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