Almost one-sixth of global GDP is now covered by net zero emissions targets set by nations, regions and cities, a new analysis by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) has found.

Fifteen nations have declared the intention of reaching net zero emissions in or before 2050. While most commitments come in policy documents, Norway and Sweden have set the target in national legislation, with others set to follow. A further two  – Bhutan and Suriname – already absorb more greenhouse gases than they emit to the atmosphere.

These nations are joined by at least eleven states and regions such as California, Catalunya and Scotland, and at least 23 cities including Barcelona, Los Angeles and New York.

Global economy

Richard Black, director of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), said: “Having a net zero target with a date before mid-century is probably the best single indicator of whether a nation is serious about delivering what it promised at the Paris summit, so it’s notable that such a large slice of the global economy is already being conducted under net zero targets.

“Of course a target means little without a process to meet it. But science shows unequivocally that halting climate change means reducing emissions to net zero; so if a government isn’t planning to bring its own emissions to net zero, it can’t really claim to be planning to do its share of stopping climate change.”

In December 2015, all governments pledged in the Paris Agreement to attempt to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

In October 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations expert body, showed that in order to stand a reasonable chance of achieving this goal, governments need to bring carbon dioxide emissions to net zero by 2050. 

Black added: “The fact that governments, regions, cities and businesses are beginning to set net zero targets indicates a growing level of concern among citizens and governments about climate change. It also reflects a growing body of evidence showing that it can be done, and done affordably.”

Legally binding

Last year, the Energy Transitions Commission, a global organisation including major businesses such as BP, Shell, Tata and Vattenfall, concluded that even sectors where decarbonisation is generally thought to be hard, such as aviation, shipping, steel and cement, could reach net zero by mid-century at a cost below 0.5 percent of global GDP. 

The new ECIU analysis shows that at least 34 companies with annual income above $1bn have set net zero emissions targets – and a few have already met them.

The report also shows that more nations are due to set net zero targets, or to put existing targets in legislation, in the coming months.

The UK will shortly become the largest economy with a legally-binding net zero target, having laid legislation before Parliament two weeks ago.

Tracker

The UK is also a candidate to host COP26, the UN climate summit in December 2020 at which governments are due, under the Paris Agreement, to outline plans for cutting emissions more deeply, both in the near term and out to 2050.

The report argues that the UK could advance this process my making the summit the ‘net zero COP’, involving civil society, academia, business and the finance sector in planning to expand the spread of net zero targets and methods of delivering net zero economies.

The report was launched on the sidelines of a UN climate meeting in Bonn, Germany, along with ECIU’s online Net Zero Tracker.

The tracker collates and displays information on countries, regions, cities and states that have set net zero targets, and countries that are planning to do so. It will continuously be updated as more sign up.

This Author 

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit. 

A target to cut greenhouse gas emissions to “net zero” by 2050 has become law – making the UK the first major economy to legislate to end its contribution to global warming, the government said.

The move comes after the government’s advisory Committee on Climate Change called for the new legal target to be brought in as soon as possible and to urgently ramp up action to cut emissions.

Hitting net zero – a 100 percent cut in emissions – will mean an end to heating of homes with traditional gas boilers, more green electricity and a switch from petrol and diesel cars to electric vehicles, walking and cycling.

Zero

Energy and Clean Growth minister Chris Skidmore has signed the order paper which makes the law come into force on Thursday, after it passed the Commons and Lords this week.

The new target amends the previous goal to cut climate pollution by 80 percent by 2050, which was agreed by MPs under the Climate Change Act in 2008.

Emissions will have to be brought as near to zero as possible and any remaining pollution in 2050 from areas including aviation will need to be “offset” through measures to cut carbon such as planting trees.

The committee told the government the move would be in line with commitments to limit global temperature rises to 1.5C (2.7f) above pre-industrial levels under the international Paris Agreement and will provide leadership for other countries on tackling climate change.

A recent letter leaked to the Financial Times showed the Treasury warning the PM that making the shift to a zero carbon economy would cost at least £1 trillion.

Industrial

But the committee also said it will cost around 1-2 percent of annual economic output up to 2050 – the same as predicted a decade ago for the 80 percent target – while the price of inaction would be many times higher.

The move comes in the wake of increasingly severe warnings from scientific experts about the impacts of rising global temperatures and the need for “unprecedented” action to curb the problem.

The climate “emergency” has also been rising up the public agenda, with youngsters walking out of classes and lectures for school strikes, Extinction Rebellion protests and a mass lobby of MPs by constituents on Wednesday.

Mr Skidmore said: “The UK kick-started the Industrial Revolution, which was responsible for economic growth across the globe but also for increasing emissions.

“Today we’re leading the world yet again in becoming the first major economy to pass new laws to reduce emissions to net zero by 2050 while remaining committed to growing the economy – putting clean growth at the heart of our modern industrial strategy.”

The Government hopes other countries will follow suit and has pledged a review within five years to ensure other nations are taking similarly ambitious action, and British industries are not facing unfair competition.

This Author

Emily Beament is the Press Association environment correspondent.

The US military’s carbon bootprint is enormous. Like corporate supply chains, it relies upon an extensive global network of container ships, trucks and cargo planes to supply its operations with everything from bombs to humanitarian aid and hydrocarbon fuels.

Our new study calculated the contribution of this vast infrastructure to climate change.

Greenhouse gas emission accounting usually focuses on how much energy and fuel civilians use. But recent work, including our own, shows that the US military is one of the largest polluters in history, consuming more liquid fuels and emitting more climate-changing gases than most medium-sized countries.

Military emissions

If the US military were a country, its fuel usage alone would make it the 47th largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, sitting between Peru and Portugal.

In 2017, the US military bought about 269,230 barrels of oil a day and emitted more than 25,000 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide by burning those fuels. The US Air Force purchased US$4.9 billion worth of fuel, and the navy US$2.8 billion, followed by the army at US$947m and the Marines at US$36m.

It’s no coincidence that US military emissions tend to be overlooked in climate change studies. It’s very difficult to get consistent data from the Pentagon and across US government departments.

In fact, the United States insisted on an exemption for reporting military emissions in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. This loophole was closed by the Paris Accord, but with the Trump administration due to withdraw from the accord in 2020, this gap will will return.

Our study is based on data retrieved from multiple Freedom of Information Act requests to the US Defense Logistics Agency, the massive bureaucratic agency tasked with managing the US military’s supply chains, including its hydrocarbon fuel purchases and distribution.

Three multiplier 

The US military has long understood that it isn’t immune from the potential consequences of climate change – recognising it as a “threat multiplier” that can exacerbate other risks.

Many, though not all, military bases have been preparing for climate change impacts like sea level rise. Nor has the military ignored its own contribution to the problem. As we have previously shown, the military has invested in developing alternative energy sources like biofuels, but these comprise only a tiny fraction of spending on fuels.

The American military’s climate policy remains contradictory. There have been attempts to “green” aspects of its operations by increasing renewable electricity generation on bases, but it remains the single largest institutional consumer of hydrocarbons in the world. It has also locked itself into hydrocarbon-based weapons systems for years to come, by depending on existing aircraft and warships for open-ended operations.

Climate change has become a hot-button topic on the campaign trail for the 2020 presidential election. Leading Democratic candidates, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren, and members of Congress like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are calling for major climate initiatives like the Green New Deal. For any of that to be effective, the US military’s carbon bootprint must be addressed in domestic policy and international climate treaties.

Our study shows that action on climate change demands shuttering vast sections of the military machine. There are few activities on Earth as environmentally catastrophic as waging war. Significant reductions to the Pentagon’s budget and shrinking its capacity to wage war would cause a huge drop in demand from the biggest consumer of liquid fuels in the world.

Peace dividend

It does no good tinkering around the edges of the war machine’s environmental impact.

The money spent procuring and distributing fuel across the US empire could instead be spent as a peace dividend, helping to fund a Green New Deal in whatever form it might take.

There are no shortage of policy priorities that could use a funding bump. Any of these options would be better than fuelling one of the largest military forces in history.

These Authors

Benjamin Neimark is a senior lecturer at Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University; Oliver Belcher is an assistant professor of Geography, Durham University; Patrick Bigger is a lecturer of Human Geography at Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University.

This article was first published on The Conversation. 

Music lovers attending this year’s Belladrum Tartan Heart Festival – the Highland’s longest running and biggest music festival – are being encouraged to help rewild the Scottish Highlands by having their own trees planted by conservation charity Trees for Life. 

With growing concerns about the threats of climate change and loss of nature, the organisers of ‘Bella’ 2019 are calling on attendees to mitigate the carbon impact of travelling to the event near Inverness through donations to fund native trees.

Every tree will help Trees for Life restore the globally important Caledonian Forest together with its precious wildlife such as red squirrels and pine martens.

Biodiversity hotspot

The trees donated will be planted at Trees for Life’s acclaimed Dundreggan Conservation Estate – a 10,000-acre forest regeneration site and biodiversity hotspot in Glenmoriston near Loch Ness.

Steve Micklewright, Trees for Life’s Chief Executive, said: “We’re delighted Bella is helping to bring back one of the world’s most magical forest habitats. As well as trees, rewilding is about people, culture and place – so it’s wonderful to connect nature, music and the wild spirit of the Highlands like this.”

Claire Clark from Bella said: “The wild Caledonian Forest once covered much of the Highlands, but today only one per cent remains – which we think is a really big problem. So we’re asking Bella-goers to help. Every £6 donation will allow Trees for Life to plant a native tree – a lasting legacy, and a great, green way to give back to nature when visiting Bella 2019.”

So far Trees for Life’s volunteers have established 1.7 million native trees, and the charity is also successfully reintroducing red squirrels to suitable woodlands across the Highlands.

The award-winning charity will have a dedicated presence at Bella from 1-3 August, so that attendees can discover more about rewilding the Highlands.

Dedicated trees

Everyone who dedicates trees through the Bella initiative will have their names included in a tally of tree planters, and will be invited to a celebration day at Dundreggan in September – with music, activities and opportunities to plant their own tree or to see it being planted. 

People can support Trees for Life by becoming members, volunteering, and by funding their own dedicated trees and groves.

This Author

Marianne Brooker is The Ecologist’s content editor. This article is based on a press release for Trees for Life. 

Image: Trees for Life volunteers at Dundreggan Conservation Estate near Loch Ness. © Stephen Couling, Trees for Life

Thousands of people are set to gather in Westminster today to lobby their MPs on taking action on climate change and environmental protection.

Organisers say more than 15,000 people from 99 percent of the UK’s constituencies have signed up for the Time Is Now lobby to urge politicians to “tackle the climate and environmental emergency immediately”.

It is organised by the Climate Coalition and Greener UK, whose members include aid agencies such as Cafod and Oxfam, the Women’s Institute and conservation organisations such as WWF and the National Trust.

Vital

The mass lobby follows growing environmental protests and increasing warnings of the need for “unprecedented action” to curb dangerous climate change and the threats faced by wildlife and the natural world.

MPs have approved a motion to declare an environment and climate emergency, and the lobby comes on the day the Lords debate a target to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050, which should pass into law this week. Campaigners will be pushing their MPs to back the policies needed to turn the new net zero target into a reality.

They want an ambitious Environment Bill to clean up polluted air, tackle plastic pollution and restore nature, with legally binding targets and a powerful independent watchdog to enforce environmental laws.

Sarah Osborn, a primary school teacher from Cambridge who will be attending with Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire Wildlife Trust, said she values wildlife and is concerned children are disconnected from the natural world.

“I believe in the vital role nature plays in our mental health. We are in a state of crisis and I am deeply concerned about the future of the planet,” she said.

Target

Grandmother Ann Hayward from Wendover, Buckinghamshire said: “I am lobbying my MP because I am ashamed of what he and his colleagues are leaving behind for my grandchildren – a failing climate, huge biodiversity losses, huge financial debts for unwanted infrastructure projects which will all undermine their futures.”

MPs will be taken from Parliament by rickshaw to meet their constituents stationed around the area, and more than 300 people from different faiths will be led on a walk of witness through Whitehall.

At 2pm, campaigners will ring thousands of alarm clocks, mobile phone alarms and sirens, alongside church bells in the area, to symbolise “the time is now” to act, organisers said.

Clara Goldsmith, campaigns director at The Climate Coalition, said: “The Government’s decision to set a net zero target in law was clearly a response to calls for action from voters which have grown louder and louder in recent months.

“Now we need our politicians to put policies in place to deliver on that target, as well as measures to clean up the air we breathe and the plastic in our seas.”

This Author

Emily Beament is the Press Association environment correspondent. Image of protest in the USA (c) Alisdare Hickson. 
 

The #MeToo movement has caused profound shake-ups at organizations across the United States in the last two years. So far, however, it has left many unresolved questions about how workplaces can be more inclusive and equitable for women and other diverse groups. 

In its latest twist, over the last month a series of top executives have exited The Nature Conservancy, the largest conservation organization in North America, after an internal investigation produced accusations of sexual harassment and workplace misconduct. Investigators found that the organization’s culture “can make it difficult for women to thrive.”

We have been studying women in conservation leadership for the past several years, and unfortunately this news didn’t shock us. Our research shows that harassment is one of many gender-related challenges that frequently confront women conservation leaders. 

Workplace barriers

For over 30 years environmental conservation in the United States has been critiqued for being led by white, wealthy people, mainly men. Environmental organizations have pledged to do better by hiring more diverse staff and partnering more closely with environmental justice advocates. 

Women are expanding their presence in conservation: In 2017 they occupied 41 percent of full-time staff jobs. But until recently there has been little research on their experiences. 

The Nature Conservancy is not the first organization where women have complained about a challenging work climate. Since 2016 sexual harassment scandals have been reported at the nonprofit group Conservation International and the US National Park Service. 

Research has identified numerous workplace barriers that make it hard for professional women to advance. They include challenges to their competence, salary and promotion disparities and sexual harassment.

These challenges have been called a “labyrinth” that can hold many women back from senior leadership. Although environmental conservation is a progressive-leaning field whose advocates view themselves as striving to “do good,” we found in a recent study that female scientists who led conservation efforts faced many of these obstacles.

Physically threatening 

We interviewed 56 women in conservation leadership positions at non-government organizations, federal and state agencies and other organizations in 19 states. Their ages ranged from 26 to 64, and they had diverse natural and social science credentials. 

In our conversations they described six categories of gender-related challenges. They included salary inequality and difficulty negotiating pay levels; unequal hiring and promotion; informal exclusion; sexual harassment and inadequate organizational responses; and assumptions that that they were either unqualified to do their work or unfit to be leaders. 

Women remembered these challenges starting early in their careers, whether in the form of harassment at remote field sites or judgment that legitimate scientists shouldn’t wear high heels or makeup.

For many it continued into their late careers as senior leaders whose colleagues still greeted their success with surprise. 

Women of all backgrounds reported these experiences. Most had encountered at least four of these challenges. Many reported experiencing sexual harassment, from unwanted comments to unwanted contact. A few described male supervisors or colleagues behaving in verbally or physically threatening ways. 

Women of colour

Dorceta Taylor, a professor at the University of Michigan, teaches courses on topics including food systems, environmental history and politics, environmental justice and sociological theory. She authored a 2014 report that described the US environmental movement as ‘an overwhelmingly white Green Insiders’ Club.‘UMSEAS, CC BY

In their view these behaviors often went unreported because women feared retaliation or did not think reporting would lead to change. When organizations did take action, women in our study viewed it as insufficient.

As one woman explained, “I’ve thought about reporting it and then I was like, why? He won’t be held accountable for change. It would be on me, and it would be something like, ‘You need to take that less personally.’”

Women of color face even higher hurdles than their white counterparts. Black, Hispanic and Asian American study participants described being singled out as “the only” conservationist of their race or ethnicity and having colleagues assume they were not leaders or scientists.

As several of them explained, white women might struggle to sit at the conservation table, but women of color faced many challenges to even get into the building. 

Organisational policies

Our participants told us that two types of support had improved their situations. One category consisted of structural measures – organizational policies on sexual harassment, salary inequity and other issues, and training on topics such as leadership and diversity. Some women reported that organizational policies on sexual harassment were only put in place following a scandal. 

Other helpful measures centered on personal relationships. They included behaviors such as providing opportunities, learning women’s individual needs, offering feedback and guidance, connecting women to professional networks, championing their work and demonstrating confidence in them. 

Seeing these behaviors modeled by leaders, regardless of their gender, was particularly important.

In this light, the hiring of former Interior Secretary Sally Jewell as The Nature Conservancy’s interim CEO seems promising. Jewell has already highlighted the need for a workplace culture “where employees can bring their whole selves to work.”

The Nature Conservancy hired former U.S. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell as interim CEO after the resignations of several top leaders over workplace harassment charges.

Diversity matters 

Conservation is more than protecting wildlife and natural systems. It also involves working with people to promote sustainable lifestyles and habits, so that future generations can thrive.

In a 2014 essay, 240 conservation scientists asserted that “issues of gender and cultural bias” were hindering conservation by fueling divisive arguments over why and how to conserve nature.

“Conservation regularly encounters varied points of view and a range of values in the real world,” they wrote. “To address and engage these views and values, we call for more inclusive representation of scientists and practitioners in the charting of our field’s future, and for a more-inclusive approach to conservation.”

The upheaval at The Nature Conservancy is part of broad calls for a transformation of the US conservation movement.

There are many reasons to believe that a more diverse movement will be more effective, not only in attracting and retaining talented staff, but also in addressing the unprecedented extinction crisis facing our planet.

These Authors

Megan Jones is a PhD candidate in Human Dimensions of Natural Resources at Colorado State University; Jennifer Solomon is assistant professor in Human Dimensions of Natural Resources at Colorado State University. This article was first published in The Conversation. 

Image: Sally Jewell. AP Photo/Joel Bouopda Tatou

As McDonald’s continues to “ghost” their responsibilities to animal welfare, The Humane League is launching a global brand-jacking campaign that brings their commitment-phobia to light.

#McGhoster aims to attract public attention towards McDonald’s failure to commit to meaningful improvements for chickens, creating a pressure group that’s impossible for them to ignore: their own consumers.

McDonald’s is one of the biggest restaurant chains in the world with a net income of $5.877 billion. Yet, as companies like Pret A Manger are making concrete, meaningful changes to chicken welfare, McDonald’s is lagging behind.

Party’s over

To bring this issue to the attention of a global audience, the campaign is being launched with an online film that takes place in the ‘McDonald’s Mansion’ in the aftermath of a raucous party.

As the scene unfolds, we hear angry voicemails from people who feel they’ve been misled and ‘ghosted’ by the host of the party. Overlayed on this grand scene is a stern wake-up call to the corporation: The Party’s Over, McDonald’s.

Pru Elliott, head of campaigns at The Humane League UK, said: “McDonald’s invests so much in portraying itself as the friendly ‘good-guy’ and as industry leaders.

“But while it has taken progressive steps on some animal welfare issues, the truth is that when the suffering of millions upon millions of chickens – the most numerous animals in McDonald’s supply chain – is at stake, McDonald’s fails to live up to the upstanding image it portrays.” 

Under McDonald’s new “improved welfare” policy, chickens raised and killed for its menu are still unnaturally bred to grow so large and so fast that they can literally become immobilised under the weight of their own enormous bodies, often unable to stand or walk and left to lie in their own excrement.

The issue is so severe that if we, humans, grew at a rate similar to McDonald’s chickens, we would weigh 300kg at just two months old.

Overcrowded conditions

These chickens are also kept in overcrowded conditions that prevent them from behaving naturally. What’s more, eating meat from sick and debilitated chickens, raised within cramped and confined factory farms, can put humans at risk of contracting bacterial infections such as salmonella and campylobacter.

Elliot said: “McDonald’s has failed to take meaningful action against the extreme suffering of chickens in its supply chain. The company has repeatedly offered pseudo-solutions which do not compare with the progressive steps being taken by other companies.

“At best, the steps McDonald’s has taken suggest an acknowledgement that the current situation is unacceptable, and at worst it could be an attempt to mislead customers with a rhetoric that sounds promising but fails to deliver.”

Rather than asking people to boycott McDonald’s, The Humane League is simply calling on the fast food chain to improve animal welfare in its supply chain and publicly commit to the ‘Better Chicken Commitment’ and the North American equivalent.

Taylor Ford, Director of Campaigns at The Humane League, said: “What we’re asking for is perfectly reasonable and an essential part of McDonald’s ethical responsibilities. The commitment we are asking McDonald’s to sign simply addresses the very worst suffering endured by chickens.

Get involved 

Ford continued: “The changes we are proposing are supported by scientific evidence, backed by leading animal protection charities and have been adopted by over 130 companies in the US.”

You can watch and share the film from Facebook or YouTube.

Viewers are then encouraged to sign the petition at McGhoster.com to apply pressure.

The film is being accompanied by a series of out-of-home posters, ad vans and social posts to build momentum and encourage consumers to speak up. You can now even find references to #McGhoster within Wikipedia. Please click here to see stills and images from today’s launch.

This Article 

This article is  based on a press release from The Humane League. 

Environmentalists have lodged an official complaint with the European Commission over illegal management of protected North Sea nature reserves, which have been left decimated by damaging fishing practices.

WWF and ClientEarth, supported by other organisations, are calling on the Commission to challenge the Netherlands, the UK and Germany over a recently submitted proposed management plan for the Dogger Bank – a unique undersea conservation site, and home to sharks, porpoises and other iconic species – that contains multiple breaches of EU law.

The nations have systematically failed to protect areas within the Dogger Bank, which is shared between the three countries, from damaging fishing practices, despite those areas being designated as conservation sites for more than a decade.

Destructive practice

These nations proposed that the Dogger Bank be a protected area in the early 2000s. Since then, failure to effectively implement protection and manage activities has left biodiversity in decline, affecting the ecosystem’s ability to support breeding grounds for many species.

Despite the site’s status as a marine protected area (MPA), the proposed management plan, submitted by the Netherlands, the UK and Germany on 19 June will allow the highly destructive practice of bottom trawling across two-thirds of Dogger Bank seabeds and demersal seine fishing, using large nets, across 95 percent of its area.

These fishing techniques are not only harmful to the seabed, as the ropes and nets destroy the surfaces they pass through, but also cause bycatch of sharks, cold water corals and other sea animals.

Kirsten Schuijt, CEO, WWF Netherlands said: “It’s incomprehensible that the Netherlands, the UK and Germany propose to open this unique conservation area, part of the European Natura 2000 network, to fishing techniques that will continue to damage its precious seabed structure.

“Given that the European Commission is now pressing for better implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives, we are confident that it will seriously consider the complaint lodged today, that it will closely monitor the adherence of Member States to their responsibilities, and that it will take the measures necessary for the restoration of the Dogger Bank.”

Ignoring advice

ClientEarth wildlife lawyer Tatiana Lujan said: “The fishing practices allowed in the proposed management plan are the equivalent of cutting swathes through a rainforest, using the excuse that it will grow back again.

“Each time the seabed is razed by fishing practices like bottom trawling, the recovery of the ecosystem is reduced dramatically, until it stops being able to support apex species like sharks and porpoises.

“The proposal put forward by the Netherlands, the UK and Germany is illegal under EU law on three counts and ignores the scientific advice that supports the restoration of these conservation areas.”

Lawyers for the organisations said that the first legal breach relates to the failure to establish a management plan that is coherent with the ecological requirements of the site under the Habitats Directive, as the proposed Dogger Bank plan gives a green light to damaging fishing practices across sandbank conservation areas.

The second breach relates to the failure to protect the Natura 2000 site from further environmental degradation, as demonstrated by the observed declines in biodiversity. Thirdly, fishing practices should only be approved if there is scientific certainty that they will not have an adverse impact on the sites – something the plan provides no evidence to support.

Emergency measures

In their proposal in 19 June, the three countries asked the European Commission to allow bottom trawling and seine fishing across the majority of Dogger Bank areas designated as Natura 2000 protected sites.

The European Commission must respond to this proposal by taking measures that offer real protection for the Dogger Bank.

In the immediate term, enforcement of emergency measures are critically needed in the next 12 months to address the Dogger Bank’s current state of decline.

This Author 

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from ClientEarth. 

Image: Ed Dunans, Flickr. 

We are all increasingly aware of the perilous state of our oceans and seas, of growing pollution, of huge volumes of plastic waste and over-fishing.  

The importance of harvesting fish stocks at sustainable levels is easily understood when we know that the world’s reported total fish catches have been stable since the late 1980s, yet the global population is expected to reach 10 billion in 2050.

Fighting against illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing is an absolute priority. 

Unreported fishing 

The UN biodiversity report published in May this year stated that by 2015, 33 percent of marine fish stocks were being harvested at unsustainable levels; 60 percent were maximally sustainably fished, and only 7 percent were harvested at levels lower than what can be sustainably fished.

The same report estimates that as of 2011, 33 percent of the world’s reported fish catch is now illegal, unreported or unregulated.    

In this context, IUU fishing is serious challenge for coastal states around the planet and especially for developing countries – which are struggling to obtain enough resources for effective monitoring, control and surveillance.

While much of the IUU fishing focus to date has been on illegal fishing, concentrating resources on the ‘unreported element’ will deliver significant results too.

Unreported fishing could be the result of a simple technical error on the vessel.  It could be an oversight of the captain, already responsible for so much in addition to logging the catch, or it could be in some specific cases a planned strategy, where one catch is reported but not another, to minimise the tax paid or to avoid fishing restrictions.  

Distorted market 

Whatever the reason, an unreported catch distorts the real picture and clouds understanding of the actual situation, which is vital to set up a sustainable fisheries management plan.

It also creates distorted market conditions for the fishermen who are operating in full compliance with the regulatory requirements.  The unreported catch is likely to be sold alongside the legitimate catch, depressing the market and reducing prices. 

But the biggest problem, and the least discussed, is unregulated fishing. This describes a country or an area that has no fisheries regulations in place, where fishing can take place at anytime, anywhere, by any means, and with no limit to the amount of fish they can catch.

The only way to address this issue is through close cooperation, education and awareness raising, technical support to governments such as fisheries management advising, and in some cases financial support.

Political pressure is important as well, but should not take precedence given the fact that convincing people to change always brings better results than imposing change.

Technological breakthroughs

Firstly, despite the challenges, technological breakthroughs over the last ten to twenty years now make it entirely possible to monitor the world’s fishing activities wherever they are.

Ten to fifteen years ago, vessel monitoring systems (VMS) were not widely accessible and were prohibitively expensive.  Communications between the shore and sea have improved dramatically, and government investment is much more likely to support better connectivity. 

Technology can now tell where a vessel is, what it’s doing, and e-reporting can log a catch in real time. 

Past reporting was paper-based and then collated by the authorities with the resulting analysis available several months down the line. E-reporting (where used) is instant, enabling regulatory authorities to be much more reactive and responsive to the status of specific fish stocks, imposing or lifting restrictions in a matter of hours.

This has been demonstrated in the case of Blue Fin tuna in the Mediterranean sea, where detailed monitoring and analysis of a fish population in crisis, followed by careful management across the industry, led to recovery and growth in numbers. As a result, in some places populations have been restored to their levels of ten to fifteen years ago.

Cultural shift

Secondly, there has been a significant cultural shift.  Customers are questioning and demanding supply chain transparency in ways they never have before.  

While the general public may not be aware of the principles behind sustainable fisheries management, almost anyone in the developed world can tell you that the oceans are environmentally threatened and greater scrutiny along every part of the supply chain is required as a result. 

Thanks to this growing awareness, fishermen, companies, and political bodies can create innovative  programmes to reduce the scourge of IUU fishing.

The European Union is the top market for fish exports in the world. This gives Europe immense leverage over countries in and not in, the EU. Under the European Commission’s carding process, a country with inadequate measures in place to prevent IUU fishing can be issued with a formal warming – a yellow card, to improve. If they don’t improve then their fish may be banned from the EU market – a red card.  

The system was introduced in 2010 and is clearly delivering results among those countries who want to reach the lucrative European market. 

Sustainable management

Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing all seriously impact the sustainable management of fishing. 

If the UN is to achieve its sustainable development goal, number 14:  to conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development, then we need to extend fisheries regulations to the countries that are unregulated today. 

Then we can apply advanced technology to monitor sustainable fisheries management – a vital step to reaching this end.

This Author

Anthony Uberti is an expert on fisheries regulations at CLS Group. Anthony works with EU Member States and with governments around the world advising on fisheries monitoring and surveillance.

John McDonnell has praised the efforts of Extinction Rebellion protesters who paralysed parts of London.

The shadow chancellor said the “relatively minor disturbance” caused by the activists and the school student strikes movement had “definitely been worth it”.

More than 1,000 arrests were made by police during Extinction Rebellion protests in London over 10 days in April.

Accountability

In a speech in London, Mr McDonnell said: “The relatively minor disturbance to everyday life caused by the demonstrations by Extinction Rebellion and the school student strikes has definitely been worth it.

“These forms of direct action have secured the publicity that clearly has focused people’s minds, not just on the threat of climate change but importunately on the solutions available to us.”

He said a national effort similar to that under Clement Attlee’s government to rebuild Britain following the Second World War was needed to tackle climate change.

Mr McDonnell launched an inquiry into the “shadow banking” sector as part of the effort to shift finance away from polluting industries.

It would examine what state intervention may be required to increase “transparency and accountability” of institutions which do not have the same regulatory scrutiny as banks.

Contribute

“I am setting up a review group to overview the financial system as it currently relates to the climate emergency, in terms of both: where and how it is causing or exacerbating the problem of climate change; and where and how it could be providing solutions to problems,” he said.

“The review will cover commercial banks, investment banks, pension funds, hedge funds, private equity, asset managers, derivatives and securities traders and exchanges, and any other aspect of the finance sector of relevance.”

Mr McDonnell said he had also put forward a plan to legislate so that any company listed on the London Stock Exchange would be “required to contribute to tackling the climate change crisis” – with de-listing as a sanction.

Zero

“When we de-list companies that fail to meet environmental criteria from the London Stock Exchange, investors can be confident that their money is not going on making the world uninhabitable for their children,” he said.

Mr McDonnell promised that as chancellor he would use the “full might of the Treasury” to address the problem of climate change.

Stephen Jones, chief executive of industry body UK Finance, said: “The shadow chancellor has today posed the question of whether the financial sector is up for rising to the challenge of climate change.

“Achieving net zero carbon by 2050 is a difficult but critical target that we must all work together to address and as an industry we stand ready to respond.”

This Author

David Hughes is the Press Association’s political editor.