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
| 
