coral reef

Responding to the news that the Government would not appeal the recent High Court judgement in Greenpeace's favour on the extent of the EU Habitat's Directive, Greenpeace climate campaigner Matthew Spencer said: "This is great news -We hope the Government will now implement the Directive fully. This means putting the needs of wildlife before the needs of oil exploration. Greenpeace can now confirm that we will invest any money that we receive from the Government in legal costs in renewable energy projects in Scotland."

Spencer added, "The Government should use the breathing space this creates to think again about the merits of further oil exploration which is fundamentally unsustainable. We've already found four times more oil coal and gas than we can afford to burn if we are to avoid dangerous climate change. We hope that Stephen Byers will commit the Department of Trade and Industry to the only sustainable course - and announce that New Labour is committed to building a new renewable energy industry in Britain."

Further information:
Contact:
Greenpeace Press Office on 020 7865 8255

polar bears

Polar bears are under threat of starvation from climate change due to melting sea ice, a new study from scientists with the Canadian Wildlife Service concludes. The study, by Canadian polar bear scientists Ian Stirling, Nicholas J. Lunn and John Iacozza, found that the bears' main food source, ringed seals which live on the ice of Hudson Bay, are becoming less accessible because of a shorter ice season.

"We're wrong if we think that climate change is something that will happen far off in the future. Polar bears are starving now and we need to act now to stop climate change," said Kevin Jardine, Greenpeace climate impacts specialist.

Building on a past NASA study which found a 2.9 percent decline per decade in total Arctic sea ice extent over the last 20 years, the new Canadian study further concludes that the sea ice season in western Hudson Bay has been reduced by about three weeks over the same period.

The study says that, as a result of the reduction in sea ice, polar bears have less time to hunt and are returning to land in poorer condition. Weight for both male and female polar bears is declining and female bears are having fewer cubs. Although significant population decline has not yet begun, this is inevitable if the trends continue.

Hudson Bay polar bears are unique in the Arctic because of their tendency to fast for six to eight months each year, depending heavily on hunting during the sea ice season for survival. Since the sea ice season is the shortest in Hudson Bay of all the regions of the Arctic Ocean, these bears are on the edge of survival, and are likely to be among the first to be affected by sea ice decline. The Canadian study also draws attention to an increase in bear-human altercations as hungry polar bears wander into the northern Canadian community of Churchill, Manitoba.

Executive Director of the Churchill Northern Study Center, Harvey Lemelin, said:
"What we consider encounters now are not only bear sightings but bears that have to be moved away from the property using everything from dogs to vehicles to cracker shells. From the last three years we've gone from 20 encounters to 36 and we're not done with the season yet."

"Starving polar bears, Asian floods and dying coral reefs are all major climate danger signals," said Jardine. "World governments must begin urgent negotiations to cut global greenhouse gas emissions by more than 50 percent and begin the phase-out of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas," he said.

coral reef

The Government was defeated in court today (5th November 1999) in a landmark legal ruling which protects coral reefs and whales and dolphins in Britain's North East Atlantic. Mr Justice Kay ruled that all future offshore oil licensing is illegal until the Government properly applies the EU Habitats Directive.
Justice Kay told the court that the Government had "clearly" not applied the Habitats Directive in initiating the next round of oil licensing in the North East Atlantic.

"This is a fantastic victory for whales, dolphins and deep water coral reefs. It turns Government policy on fossil fuels on its head. Tony Blair has now been forced to put wildlife conservation ahead of oil exploration," said Greenpeace Executive Director, Peter Melchett.

"The Government should learn from this defeat and review whether it can to afford to continue to license new oil exploration given the damage that it will cause to marine wildlife and the global climate. It should put its resources into supporting new British renewable energy industries," Melchett said.

Greenpeace said that the costs it receives from the Government will be invested in new renewable energy projects in Scotland.

Further information:
Contact:
Greenpeace Press office on 020 7865 8255

No new oil - Greenpeace fights to stop climate change

Ten oil companies today attempted to strip European citizens of the right to enforce powerful wildlife laws when their lawyers argued in the High Court that Greenpeace cannot make the Government enforce the European Union Habitats Directive.

The argument focuses on Greenpeace's judicial review of the UK Government's decision to only apply the Habitats Directive up to twelve nautical miles from the shore even though the UK claims mineral rights up to 200 nautical miles from land. The oil companies (including Texaco, Esso, Mobil and Marathon Oil), who have joined with the Government in opposing Greenpeace in court, are arguing that Greenpeace has no right to take the case because it has no legitimate or "personal" interest in the Habitats Directive.

Sarah Burton, Campaigns Director at Greenpeace, said: "If the oil companies win this argument it will be a tragedy for the environment. It would be ridiculous if only the European Commission and governments could go to court since Tony Blair is hardly likely to legally challenge himself and you don't see many whales in the High Court."

Phil Rothwell, Head of Policy Operations for the RSPB, said: "Any ruling that environmental groups could not challenge the Government over the implementation of European environmental law would cause major problems for the RSPB and many other UK conservation groups. The citizens of Europe care passionately about their wildlife and must be free to challenge governments in court if they fail to properly apply the law."

The 10 oil companies' legal argument centres around the principle of "direct effect" and the fact that the Habitats Directive and Birds Directive do not affect individual rights. This has allowed the oil companies to argue that nobody has a direct legal stake in the implementation of the directives except the European Commission and EU states. The oil companies argue that even organisations explicitly dedicated to the protection of wildlife do not have the right to go to court to protect the species that they care about.

Sarah Burton continued: "If Greenpeace is denied the right to take this case, we will give free membership to every whale and dolphin in the north east Atlantic, and argue that we represent the entire cetacean nation of the Atlantic Frontier - it would be no more ludicrous than allowing these oil companies to strip European citizens of their basic rights. If the public cannot challenge governments over failure to implement European wildlife law the entire legal structure of the European Union will have been undermined."

Notes to editors:
[1] The oil companies opposing the Greenpeace case are:
Texaco
Conoco Ltd
Esso UK
Statoil
Marathon Oil
UK Philips Petroleum Company UK
Mobil North Sea
Elf Exploration
Enterprise Oil
British Gas Exploration and Production

Further information:
Contact:
Greenpeace press office on 020 7865 8255

Atlantic Frontier: court

Greenpeace's QC today branded the Government's main legal argument a breach of the organisation's human rights and an abuse of the legal process. The Government argues that Greenpeace delayed in applying for a judicial review of its oil licensing on the Atlantic Frontier and that Greenpeace should have made its application sometime over the last five years.

If this is correct it would mean that no person or organisation (including Greenpeace) would ever be able to challenge any Government decision on offshore oil and gas exploration or any other offshore activities to which the EU Habitats Directive applies

Nigel Plemming, QC for Greenpeace, said today in the High Court:
"The Government is attempting to deny Greenpeace access to the UK courts when it has substantial evidence to demonstrate that the UK Government has failed, and continues to fail, to implement an important act of Community law for environmental protection, which establishes rights enforceable by individuals and by associations. Such a conclusion would offend articles 6 and 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights".

Plemming added that the Government's argument was effectively saying that, "the Government and oil industry could march on until the end of time."

He added that the Government was abusing the legal process by trying to challenge a decision made by Justice Laws in 1997 at a previous hearing between the Government and Greenpeace. Laws made it clear that Greenpeace was entitled to wait until it was clear what blocks of sea were being offered for oil exploration before challenging the Governments decision.

Notes to editors:
Greenpeace has launched a judicial review of the UK Government's refusal to apply the EU Habitats Directive up to 200 nautical miles from the coast despite the fact that the Government claims fisheries and mineral rights over this area. The Government has been joined by ten oil companies, including household names like Esso, Texaco and Mobil.

Further information:
Contact:
Greenpeace Press Office on 020 7865 8255

Atlantic Frontier: court

Blue whale gets less protection than the medicinal leech

The Government goes to court today (11th October 1999) to defend itself against a legal action by Greenpeace over official failure to protect marine life in the north east Atlantic. Greenpeace has launched a judicial review of the UK Government's refusal to apply wildlife protection law up to 200 nautical miles from the coast despite the fact that the Government claims fisheries and mineral rights over this area. The Government has been joined by oil companies, who say that if Greenpeace are successful it will cause problems for new oil exploration and licensing.

Peter Melchett, Executive Director of Greenpeace, said:
"We are currently in the ridiculous position of giving whales and dolphins less protection than the medicinal leech and leaving vulnerable marine wildlife at the mercy of oil exploration. This case has the backing of Britain's largest wildlife groups and is a direct challenge to Tony Blair to deliver on his promise to put the environment at the heart of policy making."

The case is centred on the UK Government's decision to limit the application of the EU Habitats Directive to only 12 nautical miles from the coast, even though the European Commission and other EU states have interpreted the law differently [1] and despite the high wildlife value of the marine environment. Greenpeace is particularly concerned with the north east Atlantic - the so called Atlantic Frontier - where oil exploration threatens populations of whales and dolphins as well as deep water coral reefs and other marine life. Many other organisations in the UK are supporting the Greenpeace case including the RSPB, the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society and the World Wide Fund for Nature. [2] If the Government loses the case it will have to implement the directive up to 200 nautical miles from land and reconsider allowing any further oil exploration around the UK coast.

This will require the Government to conduct a full environmental assessment of marine life, identify areas that are of particularly high wildlife value (called Special Protection Areas) and ensure adequate protection for vulnerable species and habitats. Survey work by Greenpeace and the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society has already confirmed that the Atlantic Frontier is populated with many whale and dolphin species. Twenty-two species of whales and dolphins have been identified in the area including rare blue and fin whales. The Atlantic Frontier is home to the deep-water coral reef Lophelia Pertusa.

The legal case has caused concern within the oil industry, which says that it creates huge uncertainties for future oil exploration. As interpretation of European law is at the heart of the case, it may be the European Court of Justice that ultimately decides it. The case also exposes the fundamental contradiction at the heart of Government policy, which permits the fossil fuel industry to continually explore for new reserves while ministers claim to be actively combating climate change, by reducing our use of oil, coal and gas.

Peter Melchett continued:
"The world can only afford to burn a quarter of current fossil fuel reserves before the damage inflicted by climate change reaches unacceptable levels so it's pointless to continually prospect for new reserves which we can never afford to burn. The Government is proposing to destroy Britain's greatest ocean wilderness, the Atlantic Frontier, for the sake of oil we can never use."

Notes to Editors:
[1] How other EU states interpret the Habitats Directive: Other EU states apply the Habitats Directive differently to the UK. For instance, Denmark has applied the Habitats Directive offshore under the Protection of Nature Law 1992 and has designated three Special Areas of Conservation beyond twelve nautical miles offshore in the Kattegat. Belgium is in the process of applying the Habitats Directive to its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) while the situation is unclear in Germany. The Azores has submitted offshore sites containing sea mounts to the Portuguese Government for inclusion in its list of Special Areas of Conservation under the Habitats Directive.

[2] Organisations supporting the case: RSPB, World Wide Fund for Nature, Friends of the Earth, Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, the EIA and the Wildlife Trusts.

Atlantic Frontier: challenge

The Government has conceded that oil and gas exploration in the Britain's North East Atlantic - the Atlantic Frontier - may harm whales and dolphins. The admission came in the High Court today where Greenpeace is taking the Government to court for failing to apply wildlife protection law up to 200 nautical miles from the coast.

In the Government's first affidavit, Claire Harding of the Department of Trade and Industry Oil and Gas Division, said, "I believe that the evidence put forward by the Applicants does not show that any harm has occurred or will in future occur to cetaceans as a result of any oil and gas activity, including seismic activity."

However, Ms Harding's evidence was later changed to show a clear alteration in the Government's position. The changed affidavit of Claire Harding, read to the Court today, states that, "I believe that the evidence put forward by the Applicants does not show that any harm has occurred or will in future occur to the conservation status of cetaceans as a result of any oil and gas activity, including seismic activity."

Peter Melchett, Executive Director of Greenpeace UK said, "the Government has clearly conceded that whales and dolphins could be harmed by oil and gas development in the North East Atlantic. We hear a good deal about "rights and responsibilities" from the Prime Minister, and yet the Government wants the right to drill for oil without the responsibilities of protecting the environment. It is vital that we protect Britain's whales and dolphins from uncontrolled oil and gas exploration."

In an affadavit read in court today, Peter Melchett stated that: "I consider the Government's evidence is aimed not just at the legality of the Habitat's Directive applying offshore to the marine environment, but at how best to circumvent its terms. We look to the Government to be even-handed and champion everyone's interest - that includes the interests of endangered species and habitats that are likely to go into decline without positive steps to preserve them for future generations. I believe the days when Governments can open up new 'frontiers' to industry (as the Atlantic Frontier is described by Government) without the need for strict environmental and conservation control are long gone.

This application seeks to protect those habitats and species that will be victims of a way of thinking about the environment that is outmoded.

"These are not trivial issues. The great whales are at once symbols of humanity's global capacity to drive entire species to the edge of extinction, and of humanity's more recently emerging ability to take global action to halt destruction, and even to reverse the process. The UK has a great responsibility in respect of whales in the Atlantic Frontier. That responsibility is not to mitigate further damage but actively to promote both the protection and restoration of these vulnerable jewels of the natural world.

There is no time left to 'wait and see' for those species that are on the edge of extinction. This has long been accepted by conservationists and the European community. I believe it must now be accepted by the UK Government who must provide the requisite level of protection and active conservation management as set out in the Habitat's Directive.

Further information:
Contact:
Greenpeace Press Office on 020 7865 8255