Monthly Archives: April 2015

Our year of opportunity for a green, just and sustainable future

Leave a reply




2015 is a critical year for humanity. Our civilization has never faced such existential risks as those associated with global warming, biodiversity erosion and resource depletion.

Our societies have never had such an opportunity to advance prosperity and eradicate poverty. We have the choice to either finally embark on the journey towards sustainability or to stick to our current destructive ‘business-as-usual’ pathway.

Three times this year, world leaders will meet to set the course for decades to come. In July 2015, heads of state meet to discuss Financing for Development. In September 2015, the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will be adopted. In December 2015, nations negotiate a new Global Climate Agreement.

Decisions made in this single year will be the legacy of our generation. In particular, if we do not succeed in tackling climate change, the sustainable development goals, livelihoods in many parts of the world and the wellbeing of our close and distant kin will be threatened.

No, it’s not too late!

In 2015, a good climate future is still within reach. If we act boldly, we can safeguard human development. It is a moral obligation, and in our self-interest, to achieve deep decarbonization of the global economy via equitable effort sharing.

This requires reaching a zero-carbon society by mid-century or shortly thereafter, thereby limiting global warming to below 2°C as agreed by all nations in 2010.

This trajectory is not one of economic pain, but of economic opportunity, progress and inclusiveness. It is a chance too good to be missed.

We have just embarked upon a journey of innovation, which can create a new generation of jobs and industries, whilst enhancing the resilience of communities and people around the world.

Avoiding Earth tipping points

We can still avert dangerous climate change. However, we are currently on a warming trajectory that will leave our world irrevocably changed, far exceeding the 2°C mark.

This gamble could propel us into completely uncharted waters, with unmanageable sea-level rise and a vastly different climate, including devastating heat waves, persistent droughts and unprecedented floods.

The foundations of our societies, including food security, infrastructure, ecosystem integrity and human health, would be in jeopardy, impacting most immediately the poor and vulnerable.

The latest science indicates that there are critical thresholds in the Earth system. Transgressing them may lead to dramatic and irreversible environmental changes. We are probably edging very close to such thresholds and may already have crossed one with regards to melting of parts of Antarctica.

Sea-level rise of more than one meter due to this event alone may be inevitable. Tipping points can also lead to feedbacks and self-amplified climate change, pushing warming far beyond current estimates.

No dollar price tag could ever measure the resulting human suffering and loss of countries, cultures and ecosystems.

Crossing ‘civilization tipping points’

A new global citizens’ movement is heeding the scientific evidence, demanding immediate climate action. Societies across the world have given political leaders a mandate and a responsibility to act for a safe climate future now.

Informed by scientific knowledge, inspired by economic assessments and guided by the moral imperative, we call on world leaders to work towards the following eight essential elements of a Paris Agreement and associated set of actions and plans that would represent a global turning point in December 2015:

Eight essential elements of climate action in Paris

  1. Governments must put into practice their commitment to limit global warming to below 2°C. We should aim to stay as far below it as possible, since even 2°C warming will cause significant damage and disruption. However, we are currently on a path to around 4°C warming by 2100, which would create unmanageable environmental challenges. If we do not act now, there is even a 1 in 10 risk of going beyond 6°C by 2100. We would surely not accept such a high risk of disaster in other realms of society. As a comparison, such a 1 in 10 probability is the equivalent of tolerating about 10,000 airplane crashes every day worldwide!

  2. The remaining global carbon budget – the limit of what we can still emit in the future – must be well below 1000 Gt CO2 to have a reasonable chance to hold the 2°C line. Humankind has already emitted around 2000 Gt CO2 since the beginning of industrialization. Respecting the global carbon budget means leaving at least three quarters of all known fossil fuel reserves in the ground. With current emissions trends, the remaining 1000 Gt CO2 would be used up within the next 25 years.

  3. We need to fundamentally transform the economy and adopt a global goal to phase out greenhouse gases completely by mid-century. Deep decarbonization, starting immediately and leading to a zero-carbon society by 2050 or shortly thereafter, is key to future prosperity. Thislong-term goal, paired with strong national commitments, including a price on carbon, and a possibility to ramp up ambition via regular reviews, are essential elements of the Paris agreement. Fossil fuel subsidies should be removed urgently, and investment should be redirected to spark a global renewable energy revolution, warranting energy access for all and particularly for those most in need.

  4. Equity is critical for a successful global agreement in Paris. Every country must formulate an emissions pathway consistent with deep decarbonization. For the sake of fairness, rich countries and progressive industries can and should take the lead and decarbonize well before mid-century. Developing countries should formulate plans far beyond what they can be expected to pursue on their own, reaping benefits from leapfrogging into a sustainable economy, well supported by international climate finance and technology access. Safeguarding the right to development of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) is fundamental.

  5. We must unleash a wave of climate innovation for the global good, and enable universal access to the solutions we already have. The unprecedented challenge of climate change requires unprecedented technological advances. We need targeted research, development, demonstration and diffusion (RDD&D) of low-carbon energy systems and sustainable land use, and capacity building to enhance access for those most in need. International cooperation, stringent laws and standards, public and private investments and clear economic incentives are all crucial steps in the global transition.

  6. We need a global strategy to reduce vulnerability, build resilience and deal with loss and damage of communities from climate impacts, including collective action and scaled-upsupport. With 1°C of warming already having taken place, many societies are challenged by water scarcity, shifting rain patterns and other impacts. This poses a threat to human development in all countries, particularly among the poorest and most vulnerable. A 2°C or more warming of the planet would impose huge social and economic burdens that need to be shouldered through international solidarity.

  7. We must safeguard carbon sinks and vital ecosystems, which is as important for climate protection as the reduction of emissions. Cutting down forests and degrading grasslands and aquatic systems is like killing our best allies in the fight against climate change. A precondition for sustainability is the strengthening, not the weakening of the resilience of natural and managed ecosystems and food production systems.

  8. We must urgently realize new scales and sources of climate finance for developing countries to enable our rapid transition to zero-carbon, climate-resilient societies. This includes additional public funding for mitigation and adaptation at a level at least comparable to current global ODA (around $135 billion / year). Innovative schemes such as globally funded renewable energy feed-in tariffs are required. The private sector must be encouraged to mobilize substantially larger sums. Governments should engage with banks and pension funds, enabling a shift to climate-friendly investments. Global and national climate funding must be effective, transparent and accountable.

 

 

The Earth Statement 2015 was originally published on Earth Day at EarthStatement.org by the Earth League, and is written by the 17 leading scientists and economists of the Earth League.

Support the Earth Statement’s call on world leaders to deliver an ambitious, science-based and equitable outcome in Paris that sets us on a path to limit global warming to below 2 degrees.

Twitter: #EarthStatement

The Earth League is an international alliance of prominent scientists from world‐class research institutions, who work together to respond to some of the most pressing issues faced by humankind, as a consequence of climate change, depletion of natural resources, land degradation and water scarcity. The Earth League aims to provide decision makers with multiple options for addressing pressing sustainability issues, by delivering robust background information and enhancing transparency of the choices available.

 






No way nukes! Challenging the mainstream ‘concensus’ for nuclear power

Leave a reply




On Monday this week the Labour Party published its ‘Green Plan‘, in which it stated: “Labour also supports the development of new nuclear in the UK as part of a more balanced, secure and low carbon energy supply for the future.”

In a televised debate on green issues hosted on the BBC on the same day, Labour’s shadow energy secretary Caroline Flint pontificated, as if spinning from an EDF Energy briefing sheet, that “nuclear is an important part of the energy mix going forward.”

The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats make strikingly similar arguments in their manifestos. And let’s not forget that at the 2010 election, the LibDems were firmly anti-nuclear – only to become nuclear cheerleaders the moment they got into power.

Then, on Tuesday morning, The Guardian – probably Britain’s greenest daily – ran an editorial, ‘The Guardian view on Britain’s 2015 choice: energy policy’, which contained lot of sense on energy sustainability and efficiency.

However it also contains some nonsense on nuclear power, for which it asserted “there is a decent case” in proposing “The deal with EDF on the new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point is the most significant single contribution to meeting the targets for a decarbonised energy supply.

They are all are wrong.

Osborne admits: Hinkley C is unaffordable

By Tuesday afternoon, Conservative Chancellor George Osborne, who, in Autumn of 2013 had travelled to Beijing to fix up finance for the Hinkley Point EPR nuclear power plant gave an interview to the Western Daily Post – the local newspaper covering the Hinkley Point area – in which he revealed that there was no way that Britain as a nation could afford to build the controversial nuclear plant.

Osborne warned that a host of projects from the electrification of the West Country’s railways to the proposed tunnel under Stonehenge would have to be scrapped if the Government was forced to step in and fund the building of a the new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point.

“The approach we’re taking with the building of Hinkley Point is done in a way that doesn’t cost the British taxpayer a huge sum of money”, he insisted – referring to his attempts, so far entirely unsuccessful, to lure in investors on the promise of very high guaranteed prices for the power generated, while also providing £10 billion in construction finance guarantees.

It’s true that most of the capital cost will be carried not by ‘taxpayers’ (unless the Treasury guarantee is called in to play) but by energy users through a levy on their bills. But he really was stretching the truth when he added: “Because we are taking this approach we can get modern power stations so families have cheaper and more reliable electricity.”

But that will still leave potentially huge taxpayer liabilities for decommissioning, waste disposal and all the clean-up costs in the event of any serious accident.

Moreover, Osborne failed to address this key question: how does a project that’s ‘unaffordable’ using low-interest Treasury finance suddenly become a good deal by using much higher cost speculative finance, adding in copious measures of corporate profit, and palming off the expense onto energy users?

Pressure vessel flaws

This is the latest blow to the Hinkley C project coming after revelations last week from France that serious safety troubles have been discovered with the steel used in the in the pressure vessel for Hinkley C’s French reference plant at Flamanville, under the latter stages of construction in Normandy.

France’s nuclear safety regulator, Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire (ASN) revealed that the steel ordered for the safety casings or ‘pressure vessels’ for six EPR reactors have been made inaccurately by the Creusot Forge in Burgundy, owned by French nuclear design and construction company Areva, now close to backruptcy.

Astonishingly, two of those pressure vessels were fabricated specifically for Hinkley Point without the order ever being officially placed by EDF – and now it looks like the already failing Areva may have two ‘white elephant’ billion-euro reactor pressure vessels on its hands with no buyers in sight.

The ASN, which has ordered an investigation, said in a statement: “The nuclear pressure equipment regulation requires that the manufacturer limits the risks of heterogeneity in the materials used for manufacturing the components most important for safety. In order to address this technical requirement, AREVA carried out chemical and mechanical tests on a vessel head similar to that of the Flamanville EPR.”

Carbon footprint

Nearly ten years ago The Guardian ran an article by me explaining how and why nuclear power is not low carbon, primarily due to the high carbon footprint of uranium mining, milling and the very energy intensive enrichment to make the uranium suitable for manufacture into nuclear fuel.

The Ecologist further explored the theme recently with an article by Keith Barnham in which he warned: “there is as yet no solid scientific evidence that the carbon footprint for the EPR will be below the Climate Change Committee recommendation of 50 gCO2/kWh. Indeed once the additional carbon emissions are taken into account, it’s certain to be considerably above that figure.”

A month ago, Brussels-based environment reporter, Arthur Neslen, revealed in an exclusive piece on line that the UK Conservative-LibDem coalition Government had signed up to a lobby letter – with seven other EU countries – calling on the European Commission for increased nuclear aid funding.

In the latter the signatory states misleadingly described nuclear-generated electricity as “carbon-free electricity”. This is an important policy debate. But it should be conducted with facts, not fact-free propaganda from nuclear proponents.

So with the Conservatives, Labour and the LibDems resolutely in favour of nuclear power in a stupendous triumph of optimism over evidence, is anyone opposing it? Yes – the Green Party for a start. Its policy EN261 is a rare wonder of rationality in the nuclear debate:

“We will cancel construction of new nuclear stations and nuclear power will not be eligible for government subsidy; the Green Party opposes all nuclear power generation and is particularly opposed to the construction of new nuclear power stations, electricity from which is likely to be significantly more expensive per unit supplied than other low-carbon energy sources, and too slow to deploy to meet our pressing energy needs.

“Cancellation will avoid the costs and dangers of nuclear energy and waste being passed on to future generations long after any benefits have been exhausted.”

 

 

Dr David Lowry is an environmental policy and research consultant.

 






Campaigners defeat Coca-Cola plant in South India

Leave a reply




Bowing to public outrage, the state government of Tamil Nadu in south India has cancelled plans for a new $80 million / Rs. 500 crore Coca-Cola bottling plant in Perundurai in Erode district.

In a letter dated April 20, 2015, the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (SIPCOT), a government agency, informed Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Private Limited (HCCBPL) that the land previously allotted for a bottling plant had been canceled.

The cancellation came as the result of a powerful local campaign led by farmers and political parties who opposed the Coca-Cola plant because it would worsen the already existing water shortages in the area, and bring more pollution into the area.

Residents in Perundurai cited the dismal track record of Coca-Cola in India – creating water shortages across the country and polluting with toxic chemicals – as their main reasons for their opposition.

Big demonstration planned

“This is a great victory for the people of Perundurai”, said V. M. Kandasamy, chairperson of Perundurai Environment Protection Trust. “We put all our efforts to stop Coca-Cola and we have succeeded!”

Coca-Cola had claimed that it would not draw groundwater and obtain water from the river Cauvery, and that it would not pollute – but failed to placate the community’s strong reservations based on the company’s dismal track record elsewhere in India on water management, pollution prevention and community relations.

The opposition to Coca-Cola was widespread, and a bandh (strike) organized on 5th March this year asking shops and businesses to shut down to show opposition to Coca-Cola was a major success.

A large protest was slated for April 30, 2015 and organizers expected more than 10,000 to attend the rally against Coca-Cola. The police had denied permission for the protest but the organizers had just succeeded in getting the High Court to rule in their favor on April 9, 2015.

Discussions are underway in Perundurai on whether the protests will still take place on April 30.

The last in a long line of failures

The rejection of its proposed bottling plant in Perundurai is a major setback for Coca-Cola in India as it tries to expand aggressively to compensate for rapidly declining sales in the industrialized countries.

In August 2014, Coca-Cola was forced to abandon a fully built $25 million bottling plant in Mehdiganj in Uttar Pradesh because the government rejected its application as a result of community pressure and legal actions.

In April 2014, another proposed Coca-Cola bottling plant – in Charba in Uttarkhand state – was rejected due to community opposition.

The company also faces significant opposition in various parts of India where it has located its bottling plant in water-stressed areas, and challenges to Coca-Cola’s bottling operations are expected to grow as water conditions deteriorate across the country.

Another Coca-Cola bottling plant, located about 150 kms west of Perundurai in a village called Plachimada in the state of Kerala, was closed by the state government authorities in 2004 because of rampant toxic pollution.

“We were made aware of the dangers of Coca-Cola through the campaign in Plachimada where the company had contaminated the land and water, and depleted the groundwater“, said C. Velusamy, a key organizer with Perundurai Environment Protection Trust.

“After learning about the issues, we decided that we did not want Coca-Cola in our area”

The company currently faces legal action holding it liable for $47 million in damages as a result of its operations in Kerala.

“Coca-Cola’s decisions to locate its bottling plants are driven purely by market logic and have no regard for the well-being of the communities around it“, said Amit Srivastava of the India Resource Center, who worked with the groups in Perundurai to oppose Coca-Cola.

“Such a selfish and arrogant model is not sustainable in India, and it will continue to fail as it has in Perundurai.”

Now campaigners plan a wider attack on industrial pollution

The groundwater resources in Perundurai have been declared as “over-exploited” by the government, a category indicating the worst degree of groundwater depletion. Perundurai’s groundwater is also heavily contaminated by industrial discharges.

“Perundurai is one of India’s most polluted places, and we were determined that we do not want another highly polluting company like Coca-Cola to come here”, said Myilsamy Murugasamy, an activist from Perundurai who was key in bringing national and international allies, including the India Resource Center, to the campaign.

Organizers of the campaign to reject Coca-Cola are now determined to use the latest victory to challenge the wider problems of industrial pollution in the area.

“Now we will focus on the other polluting industries in the area so that we can bring back the good air, land and water for our people”, said Kandasamy.

 

 

More information: India Resource Centre.

 






Making our votes count for wildlife and animals!

Leave a reply




If foxes were actually ‘cunning’, as they are often portrayed in popular culture, then you’d think perhaps they’d actually planned this. But they’re not cunning, they are just wild animals, going about their daily business of survival.

But somehow, foxes and some of their furry friends might just be playing a crucial role in the upcoming election. No, they will not have the same influence as the NHS, the economy or education, and rightfully so.

But as the focus of the election has moved from ‘majority’ to ‘coalition’, then so the focus moves away from the bigger issues to other areas but where passions are equally high – areas which could come into play as small margins will make all the difference.

Foxes, badgers and grouse, oh my…

Most people probably assumed that hunting foxes with hounds in the UK stopped ten years or so ago, when the Hunting Act (and similar Scottish legislation) was brought in.

It’s probably been a shock therefore to be reading that David Cameron is pledging to hold a free vote in Parliament on repealing the Act if the Conservatives have a majority.

That fact hides a decade of unrest among hunters, many of whom have long believed that the Hunting Act is only temporary and that normal service will be resumed soon enough. Some have been hunting illegally, and there have been many prosecutions under the Act. This also explains why myself and my colleagues have been continually busy in that period!

The point of this is that hunting is not dead yet, so those opposed to it better start paying attention. In the last few days and weeks, we’ve heard about Vote OK, the campaign group which is offering support to Conservative candidates, if they will vote against the Hunting Act given the chance.

David Cameron’s personal support for hunting and other blood sports was revealed in a Countryside Alliance article in which he wrote: “I have always been a strong supporter of country sports. It is my firm belief that people should have the freedom to hunt, so I share the frustration that many people feel about the Hunting Act and the way it was brought in by the last government “

And this weekend the Daily Mirror revealed how the PM (allegedly) took part in a game shoot by ‘beating’ – causing the birds to fly up into the sight of the guns, describing the episode as a “bloody escapade”. Any thoughts that the love, or persecution of, wildlife is not a political issue should be dispelled right there.

It’s not just foxes. The badger cull that has been taking place in Somerset and Gloucestershire over the last couple of years prompted over 25 local protests, and became the fifth most commonly raised issue with MPs.

Another issue that has been stirring emotions, rightfully so, is the ‘persecution of raptors’ – basically meaning birds of prey which are being killed so that they don’t kill the game birds (before the shooters get the chance). These organised shoots, therefore, must take centre stage.

Shot in the dark

The full story of these organised shoots is too long to go into here, but let’s be clear, around 50 million game birds are bred to be shot each year, and most aren’t for ‘the pot’ – it’s just for ‘fun’. It’s not much of a leap to understand how much money is involved in these kinds of events, and as soon as money comes into the equation, it becomes political.

The impact on birds of prey is just one example, but another is snares. Wire snares have been used for centuries, and certainly at one time would have been the best and only way for some people to catch their food.

Time has moved on, and snares are still being used – enough to catch 1.7 million animals every year. But here’s the difference – snares are only used on around 5% of land in this country, with most of that land being used for game shoots. The snares are set to kill foxes so they don’t kill the game birds (before the shooters … you get the idea.)

An unpleasant side-effect, other than the slow, painful death that many of the victims will suffer, is that only a third or so of the victims are actually foxes and rabbits – badgers, hares, cats and dogs are also snared.

77% of the public think snares should be banned, 68% of MPs think they should be banned; all but five countries in the EU have already made their use illegal … yet we haven’t banned them. Why not?  The answer is ‘politics’.

League Against Cruel Sports Election Manifesto

You might not agree with everything the League Against Cruel Sports campaigns on, but everything we campaign on is being done for a reason. We set our own Election Manifesto recently, and are surveying parties and candidates to see where they agree with us (or not). In brief, here are five issues we are currently focussing on:

1. Hunting. The Hunting Act is working well, and repealing it would be a backward step and a disaster for a caring nation. We believe it can become more effective with some small improvements, including prohibiting the use of dogs below ground; inserting a ‘recklessness’ provision to ensure the killing of wild mammals during a ‘trail’ hunt cannot be passed off as an accident; and increasing the punishments available to the courts for those breaking the law.

2. Snares. As above, around 1.7m animals are caught by snares each year. We believe snares are unnecessary, indiscriminate and inhumane and should be banned.

3. Shooting. Shooting for sport is on the rise. We are calling for an inquiry into these commercial shoots, focussing on the animal welfare, economic and ecological impacts surrounding them.

4. Dog Fighting. Despite being illegal, dog fighting is on the increase. This includes a range of ‘fights’ from organised, big-money bouts through to dog-owners meeting in the park for a ‘rumble’. What they have in common is the cruelty inflicted on the dogs throughout their lives. The League is calling for action from the next Government to toughen the penalties for dog fighting and to give more support to police forces, local authorities and schools to help tackle this growing problem.

5. Greyhound Racing. We’re a nation of dog lovers but we are allowing an industry to control the fate of thousands of dogs without proper regulation or monitoring. We want a series of measures brought in to remedy the many serious issues.

‘Votes for Animals’

Over the next two weeks, we are teaming up with the retailer Lush on a campaign called Votes for Animals. The campaign recalls the Suffragette Votes for Women campaign of the early 20th century, but this time calling for the rights of animals to be respected.

No, we’re not asking for foxes to get the vote. But we, plus our campaign partners Common Decency (created by Brian May), Animal Aid and Lush, believe that enough people in this country care about animals for them to be playing a significant part in the election.

 

 

Action: On Thursday 23rd April, there will be a march on Parliament from the flagship new Lush store on Oxford Street featuring ‘animals’ dressed in Edwardian costume. Then in the afternoon we are hosting a political ‘hustings’ event at the Lush store, featuring top animal welfare spokespeople from each party.

Find out what your election candidates think about the key animal welfare issues, by going to the League Against Cruel Sports General Election Survey.

Watch ‘Death Pit in the Countryside‘: The League’s new video exposing the cruelty of snaring. Be warned, graphic images.

Joe Duckworth is Chief Executive of the League Against Cruel Sports.

 






Banks raising $400m for palm oil expansion ‘must examine high risks’

Leave a reply




“Banks and investors must examine the full range of environmental, social, reputational, legal and market risks prevalent in the palm oil sector”, warns a new alert from the Banktrack Network.

They should also “ensure that they undertake enhanced, robust due diligence procedures to identify, understand and screen these risks prior to any financing”, the group insists.

The warning was issued as a syndicate of three global financial institutions – Credit Suisse, Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation and Mitsubishi UFJ Securities – prepare to issue $400 million in bonds for palm oil expansion.

The syndicate is acting for Singapore-registered Golden Agri-Resources (GAR) – one of the world’s largest palm oil companies and a part of the Sinar Mas Group – according to a Debtwire report last week. And it’s beginning meetings this week with credit investors this week in Hong Kong and Singapore.

Banktrack Network, which camapigns on the operations and investments of private sector banks and their effect on people and the planet, sent a global alert to the three banks on the risks of such investments to alert potential financiers to the “extreme and outstanding social conflicts in the palm oil agribusiness sector.”

Great promises, atrocious performance

GAR has been among the early adopters in a wave of company policies that pledge to protect forests, peatlands, and human rights, indicating the company’s commitment to become a more responsible business.

However, detailed field studies of GAR operations in Indonesia show numerous legal violations. Specifically, GAR failed to obtain the Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of local communities, failed to undertake proper assessments of High Conservation Value areas (HCV), and was in breach of Indonesian laws on plantation permits. 

A complaint made to the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) was upheld this month, finding GAR to be in violation of its certification standards and procedures.

Another recent study into GAR’s palm oil operations with its Liberian subsidiary Golden Veroleum Liberia Inc. shows that the company’s social engagement is seriously flawed in both policy and practice, leading to vague, inadequate and potentially unenforceable promises of development benefits, while risking the permanent loss of, and damage to, community lands, natural resources, livelihoods and cultures.

GAR’s parent company, the Sinar Mas Group, has come under scrutiny following the brutal murder of Indra Pelani – an Indonesian farmer and land rights activist killed by security guards contracted by another Sinar Mas company, Asia Pulp and Paper.

The company has condemned the killing but the incident points to the severity of risk associated with long-term conflict between Indonesia’s plantation sector and local communities.

An investment in forest destruction

“At this moment, an investment in Golden Agri-Resources is an investment in forest destruction and human rights violations”, said Jeff Conant, international forests campaigner at Friends of the Earth.

“Like other companies in the palm oil sector, GAR is talking a good game on paper, but all evidence shows that their destructive practices continue. Any bank that involves itself with GAR should be prepared for managing a high-risk client under the scrutiny of civil society watchdogs.”

Investigations by Rainforest Action Network have shown that GAR “has not yet fully implemented its sustainability policies in order to exclude supplies of conflict palm oil from its supply chain.”

As such it may be sourcing from growers that have destroyed valuable forests and peatlands in the Leuser Ecosystem, a global hotspot for biodiversity on the island of Sumatra, where critically endangered Sumatran orangutans, elephants, tigers, and rhinos are found together in the wild.

Must do better!

Banks and investors must ensure that GAR actively addresses these problems prior to providing financial services or investment, the groups say – and while promises of good intentions are welcome, they must be matched by performance:

“A strong palm oil commitment is an important first step towards being a responsible company, but banks and investors should not assume that companies with strong palm oil commitments in place are free of environmental, social, reputational, legal and market risks.”

According to a statement by GAR, “we remain committed to complying with the RSPO Principles and Criteria and with the national laws and regulations. Sustainability has always been an integral part of our business and is supported by our management and Board.

“We launched our pioneering Forest Conservation Policy (FCP) in 2011 and subsequently our Social and Community Engagement Policy (SCEP) which commits to improving the lives of the communities we impact.

“As we progress on our sustainability journey, we acknowledge the need to constantly innovate our operational procedures to ensure effective implementation of our policies.”

 

 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 






The existential crisis facing GMOs – they don’t work and we don’t want them

Leave a reply




Author of ‘Altered Genes, Twisted Truth‘ Steven Druker recently talked of how back in the 1970s a group of molecular biologists formed part of a scientific elite that sought to allay fears about genetic engineering by putting a positive spin on it.

At the same time, critics of this emerging technology were increasingly depicted as being little more than non-scientists who expressed ignorant but well-meaning concerns about science and genetic engineering.

This continues today, but the attacks on critics are becoming more vicious. Former British Environment Minister Owen Paterson recently attacked critics of GMOs with a scathing speech that described them as a self-serving, elitist “green blob” that was condemning “billions” to misery.

Professor Anthony Trewavas has continued this theme by stating:

“Greenpeace notably decides its opinions must prevail regardless of others, so it arrogates to itself the right to tear up and destroy things it doesn’t like. That is absolutely typical of people who are unable to convince others by debate and discussion and in the last century such attitudes, amplified obviously, ended up killing people that others did not like. But the same personality type – the authoritarian, ‘do as I tell you’, was at the root of it all. Such groups therefore sit uneasily with countries that are democracies.”

According to this, critics of GMOs possess authoritarian personality types, are ignorant of science and unable to convince people of their arguments and thus resort to violence.

All voices against GMOs are ‘biased’

Part of the pro-GMO narrative also involves a good deal of glib talk about democracy. In an open letter to me, Anthony Trewavas says:

“It would be nice if you could say you are a democrat and believe that argument is better than destruction but argument that deals with all the facts and does not select out of those to construct a misleading programme.

“Misleading selection of limited information is causing considerable problems in various parts of the world that leads some into very violent behaviour, particularly in religious belief. I am sure you agree that this is not a good way forward … Whatever their [farmers’] choice is … they must be allowed to make that decision … That is the nature of every democracy that I hope all will finally live under?”

Pro-GMO scientists have every right to speak on psychology, politics and democracy. However, let a non-scientist criticise GMOs and they are accused of self-serving elitism or ignorance. Indeed, let even a scientist produce scientific evidence that runs counter to the industry-led science and he or she is smeared and attacked.

Let a respected academically qualified political scientist, trade policy analyst or social scientist whose views are in some way critical of GMOs and the corporations promoting them express a coherent viewpoint supported by evidence from their specific discipline, and they are attacked for being little more than ideologues with an agenda, or their evidence or sources are described as ‘biased’.

Any analysis of the role of the IMF, World Bank and WTO and their part in restructuring agriculture in poor nations or devising policies to favour Western agribusiness is suddenly to be side lined in favour of a narrow focus on ‘science’, which the masses and ideologues could not possibly comprehend.

By implication, they should therefore defer to (pro-GMO) scientists for the necessary information.

‘Science’, ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ are what we say they are

The pro-GMO lobby talks about choice, democracy and the alleged violence of certain environmental groups – but says nothing about the structural violence waged on rural communities resulting from IMF / World Bank strings-attached loans, the undermining of global food security as a result of Wall Street commodity and land speculators, the crushing effects of trade rules on poorer regions or the devastating impacts of GMOs in regions like South America.

To discuss such things is political and thus ‘ideological’ and is therefore not up for discussion it seems.

Much easier to try to focus on ‘the science’ and simply mouth platitudes about ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom of choice’ while saying nothing about how both been captured or debased by powerful interests, including agribusiness.

By attempting not to appear to be ideological or political, such people are attempting to depoliticise and thus disguise the highly political status quo whereby powerful corporations (and some bogus notion of a ‘free market’) are left unchallenged to shape agriculture as they see fit, says Kevin Carson of Center for a Stateless Society:

“Anyone who’s seen the recent virally circulated Venn diagrams of the personnel overlap between Monsanto and USDA personnel, or Pfizer and FDA, will immediately know what I’m talking about … A model of capitalism in which the commanding heights of the economy are an interlocking directorate of large corporations and government agencies, a major share of the total operating costs of the dominant firms are socialized (and profits privatized, of course), and ‘intellectual property’ protectionism and other regulatory cartels allow bureaucratic corporate dinosaurs … to operate profitably without fear of competition.”

The ‘free market’ as an engine of hunger and poverty

If certain politicians or scientists and the companies they support really do want to ‘feed the world’ and are concerned with poverty and hunger, they should forget about GMOs and focus their attention elsewhere: not least on how the ‘free market’ system that they cherish so much causes hunger and poverty – whether for example through food commodity speculation by powerful banking interests or a US foreign policy that has for decades used agriculture to trap nations into subservience.

Rather than have the public focus on such things, such people try to mislead and divert attention away from these things with puerile notions of authoritarian personality types who reject some illusory notion of open debate, free choice and democracy.

But even with this power and political influence at its disposal, the GMO agritech industry is far from being a success. Much of its profits actually derive from failure: for example, Andrew Kimbrell notes that after having chosen to ignore science, the industry’s failing inputs are now to be replaced with more destined-to-fail and ever-stronger poisonous inputs.

The legacy of poisoned environments and ecological devastation is for someone else to deal with. In his book, Steven Druker has shown that from very early on the US government has colluded with the GMO agritech sector to set a ‘technical fix-failure-technical fix‘ merry-go-round in motion.

This system is designed to stumble from one crisis to the next, all the while hiding behind the banners of ‘innovation’ or ‘research and development’. But it’s all good business. And that’s all that really matters to the industry.

If you’re going to tell a lie, make sure it’s a whopper!

There’s always good PR ground to be made from blaming critics for being ‘anti-science’, and money to be made from a continuous state of crisis management (‘innovation’ and bombarding farmers with a never-ending stream of new technologies and inputs). Part of the great con-trick is that it attempts to pass off its endless crises and failures as brilliant successes.

For many promoters of the GMO cause, it is a case of not even wanting to understand alternative approaches or the devastating impacts of GMOs when their lavish salary or consultancy fees depend on them not wanting to understand any of it.

When it comes to labelling unsafe and untested GM food in the US, the pro-GMO lobby grasps at straws by saying too much information confuses the public or sends out the wrong message.

When it says sound science should underpin the GMO issue, it does everything it can to circumvent any science that threatens its interests.

When it says its critics have a political agenda, it side lines debates on how it hijacks international and national policy making bodies and regulatory agencies.

When it talks about elite, affluent environmentalists robbing food from the bellies of the poor, its private companies are owned by people who form part of a privileged class that seek to turn their vested interests into policy proscriptions for the rest of us.

The fraudulent ‘concensus’ is breaking down

The pro-GMO lobby engages in the fraudulent notion that it knows what is best for humanity. Co-opting public institutions and using science as an ideology, it indulges in an arrogant form of exceptionalism.

The world does not need GMO food or crops, especially those which have not been proven safe or whose benefits are questionable to say the least. There are alternative ways to boost food production if or when there is a need to. There are other (existing) ways to tackle the impacts of volatile climates.

However, the alternatives are being squeezed out as big agritech and its captured policy / regulatory bodies place emphasis on proprietary products, not least GMOs and chemical inputs.

The pro-GMO lobby has a crisis of legitimation. No amount of twisted truths or altered genes, expensive PR or attacks on its critics can disguise this.

 

 

Colin Todhunter is an extensively published independent writer and former social policy researcher based in the UK and India.

Also on The Ecologist: Jane Goodall reviews ‘Altered Genes, Twisted Truth‘ by Steven Druker.

This article was originally published on CounterPunch.

The Book: ‘Altered Genes, Twisted Truth‘ by Steven Druker.

 






Banks raising $400m for palm oil expansion ‘must examine high risks’

Leave a reply




“Banks and investors must examine the full range of environmental, social, reputational, legal and market risks prevalent in the palm oil sector”, warns a new alert from the Banktrack Network.

They should also “ensure that they undertake enhanced, robust due diligence procedures to identify, understand and screen these risks prior to any financing”, the group insists.

The warning was issued as a syndicate of three global financial institutions – Credit Suisse, Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation and Mitsubishi UFJ Securities – prepare to issue $400 million in bonds for palm oil expansion.

The syndicate is acting for Singapore-registered Golden Agri-Resources (GAR) – one of the world’s largest palm oil companies and a part of the Sinar Mas Group – according to a Debtwire report last week. And it’s beginning meetings this week with credit investors this week in Hong Kong and Singapore.

Banktrack Network, which camapigns on the operations and investments of private sector banks and their effect on people and the planet, sent a global alert to the three banks on the risks of such investments to alert potential financiers to the “extreme and outstanding social conflicts in the palm oil agribusiness sector.”

Great promises, atrocious performance

GAR has been among the early adopters in a wave of company policies that pledge to protect forests, peatlands, and human rights, indicating the company’s commitment to become a more responsible business.

However, detailed field studies of GAR operations in Indonesia show numerous legal violations. Specifically, GAR failed to obtain the Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of local communities, failed to undertake proper assessments of High Conservation Value areas (HCV), and was in breach of Indonesian laws on plantation permits. 

A complaint made to the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) was upheld this month, finding GAR to be in violation of its certification standards and procedures.

Another recent study into GAR’s palm oil operations with its Liberian subsidiary Golden Veroleum Liberia Inc. shows that the company’s social engagement is seriously flawed in both policy and practice, leading to vague, inadequate and potentially unenforceable promises of development benefits, while risking the permanent loss of, and damage to, community lands, natural resources, livelihoods and cultures.

GAR’s parent company, the Sinar Mas Group, has come under scrutiny following the brutal murder of Indra Pelani – an Indonesian farmer and land rights activist killed by security guards contracted by another Sinar Mas company, Asia Pulp and Paper.

The company has condemned the killing but the incident points to the severity of risk associated with long-term conflict between Indonesia’s plantation sector and local communities.

An investment in forest destruction

“At this moment, an investment in Golden Agri-Resources is an investment in forest destruction and human rights violations”, said Jeff Conant, international forests campaigner at Friends of the Earth.

“Like other companies in the palm oil sector, GAR is talking a good game on paper, but all evidence shows that their destructive practices continue. Any bank that involves itself with GAR should be prepared for managing a high-risk client under the scrutiny of civil society watchdogs.”

Investigations by Rainforest Action Network have shown that GAR “has not yet fully implemented its sustainability policies in order to exclude supplies of conflict palm oil from its supply chain.”

As such it may be sourcing from growers that have destroyed valuable forests and peatlands in the Leuser Ecosystem, a global hotspot for biodiversity on the island of Sumatra, where critically endangered Sumatran orangutans, elephants, tigers, and rhinos are found together in the wild.

Must do better!

Banks and investors must ensure that GAR actively addresses these problems prior to providing financial services or investment, the groups say – and while promises of good intentions are welcome, they must be matched by performance:

“A strong palm oil commitment is an important first step towards being a responsible company, but banks and investors should not assume that companies with strong palm oil commitments in place are free of environmental, social, reputational, legal and market risks.”

According to a statement by GAR, “we remain committed to complying with the RSPO Principles and Criteria and with the national laws and regulations. Sustainability has always been an integral part of our business and is supported by our management and Board.

“We launched our pioneering Forest Conservation Policy (FCP) in 2011 and subsequently our Social and Community Engagement Policy (SCEP) which commits to improving the lives of the communities we impact.

“As we progress on our sustainability journey, we acknowledge the need to constantly innovate our operational procedures to ensure effective implementation of our policies.”

 

 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 






The existential crisis facing GMOs – they don’t work and we don’t want them

Leave a reply




Author of ‘Altered Genes, Twisted Truth‘ Steven Druker recently talked of how back in the 1970s a group of molecular biologists formed part of a scientific elite that sought to allay fears about genetic engineering by putting a positive spin on it.

At the same time, critics of this emerging technology were increasingly depicted as being little more than non-scientists who expressed ignorant but well-meaning concerns about science and genetic engineering.

This continues today, but the attacks on critics are becoming more vicious. Former British Environment Minister Owen Paterson recently attacked critics of GMOs with a scathing speech that described them as a self-serving, elitist “green blob” that was condemning “billions” to misery.

Professor Anthony Trewavas has continued this theme by stating:

“Greenpeace notably decides its opinions must prevail regardless of others, so it arrogates to itself the right to tear up and destroy things it doesn’t like. That is absolutely typical of people who are unable to convince others by debate and discussion and in the last century such attitudes, amplified obviously, ended up killing people that others did not like. But the same personality type – the authoritarian, ‘do as I tell you’, was at the root of it all. Such groups therefore sit uneasily with countries that are democracies.”

According to this, critics of GMOs possess authoritarian personality types, are ignorant of science and unable to convince people of their arguments and thus resort to violence.

All voices against GMOs are ‘biased’

Part of the pro-GMO narrative also involves a good deal of glib talk about democracy. In an open letter to me, Anthony Trewavas says:

“It would be nice if you could say you are a democrat and believe that argument is better than destruction but argument that deals with all the facts and does not select out of those to construct a misleading programme.

“Misleading selection of limited information is causing considerable problems in various parts of the world that leads some into very violent behaviour, particularly in religious belief. I am sure you agree that this is not a good way forward … Whatever their [farmers’] choice is … they must be allowed to make that decision … That is the nature of every democracy that I hope all will finally live under?”

Pro-GMO scientists have every right to speak on psychology, politics and democracy. However, let a non-scientist criticise GMOs and they are accused of self-serving elitism or ignorance. Indeed, let even a scientist produce scientific evidence that runs counter to the industry-led science and he or she is smeared and attacked.

Let a respected academically qualified political scientist, trade policy analyst or social scientist whose views are in some way critical of GMOs and the corporations promoting them express a coherent viewpoint supported by evidence from their specific discipline, and they are attacked for being little more than ideologues with an agenda, or their evidence or sources are described as ‘biased’.

Any analysis of the role of the IMF, World Bank and WTO and their part in restructuring agriculture in poor nations or devising policies to favour Western agribusiness is suddenly to be side lined in favour of a narrow focus on ‘science’, which the masses and ideologues could not possibly comprehend.

By implication, they should therefore defer to (pro-GMO) scientists for the necessary information.

‘Science’, ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ are what we say they are

The pro-GMO lobby talks about choice, democracy and the alleged violence of certain environmental groups – but says nothing about the structural violence waged on rural communities resulting from IMF / World Bank strings-attached loans, the undermining of global food security as a result of Wall Street commodity and land speculators, the crushing effects of trade rules on poorer regions or the devastating impacts of GMOs in regions like South America.

To discuss such things is political and thus ‘ideological’ and is therefore not up for discussion it seems.

Much easier to try to focus on ‘the science’ and simply mouth platitudes about ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom of choice’ while saying nothing about how both been captured or debased by powerful interests, including agribusiness.

By attempting not to appear to be ideological or political, such people are attempting to depoliticise and thus disguise the highly political status quo whereby powerful corporations (and some bogus notion of a ‘free market’) are left unchallenged to shape agriculture as they see fit, says Kevin Carson of Center for a Stateless Society:

“Anyone who’s seen the recent virally circulated Venn diagrams of the personnel overlap between Monsanto and USDA personnel, or Pfizer and FDA, will immediately know what I’m talking about … A model of capitalism in which the commanding heights of the economy are an interlocking directorate of large corporations and government agencies, a major share of the total operating costs of the dominant firms are socialized (and profits privatized, of course), and ‘intellectual property’ protectionism and other regulatory cartels allow bureaucratic corporate dinosaurs … to operate profitably without fear of competition.”

The ‘free market’ as an engine of hunger and poverty

If certain politicians or scientists and the companies they support really do want to ‘feed the world’ and are concerned with poverty and hunger, they should forget about GMOs and focus their attention elsewhere: not least on how the ‘free market’ system that they cherish so much causes hunger and poverty – whether for example through food commodity speculation by powerful banking interests or a US foreign policy that has for decades used agriculture to trap nations into subservience.

Rather than have the public focus on such things, such people try to mislead and divert attention away from these things with puerile notions of authoritarian personality types who reject some illusory notion of open debate, free choice and democracy.

But even with this power and political influence at its disposal, the GMO agritech industry is far from being a success. Much of its profits actually derive from failure: for example, Andrew Kimbrell notes that after having chosen to ignore science, the industry’s failing inputs are now to be replaced with more destined-to-fail and ever-stronger poisonous inputs.

The legacy of poisoned environments and ecological devastation is for someone else to deal with. In his book, Steven Druker has shown that from very early on the US government has colluded with the GMO agritech sector to set a ‘technical fix-failure-technical fix‘ merry-go-round in motion.

This system is designed to stumble from one crisis to the next, all the while hiding behind the banners of ‘innovation’ or ‘research and development’. But it’s all good business. And that’s all that really matters to the industry.

If you’re going to tell a lie, make sure it’s a whopper!

There’s always good PR ground to be made from blaming critics for being ‘anti-science’, and money to be made from a continuous state of crisis management (‘innovation’ and bombarding farmers with a never-ending stream of new technologies and inputs). Part of the great con-trick is that it attempts to pass off its endless crises and failures as brilliant successes.

For many promoters of the GMO cause, it is a case of not even wanting to understand alternative approaches or the devastating impacts of GMOs when their lavish salary or consultancy fees depend on them not wanting to understand any of it.

When it comes to labelling unsafe and untested GM food in the US, the pro-GMO lobby grasps at straws by saying too much information confuses the public or sends out the wrong message.

When it says sound science should underpin the GMO issue, it does everything it can to circumvent any science that threatens its interests.

When it says its critics have a political agenda, it side lines debates on how it hijacks international and national policy making bodies and regulatory agencies.

When it talks about elite, affluent environmentalists robbing food from the bellies of the poor, its private companies are owned by people who form part of a privileged class that seek to turn their vested interests into policy proscriptions for the rest of us.

The fraudulent ‘concensus’ is breaking down

The pro-GMO lobby engages in the fraudulent notion that it knows what is best for humanity. Co-opting public institutions and using science as an ideology, it indulges in an arrogant form of exceptionalism.

The world does not need GMO food or crops, especially those which have not been proven safe or whose benefits are questionable to say the least. There are alternative ways to boost food production if or when there is a need to. There are other (existing) ways to tackle the impacts of volatile climates.

However, the alternatives are being squeezed out as big agritech and its captured policy / regulatory bodies place emphasis on proprietary products, not least GMOs and chemical inputs.

The pro-GMO lobby has a crisis of legitimation. No amount of twisted truths or altered genes, expensive PR or attacks on its critics can disguise this.

 

 

Colin Todhunter is an extensively published independent writer and former social policy researcher based in the UK and India.

Also on The Ecologist: Jane Goodall reviews ‘Altered Genes, Twisted Truth‘ by Steven Druker.

This article was originally published on CounterPunch.

The Book: ‘Altered Genes, Twisted Truth‘ by Steven Druker.

 






Banks raising $400m for palm oil expansion ‘must examine high risks’

Leave a reply




“Banks and investors must examine the full range of environmental, social, reputational, legal and market risks prevalent in the palm oil sector”, warns a new alert from the Banktrack Network.

They should also “ensure that they undertake enhanced, robust due diligence procedures to identify, understand and screen these risks prior to any financing”, the group insists.

The warning was issued as a syndicate of three global financial institutions – Credit Suisse, Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation and Mitsubishi UFJ Securities – prepare to issue $400 million in bonds for palm oil expansion.

The syndicate is acting for Singapore-registered Golden Agri-Resources (GAR) – one of the world’s largest palm oil companies and a part of the Sinar Mas Group – according to a Debtwire report last week. And it’s beginning meetings this week with credit investors this week in Hong Kong and Singapore.

Banktrack Network, which camapigns on the operations and investments of private sector banks and their effect on people and the planet, sent a global alert to the three banks on the risks of such investments to alert potential financiers to the “extreme and outstanding social conflicts in the palm oil agribusiness sector.”

Great promises, atrocious performance

GAR has been among the early adopters in a wave of company policies that pledge to protect forests, peatlands, and human rights, indicating the company’s commitment to become a more responsible business.

However, detailed field studies of GAR operations in Indonesia show numerous legal violations. Specifically, GAR failed to obtain the Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of local communities, failed to undertake proper assessments of High Conservation Value areas (HCV), and was in breach of Indonesian laws on plantation permits. 

A complaint made to the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) was upheld this month, finding GAR to be in violation of its certification standards and procedures.

Another recent study into GAR’s palm oil operations with its Liberian subsidiary Golden Veroleum Liberia Inc. shows that the company’s social engagement is seriously flawed in both policy and practice, leading to vague, inadequate and potentially unenforceable promises of development benefits, while risking the permanent loss of, and damage to, community lands, natural resources, livelihoods and cultures.

GAR’s parent company, the Sinar Mas Group, has come under scrutiny following the brutal murder of Indra Pelani – an Indonesian farmer and land rights activist killed by security guards contracted by another Sinar Mas company, Asia Pulp and Paper.

The company has condemned the killing but the incident points to the severity of risk associated with long-term conflict between Indonesia’s plantation sector and local communities.

An investment in forest destruction

“At this moment, an investment in Golden Agri-Resources is an investment in forest destruction and human rights violations”, said Jeff Conant, international forests campaigner at Friends of the Earth.

“Like other companies in the palm oil sector, GAR is talking a good game on paper, but all evidence shows that their destructive practices continue. Any bank that involves itself with GAR should be prepared for managing a high-risk client under the scrutiny of civil society watchdogs.”

Investigations by Rainforest Action Network have shown that GAR “has not yet fully implemented its sustainability policies in order to exclude supplies of conflict palm oil from its supply chain.”

As such it may be sourcing from growers that have destroyed valuable forests and peatlands in the Leuser Ecosystem, a global hotspot for biodiversity on the island of Sumatra, where critically endangered Sumatran orangutans, elephants, tigers, and rhinos are found together in the wild.

Must do better!

Banks and investors must ensure that GAR actively addresses these problems prior to providing financial services or investment, the groups say – and while promises of good intentions are welcome, they must be matched by performance:

“A strong palm oil commitment is an important first step towards being a responsible company, but banks and investors should not assume that companies with strong palm oil commitments in place are free of environmental, social, reputational, legal and market risks.”

According to a statement by GAR, “we remain committed to complying with the RSPO Principles and Criteria and with the national laws and regulations. Sustainability has always been an integral part of our business and is supported by our management and Board.

“We launched our pioneering Forest Conservation Policy (FCP) in 2011 and subsequently our Social and Community Engagement Policy (SCEP) which commits to improving the lives of the communities we impact.

“As we progress on our sustainability journey, we acknowledge the need to constantly innovate our operational procedures to ensure effective implementation of our policies.”

 

 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 






Banks raising $400m for palm oil expansion ‘must examine high risks’

Leave a reply




“Banks and investors must examine the full range of environmental, social, reputational, legal and market risks prevalent in the palm oil sector”, warns a new alert from the Banktrack Network.

They should also “ensure that they undertake enhanced, robust due diligence procedures to identify, understand and screen these risks prior to any financing”, the group insists.

The warning was issued as a syndicate of three global financial institutions – Credit Suisse, Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation and Mitsubishi UFJ Securities – prepare to issue $400 million in bonds for palm oil expansion.

The syndicate is acting for Singapore-registered Golden Agri-Resources (GAR) – one of the world’s largest palm oil companies and a part of the Sinar Mas Group – according to a Debtwire report last week. And it’s beginning meetings this week with credit investors this week in Hong Kong and Singapore.

Banktrack Network, which camapigns on the operations and investments of private sector banks and their effect on people and the planet, sent a global alert to the three banks on the risks of such investments to alert potential financiers to the “extreme and outstanding social conflicts in the palm oil agribusiness sector.”

Great promises, atrocious performance

GAR has been among the early adopters in a wave of company policies that pledge to protect forests, peatlands, and human rights, indicating the company’s commitment to become a more responsible business.

However, detailed field studies of GAR operations in Indonesia show numerous legal violations. Specifically, GAR failed to obtain the Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of local communities, failed to undertake proper assessments of High Conservation Value areas (HCV), and was in breach of Indonesian laws on plantation permits. 

A complaint made to the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) was upheld this month, finding GAR to be in violation of its certification standards and procedures.

Another recent study into GAR’s palm oil operations with its Liberian subsidiary Golden Veroleum Liberia Inc. shows that the company’s social engagement is seriously flawed in both policy and practice, leading to vague, inadequate and potentially unenforceable promises of development benefits, while risking the permanent loss of, and damage to, community lands, natural resources, livelihoods and cultures.

GAR’s parent company, the Sinar Mas Group, has come under scrutiny following the brutal murder of Indra Pelani – an Indonesian farmer and land rights activist killed by security guards contracted by another Sinar Mas company, Asia Pulp and Paper.

The company has condemned the killing but the incident points to the severity of risk associated with long-term conflict between Indonesia’s plantation sector and local communities.

An investment in forest destruction

“At this moment, an investment in Golden Agri-Resources is an investment in forest destruction and human rights violations”, said Jeff Conant, international forests campaigner at Friends of the Earth.

“Like other companies in the palm oil sector, GAR is talking a good game on paper, but all evidence shows that their destructive practices continue. Any bank that involves itself with GAR should be prepared for managing a high-risk client under the scrutiny of civil society watchdogs.”

Investigations by Rainforest Action Network have shown that GAR “has not yet fully implemented its sustainability policies in order to exclude supplies of conflict palm oil from its supply chain.”

As such it may be sourcing from growers that have destroyed valuable forests and peatlands in the Leuser Ecosystem, a global hotspot for biodiversity on the island of Sumatra, where critically endangered Sumatran orangutans, elephants, tigers, and rhinos are found together in the wild.

Must do better!

Banks and investors must ensure that GAR actively addresses these problems prior to providing financial services or investment, the groups say – and while promises of good intentions are welcome, they must be matched by performance:

“A strong palm oil commitment is an important first step towards being a responsible company, but banks and investors should not assume that companies with strong palm oil commitments in place are free of environmental, social, reputational, legal and market risks.”

According to a statement by GAR, “we remain committed to complying with the RSPO Principles and Criteria and with the national laws and regulations. Sustainability has always been an integral part of our business and is supported by our management and Board.

“We launched our pioneering Forest Conservation Policy (FCP) in 2011 and subsequently our Social and Community Engagement Policy (SCEP) which commits to improving the lives of the communities we impact.

“As we progress on our sustainability journey, we acknowledge the need to constantly innovate our operational procedures to ensure effective implementation of our policies.”

 

 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.