Tag Archives: environmental

Profits before whales! To know why TTIP would be a nightmare, look to Canada Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




If anyone tries to convince you that TTIP is no threat to a government’s ability to protect its people, just point them to Canada.

Last week, Canada’s government was successfully sued for daring to turn down a large mining quarry which threatened to cause environmental damage in Nova Scotia.

It is the latest in a long line of cases which have been brought against Canada for attempting to introduce environmental protection, under NAFTA – the North America Free Trade Agreement. These cases have been brought about under exactly the same mechanism – known as ISDS (Investor State Dispute Settlement) – which is at the centre of the TTIP deal.

ISDS is essentially a corporate court system – allowing foreign corporations to sue governments in secret tribunals, overseen by corporate lawyers, with no right of appeal. Even winning can cost a country a small fortune in legal costs.

Canada has to pay $100s of millions in ‘compensation’

The most recent ruling focuses on Canada’s decision, following an environmental review, to block the White’s Point 152-hectare basalt quarry on Digby Neck in Nova Scotia – which happens to be a key breeding area for cetaceans, increasingly popular among whale-watchers.

Among the species regularly frequenting nearby waters are Finback Whales, Minke Whales, Harbor Porpoises, Humpback Whales, Whitesided Dolphins, the endangered North Atlantic Right Whale, and there have been sightings of Pilot, Beluga, Sei, Sperm Whales and Orcas.

US corporation Bilcon wanted to open the quarry and argued that it had put time and money into the development. The province’s environmental review, however, found that the project clashed with “community core values“, and the quarry blasting and shipping movements would be detrimental to the area’s cetaceans.

The company argued that the government shouldn’t even have resorted to an environmental review. It has now won its case before the NAFTA arbitration panel, which ruled in its 260-page judgment that Bilcon was “denied a fair environmental hearing”. It is now demanding $300 million in compensation.

Two aspects of this case prove what critics have always said about these corporate courts. First, the case didn’t relate to a breach of contract or to discrimination in favour of a domestic company. It simply related to a regulation which a foreign corporation didn’t like.

Second, the case is a challenge to Canada’s ability to make decisions based on environmental protection, as pointed out by the one dissenting voice in this tribunal, that of Ottawa law professor Donald McRae who warned:

“A chill will be imposed on environmental review panels which will be concerned not to give too much weight to socio-economic considerations or other considerations of the human environment in case the result is a claim for damages under NAFTA.”

The ruling, he continued “will be seen as a remarkable step backwards in environmental protection” and a “significant intrusion into domestic jurisdiction.”

Environmental protection subordinate to corporate profit

Canada has been sued for environmental protection regulations again and again. Previous cases include Canada being taken to task for attempting to ban the import of toxic waste and for trying to prohibit dangerous chemical MMT from petrol. In the latter case, Canada reversed its ban.

And only days before the Bilcon ruling, Canada had a $17.3-million award made against it for a regulation which required oil giant Exxon Mobil and Murphy Oil (along with other offshore oil producers) to invest some of their profits from offshore drilling in the local economy.

It has been suggested that unless the requirement is withdrawn, this will be the tip of the iceberg in terms of ‘compensation’ – another example of a completely moderate and sensible government regulation being threatened by unelected, unaccountable corporate lawyers. 

It is often claimed that these corporate courts ‘only’ effect developing countries with dubious standards of law. That would be bad enough, but Canada is not a developing country, yet has lost millions of dollars to these corporate courts after signing an investment deal like TTIP with the US. These cases should be instructive to European governments.

The European Commission is keen to tell us that they are reforming the corporate court procedure for TTIP, so there’s no need to worry. But from what we’ve seen of such reforms to date, they may actually make matters worse. Veteran investment arbitrator Todd Weiler said of the reformed system:

“I love it, the new Canadian-EU treaty … we used to have to argue about all of those [foreign investor rights] … And now we have this great list. I just love it when they try to explain things.”

In the UK, the political divide is laid bare

In a ground-breaking report, the House of Commons Business Select Committee came out today saying it wasn’t convinced of the need for the corporate court system. Against them are ranged Conservatives and Liberal Democrats who support TTIP and its ISDS provisions, often with great enthusiasm.

Lobbying of MPs and MEPs has shown that Labour representatives are looking for significant reform of ISDS before they will be persuaded to vote for CETA or TTIP, while Green Party, SNP and UKIP MEPs are voting against the deal.

It has recently been flagged by a number of US Senate Democrats as a reason to oppose TTIP. 

Negotiations on TTIP between the EU and the US are continuing, amid reports of “problems” over the inclusion of ISDS in the agreement. In an earlier public consultation on ISDS in TTIP, over 150,000 respondents participated – 97% of them opposing ISDS. The next round of negotiations will take place in Washington DC in the week starting 20th April.

Canada’s experience shows why it’s important for progressive politicians to stick to their guns – and for those now supporting ISDS to rethink their position. The corporate court system fundamentally challenges our ability to protect the environment. However you reform it, it has no role in a democratic society.

 

 

Action: an International Day of Action against all ‘free trade’ deals is planned for Saturday 18 April in association with Stop TTIP.

Sign an EU-wide petition against TTIP – it already has 1.6 million signatures and has a target of 2 million by October 2015.

Nick Dearden is director of the Global Justice Now (formerly World Development Movement), and former director of the Jubilee Debt Campaign.

This article is an updated version of one first published by Global Justice Now.

 

 




391620

Fracking in the UK: what to expect in 2015 Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The current UK coalition government has overseen the greatest fossil fuel boom since the discovery of North Sea oil, but the controversy that surrounds shale has made it an interesting factor in the run-up to this year’s general election.

The government has shown absolutely no evidence that it is willing to slow down its committed march towards the commercial development of shale gas.

For example, the government recently approved amendments to the infrastructure bill which, amidst heavy public resistance, will allow fracking companies to extract shale from right underneath people’s homes.

This is irrespective of a wide range of academic reports listing both health and environmental implications, as well as direct human rights inflictions.

Chancellor George Osborne also pledged a further £35 million in the Autumn Statement towards the development of shale gas, with £5 million in particular dedicated to twisting the public’s arm on the matter.

And with the introduction of a Task Force on Shale Gas headed by the ex-environmental minister Lord Chris Smith, the energy industry is very serious in styling a UK fracking boom on America’s recent ‘shale revolution’.

Political instability in Eastern Europe has also contributed to the pro-fracking agenda and has encouraged the government to pursue an easier option over greener, alternative energy sources that may take longer to develop.

Shale has continuously been hyped as a cheap energy source that will define UK energy independence from foreign imports – a view discredited by the government’s own energy researchers.

Environmental opposition

An increasing amount of communities across the UK have begun organising attempts to resist fracking proposals in their local area.

Talking to DeSmogUK, Hannah Walters from Frack Off UK said: “This is the fastest growing social movement in the UK right now.

“There are currently around 170 anti-fracking community groups actively resisting this industry on a day-by-day basis with several more forming each week. We’re expecting that number to pass 200 as we move into 2015.”

For example, residents in Fife, Scotland are now urging their council to postpone fracking developments due to worrying reports on health implications and environmental pollution.

However, campaigners are likely to be heavily scrutinised by the police. In December, it was revealed that the police asked Canterbury Christ Church University to hand over a list of members of the public who attended a fracking debate on its campus.

While the University declined the request, it follows similar disclosures that police have been monitoring political activities at campuses around the country, as well as spying on groups that use non-violent methods in their campaigning.

Health impacts

At the end of last year, a hard-hitting report was commissioned by the Bianca Jagger Human Rights Foundation and delivered to Prime Minister David Cameron. It cites human rights liabilities for the British Government if fracking commences commercially across the UK.

Focusing primarily on the health implications of people living near frack sites, the report called on the government to investigate the impact of fracking on the rights of individuals.

Other reports have also expressed concern regarding the implications on people around fracking sites due to the chemicals involved with hydraulic fracturing.

Talking to the Courier, Dr Richard Dixon, director of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: “There is a growing body of evidence that environmental and health risks associated with onshore unconventional gas extraction, including coalbed methane, are inherent and impossible to eliminate.”

In a recent damning report by the government’s chief scientific adviser, the author of one of the chapters, Prof Andrew Stirling of the University of Sussex, warned that fracking could carry unforeseen risks that would replicate problems seen with asbestos and thalidomide.

The chapter states: “History presents plenty of examples of innovation trajectories that later proved to be problematic – for instance involving asbestos, benzene, thalidomide, dioxins, lead in petrol, tobacco, many pesticides, mercury, chlorine and endocrine-disrupting compounds.”

Caroline Lucas, MP for the Green Party, when recently writing for the Guardian also lambasted the government’s pursuit of fossil fuels as a “public health imperative”, adding that to save lives, “urgent change is needed”.

Industry decline

Ed Davey, the energy and climate change secretary has recently expressed his concern regarding a declining fossil fuel industry that needs to adapt to a changing climate and market, stating that the energy industry is “seeing a move from carbon capitalism to climate capitalism.”

“We know with climate change we have got to move out to a low-carbon agenda and we are already seeing the signs that the market is going to be helping to drive this”, he said.

Adaptability and divestment from fossil fuel holdings is a theme expressed by both the secretary and green business institutions, who argue for greater transparency to protect future investors.

They may have been inspired by events in the US where the rapidly grown shale industry has taken a big hit from declining oil prices.

The self titled ‘granddaddy’ of fracking, Harold Hamm, recently lost half of his multi-billion dollar fortune in a shockwave financial crisis that has led to doubts regarding shale as the saviour of US energy politics.

 

 

Richard Heasman writes for DeSmogUK and tweets @Richardheasman4.

This article was originally published on DeSmogUK.

 

 




388553

BLM sued – no environmental review of coal leasing since 1979 Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




It has been 35 years since the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) last performed an environmental review of its coal leasing program.

But now two environmental groups are suing the BLM to force a review of the program.

Given advances in scientific knowledge of the risks posed by mining and burning coal to human health and Earth’s climate made since 1979, the groups argue that the review will

“compel the Bureau of Land Management to deliver on its legal obligation to promote environmentally responsible management of public lands on behalf of the citizens of the United States.”

Friends of the Earth and the Western Organization of Resource Councils filed the lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, naming Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell and BLM Director Neil Kornze as lead defendants, along with the Department of the Interior and the BLM.

BLM coal producing 14% of US’s CO2 emissions

Citing requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, the complaint states:

“Even though coal mined under the federal coal management program is one of the single greatest contributors to US greenhouse gas emissions, constituting approximately 14% of annual carbon dioxide emissions and 11% of annual greenhouse gas emissions, BLM has unlawfully failed to evaluate and consider these environmental effects.”

The lawsuit comes as President Obama is arguably getting tougher than ever on climate action, having recently signed a non-binding climate deal with Chinain which both countries pledge to lower emissions. Obama’s EPA is also pursuing the Clean Power Plan, which aims to rein in emissions from power plants, especially those that are coal-fired.

“There is an inconsistency between the President’s declared policy on global warming and the coal leasing policy of the BLM”, Ben Schreiber, Friends of the Earth’s Climate and Energy Program Director, said in a press release.

“The lawsuit is saying, under the law, the BLM must provide an updated programmatic environmental impact statement that examines the contribution of mining and combustion of BLM coal to climate change and consider alternative energy policy options that would help reduce global warming.”

40% of US coal produced under BLM leases

According to the BLM website, the agency is responsible for coal leasing on 570 million acres of land owned by the federal government, and receives revenues at three points: when it issues a lease, via annual rental payments of $3.00 per acre “or a fraction thereof”, and as royalties based on the value of the coal once it is mined. The state where the coal was mined also gets a share of the revenue.

The BLM does not comment on pending litigation, but its website states: “The BLM works to ensure that the development of coal resources is done in an environmentally sound manner and is in the best interests of the Nation.”

While its ‘Suitable Lands for Coal Leasing’ guidelines list “protection of critical environmental areas” as a requirement, there is no mention of climate change implications.

The amount of coal mined through the lease program has doubled since 1990, according to Bloomberg, and now constitutes as much as 40% of coal extraction in the US.

The Powder River Basin, which extends from central Wyoming into southern Montana and produces 41% of US coal, is the region with the most federal coal leases, producing more than 80% of coal mined from federal lands.

Local impacts: toxic emissions, polluted aquifers

“People living in the Powder River Basin have endured many hardships not predicted in the outdated environmental studies”, Bob LeResche, a rancher from Clearmont, WY who serves as a Vice Chair of WORC, said in a statement.

Impacts include “lack of access to grazing lands, un-restored groundwater aquifers, toxic emissions from explosions, costly and dangerous railroad traffic in major cities to name a few.

“A full environmental study will enable the BLM to fulfill their duty to promote environmentally responsible management of public lands in light of climate change on behalf of the citizens of the United States.”

Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen is underwriting the lawsuit via his Paul G. Allen Family Foundation.

“More than 40 percent of all the coal mined in the United States is owned by US taxpayers, yet the BLM has not fulfilled its obligation to manage these resources responsibly”, said Dune Ives, co-manager of the Paul G. Allen Family Foundation.

“The American people should not have to go to court to get the government to do its job, but we need to do what’s necessary to protect our lands for future generations.”

 

 

Mike Gaworecki is an activist, writer, and musician who lives in San Francisco. He has several years’ experience as an online campaigner working on energy, climate, and forest issues for organizations like Greenpeace and the Rainforest Action Network. His writing has appeared on The Ecologist, Alternet.org, Treehugger.org, Change.org, HuffingtonPost.com, and more.

This article was originally published on DeSmogBlog.

 




387881

Peru: indigenous leaders murdered for protecting their forests Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




A new report by Global Witness sheds light on what’s driving the high number of killings of environmental defenders in Peru, less than a month before the country hosts the UN climate talks in Lima.

Peru’s Deadly Environment calls into question the commitments of Peru to protect its carbon-rich forests and the people who live in them, in light of unfettered illegal logging, disregard for indigenous land claims, and new laws that favour industrial exploitation over environmental protection.

The report comes on the heels of the killings of four indigenous leaders in Ucayali in September, including prominent anti-logging activist Edwin Chota and three of his fellow Ashéninka leaders from the Peruvian Amazon.

“The murders of Edwin Chota and his colleagues are tragic reminders of a paradox at work in the climate negotiations”, said Patrick Alley, Co-Founder of Global Witness. “While Peru’s government chairs negotiations on how to solve our climate crisis, it is failing to protect the people on the frontline of environmental protection.

Environmental defenders embody the resolve we need to halt global warming. The message is clear, if you want to save the environment, then stop people killing environmental defenders.”

Since 2002, 57 eco-defenders killed

Peru is the fourth most dangerous country to be an environmental defender, behind Brazil, Honduras and the Philippines. At least 57 environmental and land defenders were killed in Peru between 2002 and the present day, more than 60% of them in the last four years, according to new Global Witness data.

Most of these deaths involved disputes over land rights, mining and logging. 72% of Peru’s indigenous communities still have no way of demonstrating their land tenure rights, and over 20 million hectares of land claims have not yet been processed.

Peru’s Deadly Environment was being launched yesterday at an award ceremony in which the Alexander Soros Foundation honoures Chota and his colleagues with its annual Award for Environmental Activism.

Diana Rios Rengifo, daughter of one of the murdered men, will accept the award on behalf of her father and their Ashéninka community, which has been fighting for more than a decade for the right to gain titles to its land.

“They may have killed my father and his friends, but I am still here”, said Diana, daughter of Jorge Rios. “And I will continue to fight for the rights to our territories and for the rights of the other indigenous peoples of Peru.”

Deforestation is rampant

Peru presides over an area of rainforest roughly the size of the US state of Texas, and recently committed to reduce net deforestation to zero by 2021 as part of a $300 million deal with Norway.

In 2012 deforestation rates in Peru doubled from the previous year and forest loss now accounts for nearly half the country’s annual greenhouse gas emissions.

Illegal logging is worth 1.5 times the value of legal timber exports in Peru, and allegations contained in Peru’s Deadly Environment hint at collusion between loggers and government officials.

Edwin Chota had received numerous death threats for his resistance to the loggers who were gutting his community’s forests, but his appeals to the authorities were ignored.

Before he died, Chota sent local police photographs of the illegal loggers who are now charged with his murder and the locations of their logging sites.

Peru shamed – but hosting December UN climate conference

Across Latin America, strengthening indigenous rights to their land has proven links to healthier forests and lower carbon emissions – evidence that will take centre stage at the upcoming Lima climate conference.

Meanwhile hosts Peru invoked a new law in July 2014 that grants extended land use rights to investors for the expansion of large-scale agriculture, mining, logging and infrastructure projects.

“Peru’s credibility as a forest protector hinges upon providing land and resource rights to the country’s indigenous and rural populations”, said David Salisbury, a University of Richmond professor who has spent time with Edwin Chota’s community of Saweto.

“If you want to keep forests standing, you have to invest in people who live in them, as they have the most at stake in the sustainable development of those areas. Saweto is a perfect example. The government should recognize there are people in the forests, and give them rights to them.

“How can you maintain standing forest, and mitigate climate change, if the defenders of the forest are being assassinated?”

 

 

The report: Peru’s deadly environment is by Global Witness.

 




386926

Latin American progressives and environmental duplicity Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




What governments must do, now more than ever, is decisively leave resources in the ground, reject mining projects, resist the short-termist temptation of a fossil fuel fix.

Over the past 16 years, Latin America has undergone what has been termed a ‘pink tide‘. Since 1998, a wave of electoral victories has swept an unprecedented number of leftist governments to power across the region, from Sánchez Cerén in El Salvador to Bachelet in Chile.

For many, this shift has signalled an unravelling of neoliberal hegemony, and its replacement by emboldened new models of development, characterised by redistributive, progressive, anti-imperialist, and environmentalist politics.

Some of these perceptions are broadly accurate, but there has certainly been a gulf between the rhetoric of Latin American governments and their practical record.

Nowhere is this deficiency more blatant than in the environmental sphere. Latin American states, despite leading the charge at international climate summits, have rather different credentials at home

The overwhelming temptation of high resource prices

A key explanation for this asymmetry lies with the fact that the leftist surge coincided with an unprecedented commodity boom. Deftly managed, the boom brought historic windfall savings for governments, as they increased taxes on private oil firms and agribusiness, and nationalized particular industries.

Accordingly, public spending has increased significantly, allowing for heightened investment in healthcare, education, housing, culture, and social security.

While there have been important social gains, a starkly problematic result of this process is that leaders such as Correa, Maduro or Morales have deepened a model which depends on funding welfare and purchasing political legitimacy through extractive earnings.

Extractive industries make up over half of exports in Ecuador, where 44% of the government’s revenue stems from oil sales. In Peru, 70% of exports come from extractive industries, whereas in Bolivia, mining and fossil fuels account for 83% of traded goods.

This dependency shows no sign of abating, propelled by the shale revolution enveloping the region, which holds some of the world’s largest shale oil and gas reserves.

Aware of this endowment, most of Latin America’s governments, from Chile to Venezuela to Mexico, have either been assiduously exploring their territories for shale deposits, or have begun the process of extraction.

Amid widespread protests and public concerns, they defiantly wave away any apprehensions about downstream social and environmental consequences. Miguel Galuccio, CEO of the Argentine state energy firm YPF, assured everyone that any suggestion of environment impacts from the country’s shale fields was a “myth”.

With nearly 30% of international mining investment flowing into Latin America, dozens of open-cut mining projects are also under way. Even in Uruguay, the renowned progressive coalition lead by José Mujica opened the path to large-scale mining last year.

Obstacles to resistance

Despite vociferous resistance from indigenous communities and affected groups, effective opposition to these developments is encumbered by a number of obstacles.

Firstly, there is a dearth of political parties capable of disrupting what sociologist Maristella Svampa describes as the “commodity consensus”, an almost unanimous endorsement of extractivism across the partisan spectrum. This consensus is further bolstered by the proximity of petrochemical companies to governments.

Neither is there an entirely safe space for those willing to express dissent. Latin America is the most dangerous region in the world for environmental defenders. A Global Witness report noted that the rate of environmentalist killings has “dramatically increased … Three times as many people were killed in 2012 than 10 years before.”

Local opposition to ecologically destructive projects is often met by violent repression from state or private security forces. Recently, twenty-three Paraguayan farmers opposing the expansion of the industrial soya industry were injured after their protest was quelled by police.

Institutionalised environmentalist groups are regularly derided by public officials as extremist or traitorous, and are occasionally suppressed, exemplified by the forced closures of Acción Ecológica and the Pachamama Foundation in Ecuador.

With limited grievance mechanisms available for groups to voice their distress over project impacts, disputes are commonplace. According to the Environmental Justice Atlas, five Latin American states rank among the top ten most environmentally conflictive countries in the world.

Hydrocarbons – how can we afford not to develop them?

There is also a significant ideological impediment. Latin American leaders recurrently rationalize the exploitation of hydrocarbons as a developmental necessity, claiming they are merely obeying pragmatism.

When the Ecuadorian government abandoned its ground-breaking Yasuni-ITT Initiative, which encouraged the international community to compensate the country for refraining to exploit oil reserves in Yasuni National Park, President Rafael Correa justified the decision by arguing that

“We do not have another alternative, we need this money to end poverty.”

An analogous attitude is articulated by his Argentine counterpart Cristina Fernández, who has often declared her belief in a “contemporary and rational” form of environmentalism, based on an equilibrium between jobs and sustainability.

She clarified this position by arguing that while “it is noble to defend flora and fauna, it’s more important to take care of the human species so it has work, water, sewers … “

Yet the suggested dilemma between environmental protection and development is demonstrably false, ignoring a rich tradition of thinking about ecological development and sustainable economics.

Further, their arguments (and those of most Latin American leaders) depend on what we might call the ‘extractive illusion’, the belief that the intensive exploitation of natural riches will translate into societal wealth.

But much of the fortune accrued through extractivism leaves the country, and questions surround whether re-priming the economy is the best strategy for long-term prosperity. Extractivism after all, leaves countries heavily reliant on global commodity swings and dwindling resource pools.

Domestically, it locks them into a predatory model, one which depends on laying waste to nature and communities in the midst of ‘sacrifice zones‘.

Pushing back the extractive frontier

The blunt reality is that climate change and ecological stewardship have always been ancillary issues for Latin American governments.

For all the rhetorical embrace of sustainable economics and constitutional changes made to enshrine greater respect for nature, environmentalism remains little more than a discursive device, an instrument to carry favour with certain domestic consistencies and score points on the international scene.

Driven by a ‘compensation logic‘ which maintains that economic wealth is worth the damage wrought, they have pushed the extractive frontier further back than ever before.

Many of the aforementioned governments shirk their responsibility by making reference to international inequities, inveighing against the emissions impunity enjoyed by developed nations for centuries.

It is a truism that developing countries have borne and will bear the brunt of the toxic impacts of the industrial economy, despite contributing the least to the problem.

Government must leave resources in the ground!

But to publically advocate for the repayment of a climate debt is no longer enough; what governments must do, now more than ever, is decisively leave resources in the ground, reject mining projects, resist the short-termist temptation of a fossil fuel fix.

This need not be seen as restrictive. The global ecological crisis furnishes Latin American governments with a real opportunity to brandish their progressive credentials, to forge a unique, relevant model that enhances social justice whilst remaining in touch with the carrying capacity of our planet.

The region is uniquely posed to do this. According to the Inter-American Development Bank, Latin America boasts a renewable energy potential which could cover its projected electricity needs 22 times over.

Populated by a vibrant civil society and indigenous communities with multigenerational ecological knowledge, there is no shortage of actors who can help enact meaningful change.

There is also no more urgent time to act. As the ‘pink tide’ recedes and institutional politics return to the middle, environmental issues may begin to lose even their rhetorical relevance.

This can only be foreseeably challenged by broad and determined popular movements, ones which bolster those struggles already taking place, and hold administrations to account for their effusive pledges.

The possible penalties for inaction, both globally and in Latin America, are unimaginable.

 

 

Daniel Macmillen is a writer and activist. He tweets at @bywordlight.

This article was originally published by Open Democracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence.

Creative Commons License

 

 




378581

Malaysia: eco-activists combat judicial repression Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Thirty years ago the Malaysian government suppressed environmental and human rights protests using arbitrary detentions and sedition law.

Today, we are again faced with the same challenge.

In 1987 I was arrested under the Internal Security Act (ISA) 1960 – which allows detention without trial.

I was held in solitary confinement for 47 days without the right to a lawyer or to be heard in court. No charges were ever filed against me.

I still do not know the real reasons for my arrest, but the authorities use the ISA against those they regard as “subversive”.

During that time, I was involved in many public interest cases which we brought on behalf of communities. One of them was a case involving a community in Bukit Merah affected by Asian Rare Earth – a company whose majority shareholder was Japanese giant Mitsubishi Chemicals.

Laws change, repression remains

The ISA 1960 was repealed on September 15, 2011 but has been replaced by a new law called the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012.

I have also been barred from entering the East Malaysian state of Sarawak because of my involvement in the movement agains the Bakun Dam in the 1990s, and a case that was filed on behalf of indigenous communities affected by the Bakun Hydro-electric Dam.

This dam caused the relocation of about 10,000 indigenous people from their original settlement sites. They were asked to move to a resettlement site with poor amenities and infrastructure.

Even now, in 2014, the complaints from those who live at the resettlement site have not been adequately addressed by the Malaysian government.

Development versus environment and the poor

Wherever environmental crises take place, it is the poor who are the main victims.

Farmers, fishermen, plantation and industrial workers, indigenous peoples who live in the forest, and people living near polluting factories are among those who pay the biggest price when ‘development’ projects cause environmental problems.

Not only is their health and safety jeopardized by pollution and environmental contamination, but their very survival is often at stake.

Again and again I have seen natural resources destroyed by chemicals, forests and land taken away because of ‘development projects’, water resources polluted by industrial waste, indigenous skills rendered useless, and indigenous peoples’ livelihoods destroyed.

Such projects usually involve powerful parties who often want nothing more than to remove or silence opposition as quickly and conveniently as possible. Environmental concerns, groups and defenders are increasingly subject to criminalisation, persecution and slander.

However, with growing awareness of environmental issues, communities are increasingly standing up to defend their rights – often using the law to do so, with many key environmental legal cases being filed.

As in the 1980s, Friends of the Earth Malaysia is playing its part in this – helping communities to file legal cases to defend their health and environment in the local courts.

Environmental activism

In the last ten years, two particular cases have raised the level of environmental awareness in Malaysia. The first involves a community in Bukit Koman in Pahang where many people began to suffer various skin, eye and respiratory problems after a gold mining company began operations.

A civil case brought by the community against the Malaysian Department of the Environment (DoE) and the gold mining company, Raub Australian Gold Mining Sdn Bhd (RAGM) requesting a new Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was met with defeat at all stages from the High Court to the Federal Court (the highest court).

In 2013 RAGM brought defamation suits against three community leaders in reaction to statements made to the press.

One of the defamation suits has since been withdrawn, as an apology was tendered in court and no damages or costs had to be paid to the company. The apology was given in the interest of resolving the matter amicably.

In 2012, RAGM also sued two internet news portals, Malaysiakini and Free Malaysia Today (FMT) for publishing allegedly defamatory articles relating to the Bukit Koman issues. RAGM withdrew the defamation suit against FMT after it tendered a full apology in court this year.

The second case relates to the opposition of 1.2 million people to the operations of a rare earths factory in Gebeng, Kuantan, Pahang. The plant, Lynas Advance Materials Plant (LAMP), belongs to the Australian Lynas Corporation Ltd.

There is an ongoing campaign on the ground to get Lynas out of Malaysia because the company will be producing radioactive waste and has yet to find a permanent solution to where this waste will be stored.

Both these cases, along with numerous other environment and human rights related issues, have been the subject of many heated debates, media coverage and street demonstrations.

Repressive laws

The Malaysian government has recently been invoking many of its repressive laws, such as the Sedition Act 1984, against political activists, one notable academic and a journalist.

The government has charged a number of environmental activists under the newly enacted Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 for taking part in street demonstrations without giving prior notice to the police. Prior to this, many were also charged under the Police Act 1967, which stipulates that permits are needed for any public gathering.

In fact in August 2013, four people were charged under the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 for organising and taking part in a solidarity rally to seek answers from the government for the health problems suffered by the Bukit Koman community. All four have since been discharged by court and no further charges have been brought against them.

In July this year, 15 people were charged in court under the Penal Code for rioting, taking part in an unlawful assembly and obstructing the police following a street demonstration that took place in June for opposing the activities of Lynas Corporation.

A New Zealand activist and a member of the Stop Lynas Coalition, Natalie Lowrey, who was also present during the demonstration to lend solidarity to the people of Gebeng, Pahang, was arrested and kept in detention for six days.

She was released without charge after a popular international appeal, and told she was free to leave the country. On 31st August, when Natalie attempted to enter Malaysia again, she was deported. Immigration officials informed her that she was on the police blacklist and was unable to enter Malaysia.

These actions show the government’s suppression of the constitutional rights to assemble and speak freely without fear or favour.

Corporations are also threatening legal action and have filed legal suits against activists and the media following interviews, statements given and news reports. Millions of Malaysian Ringgits are being asked in damages for these legal suits.

Rights of Citizens

Despite the legal assaults, environmental activism in Malaysia is still strong and environmental defenders are keeping up their spirits.

Friends of the Earth Malaysia has always championed the rights of the marginalised and has advocated for freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, access to information and public participation in decision making processes as well as environmental justice. And we are not about to stop.

For any country to develop in an ecologically and socially just way, it is vital that local communities, especially the poor, are consulted, heard and their interests given priority over the interests of big corporations and other vested interests.

If development does not bring real benefits to the poor and the marginalised, it is mal-development, where the rich benefit over the poor. This cannot be countenanced in any society which is premised on being just and democratic.

This week, from 22nd to 26th September, a solidarity mission coordinated by Friends of the Earth International has been visiting Malaysia to express solidarity with affected communities.

Friends of the Earth International believes that for the Malaysian government to contribute to a better future for all its citizens it must support the struggle of environmental rights defenders and protect and respect them, instead of criminalising environmental activism.

In addition, the government must ensure that any corporations responsible for environmental or human rights violations are held accountable for their actions.

 

 

Meena Raman is the Friends of the Earth Malaysia Honorary Secretary and a member of the Friends of the Earth International executive committee.

 




384600