To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
In this world, where everything and everyone is for sale, we must sustain independent media we can trust. If you believe independent journalism is critical to protecting democracy and the common good, please support Common Dreams this Giving Tuesday! We wouldn't exist without you.
"A paradigm shift is necessary," said an advocacy group. "Let's recognize now that the Biobío River has value in itself."
Biodiversity and Rights of Nature defenders celebrated a "historic moment" on Wednesday as communities in Chile joined advocacy groups in launching the first Declaration of Rights protecting an ecosystem in the South American country, with the document aiming to safeguard "the rights of Chile's Biobío River against mounting environmental threats."
Communities located along the river—the second-longest in the country—joined environmental advocates, Indigenous tribes including the Pehuenche and Lafkenche people, and scientists in several months of "participatory dialogues" to determine how to protect the Biobío River from industrialization and other threats to the countless species it supports and to the river itself.
International Rivers, a group dedicated to protecting free-flowing rivers around the globe, said that the "cornerstone of the declaration lies in its profound acknowledgment of the intrinsic value held by the Biobío River" and its right to flow unimpeded by hydroelectic projects, disruptions to the riverbed, and other activities.
The Declaration of Rights affirms the river's right to:
Another proposed plant is in the planning stages, and like the others would "jeopardize the river's flow and water quality, resulting in loss of native biodiversity and affecting fish migration and ultimately leading to irreversible damage," said International Rivers.
The riverbed structure and water quality have also suffered from both legal and illegal extraction of boulders, rubble, gravel, and sand that have been taken for use in construction, and ecosystem defenders have warned about the negative impact of proposed road infrastructure projects in the Biobío region.
Projects including the Concesión Vial Puente Industrial, a viaduct and road connection, and road projects such as Costa Mar and Costanera "would cause the total destruction of the wetlands of these localities," said the group.
"These developments underscore the inadequacy of the national legal framework in ensuring the protection of riparian ecosystems and citizen participation, lacking international standards that prioritize sustainable development in harmony with nature," said International Rivers.
Alejandro Gatica, a member of the community group Defensa Ribera Norte Chiguayante, said the Declaration of Rights "revalues and protects the water network," which is "in an environmental crisis due to extractivist actions on its banks, with uncontrolled logging, lack of protection of its wetlands, and the coastal project that threatens to intervene in its structure."
In a video about the Declaration of Rights, International Rivers said the Biobío "has been sadly silenced" by industrialization, despite the crucial support it provides to "multiple ecosystems and countless riverine and terrestrial species, many of them endemic," in addition to "water security and food sovereignty of its riparian communities for whom it is a crucial element in agriculture, fishing, and tourism."
"When we deny its right to flow we are silencing it. When we pollute, exploit, degrade, and urbanize it we are silencing it. When we block its access and connection to communities we are silencing it," said the group. "A paradigm shift is necessary. Let's recognize now that the Biobío River has value in itself."
The launch of the declaration "signifies a pivotal moment," said Monti Aguirre, Latin America program director of International Rivers.
"This initiative underscores our shared dedication to preserving this vital ecosystem amidst mounting destructive pressures," said Aguirre. "The well-being of the Biobío River, along with that of surrounding communities, is imperiled by the pressures imposed on its ecosystem, stemming from established dams such as Ralco, Pangue, and Angostura, as well as proposed hydro-projects and extractive activities."
The recognition of the waterway's rights is "a bridge that not only guarantees the inherent value of rivers and natural entities, but is also key to the full realization of the human rights of their communities," said Constanza Prieto Figelist, Latin America director for Earth Law Center.
The international Rights of Nature movement has celebrated several victories in South America in recent months, including a court decision in Peru that granted rights to the Marañón River and a ruling in Ecuador that found pollution violated the rights of the Machángara River.
"The Rights of Nature favor the incorporation of more powerful standards of environmental protection and citizen participation in environmental issues through, for example, the figure of representatives or guardians of nature," she said. "Likewise, comparative experience shows that they are a powerful instrument for combating activities that favor biodiversity loss or climate change."
"During the 20 years since our first study, the amount of plastic in our oceans has increased by around 50%, only further emphasizing the pressing need for action," said one leading researcher.
Some of the key scientists who first informed the world of the potential damage being done to natural systems by microplastics are now calling for world leaders to take decisive action to curb the introduction of these polluting materials into the environment—and they hope the looming United Nations treaty process on plastics can be a key vehicle for progress.
Alongside a new scientific review published cataloging the growing body of research on microplastics—defined as plastic particles smaller than 5 millimeters and "composed of polymers together with functional additives as well as other intentionally and unintentionally added chemicals"—the international group of scientists says concerted actions must be taken, including bans on certain materials and a focus on plastic pollution mitigation that puts less emphasis on consumer habits and recycling efforts by keeping microplastics out of the supply chain "in the first place."
According to the abstract of the review, published Thursday in the journal Science:
Twenty years after the first publication using the term microplastics, we review current understanding, refine definitions and consider future prospects. Microplastics arise from multiple sources including tires, textiles, cosmetics, paint and the fragmentation of larger items. They are widely distributed throughout the natural environment with evidence of harm at multiple levels of biological organization. They are pervasive in food and drink and have been detected throughout the human body, with emerging evidence of negative effects. Environmental contamination could double by 2040 and widescale harm has been predicted. Public concern is increasing and diverse measures to address microplastics pollution are being considered in international negotiations. Clear evidence on the efficacy of potential solutions is now needed to address the issue and to minimize the risks of unintended consequences.
Professor Richard Thompson of Plymouth University, who co-authored that first scientific study and coined the term microplastics just two decades years ago, says researchers now have more than enough evidence to show world leaders that serious action must be taken to curb the use of plastics, with special attention to the minuscule and microscopic forms of the material that are increasingly being found polluting ecosystems—both on land as well as in the sea—and embedded within living organisms, including humans.
"There are still unknowns, but during the 20 years since our first study, the amount of plastic in our oceans has increased by around 50%, only further emphasizing the pressing need for action," Thompson said in a statement put out by Plymouth.
In the statement, the university noted:
Since the publication of the first study in 2004, an estimated 7,000 research studies have been conducted on microplastics, providing considerable evidence in their sources and impacts as well as potential solutions.
Microplastics have been found on every corner of the planet, in more than 1,300 aquatic and terrestrial species, in the food and drink we consume, and in multiple tissues and organs of the human body.
With emissions of microplastics to the environment estimated to be up to 40 megatons per year, a number that could double by 2040, predictions indicate the potential for widescale environmental harm moving into the next century.
The research details how microplastics demand an international response due to their transitory nature. While they enter the environment in various ways—whether from direct release as fibers into the air from textiles or dust, discharged through water systems via runoff or sewage drains, or via breakdown or fragmentation—once discarded, the study says, "microplastics can travel far from their point of entry and are not constrained by national boundaries highlighting the importance of actions at a global level."
Professor Sabine Pahl, who teaches Urban and Environmental Psychology at the University of Vienna and is an honorary professor at the University of Plymouth, said, "Plastic pollution is completely caused by human actions. That's why we need research on perceptions of risks and benefits of plastic as well as other drivers of policy support and change, integrating a social science perspective."
With the next round of talks in the UN's Plastic Pollution Treaty set for November, the researchers said the negotiations offer a "tangible opportunity" for nations to act on this issue. "In our view," they wrote, "science will be just as important guiding the way toward solutions as it has been in identifying the problems."
The lead author expressed hope that the research "will be of use to both conservation organizations and government agencies" amid a legal battle over protections for wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains.
As U.S. conservationists continue to fight for federal protections that would cover gray wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains, research released Wednesday highlights just how important the apex predators are to the western United States.
The study was published in the journal BioScience and led by William Ripple, a scientist at Oregon State University (OSU) and the Conservation Biology Institute known for his work on trophic cascades and carnivores as well as his demands for climate action.
The paper uses gray wolves to show the trouble with "shifting baselines," which, "in ecology encapsulate the gradual and often unnoticed alterations in ecosystems over time, leading to a redefinition of what is considered normal or baseline conditions."
As the study details:
Gray wolves (Canis lupus) in North America have experienced a substantial contraction of their historical range, at one point almost disappearing from the contiguous 48 United States. However, their conservation is important in part because of the potential cascading effects wolves can have on lower trophic levels. Namely, the proliferation and changes to behavior and density of large herbivores following the extirpation or displacement of wolves can have major effects on various aspects of vegetation structure, succession, productivity, species composition, and diversity, which, in turn, can have implications for overall biodiversity and the quality of habitat for other wildlife.
"By the 1930s, wolves were largely absent from the American West, including its national parks," Ripple said in a statement. "Most published ecological research from this region occurred after the extirpation of wolves."
"This situation underscores the potential impact of shifting baselines on our understanding of plant community succession, animal community dynamics, and ecosystem functions," he continued.
The researchers examined journal articles, master's theses, and Ph.D. dissertations from 1955 to 2021 that involved field work in national parks in the northwestern United States for whether they included information on the removal of gray wolves.
They found that "in total, approximately 41% (39 of 96) of the publications mentioned or discussed the historical presence of wolves or large carnivores, but most (approximately 59%) did not. The results for the theses and journal articles were similar."
While the researchers focused on wolves, Robert Beschta, co-author and emeritus professor at OSU, noted that "in addition to the loss or displacement of large predators, there may be other potential anthropogenic legacies within national parks that should be considered, including fire suppression, invasion by exotic plants and animals, and overgrazing by livestock."
Ripple stressed that "studying altered ecosystems without recognizing how or why the system has changed over time since the absence of a large predator could have serious implications for wildlife management, biodiversity conservation, and ecosystem restoration."
"We hope our study will be of use to both conservation organizations and government agencies in identifying ecosystem management goals," he added.
"Nature is a really complex tapestry... When you start to pull threads out like you remove apex predators, the whole thing begins to unravel."
Amaroq Weiss, senior wolf advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), welcomed the study, tellingInside Climate News that "I think this is a really important paper, because sometimes science advances at a certain rate without a self-introspection."
"Nature is a really complex tapestry," she said. "It's woven together by threads that hold it together and keep it strong. When you start to pull threads out like you remove apex predators, the whole thing begins to unravel."
The paper comes amid a wolf conservation battle that involves Weiss' group. In February, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) determined that Endangered Species Act protections for the wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains were "not warranted."
Two coalitions of conservation organizations, including CBD, swiftly filed notices of their intent to sue over the decision if FWS didn't change course. After the legally required 60-day notice period passed, they filed the lawsuits in April.
Earlier this week, "the cases were voluntarily dismissed and immediately refiled to avoid any potential arguments from the defendants that the plaintiffs failed to give the secretary of the interior proper 60-days' notice under the Endangered Species Act," Collette Adkins, an attorney who leads CBD's Carnivore Conservation program, told Common Dreams in an email Thursday.
"Plaintiffs believe that their case was properly noticed," she said, "but we refiled to avoid any further disruption of the proceedings."