Examination of Witnesses (Questions 369
- 379)
TUESDAY 11 MAY 2004
FRIENDS OF
THE EARTH
Q369 Chairman: Good afternoon. Miss
Griffiths, since you are in the middle, you have been elected
as the person who introduces your two colleagues, and then we
will get started.
Ms Griffiths: I am Hannah Griffiths.
I am Corporates Campaigner for Friends of the Earth England, Wales
and Northern Ireland. The other Hannah, Hannah Ellis, is Financial
Institutions Campaigner for Friends of the Earth International
and Naomi Kazaki, a campaigner for Friends of the Earth, Japan.
Q370 Chairman: It must be about four
or five years since you last gave evidence to us on related matters.
The impression we get is that plus ça change in
the ECGB has not made an awful lot of difference. This would seem
to be the gist of your memorandum. Am I being unfair to you when
I say that or am I being unfair to ECGD? Do you think that after
the overhaul very much has changed?
Ms Griffiths: I think the overhaul
was significant in that ECGD recognised the importance of taking
environmental and social factors into consideration, and I think
it would be slightly unfair to say that nothing has changed since
then. The business principles have been a good first step in the
right direction, but I think it is important to separate what
has changed in theory and what may or may not have changed in
practice on the ground. Since the introduction of the business
principles I am fairly certain in saying that no projects have
been screened out; so no projects have been rejected on the basis
of the business principles. Support for the defence sector, for
example, has remained the same, proportional support for fossil
fuels has remained about the same since we were last here and
I am sure ECGD will argue that some projects will have been improved
as a result of the business principles. I would be interested
to hear from them what specific concrete improvements they think
have been made as a result of the business principles. I think,
in summary, I would say we have seen a good first step in the
right direction, but it is very much a first step and we need
to now translate that into concrete tangible changes on the ground
in terms of the projects we are supporting.
Q371 Chairman: Do you think that
the business principles have had a deterrent effect in the sense
that some consortia who might have approached ECGD have looked
at the business principles and said, "I do not think we can
really come to this table with this scheme"? You have said
not so many schemes have been screened out. Could it be that they
were never going to be screened in as a consequence of the business
principles?
Ms Griffiths: Again, I would be
interested to see some analysis of whether the business principles
have made a difference in terms of the applications ECGD is receiving,
but my guess, the answer to that question, would be, no, it has
not put any businesses off. The business principles, frankly,
are not so radical that they would be likely to put most British
companies off. I think they are probably weaker than some companies'
own environmental and social standards. I cannot see that it would
put anyone off, but I do not have any evidence on that.
Q372 Chairman: So the horse frightening
qualities are not very apparent?
Ms Griffiths: I am sorry?
Q373 Chairman: The horse frightening--
Ms Griffiths: No, I would not
say so.
Q374 Sir Robert Smith: On the issue
of what has changed and what has not in terms of transparency,
in section 3 of your submission, 3.1 to 3.3, you talk about the
problems you had in the run up to 2002 in terms of obtaining information.
You go on to say, "The department's attitude has not changed
since then." Have you any more recent examples of obstructive
behaviour?
Ms Griffiths: Of obstructive behaviour?
Q375 Sir Robert Smith: Yes?
Ms Griffiths: Not to hand, I do
not, no. The environmental impact assessment for the Baku pipeline,
we were able to obtain a copy, although I do not think that was
directly from ECGD, and we have not had an example as fundamental
as the Yusufeli example since then, although I do know from my
colleagues at the Corner House that they have requested some information
relating to the specificity of the Baku pipeline, and this is
an issue I would like to come back to later. A report by Parsons
was turned down by ECGD. I will go back to my colleagues, if you
will allow me, and submit anything else in writing.
Q376 Sir Robert Smith: This may be
something else you will have to write about, but have you experienced
difficulty obtaining impact assessments after a project has been
approved for support rather than during the approval process?
Ms Griffiths: I do not think there
have been any cases where we have asked for impact assessments
after a project has been approved.
Q377 Sir Robert Smith: Okay, but
if you can write to us on the others?
Ms Griffiths: I will.
Q378 Mr Evans: May I stick with the
BTC pipeline for a second. It is an area you have put a submission
in, other people have referred to it also and we are going to
talk to others as well about it. You say that with this the Government
ignore their own international policies that they have set down
for themselves. You have clearly talked to ECGD about this. What
sort of response have you had from them to your concerns?
Ms Griffiths: ECGD are obviously
satisfied that they are meeting government policy and that the
standards of the World Bank, for example, have been met by the
pipeline, whereas our evidence and our view is opposite to that.
Q379 Mr Evans: What sort of things
are you saying to them then where they are not listening?
Ms Griffiths: What sort of things
are we saying?
| 
