Select Committee on International Development Uncorrected Written Evidence


Memorandum submitted by Friends of the Earth

  1.  Friends of the Earth is an environmental campaign organisation that exists to protect and enhance conditions for life on earth, now and in the future. We advance our environmental campaign and advocacy work from the perspective of socially just sustainable development.

  2.  Friends of the Earth International has national member organisations operating in 68 countries worldwide, including in many developing nations. This submission has been prepared by Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland, although the points we make are also informed by our sister organisations around the world, as well as other non-governmental groups. Our national head office is in London and we have eight regional offices in England and, offices in Belfast and Cardiff. We have 102,000 supporters in this country and our work is underpinned by about 250 voluntary local groups. Friends of the Earth relies on individual supporters for 95% of its income. Friends of the Earth Scotland is a separate member of Friends of the Earth International.

  3.  Friends of the Earth is pleased to contribute to the International Development Committee's investigation into Migration and Development. This submission looks at some specific elements of two of the questions on the Committee's Terms of Reference:

  4.  (1) Development, poverty reduction and migration

    —  What is the nature of the link between development and migration?

    —  What rules, structures and incentives are needed to maximise the (development) benefits and reduce the (development) costs of migration?; and

  5.  (5) Conflicts, refugees and migration

    —  Can aid prevent violent conflicts and reduce the number of international asylum seekers?

    —  What are the differences in developmental terms between voluntary economic migration and forced migration?

VOLUNTARY ECONOMIC MIGRATION AND FORCED MIGRATION

  6.  Friends of the Earth welcomes the positive contribution of migrants to the UK economy and culture and regrets that this positive contribution is often overlooked in the debate on migration and asylum seekers in particular. However, Friends of the Earth opposes forced migration, be it in the name of development or for any other reason. This submission looks at the role development plays in creating or contributing to forced migration. Friends of the Earth believes that as well as looking at the role of aid in alleviating situations that lead to migration, it is of crucial importance to address the policies and actions that create these situations in the first place. This submission deals with one area: the contribution of the UK (government policy and corporate actions) in creation of forced migration.

DEVELOPMENT OR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?

  7.  Friends of the Earth considers sustainable development to be the long-term process that improves the quality of life for all people while respecting environmental limits and ensuring that future generations can enjoy a similarly good quality of life. The concept thus embraces economic development and fundamentally assumes the priority to end poverty.

  8.  Sustainable development is not simply a question of balancing economic ends against environmental protection. This false notion is often cited in policy discussions where there is, for example, scrutiny of subsidies for industry or possible market interventions geared towards sustainable development goals. Sustainable development is rather about the fundamental integration of economic, social and environmental policy.

  9.  Sustainable development remains, however, more aspiration than reality, as confirmed in a wide and ever growing body of technical literature. The issue of forced migration is one example of what can happen when development takes precedence over sustainable development, as people are forced to leave their homes and land because of circumstances and developments that are out of their control and in opposition to their long term interests.

UK INVESTMENT AND MIGRATION

  10.  Despite having many stated policy aims regarding sustainable development, the UK's foreign investment is often in projects and programmes that are in direct opposition to the notion of sustainable development. Many of these investments and unsustainable projects have and are contributing to direct and indirect causes of forced migration. The cases are many and varied. Some are briefly outlined below.

  11.  Public and private money in the UK has been invested in projects that directly cause forced migration. Dams, pipelines and mines are three of the most common developments that force people off their land and away from their homes and their impacts are well documented.

  12.  The impacts of UK supported projects are often broader than simply the immediate direct impacts. The knock-on environmental impacts can have long term effect on (particularly poorer) people's relationship with their environment and access to and influence over the resources they need. For example, Barclays, NatWest and HSBC have all financed or arranged loans for Asia Pulp and Paper (APP), one of the world's largest paper companies. APP is reported to have cleared over 3,000 hectares of forest belonging to the Sakai indigenous people in Sumatra and employees were involved in serious clashes with Sakai villagers attempting to protect their land. APP is involved in a joint venture with Borneo Pulp & Paper in Sarawak, Malaysia. The plantation project, which has been given access to more than 600,000 hectares of forest, could force up to 20,000 Iban indigenous people off their land.

  13.  When UK investments are protected in some way, for example due to unstable conditions in the region or if the investment itself is controversial, impacts on peoples' lives can be broader still. For example, BP's relationship with the Colombian state in which BP pays the government a "war tax" on every barrel of oil produced, to help fund military protection of its oil facilities is well documented. British American Tobacco withdrew from Burma last month, after coming under intense criticism from NGOs and being asked to consider its position by the UK Government. It is not the only UK company accused of supporting Burma's oppressive regime. Hutchison Port Holdings, for example, has been responsible for the development and management of one of Rangoon's major port facilities in Burma since 1997.

  14.  UK support for oppressive regimes can be more widespread than simply protecting one investment. For example, in 2000 the UK licensed military exports to 30 of the 40 most repressive regimes in the world (including Iraq, Indonesia, Saudia Arabia and Turkey). Although military exports account for only 2% of exports, 50% of Export Credits Guarantee Department cover funding is granted to arms companies. In Indonesia, during President Suharto's regime there were reports that BAE Hawk fighters were used for internal repression where 200,000 East Timorians were killed by Government forces during decades of occupation. Current president, Megawati Sukarnoputri, promised greater political freedoms and East Timorian independence but this May troops were sent to Aceh province to crush separatists. 20,000 people fled their homes and reports in the press indicate BAE's Hawk Jets have once again been deployed by the Government.

  15.  The UK's contribution to global environmental degradation is also a cause for concern. The UK with 1% of the world's population produces 2.3% of the world's carbon dioxide. Extreme weather that climate change brings can cause devastation with people losing their homes and livelihoods. During the floods in the Indian State of Orissa in 1999, for example, over 10,000 people were washed away and agriculture was totally destroyed by salt water contaminating the land—people lost everything from their seeds to their homes. Whilst the UK has signed the Kyoto Protocol, our companies and Government continue to push ahead with projects and policies that will contribute to worsening climate change. BP, for example, makes much of it's new image "Beyond Petroleum" yet it strives to increase the rate of fossil fuel extraction year on year. A BP led consortium this month obtained World Bank and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (both of which the UK contributes to) financing for the Baku Tbilisi Ceyhan pipeline from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean, which will transport the oil equivalent of nearly 30% of the UK's yearly carbon dioxide output each year.

  16.  Friends of the Earth believes that forced migration is part of the bigger global problem of wealth and power being concentrated in the hands of a few. To address the issue of forced migration, we therefore believe that it is fundamentally important to look at the UK's role in creating situations in which people are forced to move from their homes. There are two areas that Friends of the Earth proposes need radical reform: the UK's role in international financing of development (including through ECGD or International Financial Institutions (IFIs)) and the behaviour, activities and projects of UK companies overseas.

THE UK AND FINANCING OF INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  17.  Friends of the Earth believes there is an urgent need to reform UK foreign investments and financing of development (including via Multilateral and International Financing Institutions) so that the ultimate aim becomes one of contributing to sustainable development. UK public bodies, including specifically the ECGD and the Department for International Development, should be leading the way in terms of developing screening and assessment processes and procedures that mean only sustainable projects are supported with UK public money.

  18.  Of specific importance to the issue of forced migration:

    —  All UK supported projects and programmes should meet international human rights obligations;

    —  All UK supported projects and programmes should be assessed for their potential to generate conflict;

    —  Public subsidies for fossil fuel extraction should be phased out.

INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY

  19.  The World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002 concluded that an international framework on corporate accountability was necessary and that national Governments should also look at this issue. Friends of the Earth believes that, as part of preventing forced migration, Governments need to act to put peoples' rights and the protection of the environment above the profit of multinational companies.

  20.  Where people and communities are affected by corporate activities, if they are to be able to remain in their communities, they need rights with respect to what companies (and indeed other actors) must do and cannot do. People should have rights to:

    —  transparency and the meaningful access to meaningful information;

    —  participation in decisions including the right to say "no" or "yes, with conditions";

    —  redress and access to justice (including compensation) at national, local and international levels.

  21.  This would lead to a new legal regime for multinational companies that would include:

    —  legal duties on multinationals (including specifically on directors) towards social and environmental concerns and to uphold people's rights for example to their land, other resources and livelihoods;

    —  a meaningful liability regime;

    —  higher legal operating standards and phasing out of damaging practices;

    —  improved governance (such as national courts and legal aid) and meaningful enforcement mechanisms (such as for example removal of limited liability status or delisting from the stock exchange).

CHANGES NEEDED TO UK COMPANY LAW

  22.  As well as pushing forward international corporate accountability, it is important for the UK to get its own corporate house in order and to look specifically at the contribution of UK companies in creating situations in which people are forced to leave their homes.

  23.  The Government's Company Law Review (CLR) represented the most extensive review of UK company law in nearly 150 years and presented the Government with a unique opportunity to create rules that would better control wide ranging impacts companies have on people's lives. But the review failed to set out rules which would encourage companies to be more transparent and hold them accountable to a wide community of stakeholders. As a result of the inadequacies presented in the CLR's final report Friends of the Earth, with other organisations in The Corporate Responsibility Coalition (CORE) developed the Corporate Responsibility Bill (a Private Member's Bill) originally tabled in the House of Commons by Linda Perham MP (Ilford North). More information on the Bill is available at http://www.corporate-responsibility.org

  24.  The Corporate Responsibility Bill, which has already gained the support of over 300 MPs, includes the following principles:

    —  Mandatory reporting: companies with a turnover greater that £5 million would have to produce and publish reports on their economic, environmental and social impacts.

    —  Stakeholder consultation: Before embarking on major projects companies would have to take reasonable steps to consult with and respond to affected stakeholders.

    —  Directors' duties: Directors would be required to consider and take action to reduce significant negative social and environmental impacts of their business.

  25.  If UK companies were legally directly liable for their impacts on communities, and if these communities had upholdable rights over their resources and ways of life, this could have a huge impact on the UK's contribution to creating forced migration. Having more control over the circumstances that could force them to move in the first place and the right of redress if things go wrong could lead to communities having more long term stability and control over their lives.

November 2003


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 29 January 2004