Bath Friends of the Earth

Newsletter
Spring 2003
Home
Newsletters

Contents

  • War in IRAQ: Why Friends of the Earth is opposed
  • STOP E$$O Day
  • GATS
  • Fairtrade
  • Combe Down Stone Mines
  • Your taxes to fund Oil Pipeline!
  • Dear Deaf in DEFRA, will you won’t you join the GM Public Consultation?
  • Food Justice Strategies EDM
  • Nuclear dumped!

War in IRAQ: Why Friends of the Earth is opposed

Friends of the Earth strongly condemns the looming war against Iraq and deplores the humanitarian and environmental impacts that will result from such a war. Given the likely impacts, Friends of the Earth believes that the proponents of war against Iraq have failed to justify military action.

Friends of the Earth supports global treaties, diplomacy, and negotiation to resolve disputes and to promote human rights, environmental protection, and sustainable societies. Under the prevailing circumstances, pre-emptive military action contradicts such an approach, and risks furthering a vicious circle of terrorism and violence that would be inimical to sustainable development in and beyond the region. It appears that a major motivation for the proposed war, led by the US and the UK, is a perceived need to safeguard access to oil in the region.

Friends of the Earth believes that the only solution to the problem of oil dependency by highly industrialized countries is an increased reliance on clean and sustainable energy sources. Military action to secure oil supplies - on the other hand - threatens to increase environmental injustice. It would concentrate control over resources amongst the richer over-consuming nations, and worse, it would increase the rate of consumption of fossil fuels, and thus emissions of climate-changing greenhouse gases, with the most severe impacts being felt in poorer developing nations.

In no way does Friends of the Earth’s present opposition to a war against Iraq equate to any kind of support or endorsement for the policies or actions of the Iraqi regime.

A detailed briefing is available at: http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/war_iraq.pdf

PS The above is National FOE’s statement.

I thought the Guardian’s “What would you do ?” section on 27th Feb provided an excellent collection of alternatives to resorting to war in Iraq.

My view is - keep the inspectors, increase them if necessary, but widen their scope to include humanitarian objectives. Help internal liberalisation of Iraq by lifting sanctions on all but the most obviously dodgy material. Sanctions kill and also make Iraqis dependent on the regime for the distribution of food and medicine. This helps the regime and hinders internal change. Encourage the UN to redirect its attention to the Palestinian - Israeli problem.

Or - Drop food; Not bombs.

This may of course all be somewhat academic by the time you read it - but I hope not.
Continue to lobby tne Prime Minister and your MP.
Bath Stop The War Coalition: www.bathstopwar.org.uk

Terry

STOP E$$O Day

The high-profile actions against the intense lobbying of the US government by ExxonMobil will continue with another UK national day of action against E$$O on Saturday 17th May.

FoE again will unite with Greenpeace and People&Planet. Bath FoE will be focussing on local E$$O garages and all support from readers will be welcomed.

Chris.

GATS

109 European Union GATS negotiating request documents initiated in June 2002 and running into thousands of pages were leaked to the press on 25 February 2003. These requests were aimed by the EU at individually named countries and sought a commitment to binding liberalisation in targeted service sectors.

The 109 documents reveal that the EU's claim to be pursuing a 'development agenda' is hollow rhetoric. The EU is pursuing an agenda aimed solely at benefiting its multinational companies. (The UK’s position is negotiated through the EU.)

Hitherto, only a very selected group of people could, under conditions of the strictest secrecy, consult these documents. For example, Green MEP Caroline Lucas, one of the few Members of the European Parliament who did get earlier access to the requests, reported how she was "instructed to keep the papers in a locked safe, to refrain from copying them or emailing them, and to shred them after reading."

These documents should be open to public scrutiny. It is simply not acceptable that they should be secret and that the only way the public gets access is through leaks.

The 109 requests reveal how the European Union is putting pressure on developing countries to opening up their services (including essential ones like drinking water or energy) markets for European services TNCs. For example, countries like Tanzania, Mozambique and Bangladesh are asked to open up their markets for drinking water supply.

The leaks clearly show
We will also need to ensure that the EU does not "offer" up for GATS liberalisation the services EU communities rely on for their benefit and environmental protection. Governments need to continue to retain full regulatory control over the provision of essential services, as well as services which have an impact on their livelihoods and natural resources.

More specifically, we should demand that:-

GATS. The basics

The EU signed up to the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) in 1994. Accelerated negotiations to extend the agreement are taking place at the World Trade Organisation. The agreement applies to all levels of government - local, regional and national, covering 160 service sectors. It extends the free trade principles of the WTO from trade in goods to services.

The WTO Secretariat has described GATS commitments as "effectively irreversible". Critically, GATS rules govern the extent and nature of the involvement of foreign companies in the delivery of services and places strict limits on the ability of governments to regulate the market in service sectors. The EC's website describes GATS as "first and foremost an instrument for the benefit of business."

There has been no proper research into the effects of GATS in the UK. B&NES Council is currently trying to find out how we locals will be affected.

Write to Don Foster (House of Commons, London, W1; or email fosterd@parliament.uk). Ask him to lobby Baroness Symons Minister of State for International Trade and Investment.

Read more about GATS at:
www.gatswatch.org
www.foe.co.uk
www.wdm.org.uk
www.peopleandplanet.org

For printed copies of FOE Briefings on GATS call 020 7490 1555

Terry

Fairtrade

On 18th Feb B&NES Council approved a Fairtrade policy. It requires that the Council:
Two of the goals for Fairtrade Area Status are :-
The Bath Trade Justice Movement (BTJM), of which Bath FOE is a member, is currently monitoring progress towards B&NES Fairtrade Area Status and needs to be kept informed of shops and organisations selling/providing fairtrade products. The address for emails to BTJM is bathtjm@yahoogroups.com

Information is available at www.groups.yahoo.com/group/bathtjm

Terry

Combe Down Stone Mines

We responded on 4 February 2003 to the Combe Down Stone Mines Project Planning Application No. 03/00021/EREG03 dated 7th January 2003, as follows:-

“This planning application now being considered by Bath and North East Somerset Council for the Combe Down stone mines is based on a comprehensive infill option, an option which involves extensive environmental impacts. The judgement on whether this is a sensible option, either in its own terms or compared with other targeted options, depends on the information to be provided by the comprehensive cost-benefit analysis which will accompany the application for funding. This comprehensive cost-benefit analysis will include both direct and indirect costs and benefits to all parties, and therefore will cover such things as the probability of accidents being caused outside the study area by the transport over many years of infill material to Combe Down.

At the public meeting held by the Council on the 14th January 2003 it was stated that phase 1 of the cost-benefit analysis had been completed and that phase 2 was in progress, and that when completed a formal submission to the government for funding would be made in the summer from B&NES and English Partnerships.

It would have been useful if the cost-benefit analysis report had been available before the planning application was submitted, in order to inform those who wish to comment on the planning application (This planning application has a closing date of 7th February 2003). I would be grateful if you would send me the phase 1 report, and when it is available, the phase 2 and final cost-benefit analysis report. An overall judgement needs to be made in the light of the government's good regulation principles, published in 1998, which require the actions of all public bodies to be, amongst other things, both targeted and proportionate.

One specific aspect that will need careful attention in the cost-benefit analysis report will be the treatment of the already approved and on-going enabling and emergency works. The costs and benefits of these works should be excluded from the cost-benefit analysis, since the current appraisal is now only concerned with the prospective costs and benefits related to future available options.”

On 26 February the CDSM Project responded saying that English Partnerships say that the economic appraisal (which is not part of the planning application) is not a public document and therefore cannot be made available.

The CDSM Project has revealed that £2m has been expended to date on emergency works to stabilise High Hazard Areas and that “English Partnerships has approved an outline budget of £7.8m for the emergency works in January 2003 (including works already stabilised to date) . This budget includes investigating and stabilising North Road and Shaft Road prior to the main scheme commencing).”

Terry

Your taxes to fund Oil Pipeline!

Readers are invited to take a day off work to participate in an important march to show that public financial institutions and the UK government must think seriously about their lending policies. They must act to prevent dangerous climate change, rather than simply supporting business as usual.

The British Petroleum-planned Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline would run over 1,000 miles from offshore Caspian oilfields, through Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish Mediterranean coast. The pipeline parties will have priority access over indigenous peoples to land and water supplies and they will not be liable for any environmental damage or human rights abuses. The project would exacerbate poverty in the region, add to the countries' debts, undermine the transition to democracy, inflame conflict and add to greater climate change.

However BP's Chief Executive John Browne has said that BP would only build the pipeline if "free money" were offered by governments. Only 30% of the US$3.3 billion cost of the pipeline will come from the oil companies involved, with much of the remainder coming from taxpayers' money through institutions such as the International Finance Corporation (part of the World Bank) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

The march will take place in London on Tuesday 25th March, and will include the procession of a very long pipeline through the streets, a 6-metre section of which will be donated by Bath FoE. Please contact me for details - 835633.

Chris

Dear Deaf in DEFRA, will you won’t you join the GM Public Consultation?

The government promised a public consultation on GM last July. The government consultation still hasn't started, and lack of funding will make it minimal in any case. The stated aim was to "deepen public understanding of all issues surrounding GM" prior to the commercialisation of GM seeds after the field trials end, round about now. Silence from the powers that be. But not from us. Our GM-Free Britain campaign is going well here in B&NES.

You can help by writing another letter to our Margaret at DEFRA. It could go something like this, but you might want to draft your own:

Mrs Margaret Beckett Secretary of State,
DEFRA Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London SWIP 3JR

Dear Ms Beckett,
I am extremely concerned over the fact that I have had no clear opportunity to get involved in the GM public debate which you launched in July.

COI Communications, your specialist communications agency, has warned that there is inadequate funding and not enough time to properly facilitate a fair and robust public debate.

I am aware that in the next year the Government will decide whether to allow GM maize, oilseed rape or beet to be grown on a commercial scale in the UK. As someone who is very concerned about the quality of the food I buy, I want to ensure that in the future I can still choose not to have any GM ingredients in my diet.

I am not convinced the Government is fully taking into account the strong demand by consumers for food to be kept GM-free, and the need to ensure that farmers and food businesses are able to meet this demand without the threat of GM contamination.

The evidence from GM crops being grown commercially in North America strongly suggests that contamination of seeds and crops is already occurring. In Britain, where the scale of farming is smaller, such contamination through cross pollination will be inevitable.

I am not convinced that the Government is fully aware of the economic impact such contamination will have on farmers and food producers in the country. The rural economy is already under great pressure and the last thing it needs is legal and marketing problems brought about by GM crops.

As a member of the UK public, I have a right to say whether I want GM in this country and I would like to know how you are intending to ensure I get this opportunity before any major decisions are made.

I look forward to receiving your response.

Yours sincerely


While we wait, probably eternally, for Dear Deaf Margaret to reply (she didn't grace my last missive with a riposte or even a response) Bath & North East Somerset Council is compiling a report on GM issues with a view to declaring the district a GM-free area. Susan Traill and Deborah Porter from Somer Valley FoE have been working on this together with help from our Friends. Deborah persuaded Norton-Radstock town council to adopt a resolution in December declaring their area GM-free. Susan presented a petition with over 200 signatures to the B&NES Council Executive in February to get them to pick up the baton for the full district.

A big thank you to all those who signed in Bath on our action day on Saturday 1 February and to those who circulated petitions before and afterwards in Bath and Norton-Radstock. Our action day was reported in the Bath Chronicle and on Bath FM Radio, which has hopefully spread the message a little further.

For anyone who has not signed and would like to, the petition is at envolve. I will be sending research documents along with signatures to the Council rapporteur to help make the Council's resolution as clear-cut as possible with as much support as possible.

The EU Council of Ministers voted through an EU directive on traceability and labelling of GM foods in December. Although it allows a 0.9% GM content in non-GM food (down from the 1% proposed), this is better than no EU labelling law at all, for which the UK government was the only proponent. The US government is considering whether to complain to the World Trade Organisation that the new labelling law is a barrier to trade. We need to keep up the pressure against the WTO's overruling of democratic laws. Slightly better news is that there is a GM food labelling bill before Congress at the present time following pressure from US farmers after the shock of losing export markets in Europe, the Far East and Africa.

We will be doing another GM Free Bath & North East Somerset action day on Saturday 12 April at 10 am in Green Park Station. This is part of FoE's GM-Free Britain campaign in the run-up to local elections.

Susan

Food Justice Strategies EDM

A new Food Justice Strategies Bill has been tabled as Early Day Motion 737. The Bill requires local councils and central government to adopt strategies to eradicate malnourishment and to implement them within 15 years. A report by the Rountree Foundation published in September 2000 estimated that 4 million Britons could not afford a healthy diet. Other reports indicate that income support is set too low for a healthy diet, and there are 6.7 million people drawing income support. An estimated 2 million pensioners are affected nationally and that 5,000 people of varying ages are affected in each parliamentary constituency. The lack of a healthy diet gives greater risk of serious health problems. As a rich country we should not allow this to happen. Bath MP Don Foster is a leading supporter of the Bill.

If you would like to join the campaign and receive information on how the Bill is progressing contact Ron Bailey at Food Justice, 94 White Lion Street London N1 9PF email: ron@foodjustice.org.uk

Susan

Nuclear dumped!

On 24th February the government published its Energy White Paper which can be summed up by the following extract:

"4.67 . . . our priority is to strengthen the contribution that energy efficiency and renewable energy sources make to meeting our carbon commitment.

4.68 While nuclear power is currently an important source of carbon free electricity, the current economics of nuclear power make it an unattractive option for new generating capacity and there are also important issues for nuclear waste to be resolved. This white paper does not contain proposals for building new nuclear power stations. However, we do not rule out the possibility that at some point in the future new nuclear build might be necessary if we are to meet our carbon targets. Before any decision to proceed with the building of new nuclear power stations, there would need to be the fullest public consultation and the publication of a white paper setting out the Governmentâs proposals."

Sadly the paper stops short of committing to firm targets for renewables in 2020 and energy demand reduction through increased energy efficiency. But targets have been set for 2010 for generating 10% of electricity from renewables, cutting CO2 emissions by 20% and and having installed CHP capacity of 10GW.

The defeat of the industry lobby is well worth celebrating because for the first time it puts the focus squarely on renewables and demand reduction. Patricia Hewitt is reported to have been very influenced by public opinion which was so clearly not in favour of a new generation of nuclear power stations. The FoE dumpnuclear has now effectively come to a close.

Copies of the report can be found at:
http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper/ourenergyfuture.pdf http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper/ourenergyfuture.pdf

Chris.
Newsletters | Bath FoE Homepage
This page last updated: 30-Aug-2004