Greenpeace Climate Heroes imprisoned over Christmas and New Year

Four Greenpeace climate activists will spend Christmas and New Year in Copenhagen prison after the High Court there this afternoon rejected appeals to release them from Danish police custody. The four Climate Heroes from the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Switzerland were arrested following a protest staged during last Thursday's State Banquet hosted by Queen Margrethe II for world leaders attending the Copenhagen climate summit.

Greenpeace condemned the High Court's decision as a further 'climate injustice' on top of world leaders' failure to agree a legally binding treaty to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The organisation is calling on the public to help step up pressure to secure the release of its four activists, as well as other peaceful climate protesters still being held in custody. Despite today's Court ruling, the release of Greenpeace's Climate Heroes remains at the discretion of Denmark's Chief of Police.

Climate change undermining human rights on an unprecedented scale

Photo:OxfamIn 2009 over 1.5 million people joined the hearings to testify on climate change.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Mary Robinson, former UN Commissioner for Human Rights, delivered a global verdict on the human cost of climate change. The judgment was passed at the world's first international climate hearing, hosted by Oxfam International during Humanitarian Day at the Copenhagen Climate Summit.

Mining company's scare tactics against human rights NGO

There have been repeated protests against Vedanta's planned mine.Photo: Satyabady Naik/SurvivalMetals giant Vedanta Resources' Indian subsidiary has launched an unprecedented attack on Survival International, apparently to drive its researchers out of an area where the company is planning to mine.

The mining company has falsely accused Survival of 'forcedly interacting' with the Dongria Kondh tribe who live around the area earmarked for mining, and of causing 'unrest.' Vedanta has prompted a police investigation into Survival, with officers making a late night visit to a hotel where they believed Survival researchers were staying.

Thirsty Still: Santa delivers Xmas gift to Botswana government

Photo:SurvivalSanta Claus made a special delivery to the Botswana High Commission in London on the UN Human Rights Day, on behalf of the Kalahari Bushmen.

Botswana officials received a gift-wrapped bottle of water labelled 'Thirsty Still', highlighting the fact that three years after the Kalahari Bushmen won a landmark court case affirming their right to live on their land, the Botswana government continues to deny them access to water.

Last survivor of uncontacted Amazon tribe attacked

The 'Man of the Hole's' house and garden where he grows manioc and other vegetables. Photo: J.Pessoa/SurvivalThe last survivor of an unknown and uncontacted Amazon tribe has been targeted by gunmen.

The incident took place last month in Tanarú, an indigenous territory in the Amazon state of Rondônia, Brazil, but the news has only just emerged. It is not known whether the Indian was in the direct line of fire or whether the shots were designed to scare him away. Ranchers in the area oppose government efforts to protect the man's land, and are the most likely perpetrators.

Discrepancies galore in Chevron's bribery drama

Protest march in Ecuador against ChevronQuestions are mounting over Chevron's continued refusal to respond to new facts that suggest the company manufactured secret videos to undermine a civil trial in Ecuador where it faces a USD27 billion environmental liability as Ecuador's top lawyer called on the U.S. Justice Department to investigate the oil giant for possible criminal violations, according to news reports and representatives of the plaintiffs.

The New York Times on Saturday exposed a number of discrepancies in Chevron's initial account of a purported USD3 million bribery scheme that the company claimed implicates an Ecuador trial judge overseeing the civil lawsuit, which will determine whether the oil giant will be forced to pay for the clean-up of billions of gallons of toxic waste in the Amazon.

The article also reported that Ecuador's Attorney General, Washington Pesantez, has called on the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate Chevron for possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), a U.S. law that prohibits American businesses from bribing foreign officials. Chevron's current management team already pled guilty to an FCPA violation in 2007 in Iraq, paying a USD30 million fine.

"As more and more facts become available, it looks increasingly like Chevron's ‘smoking gun' videos could be part of an elaborate hoax designed by the company," said Andrew Woods, an American legal advisor to the 30,000 plaintiffs in the underlying civil lawsuit. Woods, in light of the new evidence, again called on the Department of Justice to conduct a full investigation and interview all key witnesses in the case that are located in the U.S. and out of reach of the government of Ecuador, which is conducting its own investigation.

Chevron's potential damages in Ecuador were determined by a court-appointed Special Master who reviewed more than 200,000 pages of evidence and tens of thousands of chemical sampling results, most provided by Chevron. The costs mostly cover remediation for the dumping of billions of gallons of toxic waste by Texaco (which Chevron bought in 2001) into Ecuador's Amazon from 1964 to 1990, along with compensation for 1,401 cancer deaths related to the contamination.

The trial against Chevron is taking place in Ecuador at the company's request after it filed 14 sworn affidavits praising Ecuador's judicial system, thereby convincing a U.S. judge to transfer the case to the South American nation. Once the Ecuador trial began in 2003 and produced evidence that pointed to Chevron's guilt, the company launched a campaign to discredit Ecuador' courts of which the video saga appears to be just the latest chapter, according to the plaintiffs.

Chevron is using three major public relations firms – Edelman Worldwide, Hill & Knowlton, and Sard – to try to discredit Ecuador's courts.

On August 31, just weeks before a final decision was expected in the trial, Chevron posted the videos on YouTube that showed one of its contractors trying to arrange a bribe with a person who claimed he was a member of Ecuador's ruling party to secure a clean-up contract in the event Chevron were to lose the trial. Chevron claimed that the contractor, Ecuadorian Diego Borja, and an American businessman, Wayne Hansen, shot the videos from micro-cameras hidden in a watch and a pen and that they made the recordings on their own.

However, media outlets that have begun to dig further into the facts surrounding the
bribery scandal have raised several disturbing questions that seem to point to Chevron's deepening involvement in the planning and execution of the operation.

The New York Times noted that there is no apparent motivation for why Borja and Hansen would secretly record themselves engaging in conduct that exposes them to criminal liability if not to assist Chevron's attempt to discredit the judge in exchange for compensation or some other benefit, which in Borja's case involved, at a minimum, being relocated to the United States at Chevron's expense. The article also pointed out that Chevron's initial claim that the trial judge was implicated in a bribe was not clearly backed up by the contents of the tapes, which the judge says were edited in a manipulative fashion.

Hansen, the so-called American businessman, asserted in the tapes that he owned a remediation company but no evidence has been found to back up the claim. Hansen also was in Ecuador continuously for several weeks during the bribery scandal, and left the country the day after the final video was shot, according to immigration records.

"The lack of credibility of Hansen and Borja is becoming more apparent by the day as gaping holes threaten to swallow Chevron's entire story," said Karen Hinton, a representative of the plaintiffs.

Bloomberg News Service and other media outlets previously reported that many of Chevron's representations about the scheme were not fully disclosive or were outright misleading. For instance, Chevron never revealed that Borja worked for the oil giant as a field technician during the civil trial mere weeks before the filming of the secret videos and that the former Chevron contractor has an office in a small building where Chevron's local Ecuadorian legal team also maintains its offices. Nor did the company reveal that it had secured both men criminal lawyers and were paying their fees, apparently to ensure they were not questioned, said Hinton.

Similarly, Chevron's claim that Patricio Garcia (the Ecuadorian seen on the tapes discussing the bribe with Hansen and Borja) was a government official appears to be false. Garcia, according to several news accounts, is actually a car salesman and his name is not among the 350,000 registered on the voter rolls of Alianza Pais, the ruling political party in Ecuador. Garcia also has stated to media outlets in Ecuador that he met with Borja in Chevron's local law office and that he was entrapped by the company.

*Some of the key unanswered questions about Chevron's role in the bribery scandal are:

*What contacts did Borja and Hansen have with Chevron's lawyers in Ecuador and the US in planning the secret video recordings?

*How much has Chevron, or its local law office, paid Borja for his services?
Who paid Hansen's expenses when he was in Ecuador for several weeks to shoot the video recordings?

*What was the involvement of Chevron's US-based legal department in planning the videos, particularly the fourth taped meeting which by Chevron's admission occurred after it received the first three video recordings?

*Why did Chevron ensure that Borja and Hansen are represented by criminal lawyers?

*What is the company's analysis of the criminal exposure faced by these individuals?

*Why did Chevron ensure that Borja and Hansen were unavailable for questioning when the company released the videos on YouTube and said it would make all information public?

*Why has Chevron refused to release the full recordings or explain how and who edited them?

Online activists fail British oil firm's bid to gag media freedom

Probo Koala which dumped toxic waste in Ivory Coast. Photo: GreenpeaceA British oil trading company's attempt to prevent media from reporting Parliamentary proceedings in relation to its dumping of toxic waste in an African country has been thwarted after social networking sites made public the same information it tried to block.

Trafigura tried to prevent Guardian newspaper from publishing a question tabled on Monday in the British Parliament by the Labour MP Paul Farrelly. The question related to the reporting on the dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast by Trafigura.

Farrelly sought to know the kind of measures taken to protect press freedom following an injunction obtained by Trafigura and its law firm, Carter Ruck, against the publication of a report into the issue.

The Guardian was forbidden from publishing anything related to Farrelly's question. But it appeared Trafigura and its lawyers underestimated the power of social networking sites like Twitter, which, upon the news of gag attempt was published, was flooded with details of Farrelly's question. Two more blogs and magazine Private Eye published the full text.

The response in twitter was overwhelming, with the three most popular search terms on the site being "outrageous gagging order trafigura dumping scandal", "ruck" and "guardian".

The attempt to keep the information secret was ludicrous, because, as pointed out by Observer media editor James Robinson, Farrelly's question was freely available on British Parliament's website and was printed on the House of Commons order paper.

It was not just Guardian which came under the gag attempt. Trafigura threatened anyone who refused to buy its version. BBC Newsnight and journalists in the Netherlands and Norway were threatened with legal consequences.

Criminal dumping

Trafigura dumped hundreds of tonnes of highly toxic oil waste in 11 habitat areas in Abidjan, the main economic capital of Ivory Coast, under cover of darkness on August 19, 2006.

The uncontrolled dumping of toxic waste sickened tens of thousands of people and killed 15. A classic case of third world countries being used by companies as waste dumping yards, it was one of the worst pollution incidents the world has ever seen after the gas leak in Union Carbide factory in Bhopal, India, in 1984.

The wastes were liquid sludge containing large quantities of hydrocarbons, contaminated with at least three substances: hydrogen sulphide, mercaptans and caustic soda.

Both hydrogen sulphide and mercaptans are toxic chemicals. Hydrogen sulphide is a gas which smells strongly of 'rotten eggs' and is a potent poison of the respiratory system. Exposure to high levels in air in a confined space can lead rapidly to loss of consciousness, respiratory failure and death

The UN human rights special rapporteur, Professor Okechukwu Ibeanu, wrote: "According to official estimates, there were 15 deaths, 69 persons hospitalised and more than 108,000 medical consultations. There seems to be strong prima facie evidence that the reported deaths and adverse health consequences are related to the dumping."

Autopsy reports on 12 victims showed fatal levels of the poisonous gas hydrogen sulphide, one of the waste's lethal byproducts.

Organisations like Greenpeace and Amnesty International have been clamouring for Trafigura to be prosecuted for homicide or grievous bodily harm.

Emails obtained by the Guardian and the BBC's Newsnight revealed that Trafigura knew very well that the oil slurry was so contaminated with toxic waste and that it was banned in Europe. Company traders referred to the toxic waste as "shit" or "crap".

To clean up the dirty fuel the traders planned to add caustic soda to absorb sulphur contaminants, a pernicious practice banned in the west. A chartered tanker, Probo Koala, containing the waste sailed to Ivory Coast, and the deadly toxic waste was dumped, causing burns, nausea, diarrhoea and loss of consciousness to those living in the area.

According to Greenpeace, before arriving in the Ivory Coast, Probo Koala attempted to discharge the toxic waste in the port of Amsterdam. The Amsterdam Port Service realised that the waste was of an unusually toxic character. When informed that there would be an additional expense for treating the waste, the Probo Koala chose to look for a less costly option.

Trafigura termed the dumping as a routine exercise, saying its ship had only pumped out ordinary slops from tank-cleaning.

But the 31,000 Africans couldn't be silenced as they joined in Britain's largest-ever lawsuit for compensation under London lawyer Martyn Day. Last month, the company offered 1,000 pound each in compensation to the victims.

UK government blasts Vedanta for mistreating Indian tribes

The UK government has attacked Vedanta's treatment of the Dongria Kondh. Photo: Survival InternationalThe UK government today blasted British mining company Vedanta Resources over its treatment of the Dongria Kondh tribe in Orissa, India.

The damning verdict came after a nine month investigation into a complaint submitted by Survival International against Vedanta’s proposed bauxite mine on the Dongria Kondh’s sacred mountain. The complaint, upheld by the government, was brought under the OECD Guidelines on Multinational Enterprises, the key principles for ethical corporate behaviour.

The government ruled that Vedanta, "did not respect the rights of the Dongria Kondh"; "did not consider the impact of the construction of the mine on the tribe’s rights’; and ‘failed to put in place an adequate and timely consultation mechanism’. Devastatingly, it concluded, "A change in the company’s behaviour’ is essential".

Despite repeated requests from the UK government, the company ‘failed to provide any evidence during the examination’. This is the only time a company has refused to participate in an OECD investigation.

Though a member of the UK blue chip FTSE-100 index, Vedanta has no operations in the UK, producing copper, iron ore and zinc in India, Australia and Zambia.

India's supreme court has given the green signal to Vedanta to mine bauxite, a raw material to make aluminium, causing protests from around the world.

Booker Prize-winning author and social activist Arundhati Roy has said, "If Vedanta is allowed to go ahead with its plans for mining the Niyamgiri Hills in Orissa for bauxite it will lead to the devastation of a whole ecosystem, and the destruction of not just the Dongria Kondh tribal community, but eventually all those whose livelihoods depend on that ecosystem."

Martin Horwood MP, Chair of the All-Party Group for Tribal Peoples, said today, "I am delighted that the UK government has issued this damning verdict on Vedanta. This is further powerful evidence that Vedanta must fundamentally change the way it operates."

Survival’s director Stephen Corry said today, "We’re very pleased that the UK government has finally taken a stand on this – it’s already one of the most notorious mining projects in the world. Vedanta failed even to inform the Dongria Kondh that it plans to turn their sacred mountain into a vast open-pit mine, yet the tribe has the right under international law to give – or withhold – their consent. This is, after all, something which will have a dramatic, terrible impact on their lives."

The ruling is the third major embarrassment in five months for Anil Argarwal (majority owner of Vedanta): in June an environmental award was withheld at the last minute when details of the Orissa mine were brought to the jury’s attention; and in August India’s Environment Minister admitted that the project should never have been approved.

Vedanta’s proposed mine site is sacred to all Kondh people, hundreds of whom have been engaged in months of protests and blockades against the mine.

280bn bailout for poor need not cost ordinary taxpayers any more money

Families are being forced to choose between medicine, school or food

G20 finance ministers meeting in London this weekend should provide a USD280 billion bailout for millions of poor people struggling to survive the economic crisis, Oxfam said today.

A currency transaction tax is one of three measures that could raise much needed funds for developing countries without putting any extra burden on ordinary taxpayers. The proposals are set out in a new Oxfam briefing paper, Money for Nothing: Three ways the G20 could deliver up to USD280 billion for poor countries.

Reforming tax havens alone could release USD160bn, reallocating an already agreed IMF bailout could free up another USD89bn, and introducing a currency transaction tax could raise at least a further USD30bn – each a significant sum to help poor people suffering in the crisis.

The money is desperately needed to prevent the crisis derailing efforts to reduce poverty as developing countries suffer job losses because of falling trade and capital flows. According World Bank and UN estimates, between 50-100 million more people will be trapped in poverty this year, forced to survive on less than USD1.25 per day.

Max Lawson, Oxfam senior policy adviser, said: “The beauty of these proposals is that they allow the G20 to bailout poor people without asking ordinary taxpayers at home to put their hands in their pockets. Rich countries that spent USD18 trillion bailing out banks should not be allowed to plead tight budgets as an excuse for failing to help poor people – especially when there are alternative sources of funding available that would cost them little or nothing.

“A currency transaction tax for development would force fat cat bankers to help clean up the mess caused by their greed instead of returning to bonuses as usual.

“The G20 is already clamping down on tax havens but it must ensure the benefits are not restricted to countries that have the power to call these states to account.

“G20 finance ministers should ensure that it is the poorest people in the world that benefit most from the IMF’s distribution of special drawing rights.

“G20 Finance Ministers have a real opportunity to ensure that poor countries receive proper protection from a crisis they did nothing to cause. Millions more families are being forced to make impossible choices between buying life saving medicines, sending their girls to school or buying food for their next meal,” Lawson said.

The G20 in April promised to provide USD240bn to help developing countries deal with the financial crisis – including USD50bn for the poorest. But the World Bank estimates that developing countries will need up to USD635bn in 2009 just to stand still.

Much more is needed to reduce poverty, increase the number of children who attend school and tackle health problems such as HIV/AIDS and malaria.

How the three proposals would work:

Implement a Currency Transaction Tax (CTT) of at least 0.005% on international currency transactions. It is estimated that such a tax could generate a minimum of USD30 billion per year if applied to the four major international reserve currencies (US Dollar, Yen, Euro and British Pound). If more currencies were included, this figure could increase as high as USD50bn. A slightly higher rate could also provide more resources for government spending in rich countries facing cuts in services.

Transfer half of rich countries’ new Special Drawing Rights allocations. Agree that at a minimum all the G8 and other major donor countries will transfer half of their allotted new allocations of IMF Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) to Low Income Countries. SDRs are a form of IMF quasi currency distributed to member countries. The April G20 agreed to create USD285 billion worth of SDRs, and rich nations will receive USD177 billion of this amount. Oxfam is calling for half of this, USD89 billion, to be transferred to the poorest countries.

Deal with tax havens. Put in place a multilateral agreement for the automatic exchange of full tax information and require country-by-country reporting of subsidiaries, sales and profits by multinational corporations, to help developing countries recoup lost tax revenue. This could result in a further USUSD160 billion for poor countries, and at the same time would enable rich countries to recover their lost tax revenues. The current OECD initiative on tax havens, supported by the G20, relies on bilateral agreements between countries. To date no developing country has signed a bilateral agreement with a tax haven.