|
given by Sarah Burton, Campaign Director, Greenpeace UK, 5th July 1997, St. John's College Cambridge Good morning. I have been asked to speak to you today from the perspective of a client who represents the public interest -- in my case Greenpeace, an organisation which has at its very heart the objective of enhancing and protecting the natural environment. Some of you know me and therefore know that for many years I represented Greenpeace as its lawyer. I had the privilege of representing Greenpeace when we challenged the decision to licence the THORP nuclear reprocessing plant and you may be relieved to learn that I am not going to talk to you about the litigation which resulted from that series of cases, as I feel sure that these have been analysed to death in the intervening years. Today I am a Campaign Director for Greenpeace and speak in that capacity. But also as someone who has some knowledge of the legal process, of public law and of its limitations, and of the needs of our environment to be represented, not only nationally but globally, in fora such as the European Union, the United Nations, the various international conventions (such as the Climate Convention) as well as the Courts -- whether they be national or international. Greenpeace, as an international organisation, is acutely aware of what these various fora can offer in terms of protecting the environment. Today, when so many of the challenges faced are global in nature and effect, it is as vital as it ever was to have an international perspective. (It is not, after all, a trite saying that pollution is no respecter of national boundaries, just ask the sheep farmers of Wales & Cumbria about the nuclear accident at Chernobyl if you want evidence of the truth of that concept). Indeed, I have mentioned the Climate Convention for a reason, as climate change is one such issue which, at the end of this year in Kyoto, the world's political leaders will meet in an attempt to address. It is our contention that human made climate change (caused primarily by the burning of oil, gas & other fossil fuels) and carbon logic dictates that exploration for further oil should halt. In order to keep to United Nations estimates for ecological limits for climate change, the world cannot afford to burn more than a quarter of known fossil fuel reserves. To explore for more oil in these circumstances presents, what the Managing Director of Shell Exploration, Mr Heinz Rothermund, described recently as "a dilemma" but what Greenpeace describes as insanity. Greenpeace is an organisation which exists in order not only to protest at such deranged policies, but more so to change things, to improve the prospects of our environment to cope with the impacts of human behaviour. So that when we approach questions such as those in which you (as public law advocates) are interested, Greenpeace seeks to approach them in this way:
"In order to ensure that the interests of the public in a continuing and sustainable environment are represented, and in view of the overwhelming global threats which we face today what needs to be done to change the very concepts underpinning existing laws in order that those laws really do protect the global commons?" According to the OECD, in the next twenty years 80% of new oil development is expected to be offshore. Much of this offshore exploration will be in disputed territories, such as the Atlantic Frontier, to the North and West of Britain, some of which is disputed by Denmark, Iceland and Ireland as well as the UK. It's an old fashioned resource grab, for oil and fish, that may end up in the International Court of Justice. Although the "Atlantic Frontier" dispute has been going on for over 20 years, it has not received a great deal of attention: the argument has, for the most part, taken place quietly between diplomats, and behind closed doors. Nevertheless it is of considerable significance in terms of the management of resources, environmental protection and notions of global security. Its resolution could be a precedent for settling similar disputes about ownership & exploitation of the seas which are ongoing around the globe, some of which are considerably more severe (for example the Spratly Islands and Caspian Sea). For those of you who are unaware of these disputes, I'll give you a few relevant facts. The Spratly Islands is a loose term often used to describe over 170 small islands, banks and shoals in the South China Sea that have been called the most contested real estate on the planet. The conflicts are over sovereignty and jurisdiction, and involve Brunei, the People's Republic of China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam. These disputes have been inflamed by a lack of clarity in the international legal definition of islands as well as historical animosity. In 1988 75 people died in a battle between two of the claimants in the area. Despite a number of meetings and declarations intended to resolve the disputes peacefully, tensions in the area remain high mainly due to oil and gas developments. In May 1992, China signed an oil deal with the US-based Crestone company. A year later, Vietnam offered exploration licences for the same area. Also in 1993, a Chinese seismic vessel surveyed Vietnamese-claimed blocks disturbed the seismic surveys being carried out by a consortium led by BP. This type of provocation remains the norm. One of the more serious incidents was the 1995 Chinese occupation of Mischief Reef which lies at the heart of Philippine-claimed territory. As recently as May 1997, China and the Philippines clashed when Chinese ships conducted a marine survey in waters claimed by both countries. Since the mid-1990's foreign oil companies have been the willing pawns in these dangerous chess games. Companies such as BP, Conoco, and Mobil. The Caspian Sea is the world's largest inland water body covering 370,000km2. It is surrounded by Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Iran, Azerbaijan, and Russia. Its unique and fragile environment, home to the Beluga sturgeon, is being threatened by industrial pollution and the water level is rising fast, leading to salinity changes and flooding. Also under threat is the region's fledgling tourist industry. The Caspian Sea is also host to large oil and gas fields and is predicted to be a major world production area to feed a growing demand for Asian countries and possibly Western markets. New oil and gas deposits are still being discovered. Since the break up of the Soviet Union, the international oil industry has been quick to involve itself, lured by the prospect of expanding existing fields and the attractive terms offered by states wishing to attract badly needed investment. You'll recognise some of the consortium members : British Gas, BP, Mobil, Shell. The resource conflict has been exacerbated by the emergence of new states since the break up of the Soviet Union. Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan argue that the sea should be carved into sectors. Russia, which would lose out in terms of fossil fuel resources in such a move, disputes this approach declaring that the Law of the Sea should not apply to this inland sea. Instead, it has argued that joint sovereignty and joint development should prevail. Russia and Iran have cited environmental protection imperatives to add weight to their call for joint sovereignty and control over the sea's resources. In an article published in the June 1997 edition of the Financial Times Asia Gas Report, Professor Gillian Triggs, Professor of Law at the University of Melbourne, makes similar arguments. She writes about the limits of international law which she says "remains vague and overly general, giving little determinative guidance in resolving specific disputes." In her conclusion, Professor Triggs suggests that:
"Jointly developing and managing non-renewable resources which are subject to conflicting maritime claims can "unlock" valuable assets and encourage regional co-operation and harmony. Regimes of this kind may prove a more acceptable way forward...than resorting to third party resolution. Joint development may also point a way forward by focusing efforts on the positive merits of co-operative environmental management and resource exploitation rather than on the sterile revisiting of historical claims to territorial sovereignty." You will not be surprised to hear that Greenpeace takes a slightly different approach, although one based on identical principals of conflict resolution through co-operation. Principle 25 of the Rio Declaration declared that "Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible." The post-Cold War order of resolving conflict by carving-up resources is not sustainable because of increasing scarcity of resources and an increasingly degrading environment. Even the resources fought over cannot be exploited in a sustainable way. Clearly something has to change. Instead of assuming that benefits to humankind accrue from exploitation of our common heritage, the real benefits to be shared result from non-exploitation. These include:
and more. Antarctica, which is protected through a regime of joint non-development, shows that this is more than an idle dream. In this year of important decisions on climate at the Kyoto talks -- in view of the total failure of the review of global environmental governance five years post-Rio which took place a week ago in New York -- and with the 1998 UN Year of the Oceans to look forward to, it is time for political leaders of industrial countries to recognise and adopt the principle of joint non-development of fossil fuel resources. The politicians would benefit from the discipline and the intellectual integrity of public - interest minded, public law experts to guide them through the quagmire of national and international legal regimes and make sense of these rules and regulations which can either act as an aid or a hindrance to such efforts. Britain's claim to the oil rich areas of the Atlantic Frontier reaches right out west of Rockall. They draw their "boundary" around Rockall. In 1975 Britain secretly bolstered its claim by landing two marines on the rock, complete with sentry box. Last month, Greenpeace activists landed on the Rock, declared a new independent State of Waveland dedicated to protecting the surrounding ocean as a global commons and establishing "a new way forward in which nature is protected for the common good and resources are managed responsibly for the benefit of all ". Greenpeace activists remain on Rockall to this day -- a reminder of the dedication of environmentalists to the true concept of sustainability. At a time when climate change impacts are already discernible, sustainable conflict resolution requires agreement not to exploit. This will add the needed impetus for truly sustainable development and the transfer of technologies to meet people's needs.
|