Environment

Vancouver, Canada – Prime Minister Mark Carney’s efforts to unite Canadians around protecting the nation’s economy from the US are hitting roadblocks as he nears one year in power.

Indigenous peoples across Canada are increasingly divided over Carney’s aggressive push to expand resource extraction and projects on their ancestral lands.

Some experts question how his government can advance its agenda while respecting Indigenous rights enshrined in the country’s constitution.

March 14 will mark one year since Carney, former head of Canada’s central bank, was sworn into office.

After an election last year, his centrist Liberal party formed a minority government with the highest share of the popular vote in 40 years.

A key to Carney’s victory was his pledge to “stand strong” against US trade threats and grow Canada’s economic sovereignty, an assertive approach the prime minister has called “elbows up”.

“In the face of global trade shifts … we will build big and build fast to create a stronger, more sustainable, more independent economy,” Carney said in a statement on March 6.

Part of that push was to create a Major Projects Office to speed up approvals of economic developments, starting by fast-tracking 10 mega-projects.

They include two massive liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants and an open-pit mine in British Columbia, a nuclear plant in Ontario, a Quebec shipping terminal, and wind power in Atlantic Canada.

Those developments are worth 116 billion Canadian dollars ($85bn), the government estimates.

‘Our rights get pushed to the side’

Carney’s approach to the US trade war has gained support from Canadians, according to recent opinion surveys.

A March 3 poll of 1,500 citizens by Abacus Data found that 50 percent say Carney is protecting Canada’s core interests when dealing with Trump — compared with 36 percent with negative views.

“Whenever Canada is threatened, the protectionist nature of the state kind of re-emerges,” said Shady Hafez, assistant politics professor at Toronto Metropolitan University.

“Self-preservation of Canada becomes the priority.”

Hafez, a research associate with the Yellowhead Institute, is a member of the Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg First Nation in Quebec.

He said there are growing concerns in his community and others about Carney’s push to accelerate mega-projects across the country.

“For that to happen, Canada needs land, and it needs resources,” Hafez said, “and it takes those lands and resources from us.”

Blowback was swift after Carney pledged to build a highly controversial oil pipeline to the west coast in a late November deal signed with Alberta, Canada’s oil powerhouse.

Carney’s culture minister swiftly resigned, decrying “no consultation” with Indigenous nations and “major environmental impacts”.

And the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), which represents more than 600 Indigenous chiefs, unanimously passed an emergency resolution opposing a new pipeline.

“First Nations people, we stand with Canada against Trump’s illegal tariffs, but not at the expense of our rights,” AFN National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak told Al Jazeera in an interview. “If you want to fast-track anything, you better make sure that First Nations are being included right off the bat.

“Trying to sideswipe or push aside First Nations people when there’s agreements between provinces and the feds — they have to remember that First Nations are here … and they are to be respected in their own homelands.”

The rights of Indigenous people in the country are enshrined in Canada’s constitution.

But too often, Hafez said, in the name of national prosperity, “Indigenous communities have to suffer.”

“Whenever there’s somewhat of an emergency, our rights get pushed to the side.”

But the resistance to the major projects push isn’t universal.

The First Nations Natural Gas Alliance praised Carney’s “much more aggressive” approach compared with his predecessor on developing energy resources.

But the group’s CEO, Karen Ogen, acknowledged there’s a “highly charged environment” on such issues.

“First Nations communities continue to face significant socioeconomic barriers”, stated the former chief of Wet’suwet’en First Nation. “LNG and natural gas development are not just an opportunity; they are a national imperative.

“Billions of dollars in procurement benefits and revenues are flowing to First Nations.”

Call for collaboration ‘on all major projects’

The trade war with the US has galvanised and united many Canadians — but with little acknowledgement of the impacts on Indigenous communities, said Sheryl Lightfoot, political science professor at the University of Toronto.

Lightfoot is vice-chair of the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

“These projects, by many accounts, are advancing without full consultation or transparency”, she told Al Jazeera.

“It appears that economic or geopolitical pressures … are being used to justify bypassing Indigenous rights and environmental safeguards.”

But Canada’s Major Projects Office insists it will “seek input, hear concerns and ideas, and work in partnership moving forward” with Indigenous communities — and “will not be skipping over vital project steps including consultations with Indigenous Peoples,” an agency spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement.

“We are unlocking Canada’s economic potential, while respecting our environmental responsibilities and the rights of Indigenous Peoples,”

A significant number of projects on Carney’s fast-track list are concentrated in British Columbia (BC).

Those include two liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals on the Pacific coast — LNG Canada and Ksi Lisims LNG — as well as the electric transmission line to power the sector, and a copper and gold mine.

BC is unique in the country because, historically, very little of its land was subject to treaties between the Crown and First Nations. Canada’s top court has repeatedly ruled in favour of First Nations rights and title in the westernmost province.

All four major projects in the province have proven divisive among the region’s Indigenous peoples — even though several have the backing of individual First Nations governments.

One of those is the massive Ksi Lisims LNG plant, in which the Nisga’a Nation is a direct partner.

Co-developed with Texas-based Western LNG, the mega-project will “benefit all Canadians,” said Nisga’a President Eva Clayton.

In 2000, her nation became the first in BC to reach a modern self-government treaty.

“We are co-developing the Ksi Lisims LNG project on land that our nation owns under our treaty,” she told a parliamentary committee on February 24.

“This project is expected to bring in 30 billion [Canadian] dollars [$22bn] in investment, create thousands of skilled careers, and strengthen Canada’s leadership in low-emission LNG.”

‘Elbows up’ meets opposition

But LNG is fiercely opposed by other nearby First Nations.

Tara Marsden is Wilp sustainability director for the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs, traditional leaders of the 900-member Gitanyow community.

“We have a lot more concerns and evidence regarding impacts in our territory,” she said.

“The federal government has done zero consultation on their fast-track list and the projects that actually affect our territory.”

Gitanyow oppose the BC projects on the fast-track list as harming their interests.

She said Ottawa cannot ignore First Nations opposition, even if there is support from others like the Nisga’a.

“They have a right to develop in their own territories”, said Marsden. “But if you have maybe 20 to 30 First Nations whose territory would be crossed — and you get maybe three on board — that’s not a resounding consensus.

“They’re just trying to use this small handful of nations to steamroll over everybody else.”

If Canada truly wants to strengthen its sovereignty and economy, she said, it must do so alongside Indigenous people.

“This is something that First Nations across the country have been saying since Carney took the ‘elbows up’ approach,” Marsden said.

“The government has really just ignored that … and actually now back-stopping these mega-projects with taxpayer dollars.”

Free, prior and informed consent

McGill University economics lecturer Julian Karaguesian served for decades in the Department of Finance and Canada’s Embassy in Washington, DC.

He agreed that most Canadians support Carney’s attempt to boost the economy with “nation-building” projects.

“I think they’re a fantastic idea”, he told Al Jazeera. “But we’ve committed to consultations with First Nations, Metis and Inuit people.

“Once we’ve started compromising on economic and social justice … we can create bitterness. First Nations leaders understand the situation we’re in, and I think [Ottawa] can work with them.”

Even on projects endorsed by some First Nations, the international legal principle of “free, prior and informed consent” must still apply to other communities impacted, said Lightfoot.

That’s “not simply a procedural requirement” to rubber-stamp projects, she said.

“It is a substantive right, anchored in Indigenous peoples’ self-determination and their ability to make decisions about matters that affect their lands, communities, and futures.”

And that could risk slowing down Carney’s hopes to speed through projects if there is no Indigenous consensus — potentially tying more divisive ones up in the courts.

“Failure to include Indigenous knowledge and decision-making early in the process,” Lightfoot said, “can undermine the legitimacy and fairness of project approvals.”

Carney’s ratings among First Nations are “mixed,” says AFN’s national chief. One positive, she noted, is his openness to meeting Indigenous leaders raising concerns.

But with many of the prime minister’s economic hopes dependent on building “national interest” infrastructure on First Nations homelands, Woodhouse Nepinak said the relationship needs care.

“Carney is at a crossroads in his personal relationship with First Nations,” she said.

“And we understand First Nations rights are under threat in new ways by this government.”

Israeli strikes on fuel depots and petroleum logistic sites in Tehran on Sunday saw apocalyptic images coming out of the Iranian capital, as the spilled oil ignited a river of fire, and thick black smoke blanketed the city of 10 million, leaving streets and vehicles covered with soot.

Israel and the United States claimed they were targeting Iranian military and government sites, but government officials and people say civilian structures such as schools, hospitals and major landmarks are increasingly coming under attack. At least 1,255 people have been killed in the strikes since February 28.

What Israeli and US military planners frame as a calculated degradation of state infrastructure is being described by local officials and environmental experts as an act of total warfare, and collective punishment.

Shina Ansari, head of Iran’s Department of Environment, described the systematic destruction of the oil depots as a blatant act of ecocide.

The attacks systematically targeted four major storage facilities and a distribution centre, including the Tehran refinery in the south and depots in Aghdasieh, Shahran, and Karaj. In the Shahran district, witnesses reported unrefined oil leaking directly into the streets as temperatures hovered around 13C (55F).

Ansari from Iran’s Department of Environment stated that the environment remains the silent victim of the war, noting that the incineration of vast fuel reserves has trapped the capital under a suffocating shroud of pollutants.

The medical and environmental fallout is immediate and severe. The Iranian Red Crescent Society warned that the smoke contains high concentrations of toxic hydrocarbons, sulphur, and nitrogen oxides. The organisation noted that any rainfall passing through these plumes becomes highly acidic, posing risks of skin burns and severe lung damage upon contact or inhalation.

Ali Jafarian, Iran’s deputy health minister, told Al Jazeera that this acid rain is already contaminating the soil and water supply. Jafarian added that the toxic air poses a life-threatening risk to the elderly, children, and those with pre-existing respiratory conditions, prompting authorities to advise residents to remain indoors.

The destruction has also forced the Iranian Ministry of Petroleum to slash daily fuel rations for civilians from 30 litres [8 gallons] to 20 litres [5 gallons]. At least four employees, including two tanker drivers, were killed in the depot strikes.

The strategic bombing myth

Major General Mamoun Abu Nowar, a retired Jordanian military analyst, told Al Jazeera that the primary objective of the strikes is to break the resilience of the Iranian people and paralyse the country’s logistics and economy.

“They are preparing the Iranian environment for an uprising against the regime,” Abu Nowar said, adding that the broader goal is to halt state operations and curb Tehran’s regional influence.

However, Abu Nowar raised urgent concerns about the specific munitions deployed, urging Iranian authorities to investigate the bomb fragments given the unusual density of the smoke and the resulting acid rain.

Some military strategists argue that striking an adversary’s vital infrastructure can paralyse the state from the inside out, bypassing the need to fight its military forces directly.

Modern warfare has increasingly relied on this strategic bombing via precision drones and missiles to destroy morale and incapacitate an adversary’s ability to wage war. For Israel, which is engaged in a genocidal war in Gaza and wider regional conflicts, targeting oil depots is viewed as a way to send a coercive message while avoiding a ground war.

However, Adel Shadid, a researcher in Israeli affairs, told Al Jazeera Arabic that the strategy is designed to make life hell for ordinary Iranians in hopes of sparking an uprising. Shadid noted a glaring contradiction in the rhetoric of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who claims to support the Iranian people while overseeing the destruction of their basic means of survival.

Raphael S Cohen, director of the Strategy and Doctrine Program at the RAND Corporation, notes that such bombing campaigns consistently fail to achieve their primary goal of breaking a population’s will. Instead, Cohen argues, strategic bombing typically produces a rally-around-the-flag effect, unifying societies against a common foe rather than causing them to capitulate.

Historical echoes and retaliation

The reality of targeting oil infrastructure rarely aligns with sterile military theory, as history shows that such tactics reliably produce devastating, long-term environmental consequences.

During the 1991 Gulf War, the torching of Kuwaiti oil wells created a regional environmental catastrophe. Similarly, during the battle against ISIL (ISIS) in Iraq, the burning of the Qayyarah oil fields created a “Daesh Winter” that blocked out the sun for months.

The fires released vast quantities of toxic residues, including sulphur dioxide and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, causing severe respiratory illnesses, soil acidification, and long-term carcinogenic risks for the local population.

Meanwhile, Mokhtar Haddad, director of the Al-Wefaq newspaper, told Al Jazeera Arabic that the targeting of energy hubs could trigger a global energy war.

According to Al Jazeera’s Sohaib al-Assa, reporting from Tehran, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has already retaliated by striking the Haifa oil refinery and targeting a US base in Kuwait, signalling that the conflict is no longer confined to military targets.

On Monday, Bahrain’s state-run oil company Bapco declared force majeure after waves of Iranian strikes targeted its energy installations. Iran has also been accused of also targeting energy facilities in other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries.

Holidaygoers returning home need to be careful about what they bring back

With the February half-term still underway for many regions across the country, plenty of families will be eagerly packing their bags for some much-needed winter sun. For anyone keen to bring back goodies for their friends and relatives, there are certain rules they need to follow to avoid being stopped at UK airports.

In a recent warning by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the government agency urged holiday-goers to be mindful of what they try to bring back home. In a post on Facebook, a statement reads: “Travelling back from a half term trip abroad?

“To protect UK farmers and animals from diseases like Foot and Mouth, meat and dairy products can’t be brought into Great Britain. Check the rules before travelling.”

There are numerous guidelines on the Gov.uk website regarding bringing food into Great Britain, including rules on meat, dairy, fish, fruit, vegetables, nuts, seeds, and pet food. You can bring the following into Great Britain from any country without any restrictions:

• bread, but not sandwiches filled with meat or dairy products
• cakes without fresh cream
• biscuits
• chocolate and confectionery, but not those made with a lot of unprocessed dairy ingredients
• pasta and noodles, but not if mixed or filled with meat or meat products
• packaged soup, stocks and flavourings
• processed and packaged plant products, such as packaged salads and frozen plant material
• food supplements containing small amounts of an animal product, such as fish oil capsules

There are restrictions on bringing meat, dairy, fish and animal products and fruit, vegetables, nuts and seeds into Great Britain from abroad. If you’re bringing in any food or animal products protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), you may need to apply for a CITES permit.

Meat, dairy, fish and animal products

The rules on bringing meat, dairy, fish and other animal products depend on the country you’re bringing it from. From the EU, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, the Faroe Islands and Greenland, you can bring in the following for personal use:

• fish
• poultry, for example, chicken, duck, goose and any other products made from these meats
• other animal products, for example, eggs and honey

Due to recent and ongoing outbreaks of animal diseases in the EU, there are rules about bringing in most meats and all dairy products. You are allowed to bring in a maximum of 2kg per person of powdered baby milk, baby food, or special food required for medical reasons. You can only bring these items if they don’t need to be kept cold before using, and they must be in branded, unopened packages (unless you are currently using them).

There are restrictions on meat, dairy and animal products for human consumption. You cannot bring in any of the following:

• cheese, milk and dairy products like butter and yoghurt
• pork
• beef
• lamb
• mutton
• goat
• venison
• other products made from these meats, for example sausages

If you’re bringing food from a country outside the EU, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, the Faroe Islands and Greenland, the following rules apply. You cannot bring in:

• meat or meat products
• milk or milk-based products, except powdered infant milk, infant food or special food needed for medical reasons

You can bring in up to 2kg per person of:

• honey
• powdered infant milk, infant food, or special food (including pet food) needed for medical reasons – you can only bring it in if it does not need to be refrigerated before use, and is in branded, unopened packaging (unless in current use)
• live mussels or oysters
• snails – these must be preserved or shelled, cooked and prepared
• frogs’ legs – these must be the back (hind) part of the frog with the skin and internal organs removed
• insect protein

You can bring in up to 20kg per person in total of fish, including:

• fresh fish – must be gutted
• fish products
• processed fish – must be dried, cooked, cured or smoked
• lobsters
• prawns

You cannot bring in caviar unless you have a CITES permit.

Fruit, vegetables, nuts and seeds

The rules on bringing fruit, vegetables, nuts and seeds depend on the country you’re bringing it from. From the EU, Switzerland or Liechtenstein, you can bring in the following for personal use:

• fruit
• vegetables
• nuts and seeds

From other countries outside the EU you cannot bring in most fruit or vegetables unless you have a ‘phytosanitary’ (plant health) certificate for them. You can get a certificate from the plant health authorities in the country you’re leaving. You can only bring in the following without a phytosanitary certificate:

• pineapple
• kiwi
• coconut
• citrus fruits, such as oranges, lemons, limes and grapefruit
• kumquat
• persimmon
• durian
• curry leaves
• banana and plantain
• mango
• dates
• passion fruit
• guava
• processed and packaged plant products, such as packaged salads or frozen plant material
• peeled and processed nuts or nut butters
• certain grains, such as rice

Pet food

The rules on bringing pet food depend on the country you’re bringing it from. From the EU, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, the Faroe Islands and Greenland. You cannot bring in pet food if it contains meat or other animal products from pig, cow, sheep, goat or deer.

You can bring in pet food made with other ingredients (for example, chicken) if it is commercially packaged with the manufacturer’s name and address. You can bring up to 2kg per person. From countries outside the EU you cannot bring in pet food, unless your pet needs it for health-related reasons.

You can bring in up to 2kg per person of pet food needed for health-related reasons, from any country. The pet food must:

• not need to be refrigerated before use
• be in branded, unopened packaging (unless it is currently in use)

Your pet must be travelling with you. You should have evidence that the pet food is needed for health-related reasons, such as a letter from your vet. Contact the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) if you want to bring in more than 2kg of health-related pet food per person.

You’ll need to provide:

• details of why you cannot buy the specific pet food in Great Britain
• a letter from your vet confirming your pet needs this specific food

Check if you need a CITES permit

You may need to apply for a permit or certificate if you’re bringing any food or animal products protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) into Great Britain. This includes foods such as caviar and eel fillets and beauty products containing caviar extract. Check if you need a CITES permit.

You can apply for a CITES permit online. When travelling to Great Britain, you’ll need to arrive at one of the ports or airports that handles CITES items. Border Force can seize your items if you do not have a CITES permit and they think you’ve brought them into the country illegally.

Energy affordability was in the spotlight during President Trump’s lengthy and at times rambling State of the Union address Tuesday evening as the president promised to bring down electricity prices in an effort to assuage voter concerns about rising costs.

The president announced a new “ratepayer protection pledge” to shield residents from higher electricity costs in areas where energy-thirsty artificial intelligence data centers are being built. Trump said major tech companies will “have the obligation to provide for their own power needs” under the plan, though the details of what the pledge actually entails remain vague.

“We have an old grid — it could never handle the kind of numbers, the amount of electricity that’s needed, so I am telling them they can build their own plant,” the president said. “They’re going to produce their own electricity … while at the same time, lowering prices of electricity for you.”

The announcement comes as polling shows Americans are dissatisfied with the economy and concerned about the cost of living. Experts on both sides of the political spectrum have said the energy affordability issue could translate to poor outcomes for Republicans in the midterm elections this November, as it did in a few key races in New Jersey, Virginia and Georgia last year.

While Trump has focused on ramping up domestic production of oil, gas and coal, residential electric bills have been soaring — jumping from 15.9 cents per kilowatt-hour in January 2025 on average to 17.2 cents at the end of December, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Through one year into his second term as president, Trump has vastly changed the federal landscape when it comes to energy and the environment, reversing many of the efforts made by the Biden administration to prioritize electrification initiatives and investments in renewable energy via the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.

Among several changes, Trump’s administration has slashed funding for solar programs, ended federal tax credits for electric vehicles and canceled grants for offshore wind power — even going so far as to try to halt some such projects that were nearing completion along the East Coast.

Trump has also championed fossil fuel production and on Tuesday doubled down on his “drill baby drill” agenda, touting lower gasoline prices, increased production of American oil and new imports of oil from Venezuela.

Many of the president’s efforts are designed to loosen Biden-era regulations that he has said were burdensome, ideologically motivated and expensive for taxpayers.

Trump has taken direct aim at California, which has long been a leader on the environment. Last year, the president moved to block California’s long-held authority to set stricter tailpipe emission standards than the federal government — an ability that helped the state address historical air quality issues and also underpinned its ambitious ban on the sale of new gas-powered cars in 2035.

Trump also slashed $1.2 billion in federal funding for California’s effort to develop clean hydrogen energy while leaving intact funding for similar projects in states that voted for him. In November, his administration announced that it will open the Pacific Coast to oil drilling for the first time in nearly four decades, a move the state vowed to fight.

But perhaps no issue has come across voters’ kitchen tables more than energy affordability.

So far this term, Trump has canceled or delayed enough projects to power more than 14 million homes, according to a tracker from the nonprofit Climate Power. The group’s senior advisor, Jesse Lee, described the president’s data center announcement as a “toothless, empty promise based on backroom deals with his own billionaire donors.”

“Making it worse, Trump is continuing to block clean-energy production across the board — the only sources that can keep up with demand, ensure utility bills don’t keep skyrocketing, and prevent massive new amounts of pollution,” Lee said in a statement.

Earlier this month, Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency repealed the endangerment finding, the U.S. government’s 2009 affirmation that greenhouse gases are harmful to human health and the environment, in what officials described as the single largest act of deregulation in U.S. history. The finding formed the foundation for much of U.S. climate policy. The EPA also loosened guidelines around emissions from coal power plants, including mercury and other dangerous pollutants.

The president’s environmental record so far is “written in rollbacks that put the interests of some corporate polluters above the health of everyday Americans,” read a statement from Marc Boom, senior director of the Environmental Protection Network, a group composed of more than 750 former EPA staff members and appointees.

Further, Trump has worked to undermine climate science in general, often describing global warming as a “hoax” or a “scam.” During his first year in office, he fired hundreds of scientists working to prepare the National Climate Assessment, laid off staffers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and dismantled the National Center for Atmospheric Research, one of the world’s leading climate and weather research institutions, among many other efforts.

In all, the administration has taken or proposed more than 430 actions that threaten the environment, public health and the ability to confront climate change, according to a tracker from the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council.

The opposition’s choice for a rebuttal speaker is indicative of how seriously it is taking the issue of energy affordability: Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger focused heavily on energy affordability during her campaign against Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears last year, including vows to expand solar energy projects and technologies such as fusion, geothermal and hydrogen. Virginia is home to more than a third of all data centers worldwide.

Millions travel to Kenya and Tanzania each year to witness the Great Migration, but growing tourism infrastructure is raising concerns. Conservationists and community leaders warn that development is disrupting wildlife corridors and impacting Maasai land rights. We explore the science behind migration shifts, the economic role of tourism, and ask whether conservation and community livelihoods can coexist.

Presenter: Stefanie Dekker

Guests:

Joseph Moses Oleshangay – Lawyer and human rights activist

Chloe Buiting – Veterinarian and wildlife conservationist

Gladys Kalema-Zikusoka – Veterinarian

Grant Hopcraft – Researcher and professor, University of Glasgow

One person remains missing after a heavy avalanche engulfed a group of skiers in the Sierra Nevada mountains of the US.

Local authorities say that at least eight people have been found dead following an avalanche in the Sierra Nevada mountains of California, the deadliest incident of its kind in more than 40 years.

Nevada County Sheriff Shannon Moon said on Wednesday that rescue crews have been hindered by difficult conditions during a powerful winter storm.

One person remains missing. Six of the 15 skiers buried by the avalanche were found alive.

“We are still looking for one of the members at this time,” Moon confirmed to reporters, adding that family members have been informed that the search has moved from rescue to recovery.

The deadly incident comes as California experiences a winter storm that has deluged the mountains near the popular winter destination of Lake Tahoe with heavy snow.

The Sierra Avalanche Center warned on Wednesday that the risk of further avalanches remains high in the area as several feet of additional snow contribute to unstable conditions.

The California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services announced in a statement that it was “leading whole of government efforts to aid Nevada County”, which is located in eastern California, on the border with the neighbouring US state of Nevada.

“We are actively coordinating additional resources statewide to support avalanche search and rescue efforts to locate missing skiers near Castle Peak,” the office added.

Search-and-rescue teams were dispatched to the Castle Peak area after a call to emergency services reported that 15 people on a three-day trek had been buried by an avalanche on Tuesday morning.

“Our thoughts are with the missing individuals, their families, and first responders in the field,” the company Blackbird Mountain Guides said in a statement, noting that four guides were among those struck by the avalanche as they were returning to a trailhead.

The accident, near the town of Goppenstein, occurred as the region is under its second-highest avalanche warning, a level four out of five.

A regional train has derailed in southern Switzerland, injuring five people, police said, as the risk of avalanches in the region has reached its second-highest level.

The accident on Monday near the town of Goppenstein occurred amid heavy snow and at an altitude of 1,216 metres (4,000 feet), according to the AFP news agency.

“According to initial findings, an avalanche may have crossed the tracks shortly before the train passed,” police said, adding that the public prosecutor’s office has opened an investigation.

“Five people were injured. One of them was taken to hospital,” police added.

The train accident follows a series of deadly avalanches across the Alps in recent days involving skiers.

On Friday, three skiers were killed after being swept away by an avalanche in the upmarket French Alpine resort of Val d’Isere.

Cedric Bonnevie, who oversees the resort’s pistes, said one of the victims was a French national while the others were foreign citizens.

He said one victim appeared to have been caught in the avalanche high on the mountain slope, while the other two were part of a group of five, including a professional guide, lower on the mountain face and did not see the avalanche approaching.

In Italy, rescuers said last week that a record 13 backcountry skiers, climbers and hikers had died in the mountains over the previous seven days, including 10 in avalanches triggered by an exceptionally unstable snowpack.

Fresh snowfall during recent storms, combined with windswept snow sitting on weak internal layers, has created especially dangerous conditions across the Alpine arc bordering France, Switzerland, Austria and Italy, Italy’s Alpine Rescue said.

“Under such conditions, the passage of a single skier, or natural overloading from the weight of snow, can be sufficient to trigger an avalanche,” Federico Catania, Alpine Rescue’s spokesperson, said.

The avalanche deaths have occurred on ungroomed mountain slopes, away from the well-maintained and monitored Winter Olympic sites in Lombardy near the Swiss border, Cortina d’Ampezzo in Veneto, and the cross-country skiing venues in Val di Fiemme, within the autonomous province of Trentino.