attack on bristol security firm

No peace for the defend­ers of com­mod­i­ty-soci­ety. Their secu­ri­ty = a joke once again. Our lat­est tar­get was Avon and Som­er­set Guard­ing, on Fish­ponds Rd, we broke half the store­front glass and attacked the CCTV cam­era, leav­ing an anar­chy sym­bol tagged on the scene. Enough uni­formed bas­tards in our lives, let’s trash the con­trol appa­ra­tus.

No peace for the defend­ers of com­mod­i­ty-soci­ety. Their secu­ri­ty = a joke once again. Our lat­est tar­get was Avon and Som­er­set Guard­ing, on Fish­ponds Rd, we broke half the store­front glass and attacked the CCTV cam­era, leav­ing an anar­chy sym­bol tagged on the scene. Enough uni­formed bas­tards in our lives, let’s trash the con­trol appa­ra­tus. Shouts to anti-fas­cist of action Jock Pal­free­man, held in Bul­gar­ia — love for our com­rades, hate for their jail­ers. That’s all for now

Drax AGM targeted over biomass conversion plans 25th April

50 peo­ple took part yes­ter­day in a demon­stra­tion and ral­ly out­side the annu­al gen­er­al meet­ing of Drax Plc, at the Gro­cers’ Hall in Lon­don, organ­ised by Bio­fu­el­watch and sup­port­ed by 16 oth­er groups.

50 peo­ple took part yes­ter­day in a demon­stra­tion and ral­ly out­side the annu­al gen­er­al meet­ing of Drax Plc, at the Gro­cers’ Hall in Lon­don, organ­ised by Bio­fu­el­watch and sup­port­ed by 16 oth­er groups. The protest opposed Drax pow­er station’s plans to con­vert half of its gen­er­at­ing capac­i­ty to bio­mass, and high­light­ed the impacts that this will have in terms of increased defor­esta­tion, land-grab­bing and car­bon emis­sions.

50 peo­ple took part yes­ter­day in a demon­stra­tion and ral­ly out­side the annu­al gen­er­al meet­ing of Drax Plc, at the Gro­cers’ Hall in Lon­don, organ­ised by Bio­fu­el­watch and sup­port­ed by 16 oth­er groups [1]. Demon­stra­tors chant­ed “Drax Drax, what do you say? How many trees have you killed today?” and hold­ing ban­ners read­ing “Big Bio­mass: Fuelling Defor­esta­tion, Land-grab­bing and Cli­mate Dis­as­ter”, “Big Bio­mass is Green­wash not Renew­able Ener­gy” and “Drax the Destroy­er!”. Bio­fu­el­watch called the demon­stra­tion to oppose Drax pow­er station’s plans to con­vert half of its gen­er­at­ing capac­i­ty to bio­mass, and to high­light the impacts that this will have in terms of increased defor­esta­tion, land-grab­bing and car­bon emis­sions.

The protest coin­cid­ed with the pub­li­ca­tion of an open let­ter to Drax Plc signed by 49 dif­fer­ent organ­i­sa­tions and net­works world­wide, includ­ing Friends of the Earth Inter­na­tion­al, the Glob­al For­est Coali­tion and World Rain­for­est Move­ment [2]. The let­ter con­cludes: “We oppose com­mer­cial and indus­tri­al scale bioen­er­gy, and demand that the UK halt coal con­ver­sion plans and force these coal plants to shut down. Mean­while focus must be redi­rect­ed towards a seri­ous reduc­tion of ener­gy con­sump­tion and dra­mat­ic mea­sures to pro­tect and restore forests and oth­er ecosys­tems.”

Drax’s bio­mass plans will require pel­lets made from 15.8 mil­lion tonnes of wood each year, mak­ing it the biggest bio­mass-burn­ing pow­er sta­tion in the world. By com­par­i­son, the UK’s total annu­al wood pro­duc­tion is only 10 mil­lion tonnes. Over­all, ener­gy com­pa­nies in the UK are plan­ning to burn up to 10 times as much wood as the UK pro­duces ever year. Wood burned by Drax increas­ing­ly comes from whole trees felled for this pur­pose [3].

In addi­tion to issues of defor­esta­tion and land-grab­bing, recent sci­en­tif­ic stud­ies have shown that bio­mass used for elec­tric­i­ty gen­er­a­tion is actu­al­ly more car­bon inten­sive than burn­ing coal [4]. Dun­can Law from Bio­fu­el­watch said: “Burn­ing bio­mass on the scale pro­posed will be even more car­bon inten­sive than the coal it will replace, and result in a mas­sive car­bon debt stored just where we don’t want it, in the atmos­phere. Far from being a low-car­bon fuel, it’s a total cli­mate dis­as­ter!”.

For local com­mu­ni­ties, coal to bio­mass con­ver­sions will mean decades more of high lev­els of pol­lu­tion, since the con­ver­sions allow pow­er sta­tions to con­tin­ue oper­at­ing when they may oth­er­wise have to close down [5].

Notes:

[1] The fol­low­ing organ­i­sa­tions are for­mal­ly sup­port­ing Tak­ing DRAX­tic Action: Cam­paign Against Cli­mate Change; Car­bon Trade Watch; Chris­t­ian Ecol­o­gy Link; Cli­mate Jus­tice Col­lec­tive; Coal Action Net­work; Coal Action Scot­land; Colom­bia Sol­i­dar­i­ty Cam­paign; Cor­po­rate Watch; Frack Free Som­er­set; Fuel Pover­ty Action; Gaia Foun­da­tion; Lon­don Min­ing Net­work; Lon­don Ris­ing Tide; Occu­py Lon­don Ener­gy, Equi­ty and Envi­ron­ment Group; Ris­ing Tide UK; World Devel­op­ment Move­ment.

[2] The Open Let­ter to Drax can be found at http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2013/drax-signon-letter/

[3] The Dog­wood Alliance, a non­prof­it orga­ni­za­tion work­ing to pro­tect forests in the South­ern US, released a report enti­tled “The Use of Whole Trees in Wood Pel­let Man­u­fac­tur­ing,” in Novem­ber 2012 doc­u­ment­ing the fact that the top exporters of wood pel­lets in the region rely heav­i­ly on cut­ting down whole trees to sat­is­fy demand from Euro­pean pow­er sta­tions. Scot Quaran­da, Cam­paign Direc­tor for Dog­wood Alliance said “Ener­gy com­pa­nies in the UK, includ­ing Drax, RWE and E.On are con­vert­ing large, old, dirty and inef­fi­cient coal pow­er sta­tions to bio­mass all in the name of reduc­ing car­bon emis­sions, but the real­i­ty is that this shift will accel­er­ate cli­mate change while also dri­ving destruc­tive indus­tri­al log­ging in the world’s most bio­log­i­cal­ly diverse tem­per­ate forests.” Through direct inves­ti­ga­tion and research, the report doc­u­ments the use of whole trees from South­ern forests by the largest wood pel­let man­u­fac­tur­ers and exporters in the South­ern US. Pel­let man­u­fac­tur­ers such as Geor­gia Bio­mass, a whol­ly owned sub­sidiary of RWE, and Envi­va, a major sup­pli­er of Drax and E.On are high­light­ed in the report as using or if not open, plan­ning to use, whole trees. The report can be found here  http://www.dogwoodalliance.org/2012/11/new-report-discredits-uk-energy-company-claims-that-pellets-come-from-wood-waste/

[4] For a list of stud­ies into the car­bon impacts of bio­mass elec­tric­i­ty, see www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/resources-on-biomass. In addi­tion, the report “Dirt­i­er than coal?” pub­lished by RSPB, Friends of the Earth and Green­peace can be found here www.rspb.org.uk/Images/biomass_report_tcm9-326672.pdf

[5] Accord­ing to a brief­ing by Depart­ment for Ener­gy and Cli­mate for the House of Lords on 14th Feb­ru­ary 2013, “the con­ver­sion of exist­ing coal gen­er­at­ing plant to bio­mass or high­er lev­els of bio­mass co-fir­ing is a way of keep­ing open some exist­ing coal plant that would oth­er­wise close before 2016 under envi­ron­men­tal leg­is­la­tion, and there­fore improve capac­i­ty mar­gins over this decade.” ( http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldsecleg/123/12306.htm)

Anti-Mining Activist Daniel Pedro Mateo Kidnapped and Murdered in Guatemala 23rd April

Anti-mining community leader Daniel Pedro Mateo

Anti-min­ing com­mu­ni­ty leader Daniel Pedro Mateo

Anti-mining community leader Daniel Pedro Mateo

Anti-min­ing com­mu­ni­ty leader Daniel Pedro Mateo

In the midst of an ongo­ing geno­cide tri­al against a for­mer pres­i­dent of Guatemala, which is now being sus­pend­ed by the cur­rent pres­i­dent who is also impli­cat­ed in the war crimes, vio­lence against indige­nous envi­ron­men­tal activists con­tin­ues, with anoth­er per­son found dead last week in Hue­hue­te­nan­go.  

On April 16, 2013, the body of Qanjob’al com­mu­ni­ty activist Daniel Pedro Mateo was found mur­dered in San­ta Eulalia, Hue­hue­te­nan­go, Guatemala.   He had been kid­napped for 12 days and his body showed signs of tor­ture. Haz clic aquí para la ver­sión en español.

Daniel, a founder of the com­mu­ni­ty radio sta­tion Snuq Jolom Konob, dis­ap­peared on Sun­day, April 7th  in the vil­lage of El Quet­zal, Hue­hue­te­nan­go on his way to host a work­shop on Indige­nous rights in the com­mu­ni­ty of San­ta Cruz Bar­il­las. His fam­i­ly was con­tact­ed by kid­nap­pers and demand­ed a ran­som of Q150,000 in return for his safe­ty. Despite the efforts of his fam­i­ly and com­mu­ni­ty to gath­er mon­ey to pay the ran­som, Daniel’s body was found last night in his vil­lage of San­ta Eulalia.

Daniel Pedro Mateo was a painter, teacher, a founder of Radio Snuq Jolom Konob, and a leader in the com­mu­ni­ty resis­tance to min­ing and hydro­elec­tric activ­i­ties in Hue­hue­te­nan­go. Child­hood expe­ri­ences that exposed him to the grave inequal­i­ties and injus­tices con­fronting poor and indige­nous com­mu­ni­ties in Guatemala moti­vat­ed his life­long com­mit­ment to work for a more just and humane soci­ety.  After the armed con­flict end­ed, he joined with oth­er Qanjob’al Maya lead­ers in San­ta Eulalia to start a radio sta­tion that would give voice to their com­mu­ni­ty that formed the major­i­ty of the local pop­u­la­tion, but were nonethe­less mar­gin­al­ized and silenced. Daniel was no longer involved in the day-to-day work of the sta­tion, but main­tained close ties with many of the cur­rent vol­un­teer staff and lead­er­ship.

Many in the com­mu­ni­ty believe this vio­lent act to be a reper­cus­sion of Daniel’s envi­ron­men­tal activism. Loren­zo Fran­sis­co Mateo, Daniel’s cousin and fel­low mem­ber of Radio Snuq Jolom Konob stat­ed, “The only crime he was ever guilty of was fight­ing in defense of the envi­ron­ment.” Daniel was an out­spo­ken orga­niz­er against the Hydro San­ta Cruz dam in San­ta Cruz Bar­il­las, a dam in his town of San­ta Eulalia, and a log­ging com­pa­ny Maderas San Luis that had forced evic­tions of local Indige­nous peo­ples. He was a mem­ber Cul­tur­al Survival’s part­ner orga­ni­za­tion Asem­blea de Pueb­los de Hue­hue­te­nan­go, and a mem­ber of the polit­i­cal par­ty WINAQ, found­ed by Nobel prize win­ner Rigob­er­ta Menchu.

Daniel’s death comes in a series of recent mur­ders in Guatemala of Indige­nous activists. Just last year, anti-dam activist and com­mu­ni­ty leader, Andres Fran­sis­co Miguel, was shot and killed by secu­ri­ty guards of Hydro San­ta Cruz in Bar­il­las, where Daniel was head­ed to host a work­shop. In March, Exaltación Mar­cos Uce­lo, an Indige­nous Xin­ca leader active against Cana­di­an Tahoe Resources’ sil­ver mine in Jala­pa was found beat­en to death, after being abduct­ed along­side three oth­er Xin­ca lead­ers. Six months ago, sev­en Indige­nous pro­tes­tors were shot and killed by Guatemalan mil­i­tary in Totonicapan.These events reflect the dan­ger­ous state that Indige­nous lead­ers and envi­ron­men­tal activists find them­selves in Guatemala.

Com­mu­ni­ty orga­ni­za­tions in San­ta Eulalia are call­ing for con­tri­bu­tions to cov­er funer­al expens­es and to sup­port Daniel’s fam­i­ly in this dif­fi­cult time. He leaves behind an ail­ing wife and eight chil­dren.

Dodgy deals and corporate collusion: SNP still selling communities out to Scottish Coal

inc002Whilst a lot has hap­pened in the past few days –

inc002Whilst a lot has hap­pened in the past few days – secret meet­ings for MSPs, the liq­ui­da­tion of the UK’s largest open­cast oper­a­tor – a pic­ture of the deal that Fer­gus Ewing and Rus­sel Grig­gs are try­ing to strike to save the open­cast indus­try is increas­ing­ly com­ing to light. Announce­ments of a new trust for restora­tion make clear our sus­pi­cions that there isn’t any­where near enough mon­ey for restora­tion, or even the will to use any of it. Rum­blings from the Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment and min­ing com­pa­nies such as Har­greves indi­cate that poten­tial­ly prof­itable mines will be sold, whilst spent ones lie unre­stored and for­got­ten. The ques­tion is: what deal will be struck that will allow oth­er min­ing com­pa­nies to oper­ate these mines prof­itably? And more impor­tant­ly in the grand scheme of things, what lengths will this SNP gov­ern­ment go to save one of the most despised com­pa­nies in the cen­tral belt?

 

We don’t need anoth­er trust – restora­tion bonds and more bro­ken promis­es

Some­thing fun­ny has hap­pened since Scot­tish Coal announced they’d gone bel­ly up – a new Trust to restore open­cast sites mate­ri­alised seem­ing­ly out of nowhere. Ewing and Grig­gs must have been think­ing on their feet, because there was no men­tion what­so­ev­er of a new trust at the “pri­vate” brief­ing to MSPs on the future of the coal indus­try last Wednes­day, 17th April. Sure­ly that was the oppor­tune moment to announce the new plans? Obvi­ous­ly, the brief­ing was a cha­rade. But what else were they keep­ing from MSPs and there­fore the rest of us?

Ques­tions need answer­ing about this new trust: Where will the mon­ey come from? Which sites will be restored and when will restora­tion start? Will com­mu­ni­ties have any con­trol over it? But the biggest of all: what about the bonds that were in place for each site? Open­casts gain plan­ning per­mis­sion on the con­di­tion that (and this is bound by a legal agree­ment) sites will be ful­ly restored after­wards. Sure­ly there­fore there’s insur­ance mon­ey wait­ing to be accessed. Bonds can be called in either by the local author­i­ty, or by the devel­op­er in the instance that they go bust. Sure­ly now is exact­ly the time that they should be called in, and if they’re not, then was it all a hoax in the first place?

The announce­ment of a new trust reveals oth­er truths too. The insur­ance com­pa­nies respon­si­ble for the bonds appar­ent­ly con­sid­er them high-risk now that the min­ing com­pa­nies have gone under, and won’t issue any more bonds. There­fore, for min­ing oper­a­tions to resume in the future, a new sys­tem for restora­tion needs to be cre­at­ed. This new trust isn’t some benev­o­lent act to help the envi­ron­ment or give com­mu­ni­ties what they want, it’s about cov­er­ing the backs of the min­ing com­pa­nies in the future, and just anoth­er dirty trick.

Fer­gus Ewing had this to say: “We have been work­ing close­ly with the key stake­hold­ers over the past six months to address the issues fac­ing the coal indus­try in Scot­land and we share the con­cerns raised by local com­mu­ni­ties around the respon­si­ble restora­tion of open cast coal sites.” We’d like to know who these key stake­hold­ers are, and why com­mu­ni­ties liv­ing next to sites and ulti­mate­ly bear­ing all the neg­a­tive impacts of them aren’t con­sid­ered “key stake­hold­ers”.

He also said: “I am, there­fore, pleased to announce that we are set­ting up a new trust to help facil­i­tate the restora­tion of old open cast coal mines across Scot­land.” Yes, but what about the bonds, and the fact that they were a con­di­tion of approval for every sin­gle mine appli­ca­tion?

He then said: “…the restora­tion process itself is expect­ed, over time, to cre­ate hun­dreds of jobs across the coun­try – as well as restor­ing the local envi­ron­ment.” Well we won­der where he got that idea from.

Last minute exten­sions

Scot­tish Coal boss­es were up to their usu­al tricks right up until the last minute. At two sites in par­tic­u­lar, Main­shill in South Lanark­shire and St Nin­ni­ans in Fife, Scot­tish Coal applied for wee exten­sions by extend­ing exca­va­tion areas slight­ly and into bits not men­tioned in orig­i­nal appli­ca­tions. The ton­nage in both cas­es was 70,000. Main­shill was all but exhaust­ed of its reserve, and St Nin­ni­ans was fin­ished apart from the con­sent­ed exten­sion. These tiny exten­sions aren’t worth anoth­er min­ing com­pa­ny buy­ing the site, but are worth at least a year in terms of restora­tion com­mit­ments. With these exten­sions the sites aren’t fin­ished any more, so there’s no require­ment to begin restora­tion until the exten­sions are worked. Smooth. Look­ing at the state that Main­shill and St Nin­ni­ans are cur­rent­ly in one won­ders whether they’ll ever get restored.

Worse still, the local author­i­ties must have known that Scot­tish Coal wouldn’t sur­vive, as they’d sup­pos­ed­ly been involved in the nego­ti­a­tions for months now. What local author­i­ty would accept an appli­ca­tion that they knew would delib­er­ate­ly delay restora­tion oblig­a­tions? Ah wait – local author­i­ties that have been col­lud­ing with Scot­tish Coal since day one would do that.

The future for open­cast sites

And then there’s the real­ly mas­sive holes in the ground, such as at Bro­ken Cross, in South Lanark­shire. Whilst it might be worth­while for anoth­er com­pa­ny to buy the site – there’s at least 2 mil­lion tonnes of coal left and most of the earth mov­ing has been done – there’s no way that the pits at Bro­ken Cross will get filled in with trust mon­ey or bond mon­ey, if it even exists that is. What do we think will hap­pen to Bro­ken Cross? Land­fill site – the tax­es will gen­er­ate income to even­tu­al­ly restore once the hole has been filled in with rub­bish, and South Lanark­shire has a solu­tion to its waste prob­lems. This could very well be the fate of most open­cast sites, and a final injus­tice imposed on near-by com­mu­ni­ties.

Who is this Grig­gs char­ac­ter any­way?

Chair of the “Reg­u­la­to­ry Review Group”, and chair of the new Restora­tion Trust appar­ent­ly. He’s the go-to guy for dereg­u­lat­ing indus­try. He’s also refused to meet with com­mu­ni­ty mem­bers (so much for “rep­re­sent­ing each com­mu­ni­ty”). Grig­gs said: “I am grate­ful for the sup­port and con­struc­tive engage­ment I have had from local coun­cils, landown­ers and the coal oper­a­tors over the last few months in devel­op­ing the new Trust. I look for­ward to work­ing with them to launch the Trust and be ready to help with a fresh approach to restor­ing old mines.” Here he admits that they’ve been cook­ing up these new plans for months, but still not engaged with com­mu­ni­ties, and didn’t think it appro­pri­ate to men­tion this at his brief­ing to MSPs.

The scan­dal here is that a “fresh approach” and “new trust” is need­ed to restore old mines. How long have they known that exist­ing mea­sures wouldn’t be suf­fi­cient? Did they not think it impor­tant to men­tion to com­mu­ni­ties that, “by the way, you know the promis­es of restora­tion? Well, they’re not going to hap­pen”. This means that either the bonds were nev­er real or suf­fi­cient in the first place, or that local author­i­ties have been fail­ing in their oblig­a­tions to mon­i­tor restora­tion progress. More like­ly though, it means both, and that we’ve been duped by the min­ing com­pa­nies, local author­i­ties and gov­ern­ment for some time.

Put your mon­ey where your mouth is: call in the bonds

Maybe this is just flog­ging a dead horse now, but sure­ly, sure­ly some effort should be made to call in these restora­tion bonds. No one has even men­tioned it! There must be at least a few of them that could make some mon­ey avail­able? In the­o­ry there’s mil­lions in them. Sure­ly then, the equi­table thing to do is to keep as many of the open­cast work­ers on as pos­si­ble to see the restora­tion of the sites, or at least as much as the finance will allow. The fact that no moves are being made to see to it that this is what hap­pens just shows that there’s a big­ger and worse announce­ment still to come, about a deal being struck between the Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment, local author­i­ties and whichev­er min­ing com­pa­nies have their eyes on Scotland’s open­cast sites.

 

Burma: Police Crack Down On ‘Unlawful’ Gas Pipeline Protestors 19th April

Hun­dreds of locals gath­ered in Arakan state’s Kyaukpyu town­ship to protest against the Chi­nese-backed Shwe Gas Pipeline on 19 April 2013 (Htun Kyi)

Hun­dreds of locals gath­ered in Arakan state’s Kyaukpyu town­ship to protest against the Chi­nese-backed Shwe Gas Pipeline on 19 April 2013 (Htun Kyi)

At least three peo­ple were detained and ques­tioned by local author­i­ties in Arakan state on Fri­day, for their role in stag­ing an unau­tho­rised protest against the Chi­nese-backed Shwe Gas Pipeline in west­ern Bur­ma ear­li­er this week.

On Thurs­day, over 400 locals in Arakan state’s Kyaukpyu town­ship ral­lied against the Chi­na Nation­al Petro­le­um Cor­po­ra­tion (CNPC) – a major share­hold­er in the Shwe Gas Pipeline – demand­ing that the com­pa­ny take respon­si­bil­i­ty for the dam­ages caused to their liveli­hoods and local envi­ron­ment.

Accord­ing to one of the organ­is­ers, they had sought per­mis­sion to protest three times before, but after being repeat­ed­ly refused they decid­ed to go ahead with the ral­ly any­way.

“The arrests have begun – the [police] are look­ing for [organ­is­ers] in Kyauk­tan, Ywar­ma and Pan­deinse vil­lages,” said Htun Kyi, adding that three peo­ple had already been inter­ro­gat­ed and asked to seek bail guar­an­tors.

The police report­ed­ly took their per­son­al details and pressed them on who helped them organ­ise the protest and how they got the mon­ey to print out t‑shirts and oth­er cam­paign mate­r­i­al.

“My fam­i­ly just informed me that police offi­cials also showed up at my house and asked them to tell me to go to the police sta­tion when I get back and also to bring guar­an­tors along,” said Htun Kyi, who was in Kyaukpyu as of this morn­ing. “We are pre­pared – we are ready to accept any pun­ish­ment.”

Hun­dreds of locals, wear­ing white t‑shirts with red cross­es over CNPC logos, gath­ered near the Chi­nese company’s office on Madaykyun island on Thurs­day and shout­ed out slo­gans against the con­tro­ver­sial pipeline.

Accord­ing to Htun Kyi, who is also a spokesper­son of the Rakhine Social Net­work, said that local author­i­ties had pre­vi­ous­ly promised to help them nego­ti­ate with the com­pa­ny over their demands, but lat­er done noth­ing.

Pro­tes­tors are call­ing for com­pen­sa­tion for con­fis­cat­ed land, new job oppor­tu­ni­ties, local infra­struc­ture, includ­ing bet­ter roads, as well as a fair share of the elec­tric­i­ty that will be gen­er­at­ed from the project.

The protest was joined by hun­dreds of local res­i­dents, includ­ing fish­er­men who have lost their jobs because of the pipeline, as well as a num­ber of civ­il soci­ety organ­i­sa­tions.

The con­tro­ver­sial Shwe Gas Pipeline, which is sched­uled for com­ple­tion in May, is a joint ven­ture between the state-owned Chi­nese com­pa­ny and the mil­i­tary-owned Myan­ma Oil and Gas Enter­prise (MOGE), as well as three oth­er for­eign firms.

The pipeline will con­nect west­ern Burma’s Arakan state and China’s Yun­nan province, slic­ing through many eth­nic minor­i­ty ter­ri­to­ries, includ­ing the con­flict-torn Shan and Kachin states. Human rights groups have com­plained that the project has led to mass con­fis­ca­tions of local farm­lands, forced labour, human rights abus­es and increased mil­i­tari­sa­tion across the coun­try.

Ear­li­er this month, a group of activists warned that the 800-kilo­me­tre pipeline is like­ly to fuel con­flict in north­ern Shan state, where clash­es between eth­nic rebels and the Burmese army are ongo­ing.

“Run­ning an over-ground gas pipeline in a loca­tion where an armed con­flict tak­ing place is absolute­ly unad­vis­able,” said Michael Oxlade, a con­sul­tant with West­min­ster Inter­na­tion­al, a UK based firm that spe­cialis­es in pro­vid­ing secu­ri­ty ser­vices for glob­al oil oper­a­tions.

The Burmese gov­ern­ment is esti­mat­ed to earn USD$29 bil­lion over the next 30 years from the dual pipeline, which will pump gas from the Bay of Ben­gal and oil from the Mid­dle East to main­land Chi­na.

For whom the bell tolls: Scottish Coal go into Liquidation

“In light of Scot­tish Coal’s poor trad­ing and finan­cial posi­tion, we have had to cease trad­ing with imme­di­ate effect,”
-Blair Nim­mo, joint pro­vi­sion­al liq­uida­tor and head of restruc­tur­ing at KPMG in Scot­land.

“In light of Scot­tish Coal’s poor trad­ing and finan­cial posi­tion, we have had to cease trad­ing with imme­di­ate effect,”
-Blair Nim­mo, joint pro­vi­sion­al liq­uida­tor and head of restruc­tur­ing at KPMG in Scot­land.

Scot­tish Coal, the UK’s biggest coal pro­duc­er, has announced today that they are enter­ing admin­is­tra­tion. Due to recent “sig­nif­i­cant cash flow pres­sures” they have laid-off 600 work­ers and stopped all pro­duc­tion at their six open cast sites.

New open cast sites are unlike­ly to hap­pen, and this is some­thing to be hap­py about. How­ev­er, 600 peo­ple have lost their jobs, and they won’t be the mon­ey­men at the top, but the work­ers with lit­tle safe­ty net. They have also had their last week of wages stolen, as this won’t be paid. For those liv­ing next to exist­ing or unre­stored sites this means scars on the land­scape that are unlike­ly to be fixed any time soon. It’s time to get angry, and take back the land and wages that Scot­tish Coal boss­es have stolen.

Peguis First Nation to Block Berger Peat Mine Road

APRIL 14, 2013

APRIL 14, 2013

peguis first nationPEGUIS FIRST NATION, MANITOBA – Peguis First Nation, togeth­er with cot­tagers, prop­er­ty own­ers, and Fish­er Riv­er First Nation, are block­ing the road into Washow Penin­su­la Tues­day April 16, 2013. Berg­er Peat Moss Ltd ignored pro­vi­sions in its envi­ron­ment licences for a new peat mine, and is clear­ing forests and road build­ing. Their clear­ing and road build­ing should not hap­pen before the required plant study and inven­to­ry, includ­ing for med­i­c­i­nal plants.

Despite a mora­to­ri­um on new peat mines put in place June 2011 this peat mine was licensed in sum­mer 2011. Despite many months of for­mal appeals of the license, and com­mu­ni­ty con­sul­ta­tions by First Nations affect­ed by the mine pro­pos­al, new licences were issued at the end of Feb­ru­ary.

Berg­er Peat Moss may ignore or breach its licence fur­ther. The Washow Penin­su­la is a ‘kid­ney’ for Lake Win­nipeg, and pro­vides moose habi­tat, med­i­c­i­nal plants, and a range of tourism oppor­tu­ni­ties.

No noti­fi­ca­tion, or con­sul­ta­tion by the Man­i­to­ba gov­ern­ment with affect­ed First Nation occurred before the leas­es for the mine or the license for the mine.

The Washow Penin­su­la is sit­u­at­ed with­in the Treaty Land Enti­tle­ment notice area for Peguis First Nation, and is a shared tra­di­tion­al use area for both First Nations.

“We have tak­en every step with the Man­i­to­ba gov­ern­ment in good faith. This peat mine, and the oth­ers intend­ed for the Penin­su­la, are not right. Our First Nations, and our sup­port­ers know we need a real peat mine mora­to­ri­um in Man­i­to­ba. Berg­er talks one way and acts anoth­er way. It is time for some respect for our lands and waters from the com­pa­ny and the gov­ern­ment.”

Indigenous group threatens collective suicide in Brazil 29th March

Una car­ta fir­ma­da por los líderes de la comu­nidad indí­ge­na Guarani-Kaiowá de Mato Grosso do Sul, anun­cia el sui­cidio colec­ti­vo de 170 per­sonas, (50 hom­bres, 50 mujeres y 70 niños), si se hace efec­ti­va la orden de la Corte Fed­er­al para despo­jar a la tribu de la ‘cam­bará gran­ja’ donde se encuen­tran tem­po­ral­mente acam­pa­dos.

Trans­la­tion: A let­ter signed by the lead­ers of the indige­nous Guarani-Kaiowá of Mato Grosso do Sul, announces the col­lec­tive sui­cide of 170 peo­ple (50 men, 50 women and 70 chil­dren), to be effec­tive if the Fed­er­al Court orders to strip the tribe of ‘cam­bará farm’ where are tem­porar­i­ly camped.

 

El ter­ri­to­rio, que ellos lla­man ‘teko­ha’, que sig­nifi­ca ‘cemente­rio ances­tral’, ha sido sem­bra­do con grandes planta­ciones de caña de azú­car y soja, y está prepara­do para la cría de gana­do.

Mul­ta por vivir en su tier­ra

En caso de que los indí­ge­nas no desa­lo­jen la gran­ja la orden fed­er­al estip­u­la que la Fun­dación Nacional de Indios (Funai) ten­drá que pagar una mul­ta de aprox­i­mada­mente 250 dólares por cada día que per­manez­can allí.

Nosotros los indí­ge­nas ten­emos el dere­cho con­sti­tu­cional a ocu­par nues­tra tier­ra, y vamos a seguir luchan­do“, enfa­tizó el jefe trib­al guaraní, Vera Popy­gua, que exigió respeto para su pueblo, porque “ha sido masacra­do“. “Han mata­do a nue­stros líderes, y eso es triste e ina­cept­able. Somos una sociedad avan­za­da que vive en el siglo XXI. Esto no puede suced­er, no debería ocur­rir“, sostiene.

Si la orden judi­cial no fuera revo­ca­da, los indí­ge­nas ame­nazan con darse muerte ante el pro­pio tri­bunal brasileño, después de lo cual exi­gen ser enter­ra­dos en su ter­ri­to­rio sagra­do, a oril­las del río Hovy.

Los indí­ge­nas pidieron des­de hace var­ios años la demar­cación de sus tier­ras tradi­cionales, aho­ra ocu­pa­da por ganaderos y cus­to­di­a­do por hom­bres arma­dos. El líder de la energía foto­voltaica en la Cámara de los Diputa­dos, Sar­ney Fil­ho, envió esta car­ta al min­istro de Jus­ti­cia, solic­i­tan­do medi­das para evi­tar la trage­dia.

The ter­ri­to­ry, which they call ‘teko­ha’ mean­ing ‘ances­tral grave­yard’, has been plant­ed with large plan­ta­tions of sug­ar­cane and soy­beans, and is ready for grow­ing.

Penal­ty for liv­ing on their land

To avoid evic­tion from the indige­nous farm, a fed­er­al order stip­u­lates that the Nation­al Indi­an Foun­da­tion (Funai) has to pay a fine of approx­i­mate­ly $250 for each day they remain there.

“We Indi­ans have a con­sti­tu­tion­al right to occu­py our land, and we will keep fight­ing,” empha­sized Guarani trib­al chief, Popy­gua Vera, who demand­ed respect for his peo­ple, because “it has been slaugh­tered.” “They killed our lead­ers, and that is sad and unac­cept­able. We are an advanced soci­ety liv­ing in the XXI cen­tu­ry. This can not hap­pen, should not hap­pen,” he says.

If the court order is revoked, the Indige­nous group threat­ened to com­mit col­lec­tive sui­cide before the Brazil­ian court itself, after which it demands to be buried in sacred ground, the riv­er Hovy.

Reclaim the Fields:Spring into Action Gathering!FoD

:Reclaim the Fields : Spring into Action Gath­er­ing! 16th-25th March:

:Reclaim the Fields : Spring into Action Gath­er­ing! 16th-25th March:
Yorkley Court is host­ing the Reclaim the Fields ‘Spring into Action’ gath­er­ing, on Sat­ur­day the 16th of March- 25th! The Gath­er­ing aims to be a plat­form for shar­ing prac­ti­cal land-based skills, crafts and relat­ed knowl­edge. We intend to ‘get on with it’ whilst con­tin­u­al­ly seek­ing to cre­ate a pop­u­lar discourse/ debate on the issues of land access, the right to food autonomy/ sov­er­eign­ty and the right to build and dwell with­in a low-impact home on the land.

Yorkley Court Com­mu­ni­ty Farm is a grow­ing grass-roots farm in the For­est of Dean, inter­est­ed in devel­op­ing resilient agro-eco­log­i­cal sys­tems, that are both pro­duc­tive and eco­log­i­cal­ly regen­er­a­tive.

The Seed Camp will start on the 8th of March, with a two day Per­ma­cul­ture course by Tomas Remi­arz. The rest of the week will focus on set­ting up infra­struc­ture and open­ly, inclu­sive­ly organ­is­ing the Gath­er­ing. Any­one inter­est­ed and able to help get the Gath­er­ing off to a great start, should come along for this week, pri­or to the main Gath­er­ing! Lots of skill-shar­ing and fun will be had!

We are cur­rent­ly look­ing for peo­ple inter­est­ed in doing talks, run­ning work­shops and skill-shar­ing dur­ing the main Gath­er­ing… every­one will have the oppor­tu­ni­ty to share their skills and knowl­edge at the gath­er­ing, but we can pub­li­cise the workshops/talks offered before the gath­er­ing! So let us know what you’d like to offer or to see, in the way of workshops/skillshares asap!

The week­ends of the Gath­er­ing will be focused on talks, pre­sen­ta­tions, work­shops and dis­cus­sions. The week days between will be more focused on prac­ti­cal activ­i­ties.

Please get hold of us, if you’re plan­ning to come to the Seed Camp, or are want­i­ng to do talk, run a work­shop, etc…

:Con­tact Details:

yorkleycourt@gmail.com

yorkleycourt.wordpress.com < our main, local com­mu­ni­ty fac­ing web­site!

rtfspring2013.wordpress.com  < the gath­er­ings own web­site! pro­gramme still under-con­struc­tion!

reclaimthefields.org.uk < our con­stel­la­tions web­site

:A bit about the For­est:

The For­est of Dean is a land betwix two rivers, a secret Wilder­ness in West Glouces­ter­shire, right on the Welsh board­er.

The For­est of Dean has his­tor­i­cal­ly been the home of many rad­i­cal land-rights strug­gles and was set­tled by ‘the cab­in­ers’, peo­ple who built their homes “by right” instead of through state depen­dence. They were treat­ed by the state with the same dis­tain as ‘squat­ters’ are today, albeit with more direct vio­lence and less PR spin.

As one Oxford prof. put it, after mov­ing here recent­ly, because…
“The For­est and it’s peo­ple have a healthy dis­re­gard for the rule of law!”

Resis­tance is Fer­tile!

Reclaim the Fields!

“Reclaim the Fields is a con­stel­la­tion of peo­ple and col­lec­tive projects will­ing to go back to the land and reas­sume the con­trol over food pro­duc­tion. ”

 

Petition to Welsh Government asking them to make their MTAN2 recommendations mandatory in Welsh planning law.

 

 

Hi All.
I’m look­ing for sup­port for a peti­tion a small anti open­cast group from Varteg, Pon­ty­pool has start­ed to Welsh Gov ask­ing them to make their MTAN2 rec­om­men­da­tion for a 500m buffer zone around open­cast mines manda­to­ry in Welsh plan­ning law. This action would ster­ilise 66% of the Welsh coal­field accord­ing to the Coal Author­i­ties fig­ures and would be a prece­dent to oth­er gov­ern­ments to val­ue the local pop­u­la­tions who live around min­er­al extrac­tion. 
Could I  ask you to help spread the peti­tion through you net­works?

 

********** URGENT ************
Here’s the peti­tion ask­ing Welsh Gov­ern­ment to make the MTAN2 500m buffer zone around open­cast mines manda­to­ry in plan­ning law in Wales.
Please sign by click­ing link below and share it any­where and every­where 
https://www.assemblywales.org/gethome/e‑petitions/epetition-list-of-signatories.htm?pet_id=864&showfrm=0
Sign Peti­tion | Nation­al Assem­bly for Wales
www.assemblywales.org
We call upon the Nation­al Assem­bly for Wales to urge the Welsh Gov­ern­ment to make the MTAN Guid­ance Notes, notably those relat­ing to a 500 metre buffer zone around open cast work­ings, manda­to­ry in Welsh plan­ning law.