This briefing sets out the five Code pledges, and gives background information for each one.

To receive information about the progress of the number of pledges received from candidates, you are invited to join our email list. For details, see:
www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/general_election/join_ email.html

BACKGROUND: We live in a throw-away society, where much of the 'waste' we throw out is actually a valuable resource. The House of Commons Environment committee has recognised this and called for a revolution in resource use. We can reduce our need to extract so many new materials by making sure resources are used, recycled and re-used.

The Government's “Waste Strategy 2000" set statutory targets for recycling 30 per cent of our waste by 2010, and 33 per cent by 2020. But thistarget still leaves the door open for scores of new incinerators to be built across the country, burning unacceptable amounts of our day-to-day waste.
Incinerators are not the answer to managing the UK's waste. They are a waste of resources because they need to burn a minimum amount to be cost-effective, and need lots of high-energy fuel like paper to work efficiently. Despite improving emissions standards, incinerator chimneys still pour out dioxins, heavy metals and acid gases. Other by-products, like toxic fly-ash and bottom- ash, continue to pollute our communities.

Incinerators are also climate villains: they escalate climate change by burning non-renewable fuels in plastics and paper. Recycling is a much better option than even incineration with energy-recovery, and could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 4.5 million tonnes a year.

The UK is almost rock-bottom of the league for recycling - we recycle only 8 per cent. FOE believes that the UK can recycle at least 50 per cent of its household waste by 2010. The record of other European countries proves this is possible: Switzerland already recycles 52 per cent of its household waste, and the Netherlands aims to hit 60 per cent by the end of 2000.

The only way that the UK can reach targets like these, and make better use of resources, is to provide quality, separated doorstep collections for all recyclable household waste.

ADDITIONAL OBJECTIVE: Phase out hormone disrupting chemicals that accumulate in the environment by 2005

BACKGROUND: Tackling social exclusion is one of the Government's key challenges. Although unemployment, low income and high crime are the major causes, transport also plays a key role. The elderly, disabled, unemployed and those on low incomes are all particularly affected.

Inadequate public transport means that those without cars suffer from lack of access to jobs, shops and services. This is a particular problem in rural areas, where 41 per cent of the poorest households have no car, and only 29 per cent of rural parishes have a daily bus service.

Households on low incomes rely overwhelmingly on buses for their public transport. Better access to jobs, shops and services means better bus services - more frequent, more reliable and more accessible.
And it is the poorest households who suffer the impact of our dependence on the car. Children from these households are 5 times more likely to be knocked down by a car than children from better-off households. Traffic-calming and 20mph zones in all residential areas would reduce this threat.

The Government's 10 year transport plan announced huge increases in investment in road- building and railways. But buses and traffic- calming are the poor relations.

We need much clearer commitments from the Government: 20 mph zones and traffic-calming in all residential streets by the end of the decade; and much-improved rural bus services. This will also need a large increase in funding - three times current levels.

Tackling transport problems won't, on its own, solve all the problems of social exclusion. But real commitments to providing safer streets and better buses certainly help.
SUPPORTING OBJECTIVE: Set a national road traffic reduction target of 10 per cent over 1990 levels by 2010.

BACKGROUND: Genetic modification (GM) is a new technology being introduced across Europe under intense commercial pressure. GM techniques in agriculture have only developed over the last two and a half decades and yet the commercial products of these processes are already in human and animal feed and used in food manufacturing.

Those who stand to profit from GM technology in food and agriculture have been quick to point out the potential benefits but less keen to face up to the scientific uncertainties that accompany such a young technology.

There is an urgent need for a liability regime that is specific to GMOs.

Once released in the environment GM organisms and micro-organisms have the capacity to multiply and spread through food chains and ecosystems by replicating or transferring their modified genes to other organisms which in turn can reproduce and spread the genes. The random splicing of novel genes into plants has been shown to produce unpredictable affects on the recipient plant, for example the starch metabolism of the potato was unpredictably changed by the introduction of a novel gene.

The long-term impact on wildlife and the environment is difficult to predict in time scales being allowed for pre-market research.

There should be no release of GMOs without strict liability legislation in place. The legislation should include:
.    strict liability for all harm to be placed on the biotech companies other companies in the food chain should be able to pass onliability claims to the biotech companies
.    biotech companies should have adequate insurance cover for future claims
.    claims should be retrospective
.    biotech companies should be required to establish a compensation fund when harm is difficult to apportion to any one company.

SUPPORTING OBJECTIVE: A White Paper on Future of Farming based on organic and least chemical systems, local agricultural production and supply systems, and high animal welfare standards.

The Government is bound by the Kyoto Protocol to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and five other gases by 12.5 per cent from 1990 levels by 2010. However, it has gone further and pledged to cut carbon dioxide emissions alone by 20 per cent. The Conservatives have said they will honour this pledge.

The Government is on target to meet its Kyoto obligation but is failing to meet the 20 per cent target. Its draft Climate Programme claims the measures proposed (and those already implemented) will cut carbon dioxide emissions by 14.7-18.2 per cent over 1990 levels, depending largely on the intensity of measures introduced to cut traffic levels. That means it will fall short by a tenth to a quarter of its target.

Friends of the Earth wants the Government to stick to its 20 per cent target, and set tougher targets for later years; the Royal Commission onEnvironmental Pollution has said emissions need to fall by at least 60 per cent by 2050. One way the Government can cut emissions further, and provide thousands of new jobs, is to promote clean renewable energy such as off-shore wind power and biomass. That's why we want it to double the modest target it has set, for 10 per cent of UK electricity to be generated from renewable sources by 2010.

SUPPORTING OBJECTIVE: A target of 100,000 solar roofs by 2005, with additional new spend on energy conservation of £500 million a year.

The Government and big business favour voluntary guidelines or codes of practice for businesses rather than legally binding regulation - but from past experience we all know that self regulation doesn't work.

Businesses should be accountable for their impact on society and the environment. Businesses have a legal duty to put shareholder value (ie. profits) before any other consideration. Businesses are not even required to do independent reports on their Businesses social and environmental impacts.

Fewer than 20 percent or one in five of the top 350 Businesses on the UK stock exchange produce separate environment reports. Even though almost half the Businesses on the stock exchange have an environmental policy only 15 per cent have set actual environmental targets.

From March 1998 to February 2001, the Government undertook a fundamental review of UK company law. The review will contribute to new companies' legislation in the next Parliament.

The final consultation paper in the review supported voluntary reporting on environmentaland social impacts, but still gives directors discretion on which impacts, if any, to report.

In October 2000, the Prime Minister stated that he would “...like to see more reporting on environmental and social performance” and challenged the top 350 businesses to be “publishing annual environment reports by 2001.”

We need mandatory environmental and social reporting that is independently verified by affected stakeholders and an expansion of directors current principle legal duty so that they are accountable for these impacts. By adopting these principles we will be able to hold big business to account, exposing businesses with poor records while highlighting those who are doing the right thing.

SUPPORTING OBJECTIVE: A comprehensive environmental tax reform programme, covering use of natural resources, toxic chemicals and best practice environmental technologies.

Climate Change

Friends of the Earth 26-28 Underwood Street LONDON N1 7JQ Tel: 020 7490 1555 E-mail:        info@foe.co.uk Website:    www.foe.co.uk

May 2001 Author:     Parliamentary Unit Last Modified: 15 May 2001