Throughout 2007, Friends of the Earth Papua New Guinea / Centre for Environmental Law and Community Rights continued their work to protect the rights of people threatened by illegal and unsustainable forest practises and oil palm expansion.

what happened: FoE PNG carried out many activities throughout the year. One highlight was attending a forestry and oil palm workshop in August 2007 in Cairns Australia, organised by the Australian Conservation Foundation and attended by many PNG NGOs.  The workshop stressed the need for a good relationship with European, Australian, and New Zealand governments, and a strong consumer campaign in Europe and China where demand for PNG timber is high.

In September 2007, FoE PNG staff attended the Friends of the Earth International Forest and Biodiversity Programme meeting in Yaoundé, Cameroon. One major challenge, as yet unresolved, is whether member groups will simply say “no” to all forest destruction and logging, or work to strengthen current policies, institutions and governance.

In terms of other work, although the national election created a huge disruption to FoE PNG’s work plans, they still managed to carry out a number of important patrols and fact finding missions. One entailed taking a member of the Rainforest Action Network on a patrol to communities affected by proposed oil palm expansion, particularly with respect to palm and soy oil giant Cargill. The tour was successful and RAN has pledged to assist FoE PNG in campaigning against oil palm expansion at the international level, especially in the USA.

Another fact-finding patrol was motivated by national government approval of a massive, 300,000 hectare agro-forestry project in the Musa-Collingwood Bay area. Political influence in the approval was suspected, and landowners, who were not consulted, required urgent legal assistance as this project would definitely affect their livelihoods, if developed.

In a similar case, FoE PNG and partner NGOs carried out a patrol in the East New Britain province, to investigate an agro-forestry project approval in Lsul Baining. The communities in this remote and hard-to-access area made it clear that they were not consulted and did not want the project. They have requested FoE PNG’s legal services to take possible legal action, namely a court injunction.

In July 2007, FoE PNG was invited by RAN to join a delegation of southern countries affected by agribusiness for a RAN campaign launch and speaking tour in the US. Lynette Hambuga of the Sorovi Women’s Council and George Laume, FoE PNG’s oil palm campaigner attended. They were able to dialogue with students at one of the USA’s largest universities on the threats posed by oil palm plantations.

Finally, towards the end of 2007, a capacity-building exercise entailed engaging a volunteer from Australian Business Volunteers, who gave staff hands-on training in proposal writing, project planning and fundraising.

what is changing:  FoE PNG is delighted to be moving forward on its work with RAN. “This is a really big step forward for CELCOR, as it has established an effective networking and relationship with RAN for campaigns at the international level, specifically at the consumer level or the company’s headquarters, and it is foreseen that local issues will be exposed at a much higher level,” said a FoE PNG staff member.

There was also a major success with regard to the proposed giant Musa-Collingwood Bay agro-forestry project. FoE PNG applied for an injunction to halt the project, and request a review and community consultation. They also engaged a television crew to interview landholders and produce a documentary, which was aired. Communities, educated elites from the area, and some local parliamentarians also became active, calling for the proposal to be withdrawn. As a result, this project has been put on hold for an indefinite period, and will continue to be closely monitored by FoE PNG.

what we learned:  At the workshop in Cairns, one suggested strategy under discussion by PNG NGO partners is a website to promote PNG certified timber overseas. Understanding carbon trading, which has big implications in PNG, was another key topic, especially given the PNG government has not revealed its plans and policies on this. Strategies were discussed to obtain disclosure about these plans.

The meeting in Cairns also affirmed the need for NGO partners in PNG to campaign more at the political level, at which the main drive for illegal logging and palm oil expansion occurs. FoE PNG has already begun working with Local Level Governments (LLGs), however this work will now merely be strategic, as new national government amendments have removed LLG’s participation at Provincial Assemblies and Provincial Governments.

The approach to the current government is difficult, particularly given its possible intention to make environmental NGOs illegal. One possible strategy is working with parliamentarians with a strong record on advocating for their people’s rights, to fight for these issues from the floor of parliament. Another is to make use of the “Whistle Blower” strategy that exposes scandals and triggers huge media and public outcry.

what next:  At the Cairns workshop, they agreed all partners should now put more effort in building the relationship with existing international partners for market or consumer campaigns either for palm oil or logging. FoE PNG is also planning a legal patrol to the East New Britain province before action is taken to combat the massive agro-forestry proposal there.

with thanks to our funders: the dutch ministry of foreign affairs

Unfortunately, these precious resources are gravely threatened by improper and corrupt administration by government authorities, and bad practices of large fishery corporations. Negative impacts include waste discharge into the sea, gas emissions, depletion of anchovy stocks, and deteriorating labour conditions. And although the European Union imposes good environmental and social practices on its own food suppliers (including those for fish meal and oil), it does not demand the same from suppliers of fish products further down at the beginning of this supply chain.

This project by Friends of the Earth Peru / Asociación Civil Labor sought to promote the sustainable exploitation of Peruvian maritime resources and to protect its biodiversity by raising awareness about the serious dangers of the current exploitation model. Another objective was to see a bill, containing proposals from the fishery sector’s main actors, approved and enacted by Parliament. Finally, FoE Peru wanted to collaborate with the actors in Peru’s fishing industry, to apply pressure for an appropriate legal framework, and its enforcement.

what happened: To reach these objectives, FoE Peru promoted the book “La situación crítica de la pesquería industrial en el Perú y alternativas de solución” (The critical situation of Peru’s fishery industry and proposed solutions), which covers the results of research and consultation with fishing industry’s various sectors. They also printed and distributed a quarterly bulletin about the fishing industry crisis and proposed solutions. They created a virtual network of the sector’s key actors and allied parties, to provide them with relevant information and to coordinate actions. And finally, they raised awareness through media statements.

Constructive communication and coordination with Friends of the Earth Netherlands and Friends of the Earth Europe was established during the Economic Justice – Resisting Neoliberalism program meeting of Friends of the Earth International in Uruguay. At that time, FoE Europe agreed to consider lobbying European buyers of fish meal and oil, to compel them to demand good social and environmental practices from Peru’s producers and its government.

what is changing: The book and bulletin allowed FoE Peru to reach relevant authorities and civil society leaders, who decided to act to prevent biodiversity loss and collapse of the fisheries. The virtual network they created has become a permanent one. Information and coordination were achieved in timely manner, and FoE Peru gained some media coverage, mainly in the provinces.

Unfortunately, the bill with proposals from the fishery sector’s main actors has not yet been approved, due to pressure exerted by big corporations and weakness of so-called “progressive” congressmen. It remains for the bill to be approved by the Parliamentary Production Commission, by Congress, and then enacted by the President. However, FoE Peru is working with their civil society allies to bring their influence to bear on the new Production Commission and on regional governments.

what was learned: Major media outlets, greatly influenced by big corporations, have tended not to cover this issue. To break through this barrier, FoE Peru turned to alternative media formats: bulletins, the internet, and media outlets not dominated by corporations or the central government. They also participated in every fishing-related event to inform stakeholders about the threat to fisheries and sustainability, as well as possible solutions.

what’s next: FoE Peru will continue to work toward achieving the project’s main objectives by raising awareness about this problem, exerting more pressure on the new Production Commission and on regional governments.

with thanks to our funders: the dutch ministry of foreign affairs

The official government discourse regarding such megaprojects is that they are part of Plan Puebla Panama. This discourse plays up on the rhetoric of so-called “development”.  Yet this course of action simply sets up the conditions for the transnational looting of the region’s strategic resources, while ensuring a huge reserve of cheap labour is available to service the global capital.

Resistance is vital, and knowledge is the key tool for any resistance movement. For this reason, an exchange was organized to allow rural communities of Honduras and El Salvador to share their experiences, and to discover more about the ecological, social and cultural impacts of mining and dam megaprojects on the two countries’ peasant populations.

what happened: This exchange, facilitated by Friends of the Earth El Salvador / CESTA and Friends of the Earth Honduras / Madre Tierra, enabled affected local communities to obtain the full extent of information available on the different megaprojects planned for developed in their territories. Their main sources of information include what they hear and see in the media, as well as information from local level meetings.

what we learned: The information gathered in the exchange exposed how the region’s territories are being handed over to transnational corporations. For example, in Honduras 35,359 km2 —  31.4 percent — of its territory was handed over to Canadian and US corporations, and this does not include the land assigned to the building of 50 hydroelectric dams.

In El Salvador a total of 1,238.63 km2 has been granted in concessions to extractive mining operations, which is 6.2 percent of the nation’s territory. More lands would be consumed if 13 planned hydroelectric dams are built in rural areas — lands which now produce agricultural staples, and which are rich in biodiversity, water and forests.
 
As part of the exchange a joint declaration was made on the part of the Ecologist Movement of Honduras, FoE Honduras, COAPAZ (Honduran Action Committee for Peace), Vía Campesina, FoE El Salvador, the National Movement Against Dams, the Indigenous communities of Cacaotera de Morazan, and the Movement for the Rescue of the Culture of Mayan Peoples.

Challenging mining and mega-dam projects, the statement expressed the groups’ “opposition to these deadly projects, such as the metal industry, hydroelectric dams, highways and other megaprojects, planned for development in our rural areas, since it implies the destruction of our territory, the natural resources and the displacement of thousands of residents from their lands.”

In addition, the declaration says, “our conviction is to prevent these megaprojects from leaving our communities in extreme poverty in the name of development and job creation, [through megaprojects which] abuse the fundamental human rights of Indigenous and peasant communities by destroying and polluting the environment”. 

with thanks to our funders: the dutch ministry of foreign affairs

To combat this threat, a strong and coordinated civil society effort is required. These efforts must strive to protect biodiversity, as required under the Biodiversity Convention to which both Ghana and Togo are signatories.  This is especially pertinent given lobbying efforts by western biotechnology institutions and their government backers with regard to Ghana’s Biosafety Bill, which has not yet been passed.

what happened:  Friends of the Earth Ghana and Friends of the Earth Togo received funding to carry out joint capacity building, networking and campaigning on GMOs. Their goal was to protect traditional agriculture and the integrity of biodiversity through the establishment of responsible policy that discourages GMO introduction and ensures food security, food sovereignty and farmers’ rights to livelihoods. They also aimed to increase the effectiveness of the GMO campaign of Friends of the Earth International in terms of sustainable development targets and poverty reduction.

Key activities included reviewing current Biosafety Bill legislation. They also carried out awareness and skillshare workshops for institutions and members of the media. Finally, they held strategy meetings for campaigning and advocacy to build their network.

what is changing: This work has highlighted lapses in the Biosafety Bill. This information has made a positive contribution to media awareness, and countered information put forward by the government and its supporting external agencies, such as USAID, which promote GMOs in Africa.

This project also enhanced farmers’ awareness of the inadequacies in GMO policy, described by some farmers as a “policy trap”. Some farmers have used this information to question the source of seeds and whether they can be replanted – a line of questioning which could discourage GM seed entrepreneurs. In addition, the knowledge and capacity of FoE Ghana and its members was enhanced, and capacity was built for future collaboration. The project also fostered a closer relationship between members of the media between the two countries.

The gaps that the groups identified in the legislation were highlighted at engaging public debates in government-sponsored forums; furthermore, they were not countered by any convincing arguments from the government.  The information from the FoE review is also available to other civil society groups, government agencies and individuals, to further enhance their capacity through information sharing, advocacy and outreach programs.

Although this work has not yet been reflected in the political landscape, the groups believe pressure from farmers, consumer groups and other stakeholders will be brought to bear on Ghana and Togo’s governments as anti-GMO momentum builds.

what we learned: This project has built FoE teams’ capacity on GMOs, and strengthened the connection between GMOs and other campaign issues under FoEI’s Economic Justice - Resisting Neoliberalism Program. They envision sustainable agriculture, desertification, gender and development as other areas of connection; this project has furthermore built enthusiasm to forge a synergy among these campaign issues, using the GMO campaign as a key entry point.  The work done in this project also lends additional support to the regional African GMO campaign, of which FoE Ghana is an active member; FoE Ghana is now better able to provide strategic support for campaign planning and implementation to other regional groups.

However, this collaborative project faced challenges in terms of difficulty traveling between the two countries, imposed by poor roadways, language barriers, and border controls. This affected the project’s timeframes and planning.  The groups realize that they face a significant challenge in terms of the Togo and Ghana governments’ very positive stance toward multinational business, a stance that makes them sympathetic to pro-GMO agri-business; thus far their governments have not indicated opposition to GMOs.

what next: FoE Ghana matched FoEI’s support for this project; however, FoE Ghana and FoE Togo are now seeking further funding for GMO campaigning from agencies in their countries. Another important goal is to further share the results of their policy review with FoEI members, as well as farmers, consumer associations, policy makers and academics.

with thanks to our funders: the dutch ministry of foreign affairs and oxfam novib

To counter this, Friends of the Earth Ghana developed awareness-raising materials and workshops, to provide students and teachers with information on the draft Mining Policy, in line with the aspirations of local communities and sustainable development.

what happened: FoE Ghana organised target groups, carried out preliminary consultations, and developed awareness-raising materials for schools and workshops.  They also formed a team of mining policy experts. The workshops and materials reached more than 3,000 school children in southern Ghana, with students and teachers discussing the issues and engaging in national mining policy debates.

what is changing:  Community response to the programmes has been very positive, as gauged by evaluation forms. Students were made aware of the Ghana’s draft Mining Policy, as well as the wider negative impacts of mining on the environment, health, food security, human rights and livelihoods. FoE Ghana received several letters from community leaders asking them to organise similar programmes in their communities, and feedback from school teachers was positive.

This work also strengthened FoE Ghana’s campaigns at the community level, and stimulated wider participation in policy discussions around mining’s impacts in all segments of society. FoE Ghana continues to be a key player in a coalition against destructive mining practices. This coalition, led by Foe Ghana, has made a proposal to amend the mine and minerals law to make it more human-centred.

There is also increased recognition among policy makers about the work of Friends of the Earth International and FoE Ghana, and two foundations have expressed an interest in funding their mining campaign work.

what we learned: The project has strengthened FoE Ghana’s ability to produce reading materials for school children in order to enhance their campaigns.

However, this project faced a significant challenge, given that mining’s contribution to GDP and foreign exchange causes it to be seen as an important sector which generates employment. Countering the mining companies’ well-funded public relations campaigns, which are directed at mining communities, added to this challenge. Furthermore, the limited documentation on human rights abuses forced FoE Ghana to be very careful with its facts in public presentations.

what next: The project has generated a great deal of technical information that will be fed into the Friends of the Earth International mining campaign, as well as the gender and mining programme. FoE Ghana would like to help FoEI develop a brochure on the story of mining and its impacts in Ghana, perhaps to serve as an African case study on mining practices.

with thanks to our funders: the dutch ministry of foreign affairs

what happened: Three years ago this program began with the development of a technique for drying fruits and vegetables. During the first year, FoE Cameroon’s staff learned the technique. In the program’s second year, 250 women from 50 different groups were trained. The aim for the third year was to support these groups so that they could buy further production equipment and materials they require.

what changed: Thanks to the funds obtained, this goal was achieved in 2007 with the purchase of three dryers and materials required to pack the products properly. As a consequence, the women have almost doubled their production capacity. They were also able to improve the goods’ quality and packaging. These advances generated added value, higher incomes and new jobs. In addition, it helped engender greater confidence in the organization among the different groups.

what next: FoE Cameroon’s second proposal for an economic alternative consists of producing the necessary bio-gas to dry fruits and vegetables. This would allow people to break their dependence on gas companies, reduce their production cost and reach internal and external markets at more competitive prices.

with thanks to our funders: the dutch ministry of foreign affairs

Even legal logging does not imply sustainability. Most concessions neither have nor require an approved management plan. Companies often cut only a handful of tree species, abandoning around one third of the timber logged as waste. The majority of logging companies operating in the Congo Basin are actually European. Most timber extracted is exported to Europe, either directly or by passing through China.

what happened: The major aim of Friends of the Earth Cameroon/Centre for Environment and Development is to protect biodiversity in Central Africa and halt illegal and unsustainable logging. Both the certification of sustainability and the certification of legality appear to be potential solutions. In order to achieve this, FoE Cameroon has trained people around the country to monitor illegal and unsustainable logging. We have also organized the training of civil society representatives on monitoring certification processes. 

Importantly, those trained on the social and ecological standards of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified operations were able to provide crucial data for a complaint against the certifier, ICILA, to the FSC Secretariat. FoE Cameroon also challenged the first FSC certificate awarded to Wijma, a Dutch company that does not deserve this label. After pressure from NGOs, Wijma disappeared from the FSC’s list of certificate holders. In order to obtain international support for this struggle, FoE Cameroon has also taken journalists into the field to witness the forest devastation caused by companies which have attempted to gain certification.

Carrying out research and providing input in a variety of fora is a key strategy of FoE Cameroon’s work. This includes working with the EU on the development of voluntary partnership agreements (VPAs), which would commit importing countries to buy only timber “licensed” as “legal” from exporting countries. (These agreements are part of the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade, or FLEGT).

In an effort to further inform the discussion on sustainability certification, FoE Cameroon published an assessment of the relevance of the different certification mechanisms within the context of Central African forests. The main conclusions of this report (with regard to socio-economic aspects, corruption, participation and access to information) have fed into above-mentioned discussion on VPAs.

Friends of the Earth Cameroon has also drafted a report on industrial plantations and their impact on biodiversity destruction, specifically their impact on the forests and forest people. The report was used to start a discussion among NGOs and journalists in Cameroon, with the aim to increase monitoring of industrial plantations. The report also formed the basis of a complaint to the OECD against two industrial plantations.

what changed: This research showed that the certification system can improve the behaviour of some companies. In Cameroon, two out of the five companies considered for certification did improve: TRC and Rougier. TRC abandoned more than 20,000 ha of forest in the concession claimed by local communities. TRC also established a process for dealing with conflicts against local communities, and has established “no-go zones” in wildlife-rich areas of their concession. Rougier requested advice to improve communication with communities as a conflict-prevention tool.

with thanks to our funders: the dutch ministry of foreign affairs

This threat is exacerbated by a lack of legal, administrative and infrastructural frameworks to resist or regulate these products. For example, Cameroon has had biosafety legislation in place since 2003, but these laws are too weak to prevent GMOs’ entry. In Swaziland, the gap left by famine and a complete regulatory vacuum is filling up with donated food aid containing GMOs. In addition, awareness amongst the public about GMOs and the risks they pose is, generally speaking, low in this region.

Friends of the Earth Cameroon (Centre for Environment and Development), Ghana, Mali (Guamina), Nigeria (Environmental Rights Action), Sierra Leone, Togo and Swaziland (Yonge Nawe Environmental Action Group) aimed to address this risk because, as Edith Abilogo of FoE Cameroon said, “the need for measures to control, inspect and detect GMOs cannot be overemphasised.”

what happened: Most groups conducted testing for GMOs on samples of crops and food, including those sourced from food aid. In addition, some groups, such as Nigeria and Swaziland, developed regimes to build capacity for further testing in future.

As a result, many of the groups found GMOs in their food supply. For example, FoE Nigeria tested a total of 108 samples selected from Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Ghana; of these, six samples from Nigeria and one from Ghana were contaminated with GMOs. According to FoE Nigeria, “These results obtained from the project underscore the fact that the African continent has become a target for contamination.”

Some groups, including FoE Cameroon, Nigeria, Ghana and Swaziland used their testing results to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the current laws and to influence legislation, and carried out lobbying with parliamentarians and policy makers. Many of the groups also used these test findings as an opportunity for media work, to counter some governments’ denial of GMOs in their food supply.

The groups also sought to raise awareness by holding workshops, seminars, courses, meetings and even conferences about the risks posed by GMOs, in both rural and urban areas. FoE Nigeria also started a newsletter about food, agriculture and GMOs titled “hot plate”. FoE Ghana developed a brochure on GMOs, FoE Swaziland created a 30-minute documentary and radio program, and FoE Cameroon produced a very successful cartoon book for youth. FoE Sierra Leone made use of television, radio and even public wall murals for its campaign.

Although FoE Mali didn’t carry out GMO testing, it did conduct workshops to generate debate amongst all sectors of civil society, to allow them to better understand GMOs’ risks and international laws that govern them.

what is changing: Most groups reported that public awareness on GMOs had increased among the grassroots, opinion leaders, community leaders, farmers and market women; and that grassroots resistance to GMOs was building up. Sustainable agriculture was encouraged, and community leaders were empowered to make informed technological choices.

FoE Mali’s awareness-raising workshops successfully conveyed this complex subject to participants. The ensuing debates helped the group formulate an action plan, and government officers committed themselves to support peasant organizations as this action plan is implemented.

FoE Swaziland’s new media productions also raised the profile of this issue, and a TV station re-ran their documentary for free due to overwhelming popular demand. The group also provided input on a legal framework for biosafety, which was incorporated into regulation awaiting parliamentary approval.

FoE Cameroon succeeded in one of its main objectives: using the law to stop the spread of GMOs by pushing their government to elaborate its existing regulation. Furthermore, their local media are now very active in raising people’s awareness on GMO risks.

FoE Ghana also achieved a major success, bringing inadequacies with Ghana’s draft Biosafety Bill to the fore at their workshop for policy makers and parliamentarians. As a result, civil society, led by FoE Ghana and another NGO, has been asked by the government to present its concerns about the draft Biosafety Bill.

FoE Nigeria’s project was very effective, and government officials attending their conference, “promised to carry the people along in the Biosaftey Bill making process.” The group added that, “There has been huge press coverage of the project,” with FoE Nigeria now seen as a major player on the issue as a voice of the people.

FoE Sierra Leone also successfully used its GMO testing to persuade the government to pledge support for local farmers and promote food security, instead of relying on food aid. Their government has also set up a strict port and boarder post to track down illegal imports of rice and other food items.

Friends of the Earth Ghana and Friends of the Earth Togo received funding to carry out joint capacity building, networking and campaigning on GMOs. Their goal was to protect traditional agriculture and the integrity of biodiversity through the establishment of responsible policy that discourages GMO introduction and ensures food security, food sovereignty and farmers’ rights to livelihoods. They also aimed to increase the effectiveness of the GMO campaign of Friends of the Earth International in terms of sustainable development targets and poverty reduction.

Most groups reported that their projects built up alliances with civil society, target groups and communities. Their organisations’ capacity to work on GMOs, biosafety, food and agricultural issues was also strengthened.

what we learned: One challenge, cited by FoE Cameroon, is visually demonstrating the differences between GM and conventional crops; they found people were only convinced when shown via their GMO testing regime. FoE Nigeria said that despite their campaign, a significant proportion of society is still unaware of GMOs. In Ghana, campaigners faced the challenge of conveying complex GMO information to mostly illiterate farmers and market women.

FoE Nigeria also reasoned that the problem lies not just with corporations, but with their public bodies’ weak law enforcement attitude and officials’ possible collusion. The group implored government to carry out proper screening procedures to rule out GM imports.

In countries such as Ghana, which must grapple with GMOs in food aid, the groups face the additional challenge of undoing extensive, well-financed public relations work of agencies such as USAID, which promote GMOs. In a similar way, industry collaboration with African governments to promote GMOs further adds to the groups’ daunting task of grassroots education.

what next: Some groups need to do further testing in foreign laboratories to independently confirm the presence and level of GMO contamination in their samples. They also wish to do ongoing monitoring for GMOs on market shelves, to sustain pressure on their governments to take their biosafety responsibilities seriously. They believe they need to continue and intensify their campaigns, given major gaps remaining in African nations’ biosafety legislation.

with thanks to our funders: the sigrid rausing trust and the dutch ministry of foreign affairs

To expose Shell’s dereliction of duty, Friends of the Earth International took out two-page advertisements in the Volkskrant (Netherlands) and a one-page ad in the Guardian (UK) newspaper. The ads included signatures from 8,000 people worldwide who urged Shell to “Use your profits to clean up your mess”. A stylised map featured Shell logos dripping with oil to pinpoint hot spots of environmental damage caused by the fossil fuel giant.

At the same time, the Shell Accountability Coalition, of which FoEI is a member, released a major report highlighting major damage caused by Shell’s operations. From gas flares and oil spills in Nigeria, leaking pipelines and accidents in South Africa, air pollution and threatened marine life in the USA, to burst pipelines and ruined farms in Barbados, the report highlights major environmental damage and threats wrought by Shell.

See the ad and report here.

photo credit: israel aloja

with thanks to our funders: the dutch ministry of foreign affairs and the isvara foundation

In Europe, Friends of the Earth collaborated with bi-regional networks and the Europe-wide Seattle to Brussels Network. Together we monitored and put pressure on the European Commission, Parliament and European Union member states with regard to ongoing FTA negotiations with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, Central America, the Andean Community, Korea and the EuroMed Free Trade Area.

In Asia, we campaigned against the US-Malaysia FTA and the EU-ASEAN FTA. We did this by working with farmers, lobbying the region’s governments, and participating in various demonstrations and protests.

In Latin America, we ran a strong campaign against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). This culminated in a campaign around the popular referendum which allowed Costa Ricans to vote on CAFTA, held in October 2007. It brought about 150,000 people into the streets of the capital, San Jose.

With the referendum result showing in favour of CAFTA by a very narrow margin, FoEI’s battle on FTAs is now continuing in the EU. In the current phase, we are building alliances, particularly with the farmers’ movement. At the same time, we are supporting and developing concrete alternatives to “free” trade along the lines of food sovereignty and solidarity economies.

Resistance to the CAFTA in Costa Rica.

with thanks to our funders: the dutch ministry of foreign affairs

The resolution asks Member States to adopt binding legislation on a moratorium for fossil-fuel project funding from the European Investment Bank (EIB) and European Export Credit Agencies (ECAs). The measure is important because half of all new greenhouse-gas-polluting industrial projects in developing countries take some type of support from ECAs.  The EIB in particular is a very large financier of fossil fuel projects, providing 58 percent of public financing for fossil fuels worldwide – when it should instead be funding a transition to clean, sustainable energy supplies.

Specifically, the resolution called for the “discontinuation of public support, via export credit agencies and public investment banks, for fossil fuel projects.”  It also asks EU governments to propose legislative mechanisms that would force export credit agencies and the EIB to "take account of the climate change implications of the funded projects" and to "impose a moratorium on funding until sufficient data are available." The resolution further recommends a study to amend the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO’s) Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), to allow for the compulsory licensing of environmentally necessary technologies, and calls for the redoubling of efforts to increase renewable energy and energy efficient technology transfer.

A third noteworthy element of success is that the resolution envisages a revision of WTO rules on subsidies and anti-dumping to address the issue of "environmental dumping". 

The resolution was widely welcomed by FoEI and other groups campaigning on ECAs and the EIB as it comes after years of intensive campaigning to phase out funding for fossil fuels. In addition, The resolution gives a strong signal that international trade is not innocent — it has an impact on our climate — and that climate concerns need to be mainstreamed in trade policy.

read the resolution

with thanks to our funders: the dutch ministry of foreign affairs, the c.s. mott foundation and the wallace global fund

Calling it a step in the right direction, FoE Europe said the second Communication on the European Transparency Initiatve (ETI) was nonetheless too weak and limited, given the EU’s global relevance and organised lobby groups' influence over EU policies. In particular, FoE Europe criticized the voluntary approach favoured by the Commission as beeing too weak and too limited.

FoE’s Christine Pohl from Friends of the Earth said, "By first trying out a voluntary lobbying register, the European Commission is making EU citizens wait several more years before they get effective EU lobbying transparency. The whole system depends on an appeal to the lobbyists' conscience or their fear of damaging their reputation. But those that want to stay in the shadows will never register or disclose financial information on a voluntary basis."

Instead, FoE Europe and the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Regulation in the EU believe the Commissions must make precise requirement on lobbyists to disclose relevant financial information on budgets, clients, and/or funding sources. A requirement to disclose income per client has been strongly opposed by the for-profit lobbyists, even though in the US similar obligations for lobbying firms have worked well.

A few weeks previous to the communication, the Commission took an important step towards improving transparency on special advisers, by releasing a list of 55 names of special advisers to the Commission and ensuring they had no conflicts of interest. However, much remains to be done to improve transparency and ensure a balanced composition of the many expert groups advising the Commission. Regrettably, the Communication on the ETI does not put forward specific proposals in this area.

with thanks to our funders: the dutch ministry of foreign affairs

On November 30, 2007 our call for an aviation tax was answered by Members of Parliament (MPs) from Belgium, France, Germany, the UK and the Netherlands. They were brought together in Antwerp by FoE Europe, for the ceremonial signing of a declaration that affirms their commitment to an aviation fuel tax on flights between northwestern European countries.

Those MPs who ensured their actions reflected their words, by taking the train from Amsterdam to Antwerp, were greeted on board by the FoE Netherlands campaign's spoof character, the "Non-Flying Dutchman".

The MPs' current proposal is a strategic step toward a broader, Europe-wide tax, and underlines multi-party, international support for a tax to these curb fast-growing aviation emissions.

Meet the “Non-flying Dutchman".
Read the Antwerp Declaration.
Read more about the report.

with thanks to our funders: the dutch ministry of foreign affairs

shutting down greenwash: The ad, published in a number of newspapers and magazines in Western European countries in April and May, is intended to portray Shell as green because a tiny proportion of carbon dioxide from its operations is used to enhance growth in greenhouses. Yet as Anne van Schaik, an anti-globalisation campaigner with FoE Netherlands said, “in Nigeria, gas flaring by Shell causes 60 times more greenhouse gas emissions than the carbon dioxide that is reused by Dutch farmers to grow flowers." Thousands of people across the globe suffer daily from the effects of the pollution emitted by Shell’s refineries. 

a win in the netherlands: On July 5th, the Dutch Advertising Authority instructed Shell to stop misleading the public, following the FoE complaint. The Authority confirmed that it was a misrepresentation, since only a tiny proportion of Shell's total carbon dioxide emissions is piped into greenhouses. Shell had also claimed in the advert that it uses its “waste sulphur to make concrete”. The Dutch Advertising Authority also qualified this claim as misleading because this could be interpreted as applying to all of the waste sulphur generated by Shell. In reality, a major part of Shell's sulphur waste is used for fuel for sea ships and is finally released in the air. Sea ships are one of the biggest sources of sulphur dioxide pollution.

In England the case is still pending, but in Belgium the claim was rejected by the Advertisement Authority. In response, Paul de Clerck, head of FoE Europe’s Corporates campaign said, "In the advertisement Shell used strongly misleading environmental claims. The fact that the Belgium Advertisement Authority didn't see any problems clearly underlines the need for strict European-wide rules to prevent greenwashing advertisements by multinational companies such as Shell."

Read the International Herald Tribune's blog on the advert here.

with thanks to our funders: the dutch ministry of foreign affairs and the isvara foundation

The Sakhalin II project is responsible for a number of environmental and social concerns. These include infringing on the feeding grounds of the rare Western Gray Whale, disrupting the local community, and tapping into fossil fuels which will produce over a billion tonnes of carbon dioxide.

They also say that more than a million tonnes of waste from construction work for the LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) plant on the island has been dumped in Aniva Bay, an economically important fishing area. Around one-third of Sakhalin Island's residents depend on the fishing industry.

The project is responsible for some 800 kilometers of pipelines running from north to south of the island, crossing through around 1000 rivers, many of them fine salmon sources. Construction work has caused mud to harm water quality, and rivers will be vulnerable to potential future oil spills. The pipeline also crosses earthquake fault lines.

 with thanks to our funders: the dutch ministry of foreign affairs, the wallace global fund and the c.s. mott foundation