The Rt Hon Malcolm Rifkind, QC, MP The Foreign Secretary The Foreign and Commonwealth Office King Charles Street London SW1A 2AH 24 January 1997
|
|
Protection of the Global Commons And Avoiding International Conflict - Rockall Trough and West of Shetland
I am writing following your very interesting speech on The Environment in UK Foreign Policy at the Royal Society, in which you highlighted the importance of protecting the global commons. Greenpeace agrees with you that "we still need rules to ensure protection of those things that the market cannot put a price to, like the global commons", and that "Protecting the environment is another reason why conflict prevention is such a vital part of diplomacy".
Greenpeace also very much agrees with you that "the unfettered market alone cannot guarantee protection of the environment" and government action is required. We also agree with you that climate is now foremost among environmental issues, as we approach the UK General Assembly Special Session on the Environment in June, and the Kyoto "Climate Summit" (Third Conference of the Parties of the Framework Convention on Climate Change).
As I mentioned when responding to your speech, Greenpeace is most concerned that the governments of the United Kingdom, Faroes/Denmark, Iceland and Ireland are all presently pursuing conflicting claims to develop the North East Atlantic (the Atlantic Frontier, including West of Shetland and Rockall Trough) as a successor to oil fields such as the North Sea.
Each State in the conflict bases its claim on different principles of international law, and all seem intent on developing this area of the global commons for fossil fuels and novel ultra-deep-sea fisheries. As you will know from our correspondence with the Prime Minister, this gives us great concern because of the threat it poses to climate and biodiversity.
Next week we are publishing an important new study (enclosed) by the International Boundaries Research Unit of Durham University entitled "Competing Claims to Sovereignty and Maritime Jurisdiction in the Rockall Plateau Area". Not only does this illustrate the byzantine complexity of the legal wrangle in which the four nations have been locked for many years (since 1964 in the United Kingdom's case), and which seems likely to go to the International Court of Justice, but it also clearly describes the frailty of the extensive UK claim to a continental shelf around Rockall.
Part of the UK claim to a continental shelf hinges on defining Rockall as a habitable island, rather than a rock, even though the only basis for this seems to be a government-sponsored visit by a single person. Is this correct? Nevertheless, the UK Government through the Department of Trade and Industry, is presently offering over 200 extensive blocks of ocean for oil development in the Rockall Trough in 41 tranches.
Greenpeace believes it is only the great haste and secretiveness with which this process has been carried out (for example with no proper publicly accountable process of environmental impact assessment) which has so far prevented the entire Atlantic Frontier development becoming a major public issue, nationally and indeed internationally.
Although the oil development on the Atlantic Frontier is opposed by ourselves, and groups such as the Marine Conservation Society, Friends of the Earth, The Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, The Wildlife Trusts, Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, and WWF-UK have called for the suspension of further licensing of oil and gas exploration and production, I think you will agree that the issues surrounding the development on the Atlantic Frontier are little known to the UK public. Will you now explain the aims, objectives and context of your negotiations with Denmark concerning the "white zone" and other parts of the Atlantic Frontier?
With the ice shelves of Antarctica melting, signs of rapid climate change apparent in the Arctic, a scientific consensus that human induced climate change is here, and world attention focusing on climate in 1997, to embark on a huge increase in British fossil fuel exploration and development sends a clear signal of disregard for protecting the global commons.
Rather than trying to disentangle the conflicting claims over the Atlantic Frontier area in order to develop it for fossil fuels, we believe the Foreign Office would better further the aims of British climate policy, and help all nations meet the obligations entered into at the Rio Conference, if you negotiated an agreement not to develop the area. Instead, it should be protected as a global common, for its ecosystem functions and its heritage of marine life, such as whales. Will you do this?
The significance of such a policy would be threefold. First, it would give credence to your stated commitment to protecting the global commons, especially oceans and climate. Second, it would enable the United Kingdom to take a full and honest part in the inevitable forthcoming negotiations to limit and control the exploration and development of fossil fuel resources. Such negotiation must come if climate is to be protected and the present regimes to control carbon dioxide emissions are to work. You rightly mentioned the British role in protecting the ozone layer in your speech at the Royal Society. The effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol in controlling substances that cause ozone depletion clearly rests on its ability to control production and use, not simply to set targets for emission levels. Third, it would be appropriate for Britain, as a leading advocate of climate action, to give a political lead on fossil fuels themselves. Will the Foreign Office initiate such discussions on a fossil fuel regime?
As I said, I was encouraged by much of your speech at the Royal Society. But I find it impossible to reconcile the Government's proposed development of the Atlantic Frontier with your avowed commitments to protection of the climate and the consequent need to develop innovative sources of energy such as solar pv, rather than fossil fuels. I feel this mismatch, in which Britain leads climate rhetoric but is still heading into more fossil fuel development, will become increasingly apparent in the run up to Kyoto.
You will be aware for example that whereas Britain has two solar pv homes, Japan plans 60,000 by 2,005! Foreign policy should, surely, help set Britain on a path to the future, not to the past.
As this is a matter of considerable public importance, I am sure you will understand my giving this letter a wider circulation.
I look forward to hearing your views on the issues I have covered in this letter.
 |
Executive Director
GREENPEACE UK