by Meera Robins | Apr 17, 2025 | Blog
A new goal for football
Nothing unites a crowd quite like football. While clubs are beginning to engage their key stakeholders in sustainability efforts, FIFA’s recent sponsorship deal with Saudi oil giant Aramco (aka the world’s ’largest corporate greenhouse gas emitter’) for the 2026 Men’s World Cup and the 2027 Women’s World Cup highlights the need for stronger global sustainability action in the sport.
As with any industry, football has its own unique set of sustainability impacts and opportunities. From an environment standpoint, stadium construction and clubs’ resource consumption impact biodiversity and ecosystems, while the sport itself is a significant contributor to global greenhouse gases. Estimates put football’s global carbon footprint at 64-66 million tonnes of CO2 emissions (tCO2e), roughly equivalent to Austria’s annual greenhouse gas emissions. Yet the sport also has the potential to promote some of the key social aspects of sustainability, such as advancing community outreach through educational initiatives and advocating for gender equality.
Why should clubs care?
There are plenty of reasons why football clubs should be prioritising sustainability, not least to mitigate the risk to players and stadiums.
Football is best played in the open air. But as climate change intensifies, so do the operational and health risks of playing outdoors. Without significant action, 25% of English Football League (EFL) stadiums will be at risk of annual flooding by 2050. Rising temperatures increase the likelihood of players and officials experiencing heat stroke and severe dehydration. This was evident during the June 2024 Copa America. Uruguayan footballer Ronald Araujo had to be substituted off due to dehydration as outdoor temperatures exceeded 29ºC in Miami, while an assistant referee was admitted to hospital due to heat stress after collapsing during a match in Kansas City.
It’s also good for business.
Investing in sustainability is a strategic move for football clubs. Investors are increasingly demanding visible progress on sustainability and sponsorship deals now consider sustainability as a key decision-making factor. According to a survey by the European Sponsorship Association, over 60% of sponsors said that having a sustainability policy in place was ‘very’ or ‘quite’ important when forming partnerships. By adopting sustainability initiatives, football clubs can future proof their operations, reducing long-term financial risks from climate change impacts while unlocking opportunities for innovation.
Fans care about sustainability. Fans are the heartbeat of football – providing players with motivation and clubs with the revenue to operate. With 66% of UK football fans believing the sport needs to do more to improve sustainability practices and 65% feeling that clubs could do more to encourage sustainable behaviour, it’s clear expectations are high.
Fans have real power to influence a club’s sustainability efforts. In 2023, Bayern Munich dropped Qatar Airways as its shirt sponsor following fan protests over human rights concerns related to the Qatari government, the airline’s owner. In 2021, Huddersfield Town FC’s Supporters Association launched the Sustainable Stadium Campaign to raise awareness of climate issues and push for operational changes at the John Smith Stadium. The campaign’s goals included phasing out single-use plastics, improving recycling capacity, and introducing energy efficiency measures.
Prioritising sustainability helps football clubs prepare for evolving regulations.
In the UK, larger clubs may soon be subject to the UK Sustainability Disclosures Standards. The English Premier League already mandates that all clubs develop an environmental sustainability policy by the end of the 2024 / 2025 season and track greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the following season. Other leagues may decide to follow suit.
In the EU, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) originally required around 150 football clubs listed on European stock markets to disclose sustainability data. The Omnibus Simplification Package proposed in February 2025 would reduce the scope of the regulation, meaning smaller clubs may now be exempt but larger clubs, such as Paris Saint-Germain (PSG), will likely remain in scope. This means they will have to conduct a double materiality assessment (DMA) and report on identified environmental, social, and governance (ESG) topics using the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). Regardless of regulatory changes, football clubs should publicly disclose their sustainability efforts to ensure stakeholder transparency and, where relevant, explore alternatives to mandatory reporting, such as the Voluntary SME (VSME) standard. Originally designed for non-listed micro-, small-, and medium-sized businesses, the EU is now promoting the VSME as a way for companies no longer in scope of CSRD to report.
What can clubs do?
There’s no doubt that football clubs across all leagues will be impacted by the climate crisis, the continued focus on inclusion, evolving regulations, and changing market trends. Here are some key actions clubs can take to enhance their sustainability efforts and get ahead of the game:
1. Reduce environmental impact
Football is an emissions-intensive sport, with its main sources of emissions coming from international travel, stadium construction, and sponsorships with high-emitting companies.
Clubs can begin by investing in renewable energy and sustainable merchandising, implementing resource recycling systems within their operations and introducing alternatives to single-use plastics and vegan/vegetarian options on match days. These are just a few of the environmental initiatives championed by Forest Green Rovers, the “greenest football club in the world”, since it began its sustainability journey in 2010. A standout feature of the club’s sustainability efforts is the 100% organic pitch that captures rainwater and recycles it for irrigation. The club even recycles wastewater from fan toilets back onto the pitch! With growing global concern over climate change, football clubs have an opportunity to lead by example, using their influence to create more sustainable practices both on and off the pitch.
2. Assess sponsorship agreements
Sponsorships are a crucial source of revenue for football clubs. But they often come with a hidden cost to the environment. One report revealed sponsorship deals with high-emitting industries, such as oil and gas, aviation and fast food, account for 75% of the sport’s carbon footprint. Until this report’s publication in early 2025, sponsorship had not been widely recognised as a major source of emissions in football. Clubs should carefully assess their sponsors to ensure they align with sustainable and ethical values, rather than contributing to social and environmental harm, and transparently communicate their sponsor activities to stakeholders.
3. Continue to strengthen social sustainability
The social impact football clubs have on the communities around them is arguably their most valuable contribution to society. For years, clubs have engaged in vital community work that not only nurtures the next generation of players, but also promotes health and wellbeing, fosters social cohesion, and supports local economies. Additionally, clubs serve as powerful platforms for addressing issues beyond the sport, such as mental health and domestic violence. Football clubs should continue this impactful work and further strengthen their role in promoting the social aspect of sustainability.
4. Enhance sustainability education
Although community outreach has long been a priority for clubs, its potential role in their sustainability strategies has often been overlooked. Expanding community programmes to include sustainability education is one way to achieve a holistic sustainability approach. For example, Chelsea FC’s Foundation has delivered 90 sustainability sessions to over 3,800 students, raising awareness of critical environmental issues.
5. Close the gender gap
The number of girls and women playing football in England has increased by 56% since 2020, yet significant barriers remain — especially for women working off the pitch.
Discrimination and the gender pay gap are just two of the many challenges women in the industry face. A 2024 survey found 89% of women working in football experienced discrimination — up 7% from 2023. Meanwhile, the English Football Association (FA) reported its 2023 gender pay gap increased in favour of male employees. This reveals a need for ongoing action to continue to address gender inequalities in the sport — it’s not a time to scale back.
Football clubs can no longer afford to sideline sustainability. While larger clubs may have greater financial resources and stakeholder support, it’s time for clubs across all leagues and countries to take action. To begin, clubs should develop a robust sustainability strategy, collaborate with industry sustainability groups such as Football for Future and communicate progress transparently to avoid greenwashing. Sustainability is not just an ethical responsibility — it is essential for the future of football.
Context is on hand to help with your strategy, reporting and communications needs, with over 25 years of experience working with businesses to accelerate their sustainability practices. If you would like to learn more about what we can do for you, please contact Helen Fisher: helen.fisher@contexteurope.com.
by Beth Sandford-Bondy | Aug 29, 2024 | Blog
The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) is the new kid on the block for many large companies active in the EU: here are the key things you need to know now.
What is CSDDD?
The CSDDD (CS3D) is a new EU human rights and environment due diligence legislation that applies to large companies operating in the EU. It requires processes be embedded in the business to identify, prevent, reduce, and end negative human rights and environmental impacts in their operations, subsidiaries, and value chains — both inside and outside Europe.
Is your company subject to CSDDD?
Two types of companies need to comply:
- EU-based companies with 1,000+ employees and a global net turnover of €450+ million.
- Non-EU-based companies with a net turnover of €450+ million in the EU.
Companies must comply by 2027, 2028, or 2029 depending on number of employees, global turnover amount, and whether they’re based in the EU or not.
What are the key steps to implementation?
1. Integrate due diligence into corporate policies
Make sure that due diligence is integrated into all relevant policies and risk management systems. You also need to have a specific policy that ensures risk-based due diligence.
2. Map your value chain and assess risks
It’s crucial to get an understanding of where your company’s actual and potential impacts lie. Start by mapping your value chain to identify areas with adverse impacts and risks, and prioritise them based on likelihood and severity. Then companies must carry out in-depth assessments of individual suppliers in prioritised areas.
3. Take measures to prevent, mitigate, and end adverse impacts
Preventing and ending adverse impacts on human rights and the environment is the core of the CSDDD. Companies should implement the following:
- Human rights and environmental strategies.
- Responsible purchasing practices — including assurances to comply with minimum standards, and supplier screening and assessments.
- Corrective measures and termination of business relationship as a last resort.
- Employee and supplier training.
- Targeted and proportionate support for business partners who are SMEs, including fair and non-discriminatory contractual assurances.
4. Provide a complaints procedure
Companies must provide a notification system which is accessible to potentially affected stakeholders and their representatives — including NGOs and human rights defenders, for example. The complaints procedure should be fair, publicly available, accessible, and transparent. Workers and their representatives must be informed of the procedure.
5. Monitor the effectiveness of due diligence measures
Periodically assessing your due diligence measures will help you see if they’re suitable and effective. Update your due diligence policy and measures as needed.
6. Publicly report impacts and due diligence processes
Compliance with CSRD means compliance with CSDDD reporting requirements. Companies must produce a publicly available annual statement on the potential and actual adverse impacts identified and due diligence measures taken.
7. Have a climate transition plan aligned with 1.5°C
Combat climate change with a transition plan aligned with limiting global warming to 1.5°C. If you’re complying with CSRD then your climate strategy is already ticked off the list.
What’s the connection to CSRD?
They are both new EU sustainability regulations covering social and environmental factors and applying to the operations and value chains of large companies. Both require public disclosure and a climate transition plan aligned with the Paris Agreement.
But while the CSDDD focuses on preventing and ending negative effects, the CSRD focuses on transparent disclosure.
For a more in-depth analysis of the overlap between CSRD and CSDDD, watch out for our upcoming blog on how they match up.
What can you do now to get started?
The first step is to familiarise yourselves with the CSDDD requirements to understand if, when and how you must comply. Assessing existing due diligence roles, policies and management systems will help you understand your gaps and establish any roles and responsibilities needed. The next step is to map your value chain to identify and prioritise risks based on likelihood and severity.
Once you understand where your biggest risks are, devise a plan to set up the necessary due diligence measures, engaging with both internal and external stakeholders. The strategy should include: in-depth supplier risk assessments, measures to prevent and mitigate impacts, grievance mechanisms, assessments to monitor due diligence processes, annual reporting, and a climate transition plan in line with the Paris Agreement.
Context is ready to support you with all your CSDDD needs — from value chain mapping and devising due diligence strategies, to writing policies and CSRD / CSDDD-aligned reports. If you would like to talk about your organisation’s needs, please get in touch via www.contextsustainability.com or helen.fisher@contexteurope.com.
by Natasha Connor | Mar 13, 2024 | Blog
Deep sea mining – the process of extracting minerals from the deep sea floor – has reached a critical turning point. Despite international outcry, Norway has approved future deep sea mining in its territory, becoming one of the first countries to do so. This could trigger a ‘race to the bottom’ between nations. Some consider deep sea mining necessary for the green transition, as certain areas of the ocean floor are abundant in metals used in electric vehicle batteries, wind farms, and solar panels. But mining these metals could destroy one of the Earth’s last pristine habitats and cause far-reaching impacts within and beyond the ocean.
Why mine the deep sea?
Building enough batteries and renewable power sources to meet global energy needs will require a huge amount of metal. Up to 6.5 billion tonnes of materials could be needed between 2022 and 2050 to enable a transition that limits global warming to 1.5°C. Shortages of critical metals like copper, lithium, cobalt and nickel may cause delays. While the Energy Transitions Commission has reported that all the materials needed are contained in land-based reserves, the terrestrial mining process used to extract these materials is often associated with environmental and human rights abuses. For example, nickel mining for electric vehicle (EV) batteries has been driving deforestation in Indonesia. Concentration of supply adds to this issue: for example, China accounted for nearly 70% of global rare earth element production in 2023. This makes the green transition more vulnerable, as concentrated supply chains are less resilient and can be used as geopolitical leverage by supplier nations.
Deep sea mining is being positioned as the silver bullet. Potato-sized lumps of minerals called polymetallic nodules that lie nestled in the deep sea sediment contain the valuable metals needed for the green transition, including nickel, cobalt and copper. The nodules are abundant in certain places: the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ), a six million km2 plain between Mexico and Hawaii, is thought to hold 21 billion tonnes of them. Mining operations plan to dredge up nodules with a tractor-like vehicle and pump them to the surface. But at what cost?
The arguments for and against
The deep sea is a pristine habitat we are only just beginning to understand. It has been unchanged for millennia. Its slow-growing, long-lived, and specialised inhabitants are unlikely to easily adapt to disturbance caused by mining, and many may be pushed to extinction. The nodules are habitats: half the visible creatures found in the CCZ by researchers in a 2016 study only occurred on nodules. Removing the nodules puts the species that rely on them at risk. Restoration, for example by replacing the nodules with artificial clay ones, may not be financially feasible – one report found that achieving successful restoration is not only unlikely, but would cost more than the revenue generated by the whole mining operation.
One of the key arguments for deep sea mining is the suggestion that it’s the lesser evil when compared to terrestrial mining in rainforests. Copper, manganese, nickel and cobalt together make up 12% of terrestrial mining (the largest category after gold and coal) and drove 997 km2 of deforestation between 2001 and 2019. Deep sea mining advocates argue that although a much larger area would be mined for the same amount of metal, deep sea mining would still remove less biomass per unit metal compared to terrestrial mining. Yet mining’s impacts on marine and terrestrial habitats are not easily comparable. Not only do deep sea and terrestrial mining require different methods, air and water affect the magnitude of the impacts differently. For example, sound can travel far further in water than in air. Marine and terrestrial lifeforms would likely respond to impacts differently, being adapted for very different environments. We don’t currently know how severely the ocean would be impacted by deep sea mining, but given that ocean ecosystems are highly interlinked, damage to deep sea ecosystems may impact those within the broader ocean.
In addition, direct impacts of deep sea mining could also go far beyond the mining area. One of the most talked-about issues is the waste sediment that would be pumped back into the sea, potentially spreading hundreds of thousands of kilometres. Again, the effects are currently unknown, but scientists fear this sediment could choke filter-feeding organisms, introduce toxic metals and radioactive particles into marine food chains, block animals’ vision and sunlight, and smother fisheries.
The sound of mining could also impact marine life. One analysis found that noise from one mine could travel over 500 kilometres. Marine life is very sound-dependant – just two hours of artificial noise was found to impair the energy storage and gravity detection abilities of seagrass, a widespread plant that stores 10-18% of the ocean’s CO2. Deep sea mining operations are required to conduct baseline studies before beginning work, and The Metals Company —a key player in the push for deep sea mining — reports that it is investigating noise pollution. However, acknowledging potential impacts will not necessarily stop them from occurring.
If mining causes mass extinctions, as one study predicts, we could lose species that would have yielded important medical discoveries. Take marine sponges – 2,700 new chemical compounds have been identified from sponges in the last decade alone, and around half are potentially useful for medicine. With the vast majority of deep sea species still unknown (a recent study found that 92% of nearly 5,600 species it documented in the CCZ were unnamed), we don’t know what valuable compounds would be lost.
The mining process’ impact on climate change is also unknown. Nodules may require less energy to process than terrestrial metal as they are generally more concentrated, and so may produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions. But scraping the carbon-rich deep sea floor may release some of the carbon it stores. Deep sea mining could also potentially impact the ocean’s CO2 uptake – sunlight-blocking sediment may reduce photosynthesis, and biodiversity loss may disrupt the ocean’s carbon cycle.
The lesser of two evils?
Terrestrial mining also has severe side effects, with evidence suggesting it may produce up to 65 billion tonnes of waste each year, and could expose 23 million people around the world to unsafe metal concentrations as a result. For example, the 2019 dam collapse in Brumadinho, Brazil, released toxic mining sludge that killed 272 people, destroyed 125 hectares of forest and polluted waterways. The waste produced per unit of metal is generally increasing as higher-quality metal deposits are exhausted.
Both types of mining have consequences, and there are other ways of acquiring the minerals needed for the green transition. With only around 17% of electrical waste currently recycled, scaling metal recycling would significantly reduce the need for new metal. However, metal recycling can be difficult and costly, especially for EV batteries (the main driver for deep sea mining). The foams, glue, and varied battery designs make reclaiming metal a hugely labour and chemically intensive task — more expensive than buying new metal. For circularity to work, recycling must be considered at the design stage.
The best option may be to remove the need to mine, or even use, these metals at all. Lithium and cobalt, two critical battery metals, can now be extracted via absorption directly from sea water, although the technology is still young. And lithium-free and cobalt-free EV batteries have been invented. Better yet, improved public transport infrastructure and uptake could significantly reduce the need for car batteries.
The impacts of deep sea mining on ocean life are far from clear, but current evidence suggests they could be devastating. As well as potential mass ecosystem destruction, deep sea mining could accelerate climate change by damaging the ocean’s ability to absorb carbon. The green transition must not be delayed, but many are questioning whether it should come at the expense of the ocean, via untested measures with unknown consequences. The risks posed by deep sea mining could instead drive investment in innovation, to reduce our reliance on finite natural resources and support a circular economy.
by Pippa Greenwood | Mar 6, 2024 | Blog
As the urgency to combat climate change continues to grow, so does the importance of having a robust and credible climate strategy and net zero roadmap. Getting this right is key to the success of your organisation’s wider corporate sustainability strategy. Here are my 10 top tips for developing, implementing and evolving your climate strategy and driving meaningful change within your business.
1. Make the business case
Before developing your climate strategy, make sure your key stakeholders understand the business case for it. Use stakeholder mapping and analysis to find your champions and hear from your challengers. Clarify the benefits for the planet, and also for your business — gain competitive advantage, improve reputation, meet customer and investor expectations and retain and attract employees.
2. It’s all about the data!
Your net zero roadmap is only as robust as your greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory. And your GHG inventory is only as accurate and complete as the underlying data — such as energy consumption, travel, supply chain and waste data. Improving your source data gathering, verifying, and storing processes is essential to an accurate and reliable climate strategy.
3. Understand the science
A solid grasp of climate science is key when developing your net zero roadmap and overall climate strategy. Stay informed about the latest research, frameworks, trends, and projections to make informed decisions, align to reporting requirements and set science-based goals.
4. Set ambitious, but realistic goals
Establish clear and measurable targets aligned with the latest science-based criteria. Aim for ambitious GHG emissions reductions while ensuring feasibility within your organisation based on capabilities and resources.
5. Engage your stakeholders throughout the process
You can’t do this alone. Effective climate action requires collaboration with stakeholders across your full value chain. Engage leaders, employees, suppliers, customers and partners to gain and maintain buy-in, gather diverse perspectives, and combine collective expertise. Fostering cooperation and setting shared goals will support you to implement your plan and successfully manage change.
6. Start with quick wins
This may sound like an obvious one, but focusing on the quick wins should show return on investment and positive results early on. This will help with stakeholder buy-in and future requests for resourcing and investment as you scale up the programme and shift the focus to longer-term initiatives.
7. Prioritise renewable energy alongside energy efficiency
Transitioning to renewable energy sources is the foundation of any climate strategy. Explore opportunities to invest in and generate new solar, wind, hydro, or other renewable energy, alongside procuring renewable energy contracts. In parallel, implement measures to optimise energy efficiency. Upgrade equipment, improve insulation, and adopt smart technologies to reduce energy consumption and costs.
8. Embrace innovation
Encourage innovation and creativity to deliver solutions for your climate challenges and develop opportunities. Embrace emerging technologies, explore alternative materials, and think outside the box — for example, by partnering with disruptors and peers, and testing out new business models.
9. Manage your climate-related risks
Climate change brings risks and uncertainties — such as extreme weather events, resource scarcity and supply chain disruptions. Assess, monitor and mitigate your climate-related risks as part of your wider risk management procedures, resilience planning and adaptation measures.
10. Stay agile and adapt
Establish robust monitoring and reporting mechanisms to track your climate goal progress. This will help you evaluate performance and identify areas for improvement. Remember that your net zero roadmap is not a static plan until you achieve your net zero target. As legislation, frameworks and climate science evolve, so will your strategy. Keep agile and adapt your strategy as needed.
by Natasha Connor | Jan 31, 2024 | Blog
Cashmere, once a rare emblem of luxury, now lines the shelves of the fast fashion giants. Demand for the fabric has skyrocketed over the past few decades, and it’s no surprise. A tenth of the width of human hair and reportedly eight times as warm as sheep wool, cashmere is renowned for its sleek softness and warmth. It takes a single goat four yearsto produce enough cashmere for a jumper. However, the cost of this premium fibre goes far beyond its price tag. Unbeknown to most shoppers, increasing demand for the fabric has wreaked environmental devastation in the countries that produce it. This is most apparent in Mongolia, which produces around 40% of the world’s cashmere.
Herding livestock semi-nomadically is the traditional way of life in Mongolia. A third of the population rely on cashmere for their main source of income. The country’s extreme environment is key, as the goats grow thick fleeces to survive temperatures as low as -40°C. Mongolian herders traditionally grazed sheep and goats in a 3:1 ratio to protect the land from the goats’ over-enthusiastic grazing habits. However, the high demand for cashmere has prompted a dramatic increase in the number of goats. With numbers of sheep and goats now almost equal, the land’s ability to regenerate is impaired.
Until the 1990s, Mongolian heads of state moderated goat numbers. The fall of the communist government saw the removal of these restrictions, and the number of goats skyrocketed from 5 million in 1990 to 27 million today. Around 70% Mongolia’s grasslands are now severely degraded, turning the land into desert and increasing dust storms in the region.
Decades of overgrazing means there’s now less grass to eat, and an undernourished goat is a vulnerable one. This is especially true when compounded by the impacts of climate change. Mongolia is heating faster than the rest of the world – the average temperature has risen 2.1% since 1940 – and their increasingly extreme and unstable weather is bringing more droughts and harsher winters. Mongolian livestock has evolved to survive extreme environments, but this goes beyond what they can handle and goats are dying in huge numbers. The particularly harsh 2009/2010 winter took 22% of Mongolia’s livestock, with severe social and economic impacts — extreme winters can result in losses of up to 12% of Mongolia’s GDP. Many herders have been forced to leave their traditional way of life, moving to cities or slums to find other work.
Herders face a catch-22. They can increase herd size as a precautionary measure, but this makes it harder to feed their animals. It also affects the product: undernourished goats produce lower-quality cashmere, which is shorter, less fine, and less valuable. These goats in turn give birth to goats that produce less cashmere.
Of course, people and livestock aren’t the only ones that depend on Mongolia’s landscape. Wild animals, such as elk, camels, and ibex, need to eat too. As these wild species decline, the impacts ripple across the food chain. Starving snow leopards are more frequently forced to attack domestic animals to survive, creating conflict with herders who may kill them to protect their herd.
What will the future hold for Mongolia’s cashmere industry? The Mongolian government, fashion companies, and we as consumers each have a part to play in solving the crisis.
Mongolia’s government is unlikely to regulate herd sizes any time soon. It would be a highly contentious issue amongst herders, whose votes rural politicians depend on. The government hopes to reduce overgrazing by processing more cashmere in-country so it can be sold at a higher price. Currently, Mongolia sells around 90% of its cashmere to Chinese companies, who process it and mix it with Chinese cashmere. In late 2023, the Mongolian cashmere producer Gobi received a US$30 million loan from the Asian Development Bank to up its processing capacity.
Shifting towards less environmentally damaging materials is vital to undo the impact our shopping habits are having in places like Mongolia. Some companies are now only using cashmere certified by the Good Cashmere Standard (GCS) or the Sustainable Fibre Alliance (SFA), which require certain herding or farming practices with the aim to reduce negative impacts. Using recycled cashmere, or forgoing cashmere altogether, reduces the demand for the virgin fibre and its associated production impact. Replacing cashmere with the wool of less destructive creatures, such as yaks, would be a win for Mongolia’s grasslands. Another traditional member of Mongolian herds, yaks also shed warm, soft fibres, but they produce more of them while leaving grass roots unharmed.
The future of Mongolia’s land will likely depend upon a holistic approach taken by the government, fashion companies, and consumers alike. If we can shift market demand towards options with lower environmental price-tags, Mongolia’s land may be allowed to breathe again.
