Monthly Archives: March 2016

Exxon is the one guilty of ‘chilling’ climate science!

Exxon is under pressure – and it’s not only because of low oil prices. Rather it’s climate change and the associated shareholder and legal scrutiny that has put Exxon’s back firmly to the wall.

Following fast on the news that the US Securities and Exchange Commission has forced Exxon to allow shareholder votes on climate resolutions, two more US Attorneys General (AG) have joined those of New York and California in confirming investigations into Exxon’s climate change disclosures.

They now form part of a coalition of 20 AGs that came together this week to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for their climate deceptions. The idea of a US AG investigating a company of such political and economic heft – on climate change – once seemed unimaginable.

Maybe it’s that ‘unimaginability’ that has resulted in Exxon’s continued mishandling of its response to the recent climate-focused shareholder actions, journalistic exposés, and legal investigations. With every development, it increasingly appears that Exxon is wholly unequipped to deal with the tectonic political, legal, and societal shifts we’re witnessing on climate action.

The old certainty of a pro-industry White House, whoever the occupant, is fast eroding. Shareholders are starting to think beyond the next dividend cheque to the long-term sustainability – in financial terms – of this 19th century industry. And the societal standing of the industry appears destined to follow tobacco’s trajectory.

This is very much a brave new world for Exxon. Its navigation attempts to date suggest it is not in possession of the correct map.

One wonders if Exxon regrets its decision to forego membership of the European-led Oil and Gas Climate Initiative – a seemingly public relations driven effort to position oil companies as an essential part of the solution to climate change.

Instead Exxon and its US counterparts considered it unnecessary and went it alone. Under increasing attack, Exxon may have preferred some comforting company. But looking at Exxon’s reaction to recent events one doesn’t sense any acknowledgement of a missed opportunity.

Exxon didn’t want shareholders to vote on climate. It lost

Let’s take its reaction to shareholder efforts to force greater disclosure on climate risk through a shareholder resolution. Shareholders are increasingly aware of the fundamental organisational challenge that climate risk presents to oil companies.

But rather than follow Shell and BP’s tactical masterstroke of supporting similar resolutions, Exxon asked the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to exclude its resolution from even going to a vote.

Did Exxon really think the SEC – itself facing calls from investors to do more on climate – would rule in its favour? If so, it looks like Exxon is using an old playbook for a game whose rules have fundamentally changed. Exxon’s seemingly out of date tactics are a worrying proxy for the company’s ability to handle the far greater risk posed by a low carbon transition.

The SEC rejected Exxon’s arguments and by allowing votes on key climate change resolutions have provided the opportunity for shareholders to make their views clear. Investors need to ensure Exxon’s board are using the right map to navigate that pathway or at the very least admit to currently following the wrong one.

Investigative journalists doing their job inflames Exxon

Then there’s the company’s initial response to the allegations made by Columbia journalism students via the Los Angeles Times about what Exxon knew and disclosed about climate change.

Ken Cohen, Exxon’s vice president of Public and Government Affairs chose to fire off a letter to the President of Columbia University, accusing Columbia’s reports of “cherry picking” and “distorting statements” and, most severely, “research misconduct.”

After referencing Exxon and the university’s “numerous and productive relationships”, Cohen finished by demanding a formal inquiry.

In response Steven Coll, the dean of Columbia Journalism School issued a scathing letter that stated: “Your letter disputes the substance of the two articles in a number of respects, but consists largely of attacks on the project’s journalists. I have concluded that your allegations are unsupported by evidence.

“More than that, I have been troubled to discover that you have made serious allegations of professional misconduct in your letter against members of the project team even though you or your Media Relations colleagues possess email records showing that your allegations are false.”

He concluded: “What your letter really advocates is that the factual information accurately reported in the article, and unchallenged by you, be interpreted differently.”

Exxon’s response was also criticised by crisis management experts like Jonathan Bernstein of Bernstein Crisis Management Inc, whose advises the company to “apologize”.

Funders of investigations also in the in the line of fire

The oil industry’s PR apparatus also rose up in misguided defense of Exxon – via the industry-funded ‘Energy in Depth’ site – targeting philanthropists including the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and Rockefeller Family Fund, ‘accusing‘ them of funding the InsideClimate News and Columbia reports.

Exxon followed up by calling the reports “discredited” and the funders “activists”. It’s not news that foundations fund public interest investigative journalism -and it doesn’t make funders activists just because the target doesn’t like the findings – but that didn’t stop Exxon from trying to drum up a scandal that doesn’t exist.

Exxon appears to see no irony in it and its industry peers funnelling millions of dollars to those fighting climate mitigation and challenging climate science.

And that brings us to the company’s official response to the latest AG investigations – those of Massachusetts and the US Virgin Islands. In a statement which kicks off with the warning that “we are actively assessing all legal options”, Exxon goes onto to warn of the “chilling effect” of the investigations on company research:

“The allegations are based on the false premise that ExxonMobil reached definitive conclusions about anthropogenic climate change before the world’s experts and before the science itself had matured, and then withheld it from the broader scientific community. Such a claim is preposterous … Contrary to activists’ claims, our company’s deliberations decades ago yielded no definitive conclusions …

“The investigations targeting our company threaten to have a chilling effect on private sector research. The allegations repeated today are an attempt to limit free speech and are the antithesis of scientific inquiry. Left unchallenged, they could stifle the search for solutions to the real risks from climate change.”

Exxon appears to believe no investigations should even take place. This is despite the very serious allegations going to securities and consumer laws. That’s how the law works: allegation – investigation – finding. But to Exxon this is all a case of “politically motivated” actions and “discredited reporting” that should be automatically dismissed.

The achievement of the ambition expressed in the Paris Agreement requires transformative legislation and corporate strategy.

In that context one might legitimately question: whose actions might have the most societally detrimental ‘chilling effect’ on tackling climate change? Exxon’s or the Attorneys General’s’?

 


 

Louise Rouse is an investment campaign consultant to Greenpeace UK.

Naomi Ages is attorney and campaigner with Greenpeace USA.

This article was originally published by Greenpeace Energydesk. Some additional reporting by The Ecologist.

 

Exxon is the one guilty of ‘chilling’ climate science!

Exxon is under pressure – and it’s not only because of low oil prices. Rather it’s climate change and the associated shareholder and legal scrutiny that has put Exxon’s back firmly to the wall.

Following fast on the news that the US Securities and Exchange Commission has forced Exxon to allow shareholder votes on climate resolutions, two more US Attorneys General (AG) have joined those of New York and California in confirming investigations into Exxon’s climate change disclosures.

They now form part of a coalition of 20 AGs that came together this week to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for their climate deceptions. The idea of a US AG investigating a company of such political and economic heft – on climate change – once seemed unimaginable.

Maybe it’s that ‘unimaginability’ that has resulted in Exxon’s continued mishandling of its response to the recent climate-focused shareholder actions, journalistic exposés, and legal investigations. With every development, it increasingly appears that Exxon is wholly unequipped to deal with the tectonic political, legal, and societal shifts we’re witnessing on climate action.

The old certainty of a pro-industry White House, whoever the occupant, is fast eroding. Shareholders are starting to think beyond the next dividend cheque to the long-term sustainability – in financial terms – of this 19th century industry. And the societal standing of the industry appears destined to follow tobacco’s trajectory.

This is very much a brave new world for Exxon. Its navigation attempts to date suggest it is not in possession of the correct map.

One wonders if Exxon regrets its decision to forego membership of the European-led Oil and Gas Climate Initiative – a seemingly public relations driven effort to position oil companies as an essential part of the solution to climate change.

Instead Exxon and its US counterparts considered it unnecessary and went it alone. Under increasing attack, Exxon may have preferred some comforting company. But looking at Exxon’s reaction to recent events one doesn’t sense any acknowledgement of a missed opportunity.

Exxon didn’t want shareholders to vote on climate. It lost

Let’s take its reaction to shareholder efforts to force greater disclosure on climate risk through a shareholder resolution. Shareholders are increasingly aware of the fundamental organisational challenge that climate risk presents to oil companies.

But rather than follow Shell and BP’s tactical masterstroke of supporting similar resolutions, Exxon asked the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to exclude its resolution from even going to a vote.

Did Exxon really think the SEC – itself facing calls from investors to do more on climate – would rule in its favour? If so, it looks like Exxon is using an old playbook for a game whose rules have fundamentally changed. Exxon’s seemingly out of date tactics are a worrying proxy for the company’s ability to handle the far greater risk posed by a low carbon transition.

The SEC rejected Exxon’s arguments and by allowing votes on key climate change resolutions have provided the opportunity for shareholders to make their views clear. Investors need to ensure Exxon’s board are using the right map to navigate that pathway or at the very least admit to currently following the wrong one.

Investigative journalists doing their job inflames Exxon

Then there’s the company’s initial response to the allegations made by Columbia journalism students via the Los Angeles Times about what Exxon knew and disclosed about climate change.

Ken Cohen, Exxon’s vice president of Public and Government Affairs chose to fire off a letter to the President of Columbia University, accusing Columbia’s reports of “cherry picking” and “distorting statements” and, most severely, “research misconduct.”

After referencing Exxon and the university’s “numerous and productive relationships”, Cohen finished by demanding a formal inquiry.

In response Steven Coll, the dean of Columbia Journalism School issued a scathing letter that stated: “Your letter disputes the substance of the two articles in a number of respects, but consists largely of attacks on the project’s journalists. I have concluded that your allegations are unsupported by evidence.

“More than that, I have been troubled to discover that you have made serious allegations of professional misconduct in your letter against members of the project team even though you or your Media Relations colleagues possess email records showing that your allegations are false.”

He concluded: “What your letter really advocates is that the factual information accurately reported in the article, and unchallenged by you, be interpreted differently.”

Exxon’s response was also criticised by crisis management experts like Jonathan Bernstein of Bernstein Crisis Management Inc, whose advises the company to “apologize”.

Funders of investigations also in the in the line of fire

The oil industry’s PR apparatus also rose up in misguided defense of Exxon – via the industry-funded ‘Energy in Depth’ site – targeting philanthropists including the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and Rockefeller Family Fund, ‘accusing‘ them of funding the InsideClimate News and Columbia reports.

Exxon followed up by calling the reports “discredited” and the funders “activists”. It’s not news that foundations fund public interest investigative journalism -and it doesn’t make funders activists just because the target doesn’t like the findings – but that didn’t stop Exxon from trying to drum up a scandal that doesn’t exist.

Exxon appears to see no irony in it and its industry peers funnelling millions of dollars to those fighting climate mitigation and challenging climate science.

And that brings us to the company’s official response to the latest AG investigations – those of Massachusetts and the US Virgin Islands. In a statement which kicks off with the warning that “we are actively assessing all legal options”, Exxon goes onto to warn of the “chilling effect” of the investigations on company research:

“The allegations are based on the false premise that ExxonMobil reached definitive conclusions about anthropogenic climate change before the world’s experts and before the science itself had matured, and then withheld it from the broader scientific community. Such a claim is preposterous … Contrary to activists’ claims, our company’s deliberations decades ago yielded no definitive conclusions …

“The investigations targeting our company threaten to have a chilling effect on private sector research. The allegations repeated today are an attempt to limit free speech and are the antithesis of scientific inquiry. Left unchallenged, they could stifle the search for solutions to the real risks from climate change.”

Exxon appears to believe no investigations should even take place. This is despite the very serious allegations going to securities and consumer laws. That’s how the law works: allegation – investigation – finding. But to Exxon this is all a case of “politically motivated” actions and “discredited reporting” that should be automatically dismissed.

The achievement of the ambition expressed in the Paris Agreement requires transformative legislation and corporate strategy.

In that context one might legitimately question: whose actions might have the most societally detrimental ‘chilling effect’ on tackling climate change? Exxon’s or the Attorneys General’s’?

 


 

Louise Rouse is an investment campaign consultant to Greenpeace UK.

Naomi Ages is attorney and campaigner with Greenpeace USA.

This article was originally published by Greenpeace Energydesk. Some additional reporting by The Ecologist.

 

Attorneys General unite to target Exxon climate crimes

In a move many are hailing as a “turning point” in the climate fight, 20 state Attorneys General this week launched an unprecedented, multi-state effort.

They will now investigate and prosecute the “high-funded and morally vacant forces” that have stymied attempts to combat global warming-starting with holding ExxonMobil and other industry giants accountable for fraud and suppression of key climate science.

“This is about facts, and science, and transparency”, said Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, who spoke at a press conference alongside New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, former Vice President Al Gore and seven other Attorneys General.

“Fossil fuel companies that deceived investors and consumers about the dangers of climate change should be, must be held accountable”, Healey continued, saying there is a “troubling disconnect between what Exxon knew, what industry folks knew, and the company and industry chose to share with investors and the American public.”

The coalition of Attorneys General from 16 states and the US Virgin Islands was convened by Schneiderman, who in November announced a state investigation into Exxon after reporting revealed that the oil giant had for decades known and suppressed evidence about the dangers that fossil fuels posed to the environment, and then purposely disseminated false information in order to boost its profits.

California has also launched an investigation and on Tuesday Healey and US Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Earl Walker confirmed their states have as well. Schneiderman said that additional states were pursuing similar action and that the purpose of the coalition is to work together in this “common interest.”

“The scope of the problem we are facing, the size of the corporate entities and alliances and trade associations [working against science and public interest] is massive and it requires a multi-state effort”, Schneiderman said.

‘We must do something transformational’

AG Walker said that Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are already “experiencing the effects of global warming”, from coral bleaching and the proliferation of seaweed, to ever-more powerful hurricanes.

“It is troubling that, as the polar caps melt, there are companies that are looking at that as an opportunity to go and drill, to go and get more oil. How selfish can you be?” Walker asked. “Your product is destroying this Earth, and you want to do what? Destroy the planet further”, he added, saying they have “documents” showing just that.

“We will not stop until we get to bottom of this and make it clear we have to do something transformational. We cannot continue to rely on fossil fuels.”

Environmental groups that have spearheaded the call for accountability and investigations into what Exxon knew heralded the announcements and the new AG climate coalition.

“This creates a huge sense of momentum. Exxon may have been able to brush aside a few isolated inquiries, but with more states jumping on board, these investigations are sure to generate some serious waves”, said May Boeve, executive director of 350.org, which on Tuesday launched the website ExxonKnew.org to share information about the investigations and petition the US Department of Justice and state Attorneys General to “hold Exxon accountable.”

“The Exxon revelations may turn out to be the largest corporate scandal in history”, Boeve continued. “Everyone is impacted by climate change, which means everyone has a stake in these investigations. A trial of ExxonMobil and the fossil fuel industry would be even bigger than the cases against Big Tobacco.”

Holding Exxon accountable for decades of deception

As Katherine Sawyer, senior international organizer for watchdog group Corporate Accountability International, explained in an emailed statement following the press conference:

“In the ’90s, investigations by attorneys general were the beginning of the end for Big Tobacco as we knew it and ushered in a series of lawsuits that shuttered its front groups, forced the release of internal documents, and held it liable to pay the high cost of its impacts on society.

“Just as a similar coalition did with Big Tobacco, this powerful coalition of state Attorneys General are leading the way in holding Exxon and the rest of the fossil fuel industry accountable for their decades of deception and protecting climate policy from their profit-driven interference.”

“Big Polluters have done everything in their power to deny climate change, it is time for our justice system to take back the climate debate”, declared Annie Leonard, Greenpeace USA executive director, who said the AGs’ announcement was “a clear demonstration of climate leadership.”

The coalition includes Attorneys General from California, Connecticut, District Of Columbia, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, Washington state, and the US Virgin Islands.

Appearing alongside members of that group, former Vice President Al Gore, whose 2006 documentary film An Inconvenient Truth is credited with spurring public debate about climate change, said:

“I really believe that years from now this convening … may well be looked back upon as a major turning point in the effort to hold to account those commercial interests … who have been deceiving the American people about the dangers of climate change.”

 


 

Lauren McCauley is a staff writer for Common Dreams.

Also on The Ecologist:Exxon is the one guilty of ‘chilling’ climate science!‘ by Louise Rouse & Naomi Ages.

This article was originally published by Common Dreams under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

 

Nigerians say no to Monsanto’s GM crops

One hundred civil society groups representing over 5 million Nigerians are opposing opposing Monsanto’s attempts to introduce genetically modified (GM) cotton and maize into Nigeria’s food and farming systems.

They are objecting to the application by Monsanto Agricultural Nigeria Limited to the National Biosafety Management Agency (NABMA) for the environmental release and placing in the market in Zaria and surrounding towns of GM cotton containing Bt.

A further Monsanto application is for the confined field trial of two GM maize varieties in multiple locations in Nigeria genetically modified to resist the controversial herbicide glyphosate.

According to Mariann Orovwuje, Friends of the Earth International’s Food Sovereignty co-coordinator, “Should commercialization of Monsanto’s GM maize be allowed pursuant to field trials, this will result in increased use of glyphosate in Nigeria, a chemical that is linked to causing cancer in humans.”

In written objections submitted to the biosafety regulators, the groups have cited numerous serious health and environmental concerns and the failure of these crops especially GM cotton in Africa.

In their objection to the commercial release of Bt cotton into Nigeria, the groups are particularly alarmed that the application has come so close after the dismal failures of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso. The quality of GM cotton in Brukina Faso had dropped substantially, leading to a phase out of the crop, along with farmers seeking $280 million compensation for their losses.

The 100 groups, listed in full below, include farmers, faith-based organisations, civil society groups, students and local communities.

‘Bt cotton has brought nothing but economic misery!’

According to Nnimmo Bassey, Director, Health of Mother Earth – one of the groups in the frontline of the resistance:

“We are totally shocked that it should come so soon after peer reviewed studies have showed that the technology has failed dismally in Burkina Faso. It has brought nothing but economic misery to the cotton sector there and is being phased out in that country where compensation is being sought from Monsanto.”

He further asks the pointed question: Since our Biosafety Act has only recently entered into force, what biosafety legislation was used to authorise and regulate the field trials in the past in accordance with international law and best biosafety practice?”

According to the groups, former President Goodluck Jonathan hastily signed the National Biosafety Management Bill into law in the twilight days of his tenure in office.

Further worrying them is the apparent conflict of interests displayed by the Nigerian regulatory agencies, who are publicly supporting the introduction of GMOs into Nigeria whereas these regulators (NAMBA) are legally bound to remain impartial and regulate in the public interest.

Glyphosate – the silent poison

Monsanto’s GM maize application is in respect of a ‘stacked’ event, including the herbicide tolerant trait intended to confer tolerance to the use of the herbicide, glyphosate, together with expression of the Bt insecticide.

Last year the International Agency for Research on Cancer (the specialized cancer agency of the World Health Organization) assessed the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and concluded that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic to humans“. There is also increasing scientific evidence that glyphosate poses serious risks to the environment.

Recent studies have linked glyphosate to health effects such as degeneration of the liver and kidney, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma”, said Orovwuje. “That NABMA is even considering this application is indeed unfortunate and deeply regrettable, knowing full well about the uncontrolled exposure that our rural farmers and communities living close to farms will be exposed to.”

Despite the growing fears about glyphosate, Monsanto’s application provides no discussion on its potential risks to human and animal health and the environment. Apart from the potential of contaminating local varieties, the health risk of the introduction of genetically modified maize into Nigeria is enormous since maize is a staple food that all 170 million Nigerians depend on.

The groups are urging the Nigerian government to reject Monsanto’s applications out of hand. They note with disquiet that there is a serious lack of capacity within Nigeria to adequately control and monitor the human and environmental risks of GM crops and glyphosate.

Further there is virtually no testing of any food material and products in Nigeria for glyphosate or other pesticide residues, or the monitoring of their impact on the environment including water resources.

 


 

The complaint: ‘Objection to Monsanto’s application for confined  field trials with (1) NK603 and (2) MON89034 X NK603  maize in Nigeria (multi – season) by Health Of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF) and Environmental Rights Action / Friends Of The Earth Nigeria (ERA/FOEN)’

Vanessa Amaral-Rogers is a freelance journalist writing mainly on environmental themes.

Source: Health of Mother Earth Foundation.

Groups Endorsing the Objection to Monsanto’s applications

  1. All Nigeria Consumers Movement Union (ANCOMU)
  2. Committee on Vital Environmental Resources (COVER)
  3. Community Research and Development Centre (CRDC)
  4. Ijaw Mothers of Warri
  5. Rice Farmers Association of Nigeria (RIFAN)
  6. Host Communities Network of Nigeria (HoCoN)
  7. Oilwatch Nigeria
  8. Green Alliance, Nigeria
  9. African Centre for Leadership, Strategy & Development
  10. Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (IHRHL)
  11. Women Environmental Programme (WEP)
  12. Persons with Disabilities Action Network (PEDANET)
  13. Students Environmental Assembly of Nigeria (SEAN)
  14. Centre for Environment, Human Rights and Development (CEHRD)
  15. Ogoni Solidarity Forum (OSF)
  16. KebetKache Women Development and Resource Centre
  17. Federation of Urban Poor (FEDUP)
  18. Community Forest Watch (CFW)
  19. The Young Environmentalist Network (TYEN)
  20. Women’s Rights to Education Program (WREP)
  21. Community Action for Public Action (CAPA)
  22. Peoples Advancement Centre (ADC) Bori
  23. Social Action
  24. SPEAK Nigeria
  25. Host Communities Network
  26. Urban Rural Environmental Defenders (U-RED)
  27. Gender and Environmental Risk Reduction Initiative (GERI)
  28. Women’s Right to Education Programme (WREP)
  29. Foundation for Rural/Urban Integration (FRUIT)
  30. Community Action for Popular Participation
  31. Torjir-Agber Foundation (TAF)
  32. Civil Society on Poverty Eradication (CISCOPE),
  33. Jireh Doo foundation
  34. Advocate for Community Vision and Development( ACOVID)
  35. Initiative for empowerment for vulnerable(IEV)
  36. Kwaswdoo Foundation Initiative (KFI)
  37. Environment and Climate Change Amelioration Initiative) ECCAI
  38. Manna Love and care Foundation (MLC)
  39. Okaha Women and children development Organisation(OWCDO)
  40. JODEF-F
  41. Glorious things ministry(GTM)
  42. Daughters of Love Foundation
  43. Medical Women Association of Nigeria (MWAN)
  44. Community Links and Empowerment Initiative(CLHEI)
  45. Nigerian Women in Agriculture (NAWIA)
  46. Osa foundation
  47. Initiative for Improved Health and Wealth Creation (IIHWC)
  48. Peace Health Care Initiative (PHCI)
  49. Ochilla Daughters Foundation (ODF)
  50. African Health Project (AHP)
  51. Artists in Development
  52. Ramberg Child Survival Initiative (RACSI)
  53. Global Health and Development initiative
  54. First Step Initiative (FIP)
  55. Ruhujukan Environment Development Initiative (REDI)
  56. The Centre for Environment, Human Rights and Development(CEHRD), Nigeria
  57. Center for Children’s Health Education, Orientation Protection (CEE Hope)
  58. Next Generation Youth Initiative (NGI)
  59. Akwa Ibom Information and Research Organisation (AIORG)
  60. Rural Action for Green Environment (RAGE)
  61. United Action for Democracy
  62. Campaign for Democracy
  63. Yasuni Association
  64. Egi Joint Action Congress
  65. Green Concern for Development (Greencode)
  66. Kebetkache Ahoada Women Farmers Cooperative
  67. Ahoada Uzutam Women Farmers Cooperative
  68. Ogboaku Ahoada Farmers Cooperative
  69. Gbobia Feefeelo women
  70. Ovelle Nyakovia Women Cooperative
  71. Rumuekpe Women Prayer Warriors
  72. League of Queens
  73. Emem Iban Oku Iboku
  74. Uchio Mpani Ibeno
  75. Rural Health and Women Development
  76. Women Initiative on Climate Change
  77. Peoples’ Centre
  78. Citizens Trust Advocacy and Development Centre (CITADEC)
  79. Centre for Environment Media and Development Communications
  80. Centre for Dignity
  81. Peace and Development Project
  82. Triumphant Foundation
  83. Earthcare Foundation
  84. Lokiakia Centre
  85. Community Development and Advocacy Foundation (CODAF)
  86. Citizens Centre
  87. Development Strategies
  88. Rainforest Research and Development Center
  89. Center for Environmental Education and Development (CEED)
  90. Initiative for the Elimination of Violence Against Women & Children (IEVAWC)
  91. Charles and Doosurgh Abaagu Foundation
  92. Community Emergency Response Initiative
  93. Society for Water and Sanitation (NEWSAN)
  94. Shacks and Slum Dwellers Association of Nigeria
  95. Atan Justice, Development and Peace Centre
  96. Sisters of Saint Louis Nigeria
  97. Life Lift Nigeria
  98. Community Research and Development Foundation (CDLF)
  99. Environmental rights Action Friends of the Earth Nigeria ( ERA/ FoEN)
  100. Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF)

 

Nigerians say no to Monsanto’s GM crops

One hundred civil society groups representing over 5 million Nigerians are opposing opposing Monsanto’s attempts to introduce genetically modified (GM) cotton and maize into Nigeria’s food and farming systems.

They are objecting to the application by Monsanto Agricultural Nigeria Limited to the National Biosafety Management Agency (NABMA) for the environmental release and placing in the market in Zaria and surrounding towns of GM cotton containing Bt.

A further Monsanto application is for the confined field trial of two GM maize varieties in multiple locations in Nigeria genetically modified to resist the controversial herbicide glyphosate.

According to Mariann Orovwuje, Friends of the Earth International’s Food Sovereignty co-coordinator, “Should commercialization of Monsanto’s GM maize be allowed pursuant to field trials, this will result in increased use of glyphosate in Nigeria, a chemical that is linked to causing cancer in humans.”

In written objections submitted to the biosafety regulators, the groups have cited numerous serious health and environmental concerns and the failure of these crops especially GM cotton in Africa.

In their objection to the commercial release of Bt cotton into Nigeria, the groups are particularly alarmed that the application has come so close after the dismal failures of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso. The quality of GM cotton in Brukina Faso had dropped substantially, leading to a phase out of the crop, along with farmers seeking $280 million compensation for their losses.

The 100 groups, listed in full below, include farmers, faith-based organisations, civil society groups, students and local communities.

‘Bt cotton has brought nothing but economic misery!’

According to Nnimmo Bassey, Director, Health of Mother Earth – one of the groups in the frontline of the resistance:

“We are totally shocked that it should come so soon after peer reviewed studies have showed that the technology has failed dismally in Burkina Faso. It has brought nothing but economic misery to the cotton sector there and is being phased out in that country where compensation is being sought from Monsanto.”

He further asks the pointed question: Since our Biosafety Act has only recently entered into force, what biosafety legislation was used to authorise and regulate the field trials in the past in accordance with international law and best biosafety practice?”

According to the groups, former President Goodluck Jonathan hastily signed the National Biosafety Management Bill into law in the twilight days of his tenure in office.

Further worrying them is the apparent conflict of interests displayed by the Nigerian regulatory agencies, who are publicly supporting the introduction of GMOs into Nigeria whereas these regulators (NAMBA) are legally bound to remain impartial and regulate in the public interest.

Glyphosate – the silent poison

Monsanto’s GM maize application is in respect of a ‘stacked’ event, including the herbicide tolerant trait intended to confer tolerance to the use of the herbicide, glyphosate, together with expression of the Bt insecticide.

Last year the International Agency for Research on Cancer (the specialized cancer agency of the World Health Organization) assessed the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and concluded that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic to humans“. There is also increasing scientific evidence that glyphosate poses serious risks to the environment.

Recent studies have linked glyphosate to health effects such as degeneration of the liver and kidney, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma”, said Orovwuje. “That NABMA is even considering this application is indeed unfortunate and deeply regrettable, knowing full well about the uncontrolled exposure that our rural farmers and communities living close to farms will be exposed to.”

Despite the growing fears about glyphosate, Monsanto’s application provides no discussion on its potential risks to human and animal health and the environment. Apart from the potential of contaminating local varieties, the health risk of the introduction of genetically modified maize into Nigeria is enormous since maize is a staple food that all 170 million Nigerians depend on.

The groups are urging the Nigerian government to reject Monsanto’s applications out of hand. They note with disquiet that there is a serious lack of capacity within Nigeria to adequately control and monitor the human and environmental risks of GM crops and glyphosate.

Further there is virtually no testing of any food material and products in Nigeria for glyphosate or other pesticide residues, or the monitoring of their impact on the environment including water resources.

 


 

The complaint: ‘Objection to Monsanto’s application for confined  field trials with (1) NK603 and (2) MON89034 X NK603  maize in Nigeria (multi – season) by Health Of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF) and Environmental Rights Action / Friends Of The Earth Nigeria (ERA/FOEN)’

Vanessa Amaral-Rogers is a freelance journalist writing mainly on environmental themes.

Source: Health of Mother Earth Foundation.

Groups Endorsing the Objection to Monsanto’s applications

  1. All Nigeria Consumers Movement Union (ANCOMU)
  2. Committee on Vital Environmental Resources (COVER)
  3. Community Research and Development Centre (CRDC)
  4. Ijaw Mothers of Warri
  5. Rice Farmers Association of Nigeria (RIFAN)
  6. Host Communities Network of Nigeria (HoCoN)
  7. Oilwatch Nigeria
  8. Green Alliance, Nigeria
  9. African Centre for Leadership, Strategy & Development
  10. Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (IHRHL)
  11. Women Environmental Programme (WEP)
  12. Persons with Disabilities Action Network (PEDANET)
  13. Students Environmental Assembly of Nigeria (SEAN)
  14. Centre for Environment, Human Rights and Development (CEHRD)
  15. Ogoni Solidarity Forum (OSF)
  16. KebetKache Women Development and Resource Centre
  17. Federation of Urban Poor (FEDUP)
  18. Community Forest Watch (CFW)
  19. The Young Environmentalist Network (TYEN)
  20. Women’s Rights to Education Program (WREP)
  21. Community Action for Public Action (CAPA)
  22. Peoples Advancement Centre (ADC) Bori
  23. Social Action
  24. SPEAK Nigeria
  25. Host Communities Network
  26. Urban Rural Environmental Defenders (U-RED)
  27. Gender and Environmental Risk Reduction Initiative (GERI)
  28. Women’s Right to Education Programme (WREP)
  29. Foundation for Rural/Urban Integration (FRUIT)
  30. Community Action for Popular Participation
  31. Torjir-Agber Foundation (TAF)
  32. Civil Society on Poverty Eradication (CISCOPE),
  33. Jireh Doo foundation
  34. Advocate for Community Vision and Development( ACOVID)
  35. Initiative for empowerment for vulnerable(IEV)
  36. Kwaswdoo Foundation Initiative (KFI)
  37. Environment and Climate Change Amelioration Initiative) ECCAI
  38. Manna Love and care Foundation (MLC)
  39. Okaha Women and children development Organisation(OWCDO)
  40. JODEF-F
  41. Glorious things ministry(GTM)
  42. Daughters of Love Foundation
  43. Medical Women Association of Nigeria (MWAN)
  44. Community Links and Empowerment Initiative(CLHEI)
  45. Nigerian Women in Agriculture (NAWIA)
  46. Osa foundation
  47. Initiative for Improved Health and Wealth Creation (IIHWC)
  48. Peace Health Care Initiative (PHCI)
  49. Ochilla Daughters Foundation (ODF)
  50. African Health Project (AHP)
  51. Artists in Development
  52. Ramberg Child Survival Initiative (RACSI)
  53. Global Health and Development initiative
  54. First Step Initiative (FIP)
  55. Ruhujukan Environment Development Initiative (REDI)
  56. The Centre for Environment, Human Rights and Development(CEHRD), Nigeria
  57. Center for Children’s Health Education, Orientation Protection (CEE Hope)
  58. Next Generation Youth Initiative (NGI)
  59. Akwa Ibom Information and Research Organisation (AIORG)
  60. Rural Action for Green Environment (RAGE)
  61. United Action for Democracy
  62. Campaign for Democracy
  63. Yasuni Association
  64. Egi Joint Action Congress
  65. Green Concern for Development (Greencode)
  66. Kebetkache Ahoada Women Farmers Cooperative
  67. Ahoada Uzutam Women Farmers Cooperative
  68. Ogboaku Ahoada Farmers Cooperative
  69. Gbobia Feefeelo women
  70. Ovelle Nyakovia Women Cooperative
  71. Rumuekpe Women Prayer Warriors
  72. League of Queens
  73. Emem Iban Oku Iboku
  74. Uchio Mpani Ibeno
  75. Rural Health and Women Development
  76. Women Initiative on Climate Change
  77. Peoples’ Centre
  78. Citizens Trust Advocacy and Development Centre (CITADEC)
  79. Centre for Environment Media and Development Communications
  80. Centre for Dignity
  81. Peace and Development Project
  82. Triumphant Foundation
  83. Earthcare Foundation
  84. Lokiakia Centre
  85. Community Development and Advocacy Foundation (CODAF)
  86. Citizens Centre
  87. Development Strategies
  88. Rainforest Research and Development Center
  89. Center for Environmental Education and Development (CEED)
  90. Initiative for the Elimination of Violence Against Women & Children (IEVAWC)
  91. Charles and Doosurgh Abaagu Foundation
  92. Community Emergency Response Initiative
  93. Society for Water and Sanitation (NEWSAN)
  94. Shacks and Slum Dwellers Association of Nigeria
  95. Atan Justice, Development and Peace Centre
  96. Sisters of Saint Louis Nigeria
  97. Life Lift Nigeria
  98. Community Research and Development Foundation (CDLF)
  99. Environmental rights Action Friends of the Earth Nigeria ( ERA/ FoEN)
  100. Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF)

 

Nigerians say no to Monsanto’s GM crops

One hundred civil society groups representing over 5 million Nigerians are opposing opposing Monsanto’s attempts to introduce genetically modified (GM) cotton and maize into Nigeria’s food and farming systems.

They are objecting to the application by Monsanto Agricultural Nigeria Limited to the National Biosafety Management Agency (NABMA) for the environmental release and placing in the market in Zaria and surrounding towns of GM cotton containing Bt.

A further Monsanto application is for the confined field trial of two GM maize varieties in multiple locations in Nigeria genetically modified to resist the controversial herbicide glyphosate.

According to Mariann Orovwuje, Friends of the Earth International’s Food Sovereignty co-coordinator, “Should commercialization of Monsanto’s GM maize be allowed pursuant to field trials, this will result in increased use of glyphosate in Nigeria, a chemical that is linked to causing cancer in humans.”

In written objections submitted to the biosafety regulators, the groups have cited numerous serious health and environmental concerns and the failure of these crops especially GM cotton in Africa.

In their objection to the commercial release of Bt cotton into Nigeria, the groups are particularly alarmed that the application has come so close after the dismal failures of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso. The quality of GM cotton in Brukina Faso had dropped substantially, leading to a phase out of the crop, along with farmers seeking $280 million compensation for their losses.

The 100 groups, listed in full below, include farmers, faith-based organisations, civil society groups, students and local communities.

‘Bt cotton has brought nothing but economic misery!’

According to Nnimmo Bassey, Director, Health of Mother Earth – one of the groups in the frontline of the resistance:

“We are totally shocked that it should come so soon after peer reviewed studies have showed that the technology has failed dismally in Burkina Faso. It has brought nothing but economic misery to the cotton sector there and is being phased out in that country where compensation is being sought from Monsanto.”

He further asks the pointed question: Since our Biosafety Act has only recently entered into force, what biosafety legislation was used to authorise and regulate the field trials in the past in accordance with international law and best biosafety practice?”

According to the groups, former President Goodluck Jonathan hastily signed the National Biosafety Management Bill into law in the twilight days of his tenure in office.

Further worrying them is the apparent conflict of interests displayed by the Nigerian regulatory agencies, who are publicly supporting the introduction of GMOs into Nigeria whereas these regulators (NAMBA) are legally bound to remain impartial and regulate in the public interest.

Glyphosate – the silent poison

Monsanto’s GM maize application is in respect of a ‘stacked’ event, including the herbicide tolerant trait intended to confer tolerance to the use of the herbicide, glyphosate, together with expression of the Bt insecticide.

Last year the International Agency for Research on Cancer (the specialized cancer agency of the World Health Organization) assessed the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and concluded that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic to humans“. There is also increasing scientific evidence that glyphosate poses serious risks to the environment.

Recent studies have linked glyphosate to health effects such as degeneration of the liver and kidney, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma”, said Orovwuje. “That NABMA is even considering this application is indeed unfortunate and deeply regrettable, knowing full well about the uncontrolled exposure that our rural farmers and communities living close to farms will be exposed to.”

Despite the growing fears about glyphosate, Monsanto’s application provides no discussion on its potential risks to human and animal health and the environment. Apart from the potential of contaminating local varieties, the health risk of the introduction of genetically modified maize into Nigeria is enormous since maize is a staple food that all 170 million Nigerians depend on.

The groups are urging the Nigerian government to reject Monsanto’s applications out of hand. They note with disquiet that there is a serious lack of capacity within Nigeria to adequately control and monitor the human and environmental risks of GM crops and glyphosate.

Further there is virtually no testing of any food material and products in Nigeria for glyphosate or other pesticide residues, or the monitoring of their impact on the environment including water resources.

 


 

The complaint: ‘Objection to Monsanto’s application for confined  field trials with (1) NK603 and (2) MON89034 X NK603  maize in Nigeria (multi – season) by Health Of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF) and Environmental Rights Action / Friends Of The Earth Nigeria (ERA/FOEN)’

Vanessa Amaral-Rogers is a freelance journalist writing mainly on environmental themes.

Source: Health of Mother Earth Foundation.

Groups Endorsing the Objection to Monsanto’s applications

  1. All Nigeria Consumers Movement Union (ANCOMU)
  2. Committee on Vital Environmental Resources (COVER)
  3. Community Research and Development Centre (CRDC)
  4. Ijaw Mothers of Warri
  5. Rice Farmers Association of Nigeria (RIFAN)
  6. Host Communities Network of Nigeria (HoCoN)
  7. Oilwatch Nigeria
  8. Green Alliance, Nigeria
  9. African Centre for Leadership, Strategy & Development
  10. Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (IHRHL)
  11. Women Environmental Programme (WEP)
  12. Persons with Disabilities Action Network (PEDANET)
  13. Students Environmental Assembly of Nigeria (SEAN)
  14. Centre for Environment, Human Rights and Development (CEHRD)
  15. Ogoni Solidarity Forum (OSF)
  16. KebetKache Women Development and Resource Centre
  17. Federation of Urban Poor (FEDUP)
  18. Community Forest Watch (CFW)
  19. The Young Environmentalist Network (TYEN)
  20. Women’s Rights to Education Program (WREP)
  21. Community Action for Public Action (CAPA)
  22. Peoples Advancement Centre (ADC) Bori
  23. Social Action
  24. SPEAK Nigeria
  25. Host Communities Network
  26. Urban Rural Environmental Defenders (U-RED)
  27. Gender and Environmental Risk Reduction Initiative (GERI)
  28. Women’s Right to Education Programme (WREP)
  29. Foundation for Rural/Urban Integration (FRUIT)
  30. Community Action for Popular Participation
  31. Torjir-Agber Foundation (TAF)
  32. Civil Society on Poverty Eradication (CISCOPE),
  33. Jireh Doo foundation
  34. Advocate for Community Vision and Development( ACOVID)
  35. Initiative for empowerment for vulnerable(IEV)
  36. Kwaswdoo Foundation Initiative (KFI)
  37. Environment and Climate Change Amelioration Initiative) ECCAI
  38. Manna Love and care Foundation (MLC)
  39. Okaha Women and children development Organisation(OWCDO)
  40. JODEF-F
  41. Glorious things ministry(GTM)
  42. Daughters of Love Foundation
  43. Medical Women Association of Nigeria (MWAN)
  44. Community Links and Empowerment Initiative(CLHEI)
  45. Nigerian Women in Agriculture (NAWIA)
  46. Osa foundation
  47. Initiative for Improved Health and Wealth Creation (IIHWC)
  48. Peace Health Care Initiative (PHCI)
  49. Ochilla Daughters Foundation (ODF)
  50. African Health Project (AHP)
  51. Artists in Development
  52. Ramberg Child Survival Initiative (RACSI)
  53. Global Health and Development initiative
  54. First Step Initiative (FIP)
  55. Ruhujukan Environment Development Initiative (REDI)
  56. The Centre for Environment, Human Rights and Development(CEHRD), Nigeria
  57. Center for Children’s Health Education, Orientation Protection (CEE Hope)
  58. Next Generation Youth Initiative (NGI)
  59. Akwa Ibom Information and Research Organisation (AIORG)
  60. Rural Action for Green Environment (RAGE)
  61. United Action for Democracy
  62. Campaign for Democracy
  63. Yasuni Association
  64. Egi Joint Action Congress
  65. Green Concern for Development (Greencode)
  66. Kebetkache Ahoada Women Farmers Cooperative
  67. Ahoada Uzutam Women Farmers Cooperative
  68. Ogboaku Ahoada Farmers Cooperative
  69. Gbobia Feefeelo women
  70. Ovelle Nyakovia Women Cooperative
  71. Rumuekpe Women Prayer Warriors
  72. League of Queens
  73. Emem Iban Oku Iboku
  74. Uchio Mpani Ibeno
  75. Rural Health and Women Development
  76. Women Initiative on Climate Change
  77. Peoples’ Centre
  78. Citizens Trust Advocacy and Development Centre (CITADEC)
  79. Centre for Environment Media and Development Communications
  80. Centre for Dignity
  81. Peace and Development Project
  82. Triumphant Foundation
  83. Earthcare Foundation
  84. Lokiakia Centre
  85. Community Development and Advocacy Foundation (CODAF)
  86. Citizens Centre
  87. Development Strategies
  88. Rainforest Research and Development Center
  89. Center for Environmental Education and Development (CEED)
  90. Initiative for the Elimination of Violence Against Women & Children (IEVAWC)
  91. Charles and Doosurgh Abaagu Foundation
  92. Community Emergency Response Initiative
  93. Society for Water and Sanitation (NEWSAN)
  94. Shacks and Slum Dwellers Association of Nigeria
  95. Atan Justice, Development and Peace Centre
  96. Sisters of Saint Louis Nigeria
  97. Life Lift Nigeria
  98. Community Research and Development Foundation (CDLF)
  99. Environmental rights Action Friends of the Earth Nigeria ( ERA/ FoEN)
  100. Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF)

 

Nigerians say no to Monsanto’s GM crops

One hundred civil society groups representing over 5 million Nigerians are opposing opposing Monsanto’s attempts to introduce genetically modified (GM) cotton and maize into Nigeria’s food and farming systems.

They are objecting to the application by Monsanto Agricultural Nigeria Limited to the National Biosafety Management Agency (NABMA) for the environmental release and placing in the market in Zaria and surrounding towns of GM cotton containing Bt.

A further Monsanto application is for the confined field trial of two GM maize varieties in multiple locations in Nigeria genetically modified to resist the controversial herbicide glyphosate.

According to Mariann Orovwuje, Friends of the Earth International’s Food Sovereignty co-coordinator, “Should commercialization of Monsanto’s GM maize be allowed pursuant to field trials, this will result in increased use of glyphosate in Nigeria, a chemical that is linked to causing cancer in humans.”

In written objections submitted to the biosafety regulators, the groups have cited numerous serious health and environmental concerns and the failure of these crops especially GM cotton in Africa.

In their objection to the commercial release of Bt cotton into Nigeria, the groups are particularly alarmed that the application has come so close after the dismal failures of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso. The quality of GM cotton in Brukina Faso had dropped substantially, leading to a phase out of the crop, along with farmers seeking $280 million compensation for their losses.

The 100 groups, listed in full below, include farmers, faith-based organisations, civil society groups, students and local communities.

‘Bt cotton has brought nothing but economic misery!’

According to Nnimmo Bassey, Director, Health of Mother Earth – one of the groups in the frontline of the resistance:

“We are totally shocked that it should come so soon after peer reviewed studies have showed that the technology has failed dismally in Burkina Faso. It has brought nothing but economic misery to the cotton sector there and is being phased out in that country where compensation is being sought from Monsanto.”

He further asks the pointed question: Since our Biosafety Act has only recently entered into force, what biosafety legislation was used to authorise and regulate the field trials in the past in accordance with international law and best biosafety practice?”

According to the groups, former President Goodluck Jonathan hastily signed the National Biosafety Management Bill into law in the twilight days of his tenure in office.

Further worrying them is the apparent conflict of interests displayed by the Nigerian regulatory agencies, who are publicly supporting the introduction of GMOs into Nigeria whereas these regulators (NAMBA) are legally bound to remain impartial and regulate in the public interest.

Glyphosate – the silent poison

Monsanto’s GM maize application is in respect of a ‘stacked’ event, including the herbicide tolerant trait intended to confer tolerance to the use of the herbicide, glyphosate, together with expression of the Bt insecticide.

Last year the International Agency for Research on Cancer (the specialized cancer agency of the World Health Organization) assessed the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and concluded that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic to humans“. There is also increasing scientific evidence that glyphosate poses serious risks to the environment.

Recent studies have linked glyphosate to health effects such as degeneration of the liver and kidney, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma”, said Orovwuje. “That NABMA is even considering this application is indeed unfortunate and deeply regrettable, knowing full well about the uncontrolled exposure that our rural farmers and communities living close to farms will be exposed to.”

Despite the growing fears about glyphosate, Monsanto’s application provides no discussion on its potential risks to human and animal health and the environment. Apart from the potential of contaminating local varieties, the health risk of the introduction of genetically modified maize into Nigeria is enormous since maize is a staple food that all 170 million Nigerians depend on.

The groups are urging the Nigerian government to reject Monsanto’s applications out of hand. They note with disquiet that there is a serious lack of capacity within Nigeria to adequately control and monitor the human and environmental risks of GM crops and glyphosate.

Further there is virtually no testing of any food material and products in Nigeria for glyphosate or other pesticide residues, or the monitoring of their impact on the environment including water resources.

 


 

The complaint: ‘Objection to Monsanto’s application for confined  field trials with (1) NK603 and (2) MON89034 X NK603  maize in Nigeria (multi – season) by Health Of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF) and Environmental Rights Action / Friends Of The Earth Nigeria (ERA/FOEN)’

Vanessa Amaral-Rogers is a freelance journalist writing mainly on environmental themes.

Source: Health of Mother Earth Foundation.

Groups Endorsing the Objection to Monsanto’s applications

  1. All Nigeria Consumers Movement Union (ANCOMU)
  2. Committee on Vital Environmental Resources (COVER)
  3. Community Research and Development Centre (CRDC)
  4. Ijaw Mothers of Warri
  5. Rice Farmers Association of Nigeria (RIFAN)
  6. Host Communities Network of Nigeria (HoCoN)
  7. Oilwatch Nigeria
  8. Green Alliance, Nigeria
  9. African Centre for Leadership, Strategy & Development
  10. Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (IHRHL)
  11. Women Environmental Programme (WEP)
  12. Persons with Disabilities Action Network (PEDANET)
  13. Students Environmental Assembly of Nigeria (SEAN)
  14. Centre for Environment, Human Rights and Development (CEHRD)
  15. Ogoni Solidarity Forum (OSF)
  16. KebetKache Women Development and Resource Centre
  17. Federation of Urban Poor (FEDUP)
  18. Community Forest Watch (CFW)
  19. The Young Environmentalist Network (TYEN)
  20. Women’s Rights to Education Program (WREP)
  21. Community Action for Public Action (CAPA)
  22. Peoples Advancement Centre (ADC) Bori
  23. Social Action
  24. SPEAK Nigeria
  25. Host Communities Network
  26. Urban Rural Environmental Defenders (U-RED)
  27. Gender and Environmental Risk Reduction Initiative (GERI)
  28. Women’s Right to Education Programme (WREP)
  29. Foundation for Rural/Urban Integration (FRUIT)
  30. Community Action for Popular Participation
  31. Torjir-Agber Foundation (TAF)
  32. Civil Society on Poverty Eradication (CISCOPE),
  33. Jireh Doo foundation
  34. Advocate for Community Vision and Development( ACOVID)
  35. Initiative for empowerment for vulnerable(IEV)
  36. Kwaswdoo Foundation Initiative (KFI)
  37. Environment and Climate Change Amelioration Initiative) ECCAI
  38. Manna Love and care Foundation (MLC)
  39. Okaha Women and children development Organisation(OWCDO)
  40. JODEF-F
  41. Glorious things ministry(GTM)
  42. Daughters of Love Foundation
  43. Medical Women Association of Nigeria (MWAN)
  44. Community Links and Empowerment Initiative(CLHEI)
  45. Nigerian Women in Agriculture (NAWIA)
  46. Osa foundation
  47. Initiative for Improved Health and Wealth Creation (IIHWC)
  48. Peace Health Care Initiative (PHCI)
  49. Ochilla Daughters Foundation (ODF)
  50. African Health Project (AHP)
  51. Artists in Development
  52. Ramberg Child Survival Initiative (RACSI)
  53. Global Health and Development initiative
  54. First Step Initiative (FIP)
  55. Ruhujukan Environment Development Initiative (REDI)
  56. The Centre for Environment, Human Rights and Development(CEHRD), Nigeria
  57. Center for Children’s Health Education, Orientation Protection (CEE Hope)
  58. Next Generation Youth Initiative (NGI)
  59. Akwa Ibom Information and Research Organisation (AIORG)
  60. Rural Action for Green Environment (RAGE)
  61. United Action for Democracy
  62. Campaign for Democracy
  63. Yasuni Association
  64. Egi Joint Action Congress
  65. Green Concern for Development (Greencode)
  66. Kebetkache Ahoada Women Farmers Cooperative
  67. Ahoada Uzutam Women Farmers Cooperative
  68. Ogboaku Ahoada Farmers Cooperative
  69. Gbobia Feefeelo women
  70. Ovelle Nyakovia Women Cooperative
  71. Rumuekpe Women Prayer Warriors
  72. League of Queens
  73. Emem Iban Oku Iboku
  74. Uchio Mpani Ibeno
  75. Rural Health and Women Development
  76. Women Initiative on Climate Change
  77. Peoples’ Centre
  78. Citizens Trust Advocacy and Development Centre (CITADEC)
  79. Centre for Environment Media and Development Communications
  80. Centre for Dignity
  81. Peace and Development Project
  82. Triumphant Foundation
  83. Earthcare Foundation
  84. Lokiakia Centre
  85. Community Development and Advocacy Foundation (CODAF)
  86. Citizens Centre
  87. Development Strategies
  88. Rainforest Research and Development Center
  89. Center for Environmental Education and Development (CEED)
  90. Initiative for the Elimination of Violence Against Women & Children (IEVAWC)
  91. Charles and Doosurgh Abaagu Foundation
  92. Community Emergency Response Initiative
  93. Society for Water and Sanitation (NEWSAN)
  94. Shacks and Slum Dwellers Association of Nigeria
  95. Atan Justice, Development and Peace Centre
  96. Sisters of Saint Louis Nigeria
  97. Life Lift Nigeria
  98. Community Research and Development Foundation (CDLF)
  99. Environmental rights Action Friends of the Earth Nigeria ( ERA/ FoEN)
  100. Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF)

 

Nigerians say no to Monsanto’s GM crops

One hundred civil society groups representing over 5 million Nigerians are opposing opposing Monsanto’s attempts to introduce genetically modified (GM) cotton and maize into Nigeria’s food and farming systems.

They are objecting to the application by Monsanto Agricultural Nigeria Limited to the National Biosafety Management Agency (NABMA) for the environmental release and placing in the market in Zaria and surrounding towns of GM cotton containing Bt.

A further Monsanto application is for the confined field trial of two GM maize varieties in multiple locations in Nigeria genetically modified to resist the controversial herbicide glyphosate.

According to Mariann Orovwuje, Friends of the Earth International’s Food Sovereignty co-coordinator, “Should commercialization of Monsanto’s GM maize be allowed pursuant to field trials, this will result in increased use of glyphosate in Nigeria, a chemical that is linked to causing cancer in humans.”

In written objections submitted to the biosafety regulators, the groups have cited numerous serious health and environmental concerns and the failure of these crops especially GM cotton in Africa.

In their objection to the commercial release of Bt cotton into Nigeria, the groups are particularly alarmed that the application has come so close after the dismal failures of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso. The quality of GM cotton in Brukina Faso had dropped substantially, leading to a phase out of the crop, along with farmers seeking $280 million compensation for their losses.

The 100 groups, listed in full below, include farmers, faith-based organisations, civil society groups, students and local communities.

‘Bt cotton has brought nothing but economic misery!’

According to Nnimmo Bassey, Director, Health of Mother Earth – one of the groups in the frontline of the resistance:

“We are totally shocked that it should come so soon after peer reviewed studies have showed that the technology has failed dismally in Burkina Faso. It has brought nothing but economic misery to the cotton sector there and is being phased out in that country where compensation is being sought from Monsanto.”

He further asks the pointed question: Since our Biosafety Act has only recently entered into force, what biosafety legislation was used to authorise and regulate the field trials in the past in accordance with international law and best biosafety practice?”

According to the groups, former President Goodluck Jonathan hastily signed the National Biosafety Management Bill into law in the twilight days of his tenure in office.

Further worrying them is the apparent conflict of interests displayed by the Nigerian regulatory agencies, who are publicly supporting the introduction of GMOs into Nigeria whereas these regulators (NAMBA) are legally bound to remain impartial and regulate in the public interest.

Glyphosate – the silent poison

Monsanto’s GM maize application is in respect of a ‘stacked’ event, including the herbicide tolerant trait intended to confer tolerance to the use of the herbicide, glyphosate, together with expression of the Bt insecticide.

Last year the International Agency for Research on Cancer (the specialized cancer agency of the World Health Organization) assessed the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and concluded that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic to humans“. There is also increasing scientific evidence that glyphosate poses serious risks to the environment.

Recent studies have linked glyphosate to health effects such as degeneration of the liver and kidney, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma”, said Orovwuje. “That NABMA is even considering this application is indeed unfortunate and deeply regrettable, knowing full well about the uncontrolled exposure that our rural farmers and communities living close to farms will be exposed to.”

Despite the growing fears about glyphosate, Monsanto’s application provides no discussion on its potential risks to human and animal health and the environment. Apart from the potential of contaminating local varieties, the health risk of the introduction of genetically modified maize into Nigeria is enormous since maize is a staple food that all 170 million Nigerians depend on.

The groups are urging the Nigerian government to reject Monsanto’s applications out of hand. They note with disquiet that there is a serious lack of capacity within Nigeria to adequately control and monitor the human and environmental risks of GM crops and glyphosate.

Further there is virtually no testing of any food material and products in Nigeria for glyphosate or other pesticide residues, or the monitoring of their impact on the environment including water resources.

 


 

The complaint: ‘Objection to Monsanto’s application for confined  field trials with (1) NK603 and (2) MON89034 X NK603  maize in Nigeria (multi – season) by Health Of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF) and Environmental Rights Action / Friends Of The Earth Nigeria (ERA/FOEN)’

Vanessa Amaral-Rogers is a freelance journalist writing mainly on environmental themes.

Source: Health of Mother Earth Foundation.

Groups Endorsing the Objection to Monsanto’s applications

  1. All Nigeria Consumers Movement Union (ANCOMU)
  2. Committee on Vital Environmental Resources (COVER)
  3. Community Research and Development Centre (CRDC)
  4. Ijaw Mothers of Warri
  5. Rice Farmers Association of Nigeria (RIFAN)
  6. Host Communities Network of Nigeria (HoCoN)
  7. Oilwatch Nigeria
  8. Green Alliance, Nigeria
  9. African Centre for Leadership, Strategy & Development
  10. Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (IHRHL)
  11. Women Environmental Programme (WEP)
  12. Persons with Disabilities Action Network (PEDANET)
  13. Students Environmental Assembly of Nigeria (SEAN)
  14. Centre for Environment, Human Rights and Development (CEHRD)
  15. Ogoni Solidarity Forum (OSF)
  16. KebetKache Women Development and Resource Centre
  17. Federation of Urban Poor (FEDUP)
  18. Community Forest Watch (CFW)
  19. The Young Environmentalist Network (TYEN)
  20. Women’s Rights to Education Program (WREP)
  21. Community Action for Public Action (CAPA)
  22. Peoples Advancement Centre (ADC) Bori
  23. Social Action
  24. SPEAK Nigeria
  25. Host Communities Network
  26. Urban Rural Environmental Defenders (U-RED)
  27. Gender and Environmental Risk Reduction Initiative (GERI)
  28. Women’s Right to Education Programme (WREP)
  29. Foundation for Rural/Urban Integration (FRUIT)
  30. Community Action for Popular Participation
  31. Torjir-Agber Foundation (TAF)
  32. Civil Society on Poverty Eradication (CISCOPE),
  33. Jireh Doo foundation
  34. Advocate for Community Vision and Development( ACOVID)
  35. Initiative for empowerment for vulnerable(IEV)
  36. Kwaswdoo Foundation Initiative (KFI)
  37. Environment and Climate Change Amelioration Initiative) ECCAI
  38. Manna Love and care Foundation (MLC)
  39. Okaha Women and children development Organisation(OWCDO)
  40. JODEF-F
  41. Glorious things ministry(GTM)
  42. Daughters of Love Foundation
  43. Medical Women Association of Nigeria (MWAN)
  44. Community Links and Empowerment Initiative(CLHEI)
  45. Nigerian Women in Agriculture (NAWIA)
  46. Osa foundation
  47. Initiative for Improved Health and Wealth Creation (IIHWC)
  48. Peace Health Care Initiative (PHCI)
  49. Ochilla Daughters Foundation (ODF)
  50. African Health Project (AHP)
  51. Artists in Development
  52. Ramberg Child Survival Initiative (RACSI)
  53. Global Health and Development initiative
  54. First Step Initiative (FIP)
  55. Ruhujukan Environment Development Initiative (REDI)
  56. The Centre for Environment, Human Rights and Development(CEHRD), Nigeria
  57. Center for Children’s Health Education, Orientation Protection (CEE Hope)
  58. Next Generation Youth Initiative (NGI)
  59. Akwa Ibom Information and Research Organisation (AIORG)
  60. Rural Action for Green Environment (RAGE)
  61. United Action for Democracy
  62. Campaign for Democracy
  63. Yasuni Association
  64. Egi Joint Action Congress
  65. Green Concern for Development (Greencode)
  66. Kebetkache Ahoada Women Farmers Cooperative
  67. Ahoada Uzutam Women Farmers Cooperative
  68. Ogboaku Ahoada Farmers Cooperative
  69. Gbobia Feefeelo women
  70. Ovelle Nyakovia Women Cooperative
  71. Rumuekpe Women Prayer Warriors
  72. League of Queens
  73. Emem Iban Oku Iboku
  74. Uchio Mpani Ibeno
  75. Rural Health and Women Development
  76. Women Initiative on Climate Change
  77. Peoples’ Centre
  78. Citizens Trust Advocacy and Development Centre (CITADEC)
  79. Centre for Environment Media and Development Communications
  80. Centre for Dignity
  81. Peace and Development Project
  82. Triumphant Foundation
  83. Earthcare Foundation
  84. Lokiakia Centre
  85. Community Development and Advocacy Foundation (CODAF)
  86. Citizens Centre
  87. Development Strategies
  88. Rainforest Research and Development Center
  89. Center for Environmental Education and Development (CEED)
  90. Initiative for the Elimination of Violence Against Women & Children (IEVAWC)
  91. Charles and Doosurgh Abaagu Foundation
  92. Community Emergency Response Initiative
  93. Society for Water and Sanitation (NEWSAN)
  94. Shacks and Slum Dwellers Association of Nigeria
  95. Atan Justice, Development and Peace Centre
  96. Sisters of Saint Louis Nigeria
  97. Life Lift Nigeria
  98. Community Research and Development Foundation (CDLF)
  99. Environmental rights Action Friends of the Earth Nigeria ( ERA/ FoEN)
  100. Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF)

 

Marshall Islands accuses nuclear bomb nations at International Court of Justice

In April 2014, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, a tiny island country part of Micronesia, filed groundbreaking lawsuits to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the world’s nine nuclear-armed countries.

Now, almost two years later, the ICJ has heard preliminary oral arguments in three of the cases.

Between 1946 and 1958, 67 nuclear tests were conducted by the US in the Marshalls, making it one of the most contaminated places in the world. With a population of less than 70,000, the Islanders suffered greatly from the impact of radiation; the land and sea poisoned as well.

In 1985, the Greenpeace ship, Rainbow Warrior helped to relocate the residents of one of the most severely impacted islands, Rongelap, after it became clear that high levels of radioactive contamination made most of the island unfit for habitation.

This month, between 7-16 March 2016, the ICJ’s panel of 16 judges heard oral arguments by the Marshall Islands and three respondent nations – the United Kingdom, India and Pakistan.

Tony de Brum, Co-Agent of the Marshall Islands and former Foreign Minister, reminded the Court why the Marshall Islands, a small nation with limited resources that is seriously threatened by climate change, would bring these lawsuits against some of the world’s most militarily powerful nations.

1,000 times the power of the Hiroshima bomb

During the second day of the hearings, he recalled one occasion in 1954 of the testing of a thermonuclear bomb that was 1,000 times the strength of the Hiroshima bomb. When the explosion occurred, it began to rain radioactive fallout at Rongelap. Within hours, the atoll was covered with a fine, white, powder-like substance.

“No one knew it was radioactive fallout”, said Mr de Brum. “The children thought it was snow. And the children played in the snow. And they ate it.”

The other six nuclear-armed nations – the United States, Russia, France, China, Israel and North Korea – do not accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ and therefore, would not appear before the Court.

The Marshall Islands contends that the UK, India and Pakistan are in breach of existing international law, which requires good faith negotiations for an end to the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament.

The Court is expected to deliver its decision in approximately six months from now. Greenpeace will continue to stand with the people of the Marshall Islands in their fight to rid the world of nuclear weapons. 

Daily summaries from the ICJ

Preview: The Marshall Islands at the ICJ – “We are, basically, asking the Court to tell the respondent states to live up to their obligations under international law and to conduct negotiations leading to the required result: nuclear disarmament in all its aspects”, said Phon van den Biesen, Co-Agent for the RMI and attorney at law in Amsterdam, who is leading the International Legal Team.

Day One: Marshall Islands Shines Against India – It was an historic day at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), as oral arguments in the first-ever contentious cases on nuclear disarmament began at the ICJ. The Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) argued strongly in favor of the ICJ holding jurisdiction in the case that the RMI has brought against India.

Day Two: Where Is Pakistan? – Pakistan chose not to participate in oral arguments at the case against it at the International Court of Justice. On 8 March, the Marshall Islands presented its case to the Court. Marshall Islands Co-Agent Tony de Brum recounted the only “snowfall” the Marshall Islands had ever experienced – the radioactive fallout after the 1 March 1954 Castle Bravo nuclear test.

Day Three: What Is the Sound of One Hand Clapping? – In its opening pleadings on 9 March, Sir Daniel Bethlehem told the Court, “The United Kingdom had thought, although naively, as it now appears, that we had a strong record on nuclear disarmament.”

Day Four: Aspirational Rhetoric vs. Real Actions – India pleaded to the Court on 10 March that it is, in fact, deeply committed to nuclear disarmament because it consistently votes in favor of various disarmament resolutions at the United Nations General Assembly. Its active involvement in the nuclear arms race, though, tells a different story.

Day Five: Everybody’s Doing It – In the Marshall Islands’ first session of oral arguments in the case against the United Kingdom on 11 March, Phon van den Biesen, Co-Agent of the Marshall Islands, outlined how the UK is not only not engaged in nuclear disarmament negotiations, but “on the contrary it is and continues to be opposed to such negotiations.”

Day Six (Part One): Contempt of Court – In the Marshall Islands’ final round of oral argument against India on 14 March, Phon van den Biesen told the Court that India’s active participation in the nuclear arms race – including a test-launch of its K-4 submarine-launched ballistic missile on 7 March (the first day of the ICJ hearings) – could be described as “contempt of court.”

Day Six (Part Two): Appealing to Sentiment – In the United Kingdom’s final round of oral argument on 14 March, Sir David Bethlehem told the Court that the Marshall Islands was simply “appealing to sentiment” by recounting its experience as a test site for 67 US nuclear weapons tests, and that the cases should be dismissed.

Day Seven: Making a Big Fuss –  In closing arguments at the International Court of Justice, RMI Co-Agent Tony de Brum asked the Court “to adjudge and declare that the Court has jurisdiction over the claims of the Marshall Islands submitted in its Application of 24 April 2014; and to adjudge and declare that the Marshall Islands’ claims are admissible.”

 


 

Take action today to let the leaders of the Marshall Islands know that you support their courageous legal action. Sign the petition at www.nuclearzero.org.

Jen Maman is the Senior Peace Advisor at Greenpeace Intrernational. His contribution to this article was originally published on the Greenpeace International blog.

Rick Wayman is Head of Programs for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. His contribution to this article was originally published by NAPF.

Access all relevant court documents at the ICJ website for the cases against the UKIndia and Pakistan.

Also on The Ecologist:

 

People power: how Montana stopped the biggest coal mine in North America

Montana communities won a victory against one of the world’s biggest coal companies earlier this month, when Arch Coal abandoned the Otter Creek mine – the largest proposed new coal strip mine in North America.

The story of how the project imploded is one of people power triumphing over a company once thought to be nearly invincible.

To many observers, the Otter Creek project once seemed unstoppable. It certainly appeared that way in 2011, the year I moved to Missoula, Montana for graduate school. Then-Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer enthusiastically supported the mine, and coal more generally.

Forrest Mars, Jr., the billionaire heir to the Mars candy fortune, had just joined Arch and BNSF Railways in backing a proposed railroad spur meant to service Otter Creek. Arch and politicians like Schweitzer predicted a boom in coal demand from economies in Asia.

But what they weren’t counting on was a vocal and active region-wide opposition. The coming together of ordinary people – first in southeast Montana, then an ever-growing number of communities throughout the Northwest – to oppose the Otter Creek mine says much about how land defenders and climate activists are learning to fight back against the planet’s biggest energy companies.

The roots of this recent victory go back more than 30 years.

Origins of the Otter Creek mine

Eastern Montana is known for its arid climate, but the Tongue River Valley just north of the Wyoming border supports a lush landscape of willows, pines, sagebrush and grassy pastures. The river and underground aquifers make the valley ideal for agriculture. On the east side of the river, where the Otter Creek tracts are located, a mix of state and private land supports farms and cattle ranches.

To the west is the Northern Cheyenne Reservation. Decades before Arch proposed the Otter Creek mine, Southeast Montana was already ground zero in a fight over the nation’s energy future. In 1971, as the United States looked for alternatives to foreign oil, the Bureau of Land Management published a study calling for massively increased coal production in northern Plains states.

It proposed building 21 new coal-fired power plants in Montana and opening vast new mines to feed them. Implicit was the assumption that energy developers would run into little resistance in the sparsely populated Plains. Corporate representatives tried to persuade ranching families to sell their land for mines, then threatened them with eminent domain.

However, many landowners didn’t back down. “I told that son-of-a-bitch with a briefcase that I knew he represented one of the biggest coal companies and he was backed by one of the richest industries in the world, but no matter how much money they came up with, they would always be $4.60 short of the price of my ranch”, said landowner Boyd Charter, according to Northern Plains Resource Council, an organization that formed in 1972 to oppose the mining.

By the end of the decade only one major new coal plant had broken ground in Montana, and plans to turn the state into a large-scale coal sacrifice zone were in tatters. Then, in the 1980s, the coal industry proposed a new Tongue River Railroad to link northern Wyoming coal fields to existing Montana rail lines.

The Tongue River Railroad

The plan floundered for decades amid local opposition, but in 2011 the Tongue River Company was bought up by Arch Coal, BNSF Railways and Forrest Mars, Jr. Mars, who owns a private ranch in area, formerly opposed the railroad but apparently bought in with the understanding that the preferred route would be shortened to not cross his property.

Instead of hauling Wyoming coal, this new version of the Tongue River Railroad would service Arch’s Otter Creek mine. The coal industry would try again to turn Montana into a coal extraction colony. Their plan was helped along the previous year, in March 2010, when the Montana State Land Board, chaired by Gov. Schweitzer, voted on whether to lease state lands at Otter Creek to Arch.

Ranchers concerned about damage to aquifers, high school students worried about climate change and other concerned citizens at the meeting urged the board to vote no. Just before the vote, activists from Northern Rockies Rising Tide disrupted proceedings by chaining themselves to Land Board members’ desks.

The protest drew attention to what was at stake. But Land Board members reconvened and voted 3-2 in favour of the lease. Now all Arch needed to break ground was a mining permit from the state, and a permit to build the Tongue River Railroad from the U.S. Surface Transportation Board. The battle lines were drawn.

From Tongue River to the coast

What happened at Otter Creek would affect communities throughout the Pacific Northwest. Coal train traffic through the area was already up, hauling coal from existing Wyoming and Montana mines to British Columbia ports. If Otter Creek and a series of proposed new coal export terminals in the United States were built, the number of these trains would skyrocket.

“I noticed more and more coal trains rumbling past my home”, said Lowell Chandler, who was a senior at the University of Montana and lived next to the railroad in Missoula when I met him in 2011. “They were polluting my air with toxic diesel emissions and coal dust. Then I found out about the massive coal export proposals in my state and the Northwest region.”

In places like Missoula, disproportionately lower-income neighbourhoods are directly across the street from the railroad. An industrial yard used to refuel trains and connect and reconnect train cars is a major source of pollution. Residents told of sounds like bombs going off in the middle of the night as rail cars were joined together, of coal dust on their windowsills, and of choking on diesel fumes from idling locomotives.

I joined Chandler and other UM students in starting a group called Blue Skies Campaign in 2011, to work in coordination with rail line neighbourhood residents and push back against the coal trains. Blue Skies’ first action was a protest outside a Wells Fargo, at the time a major coal industry funder.

Later we partnered with Northern Plains Resource Council and other groups on a coal trains forum that drew over 200 people. We organized to attend city council meetings, coordinated rallies, and held street theatre and protests. But we knew we had to do more.

In August 2012, Blue Skies coordinated the largest energy-related nonviolent civil disobedience in Montana up to that time. The Coal Export Action, a five-day sit-in at the State Capitol, was a protest against leasing of state lands to coal companies. Twenty-three people were arrested and hundreds more attended to show support.

“Before putting my body on the line during a sit-in, I had never participated in nonviolent civil disobedience”, said Corey Bressler, a UM student arrested on the second day. “This swelling of people sent a powerful message to decision makers that Montanans and Americans want to shift away from fossil fuels toward a greener future.”

Protests in Otter Creek

The next few years saw rail line communities turn to direct action repeatedly. Protests on the railroad tracks delayed coal trains, with a 2015 blockade preventing a train from entering downtown Missoula for almost an hour. In April 2014, 1,500 Montanans in more than a dozen communities rallied in a day of actions for clean energy.

Other rallies and smaller protests occurred with increasing regularity. “There is personal power in a collaborative response to a shared threat,” said Cate Campbell, a retired railroad brakeman from Frenchtown, Montana who was arrested multiple times. “In taking direct action I found an inner feeling of purpose and commitment.”

Meanwhile, Montana had just experienced some of its worst-ever droughts and fire seasons, moving climate change to the forefront of the coal debate. In 2013 a new group, 350 Missoula (a grassroots affiliate of the climate group 350.org) made stopping the Otter Creek mine its priority. The group, made up of retirees, teachers, nurses, educators and others, worked with Blue Skies to organize rallies and civil disobedience.

They also pushed elected officials to take a side in the Otter Creek fight. In 2014, Missoula’s City Council formally asked that environmental reviews for Otter Creek and the Tongue River Railroad include public hearings in Missoula. Local state legislators supported this request. In Whitefish (along Montana’s northern rail line) groups like Glacier Climate Action persuaded their city council to take similar action.

In the summer of 2015, the Surface Transportation Board opened a public comment period on the Tongue River Railroad. Activists in Missoula tabled at public events and street corners, gathering more than 4,000 written comments. Groups throughout the Northwest sent alerts to their members. Legislators and local governments, including the city of Missoula and Missoula County, submitted concerns about coal trains.

Communities closest to the mine site mobilized. Public hearings in Ashland and Lame Deer, on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation, were attended by 100 and 300 people respectively (the total populations of Lame Deer and Ashland are about 1,000 and 800).

Most attendees were Northern Cheyenne members opposed to the railroad. The coal industry had tried to win over residents with promises of jobs, but these efforts seemed to have failed miserably. Toward the end of the comment period, the Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council unanimously passed a resolution opposing the Tongue River Railroad.

More than 100,000 comments were submitted by groups opposed to the railroad before the comment period ended. That fall, over a hundred people representing most of Montana’s major towns gathered at the State Capitol for a ‘Keep It In The Ground’ climate rally.

Meanwhile, regional and global pressures on Arch Coal compounded local opposition to the mine, changing the equation in an approval process that had once seemed inevitable.

The decline of King Coal

In 2010, Arch Coal competitor Peabody announced that “coal’s best days are ahead.” However, it was clear even then that a combination of grassroots organizing, new regulations for polluting power plants, and falling prices for cleaner energy was causing US coal use to drop. What came as a surprise was that coal consumption in Asia, especially China, failed to make up for declining US demand.

Some racism was implied in the coal industry’s assumption that residents of China and India would willingly tolerate pollution levels unacceptable to North Americans. In fact, public concern about pollution created a crisis for the Chinese government. Last April, 10,000 people in China’s Guangdong Province turned out to protest a recently-built coal plant.

The government has begun closing mines, reducing coal imports and ramping up renewables. China’s coal consumption declined 3% in 2014, and 4% in 2015. India’s coal use is still growing, but new power plants have run into such fierce opposition that many will likely never be built.

It turned out US coal companies couldn’t even maintain export levels from a couple years ago. In 2015, Cloud Peak Energy announced it would stop exporting coal through British Columbia. In this environment, a series of announcements beginning late last year showed cracks forming in Arch’s Otter Creek plans.

In November, Arch announced it was asking the Surface Transportation Board to put the Tongue River Railroad permit review on hold. Companies rarely make requests like this when they are confident a review will go well for them. Statements from Arch claimed Otter Creek would still move forward, but an updated mining application Arch intended to file with the state in December never materialized. In January, Arch filed for bankruptcy.

Arch was just the latest (and biggest) US coal company to go bankrupt in the last few years. The move was long anticipated, but now Montanans waited in suspense. Would this be the final blow to the Otter Creek mine, or would Arch find a way to salvage the project and turn the company’s troubles around?

On March 10, Arch announced it was suspending attempts to extract coal at Otter Creek. A statement released by Northern Plains Resource Council, from Otter Creek rancher Dawson Dunning, summed up the feelings of many locals: “Ranchers and irrigators in southeast Montana can sleep well knowing their water will be protected.”

A turning point?

“How many times have I read about projects that would increase carbon emissions, and felt helpless to stop them?” said Marta Meengs, a nurse who helped start 350-Missoula. “Otter Creek was different. People’s civil disobedience, tabling for public comments, and conversations with legislators actually showed results and helped stop what would have been one of the largest coal mines in North America.”

The defeat of the Otter Creek mine is one example of a larger, encouraging trend. Climate activists and land defenders are learning to take on the world’s biggest energy companies, fight huge fossil fuel projects, and win.

Every industry loss strengthens the position of activists going into the next round, just as declining coal consumption in China contributed to the Otter Creek victory. And the fossil fuel industry is losing more and more often, from Shell and Arctic oil to TransCanada and the Keystone XL Pipeline to Arch Coal and Otter Creek.

The worldwide climate movement is driving down global carbon emissions in concrete, measurable ways. It’s a grassroots movement where people lead and government officials follow (when they show up at all). There’s still a long way to go before all remaining fossil fuels are left in the ground.

But progress is undeniable, and we can expect more wins as the movement grows. In the words of Lee Metzgar, a retired biologist and member of 350-Missoula who participated in the Otter Creek protests:

“Our political system has demonstrated its inability to find adequate solutions to the climate crisis. It is time for everyone who wants to leave future generations a liveable world to be in the streets.”

 


 

Nick Engelfried is an environmental writer and activist. He is currently an organizer for the Blue Skies Campaign in Missoula, Montana.

This article was originally published by Waging Nonviolence and republished under a Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY).