Throwing overboard Sunday’s self-imposed deadline, the European Union (EU) and Britain said they will “go the extra mile” to clinch a post-Brexit trade agreement that would avert New Year’s chaos and cost for cross-border commerce.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had set Sunday as the deadline for a breakthrough or breakdown in negotiations. But they stepped back from the brink because there was too much at stake not to make an ultimate push.
“Despite the exhaustion after almost a year of negotiations and despite the fact that deadlines have been missed over and over, we both think it is responsible at this point in time to go the extra mile,” von der Leyen said.
The negotiators were continuing to talk in Brussels at EU headquarters.
‘We Want a Good Deal’
European Council President Charles Michel immediately welcomed the development and said “we should do everything to make a deal possible,” but warned there could be a deal “at any price, no. What we want is a good deal, a deal that respects these principles of economic fair play and, also, these principles of governance.”
With less than three weeks until the UK’s final split from the EU, key aspects of the future relationship between the 27-nation bloc and its former member remain unresolved.
Progress came after months of tense and often testy negotiations that gradually whittled differences down to three key issues: fair-competition rules, mechanisms for resolving future disputes and fishing rights.
It has been four and a half years since Britons voted by 52 per cent-48 per cent to leave the EU and – in the words of the Brexiteers’ slogan – “take back control” of the UK’s borders and laws.
It took more than three years of wrangling before Britain left the bloc’s political structures on January 31. Disentangling economies that have become closely entwined as part of the EU’s single market for goods and services took even longer.
The UK has remained part of the single market and customs union during an 11-month post-Brexit transition period. That means so far, many people will have noticed little impact from Brexit.
On January 1, it will feel real. New Year’s Day will bring huge changes, even with a deal. No longer will goods and people be able to move between the UK and its continental neighbours.
The European Union and Britain will return to the negotiating table on Monday after agreeing to abandon a supposed make-or-break deadline for a post-Brexit trade pact.
</p><div readability="141.54079453225">
<div class="m-interstitial">
<div data-readmore-target="" class="m-interstitial__ad">
<div class="m-block-ad " data-tms-ad-type="box" data-tms-ad-status="idle" data-tms-ad-pos="1">
<div class="m-block-ad__label m-block-ad__label--report-enabled">
<span class="m-block-ad__label__text">Advertising</span>
<button title="Report this ad" class="m-block-ad__label__report-link" rel="noopener" data-tms-ad-report=""><svg xmlns="https://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="26.077" height="16.107" viewbox="0 0 26.077 16.107"><g transform="translate(1.325 0.5)"><path d="M6.669,15.107a1.5,1.5,0,0,1-1.5-1.5V10.184H0L5.169,5.637V1.5A1.5,1.5,0,0,1,6.669,0H22.752a1.5,1.5,0,0,1,1.5,1.5V13.607a1.5,1.5,0,0,1-1.5,1.5Z" fill="none" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="1"/><g transform="translate(29.422 15.107) rotate(-180)"><path d="M-2119.5-2724.245v7.84" transform="translate(2134.21 2729.348)" fill="none" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="2"/><path d="M-2119.5-2732v1.732" transform="translate(2134.21 2734.165)" fill="none" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="2"/></g></g></svg>
EU chief Ursula von der Leyen and Prime Minister Boris Johnson had said last week they would decide whether an agreement was possible by the end of Sunday, but agreed in a crisis call to “go the extra mile”.
“Our negotiating teams have been working day and night over recent days,” von der Leyen said in a video message, reading out a joint statement agreed with Johnson.
“We have accordingly mandated our negotiators to continue the talks and to see whether an agreement can even at this late stage be reached,” the leaders said.
They did not offer a new deadline but Conservative Party lawmaker Mark Harper suggested the extended talks could go right to the wire, with less than three weeks until Britain leaves the single market at the end of the month.
“Many of us are fully anticipating it’s entirely possible we might be returning to Parliament between Christmas and new year to scrutinise this and vote it through if a deal is done,” he told the Press Association.
EU negotiator Michel Barnier and Britain’s David Frost held talks late on Saturday and early on Sunday. They have been alternating between the capitals but a European official said that, for the moment, they would remain in Brussels.
Barnier will brief European ambassadors on Monday morning about the current state of negotiations, EU Council spokesman Sebastian Fischer said.
Johnson insisted that an agreement was far from sure.
“I’m afraid we’re still very far apart on some key things, but where there’s life there’s hope,” he said at Downing Street after briefing his cabinet about the call.
“The UK certainly won’t be walking away from the talks. I still think there’s a deal to be done if our partners want to do it,” he added.
Reports suggested the two sides were exploring a potential deal on how to respond if their regulations diverge over time and threaten fair competition.
But Britain cannot compromise on the “fundamental nature” of Brexit, controlling UK laws and fisheries, the prime minister said.
Without a deal, cross-Channel trade will revert to World Trade Organization rules, with tariffs driving up prices and generating paperwork for importers, and the failed negotiation could poison relations between London and the continent for years to come.
“Either way, whatever happens, the UK will do very, very well,” Johnson insisted.
‘No stone unturned’
Ireland stands to lose out more than any other EU country if trade with its larger neighbour is disrupted, and cautiously welcomed the reprieve.
“Time to hold our nerve and allow the negotiators to inch progress forward, even at this late stage. Joint statement on Brexit negotiations is a good signal. A deal clearly very difficult, but possible,” Foreign Minister Simon Coveney tweeted.
The hardline pro-Brexit faction in Johnson’s own British Conservatives was unconvinced, however, and MPs fired their own tweets warning against any concessions.
Much of the text of a possible trade deal is said to be ready, but Britain and Brussels are wrangling over a mechanism to allow for retaliation if UK and EU laws diverge in a way that puts continental firms at a competitive disadvantage.
“The defence of the single market is a red line for the European Union,” an EU source said. “What we have proposed to the United Kingdom respects British sovereignty.”
In London, the government insists that Britain is ready to leave the union and handle its own affairs after 47 years of close economic integration.
Downing Street says it has mapped out “every single foreseeable scenario” for problems after December 31, and “no one needs to worry about our food, medicine or vital supply chains”.
The government says it is ready to offer hefty new support for sectors in the firing line such as farming and autos, but British business groups are aghast at the lack of clarity on future trading rules.
Scotland’s nationalist government meanwhile demanded an end to “the crippling uncertainty” of a possible no-deal Brexit coming on top of the coronavirus pandemic.
And the European Parliament is deeply unhappy as time runs out for a thorough review of any pact before the year-end deadline.
“Irresponsible and bitter,” senior German MEP Bernd Lange tweeted about the drawn-out saga, warning that serious ratification is becoming “increasingly impossible”.
In a new report, released on Monday, the two agencies also warned that an alarming number of health care facilities do not have access to hand hygiene or segregate waste safely.
“Working in a health care facility without water, sanitation and hygiene is akin to sending nurses and doctors to work without personal protective equipment” said Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General.
“Water supply, sanitation and hygiene in health care facilities are fundamental to stopping COVID-19. But there are still major gaps to overcome, particularly in least developed countries.”
In least developed countries (LDCs), 1 in 2 health care facilities do not have basic drinking water, 1 in 4 lack hand hygiene facilities at points of care, and 3 in 5 do not have basic sanitation services, according to the report.
UNICEF Executive Director Henrietta Fore said that while such vulnerabilities within health systems existed before the coronavirus pandemic, 2020 “made these disparities impossible to ignore”.
“As we reimagine and shape a post-COVID world, making sure we are sending children and mothers to places of care equipped with adequate water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) services is not merely something we can and should do. It is an absolute must,” she stressed.
The WASH services are especially important for vulnerable populations, including pregnant mothers, newborns and children, protecting them from a range of life-threatening conditions.
According to preliminary estimates, it would cost about $1 per capita to enable all 47 LDCs to establish basic water service in health facilities. On average, $0.20 per capita would be needed each year to operate and maintain the services.
The report found that immediate, incremental investments in water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) have big returns: improving hygiene in health care facilities is a “best buy” for tackling antimicrobial resistance.
“It reduces health care costs because it reduces health-care associated infections (which are costly to treat). It saves time as health workers do not have to search for water for hand hygiene. Better hygiene also increases uptake of services,” said WHO and UNICEF.
This all adds up to a return of $1.5 for every dollar invested, the agencies added.
BRUSSELS — European Union chief negotiator Michel Barnier said … Prime Minister Boris Johnson and EU Commission President Ursula von der … to be hemmed in by EU restrictions, especially if those … It highlighted that just as EU fishermen crave to continue working …
New York, NY (Top40 Charts) Since its inception in late 2015 Actual Villains has been an evolving project. Formed from the dissolve of the singer’s prior band, Close to Home (Artery Recordings/Razor & Tie Records) Andrew DeNeef and his former guitarist set out to continue their signature blend of pop-punk and metalcore with their first single “Cave In”. These two parted ways in 2016 shortly after releasing the self-titled Actual Villains EP. The project sat in hiatus for a few months until Andrew moved back to Phoenix, Arizona where he met producer and guitarist Hiram Hernandez, a former label-mate from the band The New Low and former guitarist for Glass Cloud. The duo released their first single “VOID” in 2019 and have been busy in the studio writing new tunes for 2021.Their newest venture, just in time for the original song’s 30th anniversary, is a dynamic cover of one of our favorite songs of all time, R.E.M.’s Losing My Religion.
A music video for the track is now streaming here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRH1Iekq_rI&feature=youtu.be.
DeNeef says, “To me, R.E.M.’s “Losing My Religion” has always been a quintessential Alternative Rock song. Since it’s release thirty years ago, It’s been one of the only songs from my childhood that I never grew tired of as my musical tastes went through multiple stages of evolution. I’ve always felt the lyrics are about the frustrations of feeling like you’re losing control, at the end of a rope, trying to find yourself through the noise and confusion of the world. A feeling I know all too well lately.
This year has been particularly tough, with all of its challenges and stress, it’s led to a lot of moments of introspection and soul searching. Throughout this time this song kept finding its way into my life, like a sign begging for my attention. I’ve been apprehensive in the past about doing cover songs but the more I sang along to this song, the more relevant the lyrics seemed. I could hear my own version of the song in my head taking shape, begging to come to life.
I wanted to homage the original song but bring in new energy and a more dynamic sound overall, taking into account my very diverse pool of influences. It starts with a sense of sadness that boils into rage by the end, taking the listener on a journey that matches the feelings this song evokes still today after three decades. I hope you enjoy my vision for this timeless classic. “Losing My Religion”, reimagined by Actual Villains.”
The Director-General of the Africa Rice Center (AfricaRice), Harold Roy-Macauley has completed a visit at the European Union-funded integrated rice and fish farming project under the Development of Smart Innovation through Research in Agriculture (DeSIRA) at the Central Agriculture Research Institute (CARI) in Suakoko, Bong County.
Mr. Roy-Macaulay, who was recently on a four-day visit to Liberia from the Center’s headquarters in Abidjan, Cote D’Ivoire, took stock of progress that is being made and lauded the technicians for the level of work that has been done thus far.
The DG’s visit was followed by a high-profile delegation from the European Union office in Liberia that also toured the field to ascertain how their funds are being utilized.
Both delegations were led on their respective tours by AfricaRice Country Representative, Dr. Innousa Akintayo and experts who are working on the project. They toured the fields of the project, which seeks to develop integrated, climate-smart rice-fish production systems sustainably and balance interventions on participatory research on rice-fish farming, development of successful extension service delivery systems.
Dr. Roy-Macualey, the members of the EU delegation, were ferried to the “floating cage,” an innovative technological fish pond that that has the capacity to host 40,000 fish in a safe, secure and eco-friendly environment on a lake at the CARI center. An impressd Dr. Macaulay bombarded experts with questions as he tried to get a better understanding of the initiative and how it would impact the Liberian society, especially in the area of nutrition and food security.
Locally fabricated machines as well as locally made feed for the fishes were also showcased during the tour.
Upon expressing joy over the innovation and the level of reception that the initiative is gaining in the country, Dr. Roy-Macaulay inquired about the sustainability aspect and how it could impact Liberia’s food security.
CARI, situated in the central Liberian town of Suakoko in Bong County about 180 km north of Monrovia, was a reliable and top-notch agriculture research center prior to Liberia’s civil war. It has been struggling to regain prewar status amidst numerous constraints.
AfricaRice and World Fish, with supervisory roles from the Ministry of Agriculture along with its secondary agencies CARI and the National Fisheries and Aquaculture Authority (NaFAA), are implementing this a three-year project that kicked off in July of this year.
Minister of Agriculture, Madam Jeanie Cooper, also paid a visit at the site on November 14, at which time she said that the DeSIRA project is her favorite project and one of the best agriculture initiatives for food security in Liberia.
She said if every stakeholder could invest in the initiative, it will improve income and create a sustainable nutrition value for most Liberian households.
Dr. Roy-Macauley and the EU team hoped that with the new integrated Rice-Fish farming technologies and with cooperation from Liberian stakeholders, it will improve incomes and create a sustainable nutrition value in most Liberian households.
Dr. Akintayo told his guests that the rice, fish and vegetable crops, which are being integrated at the site, are doing well and that the first harvest, which was done a little over a month ago, is a sign of better things to come.
DeSIRA, which is geared towards improving food security, nutrition and income in rural Liberia, came into being through an MOU between the government, represented by the Ministry of Agriculture and the National Fisheries and Aquaculture Authority (NaFAA) and AfricaRice. It focuses on rice, fish and vegetable integration.
The MOU was cemented months ago in Monrovia with the signatures of the head of MOA, Madam Jennie Cooper; NaFAA, Emma Metieh Glassco and AfricaRice, Dr. Inoussa Akintayo.
Dr. Akintayo disclosed that the integrated rice and fish farmers are the primary direct beneficiaries of the project and will benefit directly through access to research, innovations, and technologies that will improve the sustainability and productivity of their products.
The project is to be implemented in five counties, namely Grand Gedeh, Maryland, Gbarpolu, Margibi, and River Gee counties and will target three hundred sixty-five rural smallholder farmers. The seedlings from the demonstration site at CARI will be distributed to farmers in the project counties, the AfricaRice boss noted at the launch in October.
Sixty percent of targeted farmers will be women inclusive householders/families to build on their roles as food producers and ensuring food and nutrition of their families.
Since the launch of the project in July, scores of local farmers from Bong County have been visiting to gain knowledge of the new technologies that they could take back home and help improve their farming systems for better yields. Scores of both secondary and university students have also paid visits to learn about the new technologies.
Formerly known as the West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA), AfricaRice has been active in the agriculture sector from the 1980s. Since the end of the Liberian civil crisis, the organization has been more focused on innovation and technology in the agriculture sector in Liberia.
The organization has since been involved in the production of labor-saving equipment such as rice seeders/planters, rice reapers, harvesters, threshers, weeders, and parboilers—equipment that are produced by local technicians. “You know agriculture is labor-intensive, so there is a need that the country transitions to mechanized farming and this is the process that we are on,” Dr. Akintayo told the Daily Observer in an exclusive interview a few months ago.
We need a new approach to enlargement policies, lest their complete failure. And it is necessary to start afresh from the abolition of unanimous voting. An interview with Srdjan Cvijić, author together with Adnan Ćerimagić of “Rebuilding Our House Of Cards: With More Glue”
Srdjan Cvijić is a Senior Policy Analist at the Open Society European Policy Institute, a member of the Balkan Europe Advisory Policy Group, and currently contributes to the “Europe’s Futures” project of the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna. He recently published “Rebuilding Our House Of Cards: With More Glue ”, a study-proposal on EU enlargement policy. We interviewed him.
Recently, you and your Bosnian colleague, Adnan Ćerimagić, published a paper with the undoubtedly original title “Rebuilding Our House Of Cards: With More Glue, which proposes a new approach to EU enlargement policies. Let’s start with the title: house of cards and glue…
It was not actually us who invented this term, all the questions or statements with which we began the paper were asked during a meeting with some European politicians in June 2016. We wanted to advocate for an enlargement policy but everything happened shortly after Brexit… It wasn’t exactly the right time: at that time the EU really looked like a house of cards and how could we imagine adding more cards if one card had already fallen? Inspired by this conversation, we decided to use the metaphor of glue, which is necessary to hold everything together.
What makes this house so fragile?
One of the main problems is the procedure used by the EU for enlargement: often the mistake is made of focusing only on the political aspects and not on the institutional ones. But now we are experiencing an absurd situation. Due to the unanimous vote system, a country like Bulgaria is blocking the entry of North Macedonia for purely political reasons. The veto was placed on the basis of issues not only contrary to the values of the EU, but which are certainly not part of the Copenhagen Criteria which establish the conditions for membership. Bulgaria is using the system to protect bilateral interests. I believe that the motivation behind the various vetoes that have followed one another in recent years has never been institutional, but very often linked to internal politics.
Project
The EUWeBER project aims to offer university students a better knowledge of European foreign policy issues, particularly in relation to the countries of South-East Europe and the Eastern Partnership. It includes interactive classroom seminars and broadcast online for a wider audience, internship opportunities at the Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT), a blog. The project is promoted by the Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence of the University of Trento in collaboration with the Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa and with the support of the European Union.
The veto has not always been used in these terms…
Before the accession process was so politicised, the European Commission held the steering wheel firmly in its hands. This was not the case, however, in the case of Macedonia, a country that is entitled to membership as much as Croatia, for example, was. The EU has proposed 10 times to open negotiations. The member countries, however, opposed it because of the dispute with Greece over the name of the state, Macedonia or North Macedonia.
It must be remembered that bilateral issues are not the only cases in which countries have exploited the bond of unanimity for their own interest. For example, we have the case of France, where last year the opening of negotiations with Albania and North Macedonia was vetoed for internal political reasons. The reasons were the European and administrative elections at the beginning of 2020. Then last spring, in the middle of the pandemic, when no one cared about negotiations, the accession agreements with the two countries were given a “green light”.
What would enable the EU to overcome this impasse?
We propose a reform of the system: to introduce qualified majority voting in the accession negotiation process, made up of 55% of the member states making up 65% of the European population. Indeed, it is unlikely to find a coalition of small countries to take sides against Italy, France, and Germany…
When we made this proposal we were told that it was not realistic on two points: there is no political push to change the procedure; the solution would involve changing the treaties.
However, the criticisms are false. Already in 2018, the European Commission had proposed to expand qualified majority voting to three areas of the common foreign and security policy. In addition, it is not necessary to change the treaties because art. 31 par. 3 provides that the European Council with unanimity vote can decide whether to introduce a qualified majority in matters of foreign policy.
In addition, many believe that this new procedure would only speed up the process by losing the possibility of punishing countries that did not respect the procedures. That’s not true, just remember the case of Turkey – in 2017 and 2019 the European Parliament voted for a formal suspension of negotiations with a country that has practically become a dictatorship. But this did not happen, because the European Council did not reach unanimity on the issue: in this case, therefore, it was the unanimous vote procedure that prevented sanctions against Turkey. Voting with a qualified majority would restore rationality to the entire process.
Which member states could give momentum to this change?
France is reluctant to take this step because it already has a dominant position in foreign policy thanks to its vote in the UN Security Council, its nuclear weapons, its role of global importance. For example, it has more international power than Germany. France, therefore, would never give up unanimity without receiving something in return, e.g. the introduction of qualified majority in fiscal policies.
For a long time Germany did not have the slightest intention of talking about this, but a few years ago there was an opening in this sense; in the light of these changes one could imagine future changes.
If there is a push from the larger countries, I find it difficult for the smaller ones to oppose it.
It should also not be forgotten that the qualified majority does not actually deprive a country of the right to block the entry of a candidate. Member states would still have the opportunity not to ratify the accession treaty. But the latter is a completely different scenario: it would be just one last step to be taken and there would not be, like now, hundreds of intermediate steps, each of which can be vetoed.
Have the European institutions already reflected on the possible modification of the procedure for accession negotiations?
Yes and no. What we saw in 2019, the discussion on the new methodology for the accession process, which was then adopted at the beginning of 2020, is a kind of “scalpel” that touched on some points, but was not a real institutional reform. And this was seen in the recent case of Bulgaria.
Our proposal seems sensible to us and in any case it is the only way forward. What we have experienced so far, despite the promises of 2003 in Thessaloniki, is the absence of a profound, radical, and sensible change, and we are paying for this as the EU in the candidate countries.
Do the Balkan countries really want to join the European Union or is Euroscepticism starting to emerge?
That’s the point. First of all, which countries are negotiating? Serbia and Montenegro are negotiating, Montenegro is ahead, closing several chapters, but still we are far from the accession treaty. Serbia is moving more slowly due to internal political problems, the democratic backsliding of the last eight years.
North Macedonia, on the other hand, is only knocking on the door.
Unfortunately, to answer the question it is enough to mention a statistic. In 2009, a few months before visa liberalisation – the only real “carrot” that countries have received since 2003 – 73% of Serbs supported EU membership. In 2019 the percentage was around 50%; in 2016 when we started these discussions it was 46%.
However, the conclusion should not be drawn that there are real geopolitical alternatives. In my opinion, a referendum would give a very different outcome from the polls: the latter only illustrate the deep desperation, the broken dream of an entire population.
Furthermore, for example in Serbia, the EU is losing the support of the pro-European population. What the Union is letting Orbán get away with is also apparent to the candidate countries, that wonder: if the Union tolerates this, do we really want to join?
In the accession process, the European Union is like someone who has water leaking into their apartment due to the bathroom of the neighbour upstairs; what we are doing is painting our ceiling without taking the tools and fixing the problem in the neighbour’s bathroom. As long as we have this absurd situation in the EU countries where we tolerate undemocratic regimes, in the candidate countries on the one hand we will have similar regimes, and on the other hand the population itself, the real engine of the European Union, will stop believing in the common project.
I commenti, nel limite del possibile, vengono vagliati dal nostro staff prima di essere resi pubblici. Il tempo necessario per questa operazione può essere variabile. Vai alla nostra policy
Ill-timed blazes may be damaging the Mother City’s most famous natural landmark. And they have a lot to do with homeless campers, the roaming people who seek refuge on the mountain while the city sleeps below.
Covered in sandy, nutrient-starved soils, scorched by fire, and pummelled by the prevailing gale-force southeaster in summer, the Cape Floral Kingdom has persisted as a land of extreme paradoxes for millenniums.
Given the harsh conditions that assail life here, this world seems to have every reason not to be a botanical number cruncher’s wet dream: the untrained eye may hardly conceive that it gives refuge to nearly 20% of Africa’s flora on less than 0.5% of the continent’s surface. It seems implausible that some 9 000 plant species should thrive in these coastal extremities, 70% of which live nowhere else on Earth.
Yet, forged through the ages by a natural baptism of fire — as well as by mountains, soils, a Mediterranean climate and a somewhat stable geological history — the Cape Floral Kingdom is all these things. Its fine-leaved shrublands, or “fynbos” as the locals call it, represent the smallest but most diverse of the planet’s six recognised floral kingdoms. The 500-million-year-old Table Mountain chain and its newer national park, today surrounded by the metropolis of Cape Town, are the crowning glory of this floral cornucopia.
Display Adverts
There are indeed pockets of renosterveld and fire-sensitive Afromontane forests in the 265km2 park, but, for the large part, it is flame-loving fynbos that bursts into a preposterously pretty palette after the annual winter rains.
Nearly 60% of fires are started by ‘vagrants’
Blazes of an entirely different nature, however, have dominated the local fire regime in recent years, park fire manager Philip Prins told Daily Maverick’s Our Burning Planet.
Starting campfires, except in a minimal number of designated picnic spots, is illegal. Visitors may only stay overnight in recognised facilities. Yet Prins says that, in past weeks alone, crews have responded to and extinguished illegal “vagrant-caused” fires in various parts of the park, including Tokai and Red Hill towards the centre and south; and Oudekraal and Deer Park in the park’s northern sections.
High numbers of park visitors, and potentially illegal fires, may yet prove particularly true of the 2020/21 summer period.
“It’s just unbelievable,” says Prins. Head of the park’s fire operations since the reserve was proclaimed 23 years ago, he offers institutional knowledge spanning nearly 40 years of conservation service to the Cape Peninsula. Despite the hard lockdown this year, he says he has seen “a massive increase in visitor numbers”.
Fanned by a raging southeaster, Deer Park’s “Halloween fire” on 31 October has so far proven the largest of the spring/summer blazes to be traced to illegal campfires. To contain the inferno, which singed 50 hectares 0n the mountain’s frontal slopes, it would take 16 fire trucks heaving with up to 6 000 litres of water per tank, plus crews from across the firefighting spectrum: city, park and volunteer corps.
As for the previous summer season over 2019/20, there were 108 fires in the park, according to official fire-investigation data seen by Our Burning Planet. The majority of these blazes — 58% — were associated with fires kindled for cooking, heating and socialising. In a few cases, arson looked to be the cause. Additionally, the red wedge of the pie chart attributes 32% to “malicious” origins; while 9% were sparked by “negligence”. Much of it starting over summer weekends on the front of Table Mountain as well as adjacent Lion’s Head and Signal Hill, crews contained close on 90% of fires within 90 minutes.
“A lot of vagrants come in during the night, or late in the afternoon,” explains Prins. “They move from the city into the park and, early the following morning, they move from the park back towards the city, and so it continues.”
Thick bushes, watercourses and public drinking points on the mountain’s lower slopes tend to be a haven for illegal campers, driven into such spaces by poverty, homelessness and hunger. Shallow, overhanging caves, set a considerable distance from the urban edge, tend to attract church groups practising fire ceremonies. (Recently, the Noordhoek Ratepayers’ Association also reported that subsistence/muti poachers around the nearby wetlands use fire to flush out wildlife.)
Prins adds that “we now sit with a serious issue, not only with vagrants, but church groups, who tend to arrive on Friday or Saturday nights. One evening we put out a group of 50. Newlands Forest is especially popular. And, they divide into smaller groups, each of which has to make its own fire.”
To tease conspiracy theory from fact, and stitch together a bird’s-eye view of ignition trends, each incident is scrutinised by Enviro Wildfire Services’ Rob Erasmus, the park’s independent fire investigator.
In 2018/19, “vagrant activities” caused 32% of fires, marginally down from 2017/18’s 36%.
“We accept that the time period of three fire seasons is too short to suggest any significant trends,” Erasmus cautions. However, “to start determining patterns and trends, from 2017 we started tracking and keeping a record of all fires that we investigated within the park.”
“I think it does require looking at the data,” says Nicky Schmidt of the non-profit organisation Parkscape, which campaigns for user safety within the buffer zones that abut the urban interface. “You could have few people doing this, but repeatedly. For example, in 2018 in Tokai, we had something like 27 starts over a two or three-month period. We soon realised the starts were on weekends, in the early hours of the morning. The pattern, and evidence found, tells you what you’re dealing with.”
Dr Jasper Slingsby is not as much concerned about “vagrants” as he is about people at large: “About 99% of the fires are started by people — vagrants or not. To my memory, the 2015 Cape Point fire, ignited by lightning, was the only natural fire to have taken place in the park for some time.”
Of course, Slingsby, a fynbos/biodiversity scientist with the South African Environmental Observation Network (SAEON), is not referring to the great fire of March 2015. Igniting above Boyes Drive in Muizenberg and sweeping across the peninsula to Chapman’s Peak, it left a swath of significant damage, including destroying several properties. Here, again, the evidence tracks to an illegal campfire.
“A small fire was made to keep warm once entering into the low, thick cloud on the mountain that night,” Erasmus told Our Burning Planet. The accidental fire starter had “walked over the mountain from Muizenberg to Sun Valley … the fire either got too big or was left unattended once the person proceeded on their way.”
Home is where the hearth is
The human element aside, natural fynbos blazes should ideally ignite, on average, every 12 to 15 years as a result of dry, hot, windy conditions interacting with mature, indigenous vegetation. As Dr Alanna Rebelo of Stellenbosch University’s Department of Conservation Ecology and Entomology explains, well-timed flames are to fynbos what raindrops are to desert. “Most fynbos needs fire not only to flourish but to survive. This is because many fynbos guilds [types of plants] are dependent on fire to complete their life cycles.”
Enter the private lives of protea “babies”, stockpiled as seeds in closed cones, lying in wait for the rousing kiss of veldfire.
The fire, says Rebelo, “stimulates the cones. After the fire, the cones spring open, popping the protea seeds into the air and all over the ground. These seeds germinate, and more protea babies survive to the next generation, ready to make babies in time for the next fire.”
Some fynbos species have evolved ways to stuff their seeds in the ground, rather than in cones. “If they want to get babies from seed to adult plant, these seeds under the ground need to germinate. What germinates these seeds?” she asks. “The heat and smoke from fires.”
It is likely no one knew fire better than the Cape’s first people themselves.
Over time, these early agriculturalists had ample opportunity to gather mental data of the land’s bursting into abundance after good fire had rippled through it. They may have had such an implicit understanding of fire and its uses, the original theory suggests, that they would have used the practice of “fire-stick farming” to broker access to pantries of underground bulbs. This year, a South African/US study claimed to have unearthed vital clues supporting that hypothesis — the first quantified evidence of significantly amplified returns in post-fire fynbos.
Given this deep human-fire-fynbos symbiosis, it is tempting to dismiss contemporary human-caused fires from the park’s laundry list of conservation challenges — critical resources may arguably be better directed at tackling the cascading effects of climate change, poaching, litter and violent crime in a park that generated a pivotal R300-million for tourism coffers in 2018/19.
The area affected by the Halloween fire, for instance, had not received a proper burn in some 15 years, so this was one piece of land crying out for fire, Prins stresses.
Still, the science of fire ecology tells us that a “Goldilocks” confluence of conditions is necessary to maintain these natural cycles, which are delicate and may be easy to disrupt.
“It takes proteas a few years to make their cones. Fires that ignite too soon could end up killing the proteas before they have had time to set seed, leading to local extinctions,” Rebelo warns. “A fire that is too hot, due to invasive alien plants, could scorch underground seeds and kill them, as well as the organic matter in the soil, making soils hydrophobic. A fire that is too cool — in the wrong season — may not stimulate seeds at all, and only weeds may grow.”
Similarly, unseasonal fire “could also kill babies of animals that have timed their own life cycles with periods when there would be very low risk of fire”.
Slingsby, the SAEON biodiversity scientist, also notes that “increased fire frequency is the common story across fynbos because of added human ignitions. Parts of the mountain, such as the Cape Town City Bowl section, have burnt too frequently … if you consistently have hotter or more frequent fires,you’re going to see changes in the ecosystem.”
Although “very few fires are started by vagrants with malicious intent”, park fire investigator Erasmus adds that “any fire started by vagrants in young veld — five years or younger — is detrimental to the environment … In many cases this young veld consists of fine fuels — shrubs and young woody plants — that ignite and spread fire quickly.”
Last year, “a number of fires occurred in youngish veld”.
Thus, layer the ill-timed effects of bad fire on top of the rejuvenating effects of good fire and you feed too much fire into the system. And the Halloween fire’s timing, experts interviewed for this article agreed, was … well … somewhat off.
It was “very early for such a big fire” — the “official start of the Western Cape fire season is only 1 December”, says Prins.
Slingsby agrees the fire was “certainly early. Almost all fires happen in December and January. October/November fires are rare on the peninsula.”
Malicious or accidental fires, especially those that ignite out of season, may also conflict with issues such as firefighting readiness and fire management.
Cutting firebreaks, wide strips of land designed to stop fire from spreading, is an expensive, big operation: in the region of R2-million annually. This takes place once a year, and then largely within a certain time frame in November and December to avoid vegetation regrowth.
There is also the cost of the firefighter’s arsenal: the park helicopter is only on standby from 10 November each year; City helicopters are on standby from 1 December. Keeping a helicopter in the air now costs R36,000 an hour.
“We can spend up to R12-million on integrated fire management, depending on the season,” says Prins. “During a busy season, we spend more than that.”
Grace under fire: Job on the job
During Our Burning Planet’s conversation with Prins in his office at the Newlands Forest firebase, the white-haired, bearded fire veteran wields an unwavering gaze as he sets out the occupational hazards of running a portfolio that unsurprisingly generates a lot of public emotion. His daily to-do list ranges from pacifying the fire Karens on the park’s fabulously wealthy urban edge to juggling the politics of prescribed burns.
“If we do a prescribed burn, the people complain,” he says. “They complain about the smoke. They complain about the ash. After the fire, they complain about the wind blowing ash into their houses and they complain about the wind blowing ash into their swimming pools.”
The point behind these burns is to reduce fire hazards, such as alien vegetation.
“And it’s a process we have to go through in terms of applying for permits, especially on the wildland-urban interface,” he says. “I think people definitely need some more education when it comes to that. And they also must take some responsibility — they can’t expect the park and the City to do everything.”
For her part, Rebelo suggests the debate on fire ought to direct its attention at what she considers to be the “root issue” — vegetation fuel loads, rather than only the ignition source and its associated “conspiracy theories”, whether the latter may involve supposed natural causes such as lightning; or human causes such as cigarette “stompie” offenders.
“Everyone makes a huge fuss about arson, and there are all kinds of conspiracy theories every time there is a fire,” she says, referring to the 2017 Knysna megawildfires as an example. “And while that is understandable, what about the officials/landowners responsible for the vegetation itself? It’s not only about ignition, but about fuel management. This always seems to be ignored. It is so much less exciting for people.”
She recommends allowing naturally ignited fires to “burn out” at regular intervals in keeping with the natural fire regime, “or you need to actively manage vegetation using ecological burns to make sure the fuel loads don’t increase too much”.
However, “authorities often do neither”, she argues. For this, she fingers an “unfavourable policy environment” as a “dangerous, counterproductive and passive approach to fire management”. In terms of prescribed burns, “if they start a fire, they are liable. In terms of non-prescribed burns, if adequate attempts are not made to stop a fire, the landowner on whose land the fire crossed is liable.”
She says putting out every fire and doing no ecological burns “results in ageing vegetation. When it does burn, it burns very hot, and can result in megawildfires.”
“There are some 50,000 or so landowners bordering the park, and everyone has their own opinion on fire management, but not everyone is well-versed in fire ecology and fire safety. Managing fire is really more of a people problem than an ecological problem,” says Slingsby.
Given what he calls “the practical and financial constraints”, he says the park’s fire department is “doing a world-class job, for the most part. We also need to consider that the human factor has distorted fire on the peninsula to such a degree that mimicking the natural regime through fire management is a huge undertaking and can be at odds with managing fire risk. For an ecological burn, you need the hottest, driest conditions.”
But that is not what you want for fire risk, he says, because it is hot, dry conditions that set off wildfires in summer.
He acknowledges alien vegetation as both a fire and an ecological risk but deems the issue “reasonably well managed — just look at the Cape Point section as an example … bearing in mind that alien vegetation is always going to be a problem. People forget that Table Mountain was once under the cover of 75% pine trees. The problem is budgetary constraints and, when funds do become available, there are other priorities to compete with, like security.”
‘More eyes and ears’
More lateral interventions may have to address a problem that Prins, due to retire next year, says has existed in the park for decades: “We manage a park in a city. We had a problem with vagrants in 1983 and we still have a problem with vagrants.”
In interviews with park staff, City officials and non-profit campaigners, two conflicting themes dominated: the obvious, staggering complexity of the deeply systemic social dilemma driving the phenomenon of illegal campfires in particular. And the need to police hotspots with increased patrols.
Parkscape’s Schmidt stresses that resolving issues “like this” is, well, Sisyphean in scale. The cycle of visitors ebbing and flowing through the park’s porous, flammable borders from a city of about 4.6 million people, and thus policing potential fire starters, may be akin to plugging the Atlantic with a sieve.
She observes that “indigent people have lived on the mountain for many years and continue to do so. It’s a difficult and sensitive issue, as is any issue of homelessness across the city, and reflects any number of unresolved social issues and failures.”
Within the park itself, the issue “begs questions of human rights versus environmental legislation”.
The park is home to sacred sites for church groups, she argues, so there ought to be ways of accommodating such practices, such as building firebreaks around designated zones that meet ceremonial needs.
“Flora and fauna may take priority in a rural park, but it doesn’t work like that in an urban national park with a diverse population with multiple needs,” she says. “Our Constitution is anthropocentric. It’s a people-centred democracy. We need protocols for an African country.”
Focusing on hotspots, however, she suggests, “the only way to begin to manage the situation is more eyes and ears, possibly drone usage — currently forbidden, and not without issue, in national park spaces”.
Her concerns speak to the regularity of policing as much as they do to the visibility of it: “Park users regularly complain about the visible lack of rangers, but that is what is needed here to prevent crime and fires, especially in the busier buffer zones, where fires, in particular, risk causing millions of rands in damage to property, and may even take lives.”
Andy Davies of the park-users forum Friends of Table Mountain (FoTM) is keen to point out that the group is “mindful of the housing crisis in Cape Town and South Africa at large. But the bottom line is Table Mountain is a national park. It is illegal to live on the mountain and unfortunately, vagrants are associated with litter, security and fire. This is where law-enforcement is critical.”
And, yet as both interest groups emphasise, being homeless in Cape Town is hardly a crime.
Few people understand this better than Hassan Khan, CEO of Haven Night Shelter welfare organisation, established in 1978. Khan is a well-known champion for the city’s homeless and is not convinced these roaming residents need lessons on making fire.
‘It is not illegal to be homeless’
Khan describes himself as a nature lover and passionate hiker who grew up in the suburb of Salt River, and made campfires in the mountain caves of his youth. He even watched homeless people in Van Riebeeck Park on the slopes of upper Oranjezicht stoking their own cooking fires during the winter lockdown period of June, July and August.
“Those fires were made of twigs between rocks next to a river. Three or four cooking groups used small pots — five litres max per pot. It’s totally impractical to have a big fire while you’re sitting with a small pot. You’re going to burn your hands and your eyebrows, nè?” he laughs.
“It’s just plain common sense, man,” says Khan, whose organisation runs 15 shelters in the Western Cape, nine of which are in Cape Town. It is the province’s largest shelter organisation. “Stack a pot like that onto some rocks, and you’ll quickly see it burns very efficiently and it burns out completely.”
Most veldfires ignite “as campfires left to smoulder when people go into their tents, and then the wind whips it up, but the cooking I saw didn’t cause fires and it was extremely unlikely to cause fires”.
Everyone wants pristine parks but few seem willing to support the most vulnerable people who have little choice but to survive on, or beyond, those park borders, he suggests. “Environmental fundamentalism”, as he calls it, is yet to integrate into South Africa’s democratic era.
“People love the park more than they love people, and much of that comes from an apartheid idea of South African society,” he says. “Environmentalists and academics always know where you can’t build houses for black people, but they’ve never been able to identify which areas are suitable for that purpose.
“The idea that poor people by their nature will go in and destroy the park is a fallacy. We don’t support them materially. We just make political statements from time to time. But if people were to find utility in the natural environment, they would protect it. We need to create good spaces for everyone instead of building fences, and just hoping for the best that future generations will still be able to enjoy these parks.”
Khan is also not convinced that the Covid-19 pandemic has created “an absolute increase” in the city’s homeless population: “It’s the movement of the same people” who have been displaced from their normal routines, and “they’ve certainly become more visible”.
When approached for comment on how the City of Cape Town may support park patrols, City officials suggested that they were doing enough; and that, short of reintegration, there was not much more they could do.
“The only solution to the challenges presented by street people … is through reintegration of people living on the streets, and mitigating the risk factors that result in them ending up on the streets,” says councillor Zahid Badroodien, mayoral committee member for community services and health. “Despite the best intentions of the City of Cape Town’s Street People Unit, it is a reality that many people simply refuse any form of assistance. They cannot be forced to accept help either, since it is not illegal to be homeless.”
Wayne Dyason, spokesperson for City law enforcement, insists that the Law Enforcement Tourism Unit “patrols the trails on the front face of the mountain. They have acquired ebikes to assist them with their patrols. The unit has been very active in the area.”
In its emailed response to Our Burning Planet, SANParks’ head office praises the City for being “very cooperative”, while also, somewhat ambiguously, hinting at past tensions: “[We] know how the problem is pushed to-and-fro if we do not act in concert.”
The agency adds that the “clearance of vagrants is complicated and sensitive; our forthcoming interventions will be within the law … We endeavour to roll the problem back, despite serious limitations that cannot be mitigated by SANParks alone … ”
A senior agency source speaking on condition of anonymity says “tens of millions” has been slated to be poured into a new mega security centre, one overseeing a range of issues, from poaching to crime.
The agency’s response confirms a “command, control and communications centre” has been launched without fanfare. This will cooperate with “TMNP SEAPLESS: Sustainable Environmental Asset Protection, Law Enforcement, Safety and Security”. The idea is to “rapidly grow from immediate intervention demands to a predictive analysis, not a quick fix; a sustainable and reliable partner in Cape Peninsula growth, safety and security”. The new operation is “loaded with the best professionals in our area of responsibility”.
Such a streamlined service would not be without merit if the experience of the person who reported the Halloween fire tells us anything. That person was Professor Wolfgang Preiser, head of Stellenbosch University’s medical virology division.
“We saw the smoke and thought how irresponsible it is to make fire in a howling wind,” Preiser wrote in a social media post shortly after the inferno. “Fire was quickly getting bigger so we called TMNP [Table Mountain National Park] offices, were cut off about 10 times, and finally told to call Newlands fire station. Then everything was very fast — when back down, fire engines all over.”
Preiser confirmed to Our Burning Planet that he had written the post “following our short hike with family and a friend from Deer Park up to Tafelberg Road and back down”. Noting the smoke in the region of Platteklip Stream flowing down from the gorge, his description echoes the findings of the park’s official investigation, which traced the ignition to Platteklip stream near Deer Park below Tafelberg Road.
“The Platteklip stream site is a favoured location for vagrants,” says Erasmus. “While it cannot be regarded as an illegal settlement — there are no informal structures and it is not used on a permanent basis — it is, however, frequently used.”
At the time of writing, the fire starter or starters were still at large, although Erasmus says “it’s not impossible to catch such a person”.
“In cases where accidental or malicious fires are set, considerable effort is required to identify such people as they are both devious and cautious,” he notes. “We have been successful on a number of occasions that have resulted in plea bargains, hence the outcomes not being publicised.”
Once upon a renosterveld
On the hot, blinding morning after Halloween, 16 fire trucks stationed at Deer Park had become one. Like the ghosts of dead plants and animals, smoke columns ascended the charred slopes. The mountain’s sandstone and granite face reared up behind the curtain of twirling wraiths.
An owner of an urban-edge mansion who preferred not to be named was philosophical about life on the fringe of this flammable mountain.
“If you want to live in a spot like this, you’ve got to take the rough with the smooth. You can’t complain because you’ve built a damn great big house where it’s not supposed to be,” he said. A thin shield of firefighters was all that had stood between his home and the fire the night before.
Still dusted with soot, he angled his shoulders to move back inside, but not before gazing out across his seared view.
“Sure, we’ve had too many fires, too often,” he said, but hesitated. “Look, I hate to blame somebody. When it’s someone throwing out a cigarette butt, that to me is inexcusable… but somebody trying to live? Everybody wants to talk and you can bet your bottom dollar there was someone trying to have a meal.”
The vegetation here would “burst back into life after the next rains”, Volunteer Wildfire Services wrote in a 2 November social media post and, on the other side of Kloof Nek Road separating Lion’s Head from the rest of the mountain, nature was already telling stories of renewal.
The March 2020 fire, still under investigation, had turned 60 hectares into a wild necropolis, the gargoyles of burnt-out cars presiding over it. But this year’s winter had proven a good, wet one for these inclines: in spring and early summer, Lion’s Head popped out carpets of Watsonias, Chincherinchees, vygies and the rest of the blooming party.
However, two kilometres down the drag, where the Signal Hill parking area dips towards the Atlantic Seaboard’s wildland-urban interface, the slopes have burnt too often, suggests Prins. The dominant vegetation is fertile renosterveld — grasses, bulbs and daisies on nutrient-infused shale soils, rather than the typical proteas, restios and ericas of fynbos.
At least, renosterveld is what it is supposed to be. In images he is shown of the veld around the parking area, the University of Cape Town flora expert Tony Verboom also spots “weedy Eurasian annual grasses, such as Avena and Lolium; Paterson’s Curse (Echium), also from southern Europe; and Eurasian Plantago species”.
Verboom, an associate professor, says human-caused fires exaggerate this weedy effect “by upsetting the natural competitive hierarchies and generating gaps that provide invasive weeds with an entry point”.
Impacts such as these that play out over time, Slingsby co-writes in an article on disrupted fire regimes. Initially, those shifts are barely discernible, but they tend to create slow, deep change to the very “structure, composition and function of ecosystems”.
“Kyk daar in die see — ’n belangrike man met die naam Nelson Mandela het eens op ’n tyd in daai eiland se tronk gebly,” a father pointed out to his young son in Afrikaans while Our Burning Planet was photographing the scene. [Look at the sea — once upon a time an important man by the name of Nelson Mandela lived in that island’s prison.]
Out in the bay below, Robben Island shimmered like an auburn mirage. At the father’s and son’s feet, a changing mosaic of renosterveld rippling in the wind.
“Bly mense nogsteeds in daai tronk, Pappa?” [Do people still live in that prison, Daddy?]
“Nee my kind, nou’s hy dood.” [No my child, he is dead now.]
And so it is in the 2020s that our ancestors and natural heritage are proxies for each other: without being told either existed, it becomes harder for the youngest among us to know that these people and things were once real, let alone how much they mattered to many.
It is here, across a liminal border of urban creep, that a hotter, drier climate age risks slipping into the smouldering heart of the Pyrocene Cape. DM/OBP
In the event of a veld or wildfire, click here for SANParks’ emergency guidelines.
As the West becomes more and more secular, and the discoveries of evolutionary biology and cosmology shrink the boundaries of faith, the claims that science and religion are compatible grow louder. If you’re a believer who doesn’t want to seem anti-science, what can you do? You must argue that your faith – or any faith – is perfectly compatible with science.
But I argue that this is misguided: that science and religion are not only in conflict – even at “war” – but also represent incompatible ways of viewing the world.
My argument runs like this. I’ll construe “science” as the set of tools we use to find truth about the universe, with the understanding that these truths are provisional rather than absolute. These tools include observing nature, framing and testing hypotheses, trying your hardest to prove that your hypothesis is wrong to test your confidence that it’s right, doing experiments and above all replicating your and others’ results to increase confidence in your inference.
And I’ll define religion as does philosopher Daniel Dennett: “Social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought.” Of course many religions don’t fit that definition, but the ones whose compatibility with science is touted most often – the Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam – fill the bill.
Next, realize that both religion and science rest on “truth statements” about the universe – claims about reality. The edifice of religion differs from science by additionally dealing with morality, purpose and meaning, but even those areas rest on a foundation of empirical claims. You can hardly call yourself a Christian if you don’t believe in the Resurrection of Christ, a Muslim if you don’t believe the angel Gabriel dictated the Qur’an to Muhammad, or a Mormon if you don’t believe that the angel Moroni showed Joseph Smith the golden plates that became the Book of Mormon. After all, why accept a faith’s authoritative teachings if you reject its truth claims?
Indeed, even the Bible notes this: “But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.”
Many theologians emphasize religion’s empirical foundations, agreeing with the physicist and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne:
“The question of truth is as central to [religion’s] concern as it is in science. Religious belief can guide one in life or strengthen one at the approach of death, but unless it is actually true it can do neither of these things and so would amount to no more than an illusory exercise in comforting fantasy.”
The conflict between science and faith, then, rests on the methods they use to decide what is true, and what truths result: These are conflicts of both methodology and outcome.
In contrast to the methods of science, religion adjudicates truth not empirically, but via dogma, scripture and authority – in other words, through faith, defined in Hebrews 11 as “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” In science, faith without evidence is a vice, while in religion it’s a virtue. Recall what Jesus said to “doubting Thomas,” who insisted in poking his fingers into the resurrected Savior’s wounds: “Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”
And yet, without supporting evidence, Americans believe a number of religious claims: 74 percent of us believe in God, 68 percent in the divinity of Jesus, 68 percent in Heaven, 57 percent in the virgin birth, and 58 percent in the Devil and Hell. Why do they think these are true? Faith.
But different religions make different – and often conflicting – claims, and there’s no way to judge which claims are right. There are over 4,000 religions on this planet, and their “truths” are quite different. (Muslims and Jews, for instance, absolutely reject the Christian belief that Jesus was the son of God.) Indeed, new sects often arise when some believers reject what others see as true. Lutherans split over the truth of evolution, while Unitarians rejected other Protestants’ belief that Jesus was part of God.
And while science has had success after success in understanding the universe, the “method” of using faith has led to no proof of the divine. How many gods are there? What are their natures and moral creeds? Is there an afterlife? Why is there moral and physical evil? There is no one answer to any of these questions. All is mystery, for all rests on faith.
The “war” between science and religion, then, is a conflict about whether you have good reasons for believing what you do: whether you see faith as a vice or a virtue.
Compartmentalizing realms is irrational
So how do the faithful reconcile science and religion? Often they point to the existence of religious scientists, like NIH Director Francis Collins, or to the many religious people who accept science. But I’d argue that this is compartmentalization, not compatibility, for how can you reject the divine in your laboratory but accept that the wine you sip on Sunday is the blood of Jesus?
Others argue that in the past religion promoted science and inspired questions about the universe. But in the past every Westerner was religious, and it’s debatable whether, in the long run, the progress of science has been promoted by religion. Certainly evolutionary biology, my own field, has been held back strongly by creationism, which arises solely from religion.
What is not disputable is that today science is practiced as an atheistic discipline – and largely by atheists. There’s a huge disparity in religiosity between American scientists and Americans as a whole: 64 percent of our elite scientists are atheists or agnostics, compared to only 6 percent of the general population – more than a tenfold difference. Whether this reflects differential attraction of nonbelievers to science or science eroding belief – I suspect both factors operate – the figures are prima facie evidence for a science-religion conflict.
The most common accommodationist argument is Stephen Jay Gould’s thesis of “non-overlapping magisteria.” Religion and science, he argued, don’t conflict because: “Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings and values – subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve.”
This fails on both ends. First, religion certainly makes claims about “the factual character of the universe.” In fact, the biggest opponents of non-overlapping magisteria are believers and theologians, many of whom reject the idea that Abrahamic religions are “empty of any claims to historical or scientific facts.”
Nor is religion the sole bailiwick of “purposes, meanings and values,” which of course differ among faiths. There’s a long and distinguished history of philosophy and ethics – extending from Plato, Hume and Kant up to Peter Singer, Derek Parfit and John Rawls in our day – that relies on reason rather than faith as a fount of morality. All serious ethical philosophy is secular ethical philosophy.
In the end, it’s irrational to decide what’s true in your daily life using empirical evidence, but then rely on wishful-thinking and ancient superstitions to judge the “truths” undergirding your faith. This leads to a mind (no matter how scientifically renowned) at war with itself, producing the cognitive dissonance that prompts accommodationism. If you decide to have good reasons for holding any beliefs, then you must choose between faith and reason. And as facts become increasingly important for the welfare of our species and our planet, people should see faith for what it is: not a virtue but a defect.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts.
Read more:
Jerry Coyne does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.