Home > Press releases > 2002
30 Aug 2002
Today FoEI has published a remarkable story about an outrageous deal
between BP and other oil companies and the Turkish Government. A major
new 1760km pipeline is planned to run from Baku on the Caspian Sea to
Ceyhan on the Turkish Mediterranean coast. The deal depends on what
BP’s John Browne shamelessly calls “free public money”
and exempts the corridor of the pipeline from most Turkish environmental,
social and human rights law. Those who may have fallen for BP’s
“Beyond Petroleum” hogwash clearly need to think again. The
case for a binding convention on corporate responsibility has never
been stronger. Full details of the deal are available from FoEI and
can be found online at
www.foe.co.uk/resource/evidence/turkey_btc_agreement.pdf.
On multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), dangerous text has
been included (in paragraph 20) that would privilege WTO rules over
Meas. The EU has also tried to insist that talks on MEAs should take
place through the WTO Doha process. 200 NGOs have called for the reverse
and for the Johannesburg summit to clarify that environmental agreements
can never be overruled by trade rules. On sustainability impact assessments
(SIAs) and the integration of environmental and sustainable development
principles into trade agreements, the G77 has blocked further progress.
On sustainability and market access, difficult negotiations continue
– the current text would bar all trade related subsidies, even
including the promotion of research into local economic development,
sustainability and environmental protection.
Yesterday night, the EU impeded progress in negotiations by proposing a ministerial meeting on a list of issues including the Rio principles, water and sanitation, energy, a 10 year programme for sustainable development and production, trade and finance. Other negotiators insisted on continuing talks on the precautionary approach.
The Summit is rapidly turning into an annex of the Doha WTO talks. There
are about 200 references to the WTO in the current text. Language on
globalisation for example has been lifted straight from the Doha text.
FoEI has found that 18 countries present in Joburg are not even WTO members – Afghanistan, Algeria, Korea, Comoros, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Libya, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Monaco, Nauru, Palau, Moldova, San Marino, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan. Yesterday, the Tobago delegate said that his country was not a WTO member and might like to talk about some of the key issues here and not in Doha, only to find that they in fact joined seven years ago. FoEI wonders whether the Earth Summit is the right place for further Governments effectively to sign up to the WTO.
There are still no commitments to finally achieve the 0.7% overseas
aid target already promised 30 years ago, and no substantive text on
environmental and social standards for Export Credit Agencies.
Delegates await the US’s alternative language on climate change,
which will try to take references to the Kyoto Protocol out of the final
text. Publication was expected yesterday but it has yet to appear. Perhaps
the US has problems in trying to draft words, which appear to be concerned
about the issue while removing all references to practical action. The
US Administration was slammed for climate inaction at a Summit press
conference yesterday by Democratic Congressmen Miller, Kucinich, and
Blumenauer. The current text proposed by Norway calls on all countries
to ratify Kyoto. Russia’s ratification (promised by President Putin
for months) is essential if the Protocol is to enter into force. The
EU is backing the Norway text, but there is rumoured to be some internal
argument on this. Japan has proposed new Kyoto language, which we do
not have yet.
Brazil proposed that 10% of global energy supply should come from new
renewables (which excludes large hydro and traditional biomass) by 2010.
They are backed by Norway, Philippines, Mexico, Morocco and others.
The EU is under pressure to revise its much weaker target. The issue
will go to the ministers. Saudi Arabia has tried to get other Arab states
to dump on this plan, and denounced Morocco for selling out Arab interests
by being green on this question. Morocco has domestic targets of 10%
by 2011 and 20% by 2020. Last night the facilitator proposed a new energy
package including a timetable to phase out subsidies and a role for
public/private partnerships in a “social responsibility framework”
(whatever that is) and a target to be negotiated today. The G77 is also
making a proposal today, reportedly based around voluntary regional
targets.
At Rio 10 years ago, the world’s Governments signed up to the principle
of “common but differentiated responsibilities”. This means
that every state has a common duty to look after the planet, but future
action will vary depending on their current economic power and impact
on the planet. At the Bali PrepComm meeting for this year’s Summit,
the US insisted that these words be placed in brackets, where they so
far remain. To FoEI all Rio Principles are not negotiable. If they get
watered down at Johannesburg the Summit will be remembered as Rio Minus
10.
Negotiations on many key parts of the text seem to be heading away from
any green result. Language on sustainable consumption and the Rio principles,
for example, is being weakened. Weasel words such as “moving towards”
and “if possible” are qualifying targets, for example on fishing.
On chemicals, the text offers the feeble pledge to move towards minimising
the harmful use of chemicals by 2020! Eco-labelling is in trouble, with
US and G77 combining against the EU on the issue, and backing a “voluntary
approach”. Such a voluntary approach would undermine the GMO labelling
directive of the EU.
Do not believe the UN and delegation spin doctors claiming that progress in the talks is good because 95% of the text has been agreed. This is just a word counting trick, that FoEI has heard before at failed negotiations from the Seattle WTO talks to the Hague climate talks. Rather important words such as those on globalisation remain entirely unagreed. This is not “rapid progress” in any normal sense of these words.
Some media are reporting that the total cost of the Summit, estimated at around $50 million, is way too high. Remember that the annual cost of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy is $60 billion. For that money, we could hold more than a thousand Earth Summits every year. Also $50 million is less than half the cost of one B1 bomber … FoEI is also suggesting that the UN and South Africa send the bill of this Summit to the White House. If President Bush can’t be bothered to show up, but wants to wreck the process from afar, the least he could do is foot the bill.
Tony Juniper, Vice Chair of Friends of the Earth International, said:
"The whole point of this Summit is to tackle the huge problems caused by environmental degradation and poverty, which have worsened since the Rio Earth Summit. At the moment, some governments, notably the US, are even trying to backtrack from commitments made 10 years ago. This must not be allowed to happen. We must see real action over the next few days - world leaders owe it the people of the world to make progress here in Johannesburg."
Contact details:
Friends of the Earth
26-28 Underwood St.
LONDON
N1 7JQ
Tel: 020 7490 1555
Fax: 020 7490 0881
Web: www.foe.co.uk/feedback.html
Media team
