News Feeds

In a Prince Rupert board room in mid-January, the British Columbia-based Indigenous alliance Coastal First Nations-Great Bear Initiative (CFN), Lax Kw’alaams and the Haisla Nation met with Prime Minister Mark Carney and reaffirmed their opposition to a new oil pipeline to the northwest coast of the province. 

“It’s loud and clear. That’s a no, and our interest isn’t about money in this situation. It’s about the responsibility of looking after our territories and nurturing the sustainable economies that we currently have here,” CFN President Marilyn Slett said at the time.

The alliance includes nearly all First Nations within the Great Bear Rainforest on B.C.’s central and north coast, meaning that its opposition could be a powerful obstacle to building new oil export infrastructure. Despite that, Carney only met with CFN after he had already signed a pro-pipeline Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith last November. The MOU aims to create the conditions needed to build an oil pipeline to B.C.’s northwest coast, including potentially adjusting a ban on oil tankers through the region.

In late February, Premier Smith told Albertans in an address that she expects “approval from the federal government for a million barrel a day pipeline to our west coast” with no mention of Indigenous consent or rights.

That could prove to be overly optimistic, given that one of the most pro-industry First Nations on the coast also opposes a new oil pipeline.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts

Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery);

The Haisla Nation, no longer a CFN member but whose traditional lands encompass the Douglas Channel and the delta of the Kitimat River, have in recent years invested heavily in Liquefied Natural Gas. The Nation is currently developing the Cedar LNG project on its territory, which promises to be a major economic boost for the small coastal community. Despite this, they too have long opposed any oil transportation on the coast.

Chief Councillor Nyce explained to DeSmog in an interview that projects which involve new oil tankers navigating the coastal waters represent a line that the Haisla will never cross, because the potential damage to local fishing livelihoods and access to ocean sustenance, which many in her community still rely on, is too great a risk.

“We are very disappointed that the government of Canada has committed with Alberta to explore the feasibility of an oil pipeline to the north,” said Chief Councillor Nyce. “Basically, they declared that this project is of national interest and without any engagement whatsoever with Indigenous people across the province or along the coast.”

The logic of their opposition isn’t hard to understand. To Nyce, an LNG tanker sinking in the Douglas Channel would be terrible, but wouldn’t be an existential threat to the community. The same can’t be said of an oil tanker sinking and wiping out the Haisla Nation’s ability to fish and feed itself. That, says Nyce, “would be catastrophic for us.”

Around the same time Carney was meeting with CFN, his former Chief Of Staff Marco Mendicino stated that a key goal for the federal Liberals is “to grow our oil production, as complicated as that may be when it comes to our relationship with the climate and First Nations groups.” 

But as DeSmog’s interview with Nyce makes clear, the Haisla are standing firm.

“We’ve Been Down This Road Before”

As the sun set on the town of Kitimat in Northwest, B.C. in April 2014, dozens of people gathered outside town hall to hear the results of a plebiscite that would signal the community’s support or opposition to the Enbridge Northern Gateway oil pipeline and supertanker project along the Douglas Channel on the north coast of B.C.

As the results were read out, 60-40 in opposition of the project, the crowed erupted with cheers and sighs of relief. Members of the Haisla Nation, from Kitimaat Village, just across the bay at the top of the Douglas Channel, were not included in the vote. They showed up anyway, pounding thunderous drums in support of their neighbours’ efforts to keep the channel oil free. 

“Enbridge and the government really don’t understand what happened here tonight, not just here in Kitimat but the entire Northwest,” said Gerald Amos, a former Chief Councillor of the Haisla Nation. “What we witnessed was a community building exercises that should scare the shit out of them.” 

More than 10 years on that sentiment hasn’t wavered. 

In a call with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith the day before she signed the MOU with Mark Carney, Haisla Chief Councillor and Mayor of Kitimat Phil Germuth reiterated their determination to never support oil transportation through the Douglas Channel. 

“We’ve been down this road before,” Nyce said in an interview. “We’ll go down this road again to ensure that we are heard and understood about what we value on the coast and why we just aren’t ever going to accept a pipeline to our shore. We take all our food from the Douglas Channel and…a spill on our waterway would be catastrophic for us.”

Federal and provincial leaders appear to now be better at appreciating the Haisla’s concerns. Premier Smith announced in late January that Kitimat, part of the community home to the Haisla, is no longer an option for the proposed pipeline. The shipping route, she explained, would be “too complex.”

Roots Of The Oil Tanker Ban

For more than 50 years, oil export on B.C.’s North Coast has been debated ad nauseam. In the 1970s, an oil ports inquiry determined that the waters off the North and Central Coast were too unpredictable for oil transportation and too ecologically sensitive to the risks from an oil spill. 

Since then, a voluntary exclusion zone has been in place, supported by every First Nation on the coast, including the Haisla.

The Haisla’s opposition to oil transportation deepened during the Northern Gateway era. When Enbridge proposed twin pipelines to bring bitumen to Kitimat for shipment across the Pacific, Haisla leaders joined a broad Indigenous and environmental coalition that opposed tanker traffic and pipeline corridors through Northern B.C. The nation filed legal challenges, participated in public hearings, and mobilized local opposition. 

In 2010, Coastal First Nations formally banned oil tankers through their territories, but since the late 1970s, there has been a voluntary oil tanker exclusion zone, which governments and companies have long adhered to.

The Northern Gateway project was eventually abandoned, after a Federal Court of Appeal overturned the project’s approval due to the government’s failure to adequately consult with First Nations. Since then, the Haisla’s position hasn’t changed, as they have repeatedly signaled that oil-by-tanker is not acceptable in their territory.

In 2019 the federal Liberal government of Justin Trudeau enacted the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, which formalized the ban on oil tankers through northern waters.

Why Haisla Sees Oil as a Bigger Threat Than LNG

Chief Councilor Nyce, who took office in 2025, has been one of the Haisla’s most visible spokespeople during this most recent wave of proposals. In a joint statement issued with the District of Kitimat following the call with Premier Danielle Smith, she highlighted the community’s long-standing rejection of an oil pipeline and supertanker port through Haisla territory. Chief Councillor Nyce says this position reflects the lived memory of how oil and marine accidents can devastate subsistence, livelihoods, and culture that the Haisla still depend on.

In 2016, for example, the Nathan E. Stewart, a tugboat, ran aground near Bella Bella on the traditional territory of the Heiltsuk, a CFN member. Over 110,000 liters of diesel were spilled, which has had a lasting impact on clam beds there that haven’t been harvested since.

But Chief Councillor Nyce says the Haisla are not against development, citing the nation’s support for LNG Canada and the construction of its own Cedar LNG project. 

“We have found that with the development of LNG facilities on our shores, we feel that is a fit that works with our values,” said Chief Nyce. “The transportation of LNG on our waterways doesn’t pose a high risk to our food source so we’re supportive of that.”

As pressure mounts on the federal government to support Alberta’s efforts to build a new oil pipeline to the west, one stipulation may throw a wrench in their plans— First Nations consent—which the Haisla, and several other First Nations say they will never give.

“They’re hoping that Indigenous people will buy into the pipeline as equity owners along the way,” said Chief Councillor Nyce. “But we weren’t included in that conversation between the premier [of Alberta] and our prime minister at all. We were not engaged in any way shape or form. And I feel like that was a huge signal of disrespect from both of them to not include the leaders who will be affected along the coast that they’re proposing.”

In early December, the Conservative Party put forward a motion in the House of Commons to force the governing Liberals to vote on building an oil pipeline to the north coast. The motion outlined part of the MOU brokered by Carney with Alberta, but excluded language regarding Alberta’s commitment to lowering methane emissions, industrial carbon pricing, and respecting Indigenous rights.

However, one notable vote in support of an oil pipeline to the north coast came from Conservative MP for Skeena-Bulkley Valley, Ellis Ross. 

Ross, a rookie MP, is also a former Haisla Chief Councillor who opposed Enbridge’s Northern Gateway project more than a decade ago, citing concerns about remediation if an oil spill occurred in Haisla territory. “There’s no real way to pick this product up out of a marine environment,” Ross said in 2013. 
 
 Although Ross voted in favor of the Conservative motion supporting the pipeline, he is still facing criticism from First Nations and constituencies about his lack of clarity on the issue. 
 
 Despite Ross’s apparent support for an oil pipeline to the North Coast, First Nations are digging in and preparing to fight a potential proposal at all costs. And after years of building consensus among First Nations and communities along the North Coast to support LNG development, Nyce points out that the notion of forcing through an oil pipeline has already damaged government relations with First Nations. This could impact future negotiations of developments that require First Nations consent. 
 
 “They’ve taken a major step back, in my opinion, in terms of the relationship with First Nations with this announcement,” said Chief Councillor Nyce. “It makes no reference in the MOU to the need for Indigenous consent for the pipeline to go ahead, and that is completely unacceptable.”

The post Why the Haisla Nation Is Fine With LNG But Not Mark Carney’s New Oil Pipeline appeared first on DeSmog.

Bio-based plastics made from materials like sugarcane, corn, or agricultural waste have a smaller carbon footprint than plastics made from petroleum, according to a new study. But the bio-based plastics have a greater impact on natural ecosystems.

The study is the first comprehensive life-cycle analysis to compare bio-based and fossil-based plastics. Researchers traced the environmental impacts of the production, use, and disposal of five bio-based and seven fossil-based polymers. Most previous studies of bio-based plastics have emphasized their carbon footprint, but the new study also encompasses their effects on ecosystem quality and human health.

Another recent study found environmental tradeoffs involved in replacing conventional plastics with compostable plastics. (Both bio-based and compostable plastics have been promoted as more ecologically friendly versions of the ubiquitous material, but not all bio-based plastics are compostable, and not all compostable plastics are bio-based.)

The new study, similarly, reveals that bio-based plastics are not an environmental panacea. Instead, they pose a tradeoff between climate and biodiversity.

The carbon footprint of bio-based plastics is a little over half that of fossil-based plastics, mainly because the plants from which bio-based plastics are made absorb carbon dioxide as they grow.

But the ecosystem quality impacts of bio-based plastics are several times those of fossil-based plastics, mainly because natural ecosystems have to be converted to agricultural fields to grow those plants. The human health impacts of bio-based plastics are also higher, because of the fertilizers and water the crops demand.

 

.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl , .IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {height: auto;position: relative;}.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby:hover , .IRPP_ruby:visited , .IRPP_ruby:active {border:0!important;}.IRPP_ruby .clearfix:after {content: "";display: table;clear: both;}.IRPP_ruby {display: block;transition: background-color 250ms;webkit-transition: background-color 250ms;width: 100%;opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: #eaeaea;}.IRPP_ruby:active , .IRPP_ruby:hover {opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: inherit;}.IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl {background-position: center;background-size: cover;float: left;margin: 0;padding: 0;width: 31.59%;position: absolute;top: 0;bottom: 0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {float: right;width: 65.65%;padding:0;margin:0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text {display: table;height: 130px;left: 0;top: 0;padding:0;margin:0;padding-top: 20px;padding-bottom: 20px;}.IRPP_ruby .IRPP_ruby-content {display: table-cell;margin: 0;padding: 0 74px 0 0px;position: relative;vertical-align: middle;width: 100%;}.IRPP_ruby .ctaText {border-bottom: 0 solid #fff;color: #0099cc;font-size: 14px;font-weight: bold;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .postTitle {color: #000000;font-size: 16px;font-weight: 600;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .ctaButton {background: url(https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts-pro/assets/images/next-arrow.png)no-repeat;background-color: #afb4b6;background-position: center;display: inline-block;height: 100%;width: 54px;margin-left: 10px;position: absolute;bottom:0;right: 0;top: 0;}.IRPP_ruby:after {content: "";display: block;clear: both;}Recommended Reading:What's the most sustainable drinking straw? Scientists say one surprising option beats the rest.

 

The environmental impacts of bio-based plastics depend on what exactly they are made of, though here too there are tradeoffs. The ecosystem impacts of plastics made from food crops such as corn or sugarcane are higher than those of plastics made from agricultural or other waste. But making plastics from agricultural waste is more energy intensive and less efficient, eroding the climate benefit.

As for the end-of-life impacts: ecosystem damage from improper disposal of plastic depends on how long a particular polymer lasts in the environment – not whether it is made from petroleum or plants.

What’s more, even if all fossil-based plastics used in Europe were replaced with bio-based ones, continued increases in demand would swamp the climate benefits of the switch.

According to calculations by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the European plastics industry needs to shrink its carbon footprint to the equivalent of 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2050. A business-as-usual scenario would see its impact balloon to 250 million tonnes, the researchers calculated. Even substituting bio-based plastics for all fossil-based plastics would only manage to constrain the carbon footprint to 100 million tonnes.

Only swapping bio-based for fossil-based plastics, while also reducing plastic packaging demand by about 3% per year, would put the industry in striking distance of the IPCC recommendations. Happily, this scenario would dampen the ecosystem impacts of bio-based plastics as well.

“Our findings underscore the need to move beyond substitution alone,” the researchers write. “Ultimately, reducing the demand for single-use packaging is indispensable.”

Source: Erradhouani B., et al. “Transition to bio-based plastic packaging reveals complex climate-biodiversity tradeoffs.” Nature Communications 2026.

Image: ©Anthropocene Magazine.

Για δεκαετίες, το ΑΕΠ (Ακαθάριστο Εγχώριο Προϊόν) – και οι προσπάθειες για τη μεγιστοποίησή του – βρισκόταν στο επίκεντρο της παγκόσμιας οικονομικής ορθοδοξίας. Ωστόσο, καθώς τα μειονεκτήματά του γίνονται όλο και πιο εμφανή εν μέσω της παγκόσμιας κατάρρευσης και της αυξανόμενης ανισότητας, η ανάγκη για μια εναλλακτική λύση γίνεται όλο και πιο επιτακτική. Μπορεί η Ευρώπη να αναλάβει ηγετικό ρόλο στην καθιέρωση ενός καλύτερου, πιο βιώσιμου δείκτη ευημερίας;

Ο πρωταρχικός στόχος της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης είναι να «προάγει την ειρήνη, τις αξίες της και την ευημερία των πολιτών της». Ωστόσο, ο κύριος δείκτης που χρησιμοποιεί για τη μέτρηση της προόδου δεν ανταποκρίνεται σε κανέναν από αυτούς τους στόχους. Αντίθετα, το ακαθάριστο εγχώριο προϊόν (ΑΕΠ) εμποδίζει τη βιώσιμη και χωρίς αποκλεισμούς ευημερία.

Για πάνω από 80 χρόνια, το ΑΕΠ αποτελεί τον κυρίαρχο δείκτη για την καθοδήγηση της πολιτικής. Η Ευρώπη δεν αποτελεί εξαίρεση. Μάλιστα, ένας από τους λόγους για τους οποίους το ΑΕΠ υιοθετήθηκε ως το κύριο πρότυπο για τη σύγκριση του μεγέθους των εθνικών οικονομιών στη διάσκεψη του Bretton Woods το 1944 ήταν η μέτρηση του κόστους της ανοικοδόμησης της Ευρώπης μετά τον Β’ Παγκόσμιο Πόλεμο.

Σήμερα, οι οικονομολόγοι, οι πολιτικοί και τα μέσα ενημέρωσης εξακολουθούν να αντιμετωπίζουν το ΑΕΠ ως δείκτη όχι μόνο της οικονομικής «παραγωγής», αλλά και της ευρύτερης κοινωνικής προόδου: όσο υψηλότερο είναι το ΑΕΠ μιας χώρας, τόσο καλύτερο πρέπει να είναι το βιοτικό της επίπεδο. Ωστόσο, ο δείκτης αυτός δεν προοριζόταν ποτέ να μετρήσει ό,τι εκτιμούν οι περισσότεροι άνθρωποι, όπως η υγεία, η κοινότητα, το περιβάλλον, η ισότητα και η ποιότητα ζωής. Το ΑΕΠ απλώς ποσοτικοποιεί τη χρηματική αξία των εμπορευμάτων και των υπηρεσιών που παράγονται εντός των συνόρων μιας χώρας. Αυτό που παραλείπει ο δείκτης – η ευημερία των ανθρώπων και του πλανήτη – είναι πολύ πιο σημαντικό από αυτό που μετρά.

Αυτό το τυφλό σημείο έχει σημασία, διότι αυτό που μετράται διαμορφώνει αυτό που διαχειρίζεται. Εάν το ΑΕΠ είναι ο φακός μέσω του οποίου κρίνεται η πρόοδος, οι κυβερνήσεις θα δώσουν προτεραιότητα στην οικονομική παραγωγή πάνω από όλα, ακόμη και όταν αυτή η παραγωγή αγνοεί – και ενδεχομένως υπονομεύει – τα ίδια τα θεμέλια της ευημερίας.

Ας πάρουμε την παραδειγματική περίπτωση μιας πετρελαιοκηλίδας, η οποία σπαταλά μη ανανεώσιμους πόρους και προκαλεί τεράστια ζημιά στα γύρω οικοσυστήματα. Δεδομένου ότι τα οικοσυστήματα δεν έχουν τρέχουσα αγοραία αξία, η καταστροφή τους δεν καταγράφεται στους οικονομικούς λογαριασμούς. Αντίθετα, οι μισθοί για την ανθρώπινη εργασία που χρησιμοποιείται για τον καθαρισμό μιας διαρροής έχουν αγοραία αξία. Το αποτέλεσμα μιας πετρελαιοκηλίδας καταγράφεται επομένως ως καθαρά θετικό για την οικονομία. Αυτή είναι η συνέπεια της μεθοδολογίας του ΑΕΠ: ομογενοποιεί όλες τις ανταλλαγές χρημάτων ως θετικές, ανεξάρτητα από τις κοινωνικές και περιβαλλοντικές επιπτώσεις.

Καθώς η οικολογική κρίση βαθαίνει, ένας δείκτης «προόδου» που βασίζεται αποκλειστικά στην οικονομική παραγωγή είναι σαφώς ακατάλληλος.

Γιατί το ΑΕΠ παραμένει

Οι περισσότεροι άνθρωποι μπορούν να αναγνωρίσουν διαισθητικά την αντίφαση μεταξύ της ατελείωτης οικονομικής μεγέθυνσης – με τη συνεχώς αυξανόμενη χρήση πόρων και τη ρύπανση που αυτή συνεπάγεται – και των περιορισμένων φυσικών πόρων που διατίθενται στο κλειστό οικοσύστημα που είναι ο πλανήτης μας. Το 1973, ο Αμερικανός οικονομολόγος Kenneth Boulding είπε τη διάσημη φράση: «Όποιος πιστεύει ότι η εκθετική μεγέθυνση μπορεί να συνεχιστεί για πάντα σε έναν πεπερασμένο κόσμο είναι είτε τρελός είτε οικονομολόγος». Ένα χρόνο νωρίτερα, ο Όμιλος της Ρώμης είχε δημοσιεύσει την επιρροή του έκθεση «Τα Όρια της Μεγέθυνσης».

Ωστόσο, οι περισσότερες εθνικές και ευρωπαϊκές οικονομικές πολιτικές εξακολουθούν να στοχεύουν στην αύξηση του ΑΕΠ. Υπάρχουν διάφοροι λόγοι για τους οποίους, παρά την ευρεία κριτική, το ΑΕΠ παραμένει ο κυρίαρχος δείκτης μέτρησης της οικονομικής προόδου.

Πρώτον, το ΑΕΠ είναι εξαιρετικά καθιερωμένο, τόσο για την ευκολία μέτρησης όσο και για τη συγκρισιμότητα. Λεπτομέρειες σχετικά με τον τρόπο συλλογής του ΑΕΠ δημοσιεύθηκαν το 1953 από το Σύστημα Εθνικών Λογαριασμών (SNA), το διεθνές πρότυπο σύνολο συστάσεων για τη σύνταξη μέτρων οικονομικής δραστηριότητας που εξασφαλίζει ότι όλες οι χώρες χρησιμοποιούν το ίδιο μέτρο. Επιπλέον, τα στοιχεία για το ΑΕΠ είναι διαθέσιμα για όλες τις χώρες και δημοσιεύονται κάθε τρίμηνο, με αρχεία που χρονολογούνται από το 1960 για τις περισσότερες χώρες. Μέσω του ΑΕΠ, οι χώρες μπορούν να παρακολουθούν την πρόοδό τους στο χρόνο και να βλέπουν πώς συγκρίνονται με άλλες χώρες. Η ύπαρξη ενός δείκτη που περιορίζεται σε μια νομισματική αξία διευκολύνει την κατανόηση από τους πολιτικούς, τα μέσα ενημέρωσης και το ευρύτερο κοινό. Αυτό είναι δύσκολο να αναπαραχθεί για πιο σύνθετους δείκτες ευημερίας.

Δεύτερον, το ΑΕΠ εξυπηρετεί τους ισχυρούς. Ορισμένα συμφέροντα μπορούν να αποκομίσουν βραχυπρόθεσμα οικονομικά οφέλη από το τρέχον οικονομικό σύστημα, παρόλο που αυτό έχει συχνά οδηγήσει σε αύξηση των ανισοτήτων και υποβάθμιση του περιβάλλοντος. Ας πάρουμε ως παράδειγμα τον ενεργειακό τομέα. Οι ανανεώσιμες τεχνολογίες είναι φθηνότερες στην εφαρμογή τους και απαιτούν μόνο συντήρηση για να συνεχίσουν να παράγουν ενέργεια. Ωστόσο, σε αντίθεση με τη βιομηχανία ορυκτών καυσίμων, όπου ανταλλάσσονται χρήματα για την εξόρυξη, τη διύλιση, την πώληση και την καύση καυσίμων, οι ανανεώσιμες πηγές ενέργειας δεν συμβάλλουν σημαντικά στις στατιστικές του εθνικού ΑΕΠ.

Η άσκηση πίεσης από εταιρείες δημοσίων σχέσεων σε πολιτικούς εκ μέρους των συμφερόντων των ορυκτών καυσίμων έχει οδηγήσει σε εντυπωσιακά αποτελέσματα: το 2023, οι επιδοτήσεις για τα ορυκτά καύσιμα στην ΕΕ έφτασαν τα 111 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ. Αυτές οι επιδοτήσεις εξασφαλίζουν ότι οι εταιρείες του τομέα συνεχίζουν να αποκομίζουν μεγάλα κέρδη, τα οποία με τη σειρά τους τροφοδοτούν τις προσπάθειες άσκησης πίεσης. Όσο τα ορυκτά καύσιμα αποφέρουν εξαιρετικά μεγάλα κέρδη και ασκούν σημαντική πολιτική επιρροή, είναι δύσκολο να ξεπεραστούν τα συμφέροντα εκείνων που επωφελούνται από ένα οικονομικό μοντέλο επικεντρωμένο στο ΑΕΠ.

Τέλος, η αντίθεση στο ΑΕΠ φαίνεται κατακερματισμένη. Σχεδόν από την αρχή της ύπαρξης του ΑΕΠ, διάφοροι φορείς – συμπεριλαμβανομένων δεξαμενών σκέψης, εθνικών οργανισμών, ΜΚΟ, ακαδημαϊκών, ερευνητών και άλλων – έχουν επικρίνει τους περιορισμούς του και έχουν προτείνει εναλλακτικές λύσεις. Ωστόσο, η προώθηση ενός αντικαταστάτη και η απόδειξη ότι είναι όχι μόνο ανώτερος από το ΑΕΠ, αλλά και καλύτερος από εκατοντάδες διαθέσιμες εναλλακτικές λύσεις, είναι πολύ πιο δύσκολη.

Επίτευξη συναίνεσης

Σε μια πρόσφατη μελέτη, προτείναμε έναν τρόπο για να ξεπεραστεί η εδραιωμένη θέση του ΑΕΠ. Χαρτογραφώντας πάνω από 200 εναλλακτικούς δείκτες ευημερίας, διαπιστώσαμε ότι αυτοί οι εναλλακτικοί δείκτες δεν ανταγωνίζονται μεταξύ τους ούτε υποστηρίζουν εντελώς διαφορετικά κριτήρια. Αντίθετα, υπάρχει ισχυρή συμφωνία σχετικά με τα θεμελιώδη στοιχεία που πρέπει να περιλαμβάνονται σε οποιονδήποτε δείκτη αντικατάστασης του ΑΕΠ.

Αν και αυτοί οι δείκτες διαφέρουν ως προς το χρόνο, τη χώρα, τον πολιτισμό, την ορολογία και τη μεθοδολογική τους προέλευση, οι υποκείμενες ομοιότητες συνεχίζουν να εμφανίζονται. Η εξεύρεση του «ιδανικού σημείου» μεταξύ πολυπλοκότητας και σκοπιμότητας είναι απαραίτητη για την επιτυχία ενός εναλλακτικού δείκτη του ΑΕΠ. Αν συμπεριλάβετε πάρα πολλά στοιχεία, δημιουργείτε έναν δείκτη που είναι δαπανηρός να μετρηθεί (αποξενώνοντας ενδεχομένως τις αναπτυσσόμενες χώρες με μικρότερα στατιστικά όργανα) και δύσκολος να κατανοηθεί από τους υπεύθυνους χάραξης πολιτικής και το κοινό. Κατά τη διάρκεια της έρευνάς μας, εντοπίσαμε 19 στοιχεία που αποτυπώνουν τις θεμελιώδεις ομοιότητες μεταξύ των πολλών διαθέσιμων δεικτών. Αυτά περιλαμβάνουν την ικανοποίηση από τη ζωή, την υγεία, το προσδόκιμο ζωής, τη στέγαση, τις υποδομές, την ανισότητα, την οικονομική ασφάλεια, την ποιότητα του νερού και του αέρα, τις εκπομπές αερίων του θερμοκηπίου, την εγκληματικότητα, το κατά κεφαλήν ΑΕΠ και άλλα.

Ενώ η μέτρηση της παραγωγικότητας μπορεί να είναι χρήσιμη για την παρακολούθηση της ανάπτυξης μιας χώρας στο χρόνο, το ΑΕΠ πρέπει να τοποθετείται στο πλαίσιο άλλων δεικτών και να μην επιδιώκεται ως αυτοσκοπός.

Ο αντίκτυπος μιας τέτοιας αλλαγής θα ήταν τεράστιος. Οι υπεύθυνοι χάραξης πολιτικής θα ενθαρρύνονταν να εξετάζουν τις πολιτικές από την άποψη των οφελών που αποφέρουν στο σύνολο της κοινωνίας και όχι αποκλειστικά με βάση τον αντίκτυπό τους στην οικονομική παραγωγή. Για παράδειγμα, το νέο μέτρο θα προσδιόριζε σαφώς μια πετρελαιοκηλίδα ως αρνητικό γεγονός, το οποίο αυξάνει το ΑΕΠ αλλά βλάπτει άλλους παράγοντες, όπως την ικανοποίηση από τη ζωή, την υγεία, τις υποδομές και την ποιότητα του νερού.

Φυσικά, θα πρέπει να αναπτυχθεί ένα πλαίσιο για την κατάλληλη μέτρηση καθενός από αυτούς τους παράγοντες. Για παράδειγμα, η μέτρηση της συνιστώσας «υγεία» θα μπορούσε να περιλαμβάνει κριτήρια όπως τα έτη ζωής προσαρμοσμένα στην ποιότητα, τον αριθμό των γιατρών ανά 100.000 άτομα, την παιδική θνησιμότητα, την επικράτηση των ψυχικών ασθενειών, την προσβασιμότητα στα νοσοκομεία και τον μέσο χρόνο αναμονής. Εμπειρογνώμονες σε κάθε τομέα θα αναλάμβαναν την ανάπτυξη ουσιαστικών κριτηρίων για κάθε συνιστώσα της ευημερίας, ενώ οι πολιτικοί θα αναλάμβαναν το καθήκον της επικοινωνίας με το κοινό και της παροχής βοήθειας στους πολίτες για την ερμηνεία των νέων δεικτών.

Επαναπροσδιορισμός της ανταγωνιστικότητας

Η υπέρβαση του ΑΕΠ θα απαιτήσει κάτι περισσότερο από μια ισχυρή εναλλακτική λύση, και η επίτευξη συναίνεσης σχετικά με έναν τέτοιο δείκτη αποτελεί προϋπόθεση για την απόκτηση πολιτικής επιρροής. Ένα βασικό βήμα προς αυτή την κατεύθυνση είναι ο συντονισμός και η ενίσχυση των υφιστάμενων θεσμικών πρωτοβουλιών.

Στην Ευρώπη, διάφορα ερευνητικά προγράμματα που βρίσκονται σε εξέλιξη διερευνούν τρόπους για να ξεπεραστεί το ΑΕΠ. Για παράδειγμα, το Horizon Europe (το πρόγραμμα έρευνας και καινοτομίας της ΕΕ) χρηματοδοτεί πρωτοβουλίες όπως το Sustainability Performance, Evidence and Scenarios (SPES), το ToBe, το Models, Assessments, Policies for Sustainability (MAPS), το Wellbeing, Inclusion, Sustainability & the Economy (WISE) και το πρόγραμμα MERGE (το οποίο υποστήριξε επίσης την έρευνά μας σχετικά με τη σημασιολογική ομοιότητα μεταξύ των εναλλακτικών λύσεων του ΑΕΠ). 

Σε διεθνές επίπεδο, υπάρχουν δύο σημαντικές εξελίξεις. Η ομάδα εμπειρογνωμόνων υψηλού επιπέδου των Ηνωμένων Εθνών για το Beyond-GDP (Πέρα από το ΑΕΠ) συστάθηκε από τον γενικό γραμματέα των Ηνωμένων Εθνών Αντόνιο Γκουτέρες το 2025 και οι συστάσεις της αναμένεται να δημοσιευθούν φέτος. Αν και είναι δύσκολο να προβλεφθεί ο αντίκτυπος αυτής της πρωτοβουλίας, δεν υπάρχει αμφιβολία ότι το ενδιαφέρον των Ηνωμένων Εθνών για το θέμα προσδίδει ένα βαθμό νομιμότητας στο κίνημα «Πέρα από το ΑΕΠ».

Τον Μάρτιο του 2025, δημοσιεύθηκε το τελευταίο Σύστημα Εθνικών Λογαριασμών, το οποίο επικαιροποίησε (για πρώτη φορά από το 2008) τα δεδομένα που σχετίζονται με τις μεταβαλλόμενες ανάγκες της χάραξης οικονομικής πολιτικής. Η νεότερη έκδοση περιλαμβάνει, για πρώτη φορά, κεφάλαια αφιερωμένα στη συλλογή δεδομένων σχετικά με την ευημερία και τη βιωσιμότητα. Δεν υπάρχει εγγύηση ότι αυτό θα οδηγήσει σε αλλαγή της πολιτικής εστίασης, και οι χώρες χρειάζονται χρόνο για να προσαρμόσουν τις στατιστικές τους υπηρεσίες στις κατευθυντήριες γραμμές του Συστήματος Εθνικών Λογαριασμών (και αυτό αν οι εθνικές στατιστικές υπηρεσίες τους διαθέτουν επαρκή χρηματοδότηση για να το πράξουν). Ωστόσο, αποτελεί μια επιπλέον απόδειξη της στροφής προς την ενσωμάτωση παραμέτρων εκτός της «παραδοσιακής» οικονομικής λογιστικής.

Η Ευρώπη πρέπει να αναλάβει ηγετικό ρόλο σε αυτή την προσπάθεια. Σε μια εποχή που αγωνίζεται να καθορίσει την ταυτότητά της στην παγκόσμια πολιτική, η προώθηση της ευημερίας, της βιωσιμότητας και της συμπερίληψης προσφέρει στην ΕΕ την ευκαιρία να αναδειχθεί σε παγκόσμιο ηγέτη. Η διεθνής ανταγωνιστικότητα βρίσκεται στο επίκεντρο των ευρωπαϊκών συζητήσεων, αλλά αν η ανταγωνιστικότητα ορίζεται με τους ίδιους παλιούς στενούς όρους της αύξησης του ΑΕΠ και των πολιτικών που την υποστηρίζουν (μείωση των περιβαλλοντικών και εργασιακών κανονισμών, αύξηση της χρήσης των φυσικών πόρων, μείωση των κοινωνικών δαπανών), τότε θα υποφέρουμε στο βωμό της κακώς εννοούμενης «προόδου». Αν, ωστόσο, αλλάξουμε τον ορισμό της ανταγωνιστικότητας ώστε να επικεντρωθούμε στη μεγιστοποίηση της βιώσιμης και χωρίς αποκλεισμούς ευημερίας, μπορούμε να αποτελέσουμε παράδειγμα για τον κόσμο σχετικά με το τι σημαίνει να ζούμε σύμφωνα με τις αξίες που έχουν σημασία για εμάς.

In this episode of The Landscape, Aaron and Kate speak with Jim Pattiz of the More Than Just Parks newsletter about public lands news after the first year of the second Trump administration, including Jim and his brother Will’s list of 70 major public-lands setbacks in 2025 and CWP’s assessment of Project 2025.

Aaron also covers Steve Pearce’s confirmation hearing to lead the Bureau of Land Management and lawmakers’ concerns about National Park Service censorship and Freedom 250, including a judge’s order to restore Philadelphia displays about enslaved members of George Washington’s household and a leaked database of NPS materials flagged for review. Pattiz discusses short- versus long-term harms such as civil service attacks, logging mandates, land giveaways, and fast-tracked mining, and the group closes with hopes for coalition-building and rebuilding public lands governance.

News

• BLM nominee Steve Pearce waffles on public land sell-off
• Corruption, censorship take center stage at Freedom 250 hearing
• Confidential database reveals which items NPS thinks may ‘disparage’ America

Produced by Aaron Weiss, Kate Groetzinger, and Lilly Bock-Brownstein
Feedback: podcast@westernpriorities.org
Music: Purple Planet
Featured image: Interpretive sign at Grand Canyon National Park, Wikimedia Commons

The post 2025 was awful for public lands. Is there hope? appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

EU je dugo tvrdio da promiče suživot između vuka te drugih velikih zvijeri i ruralnih zajednica. Međutim, u praksi su napori EU-a u velikoj mjeri bili usmjereni na nadoknađivanje štete poljoprivrednicima, a ne na ulaganje u dugotrajna rješenja. Ovaj reaktivan pristup nije bio uspješan i sada se njime opravdava urušavanje jednog od rijetkih primjera uspješnog očuvanja prirode u Europi.

Kada je 2022. godine Švicarska zatražila da se snizi stupanj zaštićenosti vuka u sklopu Konvencije iz Berna, EU se tome izravno suprotstavio. Navodeći znanstveno mišljenje Inicijative velikih zvijeri za Europu, Bruxelles je tvrdio da taj potez nije utemeljen i da će ugroziti ionako krhke uspjehe na polju očuvanja prirode.

Međutim, dvije godine kasnije ti su isti argumenti odbačeni. Do kraja 2023. godine Europska je komisija pokrenula reviziju, a u 2024. i sama je predložila značajno smanjenje stupnja zaštite koje je prije toga odbacila kao „znanstveno neutemeljeno”.  Nije se promijenila znanost, već politika: depopulaciju sela, nedovoljno financiranje i nezadovoljstvo poljoprivrednika konzervativne su stranke napuhale u širu kritiku zelenih politika. Suočivši se pod pritiskom, EU je prestao zagovarati strogu zaštitu i suživot te je ustupio pred političkim problemima.

Cijena uspjeha

Proteklih desetljeća vukovi su se rasprostranili većim dijelom Europe, šireći se od svojih uporišta u Karpatima, Dinarskim Alpama i na Iberijskom poluotoku prema zapadnoj Europi i stvarajući zasebne populacije koje često prelaze okvire nacionalnih granica. Izvanredan oporavak omogućila je stroga razina zaštite u sklopu Smjernice o staništima i Konvencije iz Berna, koje su dovele do povećanja populacije vuka s 12 000 u 2012. na današnjih približno 21 500 jedinki. Riječ je o jednom od najzapaženijih uspjeha na području očuvanja prirode u Europi.

Međutim, EU je prije tri godine promijenio smjer. U studenome 2022. Europska pučka stranka, kojoj pripada predsjednica komisije Ursula von der Leyen, uz podršku Renew Europe, Europskih konzervativaca i reformista te zastupnika krajnje desnice, upozororila je da „rastuće populacije velikih zvijeri ugrožavaju tradicionalno stočarstvo”. Sljedećeg dana Europski je parlament usvojio rezoluciju kojom nalaže Komisiji da razmotri ublažavanje zaštite vukova i medvjeda.

Naknadna dubinska analiza pružila je u prosincu 2023. osnovu Komisiji za donošenje odluke o smanjenju predloženog stupnja zaštite vuka. Kulminacija je bila donošenje odluke Europskog parlamenta da za ovu vrstu podrži spuštanje razine zaštite sa „strogo zaštićena” na „zaštićena” u okviru Konvencije iz Berna i Direktive EU-a o staništima, što je provedeno u prosincu 2024., odnosno na proljeće 2025.

Nastojanja da se oslabi zaštita vukova proturječe ekološkim dokazima. Baš poput medvjeda, vukovi su vršni predatori i ključna vrsta koja pod kontrolom drži broj jelena i divljih svinja, čime se sprječava prekomjerna ispaša i omogućava se regeneracija šume. Njihova prisutnost pokreće trofičke kaskade koje jačaju bioraznolikost i neizravno održavaju biljke, kukce i male mesojede u europskim ekosustavima.

Značajan primjer političkog prekrajanja dokaza dogodio se početkom godine u Švedskoj, državi koja nedvojbeno krši Direktivu EU-a o staništima već duže od desetljeća. Švedska je odobrila godišnji odstrel populacije vukova, dok političari svom snagom lobiraju da se snizi zakonski status ove vrste.

Ovog ljeta prvi put u šest godina Švedska je vlada smanjila nacionalnu referentnu vrijednost vukova s 300 na 170 jedinki. Taj su potez osudili međunarodni znanstvenici koje je vlada angažirala da procijene posljedice. Oni su optužili političare za pogrešno prezentiranje njihovih rezultata i izričito odbacivanje odluke Švedske. Također su upozorili na to da populacija od samo 170 vukova ne zadovoljava zahtjeve propisane Direktivom o staništima za održavanje pozitivnog statusa očuvanja.

Slična su upozorenja izrečena na razini EU-a. Prije Konvencije iz Berna iz prosinca 2024., Europska inicijativa za velike zvijeri (LCIE) upozorila je da bi smanjenje razine zaštite vuka u Direktivi o staništima predstavljalo opasan presedan. Iako se broj jedinki vuka oporavio, šest od sedam biogeografskih regija EU-a i dalje je klasificirano kao „nezadovoljavajuće”. Isto tako, od devet prekograničnih populacija koje su pod pratnjom Međunarodnog saveza za očuvanje prirode i prirodnih bogatstava (IUCN), šest ih se smatra ugroženima ili gotovo ugroženima.

LCIE je sa zabrinutošću primijetio da se njegovo izvješće iz 2022. – koje se u početku navodilo s ciljem suprotstavljanja smanjenju razine zaštite – kasnije koristilo u svrhu opravdanja smanjenja zaštite. Pa ipak, nije došlo do značajnije promjene što se tiče brojeva jedinki ili ugroženosti te je procjena iz 2023. izvijestilo samo o neznatnom povećanju. Kao odgovor na ovo, LCIE je upozorio da politizacija ovih odluka u opasnost dovodi znanstveno utemeljeno očuvanje prirode, pri čemu je predloženo smanjenje razine okarakterizirano zaštite kao „preuranjeno i pogrešno”.

Cijena vučjih napada

Premda vukovi više vole osjetljive divlje kopitare i papkare, nezaštićena stoka predstavlja lagan plijen, što potiče sliku o vukovima kao velikoj prijetnji. Dubinskom analizom zabilježeno je 65 499 ubijenih grla stoke diljem država članica EU-a, uz 18,7 milijuna eura isplaćene odštete. Agrarne i desničarske stranke iskoristile su ove brojke kako bi zatražile ublažavanje zaštite, oslanjajući se pritom na nezadovoljstvo seoskog stanovništva. Flamanski ministar za dobrobit životinja Ben Weyts sažeo je ovo raspoloženje nakon što je u svega nekoliko dana ubijeno više ponija. „U određenom trenutku potrebno je iz perspektive dobrobiti životinja usuditi se reći da je cijena zaštite pojedine vrste previsoka”.

Pa ipak, Flamanci pokazuju da je suživot s vukovima moguć. Šteta od vukova u belgijskoj regiji u kojoj se govori nizozemski dosegla je 2021. godine rekordnih 189 jedinki, ali je 2024. pala na 99, što je smanjenje za gotovo 50 % u svega tri godine. Diemer Vercayie iz Wolf Fencing Team Belgium (WFTB), smatra da je ovaj pad usko povezan s preventivnim mjerama, pri čemu je na glavnom teritoriju čopora u Limburgu otprilike polovica ograda osigurana protiv vučjih napada. Otkako se životinja 2018. godine vratila u Flandriju, WFTB je obradio 1400 zahtjeva i više od 700 ograda osigurao protiv vučjih napada. Profesionalnim poljoprivrednicima troškovi se nadoknađuju do visine od 100 % putem Flamanskog fonda za ulaganja u poljoprivredi (VLIF), dok se amaterskim uzgajivačima troškovi nadoknađuju do visine od 90 % putem Agencije za prirodu i šume, uz stanovitu potporu za održavanje.

Inicijativa Wolf Fencing Team Belgium na djelu. Izvor: ©Hans Moyson

S druge strane, Nizozemska je godinama odgađala poduzimanje mjera. Rascjepkana vlada i sporo donošenje politika doveli su do nedosljednih mjera, dezinformacija i polarizacije, pri čemu je nacionalni plan po pitanju vukova usvojen tek 2025. Poljoprivrednici koji ulažu u zaštitnu ogradu često su izloženi riziku stigmatizacije jer su se „pomirili” s vukovima. Unatoč desetljećima provođenja EU-ove retorike i napretka regionalno neujednačenog napretka, brojne države članice i dalje ostaju zarobljene u polarizirajućim raspravama koje su ih spriječile u usvajanju koordiniranih praktičnih rješenja.

Kritičan nedostatak ljudskog faktora

Diljem EU-a vukove ne dovode u opasnost samo političke odluke. Na njihove populacije utječu rascjepkanost staništa, sukobi s pastirima i turističkim sektorom, kao i visoke stope smrtnosti zbog zakonitog i nezakonitog usmrćivanja te prometnih nesreća. Procjenjuje se da vukovi u usmrte u prosjeku 56 000 domaćih životinja svake godine – od ukupno 279 milijuna grla stoke  – što je otprilike tri životinje po vuku godišnje. Gubici stoke na razini zemlje možda su podnošljivi, ali lokalne žarišne točke mogu biti suočene s velikim pritiskom. Napadi vukova predstavljaju neizravne troškove koje je teško brojčano procijeniti, kao i duševnu bol, a ponovljena šteta može dovesti u opasnost stočarstvo, kulturnu baštinu i egzistenciju u ruralnim sredinama.

Napadi vukova predstavljaju neizravne troškove koje je teško brojčano procijeniti, kao i duševnu bol, a ponovljena šteta može dovesti u opasnost stočarstvo, kulturnu baštinu i egzistenciju u ruralnim sredinama.

Potpora suživota s vukom provodi se u Poljskoj putem nedovoljno financiranih i preopterećenih Regionalnih uprava za zaštitu okoliša (RDOŚ) koje se unatoč dostupnosti EU sredstava oslanjaju samo na nacionalna sredstva. Tijekom proteklih pet godina RDOŚ-u nisu dodijeljena nikakva sredstva iz Nacionalnog fonda za zaštitu okoliša i upravljanje vodama u ime mjera povezanih sa suživotom čovjeka i vuka.  WWF Poljska naglašava potrebu za snažnijom potporom poljoprivrednicima, uključujući financiranje sredstvima EU-a. Velik dio informiranja javnosti i edukacije provode nevladine organizacije i čuvari prirode poput Piotra Chmielewskog iz udruge Z Szarym za Płotem („Staviti vuka iza ograde”), koji provodi školske i društvene programe usmjerene na promjenu percepcije javnosti. On napominje da su „riječi snažno oružje; vukovi se ne mogu braniti [protiv njih].”

Pokazalo se da promijeniti kulturna stajališta nije uopće lagano. Nakon što su 1970-ih godina gotovo nestali, vukovi su se u Poljskoj oporavili nakon dobivanja pravne zaštite 1998. Međutim, nezakonito se ubijanje nastavlja. Prema istraživanjima Poljskog istraživačkog instituta, godišnje u krivolovu strada barem 140 vukova, iako je stvarna šteta vjerojatno puno veća. Kazneni su progoni rijetki jer se brojni prijestupnici izvuku zbog preopterećenosti sudova i slabog provođenja zakona.

Istaknuti je primjer Lego. Ovog vuka, koji je nedugo prije toga postao otac, u kolovozu 2024. ustrijelio je lovac. Lovac je tvrdio da je zamijenio Lega za crvenu lisicu, čiji je lov dopušten zakonom u Poljskoj. Ovaj slučaj, međutim, i dalje čeka na sudu. Kao što Chmielewski primjećuje: „Poznat nam je samo vrh ledene sante. Ove slučajeve jako je teško kazneno progoniti. Kaznena djela povezana s divljim životinjama i dalje predstavljaju relativno novo područje prava.”

Nezakonito usmrćivanje vukova sve je uobičajenije i u susjednoj Češkoj. U svibnju ove godine pronađena su četiri mrtva vuka u regiji Jesenicko, najvjerojatnije kao posljedica trovanja. Scenarij je u ovakvim slučajevima uvijek isti: policijska istraga ne vodi nikamo i slučaj se odbacuje. To ne vrijedi samo za krivolov, nego i za širok spektar kaznenih djela protiv okoliša. Često nedostaje volje, tehnologije i osoblja kako bi se slučajevi temeljito istražili i kako bi se počinitelji ulovili.

Često nedostaje volje, tehnologije i osoblja kako bi se slučajevi temeljito istražili i kako bi se počinitelji ulovili.

Problem koji ne poznaje granice i manjkava rješenja

Unatoč raznolikom krajobrazu, kulturi i brojnosti vukova, politički javni narativi povezani s vukovima nevjerojatno su slični diljem država članica EU-a. Protivnici često prikazuju vuka kao prijetnju javnoj sigurnosti, pri čemu potpiruju strah od napada na djecu i od nesigurnosti u ruralnim područjima – iako u 21. stoljeću u Europi nije bilo napada vukova na ljude sa smrtnim ishodom. Kritičari upozoravaju da se ovakvom retorikom šire dezinformacije i dovode u opasnost napori usmjereni na zaštitu prirode. Tvrdnje o „suvišnom usmrćivanju” – odnosno da vukovi usmrte više no što pojedu – koriste se kako bi ih se prikazalo kao krvoločne predatore. Budući da mobilni signal sada pokriva i najudaljenije pašnjake, poljoprivrednici i pastiri sve su više izloženi ovim narativima putem društvenih mreža, što postaje sve veći problem za NVO-eve koji se bore protiv dezinformacija.

Pojedini kritičari zaštite vukova često tvrde da je broj životinja umjetno povećan putem tajnih programa reintrodukcije, a ne putem prirodne rekolonizacije. Drugi idu još dalje, tvrdeći da se sam život na selu pogoršao otkako se vratio vuk. Argumenti poput ovih koriste se za lobiranje za strožu kontrolu čovjeka nad vučjom populacijom, koja se predstavlja kao neophodna za ponovno uspostavljanje ravnoteže i za očuvanje egzistencije.

Stado Monice Fedel pase u Brentskim Dolomitima u blizini Trenta. ©Federico Ambrosini

Ove tvrdnje često privlače pažnju u medijima, a naglašavaju ih neprovjerene prijave o napadima vukova. Uznemirena ovim trendom, skupina poljskih znanstvenika specijaliziranih za istraživanje vukova i zaštitu prirode izdala je u svibnju 2025. zajednički prigovor kojim upozoravaju: „Zabrinjava nas što su informacije o vukovima koje se objavljuju u medijima često neistinite, zavaravajuće i dovode čitatelja u zabludu”.

Jednako je zavaravajuća pretpostavka da izlučivanje vukova predstavlja jednostavno rješenje. Kao što je jedan talijanski čuvar parka primijetio, stariji vukovi obično one mlađe drže pod kontrolom, stoga ubijanje pogrešne životinje može destabilizirati krdo i potaknuti napade na stoku ili nepredvidiva lutanja vukova. Štoviše, vučje populacije sklone su brzom obnavljanju pa su učinci izlučivanja jedinki kratkoročni.

Unatoč tome, pojedinci to stavljaju u još složeniju perspektivu. Paola Aragno iz Talijanskog instituta za zaštitu okoliša i istraživanje (ISPRA) naglašava da je učinak izlučivanja u velikoj mjeri psihološke prirode: Aragno smatra istovremeno da „zabrana izlučivanja neće pridonijeti suživotu”. Ona smatra da povremeno ubijanje vukova može pomoći seoskim zajednicama da se osjećaju manje bespomoćno i potaknuti ih da prihvate mjere suživota, budući da time „ne samo što se brane, nego i uzvraćaju udarac”. U Italiji je ISPRA postavila godišnju granicu zakonskog odstrela vukova na 160 jedinki, iako bi stvarni broj mogao biti niži kad se uračunaju pregažene i otrovane životinje te one stradale u krivolovu. Ovakvi pritisci već sada značajno ograničavaju opstanak vukova, a dok u društvenim medijima prevladavaju marginalni stavovi protiv vukova, brojni pastiri priznaju da odstrel ima i nedostatke.

Dok u društvenim medijima prevladavaju marginalni stavovi protiv vukova, brojni pastiri priznaju da odstrel ima i nedostatke.

Pozitivni primjeri postoje

Iako Europska unija sve više podržava odstrel, unutar EU-a  postoje pozitivne inicijative. Od 1992. godine u sklopu projekata LIFE koji su financirani sredstvima EU-a, ispitani su alati za suživot koji uključuju električne ograde, pse čuvare i uključenost dionika. Pregled 135 projekata iz zemalja Sredozemlja i Rumunjske pokazuje da uz ispravnu provedbu takve mjere mogu biti djelotvorne. Utvrđeno je da su električne ograde – poput onih koje je ugradio Wolf Fencing Team Belgium – najučinkovitija nesmrtonosna mjera, dok su druge mjere ostvarile tek djelomičan uspjeh. Švedsko istraživanje potvrđuje da bilo kakva ograda pomaže smanjiti napade vukova, pri čemu dvije vrste nude najbolju zaštitu: električni pastir s pet žica i mreža za ovce pojačana dvjema električkim žicama, poznata kao „ograda protiv grabežljivaca”. Unatoč tim obećavajućim rezultatima, znanstvenici naglašavaju da su potrebna dodatna istraživanja kako bi se utvrdile metode čija je učinkovitost najdosljednija. Neadekvatni standardi evaluacije i izvještavanja i dalje otežavaju donošenje pouzdanih zaključaka.

Psi čuvari stoke (LGD-ovi) u Italiji su se pokazali posebno učinkovitima u odvraćanju predatora. Njihovu uporabu podupire većina regija, iako su u nekim slučajevima programi financiranja doveli do porasta cijene štenaca. U područjima poput središnje Italije, u kojima vukovi nikada nisu nestali te su kasnije ponovno nastanili veći dio zemlje, postoji snažna tradicija uzgoja pasa pasmina marema i samojed. Iako LGD-ovi mogu biti jako djelotvorni, njihov uspjeh ovisi o propisnoj dresuri, upravljanju i predanim trenerima. U Poljskoj su pokušaji rasprostranjivanja pasmine tatranskog ovčara (owczarki podhalańskie) dali proturječne rezultate. Pojedini su psi uzgojeni više kao domaći ljubimci nego radne životinje, što je utjecalo na njihovu učinkovitost.

Napori su i dalje raspršeni

Određena državna tijela u zemljama poput Francuske, Italije i Njemačke pružaju podatke, smjernice i obrazovne resurse kako bi promicao suživot s vukom. Unatoč tome, ovi napori često su fragmentirani, nedovoljno financirani i slabo integrirani u šire politike ruralnog razvoja. Europska platforma za suživot i njezini regionalni ekvivalenti olakšali su dijalog i promiču dobre prakse, ali sudjelovanje je dobrovoljno i često ga ometaju politička opiranja ili nepovjerenje među interesnim grupama.

Pašnjak Matthiasa Prietha s pogledom na dolinu Puster u Južnom Tirolu. Izvor: ©Federico Ambrosini

U sjevernotalijanskoj alpskoj pokrajini Trento šumski rendžeri pružaju pastirima aktivnu podršku time što ih opskrbljuju informacijama, ogradama, pa čak i psima čuvarima stada, što je neobičan, ali učinkovit pristup. Na samo pola sata udaljenosti od Južnog Tirola, autonomna pokrajina Bolzano odabrala je sasvim drukčiji pristup. 2023. godine proglasila je suživot s vukom „nerazboritim” na 1458 od 1500 alpskih pašnjaka. Uz tek nekolicinu preostalih aktivnih pastira i stada koja su često bez nadzora – što su prakse koje potječu iz razdoblja kad su vukovi i medvjedi bili istrijebljeni – sukobi su s predatorima intenzivni.

Do prvog izlučivanja vuka u Italiji došlo je 11. kolovoza 2025. Herbert Dorfmann, zastupnik Europske pučke stranke u Europskom parlamentu porijeklom je iz Južnog Tirola i već se dugo suprotstavlja vukovima te je imao ključnu ulogu u preokretu EU-ove politike zaštite. S druge strane, kao jedan od malobrojnih lokalnih pastira koji koriste preventivne mjere, Matthias Prieth rekao je da stvarni problem leži u dugoročnom nestajanju alpskih pašnjaka: „Alpski pašnjaci počeli su izumirati puno prije pojave vuka”. Iako priznaje da bi pucao u vuka koji napada njegovo stado, raširenu praksu odstrjela smatra nepotrebnom. Umjesto toga predlaže sustav u kojem se za potpore u okviru Zajedničke poljoprivredne politike EU-a (ZPP) uzima u obzir niska stopa predacije, s ciljem nagrađivanja odgovornog stočarstva.

Matthias Prieth kako čuva svoje stado.Izvor: ©Federico Ambrosini

Slučaj smeđeg medvjeda 

Osim vuka, smeđi medvjed također se našao na meti Europske pučke stranke. Broj medvjeđih jedinki značajno je porastao posljednjih godina, pri čemu se procjenjuje da u Europi trenutačno ima 20 500 jedinki – porast od 17 % u odnosu na 2016. U svom manifestu iz 2024. godine, EPP je – kao najveća europska politička obitelj – bio vrlo jasan što se tiče smeđeg medvjeda: „Potrebna su nova pravila za gospodarenje populacijama velikih mesojeda, pogotovo vuka i smeđeg medvjeda, uključujući odstrel kada njihova gustoća dosegne neodrživu razinu”.

Većina europskih smeđih medvjeda rasprostranjena je u planinama Karpata, koje se rasprostiru Rumunjskom, Slovačkom, Poljskom i Ukrajinom. Uporišta uključuju sjeveroistočnu Europu – posebice Finsku, Švedsku, Norvešku i baltičke zemlje – te zapadni Balkan, u kojem se populacije vuka protežu preko Hrvatske, Bosne i Hercegovine te Sjeverne Makedonije. Manje i izoliranije skupine i dalje postoje u Alpama, u Apeninima u središnjoj Italiji te na dijelovima Iberijskog poluotoka.

Kao i vukove, i medvjede se sve više prikazuje kao „izmakle kontroli” u središnjoj i istočnoj Europi, što potkrepljuje strah javnosti i politički pritisak u korist odstrela – čak i tamo gdje postoje dokazane strategije suživota. Učinkoviti instrumenti poput sigurnog upravljanja otpadom, električnih pastira, edukacije i novih tehnologija poput „Radara za praćenje sukoba između medvjeda i ljudi” – odnosno instrumenta za predviđanje koji se pokusno koristi u Bugarskoj – nude alternative koje nisu smrtonosne. Unatoč tome, prevencija se često zanemaruje. Tek su nedavno talijanske alpske regije, pogotovo regija Trento, poboljšale svoje zaštićene spremnike za otpad i sustav javnog informiranja planinara.

U srpnju 2025., službenici u Poljskoj odobrili su izlučivanje tri medvjeda (strogo zaštićena vrsta velike zvijeri prema zakonu te zemlje) u blizini kuća u Csini u Potkarpatskom vojvodstvu, u kojem obitava najveća populacija medvjeda u zemlji. Kritika javnosti i znanstvene zajednice dovela je do poništenja ove odluke, ali slučaj pokazuje da je zaštita medvjeda i dalje krhka.

Kakav učinak ima turizam?

U 2024. godini medvjedi i vukovi prouzročili su ukupnu štetu od 145 000, odnosno 93 000 eura u Trentu. Monica Fedel iz okolice Trenta nedavno je prijavila da je medvjed napao jednog od njezinih konja na alpskom pašnjaku u Dolomitima Brente. Medvjed je uplašio konja te je ovaj probio zaštitnu ogradu. Monica za incident djelomično krivi turiste, budući da je svoja četiri psa čuvara u sumrak morala zatvoriti zbog straha da će napasti agresivnog psa planinara koji je bio u prolazu. Međutim, ona se ne ljuti na medvjeda. Promišljajući o ovoj situaciji govori nam da „se on ponaša poput medvjeda, dok se vuk ponaša poput vuka, a pastir poput pastira.”

Pas čuvar Monice Fedel. Izvor: ©Federico Ambrosini

Izvješće EU-a LIFEstockProtect o zaštiti stoke potvrđuje da turisti za alpske pastire predstavljaju veći problem nego vukovi, budući da turizam često ometa zaštitu stoke. Pa ipak, pastiri ovise o posjetiteljima, jer je sam uzgoj stoke neodrživ zbog niskih cijena i pretjerane birokracije. Poticaji zajedničke poljoprivredne politike u velikoj mjeri podržavaju „održavanje krajobraza” putem pašnje, a ne proizvodnjom, čime se katkada potiču i prevare.

U blizini, na planinskom pašnjaku Borce Basse, pastir Ivan Zanoni nedavno je zbog medvjeda izgubio tri magarca. U suzama je rekao da svaki slučaj predacije smatra „osobnim neuspjehom”, pogotovo ako jedna od ubijenih životinja pripada prijatelju koji ga je zamolio da se brine za nju. Uz samo jednog pomoćnika i sve veće troškove, ovaj pastir sustav ne smatra održivim.

Jedan od magaraca Ivana Zanonija. Izvor: ©Federico Ambrosini

Iako su pastiri zaslužni za održavanje slikovitih pašnjaka zahvaljujući kojima su Alpe isplativa turistička atrakcija, oni i dalje moraju plaćati zakup za njihovo korištenje. Ovo predstavlja dodatan značajan trošak povrh svih drugih izdataka, uključujući mjere za osiguranje zemljišta od vukova. „Ne želim da me plaćaju za čuvanje pašnjaka,” kaže Zanoni. „Međutim, ne mislim da bih trebao platiti ako sam taj koji se bine i osigurava ih”.

Budućnost vukova i medvjeda nije u rukama predatora, nego ovisi o tome hoće li se Europa uhvatiti ukoštac s ovim ozbiljnijim izazovima i izabrati prevenciju i podršku umjesto straha i politike.

Istraživanje je provedeno uz podršku Journalismfund Europe.

On November 27, 2025, Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith signed a Memorandum of Understanding. The five-page document signals their governments’ willingness to put years of acrimony behind them, and to negotiate agreements...

Autrefois largement considérés comme une force politique marginale, les partis verts ont contribué à mettre les préoccupations environnementales au centre des débats. Cependant, alors que l’urgence de la transition s’accentue et que les sociétés sont confrontées à l’insécurité économique, à la méfiance et à la polarisation politique, leur culture marginale et leur mentalité minoritaire pourraient désormais les freiner. L’écologie politique peut-elle dépasser son « syndrome de pionnier » pour construire des alliances plus larges, regagner la confiance du public et devenir une force gouvernante pour un changement systémique ?

Florent Marcellesi : En tant que membre des Verts, tu as été conseiller régional dans le Nord-Pas de Calais et maire de Loos-en-Gohelle, les deux pendant plus de 20 ans et sur une période qui s’étale sur plus de 30 ans. Sur cette vision de long terme que tu as des Verts et de l’écologie politique dans les institutions, quels sont à ton avis leurs principaux succès sur cette période ?

Jean-François Caron : Dans les facteurs positifs, il y a tout d’abord le constat qui a amené à l’émergence de l’écologie politique des Verts dans différents pays et qui débute, en gros, avec le rapport du club de Rome [1972]. La prise de conscience que la planète a des limites et que nos modes de développement, à un moment donné, vont devenir incompatibles avec les limites de la planète. C’est au début un propos scientifique qui ensuite est repris par les premières associations que j’ai connues comme les Amis de la Terre. Ça a cristallisé et ça a commencé à prendre une forme politique. On est passé d’un espace d’influence à un espace d’engagement et d’action. Même s’il reste du déni dans la société, il y a une évidence qu’on est arrivé à la fin d’un système. Ça, c’est quand même un succès et, même si elle est nuancée, c’est aussi une reconnaissance des écologistes comme ayant une capacité à se mettre en mode projet, à générer des résultats.

à côté de ces victoires, qu’il est important de garder en mémoire pour savoir d’où l’on vient et ce que l’on a collectivement atteint, quels ont été en même temps les principaux écueils ou difficultés ?

Même si les questions du diagnostic sont souvent acquises, on est toujours perçus comme des Cassandre annonciateurs de mauvaises nouvelles, et c’est une de nos difficultés. D’autre part, il y a la question de jusqu’où on va en terme d’écologie politique : très environnementale ou avec une dimension sociétale très forte ? Que cela soit la question des migrants ou des droits humains par exemple, et là ce n’est pas homogène. Je pense de mon côté que prendre en compte la question écologique, c’est forcément aller sur une question systémique, c’est à dire globale.

Parce que si par exemple pour le réchauffement climatique ou la biodiversité, on veut changer les choses, on voit bien que la question des modèles économiques ou de l’agriculture, on doit en tenir compte. Et si on veut parler de la mobilité ou de l’énergie dans l’habitat, on voit bien que la justice sociale, il faut en tenir compte. Sinon, il y a les riches qui arriveront à avoir des énergies renouvelables et de l’isolation, et les pauvres qui seront dans des HLM avec des factures de chauffage électrique monstrueuses. D’ailleurs, au-delà du vote raciste qui bien sûr existe, le vote d’extrême droite dans le Nord-Pas de Calais est en partie un vote de gens qui se sentent déclassés et qui se sentent méprisés suite à la fin du modèle industriel d’antan.

Donc à la fois il y a cette idée qu’on doit aller vers une approche plus globale, sociétale et systémique, et cette tendance parallèle à nous cantonner sur les questions environnementales. C’est cette contradiction que j’ai éprouvé en tant que maire. Je dirais qu’on est au milieu du gué entre deux différentes visions et attentes.

Comment penses-tu qu’il est possible de surmonter cette contradiction pour finir de traverser le gué ?

Pour la vision globale, on a pour l’instant des esquisses car évidemment cela semble compliqué d’avoir une transformation nationale et internationale, de part la complexité systémique et parce qu’on n’a pas accès aux manettes de contrôle. Par contre, à l’échelle territoriale, il y a des choses qui peuvent se déclencher. Il y a ce qu’on appelle des écosystèmes d’acteurs qui peuvent se mettre en mouvement à une échelle locale et montrer qu’on peut apporter une réponse systémique à des enjeux économiques, sociaux et environnementaux. C’est fécondant.

D’ailleurs, c’est un peu le sens de mon action d’aujourd’hui après toutes ces années, c’est de dire : aidons les territoires à devenir des cellules souches d’un nouveau modèle de développement et à fructifier ensemble pour réorienter des politiques de rang national qui aujourd’hui sont bloquées. Partir du territoire, du terroir, et remonter grâce à une pratique ascendante.

Donc dans ta vision et pratique politique, le territoire est le point de départ d’un changement systémique et global. Mais par où, par quelles politiques commencer, encore plus dans un bassin minier historique gravement touché par la crise et le déclin social et économique de la fin du XXème siècle ?

Dans mon action à la Région et dans ma commune, assez bizarrement, je n’ai pas priorisé comme telles des thématiques environnementales, économiques ou sociales. J’ai priorisé le fait de lutter contre la défiance, c’est-à-dire retrouver la confiance avec la population, ce qui va à son tour passer par la reconnaissance. Au travers d’une multiplication des dispositifs d’écoute, c’est ce qu’on appelle la capacitation ou l’empowerment. Retrouver du pouvoir d’agir, c’est mettre les gens dans une situation où ils ne sont plus les consommateurs de l’action publique. Ils entrent dans l’élaboration des politiques et même la mise en œuvre. À Loos-en-Gohelle, ça s’est développé par exemple dans le champ de la gouvernance et de la participation avec de ce qu’on appelle le “fifty fifty”, c’est-à-dire droits à l’initiative des habitants et programmes où on passe un contrat dans lequel on dit “voilà ce que les habitants vont faire, voilà ce que la ville va faire”.

D’autre part, il faut montrer que la participation et l’implication des habitants donnent des résultats concrets, que ce n’est pas de la parlotte et de la réunionite. Il y a énormément de défiance à venir dans une réunion publique, hormis pour clamer sa colère, donc il faut montrer que ces processus participatifs produisent des résultats et que ces résultats, il faut les célébrer, les fêter. Car la question des affects compte et elle est de nature à permettre d’enclencher des processus de transformation plus profonds et de retrouver un terreau de construction collective.

Lutter contre la défiance c’est aussi la question de l’exemplarité et de l’incarnation par les élus. S’il n’y a pas de cohérence entre ce que je dis et ce que je fais, et qu’en tant qu’écolo je me balade en 4×4 et que je me gare sur les trottoirs, l’histoire s’arrête immédiatement. Mais le principal c’est que les gens, qu’ils soient écolos ou pas, se disent “lui, il est cohérent”, et ça, c’est un élément de retour de la confiance.

Oui, la confiance et les affects positifs retrouvés ont été en quelque sorte l’antichambre du changement qui vous ont permis des transformations plus profondes. Mais alors, quelles ont été ces transformations ?

On a travaillé la transformation des imaginaires. Dans cette région, nous étions les purs produits du charbon. Mais le charbon, c’était fini et il fallait en sortir. En même temps, c’est notre histoire. Et notre histoire, on l’assume. Dans ce sens, j’ai porté l’inscription du bassin minier au patrimoine mondial de l’humanité de l’UNESCO, ce qui était une façon de dire “on ne s’excuse pas d’exister”. Notre histoire est digne d’intérêt et l’histoire des mineurs vaut l’histoire des rois. Une aventure comme celle-là, cela embarque une population qui devient active, qui devient militante Concrètement on a transformé les terrils en lieux de sports et nature de toutes sortes, comme le parapente, de concerts de musique en allant chercher des gens différents à chaque fois. Dans l’ancien grand centre minier, on a aujourd’hui des structures de recherche et un pôle de compétitivité sur l’économie circulaire. Tout cela, en plus de ramener des emplois, transforme les imaginaires sur le développement. On met les gens et la ville en mouvement et on met en récit notre propre histoire, avec ses tensions, contradictions et symboliques. On prend en compte notre passé pour nous projeter ensemble dans l’avenir.

Quand on parle d’assumer son histoire, on parle au fond de la question de l’identité. Les Verts ont souvent eû du mal à aborder cette question, surtout face à la montée du patriotisme nationaliste si présent dans le fief du Rassemblement National à Hénin Beaumont à, à peine, 12 kilomètres de Loos-En-Gohelle. Alors dans ce contexte, comment utiliser l’identité à bon escient, de façon positive, non pas sur l’exclusion, mais sur l’inclusion et sur la construction du vivre ensemble dont tu parlais ?

Il ne faut pas laisser l’identité aux identitaires. La construction de chacun d’entre nous, toi, moi, notre identité personnelle, elle est stratégique. Nier cela, c’est une erreur magistrale. On doit savoir qui on est, où on habite, au sens propre comme au sens figuré. Et la question de nos valeurs et de nos racines est fondamentale. Mon arrière-grand-père était délégué mineur au fond de la mine, il était meneur de grève et se faisait tirer dessus par la police. Il a appelé ses enfants Juvénal, Danton, Rose, Églantine, Louise, Michel, Ferrer et Voltaire. Juvénal et Danton ont été gardes du corps de Léon Blum. Et bien cela participe de mon identité et je ne vais pas la rejeter.

Ce qui est intéressant quand on sait qui on est, c’est que ça permet de regarder l’autre dans les yeux. On est dans un véritable échange de deux adultes épanouis. Pour coopérer, il faut exister. Donc exister et savoir qui on est, à quoi on tient, ce n’est pas aller vers un processus égoïste, c’est aller vers un processus de s’assumer, de se connaître et c’est ce qui permet de rentrer en dialogue en construction avec les autres. Vu comme cela, la question de l’identité n’est pas une posture du renfermement, ni de repli. Pour moi, c’est au contraire une capacité à oser s’ouvrir aux autres et à construire ensemble. C’est une entité de l’ouverture.

Il y a un deuxième gros intérêt à la question d’identité. Pour qu’il y ait transition et donc un processus de transformation individuel et collectif, le premier domaine, c’est qu’il faut qu’il y ait de l’engagement. Et un des moteurs de l’engagement, c’est la question de l’identité. C’est-à-dire que cette appartenance commune, cette fierté et la symbolique associée, ça compte, ça fait bouger les gens. C’est d’ailleurs pour cela qu’après avoir porté l’inscription du bassin minier au patrimoine mondial, je me suis retrouvé Président de l’Association des Biens français du patrimoine mondial. La connaissance, la reconnaissance et le respect des différentes cultures et de leurs histoires nous permet de nous rendre acteurs.

En plus de se connaître soi-même et de reconnaître les autres, quels conseils donnerais-tu à un jeune militant-e qui rentre dans le mouvement écologiste, encore plus dans ce deuxième quart de XXIᵉ siècle et ce contexte de bataille culturelle et de backlash écologique ?

Je dirais d’abord “rentre par le concret”. Au travers du concret, du local, d’un endroit, on a prise sur quelque chose. Parce qu’une des difficultés qu’on a dans la période actuelle, c’est un sentiment qu’on n’a plus prise sur rien et ça, ça crée de la désespérance et de la défiance. Le local, l’action, ce sont des espaces d’investissement, de réalisation, de production, de résultat, de développement, de confiance en soi.

Et je pense aussi que c’est important de ne pas paniquer dans la période actuelle. Le backlash écologique est une manifestation du fait qu’on a commencé à bouger des lignes. C’est la réaction à nos succès et avancées. Donc c’est aussi un bon signe de mon point de vue. Tant qu’on te traite gentiment, ça veut dire que tu ne comptes pas. Et aujourd’hui c’est tout le contraire. Alors moi, j’ai envie de dire il faut le prendre tranquillement et ne pas alimenter cette machine là de l’affrontement direct. Ce qui ne veut pas dire qu’il faut tout accepter. Je ne suis pas pour un consensus mou. Il faut assumer les désaccords et les traiter. Il y a des méthodes pour traiter les controverses, les accueillir et trouver les chemins de convergences, comme nous le faisons à la Fabrique des Transitions. Et tout cela, puisque multifactoriel, cela prend du temps et se construit sur la longue durée. Ou alors c’est le totalitarisme vert, c’est-à-dire qu’au nom de l’urgence on impose des mesures de sauvegarde. C’est un risque d’éco-fascisme.

Moi, j’aimerais que le mouvement vert au contraire soit porteur de cette ardente obligation de transformer les choses, mais en même temps de sérénité et de capacité à mettre en réseau et en convergences toutes ces pousses qui germent de partout, à les porter politiquement dans une logique qui est de ne pas perdre son âme mais aussi de ne pas avoir raison tout seul. De mon côté, j’ai passé ma vie à faire des alliances que certains pouvaient peut être juger contre nature…

En Espagne, on appelle cela “des alliances dérangeantes” [alianzas incómodas], des alliances qui vont au-delà de tes lignes préétablies et des tabous.

Je t’en donne deux exemples. Moi, le maire écolo, je fais alliance avec des agriculteurs FNSEA : ils font une proposition d’engagement dans un processus vers le bio et la commune apporte les hectares. Mais de leur côté, ils ont des difficultés à dire je travaille avec un maire écolo et moi j’ai des difficultés à dire je travaille avec des gens de la FNSEA. Mais en pratique, on est monté jusqu’à 40% de la surface agricole en bio avec de la production locale alors qu’on est vraiment dans un modèle hyper industriel. Donc les résultats sont là. Et eux-mêmes, ils disent on arrête de l’agribashing, on ne reçoit plus d’attaques et notre relation avec la population s’est améliorée, en plus d’être sollicités par les médias.

Autre exemple, les patrons du BTP régis par des modèles capitalistes et très conservateurs. Le point de départ est clair : ce sont des méchants pollueurs qui font du béton. Et moi, je suis un barjo d’écolos qui vit dans les nuages. Cependant, ils viennent me voir et me disent “votre ville est un étendard des procédés de l’éco-construction” et on voudrait s’installer chez vous. Je leur réponds : évidemment. A l’arrivée, ils développent des structures de recherche, ils forment leurs entreprises à l’éco-construction et ça crée des emplois dans ma commune sur des métiers de demain. Cette nouvelle alliance, c’est gagnant-gagnant. Ça ne veut pas dire qu’on est mariés, mais ça veut dire qu’on est capable de construire des espaces, de progresser ensemble, à condition de ne pas perdre le cap. La vision globale est qu’on doit être dans un processus de transformation de ce modèle capitaliste, on est d’accord. Je n’ai pas oublié mes idées, mais mon quotidien, ce n’est pas le Grand Soir ou rien.

L’écologie politique doit-elle alors accepter le capitalisme ?

Non, je suis bien sûr anticapitaliste.On ne peut pas accepter les règles du jeu capitaliste. Mais si je passe mon temps à tourner dans la ville avec des affiches en disant “je suis anticapitaliste”, je crée un espace de confrontations idéologiques, qui même s’il peut être intéressant dans des débats ou des colloques, dans mon rapport à la population, ça ne marche pas. Par contre, montrer qu’on peut faire un système d’économie sociale et solidaire de l’énergie locale renouvelable avec les habitants, c’est une réponse à la question anticapitaliste. Donc à titre personnel, j’évite depuis toujours de rentrer dans des postures, de crier très fort et de donner des leçons. Quand j’observe les postures au niveau national, ça me désespère. On est extrêmement loin des logiques de dialogue territorial et de construction de désaccords, mais aussi de consensus.

Le consensus peut sembler a priori éloigné de l’exercice du pouvoir tel que compris dans une majorité de la classe politique et de la population. En tenant compte en plus du fait que les Verts, dû entre autres à leur défiance originelle face à l’État, ont un rapport ambigu face au concept de pouvoir, à quoi ressemble selon toi l’exercice du pouvoir en tant qu’élu écolo ?

Il y a deux façons de comprendre le pouvoir : c’est le “pouvoir sur” ou le “pouvoir de”. En politique, le pouvoir c’est en général de dominer les autres. Cela peut être utile pour faire les choses, mais cela amène à des logiques de combat permanent, de contrôle, de blocage, d’autoritarisme, et donc, à un moment donné, cela tourne en rond sur comment je garde le pouvoir. Le pouvoir devient une aliénation.

Si on raisonne en disant le “pouvoir de”, c’est-à-dire celui de faire et de gagner en puissance d’action, à ce moment, la question est complètement retournée. Par exemple, si je veux passer ma ville intégralement aux énergies renouvelables, comment je vais générer le pouvoir de faire ça ? Je vais regarder les acteurs; il va falloir travailler avec les énergéticiens, avec ceux qui ont du foncier, avec la population que les éoliennes irritent, écouter leur point de vue. Donc le “pouvoir de” est un pouvoir d’accueil. C’est un pouvoir de recombinaison de ce que chacun peut faire et donc ça amène l’élu dans une position d’animateur, non pas de vérité, en mode “je vais vous expliquer ce qui est bon pour vous”. Et après la phase d’animateur, il y a aussi une phase de décideur parce qu’on a une légitimité en tant qu’élu. On explique aux gens qu’à un moment donné, il va y avoir des arbitrages et que dans la situation actuelle, la légitime est, dans mon cas, dans le conseil municipal ou régional.

La question du pouvoir, c’est aussi de dire comment je suis capable de générer de la puissance. On n’est pas là pour jouer petit bras, on est face à des problèmes mondiaux majeurs, donc on doit avoir de l’ambition. Et la question de l’ambition, ça peut se traduire par une ambition d’un ego, comme cela peut se traduire par l’ambition du projet. Moi, je pense qu’il faut des projets ambitieux et il faut développer de la puissance pour cela. Par exemple, le fait qu’on ait été réélu à 82,1% des voix lors des élections municipales de 2008 à Loos-en-Gohelle montre qu’il est possible un vrai effet d’embarquement sur un projet radicalement écolo, qui plus est dans une région minière. Et dans ce sens là je pense qu’il y a aussi un énorme enjeu à évaluer ce qui a été produit dans les territoires et villes gérés par des écologistes comme Grenoble, Lyon, Bordeaux, Strasbourg, Tours ou Poitiers. C’est-à-dire comprendre les processus de construction collective à vocation majoritaire.

Donc tu prônes un passage du vert minoritaire au vert majoritaire ?

C’est exactement cela. Depuis les années 1970, on vient d’une culture de posture minoritaire, d’émergence où l’objectif est de créer le buzz, bref de happening. Cela est nécessaire pour émerger et pour bousculer le système. Mais on arrive à un moment où on est bloqués par cette culture minoritaire. On est bloqués notamment par le fait qu’une personne comme moi, par exemple, quand j’étais maire, j’en étais presque suspect. Comment est-il possible que des gens votent pour lui ? Et même chez les nôtres, s’il est devenu maire, est-ce qu’il est vraiment écolo ? Nous avons cette culture du rebelle et de la marge. Et donc ce n’est pas par hasard que nous avons une sociologie de militant attirée par cette culture minoritaire, ce qui renforce à son tour notre position minoritaire et perception d’écolos fouettards, et ainsi de suite.

C’est ce que j’appelle le “syndrome du pionnier”. C’est extrêmement difficile et passionnant d’être un pionnier. Tu défriches et reçois plein de coups mais en même temps tu as plein d’aventures. Il y a une forme de jouissance du pionnier qui explore des voies. Et tous les écolos, en tout cas de mon époque, moi inclus, sont des pionniers. On est les pionniers dans nos formes parce qu’on est sortis du moule. Les pionniers sont très solidaires entre eux autour de très petits noyaux, ce qui donne une aventure humaine extrêmement puissante mais avec un risque d’être fermée sur elle-même. Le problème des pionniers, c’est qu’ils courent aussi le risque de ne pas supporter que la civilisation les rattrape. Et dans ce cas là, il faut qu’ils repartent dans un autre truc de pionniers. Et les Verts ont en partie ce syndrome. Mais maintenant on va avoir besoin de passeurs. Les passeurs, c’est autre chose. Ce sont ceux et celles qui accueillent ce que produisent les pionniers et qui les passent au reste de la société.

À Loos-En-Gohelle, vous avez été au fond à la fois pionnier et passeur ?

Souvent on m’a dit cela, oui, que j’étais sur les deux registres de pionnier et passeur, qui parle en même temps à l’ouvrier et au mineur comme à l’énarque ou au ministre; qui recherche l’exploration mais qui a vu que coopérer cela veut dire aussi comprendre les contraintes des autres, ses intérêts et être prêt à négocier. Nous avons eu du succès car, en plus d’avoir créé les conditions de durée sur le temps long pour amener des transformations profondes, nous avons misé sur une culture de pivot majoritaire.

Et là se trouve une des clés du futur. Je pense qu’après 50 ans d’existence, il est temps que l’écologie politique bascule dans cette culture majoritaire.

Note : Merci à Ambroise Cousin pour l’appui technique

Once a fringe political force, Green parties have helped bring environmental concerns into the mainstream. Yet as the urgency of the transition grows and societies grapple with economic insecurity, distrust, and political polarisation, their outsider culture and minority mindset may now be holding them back. Can political ecology move beyond its “pioneer syndrome” to build broader alliances, regain public trust, and become a governing force for systemic change?

Florent Marcellesi: As a Green Party member, across a period spanning three decades, you’ve served over 20 years in office both as a regional councillor for Nord-Pas-de-Calais and mayor of Loos-en-Gohelle. Looking back at the Greens and political ecology in the institutions over this period, what do you think have been their greatest successes?

Jean-François Caron: On the positive side, first there’s the analysis that began with the Club of Rome’s report [The Limits to Growth, 1972] and led to the emergence of the Greens’ political ecology around the world  – the realisation that the planet has limits and that our growth models will, at some point, become incompatible with these limits. It started out as a scientific argument that was then taken up by the first campaign groups I joined, like Friends of the Earth. Then it crystallised and began to take political form. We moved from the realm of influence to the realm of activism and action. Though there’s still denial in society, it’s clear that we’ve reached the end of a system. So that’s a success. It’s also an acknowledgement, albeit a qualified one, that Greens can mobilise around a project and get results.

Aside from these wins, which remind Greens where they’ve come from and what they’ve achieved together, what have been the biggest obstacles or challenges along the way?

While our diagnosis is often broadly accepted, we’re always seen as Cassandras bearing bad news, and that’s one of our problems. Then there’s the question of how far we proceed with political ecology: do we go all in on the environment? Or do we include a strong social dimension as well? Whether it’s on migrants or human rights, for example, it’s never consistent. I think that to address the environment, we have to take a systemic, wider view.

If we want change on, say, global heating or biodiversity, we have to address economic and farming models. And if we want to talk about transport or energy in the home, we have to address social justice. Otherwise, the rich will get renewable energy and insulation, and the poor will get enormous electricity bills for heating their social housing. What’s more, besides the racist vote, which of course exists, the vote for the far right in the Nord-Pas-de-Calais is partly the vote of people who feel left behind and looked down upon since the end of the old industrial model.

So there’s both this idea that we should take a wider, more societal and systemic approach, and at the same time, this tendency to stick to environmental issues. And I’ve felt this contradiction as a mayor. We’re caught in a no man’s land between different visions and expectations.

If we want change on global heating or biodiversity, we have to address economic and farming models. And if we want to talk about transport or energy in the home, we have to address social justice.

How can we overcome this contradiction and escape no man’s land?

For the wider vision, we’ve just got a rough outline for now: enacting national and international transformation is tough because of systemic complexity and because we don’t hold the levers of power. But at a lower level, things can happen. There are stakeholder ecosystems that we can mobilise locally to show we can bring a systemic response to economic, social and environmental issues. It’s fertile ground.

After all these years, it’s sort of what I’m doing today: helping communities to become the stem cells for a new growth model, to thrive together and shift national policies that are currently stuck. Starting local and moving upwards.

So, in the way you see and do politics, the local is the starting point for systemic and wider change. But where do you start, and with which policies, especially in a former mining region that’s been hit hard by crisis and the economic and social decline of the late 20th century?

Somewhat strangely, in my work in the region and my municipality, I haven’t prioritised environmental, economic, or social policies per se. I’ve prioritised fighting distrust – in other words, winning back people’s trust – and that means giving them recognition. I’ve done this through multiple listening exercises, or what we call empowerment. By putting people in a situation where they’re no longer just consumers of public policy, they are empowered. They get involved in shaping and even implementing policies. In Loos-en-Gohelle, we’ve done it with governance and participation through what we call “50-50”: residents’ initiatives and programmes where we sign a contract saying, “this is what residents will do, and this is what the council will do”.

But you have to show that residents’ participation and involvement bring tangible results; that it’s not just a talking shop and meetings for meetings’ sake. There’s a huge reluctance to turn up to public meetings – unless it’s to voice anger. So, we have to show that participatory processes produce results and that these results should be lauded and celebrated, because affect matters. It can trigger deeper transformation and reveal a bedrock on which to build things together.

Fighting distrust also means elected officials leading by example. If there’s inconsistency between what I say and do, and as a Green, I drive around in an SUV and park on the pavement, it’s over. But the main thing is that, whether they’re Green or not, people say to themselves, “he’s consistent”, and that’s part of rebuilding trust.

Regaining trust and positive affect have been catalysts for deeper transformations. What are these transformations?

We worked on transforming imaginations. In this region, we were the pure products of coal. But coal went, and we had to move on. Yet coal is also our history. And we’re not ashamed of it. That’s why I championed making the Nord-Pas-de-Calais mining basin a UNESCO World Heritage Site. It was a way of saying, “We won’t apologise for existing.” Our history is worthy of interest, and the history of miners is just as important as the history of kings. A project like this brings the whole community onboard, getting them involved, turning them into activists. In practical terms, we have transformed slag heaps into venues for all sorts of sports and outdoor activities, like paragliding and concerts, drawing in different partners and crowds each time. On what used to be the main mining site, we now have research facilities and an innovation cluster for the circular economy. All this not only brings jobs, but it also transforms how people imagine growth. We get people and the town moving, and we tell our own history, with all its tensions, contradictions and symbolism. We draw on our past to look ahead to the future together.

When we talk about leaning into our history, we’re really talking about identity. The Greens have often struggled to tackle this question, all the more so with surging nationalist patriotism, which is on full display in the National Rally (RN) stronghold of Hénin Beaumont, just 12 kilometres away from Loos-En-Gohelle. In this context, how can identity be used for good, in a positive way, not to exclude, but to include and build the sense of community you were talking about?

We must not leave identity to the identitarians. Personal identity – yours, mine, everyone’s – is built strategically. To deny this is a huge mistake. We need to know who we are and where we live, both literally and figuratively. And our values and roots are fundamental in this. My great-grandfather was a safety rep in the pit. As a strike leader, he was fired on by the police. He named his children Juvénal, Danton, Rose, Églantine, Louise, Michel, Ferrer, and Voltaire.1 Juvénal and Danton served as bodyguards for [socialist prime Minister] Léon Blum. So, this is part of my identity, and I’m not going to cast it aside.

What’s interesting is that when you know who you are, you can look other people in the eyes. It’s a conversation between two adults who are comfortable with themselves. To work with others, you first have to exist. So, existing and knowing who you are and what you stand for isn’t being selfish; it’s about self-acceptance and self-knowledge. And it’s what enables constructive dialogue with others. When you look at it like this, identity isn’t about shutting yourself off or looking inwards. For me, it’s actually about daring to be open to others and building things together. It’s about openness.

There’s a second reason why identity matters. For change to happen and an individual and collective process of transformation to begin, you first need civic engagement. And a driver of engagement is identity. In other words, this collective belonging, this pride and associated symbolism, it matters, it moves people. That’s also why, after campaigning to get the mining basin listed by UNESCO, I ended up as President of the Association of French World Heritage Sites. Knowing, recognising and respecting different cultures and their histories empowers us to act.

We must not leave identity to the identitarians. Personal identity – yours, mine, everyone’s – is built strategically. To deny this is a huge mistake.

As well as knowing yourself and recognising others, what advice would you give a young activist joining the green movement in the second quarter of the 21st century, amid culture wars and environmental backlash?

I’d say first, “start with the tangible”. Through the tangible, the local, a place, you have a grip on something. Because one of the problems we have at the moment is the feeling that we no longer have a grip on anything, and that creates despair and distrust. Local action creates spaces for investment, flourishing, production, results, growth, and self-confidence.

I also think it’s important not to panic in times like these. The environmental backlash is a sign that we’ve started to change things. It’s a reaction to our victories and breakthroughs, and it’s also a good sign in my eyes. When they’re nice to you, it means you don’t matter. And today it’s quite the opposite. So, we’ve got to keep our cool and not feed that machine of head-on confrontation, though that doesn’t mean we should accept everything. I’m not for wishy-washy consensus. You have to own disagreements and work through them. There are ways to handle controversies, to accept them, and to find common ground, as we did with the Fabrique des Transitions. But because it’s complex, it takes time and is built over the long term. Otherwise, it’s green totalitarianism: we impose emergency measures in the name of urgency – and there lies the risk of eco-fascism.

I’d like the green movement to channel this burning obligation to transform things, while at the same time bringing calm and a capacity to connect and unite the initiatives springing up everywhere, championing them politically without losing its soul or being right but alone. I myself have spent years making alliances that some may see as unnatural…

In Spain, they call them “uncomfortable alliances” [alianzas incómodas], alliances that cross lines in the sand and break taboos.

I’ll give you two examples. As a Green mayor, I work with farmers from the FNSEA [France’s largest farmers’ union]: they commit to going organic, and the municipality provides land. They find it hard to say they work with a Green mayor, and I find it hard to say I work with people from the FNSEA. But in practice, we’ve switched 40 per cent of local farmland to organic production despite the hyper-industrial model used in the area. We’re getting results, and the farmers themselves say that “agribashing” has stopped, they’re no longer being attacked, and their relationship with the community has improved to the point where the media are taking an interest.

Another example is building industry executives, with very conservative, capitalist business models. The starting positions are clear: they’re evil polluters who make concrete, and I’m a loony environmentalist with my head in the clouds. Yet they came to see me and said: “Your town is a standard bearer for sustainable building practices, and we’d like to set up shop there,” to which I replied: of course. When they got here, they set up new research facilities and trained their companies in sustainable building, which created jobs for the town in tomorrow’s professions. So, this new alliance is a win-win. It doesn’t mean we’re married, but it does mean that we can find common ground and move forward together, so long as we don’t lose sight of the final destination. The wider vision is undoubtedly to transform this capitalist model. I haven’t abandoned my ideals, but I don’t go to work every day saying it’s revolution or bust.

Should political ecology accept capitalism?

No. I’m anticapitalist, of course.We can’t accept the rules of the capitalist game. But if I spend my time running around town with signs saying, “I’m anticapitalist,” I’ll create a space for ideological confrontation, which is all well and good in debates and discussions, but doesn’t work in my relations with the community. On the other hand, showing that we can create a social solidarity economy for local renewable energy with residents, that’s an anticapitalist answer. Personally, I’ve always tried not to posture, shout, or lecture. When I see the posturing in national politics, it drives me to despair. It’s a far cry from seeking local dialogue, working through disagreements, and building consensus.

Building consensus can seem far removed from wielding power as understood by most of the political class and the electorate. With their original distrust of the state, Greens have an ambiguous relationship with the concept of power. So, what does the exercise of power look like to you as a Green in office?

There are two ways to understand power: there’s the “power over”, and then there’s the “power to”. In politics, power is usually about dominating others. This can be useful for getting things done, but it also leads to patterns of permanent conflict, control, obstruction, and authoritarianism. And then it gets to a point where it’s just about holding on to power. Power becomes alienating.

If we think about it as the “power to” – in other words, the power to do things and increase our capacity to act – the question is turned on its head. For example, if I want to switch my town to 100 per cent renewable energy, how am I going to build up the power to do that? I’m going to look to stakeholders: that means working with energy companies, with landowners, with people bothered by wind turbines, and listening to their viewpoints.

The “power to” is the power to bring people in. It’s the power to assemble everyone’s talents, putting the elected official in the role of organiser, not truth holder, in an “I’m going to tell you what’s good for you” kind of way. After the organiser phase comes the decision-maker phase, because we have legitimacy as elected officials. We explain to people that, at some point, tough choices will have to be made and that, in my case, legitimacy lies in the town or regional council.

Power is also about asking: “How can I build strength?” We’re not there to play it safe; we’re facing major global problems, so we have to be ambitious. And ambition can be ego-driven, or it can be project-driven. I believe we need ambitious projects, and we need to build strength for this. For instance, the fact that we were re-elected with 82.1 per cent of the vote in the 2008 local elections in Loos-en-Gohelle shows that it really is possible to get people onboard with a radical environmentalist project, and in a mining area, no less. And that’s why I think it’s so important to assess what’s been achieved in the places run by Greens, like Grenoble, Lyon, Bordeaux, Strasbourg, Tours, and Poitiers. In other words, to understand the processes by which political and cultural majorities are collectively built.

So you advocate that Greens switch from a minority to a majority culture?

Exactly. Since the 1970s, we’ve had an opposition, outsider culture where the goal is to create buzz, pull stunts. You need that to break through and shake up the system. But there comes a point where this opposition culture holds us back. We’re held back by the fact that people like me are viewed with suspicion: “How can people vote for him?” There were doubts even among like-minded individuals: “If he’s a mayor, is he really a Green?” We’ve got this rebel, outsider culture. So, it’s no accident that we’ve got an activist base drawn to this opposition culture, which then reinforces our oppositional status and our image as killjoy Greens, and so forth.

The Greens partly suffer from this syndrome, but now we need bridge builders.

It’s what I call “pioneer syndrome”. Being a pioneer is incredibly hard yet exhilarating. You blaze a trail and take a lot of stick, but you have lots of adventures along the way. There’s a thrill that pioneers get from exploring new paths. And all Greens, from my era at least, are pioneers, me included. We’re pioneers because we broke the mould in our approach. Pioneers form small, tight-knit groups that create extremely intense personal experiences, but at the risk of becoming insular. There’s also the danger that pioneers can’t handle society catching up with them. And when that happens, they have to go off and find something else to pioneer.

The Greens partly suffer from this syndrome, but now we need bridge builders. Bridge builders are different. They’re the people who take what pioneers create and bring it to the rest of society.

In Loos-En-Gohelle, were you both pioneer and bridge builder?

People often told me that I was someone who wore two hats; someone who could talk to workers and miners as well as civil servants and ministers; someone who sought to explore new ground but who also saw that cooperating means understanding the constraints and interests of others, and being willing to negotiate. We were successful because, in addition to creating long-term conditions for bringing about profound transformation, we adopted a governing mindset.

And this holds a key for the future. I think that 50 years on, it’s time for political ecology to shift to a governing mindset.

Note: Thanks to Ambroise Cousin for the technical support.

1. All names of revolutionaries and prominent historical personalities. ︎

3 de marzo, 2026

Con el objetivo de fortalecer capacidades locales y promover soluciones estructurales frente al aumento sostenido de los residuos sólidos en el país, el Centro Salvadoreño de Tecnología Apropiada (CESTA) desarrolló dos actividades estratégicas: la segunda jornada del Seminario de gestión integral de desechos sólidos dirigida a municipalidades, y el foro público “La invasión plástica en El Salvador: Importación y exportación de desechos plásticos”. Ambos espacios pusieron en el centro la transición hacia modelos basura cero como respuesta técnica, social y ambiental a la crisis de los residuos.

Municipalidades fortalecen capacidades técnicas para avanzar hacia basura cero

En el marco del proceso formativo impulsado por CESTA, representantes de nueve alcaldías y de organizaciones de sociedad civil participaron en la segunda jornada del Seminario de gestión integral de desechos sólidos.

El objetivo general fue establecer lineamientos que conduzcan a los municipios hacia una gestión sustentable de los desechos sólidos, reduciendo al mínimo la generación de basura y fortalecer la planificación institucional mediante una Hoja de Ruta hacia Municipios Cero Basura.

Durante la sesión se abordaron contenidos técnicos sobre tipos de plásticos, micro y nano plásticos, reciclaje e impactos ambientales y sanitarios, incluyendo los riesgos asociados a la incineración de residuos. La discusión subrayó que estas tecnologías representan falsas soluciones, ya que liberan contaminantes altamente tóxicos como dioxinas y furanos, con impactos directos en la salud y el ambiente.

“Para evitar una crisis de basura de grandes proporciones en un futuro cercano y dar sustentabilidad a la gestión de desechos sólidos, es necesario implementar nuevas acciones creativas que no solo se concentren en la etapa final de la recolección y disposición, sino que abarquen todas las etapas, desde la generación, almacenamiento, recolección, transporte, recuperación y disposición final de desechos y consideren los aspectos económicos, ecológicos, sociales y políticos.”, señaló Laura Mejía, de CESTA.

Por otro lado, el contexto institucional presenta desafíos complejos para que los gobiernos locales implementen acciones relacionadas a los residuos sólidos , por ejemplo, la reducción del Fondo para el Desarrollo Económico y Social (FODES), los procesos de reestructuración de los municipios a distritos y la creación en 2024 de la Autoridad Nacional de Residuos Sólidos (ANDRES) han limitado la autonomía y los recursos financieros de los gobiernos locales.

Frente a este escenario, el proceso de formación representa una contribución valiosa para el fortalecimiento de capacidades de los gobiernos municipales, aportando herramientas e información actualizada y una propuesta para la gestión sustentable de los desechos sólidos. En CESTA, esperan que a futuro cada gobierno municipal cuente con su hoja de ruta clara, realista y aplicable en el corto y mediano plazo, con metas medibles y un compromiso institucional; que cuenten con una visión estratégica con el fin de alcanzar Municipios basura cero.

“Este proceso educativo ha permitido conocer las diversas aristas desde lo ambiental, social, político de la problemática del mal manejo de los desechos sólidos. Esto ha permitido sensibilizar a los /as funcionarios municipales y participantes, para que revisen sus planes operativos e iniciativas para una gestión sustentable de los desechos sólidos y la reducción de la contaminación especialmente de los desechos plásticos.”, afirmó Laura Mejía de CESTA.

Foro nacional analiza la importación de desechos plásticos y sus impactos

Como parte del fortalecimiento de la formación ambiental y política, CESTA realizó además el foro “La invasión plástica en El Salvador”, con la participación de 60 personas entre jóvenes, universidades, recicladores de base, comunidades urbanas, organizaciones sociales y referentes municipales.

El objetivo fue actualizar a la sociedad salvadoreña sobre la magnitud de los desechos plásticos que ingresan al país, así como sobre la creciente generación interna de basura plástica. El espacio incluyó un análisis de la Convención de Basilea y sus enmiendas sobre desechos plásticos peligrosos, examinando el estado de su implementación a nivel nacional.

El foro puso en evidencia que El Salvador continúa recibiendo importantes volúmenes de desechos plásticos desde Estados Unidos, lo que incrementa la vulnerabilidad territorial y ambiental. Las y los participantes coincidieron en la necesidad de fortalecer la coordinación regional y la capacidad de respuesta informada para enfrentar esta problemática.

“Es muy importante hablar sobre importación y exportación de desechos plásticos porque seguimos siendo uno de los países que más recibe basura de Estados Unidos y la población tiene que estar informada para demandar nuestros derechos a no aumentar la vulnerabilidad del territorio. Podemos a nivel regional, encontrar estrategias comunes para enfrentar estas problemáticas.”, comentó Linda Rubio de CESTA.

Entre las principales conclusiones se destacó la urgencia de profundizar la formación político-ambiental, mantener el análisis crítico sobre las dinámicas de importación y exportación de residuos, y articular estrategias comunes que prioricen la justicia ambiental y la reducción en la fuente.

Resultados y reflexiones

Más allá de los contenidos técnicos, ambos espacios dejaron una reflexión transversal, la gestión de residuos sólidos no puede abordarse únicamente desde la infraestructura, sino que debe hacerse desde un enfoque integral que considere dimensiones económicas, ecológicas, sociales y políticas. La transición hacia basura cero requiere voluntad institucional, participación comunitaria y decisiones basadas en evidencia.

Con estos procesos, CESTA refuerza su apuesta por soluciones locales, socialmente justas, ambientalmente responsables y sin falsas soluciones como la incineración de residuos.

Sobre CESTA

• Frente a las crisis socioambientales planetarias que tienen sus causas inmediatas en el modelo de desarrollo inadecuado y en la estructura de poder que sustenta ese modelo; CESTA contribuye a impulsar esos cambios estructurales que permitan construir sociedades más sustentables con justicia social, ambiental y de género.
• Sitio web: cesta-foe.org.sv/
• Redes sociales: Instagram / Facebook / X

The post CESTA forma a municipalidades salvadoreñas para avanzar hacia hojas de ruta basura cero y abre el debate sobre la invasión plástica en el país first appeared on GAIA.

As the bombing of Iran by the US and Israel continues, Spring has compiled resources to help us stand up against our government's support of war and spread the message: stop bombing Iran!

The post RESOURCES: Stop bombing Iran! first appeared on Spring.

Nurses across the country are outraged that the Trump administration has ignored the Constitution and committed yet another imperialist act of war over the weekend without approval from Congress. The U.S. attack on Iran is paid for by our patients: working-class people across the United States who are already struggling here at home to afford basic necessities such as health care, food, and housing.

Burniston has stepped up its action against North Yorkshire Council’s handling of plans for gas drilling and lower-volume fracking.

Burniston opposition to gas drilling on the edge of the village.
Photo: Frack Free Coastal Communities

Last month, Burniston Parish Council asked North Yorkshire Council to refer itself for independent scrutiny of how it dealt with the planning application by Europa Oil & Gas.

The parish council accused North Yorkshire officials of apparent procedural irregularity. It said local people had “lost confidence in the transparency and procedural integrity of the current handling of this planning application”.

But three weeks later, the parish council said it had received no response and suggested it was being treated with “apparent disdain” by North Yorkshire.

Today, the parish council submitted a complaint to North Yorkshire Council as an organisation. It also accused North Yorkshire’s chief executive, Richard Flinton, and the corporate director community development, Nic Harne, of failing to respond to the original letter.

Burniston Parish Council chair, Cllr Richard Parsons, said today:

“No organisation, particularly one that is publicly funded and has a responsibility to comply with its own policy, should adopt the position of either burying their heads in the sand in the hope we go away or treat anyone with such apparent disdain that neither an acknowledgment or reply is sent.”

North Yorkshire apparently failed to comply with its own correspondence and complaints policies.

The policies state that correspondence should be acknowledged within five working days.

According to the complaints policy, people can expect “a response within 15 working days of the date of receipt of the complaint”.

This can be extended up to 20 working days. But the policy says:

“If the investigation will take longer than 15 working days we will tell you, explaining why and letting you know when you can expect a full response”.

The complaints policy outlines what a response should look like:

“This will include a clear statement about whether or not your complaint has been upheld, an explanation of why we have come to that decision, where appropriate an offer of remedy and what we will do to prevent it from happening again, along with how to refer your complaint to the next stage if you are still unhappy.”

Burniston Parish Council’s original letter was sent by email on 6 February 2026, asking North Yorkshire to refer itself to the Planning Advisory Service or another independent body for a review of its procedure and handling of the planning application.

To comply with the five working day deadline for correspondence, North Yorkshire should have replied by 13 February 2026. To meet the standard 15-day deadline for dealing with complaints, North Yorkshire should have responded by Friday 27 February 2026.

But Cllr Parsons said:

“To date we have had no acknowledgement or reply despite NYC [North Yorkshire Council] having a correspondence reply policy.”

Other organisations in Burniston, including the campaign group, Frack Free Coastal Communities, have also asked North Yorkshire Council to self-refer its performance.

Cllr Parsons said:

“I can only hope those organisations receive a response that complies with the NYC policy.”

There have been more than 1,600 formal objections to the Europa planning application.

Cllr Parsons said today:

“There is, from our community and the wider community, an overwhelming feeling that NYC have failed to independently assess and report on the planning application. There is a loss of confidence in their ability to independently act as they should.”

He said the parish council had concluded that North Yorkshire Council had failed to carry out its responsibilities in many areas.

This was, he said, based on North Yorkshire’s handling of the application and the report by planning officers, sent to North Yorkshire Council’s strategic planning committee, which would decide whether to grant permission for Europa’s plans.  

Cllr Parsons said North Yorkshire’s failings included, but were not limited to:

• Failure to accurately record and display public comments online
• Procedural omissions regarding forms NYPA15 and NYPA17
• Intentional marginalization of substantial submissions
• Premature conclusion and bias in the Officer’s Report
• Disregard for shifting legislative and policy frameworks

Cllr Parsons said:

“Taking all this into account we felt that NYC had an absolute duty to have their processes independently scrutinised. This area and all of North Yorkshire, should have the confidence that NYC have the ability to deal with any planning matter in an open, honest and transparent manner.”

Burniston Parish Council was among a group of organisations and individuals, which asked the local government secretary to take over the Europa Oil & Gas decision. They argued that the application was of both local and national importance.

Last week, the minister sent the decision back to North Yorkshire Council.

Cllr Parsons said the parish council was disappointed by the minister’s move:

“This was an opportunity for this Government to keep to their word and decide upon this planning application taking into account exactly what they have promised our Communities. 

“In returning the application to North Yorkshire Council, the Secretary of State has given no reason, no explanation. That is not good enough.”

He said the parish council had asked the minister for an explanation for his decision. He added:

“The Secretary of State was made aware of the self referral request and has still sent the application back to NYC.

“Our communities deserve answers and being either ignored or providing no decision details is extremely poor and should rectified immediately.”

DrillOrDrop invited North Yorkshire Council to comment on the latest complaints by Burniston Parish Council. This article will be updated with any response.

After 9/11, the radical environmental movement was considered the number one domestic terror threat by the U.S. government. But by the end of the decade the movement had largely gone…

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MEDIA CONTACT: Mining Injustice Solidarity Network (MISN), info@mininginjustice.org Photos and videos of the protest available here (added live throughout the afternoon). TORONTO/TKARONTO, March 1, 2026 – Representatives from communities impacted by mining projects from Anishnaabe territory in Northern Ontario, Wet’suwet’en, the Congo, and the Philippines came together alongside hundreds of Torontonians to protest the […]

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) today introduced the Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act, legislation that would establish a 5% annual wealth tax on the 938 billionaires in America — who are now collectively worth $8.2 trillion. In its first year, the bill would provide a $3,000 direct payment to every man, woman and child in a household making $150,000 or less — $12,000 for a family of four — and use the estimated $4.4 trillion in revenue raised over the next decade to address the most pressing crises facing working families.

“At a time of unprecedented income and wealth inequality, this legislation demands that the billionaire class in America finally pay their fair share of taxes so that we can create an economy that works for all of us, not just the 1%,” Sanders said. “We can no longer tolerate a corrupt tax code that enables billionaires to pay a lower tax rate than the average worker. In a democratic society, we cannot tolerate 60% of our people living paycheck to paycheck — struggling to pay for housing, food and health care — while 938 billionaires have become $1.5 trillion richer. We cannot continue a trend in which, over the past 50 years, $79 trillion in wealth in our country has been redistributed from the bottom 90% to the top 1%. Enough is enough. Billionaires cannot have it all. It is time to enact a wealth tax on billionaires and use this revenue to address some of the major crises facing working families, the children, the elderly, the sick and the most vulnerable.”

“We have a deep economic divide in this country. On one side, places like Silicon Valley are generating extreme wealth. On the other side, families are struggling to cover the cost of health care, housing, and basic needs. We can tax billionaires a modest amount to make sure everyone has a fair chance while keeping our innovative engine. That is why I am proud to join Senator Bernie Sanders to lead the Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act,” Khanna said.

The Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act would establish a 5% annual wealth tax on just 938 billionaires in America who are now worth $8.2 trillion. No one who has a net worth of less than $1 billion would pay a penny more in taxes under this bill. According to an analysis by economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, the legislation would raise $4.4 trillion over the next decade.

The bill would use revenue from the wealth tax to:

• Provide a $3,000 direct payment to every man, woman and child in a household making $150,000 or less — $12,000 for a family of four
• Reverse the $1.1 trillion in Medicaid and Affordable Care Act cuts in Trump's so-called "Big Beautiful Bill," which are estimated to cause more than 50,000 unnecessary deaths
• Expand Medicare to cover dental, vision and hearing for millions of seniors
• Build, rehabilitate and preserve over seven million affordable homes to eliminate the affordable housing gap and end homelessness
• Ensure no family pays more than 7% of their income on childcare
• Establish a $60,000 minimum annual salary for every public school teacher in America
• Expand Medicaid home health care for seniors and people with disabilities

Under the bill, Elon Musk — worth $833 billion and now wealthier than the bottom 53% of American households combined — would owe $42 billion in taxes, leaving him with approximately $792 billion. Mark Zuckerberg, worth $220 billion, would owe $11 billion. Jeff Bezos, worth $218 billion, would owe approximately $11 billion.

Read the bill text here.

Read a summary here.

Read the economic analysis here.

Half of nations have met a UN deadline to report on how they are tackling nature loss within their borders, Carbon Brief analysis shows.

This includes 11 of the 17 “megadiverse nations”, countries that account for 70% of Earth’s biodiversity.

It also includes all of the G7 nations apart from the US, which is not part of the world’s nature treaty.

All 196 countries that are part of the UN biodiversity treaty were due to submit their seventh “national reports” by 28 February, of which 98 have done so.

Their submissions are supposed to provide key information for an upcoming global report on actions to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030, in addition to a global review of progress due to be conducted by countries at the COP17 nature summit in Armenia in October this year.

At biodiversity talks in Rome in February, UN officials said that national reports submitted late will not be included in the global report due to a lack of time, but could still be considered in the global review.

Tracking nature action

In 2022, nations signed a landmark deal to halt and reverse nature loss by 2030, known as the “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework” (GBF).

In an effort to make sure countries take action at the domestic level, the GBF included an “implementation schedule”, involving the publishing of new national plans in 2024 and new national reports in 2026.

The two sets of documents were to inform both a global report and a global review, to be conducted by countries at COP17 in Armenia later this year. (This schedule mirrors the one set out for tackling climate change under the Paris Agreement.)

The deadline for nations’ seventh national reports, which contain information on their progress towards meeting the 23 targets of the GBF based on a set of key indicators, was 28 February 2026.

According to Carbon Brief’s analysis of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity’s online reporting platform, 98 out of the 196 countries that are part of the nature convention (50%) submitted on time.

The map below shows countries that submitted their seventh national reports by the UN’s deadline.

Countries that submitted their seventh national reports to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity by the deadline of 28 February. Data source: Convention on Biological Diversity.

This includes 11 of the 17 “megadiverse nations” that account for 70% of Earth’s biodiversity.

The megadiverse nations to meet the deadline were India, Venezuela, Indonesia, Madagascar, Peru, Malaysia, South Africa, Colombia, Mexico, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Australia.

It also includes all of the G7 nations (France, Germany, the UK, Japan, Italy and Canada), excluding the US, which has never ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The UK’s seventh national report shows that it is currently on track to meet just three of the GBF’s 23 targets.

This is according to a LinkedIn post from Dr David Cooper, former executive secretary of the CBD and current chair of the UK’s Joint Nature Conservation Committee, which coordinated the UK’s seventh national report.

The report shows the UK is not on track to meet one of the headline targets of the GBF, which is to protect 30% of land and sea for nature by 2030.

It reports that the proportion of land protected for nature is 7% in England, 18% in Scotland, 11% for Wales and 9% in Northern Ireland.

National plans

In addition to the national reports, the upcoming global report and review will draw on countries’ national plans.

Countries were meant to have submitted their new national plans, known as “national biodiversity strategies and action plans” (NBSAPs), by the start of COP16 in October 2024.

A joint investigation by Carbon Brief and the Guardian found that only 15% of member countries met that deadline.

Since then, the percentage of countries that have submitted a new NBSAP has risen to 39%. 

According to the GBF and its underlying documents, countries that were “not in a position” to meet the deadline to submit NBSAPs ahead of COP16 were requested to instead submit national targets. These submissions simply list biodiversity targets that countries will aim for, without an accompanying plan for how they will be achieved.

As of 2 March, 78% of nations had submitted national targets.

At biodiversity talks in Rome in February, UN officials said that national reports submitted late will not be included in the global report due to a lack of time, but could still be considered in the global review.

Funding ‘delays’

At the Rome talks, some countries raised that they had faced “difficulties in submitting [their national reports] on time”, according to the Earth Negotiations Bulletin.

Speaking on behalf of “many” countries, Fiji said that there had been “technical and financial constraints faced by parties” in the preparation of their seventh national reports.

In a statement to Carbon Brief, a spokesperson for the Global Environment Facility, the body in charge of providing financial and technical assistance to countries for the preparation of their national reports, said “delays in fund disbursement have occurred in some cases”, adding: 

“In 2023, the GEF council approved support for the development of NBSAPs and the seventh national reports for all 139 eligible countries that requested assistance. This includes national grants of up to $450,000 per country and $6m in global technical assistance delivered through the UN Development Programme and UN Environment Programme.

“As of the end of January 2026, all 139 participating countries had benefited from technical assistance and 93% had accessed their national grants, with 11 countries yet to receive their funds. Delays in fund disbursement have occurred in some cases, compounded by procurement challenges and limited availability of technical expertise.”

The spokesperson added that the fund will “continue to engage closely with agencies and countries to support timely completion of NBSAPs and the seventh national reports”.

This article was updated to add in the proportion of area protected for nature in Wales.

Brazil’s biodiversity pledge: Six key takeaways for nature and climate change

Nature policy

|

16.01.26

‘Cali Fund’ aiming to raise billions for nature receives first donation – of just $1,000

International policy

|

12.12.25

COP30: Key outcomes for food, forests, land and nature at the UN climate talks in Belém

COP30 Belém

|

26.11.25

COP30: Could Brazil’s ‘Tropical Forest Forever’ fund help tackle climate change?

COP30 Belém

|

05.11.25

jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_80987a2ed2cd719a8e08f4f9e6e978c2 .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });

The post Analysis: Half of nations meet UN deadline for nature-loss reporting appeared first on Carbon Brief.

National Nurses United today announced its endorsement of Juliana Stratton for U.S. Senate in Illinois. Stratton is running an unapologetically progressive campaign centered on Medicare for All and taking on the corrupt influence of corporate money in politics.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has revealed plans to build over 100 miles of border wall through Big Bend National Park and neighboring Big Bend Ranch State Park in Texas. According to a notice published in the Federal Register, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem “has determined, pursuant to law, that it is necessary to waive certain laws, regulations, and other legal requirements” in order to expedite construction of the wall.

DHS is already making plans to award contracts for projects, and construction is expected to begin at the end of 2026. According to local officials, federal contractors have been looking for available land to build “man camps” and contacting nearby landowners about using their land for staging areas. “The steamroller seems to be moving,” said Brewster County Judge Greg Henington. “Contractors are swarming our area, asking questions about man camps and leases … there hasn’t been a whole lot of transparency.”

Local officials across the political spectrum are deeply concerned. “It’s something I never thought we would see,” said Terrell County Sheriff Thaddeus Cleveland. “It’ll ruin this county,” said Brewster County Sheriff Ronny Dodson. “If it’s a real wall, it will devastate us. We don’t have oil and gas, we have tourism.”

Heinrich to oppose Steve Pearce’s nomination to lead BLM

Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, ranking member on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, announced he will be voting against Steve Pearce, President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Bureau of Land Management.

“Commitments to follow the law by prior nominees have proven unreliable,” said Heinrich. “And while Congressman Pearce has said that his past actions opposing national monument designations and calling for public land sell-offs are in his rearview mirror, they remain in the memory of every New Mexican who faced his opposition in order to protect the lands they cherish.”

Senator John Hickenlooper of Colorado has also announced he will vote to oppose Pearce. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is scheduled to vote on Pearce’s nomination on Wednesday.

Quick hits Trump nominee to lead BLM dodges questions on whether he supports public land sales

Summit Daily | Idaho Statesman

Obama protected this California landscape. Now its future is uncertain

SFGATE

Interior NEPA rollback shifts procedures to internal handbook, raising tribal consultation concerns

Tribal Business News

Federal judge clears way for luxury developers to build access road through Forest Service land

Colorado Sun

Company eyes Wyoming for massive crude oil pipeline

WyoFile

Feds approve expansion of nation’s only operational lithium mine

Las Vegas Review-Journal

New Mexico state agency to hold public hearing on proposed uranium mine

Source NM

The Colorado River is nearing collapse. It’s the Trump admin’s problem now

Grist

Quote of the day

Make no mistake, the gutting of America’s bedrock environmental law by Burgum will result in costly lawsuits, more pollution, and less public participation when monied interests and extractive corporations want access to our public resources and public lands.”

—Jayson O’Neill, Save Our Parks, Tribal Business News

Picture This

@usinterior
“America’s Best Idea” began 154 years ago when Yellowstone was protected as the world’s first national park.
Set aside to safeguard extraordinary landscapes, wildlife, and geologic wonders, @yellowstonenps was preserved for the benefit and enjoyment of the people.
Today, Yellowstone endures as a reminder of the value of protecting our shared natural, historical, and cultural heritage.
Photos by Jacob W. Frank / NPS

 

Featured image: Big Bend National Park, NPS Climate Change Response

The post Border wall planned through Big Bend National Park appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

The Lexicon of Food and BBC StoryWorks recently announced a new digital film series Unearthing the Future: Writing the New Lexicon of Food. Each episode spotlights key figures, ideas, and practices shaping food and agriculture, while highlighting the role language plays in the transformation of these systems.

The six films, which explore topics including land access, alternative proteins, and school lunches, help viewers understand how food choices and farming systems affect wellbeing. Together, the series explores what it will take to build food and agriculture systems that regenerate the land and promote social inclusion and wellness while reducing negative environmental impacts.

“Our food system isn’t failing because we lack solutions, we’re failing because we’ve lost the patience to go deep enough to uncover them, again and again within their own contextual realities,” says Laura Howard-Gayeton, Executive Director of The Lexicon of Food. “This series is a call to share long knowledge, community by community and to unearth the future, without shortcuts in harmony with nature.”

After watching the films, audiences can also dive deeper into the concepts introduced in each episode through The Food Library and test their knowledge of key terms through an online quiz.

Learn more about the series and watch now by clicking HERE.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Barbara Krysztofiak, Unsplash

The post ‘Unearthing the Future’ Unpacks the Food and Farming Systems Impacting Human Health appeared first on Food Tank.

On February 28, 2026, Toronto was one of several cities that held emergency rallies to protest the US/Israeli bombing of Iran. The Toronto rally at...

The post Toronto’s emergency response to bombing of Iran first appeared on Spring.