Greening international supply chains?

The Thin End is more often critical of government than supportive. But we should be supportive when governments make positive moves to protect the environment and combat climate change.

Last month plans to clamp down on illegal deforestation and protect rainforests were published by the United Kingdom government. They went virtually unheralded in the media. The publication is part of consultations for a new law to clean up the UK’s supply chains. If the government is sincere in its intent, and if they don't let them fall in the pursuit of dodgy trade deals, then they are a bold move that should be welcomed.

As we have repeatedly said on the Thin End, it is world trade that drives the destruction of rainforests. This move is an acknowledgement of that fact. How is more important than whether we trade. Our rainforests are essential to our living planet. So, what would the UK government's plan do?

The proposals would prohibit larger businesses operating in the UK from using products grown on land that was deforested illegally. These businesses would be required to carry out due diligence on their supply chains by publishing information to show where key commodities – for example, cocoa, rubber, soy and palm oil – came from and that they were produced in line with local laws protecting forests and other natural ecosystems.

Businesses that fail to comply would be subject to fines, with the precise level to be set at a later date.

The government acknowledge that protecting forests is central to tackling climate change, with deforestation accounting for 11% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The vast majority of deforestation – 80% – is caused by the production of agricultural commodities and most deforestation – up to 90% in some countries – is illegal. The destruction and degradation of these vital habitats also increase the risk of extreme weather events, drives biodiversity loss, and exacerbates the spread of infectious diseases.

On introducing the plans, the International Environment Minister Lord Goldsmith said:

"We have all seen the devastating pictures of the world’s most precious forests being cleared, often illegally, and we can’t afford not to act as a country. There is a hugely important connection between the products we buy and their wider environmental footprint, which is why the government is consulting today on new measures that would make it illegal for businesses in the UK to use commodities that are not grown in accordance with local laws."

Ahead of hosting the UN Climate Change Conference next year, the UK could lead the way in combatting the threat to biodiversity, the threat to our natural heritage.

The government's plan follows the establishment of an independent taskforce – the Global Resource Initiative (GRI) – formed in 2019 to consider how the UK could ‘green’ international supply chains and leave a lighter footprint on the global environment by slowing the loss of forests.

Sir Ian Cheshire, the chair of the independent taskforce, said:

"Every day, British consumers buy food and other products which are contributing to the loss of the world’s most precious forests. We need to find ways of reducing this impact if we are to tackle climate change, reduce the risks of pandemics and protect the livelihoods of some of the poorest people in the world."

Welcoming the initiative, Ruth Chambers, from the Greener UK coalition, said:

"This consultation is a welcome first step in the fight to tackle the loss of our planet’s irreplaceable natural wonders such as the Amazon and in the pursuit of supply chains free from products that contribute to deforestation."

The evidence linking deforestation with climate change, biodiversity loss and the spread of zoonotic diseases is compelling. The government's new law could be an important step. As ever, the devil will be in the detail. We will see.

Ray Noble is a chartered biologist and Fellow of the Royal Society of Biology.

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'. The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba...

Ethical considerations of a National DNA database.

Plans for a national DNA database will be revealed by the Prime Minister this week. This is the same proposal the Tories and Liberal Democrats opposed when presented by the Blair government because they argued it posed a threat to civil liberties. This time it is expected to offer an 'opt-out' clause for those who do not wish their data to be stored; exactly how this would operate isn't yet clear. But does it matter and does it really pose a threat to civil liberties? When it comes to biology and ethics we tend to have a distorted view of DNA and genetics. This is for two reasons. The first is that it is thought that our genome somehow represents the individual as a code that then gets translated. This is biologically speaking wrong. DNA is a template and part of the machinery for making proteins. It isn't a code in anything like the sense of being a 'blueprint' or 'book of life'. Although these metaphors are used often they are just that, metapho...

In praise of social housing and the welfare state

I will declare an interest. I grew up in a one-parent family on a council estate. I occasionally attended my local comprehensive school. I say occasionally because for the most part I played truant. I spent much of my time skipping school but walking and reading on the local common. It had a windmill which I loved. It later had Wombles but that is another story. I contemplated life under the sun. Like many others, I left school at 15 with no qualifications. My penultimate school report said they 'could see no reason why public money should be wasted on the attempted education of this boy'. So I declare this interest of a privileged upbringing. Social housing kept a roof over our heads at a rent mum could (barely) afford; and oh how I recall the days when she couldn't. She worked all hours to keep that roof over our heads. In those early days of Rock-and-Roll, Bill Haley and the Comets, Adam Faith, Billy Fury, Cliff Richard (yes I was/am a fan), the estate had three c...

The Thin End

Search This Blog