The announcement of the winners of this year’s Goldman Environmental Prize is an opportunity to celebrate activist leaders.
However, it is also a moment to recognize just how much courage their efforts — and those of a great many others — can demand.
When my dear friend Berta Caceres and I won the prize in 2015, Berta said in her acceptance speech: “I have given my life for the service of mother Earth.”
Illustration: Tania Chou
Not long after, Berta was assassinated in Honduras.
Her story is tragic, but not unique. Indeed, just months later, Isidro Baldenegro Lopez, another Goldman Environmental Prize recipient, was shot dead.
There has never been a more dangerous time to be an environmental activist. Consider the violence unleashed against the environmental defenders protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline in the US. Police were accused of using excessive force to try to disperse members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and their supporters, who said that the project would contaminate water and damage sacred burial sites.
Fortunately, no one was killed during the protests, but elsewhere, in more fragile democracies, environmental campaigners who stand up to polluters are paying with their lives.
A Global Witness report documented 185 killings across 16 countries in 2015 alone. That is almost double the number of journalists killed that year.
My own experience highlights the dangers facing environmental crusaders.
For eight years, my community in rural Kenya, Owino Uhuru, has been exposed to toxic lead poisoning caused by the operations of a state-licensed smelter.
The WHO’s measure of lead poisoning is 5 micrograms per deciliter. The highest lead level recorded in Owino Uhuru was 420 micrograms per deciliter. In the highly publicized contamination case in Flint, Michigan, the readings were 35 micrograms per deciliter.
When my community found out that we were being poisoned, we fought back. We wrote letters to the government and organized peaceful protests.
With the support of my community, I founded the Center for Justice, Governance, and Environmental Action (CJGEA) to hold the state and corporations accountable for ensuring a clean and healthy environment.
In February last year, the CJGEA went to court against six state agencies and two corporate entities. Nothing happened.
One year later, when we published public notices in local newspapers of our intention to sue the two corporations, all hell broke loose.
Despite the murders of Berta and Isidro and so many others, I did not fully recognize the danger of challenging a powerful government-backed operation.
Soon, I received a chilling telephone call warning me to watch over my son carefully. Environmental activists within the community were attacked, their houses surrounded by thugs wielding machetes. The son of a close ally was abducted — and, fortunately, later released — by unidentified men.
You might expect that the state would protect its citizens from such tactics, if not from being poisoned in the first place. We broke no laws; on the contrary, we have been upholding Kenya’s constitution, which guarantees citizens’ rights to a safe and healthy environment.
However, perhaps we should not be surprised by the state’s behavior. After all, in 2015, the Kenyan government voted in the UN General Assembly, along with just 13 others, against a UN resolution calling for the protection of human rights defenders.
Nature provides enough for everyone’s needs, but not for everyone’s greed. As natural resources become scarcer, Africa’s lush, mineral-rich lands are becoming more lucrative for investors seeking to maximize profits.
However, while governments should welcome opportunities for economic growth and job creation, they should not allow companies to damage the environment, and threaten residents’ health and livelihoods.
As stories like Berta’s, Isidro’s and mine demonstrate, we can no longer rely on state bodies, such as national law enforcement, to ensure this outcome, much less to investigate and prosecute crimes against the planet, and those who fight for it.
That is why the world needs an independent, internationally recognized legal body to which communities and activists can turn to address environmental crimes.
The appointment in March 2012 of the first-ever UN special rapporteur on human rights and the environment was a positive step.
However, we need a system with teeth. Twenty years ago, the International Criminal Court was established to prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity. A similar court should do the same for crimes against the environment and its defenders.
Silencing the voices fighting to uphold environmental laws and regulations is self-defeating. People and the planet are dying. Those who are fighting to prevent those deaths deserve protection, not to become further casualties.
Phyllis Omido, a Kenyan environmental activist and a winner of the 2015 Goldman Environmental Prize, is a 2017 Aspen New Voices Fellow.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
US President Donald Trump on Thursday issued executive orders barring Americans from conducting business with WeChat owner Tencent Holdings and ByteDance, the Beijing-based owner of popular video-sharing app TikTok. The orders are to take effect 45 days after they were signed, which is Sept. 20. The orders accuse WeChat of helping the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) review and remove content that it considers to be politically sensitive, and of using fabricated news to benefit itself. The White House has accused TikTok of collecting users’ information, location data and browsing histories, which could be used by the Chinese government, and pose
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) at a ceremony on July 30 officially commissioned China’s BeiDou-3 satellite navigation system. The constellation of satellites, which is now fully operational, was completed six months ahead of schedule. Its deployment means that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is now in possession of an autonomous, global satellite navigation system to rival the US’ GPS, Russia’s Glonass and the EU’s Galileo. Although Chinese officials have repeatedly sought to reassure the world that BeiDou-3 is primarily a civilian and commercial platform, US and European military experts beg to differ. Teresa Hitchens, a senior research associate at the University of
There are few areas where Beijing, Taipei, and Washington find themselves in agreement these days, but one of them is that the situation in the Taiwan Strait is growing more dangerous. Such a shared assessment quickly breaks down, though, when the question turns to identifying sources of rising tensions. Several Chinese experts and officials I have consulted with recently have argued that Beijing’s increasingly belligerent behavior in the Taiwan Strait is driven mostly by fear. According to this narrative, Beijing is worried that unless it puts a brake on Taiwan’s move away from the mainland, Taiwan could be “lost” forever. They
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) this week came under fire over his speech at a Rotary Club meeting in Taipei on Monday, when he said that Beijing’s military strategy toward Taiwan was “to let the first battle be the last.” If China started a cross-strait war, it would end quickly, without time for other nations to react, he said in his “Cross-Strait Relations and Taiwan Security” address, criticizing President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for saying that she hoped other nations would come to Taiwan’s aid in Beijing’s first wave of attacks. A president should prevent war from happening, not talk about how