Celia Ojeda Martínez The end of the year is near: a change in seasons and celebrations of
traditional holidays around the world. For many, that means an increase
in consumption habits. Big brands sit back and wait for consumers to
think they are making a smart decision just because the price is low,
forgetting that the lower the discount, the lower price put on the
planet.
Consuming less and better needs to be at the heart of consumption
reframing. The GHG emissions in the world’s largest cities alone
generate as much as 60% higher emissions than previously estimated
when also accounting for the impact of trade in goods and services
between cities and the rest of the world. As cities continue to grow, so
will these numbers. This means that cities and their citizens must be
at the forefront of efforts to tackle the climate emergency and economic
crisis that the world is experiencing and to achieve that, a change
must be made in our consumption habits.
Before buying, analyse your purchase. Rapid shipments, excessive
packaging, and polluting transport make the e-commerce sector a
high-carbon emitter. Producing and manufacturing goods and services and
their distribution requires the extraction of natural resources and
releases greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. When products reach shops,
they already account for a large environmental and carbon footprint,
which we could help address by consuming less and better.
We need to reset overall consumption habits, to buy less and buy
better. Cities can also work to reduce how much collectively is
consumed; promoting reuse and sharing, repairing and swapping. Recycling
should be the last step in the long life of a product, slowing the
pressure on raw materials and decreasing waste.
We must also hold city leaders accountable. The world now more than
ever needs a bold vision that is backed by action. For example, banning
commercial advertising like some cities have already done, is a good
lever to reduce consumption. Introducing tools and spaces for citizens,
such as repair cafes, would encourage citizens to reduce and reuse
before buying something new. The big names in e-commerce must also do
their part to promote local products, direct consumption and eco
production. This means sustainable distribution and zero waste or
reusable packaging.
This season, let’s all do our best to be agents of change, carefully
select the products we use, verify which ones have the least
environmental impact and extend the life of our products, in short,
create responsible consumption.
Celia Ojeda Martínez is a program manager with Greenpeace Spain and leads the Cities project.
The semioticians that worked on the research, who are experts in decoding hidden meanings behind advertising, found 7 myths
often adopted by big meat brands and organisations in Europe, that play
to known consumer needs to feel accepted, successful, loved, respected
and ultimately, to feel ‘good’, and as a result fuel meat consumption:
• Myth 1: ‘Meat is part of the climate solution, not the problem’ • Myth 2: ‘Meat is good for you’ • Myth 3: ‘Eating (red) meat makes you more of a man’ • Myth 4: ‘Good women prepare and serve meat to their family’ • Myth 5: ‘Eating meat is a patriotic act’ • Myth 6: ‘Eating meat brings people together’ • Myth 7: ‘Eating meat is about freedom and choice’
It’s time to regulate meat advertising
To make things worse: these myths are targeted to some of the most
vulnerable groups in society. Young children, for example, who are not
fully capable of processing the information in front of them. Or young
adults who might be wrestling with their sexual identity. And of course
parents, trying to do the right thing for the future of their children
in the midst of the deepening climate and biodiversity crises.
While as citizens we can play our part by reducing our intake of
animal products for our health and the wellbeing of the planet, it is
actually the public authorities’ responsibility to make sure that our
efforts are not derailed by the misleading bombardment of meat advertising.
The marketing playbook used by the meat industry is no different from
the one deployed by the tobacco or alcohol industries in the last
decades. Advertising of tobacco and alcohol has been highly regulated
for the well-being of society. Shouldn’t it be about time to also start regulating advertising for the well-being of the whole planet and apply similar restrictions to meat marketing too?
Alessandro Saccoccio is a campaigner at Greenpeace International, based in the Netherlands.
Illegal mining in the Amazon – a threat to local communities’ health
and livelihoods – continues to advance in the region. Last week, rumours
that gold was found in the Madeira River, in the south of the Amazon,
caused hundreds of rafts to head to the region, causing panic to those
who know how destructive the mining is to the rivers of the Amazon.
The unusual movement caught the attention of the local population and
showed how the miners operate on the Madeira River: without any
discretion or concern the illegal exploitation of gold would make the
authorities take any action. The rafts were located in the city of
Autazes, 110km from Manaus, the capital of the Amazonas state. The
invasion of miners in the region was documented by Greenpeace Brazil
last Tuesday, 23 November, which confirmed the illegal activity.
The miners came from other cities in the Amazon such as Humaitá,
where they count on the support of businessmen and politicians who have
been promoting this illegal activity for many years. However, the
exploration was met with concern about the environmental damage that
causes to the health and livelihoods of those who depend on the river,
since mining for gold releases mercury and contaminates the water.
Questioned by the press, both the Brazilian Institute for the
Environment and Sustainable Natural Resources (Ibama) and the Amazonas
Environmental Protection Institute (Ipaam) – reported that they were
aware of what was happening and were investigating. But with Bolsonaro’s
administration stripping down resources from such government bodies and
enabling the destruction of the environment, illegal miners feel
empowered to carry on with little concern.
Development over the weekend
With the images registered by Greenpeace Brazil and the pressure generated by national and international press,
the Brazilian government had to take action. On Sunday, 28 November,
the Brazilian Federal Police and IBAMA destroyed some 70 rafts located
in the Madeira River. Most of the equipment had already been moved from
the mining location into nearby areas in the river, trying to escape
from the investigation. 10 illegal miners were arrested while several
others escaped into the forest.
The police operation would have been more effective if the
Vice-President of Brazil, Hamilton Mourão hadn’t announced publicly that
the government was getting ready to take measures. The tip made the
miners scatter around the region and allowed many to escape with their
equipment.
Illegal mining has exploded in the Amazon in recent decades.
According to a study published by MapBiomas in August, the area mined in
Brazil increased sixfold between 1985 and 2020, going from 31 thousand
to 206 thousand hectares. Mapbiomas also disclosed that 93.7% of the
mines in Brazil are in the Amazon.
This violent expansion has occurred, especially in recent years, in
Indigenous territories and conservation units – which is prohibited by
the Brazilian constitution. Also according to MapBiomas, between 2010
and 2020, the area occupied by the miners within Indigenous lands grew
495%; in conservation units, the growth was 301%. In 2020, half of the
mining activities in the country happened in conservation units or
Indigenous lands.
The Brazilian government has the means to fight environmental crimes,
protect the forest and all those who depend on it for their livelihood.
But it lacks the will to do so. We’re living in a climate and
environmental crisis. The destruction of the Amazon and its water is a
threat to biodiversity, the lives of Indigenous Peoples and traditional
communities, and to the global climate. We can’t allow more destruction
to continue.
O garimpo não para de avançar: boatos de que ouro foi encontrado na comunidade do Rosarinho, na cidade de Autazes, no Amazonas, fez com que centenas de balsas e empurradores se dirigissem àquela região
– criando um cenário de pânico e horror para todos aqueles que sabem o
poder de destruição que a atividade garimpeira tem sobre os rios da
Amazônia.
A movimentação atípica chamou a atenção da população local e mostrou como os garimpeiros
operam no leito do rio Madeira – sem qualquer tipo de incômodo ou
discrição, explorando ouro de maneira ilegal sem que as autoridades
tomem providências. A cidade de Autazes fica muito próxima de Manaus, a capital do Amazonas: pouco mais de 110 quilômetros.
A invasão dos garimpeiros àquela região foi confirmada pelo Greenpeace Brasil num sobrevoo ocorrido na última terça-feira (23). Constatamos
que as embarcações estão efetivamente trabalhando no leito do rio
Madeira, extraindo ouro numa região situada entre as cidades de Autazes e
Nova Olinda do Norte. Mais especificamente, nas imediações do
Rosarinho. O Rosarinho é famoso por conta de um pequeno porto que é
usado por habitantes de cidades como Nova Olinda do Norte, Borba e Novo
Aripuanã para pegar pequenas embarcações e ir à Manaus.
Excitação & preocupação
Os garimpeiros vieram da região Sul do Amazonas, como a cidade de
Humaitá, onde o garimpo atua de forma massiva há muitos anos; e conta
com apoio de empresários e políticos que fomentam essa atividade ilegal.
Os garimpeiros iniciaram o deslocamento para Autazes há duas semanas
e a reação dos moradores locais vai da excitação pela descoberta de
ouro naquelas redondezas à preocupação com os prejuízos ambientais que
vão começar a ocorrer, como a contaminação por mercúrio.
Provocados por veículos de imprensa, tanto o Instituto Brasileiro do
Meio Ambiente e Recursos Naturais Sustentáveis (Ibama) quanto o órgão
estadual que cuida desse tema – o Instituto de Proteção Ambiental do
Amazonas (Ipaam) – informaram que têm ciência do que ocorre em Autazes e
que estão apurando informações.
Danicley de Aguiar, porta-voz da Campanha Amazônia do Greenpeace
Brasil, disse que o que acontece hoje naquela cidade é uma “vergonha
nacional”. “Enquanto o mundo inteiro busca maneiras de solucionar a
crise climática, o Brasil investe no contrário. O que vimos no
sobrevoo é o desenrolar de um crime ocorrendo à luz do dia, sem o menor
constrangimento. Isso tudo, óbvio, é referendado pelo presidente
Bolsonaro, que dá licença política e moral para que os garimpeiros ajam
dessa maneira. Ao fragilizar a fiscalização ambiental,
Bolsonaro dá espaço para que esse tipo de coisa ocorra. Essa invasão de
garimpeiros é mais uma amostra de que a Amazônia está entregue à sua
própria sorte. Mas não podemos ficar calados, precisamos interromper o
ciclo dessa economia da destruição”, afirmou o porta-voz.
Licenças ilegais
Em agosto último, a Justiça Federal condenou o Ipaam a anular diversas licenças concedidas de maneira irregular
para a extração de ouro no leito do rio Madeira. Essa extração ocorria
no Sul do Amazonas numa região de mais de 37 mil hectares. A Justiça afirmou que não foram realizados estudos de impacto ambiental antes daconcessão dessas autorizações – assim, ficou impossível determinar os danos ambientais ocasionados pelo uso de mercúrio nessa atividade econômica. A Justiça Federal considera essas licenças, portanto, ilegais e inconstitucionais.
Essa decisão foi motivada por um pedido do Ministério Público Federal (MPF) que, durante as fiscalizações, constatou
diversos problemas nos garimpos do Madeira, como contaminação dos rios,
problemas para comunidades ribeirinhas e tradicionais,
vazamentos de substâncias oleosas, ausência de destinação adequada de
resíduos sólidos e péssimas condições de trabalho para o garimpeiros.
Expansão
Segundo um estudo publicado pelo MapBiomas
em agosto, a área minerada no Brasil aumentou seis vezes entre 1985 e
2020, passando de 31 mil para 206 mil hectares. O Mapbiomas divulgou
também que 93,7% dos garimpos do Brasil estão na Amazônia.
Essa forte expansão ocorreu, sobretudo nos últimos anos, em
territórios indígenas e unidades de conservação – algo proibido e que,
portanto, constitui um crime ambiental. O artigo 231 da Constituição Federal, por exemplo, proíbe expressamente o garimpo dentro de Terras Indígenas.
Ainda de acordo com o MapBiomas, entre 2010 a 2020, a área ocupada pelo garimpo dentro de terras indígenas cresceu 495%;
em unidades de conservação, o crescimento foi de 301%. Em 2020, metade
da área nacional do garimpo estava em unidades de conservação (40,7%) ou
terras indígenas (9,3%).
Garimpo em Autazes
Destruição do rio Madeira segue a todo vapor no Amazonas
Na manhã de hoje (24), ativistas do Greenpeace realizaram uma ação no
porto de Ravenna, na Itália, para denunciar o impacto da importação
massiva de soja na Europa, plantada a partir da destruição do Cerrado e
outros biomas. O grão é usado na Europa principalmente como ração para
animais de corte, em criações intensivas.
Cerca de metade da soja importada pela Itália, que é a quarta maior
consumidora do produto da Europa – atrás de Holanda, Alemanha e Espanha –
passa pelo porto de Ravenna. O protesto pacífico aconteceu nas
instalações da Bunge Italia spa, filial da Bunge Limited, uma das
maiores agroempresas internacionais que negociam commodities agrícolas,
incluindo soja.
Ativistas de vários países europeus escalaram os silos, usados para
estocar toneladas de soja e abriram dois grandes banners: o primeiro
com uma imagem de quase 200 metros quadrados retratando animais fugindo
de uma floresta em chamas, e o segundo com as palavras “Soja que destrói
florestas”. Um painel de 30 metros de altura, com a mensagem “Contém
desmatamento”, também está sendo pintado em um dos silos.
A poucos quilômetros de distância, outro grupo de ativistas, usando
um porco gigante feito de madeira reciclada e juta, barrou a entrada
principal do centro de processamento da Bunge e se acorrentou a um dos
portões com a faixa “Soja para ração = Desmatamento”.
O Brasil e a Argentina foram os principais exportadores de soja da
Itália em 2020, correspondendo, juntos, por 65% das negociações. Os dois
países latinoamericanos possuem ecossistemas de importância vital para o
continente e para o clima no planeta, mas que se encontram ameaçados
pelo avanço voraz do plantio de grãos para alimentação animal – o bioma
Gran Chaco argentino também está sob ataque.
“Ecossistemas como o Cerrado, a savana mais rica em biodiversidade do
mundo, estão seriamente ameaçados pelo agronegócio, apesar dos
compromissos assumidos pelas empresas para protegê-los”, diz Martina
Borghi, ativista de florestas do Greenpeace Itália. “A Bunge, por
exemplo, já havia se comprometido em eliminar produtos de desmatadores
de suas cadeias produtivas, ao redor do mundo até 2025, mas continua
compartilhando interesses comerciais com megafazendas como a Agronegócio
Condomínio Cachoeira do Estrondo”, completa.
Existe uma forte relação entre os alimentos que consumimos, a crise
climática e a destruição de florestas e outros ecossistemas em todo o
mundo. Hoje, mais terra é utilizada para cultivar comida para animais do
que para as pessoas. Um milhão de espécies correm risco de extinção
devido à destruição de seus habitats. Mesmo assim, o agronegócio
continua avançando sobre ecossistemas e acabando com o nosso futuro.
“Apesar de parecer organizado, o atual sistema alimentar está
totalmente fora de controle. Mas ele não é inevitável, ele foi
planejado. E este sistema precisa mudar se quisermos ter uma chance de
futuro, para nós, no Brasil e no mundo, e para as futuras gerações. O
desmatamento gigantesco feito pela Fazenda Estrondo é um exemplo deste
apetite de grandes produtores e traders pela destruição do Cerrado, que
não respeita nada nem ninguém”, afirma Adriana Charoux, do Greenpeace
Brasil.
Na semana passada, a União Europeia publicou o primeiro esboço da
legislação para proteger as florestas do mundo, que ainda apresenta
deficiências graves. O texto, de fato, reconhece a importância de
proteger as florestas do mundo, mas esquece de outros ecossistemas
igualmente importantes, como o Cerrado, que é uma savana. “Em pleno
século 21, ter um órgão ambiental autorizando uma mega fazenda de
produção de grãos a desmatar mais de 24 mil hectares é um contra senso
absoluto, além de obsoleto e anticientífico. Isso desmente este discurso
de altamente tecnológico, sustentável e à frente da legislação que o
agronegócio brasileiro voltado para exportação tenta propagar
externamente. E isso compromete a imagem do Brasil lá fora”, completa
Adriana.
Além disso, a proteção e o respeito aos direitos humanos sequer está
previsto no documento, o que significa que fazendas que promovem a
violência no campo, como a Estrondo, continuarão sendo recebidas de
braços abertos pelo mercado europeu.
Se a legislação proteger apenas as florestas, os impactos da produção
agrícola industrial podem se deslocar para outros ecossistemas que,
assim como as florestas, abrigam Povos Indígenas e comunidades
tradicionais, espécies únicas de animais e plantas, além de fornecer
serviços ecológicos, como a recarga de aquíferos e o armazenamento e
sequestro de carbono.
Divulgado no último dia 17 de novembro, a Comissão da União Europeia lançou o projeto de uma nova legislação que proíbe a compra de produtos oriundos de áreas desmatadas, conhecida como FERC.
O plano do bloco econômico prevê incluir a restrição a diversas
commodities de regiões desflorestadas. No entanto, a proposta de lei
visa apenas proteger as florestas, deixando outros ecossistemas
vulneráveis, como o Cerrado brasileiro e áreas úmidas como o Pantanal.
Isso dá um passe livre para as indústrias de soja que abastecem
megafazendas industriais lucrarem à base de exploração de importantes
ecossistemas não florestais.
No amount of greenwashing by the Brazilian government can obscure the truth: The Amazon is being destroyed at a historic rate.
The country’s PRODES monitoring system shows there was a 21.97%
increase in deforestation compared to the previous year and the highest
rate of forest destruction since 2006. Between August 2020 and July
2021, Brazil president Jair Bolsonaro’s anti-environment government has
overseen the destruction of 13,235 km² in the Amazon — an area 17 times
the size of New York City.
This data was released just days after the conclusion of COP26 where
Bolsonaro attempted to greenwash the environmental destruction in
Brazil. Over the course of his administration, the government has
slashed environmental protections, weakened agencies responsible for
monitoring and protecting the forest, and put the rights and lives of
Indigenous Peoples at risk.
Despite international pressure for countries to ensure their products are clean of deforestation, the agreement signed by Bolsonaro
and other world leaders at COP26 gives green light to another decade of
forest destruction. The Amazon is already on the brink, with some areas
already emitting more carbon than they can capture due to
deforestation, according to a study.
There’s no more time to waste. Even though Brazil’s energy comes from
hydroelectric power instead of fossil fuels, the country is still one of the top carbon emitters
due to deforestation and industrial agriculture, and the Brazilian
Congress, which is aligned with Bolsonaro’s agenda, keeps pressing for
more anti-environmental bills that would reward land grabbing and
threaten Indigenous Peoples’ lands and rights even more.
The destruction of the Amazon is a threat of multiple levels: it is a risk to the health of those living near the forest,
who have to breathe the poisonous smoke originating from the fires; a
threat to the balance of the global climate, which depends on the forest
standing to absorb carbon; and a threat to the lives of Indigenous
Peoples, who have their lands invaded by land-grabbers and are often met
with violence. According to a report by Brazilian organization CIMI, 263 Indigenous People were killed in 2020 as a result of confrontations with invaders.
This widespread destruction is unacceptable and must be stopped.
World leaders must take meaningful action and stop giving a platform and
social license to a government that is putting so much at risk. That
means not making deals with Bolsonaro that threaten the forest even
more, and demanding that companies disclose their supply chains and
prove products coming from Brazil are completely clean of deforestation
and human rights abuse.
We don’t need more forest destruction for industrial cattle ranching
and soy farming. Indigenous Peoples and traditional communities already
have sustainable practices
that can feed the world without putting people and the planet at risk.
It’s time to take action now and present further destruction that we
cannot afford.
Greenpeace Brasil Área destruída é equivalente a quase nove vezes o município de São Paulo ou 11 vezes a cidade do Rio de Janeiro.
A área desmatada na Amazônia no último ano divulgada hoje pelo Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (Inpe) foi de 13.235 km². Os dados divulgados por meio do Projeto de Monitoramento de Desmatamento da Amazônia (Prodes) representam um aumento de 21,97%
na taxa de destruição em relação ao ano anterior, que foi de 10.851
km². Esta é a maior taxa já registrada desde 2006. Os dados são
referentes a medições entre agosto de 2020 e julho deste ano.
A má notícia chega na semana seguinte ao encerramento da COP 26, onde
o governo brasileiro tentou limpar sua imagem, mesmo sabendo que mais
um recorde de desmatamento já havia sido batido. O documento divulgado
hoje tem data de 27 de Outubro de 2021, ou seja, o governo adiou a
divulgação dos dados para depois antes da Conferência do Clima. O
anúncio também ocorre ao mesmo tempo que o cerco para o desmatamento
começa a se fechar: a
comissão da União Europeia publicou ontem (17) o projeto da nova
legislação do bloco que veda a compra de produtos ligados ao
desmatamento.
Na média, houve um aumento de 52,9% na área
desmatada nos três anos de governo Bolsonaro (média de 11.405 km² entre
2019 e 2021) em relação à média dos três anos anteriores (média de 7.458
km² entre 2016 e 2018). Os estados do Pará, Amazonas, Mato Grosso e
Rondônia foram responsáveis por 87,25% do desmatamento na Amazônia
Legal.
Só no Amazonas o desmatamento aumentou em 55% no último ano. O estado
tem se destacado no avanço da destruição da floresta. O desmatamento
tem avançado cada vez mais perto de áreas antes conservadas da Amazônia.
Inclusive em expedição recente
ao sul do estado, o Greenpeace realizou uma série de três reportagens
especiais para mostrar como essa dinâmica de destruição tem se dado na
região. destruição na região.
Ao longo do último ano, o Brasil foi um dos poucos países que
aumentaram a emissão de gases de efeito estufa, apesar dos efeitos da
pandemia de Coronavírus.O país emitiu 9,5% a mais de gases, enquanto o
restante do mundo reduziu em 7%. 46% das emissões do Brasil são oriundas
de desmatamento e de acordo com um estudo da Carbon Brief, o Brasil foi o quinto país que mais contribuiu com emissões de gases desde 1850.
“Apesar das tentativas recentes do governo em limpar sua imagem, a
realidade se impõe mais uma vez. Os mais de 13 mil km² não surpreendem
quem acompanhou os últimos três anos de desmonte na gestão ambiental
brasileira e as tentativas de enfraquecer o arcabouço legal para a
proteção do meio ambiente. Fica evidente que as ações necessárias por
parte do Brasil para conter o desmatamento e as mudanças climáticas não
virão deste governo que está estacionado no tempo e, ainda vê a floresta
e seus povos como empecilho ao desenvolvimento”, declara Cristiane
Mazzetti, porta-voz da campanha da Amazônia do Greenpeace
“O governo atual, com sua política antiambiental, elevou
drasticamente o patamar de desmatamento na maior floresta tropical do
planeta. Estes são níveis inaceitáveis perante à emergência climática
que vivemos no Brasil e no mundo, com extremos climáticos e seus
impactos cada vez mais devastadores e frequentes”, comenta Cristiane. “E
essa situação só vai piorar, se o Senado aprovar o PL da Grilagem, que
beneficia invasores de terras públicas e incentiva ainda mais
desmatamento”, completa.
No período em que a taxa foi medida, 32% dos alertas de desmatamento
se concentraram nas Florestas Públicas Não Destinadas, alvo frequente de
grilagem de terras. A última audiência pública do Senado para discutir o
PL 2633/2020, já aprovado na Câmara dos Deputados deve acontecer na
próxima semana, com isso a matéria pode ser votada em Plenário logo na
sequência.
Para entender melhor a dimensão da destruição, fizemos algumas
comparações. Os 13.235km² desmatados em apenas 1 ano equivalem à:
3.6 árvores perdidas por cada um dos 212 milhões de brasileiros
Once again, government officials and politicians are returning home
from the climate negotiations at COP26 in Glasgow with their bags full
of promises and pledges to tackle the climate crisis, including lofty pledges to stop deforestation by 2030. We’ve been here before,
and we all know that we can’t afford to waste another decade watching
the wrecking of valuable ecosystems vital for Indigenous people, climate
protection and countless species.
That’s why all eyes are on the European Commission’s announcement of their new law to cut the EU’s complicity in global forest destruction and the human rights violations that go with it.
BREAKING:
Proposed EU law to tackle forest destruction offers a glimmer of hope,
but has many serious gaps that leave nature and human rights vulnerable
At the moment, people in Europe have no guarantee that what they put
in the shopping basket – food, coffee, soap, paper, you name it –
doesn’t link them to deforestation. Similarly, there’s no requirement
for European banks to show that their investments aren’t financing
ecosystem destruction.
Through their high consumption, the countries of the EU are responsible for 17% of tropical deforestation linked to internationally traded commodities like meat, palm oil or soy. The EU’s own forests are also suffering as they are increasingly fragmented and losing biodiversity.
A year ago, over 1.1 million people
mobilised to demand an EU law requiring companies selling products on
the EU market to show that their supply chains are clean of forest or
ecosystem destruction, or human rights abuses – and for banks operating
in the EU to show their investments are clean too. Brave activists
climbed the European Commission’s headquarters in Brussels to show how
the EU is complicit in ecosystem destruction and demand a new EU law to
stop it. The European Parliament demanded the same thing, and even the European Commission’s own studies did too.
It seems like EU leaders have heard us. Just the other day, the President of the European Commission herself said at the COP26 in front of other world leaders: “European
voters and consumers are making this increasingly clear to us: They no
longer want to buy products that are responsible for deforestation or
forest degradation.”
But is the European Commission delivering on its promises?
Well, what they are proposing is almost a historic step, with some
hesitation. Let’s say it’s a historic shuffle – with some serious stuff
missing.
What’s good?
While governments of other high-consuming countries like the UK and the US have so far only promised to cut their contribution to illegal
deforestation, the EU will finally go further than this, aiming to
tackle all forest destruction whether it is sanctioned by the national
government or not. A destroyed forest is a disaster for nature and the
climate, whether the local authorities approve it or not.
For the first time, companies selling certain products that pose a
high risk to forests would have to actually know where their commodities
come from, and apply environmental sustainability criteria.
The proposed law only aims to protect forests, leaving other
ecosystems vulnerable, such as savannas like the Brazilian Cerrado and
wetlands like the Pantanal. This gives a free pass for the soy
industries supplying factory farms to make major profits destroying the
Cerrado.
The law would only cover a limited number of products linked to
ecosystem destruction, ignoring lots of products linked to nature
destruction, like rubber, maize, pork and poultry. This is detrimental,
as for example, for forests in Cameroon
and the Congo Basin, rubber plantations are responsible for the
displacement of Indigenous People like the Baka and are threatening
natural reserves of international importance.
The European Commission’s plan still leaves the rights of many Indigenous and local communities unprotected.
Rather than demanding that companies supplying the EU market abide by
international laws, they would leave it up to national leaders like
Brazil’s president Bolsonaro to define what “human rights protection”
means.
Deutsche Bank backed @HalcyonAgri kicked Indigenous #Baka People off their ancestral lands, without the slightest attempt at obtaining their consent.
The law also completely ignores the finance sector and the impacts its investments have on ecosystems. Lenders based in the EU’s 27 member states have made an estimated €401 million in proceeds from forest destruction alone since 2016.
There’s already been fierce resistance from those who represent the
interests of big corporations, unrestricted trade. The Commission’s own trade services were exposed trying to weaken the new rules. Corporations themselves have used every possible argument to convince the Commission not to act, for example saying that their dodgy certification schemes are enough to show they are “sustainable”.
But the fight is not over, the political negotiations are just
beginning, and we can still patch up these terrible holes in the
proposed EU law. We must put pressure on the EU’s national governments
and members of the European Parliament to really protect the world’s
forests, other ecosystems and human rights.
That’s why we need your voice to secure a strong EU law to protect forests and other ecosystems – and the human rights of the people who live there.
Help us grow the movement of people standing #Together4forests by sharing the video below.
The fight against the EU's contribution to deforestation and forest degradation is not over ✊
There are still many gaps in the proposed law.
Share this video to join the movement and ask for a strong EU forest law 📢
Did you know that there are global agreements against the dumping of nuclear waste into the world’s oceans? They are called the London Convention and London Protocol
(LC/LP) and the latest meeting of the government signatories and
observers, including Greenpeace International, has just finished under
the auspices of the United Nations International Maritime Organization
(IMO). It was an uncomfortable experience for Japanese diplomats trying
to defend the decision to dispose of nuclear waste from Fukushima
Daiichi into the Pacific Ocean. But it also triggered memories of a
different time and a different policy nearly three decades ago when
Japan at the IMO took on the role of protecting the marine environment
from radioactivity.
The LC/LP international conventions, which were established between
the 1970’s and the 1990’s, only exist because of sustained public
pressure against governments and the global nuclear industry which from 1946
had been dumping nuclear waste from ships into the world’s oceans. For
countries such as the United Kingdom, United States, France, and Russia,
military and commercial nuclear programs were producing enormous
volumes of nuclear waste of many different types.
Faced with the rapidly growing stockpiles of wastes, from the 1950’s
governments choose one of the least costly options for dealing with some
of those wastes – dumping solid and liquid wastes directly into the
ocean. The thinking was that the waste would be out of sight in the deep
ocean and that radioactivity would dilute. Other countries also
developing their commercial nuclear power programs, such as Germany and
Japan, also supported nuclear waste dumping at sea. Seventy years of the
commercial nuclear industry and the nuclear waste crisis has only got worse and still with no viable safe solution.
Fortunately, the last known deliberate nuclear waste dumping from a
ship into the ocean was in October 1993 when the Russian navy dumped 900
tons of liquid and solid nuclear waste into the international waters
off the coast of Vladivostok in the sea near Japan and Korea. The
justifications offered by the government in Moscow were that the issue
was urgent as storage space was running out, that the radioactive waste
was not hazardous, and that the dumping was carried out according to international norms.
Sound familiar?
History on repeat
The Japanese government in April 2021 announced
its decision to proceed with plans for the deliberate discharge of
nuclear waste water from the Fukushima Daiichi plant. Even beyond the
900 tons of nuclear waste the Russian’s dumped in 1993, Japan plans for
more than at least 1.2 million tons to be mixed with sea water and
discharged via a sub-seabed pipeline into the Pacific Ocean. The
discharges are scheduled to take 30 years, but are almost certainly going to last much longer.
In 1993, the Japanese government called the Russian dumping extremely regrettable.
Now, the Japanese government justifies its plans to discharge over 1
million tons of radioactive waste water as “necessary” because storage
space is not available, and that the water is not contaminated but
“treated”. Nearly 30 years apart, the dezinformatsiya, perfected by the Soviet Union and Russia and used to justify waste dumping, is mirrored by the disinformation from Tokyo.
In early 1993, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), already
knew of Russia’s plans to dump nuclear waste, but did not intervene and
chose not to inform Tokyo. Today, the IAEA has formed a partnership
with the Japanese government to provide cover for its plans and to
ensure, as it states, that the discharges will be done safely and in line with international practice.
It continues to play the same historical role as set down in its 1957
statute of supporting and promoting the interests of the nuclear
industry, not protecting the environment or public health.
Since the 1970’s Greenpeace had been challenging nuclear sea dumping.
After years of investigations and campaigning, the Russian navy’s
secret operations to pump nuclear waste into the sea were challenged and
filmed by the Nuclear Free Seas campaign team on board the Motor Vessel
Greenpeace ship on 18 October 1993. While the MV Greenpeace sat off the
Russian coast after the Russian military ship TNT27 and other navy
vessels returned to port to pick up another cargo of nuclear waste,
their nuclear dumping exposed to world attention, the Russian’
government announced on 22 October that it would halt further disposal plans. The TNT27 remained in port.
By the time the Greenpeace ship had docked in Japan, the government of Morihiro Hosokawa
had announced a policy change. It would no longer advocate nuclear
waste disposal at sea. Instead, it would support an amendment to the
London Convention at the November 1993 meeting at the IMO that would
prohibit all nuclear waste disposal at sea. Both then and now,
Greenpeace International representatives were at the IMO meeting pushing
for an end to radioactive pollution of the marine environment.
I played a very minor role at that time, chasing the then IAEA
Director Hans Blix, from Seoul to Tokyo with a copy of a telex (it was
three decades ago!) from the Russian government informing Blix of their
plans for nuclear dumping. The IAEA for some reason had chosen not to
inform the Japanese government. Travelling from South Korea to Japan, I
still remember as if it was only yesterday how moved I was watching my
Greenpeace colleagues John Sprange, Twilly Cannon, Dima Litvinov, Thomas
Schultz, captain Pete Wilcox and the rest of the crew of the MV Greenpeace confronting the Russian navy on NHK TV .
One further result of Greenpeace International, Greenpeace Germany,
and Greenpeace Japan’s exposé of Russian dumping was that the Japanese
government took the decision to financially support the building of additional storage and processing facilities
for nuclear waste in the Russian Far East. This was a point that
Greenpeace International has emphasised over the years at IMO meetings
and drew the parallels for the Fukushima water crisis.
Failed discussions and agreements
A principal objective of the London Convention and London Protocol is
to protect the marine environment from pollution, including man-made
radioactivity. However, the Japanese government contends
that their plans for Fukushima contaminated water have nothing to do
with the conventions. In fact, at the latest meeting on 26 October 2021,
Japan tried to stop further discussion of the Fukushima water issue,
arguing that the IAEA was the correct place to discuss such matters and
it was not appropriate for governments to consider the issues at the
LC/LP United Nations hosted meeting. This is an absurd and
scientifically bankrupt position when radioactivity discharged from a
pipeline poses potentially a greater coastal threat to the marine
environment than deep sea dumping from a ship.
Japan failed to end discussion of the Fukushima contaminated water issue at the LC/LP. In Greenpeace International’s written submission,
Greenpeace International proposed that a scientific working group be
established under the LC/LP that would consider the alternatives to
discharging the Fukushima waste into the Pacific. Greenpeace
International argued, as in 1993, that there were alternatives to the
Russian dumping, namely additional storage and applying best available
processing technology, and that these should also be applied at
Fukushima Daiichi.
In 1993, Russia accepted international assistance and the dumping
stopped. However, Dr. David Santillo, Greenpeace International’s science
representative reported that Japan refused to consider this option at the October 2021 IMO meeting,
and its position was supported by the United States, France and the UK.
The governments of South Korea, Chile, China, and the Pacific Island
nations of Vanuatu and Palau all spoke in favour of reviewing
alternatives to discharge in a technical working group. The meetings
operate on consensus and with Japan’s objections, agreement to assess
alternatives was impossible. Dr. David Santillo, challenged the IAEA
over its role, and asked if it could be tasked with reporting on its
discussions with Japan on the alternatives to discharges. The IAEA has
agreed to report back in 2022.
There is a historical resonance and also a tragic irony with Japan’s
attempts to remove discussion of its Fukushima nuclear waste crisis from
international review at the LC/LP IMO meetings. The Russian dumping in
1993 caused public and political outrage in Japan. The Japanese
government of Hosokawa subsequently played an important and critical
role at the LC/LP meeting when it supported the prohibition of all
nuclear waste ocean dumping. Nearly thirty years ago its position was no
doubt informed by self-interest – protecting its coastal waters from
radioactive pollution and the rights of its own citizens, especially the
fishing communities that were at risk.
Back then, the position of the Japanese government was the right and
just thing to do. Today, protecting the marine environment from
deliberate radioactive pollution still remains the right and legal thing
to do – except that’s not what’s happening. Instead, the government of Prime Minister Kishida,
like his predecessors Abe and Suga, are disregarding and disrespecting
the views and rights of their own citizens and fishing communities along
the Tohoku coast.
The decision to discharge violates an agreement to abide by the views
of the Fukushima fishing federations. They are not acting to protect
the marine environment from radioactive pollution but instead will be
the source of pollution. The Japanese government is also seeking to
avoid scrutiny of their plans and to dismiss the concerns and opposition
of neighbours in the Asia Pacific region, near and far. And they
clearly don’t want to explore any viable alternative options of storage
and processing.
Continuing the fight
There are many technical and radiological reasons to be opposed to
discharging Fukushima waste water into the Pacific Ocean. And Greenpeace
East Asiahas reported
on these and continues to investigate. But the decision also affects
you on a fundamental level. It should rightly trigger an outrage. In the
21st century, when the world’s oceans are already under the
most severe threats including the climate and biodiversity emergencies, a
decision by any government to deliberately contaminate the Pacific with
radioactivity because it’s the least cost/cheapest option when there
are clear alternatives seems so perverse. That it is Japan, given its
historical role in securing the prohibition on nuclear dumping in the
London Convention and London Protocol, makes it all the more tragic.
There are numerous legal problems facing Japan’s plans – they have
dismally failed to consult with affected coastal countries, including South Korea, China and northern Pacific Island States; they have failed to
conduct an environmental impact assessment, and they have obligations
not to allow pollution from their own waters to pollute international
waters or the waters of other countries. This disregard for the human
rights of both their own Japanese citizens, as well as those in the
wider Asia Pacific region, including indigenous people’s has justifiably been challenged, not least by UN human rights Special Rapporteurs.
Japan is under international
legal obligation to take all measures possible to avoid transboundary
pollution from radioactivity, and its failure to develop the
alternatives to dumping in the Pacific by continued storage (which it
can certainly extend; it is a question of money) and treating the water
to remove radioactive, including carbon-14 and tritium, (another
question of money). But these are just reflections of the blazingly
obvious: Japan is exporting its radioactive pollution by dumping it in
the Pacific ocean.
However, there is time to stop the discharges which are due to begin
in 2023, at the earliest. The governments attending the LC/LP, under the
auspices of the United Nations IMO, together with Greenpeace
International, will continue to question and challenge the Japanese
government on the Fukushima nuclear waste water crisis. It’s only one of
several international instruments that allow scrutiny of the Fukushima
Daiichi plant and to directly challenge the plans to discharge. The
articles of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
have even greater relevance and application to Tokyo’s misguided plans.
The new government of Kishida may yet find out, as the government of
Boris Yeltsin did nearly three decades ago, that you may have plans for
dumping radioactive waste into the sea, but it does not mean you will be
able to.
Shaun Burnie is a Senior Nuclear Specialist at Greenpeace East Asia.
