given his enormous wealth. Leape says he would stay in 2 star hotels or Bed + Breakfasts, or even hostels rather than the posh resorts. ‘He drove a Fiat Panda, and would never fly ‘1st class’ because he couldn’t stomach the sort of people sitting there’ commented Martin.

He didn’t have much time for the World Economic Forum, located a few kilometers from WWF’s office in Gland because he felt it was all about vanity and show. “For me all that matters are outcomes”, was Hoffmann’s ethos.

His frugality was not because he ran short of money. On the contrary, through a stroke of good fortune his family’s controlling stake in Roche was increasing massively in value during his tenure at the WWF. Family members control just over half of a company that is currently valued at $220 billion. Dividends alone for family members last year amounted to c $650 million; and $6.3 billion cumulatively since 1990.(*)

Not bad for a company that was on the verge of bankruptcy in the 70’s when valium, its gravy train drug, was coming off patent. The company was languishing until in 1990 it acquired 60% of Genentech, a San Francisco research company specialized in biotechnology.

Roche’s board rejected the proposal of Fritz Gerber, then CEO, to acquire the fledgling company, but the Hoffman family overruled the board, and backed Gerber’s controversial decision. It turned out to be possibly the most important decision made in the company’s 120 year history. The vast majority of Roche’s profits today trace back to this fortuitous decision.

Without it, Hoffmann would have been one of many well trained, good natured, passionate conservationists. With it, he had an unsurpassed arsenal of means. Wherever and whenever he thought good, he gave money. It was done either overtly, as grants or loans with his name attached, or covertly, through donations from organisations whose finances he controlled. Martin pointed out there were times when WWF decided not to support a project and if Hoffmann was still convinced it made sense, he would write out a check and fund it himself.

It was this steadfast and consequent engagement that produced desirable outcomes. For seven decades he tapped a private fortune to make large and consistent donations to environmental causes. When the WWF ran into financial difficulty shortly after its foundation, because the number of its projects outstripped its funding, Hoffmann discreetly met the shortfall.

In 1959 he was tipped off by scientific contacts about General Franco’s plans to modernise Spain through developing tourism along the coast, and transforming wild country, including the estuarial wetlands of Coto Doñana south of Seville, into agricultural farmland. On behalf of the World Wildlife Fund, he negotiated the area’s transformation into a park, easing the sale with a loan from Roche’s Spanish subsidiary.

Why progress is so difficult

Hoffmann had his share of frustrations. As human beings we are wired to deal with urgent problems, not those that unfold at glacial speed; regardless of their magnitude. So progress was always slower then expected.

Nature knows no borders, something gazing up at migrating birds also taught him. This means that problem solving needs to be coordinated, a matter which is difficult under the best of circumstances, and especially difficult when dealing with disparately poor countries lacking institutions to check abuses.

Rhino horns, for example, can fetch up to $70,000 a kilo-almost twice the price of gold. Poaching takes place in Africa, production in Laos, and marketing in places like China, Vietnam, and Thailand where it is prized as an aphrodisiac. Violators are sometimes caught, but those higher up the chain rarely are, and usually in one jurisdiction, but not others.

WWF has a federalistic structure, similar to other Swiss NGO’s like the IOC, Red Cross and FIFA. But with similar problems. WWF International is the hub, but its national satellites are autonomous and self-funding operations, so getting everyone to sing from the same page is not always easy, especially for the substantial organisations in the US, the UK and Holland.

Hoffmann warned that personalities with élan were necessary to make it work, but the larger the organization, the more bureaucratic they become and charisma counts for less. The WWF International board still constitutes itself and unlike the IOC and the Red Cross there is no mandatory representation of national organisations; so some suggest cohesion suffers.

Cynics will argue that Hoffmann’s efforts have been too little too late. Hoffmann, in his self-effacing manner would have agreed. When asked to recount his main regret in life, he said: “If I had the opportunity to do it again, I would do the same thing, only with twice as much effort and persistence.”

Progress is pervasive

But he was being too hard on himself. When Hoffmann and other like-minded conservationists started WWF in 1961 people were more interested to go to the moon than to fuss about preserving nature. Roll the clock forward two generations and the number of birds and mammals known to have gone extinct are one fifth the levels and deforestation in the Amazon is said to be a tenth of the level 20 years ago.

ISO standards now require companies to certify that their factories are up to environmental scratch.  And what Annual Report displayed at company receptions doesn’t include a section boasting about its sustainable practices? Universities are loaded with professors and aspiring students thinking about how to distinguish themselves in the field of ecology.

The whole world’s memory of conservation tracking is, or soon will be, available to anyone digitally. GPS, drones and other technologies are rapidly improving our ability to warn of environmental danger, and act before it’s too late.

Today, more than half a century after it was founded, WWF is the largest conservation organisation in the world with 5 million supporters funding 1,000 projects across 100 countries. Some 1% of the world’s surface, including many of our most delicate habitats, are now under its supervision.

This is a far cry from when Hoffmann decided to study zoology and shun chemistry. At that time there was the Audubon Society in the US and The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) in the UK – but they were local in nature; focused on birds, rather than habitats, and usually characterized by polite, well to do, hobbyists wearing cacky-coloured shorts, with not much more than a pair of binoculars. For example the RSPB was founded by a group of upper class ladies upset that feathers from rare birds were used in their hats!

Hoffmann knew that conservation is a permanent up-hill battle and that, despite his remarkable achievements, mankind is losing. The Living Planet Index (LPI), put together by the Zoological Society of London and WWF, shows a 52% decline in biodiversity since 1970 and conditions are set to deteriorate. 40% of the world’s land is used for farming and experts project that by 2050 the world’s population will require double the amount of food (**). Throw in the climate change joker, and the future consequences to our environment may be calamitous.

Less Life

Thanks to efforts from those like Hoffmann, conservation, once the preoccupation of scientists and Greens, has become a mainstream concern and some of this threat has been arrested. Jean Jalbert, again of Tour du Valat, said “Hoffmann’s most important legacy is the community of disciples stationed around the world following his footsteps, and sharing his vision, and values.”

Jim Leape, now a fellow at Stanford University, feels that “Hoffmann’s most enduring achievement was that he built institutions that will survive and exceed him.”

He is said to have rescued IUCN twice by his own generosity. When he started the research center ‘Station biologique de la Tour du Valat’ in Camargue, his life work, it was a farm-house without water or power. He left it with 100 researchers and a world class reputation for conservation.

He established the MAVA foundation, among the world’s richest grant-making environmental foundation, dispensing annually c. $50 million. It is named after his four children, Maja, André, Vera and Daschenka, who survive him and is designed to provide funding for conservationist initiatives after his death.

The Luc Hoffmann Institute was established in 2012 as a ‘think tank’ to deal with complex environmental issues. And then there is the WWF, now with offices in over 80 countries, it is professionally managed with a total annual budget of c. $700 million, overseeing and investing in 13,000 projects.

Lessons on how to give money away

The other lesson Hoffman has left us is how to give money away. Sir John Templeton, who started the Templeton Prize, once told me: “it is much easier to make money than to give it way.” There are annals of NGOs who waste money; or charities that syphon off donations on costly administration.

Hoffmann, turned it on its head. He put ‘skin in the game’ and then convinced others to join him; leveraging the impact of his own investment. He then kept a very close eye on the shop – approving projects; inspecting progress on site, and so on.

Hoffmann may have been too late. Global warming is considered by most experts as the weightiest problem facing future generations anywhere in the world. It would be nice to put off worrying about it for a few decades. But the truth is we have no choice but to act more forcefully and sooner.

As I glance through the newspapers and my twitter feed I am struck by the inordinate attention the media pays to those with unquenchable ambition for power, recognition and wealth; to those with exaggerated feelings of self-importance, and excessive preoccupation with admiration of themselves.

Hoffmann was very much the opposite. He spent his whole life shunning the limelight, dispensing his wealth, and gently avoiding any abuses of power. Here is a person who may have singularly contributed more than anyone during any lifetime to the conservation of nature. Who taught many that knowing is a pre-condition to caring; and caring is a pre-condition to preserving. A person who died with little notice, let alone tribute.

In hindsight, maybe the Nobel Committee chose the wrong saint; in hindsight Hoffmann may have been right to have passed on studying chemistry and venturing afar from the privileged confines of Basel.

There is a birdwatcher expression that ‘birds are heaven’s eyes’. Hoffmann never craved sainthood. He probably felt it was enough if the birds noticed his work.

Each morning when they belted out their melodious symphony of song to celebrate the sunrise, this was enough to fuel him for another day’s work: a perennial proof of the importance of humility; and sufficient to remind him that all he had done had been worthwhile.

Hoffmann died peacefully in his bed in Camargue the morning of July 21st, with his binoculars at his side.

 


 

James Breiding is the Founder of Naissance Capital Ltd, a Swiss investment firm, and former Managing Director of Templeton Investments, Director at Rothschilds, and Senior Manager of Price Waterhouse Coopers. Author of Swiss Made – the Untold Story of Switzerland’s success, James writes occasionally for the Economist, Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and Swiss publications.

Notes

(*) Hoffmann’s immediate family’s share is thought to collect half of this. Dividends paid to Roche shareholders have risen for 28 straight years at a rate of 16.4%. Roche pays a 3.3% dividend yield compared to Swiss treasury bills which currently carry a negative yield.

(**) The current world population of 7.3 billion is expected to grow to 9.7 billion by 2050; or 32%. But the majority of the increase in caloric requirements stems from shifting preference to eat meat and ability to afford it. Producing 1kg of beef requires 15 times as much land as producing 1kg of cereals, and 70 times as much land as 1kg of vegetables. The world’s most populous countries (China, India and Indonesia would need to consume 200-1000% more meat to reach consumption levels experienced in the US and Europe.

Meat production also requires a much higher amount of water than vegetables or grains. The IME estimates that to produce 1kg of meat requires between 5,000 and 20,000 litres of water while 1kg of wheat requires between 500 and 4,000 litres of water.

Gerbens-Leenes, W. and Nonhebel S., 2005. Food and land use. The influence of consumption patterns on the use of agricultural resources. Appetite 45:24-31. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2005.01.011

 

Only ‘we the people’ can rise above the false promise of COP22

In the early hours of Saturday morning, the 22nd UN Conference of the Parties (COP) on climate change was brought to an official close, amid a series of final declarations.

Many had called for COP22 in Marrakech to be the ‘COP of action’. There’s a big problem here, though: the fundamental nature of these conferences is not active – it’s diplomatic. And diplomacy is far better at holding action back, than driving it forward.

The reality is that Marrakech was never going to be the COP of action in the way that campaigning groups around the world advocated for. It was the COP for cleaning up the forced, last-minute consensus of the Paris Agreement forged at COP21 last December.

Paris was the photo-op, and Marrakech was the first of the nitty-gritty, argumentative, tense meetings that would follow. COP22 was always going to be the one where the Parties decided what the Paris Agreement actually meant. This is not a recipe for ambition, or grand bargains. It is a recipe for pragmatism – and that’s exactly what we saw.

Kicking the diplomatic can down the road

High-level diplomatic action is a very different beast than putting-to-work action or implementation at the level of national governments, local governments, the private sector, civil society – down to individual households.

Marrakech did feature action, but predominantly diplomatic and rhetorical action – which does not amount to much in the real world, and certainly does little for the legitimacy of the UNFCCC process.

That’s not to say there was a great surge of diplomatic action in Marrakech, either. In fact, there are many reasons to be disappointed by the lack of progress. The technicalities of implementing each country’s National Determined Contributions (NDCs) remain vague.

The open questions that have been kicked down the road at every COP for so many years – like financing, adaptation and compensation to states suffering from loss and damage from climate change – saw the usual spirited debate and confusion, but very little progress.

On new topics raised by the Paris Agreement that needed to be filled out in detail and implemented into the Paris framework – like the ‘Rulebook’ for state action and the ‘Facilitative Dialogue’ for non-state action – the advance was limited, and disappointed observers and Parties alike.

The best that can be said about this year’s COP is that it sent a firm, appropriate signal in the aftermath of the US election, thanks in no small part to the Chinese delegation. In the ‘Marrakech Action Declaration‘, Parties to the COP “call on all non-state actors to join … for immediate and ambitious action and mobilization, building on … important achievements”.

This, at least, is where we agree – if we want the fast and decisive action on climate change needed to have any hope of achieving the Paris goals, the best place it can happen now is outside the COP process.

Climate campaigners must give up their own denialism

As 2016 draws to a close, earth-shattering election results in two of the world’s major powers, first the UK and now the US, have profoundly shaken global – and environmental – politics. The implications of these developments for the COP were captured by UNEP Executive Director Eric Solheim at this year’s Sustainable Innovation Forum, the most high-profile business-focused side event during the COP.

It is not the US electorate that has failed us, he argued, it’s the climate change community, the already converted climate action-ists: “If we cannot make environment a kitchen conversation in Kentucky and Texas, then we are failing.” The climate change community must learn how to work with the new wave of ultra-conservative, post-factual populism. The task at hand is to stop failing people that do not align with the promised neo-liberal, sustainable development utopia.

It has never been so obvious that deploying the same old arguments to convince climate sceptics doesn’t work anymore, despite the ever-growing mountains of evidence. Maybe it never worked to begin with. And maybe the issue of climate change in itself doesn’t have much to do with it.

In a media world unconcerned with truth, disenfranchised and disillusioned citizens are less and less receptive to traditional arguments, facts, or statistics. The climate action community must speak the language of the people, not the dialect of the climate scientist or the diplomat. There are some organizations that understand this – 350.org is perhaps one of them.

We must frame the social changes that we all believe are necessary for tackling climate change in the context of the social and economic benefits they will bring with them. Those disillusioned with globalisation have little interest in the self-reflected glory of international diplomacy or UN agreements. In fact, this is only pushing them further away.

The self-congratulatory celebration that followed the signing of the Paris Agreement is the polar opposite of the way the discussion should be framed to reach those persuaded by Brexit, Trump, and bad science.

A new audience for climate action?

The Paris Agreement is only made possible in a globalised, multilateral world in which diplomacy takes small and incremental steps – the same world that drives disruption, rapid change, and exploitation of communities across the world. When your very well-being and security is threatened, incremental international climate diplomacy does nothing for you.

If this sea change in communicating climate change is the task at hand, a COP of action was never going to achieve it. This is not the purpose of a COP, nor is it the task of traditional diplomacy, or even a task for major multinationals, or the President of the United States.

It is a task for individuals, local governments, schools, universities, community action groups … it is a task for ‘we the people’.

Now is the time to ride this new wave of populism and make it work for the climate movement: to show that the new economic thinking necessary to stop climate change can also raise the disenfranchised and dispossessed from the economic margins.

To make the case towards not only a cleaner and more sustainable but also a better and more just livelihood. It is time to put people right at the centre of climate action.

 


 

Alexander Pfeiffer is head of Young European Leadership‘s delegation to the COP and a doctorate student at the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) at the Oxford Martin School. See his website.

Elizabeth Dirth is the Chair of the 2050 Climate Group and studying an MSc in Sustainable Development with a specific focus on international climate governance.

Alex Clark is the Henry Fellow at Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, having graduated from Oxford University with an MSc in 2015. He is currently working on energy policy, climate change and global health and is also Project Leader for Operations with SDSN Youth.

 

Heaven’s eyes: Luc Hoffmann, unsung hero of nature conservation

Birdwatchers are a strange lot.

Who among us eagerly jumps out of bed at 4:30 am to stand motionless and silent in a frosty field, looking up into the clear blue sky, with a cramped neck and feet throbbing in cold with the vague expectation we’ll spot something, maybe even a species we’ve never seen before?

This was the world that fascinated Hans Lukas (Luc) Hoffmann, heir to the Roche fortune, and one of the Spiritus Rectors of the World Wildlife Fund (‘WWF’).

A zoologist by training and ornithologist by passion, Hoffmann helped initiate, oversee and fund WWF development into the world’s largest organization encouraging preservation of nature. He died in bed in Camargue on July 21st at the age of 93.

A burst of obituaries were published shortly following Luc Hoffmann’s recent death from the likes of The Economist, Le Monde, the Guardian and more. Most of them were hastily prepared to meet deadlines and necessarily consisted of ‘cut & paste’ of official press releases for lack of time and want of copy.

Hoffmann is broadly depicted as a reclusive aristocrat with a penchant for birds who dabbled in conservation as a means to spend his vast inheritance. This caricature, while convenient, and carefully disguised by Hoffmann’s obsession for secrecy, widely misses the mark.

On closer examination, Hoffmann may have had more impact in defining and advancing the environmental movement more than anyone of his generation. Who was this man? What motivated him? What were his achievements? What lessons could we learn from him?

In an attempt to answer these questions and set the record straight, I conducted extensive interviews with senior members of management of the World Wildlife Fund, Roche, conservationists, and others who were close to Hoffmann throughout his life. As far as I know, no such research has ever been performed, let alone published.

Privileged beginnings in Basel

Hoffmann was born in Basel, Switzerland, to Emanuel Hoffmann, a businessman and art collector, and the sculptor Maja Hoffmann-Stehlin. His grandfather, Fritz Hoffmann-La Roche, was a visionary entrepreneur who understood that future prosperity lay in the infant pharmaceutical industry.

Hoffmann-La Roche founded the company of the same name in 1896, so the young Luc grew up in a wealthy and privileged environment. His mother was an avid supporter of young artists and classical music.

Basel has historically been at the cutting edge of humanism; the notion that individual agency matters. The city, despite its modest medieval village appearance, has outpunched its weight across a range of fronts. It has given us Euler in mathematics, and Paracelsus in medicine. It provided refuge and published history bending works for Calvin, Erasmus and Rousseau. It was here that Theodor Herzl conceived the Jewish State of Israel; and Ernst Beyeler started ‘Art Basel’.

When Hoffmann was born in 1923, Basel was mainly about chemicals. The city straddles France and Germany and lies at the beginning of the Rhine, whose tributaries have been the industrial lungs of Europe. When England boycotted sale of natural products like indigo to color fabrics, and quinine to treat malaria to France and Germany in times of war, a fledgling chemistry business began to take hold.

Most of industry at this juncture was focused on machines and new forms of energy to replace labor. The chemical industry was about replicating substances found in nature, or creating entirely new products like plastics or drugs through unique combinations of chemical substances. This created markets over night and unimaginable fortunes for a new class of scientists and especially their backers.

Roche, a company founded by his grandfather started with cough syrup, only began to get traction when, as the only Basel chemical company, it hired Jewish scientists fleeing Nazi Germany. Leo Sternbach, a Polish-Jew, went on to invent Valium and Tadeus Reichstein synthesised Vitamin ‘C’, and later won a Nobel Prize.

DDT – the new wonder-chemical to solve the world’s problems

But the real hero of the day in Basel was the Swiss scientist, Paul Mueller, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1948 when Hoffman was a formative 25 years of age. Gustaf Hellström, of the Royal Academy of Sciences, told the distinguished audience in Stockholm:

“Dr Mueller, DDT kills the mosquito, which spreads malaria; the flea, which spreads the plague; and the sandfly, which spreads tropical diseases. In the mind of the layman you stand out as a benefactor of mankind of such stature that also the humility of a saint is required to escape the danger of falling a victim to the worst of all spiritual diseases – megalomania.”

DDT was an elixir for farmers, threw off a fortune of profits for Roche’s cross town rival JR Geigy (now Syngenta), and helped vault scientists to the highest echelons of Basel society. It also sent out a beacon of aspiration that problems could now be solved and fortunes made through discovery of new chemical formulae.

So it must have been blasphemous when Hoffmann upon reaching legal age switched his studies from chemistry to zoology, a few years before Mueller’s coronation. Tragedy may have persuaded him. Hoffmann’s father died in a car crash when he was nine years old and the following year his older brother died of leukemia.

As the only surviving son, he was expected to be groomed to takeover Roche. But these sudden deaths were traumatic and Hoffmann did not like all the attention people were giving him; the mothers who picked up their children at school ingratiating him and trying to win his good graces.

This is when he took up long walks to be alone with nature. There he found joy and authenticity observing small birds going about their bright, oblivious business, treating him as though he were unimportant, and alas, normal.

As a child, he brought home one day an injured duck and convinced his mother to re-outfit the bathroom as a zoo. It was probably through these experiences or on one of these solitary walks that Hoffmann recalibrated his life based on his passions rather than others’ expectations: when he realized it was more important for him to preserve nature rather than redefine or mimic it.

He proved to be a shrewd observer and rapid learner, publishing his first academic paper – on the unlikely subject of migrant seabirds in the Basel region – at the age of 18 in 1941. His first long expedition with his friend Dieter Burckhardt, was to Brittany in search of gannets, a bird rarely spotted in France. He began reading for a degree in botany and zoology at the city’s university.

But his studies were interrupted two years later when he was conscripted into the Swiss army, rising to the rank of lieutenant. Once the war was over, he returned to academic life, earning a PhD for his studies of the behavior of common tern chicks in the Camargue.

Marching to the beat of a different drummer

But from an early age, it became clear that Hoffmann wanted to march to the beat of a different drummer. Guy Sarasin, of the old Basel banking dynasty family, and whose mother was Luc’s godmother, told me: “we were fairly close until we were 20, but then he disappeared from Basel society. There are 20 people in Basel who really matter, and most of them intermarry in one generation of the other.”

In Swiss German there is an idiom ‘Basel Teig’ to describe the interconnectedness of the city’s most influential families. Hardly the preconditions for something bold and new.

He married Daria Razumovsky, the daughter of Russian aristocrats, who, having lost their lands in the revolution, had fled to Vienna. Daria had found work in a concert hall where she met Paul Sacher, Hoffman’s stepfather. Maja, his mother, had a hand in the matchmaking. When he inherited a bit of money at the age of 31 it was enough to buy a 1,250 hectares tract of land in Camargue, France; a kind of Mecca for environmentalists, where the Rhone meets the Mediterranean.

In 1954 Hoffmann set up there the Tour du Valat biological research station, which became one of the leading institutions of its kind in the world. It was Hoffmann 1st of many campaigns to rescue a threatened species, in this case greater flamingos, that were on the verge of extinction. Tour du Valat, and the Camague, would become his life-long laboratory.

He and Daria lived in a farmhouse and raised their children there. Hoffmann spoke Swiss-German to his four children (and French or English at work) but kept them in the dark about his fortune. Educated at the school Hoffmann built on his estate for his employees, his children looked blank when a cleaner once slyly murmured that she supposed their father owned quite a large pharmacy in Basel.

The level of secrecy around Roche was legendary, even by Basel’s tight lipped standards. The joke in town was that “the only number one could find in Roche’s 1980 annual report was the year.”

Camargue – Hoffmann’s life-long laboratory

The Camargue is Europe’s largest river delta and in environmentalist-speak, a wetland. Once dismissed as mosquito-infested marshes, they are now recognised as cradles of biological diversity.

For conservationists they are crucial because they are delicate and fragile interfaces between land and sea; with ever shifting landscapes that wield considerable bio-diversity due to the variability of conditions and the need to adapt to saline or salt water. They are natural breeding and feeding grounds for hundreds of species of migrating birds before crossing longer distances over water.

Small changes in temperature due to global warming or reductions in water due to constructions of golf courses, roads, or condominiums can cause considerable damage that vibrates throughout the entire eco-system.

At Tour du Valat his four children were brought up as little camarguais with the children of the estate workers. The family’s dwellings were basic, and only the glimpse of a Braque in the drawing room (Braque, Hoffmann’ friend, had also fallen for the Camargue), or the glass of Domaine Leflaive Montrachet offered to a visitor, hinted that Mr Hoffmann may have come from less humble origins.

Conception of the World Wildlife Fund – a marriage of sorts

Hoffmann was quietly going about his business as a kind of ‘one-man band’ when Sir Peter Scott approached him and proposed a merger of sorts.

Scott was working with the IUCN, the World Conservation Union, which had a small team of reputed conservationists who recently concluded the Morges Manifesto, signed by 16 of the world’s leading conservationists of the day, including biologist, author, and wildlife enthusiast Sir Julian Huxley, director-general of the British Nature Conservancy E. M. Nicholson and Scott, then vice president of IUCN.

The IUCN’s Red List, established in 1954 by Colonel Leofric Boyle, a British army officer, was a globally recognised warning call about endangered species. But it was more a podium than a hammer and there is a big difference between citing a problem and resolving it. Scott pitched Hoffmann the idea to create an institution to ‘walk the talk’; or fund the programs IUCN was beating its drum about.

This was 1961 and governments were more interested to go to the moon than to fuss about preserving nature. Scott felt more was needed. Hoffmann was a recognized scientist with a deep pocket book, so his qualifications as a prospective ally were ideal.

Both realized hard facts and analysis were necessary to convince opinion leaders. “They need to know, before they start to care”, Hoffmann would say in his quiet, firm and unassuming manner. Hoffmann also was among the first to stress that it was loss of habitat that caused loss of species; so one had to combat causes not effects.

Scott, Hoffmann and the other Morges Manifesto members saw eye to eye, and paved the way for the founding of the WWF. Hoffmann was appointed vice-president, after rejecting, with characteristic modesty, Scott’s proposal that he become president.

Slowly Hoffmann’s decision to study nature instead of chemicals was vindicating itself. Increasingly people were beginning to know, understand and care. A year after WWF’s founding in 1962, Silent Spring, a book by Rachel Carson about the impact on bird populations of DDT, the widely used pest-killer, helped foster a sense that maybe society had got things upside down.

Overnight DDT’s place in history as a panacea for farmers and the saintly achievement of chemistry became the poster child of shame. President Lyndon Johnson signed the Water Quality Act in 1965 shortly after calling the Potomac a “national disgrace” because it was so filthy.

Hard facts, analysis and even a Nobel Prize

In 1971 the Nobel committee stunned the scientific community by awarding what many consider its most coveted and relevant Prize in Physiology or Medicine to Karl von Frisch, Konrad Lorenz and Nikolaas Tinbergen for their discoveries in the field of Ethology, or the scientific study of animal behavior.

Von Frisch, for example, devoted a lifetime to decoding the information that animals pass to each other. He elucidated what has been called ‘the language of bees’. When a bee has found flowers containing nectar, it performs a special dance when returning to the hive. The dance informs the bees in the hive of the existence of food, often also about the direction where the flowers will be found and about the distance to them.

The scientific community was also ‘buzzing’. Few understood the importance of observing the behavior of insects, fishes and birds would have on medicine, with people like Hoffmann regarded condescendingly as ‘mere animal watchers’. Grants and other forms of funding were off limits due to the unrecognized status of the field.

Never mind. The Nobel Committee validated the scientific value of their work so suddenly money could be found to fund evidence based science to study nature from sources other than aristocrats and wealthy heirs to fortunes.

Dissenters in Basel, who rolled their eyes over Hoffmann’s decision to turn his back to chemistry and Basel, and were counting the days of the return of its prodigal son, suddenly found that the world was beginning to march towards him.

Scandals put wind into the conservation movement’s sails

Even the Chinese were waking up to man’s orgy of destruction. In 1958 the Chinese government announced that sparrows were to be targeted as part of the ‘Four Pests’ campaign because they ate grain, offering rewards for killing them. People obediently tore down the birds’ nests, caught them in nets and banged saucepans to stop them landing anywhere. Sparrow numbers collapsed.

But the birds, it turned out, ate insects that ate crops, and their slaughter thus contributed to the great famine of 1960 that killed 20m people. During the same period, China was also stepping up its timber production and the area covered by forest shrank by more than a third. The resulting soil erosion gummed up the Yangzi River. In 1998 it flooded, killing 3,600 people and doing around $30 billion-worth of damage.

It was fact based analyses like these that helped convince people that sacrifices paid off, and costs and benefits justified preservation.

Scandals also helped. Hardly a year went by when there wasn’t a major environmental disaster to remind us that reckless economic growth was destroying the things in life that were most precious. Bhopal, Three Mile Island, Exon Valdez stained the conscience of a generation.

The most embarrassing of all was closest to Hoffmann. In July of 1976, an explosion at one of Roche’s chemical plants in Seveso, near Milan, leaked a toxic gas into the river. 3,300 animals died and many more were put down in order to prevent the spread of contamination into the food chain. 500 people were found to have skin lesions.

While Hoffmann had no direct involvement, as a member of Roche’s board of directors and representative of the family’s controlling interest, the impact must have been devastating. One of Hoffmann’s children recounted to me vivid remembrance as a child when “rumours among our childhood friends circulated that the Hoffmann’s had stored toxic chemicals underground in the Camargue.”

These, and other incidents, ushered in a wave of protective regulations and emboldened Hoffmann to double down on his effort and spending.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created in 1970 to regulate pesticides, among other things. The Endangered Species Act was signed into law in 1973 by Richard Nixon. Trade in endangered species has been limited through the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), which came into force in 1975 and covers some 35,000 species, the best-known being elephant and rhino.

WWF as agents of improvement, rather than merely peddlers of complaints

This was all fertilizer stimulating WWF’s flowering as agents of improvement, rather than merely peddlers of complaints. For two decades Hoffmann chaired WWF’s sought-after ‘Conservation Program Committee’ – the organ that decides where environmental problems were; how they could best be resolved; and how much money could be invested.

In 1971, at Ramsar in Iran, he oversaw the signing of the first global treaty protecting wetlands. Coming into force in 1975, the convention now covers 170 countries, making it one of the most effective measures to protect habitats across the globe.

In addition to the Camargue, Hoffmann helped save the wetlands at Coto Doñana in Andalucia, home to imperial eagles; the Banc d’Arguin in Mauritania, the stopover point for millions of migrating waders; the Faia Brava in Portugal, haunt of griffon vultures; and many others.

Charles de Haes, who served as head of the WWF International from 1975-1993, and worked closely with Hoffmann, told me: “he was a charming, empathetic, and gentle man who spoke very little, but underneath there was a quiet, yet relentless determination.”

Claude Martin, who succeeded de Haes as head of WWF International from 1993-2005 said: “I would prepare 100 questions for Luc to discuss during a train ride, because I knew that his usual answer was less than a handful of words; and the rest of the time would be spent gazing out the train window.” Jean Jalbert, who heads Tour du Valat, said: “We once drove six hours to Spain and did not exchange a single word.”

Hoffmann was better at listening, and this he did as vigilantly as he observed birds. With his deep penetrating eyes, surrounded by his hallmark bushy, unkempt eyebrows, as though genetically designed to cushion binoculars, he would listen patiently and carefully to any case.

Those presenting knew that he likely understood more about the facts upon which a decision would hang. Hoffmann had over 60 scientific papers and books published, and kept careful notebooks listing species in three languages.

“He would never wield his authority, but it was nevertheless palpable”, said Martin. “His way was to ring up and ask me whether I thought it would be a good idea to do something in Madagascar.” As WWF’s co-founder, single largest donor, and scientific conscience this was tantamount to instructions.

Inheriting a fortune is not easy

Inheriting a fortune is not easy. Most succumb to the comforts of rents and work on improving cosmetic appearances. Those who have a go at it are usually damned if you do in the case of success (handed to you on a silver platter), and if you don’t in the case of failure (spoiled).

Most wealthy people take up a token involvement in a charity or have their names inscribed in a university lecture hall or new wing to a museum. These sort of donations are often driven by vanity or tax deductions. Few of them in any event really make the commitment and sacrifices to ‘walk the talk’.

Hoffmann was different. Jim Leape, who headed WWF from 2005-2014, told me that Hoffmann travelled more than he did and sat next to him at the table for important meetings. He would invite people to join him for a 5am birdwatch followed by a meeting to discuss project goals, and milestones achieved. Martin recalls sitting at a fire place with tribal and government heads in Mauritania over camel meat discussing how the depletion of its fish stocks would create havoc for future generations.

Though few really knew Hoffmann, as his life was so tightly fitted around his children and work, he seemed to have a natural joie de vivre and well cultivated, albeit dry, sense of humor. The rite of passage was getting invited to his modest home in the Camague. Conservationists, artists, scientists and other well wishers paid pilgrimage over the years.

The need to convince people’s hearts as well as their minds

Professor Charles Weissmann, the family’s scientific advisor for Roche, cofounder of Biogen, and a distinguished scientist was once invited there. Weissman recounts humorously his stay. “Luc anointed me as godfather for one of his flamingos. Unfortunately the bird disappeared very soon, leading to a total loss of our investment.”

Everything about flamingos fascinated Hoffmann. He first saw them when he was still a student, chasing the nibble chicks through stones and shrubs, knee deep in water, in an effort to ring them so they could be tracked. Some 30,000 flamingos were ringed since 1977, and the rings read some 500,000 times in 18 countries.

It may have been their wondrous pink and scarlet plumage, their strange tongues, spined and hooked to filter food from water, or the surging flights in flocks of thousands, majestically flying from one lagoon to the next.

Hoffmann and the founders knew that WWF needed to convince people’s hearts as well as their minds – and that needed an animal even more charismatic than the flamingo. One of WWF’s marketing coups was when it selected the Panda as its mascot and logo.

Peter Scott came up with the idea after Chi-Chi arrived in the London Zoo in 1961. Here was an animal that was endangered, and exuded empathy instantaneously around the world. When Hoffmann saw the 1st sketches by Gerald Watterson, he quipped that “the black and white resolution will also save us on printing costs.”

Endangered, endearing, inexpensive

Hoffmann was remarkably frugal given his enormous wealth. Leape says he would stay in 2 star hotels or Bed + Breakfasts, or even hostels rather than the posh resorts. ‘He drove a Fiat Panda, and would never fly ‘1st class’ because he couldn’t stomach the sort of people sitting there’ commented Martin.

He didn’t have much time for the World Economic Forum, located a few kilometers from WWF’s office in Gland because he felt it was all about vanity and show. “For me all that matters are outcomes”, was Hoffmann’s ethos.

His frugality was not because he ran short of money. On the contrary, through a stroke of good fortune his family’s controlling stake in Roche was increasing massively in value during his tenure at the WWF. Family members control just over half of a company that is currently valued at $220 billion. Dividends alone for family members last year amounted to c $650 million; and $6.3 billion cumulatively since 1990.(*)

Not bad for a company that was on the verge of bankruptcy in the 70’s when valium, its gravy train drug, was coming off patent. The company was languishing until in 1990 it acquired 60% of Genentech, a San Francisco research company specialized in biotechnology.

Roche’s board rejected the proposal of Fritz Gerber, then CEO, to acquire the fledgling company, but the Hoffman family overruled the board, and backed Gerber’s controversial decision. It turned out to be possibly the most important decision made in the company’s 120 year history. The vast majority of Roche’s profits today trace back to this fortuitous decision.

Without it, Hoffmann would have been one of many well trained, good natured, passionate conservationists. With it, he had an unsurpassed arsenal of means. Wherever and whenever he thought good, he gave money. It was done either overtly, as grants or loans with his name attached, or covertly, through donations from organisations whose finances he controlled. Martin pointed out there were times when WWF decided not to support a project and if Hoffmann was still convinced it made sense, he would write out a check and fund it himself.

It was this steadfast and consequent engagement that produced desirable outcomes. For seven decades he tapped a private fortune to make large and consistent donations to environmental causes. When the WWF ran into financial difficulty shortly after its foundation, because the number of its projects outstripped its funding, Hoffmann discreetly met the shortfall.

In 1959 he was tipped off by scientific contacts about General Franco’s plans to modernise Spain through developing tourism along the coast, and transforming wild country, including the estuarial wetlands of Coto Doñana south of Seville, into agricultural farmland. On behalf of the World Wildlife Fund, he negotiated the area’s transformation into a park, easing the sale with a loan from Roche’s Spanish subsidiary.

Why progress is so difficult

Hoffmann had his share of frustrations. As human beings we are wired to deal with urgent problems, not those that unfold at glacial speed; regardless of their magnitude. So progress was always slower then expected.

Nature knows no borders, something gazing up at migrating birds also taught him. This means that problem solving needs to be coordinated, a matter which is difficult under the best of circumstances, and especially difficult when dealing with disparately poor countries lacking institutions to check abuses.

Rhino horns, for example, can fetch up to $70,000 a kilo-almost twice the price of gold. Poaching takes place in Africa, production in Laos, and marketing in places like China, Vietnam, and Thailand where it is prized as an aphrodisiac. Violators are sometimes caught, but those higher up the chain rarely are, and usually in one jurisdiction, but not others.

WWF has a federalistic structure, similar to other Swiss NGO’s like the IOC, Red Cross and FIFA. But with similar problems. WWF International is the hub, but its national satellites are autonomous and self-funding operations, so getting everyone to sing from the same page is not always easy, especially for the substantial organisations in the US, the UK and Holland.

Hoffmann warned that personalities with élan were necessary to make it work, but the larger the organization, the more bureaucratic they become and charisma counts for less. The WWF International board still constitutes itself and unlike the IOC and the Red Cross there is no mandatory representation of national organisations; so some suggest cohesion suffers.

Cynics will argue that Hoffmann’s efforts have been too little too late. Hoffmann, in his self-effacing manner would have agreed. When asked to recount his main regret in life, he said: “If I had the opportunity to do it again, I would do the same thing, only with twice as much effort and persistence.”

Progress is pervasive

But he was being too hard on himself. When Hoffmann and other like-minded conservationists started WWF in 1961 people were more interested to go to the moon than to fuss about preserving nature. Roll the clock forward two generations and the number of birds and mammals known to have gone extinct are one fifth the levels and deforestation in the Amazon is said to be a tenth of the level 20 years ago.

ISO standards now require companies to certify that their factories are up to environmental scratch.  And what Annual Report displayed at company receptions doesn’t include a section boasting about its sustainable practices? Universities are loaded with professors and aspiring students thinking about how to distinguish themselves in the field of ecology.

The whole world’s memory of conservation tracking is, or soon will be, available to anyone digitally. GPS, drones and other technologies are rapidly improving our ability to warn of environmental danger, and act before it’s too late.

Today, more than half a century after it was founded, WWF is the largest conservation organisation in the world with 5 million supporters funding 1,000 projects across 100 countries. Some 1% of the world’s surface, including many of our most delicate habitats, are now under its supervision.

This is a far cry from when Hoffmann decided to study zoology and shun chemistry. At that time there was the Audubon Society in the US and The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) in the UK – but they were local in nature; focused on birds, rather than habitats, and usually characterized by polite, well to do, hobbyists wearing cacky-coloured shorts, with not much more than a pair of binoculars. For example the RSPB was founded by a group of upper class ladies upset that feathers from rare birds were used in their hats!

Hoffmann knew that conservation is a permanent up-hill battle and that, despite his remarkable achievements, mankind is losing. The Living Planet Index (LPI), put together by the Zoological Society of London and WWF, shows a 52% decline in biodiversity since 1970 and conditions are set to deteriorate. 40% of the world’s land is used for farming and experts project that by 2050 the world’s population will require double the amount of food (**). Throw in the climate change joker, and the future consequences to our environment may be calamitous.

Less Life

Thanks to efforts from those like Hoffmann, conservation, once the preoccupation of scientists and Greens, has become a mainstream concern and some of this threat has been arrested. Jean Jalbert, again of Tour du Valat, said “Hoffmann’s most important legacy is the community of disciples stationed around the world following his footsteps, and sharing his vision, and values.”

Jim Leape, now a fellow at Stanford University, feels that “Hoffmann’s most enduring achievement was that he built institutions that will survive and exceed him.”

He is said to have rescued IUCN twice by his own generosity. When he started the research center ‘Station biologique de la Tour du Valat’ in Camargue, his life work, it was a farm-house without water or power. He left it with 100 researchers and a world class reputation for conservation.

He established the MAVA foundation, among the world’s richest grant-making environmental foundation, dispensing annually c. $50 million. It is named after his four children, Maja, André, Vera and Daschenka, who survive him and is designed to provide funding for conservationist initiatives after his death.

The Luc Hoffmann Institute was established in 2012 as a ‘think tank’ to deal with complex environmental issues. And then there is the WWF, now with offices in over 80 countries, it is professionally managed with a total annual budget of c. $700 million, overseeing and investing in 13,000 projects.

Lessons on how to give money away

The other lesson Hoffman has left us is how to give money away. Sir John Templeton, who started the Templeton Prize, once told me: “it is much easier to make money than to give it way.” There are annals of NGOs who waste money; or charities that syphon off donations on costly administration.

Hoffmann, turned it on its head. He put ‘skin in the game’ and then convinced others to join him; leveraging the impact of his own investment. He then kept a very close eye on the shop – approving projects; inspecting progress on site, and so on.

Hoffmann may have been too late. Global warming is considered by most experts as the weightiest problem facing future generations anywhere in the world. It would be nice to put off worrying about it for a few decades. But the truth is we have no choice but to act more forcefully and sooner.

As I glance through the newspapers and my twitter feed I am struck by the inordinate attention the media pays to those with unquenchable ambition for power, recognition and wealth; to those with exaggerated feelings of self-importance, and excessive preoccupation with admiration of themselves.

Hoffmann was very much the opposite. He spent his whole life shunning the limelight, dispensing his wealth, and gently avoiding any abuses of power. Here is a person who may have singularly contributed more than anyone during any lifetime to the conservation of nature. Who taught many that knowing is a pre-condition to caring; and caring is a pre-condition to preserving. A person who died with little notice, let alone tribute.

In hindsight, maybe the Nobel Committee chose the wrong saint; in hindsight Hoffmann may have been right to have passed on studying chemistry and venturing afar from the privileged confines of Basel.

There is a birdwatcher expression that ‘birds are heaven’s eyes’. Hoffmann never craved sainthood. He probably felt it was enough if the birds noticed his work.

Each morning when they belted out their melodious symphony of song to celebrate the sunrise, this was enough to fuel him for another day’s work: a perennial proof of the importance of humility; and sufficient to remind him that all he had done had been worthwhile.

Hoffmann died peacefully in his bed in Camargue the morning of July 21st, with his binoculars at his side.

 


 

James Breiding is the Founder of Naissance Capital Ltd, a Swiss investment firm, and former Managing Director of Templeton Investments, Director at Rothschilds, and Senior Manager of Price Waterhouse Coopers. Author of Swiss Made – the Untold Story of Switzerland’s success, James writes occasionally for the Economist, Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and Swiss publications.

Notes

(*) Hoffmann’s immediate family’s share is thought to collect half of this. Dividends paid to Roche shareholders have risen for 28 straight years at a rate of 16.4%. Roche pays a 3.3% dividend yield compared to Swiss treasury bills which currently carry a negative yield.

(**) The current world population of 7.3 billion is expected to grow to 9.7 billion by 2050; or 32%. But the majority of the increase in caloric requirements stems from shifting preference to eat meat and ability to afford it. Producing 1kg of beef requires 15 times as much land as producing 1kg of cereals, and 70 times as much land as 1kg of vegetables. The world’s most populous countries (China, India and Indonesia would need to consume 200-1000% more meat to reach consumption levels experienced in the US and Europe.

Meat production also requires a much higher amount of water than vegetables or grains. The IME estimates that to produce 1kg of meat requires between 5,000 and 20,000 litres of water while 1kg of wheat requires between 500 and 4,000 litres of water.

Gerbens-Leenes, W. and Nonhebel S., 2005. Food and land use. The influence of consumption patterns on the use of agricultural resources. Appetite 45:24-31. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2005.01.011

 

Only ‘we the people’ can rise above the false promise of COP22

In the early hours of Saturday morning, the 22nd UN Conference of the Parties (COP) on climate change was brought to an official close, amid a series of final declarations.

Many had called for COP22 in Marrakech to be the ‘COP of action’. There’s a big problem here, though: the fundamental nature of these conferences is not active – it’s diplomatic. And diplomacy is far better at holding action back, than driving it forward.

The reality is that Marrakech was never going to be the COP of action in the way that campaigning groups around the world advocated for. It was the COP for cleaning up the forced, last-minute consensus of the Paris Agreement forged at COP21 last December.

Paris was the photo-op, and Marrakech was the first of the nitty-gritty, argumentative, tense meetings that would follow. COP22 was always going to be the one where the Parties decided what the Paris Agreement actually meant. This is not a recipe for ambition, or grand bargains. It is a recipe for pragmatism – and that’s exactly what we saw.

Kicking the diplomatic can down the road

High-level diplomatic action is a very different beast than putting-to-work action or implementation at the level of national governments, local governments, the private sector, civil society – down to individual households.

Marrakech did feature action, but predominantly diplomatic and rhetorical action – which does not amount to much in the real world, and certainly does little for the legitimacy of the UNFCCC process.

That’s not to say there was a great surge of diplomatic action in Marrakech, either. In fact, there are many reasons to be disappointed by the lack of progress. The technicalities of implementing each country’s National Determined Contributions (NDCs) remain vague.

The open questions that have been kicked down the road at every COP for so many years – like financing, adaptation and compensation to states suffering from loss and damage from climate change – saw the usual spirited debate and confusion, but very little progress.

On new topics raised by the Paris Agreement that needed to be filled out in detail and implemented into the Paris framework – like the ‘Rulebook’ for state action and the ‘Facilitative Dialogue’ for non-state action – the advance was limited, and disappointed observers and Parties alike.

The best that can be said about this year’s COP is that it sent a firm, appropriate signal in the aftermath of the US election, thanks in no small part to the Chinese delegation. In the ‘Marrakech Action Declaration‘, Parties to the COP “call on all non-state actors to join … for immediate and ambitious action and mobilization, building on … important achievements”.

This, at least, is where we agree – if we want the fast and decisive action on climate change needed to have any hope of achieving the Paris goals, the best place it can happen now is outside the COP process.

Climate campaigners must give up their own denialism

As 2016 draws to a close, earth-shattering election results in two of the world’s major powers, first the UK and now the US, have profoundly shaken global – and environmental – politics. The implications of these developments for the COP were captured by UNEP Executive Director Eric Solheim at this year’s Sustainable Innovation Forum, the most high-profile business-focused side event during the COP.

It is not the US electorate that has failed us, he argued, it’s the climate change community, the already converted climate action-ists: “If we cannot make environment a kitchen conversation in Kentucky and Texas, then we are failing.” The climate change community must learn how to work with the new wave of ultra-conservative, post-factual populism. The task at hand is to stop failing people that do not align with the promised neo-liberal, sustainable development utopia.

It has never been so obvious that deploying the same old arguments to convince climate sceptics doesn’t work anymore, despite the ever-growing mountains of evidence. Maybe it never worked to begin with. And maybe the issue of climate change in itself doesn’t have much to do with it.

In a media world unconcerned with truth, disenfranchised and disillusioned citizens are less and less receptive to traditional arguments, facts, or statistics. The climate action community must speak the language of the people, not the dialect of the climate scientist or the diplomat. There are some organizations that understand this – 350.org is perhaps one of them.

We must frame the social changes that we all believe are necessary for tackling climate change in the context of the social and economic benefits they will bring with them. Those disillusioned with globalisation have little interest in the self-reflected glory of international diplomacy or UN agreements. In fact, this is only pushing them further away.

The self-congratulatory celebration that followed the signing of the Paris Agreement is the polar opposite of the way the discussion should be framed to reach those persuaded by Brexit, Trump, and bad science.

A new audience for climate action?

The Paris Agreement is only made possible in a globalised, multilateral world in which diplomacy takes small and incremental steps – the same world that drives disruption, rapid change, and exploitation of communities across the world. When your very well-being and security is threatened, incremental international climate diplomacy does nothing for you.

If this sea change in communicating climate change is the task at hand, a COP of action was never going to achieve it. This is not the purpose of a COP, nor is it the task of traditional diplomacy, or even a task for major multinationals, or the President of the United States.

It is a task for individuals, local governments, schools, universities, community action groups … it is a task for ‘we the people’.

Now is the time to ride this new wave of populism and make it work for the climate movement: to show that the new economic thinking necessary to stop climate change can also raise the disenfranchised and dispossessed from the economic margins.

To make the case towards not only a cleaner and more sustainable but also a better and more just livelihood. It is time to put people right at the centre of climate action.

 


 

Alexander Pfeiffer is head of Young European Leadership‘s delegation to the COP and a doctorate student at the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) at the Oxford Martin School. See his website.

Elizabeth Dirth is the Chair of the 2050 Climate Group and studying an MSc in Sustainable Development with a specific focus on international climate governance.

Alex Clark is the Henry Fellow at Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, having graduated from Oxford University with an MSc in 2015. He is currently working on energy policy, climate change and global health and is also Project Leader for Operations with SDSN Youth.

 

Heaven’s eyes: Luc Hoffmann, unsung hero of nature conservation

Birdwatchers are a strange lot.

Who among us eagerly jumps out of bed at 4:30 am to stand motionless and silent in a frosty field, looking up into the clear blue sky, with a cramped neck and feet throbbing in cold with the vague expectation we’ll spot something, maybe even a species we’ve never seen before?

This was the world that fascinated Hans Lukas (Luc) Hoffmann, heir to the Roche fortune, and one of the Spiritus Rectors of the World Wildlife Fund (‘WWF’).

A zoologist by training and ornithologist by passion, Hoffmann helped initiate, oversee and fund WWF development into the world’s largest organization encouraging preservation of nature. He died in bed in Camargue on July 21st at the age of 93.

A burst of obituaries were published shortly following Luc Hoffmann’s recent death from the likes of The Economist, Le Monde, the Guardian and more. Most of them were hastily prepared to meet deadlines and necessarily consisted of ‘cut & paste’ of official press releases for lack of time and want of copy.

Hoffmann is broadly depicted as a reclusive aristocrat with a penchant for birds who dabbled in conservation as a means to spend his vast inheritance. This caricature, while convenient, and carefully disguised by Hoffmann’s obsession for secrecy, widely misses the mark.

On closer examination, Hoffmann may have had more impact in defining and advancing the environmental movement more than anyone of his generation. Who was this man? What motivated him? What were his achievements? What lessons could we learn from him?

In an attempt to answer these questions and set the record straight, I conducted extensive interviews with senior members of management of the World Wildlife Fund, Roche, conservationists, and others who were close to Hoffmann throughout his life. As far as I know, no such research has ever been performed, let alone published.

Privileged beginnings in Basel

Hoffmann was born in Basel, Switzerland, to Emanuel Hoffmann, a businessman and art collector, and the sculptor Maja Hoffmann-Stehlin. His grandfather, Fritz Hoffmann-La Roche, was a visionary entrepreneur who understood that future prosperity lay in the infant pharmaceutical industry.

Hoffmann-La Roche founded the company of the same name in 1896, so the young Luc grew up in a wealthy and privileged environment. His mother was an avid supporter of young artists and classical music.

Basel has historically been at the cutting edge of humanism; the notion that individual agency matters. The city, despite its modest medieval village appearance, has outpunched its weight across a range of fronts. It has given us Euler in mathematics, and Paracelsus in medicine. It provided refuge and published history bending works for Calvin, Erasmus and Rousseau. It was here that Theodor Herzl conceived the Jewish State of Israel; and Ernst Beyeler started ‘Art Basel’.

When Hoffmann was born in 1923, Basel was mainly about chemicals. The city straddles France and Germany and lies at the beginning of the Rhine, whose tributaries have been the industrial lungs of Europe. When England boycotted sale of natural products like indigo to color fabrics, and quinine to treat malaria to France and Germany in times of war, a fledgling chemistry business began to take hold.

Most of industry at this juncture was focused on machines and new forms of energy to replace labor. The chemical industry was about replicating substances found in nature, or creating entirely new products like plastics or drugs through unique combinations of chemical substances. This created markets over night and unimaginable fortunes for a new class of scientists and especially their backers.

Roche, a company founded by his grandfather started with cough syrup, only began to get traction when, as the only Basel chemical company, it hired Jewish scientists fleeing Nazi Germany. Leo Sternbach, a Polish-Jew, went on to invent Valium and Tadeus Reichstein synthesised Vitamin ‘C’, and later won a Nobel Prize.

DDT – the new wonder-chemical to solve the world’s problems

But the real hero of the day in Basel was the Swiss scientist, Paul Mueller, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1948 when Hoffman was a formative 25 years of age. Gustaf Hellström, of the Royal Academy of Sciences, told the distinguished audience in Stockholm:

“Dr Mueller, DDT kills the mosquito, which spreads malaria; the flea, which spreads the plague; and the sandfly, which spreads tropical diseases. In the mind of the layman you stand out as a benefactor of mankind of such stature that also the humility of a saint is required to escape the danger of falling a victim to the worst of all spiritual diseases – megalomania.”

DDT was an elixir for farmers, threw off a fortune of profits for Roche’s cross town rival JR Geigy (now Syngenta), and helped vault scientists to the highest echelons of Basel society. It also sent out a beacon of aspiration that problems could now be solved and fortunes made through discovery of new chemical formulae.

So it must have been blasphemous when Hoffmann upon reaching legal age switched his studies from chemistry to zoology, a few years before Mueller’s coronation. Tragedy may have persuaded him. Hoffmann’s father died in a car crash when he was nine years old and the following year his older brother died of leukemia.

As the only surviving son, he was expected to be groomed to takeover Roche. But these sudden deaths were traumatic and Hoffmann did not like all the attention people were giving him; the mothers who picked up their children at school ingratiating him and trying to win his good graces.

This is when he took up long walks to be alone with nature. There he found joy and authenticity observing small birds going about their bright, oblivious business, treating him as though he were unimportant, and alas, normal.

As a child, he brought home one day an injured duck and convinced his mother to re-outfit the bathroom as a zoo. It was probably through these experiences or on one of these solitary walks that Hoffmann recalibrated his life based on his passions rather than others’ expectations: when he realized it was more important for him to preserve nature rather than redefine or mimic it.

He proved to be a shrewd observer and rapid learner, publishing his first academic paper – on the unlikely subject of migrant seabirds in the Basel region – at the age of 18 in 1941. His first long expedition with his friend Dieter Burckhardt, was to Brittany in search of gannets, a bird rarely spotted in France. He began reading for a degree in botany and zoology at the city’s university.

But his studies were interrupted two years later when he was conscripted into the Swiss army, rising to the rank of lieutenant. Once the war was over, he returned to academic life, earning a PhD for his studies of the behavior of common tern chicks in the Camargue.

Marching to the beat of a different drummer

But from an early age, it became clear that Hoffmann wanted to march to the beat of a different drummer. Guy Sarasin, of the old Basel banking dynasty family, and whose mother was Luc’s godmother, told me: “we were fairly close until we were 20, but then he disappeared from Basel society. There are 20 people in Basel who really matter, and most of them intermarry in one generation of the other.”

In Swiss German there is an idiom ‘Basel Teig’ to describe the interconnectedness of the city’s most influential families. Hardly the preconditions for something bold and new.

He married Daria Razumovsky, the daughter of Russian aristocrats, who, having lost their lands in the revolution, had fled to Vienna. Daria had found work in a concert hall where she met Paul Sacher, Hoffman’s stepfather. Maja, his mother, had a hand in the matchmaking. When he inherited a bit of money at the age of 31 it was enough to buy a 1,250 hectares tract of land in Camargue, France; a kind of Mecca for environmentalists, where the Rhone meets the Mediterranean.

In 1954 Hoffmann set up there the Tour du Valat biological research station, which became one of the leading institutions of its kind in the world. It was Hoffmann 1st of many campaigns to rescue a threatened species, in this case greater flamingos, that were on the verge of extinction. Tour du Valat, and the Camague, would become his life-long laboratory.

He and Daria lived in a farmhouse and raised their children there. Hoffmann spoke Swiss-German to his four children (and French or English at work) but kept them in the dark about his fortune. Educated at the school Hoffmann built on his estate for his employees, his children looked blank when a cleaner once slyly murmured that she supposed their father owned quite a large pharmacy in Basel.

The level of secrecy around Roche was legendary, even by Basel’s tight lipped standards. The joke in town was that “the only number one could find in Roche’s 1980 annual report was the year.”

Camargue – Hoffmann’s life-long laboratory

The Camargue is Europe’s largest river delta and in environmentalist-speak, a wetland. Once dismissed as mosquito-infested marshes, they are now recognised as cradles of biological diversity.

For conservationists they are crucial because they are delicate and fragile interfaces between land and sea; with ever shifting landscapes that wield considerable bio-diversity due to the variability of conditions and the need to adapt to saline or salt water. They are natural breeding and feeding grounds for hundreds of species of migrating birds before crossing longer distances over water.

Small changes in temperature due to global warming or reductions in water due to constructions of golf courses, roads, or condominiums can cause considerable damage that vibrates throughout the entire eco-system.

At Tour du Valat his four children were brought up as little camarguais with the children of the estate workers. The family’s dwellings were basic, and only the glimpse of a Braque in the drawing room (Braque, Hoffmann’ friend, had also fallen for the Camargue), or the glass of Domaine Leflaive Montrachet offered to a visitor, hinted that Mr Hoffmann may have come from less humble origins.

Conception of the World Wildlife Fund – a marriage of sorts

Hoffmann was quietly going about his business as a kind of ‘one-man band’ when Sir Peter Scott approached him and proposed a merger of sorts.

Scott was working with the IUCN, the World Conservation Union, which had a small team of reputed conservationists who recently concluded the Morges Manifesto, signed by 16 of the world’s leading conservationists of the day, including biologist, author, and wildlife enthusiast Sir Julian Huxley, director-general of the British Nature Conservancy E. M. Nicholson and Scott, then vice president of IUCN.

The IUCN’s Red List, established in 1954 by Colonel Leofric Boyle, a British army officer, was a globally recognised warning call about endangered species. But it was more a podium than a hammer and there is a big difference between citing a problem and resolving it. Scott pitched Hoffmann the idea to create an institution to ‘walk the talk’; or fund the programs IUCN was beating its drum about.

This was 1961 and governments were more interested to go to the moon than to fuss about preserving nature. Scott felt more was needed. Hoffmann was a recognized scientist with a deep pocket book, so his qualifications as a prospective ally were ideal.

Both realized hard facts and analysis were necessary to convince opinion leaders. “They need to know, before they start to care”, Hoffmann would say in his quiet, firm and unassuming manner. Hoffmann also was among the first to stress that it was loss of habitat that caused loss of species; so one had to combat causes not effects.

Scott, Hoffmann and the other Morges Manifesto members saw eye to eye, and paved the way for the founding of the WWF. Hoffmann was appointed vice-president, after rejecting, with characteristic modesty, Scott’s proposal that he become president.

Slowly Hoffmann’s decision to study nature instead of chemicals was vindicating itself. Increasingly people were beginning to know, understand and care. A year after WWF’s founding in 1962, Silent Spring, a book by Rachel Carson about the impact on bird populations of DDT, the widely used pest-killer, helped foster a sense that maybe society had got things upside down.

Overnight DDT’s place in history as a panacea for farmers and the saintly achievement of chemistry became the poster child of shame. President Lyndon Johnson signed the Water Quality Act in 1965 shortly after calling the Potomac a “national disgrace” because it was so filthy.

Hard facts, analysis and even a Nobel Prize

In 1971 the Nobel committee stunned the scientific community by awarding what many consider its most coveted and relevant Prize in Physiology or Medicine to Karl von Frisch, Konrad Lorenz and Nikolaas Tinbergen for their discoveries in the field of Ethology, or the scientific study of animal behavior.

Von Frisch, for example, devoted a lifetime to decoding the information that animals pass to each other. He elucidated what has been called ‘the language of bees’. When a bee has found flowers containing nectar, it performs a special dance when returning to the hive. The dance informs the bees in the hive of the existence of food, often also about the direction where the flowers will be found and about the distance to them.

The scientific community was also ‘buzzing’. Few understood the importance of observing the behavior of insects, fishes and birds would have on medicine, with people like Hoffmann regarded condescendingly as ‘mere animal watchers’. Grants and other forms of funding were off limits due to the unrecognized status of the field.

Never mind. The Nobel Committee validated the scientific value of their work so suddenly money could be found to fund evidence based science to study nature from sources other than aristocrats and wealthy heirs to fortunes.

Dissenters in Basel, who rolled their eyes over Hoffmann’s decision to turn his back to chemistry and Basel, and were counting the days of the return of its prodigal son, suddenly found that the world was beginning to march towards him.

Scandals put wind into the conservation movement’s sails

Even the Chinese were waking up to man’s orgy of destruction. In 1958 the Chinese government announced that sparrows were to be targeted as part of the ‘Four Pests’ campaign because they ate grain, offering rewards for killing them. People obediently tore down the birds’ nests, caught them in nets and banged saucepans to stop them landing anywhere. Sparrow numbers collapsed.

But the birds, it turned out, ate insects that ate crops, and their slaughter thus contributed to the great famine of 1960 that killed 20m people. During the same period, China was also stepping up its timber production and the area covered by forest shrank by more than a third. The resulting soil erosion gummed up the Yangzi River. In 1998 it flooded, killing 3,600 people and doing around $30 billion-worth of damage.

It was fact based analyses like these that helped convince people that sacrifices paid off, and costs and benefits justified preservation.

Scandals also helped. Hardly a year went by when there wasn’t a major environmental disaster to remind us that reckless economic growth was destroying the things in life that were most precious. Bhopal, Three Mile Island, Exon Valdez stained the conscience of a generation.

The most embarrassing of all was closest to Hoffmann. In July of 1976, an explosion at one of Roche’s chemical plants in Seveso, near Milan, leaked a toxic gas into the river. 3,300 animals died and many more were put down in order to prevent the spread of contamination into the food chain. 500 people were found to have skin lesions.

While Hoffmann had no direct involvement, as a member of Roche’s board of directors and representative of the family’s controlling interest, the impact must have been devastating. One of Hoffmann’s children recounted to me vivid remembrance as a child when “rumours among our childhood friends circulated that the Hoffmann’s had stored toxic chemicals underground in the Camargue.”

These, and other incidents, ushered in a wave of protective regulations and emboldened Hoffmann to double down on his effort and spending.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created in 1970 to regulate pesticides, among other things. The Endangered Species Act was signed into law in 1973 by Richard Nixon. Trade in endangered species has been limited through the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), which came into force in 1975 and covers some 35,000 species, the best-known being elephant and rhino.

WWF as agents of improvement, rather than merely peddlers of complaints

This was all fertilizer stimulating WWF’s flowering as agents of improvement, rather than merely peddlers of complaints. For two decades Hoffmann chaired WWF’s sought-after ‘Conservation Program Committee’ – the organ that decides where environmental problems were; how they could best be resolved; and how much money could be invested.

In 1971, at Ramsar in Iran, he oversaw the signing of the first global treaty protecting wetlands. Coming into force in 1975, the convention now covers 170 countries, making it one of the most effective measures to protect habitats across the globe.

In addition to the Camargue, Hoffmann helped save the wetlands at Coto Doñana in Andalucia, home to imperial eagles; the Banc d’Arguin in Mauritania, the stopover point for millions of migrating waders; the Faia Brava in Portugal, haunt of griffon vultures; and many others.

Charles de Haes, who served as head of the WWF International from 1975-1993, and worked closely with Hoffmann, told me: “he was a charming, empathetic, and gentle man who spoke very little, but underneath there was a quiet, yet relentless determination.”

Claude Martin, who succeeded de Haes as head of WWF International from 1993-2005 said: “I would prepare 100 questions for Luc to discuss during a train ride, because I knew that his usual answer was less than a handful of words; and the rest of the time would be spent gazing out the train window.” Jean Jalbert, who heads Tour du Valat, said: “We once drove six hours to Spain and did not exchange a single word.”

Hoffmann was better at listening, and this he did as vigilantly as he observed birds. With his deep penetrating eyes, surrounded by his hallmark bushy, unkempt eyebrows, as though genetically designed to cushion binoculars, he would listen patiently and carefully to any case.

Those presenting knew that he likely understood more about the facts upon which a decision would hang. Hoffmann had over 60 scientific papers and books published, and kept careful notebooks listing species in three languages.

“He would never wield his authority, but it was nevertheless palpable”, said Martin. “His way was to ring up and ask me whether I thought it would be a good idea to do something in Madagascar.” As WWF’s co-founder, single largest donor, and scientific conscience this was tantamount to instructions.

Inheriting a fortune is not easy

Inheriting a fortune is not easy. Most succumb to the comforts of rents and work on improving cosmetic appearances. Those who have a go at it are usually damned if you do in the case of success (handed to you on a silver platter), and if you don’t in the case of failure (spoiled).

Most wealthy people take up a token involvement in a charity or have their names inscribed in a university lecture hall or new wing to a museum. These sort of donations are often driven by vanity or tax deductions. Few of them in any event really make the commitment and sacrifices to ‘walk the talk’.

Hoffmann was different. Jim Leape, who headed WWF from 2005-2014, told me that Hoffmann travelled more than he did and sat next to him at the table for important meetings. He would invite people to join him for a 5am birdwatch followed by a meeting to discuss project goals, and milestones achieved. Martin recalls sitting at a fire place with tribal and government heads in Mauritania over camel meat discussing how the depletion of its fish stocks would create havoc for future generations.

Though few really knew Hoffmann, as his life was so tightly fitted around his children and work, he seemed to have a natural joie de vivre and well cultivated, albeit dry, sense of humor. The rite of passage was getting invited to his modest home in the Camague. Conservationists, artists, scientists and other well wishers paid pilgrimage over the years.

The need to convince people’s hearts as well as their minds

Professor Charles Weissmann, the family’s scientific advisor for Roche, cofounder of Biogen, and a distinguished scientist was once invited there. Weissman recounts humorously his stay. “Luc anointed me as godfather for one of his flamingos. Unfortunately the bird disappeared very soon, leading to a total loss of our investment.”

Everything about flamingos fascinated Hoffmann. He first saw them when he was still a student, chasing the nibble chicks through stones and shrubs, knee deep in water, in an effort to ring them so they could be tracked. Some 30,000 flamingos were ringed since 1977, and the rings read some 500,000 times in 18 countries.

It may have been their wondrous pink and scarlet plumage, their strange tongues, spined and hooked to filter food from water, or the surging flights in flocks of thousands, majestically flying from one lagoon to the next.

Hoffmann and the founders knew that WWF needed to convince people’s hearts as well as their minds – and that needed an animal even more charismatic than the flamingo. One of WWF’s marketing coups was when it selected the Panda as its mascot and logo.

Peter Scott came up with the idea after Chi-Chi arrived in the London Zoo in 1961. Here was an animal that was endangered, and exuded empathy instantaneously around the world. When Hoffmann saw the 1st sketches by Gerald Watterson, he quipped that “the black and white resolution will also save us on printing costs.”

Endangered, endearing, inexpensive

Hoffmann was remarkably frugal given his enormous wealth. Leape says he would stay in 2 star hotels or Bed + Breakfasts, or even hostels rather than the posh resorts. ‘He drove a Fiat Panda, and would never fly ‘1st class’ because he couldn’t stomach the sort of people sitting there’ commented Martin.

He didn’t have much time for the World Economic Forum, located a few kilometers from WWF’s office in Gland because he felt it was all about vanity and show. “For me all that matters are outcomes”, was Hoffmann’s ethos.

His frugality was not because he ran short of money. On the contrary, through a stroke of good fortune his family’s controlling stake in Roche was increasing massively in value during his tenure at the WWF. Family members control just over half of a company that is currently valued at $220 billion. Dividends alone for family members last year amounted to c $650 million; and $6.3 billion cumulatively since 1990.(*)

Not bad for a company that was on the verge of bankruptcy in the 70’s when valium, its gravy train drug, was coming off patent. The company was languishing until in 1990 it acquired 60% of Genentech, a San Francisco research company specialized in biotechnology.

Roche’s board rejected the proposal of Fritz Gerber, then CEO, to acquire the fledgling company, but the Hoffman family overruled the board, and backed Gerber’s controversial decision. It turned out to be possibly the most important decision made in the company’s 120 year history. The vast majority of Roche’s profits today trace back to this fortuitous decision.

Without it, Hoffmann would have been one of many well trained, good natured, passionate conservationists. With it, he had an unsurpassed arsenal of means. Wherever and whenever he thought good, he gave money. It was done either overtly, as grants or loans with his name attached, or covertly, through donations from organisations whose finances he controlled. Martin pointed out there were times when WWF decided not to support a project and if Hoffmann was still convinced it made sense, he would write out a check and fund it himself.

It was this steadfast and consequent engagement that produced desirable outcomes. For seven decades he tapped a private fortune to make large and consistent donations to environmental causes. When the WWF ran into financial difficulty shortly after its foundation, because the number of its projects outstripped its funding, Hoffmann discreetly met the shortfall.

In 1959 he was tipped off by scientific contacts about General Franco’s plans to modernise Spain through developing tourism along the coast, and transforming wild country, including the estuarial wetlands of Coto Doñana south of Seville, into agricultural farmland. On behalf of the World Wildlife Fund, he negotiated the area’s transformation into a park, easing the sale with a loan from Roche’s Spanish subsidiary.

Why progress is so difficult

Hoffmann had his share of frustrations. As human beings we are wired to deal with urgent problems, not those that unfold at glacial speed; regardless of their magnitude. So progress was always slower then expected.

Nature knows no borders, something gazing up at migrating birds also taught him. This means that problem solving needs to be coordinated, a matter which is difficult under the best of circumstances, and especially difficult when dealing with disparately poor countries lacking institutions to check abuses.

Rhino horns, for example, can fetch up to $70,000 a kilo-almost twice the price of gold. Poaching takes place in Africa, production in Laos, and marketing in places like China, Vietnam, and Thailand where it is prized as an aphrodisiac. Violators are sometimes caught, but those higher up the chain rarely are, and usually in one jurisdiction, but not others.

WWF has a federalistic structure, similar to other Swiss NGO’s like the IOC, Red Cross and FIFA. But with similar problems. WWF International is the hub, but its national satellites are autonomous and self-funding operations, so getting everyone to sing from the same page is not always easy, especially for the substantial organisations in the US, the UK and Holland.

Hoffmann warned that personalities with élan were necessary to make it work, but the larger the organization, the more bureaucratic they become and charisma counts for less. The WWF International board still constitutes itself and unlike the IOC and the Red Cross there is no mandatory representation of national organisations; so some suggest cohesion suffers.

Cynics will argue that Hoffmann’s efforts have been too little too late. Hoffmann, in his self-effacing manner would have agreed. When asked to recount his main regret in life, he said: “If I had the opportunity to do it again, I would do the same thing, only with twice as much effort and persistence.”

Progress is pervasive

But he was being too hard on himself. When Hoffmann and other like-minded conservationists started WWF in 1961 people were more interested to go to the moon than to fuss about preserving nature. Roll the clock forward two generations and the number of birds and mammals known to have gone extinct are one fifth the levels and deforestation in the Amazon is said to be a tenth of the level 20 years ago.

ISO standards now require companies to certify that their factories are up to environmental scratch.  And what Annual Report displayed at company receptions doesn’t include a section boasting about its sustainable practices? Universities are loaded with professors and aspiring students thinking about how to distinguish themselves in the field of ecology.

The whole world’s memory of conservation tracking is, or soon will be, available to anyone digitally. GPS, drones and other technologies are rapidly improving our ability to warn of environmental danger, and act before it’s too late.

Today, more than half a century after it was founded, WWF is the largest conservation organisation in the world with 5 million supporters funding 1,000 projects across 100 countries. Some 1% of the world’s surface, including many of our most delicate habitats, are now under its supervision.

This is a far cry from when Hoffmann decided to study zoology and shun chemistry. At that time there was the Audubon Society in the US and The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) in the UK – but they were local in nature; focused on birds, rather than habitats, and usually characterized by polite, well to do, hobbyists wearing cacky-coloured shorts, with not much more than a pair of binoculars. For example the RSPB was founded by a group of upper class ladies upset that feathers from rare birds were used in their hats!

Hoffmann knew that conservation is a permanent up-hill battle and that, despite his remarkable achievements, mankind is losing. The Living Planet Index (LPI), put together by the Zoological Society of London and WWF, shows a 52% decline in biodiversity since 1970 and conditions are set to deteriorate. 40% of the world’s land is used for farming and experts project that by 2050 the world’s population will require double the amount of food (**). Throw in the climate change joker, and the future consequences to our environment may be calamitous.

Less Life

Thanks to efforts from those like Hoffmann, conservation, once the preoccupation of scientists and Greens, has become a mainstream concern and some of this threat has been arrested. Jean Jalbert, again of Tour du Valat, said “Hoffmann’s most important legacy is the community of disciples stationed around the world following his footsteps, and sharing his vision, and values.”

Jim Leape, now a fellow at Stanford University, feels that “Hoffmann’s most enduring achievement was that he built institutions that will survive and exceed him.”

He is said to have rescued IUCN twice by his own generosity. When he started the research center ‘Station biologique de la Tour du Valat’ in Camargue, his life work, it was a farm-house without water or power. He left it with 100 researchers and a world class reputation for conservation.

He established the MAVA foundation, among the world’s richest grant-making environmental foundation, dispensing annually c. $50 million. It is named after his four children, Maja, André, Vera and Daschenka, who survive him and is designed to provide funding for conservationist initiatives after his death.

The Luc Hoffmann Institute was established in 2012 as a ‘think tank’ to deal with complex environmental issues. And then there is the WWF, now with offices in over 80 countries, it is professionally managed with a total annual budget of c. $700 million, overseeing and investing in 13,000 projects.

Lessons on how to give money away

The other lesson Hoffman has left us is how to give money away. Sir John Templeton, who started the Templeton Prize, once told me: “it is much easier to make money than to give it way.” There are annals of NGOs who waste money; or charities that syphon off donations on costly administration.

Hoffmann, turned it on its head. He put ‘skin in the game’ and then convinced others to join him; leveraging the impact of his own investment. He then kept a very close eye on the shop – approving projects; inspecting progress on site, and so on.

Hoffmann may have been too late. Global warming is considered by most experts as the weightiest problem facing future generations anywhere in the world. It would be nice to put off worrying about it for a few decades. But the truth is we have no choice but to act more forcefully and sooner.

As I glance through the newspapers and my twitter feed I am struck by the inordinate attention the media pays to those with unquenchable ambition for power, recognition and wealth; to those with exaggerated feelings of self-importance, and excessive preoccupation with admiration of themselves.

Hoffmann was very much the opposite. He spent his whole life shunning the limelight, dispensing his wealth, and gently avoiding any abuses of power. Here is a person who may have singularly contributed more than anyone during any lifetime to the conservation of nature. Who taught many that knowing is a pre-condition to caring; and caring is a pre-condition to preserving. A person who died with little notice, let alone tribute.

In hindsight, maybe the Nobel Committee chose the wrong saint; in hindsight Hoffmann may have been right to have passed on studying chemistry and venturing afar from the privileged confines of Basel.

There is a birdwatcher expression that ‘birds are heaven’s eyes’. Hoffmann never craved sainthood. He probably felt it was enough if the birds noticed his work.

Each morning when they belted out their melodious symphony of song to celebrate the sunrise, this was enough to fuel him for another day’s work: a perennial proof of the importance of humility; and sufficient to remind him that all he had done had been worthwhile.

Hoffmann died peacefully in his bed in Camargue the morning of July 21st, with his binoculars at his side.

 


 

James Breiding is the Founder of Naissance Capital Ltd, a Swiss investment firm, and former Managing Director of Templeton Investments, Director at Rothschilds, and Senior Manager of Price Waterhouse Coopers. Author of Swiss Made – the Untold Story of Switzerland’s success, James writes occasionally for the Economist, Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and Swiss publications.

Notes

(*) Hoffmann’s immediate family’s share is thought to collect half of this. Dividends paid to Roche shareholders have risen for 28 straight years at a rate of 16.4%. Roche pays a 3.3% dividend yield compared to Swiss treasury bills which currently carry a negative yield.

(**) The current world population of 7.3 billion is expected to grow to 9.7 billion by 2050; or 32%. But the majority of the increase in caloric requirements stems from shifting preference to eat meat and ability to afford it. Producing 1kg of beef requires 15 times as much land as producing 1kg of cereals, and 70 times as much land as 1kg of vegetables. The world’s most populous countries (China, India and Indonesia would need to consume 200-1000% more meat to reach consumption levels experienced in the US and Europe.

Meat production also requires a much higher amount of water than vegetables or grains. The IME estimates that to produce 1kg of meat requires between 5,000 and 20,000 litres of water while 1kg of wheat requires between 500 and 4,000 litres of water.

Gerbens-Leenes, W. and Nonhebel S., 2005. Food and land use. The influence of consumption patterns on the use of agricultural resources. Appetite 45:24-31. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2005.01.011

 

Only ‘we the people’ can rise above the false promise of COP22

In the early hours of Saturday morning, the 22nd UN Conference of the Parties (COP) on climate change was brought to an official close, amid a series of final declarations.

Many had called for COP22 in Marrakech to be the ‘COP of action’. There’s a big problem here, though: the fundamental nature of these conferences is not active – it’s diplomatic. And diplomacy is far better at holding action back, than driving it forward.

The reality is that Marrakech was never going to be the COP of action in the way that campaigning groups around the world advocated for. It was the COP for cleaning up the forced, last-minute consensus of the Paris Agreement forged at COP21 last December.

Paris was the photo-op, and Marrakech was the first of the nitty-gritty, argumentative, tense meetings that would follow. COP22 was always going to be the one where the Parties decided what the Paris Agreement actually meant. This is not a recipe for ambition, or grand bargains. It is a recipe for pragmatism – and that’s exactly what we saw.

Kicking the diplomatic can down the road

High-level diplomatic action is a very different beast than putting-to-work action or implementation at the level of national governments, local governments, the private sector, civil society – down to individual households.

Marrakech did feature action, but predominantly diplomatic and rhetorical action – which does not amount to much in the real world, and certainly does little for the legitimacy of the UNFCCC process.

That’s not to say there was a great surge of diplomatic action in Marrakech, either. In fact, there are many reasons to be disappointed by the lack of progress. The technicalities of implementing each country’s National Determined Contributions (NDCs) remain vague.

The open questions that have been kicked down the road at every COP for so many years – like financing, adaptation and compensation to states suffering from loss and damage from climate change – saw the usual spirited debate and confusion, but very little progress.

On new topics raised by the Paris Agreement that needed to be filled out in detail and implemented into the Paris framework – like the ‘Rulebook’ for state action and the ‘Facilitative Dialogue’ for non-state action – the advance was limited, and disappointed observers and Parties alike.

The best that can be said about this year’s COP is that it sent a firm, appropriate signal in the aftermath of the US election, thanks in no small part to the Chinese delegation. In the ‘Marrakech Action Declaration‘, Parties to the COP “call on all non-state actors to join … for immediate and ambitious action and mobilization, building on … important achievements”.

This, at least, is where we agree – if we want the fast and decisive action on climate change needed to have any hope of achieving the Paris goals, the best place it can happen now is outside the COP process.

Climate campaigners must give up their own denialism

As 2016 draws to a close, earth-shattering election results in two of the world’s major powers, first the UK and now the US, have profoundly shaken global – and environmental – politics. The implications of these developments for the COP were captured by UNEP Executive Director Eric Solheim at this year’s Sustainable Innovation Forum, the most high-profile business-focused side event during the COP.

It is not the US electorate that has failed us, he argued, it’s the climate change community, the already converted climate action-ists: “If we cannot make environment a kitchen conversation in Kentucky and Texas, then we are failing.” The climate change community must learn how to work with the new wave of ultra-conservative, post-factual populism. The task at hand is to stop failing people that do not align with the promised neo-liberal, sustainable development utopia.

It has never been so obvious that deploying the same old arguments to convince climate sceptics doesn’t work anymore, despite the ever-growing mountains of evidence. Maybe it never worked to begin with. And maybe the issue of climate change in itself doesn’t have much to do with it.

In a media world unconcerned with truth, disenfranchised and disillusioned citizens are less and less receptive to traditional arguments, facts, or statistics. The climate action community must speak the language of the people, not the dialect of the climate scientist or the diplomat. There are some organizations that understand this – 350.org is perhaps one of them.

We must frame the social changes that we all believe are necessary for tackling climate change in the context of the social and economic benefits they will bring with them. Those disillusioned with globalisation have little interest in the self-reflected glory of international diplomacy or UN agreements. In fact, this is only pushing them further away.

The self-congratulatory celebration that followed the signing of the Paris Agreement is the polar opposite of the way the discussion should be framed to reach those persuaded by Brexit, Trump, and bad science.

A new audience for climate action?

The Paris Agreement is only made possible in a globalised, multilateral world in which diplomacy takes small and incremental steps – the same world that drives disruption, rapid change, and exploitation of communities across the world. When your very well-being and security is threatened, incremental international climate diplomacy does nothing for you.

If this sea change in communicating climate change is the task at hand, a COP of action was never going to achieve it. This is not the purpose of a COP, nor is it the task of traditional diplomacy, or even a task for major multinationals, or the President of the United States.

It is a task for individuals, local governments, schools, universities, community action groups … it is a task for ‘we the people’.

Now is the time to ride this new wave of populism and make it work for the climate movement: to show that the new economic thinking necessary to stop climate change can also raise the disenfranchised and dispossessed from the economic margins.

To make the case towards not only a cleaner and more sustainable but also a better and more just livelihood. It is time to put people right at the centre of climate action.

 


 

Alexander Pfeiffer is head of Young European Leadership‘s delegation to the COP and a doctorate student at the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) at the Oxford Martin School. See his website.

Elizabeth Dirth is the Chair of the 2050 Climate Group and studying an MSc in Sustainable Development with a specific focus on international climate governance.

Alex Clark is the Henry Fellow at Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, having graduated from Oxford University with an MSc in 2015. He is currently working on energy policy, climate change and global health and is also Project Leader for Operations with SDSN Youth.