View previous stories
	Corporate monopolies "may dominate green economy" by SciDev.Net / ETC Group India / Canada   New Delhi: The global push towards a "green economy" risks being hijacked by large corporate monopolies trying to gain control over natural resources, a report has warned.   There is a growing emphasis on the concept of a green economy in the run-up to the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), in June 2012, in Brazil. A green economy is widely seen as a way of tackling environmental challenges including climate change, failing fisheries and water security.   But a new report has warned that global companies, positioning themselves for a post-petrochemical future, may use the idea as a pretext for gaining control over biomass resources, which would eventually replace petroleum as the feedstock for energy and for industrial products.   The report, published by an international nongovernmental organisation Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Conservation (ETC Group), in Canada, says that most of this biomass is in developing countries, where it is managed by poor peasants, forest dwellers, fishing communities and livestock-owners whose livelihoods depend on them.   The report urges developing countries to craft policies that will protect them from such encroachments.   If they do not, they risk being "seduced" by the promise of quick green techno-fixes, which appear as "a politically expedient" alternative plan to save the climate, the report says, because "techno fixes are not capable of addressing systemic problems of poverty, hunger and environmental crises".   "In the absence of effective and socially responsive governance and government oversight, the bio-based economy will result in further environmental degradation, unprecedented loss of biodiversity and the loss of remaining commons," it says.   The report"s authors said they were not rejecting the concept of green economy, but that countries should build sustainable economies based on using new, more socially and ecologically sustainable economic models.   Hoysala Chanakya, principal research scientist, at the centre for sustainable technologies at the Indian Institute of Science, said that the report was right to highlight that there was potential for corporate take-overs in the absence of adequate policy support and that developing countries need to have policies to ensure that public resources do not get monopolised.   He added that the assumption that technological advances in algal or plant-based biofuel systems, for example, would solve environmental problems, is based partly on hype.   "The [biomass-based] technologies are still in a stage of infancy," Chanakya said. They also leave lots of organic waste which can be polluting, he added.   Other sustainable development policy experts in India suggested that a solution to some of the problems forecast by ETC Group was to decentralise food and energy security programmes and push for small, farmer-centred agriculture.   Instead of the "overarching generalised programmes involving blanket application of solar or hydrogen power" developing countries should move towards decentralised, locally-managed food and energy security programmes that are rooted in their unique local environments, said Rajeswari Raina, scientist at National Institute of Science, Technology and Development Studies.   Ambuj Sagar, professor of policy studies at the Indian Institute of Technology, agreed: "We need a different narrative that places value on the livelihoods of small farmers in developing countries rather than on food production at lowest cost and protecting interests of farmers in industrialised countries through subsidies."   "Private-sector and market-oriented food and agriculture systems are unlikely to deliver this kind of outcome since that is not the primary objective of these actors and institutions."   Dec 2011   Big Agribusiness influence threatens to override Public Interest. (ETC Group)   A new report that documents the growing influence of agribusiness on the multilateral food system and the lack of transparency in research funding has been released by the international civil society organization ETC Group.   Agribusiness muscles in on Public Goods, presents three case studies – one involving the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and two involving CGIAR Centers (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research) – which point to a dangerous trend that will worsen rather than solve the problem of global hunger.   The report details the involvement of, among others, Nestlé, Heineken, Monsanto and others.   “It is unacceptable that the UN is giving multinational agribusiness privileged access to alter their agricultural policies,” said Pat Mooney, Executive Director of ETC Group, who has been involved in the field for 40 years.   “It is ridiculous that the key organizations responsible for agricultural research have no credible data on the extent of corporate involvement in their work. Governments and UN secretariats have forgotten that their first task is to serve the public – not corporations.”   The report shows that multinational corporations are now seeing their future profitability in “emerging economies,” and they are finally taking notice of the international institutions that have been quietly working throughout the global South for half a century.   However this new interest in UN agencies is causing “mandate-muddle” as companies demand that policy be rewritten to better reflect their interests, including allowing privileged access to publicly held germplasm*. Public institutions are tending to look the other way when Big Ag harms peasant agriculture.   “Public institutions related to food and agriculture are mandated to support the poor and hungry.   Governments need to address the big- and small-scale conflicts of interest, beginning with a long overdue investigation of the links between the international public and private sectors in food and agriculture. Based on our initial conversations with UN officials about this research, we are hopeful that this will happen,” concludes Mooney.   * A germplasm is a collection of genetic resources for an organism. http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5305 Visit the related web page
	Unfortunately, relying on companies to do ''do the right thing'' is not enough by Global Witness & agencies   February 2012   Oil companies lobbying for less transparency.   More transparency is needed in the oil, gas and mining industries to prevent the international scramble for Africa’s natural resources from fuelling still deeper corruption and instability, according to a new report from Global Witness.   Based on investigations in Angola and Nigeria, Rigged? highlights a risk that complex corporate deals for accessing natural resources could be used corruptly to benefit vested interests in these countries. The report also points to major concerns over opaque sales of mining assets in the Democratic Republic of Congo to offshore companies.   “Many resource-rich countries in Africa have suffered deeply from corruption, conflict and unfair foreign exploitation,” said Gavin Hayman, Director of Campaigns at Global Witness. “Their citizens have a right to know how oil and mineral deals are being done, who is taking part in these deals and where the money is going.”   Recent years have seen a big increase in public disclosure of revenue payments to governments from the extractive industries. But that positive trend has been cast into doubt as international oil companies threaten legal action in the U.S to stop the Securities Exchange Commission implementing strong transparency rules. Oil companies are also lobbying to water down plans for similar rules in the European Union. Despite ‘big oil’ calling for a global ‘level playing field’, it appears to be fervently undermining efforts to create just that – a new global standard for transparency of revenue payments.   The new report points to a corruption risk that small and obscure companies in Angola and Nigeria could act as fronts for government officials or their allies, in resource deals that often involve investments from major international companies. The report finds that:   In Angola, several small companies which have won access to the oil sector – sometimes as partners of Western oil firms – do not identify their ultimate owners or are owned by people with the same names as government officials.   In Nigeria, valuable stakes in oil blocks ended up with obscure companies, one apparently controlled by a senator and another by a businessman close to the country’s then-head of state.   Additionally, in the DRC: The state mining company Gecamines sold stakes in four major mines to opaque offshore companies, at what appears to be a fraction of their value, according to most reported commercial estimates.   Global Witness is calling for:   1. The commissioners of the SEC in the United States to pass final rules that meet the intent of the Dodd Frank law, requiring companies to publish what they pay to governments for each project that they operate in the oil, gas and mining industries without exemptions.   2. Europe, China and other jurisdictions to pass strong laws requiring companies to publish what they pay to governments for each project that they operate in the oil, gas and mining industries.   3. International oil and mining companies to stop lobbying to undermine transparency laws while claiming to be in favour of transparency.   4. Full disclosure of the beneficial ownership of companies bidding for extractive rights to become an international norm via such mechanisms as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative and the domestic laws of resource-rich countries in Africa.   A full copy of the report can be found at http://www.globalwitness.org/library/rigged-scramble-africas-oil-gas-and-minerals   Jan 2012   The perils of doing business without community consent, by James Ensor. (Oxfam)   The recent decision over by Indonesia to revoke the gold mining exploration permit of Australian Arc Exploration (ARX) due to violent community protests demonstrates the perils of doing business without a social licence to operate.   Whilst Oxfam cannot pass judgment on the Arc Exploration case, it''s clear that communities held grave concerns that the proposed mine would threaten forests and water supplies. It is tragic that this has resulted in loss of life.   A social licence to operate is gaining informed consent – without intimidation or coercion - from communities affected by a proposed mine, well before the heavy machinery rolls into town.   As Australian mining and exploration companies increase their activities in resource-rich, developing countries, there is growing societal and investor expectation that they will secure the consent of landowners, respect human rights, conduct operations with a high level of transparency and ensure communities get a fair share of their resource wealth.   But all too often, consultation with communities is mistaken for actual consent to commence digging.   The Australian debate between farmers and miners generated by coal seam gas extraction is but one example of the worldwide phenomenon of growing competition for scarce land and water resources driving conflict. Responsible mining by Australian companies has never been more important, and can also reduce the risks of conflict and corruption.   Clearly, the mining industry, government and NGOs should increasingly work together to ensure that communities that are directly affected by mining operations are part of decision-making processes and benefit from the economic wealth generated by mining. This is vital to reduce the risks of conflict, as seen in Indonesia last week.   The Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI) is a global standard for managing revenue from natural resources that requires companies to publish what they pay in taxes, royalties and other payments to governments, and for governments to publish what they receive. Ideally, the two should add up. It provides an opportunity for communities hold their governments to account for expenditure in essential services such as schools and hospitals.   Indonesia has announced it will become an EITI implementing country. Regionally, there is greater attention on business and human rights. The ARX example is not the first time the National Commission on Human Rights (Indonesia) has investigated the activities of Australian mining companies.   In January 2011, the Philippines'' Human Rights Commission advised the Philippine Government to consider withdrawing OceanaGold Ltd''s rights to a mining project because the Australian miner had violated rights of indigenous people, through forced demolition of houses, insufficient compensation, and harassment and intimidation. Unfortunately, relying on companies to do ''do the right thing'' is not enough.   30th December 2011   UN report calls for action to clean up Congo’s minerals trade and end impunity.   Governments and companies must redouble their efforts to implement international supply chain control standards aimed at ending the trade in conflict minerals, a new UN report shows.   In a report published today, the UN Group of Experts on the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) notes positive impacts where companies are implementing supply chain controls, known as due diligence, in more stable areas. These include improvements in mining sector governance and a rise in mineral production and exports.   However while international due diligence standards for the mineral trade were announced by the UN and OECD a year ago, and some companies have taken steps to meet them, implementation by many firms dealing in Congolese minerals is still absent. This lack of supply chain controls is allowing militias and criminal networks in the Congolese army to finance themselves via the gold trade in particular.   “The pathway to a clean minerals trade that excludes human rights abusers and benefits the people of eastern Congo has been clear for over a year,” said Sophia Pickles, Campaigner at Global Witness. “It is critical that businesses follow the agreed international guidelines and become part of the solution to the nexus of minerals and violence in the region. Governments of countries that trade or use minerals must implement the recommendation of this report that they incorporate these due diligence standards into their own national laws.”   Many Group of Experts conclusions match the findings of a series of Global Witness’s field visits during 2011, not least regarding the role of certain Congo-based mineral exporters who have been purchasing minerals from areas where armed groups operate.   These activities breach UN sanctions, as well as a regulation issued by the Government of DRC in September, which requires traders and exporters operating in the DRC to adhere to OECD due diligence guidance, or face penalties.   As yet, however, no enforcement action has been taken against these firms. The UN Security Council has not imposed sanctions on any company involved in the conflict minerals trade for years, despite abundant evidence gathered by the Group of Experts, Global Witness and others.   Information gathered by the Group of Experts reveals how powerful former rebels are strengthening their grip over parts of Congo’s minerals trade. For example, Ex-CNDP commander General Bosco Ntaganda, indicted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes, is orchestrating large-scale smuggling operations in full view of the Congolese authorities.   “It is vital that the incoming Congolese government tackles impunity in its military head-on and brings notorious human rights abusers to justice.” Visit the related web page
	View more stories