Green News

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) will have nearly $6 billion more to spend on emissions-reduction and climate adaptation projects in developing countries, after its board agreed to a management proposal to reduce the proportion of money it has to keep in reserve.

At a meeting in Tajikistan this week, the government representatives who make up the fund’s board endorsed the proposal to revise its financial rules so that it no longer has to set aside one dollar for every dollar it spends.

Instead, the buffer amount will be decided based on a new, looser methodology. The GCF’s chief financial officer, Darren Tan, told board members that the old rules had led to too much cash building up in the fund’s reserves and “constrained the resources that we could deploy”.

The fund has a portfolio of 360 projects to which it has allocated $20.5 billion, but it has struggled to collect all the pledges made by donors as the US has failed to deliver billions and other wealthy nations are now making cuts to their funding for climate work in developing countries.

• Jul 2, 2026 Finance World Bank’s climate work can endure without finance target, experts say Even though the global lender has ditched a headline goal for its financing with climate benefits, it has decided to continue its climate action plan in the face of US pressure Read more
• Jul 1, 2026 Energy Can giant batteries unlock Africa’s green industrial future? Battery energy storage systems (BESS) could drive clean tech manufacturing in Africa but shortfalls in finance and data are still limiting deployment at scale Read more
• Jun 30, 2026 News Ocean summit stays silent on new wave of offshore oil and gas expansion At this month’s Our Ocean Conference in Mombasa, campaigners warned that ocean protection requires governments to halt new offshore fossil fuel projects Read more

The new system has been independently validated and is supported by the GCF’s trustee, the World Bank. Tan said the approach is still prudent enough that the fund will remain “financially resilient even under adverse conditions”.

The change “allows the fund to do more with the same resources”, Tan concluded, adding that “this translates directly into greater climate impact”. The shift leaves the fund with $5.65 billion to put into projects instead of around $1 billion under the previous rules.

The reforms follow wider moves to get funders of climate action to do more with their money. In 2023 and 2024, the World Bank lowered its equity-to-loans ratio from 20% to 19% and then 18%, freeing up around $7 billion a year for it to invest.

At their meeting in Dushanbe, GCF board members broadly welcomed the proposal, although several complained they had not been given enough time to consider reforms of such importance.

“No brainer”

While developed countries were all supportive, developing nations’ responses were more mixed. Some called for the new system to be implemented immediately but others urged a slower roll-out and raised concerns that the changes would lead the fund to give out more loans and fewer grants.

Canada’s representative said the approach is “considered standard practice across the climate finance architecture”, the UK said it “seems sensible”, France called it a “no-brainer” and New Zealand said it would “grow the funding pie”.

GCF board meeting participants pose in Dushanbe (Photo: GCF)

Germany’s Annette Windmeisser said it “responds to the COP29 decision to triple outflows from the mutilateral climate funds”. This goal was agreed after a push from small island and least developed countries but – with funding from wealthy governments faltering – the GCF is looking at controversial options like borrowing from banks to meet it.

Japan’s Kazuho Taguchi hinted at similar motivations for supporting these reforms. “Efficient use of limited public resources” is essential, he said, because “it is unrealistic to expect public finance from developed countries alone to meet the full scale of need”.

Bigger share for loans?

Some developing countries strongly supported the reforms too, including Gambia representing the least developed nations, Costa Rica and Uruguay.

Others urged caution. Georgia’s Nino Tandilashvili said the “outside world… want more projects from us” but also “financial sustainability of this fund”.

Botswana’s Balisi Gopolang echoed this and Ghana’s Antwi Boasiako-Amoah said the fund’s models should be tested against performance and the changes should be implemented slowly and piloted first.

Boasiako-Amoah also said he was concerned that the new methodology would be used to increase the proportion of the fund’s money that is loaned out to developing countries rather than distributed as grants. As the money is intended to be returned, loans are less financially risky to the GCF than grants.

Ghana’s Antwi Boasiako-Amoah and Canada’s Andrew Hurst talk at the board meeting in Dushanbe (Photo: GCF)

The board’s decision approving the reform incorporated this concern by noting that the “risk appetite or financial instrument mix” of board spending decisions should not be influenced by the new policy.

Liane Schalatek, who monitored the meeting for the Heinrich Böll Foundation, told Climate Home News that the reforms give the GCF “some breathing room” for the next year or two, after the Trump administration reneged on US pledges and the UK halved the contribution it had promised for 2024-2027.

But, Schalatek added, “it does not solve the fundamental question of whether developed countries are willing to stick to their obligations under the Paris Agreement and the [UN climate regime] that still requires them to provide substantial inputs into the GCF for the next replenishment period from 2028-2031.”

The post Billions unlocked as Green Climate Fund agrees to spend more and save less appeared first on Climate Home News.

A new global rainforest fund, unveiled by Brazil at COP30, will likely struggle to meet its initial funding target this year, after the UK failed to announce an expected pledge during London Climate Action Week and other donors have been slow to come on board.

The Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) was launched on the sidelines of last November’s UN climate summit as an innovative mechanism to fund rainforest protection. Instead of relying on grants, it seeks to raise public and private money, invest it in financial markets, and then pay rainforest countries a share of the returns.

The facility has so far raised $6.8 billion but needs to mobilise at least $10 billion by the end of 2026, under conditions set by Norway to unlock its pledge. If the fund falls short of this goal, the Norwegian contribution of up to $3 billion in loans over 10 years will not be disbursed.

At a gathering of ministers from rainforest-rich countries at London’s Kew Botanic Gardens last Tuesday in searing heat, UK climate minister Katie White praised the TFFF and said she had held a “robust conversation in government over the last few weeks” about the importance of forests and climate action.

She had argued, she said, that “this is not a nice to have – this is absolutely vital for our security and our prosperity”. She told the small crowd of visiting ministers, officials and forest campaigners at Kew that the TFFF was an “innovative and impactful development”.

Minister Katie White addresses a Forest and Climate Leadership high-level summit at Kew Gardens in London on June 23, 2026 (Photo: Joshua Bratt/FCLP)

But despite climate campaigners’ hopes, the British minister did not follow Norway, Germany, France, Brazil, Indonesia and Luxembourg in pledging to the fund, whose aim is to use returns on the capital it invests in bond markets to financially reward countries who keep their tropical forests standing.

Ed Davey, UK lead for the World Resources Institute who was in the room for White’s speech, told Climate Home News afterwards that as the UK was involved in inventing the idea and the British public care about rainforests, it is “incredibly important” that the government invests in the TFFF “as soon as possible”.

“The TFFF is at a very important stage of its gestation, and if a few other critically important sovereign governments don’t come on board quite soon, there is a risk that the idea will lose momentum,” he said.

• Sep 23, 2025 News Explainer: Can a new climate fund help save the world’s rainforests? Led by Brazil, the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) is set to be launched at COP30. Here we take a look at how the fund aims to harness investment to fight deforestation Read more
• Jun 26, 2026 News French court rules Total must revise climate plan to account for all emissions Oil and gas giant TotalEnergies has been given six months by a court to publish a more robust climate plan Read more
• Jun 29, 2026 Comment We need no-go mining zones for the energy transition to be just: Here’s how it could work As rising demand for critical minerals is compounding threats to fragile ecosystems, NGOs have mapped out areas that should be off-limits to mining Read more

Anders Haug Larsen, advocacy director for the Rainforest Foundation Norway, was also disappointed at the lack of a British pledge during London Climate Action Week (LCAW).

The UK government’s money and its power to mobilise private sector investment are crucial to the TFFF’s success, he said, adding that “saving tropical rainforest is a key component in solving climate change and preserving life on this planet”.

Political divisions?

British newspaper The Times later reported that White’s boss – energy and climate minister Ed Miliband – had been poised to announce a £400-million ($528m) investment pledge to the TFFF but had been opposed by UK finance minister Rachel Reeves.

According to The Times, Reeves was concerned an announcement would be unpopular, as the government was being criticised by its former defence minister for not spending enough on the military, and had pushed for the announcement to be shelved.

Climate Home News understands, however, that the UK Treasury had given the climate ministry approval to tell Brazil and Norway it would invest in the TFFF, but the administrative procedures needed to make the pledge had not been completed in time to announce a contribution during LCAW.

Rachel Reeves (left), Keir Starmer (centre) and Ed Milliband (right) tour a beverage company facility on October 4, 2024 (Photo: Simon Dawson/Number 10)

The UK has been cutting the amount it spends on foreign aid, including on climate projects, in order to deliver what its foreign minister called “the biggest increase in defence spending since the Cold War”.

Projects affected include rainforest protection schemes like the Congo Basin Forest Action Programme, which has had its budget slashed by nearly 80%.

Despite these moves to shrink overseas assistance, defence secretary John Healey resigned a few weeks ago, calling for even more spending for his department.

Last Monday, the first day of LCAW, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced he would soon resign following bad local election results, with his fellow Labour parliamentarian Andy Burnham highly likely to replace him by the end of July. Reeves is looks set to be replaced as finance minister, with Miliband reportedly a leading candidate to succeed her.

Norwegian test looms

If the UK does not invest in the TFFF by the end of the year, along with other government donors, the initiative’s chances of reversing the destruction of tropical forests will be diminished, experts say.

With the US under Donald Trump unlikely to pledge and the two biggest European Union nations France and Germany already having done so, forest campaigners were hoping that the UK could fill some of the roughly $3.2 billion in new pledges needed to meet the minimum goal set by Norway.

Asked by Climate Home News if France would increase its $0.6 billion pledge, its minister for international partnerships Eleonore Caroit said last week, “I don’t have any specific information of any increase.” She added that France supports the TFFF but is also “focusing on other similar projects to achieve the same results”.

The Brazilian finance ministry has courted investments into the fund from Japan, South Korea and China. Last Friday, Brazilian finance minister Dario Durigan met Chinese finance minister Lan Fo’an and afterwards told Valor Econômico that he had raised the possibility of an investment in the TFFF.

“I think today, for the first time, China gave a stronger, firmer indication that it understands the TFFF model and is comfortable with it,” Durigan was quoted as saying. “There has been a positive signal,” he added. “Now we will work with his team to turn that into concrete commitments.”

Larsen of the Rainforest Foundation Norway said there is also hope that Middle Eastern countries, more European nations and the European Union could contribute. The UAE has expressed interest in the fund, and has provided technical assistance for its development.

Consolidating the fund

João Paulo de Resende, TFFF leader at Brazil’s Ministry of Finance, told Climate Home News that Brazil’s priority for 2026, as co-chairs of the fund with Norway, is to consolidate its governing structure. This includes developing an operations manual, a Facility charter and a secretariat hosted at the World Bank.

“The transition from a Brazil-led proposal to a shared international platform is already well underway and is reflected in the initiative’s governance structure and growing coalition of supporters,” he said, adding that the focus is now on building “collective leadership” that can last in the long term.

One the financing side, he said Brazil will “continue engaging bilaterally with sponsor countries” to help reach the $10 billion target by the end of 2026.

Following a recent investor retreat in Rotterdam attended by government officials and private investors, a group of 12 financial institutions – including UK-based Ashmore Group and Dutch firm Robeco – endorsed the fund as an “opportunity to support the protection of up to a billion hectares of tropical forests”.

They added that the fund’s seed capital from governments is “building momentum” and that the TFFF has put in place a “robust institutional governance” that can deliver results in the long term.

Economic value for standing forests

Details of how the TFFF will work are being finalised in an attempt to encourage investment.

Earlier this month, it was announced that its investment arm (the Tropical Forest Investment Fund – TFIF) would be based in Luxembourg. The European financial hub said it will provide €50 million ($57m) to the TFIF through its Climate and Energy Fund between 2026 and 2030, after which it will “maintain a long-term annual contribution”.

The Norwegian government has tasked a veteran of its sovereign wealth fund, Knut N. Kjaer, with reviewing the TFFF’s financial model.

At Kew Gardens last week, the head of the Brazilian forest service Garo Batmanian said the TFFF and other measures are needed so that standing forests are economically valued and therefore protected.

“There is no chainsaw-wielding maniac out there cutting down trees out of pleasure,” he said. “He’s cutting down trees because he thinks he can get more money using the land for something else, so it’s not only about stopping deforestation but also promoting that the standing forest has value.”

This story was edited to add comments by João Paulo de Resende

The post Tropical forest protection fund at risk after UK stalls on pledge appeared first on Climate Home News.

Off the eastern coast of Italy, large numbers of bottlenose dolphins are looking to fishing trawlers as a source of food, a sign that dolphins may be struggling to feed themselves in waters depleted by overfishing.

Read more on E360 →

In Guatemala’s southwest region lies a large lake with a storied history.

Lake Atitlán is one of Central America’s most critical local sources of drinking water, and is surrounded by volcanoes, a thriving tourism industry and an ancient Mayan culture. The Sololá region has long been home to Indigenous communities who have been attracted to its fertile land and pristine natural resources. 

But in recent years, this site of natural beauty in Guatemala’s highlands has had to contend with the growing impacts of the climate and nature crises. Climate change is disrupting the rain cycle and significant areas of land show signs of erosion and loss of soil fertility. These changes are threatening crop production and pushing local people into food insecurity. 

Elena Wason, co-executive director at Natün, a local non-profit supporting Indigenous people, told Climate Home News that community leaders have “identified deforestation and the effects of climate change in their communities as among their greatest concerns”. Forest cover declined by an estimated 12% in the past two years alone.

Women are often the social group most exposed to these changes and Natün has focused its efforts on reviving Indigenous agriculture techniques in a bid to improve climate resilience and empower female farmers.

How to fight drought

The impacts of climate change on Indigenous communities can often lead to further environmental damage as farmers are forced to rely on unsustainable practices, such as cutting down trees to clear more land. This can accelerate water scarcity, soil erosion and ultimately food insecurity. 

Giving nature breathing room builds climate resilience

An ongoing adaptation project led by Natün has sought to reverse these impacts, working with local people to combine modern climate-smart agriculture and ancestral knowledge. The approach involves the use of drought-resistant crops, organic pest management and soil conservation techniques. This is increasingly recognised as an effective way to strengthen climate resilience. 

“Our approach is based on soil analysis and the use of locally resilient, endemic tree species, significantly increasing survival rates and ensuring sustainable water availability despite changing rainfall patterns,” Wason explained.

A farmer in one of the small family food gardens growing nutrient-rich crops. Image: Natün A farmer in one of the small family food gardens growing nutrient-rich crops. Image: Natün

A US$170,000 grant from the Adaptation Fund-UNDP innovation platform (through the AFCIA programme) also allowed it to scale. For example, Natün established over 300 family food gardens – small spaces with shared resources that focus on growing nutrient-rich crops.

The project was built for the long-term by embedding innovation within Indigenous knowledge systems, organic farming and Mayan land stewardship rather than imposing external solutions. In this way, it ensures that communities remain the architects of their own resilience. Diversified revenue streams, including carbon credits and replicable learning kits, further support its longevity.

Nearly all of the typical Mayan gardens are managed by women, with the project training up to 30 women in climate-resilient practices, such as seed bank management. The approach has paid dividends by bolstering local food security and providing almost 19,000 people with sustainable food sources.

Young South Africans take up sustainable agriculture for food security

“The project uses locally led innovation by helping to restore sustainable Indigenous Mayan practices, while empowering vulnerable communities and women to build resilience and adapt to climate change and bolster food security,” said Mikko Ollikainen, head of the Adaptation Fund. 

“Community-led approaches like these can have profound positive impacts on the directly affected communities and beyond by creating practical scalable solutions,” he added.

Growing incomes

The programme was expanded in 2025 with the creation of over 260 small poultry farms, further diversifying family incomes. The early results have been positive: two-thirds of families with both a garden and poultry now have surplus produce and incomes that have grown by an estimated $61 per month.

“These impacts especially benefit women, who not only make up 75% of programme participants and have taken leadership roles in managing community gardens, but also generally take on the responsibility of providing nutritious food for their families,” said Wason. 

The project follows an earlier $5.4 million activity in Guatemala, also funded by the Adaptation Fund, that focused on honey bee production, forest conservation and ancestral knowledge across Suchitepéquez and Sololá. The aim was to empower vulnerable communities and Indigenous populations to adapt to floods and landslides, while enhancing diverse production landscapes and livelihoods. 

Advancing women’s rights and empowerment in climate adaptation

That project resulted in 6,093 hectares under forest management and conservation, nearly 1,500 beehives in operation, and 328 family gardens with the purpose of helping women adapt. Utilising such ancestral practices have helped to increase agricultural resilience in the Nahualate River basin, benefiting some 1,125 people.

Indigenous farmers in the Lake Atitlán region. Image: Natün Indigenous farmers in the Lake Atitlán region. Image: Natün Enduring benefits

The long-term benefits of the Lake Atitlán project will be in providing communities, especially women, with practical tools to respond to the environmental challenges of drought, storms and deforestation in the Sololá region. These challenges are becoming more pronounced as the climate becomes more extreme and unpredictable.

Guatemala is ranked among the most exposed countries to climate risk. The World Bank estimates that up to 83% of its GDP is generated in areas prone to disasters. As such, it is not only the people around Lake Atitlán who stand to benefit from sustainable farming techniques.

The Natün project is easily replicable by harnessing local knowledge and offering a practical model that can be adapted across Indigenous communities facing similar climate pressures. In a country with an Indigenous population of over 6 million people, this approach will be of importance to many other communities as they face similar existential crises in a warming world.

Adam Wentworth is a freelance journalist based in Brighton, UK.

The post In Guatemala, Indigenous women build climate resilience with old and new farming methods appeared first on Climate Home News.

The World Bank has scrapped its headline climate finance target under pressure from the Trump administration, but experts believe the survival of its wider climate programme should preserve support for clean energy and resilience in developing nations.

Following tense negotiations between its government shareholders, the global lender announced this week it would extend its Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) while “retiring” its commitment to direct 45% of its financing to projects with climate benefits – a target it has already met.

“It could have been a lot worse,” said Danny Scull, a senior policy advisor at think-tank E3G. “I would have loved to see the most ambitious outcome possible, but it is far less likely we’ll see a scenario where the bank all of a sudden reverses its current trajectory and starts delivering less on climate,” he added. 

• Jun 26, 2026 Comment Climate adaptation in Africa needs investment, not imported solutions Across Africa, communities have implemented vital climate adaptation measures – but these need investment to scale Read more
• Jun 30, 2026 Comment With extreme heat now a public health crisis, local data can save lives The impacts of extreme heat vary widely across countries and cities, and approaches tailored using data can target solutions at vulnerable groups Read more

Introduced in 2021, the CCAP has been credited with overhauling the World Bank’s approach to climate finance after years of criticism over the development finance institution’s lukewarm support for cutting planet-heating emissions and building resilience to extreme weather and rising seas.

Since the CCAP began, the World Bank’s climate finance nearly doubled to $39.2 billion in 2025, with 48% of its financing showing climate “co-benefits” and exceeding the target first set at COP28. 

US attack partially rebuffed

With the CCAP due to lapse at the end of June, the US – the World Bank’s largest shareholder – mounted a campaign for the lender to axe the programme entirely. Last April, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent publicly welcomed the plan’s upcoming expiration, urging the bank to “shift its myopic focus on climate” and abandon its “distortionary” 45% climate finance target. 

But Washington was left increasingly isolated during protracted negotiations in recent months as both European governments and a wide-ranging coalition of developing countries held firm on the plan’s extension, sources with knowledge of the discussions told Climate Home News.

In May, executive directors representing a bloc of nearly 100 countries, including China, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Russia, sent a letter to the World Bank’s board requesting the CCAP be extended and calling for an independent review of the programme.

While the US had previously seemed unwilling to compromise with its European counterparts, that intervention got it to “back off from its most extreme positions”, E3G’s Scull said.

Focus on “outcomes”

In its statement on Monday, the World Bank Group said it would place less weight on the amount of money flowing into projects with climate benefits and shift its focus to “outcomes”, including indicators such as greenhouse gas emissions avoided and the number of people better shielded from climate risks.

The UK’s international development minister, Jenny Chapman, said in a post on LinkedIn this week that the extension of the CCAP is “a critical step forward”, adding that the stronger emphasis on results “is essential to ensure maximum impact, and the UK will hold the Bank to account to ensure delivery”.

Despite ditching its headline goal, the international lender is still expected to keep counting the volumes of climate finance for the vast majority of its activities. That’s because the individual entities belonging to the group continue to have their own climate targets embedded in their current mandates. 

World Bank climate funding greens African hotels while fishermen sink

For example, the International Development Association (IDA), which supports the world’s poorest nations, has committed to providing 45% of its funding to climate-related activities until 2028. And its larger lending arm, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), should keep aiming for 30% of its financing to have climate benefits. 

Joe Thwaites, a climate finance expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), said these targets “can be a backstop against the bottom falling out”. “Client countries are emphasising that they want to see more investments in clean energy and resilience,” he added. 

No major change expected

The World Bank’s provision of climate finance is also crucial for wealthy countries’ efforts to meet a commitment to provide $300 billion a year for developing countries by 2035 under the new UN climate goal agreed at COP29 in 2024. 

That year, multilateral development banks (MDBs) accounted for around half of all climate finance provided by developed countries under the previous $100-billion-a-year goal, according to calculations by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 

UK development minister Chapman said this week that the bank “must continue to meet the expectations of the wider international community, including those set out at COP29”. There, MDBs said that by 2030, their annual joint climate financing for low- and middle-income countries would reach an estimated $120 billion.

Fractious COP29 lands $300bn climate finance goal, dashing hopes of the poorest

Rajneesh Bhuee, just transition lead at campaign group Recourse, said it was a “blow” that the World Bank’s headline target had been dropped, but she doesn’t expect to see climate financing reducing – at least in the short term. 

“This is the [bank] management’s way of alleviating pressure from the US and ensuring they can have some sort of calm internally,” she told Climate Home News.

Thwaites said shareholder countries should hold the bank’s leadership accountable for delivering what countries have “agreed and need” on climate action.

“If World Bank climate finance does start to fall, donors should focus their support on other international financial institutions that continue to prioritise climate,” he added.

IMF also steps back from climate focus

Regional development banks outside of the Americas may be under less pressure to water down their climate mission. But the World Bank’s sister institution – the International Monetary Fund (IMF) – has seen its enthusiasm for climate action ebb, according to a report released in June by its official watchdog, the Independent Evaluation Office.

The report said that in 2021, the fund placed great emphasis on tackling climate change, as shown by its flagship climate strategy published that year and the establishment of the Resilience and Security Trust in 2022.

But in the last year or so, it found “decreasing emphasis on climate-related issues” which coincided with IMF cost-cutting, “emerging geopolitical challenges” and reduced support for climate action from some unnamed IMF member countries.

Last year, US finance minister Bessent accused the IMF of “mission creep”, accusing it of spending too much time on climate action, gender and social issues. 

As Nigeria rails at loss and damage “mirage”, fund boss assures money is coming

The evaluation report found that the focus on climate change among the IMF’s management and executive board has weakened, and its flagship reports have not included any climate-related chapters since 2023. IMF head Kristalina Georgieva and other managers mentioned climate-related terms in speeches and statements to the board far less in 2025 than the preceding years, it noted. 

While most of the nearly 700 IMF’s staff surveyed welcomed the swing away from climate work, others bemoaned it and felt “self censored” when working to promote awareness of the risks of climate change to the global economy – which the IMF is tasked with protecting.

The post World Bank’s climate work can endure without finance target, experts say appeared first on Climate Home News.

What’s a winemaker to do on a warming planet? Much has been written about how climate change threatens viticulture around the globe — or at least, threatens to fundamentally change the practice. A long-lasting drought in Chile is forcing winemakers to rethink irrigation systems. Vintners in California must not only endure wildfires but also the smoke that comes with them and lingers, which can alter the taste of their grapes. Severe frosts in the Champagne region of France are also altering the acidity and flavor profile of vineyards’ grapes, although some growers are starting to lean into that. 

A new study out of Cornell University looks at three techniques that winegrape producers can use to adapt to warmer temperatures, ranging from relatively simple and inexpensive to potentially existential: Install shade cloth to shield precious grapes from the harsh effects of the sun; grow new varieties of grapes better adapted to the heat; or relocate to cooler climates. The researchers found that, for all three cases, when these changes are communicated to shoppers, consumers are willing to pay a premium for these climate-resilient wines — even if it means some of the name-brand recognition of, say, California’s Napa Valley is lost in the process. 

The idea behind the market study was both to help growers understand the climate adaptation strategies available to them, the costs associated with these decisions, and then finally, how consumers perceive them. 

“A producer can make all the changes in the world — but if they don’t resonate well with consumers, then it’s moot,” said Alex Susskind, one of the study’s co-authors and a professor of food and beverage management at Cornell University’s school of hotel administration. 

The challenge with the three strategies identified by the researchers — invest in new infrastructure, invest in new grapes, or get up and move — is that only two of them might be immediately obvious to consumers. If a vineyard in California installs shade cloths throughout its estate to protect grapes from sunburn, most shoppers would have no idea, unless it was somehow explicitly stated on the finished product, like on the wine label. 

On the other hand, if a producer in Napa Valley known for cultivating Cabernet Sauvignon grapes switched to its focus to Carignane grapes — or if that same grower relocated to Lake County, just an hour or two north — consumers would likely notice. In the third option, for example, those grapes don’t end up producing a bottle of “Napa Valley Cabernet anymore, that’s a Lake County Cabernet,” said Susskind. 

In other words, the touchpoints that guide many consumers’ choices — what winemaking region a bottle is from, what grape variety they use — change. Of all the options available to winegrape producers, Susskind said, relocating showed the “least desirability” among survey participants, meaning they were least willing to pay more for these wines. But crucially, respondents still said they would pay extra for wines made from these grapes. 

Read Next Indigenous cultural practices are a climate solution, report finds Joseph Lee

There are limits to the study. For one, it only considers adaptation strategies for winegrape growers and doesn’t explore climate mitigation strategies, which would help growers to decarbonize production and have an overall lighter impact on the climate. Additionally, only 300 participants answered the survey, most of them college graduates under 40 years of age. Included in the survey respondents were people who reported to “care about environmental issues and read labels on food products,” according to the study — two things not everyone does, or does every time they go shopping. And the researchers acknowledged that there may be a novelty factor at play here — over time, wine-drinkers’ willingness to pay more for these bottles may fade. 

Still, people in the industry feel that the results are promising. “This is genuinely valuable work,” said Jimena Balic, a winemaking researcher based in Chile. “The economics of climate adaptation in wine are badly under-documented, and putting real numbers to ‘go, stay, or change’ plus the finding that consumers will pay a premium for adaptation, is exactly the kind of evidence growers need.”

Balic believes that winegrowers are not likely to invest in any adaptation strategies unless they are likely to pay off. She added that for winegrape producers, adaptation is more likely to be implemented in a more piecemeal way rather than wholesale. Maybe producers plant different varieties of grapes in one part of their land and install shade cloth in another to maximize output. And heat isn’t the only climate threat facing vineyards: While some regions may face drought, others might see unpredictable rainfall, as well as hail, frost, and pests. “Wine risk is multifactorial,” said Balic, “and each hazard carries its own cost and its own adaptation choices.” She would like to see further research expand on these challenges. 

Similarly, the results of the study didn’t surprise Greg Jones, a wine climatologist and CEO of a winery based in Oregon. “But there’s so many other caveats,” he added. From his point of view, much depends on educating the consumer around the viticultural process and how wine gets made — and then doing more education around how climate change is affecting growers. Whether consumers can perfectly hold all of those things in their mind is something the industry is still figuring out. 

“We have a system where the consumer is hard to read,” he said. 

Jones, who has spent the last 25 years studying the impacts of a changing climate on winegrape production, among other things, said he felt encouraged by the Cornell team’s research. “The research says something important, people would be willing to pay more for [these wines],” he added. He hopes it will lead to further studies on adaptation and consumer preference. 

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline People are willing to pay more for climate-proof wine, study shows on Jul 2, 2026.

Forty years after the world’s worst man-made disaster at the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant, Belarus is aggressively expanding its nuclear ambitions, declaring its readiness to build a second plant. This effort is bankrolled and managed by Russia, which has already financed two reactors in Ostrovets and is now planning a third. But how did the nation that suffered most from the Chornobyl catastrophe come to embrace the “peaceful atom”, and why have anti-nuclear activists been unable to halt this trajectory?

The explosion at Chornobyl on 26 April 1986 left Belarus as the primary “target” of the radioactive plume. Due to prevailing winds in the disaster’s immediate aftermath, approximately 35 per cent of all caesium-137 fallout in Europe landed on Belarusian soil, despite the plant being located in Ukraine. 

The radiation forced the evacuation of 470 villages and towns. Some were literally buried – homes and farmstead buildings bulldozed into the earth to contain high doses of radiation. Estimates suggest that between 140,000 and 300,000 Belarusians left their homes forever; some fled voluntarily, while others were forcibly relocated by the state. 

Belarus was also forced to withdraw 2,640 square kilometres of agricultural land from use – an area larger than the territory of Luxembourg. Radiation contaminated over 20 per cent of the country’s farmland, permanently altering the economic structure of what was once a predominantly agrarian nation. A quarter of Belarusian forests absorbed dangerous radionuclides like a sponge, making the gathering of berries, mushrooms, and the use of firewood hazardous even four decades later. 

In the first decade following the disaster, Belarus faced an unprecedented surge in thyroid cancer, particularly in the Gomel and Brest regions. Cases among children skyrocketed tenfold – a direct consequence of the “iodine shock” caused by Soviet authorities concealing the disaster while people celebrated May Day outdoors. 

Nowadays, official data suggests that one in ten Belarusians – including 180,000 children – still lives in radioactive contamination zones. Their bodies are exposed daily to low doses of radiation through local food and the environment. 

Meanwhile, state propaganda has begun to “forget” Chornobyl, framing its consequences as a historical event that has been successfully overcome. Assistance programs have been curtailed, and benefits for “liquidators” (recovery workers) have been revoked. Today, Belarus is ploughing land once deemed contaminated, grazing livestock on it, and harvesting timber from radioactive forests for export. Official health statistics no longer link thyroid disease or oncology to the 1986 disaster. Belarusians are being told that radiation is no longer a threat – and may even be beneficial. Yet warnings can still be found between the lines of specialised journals, which, for instance, continue to advise fishermen on how to cook fish that may contain caesium-137. 

The Kremlin’s geopolitical leash  

Despite the collective trauma of Chornobyl, President Alexander Lukashenko decided to build Belarus’s first nuclear power plant in 2008. The regime marketed it as a cutting-edge, safe project that would grant Belarus energy independence and cheap electricity. 

Defying expectations, the site chosen for the nuclear power plant was not in the already contaminated zones, but Ostrovets, a pristine area near the border with Lithuania (an EU and NATO member). On clear days, the cooling towers of the Belarusian NPP (BelNPP) in Ostrovets are visible from Gediminas Hill in Vilnius. 

Lacking the technology and capital to complete the project independently, Lukashenko turned to Russia for a 10-billion-dollar loan. Predictably, the Russian state nuclear enterprise Rosatom became the general contractor. The construction was plagued by scandals: the first reactor vessel was dropped during installation, and the second was damaged during rail transport. Nevertheless, the plant was inaugurated in November 2020, timed to coincide with the anniversary of the October Revolution in typical Soviet fashion. 

At the ceremony, Lukashenko remarked: “A little time will pass, and we will fully realise what a feat we have accomplished with the support of our elder brothers… I’m only half-joking when I say that since we’ve learned how, we should build a second plant.” 

However, the following years were marked by technical failures and unscheduled shutdowns. Six years after its launch, experts note that the plant has failed to deliver cheaper energy; in fact, electricity prices in Belarus have risen. Furthermore, the country now faces the massive expense of building its own spent nuclear fuel storage. 

The structural mismatch in Belarus’s energy strategy became painfully clear in 2024. According to the energy ministry, fully absorbing the output of just two nuclear units would require an annual demand surge of 18.5 billion kWh. However, with domestic consumption growing by a mere 6 billion kWh over the last five years, the project has become a white elephant. To make BelNPP economically viable, the country would need to consume in a single year what the plant has cumulatively generated over the past five. 

As a result, Belarus has effectively been placed on a 10-billion-dollar geopolitical leash. “Energy is the backbone of the economy, and in this, we are dependent on Russia,” notes Irina Sukhiy, an anti-nuclear activist and expert with the Green Belarus Alliance, which brings together Belarusian NGOs, experts, local communities, and activists. “If our eastern neighbours choose, they can cut off gas or stop supplying nuclear fuel.” 

Vanishing hopes for еxport 

In February 2025, the three Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia) officially decoupled from the BRELL grid (connecting Belarus, Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) and began dismantling infrastructure on their borders with Belarus and with Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave. 

“We no longer have ties with Russia and Belarus; the energy system is in our hands,” declared Lithuanian Energy Minister Žygimantas Vaičiūnas. This synchronisation with continental Europe, accelerated by Russia’s war in Ukraine, dealt a serious blow to Minsk’s export ambitions. Lithuania, once the primary hub for Belarusian electricity, has not only closed its borders but also legally banned the purchase of energy from Ostrovets. 

A year before, Lithuania’s nuclear power safety regulator, VATESI, had issued a formal demand to the Belarusian Ministry of Emergency Situations, insisting that the BelNPP halt operations until all outstanding safety concerns are fully addressed. VATESI underscored that since the project’s inception, Minsk has prioritised rapid construction and commissioning over rigorous quality control – a particularly alarming strategy for a facility located a mere 40 kilometres from the Lithuanian capital. “This irresponsible approach is increasingly manifested in frequent unplanned shutdowns and power fluctuations,” the regulator noted, suggesting that such systemic instabilities were likely overlooked or ignored during the critical construction and installation phases. 

Beyond technical failures, VATESI accused the Belarusian regime of systemic opacity. The regulator claimed that Minsk consistently conceals critical data regarding BelNPP’s unstable performance, emergency scrams, and protracted maintenance periods. Rather than accepting vague official explanations, the Lithuanian authorities are now demanding full disclosure on radionuclide emission limits, the publication of all international expert mission recommendations, and transparent reports on their implementation. Such data, the regulator insists, is indispensable for the accurate modelling and forecasting of potential radioactive releases in the event of a major accident. 

Meanwhile, Minsk shows no signs of slowing its nuclear expansion. Following the 2023 commissioning of the second unit at the Ostrovets plant, the regime signalled a further push in 2025 with plans for a third reactor. According to Energy Minister Denis Moroz, this new unit is slated for operation between 2035 and 2038. This trajectory has drawn a sharp rebuke from Vilnius. Lithuanian presidential adviser Deividas Matulionis said that the third unit represents a qualitative leap in the regional threat level. He warned that, while the first two reactors were already a source of deep concern, a further expansion would pose an even more formidable security challenge. 

According to Evgeny Makarchuk, an energy security specialist at the International Strategic Action Network for Security, this stance has deprived Belarus of access to the Nord Pool power exchange market. Under different political conditions, Belarus could export up to 2.1 billion kWh per year, generating revenue of 230 million euros. Instead, the BelNPP generates a huge surplus of electricity with nowhere to sell. Ukraine is closed due to the war, and Poland maintains a strict sanctions regime. While this surplus could theoretically flow eastward, Russia itself suffers from excess capacity and has no need for Belarusian kilowatts at market prices.  

“Strategic isolation has effectively turned Belarus into an energy island,” notes Sukhiy. The Ostrovets plant was originally conceived as a profitable route to Western markets, but the collapse of the BRELL network has turned it into a structural dead end. Instead of a bridge to Europe, the plant now functions as an isolated asset, operating solely within the Kremlin’s broader energy and political manoeuvres. 

Tightening control 

Technical incidents at the Ostrovets plant have sparked concern in Europe about whether Minsk has learned the lessons of Chernobyl. The regime’s secrecy and the lack of independent monitoring only exacerbate the atmosphere of persistent mistrust between Belarus and its neighbours. 

The tension further increased at the end of 2025, when the Russian defence ministry announced the deployment of the nuclear-capable hypersonic Oreshnik missile system in Belarus. Lukashenko presented the move as a means to ensure Belarus’s security.  

According to Lithuania’s national security threat assessment, the BelNPP has now become the central element of the regional threat. By deploying the Oreshnik missile system and tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, the Kremlin has effectively blurred the lines between civilian energy production and aggressive military strategy. Lithuanian intelligence emphasises that the persistent lack of transparency regarding the plant’s operations and the proposed expansion of the facility are being used as psychological leverage against Vilnius. 

Beyond the safety concerns, officials view Russia’s state-owned giant, Rosatom, as a tool of geopolitical influence.  

Belarus has effectively been placed on a 10-billion-dollar geopolitical leash.

The (r)evolution that never happened 

Today, the BelNPP has become a monument to Belarus’s authoritarian regime. Dmitry Kuchuk, an environmental policy advisor to exiled opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, believes this is a problem the future must solve. “You can’t just flip a switch and close it immediately. We will need a serious audit of the plant’s condition and safety before deciding its fate,” he says. As the former head of the Belarusian Green Party, Kuchuk personally advocates for the plant’s closure: “The sooner the better for the budget and the country’s development”. 

However, the Belarusian government has turned a deaf ear to the warnings of experts and environmental activists. “Belarusians are categorically opposed to nuclear power, and it must be understood that the decision to build the NPP was made by Lukashenko alone. He ignored even his own Academy of Sciences, whose experts argued that the country simply did not need such a plant and that existing capacities were sufficient,” says Kuchuk. 

Belarusian authorities did initially signal a pivot towards renewable energy development. In 2010, the country passed a law on renewable energy sources (RES), which aimed to incentivise producers and provide tax breaks. However, the subsequent pivot toward nuclear energy effectively brought the development of renewables to a standstill.  

In 2018, a study titled “Energy [r]evolution”, supported by the Heinrich Böll Foundation, showed that Belarus had the potential to reach 92 per cent renewable energy by 2050. The report examined two distinct scenarios. The first was based on existing state strategies, which prioritised natural gas and the expansion of nuclear power. The second was a “revolutionary” scenario focused on the aggressive development of solar and wind energy. “Our research demonstrated that Belarus possesses enough potential to transition to 92 per cent renewable energy by 2050. And that was based on technology available back in 2018,” says Sukhiy from the Green Belarus Alliance. “Naturally, such a transition requires significant upfront investment. However, these calculations show that, in the long term, this path is more economically viable than the scenario chosen by the state.” 

It is symbolic that Belarus’s first wind turbine – a 250-kilowatt Nordex unit standing 50 meters tall – appeared in 2000 as part of a project to assist those resettled from the Chernobyl zone. It was installed near the village of Stakhoutsy, close to Lake Narach in the country’s most pristine region. By road, it stands just 60 kilometres from the BelNPP – and even closer as the crow flies. 

Path to a green future 

Belarusian civil society, now largely operating from abroad, is rethinking national and regional security through the prism of energy. “It’s impossible to build a free state if its ‘energy heart’ runs on foreign fuel, is serviced by foreign specialists, and is burdened with foreign debt,” proclaims Sukhiy. 

“By creating a vision of a green Belarus and working on a green transition, we are laying the foundation for Belarus’s independence, reducing its critical dependence on Russian energy resources, and ensuring that Belarus becomes a modern country rather than remaining stuck in the past,” she adds.  

Central and Eastern Europe’s post-communist history suggests that during any democratic transition, Moscow might attempt to crush reforms by “turning off the tap”. In 2006, after the “Orange Revolution” brought a pro-Western government to power in Ukraine, tensions between Moscow and Kyiv escalated. Russia’s Gazprom cut off gas supplies to Ukraine following a dispute over pricing and debt. Another incident occurred in 2009, when Russia stopped all gas flows through Ukraine to Europe.  

In Moldova, after pro-European forces came to power in 2020-2021, Russia sharply increased gas prices, forcing Chișinău to seek new suppliers, including those in Romania and other EU countries. This crisis was a clear instrument of political pressure. 

However, according to energy security expert Makarchuk, “this does not mean that the future is predetermined. Crises occur where there is a lack of preparedness. If we start acting now, the consequences can be mitigated, and disasters for the people and the economy can be avoided.” 

To achieve this, Belarus will have to make a series of critical strategic decisions in the very first hours of its genuine independence from the Kremlin. The diversification of the energy market and a departure from total reliance on Russian energy sources must become a prerequisite for any future democratic transition. 

“Technically, I see opportunities to completely break our dependence on Russia. We have our own oil refineries capable of processing up to 24 million tons of oil, while our domestic market requires only six million tons. We have assessed our oil import capacity: approximately 1.5 million tons can be obtained from Lithuania and about two million from Poland. All of this can be processed to produce gasoline, diesel fuel, and fuel oil. Furthermore, crude oil and petroleum products can be imported by rail,” Makarchuk notes. 

Ultimately, securing Belarus’s sovereign future depends on sustained solidarity and strategic cooperation among its neighbours. This path cannot be taken in isolation; it requires coordinated regional efforts and strong support from the broader European community to transform Belarus’s energy independence from a national dream into a pillar of European security. 

This will be difficult, given that Belarus has sided with Russia, distancing itself from and alienating its neighbours. However, experts will not insist on a green transition for Belarus.“The assertion that Belarus cannot exist without Russian oil and gas is not entirely accurate. Yes, the stakes are high: in 2023, the gap between preferential prices for Russian gas and global market prices was 4.2 billion dollars. However, with sound policy, careful preparation, and supply diversification, the crisis can be overcome. It need not be a catastrophe for the Belarusian people,” Makarchuk adds. 

As for the Ostrovets power plant, experts agree that its presence during Belarus’s transformation will help balance the country’s energy system. However, in the long term, Belarus can meet its energy needs without the plant, especially given the country’s strong potential to develop renewable energy sources. Whether the political will for such a major change exists, however, is another question.  

They tower overhead and sway in the wind and often teem with squawking birds, yet trees are easy to ignore. Urbanites rush by them without noticing, and without appreciating all the work they do: Trees reduce temperatures, mitigate flooding, and provide habitat for animals. 

City leaders are no exception to this oversight. As mayors around the world pledge to reduce municipal greenhouse gas emissions, they’re missing the literal low-hanging fruit of bolstering urban forests, dozens of scientists argue in a new essay. “We have to elevate it from something that is nice to have to something that we require — like, mandatory,” said Manuel Esperon-Rodriguez, an ecologist at Bangor University in the United Kingdom and lead author of the piece, which published today in the journal PLOS Climate. “In the same way that we treat education, security, transportation, it has to be elevated to that level.”

What makes urban forestry so important? For one, trees significantly cool the concrete jungle by providing shade and releasing water vapor to “sweat.” Patches of greenery also allow stormwater to soak into the ground instead of pooling and flooding — that investment alone will spare cities from economic damages as a warming atmosphere makes rain fall harder. Spending time in parks also boosts mental health, while urban farms produce nutritious food and create jobs. Planting trees, especially native species, also provides shelter and food for fauna. At the same time, vegetation absorbs pollutants, improving air quality for everyone.

These scientists have laid out a four-point approach to funding, raising, and maintaining urban forests. This, by the way, includes individual trees on sidewalks, parks, and woodlands in cities. But it’s really about all the vegetation — not just trees but shrubs as well — within the city limits, whether that’s in someone’s backyard or growing in a street median.

The first hurdle is investing in this stuff. Urban forestry isn’t just about buying a bunch of trees and hiring people to put them in the ground. It takes resources to maintain them, especially when they’re newly planted and not yet established, and therefore more vulnerable to stresses like pests. Money can (and does) come from private funders, but that cash isn’t always a guarantee. So city governments should be setting aside money for these green spaces, the researchers argue. “We say that it has to be critical infrastructure, because then we need a special budget dedicated just to them,” Esperon-Rodriguez said. 

Read Next The delight — and power — of your neighborhood’s unplanned green spaces Matt Simon

Even for cash-strapped governments, this is an investment proven to bring dividends: A recent report found that for every dollar put into parks and recreation, cities reap $3 in local economic benefits every year. That’s because green spaces encourage people to exercise, supporting public health and reducing the costs associated with sedentary lifestyles. By attracting locals and tourists, parks also spur economic activity as folks filter into surrounding neighborhoods to shop or have lunch. So while yes, it does take money to plant and maintain this greenery, it’s in a city’s best interests to do so.

Mayors must ensure that these domains blossom in an equitable way, the scientists add. Richer areas tend to be much greener, and therefore cooler, than underserved neighborhoods. People who can’t afford air conditioning are at higher risk of the urban heat island effect, or the tendency for the built environment to absorb the sun’s energy all day and release it throughout the night. “Then what’s the cost?” Esperon-Rodriguez asked. “They are missing opportunities, they are missing recreational activities. And if they don’t have air conditioning, then on top of that there is the issue of health.”

Officials can’t just roll into a neighborhood and plant trees, though — the essay argues that cities have to collaborate with their communities on strategies for doing so. Some folks might want more fruit trees, for instance, while others might object to cherries splatting on the sidewalk. Some might worry about their allergies, and request trees that don’t spew so much pollen. 

Esperon-Rodriguez adds that expanding the canopy across a metropolis, and doing so equitably, needs to be enshrined in some way. That is, it can’t just be a mayoral candidate’s promise to increase tree cover by 30 percent, but something that’s legislated. This is not only more durable over the years, and hopefully decades, but helps citizens hold elected officials accountable if they’re not meeting targets, Esperon-Rodriguez said.

Overall, these campaigns need to be evidence-based, the essay argues. Cities, for example, have to identify not just the tree species that communities prefer, but ones that will actually survive ever-climbing temperatures. It’s not just thinking about increasing the canopy in the near term to meet some goal, but making sure cities are more verdant and safer in the long run. “It’s a way to secure,” Esperon-Rodriguez said, “that whatever we’re planting today is going to survive the next 10, 20, or 50 years.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Urban trees aren’t just nice, scientists say — they’re mandatory on Jul 1, 2026.

Sugar giant faces court over deadly flood Channel News Catherine Early 1st July 2026 Teaser Media

What whale are we talking about this month?

Thanks for asking. This time we’re looking at Rice’s whale (Balaenoptera ricei), also sometimes referred to as the Gulf of Mexico whale.

Don’t you mean the “Gulf of America” whale?

Don’t get me started.

Why not? That would actually be pretty good branding.

You know, you’re kind of right. The Trump administration, which insists on calling the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America,” recently put a target on these rare, uniquely American whales’ backs by prioritizing oil and gas development in the Gulf of Whatever You Choose to Call It. A 15-minute, closed-door meeting of the rarely convened Endangered Species Committee — colloquially known as the “God Squad” for its ability to override the Endangered Species Act — was all it took to remove Rice’s whales’ protection in the name of “national security.”

Many conservationists fear this will push Rice’s whales to extinction.

That sucks. Are they really that rare?

Yup. No one knows exactly how many are left, but current estimates put the population at fewer than 100, probably closer to half of that. (The most commonly used number is 51.)

Geez, that really sucks. How’d their population get so low?

Well, for one thing, these whales were kind of hiding in plain sight, so no one prioritized their conservation. For many years they were (wrongly, it turned out) considered to be a subpopulation of Bryde’s whales (B. edeni), a species with a population so healthy that they were heavily hunted in the 20th century. It wasn’t until 2021 — just five years ago — that a study of the Gulf whales’ genetics and skeletal structures revealed them to be a different species.

Rice’s whale (formerly Bryde’s whale). Photo taken under NOAA research permit #779-1633. (NOAA)

That misidentification probably made it easier to overlook how many whales in this region died from ship collisions, oil pollution, entanglement in fishing gear, and other threats, including ocean noise (which they find particularly disturbing). Those same factors continue to threaten them today, while climate change poses a long-term threat to their prey and other potential factors within the Gulf.

That makes me sad. Tell me something cool about them to pull me out of my depression spiral.

We don’t know a lot about Rice’s whales, but what we do know is pretty cool. They’re a little over 40 feet long — that’s about the length of a city transit bus or as tall as a four-story building. Scientists have documented that they make some unique sounds that resemble long moans. They’re lifelong residents of the Gulf — unlike other species, who migrate — and spend a good chunk of their days hundreds of feet beneath the surface, where they find most of their food.

Speaking of which, they’re also baleen whales, meaning they use their “teeth” to filter out yummy silver-drag driftfish and other prey from the water.

Yeah, I got the “baleen” part from their taxonomic name.

You’re right, that was a dead giveaway. Not all baleen whales are from the genus Balaenoptera, but all Balaenoptera are baleen whales.

Go figure. So speaking of the name, what’s the deal with “Rice’s?”

That’s after whale scientist Dale W. Rice, who first recognized the Gulf whales as something different in 1965, although he didn’t have the genetic tools at the time to ID them as a unique species. (Visually, they’re almost identical to Bryde’s whales.)

Rice himself was an interesting scientist who conducted groundbreaking studies of whales, including 164 scientific publications covering multiple species.

Before that, though, he was part of the team that first banded Wisdom, the world-famous albatross, on Midway Atoll in 1956. That band (a little metal ring with a unique identification number, #Z333) allowed scientists to track her for decades — and boy, have they learned a lot. Wisdom has flown more than 3 million miles over the past 70 years and is still around and active today. In fact she’s the world’s oldest known wild bird, still laying eggs as of last year.

Wow, maybe she could teach Rice’s whales to be better breeders.

I’ll see if Duolingo offers classes in albatross and whale.

Leave the snark to me, dude. So, if I wanted to see one of these amazing animals, could I take, like, a whale-watching boat or something?

Not much chance of that, I’m afraid. Rice’s whales are so rare that even scientists don’t observe them very often.

That said, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has published an excellent guide on how to identify Rice’s whales, and if you do happen to spot one you can report your sightings by calling (877) WHALE-HELP. Every observation provides critical information that can help conserve this species.

Cool. So what else can your average Joe or Jolene do to help ensure Rice’s whales will always be out there?

Great question. The biggest priority is to stand up to the Trump administration’s push for more oil and gas development in the Gulf. Call your local representative to ask for renewed protections for these animals, post-haste. Our publisher, the Center for Biological Diversity, can help you do this by email, as can some other nonprofits.

Beyond that, a less direct but important step includes making sure any seafood you purchase from the Gulf is sustainable.

And, of course, you can make all manner of choices in your life that reduce your consumption of oil and gas. The more we push the transition to renewable energy, the less profitable it will be for the fossil-fuel industry to operate in the Gulf — or anywhere, for that matter. That’s the best possible scenario for Rice’s whales.

Cool. So is that it? What whale will we talk about next month?

Yup, that’s the skinny on Rice’s whales. I’m not sure about next month yet, but I’m thinking about diving into minke whales, a species that doesn’t get a heck of a lot of discussion. Of course you can always write to me at jplatt@therevelator.org to suggest your favorite whale.

Why would I do that when we’re talking about this right now?

Well, that’s really for everyone else out there, reading this.

Everyone else? Now I feel like someone’s eavesdropping on me.

Um … maybe it’s just a few ecologists studying your behavior.

Okay, that makes me feel better. I think.

Republish this article for free! Read our reprint policy. Previously in The Revelator:

Songs Whales Sing: The Peculiar History of Commercial Whaling

The post Whale of the Month: Rice’s Whale appeared first on The Revelator.

As residential batteries have become more energy dense, cheaper, and smaller, more households are storing their excess solar power. Now, utilities and energy companies in dozens of countries are buying up those electrons, bundling them together, and using them to balance the grid.

Read more on E360 →

It’s not easy being green — especially when you’re a scientist in an environmental field. Sometimes we’ve been at it for so long we lose sight of the many sympathetic folks and resources that surround us.

But there’s much we can do to find local, national, and international colleagues, and more importantly help the public understand the importance of what we do every day.

 

 

Dear Dr. Green,

I’ve been active in the environmental movement ever since high school. I’m a microbiologist studying the ability of bacteria and fungi to break down pollution. I also partner with organizations like Mossy Earth to restore degraded land. I’m seeing a lot of burnout and pessimism in environmentalist circles, but I’m really optimistic about humanity’s odds to beat climate change, habitat destruction, and our other problems. The scientific discoveries I make show me that nature is resilient. I can’t seem to convince anyone, though. My question is: How do people find hope again? Sometimes it feels like I’m carrying a torch in the dark all by my lonesome.

T.F.

Hello T.F.,

First, thank you for your service and dedication to environmentalism. We need people with the optimistic, whole-hearted commitment to our natural world more than ever. Your  optimism is invigorating and your work sounds fascinating and fulfilling.

Loneliness seems to be part of the package, too, but you don’t have to feel alone. Like the discoveries you’ve made about nature’s resilience, you need to nurture your own resilience and gather other environmentalists around you in a vibrant collective.

Let’s look at how we can get you more grounded with others who share your values and work ethic and how you can inspire hope in the process.

Start with yourself, then friends and colleagues, and expand from there.

Do you like to write about your ecological science work in language accessible to the public? That might be a great way to contribute to local and regional newspapers’ editorial sections; or contact the editors of regional media and suggest an environmental section if there isn’t one already. Such pieces can get people involved in local issues that affect their health and wealth.

Look for local events like farmers’ markets and monthly town celebrations where you might try having an informational table or booth and meet and greet. It may cost you a bit, but you can set out a donation jar to offset costs and get friends involved to help. The World Wildlife Fund has a great guide on how to host an information booth.

Next, reach out to your circle of professional contacts, groups and colleagues — even if you haven’t talked to them in ages. I’m not a fan of Facebook, but it can be a handy place to seek out old comrades and colleagues in your field, as can other social media platforms or LinkedIn. You mentioned your work with Mossy Earth; did you make connections there? Reach out and find where they are gathering with other environmental scientists. What are some other environmental circles you have worked or participated in?

Consider becoming an educator and mentor for younger folks interested in the work you do.

Young people — and really, anyone at any age — love learning about cool stuff like using bacteria and fungi to destroy pollutants. Mentor school kids: They might want to follow in your footsteps. Look for some public presentation opportunities at your local library, community and youth centers, the YMCA/YWCA, Rotary and other clubs (Lions Club, Elks, Veterans), local outdoors clubs — like hiking, gardening, surfing, boating — churches, schools (especially science classes), and community colleges and universities. These places are always looking for guest speakers or experts.

Develop a PowerPoint projected slideshow, handouts, and other educational materials. Again, a little out-of-pocket cost for screens, projectors, and your time is cheaper than feeling lonely or despairing.

In giving these talks, you’ll meet people and have a chance to enlighten them. Remember to speak in layman’s terms: Explain any concept in simple easy-to-understand language and don’t get in the weeds with overly academic or scientific terms. Focus on the enthusiasm you have for what you do, and the audience will be enthusiastic too.

People can rediscover hope when you show them good news about new  developments in environmental science.

Shine a light for everyday people who are not scientists, but who are eco-curious. Communicate to them what you and your colleagues are doing to save the environment, such as with Mossy Earth and other organizations and teams. Your rich experience and optimism will get people engaged.

Scientific achievements mean little to the public unless people in the sciences, like us, get out there and talk about what we’re doing.

Let our readers know how it’s going and ask more questions about the dissemination of scientific work to the public. We want to know how you move forward with this!

See you next time!

Cheers, my friend

Dr. Green

What are you struggling with as a dedicated environmentalist and global citizen? Let us know by sending your questions and success stories in the text box below.

All participants are anonymous. Even Dr. Green has no idea who you are.

Send Dr. Green your questions and stories below:

All questions are considered intended for publication; published questions will be kept anonymous. Individual replies are not possible.

Disclaimer: This column is not a replacement for therapy, and the advice given is educational in nature, not a replacement for professional psychological or psychiatric therapy. This is a peer-driven support effort by The Revelator to inform and build community with environmental and wildlife defenders.

If you are feeling critically depressed and suicidal, it’s time to immediately find professional help. Go to your closest emergency room or call the following numbers to get immediate help in your area:

SUICIDE HOTLINES

Worldwide: http://www.befrienders.org/support/

United Kingdom: http://www.samaritans.org

USA: http://www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org

1-800-273-TALK

Resources:

“Feeling Hopeless About the Climate? Try Our 30-Day Action Plan” (The Revelator)

“Yes, Your Friends and Neighbors Want to Talk to You About Climate Change” (The Revelator)

WWF: “How to Host a Booth or Table at a Community Event”

The Nature Conservancy: “Ways to Get Involved”

Mossy Earth: A Team Restoring Nature & Fighting Climate Change

American Scientist: “12 Tips for Scientists Writing for the General Public” by Katie L. Burke

Saving Us: A Climate Scientist’s Case for Hope and Healing in a Divided World by Katharine Hayhoe

What If We Get It Right? Visions of Climate Futures by Ayana Elizabeth Johnson

The post Dr. Green: An Environmentalist Scientist Asks About Finding Connections and Inspiring Hope appeared first on The Revelator.

For almost century, Europe’s agriculture has been structurally reliant on chemical fertilisers. The risks of this dependence have been made amply clear by successive conflicts that have disrupted supply chains, while decades of intensive application have led to pollution and soil imbalances. Changing this trajectory will be a tough challenge.

In France, the baguette has recently become a matter of public concern. According to the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES), staples of the French diet like bread, cereals, and even potatoes are among the main pathways of exposure to cadmium, a carcinogenic heavy metal that accumulates in agricultural soils. While cadmium is naturally present in the environment, its levels in France have become increasingly concerning over the past two decades, prompting ANSES to issue warnings that a significant share of the population is estimated to exceed health-based reference exposure values, with higher levels observed among children and adolescents. At the core of this looming public health crisis lies the intensive use of phosphate-based fertilisers. 

As the French Parliament moved to tighten cadmium limits in agricultural soils this spring – finally aligning national standards with existing European rules – the European Commission adopted a Fertiliser Action Plan designed to facilitate farmers’ access to key agricultural inputs. Like previous geopolitical shocks, the war in Iran and the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, a major artery for global trade, have revealed Europe’s dependence on imported fertilisers.  

These local, national, European, and global developments point to a structural vulnerability at the heart of Europe’s food system, with fertilisers lying at the intersection of ecological constraints, public health, market volatility, and external dependence.  

Vulnerable supply chains 

On 19 May, more than 200 farmers protested in front of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, carrying a large red banner declaring a “fertiliser crisis”. Just a few weeks earlier, in April, the prices of many raw materials and fertilisers had surged. Urea, the world’s most widely used nitrogen fertiliser, had climbed above 850 dollars per tonne, the highest level since 2022.  An estimated 30 per cent of globally traded volumes of urea passed through Hormuz before the war.  

Since the 1950s, synthetic nutrients have dramatically increased agricultural productivity while reshaping Europe’s food system.

The effect of the blockade was compounded by the growing importance of Gulf states in the global fertiliser market. The world’s largest urea production complex, for instance, is located south of Doha, in Qatar. In the last 10 years, Saudi Arabia has also rapidly climbed the ranks among leading producers of phosphate-based fertilisers. The broader Gulf energy industrial complex, which underpins global fertiliser production, was put under pressure following Iran’s strikes on key energy infrastructure in the region. Qatar, for instance, suspended production of urea, ammonia, and sulfur after key facilities were damaged. 

Ammonia and sulphur, two key feedstocks used in fertiliser production, are intertwined with the fossil fuels extracted in the region. Ammonia, the key feedstock for the production of urea and all other nitrogen-based fertilisers, is obtained by combining nitrogen with hydrogen, the latter typically extracted from natural gas. Although efforts are underway to produce ammonia using “green hydrogen” produced from renewables, these technologies remain marginal.  

Similarly, sulphur is largely recovered as a by-product of oil and natural gas processing. Most of it is converted into sulfuric acid, essential for producing phosphate fertilisers, whose supply chains have also been disrupted by the war: Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates are major sulphur exporters. Iran, which exported sulphur to China, Latin America, Pakistan, India, and other Asian and African countries, halted production of both sulphur and ammonia during the conflict. In light of the crisis, countries such as China – the world’s largest producer of sulfuric acid – Turkey, and India considered export restrictions. 

An old dependency 

Europe’s dependence on imported fertilisers and their feedstocks has deep historical roots. Fertiliser use began as an innovative solution to increase agricultural productivity in the early 20th century, gradually reshaping the continent’s food system, and tying farming to industrial production and global supply chains. At the heart of this shift lies the industrial processing of three essential nutrients found naturally in the environment: nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. “It’s like a big kitchen,” a laboratory operator at Norwegian fertiliser giant Yara International, told me. “These elements are mixed together according to farmers’ needs, increasingly in tailor-made combinations.” 

One of the earliest artificial fertilisers, superphosphate (SSP), was first produced commercially in the mid-19th century by treating phosphate rock, rich in phosphorus, with sulphuric acid. With SSP, fertiliser manufacturing gradually moved from farms – where the natural manure cycle was rooted in the recycling of organic waste back into agricultural soils – into the hands of the agrochemical industry, accompanying the industrialisation of agriculture in the early 20th century.  

The expansion of phosphate use further tied agrochemistry to mining: phosphate rock is only found in a handful of countries, particularly in North Africa. Morocco alone holds more than 70 per cent of global phosphate reserves; it is the world’s largest producer and the second-largest exporter after China. With some reserves facing depletion in the coming decades, Beijing has implemented export controls on phosphate fertilisers since 2021. In 2017, the European Commission added phosphate to its list of critical raw materials, acknowledging its strategic importance and Europe’s exposure to supply risk.  

Since the 1950s, synthetic nutrients have dramatically increased agricultural productivity while reshaping Europe’s food system. Globally, fertiliser use rose from roughly 30 million tonnes in 1960 to more than 190 million tonnes today – a more than sixfold increase. According to estimates by Fertilizers Europe, the industry’s main trade association in the EU, of the roughly 180 million hectares of agricultural land in the European Union, nearly 124 million are now fertilised. The remaining areas consist mainly of permanent grasslands, fallow land, or land left temporarily out of production. 

Arable land dedicated to annual crops accounts for 57 per cent of fertilised land. Yet this broad picture masks significant regional differences. In Western Europe, a substantial share of agricultural land is devoted to permanent crops (such as vineyards, orchards, and forestry plantations) as well as fertilised grasslands. In Central and Eastern Europe, by contrast, agriculture is more heavily concentrated on large-scale annual cropping systems, particularly cereals, oilseeds such as rapeseed and sunflower, and fodder crops used for animal feed. As a result, Fertilizers Europe expects most Central and Eastern European EU member states to record higher fertiliser consumption in the coming years. 

The EU as a whole remains a key player in the global fertiliser market, with France, Poland, Germany, Spain, Italy, and Romania accounting for the bulk of phosphate fertiliser consumption. France is also the continent’s largest consumer of nitrogen fertilisers.  

However, overall consumption is contracting. In 2023, European agriculture applied 9.3 million tonnes of mineral fertilisers, marking a 3.7 per cent decrease compared to 2022 and a decline of more than 20 per cent from the 2017 peak. While producer associations point to signs of stabilisation and hope for a return to pre-2022 levels, the market still appears not to have fully recovered from the disruptions triggered by the war in Ukraine.  

But amid recurring geopolitical shocks and ecosystems reaching critical conditions, to what extent is a return to business as usual in fertiliser use necessary or desirable? 

Nutrition and pollution 

Intensive fertilisation has enabled Europe to expand agricultural production and secure millions of tonnes of food, but it has also created a dependence that goes beyond the actual agronomic needs of soils.  

Decades of continuous application have, in some cases, led to nutrient accumulation or imbalances. Numerous studies, some of them published by fertiliser producer associations themselves, suggest that fertiliser needs in many European and American production systems are increasingly oriented toward maintenance applications (keeping existing soil nutrient levels stable) rather than corrective inputs (raising deficient nutrient levels to a healthy target). Meanwhile, regions facing nutrient deficiencies, such as many African countries, still struggle to access fertilisers. 

Intensive nutrient use in the Global North has intensified concerns over soil health, water quality, and the accumulation of contaminants in agricultural land, all of which have entered public and policy debates. In recent years, discussions on fertiliser use in the EU have increasingly centred on pollution linked to eutrophication, a process in which excess nutrients in water bodies trigger algal blooms that deplete oxygen and disrupt aquatic ecosystems. The problem remains unresolved and continues to affect lakes and river deltas across Europe, despite the EU Nitrates Directive, which aims to reduce agricultural nitrate pollution. 

In Italy’s Po Delta, pollutants accumulated along the river system cause algal blooms, particularly in the summer. In Spain, civil society organisations have taken agro-industrial actors to court for eutrophication in the Mar Menor, accusing them of illegal discharges that contribute to the lagoon’s degradation. France’s recent cadmium controversy has expanded the debate on fertiliser sustainability beyond production sites to food safety and public health concerns.  

EU contradictions 

Despite the reassuring slogans of fertiliser producers, often framed in humanitarian terms – “saving lives” and “feeding the planet,” – the environmental costs of the agrochemical industry have long fuelled public debate and grassroots mobilisation. In autumn 2025, for instance, Tunisia saw large demonstrations against the Groupe Chimique Tunisien along the coastline of Gabès, following the hospitalisation of more than 200 people, mostly children, for respiratory distress and gas poisoning. 

In Europe, this tension between productivity and environmental limits gradually entered policy frameworks. In the early 2000s, the European agricultural policy framework finally acknowledged the urgency of limiting fertiliser dispersion by introducing environmental measures and, more recently, eco-schemes under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). These measures encourage farmers to return to more traditional agroecological practices, such as crop rotation with legumes and other plants capable of naturally enriching the soil. Agroecology Europe, a Brussels-based organisation, also recommends a partial return to non-chemical soil fertilisation methods.  

Geopolitical instability has added another layer of urgency to Europe’s need to reduce its dependency on mineral fertilisers. The President of the European Commission, Ursula Von der Leyen, stressed in May that the EU’s Fertiliser Action Plan isn’t just about supporting farmers in the short term but also aimed at “accelerating innovation in sustainable, home-grown solutions”. She also acknowledged that “climate leadership and economic resilience are interlinked”. 

However, the EU is rolling back climate and environmental measures to placate farmers and pursue economic competitiveness. In early 2026, under pressure from the agrochemical sector, the European Commission proposed an amendment to its Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), allowing for the temporary exclusion of certain products – particularly fertilisers – in the event of “serious harm to the EU internal market.” Meanwhile, the signing of the EU-Mercosur trade agreement with South American countries in January 2026 angered the agricultural sector, particularly in France, with farmers fearing unfair competition from imported products.  

These conflicting interests show that reversing a century-long trajectory of agricultural intensification and supply fragmentation won’t be easy, particularly in the current political climate. In this context, the EU appears to be advancing the liberalisation of agricultural policy under the banner of “sovereignty”. However, the declining productivity of soils and mounting ecological pressures both point to the need to transform this trajectory. 

Originally published by Mongabay. 

VJOSA-NARTA, Albania — In late April, heavy machinery began moving into the Pishë Poro-Narta protected landscape on Albania’s Adriatic coast without permits or public notice. Bulldozers and excavators felled coastal pine trees, flattened sand dunes, and cut new roads through previously untouched habitat. Then, barbed wire fences went up along the shoreline.

The incursion was the realization of a luxury resort development backed by Jared Kushner, U.S. President Donald Trump’s son-in-law. The development plans of Kushner’s Affinity Partners, a private equity fund, stretch from the uninhabited Sazan Island into the Vjosa-Narta Protected Landscape, the delta region of Albania’s Vjosa River that includes Pishë Poro-Narta.

Roughly twice the size of Paris, the Vjosa-Narta area shelters flamingos, Dalmatian pelicans (Pelecanus crispus), loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) and more than 70 endangered species, among them the Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus).

Neither Affinity Partners nor the office of the prime minister of Albania responded to Mongabay’s requests for comment.

Aerial drone video of demonstrators gathering at Dalan Beach on June 6 for a rally near the site of the original resort-construction site. Footage by Stefan Lovgren for Mongabay.

When protesters arrived at the site, security guards confronted them. Video of a demonstrator being dragged across the dunes on May 30 near the village of Zvërnec went viral. Soon demonstrations erupted in Tirana, the Albanian capital, in what has since been dubbed the Flamingo Revolution. The protests have grown larger every day, with tens of thousands demanding accountability for corruption, an end to environmental abuses, and the resignation of Edi Rama, Albania’s prime minister.

On June 6, hundreds of demonstrators made their way to Dalan Beach for a symbolic rally near the site of the original incursion. The barbed wire fences had been taken down a few days earlier and the machinery was gone. But no one there believed the battle was done.

Protesters spell out “Save Narta” in the sand at Dalan Beach during a symbolic rally June 6 near the original resort-construction site, as the Adriatic Sea and surrounding hills frame what demonstrators are fighting to protect. Image by Stefan Lovgren for Mongabay.

Vjosa-Narta is one of the last intact delta wildernesses in the Mediterranean. Only 4% of the region’s deltas remain in a relatively undisturbed state, and this is the largest and most biodiverse. More than 2,300 species have been documented across a mosaic of lagoons, reed beds, salt flats and coastal dunes that formed over millennia.

“I call it the place where I go to meet the gods,” Hanais Mhilli, a 36-year-old baker and part-time hiking guide living in Vlorë, a city south of the delta, told Mongabay as he joined other protesters there who were boarding a bus to the beach.

At the heart of the delta lies the Narta Lagoon, a vast, shallow body of brackish water stretching more than 40 square kilometers (15.4 square miles) where the Vjosa River meets the Adriatic Sea. It hosts more than 20,000 wintering waterbirds and ranks among the most important wetlands on the Adriatic Flyway, the migration corridor along which millions of birds travel each year between Africa and Europe.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by A.B (@amadeus.pictures)

“Here we are not just fighting for Albania’s natural heritage, we are fighting for the natural heritage” everywhere, Aleksandër Trajçe, executive director of the Protection and Preservation of Natural Environment in Albania, told Mongabay. “Italy and Spain have destroyed miles and miles of coastline and now they’re trying to restore what they lost. Albania doesn’t have to make the same mistakes.”

Protesters carry an Albanian flag along the beach in the Vjosa-Narta delta after a rally on June 6. Image by Stefan Lovgren for Mongabay. A Biosphere Reserve

For more than a decade, the Vjosa River — flowing from the Pindus Mountains in Greece through southern Albania to the Adriatic Sea — was at the center of one of Europe’s fiercest conservation battles. Though dammed near its headwaters in Greece, it runs entirely free through Albania, its channels shifting and braiding across gravel beds in patterns that once characterized rivers throughout Europe.

When the river faced a cascade of proposed hydropower projects, campaigners organized and won a landmark victory in 2023 as the Vjosa became Europe’s first Wild River National Park, pioneering a conservation model in which the river itself, not just the surrounding land, is protected from development.

The Vjosa River braids freely across a wide gravel floodplain in southern Albania. The Vjosa is one of the last major rivers in Europe to flow largely unimpeded by dams. Image by Stefan Lovgren for Mongabay.

But the delta was left out. Campaigners feared that pushing to include it would jeopardize the entire agreement, and it remained under a weaker designation, the Vjosa-Narta Protected Landscape. Where the national park carries the strictest level of protection under international conservation standards, the protected landscape category permits limited development and human use.

Warning signs quickly stacked up. Maps had already been redrawn to accommodate a new international airport near the lagoon. Then, in early 2024, the Rama government amended the law on protected areas to allow construction of what it vaguely describes as high-end tourism projects, even inside protected zones. Three weeks later, Kushner’s Affinity Partners announced its plans.

“The delta was intentionally left out of the national park,” Trajçe said. “It was part of a political agenda.”

Albania hopes to join the European Union by 2030, a goal that requires closing the environment chapter of accession negotiations. This in turn requires repealing the very amendment that created the high-end tourism exception.

What Trajçe and other conservationists see unfolding now is a race against that deadline. “It’s a rush for development before they change the law,” he said. “It defies the whole purpose of a protected area.”

A cut-out flamingo rises above the crowd at a protest June 9 in Tirana, where the bird has become the unlikely symbol of a movement that Albanians have dubbed the Flamingo Revolution. The ongoing protests were sparked by a planned luxury resort development in the country’s Vjosa-Narta delta region. Image by Stefan Lovgren for Mongabay.

In September 2025, the delta received an additional layer of protection when it was included in the newly designated Vjosa Valley UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, a status the EU had supported as part of Albania’s accession process. But in January, Ivanka Trump, Kushner’s wife, visited Albania with architects and met with Rama, a trip widely interpreted as a signal that the Kushner project was moving toward construction.

Rama has made his position clear. Speaking on the sidelines of the EU-Western Balkans Summit in Montenegro on June 5, he dismissed the international attention the project has drawn. “If it wasn’t Jared, they wouldn’t give a shit,” he told Politico.

From Source to Sea

Conservationists say the Albanian government has also failed to honor its legal obligations under the management plan for the wild river national park. While the park has delivered important results — most of all, stopping the dam projects — violations have mounted.

Large quantities of water have been diverted from the Shushicë River, a major tributary within the national park, for irrigation, in direct violation of the plan, with further plans to pipe its water to the coast for tourism development. Crude oil has spilled into the Vjosa near the town of Poçem, where 150 active oil wells line the river’s middle stretch.

Excavators work in September 2025 to divert water from the Shushicë River, a protected tributary of the Vjosa River within the Vjosa Wild River National Park, seemingly in violation of the park’s legally binding management plan. Image by Stefan Lovgren for Mongabay.

Ulrich Eichelmann, a German conservationist who heads the Vienna-based NGO RiverWatch and was a key driver behind the park’s establishment, said the government has treated the designation primarily as a marketing tool. Almost none of the activities required under the management plan have been implemented, he told Mongabay. “All they focus on is getting more tourists into the area,” Eichelmann said. “Three years after the national park was created, the river system is in a worse state than before.”

The threat to the delta is part of a broader global crisis. Deltas are among the most biologically productive ecosystems on earth, the place where freshwater and saltwater mix to create conditions of great fertility. But many deltas have been relentlessly exploited, drained for agriculture and built over for ports and other infrastructure. A 2024 assessment of all 258 river deltas discharging into the Mediterranean found that no large delta — except those in Albania — still qualifies as relatively intact.

“The delta is an integral part of the wild river,” Besjana Guri, founder of LUMI and winner of a 2025 Goldman Environmental Prize for her work to protect the Vjosa River, told Mongabay. “Ecologically, you cannot divide them.”

A sea of protesters fills one of Tirana’s main boulevards on June 9, with crowds calling for the resignation of Albania’s prime minister, Edi Rama. The ongoing protests were sparked by a planned luxury resort development in the country’s Vjosa-Narta delta region. Image by Stefan Lovgren for Mongabay. Euro Leverage

The Flamingo Revolution shows no sign of losing momentum. The demonstrations have remained largely peaceful, drawing people of all ages — young couples, parents with children, elderly Albanians who lived through decades of communist rule — united by something that has rarely mobilized this society before.

The movement has also attracted the attention of Albania’s anti-corruption authority. SPAK, the independent prosecutorial body that has pursued high-profile corruption cases since its establishment in 2019, has opened a formal investigation into the project, examining not only environmental violations but reportedly extending into questions of land ownership changes and government decisions made in 2024 that cleared the way for development in the protected area.

The EU’s position has sharpened significantly, too. The European Commission has publicly and repeatedly warned Albania that it must terminate the strategic investments law that gives favored projects fast-track treatment, bypassing environmental safeguards. Failure to do so, the commission made clear, could put Albania’s path to EU membership at risk.

“Can the EU really allow Albania to destroy this unique ecosystem on the last stretch before it becomes a member state?” asked Eichelmann before heading out to join other demonstrators on the ninth day of protests in Tirana. “I don’t think so.”

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Luv.Earth (@luv.earth_luv.you)

Citations

Miho, A., Bego, F., & Beqiraj, S. (2023). Overview of the Vjosa Delta (Pishe Poro – Narta Landscape Protected Area) – Natural Values and Threats. Albanian Journal of Natural and Technical Sciences, 59(XXVIII), 43–68.

Schwarz, U. (2024). Mediterranean Deltas: Assessment of General Intactness Based on Hydromorphological Criteria and Land Use Obstruction. EuroNatur & Riverwatch, Radolfzell/Vienna.

Schwarz, U. (2025). The State of Balkan Rivers 2025: Hydromorphological Assessment and 13-Year Trends. EuroNatur & Riverwatch, Radolfzell/Vienna.

The post Albanian ‘Flamingo Revolution’ Aims to Stop Kushner-Backed Resort on Protected Delta appeared first on The Revelator.