Big Gap Surfaces in Davos

As self-appointed global leaders gather at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos and discuss ‘The Reshaping of the World’, a stone’s throw away non-governmental organisations named this year’s winners for their dreaded Public Eye Awards.

The jury chose the American textile giant Gap, while 95,000 online voters honoured the Russian energy company Gazprom.

“Sadly, there’s still a need for campaigns like ours that demand corporate accountability,” Silvie Lang said on behalf of the organisers, the Berne Declaration (BD), a Swiss NGO working for equitable North-South relations, and Greenpeace Switzerland.

“We are here to remind the corporate world and those hiding behind closed doors in Davos that the social and environmental consequences of their business activities affect not only people and the environment, but also the reputation of their company.”

Participating in the WEF is no option for the BD. “This kind of inclusion is far less effective than fundamental critique from outside,” its spokesperson Oliver Classen told IPS. “Davos is the global showcase for symbolic policy where arsonists dress up as firemen for a few days.”

This year, international NGOs proposed 15 nominees for the two shame awards, ranging from Glencore Xstrata and BASF as representatives of the extractive industry to pesticide producers and the U.S. garment company Gap. The latter was eventually chosen for the jury award.

On behalf of the jury, Greenpeace International executive director Kumi Naidoo said: “We shame Gap for its monstrous and disingenuous business practices consisting of hindering legally-binding agreements to substantially ameliorate working conditions.”

Gap declined to show up and receive the award. Instead, Kalpona Akter of the Bangladesh Centre for Worker Solidarity and Liana Foxvog of the International Labour Rights Forum (ILRF) collected the prize.

Akter, a relentless grassroots activist, is herself a former child garment worker. “I sewed clothing for multinational corporations and made less than 10 dollars a month for 450 hours of work,” she said. Today, the minimum wage in Bangladesh is 68 dollars a month. “Due to inflation, it’s not much more than I used to earn,” Akter said.

Her main concern isn’t the low wages, however. “When workers speak up with concern about safety risks, they aren’t listened to.”

Three years ago, 29 workers were killed in a fire at one of Gap’s Bangladeshi supplier factories. After that, labour groups and unions negotiated with Gap to put an end to the constantly climbing death toll in the garment industry.

In all 1,129 Bangladeshi workers died in a deadly fire in a garments factory last year.
In a press statement, Gap stressed that it is a founding member of the Alliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety: “The Alliance is a serious and transparent, binding commitment on the part of its members to make urgent improvements to worker safety in Bangladesh.”

For Foxvog, the Alliance is “hardly more than a facelift.” She vowed to take the award directly to the Gap headquarters in San Francisco.

“We don’t want the companies to leave our country,” Akter said. “We want jobs, but they must be jobs with dignity. Global corporations must stop profiting off this low-road system.”

A third of the 280,000 people taking part in the online voting chose the energy giant Gazprom for the people’s award. That was not surprising, as the company had been in the spotlight for the past few months.

In September, Russian security forces arrested 28 Greenpeace activists and two journalists during a protest against oil drilling at their offshore platform Prirazlomnaya. In December, Gazprom became the first company that started to drill oil in the Arctic.

According to Greenpeace, Prirazlomnaya is far from some ultra-modern drilling unit. The absence of a publicly available and convincing response plan for any oil spill in one of the world’s most extreme environments worries activists deeply.

Greenpeace argues that Gazprom’s reliance on traditional clean-up methods would simply not work under icy conditions.

IPS requested Gazprom to comment on receiving the anti-award for “irresponsible business conduct at the cost of people and the environment.” Gazprom spokesperson Sergey Kupriyanov did not elaborate on its response plan, but stressed that the company was fully committed to the highest ecological standards.

“Therefore we are quite puzzled by the decision of the Public Eye Awards jury which seems to be motivated by anything but ecological concerns,” Kupriyanov told IPS.

He said that the Prirazlomnaya platform had been specifically designed for operation in the most hostile climate. “The applied drilling techniques prevent subsurface water pollution and the mixing of drilling and production waste with sea water.

“Specially designed oil spill prevention and response plans ensure that the platform crew is well equipped for emergency situations,” Kupriyanov told IPS.

Greenpeace’s Naidoo said his organisation considered calling for a boycott of Gazprom and its partner Shell, who had last year received an anti-award in Davos. “Our peaceful protest in the Arctic raised a lot of awareness,” he told IPS. “About five million people have signed up for our Arctic campaign, while the best of it is yet to come.”

Using the shame award to raise further awareness may be easier for the organisations dealing with Gap, as its consumer base differs much from that of Gazprom. Nobody depends on Gap clothes, but many depend on Gazprom’s oil and gas.

Criticising the energy giant my fall on deaf ears. “Even Gazprom, Rosneft or Chevron aren’t completely immune from public pressure though,” argued Naidoo. He said that these companies had so far ignored one thing: “Relations and reputation are a capital which is just as important for success as conventional capital.”

This report was first published here by IPS Inter Press Service. 

Commodities Trade Haven Faces Protests

The powerful Swiss commodity sector is under fire here, as citizens fed up with government inaction on charges of corporate corruption, tax evasion and lack of transparency gear up for major protests.

Switzerland is anything but a country rich in raw materials but it is, nevertheless, a major hub for international commodity trade, hosting some of the world’s biggest commodities companies such as Glencore (which specialises in power generation, steel production, oil and food processing); Xstrata (copper, zinc, aluminium, nickel and coal-fired electricity), Vitol (which ships oil products like gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and metals, as well as ethanol and chemicals) and Mercuria (dealing in oil and energy products).

Swiss-based companies are estimated to have a share of 15 to 25 percent of the global commodities trade.
Data provided by the industry reveals that 60 percent of the global metals and coffee trade is done in Switzerland. In sugar, the Swiss sector has a market share of 50 percent and in crude oil and grains it makes up 35 percent of global trade.

Against this backdrop, Swiss critics are preparing for a chance to voice their grievances with these massive commodities giants at the second annual Financial Times Global Commodities Summit to be held in the city of Lausanne, about 60 kilometres northeast of Geneva, on Apr. 15.

Organisers describe the official conference as an “unparalleled” opportunity for executives of the world’s biggest investment banks, trading houses and natural resource entities to come together and debate, network and strategise about the future of world trade.

But protestors say the summit “is a symbol of exploitation and speculation”. “While the companies’ profits increase, the local population in mining countries suffers from environmental damage, expulsion, tax avoidance and anti-trade union measures,” Yvonne Zimmermann of MultiWatch, a broad coalition of NGOs, trade unions and anti-globalisation organisations, tells IPS.

An alliance of two-dozen organisations is calling for a demonstration to coincide with the arrival of businessmen in Lausanne on Apr. 15. Speaking on behalf of the protest organisers, Alwin Egger tells IPS the march, which is expected to draw hundreds, will move towards the Hotel Beau-Rivage Palace, where the summit takes place.

A member of the anti-globalisation Association for the Taxation of financial Transactions and Aid to Citizens (ATTAC), Egger says, “In our opinion, it’s the people who should have control over extraction and trade of raw materials, not profit-oriented companies.”

Over the last decade, the commodities business has grown exponentially in Switzerland. In 2011, its net receipts from trade added up to 20 billion Swiss francs (or 21 billion dollars), contributing 3.5 percent to the country’s gross domestic product (GDP). While some corporations are only involved in either commodity trade or extraction, most of them offer services throughout the entire supply chain.

For more than a century, commodity companies have flocked to Switzerland to avail themselves of the country’s low tax rates and the privileged corporate taxation system. Holding companies, for example, are exempt from corporate income tax on cantonal and communal levels as long as they own shares in foreign companies only. Besides, Switzerland offers strong banks, political stability and a high standard of living.

That the country wasn’t a member of the United Nations until 2002 was another factor behind its popularity, as it allowed Switzerland-based companies to avoid U.N. embargoes and sanctions.

The commodities business is known for its discreetness. But as of late, that peace has been disturbed by NGOs such as the Berne Declaration (BD), which published a groundbreaking book in 2011 to shed light on some of the dubious practices the sector constantly engages in.

Accusations range from human rights abuses, ecological destruction, exploitation, to corruption and tax avoidance in developing countries. In 2012, for instance, NGOs accused Glencore of buying copper from intermediaries in the Democratic Republic of Congo that was extracted partly using child labour and under precarious conditions.

Entitled “Commodities – Switzerland’s Most Dangerous Business”, the book found that “trade in oil, gas, coal, metals and agricultural products – particularly via deals made in Geneva and Zug – has grown by an incredible 1,500 percent since 1998…The result: Seven of the twelve corporations with the highest turnover in Switzerland trade in…or mine commodities.”

“As more information becomes available, attentiveness to the issue grows” — and so does criticism, observes Zimmermann, adding that a media spotlight on these practices has dealt a harsh blow to the industry’s public image.

But Economics Minister Johann Schneider-Amman opposes specific, national regulations for the commodities sector. “We don’t want to treat our companies any stricter than other, competing locations do,” he said at a press conference, echoing the standard argument issued every time the corporate tax system is in the line of fire: that Switzerland cannot afford to have companies relocate elsewhere.

For critical experts like Classen, this excuse is not valid since “there are no unregulated alternative business locations” anywhere else in the world.

The Swiss Federal Council has proposed a consultation draft for a transparency regulation similar to the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act in the United States, section 1504 of which obliges companies to disclose their payments to governments for access to oil, gas and minerals. It is still unclear, though, whether payments of commodity trading companies will be included in the Swiss draft regulation.

Fearing new regulations, the Swiss commodities sector has ramped up its lobbying efforts. Associations representing the industry have popped up in the main commodity trading hubs of Geneva, Zug and Lugano.
Glencore recently invited Swiss parliamentarians to hear an explanation of its “engagement for sustainable business, for the health and safety of its employees and for the environment”. Media and NGOs were denied access to the closed-door meeting.

“The sector is concerned that it has become the subject of attentiveness and debates,” says MultiWatch’s Zimmermann, who protested against the recent lobby event.

“As a reaction to criticism, these companies have started to publish sustainability reports”, she said, which whitewash their practices and portray themselves as charities.

Voluntary Regulations “Inadequate”

BD Media Director Oliver Classen says these companies also put Switzerland's reputation at risk. “The negative image of Glencore, Vitol or Mecuria affects Switzerland the same way that the misconduct of the Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS) and Credit Suisse have in the past.” UBS alone has coughed up 1.5 billion dollars in fines for its part in the fraudulent fixing of the Libor rate, the agreed international rate of exchange between banks.

The Swiss Federal Council’s recently published “background report” dedicated to Switzerland's commodity sector has been criticised as “inadequate” for failing to suggest serious measures for solving or preventing fraudulent or criminal activity, though it does identify “challenges” such as human rights violations or fighting corruption.

“The report proposes only voluntary corporate initiatives, which is politically naïve,” the Bern Declaration claims.

For example, the Federal Council highlights the importance of the international Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), which promotes revenue transparency on a local level by asking companies to publish their transactions with governments of member states, who in turn are expected to disclose how much they receive.

Calling the initiative “necessary, but insufficient”, Classen laments that the EITI is voluntary, with only 20 member states.

“Many important mining countries – such as Angola or Colombia -- where Swiss-based companies are very active, aren't EITI-members,” explains Classen.

Furthermore, the transparency initiative only deals with commodities extraction, but not with trade.

“Misconduct such as Glencore's aggressive tax avoidance in Zambia is neither covered, nor sanctioned by the EITI,” according to the Berne Declaration.

 This report was first published here by IPS Inter Press Service.

Dubious Awards Presented at Davos

Only a stone’s throw from the Davos World Economic Forum meeting, a group of non-governmental organisations presented the annual Public Eye Awards this week to Goldman Sachs and Royal Dutch Shell.

Every year in late January, a pilgrimage of a special kind can be observed in Grisons, Switzerland’s easternmost canton. Limousine after limousine, SUV after SUV and helicopter after helicopter head to Davos, the highest city of Europe. At the local congress centre, the preciously dressed pilgrims unite to renew their belief in unregulated, free market capitalism and to “improve the state of the world,” as the World Economic Forum (WEF) proclaims.

This year, ‘Resilient Dynamism’ is the motto of the global leaders’ gathering. Besides the official programme though, many participants will use the platform to hold informal meetings. Business and political interests mingle behind closed doors.

Only a ten-minute walk from the Davos congress centre, a few dozen people attended the presentation of the Public Eye Awards, a critical counterpoint to the WEF since 2000. “On the occasion of the WEF, we annually put the spotlight on corporations who cause problems, violate human rights, destroy the environment, act corruptly and push people into poverty and misery,” says Andreas Missbach on behalf of the organisers.

In order to take the wind out of the Public Eye sail and to slightly open up to the public, the WEF started in 2003 to organise its own counter event, the Open Forum. Nevertheless, the Public Eye has survived and this year once again presented two recipients for their ‘awards’.

As a result of an online voting process, the public award went to the Anglo-Dutch oil and gas company Royal Dutch Shell. Shell’s search for oil in the Arctic drew voters’ criticism. “There is no safe drilling under sea ice conditions, Shell gambles with the wildlife and beauty of one of the last unspoiled regions on our planet,” said jury member Andreas Missbach before handing the award over to Greenpeace executive director Kumi Naidoo.

Naidoo, whose organisation had nominated shell for the voting, said he didn’t want the award sitting in his office in Amsterdam. He promised to find Shell’s CEO Peter Voser at the World Economic Forum to present him the award.

Greenpeace is running a major campaign to prevent oil drilling in the Arctic. Naidoo addressed the Anglo-Dutch company directly: “We as Greenpeace will come after you peacefully, but aggressively until you get out of the Arctic.”

Christian Brütsch, an independent political analyst specialised on energy issues doubts that Shell can be pressured to disengage from the Arctic region soon. “The U.S. Geological Survey assumes one-fifth of the global undiscovered conventional oil and gas resources to be in the Arctic, and Shell has invested 4.5 billion dollars to prepare offshore drilling in Alaska so far.”

Brütsch said that if activists really wanted to prevent the exploitation of natural resources in the Arctic, they should target consumers. “Energy companies will only leave the region if the demand for oil sinks to a level where Arctic adventures would become unprofitable.”

However, as long as the current situation prevails, Brütsch prefers to see big energy companies in the Arctic. “Statoil, Exxon Mobil or Shell are much more capable of financing ‘same season relief wells’ (needed if leaks appear) than smaller corporations.”

Andreas Missbach stressed that Shell has been the only company so far to win the Public Eye Award twice. Back in 2005, the multinational was shamed for its activities in the tropics.

Missbach said that Shell’s investments in extremely damaging tar-sand extraction in Canada and the fact that the company had dropped renewable energy from its long-term strategy had further contributed to again nominate Shell for the prize.

The American investment bank Goldman Sachs received the jury award. The Public Eye jury argued that the company bears a large share of responsibility for the Euro-crisis.

“Goldman’s derivative deals, which fudged Greece’s way into the Eurozone, pawned the future of the Greek people,” said Missbach.

Former bank regulator and academic William K. Black, who attended the awards presentation, stressed that Goldman Sachs wasn’t just a singular rotten apple in a healthy bushel of banks. “Goldman Sachs is the norm of systemically dangerous institutions,” he said.

Black blamed the World Economic Forum for spreading the myth that fraud by corporate elite was rare. “They have pushed deregulation, de-supervision and de facto decriminalisation.”

Expert on business ethics Ulrich Thielemann said the dogma of profit maximisation itself leaves no room for moral integrity. “It’s the paramount cause for irresponsible corporate behaviour,” he said. “Ruthless competition that disregards human rights and environmental standards via non-regulation and the race to the bottom in standards of good corporate conduct must come to an end.”

Does naming and shaming companies have any use? Missbach admits that such an award by itself changes nothing. But within a campaign, he says, such a shame prize might be a useful tool. “Those organisations who nominated the award winners may use the prize to attract attention.”

Political analyst Christian Brütsch is far less convinced about naming and shaming campaigns. He points out that the names of the decried companies always remain the same. “Some corporations can afford to simply ignore criticism,” he says. Others would just increase their PR budgets, Brütsch argues.

Greenpeace’s Naidoo regards the awards as a means contributing to reduction of a company’s relational and reputational capital. He’s sure though that none of these powerful corporations will react to the criticism. “However, the failure to respond is a very loud confirmation that our accusations are true.”

This report was first published here by IPS Inter Press Service.

Swiss Battery May Lose Power

Swiss energy companies are determined to turn the country into a ‘battery for Europe’. Vast investments are made in big-scale water power projects. But it is not certain they will eventually pay off.

With the decision for a nuclear shutdown, the spotlight in Switzerland and Germany has switched to renewable energy sources. In Germany there’s a massive boost to solar and wind energy production, while Switzerland’s energy companies focus on increasing their storage capacities in the Alps.

About 11 percent of Europe’s electricity flows through Switzerland. The Swiss electricity industry stresses the advantages of the country’s central location in Europe and its topography. On the European energy map, Swiss mountain lakes could function as a huge battery for unsteadily generated renewable energy, and generate high revenues.

Natural and artificial mountain lakes are an essential component of Switzerland’s energy supply. Water power makes up 57 percent of the country’s electricity production. Some of these lakes aren’t just natural water reservoirs though, but serve as basins for pumped-storage hydro power plants (PSPs).

The system is simple and has long been a good business. Throughout the day, cheap, spare electricity is bought on the market and then used to pump water from a lower reservoir to a basin further up the mountain. At times when demand for electricity is high, stored water is released and drives turbines that produce electricity, which can then be sold on the market for a higher price.

PSPs function like huge batteries.

Currently, 11 such plants are running in Switzerland with a combined 1400 megawatt capacity. Three other projects are under construction, to increase Swiss pumped-storage capacity to 3500 megawatts by 2017. Two more PSPs are being planned: ‘Grimsel 3′ at the Grimsel Pass in the Bernese Alps and ‘Lago Bianco’ at the Bernina Pass in Grisons.

“The symbiosis between nature and technology has defined the character of this landscape,” writes the Grimsel region’s tourism agency. Ernst Baumberger, press officer at the regional energy company KWO looks at Grimsel through two lenses: while praising the region’s beauty, Baumberger points out that a plenty of precipitation, glaciation, rock as building ground and the immense altitude difference make it ideal for water power use. KWO put its first power plant at Grimsel in operation 80 years ago.

The company recently was licenced to implement its 1.2 billion Swiss francs project ‘KWOplus’, including the construction of a second PSP (‘Grimsel 3′). The plant will have a 660 megawatt capacity, which is about the power of an average Swiss nuclear plant. The plan is controversial, both politically and economically.

“Switzerland doesn’t need any additional PSPs. There’s neither a lack of batteries, nor a grid stability problem,” argues Jürg Buri, managing director of the Swiss Energy Foundation (SES). He says that no country operates as many flexible power stations as Switzerland.

Environmental organisations say that mainly cheap electricity from coal and nuclear plants is used for the pumping and that during the process, about a quarter of the energy is lost. Even worse, at windy times, PSPs keep coal and nuclear plants running.

There’s nothing green about pumped-storage hydroelectricity anyway. “If today’s PSPs were supplied with clean energy, that business would be unprofitable,” Buri says. “The revenues of the peak current wouldn’t make up for the purchase price and the energy lost for pumping.”

According to the licence, KWO is obliged to run Grimsel 3 with as much renewable energy as “economically and technically possible.” No fixed share was defined however. KWO’s Baumberger stresses that in the long term, the company’s PSPs should run solely with green electricity. “However, the primary criteria will remain the profitability,” he adds.

While the energy company praises Grimsel 3 as an important contribution to the security of energy supply for the country, Jürg Buri claims that the pumped-storage business further strains transmission lines. “In fact, to run Grimsel 3, even more lines would have to be built, something which people often forget about.”

KWO is currently busy preparing the necessary building applications. In a next step, the management board will discuss the profitability prospects and decide on the investments. “Concerning Grimsel 3, the shareholders are a bit cautious,” KWO’s spokesperson says. “They fear that with the current electricity prices, the investments may not pay off.”

The Swiss Association for Water Management (SWV) views investments in PSPs as risky and their profitability as volatile. At the Bernische Kraftwerke (BKW), which holds half of KWO’s shares and manages electricity trade, the media officer declines to comment on the prospects of pumped-storage hydroelectricity. It’s no secret though that Swiss energy companies are deeply concerned by the volatile electricity price and the declining price difference between peak and off-peak current.

That difference is essential for the PSP business model, which relies on providing expensive peak current, especially at noon time. Nowadays, subsidised wind and solar energy from other European states are conquering that market, challenging and flattening the prices of peak current and thereby reducing the profit rates of PSP-based energy providers.

SES’s Jürg Buri is sure that Switzerland’s ‘battery boost’ will soon come to an end. “Neither Lago Bianco, nor Grimsel 3 will be built. The economic risks are too high.” He stresses that both projects primarily target the European market. “Don’t forget that besides decreasing electricity trade revenues, Swiss PSPs are further challenged by the increasing number of flexible power plants in Europe.”

Ernst Baumberger explains that his company has different options to move on with Grimsel 3. “If the situation on the electricity market worsens, we may split the building of Grimsel 3 in various stages. At each stage, market developments could be analysed before moving on with construction.”

In contrast to environmental organisations, KWO’s Baumberger remains optimistic. He stresses that in the light of booming wind and solar energy in Europe, the demand for further storage capacities will grow. “What Switzerland so far offers in terms of energy storage is nothing but a drop in the ocean.”

While opinions on the future of Swiss pumped-storage hydroelectricity differ sharply, one thing seems sure: the industry’s prospects lie in the hands of European, not Swiss politicians and businessmen.

This report was first published here by IPS Inter Press Service.

Melting Permafrost Threatens Swiss Villages

Melting glaciers are the most visible effect of global warming in the Swiss Alps. Meanwhile, permafrost is invisible and melting too, often causing rockfall and massive debris flows, ultimately threatening mountain villages.

Guttannen, home to 310 residents, is a tiny village in the Bernese Alps, the last one that travellers drive through on the way up to Grimsel Pass. It’s spring and the snow is retreating from the steep slopes of the valley. As the pass is still closed, calm reigns in the picturesque village centre. Only cowbells and the rushing of the nearby Aar river break the silence.

For some residents though, living in Guttannen has become rather uneasy and, on the long term, even dangerous. The root cause of the peril lies further uphill, in the northeastern flank of the 3,282 metres high Ritzlihorn. In July 2009, a huge rockfall had occurred and since then, massive debris flows have roared downhill each summer.

“These mudslides as well as the volume of transported rubble have grown from year to year,” says Nils Hählen, hydraulic engineer at the cantonal public works service. “The debris partly ends up in the Aar, lifting and widening its channel.” Within three years, 630,000 cubic metres were transported into the river, increasingly endangering civil infrastructure.

In summer, after heavy rainfall, the only road leading through the narrow valley often has to be temporarily closed. A house near the river already had to be taken down, the local sewage treatment plant may be next. Since 2010, the debris flows reach as far as the hamlet Boden, threatening ten houses and 30 inhabitants. “The next few mudslides won’t be a big problem,” says Guttannen council leader Hans Abplanalp. However, some houses would effectively be threatened in two to five, others in five to seven years, he adds.

One of these homes belongs to Martin Leuthold. “I’ve lived here for 60 years and my father was already a farmer here,” he says. Leuthold claims he has no fear, as he’s grown up with the moods of nature. Nevertheless, the farmer doesn’t ignore the peril: “Perhaps nothing will happen for the next 10 years, but maybe this summer it could all rumble down on us. Nobody knows.”

Nearby, Hans von Weissenfluh lives less than 20 metres away from the river. “The threat is real, we can see it,” he says. Von Weissenfluh remembers well how impressive amounts of water and debris came down the Aar last summer. “Only five years ago, the river channel was much more narrow,” he notices.

Engineers, geologists and glaciologists assume permafrost melt to be the underlying problem. Permafrost is underground material such as rock or rubble that permanently remains at or below zero degrees centigrade. Ice is a possible, but not a necessary ingredient. “The issue is, that permafrost occurrence is generally not known,” says Nils Hählen. There are maps designed on calculated probabilities, but as the hydraulic engineer explains, in any case things have to be evaluated locally.

In northeastern mountain slopes, permafrost may occur roughly above 2,600 meters altitude. Scientists estimate that about 5 percent of Switzerland’s area contains permafrost. It stabilises steep rocky or scree slopes in the high mountains and protects them from erosion by serving as a kind of natural putty. When permafrost melts, the result may be rockfalls and debris flows. “The lower permafrost zones are the most vulnerable,” explains Hählen.

He locates the cause of permafrost melt in rising air temperatures which have been measured over the past years in the European Alps. Jeannette Nötzli, glaciologist at the University of Zurich, mentions that atmosphere and underground permafrost are often not directly coupled. Ice content and changes in surface coverage can mask atmospheric signals. Nötzli heads the Coordination Office of the Swiss Permafrost Monitoring Network PERMOS.

“As PERMOS’ systematic monitoring commenced in 2000, most of our data cover around a decade, whereas for robust statements about trends in climate science typically a 30-year period is considered,” Nötzli points out. “However,” the researcher adds, “much of our data points to permafrost degradation. For example, in the past three years active layer depths in summer have increased with new record values at many of the observed sites.”

Reliable forecasting of permafrost changes isn’t possible. In the case of Guttannen, experts limit their predictions to the next year. Hählen expects that in the long term, debris flows from the Ritzlihorn will stop, as ultimately the catchment area in the flank is limited.

Removing the rubble from the valley floor and the Aar is no option. It’s too risky, but also too costly. Additionally, dumping places in the region are limited. Only to remove the current rubble from the river would cost more than 18 million Swiss Francs and accumulate to at least 50,000 lorry loads.

There’s not much hope for the residents of Boden. Ultimately, they’ll have to leave their homes and resettle somewhere else. Hans Abplanalp, the council president, has talked to all persons concerned. “Nearly all of them want to stay in Guttannen,” he says. “We can offer them land and homes to buy.”

Boden resident Hans von Weissenfluh plans to move up to Guttannen as soon as possible. Others such as Martin Leuthold are more hesitant. He wouldn’t mind living somewhere else in the village, but is reluctant to tear down his house and move all the belongings.

“That’s a lot of work,” he says. Leuthold fears he will not be fully compensated. He’d only be compensated for his stable if he built a new one in another place. “I wouldn’t know what to build a new stable for, as I’ll soon be retired.”

This report was first published here by IPS Inter Press Service.

"Europe Headed for Water Crisis"

Future glacier retreat in the Alps could affect the hydrology of large streams more strongly than previously assumed, a new study shows. Water shortages in summer could become more frequent.

Even though their ice is called 'eternal', many alpine glaciers' lives may come to an end within this century. For 150 years, most of them have been more or less constantly retreating, and since the eighties, their shrinkage has visibly increased.

The Furka Pass in central Switzerland has long been awaiting its visitors with a special attraction. Just below the highest point of the pass, tourists may enter an ice grotto dug into the Rhone glacier to discover glacier life from the inside. Each year however, the grotto's entry can be found a few metres further downhill. Long-term measurements reveal that from 1879 to 2010, the Rhone glacier has lost 1266 metres of its original length.

The Swiss Alps are often called 'Europe's water tower'. Nearly 60 billion cubic metres of water are stored in its glaciers. Matthias Huss, glaciologist and senior lecturer at the Department of Geosciences at the University of Fribourg explains that glaciers fulfil a balancing function: "They release water exactly when we need it, while storing it in periods when we need it less."

In other words, glaciers store water during the cold and wet winter months. From May to September, snow and ice melt on the glacier surface and provide the water that is dearly needed during the hot and dry season. That same mechanism also balances year-to-year variations: in colder, wetter years glaciers accumulate water that is released in relatively hot and dry summers like in 2003.

The threat posed to alpine glaciers' essential contribution has long been recognised. However, a new study presented by Matthias Huss in the scientific journal 'Water Resources Research' found that the proportion of glacier water running down major European streams is larger than previously assumed.

"I have compared water runoff data from glaciers with actual runoff at gauges along the entire length of four major streams originating in the Swiss Alps," explains the glaciologist. His study is based on measurements along the Rhine, Rhone, Po and Danube rivers.

The comparison allowed Huss to determine the relative share of glacier water running down those streams. "Consequently, I was able to quantify how much the runoff of those streams could decrease in case the glaciers' contributions are entirely lost," he says.

One of the streams observed by Huss is the Rhone. Originating in the Upper Valais in Switzerland, the river passes through the Rhone Valley and Lake Geneva to France, finally reaching the Mediterranean Sea at the Camargue Delta near Arles. The Rhone's length is 813 kilometres, its drainage basin measures about 100,000 square kilometres.

In August, snowmelt runoff from non-glacierized regions of the catchment is small, while bare ice melt is most important. According to Huss's calculations, the 100-year average glacier contribution to the Rhone accounted for 25 percent of the total runoff. In August 2003, the share deriving from glacier storage change rose to 40 percent; a proportion not to be ignored during that extremely hot and dry summer.

At Switzerland's Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), researchers are well prepared to deal with the consequences of climate change for the Swiss water household. The FOEN recently started 'Project CCHydro'. The project name stands for climate change and hydrology in Switzerland. Based on current climate scenarios, the project aims to provide detailed forecasts on the hydrological cycle and runoffs in Switzerland for the coming decades.

Project director David Volken says that between 1996 and 2006, 0.9 billion cubic metres of water have melted from the glaciers yearly. He expects that until 2050, runoff from glaciers will increase, but then rapidly drop towards the end of the century.

"Because of the warming climate, snow melt will happen about a month earlier and rainfall will decrease 10 to 15 percent in summer," Volken adds. As a consequence, the rivers' runoff regime will change, he predicts. "There'll be more runoff in winter and less in summer. During hot summers, less water will be available in the future," the hydrologist warns.

Matthias Huss of the University of Fribourg also stresses that the current picture is deceptive. "Due to climate change, we currently get more water from the glaciers than normally, as they're melting. At first glance it looks like there's no problem," he says. But Huss warns that soon the picture will change and the remaining glaciers won't be able to provide enough water during the summer months.

Huss' glacier models are linked to specific climate scenarios. Diverging global warming estimates therefore affect prognoses regarding glacier shrinkage significantly.

The glaciologist admits that there are large uncertainties. "However," he says, "what's for sure is that glaciers will shrink massively. Even in an unlikely best-case climate scenario, glaciers will lose more than 70 percent of their size until the end of the century." And in the worst case? "There wouldn't be any glaciers any more at all."

Taking different glacier retreat scenarios into account, Huss estimates that currently glacierised basins might contribute 55 to 85 percent less water to stream flow runoff by the end of the 21st century. "Even if the climate could be stabilised at the current level," the glaciologist argues, "we'd witness drastic glacier retreat and their storage ability would either drop extremely or be lost totally."

As glacier shrinkage seems unstoppable, mankind will be forced to adapt to the new situation. Water shortages may occur more often and economic consequences may be harsh, the study warns. Especially the agricultural sector will face serious challenges, and communities may struggle to keep up drinking water supply.

The FOEN's Thomas Volken says that in the agricultural sector, water consumption efficiency has to be stepped up. He adds that adjustments in the cultivation of agricultural surface are inevitable, too.

As regards drinking water supply, Volken suggests its optimisation through regional integration and new strategies, such as linking drinking water networks to at least two independent resources. As additional measures, the hydrologist mentions the construction of additional dams in the mountains or systematic ground water accumulation.

This report was first published here by IPS Inter Press Service.

"Swiss Bid Disputed Goodbye to Nuclear Energy"

Switzerland is witnessing a drastic turnaround in energy policy. Half a year ago, plans for the construction of new nuclear reactors were heavily debated. Now, three months after the disaster in Fukushima, the initial steps for a staged nuclear shutdown have been taken.

The Swiss government, the Federal Council, surprised many, when on May 25 it announced its decision to phase out nuclear energy in the medium term. All five Swiss nuclear reactors are to be shut down at the end of their operational lifespan without being replaced. According to the plan, the first power plant ('Beznau I'), the world's oldest pressurised water reactor still in service, would be disconnected by 2019, the last reactor ('Leibstadt') by 2034.

Along with the nuclear opt-out, the cabinet presented its 'Energy Strategy 2050'. Its main features include reducing energy consumption, strengthening energy research, and broadening electricity supply by boosting hydropower and renewable energies. Currently, Switzerland's nuclear power plants are producing 39 percent of the country's energy supply.

It's still a long and potentially bumpy road from the Federal Council's landmark decision to its actual implementation, however. First, the new energy strategy is to be submitted to both chambers of the Swiss parliament for debate. Then, concrete measures and the necessary draft laws have to be developed and formulated. These will be discussed by the parliament. It is widely expected that the Swiss voters will have the final say on the issue.

On Wednesday, the National Council gathered for a special session devoted to the government's new energy strategy. On behalf of the Social Democrats, National Councillor Eric Nussbaumer demanded the nuclear phase-out to take place earlier than proposed by the Federal Council.

"Operators pretend that their reactors can be kept in service for 50 or even 60 years, even though they were built for 40 years only," he said. Pointing at three Swiss reactors being among the world's oldest, Nussbaumer called it careless to keep them running until the end of their operational lifespan.

Fulvio Pelli, president of the Liberals, criticised the absence of concrete alternative plans to replace nuclear power. He stressed that his party was against building new reactors based on currently available technologies, but didn't want to ban nuclear technology forever.

"Nuclear energy is no technology of the future," replied Swiss Energy Minister Doris Leuthard. She argued that keeping the currently existing reactors safe was costing increasing amounts of money. Leuthard stressed the importance of taking a clear and fundamental decision. "We could lose precious time. A clear decision is an impulse for the economy, it will attract investment," she said.

Representatives of the right-wing Swiss People's Party called the cabinet’s phase-out decision a mistake, claiming it would not only destroy jobs and endanger businesses, but also put the security of energy supplies for the country at risk.

Ninety-nine of Switzerland's 246 parliamentarians are members of pro-nuclear interest groups. Most of them can be found in the ranks of the Swiss People's Party and the Liberals, but to a lesser extent also in the centre parties.

Nevertheless, most representatives of centre parties recently changed their opinions and started to support a nuclear opt-out. One explanation is obvious: parliamentary elections are up in autumn and public opinion in Switzerland on nuclear power has drastically shifted in the wake of the disaster in Japan.

A post-Fukushima survey showed that two-thirds of the Swiss voters objected to building new nuclear reactors, even if as a result electricity prices would rise. In comparison, less than a year ago, only half of the respondents rejected new power plants. The poll also showed that about a third of the interviewees supported a more or less immediate shutdown of Switzerland's nuclear reactors.

Nearly asleep before 'Fukushima', the country's anti-nuclear movement has gained increasing support. In May, a demonstration against nuclear reactors attracted more than 20,000 protesters. It was by far the largest anti-nuclear demonstration in Switzerland for 25 years.

Several smaller demonstrations took place, too. In Bern, for the past two months activists have been squatting a park facing the headquarters of BKW, the operator of several power plants, including a disputed nuclear reactor in the town of Mühleberg.

The shift in public opinion and popular pressure left their traces on Wednesday's debate in the National Council. After long discussions, a majority of the representatives voted in favour of a nuclear phase- out.

The powerful Swiss business federation 'Economiesuisse' reacted with disappointment. The country's largest umbrella organisation representing the interests of Swiss businesses has been the fiercest opponent of the cabinet's new energy strategy. It has argued that the effects of a nuclear opt-out on the national economy weren't considered by the cabinet, that its costs would be larger than estimated and that the potential of renewable energy and electricity imports was being overestimated.

Meanwhile, a much smaller economic association representing leading clean-tech companies welcomed the National Council's decision. "From an economic point of view, it's the only right way," Swiss Cleantech president Nick Beglinger said. The organisation is aware of the difficulties and costs of the envisaged turnaround in energy policy, but states that they're outbalanced by the emerging opportunities.

Beglinger is convinced that phasing out of nuclear power could even go along with fighting climate change. Swiss Cleantech regards halving the overall energy consumption of Switzerland by 2050 based on raising efficiency as realistic. Boosting alternative energies is seen as another key to success.

Switzerland's small area however could be the source of obstacles on the way to boosting renewable energy such as hydro, wind or solar power. The construction of water supply dams in the mountains for example has often sparked resistance from local residents and environmental organisations. The latter though may soon be silenced by the law, as the National Council has decided to limit their tools to block or delay the construction of energy-related projects.

This report was first published here by IPS Inter Press Service.

"Wolf Back at Swiss Doors"

Wolves have resettled in Switzerland. Their appetite for sheep and even cattle has sparked fierce debates in the mountain republic. Nature conservation organisations demand the implementation of herd-protection measures. However, alp farmers are sceptical about their practicability and costs.

"On Jun. 24, the wolf attacked our 60 sheep for the first time, killing five of them. A week later, five of the 200 sheep on the neighbouring alp were slain. The next night, the wolf killed ten more sheep." Armin Andenmatten, tenant of the Alpage du Scex in the canton Valais in south-western Switzerland, looks serious as he tells how his nightmare began. The tall and strong farmer explains that all sheep herds in the area had to be taken down to the valley immediately after the wolf attacks.

Alpage du Scex extends over an area of 450 hectares located between 1,200 and 2,500 metres above sea level. Its steep and rocky terrain includes forests, grassland, creeks and waterfalls. The view on some of Switzerland's highest peaks is stunning, and only cowbells break the silence.

Andenmatten's weather-beaten face looks thoughtful as he continues to tell how in July his cattle were attacked, leaving two cows dead and one seriously injured. Before, wolf assaults on cattle hadn't happened and were considered very unlikely. In early August, the canton Valais authorised the killing of one of the two wolves detected on Alpage du Scex. Soon after, hunters shot the predator.

Historically, the widespread clearing of the forests and the disappearance of prey animals during the 16th century forced the wolves to nourish on domestic and farm animals. Consequently, wolf hunting was intensified and in the second half of the 19th century, the predator was eradicated in Switzerland.

A whole century later, the wolves have returned to the Swiss Alps. Nowadays, 15-20 individual wolves are believed to live here, their number is on the rise, and the emergence of packs is forseeable. According to the national wolf monitoring project, wolves have killed at least 62 sheep and two cows so far in 2010. Last year a record-high 358 livestock were slain.

Ralph Manz, who works for the Valaisan section of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) considers the wolf's return to Switzerland "a great event in environment conservation." At the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), Reinhard Schnidrig says a majority of Swiss people welcome the wolf's return, while aggrieved parties in the mountain cantons are against it.

Indeed in the Valais, there is fierce resistance against the wolf. "It's not because we're stubborn people, but because we're the most affected. The Valais is the entry of the wolf to Switzerland," says Roberto Schmidt, a local National Councillor of the Christian Democratic People's Party (CVP). He argues that the wolf has no place in Switzerland. "Our country is too densely populated and the mountainous regions are too cramped."

On a European level, the wolf is protected by the Bern Convention of 1979. Roberto Schmidt and several other parliamentarians have successfully pushed for a downgrading of the wolf's protected status and the facilitation of its hunt in Switzerland.

"Our aim is to prevent the emergence of wolf packs. This way, the problem could at least be limited to the presence of individual wolves," says Schmidt.

Reinhard Schnidrig of FOEN doesn't consider the shooting of wolves a sustainable solution. "In order to minimise losses of farm animals in the long run, priority has to be given to protecting the herds," he explains. Mirjam Ballmer, project manager for environment conservation policy at the non- governmental organisation Pro Natura agrees and adds: "The wolf is back, that's a fact. We need improved herd-protection measures, even though they cost."

Over the years, livestock breeding in the Swiss Alps has adjusted to the absence of predators. In the Valais, sheep herds are mostly grazing freely and unprotected, which has repeatedly been criticised by the WWF and Pro Natura. Kurt Eichenberger, responsible in the WWF for biodiversity, says there's no alternative to adjustments. "Even if the wolf could be hunted, it would again and again immigrate from Italy and France and profit from unprotected sheep herds."

Herd-protection measures usually involve dogs and shepherds. Small herds are joined in order to facilitate their protection. Reinhard Schnidrig of FOEN says such measures are working well. "There are hardly any wolf attacks on protected herds and even if it happens, only very few animals are killed."

Unlike in other cantons, in the Valais such measures have hardly been implemented. There, sheep breeding is mostly done as a hobby or sideline and flocks are relatively small and heterogeneous. Kurt Eichenberger argues that in light of this, investment in herd-protection measures and shepherds is the only promising way for sheep-keeping in future." National Councillor Roberto Schmidt says that capacious herd-protection measures would cost the canton Valais 14 million Swiss francs yearly; a sum he considers totally disproportionate.

The image of the Swiss Alps presented to visitors doesn't meet reality. While as for tourists and 'flatlanders' the mountains are an idyllic area for recovery and sports, alp farmers do hard and low-paid work in an extremely harsh environment.

"There's a lack of understanding between city and countryside," says Valaisan politician Roberto Schmidt. The Valais, he say, shouldn't "become an Indian Reservation, just because city-dwellers like to find pure and untouched nature here. We do also have the right to cultivate our region!"

Valaisan WWF spokesperson Manz meanwhile finds it "incredible to demand from the world's poorest countries to protect lions and tigers, while we here are incapable of living with the wolf."

This report was first published here by IPS Inter Press Service.