Disruption! Rethink the system

A circular economy is one where “the goods of today become the resources of tomorrow at yesterday’s prices”. 

Economic Context: Scotland was the first nation to join Circular Economy 100.  In August 2013, Environment Secretary, Richard Lochhead, issued the statement: “Scotland’s economy will benefit from moving to a more circular model of production and consumption. Our Zero Waste Plan is already delivering important actions to make better use of resources, and we can accelerate progress if we join together with others on a global level.” By 2016, the Scottish Government issued Making Things Last:  A Circular Economy Strategy.

Using a Nature as Teacher where waste=food philosophy, the circular economy rests on three principles, each addressing several of the resource and system challenges. These are becoming increasingly more discussed and adopted, by large scale and SME businesses- aiming to disrupt ‘business as usual’ of the linear economy systems and encourage a rethinking of the status quo.

Principle 1: Preserve and enhance natural capital…by controlling finite stocks and balancing renewable resource flows.

Principle 2: Optimise resource yields…by circulating products, components, and materials at the highest utility at all times in both technical and biological cycles. This means designing for remanufacturing, refurbishing, and recycling to keep components and materials circulating in and contributing to the economy.

Principle 3: Foster system effectiveness..by revealing and designing out negative externalities.

Education Context: Many policies and publications* have nudged the core school curriculum (3-18years old) towards an overall aim to embed Sustainable Development Education in Scottish education.  The most recent construct is Learning for Sustainability, LfS (One Planet School Group, 2012) which comprises sustainable development education, global citizenship and outdoor learning.  The intention is that LfS in the curriculum helps to ‘nurture a generation of children and young people who know and value the natural world……. committed to the principles of social justice, human rights, global citizenship, democratic participation and living within the ecological limits of our planet.’ (One Planet Schools Implementation Group, 2016: 3).  As a contributor to LfS, Circular Economy, through Cradle to Cradle, is incorporated in the school certificate course ’Design and Manufacture’ (SQA, 2013)

University of Edinburgh is working to identify how the principles of the Circular Economy can be embedded into Research, teaching, operations across the whole university (UoE,2016). The university SRS department have been leading the concept of the university as ‘A living Lab’ to progress thinking and actions related to sustainability and social responsibility in all aspects of the university.

Several Professional Institutes have embedded the requirement for education for sustainable development and / or Circular Economy in their professional accreditation processes.

Prompts to explore and cause pause to ponder

Principles:: Values:: Responsibilities:: Practices::

Preparation for the GESA Reading group, please choose from these 2 papers and / or 2 videos

Webster, K (2013)   Missing the wood for the trees: systemic defects and the future of education for sustainable development Curriculum Journal 24:2, 295-315 http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy.is.ed.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1080/09585176.2013.802585

The circular economy. By Walter R. Stahel – Nature, 23 March 2016. http://www.nature.com/news/the-circular-economy-1.19594

and / or

Circular Economy: Thomas Rau at TEDxZwolle – ( approx. 20mins) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrb2v_f0ZYY

Rethinking Progress: The Circular Economy  (3 mins 11 secs)

https://www.youtube.com/user/made2bemadeagain

Questions: 

• Are principles such as those of the Circular Economy (Nature as Teacher, Waste = Food, material cascades, made to be made again, regenerative manufacture, sharing economies, nature as capital, design for disassembly, cradle to cradle thinking, bio-nutrients/ technical nutrients and closed loop cycles) considered realistic and feasible concepts to encourage a wide scale rethinking of systems ?

• What are the responsibilities of industry, commerce, business and enterprise in relation to ESD and Circular Economy principles? Who should / could take responsibility?

• Should school aged young people be exposed to Circular Economy principles, the sharing economy, social enterprise and for-profit approaches, or is this something for those entering specialist education at higher levels of study? Should educators display their own ‘frame of mind’ and values in relation to issues of sustainability and sustainable development when working with young people? What should be taught? Who should be responsible for this? Why?

• How should/could the Circular Economy manifest in practice? What needs to be in place to engage society (rich and poor, diverse cultures and communities), encourage innovation, inform and develop practice disrupt and rethink current systems?

Principles:: Values:: Responsibilities:: Practices::

Further links and readings can be made available for follow up for interested readers.

Check out the Disruptive Innovation Festival 7^th Nov- 25^th Nov 2016

https://www.thinkdif.co/

Prof. Mark Rounsevell

Overview

Since the first establishment of the scientific evidence for climate change, there has been a political focus on reducing GHG emissions to mitigate the problem. Increasingly however the realisation has come that the world is already committed to some level of climate change, which leads to the imperative of understanding climate change impacts and planning adaptation strategies to these impacts. The pathways along which governments pass in gathering scientific evidence and negotiating mitigation treaties is tortuous and riddled with potholes.

Assistance in this complex and often fraught process comes from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in gathering evidence and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in leading the climate negotiations. In this discussion we will explore how effective these institutions are in achieving their different goals, and how alternative models might, or might not, do better. We will do this by exploring the past evolution of these institutions and discussing where we are now, and what is the potential for the future.

The IPCC process

Since it published its first Assessment Report in 1995, the IPCC has been held up as a shining example of how a collective of scientists can inform policy debates affecting the global environment. The 4^th Assessment report even won the IPCC the Nobel Peace prize, jointly with Al Gore. The Assessment reports are commissioned by governments worldwide (hence the Intergovernmental Panel title) to cover climate change science, impacts, adaptation and vulnerability to climate change and climate mitigation. The 4^th Report whilst winning many plaudits, including the Peace prize, was held up to detailed scrutiny and criticism by some. The famous ‘climate-gate’ and ‘glazier-gate’ episodes, and personal attacks on the integrity of contributing scientists, left a stain on the IPCC’s reputation even though the supposed errors or dubious practices were largely subsequently disproven.

The hype and pressure put on the 2009 climate summit in Copenhagen raised awareness of the climate change debate considerably. The release of stolen emails from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the run up to Copenhagen created huge media attention and provided ammunition for “sceptics” who caused mass doubt in the public about climate change science. Moreover, the IPCC fourth assessment report came under fire, notably for their claim, now shown to be wrong, that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035. This corresponded with a large increase in “sceptics” speaking out against climate change in the media and on the web. This clearly had an effect on public opinion about the legitimacy of climate science and even the integrity of climate scientists. A poll conducted by the BBC between November 2009 and February 2010 showed a 10% increase in people who did not believe in climate change and a 6% increase in people who believe that it is happening, but only due to natural causes.

So, now that the IPCC has released its 5^th Assessment report , nearly 20 years after the first report, and with the recent Paris COP21 outcomes, perhaps it’s time to take stock of the IPCC process itself

. To what extent has the IPCC really contributed to climate mitigation policy? Is it still fit for purpose, or are there alternative models that might better achieve the ultimate aim of addressing the climate change problem? The IPCC is likely to continue in some shape or form, but what this should be in supporting the drive to limit the climate change problem is not so clear.

Background reading:

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WG2AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf The IPCC Summary for Policy makers of Working Group 2 of the 5^th Assessment Report.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8388485.stm a viewpoint from Prof Mike Hulme (UEA) and Dr. Jerome Ravetz (Innovation and Society (InSIS) at Oxford University)

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100202/full/463596a.html IPCC flooded by criticism

IPCC: Cherish, tweak or Scrap? Nature 463, 730-732 11 February 2010

IPCC Seeks ‘Broader Community Engagement’ to Correct Errors Science 12 February 2010

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/327/5967/780-a Stop Listening to Scientists?

Mark Rounsevell is Professor of Rural Economy and Sustainability within the School of GeoSciences. His research focuses on the effects of environmental change on rural and urban landscapes with an emphasis on the development and application of agent-based, social simulation models. Models are combined with the development of scenarios to explore the response of individuals and society to different environmental change drivers in the future

Dr Annalisa Savaresi

Overview

Since the first establishment of the scientific evidence for climate change, little progress has been made in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to mitigate the problem. The pathways along which governments pass in gathering scientific evidence and negotiating climate change mitigation measures is tortuous and riddled with potholes. Assistance in this complex and often fraught process comes from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). For several years, this body has gathered evidence aimed to support the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in identifying the causes and projected impacts of climate change, as well as possible action to avert it. In this discussion we will explore how effective the interplay between these institutions has been, and what is the outlook for the future, in the aftermath of the historical adoption of the Paris Agreement at the 21^st Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP 21) held in December 2015.

The IPCC process

Since it published its first Assessment Report in 1995, the IPCC has been held up as a shining example of how a collective of scientists can inform policy debates affecting the global environment. The 4^th Assessment report even won the IPCC the Nobel Peace prize, jointly with Al Gore. The Assessment reports are commissioned by governments worldwide (hence the Intergovernmental Panel title) to cover climate change science, impacts, adaptation and vulnerability to climate change and climate mitigation. The 4^th Report whilst winning many plaudits, including the Peace prize, was held up to detailed scrutiny and criticism by some. The famous ‘climate-gate’ and ‘glazier-gate’ episodes, and personal attacks on the integrity of contributing scientists, left a stain on the IPCC’s reputation even though the supposed errors or dubious practices were largely subsequently disproven.

The hype and pressure put on the 2009 climate summit in Copenhagen raised awareness of the climate change debate considerably. The release of stolen emails from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the run up to Copenhagen created huge media attention and provided ammunition for “sceptics” who caused mass doubt in the public about climate change science. Moreover, the IPCC fourth assessment report came under fire, notably for their claim, now shown to be wrong, that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035. This corresponded with a large increase in “sceptics” speaking out against climate change in the media and on the web. This clearly had an effect on public opinion about the legitimacy of climate science and even the integrity of climate scientists. A poll conducted by the BBC between November 2009 and February 2010 showed a 10% increase in people who did not believe in climate change and a 6% increase in people who believe that it is happening, but only due to natural causes.

So, now that the 5^th Assessment report has just been released (see web address), nearly 20 years after the first report, perhaps it’s time to take stock of the IPCC process itself. To what extent has the IPCC really contributed to climate mitigation policy? Is it still fit for purpose, or are there alternative models that might better achieve the ultimate aim of addressing the climate change problem? The IPCC is likely to continue in some shape or form, but what this should be in supporting the drive to limit the climate change problem is not so clear.

Questions:

To what extent has the IPCC really contributed to addressing the problem of climate change?

Is the IPCC still fit for purpose, or are there alternative models that might better achieve its goals?

To what extent do governmental climate negotiations take account of scientific evidence?

Background reading:

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WG2AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf The IPCC Summary for Policy makers of Working Group 2 of the 5^th Assessment Report.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8388485.stm a viewpoint from Prof Mike Hulme (UEA) and Dr. Jerome Ravetz (Innovation and Society (InSIS) at Oxford University)

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100202/full/463596a.html IPCC flooded by criticism

IPCC: Cherish, tweak or Scrap? Nature 463, 730-732 11 February 2010 (attached)

IPCC Seeks ‘Broader Community Engagement’ to Correct Errors Science 12 February 2010 (attached)

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/327/5967/780-a Stop Listening to Scientists?

International climate change negotiations

Ever since 1992, Parties to the UNFCCC have attempted to agree on measures to deal with GHG emissions in a way to prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system. According to the IPCC, such a level requires keeping the increase in global average temperature below 2° C, as compared with pre-industrial times. The UNFCCC, however, has struggled to keep the world within the limits indicated by the IPCC. The main instrument adopted to stabilize GHG concentrations under the Convention, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, imposed emission reduction targets only on developed countries. With growing emissions in developing countries, like China and India, however, scientists have warned that only reducing emissions in developed countries is not enough. Since 2007, therefore, UNFCCC Parties have been entangled in difficult negotiations on further measures to reduce global GHG emissions.

In December 2015, COP21 brought to a conclusion this long cycle of negotiations, by adopting a new climate treaty, the Paris Agreement. The agreement enshrines a reference to the 2°C goal identified by the IPCC, and even an aspirational reference to a 1,5°C goal. In order to achieve this outcome, the agreement requires all Parties, and not just developed ones, to make efforts to reduce their emissions and to submit information on the details. In doing so, the Paris Agreement consolidates a bottom-up pledge and review approach to climate change action. This approach entails that Parties unilaterally declare action they intend to undertake to reduce their emissions, to be subjected to an international review process, both at the individual and at the aggregate level. Implementation of the agreement will furthermore be assisted by an expert-based, facilitative compliance mechanism. And while it is already clear that Parties’ pledged action remain far from consistent with the 2° C goal, in theory at least there will be means to revise and increase the level of ambition.

Though not perfect, the Paris Agreement can be regarded as an expression of political will to tackle climate change in a way that brings together actors at all levels, in conformity with the all-encompassing nature of efforts required to address this epochal problem. In this regard, the Paris Agreement seemingly marks the emergence of a cooperative spirit that breaks away from the rancorous rhetoric that has long characterized international climate diplomacy. Whether the Paris Agreement will prove fit for purpose, and how it will be implemented, remains to be seen. In this regard, the adoption of the agreement is just the beginning of a new regulatory season in which States will flesh out the rules for its implementation. This new regulatory season will begin in 2016 and will reveal whether COP21 has indeed marked a new beginning. At least for the time being, however, the outlook for international climate governance is certainly the most hopeful it has been for quite some time.

Questions:

Is the Paris Agreement a success?

What are its main advantages and disadvantages?

What questions does it leave undressed?

Background reading:

Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Outcomes of the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris (2015) http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/cop-21-paris-summary-12-2015-final.pdf

Daniel Bodansky Reflections on the Paris Conference (2015)

http://opiniojuris.org/2015/12/15/reflections-on-the-paris-conference/

The Economist, The Paris Agreement Marks an Unprecedented Political Recognition of the Risks of Climate Change (2015) http://www.economist.com/news/international/21683990-paris-agreement-climate-change-talks

UK Committee on Climate Change, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of the Paris Agreement (2015) https://www.theccc.org.uk/2015/12/21/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-the-paris-agreement/

David Victor, Why Paris Worked: A Different Approach to Climate Diplomacy (2015) http://teachingclimatelaw.org/compendium-of-commentary-on-the-paris-agreementcop21/

Dr Annalisa Savaresi

address the greatest challenge to ever face humankind, by adopting a new climate agreement.

The Paris agreement is expected to bring states out of the impasse that has long affected international climate governance. Eversince the adoption of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992, states have attempted to agree on measures to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent ‘dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.’ The international scientific body entrusted to assess climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has indicated that such a level entails keeping below a 2° C increase in global annual average temperature compared with pre-industrial times.

Over twenty years after its adoption, however, the UNFCCC has struggled to keep the world within the limits indicated by the IPCC. In fact, global emissions of greenhouse gases have anything but diminished. So what went wrong?

States’ capacity to tackle climate change greatly differs. The main instrument adopted to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere under the UNFCCC, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, fundamentally acknowledged this gap. Building upon a static distinction between developed and developing countries, the Kyoto Protocol imposed binding emission reduction targets only on the first. With ever growing emissions in emerging economies, like China and India, however, the IPCC has repeatedly flagged that both developed and developing countries need to reduce their emissions.

To make matters worse, political will behind the Kyoto Protocol has faltered. After the elapse of the first commitment period in 2012, it has proven impossible to negotiate new targets for some important players, such as Japan, New Zealand and the Russian Federation, whereas others, like Canada and the US, are not parties to the Protocol at all. This situation has left the European Union and a few other developed countries, like Australia, Norway and Switzerland, in the uncomfortable position of being the sole UNFCCC parties with emission reduction targets.

With political will behind the Kyoto Protocol fading away, and in the hope to induce more parties to reduce their emissions, in 2007 UNFCCC parties embarked upon the difficult process of negotiating a new climate agreement. These negotiations potentially opened the way to a new geometry of commitments, based on a clean slate on differentiation between parties. The adoption of a legally binding agreement that includes emission reduction commitments for all parties, however, was but one of the possible outcomes opened up by the new negotiation scenario.

This negotiation process has suffered numerous setbacks and almost collapsed at COP15 in 2009 in Copenhagen. COP21 is meant to be the end of this long negotiation cycle. The road to Paris has nevertheless been laden with obstacles and, just a few weeks away from COP21, parties remain far from reaching any agreement.

Negotiations under the body entrusted to draft the text of the Paris agreement, the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP), have abundantly shown that states’ views on a host of fundamental issues still significantly diverge.

The veritable bone of contention has undoubtedly been the question of differentiation. States greatly differ on how to distribute the burdens concerning climate change mitigation, as well as the means to tackle it, by providing capacity-building, finance and technology to those in need.

On the one end of the spectrum, numerous developed and developing countries converge on the need to move beyond a ‘bifurcated approach’ to differentiation, even though not on how this ought to be done. On the other end, however, some developing countries vehemently oppose even considering moving beyond existing differentiation parameters. For example, while some ‘progressive’ developing countries have suggested encapsulating South-South cooperation in the Paris agreement, with willing developing countries assisting others in tackling climate change, others maintain that this remains exclusively the prerogative of developed countries.

Even more critically, states are struggling to find consensus on an overarching architecture to capture their ‘intended nationally determined contributions’ (INDCs) in the Paris agreement. INDCs are meant to provide information on what each country intends to do to tackle climate change post 2020. At the aggregate level, however, INDCs submitted ahead of COP21 remain far from a level of ambition consistent with the 2°C goal. Yet, ADP negotiations have failed to produce agreement on a process to review and adjust INDCs in order to enable the achievement of the goal.

Faced with this impasse, at the recently concluded session of the ADP, many evoked memories of the difficult negotiations that preceded COP15 in 2009. There are, admittedly, fundamental differences between the process that preceded COP15 and that preceding COP21.

Ahead of COP15 it was impossible to formally adopt a negotiating text for a new climate agreement. As a result, delegates had to work with a voluminous text of over 200 pages, based on an unofficial compilation of parties’ submissions. As no progress on text negotiations could be made, COP15 was haunted with rumours about a possible ‘Danish text’ that the presidency might table at the eleventh hour. The ensuing break-down in trust and mismanagement of the diplomatic process led COP15 to conclude with a non-inclusive, untransparent, last-minute political agreement, known as the Copenhagen Accord, which marked the low-point in the history of climate negotiations.

By comparison, ahead of COP21, the ADP was able to formally adopt a negotiating text. A quick glance at the 31 page draft agreement text emerged from the last session of the ADP seemingly suggests that the outlook for COP21 is more favourable than that for COP15.

Yet, appearances can be deceitful. While in fact formally negotiations are in a much better position than they were six years ago, politically the situation is just as hopeless. Work under the ADP has unequivocally shown that consensus on how to collectively tackle climate change remains distant. With a common vision hardly in sight, the work of the ADP has eloquently demonstrated the futility of technical negotiations, without prior political consensus on the core elements and features of the Paris agreement.

UNFCCC parties have learnt important lessons from the Copenhagen debacle. In Paris, they will do everything they can to avoid repeating the same mistakes. They now have but a handful of weeks to consider their options, including opportunities to engage at the political level at the pre-COP convening from 8-10 November in Paris. How they will manage to get to an agreement, and what this will consist of, remains to be seen. What seems already clear is that, while COP21 may avert diplomatic disaster, it may well once again fail to put the world on a path to avert dangerous anthropogenic climate change.

You can hear more from Dr Savaresi:

Wednesday Novemeber 11th: 18:00-19:00, What is COP21 all about? By Dr. Annalisa Savaresi. Lecture theatre 5, Appleton Tower

“For more information on COP21 and what the University of Edinburgh is doing about climate change, see Edinburgh Action for the Climate.”

Edinburgh Action for the Climate | The University of Edinburgh www.ed.ac.uk Harnessing expertise at the University of Edinburgh to influence and inform the global debate around climate change.

Dr Apolline Roger

In 1994, French beekeepers started to blow the whistle on the abnormal behaviour and disappearance of their bee colonies foraging on sunflowers and maize. Quickly, beekeepers considered “Gaucho”, a new neonicotinoid authorised the same year for the treatment of sunflower and maize seeds, as the prime suspect.

Were these two events linked by a causal relation or purely coincidental? Neonicotinoids are chemicals which attack the nervous system of all insects, and thus can have a lethal impact on bees. They were nonetheless authorised, under the condition that they are not to be used over a dose previously identified by the industry, and accepted by the regulator, as being non-lethal for bees. However, french beekeepers observations questioned the scientific grounds of this decision. Was the non-lethal dose correctly identified? Furthermore, do neonicotinoid insecticides have chronic sub-lethal effects on bees which were not foreseen when they were authorised?

In 2008, a perfect storm of dry and windy weather, inappropriate technology, and late sowing resulted in the production of a cloud of toxic neonicotinoid dust from insecticide treated maize seeds which severely poisoned 12,000 bee colonies in Germany.

Is this accident teaching us more than the existence of an acute lethal risk in dust clouds released when sowing seeds treated with neonicotinoids?

As always in times of uncertainty, science was called on to bring clarity. In the context of the growing mobilisation of beekeepers and civil society against neonicotinoids, public and business research flourished. The increased knowledge that resulted from this effort has, however, not offered a clear-cut answer to the political question: should public authorities act to protect bees from neonicotinoids?

 Answering this question requires an interdisciplinary reflection involving toxicology, ecotoxicoly, insectology, ecosystem science, biology, bee managers’ knowledge, sociology, as well as political and legal sciences. What follows does not pretend to develop this exhaustive approach, but rather seeks to give some reflections and facts to ground the interdisciplinary discussion between GESA master students. The questions we will explore are: (1) What is the societal impact of any restriction on the use of neonicotinoid? (2) What actions would effectively protect bees from neonicotinoids? (3) Are the actions taken so far appropriate?

1) What is the societal impact of restriction on the use of neonicotinoids?

 Neonicotinoids have several economic and health benefits, some which are confirmed and some which are claimed, all of which have to be taken into account when considering their restriction.

Economic benefits

Firstly, neonicotinoids are a profitable and massive market for EU industries. They are present in 120 countries and are the most used insecticide worldwide. The biggest producer of neonicotinoid insecticides are European industries: Bayer and BASF (Germany) and Syngenta (Switzerland). Imidracloprid, one of the several neonicotinoid subclasses, is the best selling insecticide worldwide. Bayer is one of its main producers, through products like “Gaucho”. Imidracloprid grossed 824 million dollars in 2010 for Bayer only.

Other economic benefits have to be added to these impressive revenues. At farm level, neonicotinoids require less work from farmers. Indeed, neonicotinoids’ main modus operandi relies on the treatment of the seed itself, even though they can also be sprayed or be used as soil treatment. The seeds are “coated” with the insecticide, which will therefore be diffused internally by the vascular systems of the growing plan. This treatment is holistic; the whole plant is impregnated. It is also systematic; all fields are treated, even when there is no identified threat. The farmer does not need to control the health of his field and to spray it during growth.

More generally, another advantage of this newest generation of insecticides is that they are very efficient in meeting their target. Even though the accounting of the benefits for agriculture is difficult to faithfully establish, the gains resulting from the protection of crops against pest have to be taken into account. However, the efficiency of neonicotinoids might be impaired in the long term by their systemic use. Indeed, their application on all seeds might speed up pest resistance. This issue might be worsened by the wide use of the insecticide, which is broadening with the gradual expiration of patents.

Health and environmental benefits?

Secondly, neonicotinoids are claimed to be safer than the insecticides they replace, such as the highly hazardous organochlorines and organophosphates. It comes first from the fact that they are supposed to target the nervous system of insects, which differs from the nervous system in mammals and other animals. They are therefore claimed to be safer for humans and the environment. In addition, seed-coating is seen as safer than spraying because it limits the environment and farmer’s exposure. The dust cloud accidents might however bring this claim into question.

Any decision to restrict the use of neonicotinoids therefore has to take into account the impact on the agrochemical industry, the economy and agriculture – in particular food production. In addition, it must consider the availability of a safer alternative. Indeed, situations where bee health would be obtained at the cost of human health or serious environmental destruction should be avoided. Restrictions are therefore complex decisions which require to balance essential and potentially contradictory interests. This is why they should be adopted only when there is a reasonable guarantee that they will effectively improves bee’s health.

 2) What actions would effectively protect bees from neonicotinoids?

As discussed, neonicotinoids were placed on the market in the mid-90s under the condition that they would be used only at doses identified as not lethal for bees. Should they be authorised but submitted to stricter conditions? Should they, or some of their uses, be entirely prohibited? To be able to answer these questions, a public authority needs to have information on the routes of exposure and on the risks associated with each of these routes. Whereas the former are quite well known, the latter are the target of intense controversy which is partially due, as we will see, to the inadequacy of the risk assessment framework used to identify the impact on bees.

Understanding bee populations decline: the routes of exposure to neonicotinoids

The first route of exposure is the sowing process of neonicotinoid coated seeds. As we saw, the manipulation of seeds when sowing can indeed create a cloud of dust containing high level of insecticides. The cloud can be lethal for honeybees flying through it. What should the reaction be to this known risk? Should seed coating be prohibited? Should the sowing equipment and process be improved to prevent the creation of a cloud? Should sowing of coated seeds be allowed only at times and in locations identified according to bees needs; for example by avoiding blooming period or proximity to plants which attract bees?

The other routes of exposure are all related to food gathering and consumption. Foragers bring contaminated substances back to the hive which will then be used to feed the whole colony (through the form of pollen, jelly, honey, etc.). Firstly, honeybees will be exposed to the low neonicotinoid doses present in nectar and pollen of plants grown from treated seeds or soils, for example sunflowers and maize. However, treated plants are not the only contaminated ones. Neonicotinoids are very persistent. Depending on climate conditions, they can remain in the soil for more than one year. The residues can therefore be absorbed by the succeeding non-treated crop, but also by weeds and wild flowers growing in the area. Secondly, other sources of food can be a source of exposure. Guttation drops, the “sudation” of plants like maize, can contain a high dose. Honeydew, the liquid secreted by some insects feeding on plant sap, might also expose honeybees to the chemical. Finally, high fructose corn syrup, used as winter feed, can also contain low doses of neonicotinoid.

Understanding neonicotinoids impact: the controversial low dose effects

The risk of exposure through food sources differs from the “cloud” accidents. Rather than an acute risk with quick lethal consequences, it involves a chronic exposure to low doses potentially causing cumulative, long-term and synergistic sub-lethal effects.

These effects are the point of contention which deeply divides or challenges scientists. Do neonicotinoids have low dose effects at all? Can low doses of neonicotinoids be linked to bee population decline and colony collapse disorder in particular?

Industry research tends to reject the responsibility of neonicotinoids and to emphasise the multifactorial causes. It also questions the relevance of laboratory studies (which found effects at low doses) and emphasise the positive results of their field studies. On the other hand, some public research found impacts of low doses on bees cognitive abilities (orientation, communication, foraging), in particular when looking at the combination of low doses from different sources, with deadly impacts for the hive. They also established a synergistic effect between neonicotinoids and certain fungicides, the combined exposure to which have adverse impact on bees (bees, like humans, can be jointly exposed to a chemical cocktail of more than 100 chemicals). Other studies showed a synergistic effect between neonicotinoids and bees pathogens or pests. Neonicotinoids are thought to weaken bee’s immune systems; therefore making them more vulnerable. They are also thought to reduce their capacity to produce the enzyme used to sterilise jelly; opening the hives to infection. Furthermore, bees affected by pests and pathogens need more energy, therefore they consume more food, leading to exposure to a higher dose of chemicals. However the results of these studies are denounced by the industry as not being ground in “sound science”. The core of the debate does not focus on the results per se, but on the methods used to obtain them. The knowledge on the bee/neonicotinoid relations is highly dependant on the risk assessment framework used to analyse the impact of the chemicals. The determination of this framework is therefore a highly strategic, politicised and lobbied process. It has resulted in the inadequacy of the methods used to deliver the scientific knowledge grounding the first authorizations of neonicotinoids.

The fuel of scientific controversy: an inadequate risk assessment framework

The scientific debate on bees is poisoned by an unsuitable and out-dated risk assessment framework which focuses on:

– the determination of the lethal dose rather than chronic, long-term and sub-lethal effects;

– on the identification of a causal link between one source/one effect rather than combined and synergistic effects;

Furthermore, the risk assessment framework was created for sprayed chemicals and is therefore not adapted to the specific risks of seed coating. These weaknesses, recognised by EU authorities, are resulting in ignorance on the long term and chronic effects of neonicotinoids, as well as on their cumulative and synergistic effects. The scientific debate is also made even more complex by the fact that field studies on bees & chemicals are extremely hard to organise in light of the foraging radiance. How can the substances to which the bees are exposed be precisely controled? How can it be ensured that the control group is not exposed to any chemicals? However, some new approaches, involving radio-frequency identification equipment attached to each forager, might help to obtain a real life vision of the multifactorial causes of bee populations decline.

For public authorities, however, these questions remain: How can they justify a restriction to economic freedom when faced with contradictory research? How do they justify such a restriction when the neonicotinoids are known as not being the sole cause and are not, for certain, the main cause of bee populations decline?

3) Are the actions taken so far appropriate?

Several principles are supposed to guide EU public authorities in their decision making process in risk regulation.

– Prevention principle: environmental actions should, as much as possible, prevent the risk rather than react to its consequences;

– Proportionality principle: the action should not be more restrictive than necessary to achieve the objective pursued;

-Precautionary principle: this principle provides a justification for public action in situations of scientific complexity, uncertainty and ignorance, where there is a potentially serious or irreversible threats to health and/or the environment. The risk cannot be purely hypothetical, public authorities have to justify their decision using an appropriate strength of scientific evidence.

EU institutions and Member States have to respect these principles. The US recognises the first two, but has a different approach to precaution than the EU. The variety of reactions to the bees/neonicotinoids controversies shows the complexity of the identification of the appropriate public action on the matter.

– The US has not adopted any restriction but is actively promoting research to further understand the multifactorial causes of bee populations decline.

– Germany recommended best practices and better information on sowing equipment and process in order to prevent the formation of toxic dust clouds. It also temporarily prohibited Clothianidin, a subclass of neonicotinoid.

– The EU (and therefore its Member States) has implemented, since 2013, a regulation (Regulation 485/2013) which prohibits the use of 3 neonicotinoids subclasses (Clothianidin, thiamethoxam, imidacloprid. Fipronil was recently added) as a seed or soil treatment for crops attractive to bees and for cereals (except winter cereals). For crops, foliar treatment (sprays) is authorised but only after flowering. For all the other plants, these 4 neonicotinoids can be used but their environmental impact has to be monitored. Only professional uses are authorised. Best practices have to be implemented for equipment and sowing processes.

Other neonicotinoids are not subjected to specific requirements.

Are these actions appropriate? Should they be more restrictive? Less restrictive? What are the alternatives?

Discussion questions:

• Should public authorities prohibit the usage of neonicotinoid insecticides despite their economic and societal benefits?
• Should public authorities prohibit the usage of neonicotinoid insecticides despite the contradictory scientific results related to their role in the bees population decline?
• Should public authorities prohibit the usage of neonicotinoid insecticides even though they are known as not being the sole cause of bees population decline?
• Are the actions taken so far appropriate? Should they be more restrictive? Less restrictive? What are the alternatives?

Indicative Readings:

• Maxim L., van der Sluijs J. “Seed-dressing systemic insecticides and honeybees” in EEA Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation 369. http://tinyurl.com/oaflhfg
• Kleinman D.L., Suryanarayanan S. “Dying bees and the social production of ignorance” Science, technology & human values 4 (2012) 492.
• Reynard B.W. “The producer-pollinator dilemma: neonicotinoids and honeybee colony collapse”, 2012 http://repository.upenn.edu/mes_capstones/50/

Dr Rebecca Marsland

We care about bees. Bees are unusual insects in that we humans find them so appealing. The publicity about the decline of bee populations has led to people donning bee costumes and lobbying parliaments about pesticides, the planting of wild meadows and the lobbing of wild flower ‘seed bombs’ into uncultivated ground. Urban beekeeping is fashionable, and bumblebee sightings are recorded on Twitter. Bees contribute to our economy through pollination: one third of the plants that we eat are insect pollinated. Bees are also important for other species. We do not care about other insects (pollinating or otherwise) in the same way as we do about bees, even though other insect species are also under threat. Perhaps we can see bees as the pandas of the insect world: they are charismatic and draw attention to problems that also endanger many other insects.

Why is it that the decline of bee populations has led to such an outpouring of human activity and emotion? The environmental philosopher Freya Matthews (2011) argues that this is because bees are essential to the human story: first because bees are a keystone species – without them the biosphere will decline, and the biosphere itself is a story we tell to give our place in the world meaning. Second because interconnections on which the biosphere depends can be seen in miniature in the beehive. Without the beehive, then, there is no meaning.

The reasons why bee populations are in decline are multiple. Despite the publicity about Colony Collapse Disorder (in which an entire colony of honeybees suddenly disappear from the hive), this is only the most recent of threats to bees’ ability to thrive over the last century. Over the last fifty years a range of pathogens have threatened bee health: the fungal infection Nosema, American Foulbrood, European Foulbrood, the Acarine tracheal mite, Kashmir bee virus, Israeli acute paralysis virus, black queen cell virus, deformed wing virus and Kagugo virus. Most significant of these pathogens is the varroa mite (aptly named Varroa destructor), a parasite of honeybees which reduces their ability to fend off a range of viruses, bacteria and fungal infections.

The varroa mite is a product of globalisation and mobility. These mites are natural parasites of the Asian honeybee (Apis cerana), which has adapted to the varroa mite over time. It spread to the European honeybee (Apis mellifera) in the 1950s and there are now few colonies where it cannot be found. Without treatment (using chemical miticides) European honeybee colonies will quickly die. Left to their own devices, European honeybees might develop a resistance to the varroa mite, but the centrality of these honeybees to human economies is such that we cannot afford to wait the twenty years that this might take (Spivak 2011: 35).

Modern agricultural practices are also a threat to bees. Whilst honeybees, bumblebees and wild bees are necessary to pollinate one third of the world’s crop species, our farming techniques are making it more difficult for them to survive. Pesticides, which are sprayed on crops to kill nuisance species, can also kill bees. When large areas of land are devoted to growing just one crop there is only forage for bees for short seasons. These seasons of plenty are followed by famine. This is exacerbated with the use of herbicides on agricultural land (and in public and private gardens) which deplete the wild flowers on which bees feed. Many bees are undernourished.

The pollination ‘services’ of bees also leads to stress, especially in the USA where migratory beekeepers are paid by farmers to transport truckloads of hives of honeybees to pollinate their crops. Hannah Nordhaus (2011) has described the most extreme example of this is in Central Valley in California. There, 800,000 acres of land are devoted to almond cultivation. It is said that 80% of the world’s almonds are cultivated in Central Valley, and that one third of all the honeybees in the USA are transported to Central Valley in January and February. The population density of bees is intense which exposes them to a wide range of diseases. The farmers treat the almond blossom with pesticides that can be harmful to bees. Finally, the bees have a longer working year. Normally bees are dormant over winter, but in order to pollinate the almond blossom, they must be woken up and fed sugar syrup and pollen to convince them that it is spring and to start working again. It is thought that this disruption of the annual rhythm could be causing harm to the superorganism of the hive. It is ironic that without the almond crops migratory beekeepers in the USA would not be able to make a living, because competition resulting from cheap imports of honey from China mean that they do not get a sufficient income from sales of honey alone.

Globalisation plays an important role in these threats to bee populations. When bee colonies die, beekeepers need to buy new honeybees, and so there is now a global business in honeybees which are transported around the world. Bumblebees are also global travellers. Glasshouse grown tomatoes are tastier if they are pollinated by bumblebees, and so across the world tomato farmers import commercially-reared bumblebees which are distributed by just a few companies. When bees travel, there is a risk that they carry with them pathogens: small hive beetle is the latest threat. Originating in South Africa, and now reported in the USA and Italy, British beekeepers say that without import restrictions, it is only a matter of time before it reaches the UK. Small hive beetle destroys honeybee comb, brood and stores, and currently there is very little that can be done to control it.

It is clear that human activity has made a large contribution to the decline of bees. So how can we humans protect them? Much of the scientific work being carried out to understand threats to bees is framed as if bees lived in one world (nature) and humans occupied another (culture). What would happen if we reframed some of the questions we asked about bees and included humans and other species in our thinking? What if we ‘look up and around, at least for a moment and were reminded that there are always other things in the vicinity [of bees], lots of them, and not just one.’ (Bingham 2006: 484) What would we see? All sorts of human beings come into the picture – beekeepers, in all their complexity (commercial beekeepers, urban beekeepers, hobby beekeepers, ‘natural’ beekeepers), policy makers in rural affairs and agriculture, town and parks planners, scientists, consumers (of honey and the foods pollinated by bees), gardeners, farmers, activists, chemical companies, the military (Kosek 2010), food marketing boards (the successful marketing of blueberries and almonds as superfoods has increased demand for honeybee pollination of these crops). What kinds of economies do these different humans create, and how do these economies effect the lives of bees? What contradictions lie in the use of chemicals – they are not only used by farmers, but also by beekeepers to kill varroa mites, and gardeners to reduce the amount of grass before planting wild flower meadows. How are our landscapes changing –might cities become wildlife trails, and farms the centre of industry?

Since the ancient Greeks, honeybee society has inspired our political philosophy and shaped the way we think about ourselves. Contemporary beekeeping practices have created the contemporary honeybee (Kosek 2010). What kinds of future worlds can we imagine for bees and humans, if we view forms of life as a collective, instead of occupying separate zones of nature and culture?

References cited

(* recommended for the reading group)

Bingham, N. (2006). “Bees, butterflies, and bacteria: biotechnology and the politics of nonhuman friendship.” Environment and Planning A 38: 483-498.

Kosek, J. (2010). “Ecologies of Empire: On the New Uses of the Honeybee.” Cultural Anthropology 25(4): 650-678.

*Mathews, F. (2011). “Planet Beehive.” Australian Humanities Review 50(May).

Nordhaus, H. (2011). The Beekeeper’s Lament. How one man and half a billion honey bees help feed America, Harper.

*Spivak, M., et al. (2011). “The plight of the bees.” Environmental Science and Technology 45(1): 34-38.

Dr Rebecca Marsland is a Lecturer in Social Anthropology at the University of Edinburgh. She currently holds an ESRC Transforming Social Science grant for a research project called Beelines which explores on human-bee relations. For more information about Beelines see: http://www.san.ed.ac.uk/research/grants_and_projects/current_projects/beelines

You can also follow Beelines on Twitter: @Beelines_ed

Dr Meriwether Wilson

Dr Meriwether Wilson

Over 100 years ago, a fierce philosophical debate circled the salons, cafes, balls and bars of intellectuals and pioneers alike – often known as the ‘American wilderness’ debate. The legendary icons of this debate included: John Muir (originally from Dunbar, Scotland), founder of the Sierra Club and pivotal in establishing globally famous wilderness areas such as Yosemite National Park in western California; and Gilbert Pinchot, who took the view that these same vast areas of seemingly infinite forest and water resources, were ideal for logging, providing timber for America’s growing cities and towns.

Muir mused about humanity’s primal need for wild places to ponder, enjoy, protect, even if very little was known about these areas; while Pinchot extolled the virtues of potential for economic growth and civic prosperity. We debate these same concepts and positions today, but increasingly within a lexicon of ‘ecosystem services’, with economic growth still assumed to be potentially ‘sustainable’ and as well as catalytic to human well being and social equity. Perhaps when it comes to terrestrial reaches of our planet we have given up on the protection argument, as remotely sensed images fill our minds revealing the certainty of our degradation. We hope that innovative engineering and restoration will recover the green we once associated with the our planet, for future generations.

Yet, what imaginations mentally surface when we reflect on the 70% of our planet that is ocean – upwellings of blueness, deep, dark, mysterious…untapped resources? Are we in the middle of an intellectual confluence of values and technological prowess with regard to the oceans, as we once were with untouched realms of North America? Conversations about land-based environmental resources and strategies increasingly use the word security (e.g. water security, food security, energy security) rather than opportunity, suggesting a sense of urgency. Yet with the ocean, concepts about blue growth and blue economies abound, suggesting a new frontier.

A quick scan of recent position papers and international leadership reinforce this posture, and interestingly blur the line between blue and green, with ‘green’ being a metaphor for ‘sustainable’ while ‘blue’ still suggesting solutions and potential. For example, UNEP’s 2012 report Green Economy in a Blue World states that the ocean is a “cornucopia for humanity”, suggesting and endless bounty for our perusal. The report goes on to note that “creating a green economy in the blue world, can improve human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities; and create sustainable jobs with lasting economic value” (UNEP, 2012, p. 7). A recent 2014 EU communication is entitled Innovation in the Blue Economy: realizing the potential of our seas and oceans for jobs and growth (EU COM(2014) 254 final/2), proposes that with sufficient and open transfer of technically acquired marine knowledge (e.g. seabed mapping), coupled with marine spatial planning, goals such as those proposed by UNEP above are achievable. A vision of enlightened access and benefit sharing of marine resources for all sectors of humanity, with extraction conduced in some magical non-species/ecosystem harming way is compelling and seductive. Is this naïve?

Are there lessons learned from terrestrial development and resource sharing where knowledge and access are stunningly transparent and easy compared with marine environments? Do eminent oceanographers and marine scientists of recent generations offer prescient insights? Carlton Ray, in 1970 wrote a seminal paper entitled Ecology, Law and the Marine Revolution pondering the interactions of ecological dynamics and human dynamics, with the yet to be formalized Law of the Sea envisaged as a beacon to rationalize our goals within the limits and finiteness of the ocean. Nearly 30 years later, JBC Jackson writes in his 2008 paper Ecological extinction and evolution in the brave new ocean that the synergistic impact of our human footprint (largely from overexploitation, pollution and climate change) on marine ecosystems and species is similar to, perhaps greater than, impacts of previous mass extinctions. Only three months ago, in November 2014, the Global Oceans Commission launched a report with the prescient title From Decline to Recovery – A rescue package for the global ocean, focusing largely on the high seas where legal peculiarities and complexities have resulted in 64% of the ocean being unprotected, unstewarded in any real way. As nation states progress in paradoxically parallel races to both protect and exploit seas and within their EEZs (notionally out to 200 nautical miles), it is sobering that this report framed the ocean not as one of bountiful “cornucopia” but as one in need of rescue, requiring our human ingenuity to restore, rather than destroy, the ocean as we know it.

In the debates proposed for this upcoming “Global Environment Society Academy” MSc reading week, we encourage you to read, and reflect on the philosophical concept – the precautionary principle – and if can be better applied to address the inevitably intertwined goals of protection and exploitation for the ocean in this century, than we did for terrestrial realms in the past century.

References:

EU 2014. Innovation in the Blue Economy: realising the potential of our seas and oceans for jobs and growth.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=COM:2014:254:REV1&from=EN

Global Oceans Commission, 2014. From Decline to Recovery: A Rescue Package for the Global Ocean

http://www.globaloceancommission.org

http://missionocean.me

Jackson, JBC, 2008. Ecological extinction and evolution in the brave new ocean. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS), August 12, 2008, vol 105, suppl 1 (11458-11465)

Ray, C., 1970. Ecology, Law and the “Marine Revolution”. Biological Conservation, Vol 3, No. 1, October 1970 (7-17)

UNEP, 2012. Green economy in a Blue World – Synthesis Report.

http://unep.org/pdf/green_economy_blue.pdf

Dr. Wilson is a Lecturer in Marine Science and Policy at the University of Edinburgh focusing on the science-policy-society intersections of transboundary marine ecosystems and services, in particular  international waters.  Her current research explores emerging challenges in coastal-marine governance and marine ecology regarding infrastructure establishments in nearshore and offshore marine areas.  This research builds upon two decades of experience with international organizations (World Bank, UNESCO, UNDP, IUCN, NOAA) on the establishing marine protected areas globally across diverse ecological scales, cultures and economies

Dr Laura Jeffery

Dr Laura Jeffery

Until the end of the 20^th century, most Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) were relatively small-scale conservation zones in coastal waters. The past decade has seen a proliferation in the designation of ever larger MPAs. Mega MPAs measuring over 100,000km² now already comprise the vast majority of the total area covered by MPAs worldwide. But why are the world’s powerful leaders – including Clinton, Bush, and Obama – competing to create ever larger MPAs?

The states party to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) have agreed on a target to protect 10% of the world’s oceans by 2020. Mega MPAs clearly help governments as they seek to reach this (repeatedly deferred) target, but do they offer effective protection? Proponents argue that the smaller border-to-area ratio of mega MPAs means that the area of well-protected ocean in the middle is increased while the border zones exposed to external threats are reduced. But critics point to a range of problems associated with mega MPAs:

Challenges to surveillance and enforcement: Size and remoteness pose particular challenges for effective surveillance and enforcement of mega MPAs, where surveillance vessels cannot effectively patrol such large areas, and remote sensing technologies cannot track illegal fishing vessels that do not have satellite tags. Environmental NGOS (eNGOs) have reported widespread illegal fishing within numerous MPAs, including illegal shark fishing in the Galapagos Marine Reserve (Ecuador).

Diverting attention from real challenges: Most mega MPAs have been designated in remote areas with little human habitation, but this means they are not ideally located to address the real challenges facing the world’s oceans, such as overfishing, tourism, and pollution. A good example of this is the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument designated around the uninhabited and relatively unexploited northwest Hawaiian Islands (USA).

Vulnerability to commercial interests: Seeking to meet ambitious targets without threatening economic growth, governments are likely to protect areas that already have low economic value. Australia’s Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve, for instance, covers deep water that sees little fishing activity at present, and leaves the most valuable commercial fishing areas unrestricted.

Undermining social justice: By banning resource use within vast areas, mega MPAs risk undermining social justice in terms of equitable access to economic livelihoods. The UK’s Chagos Marine Protected Area, for example, seems to have been designed to entrench UK sovereignty over an Indian Ocean territory also claimed by Mauritius, safeguard the security of the US military base on Diego Garcia, and harm the displaced islanders’ campaign for their right of return to the Chagos Archipelago.

Diverting resources from existing MPAs: Promoting mega MPAs may divert attention and resources from improving the management and effectiveness of existing or smaller MPAs. On the other hand, however, mega MPAs such as the Chagos MPA and South Georgia and Sandwich Islands (UK/Argentina) were designated alongside a network of smaller coastal MPAs around the UK mainland; Australia’s Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve was designated alongside smaller MPAs in areas of high resource use.

Discussion Questions

• Can national solutions such as mega MPAs effectively address global challenges?
• How can remote mega MPAs be effectively monitored and enforced?
• Does vulnerability to commercial interests undermine mega MPAs?
• Do remote mega MPAs divert attention from the real issues?
• Do mega MPAs undermine social justice?
• Do mega MPAs divert resources from smaller MPAs and MPA networks?
• Can MPA networks and Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) offer effective solutions?

Indicative Readings:

• MPA News. International news and analysis on marine protected areas published by the University of Washington.
• De Santo, E.M. 2013. Missing marine protected area (MPA) targets: How the push for quantity over quality undermines sustainability and social justice. Journal of Environmental Management 124: 137-146.
• Leenhardt, P, B. Cazalet, B. Salvat, J. Claudet & F. Feral. 2013. The rise of large-scale marine protected areas: conservation or geopolitics? Ocean & Coastal Management 85, A: 112-118.
• Singleton, R.L. & C.M. Roberts. 2014. The contribution of very large marine protected areas to marine conservation: giant leaps or smoke and mirrors? Marine Pollution Bulletin 87: 7-10.

Dr Laura Jeffery is Lecturer in Social Anthropology in the School of Social and Political Science at the University of Edinburgh, and has research interests in island ecologies, human–environment relations, and the politics of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). She has recently published on WikiLeaks evidence in judicial review of the Chagos MPA, debates about environmental guardianship of the Chagos Archipelago, and ‘coconut chaos’ and the politics of restoration ecology.