by DGR News Service | Jun 9, 2021 | Biodiversity & Habitat Destruction, Listening to the Land, Toxification
Biodiversity is plummeting, but restoring rivers could quickly reverse this disastrous trend.
This article was produced by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.
By Alessandra Korap Munduruku, Darryl Knudsen and Irikefe V. Dafe
In October 2021, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) will meet in China to adopt a new post-2020 global biodiversity framework to reverse biodiversity loss and its impacts on ecosystems, species and people. The conference is being held during a moment of great urgency: According to a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we now have less than 10 years to halve our greenhouse gas emissions to stave off catastrophic climate change. At the same time, climate change is exacerbating the accelerating biodiversity crisis. Half of the planet’s species may face extinction by the end of this century.
And tragically, according to a UN report, “the world has failed to meet a single target to stem the destruction of wildlife and life-sustaining ecosystems in the last decade.”
It’s time to end that legacy of failure and seize the opportunities before us to correct the past mistakes, manage the present challenges and meet the future challenges that the environment is likely to face. But if we’re going to protect biodiversity and simultaneously tackle the climate crisis, we must protect rivers and freshwater ecosystems. And we must defend the rights of communities whose livelihoods depend on them, and who serve as their stewards and defenders. By doing so, we will improve food security for the hundreds of millions of people who rely on freshwater ecosystems for sustenance and livelihoods—and give the world’s estimated 140,000 freshwater species a fighting chance at survival.
Rivers Are Heroes of Biodiversity
At the upcoming CBD, countries are expected to reach an agreement to protect 30 percent of the world’s oceans and land by 2030. But which land is protected, as part of this agreement, matters immensely. We cannot protect just any swath of land and consider our work done. Member countries must prioritize protecting regions where biodiversity is highest, or where restoration will bring the greatest net benefits. Rivers, which support an extraordinary number of species, must be a priority zone for protection and restoration.
Rivers are unsung heroes of biodiversity: Though freshwater covers less than 1 percent of all the water on the planet’s surface, it provides habitats for an astonishing number of species. Rivers are vital for conserving and sustaining wetlands, which house or provide breeding grounds for around 40 percent of Earth’s species. That is a staggering amount of life in a very small geographic area—and those figures don’t account for all the adjacent forests and other ecosystems, as well as people’s livelihoods that rely on rivers.
Reversing the Decline of Rivers and Freshwater Ecosystems
Freshwater ecosystems have suffered from some of the most rapid declines in the last four decades. A global study conducted by the World Wildlife Fund, “Living Planet Report 2020,” states that populations of global freshwater species have declined by 84 percent, “equivalent to 4 percent per year since 1970.”
That is, by any measure, a catastrophe. Yet mainstream development models, water management policies and conservation and protected area policies continue to ignore the integrity of freshwater ecosystems and the livelihoods of communities that depend on them.
As a result of these misguided policies, fisheries that sustain millions of people are collapsing. Freshwater is increasingly becoming degraded, and riverbank farming is suffering as a result of this. Additionally, we’re seeing Indigenous peoples, who have long been careful and successful stewards of their lands and waters, face increasing threats to their autonomy and well-being. The loss of biodiversity, and the attendant degradation of precious freshwater, directly impacts food and water security and livelihoods.
But this catastrophe also suggests that by prioritizing river protection as part of that 30 percent goal, the global community could slow down and begin to reverse some of the most egregious losses of biodiversity. We have an incredible opportunity to swiftly reverse significant environmental degradation and support the rebound of myriad species while bolstering food security for millions of people. But to do that successfully, COP countries must prioritize rivers and river communities.
Here are a few things countries can do immediately to halt the destruction of biodiversity:
1. Immediately Halt Dam-Building in Protected Areas
Dams remain one of the great threats to a river’s health, and particularly to protected areas. More than 500 dams are currently being planned in protected areas around the globe, states Yale Environment 360, while referring to a study published in Conservation Letters. In one of the most egregious examples, Tanzania is moving ahead with plans to construct the Stiegler’s Gorge dam in the Selous Game Reserve—which has been a UNESCO World Heritage site since 1982 and an iconic refuge for wildlife. In terms of protecting biodiversity, canceling dams like these is low-hanging fruit if the idea of a “protected area” is to have any meaning at all.
2. Create Development ‘No-Go’ Zones on the World’s Most Biodiverse Rivers
Freshwater ecosystems face myriad threats from extractive industries like mining and petroleum as well as agribusiness and cattle ranching, overfishing, industrialization of waterways and urban industrial pollution. Investors, financiers, governments and CBD signatories must put an immediate halt to destructive development in biodiversity hotspots, legally protect the most biodiverse rivers from development, and decommission the planet’s most lethal dams.
3. Pass Strong Water Protection Policies
Most policymakers and decision-makers—and even some conservation organizations—don’t fully understand how freshwater ecosystems and the hydrological cycle function, and how intimately tied they are to the health of the terrestrial ecosystems they want to protect. Rivers and freshwater ecosystems urgently need robust protections, including policies that permanently protect freshwater and the rights of communities that depend on them. In some places, this may go as far as granting rivers the rights of personhood. A growing global Rights of Nature and Rights of Rivers movement is beginning to tackle just this.
4. Respect the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Other Traditional Communities
Indigenous peoples protect “about 80 percent of the global biodiversity,” according to an article by National Geographic, even though they make up just 5 percent of the world’s population. These are the world’s frontline defenders of water and biodiversity; we owe them an enormous debt. More importantly, they deserve protection. It’s imperative governments respect Indigenous people’s territorial rights, as well as their right to self-determination and free, prior and informed consent regarding projects that affect their waters and livelihoods.
Many Indigenous communities like the Munduruku in the Amazon are fighting to defend their territories, rivers and culture. Threats to fishing and livelihoods from destructive dams, gold mining pollution and industrial facilities can be constant in the Tapajós River Basin in the Amazon and many other Indigenous territories.
5. Elevate Women Leaders
In many cultures, women are traditionally the stewards of freshwater, but they are excluded from the decision-making processes. In response, they have become leaders in movements to protect rivers and freshwater ecosystems around the globe. From the Teesta River in India to the Brazilian Amazon, women are leading a burgeoning river rights movement. A demand to include women’s voices in policy, governments and localities will ensure better decisions in governing shared waters.
The pursuit of perpetual unchecked economic growth with little regard for human rights or ecosystem health has led our planet to a state of crisis. Floods, wildfires, climate refugees and biodiversity collapse are no longer hallmarks of a distant future: They are here. In this new era, we must abandon rampant economic growth as a metric of success and instead prioritize equity and well-being.
Free-flowing rivers are a critical safety net that supports our existence. To reverse the biodiversity crisis, we must follow the lead of Indigenous groups, elevate women’s leadership, grant rights to rivers, radically reduce dam-building and address other key threats to freshwater.
What we agree to do over the next decade will determine our and the next generations’ fate. We are the natural world. Its destruction is our destruction. The power to halt this destruction lies in our hands; we only have to use it.
Alessandra Korap Munduruku is a Munduruku Indigenous woman leader from Indigenous Reserve Praia do Índio in the Brazilian Amazon. She is a member of Pariri, a local Munduruku association, as well as the Munduruku Wakoborûn Women’s Association. In 2020, Alessandra won the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award for her work defending the culture, livelihoods and rights of Indigenous peoples in Brazil.
Darryl Knudsen is the executive director of International Rivers. He has 20 years’ experience channeling the power of civil society movements to create enduring, positive change toward social and environmental justice for the underrepresented. Darryl holds a master’s degree from Columbia University and a BA from Dartmouth College.
Irikefe V. Dafe has advocated for river protections in Nigeria and throughout Africa for three decades. Much of his work has focused on protecting the River Ethiope and the rights of communities who rely upon the river for food, water and their livelihoods. He is a lead organizer of the First National Dialogue on Rights of Nature in Nigeria. He is also the founder and CEO of River Ethiope Trust Foundation and an expert member of the UN Harmony with Nature Initiative.
by DGR News Service | Jun 8, 2021 | Education
This article was originally published on the blog buildingarevolutionarymovement.org. Republished with permission.
Understanding political ideology is essential to then start thinking about theories of change, theories of power, revolutionary strategy and vision. We all have a political ideology, whether we realise it or not. Radicals refer to ideologies all the time but I think they are used vaguely without a clear frame of reference. I think it is important to have a shared understanding of concepts and words to avoid misunderstandings. I am the process of added a glossary page to the blog to help with this.
A key text for understanding political ideologies is Political Ideologies: An Introduction by Andrew Heywood (4th edition from 2007) which is where the content for these initial posts on ideology is referenced from. Although I don’t agree with Heywood’s take on everything, it is a good starting point for understanding the importance of political ideology and what the different ideologies are.
I think getting clear on political ideologies is essential, so we know which ideologies want to change society to make things better for everyone, and which ideologies are working against that, either to maintain the current power arrangements, or are actively trying to roll back gains and increase inequality further.
The term ideology was coined during the French Revolution, to refer to a new ‘science of ideas’. There is no agreed definition for the term and Heywood gives two reasons for this. First, concepts related to ideology link theory and practice, so the term represents highly contentious debates about the role of ideas in politics. What is the relationship between beliefs and theories, compared to material life or political conduct? The second is that the term ‘ideology’ has been used as a political weapon or device to criticize rival sets of ideas of belief systems.
Marxism and Ideology
Heywood explains that Karl Marx’s and later Marxist thinkers’ use of the term ‘ideology’ resulted in the importance of ideology in modern social and political thought. Marx had a very different understanding of the concept than is used in mainstream political analysis. Heywood lists four crucial features of Marx’s view of ideology. First, Marx believed that ideology presented a mystification and a false or mistaken view of the world, what Engels referred to as ‘false consciousness’. Marx classified his own ideas as scientific and truthful, compared to ideology and falsehood. Second, Marx linked ideology to the class system and the distortion implicit in ideology originates from the fact that it reflects the interests of the ruling class. Third, ideology conceals the contradictions of capitalism in society, that are disguised from the exploited proletariat, their own exploitation, which therefore maintain a system of unequal class power. Finally, Marx believed that ideology was a temporary phenomenon, that would only continue as long as the class system continues. The proletariat, in Marx’s view, are the ‘grave diggers’ of capitalism and will create a classless society with the collective ownership of wealth [1].
Heywood describes how Marx’s overly optimistic prediction of capitalism’s end interested later Marxists in the concept: ideology was seen as one of the reasons for the resilience of capitalism. This combined with an understanding that each social class were seen to have their own ideology. These were ideas that advanced the interests unrelated to the class position. Ideology was no longer implied falsehood and mystification, or stood in opposition to science.
For Heywood, ideology was developed furthest by Antonio Gramsci: “Gramsci argued that the capitalist class system is upheld not simply by unequal economic and political power, but by what he termed the ‘hegemony’ of bourgeois ideas and theories. Hegemony means leadership and domination and, in the sense of ideological hegemony, it refers to the capacity of bourgeois ideas to displace rival views and become, in effect, the common sense of the age.” Gramsci argued that ideology is embedded at every level through society, in its culture and language. Gramsci believed that bourgeois hegemony needed to be challenged at the political and intellectual level through the creation of ‘proletarian hegemony’ [2].
The Frankfurt School, a group of German neo-Marxists analysed that ability of capitalism to maintain stability by manufacturing legitimacy. Herbert Marcuse, argued that “advanced industrial society has developed a ‘totalitarian’ character in the capacity of its ideology to manipulate thought and deny expression to oppositional views.”[3]
Non-Marxist concepts of Ideology
A German sociologist Karl Mannheim attempted to develop a non-Marxist concept of ideology. Heywood describes how he agreed with Marx that people’s ideas are shaped by their social circumstances but did not view ideology in negative terms: “Mannheim portrayed ideologies as thought systems that serve to defend a particular social order, and that broadly express the interests of its dominant or ruling group. Utopias, on the other hand, are idealized representations of the future that imply the need for radical social change, invariably serving the interests of oppressed or subordinate groups.” Mannheim distinguished between ‘particular’ and ‘total’ ideologies: ‘particular’ are the ideas and beliefs of individuals, groups and parties, with ‘total’ ideologies representing ‘world views’ of a social class or society, such as liberal capitalism or Marxism [4].
For Heywood, in the 1950s and 1960s the term ‘ideology’ was used in a highly restrictive manner, to describe oppressive systems of rule such as fascism and communism in Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. These ideologies were seen to be ‘closed’ systems of thought, which claimed a monopoly of truth and refused to tolerate opposing ideas.
The conservative concept of ideology is based on a distrust of abstract principles and philosophies, due to a skeptical attitude towards rationalism and progress. The world is seen as too complex for the human mind to understand. Therefore, ideology is seen as dogmatic, with fixed or doctrinaire beliefs that are divorced from the complexities of the real world. Conservatives rejected ideology in favour of pragmatism, that looks to experience and history as the best guide to human behaviour. This changed with the hijacking of conservatism by the the highly ideological politics of the new right [5].
Defining Ideology
Since the 1960s the term ‘ideology’ has become a neutral and objective concept and can be viewed as an ‘action-oriented system of thought’. Disagreements have persisted over the social role and political significance of ideology. Heywood lists the following meanings that have been attached to ideology:
- a political belief system
- an action-orientated set of political ideas
- the ideas of the ruling class
- the world view of a particular social class or social group
- political ideas that embody or articulate class or social interests
- ideas that propagate false consciousness amongst the exploited or oppressed
- ideas that situate the individual within a social context and generate a sense of collective belonging
- an officially sanctioned set of ideas used to legitimize a political system or regime
- an all-embracing political doctrine that claims a monopoly of truth
- an abstract and highly systematic set of political ideas[6]
Heywood defines ideology to be understood as:
“An ideology is a more or less coherent set of ideas that provides the basis for organizing political action, whether this is intended to preserve, modify or overthrow the existing system of power. All ideologies therefore have the following feature:
- a) They offer an account of the existing order, usually in the form of a ‘world view’.
- b) They advance a model of a desired future, a vision of the ‘good society’.
- c) They explain how political change can should be brought about – how to get from (a) to (b).”
For Heywood this definition is “entirely in line with the social-scientific usage of the term.” And that this definition illustrates the complexity of ideology because it brings about two kinds of synthesis. The first fuses understanding and commitment, so ideology blurs the distinction between what ‘is’ and what ‘should be’. The second synthesis is the fusion of political thought/theory and political practice/action [7].
Heywood states that ideologies can be seen as ‘regimes of truth’, by providing “a language of political discourse, a set of assumptions and presuppositions about how society does and should work, ideology structures both what we think and how we act.” He links ideology to power: “in a world of competing truths, values and theories, ideologies seek to prioritize certain values over others, and to invest legitimacy in particular theories or sets of meanings.” Heywood sees ideologies as providing intellectual maps of the social world, that establish relationships between individuals and groups verses the larger structure of power. They therefore play an essential role in maintaining the current power structure as fair and natural, or in challenging it by highlighting its injustices and pointing out the benefits of alternative power structures [8].
Ideology and the Political Spectrum
Heywood explains that political ideology developed from the transition from feudalism to industrial capitalism. The earliest or ‘classical’ ideological traditions – liberalism, conservatism and socialism – developed as competing attempts to shape industrial society. During the nineteenth century, ideologies gained a clearer doctrinal character to become associated with a particular social class – liberalism for the middle class, conservatism for the aristocracy, and socialism for the working class. This resulted in political parties developing to represent the interests of these classes. The parties developed political programmes, resulting in a battle between two rival economic philosophies: capitalism and socialism. Political ideology therefore has a strong economic focus. This is described as the left/right divide and illustrated by the linear political spectrum.
Heywood describes how the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’, date back to the French Revolution and the seating arrangements adopted by the political groups at the first meeting of the Estates-General in 1789. Those that sat on the left supported equality and common ownership, and support for meritocracy and private ownership was on the right [9].
Left <—————————————————————————————> Right
Communism Socialism Liberalism Conservation Fascism
Classical and New Ideologies
Heywood lists the ‘classical’ ideologies to be: liberalism, conservatism, socialism, nationalism, anarchism, fascism, and the ‘new’ ideologies to be: feminism, green ideology, multiculturalism, islamism. He describes how the ‘new’ ideologies have roots that stretch back until the nineteenth century and have been given “particular areas of ideological debate a prominence they never previously enjoyed and, in the process, they have fostered the emergence of fresh and challenging ideological perspective.” [10]
Heywood lists three reasons why this process of ideological transformation has occurred. The first is the transition from industrial societies to postindustrial societies. He describes the shift from societies with clear class divisions to more affluent societies with more of a focus on issue and identity politics. He also a describes a shift from societies with ‘thick’ social bonds based on social class and nationality to postindustrial societies with ‘thinner’ and more fluid social bonds. This results in people having a less clear idea of who they are and where they stand on moral and social issues.
The second is the collapse of communism and the changing world order. He describes that since the collapse of communism in eastern Europe, nationalism and religious fundamentalism have been on the rise. He describes how the 9/11 attacks and resulting ‘war on terror’ show the “emergence of new ideological battle lines that, some believe, may define global politics in the twenty-first century.”
The third reason is globalization and transnationalism. Heywood describes how globalization has influenced the development of political ideologies in a number of ways: the collapse of communism, undermined political nationalism (although this trend is now being reversed), strengthened multiculturalism, the spread of capitalism economy has generated a range of oppositional forces such as the spread of religious fundamentalism and anti-globalization/anti-capitalist movements.
Heywood lists three broad ways that the ‘new’ ideologies differ from the ‘classical’ ideologies’. The first is that there has been a shift away from economics towards culture. Liberalism, conservatism and socialism were mainly concerned with economic organization, their “moral vision was grounded in a particular economic model.” The ‘new’ ideologies are more concerned with people’s values, beliefs and ways of life. Second, there has been a shift from social class to identity, resulting in political activism becoming more a lifestyle choice. Finally there has been a shift from universalism to particularism. Socialism and liberalism shared a belief that there is “a common core to human identity shared by people everywhere; the ‘new’ ideologies…stress the importance of factors such as gender, locality, culture and ethnicity. In that sense, they practise the ‘politics of difference’ rather than the politics of universal emancipation.” [11]
In the next post I will summarise the key aspects of the ‘classical’ ideologies, plus feminism. In a future post I will summarise the remaining ‘new’ ideologies.
Endnotes
[1] Political Ideologies : An Introduction by Andrew Heywood, 4th edition, 2007, page 6/7
[2] Heywood, Political Ideologies, page 7
[3] Heywood, Political Ideologies, page 8
[4] Heywood, Political Ideologies, page 8/9
[5] Heywood, Political Ideologies, page 10
[6] Heywood, Political Ideologies, page 5
[7] Heywood, Political Ideologies, page 11-13
[8] Heywood, Political Ideologies, page 15
[9] Heywood, Political Ideologies, page 16
[10] Heywood, Political Ideologies, page 18
[11] Heywood, Political Ideologies, page 18-21
by DGR News Service | Jun 7, 2021 | Alienation & Mental Health, Biodiversity & Habitat Destruction, Human Supremacy, The Problem: Civilization
Editor’s note: The Biden administration’s budget to address the extinction crisis for the year 2021 is $22 million ($22,000,000). That is $60,273 per day, $2,511 per hour, and $41 per second.
The Biden administration’s military budged for the year 2021 is $705.39 billion ($705,390,000,000). That is $1,93 billion per day, $80,527 million per hour, and $1,34 million per second. The US military is also the single largest polluter in the world, burning about 269,230 barrels of oil per day.
The numbers alone show the preferences of this “culture” very clearly. (In my view, the term “culture” seems inappropriate to describe a societal structure that follows the logic of a cancer cell.)
Featured image: “We Live Here Too” by Nell Parker.
This is a press release from the Center for Biological Diversity, May 28.
WASHINGTON— With today’s (May 28) release of President Biden’s first full budget, the administration signaled that stemming the wildlife extinction crisis and safeguarding the nation’s endangered species will not be a top priority, despite the warnings of scientists that one million species are at risk of going extinct around the world without intervention.
The Biden administration is proposing just $22 million — a mere $1.5 million above last year’s levels — to protect the more than 500 imperiled animals and plants still waiting for protection under the Endangered Species Act. It is at the same level as what was provided for in 2010.
The budget proposal increases funding for endangered species recovery by $18 million. While this represents a modest increase from last year’s budget, the Endangered Species Act has been severely underfunded for decades, resulting in species waiting years, or even decades, for protection and already-protected species receiving few dollars for their recovery.
Based on the Fish and Wildlife Service’s own recovery plans, at least $2 billion per year is needed to recover the more than 1,700 endangered species across the country. The proposed budget fails to even come close to closing the gap in needed funding.
“It’s distressing that President Biden’s budget still ignores the extinction crisis,” said Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “What’s especially tragic is that restoring abundant wildlife populations would also reap huge benefits in helping to stop the climate crisis, reduce toxic pollution and protect wild places. This was a missed opportunity.”
During the presidential campaign, President Biden touted his early support for the Endangered Species Act when the law was passed in 1973. In January President Biden launched a review of the Trump administration’s rollbacks of the regulations implementing the Endangered Species Act and decisions to weaken protections for the monarch butterfly, spotted owl and gray wolf.
To date, however, the Biden administration has not moved to alter or reverse any Trump-era policies or decisions related to endangered species. With today’s budget, President Biden is adopting the measly funding levels of the Trump administration.
Over the past year, more than 170 conservation groups have asked for additional funding for endangered species. This request echoes similar pleas from 121 members of the House of Representatives and 21 senators.
“Every year, more of our most distinctive animals and plants will vanish right before our eyes. Perhaps for the sake of his grandchildren, President Biden will reconsider this disastrous budget proposal,” said Hartl.
Around 650 U.S. plants and animals have already been lost to extinction. Some of the plants and animals that have been deemed extinct in the United States since 2000 include: Franklin’s bumblebee from California and Oregon; the rockland grass skipper and Zestos skipper butterflies from Florida; the Tacoma pocket gopher; the Alabama sturgeon; the chucky madtom, a small catfish from Tennessee; a wildflower named Appalachian Barbara’s buttons; and the Po’ouli, a songbird from Maui. Scientists estimate that one-third of America’s species are vulnerable to extinction and 12,000 species nationwide are in need of conservation action.
| Contact: |
Brett Hartl, (202) 817-8121, bhartl@biologicaldiversity.org |
The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 1.7 million members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.
by DGR News Service | Jun 6, 2021 | Biodiversity & Habitat Destruction, Climate Change, Colonialism & Conquest, Culture of Resistance, Direct Action, Mining & Drilling, Movement Building & Support, Repression at Home
Editor’s note: The company has already sold a handful of its onshore oil blocks over the past 10 years, citing the need to cut risk due to community unrest and continued sabotage attacks on its oil installations. These blocks had been snapped up by Nigerian indigenous operators including Seplat Petroleum, Aiteo E&P, First Hydrocarbons and NPDC.
This article originally appeared on Common Dreams.
Featured image: An Ugandan activists holds a sign urging a stop to the East African Crude Oil Pipeline. (Photo: Fridays for Future Uganda/Twitter)
“We cannot drink oil. This is why we cannot accept the construction of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline.”
by Brett Wilkins, Common Dreams staff writer
Climate campaigners in Africa and around the world on Friday continued demonstrations against Total, with activists accusing the French oil giant of ecocide, human rights violations, and greenwashing in connection with fossil fuel projects in Uganda.
On the 145th week of Fridays for Future climate strike protests, members of the movement in Uganda global allies drew attention to the harmful effects of fossil fuel development on the environment, ecosystems, communities, and livelihoods.
Friday’s actions followed protests at Total petrol stations in Benin, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Togo, and Uganda on Tuesday—celebrated each year as Africa Day—against the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), now under construction, and the Mozambique Liquefied Natural Gas project.
“Total’s fossil fuel developments pose grave risks to protected environments, water sources, and wetlands in the Great Lakes and East Africa regions,” said Andre Moliro, an activist from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, during Tuesday’s pan-African protests.
“Communities have been raising concerns on the impact of oil extraction on Lake Albert fisheries and the disastrous consequences of an oil spill in Lake Victoria, that would affect millions of people that rely on the two lakes for their livelihoods, watersheds for drinking water, and food production,” he added.
In Uganda, opposing oil development—an expected multi-billion-dollar boon to the landlocked nation’s economy—can be risky business. On Monday, police in Buliisa arrested Ugandan human rights defender Maxwell Atuhura and Italian journalist Federica Marsi.
According to Energy Voice, Atuhura—who works with the African Institute for Energy Governance (AFIEGO), one of half a dozen NGOs that have pursued legal action against Total—and Marsi were about to meet with local community members when they were apprehended.
Marsi was released Monday and reportedly told to leave the oil region “before bad things happen.” She was briefly rearrested later in the day. Atuhura remains in police custody. The World Organization Against Torture has issued an urgent appeal for intervention in his case.
United Nations special rapporteurs and international human rights groups have previously expressed serious concern over abuses perpetrated against land defenders and journalists in Uganda. Despite the risks, actions against EACOP and the related Tilenga Development Project continue.
“We cannot drink oil. This is why we cannot accept the construction of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline,” Ugandan climate justice activist Vanessa Nakate, founder of the Rise Up Movement, said during the Africa Day action. “It is going to cause massive displacement of people [and the] destruction of ecosystems and wildlife habitats.”
“We have no future in extraction of oil because it only means destroying the livelihoods of the people and the planet,” Nakate added. “It is time to choose people above pipelines. It is time to rise up for the people and the planet.”
If completed, the $3.5 billion, nearly 900-mile EACOP will transport up to 230,000 barrels of crude oil per day from fields in the Lake Albert region of western Uganda through the world’s longest electrically heated pipeline to the Tanzanian port city of Tanga on the Indian Ocean.
In partnership with China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) and the Uganda National Oil Company (UNOC), Total is also leading the Tilenga Development Project, which involves the drilling of 400 wells in dozens of locations, including iniside the richly biodiverse Murchison Falls National Park.
Total says the project will “generate a positive net impact on biodiversity,” a claim vehemently rejected by environmentalists.
“Imagine a tropical version of the Alaskan oil pipeline,” environmental author Fred Pearce wrote of EACOP last year. “Only longer. And passing through critical elephant, lion, and chimpanzee habitats and 12 forest reserves, skirting Africa’s largest lake, and crossing more than 200 rivers and thousands of farms before reaching the Indian Ocean—where its version of the Exxon Valdez disaster would pour crude oil into some of Africa’s most biodiverse mangroves and coral reefs.”
Although Total claims it chose the EACOP route to “minimize the number of residents relocated,” local residents and international NGOs say the pipeline’s impact will be anything but minimal.
According to Mongabay, more than 12,000 families will be displaced from their ancestral lands to make way for the pipeline, two-thirds of which will pass through agricultural zones. Farmers in the pipeline’s path and the Lake Albert oil region have joined civil society groups and international organizations in voicing their opposition to the EACOP and Tilenga projects.
The #StopEACOP coalition, which is made up of local and international activists and organizations, is attempting to block funding of the project by appealing to banks, investors, and insurance companies. A March open letter signed by more than 250 groups urged 25 commercial banks to not finance the pipeline.
In 2017, WWF Uganda published a report warning that the pipeline “is likely to lead to significant disturbance, fragmentation, and increased poaching within important biodiversity and natural habitats” that are home to species including chimpanzees, elephants, and lions.
Wildlife forced from natural habitats by oil development has in turn caused severe disruptions to farming families.
“We have always had a problem of human-wildlife conflict in this village, but with drilling and road construction across the park, the invasions are more frequent,” Elly Munguryeki, a farmer living just outside Murchison Falls National Park, told South Africa’s Mail & Guardian earlier this month.
“We keep reporting the losses to park authorities but nothing happens,” said Munguryeki. “Each night a herd of buffalo, baboons, and hippos from the park would invade my farm and neighbouring plots and eat our crops until dawn. Whatever they left would be eaten by baboons and wild pigs during the day, forcing us to harvest premature crops.”
A 2020 Oxfam report (pdf) noted the EACOP “will cross poor, rural communities in both Uganda and Tanzania that lack the political and financial capital of the project stakeholders.”
“The lopsided complications of this power dynamic are well-documented in similar extractive industry projects,” the report stated. “Powerful companies are often able to hide their operations behind local contractors and permissive government authorities. Often the only hope that local communities have for remediation or justice is through local government bodies that are often weak, fragile, or captured by corporate and national interests.”
Mary, an Ugandan farmer in Rakai near the Tanzanian border who was interviewed for the report, said that “when this pipeline project came, they promised us too many things. Up to now they have done nothing.”
“What makes me worried is that they took my land but I have not yet been compensated,” she claimed.
A community member from Rujunju village, Kikuube District in Uganda told the report’s authors that “the government and oil companies have not informed us about the negative impact that the EACOP will have on our well-being. All they tell us are good things that the EACOP will bring like roads and jobs. We also want to know the negative impact of the pipeline so that we can make informed decisions.”
by DGR News Service | Jun 5, 2021 | Agriculture, Alienation & Mental Health, Education, Lobbying, Protests & Symbolic Acts
Editor’s note: It’s sad and ironic how easily contemporary youth movements like Extinction Rebellion/Animal Rebellion are being coopted by neoliberal capitalism and how easily they are made to believe that big business, big tech and big agriculture can save the world. As Kim Hill points out in this article, they obviously completely lost connection to any physical and biological reality.
By Kim Hill
On May 22, activist group Animal Rebellion blockaded four McDonalds distribution centres in the UK, demanding the chain transition to a fully plant-based menu by 2025.
Bill Gates thinks “all rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef.”
Bill Gates invests in Beyond Meat, a manufacturer of synthetic meat products. Beyond Meat uses a DNA coding sequence from soybeans or peas to create a substance that looks and tastes like real beef.
Gates also owns 242,000 acres of farmland in the US, making him the largest private owner of farmland in the country. He uses the land to develop genetically modified crops (in partnership with Monsanto) and biofuels.
In February, Beyond Meat announced a strategic agreement with McDonalds, to supply the patty for McPlant, a plant-based synthetic meat burger, and explore other plant-based menu items, to replicate chicken, pork, and egg.
The Animal Rebellion protests were designed for media attention, using theatrical staging, colourful banners and elaborate costumes, prominently displaying McDonalds branding. Several protestors were dressed as the character Ronald McDonald.
The police showed little interest in the blockades, arresting very few people, and at one site, barely engaging with the protest at all. It seems McDonalds has no objection to the action, and likely sees it as good advertising for the total corporate takeover of the global food system, and transition to synthetic food for the entire population.
This action appears to have the effect of introducing synthetic meat and other genetically engineered foods to the broader population, to normalise these foods, and make them acceptable to the public. People are seen to be taking to the streets to demand the introduction of these foods, and the corporations are giving them what they want.
The protests were widely reported in local and international media, despite involving only 100 people, causing minimal disruption, and being of limited public interest. The media portrayal was overwhelmingly positive, even in the conservative press. This is in stark contrast to almost non-existent reporting of anti-lockdown protests a few weeks earlier, which attracted many thousands of people, had strong public support, and related to an issue that affects everyone.
Animal Rebellion spokesperson James Ozden said “The only sustainable and realistic way to feed ten billion people is with a plant-based food system. Organic, free-range and ‘sustainable’ animal-based options simply aren’t good enough.” But genetically engineered, additive-laden, lab-grown, pesticide-infused food-like substances produced in ways that cause pollution, soil degradation, extinction, exploitation of workers, plastic waste, chronic illness and corporate profits is absolutely good enough for these rebels, and is apparently sustainable and realistic.
While Animal Rebellion concerns itself with the wellbeing of animals, nowhere on its website is there any mention of:
-
- Corporate control of the food system
-
- The necessity of machinery, and synthetic pesticides, herbicides and fertilisers to maintain a completely plant-based food system
-
- The harm caused to animals, humans, plants, soil and water by these chemicals and machines
-
- The unsustainability of chemical and industrial farming
-
- The fossil-fuel dependence of monocrop farming
-
- The environmental harm of tilling and monocropping: soil degradation, salinity, desertification, water pollution, destruction of habitat for native animals, birds, and insects
-
- The necessity of animals in natural and cultivated ecologies, to cycle nutrients
-
- The takeover of farmland in many places around the world to supply McDonalds, to the detriment of local farmers, and traditional farming methods
-
- The UK government’s net-zero emissions plan to convert farmland to biofuel production
-
- Exploitation and under-payment of farmers and suppliers of McDonalds products
-
- Destruction of local food cultures and local economies by fast food giants
-
- Drive-thru takeout culture
-
- The poor nutritional value of fast food and fake meat, and the many health problems that result
-
- The nutritional limitations of a vegan diet, which would leave the majority of people with multiple chronic illnesses
-
- Disposable packaging and litter
-
- The possibility of humans, animals and plants all living together in (relative) peace and harmony, in a world without fast-food outlets, genetic engineering, multi-national corporations, global trade, and plastic packaging
-
- The need for animals to regenerate soil that has been damaged by cropping
McDonalds is committed to ‘reducing emissions’, another favourite term used by corporations to greenwash their operations by investing in carbon offsets to make themselves sound like they are part of the solution, while continuing to exploit, profit, and destroy the planet. The corporate approach of emissions trading/net-zero/climate action is enthusiastically embraced by climate rebels.
On the same day as the McDonalds protests, a short film featuring Greta Thunberg was released, calling for a global transition to a plant-based food system. The film’s website calls on viewers to “urge some of the world’s largest restaurant chains, including McDonald’s, Domino’s, Subway, and Popeyes, to expand their global plant-based options.”
Yes, the proposed solution is to expand the business operations of multi-national corporations. The film is produced by an organisation called Mercy for Animals, which “works to eliminate the worst animal abuse and grow market share of plant- and cell-based foods.”
Mercy for Animals states: “Cell-based meat, which is animal meat grown by farming cells rather than by rearing and slaughtering animals, is fast-approaching the market and will transform the meat industry. These strides in the plant- and cell-based economy are too large to be ignored. The meat industry will adapt or perish and knows it. Meat industry giants Tyson and Cargill have both invested in cell-based meat technology, while Maple Leaf Foods has acquired plant-based food companies Lightlife and Field Roast.”
Animal Rebellion is just one more protest movement that has been captured by corporate interests, and used to market neoliberal reforms and greenwashed new products which cause more harm than good.
A movement that aims to be effective needs to see the big picture, address the root causes of climate change and animal exploitation, and have the goal to completely dismantle the corporate-controlled economic system. Another world is possible.
