Propelled by the energy of progressive legislators elected in the 2018 midterms elections, a “Green New Deal” has become part of the political conversation in the United States, culminating in a resolution in the U.S. House with 67 cosponsors and a number of prominent senators lining up to join them. Decades of activism by groups working on climate change and other ecological crises, along with a surge of support in recent years for democratic socialism, has opened up new political opportunities for serious discussion of the intersection of social justice and sustainability.The Green New Deal proposal—which is a resolution, not a bill, that offers only a broad outline of goals and requires more detailed legislative proposals—will not be successful right out of the gate; many centrist Democrats are lukewarm, and most Republicans are hostile. This gives supporters plenty of time to consider crucial questions embedded in the term: (1) how “Green” will we have to get to create a truly sustainable society, and (2) is a “New Deal” a sufficient response to the multiple, cascading economic/ecological crises we face?
In strategic terms: Should a Green New Deal limit itself to a reformist agenda that proposes programs that can be passed as soon as possible, or should it advance a more revolutionary agenda aimed at challenging our economic system? Should those of us concerned about economic justice and ecological sustainability be realistic or radical?
Our answer—yes to all—does not avoid tough choices. The false dichotomies of reform v. revolution and realistic v. radical too often encourage self-marginalizing squabbles among people working for change. Philosophical and strategic differences exist among critics of the existing systems of power, of course, but collaborative work is possible—if all parties can agree not to ignore the potentially catastrophic long-term threats while trying to enact limited policies that are possible in the short term. Reforms can take us beyond a reformist agenda when pursued with revolutionary ideals. Radical proposals are often more realistic than policies crafted out of fear of going to the root of a problem.
Our proposal for an agricultural component for a Green New Deal offers an example of this approach. Humans need a revolutionary new way of producing food, which must go forward with a radical critique of capitalism’s ideology and the industrial worldview. Reforms can begin to bring those revolutionary ideas to life, and realistic proposals can be radical in helping to change worldviews.
We focus here on two proposals for a Green New Deal that are politically viable today but also point us toward the deeper long-term change needed: (1) job training that could help repopulate the countryside and change how farmers work, and (2) research on perennial grain crops that could change how we farm. Two existing organizations, the Land Stewardship Project in Minnesota and The Land Institute in Kansas, offer models for successful work in these areas.
Philosophy and Politics
We begin by foregrounding our critique of capitalism and the industrial worldview. All policy proposals are based on a vision of the future that we seek, and an assessment of the existing systems that create impediments to moving toward that vision. In a politically healthy and intellectually vibrant democracy, policy debates should start with articulations of those visions and assessments. “Pragmatists”—those who appoint themselves as guardians of common sense—are quick to warn against getting bogged down in ideological debates and/or talk of the future, advising that we must focus on what works today within existing systems. But accepting that barely camouflaged defense of the status quo guarantees that people with power today will remain in power, in the same institutions serving the same interests. It is more productive to debate big ideas as we move toward compromise on policy. Compromise without vision is capitulation.
Green New Deal proposals should not only offer a set of specific policy proposals but also articulate a new way of seeing humans and our place in the ecosphere. At the core of our worldview is the belief that:
People are not merely labor-machines in the production process or customers in a mass-consumption economy. Economic systems must create meaningful work (along with an equitable distribution of wealth) and healthy communities (along with fulfilled individuals).
The more-than-human world (what we typically call “nature”) cannot be treated as if the planet is nothing more than a mine for extraction and a dump for wastes. Economic systems must make possible a sustainable human presence on the planet.
These two statements of values are a direct challenge to capitalism and the industrial worldview that currently define the global economy. Fueled by the dense energy in coal, oil, and natural gas, industrial capitalism has been the most wildly productive economic system in human history, but it routinely fails to produce meaning in people’s lives and it draws down the ecological capital of the planet at a rate well beyond replacement levels. Most of the contemporary U.S. political establishment assumes these systems will continue in perpetuity, but Green New Deal advocates can challenge that by speaking to how their proposals meet human needs for meaning-in-community and challenge the illusion of infinite growth on a finite planet.
The Countryside
In an urban society and industrial economy dominated by finance, many people do not think of agriculture as either a significant economic sector or a threat to ecological sustainability. With less than two percent of the population employed in agriculture, farming is “out of sight, out of mind” for most of the population. To deal effectively with both economic and ecological crises, a Green New Deal should include agricultural policies that (1) support smaller farms with more farmers, living in viable rural economies and communities,and (2) advance alternatives to annual monoculture industrial farming, which is a major contributor to global warming and the degradation of ecosystems.
These concerns for the declining health of rural communities and ecosystems are connected. Economic and cultural forces have made farming increasingly unprofitable for small family operations and encouraged young people to view education as a vehicle to escape the farm. The command from the industrial worldview was “get big or get out,” and the not-so-subtle hint to young people has been that social status comes with managerial, technical, and intellectual careers in cities. The economic drivers have encouraged increasingly industrialized agriculture, adding to soil erosion and land degradation in the pursuit of short-term yield increases. The dominant culture tells us that markets know best and advanced technology is always better than traditional methods.
Today one hears of how rural America and its people are ignored, but a more accurate term would be exploited—an “economic colonization of rural America.” Agricultural land is exploited, as are below-ground mineral and water resources, typically in ecologically destructive fashion. Meanwhile, recreation areas are “preserved,” largely for use by city people. The damage done to land and people are, in economists’ vocabulary, externalities—rural people, the land, and its creatures pay costs that are not factored into economic transactions. Responding to the crises in rural America is crucial in any program aimed at building a just and sustainable society.
Farmer Training
Much of the discussion about job training/retraining for a Green Economy focuses on technical skills needed for solar-panel installation, weatherizing homes, etc.—important projects that are politically realistic, culturally palatable, and technologically mature today. But a sustainable future with dramatic reductions in fossil-fuel consumption also requires a redesigned agricultural system, which requires more people on the land. We need the appropriate “eyes-to-acres ratio” that makes it possible to farm in an ecologically responsibly manner, according to Wes Jackson, co-founder of The Land Institute and a leader in the sustainable agriculture movement.
A visionary Green New Deal proposal would, as a first step, provide support for programs to expand farming and farm-related occupations in rural areas, part of a long-term project to repopulate the countryside in preparation for the more labor-intensive sustainable agriculture that we would like to see today and will be necessary for a future with “land-conserving communities and healthy regional economies,” to borrow from The Berry Center. The dominant culture equates urban with the progressive and modern, and rural with the unsophisticated and backward, a prejudice that must be challenged not only in the world of ideas but also on the ground.
The Land Stewardship Project offers a template, with three successful training programs. A four-hour Farm Dreams workshop helps people clarify their motivations to farm and begins a process of identifying resources and needs, with help from an experienced farmer. In farmer-led classroom sessions, on-farm tours, and an extensive farmer network, the Farm Beginnings course is a one-year program designed for prospective farmers with some experience who are ready to start a farm, whether or not they currently own land. The two-year Journeyperson course supports people who have been managing their own farm and need guidance to improve or expand their operation for long-term success.
There are, of course, many other farm-training programs from non-profits, governmental agencies, and educational institutions. We highlight LSP, which was founded in 1982, because of its track record and flexibility in responding to political conditions and community needs, particularly its willingness to engage critiques of white supremacy. Support for such programs is not only sensible policy but, in blunt political terms, a signal that progressives backing a Green New Deal recognize the need to revitalize rural areas, where people often feel forgotten by urban legislators and their constituents.
Perennial Polycultures
There has been growing interest in community-supported agriculture, urban farms, and backyard gardening, all of which are components of a healthy food system and healthy communities but do not address the central challenges in the production of the grains (cereals, oilseeds, and pulses) that are the main staples of the human diet. Natural Systems Agriculture research at The Land Institute—which focuses on perennialpolycultures (grain crops grown in mixtures of plants) to replace annual monoculture grain farming—offers a model for the long-term commitment to research and outreach necessary for large-scale sustainable agriculture.
Annual plants are alive for only part of the year and are weakly rooted even then, which leads to the loss of precious soil, nutrients, and water that perennial plants do a better job of holding. Monoculture approaches in some ways simplify farming, but those fields have only one kind of root architecture, which exacerbates the problem of wasted nutrients and water. Current industrial farming techniques (use of fossil-fuel based fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides, with increasingly expensive and complex farm implements) that are dominant in the developed world, and spreading beyond, also are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Less disturbance of soil carbon, in tandem with reduced fossil fuel use in production, reduces the contribution of agriculture to global warming.
Founded in 1976, TLI’s long-term research program has developed Kernza, an intermediate wheatgrass now in limited commercial production, and is working on rice, wheat, sorghum, oilseeds, and legumes, in collaborations with people at 16 universities in the United States and in 18 other countries. Through this combination of perennial species in a diverse community of plants, “ecological intensification” can enhance fertility and reduce weeds, pests, and pathogens, supplanting commercial inputs and maintaining food production while reducing environmental impacts of agriculture.
A visionary Green New Deal could fund additional research into perennial polycultures and other projects that come under the heading of agro-ecology, an umbrella term for farming that rejects the reliance on the pesticides, herbicides, and chemical fertilizers that poison ecosystems all over the world.
Revolution in the Air?
Expanding the number of farmers with the skills needed to leave industrial agriculture behind, and developing crops for a low-energy world are crucial if we are to achieve an ecologically sustainable agriculture. But those changes are of little value without land on which those new farmers can raise those new crops. There is no avoiding the question of land ownership and the need for land reform.
We have no expertise in this area and no specific proposals to offer, but we recognize the importance of the question and the challenge it presents to achieving sustainability in the contemporary United States, as well as around the world. Today, land ownership patterns are at odds with our stated commitment to justice and sustainability—too few people own too much of the agricultural land, and women and people of color are particularly vulnerable to what a Food First report described as, “the disastrous effects of widespread land grabbing and land concentration.”
In somewhat tamer language, the USDA-supported Farmland Information Center reports what is common knowledge in the countryside: “Finding affordable land for purchase or long-term lease is often cited by beginning and expanding farmers and ranchers as their most significant challenge.” Adding to the problem is the loss of farmland to development; in a 2018 report, the American Farmland Trust reported that almost 31 million acres of agricultural land was “converted” between 1992 and 2012.
No one expects any bill introduced in today’s Congress to endorse government action to protect agricultural land from development and redistribute that land to prospective farmers who are currently landless—growing support for democratic socialism does not a revolution make. But any serious long-term planning will have to address land reform, for as the agrarian writer Wendell Berry points out, “There’s a fundamental incompatibility between industrial capitalism and both the ecological and the social principles of good agriculture.”
A vision of rural communities based on family farms is often mistakenly dismissed as mere nostalgia for a romanticized past. We can take stock of the past failures not only of the capitalist farm economy but also of farmers—small family farms are no guarantee of good farming, and rural communities do not guarantee social justice—and still realize that repopulating the countryside is an essential part of a sustainable future.
Conclusion
We began with a faith that people with shared values might disagree about strategies yet still work together. People working on a wide variety of other projects—for example, worker/producer/consumer cooperatives and land trusts—can find reasons to support our ideas, just as we support those projects. But we also recognize that real-world proposals have to prioritize, and so we want to be clear about differences.
For example, the Green New Deal resolution calls for “100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.” One of the key groups backing the plan, the Sunrise Movement, calls this one of the three pillars of its program. We believe this is unrealistic. No combination of renewable energy sources can power the United States in its current form. To talk about renewable energy as a solution without highlighting the need for a dramatic decrease in consumption in the developed world is disingenuous. Pretending that we can maintain First World affluence and achieve sustainability will lead to failed projects and waste limited resources.
Many advocates of a Green New Deal focus on renewable energy technologies and other technological responses to rapid climate disruption and ecological crises. These technologies are only part of the solution. We should reject the dominant culture’s “technological fundamentalism”—the illusion that high-energy/high-technology can magically produce sustainability at current levels of human population and consumption. A Green New Deal should support technological innovations, but only those that help us move to a low-energy world in which human flourishing is redefined by improving the quality of relationships rather than maintaining the capacity for consumption.
We understand that short-term policy proposals must be “reasonable”—that is, they must connect to people’s concerns and be articulated in terms that can be widely understood. But they also must help move us toward a system that many today find impossible to imagine: An economy that not only (1) transcends capitalism and its wealth inequality but also (2) rejects the industrial worldview and its obsession with production. Today’s policy proposals should advance egalitarian goals for the economy but also embrace an ecological worldview for society, without turning from the difficulty posed by the dramatic changes that lie ahead.
Today on Facebook I came across an article celebrating the fact that NASA has found that the earth has greened up over the past 20 years thanks to massive tree planting in China and India.
Surely not, I thought. So I googled the phrase “NASA says world greener” and found a slew of articles published over the past 24 hours all trumpeting the news. The first 20 or so all had variations on the same headline praising China and India’s tree planting. So it must be true, right?
Unfortunately no. This is a really good example of bad science reporting, spin and “greenwashing”.
Over the last two decades, the Earth has seen an increase in foliage around the planet, measured in average leaf area per year on plants and trees. Data from NASA satellites shows that China and India are leading the increase in greening on land. The effect stems mainly from ambitious tree planting programs in China and intensive agriculture in both countries. Credits: NASA Earth Observatory [Image and caption copied directly from the NASA Ames Research Centre article linked below]
Regrettably, even the NASA web page about the research – which was NOT conducted by NASA at all but merely used publicly available data from NASA’s satellites – is highly misleading. And it’s all in the spin. When you talk about “China and India leading the increase” and China’s “ambitious tree planting programs” as in NASA’s caption above, you can certainly see where the commonly reported headline comes from. While the NASA article isn’t technically incorrect, the wording is very misleading. Unless you have been trained to focus on the precise meaning of every single word (as scientists like me have), you are simply not going to pick it up. But it’s spin. Fake news. Greenwash. Given an aura of legitimacy by the NASA badge.
YES, it’s true, there have been massive tree plantings in China and, to a lesser extent, India. And we should certainly be happy about that.
And YES, scientist Chi Chen and colleagues from Boston University in Massachusetts are reporting a 5% increase in average total leaf area across the entire planet over the period 2000-2017.
But tree plantings in China and India are NOT chiefly responsible for the increase in planetary greenness. What the headline should probably have said is what the scientists actually reported in their paper, namely
“Earth is 5% greener since 2000 due to the Greenhouse Effect”.
But that’s not quite as sexy, is it. Nor is it good news. In fact it’s quite the opposite.
What Chi Chen and colleagues actually found (as reported in Nature Sustainability volume 2, pages 122–129 (2019)) was:
the earth’s Greenness Index (something detected by sensors on NASA’s MODIS satellites) has increased over the period 2000-2017 and this equates to a 5% increase in annual average total leaf area across the entire planet
over the period 2000-2017 the total surface area covered by leaves in the planet’s vegetated zones has grown. The increase is spread out across the world but if put together would be roughly equal in size to the Amazon rainforest.
in addition to this, about 30% of land that was already green in 2000 is even greener now and about 5% is less green now
the “dominant drivers” of this overall increase in greenness are “climate change and CO2 fertilization effects”. In other words – the Greenhouse Effect. These indirect effects of human activity account for 70% of the increased greenness across the planet.
the remaining 30% is due to direct effects of human activity and this is concentrated in China and India
in China:
42% of the increase in greenness is due to large scale tree plantings.
32% of the increase in greenness is due to agricultural intensification
(that is, greater use of irrigation, fertiliser (particularly Nitrogen), pesticides and fossil fuels.)
in India:
only 4% of the increase is due to large scale tree plantings.
and fully 82% of the increase is due to agricultural intensification.
A worker in China plants a pine sapling as part of the country’s ambitious plan to reforest its landscape. Credit: Xinhua/ZUMA Wire
Now, if you’ve made it this far through the article and all that accurate science reporting hasn’t put you to sleep, you’ll see that this tree story isn’t half as green as it seemed. Indeed its only 42% of 25% of 5% as green as it seemed. It’s precisely 0.525% as green as it seemed.
So the great news about the tree plantings in China (and it really IS great news) is sadly only the thin silver lining on an otherwise dark cloud of climate change and ‘business-as-usual’ industrial agriculture.
Am I disappointed the world isn’t 5% greener due to tree plantings? Yes, I am. But I am much more disappointed that the research has not been reported honestly by a respected scientific institution, and that literally dozens of news services that trust that institution are now promulgating the spin, fake news, and greenwash of its story. Why would the Ames Research Center spin the story this way? Who knows. Maybe it’s just a staffer in their communications department with a particularly optimistic disposition, who lacks the skills to actually read the original article properly. Maybe it goes much deeper than this and comes down to political influence. But regardless of where it sits on the spectrum, from inept to devious, it stinks!
If, like me, harsh realities like this tend to make you sad, angry and perhaps despairing, let me encourage you to take that energy and invest it in a positive way. Do what you can – everything you can – to stop being part of the problem and, as much as is within your power, every day strive to be part of the solution.
Ogiek stake claim for the Mau forest after victory at African court
The Ogiek have demanded the return of the Mau forest land to the community.
The community is laying claim to more than 21 forest blocs and the Maasai Mau Trust Land that makes up the Mau Complex saying it is their ancestral land.
The demands were tabled yesterday in Nakuru when representatives of the community met a taskforce on the implementation of the African Court’s ruling on the Ogiek land rights in the Mau forest.
Ogiek steadfast on their unceded forest homeland. Members of the Ogiek community during a meeting when they presented their memorandum on February 6, 2019 to the members of the task force on implementation of the African Court’s decision on the Ogiek community’s land rights in the Mau forest issued against the government of Kenya in 2017. [Photo: Harun Wathari]
In May 2017, the African Court ruled that the Government had infringed on the Ogiek community rights. The Arusha-based court ruled that the Mau had been part of the community’s ancestral land for decades.
The ruling arose from a case filed in 2006, in which the Ogiek complained that Kenya Forest Service (KFS) officials issued them with notices to vacate the forest without factoring in how this would affect their lives.
Follow-up
In a follow up to the ruling, the Ogiek People’s Development Programme Executive Director Daniel Kobei yesterday tabled a 13-point memorandum.
Top on the list of the memoranda is that the Mau forest ownership be returned to the community for safekeeping.
“We wish to remain the custodians of the land and forest. With the help of the Government, we will see to it that all misery and degradation of forested homelands are restored,” said Kobei.
The Ogiek are seeking community land titles which shall not be alienable in future.
“Member households will have rights for house and farm plots in perpetuity but any transfer shall be done to their fellow members of the Ogiek community,” he said.
The community proposed that the habitation within the forest shall be limited to areas agreed upon with the Kenya Forest Service and other agencies and grazing restricted to naturally unforested zones or as advised by the government.
It also wants a sharing agreement for all revenue generated from the Mau and compensation for loss of property, development and freedom to exercise its culture.
MEMORANDUM FROM THE OGIEK COMMUNITY
Presented on 6 th February 2019, Nakuru Town, Kenya
TO:
THE TASKFORCE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION OF THE AFRICAN COURT ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES’ RIGHTS ISSUED AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OF KENYA IN RESPECT OF THE RIGHTS OF THE OGIEK COMMUNITY OF MAU AND ENHANCING THE PARTICIPATION OF INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES IN THE SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF FORESTS
Dr. Robert Kibugi (2nd right) receiving the memorandum from the Ogiek Community in Nakuru on 6. January 2019. Left in red shirt the most steadfast Ogiek defender of many decades Mr. Joseph Towett and 3rd from right Mr. Daniel Kobei. [picture: Pristone Mambili]
Dr. Robert Kibugi – Chairperson
Dr. Sally Kimosop – Vice Chairperson
Ole Kamuaro Olottisatti Nabulu – Member
Malik Aman Abdi – Member
Stephen King’uyu – Member
Esau Oginga Omollo – Member
Cyrus Mutuku Maweu – Member
Eugene N. Lawi – Member
Alfred Mumpasoi Keriolale – Member
Emmanuel Bitta – Member
Belinda Okello – Member
Tom Abuta – Member
IN RESPECT OF THEIR INALIENABLE RIGHTS TO DIGNITY, SURVIVAL, AND WELL BEING
Preamble
Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all, is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace.
Recognizing, the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of Indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources.(UNDRIP) Article 10 of UNDRIP, Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands and territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation, and where possible , with the option of return.
Inspired by the provisions of Article 1.1 of the Declaration of the Rights of Persons belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities; which states that ‘States shall protect the existence and the national or ethnic, cultural, religious, and linguistic identity of minorities within their respective territories shall encourage conditions for the promotion of their identity.
It is our hope that the Taskforce on the implementation of the Decision of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights issued against the Government of Kenya in Respect of the Rights of the Ogiek Community of Mau Complex and enhancing the participation of indigenous communities in the sustainable management of forests which was appointed by the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Forestry Vide Gazette Notice No. 11215 of 2018, shall endeavour to take constructive and decisive steps to fulfilling their Terms of Reference, which includes a review of the decision of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights issued against the Government of Kenya in respect of the rights of the Ogiek Community of Mau and any other judgements issued by domestic courts in relation to the Ogiek Community’s occupation of the Mau Forest.
Further, we call on the government to speed up the implementation by remedying all the violations meted on the Ogiek people as identified by the African Court decisions i.e. the violations of articles 1, 2, 4, 8, 14, 17, 21, and 22 of the African Charter while honouring the decision of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights which is one of the guiding principle in addressing the land claims of the Ogiek community.
Specifically, through this Task force, we call on the Government of Kenya to recognize of our right to live in the Mau Forest as our ancestral land in accordance with the Constitution of Kenya (Article 63 (2) (d) (ii)), and on conservation conditions to be agreed. The objective is to save our lands, our culture and our forests.
The Ogiek of Mau
We, the undersigned are all members of the Mau Ogiek community of approximately 45,000 members, historically and presently living in and around the Mau Forest Complex in central Rift Valley. We have consulted with the Mau Ogiek people and the submission made here is made of and on behalf of all Mau Ogiek.
We are closely related to our brothers Ogiek living historically and presently on Mount Elgon. They face the same problems of having their lands wrongfully taken as government then made public lands, set aside for so-called forest protection. Our forests have not been protected and our lives have been almost destroyed. We have always known and still know that the key to our survival and contributions as all Kenyans as forest protectors is recognition of our rightful ownership of our forested territories. We welcomed the Constitution of Kenya in 2010 with relief and tears because it provided for this. Government’s failure to deliver on Article 63 (2) (d) (ii) is an abuse of the Constitution and all the human, development, and other modern rights it pledges for all Kenyans.
The Mau Ogiek are concentrated mainly, but not solely, in the following areas:
8. The remainder of the Ogiek people mainly live in the forested areas of Mount Elgon, at Chepkitale.
The Ogiek of Mt. Elgon will make their own submissions to the Task Force as will other indigenous forest peoples: the Sengwer, Yiaku, Watha and Aweer. We have all suffered the same ill-treatment of our land and human rights during the 20 th century.
We have been subjected to numerous violations of our rights to our land and resources stemming from colonial times. We have been displaced, disposed and evicted numerously from our ancestral lands after extensive de-gazettement of our forest land in Mau and elsewhere by the government through protectionist policies with camouflage of conservation that do not recognize our historical claims to forest areas, being our ancestral land. The African Court ruling recognized the Mau as our ancestral lands. Our primary concern is to see this delivered.
Summary of Human and Land Rights issues experienced by the Ogiek
i. Land tenure issues: – Lack of land tenure has made the Ogiek vulnerable to land loss through evictions, dispossession and displacements. The land loss has been occasioned by irregular excision and allocations that took place in the Ogiek land in Mau and are aggravated by perennial evictions. Further, corruption and fake land documents or title deeds have catalyzed dispossessions of Ogiek land through numerous court cases. Illegal titles have become a source of conflict with corruptions draining the community of resources spent in litigation while making the community poorer by day. To end this the entire Ogiek land must be restored to us through revocation and cancellation of all title deeds.
ii. Recognition of the Ogiek Community as a distinct separate people. The Kenyan constitution and the reports from the Ministry of Home Affairs indicate that there are 43 ethnicities in Kenya. Like other hunter gatherer communities in Kenya, the Ogiek are not included in that number. This is contrary to international standards on recognition of indigenous peoples, especially since the Ogiek meet both the objective and subjective criteria of any existing definition. Though the current constitution refers to the Ogiek as a minority community or marginalized group, we are yet to witness meaningful impact of this recognition.
iii. Some laws and policies have criminalized Ogiek culture. Between 1930 and 1935, a Carter Land Commission constituted by the British Colonial government recommended that the Ogiek and other hunter gatherer groups be assimilated into the communities they neighbour. Subsequent wildlife and forest laws outlawed hunting and gathering thus effectively criminalizing the Ogiek hunting and gathering cultures. New laws e.g. the Forest Act 2005 and Forest Conservation and Management Act 2016, do not also cater for the interests of hunter gatherer communities as primary rights holders to their forest lands. The last law does allow for community forests on community land, but first we need recognition that these are our lands. These laws provide only for forest people to register as Community Forest Associations (CFAs) and enter into management agreements with the government before they can be given the right to help Government protect forest lands. This fundamentally denies the inherent existence of communities for who such forests have always been their homes, and makes their continued existence dependent on state recognition. It has further eroded Ogiek traditional rights by introducing user charges, privileging the emergence of competing interests and resulting in massive loss of forest.
iv. Logging and other illegal activities in the Mau forest constitute the biggest threat to Ogiek cultures, religious and livelihoods. The licensed and unlicensed logging activities not only also threaten the biodiversity of the forest but are leading to the rapid drying up of rivers a e.g. Lake Nakuru, Elementaita and Naivasha. The Mara River that sustains the Maasai Mara Game Reserve – one of the Seven Wonders of the World is also threatened. We would not allow logging and other illegal activities if our lands were recognized as our property.
v. Frequent arrests and intimidation of Ogiek leaders and community members is also a major problem. Many Ogiek are facing land related cases in Court in spite of the court rulings that protects them, more specifically those residing in Mariashoni and Ngongongeri (Esingetit). There has been selective and malicious prosecution of Ogiek community. Some of the community members having sentence to life imprisonment due to land related matters.
vi. Fruitless government engagement and consultation with the Ogiek:
The Ogiek have, on numerous occasions, engaged the government in negotiations and approached the Kenyan courts to seek justice. However, for reasons not well known to them, none of their cases have been successful prosecuted and on the rare occasions when decisions have been in their favour, they have not been fully implemented. Besides the legal redress mechanisms, the Ogiek have also engaged the government in abide to resolve land grievances on the following instances:-
a) During 2009/2010 the Hassan Noor led Interim Coordinating Secretariat to the Mau Task Force Report
b) 2014/15 engagement with the Ministry of Environment and Natural resources led by then Permanent secretary in the Ministry Dr.Richard Lesiyampei
c) And recently (2015/16) the engagement with the National Lands Commission led by Prof. M. Swazuri
Worth noting is the several past attempt by the government to address the Ogiek issues through task forces, commissions and committees but which after their term ends there has been no positive change but rather perpetuation of the vice against the Ogiek peoples. Government has been consistently not serious in both recognizing our land rights and seeing this as the best means through which the tragically degraded Mau forests can be saved. It has been advised many times that this is practical and right including by these projects and documents; the Kenya Indigenous Forest Conservation (KIFCON-1991 to 1994), the Njonjo Commission of Inquiry 1999, the Ndung’u Commission 2002, the Truth Justice and Reconciliation Commission 2012, the Mau Task 2009.
We respectfully ask this Task Force to advise Government to end this tragedy, for the sake of our rights and for the sake of forest conservation.
These are our submissions:
1. We demand restitution of our ancestral lands which extend over much of the Rift Valley comprising the 21 Government Forests blocks and the Maasai Mau Trust Land Forest that make up the Mau Complex. These includes lands lost through land grab and other irregular and corrupt schemes e.g. Farms of Ngongongeri, Likia, Teret.
2. We want these forests returned to our ownership and fully accept that this transfer must be made on these conditions:
a. That Ogiek are not ready for commercialization of their rights. As such we remain custodians of our land and forest and would never agree to sell these lands. Our precious forests, also sources of Kenya’s most precious water towers ARE NOT FOR SALE. Our descendants will hold these lands in posterity in the same way as our forefathers did, and as we expect to be formalized today.
b. We will keep these forestlands for time immemorial as forests safeguarding them against encroachment, exploitation and dilapidation.
c. We will, with Government help, see that all the misery and degradation of our forested homelands are restored as far as possible to their former glory. WE WANT OUR HOMELAND BACK AND ITS CONDITION.
d. We want the government to recognize the Ogiek as a people with unique interaction with the nature by recognizing Ogiek special cultural zones and erecting a monument for the Ogiek in Mau forest.
3. We have a strong will to do this and in doing so we safeguard national Kenyan interests in ensuring that the forests are restored to their former condition. We submit that it is of direct importance for us more than for other Kenyans, that the Mau is rehabilitated. This is because forests are the foundation of our livelihood and culture. Our society will die without the forests. We have been fighting against that for many years and no matter what happens, we will keep fighting for our cultural survival.
4. We want Mau returned to us as our communal land. This is how we lived in and kept the forests in good condition, because we were spread out by clans.
5. The resources accruing from the natural resources of Mau shall have benefit sharing arrangement. These would include and not limited to forest products but also the waters of Mau flowing to various parts Kenya.
6. Compensation of the Ogiek for all damages suffered as a result of the violations, including the payment of pecuniary damages to reflect the loss of their property, development and natural resources, the payment of non-pecuniary damages, to include the loss of their freedom to practise their religion and culture, the establishment of a community development fund for the benefit of the Ogiek, the payment of royalties from existing economic activities in the Mau Forest, and ensuring that the Ogiek benefit from any employment opportunities within the Mau;
7. We seek formal entitlements reflecting our ancient territorial arrangements and which are still practical today. We expect entitlement in the form of Community Land Titles. Each territory will be known as Ogiek op Nessuit Community Land, Mariashoni Community Land, Sasimwani Community Land, and so on. This ownership will never be alienable. This may be inscribed on our title deeds.
8. The Constitution of Kenya 2010, recognizes that we are community landholders and that we are eligible for issue of formal title (Article 63 (2) (d) (ii). The Land Act, 2012 protects customary land ownership as equally important as private ownership (section 5). The Community Land Act, 2016 was enacted to enable all communities to identify and secure their lands under titles. We urge all possible action to see the Community Land act 2016 is operationalized including in our regard. This will also mean we can declare Community Forests on our lands (see below).
9. Member households of each community landowner will have rights. They will be issued usufruct entitlements for house and farm plots in perpetuity. They will be permitted to transfer these entitlements to other members of the community or to other Ogiek and outsiders through a procedure that each community will individually decide upon. Ultimate title to these parcels will remain with the community. This is also what the Community Land Act provides for.
10. We want our indigenous knowledge and innovations contributing to conservation of Mau forest biodiversity is recognized and valued. Ogiek are protectors of bees and birds which are pollinators of our crops and plants which contribute to food sovereignty. It is worth noting that the Ogiek community in conjunction with KFS and other stakeholders have rehabilitated over 100 acres of indigenous trees and 25 community scouts have volunteered to protect the forest as show case of our potentiality.
11. Habitation within each zone will be limited to areas which we agree with Kenya Forestry Service or other appropriate agencies. These will include areas that are naturally unforested and lands in and around present Forest Stations. Grazing will be restricted to zones that are naturally unforested (glades and moorlands), again in agreement with our technical adviser, the Kenya Forest Service.
12. Each community will also define Community Forest Reserves. In most cases we believe this will fall into two categories: Community Protected Forests and Community Use Forests. Different rules will apply. In neither case will any habitation or farming be permitted.
13. a) We understand that responsibilities go with rights. We look forward to becoming the rehabilitators and conservators of the Mau Complex in service for the nation. We look forward to working with the Ministry of Environment and all its agencies towards saving the Mau, and saving our society. We need and want their advice to help us do the very best job.
13. b) We make a prayer to the Task Force on the implementation of the decision of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights issued against the government of Kenya in respect to the Ogiek Community of Mau to address our shared land and forest rights as a priority for action. We acknowledge that it is not practical to return land to all aggrieved people of Kenya. But the case of traditional forest dwellers is straightforward and special. We have been waiting for recognition of our homeland forests for over 100 years. We know that without return of our forestlands, we cannot survive. We also know that without restoration of our land rights the Mau will slowly but surely disappear.
14. We also demand that while all the above is being delivered that we, the rightful owners of the Mau Forests will not be evicted from our homeland.
It’s worthy noting that the Ogiek are an important part of Kenyan history and heritage. Protecting our culture and guaranteeing our survival is an inherent duty of the State. In the face of wrongdoing, as found conclusively by the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, it is the obligation of the State to take the necessary steps to restore our dignity and worth, and we call upon the Task Force to work to urgently implement this path-breaking judgment.
We wish to implore to the Taskforce to consider Ogiek Peoples Development Program (OPDP) for any form of consultation on behalf the Ogiek Community of Mau, as the case was with ACHPR. It will ease and deter masqueraders from intruding to the Task Force.
This memorandum is an addendum to the judgment of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights and formal submission we have made to the Court since at is request. This submission is consistent with that submission held by the Court. It does not supersede the wishes of the Ogiek community and the ruling of the Court.
6 th February 2019, Nakuru Town, Kenya
Signed by 71 Ogiek Elders
—
“At the moment we cannot say we have much for public consumption but by May we shall have our report and submit to the CS,” the task force chair Dr. Robert Kibugi said after visiting various forest blocks of the Mau.
The meeting was also attended by Kuresoi South MP Joseph Tonui and nominated Senator Victor Prengei.
The African Union landmark ruling was delivered already on May 26, 2017 and Kenya is in delay to follow the verdict and implement the remedies.
The Court found that the Kenyan government violated various rights of Ogiek by evicting them from their ancestral land in Mau Forest.
The court ordered the Kenyan government to take all appropriate measures within a reasonable time frame to remedy all the violations committed against the Ogiek.
Featured image: 15-year-old Greta Thunberg of Sweden realized at a young age the enormous gap between what climate experts were warning and the actions society was taking. The difference was so drastic in her opinion that she decided to take matters into her own hands. (Photo: Youtube/Screenshot/TEDxStockholm)
As youth climate campaigners in the U.S. city of Brooklyn on Wednesday plan to continue a climate strike at least partly inspired by the ongoing vigil begun by 15-year-old Greta Thunberg in Sweden earlier this year, a new TEDx Talk released this week reveals that what inspired the Swedish teenager to take action was as simple as it was profound: she fell into sadness as she saw the leaders of the world—even those who admitted human-caused global warming was an “existential crisis”—continue to act and make policy decisions as though no emergency existed.
Everyone keeps saying, Thunberg declares in the 11-minute talk, that climate “is the most important issue of all, and yet they just carry on as before. I don’t understand that. Because if the emissions have to stop, then we must stop the emissions. To me that is black or white. There are no gray areas when it comes to survival. Either we go on as a civilization or we don’t. We have to change.”
As a key part of the talk, Thunberg describes how at the age of eleven, several years after learning about the concept of climate change for the first time, she fell into a depression and became ill. “I stopped talking. I stopped eating,” she explains. “In two months, I lost about ten kilos of weight. Later on I was diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome, OCD, and selective mutism—that basically means I only speak when I think it’s necessary.”
After a short pause, she adds, “Now is one of those moments.”
Watch the full talk:
“For those of us on the spectrum,” Thunberg explains to the audience, “almost everything is black or white. We aren’t very good at lying and we usually don’t enjoy participating in the social game as the rest of you seem so fond of. I think in many ways we autistic are the normal ones and the rest of the people are pretty strange—especially when it comes to the sustainability crisis.”
Towards the conclusion of her talk, Thunberg says that “this is when people usually start talking about hope—solar panels, wind power, circular economy, and so on—but I’m not going to do that.”
And continues, “We’ve had thirty years of pep-talking and selling positive ideas. And I’m sorry, but it doesn’t work. Because if it would have, the emissions would have gone down by now—they haven’t.”
Finally, she says: “Yes, we do need hope—of course, we do. But the one thing we need more than hope is action. Once we start to act, hope is everywhere.”
The latest Living Planet report from the WWF makes for grim reading: a 60% decline in wild animal populations since 1970, collapsing ecosystems, and a distinct possibility that the human species will not be far behind. The report repeatedly stresses that humanity’s consumption is to blame for this mass extinction, and journalists have been quick to amplify the message. The Guardian headline reads “Humanity has wiped out 60% of animal populations”, while the BBC runs with “Mass wildlife loss caused by human consumption”. No wonder: in the 148-page report, the word “humanity” appears 14 times, and “consumption” an impressive 54 times.
There is one word, however, that fails to make a single appearance: capitalism. It might seem, when 83% of the world’s freshwater ecosystems are collapsing (another horrifying statistic from the report), that this is no time to quibble over semantics. And yet, as the ecologist Robin Wall Kimmerer has written, “finding the words is another step in learning to see”.
Although the WWF report comes close to finding the words by identifying culture, economics, and unsustainable production models as the key problems, it fails to name capitalism as the crucial (and often causal) link between these things. It therefore prevents us from seeing the true nature of the problem. If we don’t name it, we can’t tackle it: it’s like aiming at an invisible target.
Why capitalism?
The WWF report is right to highlight “exploding human consumption”, not population growth, as the main cause of mass extinction, and it goes to great lengths to illustrate the link between levels of consumption and biodiversity loss. But it stops short of pointing out that capitalism is what compels such reckless consumption. Capitalism – particularly in its neoliberal form – is an ideology founded on a principle of endless economic growth driven by consumption, a proposition that is simply impossible.
No extinction risk for ‘commodity species’. Baronb / shutterstock
Industrial agriculture, an activity that the report identifies as the biggest single contributor to species loss, is profoundly shaped by capitalism, not least because only a handful of “commodity” species are deemed to have any value, and because, in the sole pursuit of profit and growth, “externalities” such as pollution and biodiversity loss are ignored. And yet instead of calling the irrationality of capitalism out for the ways in which it renders most of life worthless, the WWF report actually extends a capitalist logic by using terms such as “natural assets” and “ecosystem services” to refer to the living world.
By obscuring capitalism with a term that is merely one of its symptoms – “consumption” – there is also a risk that blame and responsibility for species loss is disproportionately shifted onto individual lifestyle choices, while the larger and more powerful systems and institutions that are compelling individuals to consume are, worryingly, let off the hook.
Who is ‘humanity,’ anyway?
The WWF report chooses “humanity” as its unit of analysis, and this totalising language is eagerly picked up by the press. The Guardian, for example, reports that “the global population is destroying the web of life”. This is grossly misleading. The WWF report itself illustrates that it is far from all of humanity doing the consuming, but it does not go as far as revealing that only a small minority of the human population are causing the vast majority of the damage.
Global map of Ecological Footprint of consumption, 2014. Although the WWF report highlights disparity in consumption, it says nothing about the capitalism which produces this pattern. WWF Living Planet
From carbon emissions to ecological footprints, the richest 10% of people are having the greatest impact. Furthermore, there is no recognition that the effects of climate and biodiversity collapse are overwhelming felt by the poorest people first – the very people who are contributing least to the problem. Identifying these inequalities matters because it is this – not “humanity” per se – that is the problem, and because inequality is endemic to, you guessed it, capitalist systems (and particularly their racist and colonial legacies).
The catch-all word “humanity” papers over all of these cracks, preventing us from seeing the situation as it is. It also perpetuates a sense that humans are inherently “bad”, and that it is somehow “in our nature” to consume until there is nothing left. One tweet, posted in response to the WWF publication, retorted that “we are a virus with shoes”, an attitude that hints at growing public apathy.
But what would it mean to redirect such self-loathing towards capitalism? Not only would this be a more accurate target, but it might also empower us to see our humanity as a force for good.
Breaking the story
Words do so much more than simply assign blame to different causes. Words are makers and breakers of the deep stories that we construct about the world, and these stories are especially important for helping us to navigate environmental crises. Using generalised references to “humanity” and “consumption” as drivers of ecological loss is not only inaccurate, it also perpetuates a distorted view of who we are and what we are capable of becoming.
By naming capitalism as a root cause, on the other hand, we identify a particular set of practices and ideas that are by no means permanent nor inherent to the condition of being human. In doing so, we learn to see that things could be otherwise. There is a power to naming something in order to expose it. As the writer and environmentalist Rebecca Solnit puts it:
Calling things by their true names cuts through the lies that excuse, buffer, muddle, disguise, avoid, or encourage inaction, indifference, obliviousness. It’s not all there is to changing the world, but it’s a key step.
The WWF report urges that a “collective voice is crucial if we are to reverse the trend of biodiversity loss”, but a collective voice is useless if it cannot find the right words. As long as we – and influential organisations such as the WWF, in particular – fail to name capitalism as a key cause of mass extinction, we will remain powerless to break its tragic story.
RIO GRANDE VALLEY, Texas— The Trump administration announced today that it will waive dozens of environmental laws to speed border-wall construction through protected Rio Grande Valley property, including a national wildlife refuge and famed butterfly center.
“The Trump administration is ignoring thousands of people in Hidalgo County who don’t want these disastrous border walls,” said Laiken Jordahl, borderlands campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The Rio Grande Valley is one of the most spectacular and biologically important landscapes in the country. Every acre is irreplaceable. We’ll do everything in our power to stop this destruction.”
The waiver, to take effect Thursday, is intended to speed about 18 miles of border-wall construction by sweeping aside 28 bedrock environmental and public-health laws that protect clean air, clean water, public lands and endangered wildlife. This is the fifth time the Trump administration has used the REAL ID waiver. The Center is considering whether to challenge the waiver in court.
The waiver is being issued during a comment period for border-wall construction in Hidalgo County, where so far more than 8,500 people say they oppose the plan. U.S. Customs and Border Protection opened the comment periodin September after the Center and 42 groups requested public input. Comments remain open until Nov. 6.
“It’s appalling that the Trump administration is willing to seize family farms by eminent domain and bulldoze beautiful nature reserves that support the local economy,” Jordahl said. “Trump is ripping the Rio Grande Valley in two for political sport. His despicable disregard for the law and the borderlands must be stopped.”
A 2017 study by the Center identified more than 90 endangered or threatened species that would be threatened by wall construction along the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border. Endangered and threatened species in the area include the ocelot, jaguarundi and aplomado falcon, as well as a host of migratory birds.
The Center is suing the Trump administration over its use of the long-expired waiver for border-wall construction at the Santa Teresa Port of Entry in New Mexico. The Center is also appealing a federal court ruling in its lawsuit to stop the border wall replacement project near San Diego.
Beyond jeopardizing wildlife, endangered species and public lands, the U.S.-Mexico border wall is part of a larger strategy of ongoing border militarization that damages human rights, civil liberties, native lands, local businesses and international relations. The border wall impedes the natural migrations of people and wildlife that are essential to healthy diversity.
The proposal seeks to waive these laws:
The National Environmental Policy Act
The Endangered Species Act
The Clean Water Act
The National Historic Preservation Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Conservation Act
The Clean Air Act
The Archeological Resources Protection Act
The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act
The Federal Cave Resources Protection Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act
The Noise Control Act
The Solid Waste Disposal Act
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
The Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act
The Antiquities Act
The Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act
The Farmland Protection Policy Act
The Coastal Zone Management Act
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act
The National Fish and Wildlife Act
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
The Administrative Procedure Act
The River and Harbors Act
The Eagle Protection Act
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
