Posted by WTO Watch Qld on August 25, 2002 at 22:43:50:
QUOTES OF THE WEEK
Sustainable development................meeting the needs of the present
generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their needs.
For most corporations in the world green is nothing more than the color of money.
From Rio to Johannesburg---the Road to Globalisation
1) COMING EVENTS
2) SYDNEY TO HOST MINI WTO MEETING
a) Media release form Minister for Trade
b) Responses to Media release
3) FOCUS ON WORLD SUMMIT FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
a) State of the Environment
Humans Running up Huge Overdraft with the Planet---WWF report
b) Civil Society Global People's Forum
c) From Rio to Johannesburg-----The Globalisation Decade
d) Heads of Multinationals in British WSSD Delegation
4) CALLS TO ACTION
======================================================
1) COMING EVENTS
WORKSHOP, SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, SOUTH BRISBANE
How much of Australia's natural and human resources are we willing to
surrender to the self-interest of global corporations?
Why is it urgent that we all know what WTO, GATS and TRIPS mean and what
impacts they could have on Australian culture and society, if they are
not challenged?
How are international trade negotiations implicated in the displacement
of peoples, violence and war, poverty and disease, the destroying of the
ecology of the Earth?
You and your friends are invited to
St Mary's Church
20 Merivale Road, South Brisbane
on
Saturday, 7 September, 1 - 5 p.m.
RESOURCE PERSON
MARY BOYD is on a one-month lecture tour in Australia, sponsored by The
Grail in Australia. Mary is a Canadian, who has long been engaged in
research and campaigning for social justice and in applying the
philosophy and methods of Paolo Freire in adult education. The range and
quality of her work have been honoured with a Doctorate in Law by the
University of Charlottetown. Mary plays an executive role in a number of
provincial and national organisations in her country. As a member of The
Grail, she perceives her work for a more just and peaceful world as a
demand of her Christian faith. Mary brings the wealth of her study,
reflection and experience in Canada and other countries to the topic of
this workshop.
Some resource material will be available to help participants wanting to
continue their interest in the issues raised, whether through practical
action or further education.
Afternoon tea and coffee will be provided.
Off-street parking is available.
Donation: $5 - $10, or what you can afford.
RSVP Friday, 30th August
Jill Herbert (Tel: 3351-5390, vidlerpatandjill@aol.com)
Mary Nelson (Tel: 3204-1770, dlnelson@bigpond.com)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alliance to Expose GATS will also hold a meeting with Mary on Tuesday, 10th September
from 6pm to 7.30 pm.
Venue to be advised.
RSVP Terrie Templeton gumbus@powerup.com.au
=======================================
2) SYDNEY TO HOST MINI WTO MEETING
a) Media release
Thursday 15 August 2002 / MVT096/2002
Australia to Host Doha Round Ministerial Meeting
Australia would host an informal meeting of trade ministers later this
year in Sydney to discuss the Doha round of multilateral trade
negotiations, Trade Minister Mark Vaile confirmed today.
"The Doha round is vitally important for the global trading system and for
Australia's trade interests," Mr Vaile said.
"I am determined that Australia takes every opportunity to ensure the
round moves ahead and concludes on schedule.
"The Mini-Ministerial meeting of World Trade Organisation (WTO) Trade
Ministers will be held in Sydney on 14-15 November.
"The meeting will bring together trade ministers from some 25 countries to
discuss progress made in Geneva since last November's Doha meeting, and
how we can ensure the next WTO Ministerial meeting, to be held in Mexico
in September 2003, is successful."
Mr Vaile said that over the last few weeks he had held detailed
discussions about the Sydney meeting with the Mexican Minister for the
Economy, Luis Derbez, who will chair the 5th Ministerial meeting next year.
"I have now spoken to many trade ministers who have indicated their
support for the proposal and confirmed their attendance for the Sydney meeting.
"Aside from the major industrialised countries, such as the EU and the
United States, I have been in contact with my colleagues in developed and
developing countries across a wide range of regions and interests.
"The meeting will help build understanding across the range of key issues,
including development issues as well as market access and the preparations
for the next Ministerial meeting."
Mr Vaile said that the hosting of this meeting, the first to be held since
the launch of the Doha round, was an important confirmation of Australia's
standing in and commitment to the multilateral trading system and his
determination to ensure that Australia continued to play a strong leading
role in the Doha round.
"This is all about this Government's commitment to drive the trade agenda
forward," Mr Vaile said.
www.trademinister.gov.au/releases/2002/mvt096_02.html
------------------------------------------------------------
b) RESPONSES
From AFTINET: This is a great opportunity for unions, church groups, environment groups, human rights groups and other community groups to organise events and public debate about the WTO, its impact on the Australian community and on people in developing countries.
You are invited to a meeting to establish a broad based committee for this purpose.
When: Friday August 30, 10.30 am
Where: 1st Floor, AMWU House, 128 Chalmers St , Surry Hills.
Please RSVP to Sarah Mitchell or Pat Ranald if you are coming. (email smitchell@piac.asn.au or phone 02 9299 7833).
-------------------------------------
From Sydney Social Forum:
In the lead up to the protests in November, the Sydney Social Forum will be a focal point for both debate and discussion, as well as organisational activities focussed on the November meeting.
At the SSF will be a number of workshops focussed on free trade and in particular the World Trade Organisation (WTO), negotiations on Trade in Services (GATS) and your access to health, education, water and postal services.
A response to the WTO meeting as well as organising to make
the SSF event Sept 21-22 as big and successful as possible,
will be discussed at the weekly SSF organising meetings:
Wednesdays @ 6:00pm
The Wilderness Society Offices
64-72 Kippax St Surry Hills
Everyone is welcome.
http://www.sydneysocialforum.org/
================================================
2) FOCUS ON WORLD SUMMIT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
a) State of the Environment
9 July, 2002
Humans running up huge 'overdraft' with the planet says new WWF report
Geneva, Switzerland - Standards of living and human development will start to plummet by 2030 unless humans stop using more natural resources than the planet can replace, according to a new report released by WWF, the conservation organization, 50 days before the start of the World Summit on Sustainable Development .
Living Planet Report shows that humans are currently running a huge deficit with the Earth - using over 20 percent more natural resources each year than can be regenerated - and this figure is growing each year. Projections based on likely scenarios of population growth, economic development and technological change, show that by 2050, humans will consume between 180 percent and 220 percent of the Earth's biological capacity. According to the report, this means that unless governments take urgent action, by 2030, human welfare, as measured by average life expectancy, educational level, and world economic product will go into decline.
"The fact that we live on a bountiful planet, but not a limitless one, presents world leaders at the World Summit on Sustainable Development with a clear challenge," said Dr. Claude Martin, Director General of WWF International. "Ensuring access to basic resources and improving the health and livelihoods of the world's poorest people can not be tackled separately from maintaining the integrity of natural ecosystems. Unless we ensure the health of those ecosystems, we will never be able to guarantee an acceptable standard of living for much of the world's population."
According to the Living Planet Report, the Earth has about 11.4 billion hectares of productive land and sea space - or 1.9 hectares of productive land to provide for each of the 6 billion people on the planet. The global ecological footprint - or consumption of natural resources - is 2.3 hectares per person. However, while the footprint of the average African or Asian consumer being less than 1.4 hectares per person in 1999, the average Western European's footprint was about 5.0 hectares, and the average North American's was about 9.6 hectares. (ED: Australia comes in 8th, with an ecological footprint of 7.8.)
At the same time, the Living Planet Index (LPI), which is based on trends in populations of hundreds of species of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians and fish also shows clearly that the current human consumptive pressure is unsustainable. Over the past 30 years, the LPI has declined by about 37 percent. The decline in freshwater species has been particularly dramatic, with 54 percent decline on average in the populations of 195 species living in rivers and wetland ecosystems. Marine species are also under threat - with an average decline of 35 percent in 217 species, while forest species populations show a 15 percent decline in 282 species.
WWF believes that governments could reverse some of these negative trends and put humanity back on a path to sustainable development if they address some key issues. These include improving the resource efficiency with which goods and services are produced - in particular moving energy supplies away from fossil fuels and promoting energy-efficient technologies, buildings and transport systems; encouraging equitable and sustainable consumption; and conserving and restoring natural ecosystems to maintain their biological productivity and diversity.
"We do not know exactly what the result will be of running this massive overdraft with the earth. What is clear though is that it would be better to control our own destiny, rather than leave it up to chance," said Jonathan Loh, author of the Living Planet Report. "At the WSSD, world leaders will have a magnificent opportunity to address the root causes of our obvious failure to achieve sustainable development and set us on the path to a truly sustainable future."
For further information contact:
Kyla Evans, Head of Press, WWF International, tel: +41 22 364 9550, email: kevans@wwfint.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
b) Civil Society Global People's Forum
JOHANNESBURG, Aug 18 (AFP) - No penguins waddle around the Antarctica
"Ice Station", the first of hundreds of exhibits to open for the Earth
Summit here, but a bewildering maze built of rusted metal and an art display
crafted from waste demand as much attention.
The Group Mission Antarctica is one of some 7,000 organisations promoting a
vast array of causes through exhibitions and meetings ahead of and alongside
the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development, to be held from August 26 to
September 4 in Johannesburg.
The Civil Society Global People's Forum, which is expecting some 40,000
delegates, starts a week ahead of the 10-day summit at the Nasrec exhibition
centre, southwest of the city.
"We will be hosting around 90 events a day and 350 exhibitors have
confirmed," said Desmond Lesejane, the chief executive officer of the Civil
Society secretariat, five days ahead of its opening. Civil Society events
range from the predictable -- like sustainable agriculture and trade,
alternative energy, eco-tourism, recycling by municipalities and poverty
eradication -- to creative events like an African dress festival and a glass
exhibition. Fringe activities like a healing circle for the Earth and a
"Rainbow Maker", which aims to create 600-metre natural rainbows in
the sky, are also on the agenda.
The groups hope to emerge with a common "Platform 21" to present to
negotiators, despite their diverse causes and more militant groups
contesting their legitimacy.
Land activists, for example, are among the anti-globalisation groups which
have broken away from the Nasrec programme to host a "Landless People's
Camp" (LPC), where they expect up to 5,000 supporters.
"The LPC is separate from the civil society forum and the government
movement," said National Land Committee spokesman Andile Mngxitma.
"Since Stockholm (where the first environmental commitments were made in
1972) we have had 30 years of broken promises," he said, casting doubt on
whether the summit would contribute to development and the planet's future.
But Lesejane downplayed divisions between groups, saying instead that all of
them would be represented during a march on August 31 to the elite northern
suburb of Sandton, where the UN conference will be held, and where Platform
21 will be handed over to world leaders. "One memorandum might be presented
but there are many other messages," he told AFP.
Their opening ceremony, at which South African President Thabo Mbeki is
expected to preside, followed by a three-hour international concert, takes
place on August 23 at the Johannesburg stadium. During the next week
delegates will work on developing Platform 21, through meetings focused on
issues like human security and science and technology, and "cross-cutting"
issues like poverty eradication.
Demonstrations are also planned around the summit, with some four permits
granted -- out of seven applications by Friday -- by the Johannesburg city council.
The Basic Income Grant Coalition (BIG), for example, intends to create a
human chain of thousands of people from near the overcrowded township of
Alexandra to Sandton on September 3, symbolically linking the poor to the
summit's decisions. BIG has demanded access to a basic income grant of 100
rand (10 dollars/euros per month) for around half of South Africa's 43
million people.
From September 1-4, Civil Society delegates will concentrate on building
alliances to implement their decisions, Lesejane said. "This will inform
what Civil Society does in the future, so that the summit is not simply a talkshop."
At the Ubuntu village near Sandton -- to be the service and recreational hub
for the summit -- the world's largest tent, Tensile 1, has 11,000 square
metres (118,360 square feet) of exhibition space.
Everywhere the words "sustainable" and "partnership" are blazed across banners.
Even delivery trucks at the Ubuntu Village reflected the "sustainable
development" theme. A "Piki Tup" truck, responsible for eco-friendly waste
disposal, and a Hare Krishna van, supplying vegetarian food, were stationed
at the entrance to the village.
=========================================
C) http://www.corpwatch.org/campaigns/PCD.jsp?articleid=3190
From Rio to Johannesburg: The Globalization Decade
By Kenny Bruno and Joshua Karliner
CorpWatch and Food First Books
July 24, 2002
The world's governments, facing a deteriorating planet, are making a last
ditch effort to save the Earth. The industrialized countries of the North
and the developing countries of the South are scrambling to reach a global
deal that will combine environmental protection and poverty alleviation. But
a group of global corporations are claiming that they have the answers to
the planet's environment and development woes and suggest redefining
"sustainable development" to focus on "profit, planet and people." George
Bush, President of the United States, sides with the corporate approach.
The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro represented a high point of hope for
the future of the world's environment, and the billions of people who live
on this small planet. Gathered amidst Rio's contrasting splendor and misery,
more than one hundred heads of state agreed on a series of accords in what
was then billed as "the last chance to save the Earth."
The first Earth Summit was aimed at protecting the planet's environment and
improving life for the most impoverished of its human inhabitants. The
Summit's members produced agreements on climate and biodiversity, which
established binding frameworks for tackling some of the world's most serious
ecological threats. In addition, the several-hundred-page text known as
Agenda 21 set forth a series of guidelines that have served as tools for
local environmental movements to pressure their governments into taking
action on key issues, from halting forest loss, to preserving the rights of
indigenous people, to managing and preventing toxic waste.
World leaders, U.N. diplomats, nongovernmental organizations and, to some
extent, the general public, emerged from the first Earth Summit in Brazil
with a deepened understanding of the connections between the twin crises of
environment and development. The output: an action plan outlining how to
solve the problems. Yet ten years later, little progress had been made,
necessitating a second Earth Summit.
The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, South
Africa, was to be both a review of the first Earth Summit and an attempt to
build on the letter and spirit of Rio. Unfortunately, the governments
negotiating Earth Summit II had a steep hill to climb; they were confronted
by the stinging reality that in the ten years since Rio, the global
ecological balance had deteriorated and world poverty had deepened. In that
time, the so-called "sustainable development" solution languished on the
margins of an international politics dominated by anti-environmental forces.
And while a man named George Bush occupied the White House once again, the
political climate into which WSSD was born was entirely different than that
of the first Earth Summit a decade before. Framed by war and terrorism, a
significant global recession, a spate of corporate bankruptcies and the U.S.
government pulling out of international treaties left and right, the
Johannesburg Summit found itself in a very different context than Rio.
In the decade between the two Earth Summits, corporate globalization had
also consolidated itself through the establishment of the World Trade
Organization. Because of this changed political climate, much of the WSSD
negotiating text took a step backward from Agenda 21, diminishing the
substance of the original Earth Summit agreements. By the time organizers
reached the fourth and final preparatory meeting in Bali, Indonesia, many
activists began to wonder if the world would be better off without the
Johannesburg meeting.
In addition to this difficult political climate, the ghost of the first
Earth Summit haunted Earth Summit II. Much of the spirit of Rio had been
killed in Rio itself, when the negotiations mangled the idea of sustainable
development almost beyond recognition. The idea of linking "environment" and
"development" had its conceptual benefits, but, in the end, the Summit's
failure to properly define the terms and the overwhelming corporate
influence on the words' meaning corrupted the original concept. Sustainable
development was originally defined as meeting the needs of the present
generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their needs. However, in Rio, "needs" were not defined, leaving
over-consumption by the richest corporations and individuals untouched.
Moreover, despite the protest of many nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)
present at the Rio negotiations, the Earth Summit documents declared that
free and open markets are necessary prerequisites for achieving sustainable
development-in these documents, sustainable development was essentially
equated with wealth creation. With this philosophy at the forefront, saving
the environment and ending poverty were made compatible-on paper-with
corporate globalization. In reality, globalization has only exacerbated the
world's ecological travails. When confronted with the obvious contradictions
between global markets and sustainability, negotiators blinked in Rio, and
are poised to blink again in Johannesburg.
The first Earth Summit also failed to challenge corporate power in any
meaningful way. This despite the fact that it was becoming increasingly
clear that confronting corporate power and changing corporate behavior must
be at the top of the international agenda. By 1992 evidence had emerged that
found global corporations at the root of most global environment and
development problems. A U.N. Centre on Transnational Corporations report
documented that transnational corporations generated more than half of the
greenhouse gasses emitted by the industrial sectors with the greatest impact
on global warming.
Transnational companies also controlled 80 percent of the land worldwide
cultivated for export crops and dominated production of almost all major
toxic chemicals. At the time, just twenty companies controlled 90 per cent
of pesticide sales. Global fishery corporations roamed the seas, their
high-tech, large-scale factory fleets making a hefty contribution to a
growing crisis in which 70 percent of the world's conventional fish stocks
were either fully exploited, severely overtaxed, declining or recovering.
And while a number of factors contributed to the rapid deforestation of both
tropical and temperate zones, timber transnationals played a major role as
commercial timber harvests increased by 50 percent between 1965 and 1990.
These companies have always argued that they merely are serving government
and consumer needs. It is true that governments and consumers are complicit
in the irresponsible consumption of fossil fuels and other environmentally
damaging goods. Yet global corporations are not mere observers. They are
both producers and consumers of these products. They choose which
technologies and products to develop and they use their political power to
prevent technological transformation and to protect their industries
economically. They influence and even buy scientific and public opinion
through marketing and public relations. Notwithstanding the role of the
individual consumer and small businesses, global corporations are at the
very heart of the unsustainable practices that shape our economies.
Yet Governments in Rio allowed big business to avoid a binding legal
framework on corporate activities, opting instead for a voluntary approach
to sustainable development. Some of the world's worst corporate polluters
were given special access to the Earth Summit process, establishing a trend
of U.N.-corporate collaboration that has only grown since that time. In Rio,
Greenpeace International, Third World Network and a number of allied
organizations warned that business's heavy influence on the Summit would
lead to the "partial privatization of the United Nations," and the
"globalization of greenwash." Unfortunately, that prediction may have been right.
In the decade between the two Earth Summits, the United Nations has
increased its dedication not to reining in socially, environmentally and
economically destructive and unaccountable corporate power on the world
stage. The U.N. has instead dedicated itself to building partnerships with
global corporations and advocating corporate responsibility -- that is
self-regulation -- as a solution. This entanglement between the U.N. and
corporations occurred at a time when the corporate role in environmental
destruction became increasingly clear and, augmented by globalization,
arguably more profound than it was in 1992.
In 1999, for instance, major U.S. environmental groups calculated that just
122 corporations accounted for 80% of all carbon dioxide emissions, and just
five petroleum companies produce oil that contributes some 10 percent of
world carbon emissions. By the year 2002, the merger of Chevron and Texaco
reduced that number to just four oil companies-three of whom were U.N. partners.
Nevertheless, the U.N. is still the only global institution that is a
potential counterbalance to the World Trade Organization and the
corporate-globalization regime. Its vision reflects the aspirations of many,
placing fundamental values like human rights, labor rights and the
environment before corporate profits. In practice, elements of the U.N.
still help hold corporations accountable. This is especially true in the
case of a series of international environmental treaties, two of which, the
Climate and Biodiversity Conventions, emerged from the Rio Earth Summit.
The decade between the two Earth Summits has been disastrous for the twin
causes of environmentally sustainable and socially just development. When
seen in the context of world events in the 1990s and the beginning of this
century, the Earth Summit process is, despite the hype, a mere historical
footnote to the dominant trend of corporate globalization.
Prior to the first Earth Summit, there was much hopeful and idealistic talk
about building a post-Cold War world that fostered ecological
sustainability, human development and democratic governance. Unfortunately,
the end of the Cold War did not usher in the dawn of the green era for which
many in Rio wished and worked. Rather, it marked the onset of a
globalization process in which transnational corporations worked closely
with the world's most powerful nations to put in place an international
system of governance that values commercialism, corporate rights and "free"
trade above environment, human rights, worker rights, human health and justice.
The post-Rio decade will go down in history as a time in which this new form
of global governance, based on the interests of global capitalism, was
institutionalized. This new architecture is embodied by the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which came into force in 1994, and by the
advent of the World Trade Organization (WTO), established in 1995 out of the
Uruguay Round Negotiations of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT). Whereas the Rio agreements were meant to protect nature, the WTO and
NAFTA rules give transnational corporations favored access to natural
resources, while weakening the ability of governments to protect these
resources or to legislate in favor of recycling, marine mammal protection
and clean air.
Both the NAFTA and GATT negotiations were well under way during the Earth
Summit negotiations in 1991 and 1992. Those negotiations cast a shadow in
Rio, as U.S. and European governments, responding to a major lobbying effort
by the International Chamber of Commerce, took great care to ensure that
Agenda 21 and other documents were made consistent with these free trade
accords' new rules and that the Earth Summit documents were rendered
toothless. The Earth Summit and its vision of sustainable and equitable
development were not to become a countervailing force to the new, extremely
powerful, fully enforceable free trade regimes.
Since then, the WTO has used its enforcement powers of economic sanctions
and its anti-democratic secret dispute resolution process to subordinate
environment, labor rights and human rights to the newfound "rights" of
corporations to trade and invest freely around the world. As a result, the
WTO has marginalized the much weaker environmental agreements forged in Rio
and dissipated the energy the Earth Summit inspired. The overwhelming
momentum of corporate globalization and the power of the free-trade regimes
have also made it extremely difficult for participants at Earth Summit II to
revive the sense of hope and optimism present ten years earlier.
To a significant degree, the macro-political story of the 1990s is summed up
by the phrase "Marrakech trumped Rio." (Marrakech was the site of the
meeting that concluded the Uruguay Round of GATT and established the WTO.)
In other words, the U.N. was sidelined, as the WTO became the most powerful
intergovernmental institution in the world. The rise of the
one-dollar-one-vote institution over the one-country-one-vote body mirrored
and reinforced a rise in the power of the U.S. in the post-Cold War era, a
time when U.S. contempt for the U.N. was still at an all-time high.
The fundamental need to radically change production and consumption patterns
and practices in the North-a concept central to the Rio Earth Summit
negotiations-has been all but ignored for the past decade. For instance,
instead of reducing consumption in the United States, whose 4 percent of the
global population gobbles up a whopping 25 percent of the planet's
resources, auto corporations built more sport utility vehicles (SUVs), which
pump ever-greater amounts of global warming gasses into the atmosphere.
At the same time, many of these corporations hypocritically touted
themselves as "green citizens" in their public relations and advertising
campaigns. Environmental good news became fashionable, and these companies
were attempting to bring us the good news message so ardently wished for by
the entire planet. Unfortunately, believing the good news simply was not
warranted. There are some steps forward, but at the global level, they are
far outnumbered by steps backward.
Being the bearer of bad news is an occupational hazard for
environmentalists, and it is a role that is easy for the public to tire of.
Nevertheless, it is a fact that in the decade between Earth Summits I and
II, environmental destruction in much of the world accelerated. Forests
dwindled, fisheries declined, and deserts encroached on ever more
agricultural land. Potentially hazardous genetic pollution from biotech
agriculture contaminated food crops, and clean, fresh water became
increasingly scarce. With the 1990s becoming the warmest decade on record,
the threat of global climate change loomed ever larger on the horizon,
pointing toward a future of sea-level rises and the devastation of entire
coastal populations, increasingly severe and frequent storms, environmental
refugees, droughts, floods and disease.
The United Nations Environment Programme (U.N.EP) confirms that the "state
of the planet is getting worse." The agency also pins at least some of the
responsibility on business, saying "there is a growing gap between the
efforts of business and industry to reduce their impact on the environment
and the worsening state of the planet."
The ten years between the two Earth Summits have also shown that, despite
their eco-rhetoric, for most corporations in the world green is nothing more
than the color of money. Greenwash-the phenomenon of socially and
environmentally destructive corporations attempting to preserve and expand
their markets by posing as friends of the environment and leaders in the
struggle to eradicate poverty-has become standard operating procedure for
most corporations riding on the globalization bandwagon.
Greenwash is everywhere. It's most visible when comparing the reality of a
corporation's environmental record with the rhetoric and eco-images in its
advertising campaign, but it's also significant in the realm of
international politics. Many corporations that are architects of
ecologically and socially destructive globalization accords (like the WTO)
claim to be advocates of sustainable development. They claimed this first in
Earth Summit I and again ten years later, at Earth Summit II.
When one considers the evidence -- that many corporations which tout their
social and environmental responsibility, continue to expand and develop core
businesses that are at the root of the environmental problems the Earth
Summit processes set out to curb -- it becomes obvious that something beyond
voluntary measures is necessary.
Likewise, when one considers that in the ten years since Rio, transnational
corporations have also successfully resisted most environmental challenges,
maintaining unsustainable practices in the energy, chemicals, agriculture,
extractive, technology and transportation sectors, it becomes imperative
that strong accountability measures be developed.
Finally, when one considers the Enron debacle and all its consequences (as
well as subsequent corporate scandals), it becomes patently obvious that
something is terribly wrong with the self-regulatory route.
One of the central lessons of the Enron scandal is that when left to their
own devices, at least some corporations will gravitate toward irresponsible
behavior. Enron took advantage of the deregulatory dynamic of globalization
to push for a variety of domestic and international arrangements that suited
its own bottom line in the short term. As a result, the company ultimately
collapsed, affecting millions of employees, investors and consumers around
the world.
When seen in the light of the Enron experience, the cutting edge of
corporate environmentalism at the first Earth Summit-voluntary adherence to
principles and self-regulation-now sounds much more like mealy-mouthed
rhetoric. The Enron experience makes it clear that the idea of corporations
self-policing is patently absurd-be they Enron, Chevron-Texaco, Nike, Rio
Tinto or Novartis. In light of the Enron debacle, a major effort to request
that hundreds of companies support nine principles seems a distraction. The
U.N. must be a leading advocate for fundamental reform of the global economy
by building mechanisms for corporate accountability.
The Johannesburg Earth Summit coincides with trends such as ongoing
corporate globalization, environmental deterioration, deepening poverty and
growing U.N. engagement with the private sector. A key question, then, is
becoming obvious: Can the United Nations address the root causes of the
world's growing environmental problems, thereby necessarily confronting the
practices of global corporations, while simultaneously seeking to increase
U.N. cooperation with these very companies?
In many respects, the worldwide movement challenging corporate-driven
globalization has answered this question with a resounding "No!" Gathering
steam throughout the 1990s, this broad-based international social movement
emerged forcefully in Seattle, in 1999, when 50,000 people took to the
streets to mostly nonviolent demonstrations at the WTO ministerial meeting.
The Seattle movement was followed by mass protests in Prague, Washington,
D.C., Quebec, Chiang Mai, Davos, Porto Alegre and Genoa and elsewhere.
The message rang clear: "Free trade" and globalization, as embodied by the
WTO, NAFTA, World Bank and IMF policies and corporate investment practices,
undermine democracy, local economies, ecological sustainability, human
rights and labor rights. The voice and message of this movement, which has
increasingly been echoed by more mainstream critics of the global economy,
finds itself diametrically opposed to the corporate-inspired Earth Summit
mantra that open markets are a prerequisite for sustainable development.
Instead, it has begun to develop an alternative vision-one that is inspired
by the slogan "another world is possible."
Part of this vision is for the U.N. to alter its approach toward
transnational corporations. Instead of promoting a voluntary,
corporate-responsibility model, this new movement advocates that the U.N.
become home to a binding legal framework on corporate behavior. Such a
framework would hold corporations accountable across the globe. In this way,
the U.N. could begin to fulfill its potential to serve as a counterbalance
to corporate globalization. It could more effectively promote environmental,
labor and human rights. It could help build true global security.
If the U.N. is to achieve this, then large political realities must be
overcome, including the reluctance of the U.N.'s most powerful member-the United
States. The challenge, already great, will become impossible unless the
entanglement between the U.N. and global corporations is reversed.
Kenny Bruno is Coordinator of the Corporate-Free UN Campaign and co-author
of "Greenwash: The Reality Behind Corporate Environmentalism."
CorpWatch Executive Director, Joshua Karliner, is author of "The Corporate
Planet."
================
d) Heads of Multinationals in British Delegation
ˇ Green groups in uproar over 'pollutants'
Mark Townsend
Sunday August 11, 2002
The Observer
Tony Blair's delegation to this month's Earth Summit in Johannesburg
includes senior company bosses whose firms have repeatedly been accused
of polluting the environment.
The news triggered uproar from green groups last night amid renewed
concern that the summit was being hijacked by big business.
Included in the Prime Minister's official delegation to Johannesburg are
UK multinationals that have been involved in rows over important wildlife
habitats globally and even allegations they ignored human rights abuses.
Among the delegation is Bill Alexander, chief executive of Thames Water,
Sir Robert Wilson, executive chairman of mining company Rio Tinto, and
Chris Fay, non-executive director of Anglo American, another of the
world's mining giants.
Campaigners warned that the decision to include multinational companies
as part of a UK delegation designed to help save the planet seriously
risked undermining its green credentials.
The three companies, among Britain's largest firms, have been involved
in a number of high-profile and damaging accusations over their
environmental record.
Thames Water, the largest water company in the UK with 12 million
customers, has been prosecuted by the Government's Environment Agency
watchdog for pollution on more than 20 occasions since 1996.
Meanwhile Rio Tinto, the largest mining conglomerate in the world, is
the focus of one of Australia's highest profile environmental rows ever.
The company's plans to mine uranium in one of the planet's most valuable
wildlife sites - Kakadu National Park, a World Heritage Site - has
enraged environmentalists. Clashes involving protesters have led to more
than 500 arrests.
And mining giant Anglo American has also been embroiled over claims
concerning its planned operations in Peru and alleged pollution in
Zambia.
Supporters of the summit argue that, for the negotiations to succeed,
delegates from all backgrounds must be present; 1 September has been
designated as business day at the summit where leaders will meet to
discuss issues on global trade.
Britain's delegation also includes members from non-governmental
organisations campaigning over environmental and sustainable development
issues.
A spokesman for Thames Water last night confirmed that Bill Alexander
was scheduled to arrive in Johannesburg on 2 September and would be making a
speech outlining how private water companies could make a contribution
to the environment.
A spokesman for Rio Tinto said: 'We are performing pretty well in the
environment, although we haven't always done so and we would be the
first to admit that.'
He said that Wilson would be outlining an action plan to help clean up
the mining industry at the summit.
=======================================
3) CALLS TO ACTION
(ED; Most readers will be familiar with the story of the World Bank and the water supply of Cochabamba. This is the next instalment, where the water company is suing the Bolivian government. The following letter speaks for itself. I would urge you most strongly to consider signing it! )
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Shultz [mailto:JShultz@democracyctr.org]
Sent: Monday, 19 August 2002 9:57 PM
To: info@democracyctr.org
Subject: BECHTEL VS. BOLIVIA - HOW YOU CAN HELP
August 19, 2002
Cochabamba, Bolivia
Please note, that the letter is ONLY FROM ORGANIZATIONS, not individuals.
So, if you represent an organization (an environmental group, a union, a
nonprofit organization, etc.) please consider endorsing this letter by
replying to this note with the following information (NO LATER THAN
NEXT MONDAY, AUGUST 26TH):
Name
Title
Organization
Country
If you are interested in more background on this issue and on
our efforts, please visit The Democracy Center Web site
(http://www.democracyctr.org) and click on the Bechtel vs. Bolivia link.
Thank you for your support and we'll keep you posted on what
happens next!
Jim Shultz
The Democracy Center
-----------------------------------------------------
THE LETTER TO THE WORLD BANK
James D. Wolfensohn, President, World Bank
Ko-Yung Tung, Secretary-General, ICSID
David D. Caron, tribunal president
Henri C. Alvarez, tribunal member
José Luis Alberro-Semerena, tribunal member
ICSID Dispute Resolution Panel
c/o International Centre for the Resolution of Investment Disputes
World Bank
1818 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20433
RE: Demand for public participation
Aguas del Tunari S.A. (Bechtel) v. Republic of Bolivia (Case No. ARB/02/3)
Dear Sirs:
The signers of this letter represent more than [# to be added]
civil society organizations and public leaders across five continents. We
are writing to you out of our shared commitment to the right of people to
participate in the public matters that affect their communities and
nations. With this letter we respectfully request that you guarantee
public participation in the arbitration between Aguas del Tunari/Bechtel
Enterprises and the Republic of Bolivia, a case that directly implicates
one of the most fundamental human needs - access to water. This case
is the most visible and important cases that has come before a World
Bank/ICSID tribunal - Aguas del Tunari/Bechtel Enterprises vs. Bolivia.
BACKGROUND
The history of this case is well-known worldwide. Under
direct pressure from the World Bank, the Bolivian government put up for private lease
the water system of its third largest city, Cochabamba. In 1999,
following a process with just one bidder, a 40 year concession was granted to
Aguas del Tunari, a majority-owned subsidiary of Bechtel Enterprises of
California set up for that sole purpose. Within weeks of taking over control of
the water system, the company raised water rates by an average of more
than 50% and in some cases far higher. Families living on a minimum wage of
$60 per month (and often less) were ordered by the company to pay as much as
25% of their income just to maintain their water service.
The people of Cochabamba, unable to pay the bills presented
them by the company and unable to get any satisfactory relief from the Bolivian
government, were forced into massive and widespread public protests. To
protect the company's contract the Bolivian government took extraordinary
measures against its people, including a declaration of a state of
emergency, the suspension of constitutional rights, and the violent
repression of the protests, resulting in more than 100 injuries and
the death of one 17 year old boy, Victor Hugo Daza. In April 2000, with
the government unable to stop the protests, the company abandoned its
management of the water system and left the country.
THE BASIS OF OUR DEMAND FOR PARTICIPATION
To be clear, in our view the World Bank/ICSID should not be
handling this case to begin with. The World Bank/ICSID system is one of what the
New York Times recently called "secret trade courts" ("A Fairer Trade
Bill" New York Times editorial, July 25, 2002), in which urgent public matters
are decided behind a shroud of secrecy, without full information and
without any of the opportunities for public vigilance and participation that
are the basis for public legitimacy. Such public involvement is essential to
the legitimate resolution of disputes, like this one, that directly
affect issues of fundamental public concern.
Moreover, the World Bank/ICSID handling of this case is even more
unjustified for two specific reasons unique to this case:
First, the World Bank is by no means a neutral party in this matter. It is
well-documented that it was the World Bank itself which directly forced the
government of Bolivia to privatize the water system of Cochabamba,
making that privatization a condition for both debt relief and funds for
water system expansion and thereby setting the events of this case in
motion.
Additionally, during the water revolt in Bolivia in April 2000, World Bank
president James Wolfensohn personally made public comments about the
case, justifying water price increases. Further, despite the Bank's role in
the history of this case, Mr. Wolfensohn violated one of the most
important principles of objectivity when he directly appointed the President of
the arbitration tribunal that will decide the case. These facts have
created strong and well-justified public doubt that ICSID can resolve this
dispute fairly.
Second, Bechtel/Aguas del Tunari's claim of ICSID jurisdiction rests
entirely on a bogus claim of being a Dutch corporation (and therefore
benefiting from Holland's bilateral investment treaty with Bolivia which
invokes ICSID as arbitrator of any trade disputes between the two
countries). Bechtel/Aguas del Tunari moved its registration to Holland
only after it signed its water contract with Bolivia, in a forum-shopping
exercise already repudiated by the Dutch government.
Given, however, that the World Bank/ICSID has acceded to Bechtel/Aguas del
Tunari's request to take this case, this makes it all the more imperative
that the process be opened to public participation and scrutiny, as laid out in this letter.
We would also note that Bechtel/Aguas del Tunari has already made plain
their willingness to advance fraudulent information about the case. In
response to widespread public and press attention to the company's
rate hikes, a Bechtel Enterprises spokeswoman, Ms. Gail Apps, widely
distributed the following statement to members of the public and the media
inquiring abut the rate increases it imposed, "For the poorest people in
Cochabamba rates went up little, barely 10 percent." Data drawn directly from
the water company's computers make clear that the rate increase in
question averaged more than 50%.
If Bechtel/Aguas del Tunari is willing to assert clearly fraudulent
information such as this on the public record, one can only imagine what
misinformation the company will be willing to provide to the tribunal
behind closed doors and away from public scrutiny. For this reason as
well, civil society groups directly knowledgeable about the facts at
hand must be able to participate actively in the case, to assure that the
tribunal receives a complete and accurate rendering of those facts.
THE METHODS OF PARTICIPATION PROPOSED
For all these reasons, we propose that the Tribunal adopt the
following procedures:
1) Grant the Petition of Affected Individuals and Organizations to
Participate in the Case
We call on the Tribunal to grant the petition to participate made by key
Bolivian leaders, including Oscar Olivera of The Coalition for Water
and Life; Father Luis Sánchez, a member of Cochabamba's public water
company board of directors (SEMAPA); Omar Fernández of the Cochabamba
Federation of Irrigators; and Congressman Jorge Alvarado, President of the
Cochabamba delegation of the Bolivian Congress. These leaders, represented by
able and experienced Bolivian and U.S. counsel, represent tens of thousands
of people with a direct stake in the case. Their participation is
essential to legitimate resolution of this dispute.
2) Publicly Disclose all Documents Filed with the Tribunal
In order to provide for adequate public scrutiny of the claims made by the
two parties, especially given the record of misinformation, we call on the
Tribunal to place into the public record all documents filed with the Tribunal.
3) That the Tribunal Members Travel to Bolivia to Receive Public Testimony
It is clearly within the purview of the tribunal to come directly to Cochabamba,
Bolivia and receive testimony from the people directly affected by the case and who have important information to share with the
tribunal:
"...the Tribunal may, if it deems it necessary at any stage of the proceedings...visit the scene connected with the dispute, and conduct
such inquiries there as it may deem appropriate. [Convention On The Settlement
of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States:
Powers And Functions Of The Tribunal, Section 3, Article 43].
We call on the panel to invoke that power in this case and to travel to
Cochabamba to receive appropriate public testimony relevant to the case.
4) That the tribunal hearings be made completely open to the public.
All tribunal hearings should be open to the public, including making all
transcripts of the testimony public, as well as all tribunal decisions and awards.
CONCLUSION
No ICSID case has ever drawn the public attention that this
case has and will continue to, and for good reason. The actions of Aguas del
Tunari/Bechtel in Bolivia left a city of more than 600,000 people in
turmoil for four months. They left hundreds injured and one young boy
dead, and jeopardize thousands of peoples' access to the most
fundamental element of life. This case is about far more than the calm transfer
of assets from one economic institution to another. It is a matter of deep
importance to far more than the two parties who now have formal access
to the process. We hope the Tribunal will grant our requests and the
petition to participate, and will honor the legitimate right of civil society
to also have an active and constructive role in this case.
Sincerely,
[list of names under development]
=============================================
Support clean waterways for our fish? Go to the link and fill in the form.
http://www.plasticbaglevy.com/_vti_bin/shtml.dll/Default.htm
Plastic Bags Levy Survey
=======================================
Queensland is setting up a facility for petitions to be lodged via the internet.
More information is available from the E-Democracy Unit in the Premier's Department on phone: 3224 5592
or on the Parliamentary website www.parliament.qld.gov.au
=============================================
You are invited to comment on the attached Risk
Assessment & Risk Management Plan for application
DIR012 - an application for the commercial release
of genetically modified (GM) insecticidal cotton
submitted by Monsanto.
The RARMP for DIR012 suggests that the proposed release
would pose no risks to human health and the environment
in southern Australian cotton-growing areas that cannot
be adequately managed. However, the evaluation process
determined that further information is required before
unrestricted release could be considered north of
latitude 20
Any comments on the RARMP, relating to the protection of
human health and safety and the environment, should be
forwarded to the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator
(OGTR) by MONDAY 9 SEPTEMBER 2002.
Comments may be sent via email to ogtr@health.gov.au or
by fax (02) 6271 4202 or by mail to Office of the Gene
Technology Regulator, PO Box 100 WODEN ACT 2606.
The full Risk Assessment and Risk Management Strategy and
additional information on this and other applications may
be found on the website: www.ogtr.gov.au. Alternatively,
hard copies may be obtained by calling OGTR on 1800 181 030.
==================================================
Terrie Templeton WTO Watch Qld gumbus@powerup.com.au