The Elusive Saviours
Appendices
Appendix 1: GATT and the patenting
of life forms <35>
Not only French farmers strongly objected to the treaty
text. In India there have been large scale protests against the new GATT
. Indian farmers, scientists and environmental activists object to
the chapter on Intellectual Property Rights, or patenting and licensing
rights. Shortly before GATT
was signed, on April 5th 1994, 200,000 people demonstrated in New Delhi
against the treaty.
The issue is one in which the Indian farmers and
environmental activists have taken the initiative, but the repercussions
will be felt in all Third World countries.
The new GATT
treaty prescribes that all signatory countries accept the patent laws of
the Western industrialized countries. Everyone wishing to use a patent
which has been registered in the West will have to pay royalties - even
if the royalties are unreasonably high or have been abusively obtained.
This is what upset the Indian demonstrators.
Copyright rights are not accepted in many Third
World countries at present, but, on pain of being excluded from the GATT
systems this will have to change. The Indian Patent Law of 1970 forbids
in principle individuals or companies patenting any form of life (plants,
animals, seeds). Many other Third World countries have a similar law.
Since the 1960s, transnational corporations
have applied in their country of origin (Western) for patents on numerous
crops, seeds and active parts of plants and trees in the Third World. The
American professor Iltis, for example, discovered two wild varieties of
tomato in Peru which could be cultivated in the United States with good
results. He imported the seed, took out a copyright and sold the copyright
to a food company. There's not a pizza sold in the US without this variety
of tomato in its sauce. Most patents are not however used in food production.
The American Type Culture Collection, a scientific registration organization
in Maryland Virginia, houses 60,000 patented or patent-ready organisms.
Most of these are patents on parts of plants and seeds which are used in
the production of environmentally friendly fertilizers, insecticides and
medicines - for which there is a fast growing market in the West and with
which companies are earning more and more money.
When the new GATT copyright law is introduced, US
patenting laws will be applicable world-wide. Companies and farmers in
the Third World, which have used these seeds and live on these crops for
years, will suddenly have to pay for using them if the transnational copyright
owners claim their rights.
Appendix 2: The Global Environmental
Facility (GEF) <36>
The Global
Environmental Facility (GEF) provides financial grants to developing
countries. Through three executive organizations - the
World Bank, UNEP (United Nations Environmental
Programme) and the UNDP (United Nations
Development Programme)- the GEF
grants money to projects which have been set up to participate in some
way to the protection of the world's global environment. The projects also
have to conform to development goals. In principle, the GEF
only finances incremental costs which are accrued in the interests of the
world-wide environment, additional to the costs a country itself is expected
to finance for its own nature and environment. GEF
projects relate to the greenhouse effect, the pollution of international
waters, the loss of biodiversity and the destruction of the ozone layer.
The GEF
was set up in 1990, before UNCED,
as a three-year experiment. The pilot phase was completed at the end of
1993. Since then, the GEF
has been named as the interim financing mechanism for the UNCED
Conventions relating to biodiversity and climate changes. After 16 months
of negotiations the representatives of more than 80 countries came to an
agreement on March 16, 1994. In the period 1994- 1996, a number of Northern
countries will donate 2 billion dollars to the fund.
NGO criticism of the GEF
operations in the first three probation years is extensive, concentrating
on two main themes:
-
The first is directed toward the discrepancy between
local environmental problems related to poverty and the international environmental
problems which originate primarily in the rich world. The GEF
is the only channel into which extra funds are pumped, but the GEF
concentrates on the global environment and not on the daily needs of the
poor countries. According to the critics, the value of the
GEF
is extremely limited, and, if it continues to refuse to address the major
problems of poverty, it will have the opposite effect to what it is trying
to achieve. The participation of the World
Bank in GEF
projects, the critics say, leads to a lack of answerability to the local
population, and stands in the way of the reasonable participation of the
local participation in the identification, development and execution of
projects.
-
A second point of criticism is directed toward the wrongful
use of the funding. Critics say that developing countries apply for Global
Environmental Facility (GEF) grants for so-called incremental costs
for global environmental protection while the local and national environment
is inadequately insured, or the projects do not contribute to the development
of the countries. If the country does not have adequate finances for a
project, it will do all it can to find GEF
funding. As a result, the GEF
is confronted by projects which have no single connection with other projects
and which are usually initiated and installed by outsiders. This does not
strengthen the country's institutional capacity for sustainable development
or its ability to protect nature and the environmental.
-
Nigeria, GEF helps Shell?
Nature and people suffer the serious consequences
of oil exploitation in Nigeria. Pollution, noise pollution and the infrastructure
needed for oil extraction, have paid their toll in the vulnerable mangrove
forests, internationally recognized as a threatened ecosystem, and the
provider of the livelihoods of thousands of people. All efforts of the
local population to protest against the pollution and the oil extraction
by which they barely profit are hard handedly repressed.
On April 30 and 4 May 1994 one person was killed
and many were injured during a demonstration against the installation of
a pipeline by
Shell,
which is very active in this region. Ken Saro Wiwa, one of the leaders
of the Ogoni (an indigenous
people in this region) resistance was arrested by the Nigerian authorities.
The reason for his arrest was the international attention he had managed
to generate for the problems of oil extraction in this area. The global
climactic effect of the enormous amount of gas released in oil extraction
led to the decision of the GEF
to invest in the area. There is no mention in the plans, however, of the
local environmental problems and there is no interest whatsoever in the
problems of the local community.
The NGOs conclude that the principle of 'incremental
costs' can only be defended if there are other channels available for
working effectively on local and national sustainable development. Finance
ministers will stop being willing to finance a GEF
which continues to be wrongfully used. The NGOs also felt the GEF
should be used to intensify the effect of the regular assistance channels.
The GEF should
certainly not serve to aggravate poverty situations, and should preferably
contribute to the improvement of the local social situation.
NGOs also felt that the World
Bank, which presently manages the GEF,
should provide more and faster information on the candidate projects, and
the concerned populations and NGOs should be able to become more involved
in the decision-making procedures. Key concepts for a new GEF
are transparency, accountability and participation.
The new GEF
partially meets these points of criticism. The executive structure is no
longer so closely linked to the World
Bank. A board of directors from the 32 founding countries (18 donor
countries and 14 recipient countries) will be established. Openness, consultation
and participation of the relevant NGOs and local populations throughout
the entire project cycle has been taken up in the agreement. The participation
of NGOs in the Board of Directors has not, as yet, been agreed to.
It is expected that the GEF
will decide on its first work programme in December 1994.
Appendix 3: References
-
"Uitstoot kooldioxide moet ver
onder bestaand niveau", Volkskrant 16 September 1994, p.8;
-
"Zorgen voor morgen" RIVM,
1988, Bilthoven, the Netherlands;
-
ECN: Environmental Review, July
1992, p.8;
-
World Development Movement, "Costing
the Earth", 1991, p.21;
-
"Green Rights for all: the earth
view." Aubry Meijer, Global Commons Institute, ECN-Environmental Review,
July 1992;
-
In: Crosscurrents, No. 4, 19 August
1991, p.4;
-
The Malaysian ambassador Razali
Ismail, leader of the delegation from his country, OnzeWereld, October
1991;
-
"The corporate capture of the
earth summit" Benno Bruno, Multinational Monitor, July/August 1992,
p.6;
-
"The Business Council for Sustainable
Development - Phase Two?", The Network, No. 21 November 1992, p.16;
-
"Ongoing and future research:
transnational corporations and issues relating to the environment"
UNCTC, October 1989, p.5;
-
"Transnational corporations
and the issues relating to the environment", Report of the Secretary-General,
UN Commission on Transnational Corporations, 11 January 1990;
-
UNCTC 1988, p.230;
-
"The dye is cast by growth and
costs, European chemical companies are shifting bulk capacity to Asia",
Paul Abrahams in Financial Times, May 31 1994;
-
Benchmark Survey, p.2;
-
Benchmark Survey, p.65;
-
By: FLS Miljo Environmental Management,
a company in the Danish F.L. Smidth Group, in cooperation with the Danish
Ministry for the Environment and a fertilizer producer, Phosphorus &
Potassium, No. 162, July/August 1989, p.28;
-
Phosphorus & Potassium, No.
148, March/April 1987, p.12;
-
"Environmental Management in
Transnational Corporation. Report on the Benchmark Corporate Environmental
Survey", United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Programme
on Transnational Corporations, Environmental Series No. 4, UN, New York
1993;
-
"Rapportage over mogelijkheden
van onderzoek naar milieuinvesteringen bij Shell Nederland Chemie",
Hans Heerings, SOMO, Amsterdam 27 November 1989, Commissioned by Greenpeace
the Netherlands. p.18;
-
Benchmark Survey, p.169;
-
"Toxic Turnabout? a deal on
Superfund may finally be at hand", Business Week, 25 April 1994, pp.
34-35;
-
From: "Groene markten",
SOMO, 1994;
-
"Dow best of bad bunch concludes
UNEP report", European Chemical News, 11 July 1994, p.30;
-
Benchmark Survey, p.176;
-
Ibid, p.65;
-
"Emerging Trends in the Development
of International Environmental Law at the Regional and Global Level: Implications
for Transnational Corporations", Prepublication Advance Unedited Copy,
United Center on Transnational Corporations, UN, New York, 1992;
-
Focus, GATT newsletter, August/September
1993, pp. 6-7;
-
"Trade and environment",
Decision, adopted 15 December 1993 by the Trade Negotiations Committee;
-
"Business regulation and competition
policy - The case for international action" Harris Gleckman, Riva Krut,
Christian Aid, July 1994: "A body stocked with industry handmaidens
from the USDA and FDA, wide open to lobbying by (...) transnational corporations."
p.19; "The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Environmenal Protection
and Sustainable Development", C. Arden-Clark. A WWF international discussion
paper. Revisited November 1991. "The Codex Alimentarius panel is known
to be heavily influenced by multinational food and chemical companies.
To take but one example, there are 28 members of the US delegation to Codex
Alimentarius, 16 of whom represent food and agrochemical companies or producer
associations", p.28;
-
"Wereldhandel staat voor 'groene'
horde. Ontwikkelingslanden vrezen milieunormen rijke landen", Jolke
Oppewal, Internationale Samenwerking, May 1994, p.35;
-
Het Parool, 13 April 1994;
-
The Ecologist, Vol. 20, No. 6,
Nov/Dec 1990;
-
"Philip Morris - Ontwikkeling
in de divisie tabak in Europa en in de Verenigde Staten", Hans Heerings,
SOMO, Amsterdam, 5 April 1994;
-
The Ecologist, Vol. 18, No. 2,
1988;
-
Taken from: "Werelddiefstal",
Aart Brouwer, Milieudefensie 4-1994, pp. 12-13;
-
"$2 billion for Rio Follow-Up",
The Network, No. 36, April 1994; and "Governments Push Ahead with the
GEF", No. 24, March 1993, E&O No. 3, October 1993;
Appendix 4: Bibliographic Information
Elusive Saviours
Hans Heerings (CONTRAST Advies) and Ineke Zeldenrust
(SOMO)
Translated by Lin Pugh
Edited by Niala Maharaj
Published in print by International Books
A.Numankade 17
3572 KP Utrecht
Tel: +31-(0)30-2731840
Fax: +31-(0)30-2733614
CIP-gegevens Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Hague
Heerings, Hans
Elusive saviours: multinational corporations and
sustainable development/Hans Heerings. - Utrecht : International Books.
-Ill.
Published in cooperation with CONTRAST Advies &
SOMO - With Bibliography
ISBN 90-6224-978-7
NUGI 661/684
Key words: transnational corporations and environment
policy
Comments and questions are welcome:
CONTRAST Advies - Milieu
Sint Ansfridusstraat 39
3817 BE Amersfoort
The Netherlands
Tel: +31-33-4652806
Fax: +31-33-4659711
Back to the table of contents
Back to the homepage
of CONTRAST Advies - Milieu
©
CONTRAST Advies 1998 - Last change of this page: March 15, 1998