for Sunday Herald, 23 November 2003
The UK environment group, WWF, has rejected its share of a £3.5 million handout from the French multinational, Lafarge, because of the company's refusal to abandon its plans for a controversial superquarry on the Western Isles.
On Tuesday Lafarge is going to court in Edinburgh in an attempt to keep alive its hopes of removing the side of mountain at Lingerbay in south Harris. It wants permission to dig out up to 600 million tonnes of rock for building roads and railways across Europe.
The superquarry, which was first proposed 15 years ago, has attracted widespread opposition because it would destroy the natural beauty of the area. It has been rejected by the Scottish Executive, but Lafarge has launched an avalanche of legal actions aimed at overturning the decision.
WWF in Scotland and throughout the UK has been one of the main opponents of the scheme. But in 2000 WWF International, based in Switzerland, signed a five-year partnership deal with Lafarge, which will net the environmental group £3.5 million for restoring native forests worldwide.
The deal has previously sparked fierce criticisms from fellow environmental groups concerned about its wisdom and morality. But it has now emerged that the deal has also created serious tensions within the WWF network.
WWF UK became so concerned about Lafarge's insistence on pursuing the superquarry, that it decided earlier this year to send back its portion of the company's cash to WWF International. The decision was taken by WWF UK's chief executive, Robert Napier.
His previous job was chief executive of Redland, the British company that originally proposed the Harris superquarry and was then taken over by Lafarge in 1997. He has always had reservations about the scheme, though, and now strongly opposes it.
"We're arguing within WWF that we've got to keep banging the table on this," he said. "If Lafarge are serious about their sustainability credentials, there's no way they can ever open that quarry."
He thought that this week's court action was "deeply regrettable and should cause Lafarge a lot of embarrassment." And he hinted that the WWF-Lafarge deal might not be renewed: "Our partnership is up for renewal in March 2005 and we will have to weigh this heavily in the balance."
With headquarters in Paris, Lafarge is the world's biggest producer of building materials. It employs 77,000 people in 75 countries and its sales last year totalled over £10 billion. It has 674 rock quarries around the world.
It also runs huge roofing, gypsum and cement businesses. In 2001 it bought the British cement company, Blue Circle, which operates one of Scotland's most polluting plants near Dunbar in East Lothian.
The deal with WWF is highlighted on the Lafarge group's website, which displays WWF's famous panda logo. "The partnership reflects the group’s conviction that its policy in support of environmental preservation will ultimately give the company a competitive edge," it says.
Simon Pepper, the director of WWF Scotland in Aberfeldy, accepted that the deal was delivering significant environmental benefits, particularly through the company's commitment to cut climate-wrecking pollution. "We understand that our colleagues in Switzerland see the deal with Lafarge in a global context," he said.
"However, here in the UK we have a big issue with the renewed attempts by Lafarge's UK subsidiary to secure approval for a superquarry development on Harris. We felt that in these circumstances it would be inappropriate for WWF to use Lafarge funds in the UK, so we refused the share of these funds which would normally have come to WWF UK."
WWF's stance in the UK has been welcomed by other environmental organisations, though they are still pressing WWF International to pull out of the Lafarge deal completely. "This is certainly a step in the right direction," said Duncan McLaren, chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland.
"Some may say that WWF is being ungrateful, and see this as biting the hand that feeds it. But we see this as a genuinely ethical action - something Lafarge itself has so far seemed incapable of."
McLaren pointed out that the scar that would be left by the superquarry would be six times higher than the White Cliffs of Dover. "This massive project without a market would be a grave injustice to the people and environment of Harris," he argued.
"We have been pressing WWF International over its unethical partnership with Lafarge for some time. It remains our belief that they should not be involved with a company that is actively seeking to establish a superquarry on Harris."
Dave Morris, director of Ramblers' Association Scotland, hoped that WWF UK's rejection of the Lafarge money would send a powerful message to the rest of the WWF network. "Many people in the conservation world are very uncomfortable with what are seen as cosy deals between some conservation bodies and the minerals industry," he said.
"This should forewarn WWF International that a storm of protest will descend on them at the World Conservation Congress in Thailand next year if Lafarge does not abandon its plans for a superquarry in Harris. The company has shown an arrogant contempt for the people of Scotland with their relentless pursuit of this project."
Three years ago Lafarge took the Scottish Executive to court for rejecting planning permission for the superquarry, forcing ministers to withdraw their decision and reconsider. This Tuesday in the Court of Session the company is challenging another decision by the executive's public inquiry unit to restrict an old 1965 planning permission for the quarry site to five hectares.
Lafarge was reluctant to comment on the rejection of its donation, but it defended its partnership with WWF and its legal action on the superquarry. "On this issue each party respects the other's point of view and agrees to differ," said a company spokesman.
"WWF opposes the proposed coastal quarry in Scotland but Lafarge believes this hearing is necessary to secure a legally robust and sustainable decision because of the implications for future minerals planning policy guidance both in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK."
Comments