Network of Earthkeeping Christian Communities in South Africa

NECCSA Update 2008-01

A monthly newsletter on Church and Environment in South Africa

On climate change and the church in South Africa

Climate change has been on the global agenda for more than three decades. Yet, it has gained prominence only in the last five years, also in South Africa. Nowadays, there seems to be a newspaper article on climate change every day. Most recently, it has been in the news following the UN summit in Bali. In the public imagination in South Africa it is weather that makes everyone wonder: What on earth is happening? The Cape had a wet, wet winter with rain into December. There were storms and floods in the South Cape. After the droughts last year the highveld received some good rains – but too much over Zambia and Mozambique. In a context of climate change it seems that even an ordinary weather report carries apocalyptic overtones. How should the church in South Africa respond to these developments?

Here are a number of pointers that may help us.

1. South African Council of Churches resolution

The 2007 Triennial National Conference of the SACC adopted the following resolution on climate change:

Whereas:

We who worship a creator God believe God has charged us to care for, look after and nurture creation, to “keep it” (Genesis 2:15) for future generations.

We therefore believe that ensuring a sustainable future for our children is a primary responsibility.

We recognize that climate change and environmental degradation is a critical threat to sustainability.

We believe that in order to ensure sustainability, we must establish justice for all.

We therefore:

1. Call upon government to:

a) Introduce regulatory legislation that will sufficiently reduce CO2 emissions to ensure that global warming remains below a 2^o C rise;

b) End all subsidies to fossil fuel and nuclear energy generation;

c) Subsidize and promote at all levels – community, city, provincial and national – the development and building of renewable energy generation, achieving at least 15% by 2015; and

2. Urge our churches to:

a) Lobby for the above changes; and

b) Develop and disseminate resource materials and support training which encourages energy efficiency, the use of renewable energy and raises awareness about climate change.

We make this call in our response to God and for the sake of future generations who should not be disadvantaged by our irresponsibility.

2. Conference with ICCO/Kerkinactie, UWC 26-29 November 2007

ICCO/KerkinActie, the diaconal service of the Dutch Protestant church, has initiated a major programme on climate change entitled FairClimate. The rationale behind the programme is to reduce C0₂-emissions by 50% from 1990-levels (the environmental objective) and to distribute emissions equally among all world inhabitants (the justice objective). This is based on the assessment that worldwide C0₂ emissions are currently about 4.5 tons per person per year while the atmosphere can absorb and recycle only an estimated 2 tons without seriously disrupting the climate system.

Participants in the FairClimate programme are called to commit themselves to three objectives (in Dutch the so-called three V’s): a) to reduce (“vermindering”) their use of fossil energy (by changing to sustainable lifestyles), b) to switch (“verandering”) to the use of sustainable forms of energy and c) to pay financial compensation (“vergoeding”) for emissions that exceed 2 tons of CO₂ per person. These three objectives are listed in order of priority.

To address the third of these objectives (for those who fail to implement the first two objectives), ICCO/KerkinActie established a Climate Fund. While such a fund should preferably be established by the United Nations and should be enforced legally, this may not be established soon. In the interim, this Climate Fund serves as an educational tool and a way of lobbying for ecojustice in the political arena. Individuals, businesses, schools, municipalities and churches in the Netherlands seeking to promote ecojustice are called to contribute US$15 per ton of CO₂ above the sustainable level of 2 tons per capita to this fund on a voluntary basis. This amount is based on the market-related costs to absorb one ton of CO₂ from the atmosphere. It has developed a CO₂-barometer to help individuals and groups to calculate their CO₂ emissions and to compare that with the levels that they are entitled to. At current levels of 10.8 tons of CO₂ per person in the Netherlands, the annual compensation would amount to US$156 per person. This would imply that every year US$2.5 billion would flow from the Netherlands to countries with emissions lower than 2 tons of CO₂ per person (which would be more than half of the amount of official development aid).

This programme started with four ICCO/KerkinActie partners from the South, namely Rureco in Brazil, CIPCRE in Cameroon, RIMS in Nepal and AIDRom in Romania. Covenants have been signed with these partners. Such a covenant entails the commitment that ICCO/KerkinActie (and its constituencies) will strive for sustainable lifestyles, whereas the Southern partners will strive for carbon-efficient economic development. Since its inception the programme has expanded to other countries and partners, namely in South Africa, Pakistan and India. In South Africa ICCO/KerkinActie supports an education programme in collaboration with SAFCEI.

From 26-29 November 2007 ICCO / Kerkinatie hosted a double conference on climate change at the University of the Western Cape. The first conference explored future relationships with its South African partners. The second conference focused on theological reflections. This conference explored the possibility of producing a discussion document on climate change as a new kairos moment for the church in South Africa.

3. World Council of Churches report on Bali conference

The WCC issued its Climate Change Update  #43 after the UN Climate Conference in Bali Indonesia December 3-14, 2007 officially called the “13^th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Conference of the Parties serving as the 3^rd Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol” (COP13/CMP3 or sometimes called COP13 and COP/MOP3)). This was a critical inter-governmental negotiating session focused on a future climate policy framework for the post-2012 period after the expiration of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. Here is the very helpful and lucid report:

The WCC delegation was headed by Lic. Elias C. Abramides, a Greek Orthodox layman (Ecumenical Patriarchate) from Argentina and member of the WCC Working Group on Climate Change and by Dr. Guillermo Kerber, WCC programme executive on climate change.

On Monday December 10th, the WCC hosted an event organized by UK-based Christian Aid on the theme of the Greenhouse Development Rights framework with panelists from the Stockholm Environmental Institute, Heinrich Boll Foundation, Third World Network and others. Greenhouse Development Rights is a framework that was presented as a potential foundation for future climate policy that meets both development and environmental objectives. Over 120 participants attended the workshop. On Tuesday December 11th, an ecumenical celebration co-sponsored by the World Council of Churches and Gereja Kristen Protestan Bali (Protestant Christian Church in Bali) drew between 250 and 300 participants from COP13/CMP3 and local faith communities. This ecumenical celebration at the hill of prayers was held in the Nusa Dua Congregation of the Protestant Christian Church in Bali which is surrounded by a Roman Catholic church, a Hindu temple, a Buddhist temple and an Islamic mosque. The celebrant was Rev. I. Made Priana of the Protestant Church in Bali and the homily was offered by Rev. William Somplatsky-Jarman of the United Presbyterian Church in the USA. The celebration included 5 choirs and traditional Balinese dances performed by the Church’s youth. A small tree was blessed during the celebration that afterwards was planted at the church yard as a symbol to commemorate this special event. A panel discussion followed led by Ms. Paula Clifford of Christian Aid focused on Climate Change, Theology and Justice and included a recorded message from the Archbishop of Canterbury.

a) Overview of UN Climate Conference in Bali (COP13/CMP3)

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC – referred to as the “Climate Change Convention” for short) is a general treaty that was first adopted at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. All countries have ratified it and are bound by it. The Kyoto Protocol, adopted in 1997 as an addendum to the Climate Change Convention, includes specific emission reduction targets and timetables for developed countries. Now that Australia recently ratified the Kyoto Protocol, the United States is the only developed nation that has not ratified the Protocol.

At COP11 in Montreal in 2005, consensus had been reached to begin discussions under the umbrella of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change for a new specific international agreement that could take effect once the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. The UN was anxious to use the Climate Change Convention as the basis for these discussions because that would include the United States. It was critical that the Bali Conference in December 2007 come up with the basic framework for that new agreement since it takes about two years to negotiate the details. The agreement must be finalised by 2009 in order for countries to take it back to their parliaments for ratification (a process that takes several years) so that it can come into effect at the time that the current Kyoto commitment period expires in 2012.

Four key issues dominated the debates and negotiations in Bali:

· Developing countries with large tropical forests wanted a mechanism to compensate them for protecting rainforests from destruction – important since forests absorb carbon from the atmosphere;

· Developing countries wanted a mechanism whereby they could benefit from the transfer of energy efficiency and other emission reducing technologies at rates that they could afford. Developed nations, in which the majority of large corporations are based which have such technologies, were resistant to agree to anything that would undermine the profitability of those corporate patents and discourage further research and development.

· Some developed countries (particularly the United States, Japan and Canada) insisted that the larger developing nations such as China, India and Brazil agree to take on mandatory emission reduction targets in the new agreement. Developing nations resisted this demand pointing to the fact that most of the developed nations have made so little progress in limiting their own emissions while growing rich from two centuries of emission-producing industrialisation.

· Some developed nations (especially the European Union) wanted the new agreement to include a specific target for mandatory reductions by developed nations e.g. 25-40% reduction of emissions from 1990 levels by 2020. The United States, Canada and Japan argued aggressively against the inclusion of such a specific mandatory target.

The Bali negotiations went a full day longer that originally scheduled and resulted in the “Bali Roadmap” which sets out the general direction for the negotiations of a new global agreement.

High drama characterized the final days, especially the last 24 hours. Former US Vice-President and Nobel Prize winner Al Gore made an impassioned speech at the conference in which he accused the US of being “principally responsible for obstructing progress in Bali.” UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon returned to Bali to try and broker an agreement. The EU and the US worked out a compromise on their dispute about including the specific mandatory reduction target of 25-40% from 1990 levels by 2020. They agreed not to include that target in the “Bali Roadmap” but rather to insert a reference to the scientific projections of reductions needed that are included in the most recent IPCC report. The head of the U.S. delegation, Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky, was booed Saturday afternoon when she announced that the United States was rejecting the plan as then written because they were “not prepared to accept this formulation.” She said developing countries needed to carry more of the responsibility. A short speech by a delegate from the Pacific Island nation of Papua New Guinea appeared to carry weight with the Americans. The delegate challenged the United States to “either lead, follow or get out of the way.” Just five minutes later, when it appeared the conference was on the brink of collapse, Dobriansky took to the floor again to announce the United States was willing to accept the arrangement. Applause erupted in the hall and a relative level of success for the conference appeared certain.

The “Bali Roadmap” falls short of the criteria for ecological integrity, justice, equity and solidarity as contained in the WCC Executive Committee’s September statement outlined in the WCC statement to the COP13/CMP3 High-level Ministerial plenary on December 14^th (see below). The UN goal is to finalise the negotiations in two years by COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009. There are lots and lots and lots of specific details to work out and agree to over these next two years before the general language of the “Bali Roadmap” is turned into the specific details of a legally-binding global treaty. There will be many bumps on the road and the process could still get derailed.

Different countries will put forward their own interpretations of what the ambiguous language of the “Bali Roadmap” means. But the process of negotiating a post-2012 climate treaty has begun. Faith communities need to continue their monitoring, advocacy and prayer at the local, regional, national and international levels.

After the adoption of the “Bali Roadmap”, the countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol (i.e. most countries with the exception of the USA) arrived at a second agreement that does include the target of a 25-40% reduction in emissions from 1990 levels by 2020 for the 38 developed nations which are parties to the Protocol. Canada, supported by Russia, objected to the inclusion of this specific target but eventually went along with the will of the majority allowing for consensus to be reached.

b) WCC Statement

The WCC also had the opportunity to address the plenary of the High-level Segment of COP13/CMP3. The following is the text of the WCC statement which was delivered on Friday December 14^th by Ms. Nafisa Goga D’Souza a long-time member of the WCC Working Group on Climate Change from India. The statement is also available on the WCC web-site in the climate change section (http://www.oikoumene.org/en/programmes/justice-diakonia-and-responsibility-for-creation/climate-change-and-water.html) or directly at http://www.oikoumene.org/?id=5323

“This far and no further: Act fast and act now!” Statement from the World Council of Churches (WCC) to the High-Level Ministerial Segment of the 13^th Session of the Conference of the Parties – COP13 to the UNFCCC 3^rd Session of the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol – CMP3 - by Nusa Dua, Bali, Indonesia, Friday ecember 14, 2007

Mr. President and fellow participants in this UN Climate Conference:

A Change of Paradigm is needed

It is our conviction as members of faith communities that a Change of Paradigm from one way of thinking to another is needed if we are to adequately respond to the challenge of climate change. It constitutes a transformation, a “metamorphosis”. This kind of movement just does not happen on its own; it must be catalyzed by agents of change. The world Faiths could be one of those catalysts.

A change in paradigm appears as mandatory in the prevailing economic strategy of promoting endless growth and production of goods and a seemingly insatiable level of consumption among the high-consuming sectors of our societies. Such economic and consumption patterns are leading to the depletion of critical natural resources and to extremely dangerous implications with climate change and development.

Societies must shift to a new paradigm where the operative principles are ethics, justice, equity, solidarity, human development and environmental conservation.

In our traditions, we believe that the earth was entrusted to us but we simply cannot do whatever we want with it. We cannot make use of nature using it only as a commodity. We must bear in mind that our liberty does not allow us to destroy that which sustains life on our planet.

We Must Act Here and Now

Much has been said and written about addressing climate change. However, a tangible result is not yet on the horizon. The First Commitment Period within the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012. Time is running out to reach equitable and sustainable targets for post-2012.

Are we ready as human beings, as members of the global society, as members of our faith communities and our organisations, as sovereign nations, to meet what is expected from us? Or are we going to implement new delays, new strategies to avoid our ethical and moral duties? In doing so it would be no less than suicidal, jeopardizing the diversity of life in the earth we inhabit, enjoy and share.

It is time to adopt legal mechanisms that adequately respond to the gravity of the situation as documented by the IPCC and which have enforcement provisions with sufficient strength to compel full compliance.

The Statement adopted by the World Council of Churches Executive Committee on occasion of the “10^th anniversary of the Kyoto Protocol”, among other issues, clearly reminds us of our responsibilities and points us toward the future:

• The Kyoto Protocol sets out targets and a schedule for industrialized countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. It is an important first step towards a just and sustainable global climate policy regime. However, in the last ten years, it has become clear that carbon emissions are still far above sustainable levels and still increasing. Much more radical reductions are urgently needed.

· The Kyoto Protocol came into force only in 2005. 175 countries have now ratified it… There is also a trend to convert the protocol into a market-based instrument for minimizing economic damage to national economies and business opportunities instead of stressing its purpose of limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

· After 2012, when the first commitments of the protocol end, a more principle-based approach is essential for achieving an effective and equitable global policy on climate control. Principles that should be taken into account include the principle of equal entitlements to the use of the atmosphere and equal rights to development; the principle of historic responsibility the precautionary principle (prospective responsibility); the principle of priority for the poorest and weakest; and the principle of maximum risk reduction.

· …the need for a broader and more radical timetable of action against climate change will be high on the agenda.  The Bali conference must make concrete progress in this regard.

· The need now is for more comprehensive policies to support and promote adaptation and mitigation programmes in countries severely affected by climate change, particularly in the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific regions.

We have arrived to the point where we know what is causing climate change. We have expressed all our concerns, cleared our doubts and affirmed what took us to the inequitable situation where the poorer carry the burden of the irresponsible waste of resources, energy and extreme consumerism of the richer. It is time now to start taking the positive actions that will lead us to find practical solutions to the problems of the great majority of today’s world population.

The eyes of the world are on us. Hundreds of millions of people, women and men, young and aged, have placed their hopes on us. We have to realize that we are kept in their prayers, every one of them following their own religious tradition. And this we cannot forget. Our mission is not to deceive or disappoint them.

Our willing participation in these great changes is required today, now, and not tomorrow. There is no time left for endless words. There must be no more delays. Once more we cry out:

“THIS FAR AND NO FURTHER: ACT FAST AND ACT NOW!”

4. What is required to address climate change?

It is widely stated that the Kyoto protocol is merely a first step to address climate change. What, then, is actually required to curb the impact of human-induced climate change? The Stern report suggests that the worst impact of climate change can be substantially reduced if greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere can be stabilised below 450 particles per million of CO₂ equivalent. The current level is 430ppm (380ppm for CO₂ itself) and this is rising at more than 2ppm each year. It may be sufficient here to quote the United Nation’s Human Development Report for 2007/2008, entitled “Fighting climate change: Human solidarity in a divided world”. Under the heading of “Develop a multilateral framework for avoiding dangerous climate change under the post-2012 Kyoto Protocol” it lists the following recommendations:

· Establish an agreed threshold for dangerous climate change at 2°C above pre-industrial levels.

· Set a stabilization target for atmospheric concentrations of CO_2e at 450 ppm (the costs are estimated at 1.6 percent of average global GDP to 2030).

· Agree to a global sustainable emissions pathway aimed at 50 percent reductions of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 from 1990 levels.

· Targets under the current Kyoto commitment period implemented by developed countries, with a further agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 percent by 2050, with 20–30 percent cuts by 2020.

· Major emitters in developing countries to aim at an emissions trajectory that peaks in 2020, with 20 percent cuts by 2050.

This statement requires some unpacking. It is common knowledge that climate change is related to an increase of greenhouse gasses, mostly carbon dioxide, in the earth’s atmosphere. This is the result of basically two processes. On the one hand, there is the extensive burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) since the advent of the industrial revolution. On the other hand, there is the problem of extensive deforestation and desertification. Carbon dioxide is recycled through the process of photosynthesis. The balance is disturbed when more carbon dioxide is released as a result of burning carbon and when less carbon dioxide is absorbed through photosynthesis.

It is helpful to see the bottom-line of the problem in such basic terms. However, the problem is made vastly more complex by a number of factors:

· The tendency in industrialised countries over the last few decades has been to increase its use of fossil fuels. According to the Human Development Report for 2007/2008 worldwide carbon dioxide emissions have actually risen in the period between 1990 and 2004 from 22.7 to 28.9 Giga-tonnes per year. The corresponding figures for “highly developed countries” indicate a shift from 14.5 to 16.6 Giga-tonnes per year. It may be technically possible to curb the use of fossil fuels by reducing energy waste, by raising efficiency standards and by finding alternative, more sustainable, carbon neutral forms of energy – if there is sufficient political will do that. However, this will clearly not be easy. Instead, the World Energy Council’s prediction is that fossil fuel use will continue to grow by 1.7% per year for the next quarter century and that fossil fuels will still make up the bulk of the world’s energy supply by 2030.

· The world’s human population is widely predicted to rise from 6.7 billion by the end of 2007 to approximately 9.2 billion in 2050. Even if growth rates would slow down dramatically in impoverished countries and marring some catastrophe, the human population will continue to grow since people tend to live longer and most of those alive today have been born during the population boom from 1960-2000. With an annual increase of 75 million persons per year (already down from 93 million in 1997) it would require a catastrophe “too ghastly to contemplate” to annul such growth.

· From a Christian perspective, the use of fossils fuels becomes a thorny issue given the Christian background of highly industrialised countries in Europe and North America. The problem has become pertinent as a result of the very rapid economic growth in China and India. Western Christians can scarcely criticise the environmental impact of the increasing levels of consumption in such countries with any integrity. Even if Western countries would lower their levels of (energy) consumption dramatically, it would be unfair to stem the momentum of economic growth in Asia.

· Moreover, the hope and aspiration of the world’s poor is to attain the standard of living that they observe amongst the affluent. This applies especially to impoverished people in Africa, South America and Asia. It also applies to the poor at the economic periphery in affluent countries. It would simply not be possible for the planet’s entire human population to replicate the lifestyle of the world’s affluent centre. The impact of such levels of consumption on water supply, air quality, forests, the climate, biological diversity and human health would be severe. For example: while there is still quite enough food available to feed the world’s 6.7 billion humans, there would not be sufficient food if more than 3 billion people wish to eat meat products every day. If there were as many cars in China per person as in the USA, oil resources will be depleted rapidly.

The levels of consumption enjoyed by the affluent therefore raise serious questions of global justice. Such a standard of living cannot be universalised. It can only be sustained at the expense of others – the poor, coming generations and other living organisms. The solution cannot be a system of consumer apartheid that upholds affluent binge habits but denies the poor a decent standard of living. The affluent who wreaked environmental havoc so that they might attain a comfortable and healthy lifestyle clearly cannot caution others not seek a comparable standard of living because that would jeopardise ecological sustainability.

These observations have prompted many calls for justice in the context of climate change. This is also the angle taken by the WCC in its many statements on climate change. It argues that “human-induced climate change is being precipitated primarily by the high consumption lifestyles of the richer industrialised nations and wealthy elites throughout the world while the consequences will be experienced disproportionately by impoverished nations, low-lying island states, and future generations. Climate change is thus a matter of international and intergenerational justice.”

The daunting reality of climate change have prompted Christians worldwide to reflect on their “environmental footprint”, that is, the impact which we have on the ecosystems from which we live, especially through urban “development”, commercial agriculture, mining and industry. The ecological footprint measures the amount of productive land required to produce the resources and to absorb waste products. The Worldwatch Institute in its State of the world 2004 reports that Earth has 1.9 hectares of biologically productive land per person to supply resources and absorb wastes. However this masks a tremendous range of ecological footprints – from the 9.7 hectares claimed by the average American to the 0.47 hectares used by the average Mozambican. For the affluent, this suggests the need for a sharp decrease in transportation, fewer square meters of housing per person and less animal products in one’s diet.

Another barometer is one’s carbon footprint. According to the latest Human Development index, South Africa contributed 436.8 million tons of CO₂ emissions in 2004. This is 1.5% of the global total. South Africa ranks high (12^th) in a list of CO₂ emissions by country. This translates into 9.8 tons of CO₂ per person, up from 9.1 tons in 1990 and compares with 20.6 tons per person in the USA and 0.2 tons in Zambia. The global average is 4.5 tons per person per year. With the current human population an average of 2 tons of CO2e would be sustainable and would help to stabilise the current state of the climate.

The share of the income and expenditure of most affluent 10% of South Africa’s population (47.5 million people) is 44.7%. On this basis one may calculate their annual CO₂ emissions as no less than 41.1 tons per person. This may be broken down to 1 ton of CO₂ for every 3500 km travelled by air and 3400 km in a medium-sized car. In addition to the household use of electricity, the embodied energy of products has to be factored into such calculations, for example energy used for agriculture, manufacturing products, constructing buildings and roads, public services.

5. What can local churches do about climate change?

What on earth could the local congregation do about climate change? The problem is of course that the local church may well feel daunted by such a global problem. It cannot really be expected to make a noticeable difference to climate change if measured in global CO₂ emissions. Moreover, many congregations are involved in a struggle for survival – with dwindling membership and heavy financial and administrative obligations. Congregations which are thriving may be extremely busy with a wide range of activities. Climate change would then at best be one of a long list of agenda items. Many members may well resist the suggestion that climate change should be prioritised on this agenda – as the church needs to address some more immediate needs. Others will argue that the local church should not forsake its “primary”, more spiritual task – of preaching the gospel, Christian education and pastoral care.

Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that, even if the local church cannot make a huge difference to address climate change, it may well be contributing to the problem! It is possible to measure the environmental impact of a local congregation and its activities in terms of greenhouse emissions. Here one would want to see its electricity bill and the transport required for getting people to church on Sunday and for the various other programmes. An environmental audit of the parsonage may be quite revealing! Moreover, one would need to take into account the “embodied energy” of the resources used by the church. For example, what energy was required to produce the printed church notices – in terms of logging, manufacturing paper, transporting it over long distances, purchasing it from the local suppliers and then the actual process of printing the bulletin?

On this basis one may be inclined to assume that local congregations are indeed “silent” on climate change. This may be true of most congregations, but certainly not in all cases. In fact, local congregations have come up with a wide range of very creative and practical earthkeeping activities. Stories about these projects have been collected from all over the world. These include information sessions on environmental issues, the development of material for catechism, outdoor activities to enhance an environmental awareness, camps for youth groups outside urban areas, recycling projects, clean-up projects, indigenous church gardens and graveyard projects, tree planting campaigns, introducing ecologically sound church building concepts, vegetable gardens, urban agriculture, energy saving mechanisms, water harvesting projects and so forth.

In addition to these specific projects, networks such as the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI) and the Network of Earthkeeping Christian Communities in South Africa (NECCSA) have promoted the notion of eco-congregations. This requires a process of conscientisation in the local congregation leading to an official decision by the church council to become an eco-congregation. This decision would imply a regular environmental audit, planning worship services for Environment Sunday (closest to 5 June every year), celebrating a Season of Creation, the inclusion of environmental concerns in catechism, and environmental projects that would be relevant to the local context of the congregation.

Moreover, one should also recognise that environmental concerns cannot be neatly separated from other concerns around education, health, justice, peace-making, or pastoral care. The activities of a local congregation (and of households) may serve several of these agendas at the same time. One would at least hope that an environmental awareness would encourage the local congregation to ensure that an environmental dimension is included not only on some of its activities but indeed in all its activities. In this way the environment cannot be marginalised as only one item on the social agenda of the church that is inevitably in competition with other concerns.

Notes:

· You are welcome to distribute this NECCSA Update electronically to any other interested person. You are also welcome to send news to be included in the next NECCSA update to Andrew Warmback [andreww@stjohnbaptist.co.za] by 1 March 2008. You may send such contributions in the language of your choice.

· NECCSA’s website address is www.neccsa.org.za where membership details can also be found. You are invited to accept ownership of this website in order to use it to share information on Christianity and earthkeeping practices. Please send any information to the email address above.

· NECCSA’s banking details are: First National Bank, Musgrave Rd Branch, Branch code: 221126, Cheque account number: 62035719064.

· If you prefer not to receive the NECCSA Update in future, please send a message in this regard to the email address mentioned above.

Distributed by EM Conradie 26/01/2008