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
As Deadline Looms, Advocates Call Plastics Treaty Draft 'Nothing Short of a Betrayal'
"The process has been completely captured by swarms of fossil fuel lobbyists and shamefully weaponized by low-ambition countries," said the CEO of the Environmental Justice Foundation.
Aug 13, 2025
Multiple nations, as well as climate and environmental activists, are expressing dismay at the current state of a potential treaty to curb global plastics pollution.
As The Associated Press reported on Wednesday, negotiators of the treaty are discussing a new draft that would contain no restrictions on plastic production or on the chemicals used in plastics. This draft would adopt the approach favored by many big oil-producing nations who have argued against limits on plastic production and have instead pushed for measures such as better design, recycling, and reuse.
This new draft drew the ire of several nations in Europe, Africa, and Latin America, who all said that it was too weak in addressing the real harms being done by plastic pollution.
"Let me be clear—this is not acceptable for future generations," said Erin Silsbe, the representative for Canada.
According to a report from Health Policy Watch, Panama delegate Juan Carlos Monterrey got a round of applause from several other delegates in the room when he angrily denounced the new draft.
"Our red lines, and the red lines of the majority of countries represented in this room, were not only expunged, they were spat on, and they were burned," he fumed.
Several advocacy organizations were even more scathing in their assessments.
Eirik Lindebjerg, the global plastics policy adviser for WWF, bluntly said that "this is not a treaty" but rather "a devastating blow to everyone here and all those around the world suffering day in and day out as a result of plastic pollution."
"It lacks the bare minimum of measures and accountability to actually be effective, with no binding global bans on harmful products and chemicals and no way for it to be strengthened over time," Lindebjerg continued. "What's more it does nothing to reflect the ambition and demands of the majority of people both within and outside the room. This is not what people came to Geneva for. After three years of negotiations, this is deeply concerning."
Steve Trent, the CEO and founder of the Environmental Justice Foundation, declared the new draft "nothing short of a betrayal" and encouraged delegates from around the world to roundly reject it.
"The process has been completely captured by swarms of fossil fuel lobbyists and shamefully weaponized by low-ambition countries," he said. "The failure now risks being total, with the text actively backsliding rather than improving."
According to the Center for International Environmental Law, at least 234 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists registered for the talks in Switzerland, meaning they "outnumber the combined diplomatic delegations of all 27 European Union nations and the E.U."
Nicholas Mallos, vice president of Ocean Conservancy's ocean plastics program, similarly called the new draft "unacceptable" and singled out that the latest text scrubbed references to abandoned or discarded plastic fishing gear, commonly referred to as "ghost gear," which he described as "the deadliest form of plastic pollution to marine life."
"The science is clear: To reduce plastic pollution, we must make and use less plastic to begin with, so a treaty without reduction is a failed treaty," Mallos emphasized.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Analyses Expose Ocean Protection Failures Before UN Summit on 'Unprecedented Crisis'
"Conserving 30% of our ocean by 2030 is not just a target—it's a lifeline for communities, food security, biodiversity, and the global economy," said one advocate.
Jun 05, 2025
Ahead of the third United Nations summit on oceans, scheduled for next week, multiple analyses have highlighted how humanity is failing to address the multipronged emergency faced by the world's seas.
"The ocean is facing an unprecedented crisis due to climate change, plastic pollution, ecosystem loss, and the overuse of marine resources," Li Junhua, secretary-general for the 2025 United Nations Ocean Conference (UNOC3), told U.N. News.
UNOC3 is co-chaired by Costa Rica and France, and set to be held in the French coastal city of Nice June 9-13. Its theme is "accelerating action and mobilizing all actors to conserve and sustainably use the ocean."
"Only $1.2 billion of finance is flowing to ocean protection and conservation—less than 10% of what is needed."
One of the new analyses—The Ocean Protection Gap: Assessing Progress Toward the 30×30 Target—was commissioned by the Bloomberg Ocean Fund and produced in partnership with nature groups, including WWF International.
The report, released Thursday, focuses on the 30×30 goal from the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which is a commitment to conserve at least 30% of the world's land and ocean by 2030. The document warns that right now, "just 8.6% of the ocean is protected, with only 2.7% assessed and deemed effectively protected—a far cry from the 30% target."
Additionally, "only $1.2 billion of finance is flowing to ocean protection and conservation—less than 10% of what is needed," the report notes. It urges governments behind the framework to boost funding, including honoring their pledge to "provide at least $20 billion by 2025 and $30 billion by 2030 in international biodiversity finance to developing countries."
Calling the analysis "a wake-up call," Pepe Clarke, oceans practice leader at WWF, stressed that "we have the science, the tools, and a global agreement, but without bold political leadership and a rapid scaling of ambition, funding, and implementation, the promise of 30×30 will remain unfulfilled. Conserving 30% of our ocean by 2030 is not just a target—it's a lifeline for communities, food security, biodiversity, and the global economy."
🚨In a timely comment piece in @nature.com ahead of #UNOC3, leading ocean scientists make the case for protecting the High Seas from all extraction. @profcallum.bsky.social @ubcoceans.bsky.social @marklynas.bsky.social www.nature.com/articles/d41...
[image or embed]
— Deep Sea Conservation Coalition (@deepseaconserve.bsky.social) June 4, 2025 at 12:07 PM
Another new report, released Thursday by the U.S.-based Earth Insight in partnership with groups from around the world, details "the global expansion of offshore and coastal oil and gas development and its profound threats to marine ecosystems, biodiversity, and the livelihoods of coastal communities—drawing on regional case studies to illustrate these threats."
The analysis found significant overlap between fossil fuel blocks—sites where exploration and production are permitted—and coral, mangroves, sea grass, and allegedly protected areas. It calls for halting oil and gas expansion, retiring blocks not already assigned to investors, ending financial support for coastal and offshore fossil fuel development, investing in renewables, ensuring a just transition, restoring impacted ecosystems, and strengthening legal, financial, and policy frameworks.
Last week, Oceana released another analysis of fishing in France's six Marine Nature Parks in 2024. The conservation group found that over 100 bottom trawling vessels appeared to spend more than 17,000 hours fishing in these "protected" spaces.
"Bottom trawling is one of the most destructive and wasteful practices taking place in our ocean today," said Oceana board member and Sea Around Us Project founder Daniel Pauly in a statement. "These massive, weighted nets bulldoze the ocean floor, destroying everything in their path and remobilizing carbon stored in the seabed. You cannot destroy areas and call them protected. We don't need more bulldozed tracks on the seafloor. We need protected areas that benefit people and nature."
Nicolas Fournier, Oceana's campaign director for marine protection in Europe, urged action by French President Emmanuel Macron.
"This is a problem President Macron can no longer ignore," said Fournier. "France needs to go from words to action—and substantiate its claim of achieving 30×30 by actually protecting its marine treasures from destructive fishing."
As #UNOC3 approaches, it's clear: a #FossilFreeOcean is no longer optional, but a moral and legal imperative. The fight for our oceans is urgent! Read more: bit.ly/3HtViJl
[image or embed]
— Center for International Environmental Law (@ciel.org) June 5, 2025 at 11:02 AM
Greenpeace has also recently called out the "weaknesses" of French marine protections—and then faced what the group condemned as retaliation from the government: Authorities blocked its ship, Arctic Sunrise, from entering the port of Nice.
"Arctic Sunrise had been invited by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs to participate in the 'One Ocean Science Congress' and in the ocean wonders parade taking place right before the U.N. Ocean Conference," the group explained in a Tuesday statement. "Greenpeace International had intended to deliver the messages of 3 million people calling for a moratorium on deep-sea mining to the politicians attending the conference."
Greenpeace International executive director Mads Christensen denounced the "attempt to silence fair criticism" before UNOC3 as "clearly a political decision" and "utterly unacceptable."
"France wants this to be a moment where they present themselves as saviors of the oceans while they want to silence any criticism of their own failures in national waters. We will not be silenced," Christensen declared. "Greenpeace and the French government share the same objective to get a moratorium on deep-sea mining, which makes the ban of the Arctic Sunrise from Nice even more absurd."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'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, told TV2, 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 to The 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
'Momentous Day for Nature': EU Adopts First-of-Its-Kind Habitat Restoration Law
One campaigner called the law’s passage a “ray of hope for Europe’s nature, future generations, and the livelihoods of rural communities.”
Jun 17, 2024
Environmental groups celebrated a "historic" victory on Monday as the European Union adopted a law that seeks to restore at least 20% of land and sea habitats by 2030 and 90% to 100% by 2050, following a narrow vote by the European Council that swung on the vote of an Austrian minister who defied conservatives in her own government.
The new law, aimed at reversing catastrophic biodiversity loss, includes a sweeping array of protections for European ecosystems, from forests to wetlands to coral reefs. It also aims to restore organic soils in agricultural ecosystems, with special provisions for grassland pollinators and farmland birds. It was described as the "first ever" E.U. law aimed at nature recovery.
"After years of intense campaigning and many ups and downs, we are jubilant that this law is now reality—this day will go down in history as a turning point for nature and society," World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) EU, one of several organizations that campaigned for the law under a #RestoreNature banner, wrote on social media.
🚨 BREAKING: We have the EU Nature Restoration Law!
Member States have just adopted the game-changing law for Europe's degraded ecosystems
It's a huge win for the EU's nature, citizens & the economy and the people behind the #RestoreNature campaign!
Thank you all 💚 pic.twitter.com/MmZPOQXzWW
— WWF EU (@WWFEU) June 17, 2024
The law's adoption came after what WWF EU called "one of the most tumultuous journeys in the history of E.U. legislation," a two-year-long saga that was dramatic up until its final moments.
The law's final hurdle was cleared by the European Council on Monday when 20 out of the 27 E.U. environment ministers, collectively representing 66% of the bloc's population—just enough to meet the 65% required by qualified majority rules—voted in favor.
The threshold was met when Leonore Gewessler, Austria's environment minister, moved in favor of the law despite opposition from the leaders of her own coalition government. Gewessler is a member of the Austria's Green party, a junior coalition partner to the conservatives, who oppose the new E.U. law.
The law was nearly adopted by the Council in March, but was derailed when Hungary withdrew support.
On Monday, Hungary, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden voted against the law; Belgium abstained. It will enter into force in all member states, each of which will now be required to develop national nature restoration plans.
I want to be like @lgewessler - the most brave Envi Minister ever! Despite facing opposition in her own country - #Austria , she decided to support #NatureRestorationLaw! 👏 We will see if it is enough, but nevertheless this act of courage moved me 💚 pic.twitter.com/Q6IRYFQU8J
— Agata Szafraniuk (@AgataSzafraniuk) June 17, 2024
The E.U. parliament had passed the law in February, following trilogue negotiations last year, after which Council passage is normally a formality. But this law was a political lightning rod that threatened normal institutional processes.
"The failure to adopt the law would not only threaten Europe's highly degraded nature but also send a negative signal about established political processes within European institutions," Špela Bandelj Ruiz, a Greenpeace campaigner, told Common Dreams.
Agribusiness groups had waged a sustained campaign against the law while it was being considered by parliament, and it was one of the targets of the many farmer protests in Europe this year. There was an "unprecedented and absurd disinformation campaign," WWF EU said.
The adoption of the law, which was part of the European Green Deal, a set of environmental laws and regulations put in place by the E.U. over the last five years, comes just before a new EU parliament swears in next month, following elections last week. The new parliament will have fewer green party representatives and more conservatives than before, as well as more members from the far-right.
The nature restoration law will be instrumental in helping the E.U. to meet its commitment under the Kunming-Montréal Global Biodiversity Framework signed at the 2022 U.N. Biodiversity Conference (COP15), nonprofit groups and E.U. officials said.
"The European delegation will be able to go to the next COP with its head held high," Alain Maron, minister for Climate Transition, Environment, Energy, and Participatory Democracy of the Government of the Brussels-Capital Region, said in an E.U. statement.
COP16 will be held in October in Colombia. Greenpeace said that failure to adopt the new law would have been an "embarrassment" to the E.U.
The law comes following dire reports about the state of nature in the E.U., where more than 80% of habitats are in poor condition. "Biodiversity in the E.U. continues to decline and faces deteriorating trends from changes in land and sea use, overexploitation and unsustainable management practices, as well as water regime modification, pollution, invasive alien species, and climate change," according to a 2020 report by the European Environment Agency.
Bandelj of Greenpeace told Common Dreams that some of the language on agricultural ecosystems in the law had been watered down during negotiations; for example, some of the targets are effort-based rather than results-based, with lawmakers writing "which shall aim to" rather than using more binding language. Bandelj also expressed concern that an "emergency brake" loophole could be applied, suspending implementation of the law in the event of food security concerns.
Still, Bandelj called the law a "ray of hope for Europe's nature, future generations, and the livelihoods of rural communities."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Norway 'Failed the World' With Vote in Favor of Deep-Sea Mining
"This decision is an irrevocable black mark on Norway's reputation as a responsible ocean state," said one critic, warning of environmental impacts.
Jan 09, 2024
The Norwegian government came under fire from environmentalists and scientists worldwide on Tuesday after moving to become the first country to enable destructive commercial deep-sea mining.
Stortinget, Norway's parliament, overwhelmingly voted in favor of allowing exploration of the seabed under the country's Arctic waters for minerals—an outcome widely expected after center-left parties that control the government struck a deal with right-wing parties last month.
"This decision is an irrevocable black mark on Norway's reputation as a responsible ocean state," declared Steve Trent, CEO and founder of the U.K.-based Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF), in a statement Tuesday. "Deep-sea mining is a pursuit of minerals we don't need, with environmental damage that we can't afford."
"We can upgrade our economies and get to zero carbon without wrecking the deep ocean in the process."
"We know so little about the deep ocean, but we know enough to be sure that mining it will wipe out unique wildlife, disturb the world's largest carbon store, and do nothing to speed the transition to clean economies," he stressed. "Recent scientific studies in Norwegian waters demonstrate that there will be severe impacts on ocean wildlife if this mining goes ahead."
Trent continued:
Instead of being the answer to boosting renewable energy, deep-sea mining would be just another form of harmful resource extraction, with steep and needless costs we cannot and should not pay. As the Norwegian government decides to push forward with deep-sea mining, EJF's latest report reveals that we can upgrade our economies and get to zero carbon without wrecking the deep ocean in the process. New battery technologies are taking off, and there is a ready supply of minerals available now if we improve existing recycling rates. The argument for destroying the deep sea for cobalt and nickel does not withstand scrutiny and Norwegian lawmakers must recognize this.
Chloé Mikolajczak of Europe's Fossil Free Politics campaign said on social media that "exploration, while different from exploitation, already comes with significant environmental damage. Today, Norway failed the world and failed to protect our future. But the fight can not stop and we're mobilizing a community of thousands to #StopDeepSeaMining."
Amanda Louise Helle, who was among the Greenpeace Norway activists protesting outside Stortinget on Tuesday, was similarly determined to continue the battle against deep-sea mining.
"Today our parliament is getting ready to vote in favor of a criminal fate for one of the last safe havens for Arctic marine life," Helle said ahead of the vote. "Promising to protect the oceans one day and proposing deep-sea mining the next, is next-level hypocrisy. Not only does it risk vulnerable ecosystems in the Arctic, but also Norway's international reputation."
"If our politicians are ready to give the Arctic away to greedy companies, then we are more than ready to chase them wherever they plan to deploy their destructive machines," the campaigner pledged.
Norway's plan applies to 108,000 square miles of its national waters—"an area bigger than the size of the U.K.," as the BBC reported Tuesday. "The Norwegian government will not immediately allow companies to start drilling. They will have to submit proposals, including environmental assessments, for a licence which will then be approved on a case-by-case basis by parliament."
Hundreds of scientists, countries including the U.K., and the European Union have called for a moratorium on deep-sea mining due to environmental concerns. The United Nations-affiliated International Seabed Authority is set to meet later this year to try to finalize global rules about the controversial practice.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Companies Pushing Weak UN Plastics Treaty Dump Millions Into US Elections
"The only way to curb our catastrophic plastic pollution problem is to cut plastic production, but the industry is spending big to block action at every level to protect their profits," said one campaigner.
Nov 17, 2023
Major multinational corporations attending negotiations for a global plastics treaty in an effort to weaken the agreement spent tens of millions of dollars on lobbying and political contributions during the 2022 election cycle, revealed an analysis published Friday by the Center for Biological Diversity.
As Common Dreams reported this week, 143 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists registered to attend the third session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-3) in Nairobi, Kenya, which is scheduled to run through Sunday. That's more than the combined delegations from 70 nations, and far surpasses the 38 members of a scientists' coalition participating in the negotiations.
Representatives of companies including ExxonMobil, Chevron, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Dow are among the registered attendees. Industry lobby groups representing hundreds of companies are also attending the talks, including the American Chemistry Council, the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, and the International Council of Beverages Associations.
"These companies came to Nairobi to make sure the world doesn't get strong protections against the plastic havoc they've been wreaking."
With over $20 million spent on lobbying and campaign contributions during the 2022 election cycle, the American Chemistry Council topped the Center for Biological Diversity's (CBD) list, which is based on data from the government watchdog group OpenSecrets. Boeing spent more than $17 million, while Chevron shelled out nearly $15 million.
"These companies came to Nairobi to make sure the world doesn't get strong protections against the plastic havoc they've been wreaking," David Derrick, a CBD attorney attending INC-3, said in a statement. "We knew that industry had way too much influence over the global plastics treaty as well as our political system at home, but these dollar amounts highlight how far petrochemical and consumer goods companies will go to keep polluting."
INC-3 is focused on the so-called zero draft of the legally binding plastics treaty. On Thursday, the fourth day of talks, delegates completed a first reading of the zero draft, with participating nations submitting suggestions for what they believe should be included in the treaty's first draft, which will be the basis of negotiations at INC-4, scheduled to take place next October and November in Ottawa, Canada.
Susan McCarthy, media and external affairs director at World Wildlife Fund U.S., said that "what is worrying... is the voluminous amount of suggestions that member states have submitted."
"This creates the temptation for member states to veer towards compromises that have the potential of watering down the eventual treaty in an effort to include as many suggestions as possible," she continued. "Whittling down a massive list to a number of key priorities can also be onerous, and can result in the convergence we're seeing now fragmenting as member states push for their suggested items."
"Fragmentation can occur as different member states may have different priorities, such as political affiliations or a preference to base decisions only on scientific evidence, which could drive the decision-making process in opposing directions," McCarthy added.
Derrick asserted that "the only way to curb our catastrophic plastic pollution problem is to cut plastic production, but the industry is spending big to block action at every level to protect their profits."
"The world has a historic chance to make a difference in the relentless flood of plastic pollution that's harming so many," he added. "We can't let a relatively small number of profit-hungry companies derail such an important opportunity to fix our plastic problem at its source."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘The World Is Failing Forests’: Report Finds Leaders Way Off Track From Halting Deforestation by 2030
"We are investing in activities that are harmful for forests at far higher rates than we are investing in activities that are beneficial for forests," the assessment coordinator said.
Oct 24, 2023
Despite promising to halt global deforestation by 2030, world leaders have not done enough to protect forests, a new report has found.
The 2023 Forest Declaration Assessment, released late Monday, calculated that human activities destroyed 6.6 million hectares of forest in 2022, which means the world is 21% off track from meeting the 2030 deadline. In addition, 4.1 million hectares of especially vital primary tropical forests were cleared, 33% off where they need to be to stay on schedule.
"The world is failing forests with devastating consequences on a global scale," WWF Global Forests Lead Fran Price said in a statement. "It is impossible to reverse nature loss, address the climate crisis, and develop sustainable economies without forests."
The Forest Declaration Assessment has been published by a group of civil society organizations every year since 2015. Beginning last year, it started tracking the progress of governments towards the 2021 Glasgow Leaders' Declaration on Forests and Land Use, under which more than 100 nations attending the COP26 U.N. climate conference promised to "halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030."
"That 2030 goal is not just nice to have; it's essential for maintaining a livable climate for humanity," Erin Matson, senior consultant at Climate Focus and coordinator for the Forest Declaration Assessment, said during a press briefing ahead of the report's release.
Last year's report showed that deforestation had actually decreased by 6% compared to the baseline, which "was not enough, but it was progress," Matson said. "And it gave us hope that we could see continued progress in 2022."
"We really need to remember that every hectare of forest we lose pushes us further away from being able to keep global temperature rise to within 1.5°C, avoid irreversible tipping points, and restore nature."
Why wasn't that hope realized? The answer, Matson said, came down to money.
"We are investing in activities that are harmful for forests at far higher rates than we are investing in activities that are beneficial for forests," Matson explained.
Agriculture, including cattle ranching and the production of commodities like soy and palm oil, remains the leading cause of tropical deforestation. Yet Global Canopy found that, in 2022, 150 private financial institutions continued to channel $6.1 trillion to companies whose activities were likely to contribute to deforestation through commodity production, and two-thirds of the institutions did not have any policies in place to avoid investing in forest clearing. When it comes to public finance, between 2013 and 2018 governments invested $378 to $635 per year in "gray" finance—funding activities that could hurt forests—and only $26.5 billion total in "green" finance programs to protect them. That means that green finance flows were just $2.2 billion a year, or less than 1% of gray finance flows. Existing green finance also falls far short of the $460 billion a year that is needed to meet forest goals.
"We're financing deforestation through the products we buy and the activities that governments and businesses support through subsidies and investments," Mary Gagen, chief advisor on forests at WWF-UK, said during the briefing. "We really need to remember that every hectare of forest we lose pushes us further away from being able to keep global temperature rise to within 1.5°C, avoid irreversible tipping points, and restore nature."
There was some good news in the report. More than 50 countries are making enough progress to halt deforestation internally by the end of the decade, including Indonesia and Malaysia. Their success offers a potential road map for others.
"Much of their success is attributable to strong laws and enforcement, collaboration with the private sector and civil society, and strong support for and recognition for the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities, as well as just sheer political will," Matson said.
The report also does not include data that reflects Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's success at reducing Amazon deforestation in 2023 by enforcing environmental laws and respecting Indigenous rights after former right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro worked to erode them.
The report offered several recommendations for governments, private institutions, and civil society, including protecting and securing Indigenous land rights, boosting finance, and channeling subsidies away from industries and activities that harm forests and towards those that help. Overall, the report authors argued that the definition of "business as usual" had to change.
"Global economic models must be re-structured to value forests for the benefits that they provide over the long term, rather than for the superficial and short-term gain that comes with clearing them," the report authors wrote.
Alongside the assessment report, WWF released its Forest Pathways report, "the first ever comprehensive global blueprint on how to stop failing our forests," as Gagen put it.
The report outlines four pathways to protecting forests:
- Accelerating the recognition of Indigenous land rights;
- Mobilizing finance;
- Reforming global trade so that supply chains don't rely on commodities tied to deforestation; and
- Shifting the economy to value nature.
The conservation group also debuted a graphic of "forest stripes." Based on the famous "climate stripes" visualizing the warming of average temperatures, it shows in green to red the 79% decline of forest-dependent species from 1970 to 2018.
"We're at a critical juncture," Price said during the briefing. "We don't need new forest goals. We need uncompromising ambition, speed, and accountability by both governments and businesses to fulfill their existing goals."
Yet governments and corporations may not act on their own, especially as Matson does not expect forests to be a priority at the upcoming COP28 climate talks in United Arab Emirates this November and December.
"It's so much more important that citizens and the media and civil society keep our attention and pressure on world leaders to meet their shared responsibility on forests," Matson said. "Every country has to get on track or else we have little hope of meeting the 2030 goal."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Millennials Must Keep up the Pressure Following the Paris Climate Deal
My generation has a responsibility to find practical solutions to the environmental problems we have inherited and ensure politicians honor their promises
Dec 30, 2015
I was 15, sitting on a London tube headed for the Houses of Parliament with my mum, when she leant forward and warned me that she might be about to get arrested. It was 2009 and we were on our way to a climate change protest she had helped to organise.
Together with a group of friends - all women - she had co-founded an environmental lobbying group to demand that the government take urgent action on climate change in the run-up the Copenhagen UN climate talks.
I was too young and perhaps still too politically naive to engage with the conference's history. So when she explained that for its entire 15-year timescale, it had failed to come to any meaningful agreements - and that this was the year we had to try to make sure it finally did, I'm sure I only grunted in an indifferent manner from under my shaggy mop of hair.
But Copenhagen didn't go as anyone had hoped. It wasn't until six years later, aged 21, that I reflected on that experience.
I had moved to New York to study architecture. One of my first classes was on sustainable systems and as I sat listening to the professor give us a basic introduction to climate change, it all came flooding back. It struck me that here I was, five conferences later and still there were no binding agreements. No clear solutions. No plan of action.
Our first assignment was to design a structure that would help protect a city from flooding. It was a sobering moment. I wondered if my classmates and I were fated to become a generation of architects forced to spend their careers trying to remedy the environmental disasters we humans were responsible for creating.
That class became the wake-up call I needed. I ordered books, downloaded documentaries and found myself at a weekend-long training camp with Al Gore. The event was hosted by his organisation Climate Reality with the goal of making participants into Climate Reality leaders.
Over that weekend in Iowa I met attendees as young as 12 who had persuaded their parents or teachers to take them. I learnt about Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, the 15-year-old campaigner from Colorado who was suing his government for environmental damages. He spoke at the UN last year and he works as the youth director of an organisation he founded: Earth Guardians.
I learnt about Boyan Slat, the 21-year-old environmentalist and inventor whose design for a system of cleaning plastic waste from the oceans has raised more than $2m in support for his organisation, the Ocean Clean Up.
I left that weekend with newfound optimism. I saw an ambitious generation who were keen to learn as much as they could about the environmental threats that we face. A generation who were eager to educate others and inspire action on a bigger scale than we've seen before.
Encouraged by everything I had learnt, I partnered with WWF to make a short film for the video blog I run with my brother, JacksGap. As the negotiations began to take place at COP21 in Paris, we wanted to show our audience the effects of climate change firsthand, together with the impact that we as individuals can have when we stand together to demand change.
Before I knew it I was standing on the edge of one of the world's fastest retreating glaciers in Greenland and then at the front of the people's climate march alongside my mum and thousands of others in London. This time however the conference wouldn't end in failure. In fact it would become the first to produce an ambitious legally binding agreement between all 195 countries.
But the deal agreed in Paris is just the beginning. The responsibility falls on my generation to ensure politicians honour their promises and keep global warming to below 1.5C. It's imperative we keep up the pressure by continuing to organise and find practical solutions to the problems we have inherited.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy