SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
wwf
'Monumental Victory for the Ocean': Norway Halts Plans for Deep-Sea Mining
One campaigner called it "a testament to the power of principled, courageous political action, and... a moment to celebrate for environmental advocates, ocean ecosystems, and future generations alike."
Dec 02, 2024
Environmental organizations cheered as Norway's controversial plans to move forward with deep-sea mining in the vulnerable Arctic Ocean were iced on Sunday.
The pause was won in Norway's parliament by the small Socialist Left (SV) Party in exchange for its support in passing the government's 2025 budget.
"Today marks a monumental victory for the ocean, as the SV Party in Norway has successfully blocked the controversial plan to issue deep-sea mining licenses for the country's extended continental shelf in the Arctic," Steve Trent, CEO and founder of the Environmental Justice Foundation, said in a statement. "This decision is a testament to the power of principled, courageous political action, and it is a moment to celebrate for environmental advocates, ocean ecosystems, and future generations alike."
"Today, thanks to the SV Party and all those around the world who spoke up against this decision, the ocean has won. Now, let's ensure this victory lasts."
Norway sparked outrage in January when its parliament voted to allow deep-sea mining exploration in a swath of its Arctic waters larger than the United Kingdom. Scientists have warned that mining the Arctic seabed could disturb unique hydrothermal vent ecosystems and even drive species to extinction before scientists have a chance to study them. It would also put additional pressure on all levels of Arctic Ocean life—from plankton to marine mammals—at a time when they are already feeling the impacts of rising temperatures and ocean acidification due to the burning of fossil fuels.
"The Arctic Ocean is one of the last pristine frontiers on Earth, and its fragile ecosystems are already under significant stress from the climate crisis," Trent said. "The idea of subjecting these waters to the destructive, needless practice of deep-sea mining was a grave threat, not only to the marine life depending on them but to the global community as a whole."
"Thankfully, this shortsighted and harmful plan has been halted, marking a clear victory in the ongoing fight to protect our planet's blue beating heart," Trent continued.
In June, Norway announced that it would grant the first exploratory mining licenses in early 2025. However, this has been put on hold by the agreement with the SV Party.
"This puts a stop to the plans to start deep-sea mining until the end of the government's term,” party leader Kirsti Bergstø said, as The Guardian reported.
Norway next holds parliamentary elections in September 2025, so no licenses will be approved before then.
The move comes amid widespread opposition to deep-sea mining in Norway and beyond. A total of 32 countries and 911 marine scientists have called for a global moratorium on the practice. More than 100 E.U. parliamentarians wrote a letter opposing Norway's plans specifically, and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) has sued to stop them.
"This is a major and important environmental victory!" WWF-Norway CEO Karoline Andaur said in a statement. "SV has stopped the process for deep seabed mining, giving Norway a unique opportunity to save its international ocean reputation and gain the necessary knowledge before we even consider mining the planet's last untouched wilderness."
Haldis Tjeldflaat Helle, the deep-sea mining campaigner at Greenpeace Nordic, called the decision "a huge win."
"After hard work from activists, environmentalists, scientists, and fishermen, we have secured a historic win for ocean protection, as the opening process for deep-sea mining in Norway has been stopped," Helle said in a statement. "The wave of protests against deep-sea mining is growing. We will not let this industry destroy the unique life in the deep sea, not in the Arctic nor anywhere else."
However, Norway's Arctic waters are not entirely safe yet.
Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere, of the Labour Party, toldTV2, on Sunday, "This will be a postponement."
The government said that other work to begin the process of deep-sea mining, such as drafting regulations and conducting environmental impact surveys, would move forward. Norway is currently governed by the Labour and Center parties. The two parties leading in polls for September's elections—the Conservatives and Progress Party—also both back deep-sea mining, according toReuters.
"If a new government attempts to reopen the licensing round we will fight relentlessly against it," Frode Pleym, who leads Greenpeace Norway, told Reuters.
Other environmental groups tempered their celebrations with calls for further action.
Trent of the Environmental Justice Foundation said that "while today is a cause for celebration, this victory must not be seen as the end of the struggle."
"We urge Norway's government, and all responsible global actors, to make this a lasting victory by enshrining protections for the Arctic Ocean and its ecosystems into law, and coming out in favor of a moratorium or ban on deep-sea mining," Trent added. "It is only through a collective commitment to sustainability and long-term stewardship of our oceans that we can ensure the health of the marine environment for generations to come."
Trent concluded: "Today, thanks to the SV Party and all those around the world who spoke up against this decision, the ocean has won. Now, let's ensure this victory lasts."
Andaur of WWF said that this was a "pivotal moment" for Norway to "demonstrate global leadership by prioritizing ocean health over destructive industry."
As WWF called on Norway to abandon its mining plans, it also urged the nation to reconsider its exploitation of the ocean for oil and gas.
"Unfortunately, we have not seen similar efforts to curtail the Norwegian oil industry, which is still getting new licenses to operate in Norwegian waters, including very vulnerable parts of the Arctic," Andaur said. "Norway needs to explore new ways to make money without extracting fossil fuels and destroying nature."
Greenpeace also pointed to the role Norway's pause could play in bolstering global opposition to deep-sea mining.
"Millions of people across the world are calling on governments to resist the dire threat of deep-sea mining to safeguard oceans worldwide," Greenpeace International Stop Deep-Sea Mining campaigner Louisa Casson said. "This is a huge step forward to protect the Arctic, and now it is time for Norway to join over 30 nations calling for a moratorium and be a true ocean champion."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Latest Plastics Treaty Draft 'Far From What We Need' as Talks Near Deadline
"Despite the majority support of promising proposals for global product and chemical bans, the latest draft treaty text offers nothing of use," one advocate said.
Nov 29, 2024
As negotiations for a Global Plastics Treaty enter their final stretch in Busan, South Korea, environmental and human rights advocates warned Friday that national delegates are "sleepwalking into a treaty that will not be worth the paper it will be written on."
The current treaty draft text, shared with delegates on Friday, excludes key civil society demands, such as a clear and binding limit on plastic production and a ban or phaseout of the most dangerous plastics and chemicals.
"Despite the majority support of promising proposals for a strong and binding treaty on plastic pollution, what we have currently in this text is far from what we need," Erin Simon, WWF vice president and head of plastic waste and business, said in a statement.
"A weak treaty based on voluntary measures will break under the weight of the plastic crisis and will lock us into an endless cycle of unnecessary harm."
A majority of the countries gathered for the fifth Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) to advance a plastics treaty supports bans on the most dangerous plastics and chemicals, binding rules on production design to ease a transition toward a circular economy, sufficient financial support to make the treaty a reality, and a robust mechanism to strengthen the treaty over time. They are backed by nearly 3 million people in more than 182 countries who signed a petition ahead of the last round of negotiations calling for an ambitious treaty.
Since negotiations began on November 25, however, progress has been stymied by oil-and-gas-producing nations such as Saudi Arabia, which called capping plastic production a red line, according toThe Associated Press. At the same time, plastics industry lobbyists together make up the largest single delegation at the talks.
"It's very simple: To end plastic pollution we need to reduce plastic production," Simon said. "To do that we need binding global bans on specific harmful plastic products and chemicals. Despite the majority support of promising proposals for global product and chemical bans, the latest draft treaty text offers nothing of use."
In order to bridge the gap on limiting plastics production before negotiations conclude on Sunday or Monday, Panama put forward a proposal on Thursday that would not set a numerical plastics production limit at this time, but would entrust signatories to do so at a later meeting. This proposal was backed by over 100 countries and was included in the draft text shared on Friday, alongside an option to eliminate the article on production.
Juan Carlos Monterrey, the head of Panama's delegation, saw the inclusion of the country's proposal as a step in the right direction.
"This is great! This is great," Monterrey told the AP. "It is a big show of force, of muscle, for those countries that are ambitious. And also this shows that consensus is still possible."
However, Monterey acknowledged to Reuters that his offering was a compromise.
"Most of the countries... came here with the idea of including a numeric target (of plastic reduction), but... we have put forth a proposal that not only crosses but stomped our own red lines... So we're seeking all the other delegations that have not moved a centimeter to... meet us halfway."
Environmental advocates and civil society groups warn that delegates should not chase consensus at the expense of ambition.
Graham Forbes, who leads Greenpeace's delegation, told the AP that the draft was a "weak attempt to force us to reach a conclusion and get a treaty for treaty's sake," though he considered the inclusion of Panama's proposal the one bright spot in the text.
In addition to the question of binding production limits, another sticking point is a ban on particularly harmful plastics and additives, which currently has not made it into the treaty language.
"What we have right now isn't a treaty with common rules at all. It's a list of measures so broad that they're effectively meaningless," WWF's Simon explained. "For example, we don't have bans, we have suggestions. We have lists of products and chemicals but no one is compelled to do anything of substance with them. Without political will to bind those articles, we would have zero chance of ending the plastic crisis, which is what we came to Busan to do."
Some countries as well as plastics industry representatives argue that the treaty is not the proper vehicle to regulate chemicals.
"At this point the progressive majority has a decision to be made," Simon argued. "Agree to a treaty among the willing even if that means leaving some countries that don't want a strong treaty or concede to countries that will likely never join the treaty anyway, failing the planet in the process."
WWF's global plastics policy lead Eirik Lindebjerg added: "We are calling on countries to not accept the low level of ambition reflected in this draft as it does not contain any specific upstream measures such as global bans on high risk plastic products and chemicals of concern supported by the majority of countries. Without these measures the treaty will fail to meaningfully address plastic pollution. High ambition countries must ensure that these measures are part of the final treaty text or develop an ambitious treaty among the willing."
On Friday, a coalition of observing civil society groups held a press conference in which they issued a statement making a final call for an ambitious treaty.
"Contrary to their excuses, ambitious countries have the power and the pathways to forge a treaty to end the global plastic crisis," the statement, signed by groups including WWF, Greenpeace, Break Free From Plastic, and Friends of the Earth, said. "What we are severely lacking right now, however, is the determination of our leaders to do what is right and to fight for the treaty they promised the world two years ago."
It continued: "A weak treaty based on voluntary measures will break under the weight of the plastic crisis and will lock us into an endless cycle of unnecessary harm. The clear demand from impacted communities and the overwhelming majority of citizens, scientists, and businesses for binding global rules across the entire lifecycle is irrefutable."
The signatories also said that ambitious nations should be willing to walk away and craft their own, stronger treaty rather than compromise on a weak document.
"In these final throes of negotiations, we need governments to show courage. They must not compromise under pressure exerted by a small group of low-ambition states and hinge the life of our planet on unachievable consensus," they concluded. "We demand a strong treaty that protects our health and the health of future generations."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Stop Green Genocide in Cameroon
Fortress conservation has pushed the Baka people from the rainforests of the Congo Basin into villages bordering the national parks of southern Cameroon, while the logging that truly threatens the forest continues.
Jul 16, 2024
Clouds of red dust rise into the sky and hang in the air as the truck roars past. It's impossible to breathe as the dust gathers in the folds of villagers' clothes, settles on rooftops, and coats the forest's green leaves. The next truck goes by, and another cloud rises up in its wake. They carry massive tree trunks felled in the rainforests of the Congo Basin. The Baka people struggle to breathe every day, as logging companies from China, France, Italy, and Lebanon descend on the tropical forests and cut everything in their path.
The Baka have been pushed into villages bordering the national parks of southern Cameroon. Amid the din of passing trucks, they tell me they have been barred from their forest—they can no longer hunt for food, access their sacred sites, fish, or gather medicinal plants. Government authorities and "nature conservation" organizations say it's not the clear-cutting loggers destroying the forests. They blame the Baka—Indigenous hunter-gatherers who rely on the forests to live.
You're probably wondering how such a paradox can be tolerated. This is the heart of what's known as fortress conservation, driven by the erroneous belief that Indigenous people cannot look after their own land.
The Baka are fighting for their own survival, for their way of life, and for the forest they love. We in the West must ensure that our governments, and organizations such as WWF, finally stop supporting these atrocities.
The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) supports national parks, including Lobéké, Nki, and Boumba Bek parks. The organization funds heavily armed rangers who prevent the Baka from entering their forest by arresting, beating, and torturing them. The Baka are forced to live in small roadside villages—without access to their own lands. Logging companies' concessions surround the parks. And it's not hard to see that it's their activities—not the Baka—threatening the Congo Basin forest, especially as most of the timber is destined for export to industrialized countries.
The companies sometimes operate within the parks. But WWF and other major conservation NGOs look the other way. Instead, they create partnerships with the companies for "sustainable forest management." But let's be honest: For WWF, it has more to do with the money they receive from the companies than actual conservation. WWF and the companies set up "anti-poaching units," with yet more guards attacking the Baka—all while the trucks keep roaring by. The certification labels on the timber say "sustainable"—so does the companies' advertising. But, watching the trunks trundle past before me, and seeing the destruction of the forest, that is laughable. There's no such thing as sustainable destruction.
National parks are not—as the conservation industry would have us believe—rare islands of unspoiled nature that mitigate the surrounding destruction. Instead, they are an integral part of a strategy designed to maximize profit from the environment and its resources while pointing the finger of blame at local communities—the people who are least responsible for the destruction.
Michel is chief of a Baka village on the edge of Lobéké National Park. He explains: "Our grandparents used the forest at Lobéké, before WWF arrived. Since they came, we don't go there anymore. If you go there, in the park, you won't be able to go home without problems. They're not protecting anything—they just want to kick us out."
For the Baka, the loss of their forest takes all of that away. It's not just losing a place to live or access to food; it's losing their identity. So, it's not just a matter of material hardship, it's also the destruction of a people.
Baka children no longer learn about the forest plants: It's too dangerous to take them into the forest to teach them. The Baka say that for them the forest is absolutely everything. It sustains them and it provides everything that gives meaning to their lives. Without access to their forest, the Baka's future is in jeopardy.
Tragic as it may seem, the situation was much worse just a few years ago. WWF-funded guards waged a veritable war against the Baka. They harassed people, invading their homes, beating and torturing anyone they found—including the elderly who weren't quick enough to flee. Many Baka had to abandon their villages to escape. Some fled to neighboring Congo.
Thanks in large part to the work of Survival International, which catalyzed international support and investigations, the once-extreme level of violence has radically diminished. But the guards still beat Baka people if they try to enter the forest, and the severe trauma of the extreme physical violence of previous years remains. Célestin, a young Baka man in his mid-20s says: "We always think about violence. We go to sleep without having eaten, and we think about it. All the time."
The big conservation organizations are responsible for this chaos and pain. Once they've forced the Baka out of the forest, they offer "alternative livelihood projects" to draw them further away from their ancestral territory and way of life. Though they claim the projects compensate for the loss of the forest, it's just a less obvious way to go about destroying the Baka's lives and their bonds with their forest.
"They want to turn us into villagers," say the Baka. "We stay in the village all day, but we were born to be in the forest." WWF set up a mushroom-growing project in a Baka village. It provided equipment and training and built a warehouse. The Baka followed the instructions to grow and dry the mushrooms. But a year later, no one came to buy them, and WWF never returned. That's just one example among many. NGOs promise people chickens, sheep, ponds for fish farming, saying they'll have a "better" life. But for the Baka, the best life is one at peace in the forest, and the promises never materialize. "So far, we've had nothing. The people to whom these promises were made are dead now," testify the Baka.
The loss of their forest, as described by village chief Michel, leads to a disintegration of the social fabric, and loss of the foundations of the Baka identity and way of life. It is simply the destruction of them as a people: it's a green genocide. Nothing could compensate the Baka for the loss of their forest. The Baka survive by working in neighboring communities' fields, in conditions akin to slavery, paid tiny sums of money or just given alcohol. But it's dependent on the goodwill of those who "employ" them. (There is a big problem now with alcohol dependency among the Baka, not unlike the historical problems of other peoples who were dispossessed of their land, such as those in North America and Australia.)
"We are suffering. Those who make us work in the fields don't consider us human, they want to kill us. They give us so much to do, and if you refuse to work in the fields, they hit you," says Michel.
Michel, Célestin, and the rest of the Baka are fighting for their own survival, for their way of life, and for the forest they love. We in the West must ensure that our governments, and organizations such as WWF, finally stop supporting these atrocities. It's not too late to prevent the conservation industry suffocating an entire people, just as the red dust suffocates everyone in its path. Let's stop this green genocide.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular