Tag Archives: must

Stephen Corry: conservation must work with, not against, indigenous peoples Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Since its inception, ‘conservation’ has pitted itself against tribal peoples, largely through taking their lands and forbidding their subsistence activities. This has included preventing local people hunting for food in order to conserve game for sport or trophy hunters.

Many conservation organizations now have more ‘tribal friendly’ policies on paper, but these rarely reflect the reality on the ground where conservation remains responsible for serious human rights violations.

Tribal peoples’ lives and lands are being destroyed by the conservation industry, tourism and big business. We’re fighting these abuses. We know tribal peoples are better at looking after their environment than anyone else.

What are you planning to do about it?

We are embarking on a very ambitious project, to press conservationists finally to abide by international standards on human rights and tribal peoples.

We believe that if that can be achieved, the partnerships which will result will eventually catalyze the most significant leap forward for genuine environmental protection in history. In its current form ‘conservation’ often doesn’t work: it’s failing to save many environments and it’s harming people.

The key to its failure is that the benevolent image it presents to the public in industrialized countries is far from how it’s perceived on the ground: locally, it’s often seen as just another form of colonialism, profiting from land grabs, invasive tourism (marketed with an ‘eco’ label), trophy hunting, biofuel production, and even logging and mining.

What specific areas are you looking at?

To begin with – Baka ‘Pygmies’ in Cameroon, who are routinely and seriously abused by park guards that depend on financial support from WWF; tiger reserves in India, which are used as a cover for land grabs and logging; Bushmen in Botswana who are being forced off their lands supposedly to preserve game (though a diamond mine has been built there); and, more generally, the real story of the suffering which national park creation has inflicted on tribal peoples.

Don’t you have to have conservation zones to preserve wilderness?

It’s invariably claimed that tribal peoples’ lands are wildernesses, but that’s wrong. Nearly all conservation zones are in fact the ancestral lands of tribal peoples, who have been dependent on, and shaped, managed and controlled them for millennia.

Many of the benefits of this ‘shaping’ are only now being realized: for example, the deliberate and regular burning of bush by Australian Aboriginals increased biodiversity and stopped the huge, dangerous fires which now plague that continent.

Far from being devoid of human influence, the world’s most famous ‘wildernesses’ – including Yosemite, Yellowstone, and the Serengeti – were home to tribal people, who were violently evicted when their lands were turned into national parks geared towards mass tourism and its businesses.

But at least these areas are now protected, aren’t they?

Preventing certain human activities in some areas is normal, and is likely to be supported by tribal peoples. However, in many conservation zones, the apparent ‘wilderness’ is partly a stage set, where water holes are specially dug near hotels to attract game, land is cleared to create vistas for tourists, and fences, roads, hotels, camps, airstrips, study centers, and parking zones etc. are built.

In this way, the same voices asserting that the land should remain ‘untouched’ can change it more than ever. Many national parks nowadays are not empty areas, fenced off from encroachment, they are crafted by conservationists in a particular image, and usually see far more human activity than they ever did.

But conservation has prevented species extinction, isn’t that good? Of course! The massive big game hunts pursued by the European colonists in India, and Africa are now more controlled (though hunting concessions are still regularly sold). However, the same species which were threatened a generation ago remain threatened today.

WWF says that Earth has lost half its wildlife in the last 50 years. Conservation simply isn’t working, and that’s partly because it alienates local people. It won’t work until it brings them on its side, and it can’t do that if it continues to be responsible for abusing them.

What do tribal people think of conservation?

Survival does not claim to represent tribal peoples, but it’s clear that some now view it as one of the biggest problems they face. Some are employed by it, usually at the lowest level – putting on shows for tourists, working as servants in tourist camps and hotels and so on. Some are intimidated by it, and a few profit from it.

What’s the evidence that conservation organizations are involved in trophy hunting?

The evolution of conservation ideas in the 19th and early 20th centuries was inextricably linked to trophy hunting. Conservation still routinely profits from it. WWF calls it a ‘legitimate tool’, a conservation ‘incentive’, even the best available option in certain situations. It has supported zoning in Cameroon which includes hunting concessions.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the world’s largest environmental organization, supported an auction to hunt rhino, asserting, “trophy hunting is a fundamental pillar of Namibia’s conservation approach and instrumental in its success.”

Several conservation leaders, such as the former King of Spain (ex-president, WWF Spain), the Duke of Edinburgh (ex-president, WWF International), and his grandson, Prince Harry (ambassador, United for Wildlife), have themselves been trophy hunting.

The view that such hunters make the best conservationists has long been widely held. Meanwhile, tribal hunters are accused of ‘poaching’ because they hunt their food. And they face arrest and beatings, torture and death, while fee-paying big game hunters are encouraged.

Aren’t some tribespeople guilty of illegal poaching or helping ‘organized’ poachers?

Perhaps, in some places, but it’s important to grasp the background. The first illegal act is that of governments and conservation organizations which steal tribal lands and prohibit their subsistence activities. The second is the persecution of tribes by those determined to keep them out.

With their means of survival eroded, it’s not surprising desperate tribespeople can be recruited by ‘organized’ poachers. However, it’s also true that this can be a fabricated accusation, used by governments and environmentalists to justify their own illegal acts (as is clear in Botswana).

Wouldn’t it be complex and costly to involve tribal peoples properly and fairly in conservation projects on their lands?

There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of organizations which claim to work for the environment. Every 24 hours, Conservation International receives $290,000, the IUCN pulls in over $320,000, WWF $2 million, and The Nature Conservancy $2.6 million: there is hardly a shortage of resources.

Were such funds to be deployed appropriately, in real and equal partnerships with tribal peoples, the latter are likely to prove far more efficient and better custodians of their own lands than anyone else.

The evidence shows that the most economical way, by far, to protect environments is to ensure tribal peoples control their own lands, the territories they have infinitely more expertise about than anyone else.

Aren’t you ignoring the complex realities of the power imbalances and racism working against tribal peoples in conservation zones?

No, we fully recognize them: we’re trying to change them. All too often the conservation organizations accept – even reinforce – them, or devise ineffectual projects to do no more than try and mitigate their effects.

Your criticisms of conservation have been denounced as a fundraising gimmick. Is this true?

No, probably most of our supporters see themselves as natural conservationists. By exposing the flaws in conservation we are prepared to lose support, and to be fiercely attacked by very powerful conservation organizations and their business partners.

The former include some of the world’s most trusted ‘brands’, and we know it will be difficult to persuade the public that they need to change.

In addition, criticisms of such organizations – which often litigate when they feel threatened – are rarely covered by the media. We are setting ourselves a difficult, but absolutely vital, task.

How can you claim tribal peoples are the best conservationists?

Survival has been very careful to make the claim after careful consideration of the evidence, much of which has only recently become available.

This includes: satellite imagery of Amazonia and other areas, which clearly shows how the Indian areas remain the most forested; game populations in the Kalahari, which prove that the Bushmen don’t overhunt as claimed; studies of the effects of regular indigenous undergrowth firing, swidden agriculture, and hunter-gatherer activities which increase biodiversity; studies of the destructive impact of invasive species, which can increase when tribal peoples are evicted; research on Rapa Nui (Easter Island) which shows that earlier ideas about deforestation are probably wrong; tiger populations, which can be denser when tribal peoples have not been evicted; and countless testimonials of indigenous people themselves.

What do other organizations think?

Even reports from organizations which have been responsible for the removal of tribal peoples actually support this view. The World Bank has been one of the most destructive forces over the last generation, yet one of its studies shows less deforestation where tribal peoples live; WWF asserts that 80% of the richest ‘ecoregions’ are home to tribal peoples which “testifies to the efficacy of indigenous resource management systems.”

Isn’t all this just more of the romantic ‘noble savage’?

No, it’s what the evidence shows. There is no doubt that tribal peoples have a profounder connection to ‘nature’ than industrialized society.

Their surrounding environment is not just a home but provides building materials, food, medicine, clothing, and all that is necessary for their families to thrive. They live largely self-sufficient ways of life, and depend upon their land for everything: it is their shelter, their supermarket, their temple, and their hospital.

More than anyone, their health, prosperity and survival depend on their environment, which makes them the best conservationists and guardians of the natural world. These are the facts which industrialized society has spent generations belittling with cries of ‘noble savage’

 

 

Stephen Corry (b. 1951, Malaya) was projects director of Survival International from 1972, and has been its director general since 1984. He has worked with tribal peoples in the Indian subcontinent, Africa and, particularly, western South America, mainly Amazonia. In the 1970s, he promoted ‘self-determination’ in the debate about indigenous peoples which was then largely polarised around the poles of ‘assimilation’ or ‘preservation’. 

In the 1980s, he pushed to popularize tribal peoples’ issues. In the 1990s, he led the opposition to ideas such as the ‘rainforest harvest’, which threatened to confuse economic issues with human rights. He was involved in the campaign to defend the land rights of the ‘Bushmen’ of Botswana, a country where he has been (wrongly) described as ‘public enemy number one’.

His work now is centred around building a groundswell of support for tribal peoples, significant enough both to endure for decades and permanently change the false and harmful assertion that they are backward remnants, destined to disappear.

Stephen Corry is the author of ‘Tribal Peoples for tomorrow’s world’, Freeman Press, 2011.

More information: survivalinternational.org/parks.

Alice Bayer is the Press Officer at Survival International, the global movement for tribal peoples’ rights, where she has worked since 2009.

Alice studied Economics and Politics at Bristol University and has a Masters in Development Studies from SOAS, University of London, where she focused on indigenous-led approaches to development in Mexico. She has visited tribal communities in India facing eviction from their lands.

 

 




387557

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

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

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

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

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

The exotic pet trade is a global evil that must be stopped Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




For three decades I have worked as a scientist traversing swamps, deserts and forests tracking wildlife hunters as they scour to catch diverse animals for their sacks and boxes. From this moment on, the meter of destruction is already running.

Next, the hunters’ swag is readied for a new and commonly shortened life in captivity as part of the growing international market for unusual pets.

Unfortunately, despite shuffling tons of trade permits – many of which can be obtained illegally – few, if any, civil servants, CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) managers or other so-called ‘competent authorities’ ever physically enter the hard end of the wildlife trade to witness, let alone control, the destruction.

CITES aims to ” … ensure that international trade in endangered species of plants and animals is sustainable.” Not only are CITES’ aims and achievements somewhat fanciful, but in my experience CITES is often a mere tool for wildlife traders.

Investigate the sources of trade and you will find no controllers, no scientific observers, just exploiters. Anyway, 25% of trade is thought illegal – hardly well under control. Safe ‘sustainable’ trade is mostly a myth.

Lengthy scientific articles now regularly chronicle the harm inherent to trading wild animals as pets. Just one review this year published in the prestigious journal Conservation Biology concluded:

“International trade in exotic pets is an important and increasing driver of biodiversity loss and often compromises the standards required for good animal welfare; one-fifth of recent wildlife trade reports were driven by demand for pets or animals for use in entertainment; unsustainable harvest of wild animals for the pet trade has already led to population decline and collapse for many species; animal welfare is compromised to some extent at all stages of the exotic pet trade; legality of trade does not guarantee its sustainability; many of the species traded as pets are threatened.”

Trade thrives, controls fail.

Poor welfare worsens conservation and ecological threats

Little, if anything, that happens in the exotic pet industry is irrelevant to ecology. For instance, poor (more accurately disastrous) animal welfare affects species conservation and thence ecology because high mortality rates prompt raised compensatory collection and repeat purchases – expensive vivariums need occupants!

According to WWF and an article in The Ecologist, mortality for wild-caught marine fish is approximately 80% pre-sale. Mortality rates on pet fish ‘farms’ are unclear, but the end result is shocking anyway.

The UK alone imports around 40 million pet fish annually (marine and freshwater) and almost all die prematurely within a year. Reptile trading is another example where destructive collection, breeding and storage lead to an industry-standard presale mortality of 70% within just six.

Die-off between pet retailer and the home is 81% in a year. The aquarium and reptile industry manifests nearly the same lethality as a slaughterhouse.

Survivors are often troublesome to their keepers and released into the local habitat where they may become invasive. At least 51 types of released reptile and amphibian live wild around London alone. Controlling European invasives costs over €12.5 billion annually and the bill is rising fast.

Every imported or released exotic animal is arguably a Trojan horse harbouring a potential suite of novel pathogens that could impact on human health or agricultural livestock.

At least 70 pet-linked human diseases exist as well as a growing raft of threats to industry such as avian influenza to poultry and the degenerative illness ‘heartwater’ – which could rapidly wipe out cattle farming.

Indigenous wildlife is not immune to introduced disease, as demonstrated by the chytridiomycosis pandemic linked to released pets, which is rampaging through wild amphibian populations.

The irony!

Make no mistake, the international pet trade involves stealing other ecosystems’ wildlife, stuffing it into containers, and shipping it around the world to face a likely stress-laden and foreshortened unnatural life in a small cage in someone’s lounge.

One cannot help but wonder how the British or any other nation’s public would react to viewing one of their favourite indigenous species – be it barn owl, bank vole, or red squirrel – ripped from our own countryside, bundled into bags, crammed into carriers and sent worldwide where they will unlikely arrive ship-shape.

Fortunately, witnessing such destruction in Britain is improbable, because our own wildlife is very well protected. In the UK, and elsewhere, one must commonly obtain a local authority licence to fish at a river, and caught fish are typically promptly returned to their natural habitat.

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 determines that no British birds can be legally caught and sold or kept as pets, and both UK and European law leaves very little room for any wild animal to be treated as a pet commodity.

Not only does the UK government protect its indigenous wildlife, but it is also opposed even to the concept of capturing and selling it as ‘would-be exotic pets’ to other countries – it states: “We are not aware that unprotected native wild animals are routinely being captured from the wild and sold abroad as pets and would discourage any such activity.”

One cannot, however, ignore the tragic irony that whilst the UK takes such good care of its own house and even opposes the mere principle of siphoning off its wildlife, it continues to be one of the major consumers of other nations’ biodiversity and consequently erodes ecosystems worldwide.

Conclusions

Trading in exotic pets is an unethical and archaic concept surviving extinction not by merit but by fortuitous commercial biases inherent to the policies of government departments.

Governments do not entertain guidance on trade policy from drug dealers or people traffickers, yet they accommodate the vested and harmful interests of pet dealers and wildlife traffickers.

In particular, it is the obfuscation, obstruction and incompetence of trade-mollycoddling civil servants that stifles both the solid evidential arguments of the scientific community as well as the sincere efforts of the seemingly increasing number of ‘eco-aware’ parliamentarians.

The exotic pet industry is a pernicious force incompatible with good ecological, animal welfare and public health practices. It hides in plain sight rooted behind the sanitized façade of pet stores and the front doors of private homes, quietly facilitated by trade-permissive legislation.

Long overdue is the need to haul this industry’s modern-day dark-age habits to face the cleansing light of scientific scrutiny, neo-political good will, and common sense morals.

Evidential and ethical arguments overwhelmingly justify a complete ban on trading exotic animals as pets. Already available, however, are so-named ‘positive lists’ – which turn the historical ‘free trade’ concept around and stipulate ‘no trade until proven safe’.

This approach offers a pro-active and not reactive opportunity to favour wildlife over the deepening pockets of pet peddlers. But so long as the exotic pet trade continues, its maleficence will persist to the detriment of animals, humans and the world in which we live.

 

 

Clifford Warwick PGDipMedSci CBiol CSci EurProBiol FOCAE FSB is a Consultant Biologist & Medical Scientist.

For more information please contact the Animal Protection Agency.

Sources with links

[1] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cosbi.12240/abstract

Bush, ER., Baker, S.E. and Macdonald, D.W. (2013) Global Trade in Exotic Pets 2006-2012. Conservation Biology, Volume 28, No. 3, 663-676 (Nijman & Shepherd 2009; Lyons & Natusch 2011).

[2] http://news.mongabay.com/2013/1022-millar-aquarium-trade-deaths.html

98% of marine fish headed for the aquarium trade die within a year in the Philippines.

[3] http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2523460/the_dark_side_of_hawaiis_aquarium_trade.html

The dark side of Hawaii’s aquarium trade.

[4] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10888705.2014.918511#.VFu43CjCGQI

Ashley, S., Brown, S., Ledford, J., Martin, J., Nash, A E., Terry, A., Tristan, T. & Warwick, C. (2014) Morbidity and mortality of invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles and mammals at a major exotic companion animal wholesaler. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 17:1-14. DOI:10.1080/10888705.2014.918511.

[5] http://www.cieh.org/jehr/default.aspx?id=41594

Warwick, C., Arena, P.C., Steedman, C. and Jessop, M. (2012) A review of captive exotic animal-linked zoonoses. Journal of Environmental Health Research, 12:9-24

[6] https://www.savethefrogs.com/threats/frog-legs/images/Schloegel-2009-US-Markets.pdf

Magnitude of the US trade in amphibians and presence of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and ranavirus infection in imported North American bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) Schloegel, L.M., Picco, A.M., Marm Kilpatrick, A., Davies, A.J., Hyatt, A.D, Daszak, P. Biological Conservation 142 (2009) 1420-1426.

Sources without links

Langton, T. E. S., Atkins, W., & Herbert, C. (2011). On the distribution, ecology and management of non-native reptiles and amphibians in the London area. Part 1. Distribution and predator/prey impacts. The London Naturalist, 90, 83-156.

Shine, C., Kettunen, M., Genovesi, P., Essl, F., Gollasch, S., Rabitsch, W., ten Brink, P. (2010). Assessment to support continued development of the EU strategy to combat invasive alien species. Final Report for the European Commission. Brussels, Belgium: Institute for European Environmental Policy.

Toland, E, Warwick, C., & Arena, P.C. (2012) The exotic pet trade: pet hate. The Biologist 59(3);14-18.

 




386587

IPCC must speak out – we are creating a hell for future generations Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The headline statements of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s new Synthesis Report – unequivocal climate change, almost certainly driven largely by humans, and an urgent need to cut emissions – won’t come as any surprise to people who paid attention to the three larger reports the IPCC has released over the past 14 months.

But reading the full synthesis report, as opposed to the shorter Summary for Policymakers (SPM), shows that while the facts haven’t changed, the IPCC has subtly altered its approach to how it presents this information.

Instead of dealing largely in forecasts and responses, as in previous syntheses, it now frames the climate problem squarely in terms of risk management.

Not everything of importance in the full synthesis report made it into the SPM. The language in the SPM is also weaker, particularly about the nature of irreversible risks and about threats to food security. The full report contains valuable pointers for managing climate risks and the benefits of acting, so should be preferred for decision-making purposes.

The report is also great for debunking some of the persistent myths about climate change, both scientific and economic. But, unfortunately given the urgent need for new economic policy to cut carbon, it’s stronger on the former than the latter.

Combating climate myths

The report is useful in addressing some of the misinformation flying around in political commentary and the popular press. These include the following:

Myth 1: climate action is a barrier to development, especially for the poor.

The report says:

“Risks … are generally greater for disadvantaged people and communities in countries at all levels of development. Limiting the effects of climate change is necessary to achieve sustainable development and equity, including poverty eradication.

“Substantial emissions reductions over the next few decades can reduce climate risks in the 21st century and beyond, increase prospects for effective adaptation, reduce the costs and challenges of mitigation in the longer term, and contribute to climate-resilient pathways for sustainable development.”

Myth 2: The planet hasn’t warmed since 1998.

The report says:

“Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence), with only about 1% stored in the atmosphere. It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0−700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010.

“The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85C over the period 1880 to 2012. In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, the globally averaged surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability.

“As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998-2012; 0.05C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951-2012; 0.12C per decade).”

Myth 3: Coal will be the fuel of the future.

The report says:

“There are multiple mitigation pathways that are likely to limit warming to below 2C relative to pre-industrial levels. These pathways would require substantial emissions reductions over the next few decades and near zero emissions of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases by the end of the century.””

IPCC should make a stronger economic case for climate action

The one major omission from this report (which, to be fair, is also poorly represented in the research literature) is how the economic case for taking action can be better addressed.

The report contains an incomplete and flawed cost-benefit structure. Cost-benefit analysis is the standard method for assessing whether a policy is merited. It is used for short-term decision making but is totally unsuited to decisions over century-long time scales.

The lack of clear cost-benefit outcomes in this and previous reports has been used as a deny-and-delay tactic for the past two decades. This argument is nothing more than a red herring, and it’s getting very smelly.

The report pretty much admits the shortcomings of cost-benefit analysis, in the following two sentences:

“Methods of valuation from economic, social and ethical analysis are available to assist decision making. But they cannot identify a single best balance between mitigation, adaptation and residual climate impacts.”

Yet the report is perfectly clear on the physical risks to global-scale systems and the potential for total disruption of regional, national and international economies. It states:

“Without additional mitigation efforts beyond those in place today, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts globally.”

and:

“Climate change exacerbates other threats to social and natural systems, placing additional burdens particularly on the poor.”

What about the dystopian future we are creating?

There is no existing economic model that can assess the full costs of either of these outcomes adequately. When costing mitigation to keep likely warming below 2C, the report suggests an annual reduction of consumption growth by 0.04-0.14% over the century. This is against a backdrop of consumption growth of between 1.6% and 3% per year.

It’s ridiculous to suggest that severe, widespread, and irreversible climate impacts would cost us less than this. Much more likely is that these growth rates of 1.6% to 3%, if they were achievable and sustainable at all, would be severely disrupted by a changing climate.

The report could certainly afford to address this point more forcefully. It says:

“Effective decision making to limit climate change and its effects can be informed by a wide range of analytical approaches for evaluating expected risks and benefits, recognizing the importance of governance, ethical dimensions, equity, value judgments, economic assessments and diverse perceptions and responses to risk and uncertainty.”

But acting on climate is ultimately an ethical, not an economic, consideration. Insufficient policy action is a declaration of self-interest, condemning our children, grandchildren and the planetary system that supports them, to a dystopian future. That’s what the report should say.

 

 

Roger Jones is a Professorial Research Fellow at Victoria University. He was also a coordinating lead author in the Fifth Assessment Report and received a travel grant from the former Department of Climate Change to take part.

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

The Conversation

 




386252

Effective climate agreement will remain elusive Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




An effective treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will probably remain elusive, according to a new research study, because the steps likely to win political agreement would be ineffective, while those that could produce results would be politically unfeasible.

In fact, the Norwegian researchers conclude, the world is actually further away from an effective climate agreement today than it was 15 years ago, when the Kyoto Protocol was adopted.

The research is the work of a team from the Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research – Oslo (Cicero) and Statistics Norway, the country’s Central Bureau of Statistics.

The key elements of an effective agreement

The key question the researchers asked was what conditions could achieve an international agreement that would substantially reduce global climate emissions, in view of the extremely slow progress in the UN negotiations. They concluded that there is little basis for optimism.

Professor Jon Hovi, of the University of Oslo and Cicero, headed the project. He says there are three essentials for a robust agreement:

  • It must include all key countries – in other words, all the major emitters.
  • It must require each member country to make substantial emissions cuts.
  • Member countries must actually comply with their commitments.

While emissions cuts benefit all countries, he says, each country must bear the full costs of cutting its own emissions. So each is sorely tempted to act as a ‘free rider’ – to enjoy the gains from other countries’ cuts while ignoring its own obligations.

“Cutting emissions is expensive, and powerful interests in every country proffer arguments as to why that particular country should be exempted”, Professor Hovi explains. “This inclines the authorities of all countries to take decisions that make them free riders.”

The researchers identified five types of free rider. Some countries – the US, for example – never ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Others, such as Canada, ratified it but later withdrew.

Developing countries ratified the Protocol, but it did not require them to make any cuts. The countries of Eastern Europe also ratified Kyoto, but it cost them nothing as their transition from a centrally-planned economy to a market economy meant their economies could not afford to cause significant emissions anyway.

Finally, the team says, some of the countries that accepted relatively deep commitments under Kyoto may have failed to live up to it. The final compliance figures are not yet available.

Payment in advance against failure

“We must eliminate free riding”, Professor Hovi says. “Each and every country must be certain that the other countries are also doing their part. It’s the only viable option.”

He thinks any country avoiding its treaty commitments must face consequences: “Free riding must be met with concrete sanctions. The question is what type of enforcement could conceivably work and, if such a system exists, would it be politically possible to implement it.”

He and his colleagues recommend financial deposits, administered by an international secretariat. At ratification, each country would deposit a significant amount of money, and continue to do so annually until the agreed emissions reductions start. The total amount deposited by each country should match the cost of its commitments.

At the end of the reduction period, those countries that had met their cuts targets would receive a full refund of their deposit, plus interest. Those that had failed to do so would forfeit part or all of it.

Practical problems

But Professor Hovi concedes that not only would there be several practical problems with such a scheme, but there is little chance that it would be adopted anyway, because strict enforcement of an agreement is not politically feasible.

The researchers say that some countries – such as the US – support international systems of enforcement that can safeguard compliance with an agreement.

“At the same time, other key countries have stated a clear opposition to potent enforcement measures – either as a matter of principle or because they know that they will risk punishment”, Professor Hovi says.

“For example, China opposes mechanisms that entail international intervention in domestic affairs as a matter of principle. China is not even prepared to accept international monitoring of its own emissions.

“The UN principle of full consensus allows countries opposed to enforcement measures to prevail by using their veto right during negotiations.”

Governments will try to revive hopes that agreement can be reached on an effective climate treaty when the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meets in Paris late in 2015.

 

 

Alex Kirby writes for Climate News Network.

 




386225

To save the world’s wildlife, first we must love it Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




While the picky might point out flaws in the methodology, I cannot help but be impressed that large organisations like WWF and ZSL are willing to come out with a grand gesture.

Their report, perhaps ironically entitled ‘Living Planet‘ states that in the last 40 years the planet has lost over 50% of its animals.

Now, they are referring to vertebrates – and also admit that we do not know quite how many there are of most things … but … still this is a breathtaking figure, for anyone who has not been paying attention.

Hedgehogs – down 37% in 10 years

For those that have been paying attention, this sort of decline is already well-known. I have been studying hedgehogs since the mid 1980s – and the anecdotal observations have consistently been of a decline in their numbers.

It was only in 2011 that we (I work with the British Hedgehog Preservation Society and the People’s Trust for Endangered Species) were in a position to get the research done to give us a concrete answer to the scale of the decline.

And when we updated it last year, even I, so deeply involved, was horrified. There has been a 37% decline in hedgehogs in Britain in the last ten years.

That is a faster rate of decline than that being experienced by tigers in the wild.

Extinction is the end of long period of attrition

What most interests me about this report is that it is looking at the numbers of animals themselves. Too often the attention is focussed on the demise of a species. But the moment of extinction is really rather trivial compared to the decades before.

Thom van Dooren described this well in his book, Flight Ways. The loss of the last of a species is nothing compared to the loss of the mass of individuals before that one, which is nothing compared to the loss of functionality within the ecosystem and which is topped off by the evolutionary loss – the millions of years and individuals that have gone in to creating that one, last creature.

All of this is being wiped out by our violence. Van Dooren describes it as a “violence that is often rendered invisible … by its slowness.”

How can we stop that violence? The first thing is to become aware that it is going on – and this report is a valuable step in that direction. But we need to look deeper than a simple awareness as that will tend to give us a false sense of security.

Somehow, this was not worth asking the Prime Minister about

We will look back to what we remember as the golden era of bountiful wildlife – which will be within our lifetime – and hope to recreate such a scene.

But that was already a disastrously denuded landscape. This is the idea of ‘shifting baselines’ that is beginning to get the attention it should. We need to be more ambitious.

As the news of this report broke on Tuesday morning, some attention was paid. But it was treated almost as a light item to insert alongside the real news of economy and fear. The Prime Minister was interviewed on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. I was not surprised that no mention of this report was made – but I still fumed.

Satish Kumar once said that it is a madness that we concentrate so much on the economy and so little on the ecology – both words stem from the same root – oikos, meaning home.

And ecology means the study of our home – economy, management. To have one without the other is absurd. Having one without the other is why we are suffering such catastrophic loss.

Appreciate the wonder of life – and act to save it

At times the realisation of the extent of loss leaves me gasping – and I do think that there is a need to engage in a form of grieving for what has gone.

But we also need to create change. And for that we need to embrace the rather unscientific notion of love. As Stephen Jay Gould said, “We will not fight to save what we do not love.”

But loving the vulnerable sets you up for grief, so we hold back, erect walls, and numb ourselves with quick fixes. But without taking that risk of falling in love we will always remain removed from the reality of the problem and will never find the solution.

We may be going to hell in a handcart, but we are doing so surrounded by an awe-inspiring world – surrounded by, as Darwin said, “endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful”.

And that includes the people – among whom I hope, so deeply, are already seeded the solutions which will pull us back from this brink.

 

 

The report: Living Planet Report 2014.

Hugh Warwick is an ecologist and author. For more information, articles etc, see his website: www.urchin.info.

Books by Hugh Warwick


Also on The Ecologist

 

 




384748