Category: Main

The more that global warming reduces the ice cover in the Arctic, the greater the need there will be for multilateral arrangements to govern trade, resource extraction, and other issues across the region. Without forward-looking cooperation, a zero-sum scramble will ensue, leaving everyone worse off.

Stockholm – Whether we are heading for a future of cooperation or of increasing confrontation in the Arctic remains to be seen. But it is already clear that the region will command far more attention than it has in the past.

The main reason is of course climate change, which is accelerating the rate of ice melt and causing arctic temperatures to rise twice as fast as the global average. Owing to their pace and scale, these changes have obvious geographic, economic, and strategic implications. As the vast ice sheet that spans the region has melted, new fossil-fuel reserves and shipping routes have opened up, including the Northern Sea Route (NSR) along Russia’s Siberian coast and the Northwest Passage through Canada’s northern archipelago. However, the same trend has also fueled the loss of permafrost, threatening billions of dollars’ worth of infrastructure that may soon be standing in mud instead of on firm ground.

Moreover, indigenous communities that have lived in the Arctic for millennia are increasingly voicing concerns about the growing threat to their livelihoods. Nearly half of the Arctic’s land area is in Russia, as are around 70% of the four million people who live in the region. Most live in the Kola Peninsula area near Norway and Finland, which is also home to Russia’s Northern Fleet and most of its sea-based nuclear deterrent. But other parts of the region are no less important, strategically and demographically. Approximately two-thirds of the inhabitants of Canada’s arctic areas are indigenous people, as are the vast majority of the 56,000 people living on Greenland (which itself is the size of a small continent).

This summer, a century-old sailing ship, the Sedov, traversed the NSR without seeing any ice at all. Such journeys still are possible only during the warmest months, whereas transit throughout the rest of the year requires special ships, often escorted by powerful icebreakers. Nonetheless, the sea traffic has been steadily increasing, driven so far by the large energy projects that Russia is developing in Siberia. Chinese and French companies each have a 20% stake in liquid natural gas extraction from the Russian-controlled Yamal gas fields, and South Korean-built tankers are shipping this LNG to Europe – and soon will be supplying East Asia. Needless to say, many more projects are in the works.

Since 1996, the eight arctic countries – Russia, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark (Greenland), Iceland, Canada, and the United States – have cooperated through the Arctic Council, mostly to address environmental issues. But now that the Arctic is becoming an increasingly important global theater, other countries are taking an interest.

In 2013, China, India, Singapore, South Korea, and Japan were granted observer status within the Council, in recognition of their scientific research commitments and interest in future shipping opportunities. The potential for trade could be massive: the arctic sea route from Yokohama, Japan, to Hamburg, Germany, is 40% shorter than the current one that runs through the Suez Canal.

Perhaps inevitably, the new climate of great-power competition has increasingly affected Arctic issues. At the Council’s ministerial meeting in Rovaniemi, Finland, last year, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo shocked everyone when he refused to agree to a final communiqué and work program that mentioned climate change. The Trump administration instead used the occasion to attack China for its own designs on the region.

In May next year, Iceland will pass the Council’s biennial rotating chairmanship to Russia, which is not likely to squander its two years in the driver’s seat. Over the past decade, the Kremlin has devoted significant resources to strengthening its Arctic positions, reviving defunct Soviet military facilities and building new ones. This military build-up has set off alarms within NATO, even though a sober analysis would find that in most cases, such facilities pose no particular threat to anyone – except, perhaps, polar bears.

Still, other points of contention do matter. Russia regulates all of the shipping through the NSR, and thus will enjoy outsize control for as long as other parts of the Arctic remain covered with ice. But as more ice melts, new shipping channels will open up well north of Russia’s jurisdiction, and this will introduce a slew of new legal issues.Sign up for our weekly newsletter, PS on Sunday

In light of these looming issues, a recurrence of the type of confrontation that derailed the Rovaniemi summit would be most unfortunate. With the executive meeting of the Arctic Council taking place in Reykjavik next month, we will soon know what the future holds.

There are more than enough issues for the US, Russia, China, and others to clash over nowadays. But all should recognize a shared interest in preserving and further developing an open, collaborative framework for the world’s northernmost region. One way or another, the Arctic will become an increasingly important theater. It behooves us all to make it one of mutually beneficial cooperation, not war.

Source

• In this commentary, David Wilkie, Susan Lieberman, and James Watson from the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) argue that protecting Indigenous Peoples’ traditional land rights is one of the most effective strategies for preventing the Sixth Mass Extinction.
• “Most of humanity have been grossly negligent in our use of the Earth,” they write. “Wise stewardship of natural resources by Indigenous Peoples within their traditional territories has had a profoundly positive impact on the conservation of plant and animal species on land and in rivers, lakes, and coastal waters.”
• “The decisions Indigenous Peoples have made over generations have done more to protect the planet’s species and ecological systems than all the protected areas established and managed by individual countries combined. The majority of our planet’s last wild, ecologically intact places on land exist because Indigenous Peoples rely on them for their wellbeing and cultural sense of self.”
• This post is a commentary. The views expressed are those of the author, not necessarily Mongabay.

Humanity today face multiple crises. A pandemic grips societies around the globe and with each passing year greed, poor governance, and naivete push us further toward a climate change forced sixth great extinction and the collapse of ecosystems. It may already be too late to prevent the looming catastrophe of climate change. But there is an overlooked and undervalued blueprint for our survival. We must turn for help to the Indigenous Peoples who have, for millennia, provided effective stewardship of our planet.

Most of humanity have been grossly negligent in our use of the Earth. Businesses run according to self-interest have ignored the warnings of scientists to the detriment of a global community of bystanders. Governments have failed to attend to the long-term environmental and climate effects of those actions through necessary regulation and enforcement. And urban individuals and families continue to make choices with little if any understanding of how their consumption impacts the planet and our future on it.

Our planet has experienced five previous extinction events—the most recent responsible for the disappearance of the dinosaurs. If we are to minimize the impact of growing threats to the ecological systems essential to human life and prevent the planet’s sixth mass extinction, we need to protect the last remaining areas on earth that are relatively intact.

When we say “intact” we mean those dwindling places that still retain almost complete assemblages of native plants and animals, and where species are still interacting at ecologically functional population levels. Intact places resist climate change because they have multiple, redundant networks for capturing, using, and reusing energy. They better conserve plant and animal species and their complex ecological interactions, than degraded areas, when impacted by floods, fires and droughts. They sequester massive amounts of carbon and they keep wildlife pathogens out of reach of humans for whom they pose a deadly threat.

The current health, economic and environmental crises are shifting public opinion around the world about our role in damaging our Planet. Today there is a growing willingness to take decisive actions that are vital for humanity’s future.

Effectively and equitably protecting at least 30 percent of the world on land and sea by 2030, is one such way forward. But we need to be very clear that attaining this goal of “30 by 30” cannot happen unless governments, businesses, grant makers, and civil society respect and protect the territorial rights and traditional stewardship of Indigenous Peoples.

Wise stewardship of natural resources by Indigenous Peoples within their traditional territories has had a profoundly positive impact on the conservation of plant and animal species on land and in rivers, lakes, and coastal waters.

The decisions Indigenous Peoples have made over generations have done more to protect the planet’s species and ecological systems than all the protected areas established and managed by individual countries combined. The majority of our planet’s last wild, ecologically intact places on land exist because Indigenous Peoples rely on them for their wellbeing and cultural sense of self.

John Fa and his colleagues have estimated that 36 percent of ecologically intact forests lie within Indigenous Peoples’ territories. And Stephen Garnett and his colleagues note that though Indigenous Peoples represent less than 5 percent of the human population on earth, they currently manage or have rights over “many of the world’s most sparsely populated, intact places.” And just last week, Chris O’Bryan and his colleagues showed that 646 mammal species—around 14 per cent of those assessed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)—have more than half of their ranges within these lands.

That said, we know that these preliminary assessments grossly underestimate the extent of Indigenous Peoples’ territories. If you were to map the areas in which the loss of species and ecosystems has not occurred or is minimal, it would align with those last ecologically intact places on earth and the territories of Indigenous Peoples.

If we are to minimize species loss and a collapse in ecosystem function, we must do all we can to support Indigenous Peoples’ rights and their efforts to protect their lands and waters. This means respecting and enforcing their territorial rights and ensuring that they can exercise their legitimate authority to determine who has access to and can use their resources.

International conservation organizations should and do play a role in providing on-the-ground assistance to Indigenous Peoples.

Working respectfully with Indigenous Peoples to support their efforts and hear their concerns is both a moral imperative and one of the  most effective pathways to achieve the 30×30 goals, protect and conserve the planet’s biodiversity and ecosystem functions, and ensure a sustainable, healthy, and equitable future for all of humanity.

David Wilkie is Executive Director for Rights + Communities at WCS (Wildlife Conservation Society); Susan Lieberman is Vice President for International Policy at WCS; James Watson directs the Science and Research Initiative at the Wildlife Conservation Society and is a professor of conservation science at the University of Queensland. The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) actively engages with 205 groups of Indigenous Peoples in 39 countries around the world to help them protect their lands and waters.

Source

Global upswell of civil society organisations, communities and academics tells EC to align raw materials sourcing plans with the interests of people and planet.

Over 230 civil society organisations, community platforms and academics are urging the European Commission to reassess its plans for sourcing the raw materials it claims Europe will need to realise energy, industrial and military transitions.

The Commission’s plans risk destroying climate-critical ecosystems and sowing social conflict in Europe and in the Global South, authors of a collective letter that has received global support have warned. 

The letter comes in response to the Commission’s  forth September announcement of a new Raw Materials Action plan, which sets out how to meet Europe’s growing demand for ‘critical’ raw materials, such as lithium and cobalt, used in renewables and other strategic industries.

Extraction

While the Commission speaks of its plans in terms of sustainability and a  green recovery, the letter raises serious concerns that Europe’s current plans for sourcing critical minerals and metals will be far from sustainable.

Instead, the authors argue, plans to intensify resource extraction to meet growing demand, if realised, will place communities, biodiversity and even climate action at risk.

Guadalupe Rodriguez, who works on forest and extractive issues for Spanish NGO Salva La Selva, said: “The European Commission’s plans are encouraging mining projects in both the Global South and in European countries like Portugal and Spain, which we could call the ‘South of the North’.”

“In these places mining is causing ecological devastation, while new mining proposals are full of irregularities, lack transparency and are faced with growing resistance from local citizens, which is being ignored.

“Far from achieving a ‘green transition’, the Commission’s current plans effectively push for business as usual in line with European interests, at the cost of communities and the Earth.”

Own-goal

Plans to expand mining globally to meet the massive projected growth in mineral and metal demand, partly driven by transitions to renewable energy, could undermine climate change mitigation efforts by destroying biodiverse ecosystems essential to the functioning of the global climate system, the latest scientific studies show.

A new paper published in the prestigious Nature Communications Journal this month found that: “Mining potentially influences 50 million km2 of Earth’s land surface, with 8 percent coinciding with Protected Areas, 7 percent with Key Biodiversity Areas, and 16 percent with Remaining Wilderness … Most mining areas (82 percent) target materials needed for renewable energy production”. 

These numbers are set to increase in a global, market-led rush for so-called critical minerals and metals. The authors of the study conclude that, if this boom goes unchecked, “new threats to biodiversity (from mining) may surpass those averted by climate change mitigation.”

Hal Rhoades, northern European coordinator of the Yes to Life, No to Mining Network, said: “We cannot mine our way out of the climate crisis.”

“To display true climate leadership, the EC needs to establish and put in place policies for a low-energy, low-material transition in Europe, with a far greater focus on demand reduction and recycling. It also needs to contribute a fair share of support to Global South nations to redress the relentless, centuries-long extraction of wealth from the South to Europe.”

Demands

By refusing to consider options for de-growing Europe’s material consumption and alternative means of measuring wellbeing and progress other than GDP, the authors argue that the European Commission’s latest action plan represents business as usual and a threat to ambitious climate action.

While the European Commission’s new Action Plan does mention the importance of recycling and a circular economy, the authors of the open letter challenge the fundamental logic of economic growth that underlies the plans and policies.

They lay out a series of alternative recommendations to the Commission which could help put Europe on course for a truly just, green and sustainable future, including:

• An absolute reduction of resource use and demand in Europe
• Recognition and respect for communities’ Right to Say No to mining
• Enforcement of existing EU environmental law and respect for conservation areas
• An end to exploitation of Global South nations, and respect for human rights
• Protection of ‘ new frontiers’ – like the deep sea- from mining.
   

Speaking to these recommendations, Meadhbh Bolger, resource justice and new economies campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe, said:  “Europe’s desperate plunder for more raw materials must stop. We need a truly just and equitable transformation to a 100 percent renewable energy future and an economy within environmental limits. This means rich countries must reduce our consumption of resources, respect communities’ right to say no to mining, and end exploitation.”

This Author 

Marianne Brooker is The Ecologist’s content editor. This article is based on a press release from Yes to Life, No to Mining. 

Source

The UN Secretary-General released his annual report today on reprisals and intimidation against individuals and groups seeking to cooperate with the UN on human rights. Once again, the report identifies a very concerning number of threats and attacks aimed at silencing human rights defenders in retaliation for engaging with the UN, with evidence that a number of States have a strategy or systematic approach to obstructing and punishing those who give information, evidence or testimony in relation to human rights.

‘The Secretary-General’s report is appalling. Human rights defenders are integral to the international human rights system. If they are not able to safely share information about violations and abuses taking place in their countries, the entire system is undermined,’ said Madeleine Sinclair, New York Office Co-Director and Legal Counsel at ISHR.  

ISHR contributed to the report through a submission documenting a number of cases. These  demonstrate a disturbing pattern. Cases of reprisals featured in the submission range from States dangerously maligning defenders to killing them. In Venezuela, increased monitoring of the situation by the UN has been met with increased risk, stigmatisation and harassment of defenders working with the human rights mechanisms. In the Philippines, human rights defenders continue to be vilified by the government and accused of being terrorists. Defenders in Honduras, India, Thailand, Cuba and Yemen continue to be threatened and harassed. In Russia and Cameroon, defenders who engaged with the UN have been refused entry to the country. Defenders working on China continue to be smeared and discredited and there continues to be no investigation into the death of Cao Shunli, who was jailed and died in custody for trying to provide information to the UN. Defenders in Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia remain in jail because they dared to engage in international advocacy. Other countries cited in ISHR’s submission include The Bahamas, Brazil, Burundi, Mexico, Morocco, and the United States.

‘Around the world, human rights defenders continue to work tirelessly for a society that is more free, equal, just and sustainable. Because of their work, defenders continue to face unacceptable risks. They are threatened, harassed, stigmatised, attacked, jailed, even killed— there is much work to be done to ensure defenders can safely engage with the UN,’ added Sinclair. 

The SG’s report documents cases from 45 countries. The vast majority are countries that have been cited in the report before. New countries cited this year include Andorra, Cambodia, Comoros, Equatorial Guinea, Laos and Libya. The report also documents a much larger number of countries where a pattern of intimidation and reprisals is occurring (11 this year, compared to three last year). These include Bahrain, Burundi, China, Cuba, Egypt, India, Israel, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka and Venezuela. Nearly all cases addressed in previous Secretary-General reports have not been adequately resolved. 

‘Is this report working as a means of addressing the problem if the cases and number of perpetrating States remains so high, and there is little to no satisfactory resolution of cases once they’ve been documented? What does seem to ‘work’ is reprisals – they dissuade engagement, and perpetrators are emboldened when nothing is actually done about these attacks’, said Sinclair. 

‘Documenting reprisals in a report is important but it’s only the first step. The UN and Member States must do more! We need consistent and meaningful follow up and we need more States speaking out loudly and often about these shocking cases. The report is presented every year to States: States should use that opportunity to hold their peers accountable, speak out about specific cases, push for accountability, an end to impunity, and reparations for victims,’ Sinclair concluded. 

Source

The International Energy Agency (IEA), together with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), proposed a sustainable recovery plan to world governments. There will be no better time to move the economy into a green direction, experts say. Representatives of the Russian Socio-Ecological Union,  who’ve launched an initiative to collect proposals for a green recovery from the crisis, agree with them.​

Since the signs of the economic crisis began to manifest, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has repeatedly called on governments to make the recovery as sustainable and green as possible. That is, to emerge from the global recession through cleaner and safer energy systems. In recent months, energy economists have also joined in searching a way to recover from the pandemic.

A remarkable tandem, the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have released the  Sustainable Recovery Plan. As the developers of the document say, they are driven by the “sense of urgency of the moment”.  “Governments have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reboot their economies: they can turn 2020 into a year, when the world starts to win both climate change and coronavirus,” says Fatih Birol, head of the International Energy Agency.

The Sustainable Recovery Plan offers governments a three-year roadmap in the energy sector to stimulate economic growth, create millions of jobs and reduce global emissions. The energy policy transformation in response to the economic shock caused by the Covid-19 crisis should accelerate the introduction of modern, reliable and clean energy technologies and infrastructure changes, the plan says.

“Together with the IMF, we have reviewed all possible energy strategies and focus on those that will meet three objectives: stimulate economic growth, create jobs and avoid a recovery in greenhouse gas emissions. And we put forward three proposals: first, to improve energy efficiency, especially in the construction sector; second, to promote the use of renewable energy sources; and third, to modernise and digitize electricity networks,” explains Fatih Birol.

The Sustainable Recovery Plan is based on detailed assessments of more than 30 specific energy policy measures in three categories: electricity (including renewable energy), expansion and strengthening of electricity networks, development of electric vehicles and charging infrastructure, energy efficiency measures in buildings, industry and transport, and a separate category for “new technologies,” such as energy storage systems and hydrogen. The measures in the plan will require a global investment of $1 trillion. One third of the funding is expected to come from governments and the rest from private sources.

According to the IEA and IMF Plan, global economic growth would be, on average, 1.1 per cent per year higher than without green recovery measures. At the same time, about 9 million jobs will be created and retained annually, and by the end of 2023, emissions will be 4.5 Gt lower than at present. Implementation of the plan will also contribute to achieving the UN’s sustainable development goals: improving air quality by 5%; providing access to clean energy for 420 million people and electricity for 270 million.

The global energy sector will also become more resilient, which will make countries more prepared for future crises. If the Plan is implemented, 2019 will be the last peak in global emissions, enabling the global community to meet long-term climate targets and the Paris Agreement.

In their document, the IEA and IMF highlight key aspects of the current situation that make it unique: “Compared to 2009, we have at least three main advantages. First, the cost of clean energy technology is now much lower. Secondly, this year’s emission reduction is very steep. And thirdly, many governments around the world are taking environmental climate issues much more seriously today than they were a decade ago. So we hope that governments will pass the test this time,” says Fatih Birol.

“Even if we forget about the climate and environment, the implementation of the strategy presented by the IEA and IMF creates jobs and helps to lift the economy,” write the developers of Sustainable Recover. 

During the IEA Ministerial Summit in early July, leaders from four-fifths of the world’s energy consumption were invited to discuss ways to accelerate the clean energy transition and a recovery plan. According to experts, Europe has already developed a very strong incentive package for renewable energy. Canada and Japan have also taken steps in this direction.

Civil society representatives have also stressed the need for green recovery strategies. The Russian Social and Ecological Union (RSEU) together with non-governmental organizations of the world within the framework of the Just Recovery initiative addressed politicians, economists, governments and banks demanding that they use only environmentally friendly and socially responsible ways out of the crisis. Recently, Greenpeace Russia and the RSoEU have jointly launched a platform to put together proposals for a green recovery.

Source

The United Nations is marking its 75th anniversary at a time of great challenge, including the worst global health crisis in its history. Will it bring the world closer together? Or will it lead to greater divides and mistrust? Your views can make a difference.

Covid-19 is a stark reminder of the need for cooperation across borders, sectors and generations. The UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, has said:“Everything we do during and after this crisis must be with a strong focus on building more equal, inclusive and sustainable economies and societies that are more resilient in the face of pandemics, climate change and the many other global challenges we face.”

Your responses to this survey will inform global priorities now and going forward.