Tag Archives: driving

Fracking is driving UK civil and political rights violations Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The UK is faced with extreme energy development that will utilise all three ‘fracking’ technologies: Shale Gas/Oil, Coal Bed Methane (CBM) and Underground Coal Gasification (UCG).

Currently exploration licences cover a relatively small area of land, but roughly a third of the British Isles is being offered to fracking companies as part of the 14th onshore licensing round.

A new report released today by the Bianca Jagger Human Rights Foundation highlights a number of potential human rights impacts for UK citizens should fracking development proceed beyond the exploratory stage.

The human rights implications of extractive activity are being increasingly discussed on the international stage, as concerned citizens demand global leaders take action to modify the excesses of human consumption and consumerism.

The report’s concluding section alludes to issues beyond its scope which we elaborate on here; specifically the violations of civil and political rights that both exploratory and production phases of fracking development will likely entail.

Interviews, online surveys and correspondence with local campaigners have returned a wealth of personal testimony that dispels any suggestion that fracking development’s problems are limited to environmental and human health concerns.

The anti-fracking movement is the fastest growing social movement in the UK with currently over 180 local groups, up from around 30 in 2013. This inconvenient fact poses a problem for a government wanting to go ‘all out for shale’. How has the state reacted so far?

Nationally coordinated suppression?

To date there have been over 400 arrests of peaceful protestors, and data from Balcombe and Barton Moss is suggestive of a nationally coordinated attempt to suppress opposition to shale gas extraction at the expense of domestically and internationally recognised rights.

This campaign has been interpreted by those within the anti-fracking movement as akin to the state response to the 1984-5 Miners’ Strikes through the use of political policing and intimidation of protestors.

Civil and political rights have been primarily infringed by the response of Greater Manchester Police and Sussex Police to peaceful protest at exploratory drilling sites, exhibited most commonly through protestors attempting to delay the arrival of equipment by walking in front of delivery lorries.

The resultant interactions between police and protestors have prompted concerns over the prioritisation of fracking development’s alleged ‘economic benefits’ and provision of short-term ‘energy security’ over the rights of individuals and local communities.

The analysis of interview data indicates that through these actions the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of expression, liberty and security of person, a fair trial, and respect for a private and family life, have been threatened or violated through the use of unnecessary or excessive force, unlawful arrests, covert surveillance of protestors, and intimidation of members of the Anti-fracking movement.

Each of these rights is protected by the Human Rights Act 1998, European Convention on Human Rights, and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the UK is legally bound to observe.

Police Violence and arrest quotas

Police interaction with anti-fracking protesters at both Balcombe and Barton Moss involved the use of violence, forcible removal of individuals from the protest site without arrest, and kettling.

Interview respondents described how they were “kicked and pushed and punched”, “pushed and shoved in the back”, “pushed off the road by the police”, and “shoved in the back repeatedly”. Police behavior was described as “brutal”, “violent”, “thuggish”, “rough”, and “very, very aggressive”, resulting in interactions in which a bone got broken.

The use of physical violence was widely reported amongst interview and survey respondents, indicating unlawful police activity at both Balcombe and Barton Moss that directly impacted upon the ability of anti-fracking protestors to realise one of their fundamental civil and political rights.

This violence was accompanied by other forms of unlawful activity to inhibit anti-fracking protest activity at both sites.

References were made in several interviews to the concept of arrest quotas, whereby police would carry out specific numbers of arrests over consecutive days.

At Barton Moss, throughout the autumn and winter of 2013, one interview respondent recalled how “there were five arrests every day”, and that “Officers were heard to say ‘We need one more arrest’.”

The same respondent believed that the use of arrest quotas was “almost certainly planned in advance”, and designed as “a long term plan” which would ensure that “eventually everyone would be arrested”.

More explicitly, the respondent explained how such patterns of arrests effectively worked, as “you’re arrested, you get bailed, next time you get arrested in breach of bail. Over a period of time, such a cycle would decrease the effectiveness of the protest camp’s actions and increase the likelihood of its disbandment.”

Arrests were also described as “clearly random”, “quite random”, and “completely random”, with one respondent expressing the most telling sentiment, that: “there was a risk that at any time you could be arrested”. Such arrests were believed to be used as a way of “undermining people’s morale”.

Spurious arrests

In addition to arrest quotas and arbitrary arrests, allegations were made by an interview respondent of arrests being knowingly made on unlawful charges by Greater Manchester Police.

At Barton Moss, delivery lorries travelled down Barton Moss Lane to reach the IGas drilling site, a designated private road with footpath access for the public. The respondent described how police made arrests on Barton Moss Lane for “the crime of obstructing a public highway”, an entirely unlawful charge given that the road is private and therefore does not constitute a public highway.

Significantly, the respondent described how, at a court hearing of individuals charged with the crime of obstruction of a public highway in November 2013, “a solicitor informed the court that Barton Moss Lane was a private road which has public footpath access”, but Greater Manchester Police “continued to make arrests. under that crime until […] February.”

This meant that, as expressed by the respondent, “for nearly three months they continued to arrest for a crime that wasn’t a crime”.

Many arrests appear to have been made under what were somewhat spurious claims. For example, interview respondents detailed how at both Balcombe and Barton Moss, while escorting delivery lorries to the exploratory drilling sites, protestors were arrested for “obstructing a police officer” if they fell over.

These arrests were justified under the premise that “if you fall down in front of a police officer you are obstructing him from moving down the road”. Such interactions between police and protestors prompted frustrations, but also fears.

Monitoring of Communications

Several interview respondents raised concerns of police surveillance of email accounts, telephones and social media.

Although, as one interview respondent indicated, such activities are “difficult to prove”, other interview respondents were insistent in their belief of surveillance activity, stating that “We knew that they were monitoring our Facebook pages, our emails and our phones”, and “I have no doubt that they were bugging certain people’s phones” and “keeping a close eye on people’s Facebook pages”.

Concerns for some anti-fracking protestors over the security of information were such that one interview respondent described how, when important details about protest action required discussion, the individuals involved would “get together and speak about it rather than using [social] media.”

Seemingly to confirm fears of surveillance, another respondent described how a list of press contacts on an email account were “scrambled”, preventing messages from reaching the majority of the list’s recipients.

The use of covert surveillance has prompted fears of how intelligence gathered by Greater Manchester Police and Sussex Police has been shared nationally, with explicit reference made by one interview respondent to the Domestic Extremist Unit.

Another correspondent reported having been visited at home by two members of the Counter Terrorism and Domestic Extremism Unit after filming at a potential drilling site. The visit, according to the two “officers”, was made on the request of a local police force who in turn received their request from the firm’s “security personnel”.

It seems that behind such examples of close cooperation and coordination between ‘fracking’ firms, the state and police forces lies a specific intent to intimidate and deter individuals involved in protest or related activities.

Democratic freedoms eroded

The explicit violations of rights in the context of anti-fracking protests fit within a wider discussion of democracy, and concern the right to public participation, which is protected in matters of environmental impact by the Aarhus Convention.

The increasing opposition to fracking, evidenced in the growing plethora of local campaign groups across the UK, indicates governmental failure to adequately respond to local and national concerns over the human rights implications of fracking or provide sufficient opportunities for public participation in decision making.

Both interview and survey respondents have expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of governmental consideration of public concerns, stating variously that “The government are not listening to people”, “the government refuses to engage and consult with the public”, “The government is ignoring the will of the people”, and “we have never been consulted”.

These comments indicate a deeper concern with the denial of citizen participation in a democratic society, with survey respondents describing how “democracy appears to be disregarded completely”, and that the process of introducing fracking in the UK “is eroding our democracy”.

With specific respect to public opinion, one survey respondent described how, when the application for exploratory drilling was made by Cuadrilla in Balcombe, and the local council requested residents’ opinions, “899 letters against it […], 5 for and they still went for it”.

This example demonstrates a particular disregard for the individuals living in proximity to exploratory sites, and indicates how individuals have become disillusioned with official avenues of complaint.

Fundamental rights are at risk

Not all anti-fracking activity in the UK has been ‘lawful’ as such, and has included the occupation of Cuadrilla’s offices in Blackpool and the blockading of roads to exploratory drilling sites.

Although instances of direct action which technically violate domestic law are not protected by international human rights legislation, these events indicate the extent to which individuals are sufficiently disillusioned with governmental policy to consider and undertake ‘illegal’ action.

Acts of both civil disobedience and peaceful protest will occur with increasing frequency as local communities realise the extent of the extractive industry’s impact.

This indicates the vital nature of further human rights based research into the planning, implementation and infrastructure of fracking development, and the need for genuinely independent human rights impact assessments for all communities before any extractive activity begins in the UK.

The civil and political implications of fracking development in the UK will only intensify as anti-fracking protests proliferate alongside exploratory activity.

The rights violations described above must therefore prompt both public awareness and governmental response to the reality that fracking development can no longer be considered in separation from the civil and political sphere, as personal testimony indicates the extent to which fundamental rights of UK citizens who oppose governmental policy are at risk.

As the report concludes, “for the UK Government to proceed with fracking without adequate assessment of the human rights position would amount to a serious failure of responsibility.”

 

 

The report: A Human Rights Assessment of Hydraulic Fracturing and Other Unconventional Gas Development in the United Kingdom is launched today.

Also on The Ecologist:


Jess Elliot is a Research Associate at the Human Rights Consortium, School of Advanced Study, University of London.

Damien Short is a Reader in Human Rights at the School of Advanced Study, University of London and Director of the School’s MA programme in Understanding and Securing Human Rights, Human Rights Consortium and Extreme Energy Initiative.

This article is an extended version of one originally published today on The Conversation.

For further information on violations of civil and political rights in the context of anti-fracking protests in the UK, please look out for the forthcoming Short et al, 2014, International Journal of Human Rights, December 2014.

The Conversation

 




380157

Oil palm explosion driving West Africa’s Ebola outbreak Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The growing Ebola virus outbreak not only highlights the tragedy enveloping the areas most affected but also offers a commentary on they way in which the political ecology in West Africa has allowed this disease to become established.

The narrative goes that the virus appeared spontaneously in the forest villages of Guinea in December 2013. But this is debatable given that there is evidence of antibodies the Ebola virus in human blood from Sierra Leone up to five years before.

Previously only one case of Ebola had been reported in the region, and it was the Ivory Coast strain of the virus. The strain detected in the blood samples is of the more virulent Zaire strain of Ebola, the same strain responsible for the current epidemic.

After months of very little concerted action it’s clear that the disease is now seriously in danger of spreading out of control.

The real drivers of Ebola in West Africa – poverty and oil palm

The global health community has declared it a crisis of international importance, which has led the host nations to implement draconian preventions strategies, tantamount in some places to martial law in terms of surveillance, quarantine, border controls and other logistical aspects of control. But this is too little, too late.

There are several mechanisms through which the virus may have emerged, and it is unlikely that this latest outbreak was spontaneous.

It is poverty that drives villagers to encroach further into the forest, where they become infected with the virus when hunting and butchering wildlife, or through contact with body fluids from bats – this has been seen with Nipah, another dangerous virus associated with bats.

The likelihood of infection in this manner is compounded by inadequate rural health facilities and poor village infrastructure, compounded by the disorganised urban sprawl at the fringes of cities.

The virus then spreads in a wave of fear and panic, ill-conceived intervention and logistical failures – including even insufficient food or beds for the severely ill.

Take for example the global palm oil industry, where a similar trend of deep-cutting into forests for agricultural development has breached natural barriers to the evolution and spread of specific pathogens.

The effects of land grabs and the focus on certain fruit crop species leads to an Allee effect, where sudden changes in one ecological element causes the mechanisms for keeping populations – bats in this case – and viruses in equilibrium to shift, increasing the probability of spill over to alternative hosts.

Palm oil’s relentless march at the expense of forests and health

This is not unheard of; the introduction of fruit tree crops in cleared forests and agricultural expansion in Malaysia was associated with the emergence of Nipah virus. Bats feeding on fruit trees infected pigs in pens, which provided a vector for the virus to humans.

Another example is with vector-borne diseases such as the Japanese Encephalitis, a virus carried by wild birds which expanded its range due to growing rice and pig farming.

Chikungunya and Dengue Fever viruses exploited deforestation for secondary epidemiological cycles, which increased at the forest edge until the virus was able to adapt to secondary hosts and expand globally.

Certainly the complexity of the agro-ecological changes in West Africa warrant scrutiny. Guinea’s new agriculture is in an early stage of development, identified by the World Bank as the highest investment potential for industrial agriculture.

As global markets shift – and tariffs and taxes on multinational companies are removed, farmers with small land holdings are faced with a choice: either sell off or scale up to meet the competition. Forests are one of the first casualties.

A breakdown of traditional governance

Alongside this subtle effect is the dismantling of traditional governance, violence under colonial, neo-colonial and more recent kleptocratic governments and the economic movements of people towards urbanisation.

Such turbulence, poverty, the influx of refugees from neighbouring wars and crumbling health systems have all created an ecosystem in which the natural friction that prevents Ebola from gathering pathogenic momentum has been all but eroded.

Any international response can do little to remedy these contributing factors. In fact the response has been little more than a recognition of the complete failure of neo-liberal development strategies to contain the virus.

The ‘success’ of the Ebola virus is fundamentally based on the sociological factors and population biology of those it infects. But the data required to test the hypothesis – detailed records about what people eat, where they go and how they interact – is presently unavailable.

Instead research has focused on virus hunting, and with little success: more than 40,000 samples have not yet conclusively determined where the natural reservoir of Ebola lies.

All the while, the socio-ecological factors that are critical to the spread of any disease are ignored.

 

 

The report: ‘Did Ebola emerge in West Africa by a policy-driven phase change in agroecology?’ is published in Environment and Planning.

Richard Kock is Professor of Wildlife Health and Emerging Diseases at the Royal Veterinary College. He received funding from DFID to explore gaps and opportunities in the treatment or prevention of zoonoses in emerging livestock systems. Funding is current from EU through BBSRC on an emerging livestock viral disease in Africa – specifically PPR virus in wildlife populations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

 

 




386058

Oil palm explosion driving West Africa’s Ebola outbreak Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The growing Ebola virus outbreak not only highlights the tragedy enveloping the areas most affected but also offers a commentary on they way in which the political ecology in West Africa has allowed this disease to become established.

The narrative goes that the virus appeared spontaneously in the forest villages of Guinea in December 2013. But this is debatable given that there is evidence of antibodies the Ebola virus in human blood from Sierra Leone up to five years before.

Previously only one case of Ebola had been reported in the region, and it was the Ivory Coast strain of the virus. The strain detected in the blood samples is of the more virulent Zaire strain of Ebola, the same strain responsible for the current epidemic.

After months of very little concerted action it’s clear that the disease is now seriously in danger of spreading out of control.

The real drivers of Ebola in West Africa – poverty and oil palm

The global health community has declared it a crisis of international importance, which has led the host nations to implement draconian preventions strategies, tantamount in some places to martial law in terms of surveillance, quarantine, border controls and other logistical aspects of control. But this is too little, too late.

There are several mechanisms through which the virus may have emerged, and it is unlikely that this latest outbreak was spontaneous.

It is poverty that drives villagers to encroach further into the forest, where they become infected with the virus when hunting and butchering wildlife, or through contact with body fluids from bats – this has been seen with Nipah, another dangerous virus associated with bats.

The likelihood of infection in this manner is compounded by inadequate rural health facilities and poor village infrastructure, compounded by the disorganised urban sprawl at the fringes of cities.

The virus then spreads in a wave of fear and panic, ill-conceived intervention and logistical failures – including even insufficient food or beds for the severely ill.

Take for example the global palm oil industry, where a similar trend of deep-cutting into forests for agricultural development has breached natural barriers to the evolution and spread of specific pathogens.

The effects of land grabs and the focus on certain fruit crop species leads to an Allee effect, where sudden changes in one ecological element causes the mechanisms for keeping populations – bats in this case – and viruses in equilibrium to shift, increasing the probability of spill over to alternative hosts.

Palm oil’s relentless march at the expense of forests and health

This is not unheard of; the introduction of fruit tree crops in cleared forests and agricultural expansion in Malaysia was associated with the emergence of Nipah virus. Bats feeding on fruit trees infected pigs in pens, which provided a vector for the virus to humans.

Another example is with vector-borne diseases such as the Japanese Encephalitis, a virus carried by wild birds which expanded its range due to growing rice and pig farming.

Chikungunya and Dengue Fever viruses exploited deforestation for secondary epidemiological cycles, which increased at the forest edge until the virus was able to adapt to secondary hosts and expand globally.

Certainly the complexity of the agro-ecological changes in West Africa warrant scrutiny. Guinea’s new agriculture is in an early stage of development, identified by the World Bank as the highest investment potential for industrial agriculture.

As global markets shift – and tariffs and taxes on multinational companies are removed, farmers with small land holdings are faced with a choice: either sell off or scale up to meet the competition. Forests are one of the first casualties.

A breakdown of traditional governance

Alongside this subtle effect is the dismantling of traditional governance, violence under colonial, neo-colonial and more recent kleptocratic governments and the economic movements of people towards urbanisation.

Such turbulence, poverty, the influx of refugees from neighbouring wars and crumbling health systems have all created an ecosystem in which the natural friction that prevents Ebola from gathering pathogenic momentum has been all but eroded.

Any international response can do little to remedy these contributing factors. In fact the response has been little more than a recognition of the complete failure of neo-liberal development strategies to contain the virus.

The ‘success’ of the Ebola virus is fundamentally based on the sociological factors and population biology of those it infects. But the data required to test the hypothesis – detailed records about what people eat, where they go and how they interact – is presently unavailable.

Instead research has focused on virus hunting, and with little success: more than 40,000 samples have not yet conclusively determined where the natural reservoir of Ebola lies.

All the while, the socio-ecological factors that are critical to the spread of any disease are ignored.

 

 

The report: ‘Did Ebola emerge in West Africa by a policy-driven phase change in agroecology?’ is published in Environment and Planning.

Richard Kock is Professor of Wildlife Health and Emerging Diseases at the Royal Veterinary College. He received funding from DFID to explore gaps and opportunities in the treatment or prevention of zoonoses in emerging livestock systems. Funding is current from EU through BBSRC on an emerging livestock viral disease in Africa – specifically PPR virus in wildlife populations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

 

 




386058

African habitat loss driving migrating birds’ decline Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The latest in the annual series of State of the UK’s Birds report, published today, shows alarming declines among 29 migrant species which nest in the UK in summer and spend the winter around the Mediterranean, or in Africa south of the Sahara Desert.

The most dramatic declines are among species which winter in the humid zone of Africa – stretching across the continent from southern Senegal to Nigeria and beyond.

Of this group of species, which includes whinchat, nightingale, tree pipit and spotted flycatcher, 73% have declined since the late 1980s, 45% by more than half.

One of the most dramatic declines is that of the turtle dove with a decline of 88% since 1995. Heavy declines have also been recorded over the same period for wood warbler, down 66%; pied flycatcher, 53%; spotted flycatcher, 49%; cuckoo, 49%; nightingale, 43%; and yellow wagtail, 43%.

Species wintering furthest south in the Congo Basin (represented here by cuckoos, swifts and swallows) also show a substantial decline since the early 1980s.

But where are the problems occurring?

According to Martin Harper, RSPB’s Conservation Director, it’s hard to pinpoint where the problems lie for the species’ decline:

“Their nomadic lifestyle, requiring sites and resources spread over vast distances across the globe makes identifying and understanding the causes of decline extremely complex. The problems may be in the UK or in West Africa, or indeed on migration in between the two.”

However the birds’ decline may be linked to deforestation in West Africa’s rainforests, and the expansion of both rain-fed and irrigated agriculture, says the report:

“The loss and degradation of wetlands is widely reported as a result of damming of rivers, extraction of water for irrigation, as well as the conversion of floodplains to rice fields, and floodplain woodlands to agricultural land. Wooded savannah habitats have similarly been impacted by clearance for agriculture, wood fuel and grazing.

“Human-induced habitat changes such as these have all been compounded by climate change altering seasonal weather patterns. These habitats are essential for many birds, as they allow the birds to refuel in the autumn, and fatten up before spring migration. The loss and degradation of these habitats is an erosion of vital stepping stones on the birds’ migratory journey.”

Hunting and trapping

Another problem is hunting and trapping, which “has been reported as impacting migratory birds on passage and on the non-breeding grounds during both spring and autumn migrations. Losses can be enormous. For example, 2–4 million turtle doves are shot across a number of southern European countries each year.”

Birds can be taken in large numbers in certain areas, such as quails in Egypt and swallows in west and central Africa. However, “Assessing the population-level impact of hunting is difficult, as the relevant data do not exist.”

But Alan Law, Director of Biodiversity Delivery at Natural England adds that we also need to look closer to home.

“For some species, there is growing evidence of pressure on breeding success here in England. Our focus therefore is to ensure that well-managed habitats are available in this country so that migratory species can breed here successfully.“

For example, the drastic (88%) decline of turtle doves is also due to diminished breeding success in the UK. Recent research has revealed that around 96% of the UK’s turtle doves are carrying parasites which can cause the disease trichomonosis, which caused mortality in a number of adults and nestlings during the 2012 breeding season.

Smaller declines, even increases for short-distance migrants

Other birds wintering in the arid zone just below the Sahara desert have fluctuated considerably since 1970, but show a much smaller decline of less than 20% overall, with 67% of species maintaining stable populations. This group includes sand martin, whitethroat and sedge warbler.

And the species that winter north of the Sahara (the partial / European migrants) are doing well, with 56% experiencing an increase in numbers since the mid 1980s. This group includes blackcaps, meadow pipits, chiffchaffs and stonechats.

Still, “concern about migratory bird species is growing and future editions of the State of the UK’s Birds report will contain a regular update to the migratory bird indicator.”

To understand the changing status of the UK’s migratory birds, researchers need to understand more about what’s driving these declines. Evidence is currently being gathered from a variety of sources including tracking studies and on-the-ground surveys.

“The length of many bird migrations – often thousands of miles – makes it very difficult to pinpoint where and what is causing populations to fall”, said Colette Hall of the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust.

“So the more information we can get all along the migration routes – on land use changes, new infrastructure etc – the better we can target protection measures. It’s important that we help build up the capacity of local bird organisations and volunteers across the world to provide vital information through their own long-term monitoring.”

 

 

The report: The State of the UK’s Birds is published by a partnership of eight organisations: RSPB; British Trust for Ornithology; Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust; Natural Resources Wales; Natural England; Northern Ireland Environment Agency; Scottish Natural Heritage; and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

 

 




385518

African habitat loss driving migrating birds’ decline Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The latest in the annual series of State of the UK’s Birds report, published today, shows alarming declines among 29 migrant species which nest in the UK in summer and spend the winter around the Mediterranean, or in Africa south of the Sahara Desert.

The most dramatic declines are among species which winter in the humid zone of Africa – stretching across the continent from southern Senegal to Nigeria and beyond.

Of this group of species, which includes whinchat, nightingale, tree pipit and spotted flycatcher, 73% have declined since the late 1980s, 45% by more than half.

One of the most dramatic declines is that of the turtle dove with a decline of 88% since 1995. Heavy declines have also been recorded over the same period for wood warbler, down 66%; pied flycatcher, 53%; spotted flycatcher, 49%; cuckoo, 49%; nightingale, 43%; and yellow wagtail, 43%.

Species wintering furthest south in the Congo Basin (represented here by cuckoos, swifts and swallows) also show a substantial decline since the early 1980s.

But where are the problems occurring?

According to Martin Harper, RSPB’s Conservation Director, it’s hard to pinpoint where the problems lie for the species’ decline:

“Their nomadic lifestyle, requiring sites and resources spread over vast distances across the globe makes identifying and understanding the causes of decline extremely complex. The problems may be in the UK or in West Africa, or indeed on migration in between the two.”

However the birds’ decline may be linked to deforestation in West Africa’s rainforests, and the expansion of both rain-fed and irrigated agriculture, says the report:

“The loss and degradation of wetlands is widely reported as a result of damming of rivers, extraction of water for irrigation, as well as the conversion of floodplains to rice fields, and floodplain woodlands to agricultural land. Wooded savannah habitats have similarly been impacted by clearance for agriculture, wood fuel and grazing.

“Human-induced habitat changes such as these have all been compounded by climate change altering seasonal weather patterns. These habitats are essential for many birds, as they allow the birds to refuel in the autumn, and fatten up before spring migration. The loss and degradation of these habitats is an erosion of vital stepping stones on the birds’ migratory journey.”

Hunting and trapping

Another problem is hunting and trapping, which “has been reported as impacting migratory birds on passage and on the non-breeding grounds during both spring and autumn migrations. Losses can be enormous. For example, 2–4 million turtle doves are shot across a number of southern European countries each year.”

Birds can be taken in large numbers in certain areas, such as quails in Egypt and swallows in west and central Africa. However, “Assessing the population-level impact of hunting is difficult, as the relevant data do not exist.”

But Alan Law, Director of Biodiversity Delivery at Natural England adds that we also need to look closer to home.

“For some species, there is growing evidence of pressure on breeding success here in England. Our focus therefore is to ensure that well-managed habitats are available in this country so that migratory species can breed here successfully.“

For example, the drastic (88%) decline of turtle doves is also due to diminished breeding success in the UK. Recent research has revealed that around 96% of the UK’s turtle doves are carrying parasites which can cause the disease trichomonosis, which caused mortality in a number of adults and nestlings during the 2012 breeding season.

Smaller declines, even increases for short-distance migrants

Other birds wintering in the arid zone just below the Sahara desert have fluctuated considerably since 1970, but show a much smaller decline of less than 20% overall, with 67% of species maintaining stable populations. This group includes sand martin, whitethroat and sedge warbler.

And the species that winter north of the Sahara (the partial / European migrants) are doing well, with 56% experiencing an increase in numbers since the mid 1980s. This group includes blackcaps, meadow pipits, chiffchaffs and stonechats.

Still, “concern about migratory bird species is growing and future editions of the State of the UK’s Birds report will contain a regular update to the migratory bird indicator.”

To understand the changing status of the UK’s migratory birds, researchers need to understand more about what’s driving these declines. Evidence is currently being gathered from a variety of sources including tracking studies and on-the-ground surveys.

“The length of many bird migrations – often thousands of miles – makes it very difficult to pinpoint where and what is causing populations to fall”, said Colette Hall of the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust.

“So the more information we can get all along the migration routes – on land use changes, new infrastructure etc – the better we can target protection measures. It’s important that we help build up the capacity of local bird organisations and volunteers across the world to provide vital information through their own long-term monitoring.”

 

 

The report: The State of the UK’s Birds is published by a partnership of eight organisations: RSPB; British Trust for Ornithology; Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust; Natural Resources Wales; Natural England; Northern Ireland Environment Agency; Scottish Natural Heritage; and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

 

 




385518

African habitat loss driving migrating birds’ decline Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The latest in the annual series of State of the UK’s Birds report, published today, shows alarming declines among 29 migrant species which nest in the UK in summer and spend the winter around the Mediterranean, or in Africa south of the Sahara Desert.

The most dramatic declines are among species which winter in the humid zone of Africa – stretching across the continent from southern Senegal to Nigeria and beyond.

Of this group of species, which includes whinchat, nightingale, tree pipit and spotted flycatcher, 73% have declined since the late 1980s, 45% by more than half.

One of the most dramatic declines is that of the turtle dove with a decline of 88% since 1995. Heavy declines have also been recorded over the same period for wood warbler, down 66%; pied flycatcher, 53%; spotted flycatcher, 49%; cuckoo, 49%; nightingale, 43%; and yellow wagtail, 43%.

Species wintering furthest south in the Congo Basin (represented here by cuckoos, swifts and swallows) also show a substantial decline since the early 1980s.

But where are the problems occurring?

According to Martin Harper, RSPB’s Conservation Director, it’s hard to pinpoint where the problems lie for the species’ decline:

“Their nomadic lifestyle, requiring sites and resources spread over vast distances across the globe makes identifying and understanding the causes of decline extremely complex. The problems may be in the UK or in West Africa, or indeed on migration in between the two.”

However the birds’ decline may be linked to deforestation in West Africa’s rainforests, and the expansion of both rain-fed and irrigated agriculture, says the report:

“The loss and degradation of wetlands is widely reported as a result of damming of rivers, extraction of water for irrigation, as well as the conversion of floodplains to rice fields, and floodplain woodlands to agricultural land. Wooded savannah habitats have similarly been impacted by clearance for agriculture, wood fuel and grazing.

“Human-induced habitat changes such as these have all been compounded by climate change altering seasonal weather patterns. These habitats are essential for many birds, as they allow the birds to refuel in the autumn, and fatten up before spring migration. The loss and degradation of these habitats is an erosion of vital stepping stones on the birds’ migratory journey.”

Hunting and trapping

Another problem is hunting and trapping, which “has been reported as impacting migratory birds on passage and on the non-breeding grounds during both spring and autumn migrations. Losses can be enormous. For example, 2–4 million turtle doves are shot across a number of southern European countries each year.”

Birds can be taken in large numbers in certain areas, such as quails in Egypt and swallows in west and central Africa. However, “Assessing the population-level impact of hunting is difficult, as the relevant data do not exist.”

But Alan Law, Director of Biodiversity Delivery at Natural England adds that we also need to look closer to home.

“For some species, there is growing evidence of pressure on breeding success here in England. Our focus therefore is to ensure that well-managed habitats are available in this country so that migratory species can breed here successfully.“

For example, the drastic (88%) decline of turtle doves is also due to diminished breeding success in the UK. Recent research has revealed that around 96% of the UK’s turtle doves are carrying parasites which can cause the disease trichomonosis, which caused mortality in a number of adults and nestlings during the 2012 breeding season.

Smaller declines, even increases for short-distance migrants

Other birds wintering in the arid zone just below the Sahara desert have fluctuated considerably since 1970, but show a much smaller decline of less than 20% overall, with 67% of species maintaining stable populations. This group includes sand martin, whitethroat and sedge warbler.

And the species that winter north of the Sahara (the partial / European migrants) are doing well, with 56% experiencing an increase in numbers since the mid 1980s. This group includes blackcaps, meadow pipits, chiffchaffs and stonechats.

Still, “concern about migratory bird species is growing and future editions of the State of the UK’s Birds report will contain a regular update to the migratory bird indicator.”

To understand the changing status of the UK’s migratory birds, researchers need to understand more about what’s driving these declines. Evidence is currently being gathered from a variety of sources including tracking studies and on-the-ground surveys.

“The length of many bird migrations – often thousands of miles – makes it very difficult to pinpoint where and what is causing populations to fall”, said Colette Hall of the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust.

“So the more information we can get all along the migration routes – on land use changes, new infrastructure etc – the better we can target protection measures. It’s important that we help build up the capacity of local bird organisations and volunteers across the world to provide vital information through their own long-term monitoring.”

 

 

The report: The State of the UK’s Birds is published by a partnership of eight organisations: RSPB; British Trust for Ornithology; Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust; Natural Resources Wales; Natural England; Northern Ireland Environment Agency; Scottish Natural Heritage; and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

 

 




385518

African habitat loss driving migrating birds’ decline Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The latest in the annual series of State of the UK’s Birds report, published today, shows alarming declines among 29 migrant species which nest in the UK in summer and spend the winter around the Mediterranean, or in Africa south of the Sahara Desert.

The most dramatic declines are among species which winter in the humid zone of Africa – stretching across the continent from southern Senegal to Nigeria and beyond.

Of this group of species, which includes whinchat, nightingale, tree pipit and spotted flycatcher, 73% have declined since the late 1980s, 45% by more than half.

One of the most dramatic declines is that of the turtle dove with a decline of 88% since 1995. Heavy declines have also been recorded over the same period for wood warbler, down 66%; pied flycatcher, 53%; spotted flycatcher, 49%; cuckoo, 49%; nightingale, 43%; and yellow wagtail, 43%.

Species wintering furthest south in the Congo Basin (represented here by cuckoos, swifts and swallows) also show a substantial decline since the early 1980s.

But where are the problems occurring?

According to Martin Harper, RSPB’s Conservation Director, it’s hard to pinpoint where the problems lie for the species’ decline:

“Their nomadic lifestyle, requiring sites and resources spread over vast distances across the globe makes identifying and understanding the causes of decline extremely complex. The problems may be in the UK or in West Africa, or indeed on migration in between the two.”

However the birds’ decline may be linked to deforestation in West Africa’s rainforests, and the expansion of both rain-fed and irrigated agriculture, says the report:

“The loss and degradation of wetlands is widely reported as a result of damming of rivers, extraction of water for irrigation, as well as the conversion of floodplains to rice fields, and floodplain woodlands to agricultural land. Wooded savannah habitats have similarly been impacted by clearance for agriculture, wood fuel and grazing.

“Human-induced habitat changes such as these have all been compounded by climate change altering seasonal weather patterns. These habitats are essential for many birds, as they allow the birds to refuel in the autumn, and fatten up before spring migration. The loss and degradation of these habitats is an erosion of vital stepping stones on the birds’ migratory journey.”

Hunting and trapping

Another problem is hunting and trapping, which “has been reported as impacting migratory birds on passage and on the non-breeding grounds during both spring and autumn migrations. Losses can be enormous. For example, 2–4 million turtle doves are shot across a number of southern European countries each year.”

Birds can be taken in large numbers in certain areas, such as quails in Egypt and swallows in west and central Africa. However, “Assessing the population-level impact of hunting is difficult, as the relevant data do not exist.”

But Alan Law, Director of Biodiversity Delivery at Natural England adds that we also need to look closer to home.

“For some species, there is growing evidence of pressure on breeding success here in England. Our focus therefore is to ensure that well-managed habitats are available in this country so that migratory species can breed here successfully.“

For example, the drastic (88%) decline of turtle doves is also due to diminished breeding success in the UK. Recent research has revealed that around 96% of the UK’s turtle doves are carrying parasites which can cause the disease trichomonosis, which caused mortality in a number of adults and nestlings during the 2012 breeding season.

Smaller declines, even increases for short-distance migrants

Other birds wintering in the arid zone just below the Sahara desert have fluctuated considerably since 1970, but show a much smaller decline of less than 20% overall, with 67% of species maintaining stable populations. This group includes sand martin, whitethroat and sedge warbler.

And the species that winter north of the Sahara (the partial / European migrants) are doing well, with 56% experiencing an increase in numbers since the mid 1980s. This group includes blackcaps, meadow pipits, chiffchaffs and stonechats.

Still, “concern about migratory bird species is growing and future editions of the State of the UK’s Birds report will contain a regular update to the migratory bird indicator.”

To understand the changing status of the UK’s migratory birds, researchers need to understand more about what’s driving these declines. Evidence is currently being gathered from a variety of sources including tracking studies and on-the-ground surveys.

“The length of many bird migrations – often thousands of miles – makes it very difficult to pinpoint where and what is causing populations to fall”, said Colette Hall of the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust.

“So the more information we can get all along the migration routes – on land use changes, new infrastructure etc – the better we can target protection measures. It’s important that we help build up the capacity of local bird organisations and volunteers across the world to provide vital information through their own long-term monitoring.”

 

 

The report: The State of the UK’s Birds is published by a partnership of eight organisations: RSPB; British Trust for Ornithology; Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust; Natural Resources Wales; Natural England; Northern Ireland Environment Agency; Scottish Natural Heritage; and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

 

 




385518

African habitat loss driving migrating birds’ decline Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The latest in the annual series of State of the UK’s Birds report, published today, shows alarming declines among 29 migrant species which nest in the UK in summer and spend the winter around the Mediterranean, or in Africa south of the Sahara Desert.

The most dramatic declines are among species which winter in the humid zone of Africa – stretching across the continent from southern Senegal to Nigeria and beyond.

Of this group of species, which includes whinchat, nightingale, tree pipit and spotted flycatcher, 73% have declined since the late 1980s, 45% by more than half.

One of the most dramatic declines is that of the turtle dove with a decline of 88% since 1995. Heavy declines have also been recorded over the same period for wood warbler, down 66%; pied flycatcher, 53%; spotted flycatcher, 49%; cuckoo, 49%; nightingale, 43%; and yellow wagtail, 43%.

Species wintering furthest south in the Congo Basin (represented here by cuckoos, swifts and swallows) also show a substantial decline since the early 1980s.

But where are the problems occurring?

According to Martin Harper, RSPB’s Conservation Director, it’s hard to pinpoint where the problems lie for the species’ decline:

“Their nomadic lifestyle, requiring sites and resources spread over vast distances across the globe makes identifying and understanding the causes of decline extremely complex. The problems may be in the UK or in West Africa, or indeed on migration in between the two.”

However the birds’ decline may be linked to deforestation in West Africa’s rainforests, and the expansion of both rain-fed and irrigated agriculture, says the report:

“The loss and degradation of wetlands is widely reported as a result of damming of rivers, extraction of water for irrigation, as well as the conversion of floodplains to rice fields, and floodplain woodlands to agricultural land. Wooded savannah habitats have similarly been impacted by clearance for agriculture, wood fuel and grazing.

“Human-induced habitat changes such as these have all been compounded by climate change altering seasonal weather patterns. These habitats are essential for many birds, as they allow the birds to refuel in the autumn, and fatten up before spring migration. The loss and degradation of these habitats is an erosion of vital stepping stones on the birds’ migratory journey.”

Hunting and trapping

Another problem is hunting and trapping, which “has been reported as impacting migratory birds on passage and on the non-breeding grounds during both spring and autumn migrations. Losses can be enormous. For example, 2–4 million turtle doves are shot across a number of southern European countries each year.”

Birds can be taken in large numbers in certain areas, such as quails in Egypt and swallows in west and central Africa. However, “Assessing the population-level impact of hunting is difficult, as the relevant data do not exist.”

But Alan Law, Director of Biodiversity Delivery at Natural England adds that we also need to look closer to home.

“For some species, there is growing evidence of pressure on breeding success here in England. Our focus therefore is to ensure that well-managed habitats are available in this country so that migratory species can breed here successfully.“

For example, the drastic (88%) decline of turtle doves is also due to diminished breeding success in the UK. Recent research has revealed that around 96% of the UK’s turtle doves are carrying parasites which can cause the disease trichomonosis, which caused mortality in a number of adults and nestlings during the 2012 breeding season.

Smaller declines, even increases for short-distance migrants

Other birds wintering in the arid zone just below the Sahara desert have fluctuated considerably since 1970, but show a much smaller decline of less than 20% overall, with 67% of species maintaining stable populations. This group includes sand martin, whitethroat and sedge warbler.

And the species that winter north of the Sahara (the partial / European migrants) are doing well, with 56% experiencing an increase in numbers since the mid 1980s. This group includes blackcaps, meadow pipits, chiffchaffs and stonechats.

Still, “concern about migratory bird species is growing and future editions of the State of the UK’s Birds report will contain a regular update to the migratory bird indicator.”

To understand the changing status of the UK’s migratory birds, researchers need to understand more about what’s driving these declines. Evidence is currently being gathered from a variety of sources including tracking studies and on-the-ground surveys.

“The length of many bird migrations – often thousands of miles – makes it very difficult to pinpoint where and what is causing populations to fall”, said Colette Hall of the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust.

“So the more information we can get all along the migration routes – on land use changes, new infrastructure etc – the better we can target protection measures. It’s important that we help build up the capacity of local bird organisations and volunteers across the world to provide vital information through their own long-term monitoring.”

 

 

The report: The State of the UK’s Birds is published by a partnership of eight organisations: RSPB; British Trust for Ornithology; Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust; Natural Resources Wales; Natural England; Northern Ireland Environment Agency; Scottish Natural Heritage; and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

 

 




385518

Human consumption driving wildlife loss Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Human pressure has halved the numbers of many of the Earth’s wild creatures in just four decades, the Worldwide Fund for Nature says.

While the main recorded threat to biodiversity comes from habitat loss and degradation, it found, climate change is a growing concern. Both are driven by unsustainable human consumption.

WWF’s Living Planet Report 2014 says that vertebrate wildlife populations have declined by an average of just over half, with freshwater species suffering a 76% decline, almost double the average loss of land and ocean species.

In a foreword the director-general of WWF International, Marco Lambertini, writes: “This latest edition of the Living Planet Report is not for the faint-hearted.

“One key point that jumps out is that the Living Planet Index (LPI), which measures more than 10,000 representative populations of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish, has declined by 52% since 1970.

“Put another way, in less than two human generations, population sizes of vertebrate species have dropped by half.”

The Report is based on the Index, a database maintained by the Zoological Society of London(ZSL).

Industrial-scale killing

According to WWF, the state of the world’s biodiversity “appears worse than ever.” But it is confident in the robustness of its findings:

“This is a much bigger decrease than has been reported previously, as a result of a new methodology which aims to be more representative of global biodiversity.”

The authors calculated the decline by analysing 10,000 different populations of 3,000 vertebrates. This data was then, for the first time, used to create a representative Living Planet Index, reflecting the state of all 45,000 known vertebrates. The consequences, it shows, can be drastic.

Last week conservationists said that elephant poaching was now happening on an unprecedented and “industrialised” scale in Mozambique, after 22 of the animals were killed for their tusks in the first two weeks of September. Numbers of some marine turtles are estimated to have dropped by 80%.

Professor Ken Norris, director of science at the ZSL, said: “The scale of biodiversity loss, and damage to the very ecosystems that are essential to our existence is alarming. This damage is not inevitable but a consequence of the way we choose to live.”

There is wide disagreement about the number of species on Earth. In 2007, when the total was estimated by many scientists at around 1.5 m (it is now thought to be 8.7 m) the number of vertebrate species was put at about 60,000 in the IUCN Red List.

WWF says too that humans are using more resources than the Earth can continue to provide, felling trees more quickly than they can regrow, for example, catching fish faster than they can reproduce, emptying rivers and aquifers – and emitting too much carbon for natural systems to absorb.

Boundaries crossed

The Report devotes a section to the idea of the Ecological Footprint, the sum of the ecological services that people demand which compete for space. For more than 40 years, it says, humanity’s demand on nature has exceeded what the planet can replenish, principally through climate change.

“Carbon from burning fossil fuels has been the dominant component of humanity’s Ecological Footprint for more than half a century, and remains on an upward trend. In 1961, carbon was 36% of our total Footprint; by 2010, it comprised 53%.”

WWF urges respect for “planetary boundaries” beyond which humanity will “enter a danger zone where abrupt negative changes are likely to occur.”

It says “three planetary boundaries appear to have already been transgressed: biodiversity loss, and changes to the climate and nitrogen cycle, with already visible impacts on the well-being of human health and our demands on food, water and energy.”

The Report argues for the diversion of investment away from the causes of environmental problems and towards solutions, and for “ecologically informed” choices about how we manage resources.

Next year world leaders are due to conclude two critical global agreements: the post-2015 development framework, which will include Sustainable Development Goals intended to be met by all countries by 2030; and a UN treaty leading to effective action to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

 

 

The report: Living Planet Report 2014.

Alex Kirby writes for Climate News Network.

Also on The Ecologist

 




384780

British Museum – is BP driving your heavy-handed approach? Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




If you visited the British Museum on 15th June this year, you’d have seen quite an unusual sight. At 3.30pm two hundred people, many dressed as Vikings, gathered in the Museum’s huge domed inner court.

They started chanting about how the oil company BP – sponsors of the Museum’s popular Vikings Exhibition – was acting to bring about Ragnarok, the Viking end of the world, thanks to its enormous contribution to climate change.

Seemingly from nowhere, a pop-up longboat (see photo, right) emerged from the crowd, covered in subverted BP logos. The horde of performers then paraded this boat around the Museum, singing mournfully, before “sinking” the ship in order to give BP an unexpectedly moving Viking funeral.

Participants spoke passionately about their disgust that the Museum, through its ongoing sponsorship deal with BP, was allowing itself to be used as a cheap PR tool by such a destructive company.

This Viking-themed ‘flash-horde’ – organised by the performance activist group ‘BP or not BP?‘ – came off successfully and attracted a lot of attention. But despite being a piece of clearly peaceful theatrical protest, it was met with an unprecedented crackdown from British Museum security.

Why did you try to stifle our protest?

Every visitor to the Museum that afternoon was subject to a bag search – creating long queues out into the street – and harmless pieces of costume such as paper helmets and cardboard swords were confiscated.

Several performers (including myself) were recognised from previous performances and refused entry. One man, known as Thor, was even arrested by police after politely asking a security guard why he wasn’t allowed to bring in a cardboard shield adorned with a BP logo. (see photo, above right)

We wrote an open letter to Neil MacGregor, the Director of the British Museum, challenging them on their over-the-top attempts to silence our protests. Published by New Internationalist, our letter demanded some specific answers from the Museum:

“Why did you try to stifle our protest? Was it on direct instruction from BP, or were you acting under your own initiative? Why did you alarm visitors by telling them that the door searches were due to a ‘security threat’ rather than a piece of unsanctioned theatre? And do you condone the behaviour of the police officers who aggressively, and almost certainly unlawfully, arrested a man who had broken no laws?”

Why is this 1% of British Museum funding so essential?

We didn’t really expect a reply. We thought they’d just ignore us. But we were wrong. The British Museum have now replied to us, not just once but twice. The first email from David Bilson, their head of security, can be read in full below.

This email claims that they needed to ramp up their security in order to “protect the public and safeguard the museum”. However this ignores the fact that we have held a number of these performance protests in the past, including another 200-strong flashmob back in 2012. None of these previous protests were met with such an excessive security response.

The Museum’s email also claims that they need BP’s money to run their exhibitions. However, according to oil industry watchdog Platform, BP’s sponsorship makes up less than 1% of the Museum’s annual income.

The Museum seem to acknowledge this by referring specifically to temporary exhibitions like the Vikings, which they claim are only possible “with the kind of external support that BP and other large commercial interests are able to offer.”

Faced with the burning urgency of climate change, it’s absurd to suggest that the British Museum – with all its resources, networks and public profile – cannot fund its exhibitions without involving the fossil fuel industry.

Alternatives abound, for both the short and the longer term; for example, the PCS trade union, which represents 5,000 workers in cultural institutions like the British Museum, has laid out an alternative vision for the sector based on properly-directed public funding, decent pay and fairer management structures, in which corporate sponsorship is not required.

Fake beards and cardboard shields

The Museum’s second email to us is less formal, and invites us to come and take a tour of the Museum and have a chat with the head of security. We replied (see full version below):

“Firstly, why were performers prevented from entering the building, and why were their costumes and props confiscated? Museum regulations prohibit visitors from bringing in items which are ‘illegal’ or carry a ‘risk’ to the collection, but cardboard shields and fake beards are neither …

“Secondly, one performer was arrested and forced into a police car, despite doing nothing more than peaceably conversing with a security guard outside. He posed no threat to either the exhibits or the general public, and he had broken no law – as evidenced by the fact that he was released without charge.

“Why did this happen, and why did the museum guards who witnessed this not intervene on his behalf? We feel that the museum is partly responsible for this miscarriage of justice, and is deliberately stifling legitimate peaceful protest; but what is your perspective on this?

“Your suggestion that there has been ‘a substantial change in safety and security considerations as your numbers have grown to the level of 200 people’ is simply incorrect; we held a protest with 200 people (a Shakespearean flashmob) in November 2012 (see photo, above right), and although you searched everyone coming in on that occasion you didn’t confiscate any costumes, exclude anybody or let the police arrest people …

“We can only assume that your new heavy-handed approach is at the request of BP, because the company is embarrassed by the exposure of its real deeds to the public. If there is another reason, what is it?”

We await their reply with keenest interest.

 

 

Danny Chivers is author of the No-Nonsense Guide to Climate Change and a member of the BP or not BP? performance activism group.

Join the group on the People’s Climate March this Sunday September 21st – meet at 12.15pm outside the MacAdam Building, Kings College London, and look out for the pop-up Viking ship!

 

 

 

Correspondence – the first email from the British Museum

Dear BP or Not BP,

Thank you for your comments with regard to the security measures taken to protect the British Museum, the collection, staff and visitors on June 15th.

It is important to us that we are able to present leading exhibitions of objects and new research to our visitors. The British Museum is grateful to BP for their loyal and on-going support which has allowed us to bring world cultures to a global audience through hugely popular exhibitions and their associated public programmes. These have included; Hadrian, Italian Renaissance Drawings, Book of the Dead, Shakespeare: staging the world and Vikings: life and legend, as well as first-class visitor facilities such as the Museum’s dedicated lecture space, the BP Lecture Theatre. Without the support of BP all of this would not have been achieved.

The British Museum believes it is more important than ever to deepen people’s understanding of the world’s many and varied cultures and this is something that can be achieved through the temporary exhibition format. It is only possible to develop and host temporary exhibitions with the kind of external support that BP and other large commercial interests are able to offer.

It is equally important that our visitors can get access to our galleries and exhibitions. You acknowledge that as a group you made no contact with the Museum to make us aware of your intentions or to discuss essential public safety planning. We were obliged to work with uncertain information that we could expect a flashmob crowd and an attempt to bring a longship into the Great Court. Your previous protests have been much smaller and less intrusive for other visitors, especially when there were only about 12 players in the group. There has been a substantial change in safety and security considerations as your numbers have grown to the level of 200 people. The Museum feels that to conduct such an event without considering public safety issues in a space that is already crowded might be described as irresponsible. We would ask that if you intend to conduct a protest at the Museum in the future, that you notify us in advance to discuss the matter in detail.

The priority for the Museum, in delivering its safety responsibilities in relation to events such as this, is to protect the public and safeguard the Museum and the collection. While we retain the right to ask protesters to leave the Museum, it is our policy to seek to work with organisers of protests who contact us. In this way we can try to facilitate the free expression of views in a safe and pre-planned manner whilst discharging our legal responsibility with regard to safety. When organisers work with us to share their plans, we are more able to find an accommodation that permits entry to the Museum, so that people can make their views known, that also respects the safety of other visitors, who want to enjoy the Great Court.

We understand that you have strongly held views and acknowledge the importance of those views to you. We have no wish to stop you from expressing opinion or to inhibit debate, but we have to balance that against the safety, and wishes, of visitors who want to see the Museum. We hope that you will understand and support our safety and operational requirements in a similar spirit.

With thanks for your comments and interest in the work of the British Museum.

Yours sincerely,

David Bilson

Head of Security and Visitor Services

The second email was very short and informal, and invited members of the BP or not BP? group to come on a tour of the Museum.

 

 

 

Correspondence – our reply in full

We’ve decided to write this as an open letter because we want this to be a public debate; we’d be very interested in thoughts and comments from Ecologist readers!

Dear David Bilson,

Thank you for your reply to our open letter published in the New Internationalist on June 20th. We would like to accept your offer of a tour, so long as the Museum Director Neil MacGregor also joins us. We would like him to share his views on the issues surrounding oil company sponsorship, as until now neither he nor anyone else at the Museum has directly addressed the points we raised in our open letter.

Aside from general questions about the willingness of those in management to protect and preserve the reputation of BP – a company that is actively driving us towards irreversible climate disaster – there are some specific points from our last letter that we are still waiting for you to answer.

Firstly, why were performers prevented from entering the building, and why were their costumes and props confiscated? Museum regulations prohibit visitors from bringing in items which are ‘illegal’ or carry a ‘risk’ to the collection, but cardboard shields and fake beards are neither. Again, your letter cited health and safety concerns as the reason the museum attempted to prevent our peaceful protest on June 15th, but you know from our past actions that we do not pose any such risks. There has been no harm to any people or exhibits from any of our seven interventions in the Museum, as we are careful to consider public safety when planning our performances. We also aim to be entertaining to the public rather than ‘intrusive’, as you claim in your letter.

Secondly, one performer was arrested and forced into a police car, despite doing nothing more than peaceably conversing with a security guard outside. He posed no threat to either the exhibits or the general public, and he had broken no law – as evidenced by the fact that he was released without charge. Why did this happen, and why did the museum guards who witnessed this not intervene on his behalf? We feel that the museum is partly responsible for this miscarriage of justice, and is deliberately stifling legitimate peaceful protest; but what is your perspective on this?

There’s a simple reason why we don’t ask permission to hold our performances: in order to be effective and capture the attention of the public and the media, our interventions need to be lively, free-roaming and surprising, and we suspect that you won’t give us permission for those kinds of events! Your suggestion that there has been “a substantial change in safety and security considerations as your numbers have grown to the level of 200 people” is simply incorrect; we held a protest with 200 people (a Shakespearean flashmob) in November 2012, and although you searched everyone coming in on that occasion you didn’t confiscate any costumes, exclude anybody or let the police arrest people. We have not “substantially changed” our tactics since 2012, but you have nonetheless escalated your response.

We can assure you that as lovers of history and culture, we have no intention of putting the exhibits, staff or fellow museum-goers at risk. This seems to be obvious to the majority of your security staff, who have generally not prevented us exercising our right to peaceful protest. We can only assume that your new heavy-handed approach is at the request of BP, because the company is embarrassed by the exposure of its real deeds to the public. If there is another reason, what is it?

Thanks again for the kind offer of a tour. As we have mentioned, it is precisely our love of public museum space that has led us to protest against the sponsorship of our cultural institutions by oil companies such as BP, and against the willingness of those in management to protect and preserve the reputations of these dirty companies through these alliances. We hope, therefore, that the museum will respond directly to our questions, as well as allowing us a conversation with Mr. MacGregor.

Yours sincerely,

BP or not BP?

 

 




384211