Tag Archives: government

ECJ affirms UK’s right to clean air – the Government must act! Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The European Court of Justice delivered a landmark verdict today by ruling in favour of ClientEarth’s case against the UK Government for its failure to tackle air pollution.

This ground-breaking ruling, the first ever on the effect of the EU’s Air Quality Directive, puts the UK Government in “ongoing breach” of UK law.

And it means that the UK Supreme Court will be compelled to take action against the Government, with the threat of huge fines being handed out further down the line if the breach continues.

The ruling has also paved the way for future legal actions to enforce other EU targets on emissions and energy efficiency.

How did the Government get in such a mess?

The EU’s Air Quality Directive sets legal limits on air quality which member states are required to meet within a certain time frame.

Our current government is failing spectacularly to meet these targets: it has drawn up plans which show it will not meet nitrogen dioxide limits until after 2030 – 20 years after the original deadline!

This prompted environmental lawyers at ClientEarth to take our Government to court. This is embarrassing for the Government to say the least – and it’s deeply concerning that it takes an EU Court ruling for them to start taking the issue of air pollution seriously.

ClientEarth got it right when they said: “We have a legal right to breathe clean air. When the government fails in its duty to uphold that, the courts must step in.

“If the government were allowed to stick with current proposals for tackling pollution, a child born today in London, Birmingham or Leeds would have to wait until after their 16th birthday before they can breathe air that meets legal limits.

“ClientEarth does not believe this is acceptable, which is why we have challenged the government through the courts for the past five years to tackle the problem urgently. The longer government is allowed to delay, the more people will die or be made seriously ill by air pollution.”

In their judgment, the panel of European judges said the Government should have planned to secure compliance with the Directive by January 2015 – 15 years earlier than it intended.

Air pollution and disease – the facts

Air pollution, primarily caused by emissions from road vehicles, is the second biggest killer in our country after smoking. According to the Healthy Air campaign, air pollution contributes to around 200,000 early deaths in the UK each year.

Cars, lorries, vans and buses emit large amounts of air pollution directly into the streets where we live and work. With more vehicles on the road than ever, this is creating significant problems. In densely populated areas like London the impacts are exacerbated.

Burning fuels in boilers and power stations is another source of air pollution. Heating boilers, power generation, and industry burning coal, oil, wood, petrol, diesel and natural gas – energy sources which we are very reliant on, are all significant sources of pollution.

I also remain concerned about the impact of aviation on air pollution – particularly with proposals for a new runway at either Heathrow or Gatwick.

Air pollution is an invisible public health crisis. Long term exposure to air pollution is associated with heart and lung disease. Diesel fumes are the main source of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) – a harmful gas linked with heart attacks and asthma and the gas that this court case rests on.

Children can be particularly vulnerable to the impacts. Research has shown that children growing up near motorways can suffer permanently reduced lung capacity. This may also be the case for people living nearby to other high polluting industries such as airports.

Even those who live and work in areas with clean air can have their health affected when they visit a polluted area as short term exposure to air pollution can irritate our airways, causing wheezing and shortness of breath. This is particularly a problem for those with existing respiratory conditions, such as asthma.

What happens next?

The growing problem of air pollution isn’t going to go away. As the Green MEP for South East England, an area widely affected by poor air quality, I believe this issue needs to be tackled at every level of Government, from local councils to Westminster.

For that to happen the Government must wake up to the reality of air pollution. Clean air is one of the fundamental things we need in order to enjoy good health and a good quality of life.

The judgment is also good news for the rest of Europe. As ClientEarth points out, today’s judgment sets a “groundbreaking legal precedent in EU law” – one that will paves the way for other legal challenges across the EU. ClientEarth has promised to “spearhead these efforts to help people defend their right to clean air in court.”

The legal case will return to the UK Supreme Court for a final ruling in 2015, for judges to apply the ECJ’s ruling to the facts in the UK case, following the judges order that

“it is for the national court having jurisdiction, should a case be brought before it, to take, with regard to the national authority, any necessary measure, such as an order in the appropriate terms, so that the authority establishes the plan required by the directive in accordance with the conditions laid down by the latter.”

In other words the UK Supreme Court is required to order the government to draw up a new plan to meet limits in a much shorter timeframe. But the Government should not wait until it is ordered – it should draw up and implement urgent plans immediately to drastically cut pollution from diesel vehicles and bring itself within the law.

In my opinion, dirty diesel-burning HGVs, buses and trains in particular should be a first priority for emissions reductions, with urban buses switching to ‘hybrid’ and purely electric technologies.

There’s also a case for ‘grounding’ all non-essential diesel vehicles at times of high air pollution. And the Green Party believes that London’s plans for an ‘ultra low emission zone‘ should be rolled out nationally.

But we must also address the deeper causes – which means investing much more in sustainable transport methods such as cycling and walking, and the shift from cars to public transport to reduce overall traffic levels. The public must also be properly warned of the risks, and how to reduce exposure.

There’s lots to do – and it’s high time for the Government to stop prevaricating, wake up and get on with the job!

 

 

Keith Taylor is the Green MEP for South East England.

Website: keithtaylormep.org.uk.

 

 




380987

Greens join Swedish government with radical environmental agenda Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven heralded a return for the green and progressive values for which Sweden is internationally known as he welcomed the Green party into government for the first time last Friday.

Feminism, environmental responsibility and social security were all at the forefront of the government program in the unveiling of a new Social Democrat / Green coalition after eight years of centre-right rule.

As Löfven strolled to meet the press he was flanked by two smiling faces – Green Party co-spokespeople Åsa Romson (the new Minister for Climate and Environment and Vice Prime Minister) and Gustav Fridolin (Minister for Education).

Government posts are also going to Mehmet Kaplan (Minister for Housing and Urban Development and IT), Per Bolund (Minister for the Financial Market and Consumer Affairs), Alice Bah Kuhnke (Minister for Culture and Democracy) and Isabella Lövin (Minister for Development Assistance).

The new government has vowed to make Sweden a global leader again in tackling environmental degradation and inequality.

With 25 seats in the Riksdag (parliament) and three ministries, as well as important portfolios in the finance and business departments, the coalition marks a milepost on a long journey for Green politics in Sweden.

Rising from the ashes of the 1980s anti-nuclear movement, the Greens have spent the last decade readying themselves for government, and now find themselves a powerful voice in Scandinavia’s largest country as junior partners to Löfven’s Social Democrats.

Putting Green politics on the map

From his office window on Stockholm’s South Island, Green Party chairman Anders Wallner can see the Swedish parliament across the weir where the freshwater of Sweden’s inland lakes meets the Baltic Sea.

Wallner himself is typical of the new face of Green politics in Sweden. Like co-convenor Fridolin he is in his early 30s and has attempted to profile the party as a young and dynamic alternative to the older, more dogmatic politics of the Social Democrats and Left Party.

Unfortunately for Wallner and his colleagues, the left bloc failed to command the full majority it had expected from some opinion polls. The Greens even saw their vote fractionally decrease, by 0.45% to 6.89% – but still enough for them to retain their entire 25-seat bloc in Parliament.

And despite failing to match the record 15% achieved by the Greens in the European elections, Wallner is positive about the movement’s direction.

“If you had to choose between 7.3% as an opposition party or 6.9% in government”, he says, the choice is clear. “You can see we now have a chance to introduce more of a Green angle to government and then hopefully grow in light of what we will be able to show has changed.”

Hard fought gains

The coalition agreement took almost two weeks to hammer out, but it contains several key concessions to Green policy, points out Wallner. The holy grail of accelerated nuclear decommissioning is now within reach, as is a change of tack in other key areas of green policy.

“If you look at that declaration it is pretty clear this is a government that will put the climate first. We will introduce a framework that means the current government and its successors have to implement measures at the rate required to bring emissions down.

“We have also opened up the discussion toward big investments in rail and public transport, completely renewable energy and more funding for biodiversity.”

Åsa Romson the new Green Environment Minister, has plenty on her plate – including a lot of environmental ground to be made up following eight bleak years.

Under former Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt’s liberal-conservative coalition, in charge from 2006 until last week, 14 of an ambitious 16 environmental goals for 2020 were timetabled to fail according to the country’s own environmental protection agency.

Sweden also suffers from being one of Europe’s most consumer driven societies. A recent ranking by the WWF placed Sweden just behind the US and Gulf states in terms of its global environmental impact.

The nation’s wealth has created an insatiable appetite for consumer goods, meat and long distance travel. Less affected by the global economic downturn than the Eurozone or the UK, it has carried on spending in the globalised marketplace.

Its middle class regularly winter in Thailand, and central Stockholm is filled with large jeeps and estate cars belonging it wealthy suburban commuters.

Struggling with self-image

Across the city, in the middle of a busy shopping centre, stands former Green leader Maria Wetterstrand. What might not seem fertile territory for Green politics in other countries is illustrative of Sweden’s particular brand of mainstream environmentalism.

Wired up with a radio miccrophone, Wetterstrand and fellow Green Gabriel Liljenström talk at the shoppers diving in and out of chain stores and sipping coffees at American style mall cafes. They are there to sell a book, but also to sell Green politics.

“The environment is quite mainstream in Sweden”, says Liljenström. “All the parties try and profile themselves as green. In that sense we have achieved a breakthrough for the environment, and the environment is a big issue for Swedes.

“It always features in the top three concerns in polls, but then Swedes have an outdated picture of themselves. We were among the most progressive countries in the world in the nineties, but today we’re on the climate blacklist. Sometimes if you criticise our environmental record people think you are trying to talk the country down.”

Retaking the initiative

Despite being small in population terms, Sweden has always been a big hitter in environmental circles. The 1972 United Nations conference on the human environment, held in Stockholm, was a turning point in mobilizing politicians globally and at home.

With its seemingly endless forests and pristine lake systems the country is also a paradise for people wishing to escape the big cities. Yet thirty years on, the impacts of environmental degradation are still clearly visible in Sweden, from the bare hillsides of industrial forestry to increasing urban sprawl.

Neither is it safe from the impacts of climate change: last summer a forest fire tore through the region of Västmanland west of Stockholm, forcing people from their homes. The outgoing government was generally perceived to have responded badly, and an inquiry was launched to improve readiness for natural disasters.

The new government has also for the first time appointed a Minister for the Future, tasked with developing long term understanding of Sweden’s economic, environmental and social challenges.

There is another challenge lurking in the forests beyond the cities too. In the recent elections the far-right Sweden Democrats, whose policies include ‘balance’ in the science of climate change and increasing reliance on nuclear energy, cemented their support in large parts of rural Sweden.

They are one of the reasons the Greens and Social Democrats lack a full majority, and getting ambitious changes to the green agenda through parliament will be difficult.

“If you look at the negotiations between the Greens and Social Democrats they have gone pretty well … the danger is that we don’t then achieve the consensus to implement that policy”, says Liljeström, who was partly responsible for running the recent election campaign.

Breaking the deadlock

However there are things that can be done without parliament. The Greens were successful in pushing MEP Isabella Lövin, known in Brussels for her work in fishing reform, as aid minister in the Swedish Foreign Office.

And with Social Democrat former EU environment commissioner Margot Wallström as Foreign Minister, major foreign policy changes are on the way.

Under the last Government, Sweden moved radically to the right, as set out in a thundering article on CounterPunch by Jan Oberg: ‘Sweden, No Longer a Force for Good?‘, which alleged:

“There is no closer ally than US / NATO. It has stopped developing policies of its own and basically positions itself in the EU and NATO framework. It no longer produces important new thinking – the last was Olof Palme’s Commission on Common Security (1982).

“It has no disarmament ambassador and does not consider the UN important; it does not have a single Swede among the UN Blue Helmets. None of its top-level politicians make themselves available as mediators in international conflicts. Nuclear abolition is far down the agenda, problematic as a NATO-aspiring country.”

Now Sweden’s foreign policy is expected to take on an explicitly ethical outlook, according to Sofia Tuvestad of the Swedish peace and equality lobbying group IKFF:

“We’ve already seen some positive signs from the Foreign Office. Wallström has come out and declared that Sweden’s foreign policy will be more feminist, with nuclear disarmament at the centre of what they are trying to do.”

Another indicator of changes to come is that Mehmet Kaplan, City Planning and Environment Minister, was on board the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara in 2010 as it sought to break Israel’s naval blockade of the Palestinian Gaza Strip.

And in 2003 Education Minister Gustav Fridolin was arrested by Israeli security forces in the Palestinian West Bank as he protested with against the ‘apartheid wall’ alongside the International Solidarity Movement.

Can Sweden transition to genuine sustainability?

The big question of whether Sweden can transition to sustainability will, for the time being, remain unanswered according to Jonas Hinnfors, Professor of Political Science at Gothenburg university and a close watcher of the Swedish Social Democrats.

“I think it will be hard for the Greens to make any impact at all in terms of getting away from the growth economy. It will be in the details that they will no doubt be able to make a difference, and that means they can use it as a symbolic marker that the party is on the way to changing people’s views on growth.”

If the Swedish model is to be made sustainable enough to last, it means voters being prepared to abandon some of the consumer prosperity they have grown used to in order to make it work.

Even if the Greens can put Sweden at the forefront of global environmentalism once again, the country is not out of the woods yet.

 


Dominic Hinde is a freelance journalist specialising in the Nordic countries. He has written a PhD on contemporary environmental politics in Sweden and also works as a translator of literary and journalistic texts. He tweets at @dominicmhinde.

 

 




385148

One more heave! Ministers’ pre-election fracking drive Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




It’s a question of fear. What secretly worries pro-fracking Conservative ministers, The Ecologist has learned, is that a Labour administration in power after 2015 might reverse the current coalition’s efforts to make widespread fracking possible across the UK.

So in order to make it as hard as possible for the next government to reverse the plans of this one, the Department for Energy and Climate Change is accelerating efforts to get ‘phase one’ of fracking – as one government source calls the current drive – completed before polling day next May.

And they may succeed: none of the three mainstream parties that hold real clout in Westminster are likely to put up much of a fight any time soon.

Labour: intensely relaxed about shale

Right now an odd sort of rapprochement is taking place in Westminster. After years of glaring at each other suspiciously across the despatch boxes, government and opposition frontbenchers might be close to securing consensus on shale gas.

Labour has been creeping towards accepting fracking for some years now. In 2012 it set out a series of regulatory tests designed to limit localised environmental impact. Then, last month, the opposition tabled amendments to the infrastructure bill detailing these.

“If the government accept our amendments we’ll be in a position where there is much more thorough regulation in place”, said Tom Greatrex MP, Labour’s Shadow Energy Minister. “But there are other issues.”

These include the monitoring of methane gas, which remains the subject of a scientific study. A good excuse for Labour to delay its final endorsement of fracking until next year. In response, ministers are considering further concessions to get Labour firmly onside.

A bit more regulation is regarded by pro-fracking Conservatives as a price worth paying to win a swift political agreement. Even the industry has made it clear that they don’t oppose the bulk of Labour’s proposals.

Fracking firms’ only serious concern with Labour’s proposed regulation is the period of time needed to establish ‘baseline’ chemical levels in groundwater before drilling begins. The opposition is calling for a 12-month timeframe, but the United Kingdom Onshore Oil And Gas (UKOOG) thinks three months is plenty.

“This is a very regulated industry already”, said a spokesman. “Whatever government is in place, the industry will be committed to proper regulation and to full consultation with local communities that are affected.”

Nixing the NIMBYs

Oddly, the biggest threat to ministers’ fracking plans comes from backbenchers representing rural constituencies across England’s green and pleasant land – most of which are Conservative. These are the Middle Englanders – the ones who oppose fracking on the time-honoured tradition of ‘not in my back yard’.

Nick Herbert, a former government minister, is among them. Herbert supports fracking nationally, but rejected a proposal for explanatory drilling in his South Downs constituency earlier this year because it involved heavy lorry movements through a pretty local village.

“It’s difficult to judge when the costs of renewable energy might fall”, he says. “What the government must do is reassure those who have concerns about the environmental impact.” He also sees an economic benefit in developing domestic gas sources, since “shale gas could substitute for gas from other countries.”

Herbert, and the NIMBYs in his constituency, are always going to be a problem for the Government. But ministers have a ‘carrot and stick’ plan to reduce the number of times their campaigning actually stops drilling taking place.

Community engagement plans are being developed to combat their concerns. And landowners’ and homeowners’ rights to obstruct fracking under their property are being addressed in the Infrastructure Bill – which will allow energy firms to drill without the owner’s permission.

Campaigners remain defiant, and confident too

Green campaigners are facing a considerable challenge. They are fighting against a firm pro-fracking consensus in Parliament, where arguments about climate change are seemingly only being voiced by a handful of MPs – most visibly the Green MP Caroline Lucas (see photo).

Herbert, in common with ministers, thinks the minority of the population that are seriously worried about fracking and its potentially severe impacts are irrelevant to the debate – and can be safely ignored

But away from Westminster the enemies of fracking remain defiant, and confident. For Hannah Martin, a coordinator of the Say No To Gas group, the imminent election in May 2015 provides the perfect opportunity to squeeze MPs seeking re-election on fracking.

Say No To Gas now comprises 200 community groups which have grown up in the last year or so to stop fracking in their areas, and more are being set up all the time. The network is providing an “unprecedented level of resistance” wherever energy companies seek permits for exploratory drilling, she says.

As for the outcome, she is sure MPs and even ministers will be eager to please concerned constituents in what is likely to be a very close-run election. “It is definitely stoppable”, she insists.

Lib Dems: forgetting the long view

A key target will be Liberal Democrat incumbents desperate to win back popular support which has ebbed away during their time in government.

The party boasted about its environmentalist priorities while in opposition – but has done very little to restrain Conservative ministers in government. Following Cameron’s promise to form Britain’s ‘greenest government ever’, the result has been eco-catastrophe – and the Lib Dems must share the blame for that.

The party insists it has wrung concessions out of the Tories. Applications for exploratory drilling now have to be accompanied by a testing ‘statement of environmental awareness’. Planning guidance makes clear drilling will be refused in sensitive areas – and if the frackers appeal, ministers can ‘call in’ the case to make a final judgement themselves.

None of these really address the fundamentals of shale gas extraction, though. They won’t ensure the carbon from Britain’s shale deposits stays in the ground. Nor will they stop the industrialisation and pollution of countryside which may not all be ‘special’ but is still hugely valued by local people.

Martin Horwood, a Lib Dem MP worried by fracking, says his concerns have shifted away from earthquakes to water contamination and the long-term impact on climate change. “There’s still a lot of scepticism in the party”, he argues.

But will it make any difference? At last year’s autumn conference, the Liberal Democrats passed a motion giving the party’s official blessing to fracking. But it did so in terms that allowed its numerous doubters to keep quiet.

Now the rush is on to implement the policy, we may see further signs of Lib Dem unrest this autumn. So watch the Lib Dem’s party conference, where concerns over fracking may surface with renewed ferocity.

The coalition’s junior partners are unlikely to trigger a big row over the issue if they can help it: on fracking, as with nuclear power, they have allowed the Conservatives to call the shots. But the whiff of a grassroots rebellion among the party ranks could change all that in the blink of an eye.

Ukraine – the joker in the pack

Another dimension is the enthusiasm of American shale gas producers to get into Europe’s gas market. Encouraged by Europe’s growing tensions with Russia, they want to take advantage of the situation and give their flagging industry a new lease of life.

One plan is to open up Europe as a huge new export market for US shale gas. But the US lacks the export infrastructure needed to do this, and realistically the necessary terminals cannot be in place for some years.

The other plan is to use gas shortages in Europe this coming winter to engineer a pro-fracking concensus – and open up Europe’s fracking grounds to US companies.

Right-wing elements in the Ukraine government have already openly advocated closing Russia’s gas pipelines to the EU, something that would suit US fracking interests down to the ground.

But either plan would be a disaster for the planet because – thanks to high energy inputs and fugitive methane emissions from fracking wells – the global warming impact of fracked gas is comparable to that of coal. Add in the impact of shipping from US ports and it only gets worse.

But how big can fracking get anyway?

The switch to low-carbon energy generation, mainly from wind and solar, means that demand for gas should fall dramatically over the next 15 years. By 2030, the International Energy Agency estimates, shale gas could only ever provide 10% of the UK’s energy mix.

Then there is the problem that Europeans will strongly resist paying as much for their gas as the Japanese and emerging-economy countries do.

Some business analysts estimate replacing Russian gas with American shale gas would result in European gas prices doubling. Domestically produced shale gas will also need sustained high prices to be economcially viable, as it costs far more to produce than conventional natural gas.

“Realistically”, says the IPPR think-tank’s Joss Garman, “it’s not going to be a significant part of the answer.”

So the news is not all grim for the anti-frackers. Never mind the political support that fracking has engineered in the three main parties. Straightforward market economics might be enough to make sure that fracking never gets far beyond the starting gate.

Meanwhile determined anti-fracking campaigning aimed at MPs keen for electoral advantage in the 2015 election could make all the difference. It’s called democracy – and since it only comes around ever five years, there’s every reason to use it while we can.

 

 

 

Alex Stevenson is parliamentary editor of politics.co.uk, and an occasional contributor to The Ecologist.

 

 




383901

Badger cull fail – government throws science on the scrapheap Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Bovine tuberculosis (TB) is expected to cost British taxpayers nearly £100m in 2014. Scientific evidence is a vital weapon in the fight to protect cattle from TB.

Why, then, has the government just fought and won a legal battle to avoid consulting independent scientists on its most high-profile TB control effort?

Wild badgers play a role in transmitting TB to cattle, and culling badgers seems an obvious solution. A new round of badger culls is about to start, but it is risky.

A complex interaction between badger behaviour and TB transmission means that the results of culling could, depending on various factors, increase TB levels, instead of reducing them. To add to that, badger culling is expensive.

An expert scientific body was appointed – and quite right too

This is why, in 2013, the government started a pilot that it hoped would be give them a cheap and effective way to control cattle TB. Farmers, rather than government, would pay for the culling. And, rather than being cage-trapped, badgers would be shot in the wild.

This pilot was started in just two areas – and for good reason: the whole approach was untested, and the stakes were high. Marksmen shooting at night might endanger public safety.

Shooting free-ranging badgers might cause suffering. And, worst of all for the aims of the approach, failing to kill enough badgers, fast enough, would worsen the cattle TB situation that the culls were intended to control.

In the face of such uncertainty, the government adopted a commonly used approach. It appointed an Independent Expert Panel to assess the safety, humaneness and effectiveness of the pilot project. The expectation was that this panel’s conclusions would reflect scientific evidence, whether or not they supported government policy.

What the IEP found – ineffective and inhumane

The Independent Expert Panel found that farmer-led culling was far from effective. Tasked with killing at least 70% of the local badgers within a six-week period, cull teams only managed to kill between 28% and 48%.

Culling periods were extended, but still the total kill rose to just 31-56%, according to government figures. Unless more badgers could be killed, and faster, farmer-led culling risked worsening the problem it was intended to solve.

The 2013 culls also failed to meet their targets for animal welfare. Between 7.4% and 22.8% of badgers were still alive five minutes after being shot and were assumed to have experienced “marked pain”.

Despite facing these failures, the government decided to repeat culls in the same areas in 2014. If effectiveness and humaneness could be improved sufficiently, culling might be extended to more areas in 2015. If not, the government might need to reconsider their policy.

One would think, then, that measuring effectiveness and humaneness would be a central goal of 2014’s culls.

IEP advice comprehensively ignored

The Independent Expert Panel, together with government scientists, selected the most accurate and precise ways to estimate the effectiveness and humaneness of the 2013 culls.

Measuring effectiveness is challenging because – being nocturnal and shy – badgers are hard to count. The panel overcame this problem by using genetic ‘fingerprints’ to identify badgers from hair snagged on barbed wire.

They measured humaneness primarily through independent observers recording the time that shot badgers took to die.

The panel recommended that the same approaches be used for subsequent culls. But the government rejected this recommendation.

This year there will be no attempt to count badgers in the cull areas, either before or after the culls. The time badgers take to die will not be recorded. There will be no oversight by independent scientists.

Instead, the effectiveness of the culls which start tonight will be judged using a method so utterly inadequate it was barely considered in 2013.

Key data will be collected by marksmen themselves: people with a vested interest in the cull being designated “effective” and “humane”, who in 2013 collected data so unreliable it was considered unusable by the panel.

Available information suggests that any future claim that the 2014 culls have reduced badger numbers sufficiently to control TB will be completely baseless.

Failing to collect evidence will make the 2014 a fiasco

Why the change in approach? Government cites cost, and hired some expensive lawyers to defend its position when the Badger Trust sought, and eventually lost, a judicial review of the decision to scrap independent scientific oversight of this year’s culls.

Yet the cost of pushing forward with an ineffective culling policy would far outweigh the cost of properly assessing effectiveness and humaneness.

Government has repeatedly referred to its programme of badger culling as “science-led“. One would expect a science-led policy to entail gathering reliable information on management outcomes, and using this and other evidence to inform future decisions.

Choosing – against formal expert advice – to collect inconsistent, inadequate and potentially biased data is an insult to evidence-based policymaking.

When ineffective culling can make a bad situation worse, failing to collect the evidence needed to evaluate future policy fails farmers, taxpayers and wildlife.

 

 

Rosie Woodroffe is Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Zoology. She gratefully acknowledges research funding from Defra.

More about the badger cull on The Ecologist.

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

 




383895

Botswana government lies exposed as $5bn diamond mine opens on Bushman land Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




A $4.9bn diamond mine opens tomorrow in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve (CKGR), the ancestral land of Africa’s last hunting Bushmen – exactly ten years after the Botswana government claimed there were “no plans to mine anywhere inside the reserve.”

The Bushmen were told they had to leave the reserve soon after diamonds were discovered in the 1980s, but the Botswana government has repeatedly denied that the illegal and forced evictions of the Kalahari Bushmen – in 1997, 2002 and 2005 – were due to the rich diamond deposits.

It justified the Bushmen’s evictions from the land in the name of “conservation”.

In 2000, however, Botswana’s Minister of Minerals, Energy & Water Affairs told a Botswana newspaper that the relocation of Bushmen communities from the Central Kalahari Game Reserve “is to pave way for a proposed Gope Diamond Mine.”

And in 2002, the Bushmen told Survival International: “Foreign Minister General Merafhe went to the reserve and told us we had to be moved because of diamonds.”

The mine opening has also exposed Botswana’s commitment to conservation as window dressing. The government falsely claims that the Bushmen’s presence in the reserve is “incompatible with wildlife conservation” – while allowing a diamond mine and fracking exploration to go ahead.

Khama’s government has also been heavily promoting tourism to the CKGR while driving the Bushmen off their land.

Half the CKGR opened up to fracking

Botswana has opened up large parts of the CKGRto international companies for fracking, it was revealed last year in the documentary film ‘The High Cost of Cheap Gas‘.

A leaked map shows that exploration concessions cover half of the CKGR – a reserve larger than Switzerland – raising fears of land grabbing, a drop in water levels, water pollution and irreparable damage to a fragile ecosystem essential for the survival of the Bushmen and the reserve’s wildlife.

Licenses have been granted to Australian Tlou Energy and African Coal and Gas Corporation, without consulting the Bushmen.

While Botswana’s government has denied any fracking in Botswana, Tlou has already started drilling exploratory wells for coalbed methane on the traditional hunting territory of the Bushmen.

CKGR Bushman Jumanda Gakelebone said: “The government is doing everything it can to try to destroy us … Fracking is going to destroy our environment and if the environment is destroyed our livelihoods are too.”

Hypocrisy personified: Botswana’s President Ian Khama

Botswana’s dash to develop extractive industries in the Kalahari, and its abuses the the indigenous Bushmen, are plenty bad enough in their own right.

But adding insult to injury, Botswana’s President Ian Khama is widely feted as a great conservationist. In 2010, the UK’s Princes William and Harry paid Khama a visit in Botswana in support of the Tusk Trust, which supports various African conservation projects.

And Khama is a board member of Conservation International, the US-based NGO. CI and other conservation organizations have heralded Khama’s conservation efforts – while remaining silent on the persecution of the Bushmen and mining and fracking in the CKGR.

A Bushman whose family was evicted told Survival, “This week President Khama will open a mine in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve. Do those organizations who have been awarding President Khama for his work with the flora and fauna still believe he is a good example to the world?

“The residents of the Reserve are not benefitting anything from the mine. The only benefits go to communities living outside the reserve, while our natural resources are being destroyed. We strongly oppose the opening of the mine until the government and Gem Diamonds sit down with us and tell us what we will benefit from the mine.”

‘Poaching’ on their own land

The government continues its relentless push to drive the Bushmen out of the reserve by accusing them of “poaching” because they hunt their food.

The Bushmen face arrest, beatings and torture, while fee-paying big game hunters are encouraged. The government has also refused to reopen the Bushmen’s water wells, restricted their free movement into and out of the reserve, and barred their lawyer from entering the country.

Survival’s Director Stephen Corry said: “When the Bushmen were illegally evicted from their ancestral homelands in the name of ‘conservation’, Survival cried foul play – both we and the Bushmen believed that, in fact, diamond mining was the real motivation for kicking the tribe off their territory.

“Forced evictions of Bushmen from the CKGR have nothing to do with conservation and everything to do with paving the way for extractive industries to plunder Bushman land. Why does President Khama continue to receive prizes for his ‘conservation’ efforts?

“It’s an absolute scandal that Conservation International accepts on its board a man who has opened up the world’s second biggest wildlife reserve to fracking, whilst persecuting the Bushmen whose home it is in the name of conservation.”


Diamond mine timeline

Early 1980s – A diamond deposit is discovered in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve within the territory of the Bushman community of Gope.

12 October 1986 – Botswana’s Minister of Commerce and Industry, Mr Moutlakgola Nwako, announces the government’s decision to relocate the Bushmen.

1996 – A formal evaluation of the mine is completed.

May 1997 – First evictions of Bushmen from the Central Kalahari Game Reserve take place.

1997 – Anglo American drills two exploratory holes in the reserve.

31 August 1997 – Anglo American (the majority shareholder in diamond company De Beers) “denied any knowledge of its activities within the reserve” to South African paper ‘Sunday Independent’.

1999 – Mineral exploration camps are set up a few miles from the Bushman community of Molapo.

July 2000 – Botswana’s ‘Midweek Sun’ reports that Botswana’s Minister of Minerals, Energy & Water Affairs, Boometswe Mokgothu, told Ghanzi District Council that “the relocation of Basarwa (Bushman) communities from the Central Kalahari Game Reserve is to pave way for a proposed Gope Diamond Mine.”

2001 – In its draft management plan for the Central Kalahari Game Reserve, Botswana’s Government Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP) writes, “DWNP should continue to point out that mining is incompatible with the Game Reserve’s objectives.”

2002 – Bushmen tell Survival, “Foreign Minister General Merafhe went to the reserve and told us we had to be moved because of diamonds.”

2002 – A second wave of Bushman evictions from the reserve. The Bushmen’s water borehole is destroyed.

7 November 2002 – President Festus Mogae claims, “the program of assisted relocation of Basarwa (Bushmen) from areas of the Central Kalahari Game Reserve … was in no way related to any plan, real or fictitious, to commence diamond mining in the reserve.”

2004 – The Botswana government releases a statement which claims: “There is no mining nor any plans for future mining anywhere inside the CKGR as the only known mineral discovery in the CKGR, the Gope deposit, has proven not commercially viable to develop the mine.”

2005 – Third wave of Bushman evictions from the Central Kalahari Game Reserve.

2006 – The Bushmen win their historic case against the government. High Court Judge Justice Dow states that the Bushmen were evicted “forcibly, unlawfully and without their consent.”

May 2007 – De Beers sells its deposit at Gope to Gem Diamonds, for $34 million. Gem Diamonds’ chief executive calls the Gope deposit “a problematic asset for De Beers” because of the Bushman campaign.

5 September 2014 – Gem Diamonds’ official opening of the Ghaghoo (formerly Gope) mine worth an estimated $4.9 billion. The mine lies within the territory of the Gope Bushmen and just 3.2 kilometers from their community in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve.

 

 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Principal source: Survival International.

 




383722