"Hundreds of evacuees for days in gyms, tents or in hotels. Full of fear for homes, belongings, livestock and pets. The smell of smoke in the air. Distant noise of helicopters. Explosions in the distance. Tanks and other military vehicles drive by. Food provisions are handed out by disaster relief organisations."
“Most […] disasters, or most damages in them, are characteristic rather than accidental features of the places and societies where they occur.” (Hewitt 1983) The case highlights the dialectics of “long emergencies of slow violence” (Nixon 2011, 3) and the manifestations of spectacular disasters like wildfires. With this local disaster several “slow disasters” of more than seven decades come into view such as mining, resource extraction, “unnatural” reforestation initiatives after World War II that together with the problems of UXOs produced the disaster in 2019.
In 2019, the largest wildfire in the state of Mecklenburg-Hither Pomerania led the evacuation of fives villages in Germany. The wildfire occured on a former military training. The evacuation lasted for days as exploding UXOs made fire suppression nearly impossible. Acrid smell from the blaze drifted as far as Berlin, 200 kilometres away.
With the compound disaster of 2019 a “slow disaster” of more than seven decades comes into view. A small fire found a lot of conifer fuel of old trees that are a result of the reforestation initiatives after WWII. Furthermore, lots of deadwood due to an un-natural and unmanaged forest gave fuel to the fire.
At the same time firefighting on the ground, which is the norm in Germany, was simple impossible due exploding ammunition. For a variety of reasons that--to some extent--are also related to post-WWII architecture of disaster management in Germany, the country has only very small aerial fire suppression capacity with helicopters of the Federal police. Since regular fire fighters and fire suppression helicopters were forced to keep at least 1000m distance from the fire (and potential exploding devices), tanks of the armed forces were used to cut swathes as the main tactic to contain the fire. Aerial firefighting could only be used as a support measures.
After a couple of days and due to change of weather the fire was finally extinguished. However, the underlying root causes of the dissaster persist.
An important aspect of the region is that it was used for mining potash salt and rock salt. In 1882, first test drilling took place. And from 1886 to 1912 mines were operated--ending with a first industrial disaster that was followed by multiple environmental transformations in the region.
On June 24th, 1912, an inrush of water ended the mining in the area. All miners were evacuated in time but since then sinkholes pull through the landscape and still endanger both local people and first responders in times of disaster.
The origins of the 2019 disaster can be traced back to a whole series of processes that originate in the 1930ies and that are associated with national socialism, facist ideology, preparations for total war and actual warfare. In 1936, an ammunition factory was founded in Jessenitz. More than 360 bunkers and depots were installed on-site to establish the main ammunition bunker of the German Kriegsmarine, the so-called Marineartilleriezeugamt.
During WWII 2000 forced laborers from Russia, Poland, Italy, France, Netherlands, etc. were forced to produce ammunition for the national socialists and their total war that affects the area until today and will continue to do so for decades.
In the years 1945 until 1947 the Red Army detonated the bunkers inappropriately with the effect that unexploded ordnances were dispersed in the whole area.
With such a huge amount of ammunition in the forest and in the soil the options for use of the area were limited. But additional military practice and more pollution with ammunition became possible.
Thus, until 1960, the area was used as a military training area for the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany (GSFG). In 1964, a still active ammunition disposal service was established on site. From 1956 until 1990 the GDR’s National People’s Army used the military training area before in 1991 the German Armed Forces inherited the military training area and used it until 2013.
The military training area was used for tank practices, shooting and counter-insurgency practices for Afghanistan and other countries. Due to changes in the organisation and structures of the armed forces, they left the military training area in 2013 without a proper explosive ordnance disposal.
The result of more than 75 years of producing and firing of all kinds of ammunition is that parts of the military training area are highly contaminated with ammunition without any knowledge where the ammunition is and how the area could be cleared.
Even though, the given case is a very specific case it may shed some light on more general aspects concerning the “repositories of vulnerabilities”. In Slow Violence, Nixon (2011) uses the example of so-called precision warfare and uranium ammunition to highlight the distant and cross-scale effects of warfare.
Germany and the same is true for many other countries shows that “less precise”, more “conventional” warfare also involves vast extents of slow violence, too.
The contamination with ammunition and other explosive devices is much more common than widely known: ammunition from WWII (and after) can be found all over Germany. It is assumed that 10% of Mecklenburg-Hither Pomerania are highly contaminated with ammunition. In some German states even up to 12 % of state territories are highly contaminated with the result that hundreds of thousands of ha in Germany are contaminated with ammunition. It will take decades before all areas will be cleared and a common legal framework for all sixteen German states is still lacking.
Millions of unexploded ordnances (UXOs) originating form wars and military training are a hazard around the world.Accidental detonations can occur, for instance in case construction work disturbs UXOs but also without any outside influences, and result in fatalities (e. g., in 1994 in Berlin, Germany). As they degrade UXOs are also responsible for environmental contamination with chemicals such as explosives (e. g., TNT).
Despite some demining efforts, central Europe and Germany in particular is still highly contaminated with UXOs from both World War I and World War II. Especially around industrial and urban agglomerations that were bombed heavily in World War II large numbers of unexploded bombs remain in the soil as it is expected that up to 270,000 tons, i. e, 10% to 20% of all bombs dropped on Germany, were UXOs.
But not only unexploded bombs of air raids pose a threat today but also ammunition and UXOs that were discarded both on land and in the sea after the end of the World Wars. Large amounts of explosives including chemical warfare agents like sulfur mustard or phosgene can be found both in the North and Baltic Sea resulting in environmental contamination and accidents. Today up to 12 % of state territories in Germany are (still) contaminated with UXOs and ammunition.
While UXOs are a hazard themselves they can also trigger other hazards such as wildfires in case UXOs, e. g. with phosphorus, ignite themselves. But UXOs especially pose a threat when interacting with other hazards, for instance when wildfires that are increasing with climate change occur in highly combustible forests.
After WWII the German population faced severe supply shortfalls with regard to food, non-food items but also firewood. The result was widespread illegal logging of the remaining forests.
Furthermore, the allied forces demanded reparations. Part of the reparations were so-called “Reparationshiebe” (reparation chops) that lead to clear-felled areas all over Germany. In the British Sector the North German Timber Control Commission (NGTC) was in charge of the Reparationshiebe, in Soviet sector to which Mecklenburg-Hither Pomerania belonged the Soviet Military Administration in Germany was responsible.
In response to the deforestation so-called “Kulturfrauen”--sometimes also called „Trümmerfrau“ of the forest--replanted millions of trees all over Germany. This work was later commemorated on the 50 Pfennig coin of the Deutsche Mark.
The reforestation had significant impacts both on the composition of the forests and age structure of the forests. Because they grow faster conifer forests were preferred with the result that conifer forest prevail in Eastern Germany and that a certain age structure is predominant. In Mecklenburg-Hither Pomerania the planting of non-native conifers was an economic driven process that started long before WWII but was intensified after WWII.
While in Western Germany some of the associated dangers of forest fires became known due to the devasting forest fire of 1975 and subsequent reforms of forest management and firefighting tactics, it seems that in the GDR these findings were much less prominent which may also be seen as a result of the German separation that followed National Socialism.
Projections show that climate change will intensify natural hazards in the future: scenarios predict that there will be more dry phases, more hot days and more days with heavy rainfall.
Looking at the current discourse concerning climate change, natural hazards and disasters a paradox effect becomes apparent. While it seems that climate change acknowledge the role of mankind in the production of disasters, at the same time climate change seems re-naturalize disasters, while the imperial formations, the slow violence and repositories of vulnerabilities are shadowed.
Behind the spectacular disaster of 2019 are a large number of people who were directly and indirectly affected by the events.
The inhabitants of five villages had to leave them for days and were very frightened for property and animals. In addition, there was health stress due to smoke on site but also to a lesser extent hundreds of kilometers away. Even though the wildfire died out after a few days, the underlying dangers continue to exist. The next wildfire is only a matter of time.
Still, no solutions exist for UXOs and the unique challenges of wildfires on munitions-laden terrain that are substantive. The problem will remain and only increase with climate change. Similar problems of forest fires on munitions-contaminated land are evident elsewhere in Germany and around the world. But even without forest fires, UXOs remains a general problem for safety and the environment.
1. What is the setting of this case? What are its assets?
Calhoun County is a rural yet highly industrialized county on the Gulf Coast of Texas, 150 miles south of Houston, 240 miles north of the Mexican border. It is the ancestral lands of the Karankawa, Esto’k Gna (Carrizo/Comecrudo), and Coahuiltecan (Native Land 2021)....
Today, somewhat paradoxically, Calhoun County largely leans far right politically, with over 66% voting for President Donald Trump in 2016 (DataUSA 2021). Conservative churches are leading voices in local politics.
Diane Wilson is also an important voice: a mother of five and fourth-generation shrimp boat captain that became an environmental activist following the publication of toxic release inventory data in 1989 (Fortun 2009).
Commercial fishing once sustained many residents of Calhoun County. Today, few people make a living fishing though there are high hopes of revival. In 2017, environmental activists for Calhoun County -- organized as the Calhoun County Waterkeppers-- settled a landmark citizens lawsuit against Formosa, winning $50 million USD to support environmental monitoring, research and education programs, and to rebuild the local fishing community. Plaintiffs brought literally buckets of evidence forward, supporting allegations of rampant and illegal discharge of plastic pellets and other pollutants into Lavaca Bay and nearby waterways from a Formosa plant in Point Comfort, directly on Lavaca Bay. The judge described Formosa as a “serial offender.”
The case was led by Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, which describes the outcome as the largest settlement of a Clean Water Act suit filed by private individuals. The success is already shadowed, however, by plans to build a new port facility to support the export of shale gas from Calhoun County. The port project works against decarbonization and will exacerbate climate change. It also will involve deep dredging of Lavaca Bay, roiling mercury-laced sediment in one of the nation’s largest and most toxic Superfund sites, created by the operations of a now-closed Alcoa aluminum refinery, which released estimated 1.2 million pounds of mercury into the Bay in the late 1960s and 1970s. This is a combo disaster at its worst, when earlier successes in environmental protection are undermined by failed environmental protection today.
Calhoun County today is hazardous in multiple, intersecting ways. There are 12 facilities designated by the US EPA as RMP facilities because of the potential for off-site releases of toxic chemicals (Right-To-Know Network 2018).
Calhoun County is also climate vulnerable, atmospheric and economic. As the Gulf of Mexico heats, hurricanes are growing more intense, Calhoun County is also poised to become a new export hub from
Amidst this tangle of hazards, Formosa still dominates the landscape.
3. What intersecting factors -- social, cultural, political, technological, ecological -- contribute to environmental health vulnerability and injustice in this setting?
Many factors work against environmental protection and justice in Calhoun County. Formal education levels are low, as is access to health care. Calhoun County has a notably low score for “youth opportunity”.
5. What have different stakeholder groups done (or not done) in response to the problems in this case?
Diane is a fourth generation shrimper and mother of five In 1989, Diane was helping manage one of Calhoun County’s fish houses, where shrimpers brought in their catch. One of the shrimpers - with cancer boils covering his arms -- brought her a newspaper with news that Calhoun county had the worst toal letal topic missions in the United States -- in tonnage of mercury leaked into Diane's bays. The information was newly available through the US Toxic Release Inventory, a database mandated by the Community Right to Know Act, passed in the aftermath of the catastrophic 1984 chemical plant disaster in Bhopal India, which killed thousands immediately and exported nearly half a million people to toxic gas. News that her community was threatened maddening and motivated Diane, launching her incredible career as an environmental activist. Diane has won many awards, books have been written about her, and she has written three fabulous books herself. I recommend them all, and urge you to think about what provokes, supports and sustains the emergence of new environmental activists, particularly those who think of themselves as “nobody in particular,” the title of a hilarious, detail rich graphic story about Dain’s early activism. You can read the book in our archive, noting how our capacity to archive -- in databases like the Toxic Release Inventory, or social science archives like ours -- provide critical support for environmental protection. Environmental politics, in so many ways, is also data politics.
8. What extra-local actions (at state, national or international levels) would reduce environmental vulnerability and injustice in this setting and similar settings?
Yunlin District Court, March 22, 2016. The third court hearing of Chang et al. (Taisi residents) v. five representative companies of the Sixth Naphtha petrochemical zone.
A panoramic view of the court: the defendants’ lawyers on the left and the plaintiffs’ lawyers on the right. In the first row of the audience were three plaintiffs who accompanied Brother Wu (a leader in organizing the plaintiffs’ group) and documentary filmmaker Hao-chung Chan (author of Shrouding the Clouds, about air pollution from the Sixth Naphtha cracker). The last row was occupied by FPG employees.
Defendant attorney Chen during one of her aggressive criticisms of plaintiffs’ lawyers arguments on the causal link between air pollutants and the plaintiffs’ cancers.
Defendant attorney Tsai feels very much at home in the courtroom, frequently leaving the seat assigned to the defendants to sit in the middle of the courtroom at the desk normally reserved for experts and the plaintiffs, translating to the judge in “plain Chinese”, i.e., oversimplifying and misleading the problem of causality between air pollutants and cancers.
The head of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, Att. Thomas Chan. After this hearing, in May 2016, he was invited to stand as the Deputy Minister of the Environmental Protection Administration (Taiwan EPA), a position he left in September 2018. In the meantime, he could not attend anymore court hearings and his younger colleagues had a harder time with the judge.
The fifth court hearing was a black Friday for the plaintiffs’ lawyers. The judge wanted the discussion to proceed from the first plaintiff and the first defendant, and so on, one after another. Although it is a strange way to approach problems of causality in a case of industrial pollution, the defendants’ lawyers were very happy with that.
Furthermore, the judge rejected the plaintiffs’ request to have Prof. Chan Chang Chuan (NTU College of Public Health) testify as an expert at the bar, despite the fact he had conducted a lot of excellent epidemiological research on the case. For the sake of neutrality, the judge prefered to ask two other experts, although they had not conducted research on the case.
Plaintiffs’ lawyer Shu-fang Huang discussed the huge amount of surveillance data on air pollution, which were falsified by Formosa Plastics, breaching the Air Pollution Control Act. This made the headlines the previous day, but the judge rejected the problem: “I don’t care about newspapers!”
Yunlin District Court, September 2017, the sixth court hearing.
Ms. Wu, the wife of a plaintiff with cancer, was sitting behind me; as we were waiting for the hearing to start, I asked her about her husband’s health; she started crying.
And soon after the discussion began, defendant Att. Tsai went to sit in the middle of the courtroom to argue that the research by Chan C.C. was “only one point of view”.
The judge is so ignorant of what epidemiological evidence is—and so little interested in learning about it—that the defendants can easily play their misleading game.
I tried to adopt the judge’s position to imagine how he might appreciate defendant Att. Tsai’s translations of the debate in “plain Chinese”, the other lawyers and the audience behind: a few plaintiffs and environmental groups in the first row, including a foreigner (me), and FPG employees in the third row.
On the left, defendant Att. Chang argues that the plaintiffs must prove a reasonable probability that “substances” from the petrochemical zone cause cancer (the defendants do not use the words “air pollutants”). At least now, they do not argue that the plaintiffs should prove which substance from which company chimney is causing the plaintiffs’ cancers, as they asked for during the first hearings.
The judge seems to spend little time reading the documents provided by the lawyers. And most of the time, he adopts a rather passive attitude during the court hearings. Instead of inviting the plaintiffs into the court to explain their motivations for sueing the companies, and instead of organizing a contradictory debate between experts suggested by the two sides, he seems obsessed to request the two sides agree on one expert who could decide if there is a causality between the cancers and what is emitted in the industrial zone. Then he gets angry about the debate having no end. At the previous hearing, he was also angry because he thought environmental groups attending the hearings had made audio recordings and shared some of his weird behaviors with the defendants’ lawyers.
For once, the judge made a sound request of the lawyers: to translate those complex and very technical matters into plain Chinese. Defendant Att. Tsai has been eager to meet this demand, punctuating his explanation in Mandarin with some Taiwanese language. Actually, many plaintiffs do not really understand Mandarin, so it would be helpful for them if the hearings could be conducted in Taiwanese. But anyhow, given the little attention the judge gives them, these hearings are obviously not framed for them.
Part of the lawsuit has recently started in the high court. The first hearing provided a sharp contrast with the atmosphere in the district court. The judge begins with inviting the plaintiffs’ lawyers to sum up their statement of appeal and she listens carefully to it. The precision of her questions and propositions to both sides suggest that she had carefully read the documents submitted to the court by the lawyers.
And here is Att. Tsai who comes again in the middle of the room for his show. Despite the rules that impose the wearing of masks in prevention of the Covid-19, he just takes it off. His excuse is that it’s not convenient for speaking. But after five minutes, the judge finally asks him to put the mask back on.
Defendant Att. Chen attempts to reuse the district court judge’s request for a simple definition of danger, but this time it’s not convincing enough for the judge.
Defendant Att. Wu argues that the plaintiffs must prove “a reasonable probability” of at least 50% of risk. “In Taiwan, there’s a new case of cancer every five minutes. These can’t be all attributed to air pollution. Moreover, our company ranks among one of the best in the world for the respect of environmental protection. Besides, the plaintiffs should not treat the courtroom as if it were an academic conference. Scientific simulations are not equal to solid data from the EPA.”
Dec 2018, Diane Wilson, Waterkeeper, on south side of Cox Creek (Alcoa dam area) spillway and observing cement discharge entrance.